View Full Version : Simple way to improve your gas mileage
Mogli of the Jungle
2008-06-05, 17:47
You can lower your gas mileage 10-25% just by improving your driving habits.
Keep a bottle of water on the floor in your car. Try to have it tip over as least often as possible. If you try to keep it standing, your driving will become smoother as you accelerate and brake easier and will improve your fuel economy.
the lost cause
2008-06-10, 20:05
I have an easier way:
Dont drive when you dont need to.
IE: Need to go 1mile down the road to the shops?.. Walk.
Going to see the GF? Cycle. Etc.
killuminated
2008-06-11, 05:53
Why not just dilute your gas by adding water to it?
Strangling The Breeze
2008-06-19, 14:54
Drive only when its necessary.
Consider a bicycle or electric scooter or something
Brake early accelerate smoothly
letsnukechina
2008-06-22, 00:30
Regardless of the fact that "Drive Less" is the best solution to the problem of fuel consumption, driving properly is extremely important. Even if you don't drive like a total redlining-it-in-traffic jackass, there's still potential to save fuel.
By changing driving habits (Not the amount of driving or type of driving) my dad has improved the mileage of his car substantially; his 01 civic used to get 600 km to the tank, now it gets 700 because of more fuel-efficient driving habits. He didn't drive it very hard to start with.
That's over 10% fuel savings (Plus maintenance savings) at zero inconvenience.
Drive behind an 18 wheeler when on a highway. Anything less than 100' works. Mythbusters proved it.
Issue313
2008-06-29, 01:16
Drive behind an 18 wheeler when on a highway. Anything less than 100' works. Mythbusters proved it.
On long journeys use a grappling hook to attach your car to other vehicles. You can travel hundreds of miles on no gas using this method.
on the latest episode of top gear they used an M3 or something following behind a prius going flat out. the M3 completely trounced the prius in terms of fuel economy.
how you drive the car makes the biggest difference. big cars use more significantly more fuel because people usually drive them harder (but of course there is a natural difference in economy, but its just not as big as you would think).
most fuel is burnt making the car initially move. if you have to drive in peak hour, don't sit directly behind the car in front and constantly move from the break and accelerator. sit ten, twenty meters back and when the car in front brakes, just roll. half the time the car will star moving again before you reach it and you save fuel and brake pads. it is far less stressful and gets you there in the exact same time. its more efficient to spend twenty minutes going ten km/h than repeatedly accelerating to 40 km/h for five minutes and 15 minutes stopped dead.
using air con eats fuel. don't use it unless you are actually hot or cold. there is no reason to have the air con running to change the temperature from 22 degrees to 24.
on the same note, having the windows wound down significantly increases drag on the car. in long cruises at high speed, keeping them up will make a difference.
these kinds of things are really easy to do, and simply driving a little more calmly makes a big difference. i can make a tank of fuel last 30% or so more if i just chill out and cruise.
on the latest episode of top gear they used an M3 or something following behind a prius going flat out. the M3 completely trounced the prius in terms of fuel economy.
how you drive the car makes the biggest difference. big cars use more significantly more fuel because people usually drive them harder (but of course there is a natural difference in economy, but its just not as big as you would think).
most fuel is burnt making the car initially move. if you have to drive in peak hour, don't sit directly behind the car in front and constantly move from the break and accelerator. sit ten, twenty meters back and when the car in front brakes, just roll. half the time the car will star moving again before you reach it and you save fuel and brake pads. it is far less stressful and gets you there in the exact same time. its more efficient to spend twenty minutes going ten km/h than repeatedly accelerating to 40 km/h for five minutes and 15 minutes stopped dead.
using air con eats fuel. don't use it unless you are actually hot or cold. there is no reason to have the air con running to change the temperature from 22 degrees to 24.
on the same note, having the windows wound down significantly increases drag on the car. in long cruises at high speed, keeping them up will make a difference.
these kinds of things are really easy to do, and simply driving a little more calmly makes a big difference. i can make a tank of fuel last 30% or so more if i just chill out and cruise.
Agreed, how you drive the car is the most important factor. Talking of top gear on one of the old episodes they did an 800 Mile round trip from London to Edinburgh and back. He did it in a 4L V8 Audi and by driving sensibly he got 40mpg+ out of it.
On the windows vs Air con the air conditioning uses a fairly constant amount of power where as drag caused by having the windows down increases with speed. Hence at speeds <40-50mph have the windows open and at higher speeds use the air con.
Also if you have anything in the boot (trunk for americans) that is un-needed all it is doing is adding extra weight so take it out as it is costing you money to haul it around.
Being in a car with no a/c and the windows rolled up doesn't appeal to me.
but then again I drive my Jeep with the top down so I don't have to worry about that.
Does that decrease or increase my mileage?
Dark_Magneto
2008-07-01, 20:00
You can lower your gas mileage 10-25% just by improving your driving habits.
Keep a bottle of water on the floor in your car.
Keep it on the passenger side so it doesn't get caught under your brake pedal.
The bottle of water thing - You should know when you're accelerating or braking aggressively anyway. I corner fast, and often under more Gs than under normal, because I "Drive without brakes", or DWB. So, the bottle of water would tip from me driving too efficiently. :P I realise you scrub off speed under hard cornering, but sometimes it's impractical to drive slow because of other drivers around you, and it's more efficient to just go into the corner fast.
Kind Regards, Zonko "85mpg" NoSurname. Yes, really. 85.
I have noticed cruise control does wonders also.
Even if the road is only a mile long, get up to 35, and put cruise on.
The bottle of water thing - You should know when you're accelerating or braking aggressively anyway. I corner fast, and often under more Gs than under normal, because I "Drive without brakes", or DWB. So, the bottle of water would tip from me driving too efficiently. :P I realise you scrub off speed under hard cornering, but sometimes it's impractical to drive slow because of other drivers around you, and it's more efficient to just go into the corner fast.
Kind Regards, Zonko "85mpg" NoSurname. Yes, really. 85.
I drive without brakes too. Everyone in my family hates me for it...saying I come around the corner on two wheels.
Cellar Door
2008-07-05, 05:55
Why not just dilute your gas by adding water to it?
This would just ruin your engine.
ArmsMerchant
2008-07-05, 19:55
If everyone in the US would just keep the tires on their cars properly inflated, more oil would be saved in a year than even the most optimistic guesses say there is in ANWR.
Uranium238
2008-07-05, 20:54
If everyone in the US would just keep the tires on their cars properly inflated, more oil would be saved in a year than even the most optimistic guesses say there is in ANWR.
No kidding. I would say probably a quarter of all cars have visibly under inflated tires.
fretbuzz
2008-07-08, 02:26
Agreed, how you drive the car is the most important factor. Talking of top gear on one of the old episodes they did an 800 Mile round trip from London to Edinburgh and back. He did it in a 4L V8 Audi and by driving sensibly he got 40mpg+ out of it.
no way! i can't even get that kinda gas mileage driving my 2.3l honda on the highway. i think i average around 25mpg, and i don't drive absurdly.
BTW when you compare mpg remember American gallons are slightly smaller than Imperial (UK) gallons - weird how we buy petrol by the litre yet measure efficiency in mpg???-. So an American gallon is 0.83 the size of an Imperial gallon.
Rykoshet
2008-07-10, 03:06
I hate shit like this. You can't "brake early" and "accelerate slowly" going to work and coming home.
Ever drive on the highway? I drive on the busiest highway in the world and the people driving it are also known to be the worst, most moronic drivers out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_401_(Ontario)#Speeding_and_Tailgating
If you leave even a foot gap someone will find a way to cut you off. I don't mind letting people in, I usually do, but leaving a big gap means everyone will rush in front of you, increasing the likelyhood of a crash, given how many people will try to get in the spot. You drive flat out on this highway and pray the people around you aren't total morons.
Just the other day some cunt cut off an 18-wheeler, naturally getting rear-ended. If I didn't have to get to work I would have stayed around and backed the truck driver up when the cops came (there's no way he's breaking from 90 with no space). Hopefully it worked out for him.
Not only do people always pass on the right, they even go so far as to pass you on the right shoulder if you aren't going "fast enough". I've seen everything from trucks merging right into you, garbage trucks failing to yield (twice just today) and people generally being assholes and bad drivers.
Yes, at 2am with nobody on the road it's great to accelerate slowly and brake smoothly, but in normal traffic, whatever gas you save, you'll get 10x the stress and lose 10x the income by not getting to work on time.
I would have to say most of what I've read is BS. How does braking early increase fuel economy? Try not braking at all. That way the car doesn't have to use fuel to accelerate again. If anything you should break late because you may have the chance that the traffic starts moving again before you brake.
Also accelerate in the peak of your engine's torque curve. Why? That is where the engine is most efficient. This varies between vehicles, but it may be as high as 4000rpm. The only thing limiting efficiency for accelerating is engine efficiency.
I would have to say most of what I've read is BS. How does braking early increase fuel economy? Try not braking at all. That way the car doesn't have to use fuel to accelerate again. If anything you should break late because you may have the chance that the traffic starts moving again before you brake.
Also accelerate in the peak of your engine's torque curve. Why? That is where the engine is most efficient. This varies between vehicles, but it may be as high as 4000rpm. The only thing limiting efficiency for accelerating is engine efficiency.
your confused.
braking early does nothing in itself, but usually by breaking early you can avoid a complete stop as the obstruction (traffic light etc) has removed itself.
yeah, and your wrong about the power band thing saving fuel. my car has a peak at about 5500 rpm. are you suggesting it saves me fuel to wind every gear out to that instead of keeping it below say 3000? because it doesn't. i'll let you ponder why...
This would just ruin your engine.
You would drive your car less then, and definitely use less gas.
Sponsored Link
2008-07-12, 21:57
your confused.
braking early does nothing in itself, but usually by breaking early you can avoid a complete stop as the obstruction (traffic light etc) has removed itself.
yeah, and your wrong about the power band thing saving fuel. my car has a peak at about 5500 rpm. are you suggesting it saves me fuel to wind every gear out to that instead of keeping it below say 3000? because it doesn't. i'll let you ponder why...
farting along at 2500 rpm when peak efficiency is at 4000 isnt best either. Peak efficiency =/= low rpms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermiler
DarkSkye
2008-07-13, 23:56
Best thing ive noticed, switched to 5w20 (yes, i typed that right), and filling up with only bp gold (with invigorate). Yes, i know it sounds crazy, but i get about 50 more miles to the tank.
Sponsored Link
2008-07-14, 01:28
Best thing ive noticed, switched to 5w20 (yes, i typed that right), and filling up with only bp gold (with invigorate). Yes, i know it sounds crazy, but i get about 50 more miles to the tank.
Yes, use a thinner oil which wont protect your engine as well!
Generic Box Of Cookies
2008-07-16, 18:15
Being in a car with no a/c and the windows rolled up doesn't appeal to me.
but then again I drive my Jeep with the top down so I don't have to worry about that.
Does that decrease or increase my mileage?
Probably decreases it.
Trucks with tonneau covers on the beds seem to get 1/2 mpgs better than trucks without due to aerodynamics.
Course that could just be marketing BS to make you buy a tonneau cover.
Sponsored Link
2008-07-17, 04:02
Probably decreases it.
Trucks with tonneau covers on the beds seem to get 1/2 mpgs better than trucks without due to aerodynamics.
Course that could just be marketing BS to make you buy a tonneau cover.
Depends. When speaking of aerodynamics, no two cars are alike, and due to flow paths and such even small adjustments can make major differences.
knows2nose
2008-07-17, 06:18
speaking of aerodynamics. I remember as a youngster there was a company that came out with a trial part that they put on nascar bodies to improve the aerodynamics of the wind coming off the back of the cars. It did so well when the trial was over they outlawed them and the company immediately disappeared. sounds like a business opportunity to me. Anyway, if you want to improve your gas mileage go find a tire shop like tire discounters and have them fill your tires with nitrogen. Nitrogen isn't susceptible like oxygen to the expansion and contraction of the heat from the road, thus your tires stay inflated for lengthy periods of time. Didn't cost me a dime.
Most cars are not designed with aerodynamics in mind at all. That is why large gains can be made with aerodynamic improvements. It is why solar powered cars can reach 100kph+ on level ground or even up hill. If cars were designed aerodynamically they would all appear like solar cars and aeroplanes. That is they would have a sharp end at the back. The problem is that for a car that seats its occupants upright the length of the rear of the car would be huge. This chews up space in traffic and carparks.
If you really want to save fuel buy a motorcycle. Better yet, buy an electric motorcycle.
Dark_Magneto
2008-07-17, 10:06
Most cars are not designed with aerodynamics in mind at all. That is why large gains can be made with aerodynamic improvements. It is why solar powered cars can reach 100kph+ on level ground or even up hill. If cars were designed aerodynamically they would all appear like solar cars and aeroplanes. That is they would have a sharp end at the back. The problem is that for a car that seats its occupants upright the length of the rear of the car would be huge. This chews up space in traffic and carparks.
You know how some sports cars have the canvas hood that they can hit a button to put up or take down?
Make something like that with a tail cone.
Mc. Black
2008-07-17, 15:08
Why not just dilute your gas by adding water to it?
I seriously hope you are a troll.
Sponsored Link
2008-07-17, 16:22
speaking of aerodynamics. I remember as a youngster there was a company that came out with a trial part that they put on nascar bodies to improve the aerodynamics of the wind coming off the back of the cars. It did so well when the trial was over they outlawed them and the company immediately disappeared. sounds like a business opportunity to me. Anyway, if you want to improve your gas mileage go find a tire shop like tire discounters and have them fill your tires with nitrogen. Nitrogen isn't susceptible like oxygen to the expansion and contraction of the heat from the road, thus your tires stay inflated for lengthy periods of time. Didn't cost me a dime.
Whoa. A gas that doesnt expand or contract from heat and pressurization? Did they fill your tires with antimatter, or are you just buying their bullshit.
Most cars are not designed with aerodynamics in mind at all. That is why large gains can be made with aerodynamic improvements. It is why solar powered cars can reach 100kph+ on level ground or even up hill. If cars were designed aerodynamically they would all appear like solar cars and aeroplanes. That is they would have a sharp end at the back. The problem is that for a car that seats its occupants upright the length of the rear of the car would be huge. This chews up space in traffic and carparks.
While the realities of fluid dynamics dictate that a teardrop shape is the ideal aerodynamic form, Kamm found that by cutting off / flattening the streamlined end of the tear at an intermediate point, and bringing that edge down towards the ground, he could gain most of the benefit of the teardrop shape without incurring such a large material, structural, and size problem. The airflow, once given the suggestion of the beginning of a turbulence-eliminating streamlined teardrop tail, tended to flow in an approximation of that manner regardless of the fact that the entire tail wasn't there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback
Whoa. A gas that doesnt expand or contract from heat and pressurization? Did they fill your tires with antimatter, or are you just buying their bullshit.
When you consider about 70% of air is nitrogen it may not make that much sense. Tyres are membranes. Oxygen will permeate three times faster than nitrogen. It doesn't make that much difference with a car, but it does make some. Nitrogen is used to fill up jet aircraft tyres. It makes sense when you are subjecting the tyre to a wide variety of temperatures. So filling the tyres with nitrogen will make a slight improvement, but not noticeable.
Sponsored Link
2008-07-18, 08:45
When you consider about 70% of air is nitrogen it may not make that much sense. Tyres are membranes. Oxygen will permeate three times faster than nitrogen. It doesn't make that much difference with a car, but it does make some. Nitrogen is used to fill up jet aircraft tyres. It makes sense when you are subjecting the tyre to a wide variety of temperatures. So filling the tyres with nitrogen will make a slight improvement, but not noticeable.
A jet aircraft tire has absolutely nothing in common with a modern car tire. Not in function, design, material, shape, composition, wear, grip, etc.
The only reason nitrogen is used in ALL plane tires is because it doesn't freeze.
The only reason nitrogen is used in ALL plane tires is because it doesn't freeze.
I wouldn't say all. Nitrogen does freeze at a low enough temperature. Realistically nitrogen nor air will freeze in an aeroplane.
I wouldn't say all. Nitrogen does freeze at a low enough temperature. Realistically nitrogen nor air will freeze in an aeroplane.
My bad. Not all. I think there is one more gas that is used instead of nitrogen. Can't remember what.
Liquifying point for nitrogen is -195C. Freezing is -210C. Even high flying fighter jets don't encounter those temperatures.
It's not the air itself but the moisture in the air that freezes. It's easier to make nitrogen pure compared to having pure moistureless air from what I've read.
It is also inert and is safer in case of high temperatures that plane tires get treated to on landing.
So, I guess a low freezing point isn't the only reason.
;D
adding acetone to your gasoline, about half a cup per 5 gallons, will increase fuel economy by about 10 - 15 percent, and substantially reduce engine wear and tear. reason being, the acetone assists in the vaporization of the gasoline, meaning less residue and more efficient burn. and it's cheap, too.
I think we're forgetting a very important factor in this equation.
The science behind the "perfect automobile" largely predates the idea of the automobile itself. These ideas are not actually very new at all. Hell, a lot of them were being put to use in a time when a "horseless carriage" seemed just as preposterous as doing magic!
We've had the capability to produce 100-mile-per-gallon cars and terribly affordable electric/hybrid cars for years. In fact, I think the best electric ones are currently being smashed in the middle of some desert somewhere.
(I know you all probably know this already, but here it goes anyway)
Producing efficient cars that utilize our amazing mastery of the laws of the universe is not profitable at all. Car companies and oil companies have been in cahoots for years, so the more gas your SUV sucks down, the more everyone wins!... except you, the consumer. If you only ever had to buy one car because it was so precisely manufactured that it would wear out lifetimes after you did, and if that car could run on an almost stupidly small amount of energy stored and utilized as electricity, well, then General Motors would only ever sell you one ridiculously cheap car and that's it! There's no room for market expansion! Why buy the current model when it performs no better than last year's, or last decade's, right? You don't worry about mileage too much because you're only paying a few pennies to fill up your lithium polymer "tank", and anyway, the car's body absorbs heat from the engine and the sun and uses the temperature gradient between it and the moving air around it to generate half that energy and feed it back into your batteries while you drive... plus, the moving parts aren't subjected to the stress of thousands of explosions every second, or the inevitable wear that results from the heat of those explosions and the nasty byproducts...
So, long story short, everyone buys one car and then all the automobile industry is out of work until someone makes a discovery that drastically changes our entire understanding of physics or thermodynamics or whatever science you want to fantasize about... the choice is yours.
This would make the internal combustion engine seem like an absolutely absurd idea, only for specialists and antiques dealers... that means no fat profit margins for the oil companies... see, 300 million people are no longer paying $4/gallon at the pump...
(we tried selling it to the power companies but they have already found better solutions, mostly involving the sun... it's everywhere, you see, and it's free and you don't have to go to great lengths to collect it...)
Capitalism is a double-edged sword. The allure of riches has undoubtedly been a key factor in many human innovations, but things can be too perfect to be profitable... like that stride gum commercial where everyone stops buying stride because the flavor never runs out.
So... someone else's turn; propose a solution to this obvious dilemma!
I think we're forgetting a very important factor in this equation.
The science behind the "perfect automobile" largely predates the idea of the automobile itself. These ideas are not actually very new at all. Hell, a lot of them were being put to use in a time when a "horseless carriage" seemed just as preposterous as doing magic!
We've had the capability to produce 100-mile-per-gallon cars and terribly affordable electric/hybrid cars for years. In fact, I think the best electric ones are currently being smashed in the middle of some desert somewhere.
(I know you all probably know this already, but here it goes anyway)
Producing efficient cars that utilize our amazing mastery of the laws of the universe is not profitable at all. Car companies and oil companies have been in cahoots for years, so the more gas your SUV sucks down, the more everyone wins!... except you, the consumer. If you only ever had to buy one car because it was so precisely manufactured that it would wear out lifetimes after you did, and if that car could run on an almost stupidly small amount of energy stored and utilized as electricity, well, then General Motors would only ever sell you one ridiculously cheap car and that's it! There's no room for market expansion! Why buy the current model when it performs no better than last year's, or last decade's, right? You don't worry about mileage too much because you're only paying a few pennies to fill up your lithium polymer "tank", and anyway, the car's body absorbs heat from the engine and the sun and uses the temperature gradient between it and the moving air around it to generate half that energy and feed it back into your batteries while you drive... plus, the moving parts aren't subjected to the stress of thousands of explosions every second, or the inevitable wear that results from the heat of those explosions and the nasty byproducts...
So, long story short, everyone buys one car and then all the automobile industry is out of work until someone makes a discovery that drastically changes our entire understanding of physics or thermodynamics or whatever science you want to fantasize about... the choice is yours.
This would make the internal combustion engine seem like an absolutely absurd idea, only for specialists and antiques dealers... that means no fat profit margins for the oil companies... see, 300 million people are no longer paying $4/gallon at the pump...
(we tried selling it to the power companies but they have already found better solutions, mostly involving the sun... it's everywhere, you see, and it's free and you don't have to go to great lengths to collect it...)
Capitalism is a double-edged sword. The allure of riches has undoubtedly been a key factor in many human innovations, but things can be too perfect to be profitable... like that stride gum commercial where everyone stops buying stride because the flavor never runs out.
So... someone else's turn; propose a solution to this obvious dilemma!
if a small company could start producing these perfect cars you speak of, without patents, without any copyright, selling with a manual and blue print, and these people didn't all decide to 'disappear', then i think that the large companies would instead of trying to contain the uncontainable, would jump on board to salvage their industry, unless they made a really ballsy attempt to sue and murder them out of existence.
adding acetone to your gasoline, about half a cup per 5 gallons, will increase fuel economy by about 10 - 15 percent, and substantially reduce engine wear and tear. reason being, the acetone assists in the vaporization of the gasoline, meaning less residue and more efficient burn. and it's cheap, too.
lookit
adding acetone to your gasoline, about half a cup per 5 gallons, will increase fuel economy by about 10 - 15 percent, and substantially reduce engine wear and tear. reason being, the acetone assists in the vaporization of the gasoline, meaning less residue and more efficient burn. and it's cheap, too.
Generally speaking, oily shit dissolves rubbery shit (WARNING: OVERSIMPLIFICATION IN PROGRESS). That's why you can't use oil-based lube with a latex condom.
In this case, I speak from experience.
Wear latex gloves next time you handle acetone and watch how fast it eats holes in them. Hell, man, I've seen that shit melt a Nalgene bottle - the same Nalgene bottle I had been bouncing a sledgehammer off of just to see if it could possibly be cracked. Now consider how many cars have rubber in gaskets, o-rings, fuel lines, etc. and shudder. Also, obviously, acetone removes paint from anything and everything in no time flat, so if you are retarded enough to pour a corrosive solvent into your fuel tank, you better fucking make sure you don't spill it anywhere.
Anyway, I haven't been able to find any real proof or confirmation that this actually works. It would seem that making fuel less dense means you are reducing the amount of energy it contains, which is why gas stations "cutting" their gas with ethanol is making you have to fill up more often. Oh, I have been able to find some people who had NEGATIVE results though. Watch MythBusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%28season_4%29#Episode_53_-_.22Exploding_Pants.22)?
Finally, even if this were a sort-of good idea with scientific merit to it, testing gas mileage is a very difficult thing to do accurately. Gas mileage depends upon hundreds of variables, from the obvious ones about driving patterns (driving really fast to get to your destination doesn't really help you save gas) to shit like the weather, what kind of shit you had on in your car, and even the fucking friction coefficient of the surface you are driving on. Hell, you don't have to take my word for any of this - take the same car on the same road using the same gas on two different days and you'll get different "mpg" measurements.
Long story short: acetone rips the shit out of everything, especially the plastic/rubbery parts of your car. It is a bad idea to put it in your gas tank.
i know what you mean about corrosiveness, i've seen it. but think. gasoline is MORE corrosive then acetone. and there are NO rubber parts that fuel comes into contact with, ANY where in the fuel line. nothing but plastics that laugh at acetone and gasoline, and then after that, straight metal.
and it personally gets me another 5 miles or so per gallon, i've watched it for a long time. i was told to do this by a trusted mechanic. the corrosive nature of acetone isn't a issue, obviously, if inserted with a funnel.
gasoline is MORE corrosive then acetone.
No, I think you misunderstand the chemistry behind the corrosive nature of acetone. It has to do with acetone being a ketone. Firstly, ketones are acidic because of the nature of their chemical bonds, but the reason acetone dissolves plastic and rubber is because it is such a powerful solvent. Technically, acetone is a polar solvent, but the difference in electron affinity between its atoms can be described only as "medium polarity" - which means it can dissolve a whole shit load of compounds. I'm pretty sure the aliphatic hydrocarbons in gasoline are non-polar.
Acetone dissolves most plastics. Gasoline doesn't - in fact, it's transported in plastic containers. Try pouring acetone into a gas can or a nalgene bottle and see what happens. Go on, try it; I'll wait.
and there are NO rubber parts that fuel comes into contact with, ANY where in the fuel line.
Are you saying that you are intimately familiar with every part in every automobile engine ever made? That's quite a claim.
nothing but plastics that laugh at acetone and gasoline, and then after that, straight metal.
Dude, pour some acetone over a Nalgene bottle - A FUCKING NALGENE BOTTLE! Anyone who's ever gone hiking knows that those things are fucking indestructible. The water purification tablets that burn your tongue don't even make a mark or leave a nasty taste in those things, but acetone fucking makes the dissolve. Try it. Gas doesn't.
and it personally gets me another 5 miles or so per gallon, i've watched it for a long time.
Personally, I think you're full of shit. There is just no way that pouring a highly volatile ketone into your car is good for it.
the corrosive nature of acetone isn't a issue, obviously, if inserted with a funnel.
What the fuck.
That is seriously the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
Yeah, the funnel magically stops the alpha-hydrogen from briefly forming an enol ion with the oxygen, thus negating its high acidity... oh also, funnels are covered with nanoangstrom-scale signs that read "NO HYDROGEN BONDING - VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED", and hydrogen, being a simple atom, just does what it's told... which of course stops the molecules from bonding to every damn thing they come into contact with and being so fucking volatile...
No, I've got an even better idea - all funnels are actually made out of a little-known 198th element called "funnelium", which is actually what alchemists used to turn any metal into gold... only it also has the magical property of turning acetone into TURBO GAS... which, you know, is better than regular gas, for some complicated reason involving alkanes and knocking characteristics which the kind of people who put acetone in their gas tanks haven't got the time to understand. Geez, next thing you know, you'll be trying to tell me that a higher octane rating means a higher kindling point! That's stupid! Everyone knows octane is basically just NOS; that's why people put it in their sports cars... it might make regular cars blow up, they can't handle all the awesome...
(have I gone too far now? is it too absurd?)
god damn, what the hell man, I know I shouldn't get so angry over chemistry, but seriously, you failed SERIOUSLY hard... sit down please...
Sponsored Link
2008-07-23, 00:31
adding acetone to your gasoline, about half a cup per 5 gallons, will increase fuel economy by about 10 - 15 percent, and substantially reduce engine wear and tear. reason being, the acetone assists in the vaporization of the gasoline, meaning less residue and more efficient burn. and it's cheap, too.
You are aware that over 98% of the gasoline in your engine is burnt, right?
You are aware that over 98% of the gasoline in your engine is burnt, right?
Only if you pour the right paint thinner in it. :-p
lmao...
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-07-24, 03:07
i know what you mean about corrosiveness, i've seen it. but think. gasoline is MORE corrosive then acetone. and there are NO rubber parts that fuel comes into contact with, ANY where in the fuel line. nothing but plastics that laugh at acetone and gasoline, and then after that, straight metal.
and it personally gets me another 5 miles or so per gallon, i've watched it for a long time. i was told to do this by a trusted mechanic. the corrosive nature of acetone isn't a issue, obviously, if inserted with a funnel.
Acetone and gasoline are negligibly corrosive to metal compared to the ethanol that is now mandated in American gasoline. Ethanol is far more corrosive to rubbers that are in your fuel system than acetone as well.
As for economics, the energy released from combustion in a gallon of acetone is 91.9MJ compared to 132MJ of gasoline. Your ratio of acetone to gas is 1:160. Meh, I got bored of doing your homework.
Here are a few more tips:
1. Never stop at a traffic light. The less you stop then start the less fuel you use.
2. Never give way to pedestrians even at a crossing. It takes far less energy to stop and start a person than it does a car.
3. Add approximately one teaspoon of sugar to every tank of petrol (gasoline). This annihilates the carbon in octane and makes your car run on pure hydrogen.
These days you can not afford to produce any more carbon dioxide than what is necessary. Follow the tips in this thread and you will live to see tomorrow.
Prometheus
2008-07-26, 17:39
if a small company could start producing these perfect cars you speak of, without patents, without any copyright, selling with a manual and blue print, and these people didn't all decide to 'disappear', then i think that the large companies would instead of trying to contain the uncontainable, would jump on board to salvage their industry, unless they made a really ballsy attempt to sue and murder them out of existence.
Except for the part where the big auto companies will destroy any small company that is perceived to be a threat. I would like to bring up the Tucker Torpedo as exhibit A of this mentality.
Dark_Magneto
2008-07-27, 13:13
Mythbusters did an episode about adding acetone to gas.
KeepOnTruckin
2008-07-28, 18:02
if a small company could start producing these perfect cars you speak of, without patents, without any copyright, selling with a manual and blue print, and these people didn't all decide to 'disappear', then i think that the large companies would instead of trying to contain the uncontainable, would jump on board to salvage their industry, unless they made a really ballsy attempt to sue and murder them out of existence.
They dont magically disappear, the government, FBI, and massive corporations force them out of buisness. Of course it's all covered up, so the public doesnt know about it, but there is no reasonable reason that a company that had such a perfect product should suddenly disappear.
Ethanol is corrosive to rubber and plastic? What proof is fuel ethanol? Let's say fuel is now 10% pure alcohol by volume, 90% gasoline.
Exhibit A- My dumbass friends who store vodka in a paper thin water bottle all day at school. I've never seen one leak or melt.
Exhibit B- Vacuum Wine Saver/Stoppers are rubber.
Exhibit C- Cheap whiskey gets stored in plastic jugs and stays on shelves for months or years
absolutecaliber
2008-08-02, 04:01
Ethanol is corrosive to rubber and plastic? What proof is fuel ethanol? Let's say fuel is now 10% pure alcohol by volume, 90% gasoline.
Exhibit A- My dumbass friends who store vodka in a paper thin water bottle all day at school. I've never seen one leak or melt.
Exhibit B- Vacuum Wine Saver/Stoppers are rubber.
Exhibit C- Cheap whiskey gets stored in plastic jugs and stays on shelves for months or years
protip: alcohol will corrode metals. gasoline won't.
alcohol... hydrophilic...attracts water molecules from air or from the bottom of your gas tank...where it'll rust the hell out of it.
okccameron
2008-08-04, 03:49
protip: alcohol will corrode metals. gasoline won't.
alcohol... hydrophilic...attracts water molecules from air or from the bottom of your gas tank...where it'll rust the hell out of it.
I thought gas tanks were rubber-lined? Not that I'm disagreeing with you.
Galgamech
2008-08-04, 04:27
Danzig gets the trolling award
DonMuttoni
2008-08-06, 22:18
Do what the africans do....
The moment you buy you car, remove all non-essential systems and subs....
Sell these parts and buy petrol... which will last forever since your car now weighs as much as your right testicle
Do what the africans do....
The moment you buy you car, remove all non-essential systems and subs....
Sell these parts and buy petrol... which will last forever since your car now weighs as much as your right testicle
Africans are also good at carpooling.
DonMuttoni
2008-08-07, 13:07
Africans are also good at carpooling.
Yea, but they're far behind the disputed kings, the Laotians and the Puerte Ricans...
bsquared
2008-08-12, 15:01
Stop and go traffic sucks for mileage. I took a trip out to LA earlier this summer and rented a 4 cylinder car rated at around 30 mpg. Well, during rush hour and the congested freeway hours I got just over 225 miles on 15 gallons of gas. Totally pathetic. I maybe averaged 15 - 17 mpg. Thats what a friggen 8 cylinder SUV should get.
Stop and go traffic sucks for mileage. I took a trip out to LA earlier this summer and rented a 4 cylinder car rated at around 30 mpg. Well, during rush hour and the congested freeway hours I got just over 225 miles on 15 gallons of gas. Totally pathetic. I maybe averaged 15 - 17 mpg. Thats what a friggen 8 cylinder SUV should get.
There should be intelligent traffic lights that minimize wasted time and space. I mean they already have intelligent traffic systems for the internet. It can't be that hard to transfer the technology over to road traffic.
granite erection
2008-08-17, 16:12
Yes, use a thinner oil which wont protect your engine as well!
methane power rockets for cars. put your Jenkem/shit in a box the methane will be channeled into a tube to a jet which has an electric ignitor. whenever you release the methane into jet you ignite it providing boost.
this could be converted into the main power source for a car. a shit powered car. sounds funny but could be practical. you could also put some sort of fart collector on your ass while driving to provide extra burst of energy.
could this be practical totse? we could be the first to make this. we were made famous for huffing shit.....now we can be famous for running our cars off of shit! WIN!
Sponsored Link
2008-08-20, 05:30
methane power rockets for cars. put your Jenkem/shit in a box the methane will be channeled into a tube to a jet which has an electric ignitor. whenever you release the methane into jet you ignite it providing boost.
this could be converted into the main power source for a car. a shit powered car. sounds funny but could be practical. you could also put some sort of fart collector on your ass while driving to provide extra burst of energy.
could this be practical totse? we could be the first to make this. we were made famous for huffing shit.....now we can be famous for running our cars off of shit! WIN!
Because 5ccs of flatulence would move a four thousand pound object quicker.
granite erection
2008-08-21, 01:48
Because 5ccs of flatulence would move a four thousand pound object quicker.
i guess it would really boil down to what you ate, huh?
It's cheaper and easier to get methane out of the ground. For personal use though, you can't really buy a mine. You might be on to something. Virtually free fuel.
heroic harlequin
2008-08-22, 23:55
Lose weight? Maybe buy a more fuel efficient car. But for me, since I am not uber poor, I will stick to my merc cdi320 when I pass my test.
using air con eats fuel. don't use it unless you are actually hot or cold. there is no reason to have the air con running to change the temperature from 22 degrees to 24.
on the same note, having the windows wound down significantly increases drag on the car. in long cruises at high speed, keeping them up will make a difference.
but it is better gas mileage wise, to use the air conditioning (sp?) then to leave the windows down, even on shorter trips
KwinnieFuckingBogan
2008-09-01, 06:51
Goddamnit, some of you don't have a fucken clue! Acetone is more bad than good, and danzig was trolling.
There should be intelligent traffic lights that minimize wasted time and space. I mean they already have intelligent traffic systems for the internet. It can't be that hard to transfer the technology over to road traffic.
Hmm, like roundabouts. You guys can't seem to understand them though.
Hmm, like roundabouts. You guys can't seem to understand them though.
Where are you from?
KwinnieFuckingBogan
2008-09-02, 00:09
Where are you from?
I can't answer that question. Not because I don't want to, but beccause there isn't an answer. I am in 'Mexico'* as we speak, for some work, so my terminology will probably give you some idea of where I actually live right now.
*it's only really 'Welshmen' that call this place Mexico.
FTR: I had the impression, from your earlier post content, that you were from a country far from the one you claim to live in. That proves the old idiom about assumptions, then, don't it?
I can't answer that question. Not because I don't want to, but beccause there isn't an answer. I am in 'Mexico'* as we speak, for some work, so my terminology will probably give you some idea of where I actually live right now.
*it's only really 'Welshmen' that call this place Mexico.
FTR: I had the impression, from your earlier post content, that you were from a country far from the one you claim to live in. That proves the old idiom about assumptions, then, don't it?
Yeah, yeah I get where you are from. Where GayFL is popular (I personally don't mind the game).
Roundabouts don't solve the problem. They don't allow pedestrians to cross, multi-lane roundabouts are fairly large and vehicles slow down on a roundabout.
KwinnieFuckingBogan
2008-09-02, 07:48
Lighted 5+ way intersections are shit as fuck due to their unatural layout, and also mean that your car is STOPPED 4/5ths of the time, ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if there's no cars in the other parts, it'll still cycle through.
Roundabouts are the perfect flow device and are purposefully designed so that you will find it quite hard to exceed the speed dictated by their magnitude (which will be lower than the posted speed limit, more times than not). They also keep traffic MOVING, ALWAYS.
At 4:30am when there's very little traffic and you're knocking off (with those hours that's a short shift), you hardly even need to slow down, just scan to the right.
You only ever stop when you're nervous or if there truly is too much traffic for the intersection to handle, but you will still get through in much less time than you would if it were an intersection, trust me there (actually don't, I plant my foot from 20 metres away before I even look for gaps, and make contact with the 'ripple strip').
Roundabouts kick arse, American tourists seem confused by them.
P.S. I'm North of the border, if you look back at the post you'll see the real hint. The only AFL I can stand is regional A division.
Ok bananabender.
What I mean by roundabouts being poor is that they give just as much preference to minor roads. At night time or when there is little traffic if you look down a main road it is nearly all green, not half green. With a roundabout, every time one vehicle comes up from a side street to the right a string of cars will have to stop for it. This may happen many times over at spread out intervals causing heavy traffic. With traffic lights they wait until a couple of cars are waiting at the side street before they give preference to the side street.
What I was proposing earlier is to give the lights sensors (apart from the loop right in front of the line) so they can be more accurate in predicting the number of cars. Then have the lights communicate with one another so that strings of vehicles get the most green time possible and more of the red time being where there are no cars.
*skips reading the vast majority of the thread*
First, using nitrogen to increase fuel efficency is snake oil.
Second, braking hard can often, and accelerating hard can sometimes, save fuel.
Third, pretty much every ebay or otherwise cheap, marketable solution that laymen think will improve the efficency of there car, will not*
*Sorry, but 'laymen' probably includes most of you here. I don't know any of you though, so, prove me wrong.
Second, braking hard can often, and accelerating hard can sometimes, save fuel.
Explain.
Explain.
Braking:
The cars in front of you were stopped at a red light but are now accelerating away. You are still moving at full speed but will have to slow down and meet them in the middle somewhere between full speed and there current speed
The most fuel efficient situation is the one where you are going the fastest when you actually reach them, since this is the situation where you have burnt off the least energy through braking. This means the longer it takes to reach them, the faster they will be going when you reach them.
Option 1 is to brake hard just before you meet them. This is the hoon solution.
Option 2 is to brake softly and slow the whole way until you meet them. This is the 'oh noes, braking wastes energy' solution.
Option 3 is to brake hard as soon as you see the situation arise, and brake to the extent that by the time you reach them, they will be going the same speed as you. This is optimal.
It's fairly obvious that option three will take you the longest to get there and thus have you going at the highest speed and save the most fuel, but its hard to explain in words. I'm assuming people understand it, but I will try to explain if they don't.
The reason for this is that braking doesn't waste fuel, accelerating afterwards does.
Accelerating:
You have just rounded a corner and are going at 30kph. Its a 60 road. There is a light 200 meters away that you know will be red in a few seconds.
If you stick to 30 or accelerate slowly to 60, you will not make it, and have to wipe your speed from 30 to zero. Wasted energy.
If you gun it (but not floor it, try to keep the mixture close to neutral) to 60, you will make it, will save all your speed, and your only loss will be small overhead that may or may not exist or be significant from the higher acceleration to 60.
A lot of people think that hard acceleration is the devil, but if you look in gearheads you will find me questioning multiple times with a decent amount of reasoning whether it is really that bad. My own brother used to think that accelerating at twice the rate used twice the fuel to get to speed x. It's true that you will be eating fuel at around twice the rate. But heres the fun part: you're only accelerating for half the time.
Additionally, though a lot of people make the argument of inefficiencies and enrichment of higher power output screwing you over, if you look at a BSFC map (look it up, Wikipedia may help), you'll find that 'puttering along like an old person' falls pretty squarely in the not efficient zone. It depends just exactly how hard and at what RPM you are accelerating.
Galgamech
2008-09-08, 05:09
Hard acceleration is way too much fun for me to give it up
Look at it this way: stationary at idle you are consuming infinite L/100km. There is friction in the engine that must be overcome. When an engine is at idle or low speeds it is cold. As the engine increases speed and temperature the viscosity of the oil decreases a bit. Power increases faster than friction. Beyond that speed friction increases faster than power.
Torque is a good measure of efficiency because it measures how much energy is provided every cycle. Generally peak torque and peak power occur at different points. Power is just a multiplication of torque and speed.
More specifically: power (W) = torque (Nm) x rotational speed (rpm/60) x 2pi
Divide by 1000 for kW
So the optimal engine speed should be at the peak of the torque curve. In larger cars this speed is fairly low (eg 2000rpm), but in some smaller cars it can be up around 4-5000rpm.
Look at it this way: stationary at idle you are consuming infinite L/100km. There is friction in the engine that must be overcome. When an engine is at idle or low speeds it is cold. As the engine increases speed and temperature the viscosity of the oil decreases a bit. Power increases faster than friction. Beyond that speed friction increases faster than power.
Torque is a good measure of efficiency because it measures how much energy is provided every cycle. Generally peak torque and peak power occur at different points. Power is just a multiplication of torque and speed.
More specifically: power (W) = torque (Nm) x rotational speed (rpm/60) x 2pi
Divide by 1000 for kW
So the optimal engine speed should be at the peak of the torque curve. In larger cars this speed is fairly low (eg 2000rpm), but in some smaller cars it can be up around 4-5000rpm.
- Engine temperature does not really change with speed. In fact once it gets to operating temperature it won't change a lot at all (in a healthy car that isn't doing burnouts in the middle of a desert), since it is regulated to stay close to optimal.
- The power increases faster than friction part doesn't make sense to me, but the principle of 'at idle you are consuming infinite l/100km' is indeed what makes low speed driving so inefficient.
- I don't see why torque being a measure of energy per cycle makes it also a measure of efficency, though you might be onto something, I would like to have it explained.
- However as it turns out minimum BSFC (maximum fuel efficency) often occurs around the area where the torque peak is, but this can change vastly. Again, look at a BSFC map. I think everyone interested in saving fuel should do so.
- I don't see why torque being a measure of energy per cycle makes it also a measure of efficency, though you might be onto something, I would like to have it explained.
.
Regarding those other points I am not so sure about what I said.
Torque is energy per cycle. Let me explain.
Where I live SI units are used so the measure of torque is the newton metre (Nm). It is the equivalent of having an arm one metre long and having a force of one newton on the end of that arm.
A newton metre is also a measure of work. In this instance it is equivalent of moving a one newton force one metre.
Work is energy so the torque determines the energy put out per revolution. One newton metre is equal to one joule.
Another way of looking at it is that power is made up of torque and revolutions. If you divide power by revolutions per second you will get the energy per revolution.
Remember with the newton metre you are drawing a circle with a two metre diameter around the point. So Nm times 2pi will give you the energy per revolution.
Regarding those other points I am not so sure about what I said.
Torque is energy per cycle. Let me explain.
Where I live SI units are used so the measure of torque is the newton metre (Nm). It is the equivalent of having an arm one metre long and having a force of one newton on the end of that arm.
A newton metre is also a measure of work. In this instance it is equivalent of moving a one newton force one metre.
Work is energy so the torque determines the energy put out per revolution. One newton metre is equal to one joule.
Another way of looking at it is that power is made up of torque and revolutions. If you divide power by revolutions per second you will get the energy per revolution.
Remember with the newton metre you are drawing a circle with a two metre diameter around the point. So Nm times 2pi will give you the energy per revolution.
Yes, but that wasn't what I was asking. Think about this:
At the torque peak, I change the fuel map such that it is running at 20% past stoichiometric. I.e. very rich. Also very inefficient.
Now the torque peak is no longer the efficency peak
I want to know why you thought it had to be? Or why torque has to be an indication of efficency at all?
PS: I am in fact familiar with SI units.
Edit: Actually I think I might know your answer anyway. Assuming equal Volumetric Efficiency throughout the rev range, burn efficency is close to the only way to get more torque. The problem is, VE varies widely through the torque range* and has a much bigger impact on torque output. Air-fuel ratio also has a huge impact.
*And throttle range - you are barely ever operating at wide open throttle anyway, especially to save fuel, so none of this stuff is very relevant to the real world anyway.
Ok. I see what you mean. Due to different mixtures the BSFC is slightly different to the torque curve.
Ok. I see what you mean. Due to different mixtures the BSFC is slightly different to the torque curve.
Not. Just. That.
Volumetric efficency (to a large extent) and many other things also make a difference.
Also BSFC maps aren't a curve like a torque curve.
Check out a google image search. (http://images.google.com.au/images?q=bsfc%20map&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enAU258AU258&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi)
3 variables. I know. It's crazy, huh?
Thanks for explaining that.
Many cars don't have BSFC maps published for them. After looking at those maps I see the lowest BSFC always occurs close to peak torque. Most cars do have peak torque published so a rough guide for lowest BSFC would be peak torque.
Thanks for explaining that.
Many cars don't have BSFC maps published for them. After looking at those maps I see the lowest BSFC always occurs close to peak torque. Most cars do have peak torque published so a rough guide for lowest BSFC would be peak torque.
Yeah I know, it would be nice if they would publish them but they don't.
As to peak torque being an approximation, look:
http://www.techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/training/800/SAE-bsfc.gif
Every point that lies on that bolded line is a point where fuel efficency is optimum for that particular power output. Clearly, it traverses the entire RPM range.
If you want to accelerate at a certain rate, then you will be needing a certain amount of power to do so.
say you wanted to use 50 kilowatts, you could plot a line across that map corresponding to all points where the torque and RPM combine to give that power. All points on that line are now 50 kilowatts, and all points off the line are not. Somewhere on that line is also the most efficient place to make 50 kilowatts.
Fortunately, the bolded line represents all the most efficient points, so where the bolded line intercepts the constant power line, should yield the most efficent place to make 50 kilowatts... operate your engine at that RPM, with that much throttle. Clearly, the optimum points you are after will move through the whole rev range depending on the power you are after. It is not always at the torque peak, and that's that.
Of course, it is incredibly difficult to keep this up in reality (though an automatic gearbox will try it's best in certain conditions), especially since most cars don't have CVTs, so here's a better rule:
You will notice the bolded line generally runs around 70-90% of full torque - this is the case for most engines. Unfortunately holding the throttle at full torque through the rev range will not work, since 80% throttle at lower RPMs will pretty much yield a full cylinder of air and 100% torque. Instead, you need to increase throttle position as the revs go up to hold torque steady. Over time you can get a feel for this (I have - but I don't know if it's at the efficient amount of torque, I just do it for comforts sake and not spinning out when starting and such), but that isn't too reliable.
So heres what I just thought of (I'm brilliant, I know), that would require someone quite tech savvy (I bet argon could do it) to implement.
If you assume volumetric efficency is proportional to torque (a decent approximation), then air flow (you can find this with your own MAF/MAP sensor, or possibly tap into the one that should already be on any EFI car) divided by RPM would give you a ratio that indicates your volumetric efficency at any point, in whatever units (it doesn't matter). After doing one solid run at WOT through the rev range, you will know what this ratio is at any point for maximum torque. You want about 80% of this. So, record the 'volumetric efficency curve' for future reference, then record two more curves: volumetric efficency*0.7, and volumetric efficency*0.9. Anything between these two curves is 'green zone'.
Now install a blue, green, and red light on your dashboard, and make a chip that uses them as outputs, and your airflow sensor and the engine RPM as inputs, and have it do this:
If airflow/rpm < volumetric efficency*0.7 then
turn on blue light
If airflow/rpm > volumetric efficency*0.9 then
turn on red light
Else
turn on green light
(I've never programmed any chips or anything, just stuff on my computer, so be gentle :( )
And after a while, with any luck you will get a feel for what gear to be in and how far to bury your foot into the throttle to achieve maximum efficency, and away you go! Saving fuel the smart way!
You clearly know far more about this than me, but I'd like to debate one point. Originally we were talking about accelerating at a fairly open throttle.
Fortunately, the bolded line represents all the most efficient points, so where the bolded line intercepts the constant power line, should yield the most efficent place to make 50 kilowatts... operate your engine at that RPM, with that much throttle. Clearly, the optimum points you are after will move through the whole rev range depending on the power you are after. It is not always at the torque peak, and that's that.
What you are describing sounds like the most efficient point for a certain vehicle speed. While the lowest BSFC across the map is not full torque, it is near the rpm which produces full torque. It would be ideal to keep the engine at that rpm when accelerating.
You clearly know far more about this than me, but I'd like to debate one point. Originally we were talking about accelerating at a fairly open throttle.
What you are describing sounds like the most efficient point for a certain vehicle speed. While the lowest BSFC across the map is not full torque, it is near the rpm which produces full torque. It would be ideal to keep the engine at that rpm when accelerating.
I wasn't really talking about operating at WOT, though I see that you were - fair enough.
But for the record, in real driving, if you assumed WOT or close to WOT, then you had people operate near the torque peak - you would generate so much power that the car would rocket away at a stupid speed (assuming any decent middle of the range car). In my car, for example, ordinary acceleration requires only what I would guess to be 20-40% torque output at a thousand revs or so below the torque peak. That's why I said earlier that what we were discussing was fairly irrelevant anyway.
I wasn't really talking about operating at WOT, though I see that you were - fair enough.
But for the record, in real driving, if you assumed WOT or close to WOT, then you had people operate near the torque peak - you would generate so much power that the car would rocket away at a stupid speed (assuming any decent middle of the range car). In my car, for example, ordinary acceleration requires only what I would guess to be 20-40% torque output at a thousand revs or so below the torque peak. That's why I said earlier that what we were discussing was fairly irrelevant anyway.
Not WOT, but near the lowest BSFC on the graph which will generally be a fairly open throttle.
http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/articles/i1102/110216_9lo.jpg
See how the coloured area with the lowest BSFC is at a fairly open throttle. Why not accelerate with the throttle opened to that amount and keep shifting the gears to stay at that rpm. Sure it will be accelerating fast, but it is not uncontrolable (except of course when the wheel spins). Maybe on some cars the wheels will spin even at 30km/h, but on many it won't.
Of course to determine the optimum for a steady speed you would use the bolded line on
http://www.techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/training/800/SAE-bsfc.gif
Not WOT, but near the lowest BSFC on the graph which will generally be a fairly open throttle.
http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/articles/i1102/110216_9lo.jpg
See how the coloured area with the lowest BSFC is at a fairly open throttle. Why not accelerate with the throttle opened to that amount and keep shifting the gears to stay at that rpm. Sure it will be accelerating fast, but it is not uncontrolable (except of course when the wheel spins). Maybe on some cars the wheels will spin even at 30km/h, but on many it won't.
Of course to determine the optimum for a steady speed you would use the bolded line on
http://www.techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/training/800/SAE-bsfc.gif
You have basically recommended the same as I have except you have asked the driver to also keep the RPM in a certain range - that means you have only one possible power output. While accelerating, it will probably be way too much*, and while cruising, unless you are in a fairly underpowered car, going up a hill, or going faster than I imagine most roads allow for (in which case that is a much bigger fuel consumption concern right there), it will definitely be too much.
One way or another you are going to have to vary your power output, and since it seems to me throttle position is a far greater influence than RPM, I would say its best to make the changes to RPM. Of course adjustments to throttle will need to be done as well - you only have 5 or 6 gears usually, but when you can, shift instead.
*To demonstrate this, lets take the new base model commodore (very common 4 door sedan in Australia), which uses a 3.6L V6, specifically called the 'LY7', according to my friend Wikipedia, which has the following peak torque numbers:
(342 N·m) at 3100 rpm.
And if we assume that 75% torque at the torque peak is a good place to be, using our rule of thumb, that means 256 Nm at 3100 RPM, or 83 kilowatts. That is too much for pretty much any normal driving. If you don't have a feel for what 83 kilowatts will do, put it this way:
Given the commodore weighs 1690 kg (heavy fucker, huh?):
83 kilowatts will cause an acceleration curve like this in a commodore:
[acceleration in gees]= 18/[kph]
Since I imagine 0.8 gees is a good maximum drive traction number for a commodore, that means the car will be spinning its tyres until about 22.5 kph, and since most acceleration is in the realm of .3 gees, I imagine anything below 60 kph will count as 'beyond what most people are comfortable with'.
I imagine it would set a cruising speed of around 130-150kph on the highway, as well, but without an accurate number for the Cd or frontal area of the car, I CBF figuring that out. I think you get my point now anyway ;)
PS: Imagine what would happen if you were driving one of the performance commodores :eek: they come with V8s and over 300KW too!
Apart from the sheer fact that it depends on what gear is used, how did you arrive at acceleration = 18/velocity ?
Apart from the sheer fact that it depends on what gear is used, how did you arrive at acceleration = 18/velocity ?
We know:
[Energy]=[force]*[distance]
differentiate w.r.t. time
[power]=[force]*[speed]
therefore
[force]=[power]/[speed]
We also know:
[force]=[mass]*[acceleration]
therefore, by substituting:
[mass]*[acceleration]=[power]/[speed]
therefore
[acceleration]=[power]/([speed]*[mass])
substitute power and mass, which are known values
divide the right hand side by 9.81 to get acceleration in gees, multiply by 3.6 to get speed in kilometers per hour, and away you go.
Fortunately it came out to a nice round number like 18 (actually there was a bit of rounding going on along the way, so its probably 18 plus or minus 0.3, but close enough)
mayor of monkey town
2008-09-09, 12:45
oR GET A MOTORBIKE.
You get up to speed fucking fast, and because you weigh fuck all you can just pop the clutch in and if you keep your head down/wind resistance deal you can coast for about a kilometre before you have to give it about 10 seconds of throttle which in the right gear aint much fuel anyway.
Even better would be to buy an electric motorcycle.
KwinnieFuckingBogan
2008-09-10, 02:18
Even better would be to buy an electric motorcycle.
Not really.
Burning petrol > Burning lots of brown (dirty) coal
That and everything else petrol bikes have over electric (range is one!, sound is always another).
Bikes like that electric drag bike are fast as all fuck, and certainly give Nitro bikes a run for their money, but they're completely impractical and can't go more than about a couple kilometres.
Sponsored Link
2008-09-10, 04:10
Not really.
Burning petrol > Burning lots of brown (dirty) coal
That and everything else petrol bikes have over electric (range is one!, sound is always another).
Bikes like that electric drag bike are fast as all fuck, and certainly give Nitro bikes a run for their money, but they're completely impractical and can't go more than about a couple kilometres.
Not yet. I've got high hopes for electric cars. Someone brought up the idea to me a while ago. If you can run an electric engine at 100kw for an hour, you can run it at 1000kw for 6 minutes, or 6000kw for a minute. A minute of 6000kw. Given that a drive train can support it, and the battery and such support such high drain rates, the engine doesn't blow, etc , etc, etc, this is all theoretically possible.
Not yet. I've got high hopes for electric cars. Someone brought up the idea to me a while ago. If you can run an electric engine at 100kw for an hour, you can run it at 1000kw for 6 minutes, or 6000kw for a minute. A minute of 6000kw. Given that a drive train can support it, and the battery and such support such high drain rates, the engine doesn't blow, etc , etc, etc, this is all theoretically possible.
Not that there is anything you could do with 6000KW, with the drive traction most cars have.
Not really.
Burning petrol > Burning lots of brown (dirty) coal
That and everything else petrol bikes have over electric (range is one!, sound is always another).
Bikes like that electric drag bike are fast as all fuck, and certainly give Nitro bikes a run for their money, but they're completely impractical and can't go more than about a couple kilometres.
It depends on where you live. Brown coal is only used in Victoria. Also power stations are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. Electrical power consumption is more consistent than cars so the power stations can run near their optimum settings.
Who said power had to come from coal?
Yeah range is pretty limited. There are a few bikes out there that can go 100km+. Not many people will need a bike with a very long range since riding a bike for a long time is uncomfortable.
Most electric bikes out there are step throughs and the number and range of bikes is fairly limited. Expect that to change.
Here are a few decent bikes:
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/
http://www.vectrix.com/
http://www.hybridtechnologies.com/products/motorcycles/liv_ryder
http://www.electricmotorsport.com/store/ems_electric_motorcycle_gpr-s.php
http://www.evcusa.com/
The last one looks promising
KwinnieFuckingBogan
2008-09-10, 07:02
It depends on where you live. Brown coal is only used in Victoria. Also power stations are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. Electrical power consumption is more consistent than cars so the power stations can run near their optimum settings.
Who said power had to come from coal?
Yeah range is pretty limited. There are a few bikes out there that can go 100km+. Not many people will need a bike with a very long range since riding a bike for a long time is uncomfortable.
Most electric bikes out there are step throughs and the number and range of bikes is fairly limited. Expect that to change.
85% (recently down from 9-fucken-8%! ) of Australia's power comes from coal, and it's not just Victoria that uses brown coal plants.
Also, I am very sure that if you did a several month unit on the subject of conventional versus alternate energy sources, and sustainability you'd find that among many other observations, no electricity from a centralised power plant is good - especially not coal power. You've got to look at embodied energy, embodied water, transport consumption, etcetera etcetera.
Unless you're wise, power doesn't just come outta the GPO and straight to your appliance, just like how meat doesn't come from the butcher.
You can also draw parallels (in Australia especially) between 'electric hybrid' cars and 'super efficient' petrol engined cars. Finally, for tonight* - the weakest and most irrelevant point, sorry English teachers from years ago - Generalising here (but with good reason!): Electric bikes are nowhere near as agile as petrol bikes.
*(for me, it's a Wednesday, 'gator)
85% (recently down from 9-fucken-8%! ) of Australia's power comes from coal, and it's not just Victoria that uses brown coal plants.
Ok. SA uses some brown coal, but all of the mines are in Victoria. The ratio of black coal to brown coal is 398 : 65 million tonnes.
http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/education/fact_sheets/coal.jsp
Also, I am very sure that if you did a several month unit on the subject of conventional versus alternate energy sources, and sustainability you'd find that among many other observations, no electricity from a centralised power plant is good - especially not coal power. You've got to look at embodied energy, embodied water, transport consumption, etcetera etcetera.
Unless you're wise, power doesn't just come outta the GPO and straight to your appliance, just like how meat doesn't come from the butcher.
Have you ever heard of economies of scale? By making a few larger power stations, each station is more efficient for the amount of energy put out than a small power station. Similar to how a diesel on a large ship is far more efficient than a diesel in a car.
You're saying oil doesn't have those problems as well? There is very little transportation of coal because the power stations are near the mines. Unlike oil.
Sure some water is used for steam, but it is marginal compared to the amount of water available near the power stations.
Transportation of electricity over wires has to be fairly efficient, especially at 330kV.
Finally, for tonight* - the weakest and most irrelevant point, sorry English teachers from years ago - Generalising here (but with good reason!): Electric bikes are nowhere near as agile as petrol bikes.
As long as the bike is built similar it should have similar agility. Bikes go around corners pretty poorly anyway.
If you are talking about power, response time, eveness of torque - electric motors are super to petrol.
Bikes go around corners pretty poorly anyway.
This is true AFAIK but you will probably meet some staunch resistance to the claim.
/off topic point
Sponsored Link
2008-09-10, 15:35
Not that there is anything you could do with 6000KW, with the drive traction most cars have.
Superglue coated tires? :D
But really, the onset of full torque at idle (or lack of) is just enough for me to wet myself. Fucking imagine that. Jesus. No more keeping gears on the boil or keeping revs high on corner exit either.
Sponsored Link
2008-09-10, 15:37
As long as the bike is built similar it should have similar agility. Bikes go around corners pretty poorly anyway.
If you are talking about power, response time, eveness of torque - electric motors are super to petrol.
As of right now, we need a shit ton of cells to store enough power for one 1/4 mile run at full acceleration.
http://thekneeslider.com/images/killacyclebatteries.jpg
Thats the pic taken from the Killacycle, the drag bike.
frinkmakesyouthink
2008-09-27, 12:03
Buy a diesel
I know they're practically unheard of in the US, but in Europe nearly 50% of new cars sold are diesels. Modern diesels are refined, quiet and powerful, and many of them have lower CO2 outputs than the equivalent petrol engines, and get around 30% better economy. In the US I think diesel is cheaper than petrol, too.
Better still, buy an OLD diesel (pre-1990). With a few upgrades (stronger fuel pump, more regular servicing) they will run on vegetable oil (about 80p/litre in the uk, compared to 130 for pump diesel or 115 for petrol), waste vegetable oil (about 60p/litre in the uk) or kerosene mixed with vegetable oil (about 45p/litre in the uk). With older diesel peugeots, citroens and fords getting 60+ mpg, in terms of fuel cost you're getting 150+ mpg. That, and if you buy a really old car (pre-1985 say) you can get classic car insurance on it too, which is dirt cheap.
frinkmakesyouthink
2008-09-27, 12:05
Hello gearheads
Since when was this thread on page 11? When I typed that response it was still on page three, and still on topic too... serves me right for having a billion windows open and not going back to them for weeks at a time
This isn't gearheads - we sort of just invaded the clean tech forum when this thread came up.
Putting broken up pieces of brick, into the petrol tank.(Mechanics secret) Will make your petrol last longer.
It stops it evapourating, by absorbing it before it can leak out of the tank> the filler cap never creates a airtight seal, even if it looks like it does.
Sponsored Link
2008-09-27, 15:28
Putting broken up pieces of brick, into the petrol tank.(Mechanics secret) Will make your petrol last longer.
It stops it evapourating, by absorbing it before it can leak out of the tank> the filler cap never creates a airtight seal, even if it looks like it does.
This. Plus, when your engine burns the brick particles, they actually are resistant to explosion (think higher octane fuel) and add extra power.
Edit: And they take all that annoying paper material out of your fuel filter, which helps it flow better.
Galgamech
2008-09-28, 09:14
This. Plus, when your engine burns the brick particles, they actually are resistant to explosion (think higher octane fuel) and add extra power.
Edit: And they take all that annoying paper material out of your fuel filter, which helps it flow better.
I tried this a while ago and it has been working great.
wolfy_9005
2008-09-28, 09:48
Windows up or down shouldnt make too much difference.....it should work like the tailgate of a ute....it creates an eddy inside the car which keeps the air outside
fuck is it really 115p for petrol in the UK? Thats like $2.50 here.......
Damn you guys picked the wrong straw. Only $1.49/liter here.....
Minority Deport
2008-09-28, 10:34
Keep you tires inflated and don't worry about being a gas weenie. And don't call it hypermiling, it's just driving smarter.
Windows up or down shouldnt make too much difference.....it should work like the tailgate of a ute....it creates an eddy inside the car which keeps the air outside
Where's the energy for the eddy currents coming from? Burning fuel. It does make a difference. Maybe windows down would be better if the cost of leaving windows up is running the air conditioning. This would definitely be the case at low speeds.
Windows up or down shouldnt make too much difference.....it should work like the tailgate of a ute....it creates an eddy inside the car which keeps the air outside
fuck is it really 115p for petrol in the UK? Thats like $2.50 here.......
Damn you guys picked the wrong straw. Only $1.49/liter here.....
Having an open tray on the back of a ute really kills your drag coefficent, AFAIK.
And SLP is right about the eddy thing.
escape_reality
2008-09-29, 04:27
Putting broken up pieces of brick, into the petrol tank.(Mechanics secret) Will make your petrol last longer.
It stops it evapourating, by absorbing it before it can leak out of the tank> the filler cap never creates a airtight seal, even if it looks like it does.
I have been doing this for years, it's good for the engine.
you have to break it up small though.
1337m4j33ky
2008-09-30, 01:31
adding acetone to your gasoline, about half a cup per 5 gallons, will increase fuel economy by about 10 - 15 percent, and substantially reduce engine wear and tear. reason being, the acetone assists in the vaporization of the gasoline, meaning less residue and more efficient burn. and it's cheap, too.
http://neubranderinc.com/blog/2007/01/03/acetone-in-gasoline-busted/
More proof can be gathered by googling "acetone to gasoline"
The Methematician
2008-10-09, 10:20
Keep a bottle of water on the floor in your car. Try to have it tip over as least often as possible. If you try to keep it standing, your driving will become smoother as you accelerate and brake easier and will improve your fuel economy.
you've been watching too much of this huh...
http://www.jc.testinggrounds.co.uk/JC_Images/InitialD.jpg
or maybe you should do this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spw22taSfDs
illustro_res
2008-10-15, 04:17
using the power of nigger we could eliminate fossil fuels. 12 niggerpowered car. using crack cocaine as there sole source of energy the output is limitless!
Is this good/bad for the car?
When I see the lights on red, or a queue of traffic, I slip the car into neutral, foot off the clutch, and just roll. Saves my brakes unnecessary work. I get stuck in traffic in the same spots most days, cant avoid it. But the mile stretch I get stuck in, is downhill. So I just put it in neutral, and roll; instead of putting it into first all the time, only to move a couple meters.
The Methematician
2008-10-31, 19:34
Is this good/bad for the car?
When I see the lights on red, or a queue of traffic, I slip the car into neutral, foot off the clutch, and just roll. Saves my brakes unnecessary work. I get stuck in traffic in the same spots most days, cant avoid it. But the mile stretch I get stuck in, is downhill. So I just put it in neutral, and roll; instead of putting it into first all the time, only to move a couple meters.
I did this all the time, and I think it's good for the car. Just remember if you turn off the engine, your breaking power will be reduced to something like 30% which means you have to depress the brake pedal 70% harder, cos my bet is your car is using a simple brake booster in it....which depends on the engine's suction to work....
Is this good/bad for the car?
When I see the lights on red, or a queue of traffic, I slip the car into neutral, foot off the clutch, and just roll. Saves my brakes unnecessary work. I get stuck in traffic in the same spots most days, cant avoid it. But the mile stretch I get stuck in, is downhill. So I just put it in neutral, and roll; instead of putting it into first all the time, only to move a couple meters.
Of course that is a good idea. Also turning off the engine down the hill. As Methematician said power assisted braking will not work. However, you will generally get three power assisted brakes after the engine is turned off.
If the hill isn't that steep then you can easily use the brakes without power assist.
Also turning off the engine down the hill.
Engine off + car moving + transmission in neutral = no lubrication for some gears = transmission damage
Engine off + car moving + transmission in gear + clutch in = worn throwout bearing = transmission damage
Engine off + car moving + transmission in gear + clutch out = shit goes wrong.
therefore:
Engine off + car moving = dumb idea in general
The Methematician
2008-11-01, 04:54
Engine off + car moving + transmission in neutral = no lubrication for some gears = transmission damage
[1] You fucking dumb ass, all gearboxes are half-submerged in lubricant you fuck-fuck-fuck half-fuckin-wit !
[2] It's just like saying leaving the engine on idling while in NEUTRAL would damage the engine as well, since engine running = gears are spinning. And no, your engine doesn't run *ANY* gearbox-lubrication-system you....
half-fucking-tard.
Sponsored Link
2008-11-01, 04:56
[1] You fucking dumb ass, all gearboxes are half-submerged in lubricant you fuck-fuck-fuck half-fuckin-wit !
[2] It's just like saying leaving the engine on idling while in NEUTRAL would damage the engine as well, since engine running = gears are spinning. And no, your engine doesn't run *ANY* gearbox-lubrication-system you....
half-fucking-tard.
AhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Obviously wargsm's vehicle has a manual transmission. You don't need the engine running for lubrication in a manual transmission. An automatic on the other hand does have hydraulics which are powered from the engine side.
The Methematician
2008-11-01, 06:11
Obviously wargsm's vehicle has a manual transmission. You don't need the engine running for lubrication in a manual transmission. An automatic on the other hand does have hydraulics which are powered from the engine side.
NO, not directly....an automatic / semi-automatic gearbox is also half-submerged in lubricant, and all of then have sort-of torque converter that works in one-way, so when you loose power from the engine, all gears are freed up and spinning freely in a tub-full of ATF,
Will it wear down the gear lining pad ? sure, a little bit, but not more than a few seconds of engine running idly if you do it everyday for a few years.....
The Methematician
2008-11-01, 06:13
AhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
you laffin at me, or with me ?
[1] You fucking dumb ass, all gearboxes are half-submerged in lubricant you fuck-fuck-fuck half-fuckin-wit !
[2] It's just like saying leaving the engine on idling while in NEUTRAL would damage the engine as well, since engine running = gears are spinning. And no, your engine doesn't run *ANY* gearbox-lubrication-system you....
half-fucking-tard.
You're right, the gearbox is half submerged.
So tell me, while the output shaft is spinning with the wheels, and the gears are decisively not spinning, being that the dog clutches are disengaged, how is lubricant getting to the bearings on the unsubmerged part of the gearbox between the output shaft and not-so-spinning gears?
FYI, sponno was laughing at you.
The Methematician
2008-11-01, 14:08
You're right, the gearbox is half submerged.
I'm *ALWAYS* right, if you still didn't know bout that, :
your an ehswhore.
So tell me, while the output shaft is spinning with the wheels, and the gears are decisively not spinning, being that the dog clutches are disengaged, how is lubricant getting to the bearings on the unsubmerged part of the gearbox between the output shaft and not-so-spinning gears?
I thought of looking for a jpeg to show you just how high those gears are submerged in lubricant (*ALL* main gears and bearings are 1/2 submerged in oil) but then considering your assholation and your half-tardation, or half-witation and the probability that you might not understand them/ imagine how they works, that might be just as good as pouring valuable alcohols down the toilet, so I did that instead.
FYI, sponno was laughing at you.
I hope for his sake it ain't true.....
ehswhore
In *some* gearboxes the output shaft can be partially submerged, though the gears dont turn so there isn't any actual splashing, and it's not necessarily going to be enough to save your bearings.
Rather than fight my own battles, I prefer to let others do it for me:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=146438&page=1
I love that website.
Sponsored Link
2008-11-01, 17:21
I hope for his sake it ain't true.....
ehswhore
You... you just keep on posting, son. Rarely do we find someone as humorously retarded as you are.
Just keep on doing what you're doing.
HAHAHAHAHH
Just to clarify, I never said anything about turning the engine off. It's a manual transmition, I just meant that I slip it into neutral and let it roll. Someone told me it was bad for the car, something about the breaks siezing. I have a very small knowledge of vehicle mechanics though, so was looking for some opinions.
Just to clarify, I never said anything about turning the engine off. It's a manual transmition, I just meant that I slip it into neutral and let it roll. Someone told me it was bad for the car, something about the breaks siezing. I have a very small knowledge of vehicle mechanics though, so was looking for some opinions.
i am not sure about manuals but in auto transmissions it is bad for you to put it into neutral because it is no longer feeding liquid into your engine so even though all the parts are moving there isn't proper lubrication, thus better chance of it siezing up. not sure about manuals though.
The Methematician
2008-11-24, 08:42
.....into neutral because it is no longer feeding liquid into your engine so .....
My Gawd, people who frequent this place are .... retarded. Mods and regs alike.
Ar hahahahahahahah.....
i am not sure about manuals but in auto transmissions it is bad for you to put it into neutral because it is no longer feeding liquid into your engine so even though all the parts are moving there isn't proper lubrication, thus better chance of it siezing up. not sure about manuals though.
i highly suggest you get your oil checked. I fear you may have forgotten about that part of your car.