???What am i doing wrong???
#31
05-04-2007, 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by TNC
Acetone is a pretty strong solvent. Stronger than gasoline as we have to use special gloves to handle it. It eats up a lot of orings. I wouldn't chance it on my truck.
I do all the math by hand. I fill it up and divide the mileage on the odometer by the gallons filled. then I reset the odometer for next time. that digital readout is completely useless except to tell you when you have a lead foot
#32
05-04-2007, 04:45 PM
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#33
05-04-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Grubrunner
I don't know weather the "acetone" mixed with fuel idea works for everyone and anyone or not but I do remember Mythbusters doing an episode on this a while back and, while it didn't cause any damage to the engine or any mechanical parts whatsoever, it did next to nothing for improved fuel consumption. In fact, it slightly increased fuel consumption. [LINK]
Many claim, on various boards, the Mythbusters episode/test was flawed.
For the record, I ran acetone in my modded '04 GTO maybe one-half dozen times over a eight month period. I used two and one-half oz. for every ten gallon fill. I did see a slight improvement in EVERY instance but it wasn't dramatic. Certainly not enough for me to continue doing it. It became a PITA over time so I stopped using it. I had absolutely NO engine problems whatsoever.
I did the identical thing in my wife's bone-stock '02 Highlander for close to a year. There was, this time, a significant improvement with no engine problems [whatsoever] but, once again, it became a PITA so I discontinued it.
I also believe that acetone use is dependent. Meaning factors like driving conditions, driving styles, driving habits and most importantly vehicle/engine type will depend on weather it works or not... or at least how well it works or not.
For the record, I don't recommend or condemn it's use.... I've just forwarded my experience.
Your call entirely.
Good luck.
Many claim, on various boards, the Mythbusters episode/test was flawed.
For the record, I ran acetone in my modded '04 GTO maybe one-half dozen times over a eight month period. I used two and one-half oz. for every ten gallon fill. I did see a slight improvement in EVERY instance but it wasn't dramatic. Certainly not enough for me to continue doing it. It became a PITA over time so I stopped using it. I had absolutely NO engine problems whatsoever.
I did the identical thing in my wife's bone-stock '02 Highlander for close to a year. There was, this time, a significant improvement with no engine problems [whatsoever] but, once again, it became a PITA so I discontinued it.
I also believe that acetone use is dependent. Meaning factors like driving conditions, driving styles, driving habits and most importantly vehicle/engine type will depend on weather it works or not... or at least how well it works or not.
For the record, I don't recommend or condemn it's use.... I've just forwarded my experience.
Your call entirely.
Good luck.
.They could not get a vehicle to pole-vault, so they declared it bogus. I guess all those pole-vaulting vehicles really don't exist.
Far be it from them to admit that perhaps thier testing procedure was flawed. Nooo - not them.
Good 'ol Internet... LOL!
Are you really that gullible? WHAT PART OF ACETONE IS CORROSIVE don't you get?
Holy crap. Go put E85 in your tank next, Einstein.
Kids ...
#34
05-04-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by MGDfan
FYI - Mythbusters is a joke. In the same ( 'tarded) league as Constipational Reports .
They could not get a vehicle to pole-vault, so they declared it bogus. I guess all those pole-vaulting vehicles really don't exist.
Far be it from them to admit that perhaps thier testing procedure was flawed. Nooo - not them.
Good 'ol Internet... LOL!
Are you really that gullible? WHAT PART OF ACETONE IS CORROSIVE don't you get?
Holy crap. Go put E85 in your tank next, Einstein.
Kids ...
.They could not get a vehicle to pole-vault, so they declared it bogus. I guess all those pole-vaulting vehicles really don't exist.
Far be it from them to admit that perhaps thier testing procedure was flawed. Nooo - not them.
Good 'ol Internet... LOL!
Are you really that gullible? WHAT PART OF ACETONE IS CORROSIVE don't you get?
Holy crap. Go put E85 in your tank next, Einstein.
Kids ...
#36
05-04-2007, 09:10 PM
#37
05-04-2007, 09:20 PM
#38
05-04-2007, 09:51 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThumperMX113
. . as much as I agree with you a lot of the times, wheres your usual flaunt to get a 'Troyer Xcal2!'
--
Anyway, yeah I do the math by hand. I divide the number of miles by the gallons I put in every single fill-up. It's always right around 12 city.
#39
05-04-2007, 10:32 PM
Does anyone REALLY know exactly how the message center in a Lariat derives the MPG figure? No speculation please. Just the facts. If this MPG number is derived by inputs such as TPS, vehicle speed and the like, then I agree, not very accurate.
B U T , if this MPG number is derived by injector PW and duty cycle, then …. uh… that number will be VASTLY more accurate than any calculator toting, receipt reading bumpkin could ever hope to record.
Food for thought as I have no idea how this number is calculated, but the numbers mentioned above are already monitored by the computer, so it stands to reason that it could easily use these numbers to accurately meter the fuel and derive a MPG for the message center display…..
Oh, and MGDfan, I too saw your original post b4 you edited it. Very abrasive indeed. Funny as hell, but abrasive.
Good thing Thump has a sense of humor.
B U T , if this MPG number is derived by injector PW and duty cycle, then …. uh… that number will be VASTLY more accurate than any calculator toting, receipt reading bumpkin could ever hope to record.
Food for thought as I have no idea how this number is calculated, but the numbers mentioned above are already monitored by the computer, so it stands to reason that it could easily use these numbers to accurately meter the fuel and derive a MPG for the message center display…..
Oh, and MGDfan, I too saw your original post b4 you edited it. Very abrasive indeed. Funny as hell, but abrasive.
Good thing Thump has a sense of humor.
#40
05-04-2007, 11:16 PM
Originally Posted by rms8
B U T , if this MPG number is derived by injector PW and duty cycle, then …. uh… that number will be VASTLY more accurate than any calculator toting, receipt reading bumpkin could ever hope to record.
your message center thingy says that you got 20 mpg...what to believe?
I don't care how "accurate" that thing is supposed to be, you can't squeeze mileage out of nothing. you can get differences in tank levels when filling as a variance, but for the most part, the only true litmus test of MPG will be the tank to tank mileage that is averaged out over ~5 tanks with similar driving on each tank. and it should all be done with hand calculations
like I've said, that dash thing is just a lead foot indicator. it's kinda like a mood ring.
#41
05-04-2007, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by rms8
Oh, and MGDfan, I too saw your original post b4 you edited it. Very abrasive indeed. Funny as hell, but abrasive. Good thing Thump has a sense of humor.
Good thing Thump has a sense of humor.
#42
05-04-2007, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by Tylus
lets do some simple math: you put 15 gallons into a tank that only hold 30 gallons with 255 miles on that tank. we will assume the tank was at max capacity before and is at max capacity now...you get 17 mpg by using simple math.
your message center thingy says that you got 20 mpg...what to believe?
I don't care how "accurate" that thing is supposed to be, you can't squeeze mileage out of nothing. you can get differences in tank levels when filling as a variance, but for the most part, the only true litmus test of MPG will be the tank to tank mileage that is averaged out over ~5 tanks with similar driving on each tank. and it should all be done with hand calculations
like I've said, that dash thing is just a lead foot indicator. it's kinda like a mood ring.
your message center thingy says that you got 20 mpg...what to believe?
I don't care how "accurate" that thing is supposed to be, you can't squeeze mileage out of nothing. you can get differences in tank levels when filling as a variance, but for the most part, the only true litmus test of MPG will be the tank to tank mileage that is averaged out over ~5 tanks with similar driving on each tank. and it should all be done with hand calculations
like I've said, that dash thing is just a lead foot indicator. it's kinda like a mood ring.
Don’t get me wrong. The hand method is very good, but are you insinuating that the computer feeding fuel to the engine might not know exactly to the milliliter how much fuel the engine is consuming? That the computer isn’t “smart” enough to take this infinitely accurate amount of fuel consumed and derive a MPG based on how far the tire has rotated vs. how much fuel the engine has consumed during that revolution?
Again, I have no idea how the engineers at Ford programmed the message center, but it doesn’t take a doctorate to realize that a superior metering system IS available via the on board computer. The question simply is how is that number calculated?
Sorry if I was confusing before.
#43
05-05-2007, 02:55 AM
true, the computer with more sensors and data logging capability would be able to give an accurate MPG down to about I'd say 1/2 a mile...
if you watch that meter though, it is giving an "average" of the current driving conditions that it is monitoring. if polled, you could probably get 90% of the people who have it who will say that they hand calculated #'s very wildly from the computer #'s.
I don't know if there are any Ford engineers on this site. I think this is a question one of those guys should answer. I'm calling it a predictive system that averages inputs to compute a MPG you can expect, not what you actually get. Not a real time calculated system based upon engine & computer inputs.
if you watch that meter though, it is giving an "average" of the current driving conditions that it is monitoring. if polled, you could probably get 90% of the people who have it who will say that they hand calculated #'s very wildly from the computer #'s.
I don't know if there are any Ford engineers on this site. I think this is a question one of those guys should answer. I'm calling it a predictive system that averages inputs to compute a MPG you can expect, not what you actually get. Not a real time calculated system based upon engine & computer inputs.
#44
05-05-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by Tylus
... not what you actually get. Not a real time calculated system based upon engine & computer inputs.
There's this really ultra cool fancy feature that comes with the message center.....it's called a RESET button. You hit that and what ever it displays is a real time display of the most current MPG you will be getting.
I just reset it when I want to know what the MPG is at that very point in time. Going up a hill you will see the MPG start to drop. Drive into a head wind, you'll see the MPG drop. Go down hill or get a tail wind and you'll see the MPG rise.
So, hit the reset button and you'll know that "real time" figure instead of waiting till your next fill up to get that coveted receipt.
#45
05-05-2007, 04:27 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rich, Virginia
Posts: 2,723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MGDfan
FYI - Mythbusters is a joke. In the same ( 'tarded) league as Constipational Reports .
They could not get a vehicle to pole-vault, so they declared it bogus. I guess all those pole-vaulting vehicles really don't exist.
Far be it from them to admit that perhaps thier testing procedure was flawed. Nooo - not them.
Good 'ol Internet... LOL!
Are you really that gullible? WHAT PART OF ACETONE IS CORROSIVE don't you get?
Holy crap. Go put E85 in your tank next, Einstein.
Kids ...
.They could not get a vehicle to pole-vault, so they declared it bogus. I guess all those pole-vaulting vehicles really don't exist.
Far be it from them to admit that perhaps thier testing procedure was flawed. Nooo - not them.
Good 'ol Internet... LOL!
Are you really that gullible? WHAT PART OF ACETONE IS CORROSIVE don't you get?
Holy crap. Go put E85 in your tank next, Einstein.
Kids ...
I forwarded my experience as a reference for those interested, and clearly made a disclaimer at the end of my post. You claim it's "corrosive" yet I had no problems whatsoever with either vehicle... now who's the "Einstein," Einstein? For the record, I know of, at least a dozen people who have taken the same route... without the inkling of a problem.
As for the "kids" comment, I'm far from it, sunshine.... far from it!
Time for me to roll my eyes...
Thanks for coming.