Anyone heard of adding acetone to your gas to improve MPG?

Would your emissions go up?

Is it legal?

Is it harmful to your car?

Overall is the production of acetone more harmful than the production of gas per mile driven?

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/new...00069_Acetone/

 

Mythbusters tested it:
They tested each car on the dynamometer at 35mph and 55mph with each 'device.'
Carburetor car:

• Baseline: 17mpg at 35mph and 25mpg at 55mph
• Acetone: 16.7mpg at 35mph and 24mpg at 55mph busted

Fuel-injected car

• Baseline: 19mpg at 35mph and 27mpg at 55mph
• Acetone: 18mpg at 35mph and 26mpg at 55mph busted

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/05/exploding_trousers_great_gas_conspiracy.html

Other sources:
http://cartalk.com/content/columns/A...anuary/08.html
Bob Wilson

 

Ya gotta ask yourself ... if it is a solvent for rubber then it chemically suspends it as some other compound, probably in liquid form but could also be an emulsion.

In either case, the emulsion/compound has its own set of properties different from the refined fuel. Chemical, Thermal and/or physical. So where does it go when you transport the fuel through the filter, injectors and intake valves, and then burn the fuel?

Umm, lets see -- some possibilities are fuel filter (clog or blockage), Fuel Injectors (this CAN'T be good), intake valves, rings, exhaust valves and finally, catalytic system.

Nope, I don't think I want to try it!

 

I've also heard that acetone burns very hot...hotter than gasoline which is why it doesn't increase gas mileage.

Any gas wizards want to confirm that?

 

You've never ignited acetone? It burns producing lots of soot. That plays havoc in the intake system (yes, some burned stuff does get into the intake system). Ditto for Xylene and toluene. Now some gas companies do add these two to increase octane ratings, particularly in the premium fuel they sell, and they do clog the intake systems eventually with soot. Hence the now standard "decarboning" procedure recommended by several vehicle manufacturers, such as Chev., at certain mileage intervals.

 

Just use some ethanol instead.

I have found out you can run any % of ethanol in a Ford I4 engine with no mechanical mods. You don't need any mods at all for 50% ethanol or less.

For 50% to 85% ethanol, you need a computer chip mod only.
http://www.change2e85.com/servlet/StoreFront

The stock engine and stock injectors are fully capable of using E85. You only need a chip mod to keep the car's ECU computer from freaking out from all the extra oxygen.

I have used E10, E25, E40, E60 with no mods at all.
I have used E75, E80, and E85 with the chip mod only.

MPG goes down, but cost per mile can also go down.

-John

 

What's the timeframe and miles driven this way? any long term issues?

I am a HUGE ethanol skeptic, just to put that out there. with the negative energy balance, the enormous water and fertilizer usage, plus the subsidies to grow corn for fuel. and even the cleaner argument has some things missing. Just thinking out loud here...

 

Too soon for anything to be "long-term" for me. I've used high % ethanol just since January. ( and about 6 tanks full )

Thanks for the water article.
That affirms what I've been saying... ethanol production uses a pretty small amount of water, relative to other industries. I have visited several ethanol plants, and I used to work at one in 2006. I can confirm at the plant site, the use of 3 gallons of water per 1 gallon of ethanol is very typical. Most of that is lost to evaporation. Some water, as much as 25% of that 3 gallons is trucked away in wet or moist livestock feed, thus reducing the amount of water consumed by the local feed lots. The water recovery and recycling at ethanol plants is remarkable. Usually, there is zero liquid water discharge to the environment... unlike the petrolem industry.

At small to medium plants, where the used grain ( high in protein and fat, only the sugars are removed for ethanol ) can be used in wet or moist form ( "wetcake" ) the fossil fuel use is 19,000 btu per gallon of ethanol.
At large plants, where some or most of the "wetcake" needs to be dried to store in silos, or shipped by rail, the btu use goes up to about 35,000 btu per gallon. At these plants, the wetcake goes through something very similar to a clothes dryer... and you know how much energy a clothes dryer takes, now scale that up.

Each gallon of ethanol contains about 76,000 btu of energy.
Ethanol production is more energy effiecient than gasoline production.
Ethanol production takes less water than gasoline production too.

From the article:
"96% of corn used for ethanol is not irrigated."

I knew the majority of corn wasn't, but I didn't know the number was that high. Cool. Thanks for sharing that.

There was one error in that article though. The part about the 4% of irregated corn is incomplete.

The part about irregated corn using "785 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol produced" is hugely mis-leading. 785 gallons is the amount of water that is spread onto the fields, or flooded onto the land. Some of this water evaporates, of course, and the majority of it sinks into the water table. What does not evaporate or soak into the water table runs off into rivers and streams. A very small percentage of the 785 gallons goes into the actual corn used for ethanol.
That article mentions:

"Petroleum refining, for example, has the highest rate
of water recycling of any major industry."

False! ethanol recycles near 100%! Maybe the author does not consider ethanol a "major industry"?

"Water use ranges between 65 and 90 gallons per barrel of crude oil processed and wastewater discharge ranges between
20 and 40 gallons, leaving 45 to 50 gallons of water consumed per barrel, or 2 to 2.5 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline. However, the ratio is lower if all fuel products are considered."

Okay, by the same token, that article should say:

Of the 785 gallons of water spread into irregated corn fields, 400 gallons* returns to the water table, 300 gallons* flows back into rivers and streams, 80 gallons* evaporates, and 5 gallons* is used by the corn plants. However, the ratio is even lower when you consider 3 gallons* is returned in the form of livestock feed. *approximate

That article was useful overall. Thanks for posting.
-John

 

So you're okay with cheap fuel and can ignore the subsidies, claiming over a dollar less per gallon than gasoline? If the true cost of ethanol (or gasoline, really) came into the picture, then the actual numbers would change. We need to figure out how to show that oil subsidies and farmer/ethanol subsidies are part of the cost we ALL pay (taxes). What about 'protecting' those oil sources in other countries? what's that cost when added to a gallon of gas? Of course we all want a cheap alternative to gasoline...but that's where the reallity is far from the average driver. I am not convinced ethanol can stand up on it's own using corn. Seems a diversion from a true solution: EVs and renewable energy. Simple.

 

While I think ethanol is better than gasoline, I do think it is only slightly better, environmentally. However, factor in the price of war, and Gasoline is really over $10 a gallon.

You bring up a very good point.
You do not need to take ethanol from half-way around the world with use of gunships and huge army platoons.

Part of the benefit is, lack of long-distance transport, and Armed Forces involvement. Plus it comes from many small sources, vs. one large source, so there is inherent stability with ethanol. Even a weather related intervention ( drought, unexpected frost ) is unlikely to affect the entire supply at once.

Can't say that about middle-east oil.
-John