Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Gas Saving Gizmos & Gadgets
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That said, I have a few comments about the Acetone scam:
1) Acetone has been scientifically tested as a gasoline additive since at least the 1930s, and never once has it ever done anything but reduce fuel economy in any published study.
2) Mythbusters, Snopes, et-al. have tested this stuff repeatedly, and so far at least, the best and most optimistic test shows a zero increase in fuel economy (all of the rest showed a decrease).
3) Tests by individuals are statistically irrelevant and usually fraught with errors. The fact is that it is very difficult to control your driving and the environment to any acceptable degree, and there is absolutely no way you can "test" acetone and then say, "See, it works."
4) With point #3 in mind, there were a bunch of Acetone advocates populating this board back in 2005, and they were claiming "at least 35% fuel economy gains" from using ~3oz per 10 gallons of gasoline. I didn't believe a word of it, however, to quiet their protests of, "How are you going to know if you don't try it?", I tried it. At the time I had a very consistent 55 mile commute (each way) that was Cruise Control for all but 3 miles, and my fuel economy in the old car that I was driving was a pretty consistent 22.5 mpg. I ran ten consecutive tanks with the acetone additive, and not even one of the tanks made it as high as 22.0 mpg (two tanks made it to 21.2, and the low tank was 19.7). So much for "at least a 35% gain".
Long story short, it is quite certain that folks who get better mileage do so because they are conscious of how they're driving and keep a smoother throttle. Had they done the same thing with regular pump gas, they would most likely have gotten as good as or better mileage.
The good news was that after I posted my results, the Acetone advocates left us alone here and went somewhere to make their pie in the sky claims.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I haven't read up this, but I would think you're looking for 100% pure acetone from Home Depot, Lowe's, a hardware or paint supply store. I'm dubious, but I AM curious how it goes.
Best Regards,
Shipo
How, praytell, would the carmaker know a person used acetone in their tank to the point where they would have enough evidence to void a warranty?
If the seals go or if there is tank and fuel system corrosion, then it's pretty easy to tell if some form of an additive has been used.
But how would they know the OWNER had done anything wrong themselves to cause the problem? Why not just blame it on bad gas, etc? Deny Deny Deny.
Unless they have a video of you adding acetone to your tank, I'm thinking any law school grad could argue your case for you in small claims court.
Said another way, the kind of damage I'm talking about is the result of prolonged exposure to a solvent that the fuel system wasn't designed to accomodate. That said, in an effort to silence the very vocal acetone advocates populating this board a couple of years ago, I tried it in an old beater for ten consecutive tanks. I've since driven that car nearly 60,000 miles since I last put acetone in the tank, and so far at least, I've yet to have any fuel system issues. I'm not so confident that would be the case if I had continued using it.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Most warranties expire around 36K, so I don't think using acetone in every tank for the first 36K miles would break anything before the warranty expired.
Now if you have one of those "high dollar" 100K warranties like the ones I like to buy, then you might have a concern.
But not for the run-of-the-mill 36K basic warranty.
121 mpg in a normal gasoline car
Can you imagine what being able to burn all the gasoline in your engine would mean to fuel savings? Here’s what our scientific testing has shown: In one test at our Research Facility, we got 9X the fuel efficiency from a gas guzzling 318 V-8 Chrysler engine. We ran a 318 V-8 Chrysler engine on a brand new state of the art dynamometer (the same testing equipment that Detroit uses) at 3,000 rpms under a 50% load for an hour. This test condition approximated an 8 cylinder van with a 318 engine, traveling up a 30 degree incline for one hour, at 65 miles per hour. Before the PICC modification, the engine used 18 pounds of fuel. At an average weight of 6.15 pounds per gallon for gasoline, that would equal 2.93 gallons of fuel. Converting that into miles per gallon, it got around 22 mpg.
The researchers then switched the fuel injection process to the PICC Modification and ran the engine under the exact same conditions for another hour. Now, the engine used only 2 pounds of fuel instead of 18 — an increase in efficiency of 9x. In other words, the vehicle traveling at 65 mph up a 30 degree incline for an hour would have obtained almost 200 mpg! When they shut off the engine, the researchers reported that it coasted on the plasma for another two minutes.
What Does This Mean To You?
This test with a 318 V-8 gas guzzling engine is just the first big V-8 engine that we ran under scientific conditions at our Research Facility. We believe based on results like these that our plasma could revolutionize fuel economy for ALL vehicles — including SUVs and Pickups — that should easily get better than 100 miles per gallon with the PICC. To be able to modify SUVs of any size to get 100 mpg minimal fuel economy will revolutionize the auto industry!
Sounds to me like another "big ole scam."
If you got the money to take on Toyota in court, why would you worry about saving a few ounces of gas using acetone? Using biodiesel can void your warranty if it can be determined you used a poor batch and it caused some problem in the engine.
People with money are some of the tightest tightwads around !!! Just 'cause you have it don't mean you want to waste it.
For people who EARNED their wealth, after having a taste of the good life, they know that money don't grow on trees and every penny counts for something.
I've yet in my life heard about anyone using acetone to the extent that it ruins their fuel system, so at this point, it's all just fantasy anyway.
Acetone
A colorless liquid. Flash point 165°F. Lethal by inhalation and highly toxic or lethal by skin absorption. Density 7.8 lb / gal (less dense than water). Vapors heavier than air. Produces toxic oxides of nitrogen during combustion. (NOAA Reactivity 2007)
So if you want to run it in your car you will be adding NoX to the air you breathe.
And I don't think any warranty EVER will get denied because of using acetone, because I don't think anyone will ever use it enough to damage their internals.
On fighting 'Yota in court: If I knew 'Yota could not PROVE I damaged my car, and they were refusing to fix it based on an assumption, and that repair was going to cost me $5,000, and I still owed $20,000 on it and wanted to keep the car, then YES I might decide to take them to small claims court.
Is that decision right for every situation? Of course not. But if you are the kind of person who wants to use acetone in your car (I tried it in my HCH with underwhelming results) then I don't think worrying about a denied warranty needs to come into play.
Best regards,
Shipo
Just Ask Dub Schwartz! and you'll get an answer. :P
Don't Be A Sucker
Wanna make a million?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That said, the device appears to be best suited for diesels, no gas-engine data present. I also wonder why, instead of a '6 month road test', they don't put it through the EPA mpg test. Finally, I am VERY concerned about the company the professor hooked up with - they sell a number of USELESS "gas-saving" gadgets. Not a good sign. :sick:
Someone noted over in the blog comments that the good professor may have changed his driving habits and that accounts for some of the mpg increase.
I bet I could sneak one of these miracle cures on my wife's minivan without telling her, and the mpg wouldn't change a bit.
That's what I thought when I first read about it, but turns out it puts a BIG electric field (1000 volts/mm) across the fuel. Say the electrodes are an inch apart, that 25KV :surprise: Not something you just hook up to the battery...
Its not? So how did they power it?
I quickly scanned the study report and didn't see that info. (?)
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com
The news from Popular Science back in 1952 that is.
"Real-world testing by Consumer Reports showed the best-selling plug-in conversion kit for the Toyota Prius did not come close to meeting its manufacturer's fuel-economy claim of a possible 100+ miles per gallon, the magazine says in its February issue."
Consumer Reports: Prius Plug-In Kit Gets Nowhere Near Maker's 100+ MPG Claim (Green Car Advisor)
The first known instance of a plug-in hybrid car going up in flames occurred on June 7 in Columbia, South Carolina to a 2008 Prius that had been converted to plug-in capability for the Central Electric Power Cooperative. The conversion was performed with a Hybrids-Plus PHEV15 conversion kit that uses an A123 Systems lithium ion battery pack. The incident is still under investigation by Phoenix, Arizona-based Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation. Initial information indicates the fire may have been triggered by something related to the on-board battery charger and the car had previously experienced some mechanical issues related to that.
GM and Toyota will beg to differ.
A123 Systems Seeks $1.8 Billion Federal Loan For EV Battery Factories in U.S.
Support Builds for Hybrid, EV Battery Funding in U.S. Economic Stimulus Plan
That was my complaint about the CFL mandate. It is just like our Congress to mandate EV cars and the only source would be outside the US, or regulations that would not allow some parts to be built in the USA.
If we fund the development of batteries, do the tax payers share in the profits from those developments? We funded the NiMH battery development and I do not know of any profits we have shared it.
Hold on Pardner -
We've seen no major problems with the First Gen Prius batteries. The Gen 1 Prius battery electrolyte discharge problem, which Toyota addressed with “service campaign” was merely to reseal the positive battery terminals.
The recall for the early 2004 and 2005 Prius was not directly "battery" related:
Toyota announced yesterday that they have recalled 75,000 Prius Hybrids because their engines can stall due to an electrical problem. The cars involved are some 2004 and early model 2005's. Toyota's spokesman Xavier Dominicis said they started investigating when about 68 reports came through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Toyota's says it will voluntarily recall the cars and repair them for free and Dominicis stressed that "the defect isn't related to the Prius's gas-electric hybrid system and could happen in any vehicle." It's not a safety recall. NHTSA has dropped the investigation. Toyota is calling the dealer fix a special service campaign, which involves reprogramming an ECU that, under a rare combination of circumstances, had been causing the Prius's gas engine to stall. The Hybrid Synergy Drive's battery still has enough juice to get the car well off the road, and you can go up to a mile on battery power alone
There are no widespread failures of any generation of Prius battery. And the oldest ones are going on 11 years old now.
Sure, there have been some failures, but not at alarming rates.
Look, we all know that batteries will always eventually fail. But to call the failures a major criticism of the hybrid technology and a reason it is a failed technology is just pushing it a little too far.
It's about time you give up the sad old misplaced criticism of the Prius batteries, Gary. Father Time is about to start making your argument look KINDA silly.........
Not sure from where you get your statistics. We have not reached 9 years on the first gen Prius that had the batteries recalled. You do not have any statistics on how many of those batteries were replaced. I doubt Toyota would ever give that information to the public. The current Prius is barely 5 years old. Toyota will probably luck out as most people that buy them are high mileage drivers. The ones I will be watching are those that only put 10k miles per year or less. They will stretch the EPA/CARB warranty to the max. So father time has another 5 years to go.
Along those lines. I would be real skeptical buying a Prius that has sat for 3-4 months before it gets sold. If they are not keeping those traction batteries charged they will fail prematurely. Sitting out at -10 degrees in the NE that time will be much shorter before failure. A discharged battery that gets frozen is toast.
Hyb Bat
FTC gets sales ban on mileage booster
The Federal Trade Commission won a court order temporarily barring a New Jersey company from making false claims about a device that it touts as boosting automobile gas mileage by as much as 300 percent.
Dennis Lee is a convicted felon who has been selling a device known as the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell for $1,000, claiming it will "turn any vehicle into a hybrid," according to the FTC complaint filed in federal court in Newark, N.J. Lee's companies, Dutchman Enterprises LLC and United Community Services of America Inc., also are named as defendants.
The FTC said Lee and his companies made false claims that "violate basic scientific laws and well-established physical principles."
U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg granted the FTC's request on Jan. 14 for a temporary restraining order and a freeze on the companies' assets. The agency is seeking a permanent ban on the false advertisements as well as customer reimbursements. Hochberg initially sealed the case before making it public on Jan. 29.
Lee's companies began making false claims last year, such as boosting gas mileage on a 2007 Honda Civic from 35 miles per gallon to 85 miles, and on a 2006 Mazda from 33 miles to 121 miles, according to the complaint.
Where's the criminal action for this one?
To which he replied: "Aha! Yes, it defies the laws of physics as we presently understand them!
To which I replied that "if something defies all known laws of science and nature, we call that by definition a 'miracle', so I'm wondering if I could bring my ailing mother to your HHO generator to be cured"?
Ahhh, yet another fine example of a non-scientifically trained mind.
Saw an ad for a lightweight pulley set for an engine. Now, of course, this idea has been around for a long time, but I gotta wonder what the gains are here. This particular set claims, although all stock sized, they are a total of 5 pounds lighter than stock, netting a total of 11 hp and 6 lbs-ft (amazing how all bolt-ons seem to add ~10 hp). I figure this MUST save fuel, too.
So... it just had me thinking. How does shaving weight off the pulleys add power? I mean, sure, its less for the engine to rotate, but 5 lbs? The engine is being asked to accelerate and maintain speed of 3500 lbs. Even if we multiply that 5 by the final drive ratio, we're still talking next to nothing in comparison to the whole picture. So what is it I'm failing to understand?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
And yes, it's amazing what $2/gallon gas does to scammers. Some of you might be amused by the blog storm created by a poorly-researched article in the Dallas Morning News: Scammer dupes a reporter
As part of that discussion I came up with these warning signs that you might be dealing with a scammer:
1. The claims, if true, would change the auto industry as we know it.
2. The claims as presented ignore basic scientific principles (pass them by a physics teacher at a nearby university or high school to check).
3. When those issues are noted, the inventor claims that the real reason it works is secret.
4. The inventor claims to have applied for, but not received, a patent (anyone can do that).
5. The inventor claims to be in negotiations with a major automaker, investors, or both, with no documentation.
6. When pressed, the inventor likens himself to the Wright brothers or Edison, saying 'people doubted them, too.'
7. When further pressed, the inventor (or his wife, defender, or supposed stranger, there's no way to tell in cyberspace) states that the folks asking the reasonable questions are ignorant naysayers.
But this change would also have a downside; anything you do to reduce the inertia of the engine's rotating mass will result in a loss of idle smoothness, as well as making it somewhat more difficult to start from a standstill with a manual transmission. That is why engine manufacturers use heavy flywheels on engines which have a small number of cylinders (and also on engines which are cammed for high rpm power; when the engine's low speed responsiveness has been sacrificed to achieve that power).
There was a very successful drag racer who improved his quarter mile times by installing a heavier flywheel on his engine. This worked particularly well in that venue; because drag racing performance is very dependent on how fast you can start off from the line. Since these vehicles are permitted to rev the engine to a high speed in neutral before engaging the clutch; is is not as important to have instantaneous throttle response as it is to have the greatest possible amount of torque when the clutch is engaged.