Good article and some very useful information.

I have worked with acetone for many years, fiberglass processes.. One should
also note that Acetone will absorb large quantizes of moisture when the
container is left open or as the amount of Acetone is reduced in the
container and air replaces this absent volume. ( I use to know this in my
younger days, but all I remember now is that Acetone can absorb many times
it's own volume.) This moisture in the Acetone, most likely, will effect the
expected performance in this case. (I know it does when cleaning surfaces
with Acetone.)

I would recommend obtaining small glass bottles that would hold the exact
amount you are going to add to your tank. That way there would not be a
minimum air space above the Acetone. These small container could be filled
at home in a controlled environment.

I don't recommend using most plastic containers with Acetone since it will
eventually dissolve or soften this material. Metal or glass is all I ever
use. A small plastic funnel could be used for decanting the Acetone since
the residual will evaporate before any harm to the plastic is done.


--
My experience and opinion, FWIW

Steve
"Kaiser Sose" <Kaiser@kobayashi.com> wrote in message
news:n03fk199ml37avpld9nm19b3d12r50coa4@4ax.com...
> On 8 Oct 2005 07:31:05 GMT, Kaiser Sose <Kaiser@kobayashi.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>I've been hearing alot about increased mileage and other benefits of
>>adding acetone to fuel (about 2.5 ounces per 10 gallons). I havent
>>heard of any bad incidents happening. a few people claim to have done
>>tests and everthing I could find online seems to be good. Has anyone
>>here tried it before...good?...bad? I'm considering trying it
>>out...2.5 Oz/10 gals seems to be diluted enough not to cause harm.
>> Pete
>>
>>________________________________________________ _______________________________
>>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>>http://www.uncensored-news.com
>> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>> <><><><><><><><>
>>
> Heres what I found so far
> http://www.pureenergysystems.com/new...00069_Acetone/
>
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
> http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
> <><><><><><><><>
>

 

Steve wrote:

> I don't recommend using most plastic containers with Acetone since it will
> eventually dissolve or soften this material. Metal or glass is all I ever
> use. A small plastic funnel could be used for decanting the Acetone since
> the residual will evaporate before any harm to the plastic is done.

Keep in mind that acetone (more commonly known as nail polish remover)
WILL soften, melt, and/or dissolve some plastics.

My concern is how it might affect fuel level sensors, especially with
some Hondas like my Accord, where the fuel pump is also inside the tank.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0540-8, 10/07/2005
Tested on: 10/9/2005 10:54:46 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

>Good article and some very useful information.

Heh.

The latest urban myth. Ask yourself:

If it is so easy and simple, why hasn't it been done before (let's
not hear the usual nonsensical oil/auto cabal conspiracy stuff
again). Why wouldn't an auto company have used this for their
advantage? Instead, they want to invest $billions in hybrids that
give no better benefit??

If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone
(otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing
the fuel?), why does that not result in violation of the emissions
laws now? Yes, it could all be burnt in the cat, but that would fry
the cat rather quickly.

Sorry, this is the latest internet joke.

 

my boss used it and went from 36 mpg to 45 mpg in his tercel. he
stopped using it and on his first tank without acetone has dropped
back to 40mpg. he's expecting by his next tank he'll be back down
to 36 mpg again.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:11:24 GMT, dm@nospam.com (Dave) wrote:

>
>>Good article and some very useful information.
>
>Heh.
>
>The latest urban myth. Ask yourself:
>
>If it is so easy and simple, why hasn't it been done before (let's
>not hear the usual nonsensical oil/auto cabal conspiracy stuff
>again). Why wouldn't an auto company have used this for their
>advantage? Instead, they want to invest $billions in hybrids that
>give no better benefit??
>
>If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone
>(otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing
>the fuel?), why does that not result in violation of the emissions
>laws now? Yes, it could all be burnt in the cat, but that would fry
>the cat rather quickly.
>
>Sorry, this is the latest internet joke.

 

Dave wrote:

> If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone
> (otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing
> the fuel?), why does that not result in violation of the emissions
> laws now? Yes, it could all be burnt in the cat, but that would fry
> the cat rather quickly.
>

I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is
well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling.

Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make
better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about
15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small car, which gave
surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or two degrees hotter
than typical car engines.

Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel
mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different.
Your unburned fuel is indeed burned in the catalytic converter. That's
why it's dangerous to park on a pile of leaves.

It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or
maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the
plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the
expense of ruining the car.

 

Robbie and Laura Reynolds <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote in
news:434EE907.C8C17D74@kcnet.com:

>
>
> Dave wrote:
>
>> If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone
>> (otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing
>> the fuel?), why does that not result in violation of the emissions
>> laws now? Yes, it could all be burnt in the cat, but that would fry
>> the cat rather quickly.
>>
>
> I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is
> well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling.



You're thinking of the WOT enrichment feature. That's indeed there to
protect various emissions components.


>
> Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make
> better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about
> 15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small car, which gave
> surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or two degrees hotter
> than typical car engines.


Would this be the "adiabatic" thing that was experimentally big in the mid-
'80s, but never went anywhere past that?


>
> Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel
> mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different.
> Your unburned fuel is indeed burned in the catalytic converter. That's
> why it's dangerous to park on a pile of leaves.
>
> It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or
> maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the
> plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the
> expense of ruining the car.


I did some Internet digging about just that, with inconclusive results. I
think the problem is that nobody involved in this debate is a chemist,
nobody has any idea what polymers are used in automotive seals, and
therefore nobody has any idea if acetone would cause damage or not.

In other words, you're all dumb, but are all pretending not to be.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"TeGGeR®" wrote:
>
> Robbie and Laura Reynolds <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote in
> news:434EE907.C8C17D74@kcnet.com:

> > I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is
> > well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling.
>
> You're thinking of the WOT enrichment feature. That's indeed there to
> protect various emissions components.


I'll tell you up front that I don't have a lot of specialized knowledge
of modern computerized automotive fuel systems, emission systems or
control systems. All I am saying is that common gasoline engines made
of iron and/or aluminum would be destroyed by the heat produced by
gasoline burning at its optimal mixture ratio with air. It's just too
hot for common materials. For this simple reason, the gasoline is
burned in a richer ratio so that the vaporization of the extra gasoline
will absorb the heat energy and protect the engine from burning up.
This happens at all throttle settings and all driving conditions.


> > Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make
> > better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about
> > 15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small car, which gave
> > surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or two degrees hotter
> > than typical car engines.
>
> Would this be the "adiabatic" thing that was experimentally big in the mid-
> '80s, but never went anywhere past that?

I don't remember what they called it, but it used high temp materials.
Now that I'm thinking about it, ceramics could have been involved to
some extent.


> > Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel
> > mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different.
> > Your unburned fuel is indeed burned in the catalytic converter. That's
> > why it's dangerous to park on a pile of leaves.
> >
> > It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or
> > maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the
> > plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the
> > expense of ruining the car.
>
> I did some Internet digging about just that, with inconclusive results. I
> think the problem is that nobody involved in this debate is a chemist,
> nobody has any idea what polymers are used in automotive seals, and
> therefore nobody has any idea if acetone would cause damage or not.
>
> In other words, you're all dumb, but are all pretending not to be.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>

You could say that they're optimistic but short-sighted.

I suppose you could go to the junkyard and remove a sample of every
plastic part in the fuel system of a car similar to your own, and see if
acetone has any detrimental effect on it. That sure would be a lot of
trouble... But that's the great thing about the internet. If this
method really does improve mileage, sooner or later somebody will
probably start a database of such information. I hope nobody melts down
their fuel pump body in the meantime.

By the way, thanks for your FAQ site. A few weeks ago I bought a Honda
that was doing some strange things. Your links led me to the fault code
info that helped me fix it easily. (actually the problem was kind of
obvious, but it was good to be sure.)

 

In article <434F0A10.5659A8BA@kcnet.com>, Robbie and Laura Reynolds <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote:

>I'll tell you up front that I don't have a lot of specialized knowledge
>of modern computerized automotive fuel systems, emission systems or
>control systems. All I am saying is that common gasoline engines made
>of iron and/or aluminum would be destroyed by the heat produced by
>gasoline burning at its optimal mixture ratio with air. It's just too
>hot for common materials. For this simple reason, the gasoline is
>burned in a richer ratio so that the vaporization of the extra gasoline
>will absorb the heat energy and protect the engine from burning up.
>This happens at all throttle settings and all driving conditions.

Nah, AFAIK most engines run very close to "stoichiometric" air:fuel
ratio (14.7:1 lbs) at most throttle settings. See:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm

The O2 sensor checks this.

Throttle enrichment _is_ used at higher throttle settings, in part
to do the cooling you mention, in part to make more power. But
otherwise, if it ran rich at normal settings, there would be an
awful lot of unburn HC's going through the exhaust. The cat could
catch some, IF there was extra air there to burn it. There is some
O2 storage capability of the cat support, and one can use a
secondary air pump to do this. But I do not think these normally
come into play much, though I'm no cat expert. And OTOH, note that
lean-burn engines, like direct injection, can run, duh, lean.
There, I suppose, the issue is high NOx which can be addressed with
special cat design.

See, for instance:
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/i...gy/env_04.html
and
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/tt/l...nologies/index.
php?fuseaction=home.viewTechnology&id=549

 

Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
>
>
>>If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone
>>(otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing
>>the fuel?), why does that not result in violation of the emissions
>>laws now? Yes, it could all be burnt in the cat, but that would fry
>>the cat rather quickly.
>>
>
>
> I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is
> well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling.

no it's not. exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been
dropped these days, and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston
crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber with
throttle open? no.

>
> Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make
> better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about
> 15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small car, which gave
> surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or two degrees hotter
> than typical car engines.

higher temps make for better thermodynamic efficiency, and all kinds of
research has been done on higher temperature combusion technology, not
just some random experiment on a v-2 engine [configuration is UTTERLY
irrelevant btw]. but the bottom line is, it'll never come to pass
because there's problems wil NOx emissions and the materials that
survive these higher temps cost too much and last /way/ too long.

>
> Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel
> mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different.
> Your unburned fuel is indeed burned in the catalytic converter. That's
> why it's dangerous to park on a pile of leaves.

eh? there's three reactions going on in a catalyst. they all generate
heat. only one is anything to do with hydrocarbons, and the load
relative to the volume of combustion product passing through it is
pretty light if the engine/management system is within spec.

>
> It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or
> maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the
> plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the
> expense of ruining the car.

why don't you look up the calorific value of acetone and compare it with
gasoline? there'a no "we'll just have to see" about it.

 

In article <-_KdnUY00u59qdLeRVn-qA@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:

>> I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is
>> well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling.
>
>no it's not. exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been
>dropped these days, and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston
>crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber with
>throttle open? no.


Hmmm. Are you sure you are up to speed on this. AFAIK...
(a) EGR is still used. Do a quick google of EGR and any
recent car. I came up with...
www.begierbuick.com/rendezvous_info.htm
(b) EGR was probably never used at full power for cooling. Well
maybe it was, but I couldn't fathom why. It puts diluent in rather
than valuable air. Air which would allow more fuel, and thus more
power. Why would you size an engine and then only use part of it at
full power by running an inert-diluted gas through it that lowers
that max power?
(c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of
the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of
ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel.

Geez.


>survive these higher temps cost too much and last /way/ too long.

Your usual conspiracy gambit, eh?
I'll agree with the first part (cost). Yeah, we want to sell you
engines that don't last. The vehicle itself (and in most
cases, people's taste) is what limits the life of the vast majority
of vehicle's life, not the primary engine components.


>> It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or
>> maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the
>> plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the
>> expense of ruining the car.

>why don't you look up the calorific value of acetone and compare it with
>gasoline? there'a no "we'll just have to see" about it.

I'm with you on this acetone thing being a fraud. But the argument
wasn't about it being due to added heating value, but instead due to
some magical increase of fuel vaporization/mixing/whatever. As if
15-30% of fuel is currently NOT vaporized at normal operating
conditions. Yeah, right (sigh).


The amount of half-correct, half-baked info in this (and most) ng's
and forums never ceases to amaze.

 

Dave wrote:
> In article <-_KdnUY00u59qdLeRVn-qA@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> >Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
>
> >> I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is
> >> well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling.
> >
> >no it's not. exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been
> >dropped these days, and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston
> >crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber with
> >throttle open? no.
>
>
> Hmmm. Are you sure you are up to speed on this. AFAIK...
> (a) EGR is still used. Do a quick google of EGR and any
> recent car. I came up with...
> www.begierbuick.com/rendezvous_info.htm
> (b) EGR was probably never used at full power for cooling. Well
> maybe it was, but I couldn't fathom why. It puts diluent in rather
> than valuable air. Air which would allow more fuel, and thus more
> power. Why would you size an engine and then only use part of it at
> full power by running an inert-diluted gas through it that lowers
> that max power?
> (c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of
> the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of
> ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel.
>
snip
+++++++++++++++++++++
The EGR is to reduce combustion temps so NOX aren't formed.
It takes very little to reduce the temps below this "magic" value.
Back when I had a Subrau I played with the EGR and found that shutting
it off did not improve my MPG. It knocked it down between 5% and 10%
and required the next higher octane to stop knock on hills. This was
on a 1980 1800cc non cat engine. The cars I have had since weren't as
easy to defeat the EGR valve and I wasn't all that inclined to
experiment. The car had just over 200K and the body was starting
to rust and we had bought another car so before she went to the
junk yard I tried some experiments. The only one that really helepd
was water injection, but I never found a "good" way to achieve it.
The amount of water had to be tweaked for ambiant temps. It gave
about a 5% boast in MPG, allowed me to use the lowest octane gas
I could find and improved acceleration up a step hill, KY 15 at Slade.

Several of the guys here at work are trying acetone and 2 have built in

MPG meters. So within a couple of weeks I ought to be able to relay any
results. One guy drives to Louisville 4 times a week , so the results
ought to be interesting.

Terry

 

Dave wrote:
> In article <-_KdnUY00u59qdLeRVn-qA@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:
>
>
>>>I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is
>>>well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling.
>>
>>no it's not. exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been
>>dropped these days, and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston
>>crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber with
>>throttle open? no.
>
>
>
> Hmmm. Are you sure you are up to speed on this. AFAIK...
> (a) EGR is still used. Do a quick google of EGR and any
> recent car. I came up with...
> www.begierbuick.com/rendezvous_info.htm

buick??? name one single aspect of design in which buick is innovative!
honda started to move away from egr in civics in 96 iirc -
reliability problems and the same effects can be achieved with valve
timing changes.

> (b) EGR was probably never used at full power for cooling. Well
> maybe it was, but I couldn't fathom why. It puts diluent in rather
> than valuable air. Air which would allow more fuel, and thus more
> power. Why would you size an engine and then only use part of it at
> full power by running an inert-diluted gas through it that lowers
> that max power?

because it reduces combusion temp and therefore NOx.

> (c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of
> the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of
> ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel.

vehicles won't smog at that level. the ecu can/does go rich on wot,
depending on other factors, but what percentage of a vehicle's life is
spent in that condition?

>
> Geez.
>
>
>
>>survive these higher temps cost too much and last /way/ too long.
>
>
> Your usual conspiracy gambit, eh?
> I'll agree with the first part (cost). Yeah, we want to sell you
> engines that don't last. The vehicle itself (and in most
> cases, people's taste) is what limits the life of the vast majority
> of vehicle's life, not the primary engine components.
>
>
>
>>>It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or
>>>maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the
>>>plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the
>>>expense of ruining the car.
>
>
>>why don't you look up the calorific value of acetone and compare it with
>>gasoline? there'a no "we'll just have to see" about it.
>
>
> I'm with you on this acetone thing being a fraud. But the argument
> wasn't about it being due to added heating value, but instead due to
> some magical increase of fuel vaporization/mixing/whatever. As if
> 15-30% of fuel is currently NOT vaporized at normal operating
> conditions. Yeah, right (sigh).
>
>
> The amount of half-correct, half-baked info in this (and most) ng's
> and forums never ceases to amaze.

 

Robbie and Laura Reynolds <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote in
news:434F0A10.5659A8BA@kcnet.com:

>
>
> "TeGGeR®" wrote:
>>
>> Robbie and Laura Reynolds <robbie@kcnet.com> wrote in
>> news:434EE907.C8C17D74@kcnet.com:
>
>> > I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it
>> > is well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for
>> > cooling.
>>
>> You're thinking of the WOT enrichment feature. That's indeed there to
>> protect various emissions components.
>
>
> I'll tell you up front that I don't have a lot of specialized
> knowledge of modern computerized automotive fuel systems, emission
> systems or control systems. All I am saying is that common gasoline
> engines made of iron and/or aluminum would be destroyed by the heat
> produced by gasoline burning at its optimal mixture ratio with air.
> It's just too hot for common materials.



That's what cooling systems are for.

Combustion chamber temperatures need to be under about 2,100F to prevent
formation of nitric oxides. Oil temperature needs to be under about 220F to
prevent coking. Coolant temperature needs to be under 212F (give a bit
more) to prevent boiling.



> For this simple reason, the
> gasoline is burned in a richer ratio so that the vaporization of the
> extra gasoline will absorb the heat energy and protect the engine from
> burning up. This happens at all throttle settings and all driving
> conditions.


If some portion of the gasoline fails to mate with oxygen, the result is
rich running, or high carbon monoxide readings, which I assure you are
rather tightly controlled these days. The aim of the oxygen sensor, as Dave
has pointed out, is to maintain the mixture such that the most complete
combustion can occur, and emissions are kept to their minimum, even absent
the cat.

At wide-open throttle (WOT) there is the possibility of lean condition,
which can overheat particular components to the point of damage. Additional
power is part of the reason for enrichment, such as in diesels, but is very
much subservient to emissions reduction.


>
>
>> > Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to
>> > make better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an
>> > article about 15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small
>> > car, which gave surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or
>> > two degrees hotter than typical car engines.
>>
>> Would this be the "adiabatic" thing that was experimentally big in
>> the mid- '80s, but never went anywhere past that?
>
> I don't remember what they called it, but it used high temp materials.
> Now that I'm thinking about it, ceramics could have been involved to
> some extent.


Ceramics did play a role, to be sure. The major problem with adiabatic
engines as I recall had to do with lubrication. Oils simply coked terribly.
They experimented with certain substances that were solid until an
electrical current was applied to them, at which point they liquified.
Unfortunately, these substances had some unexpected abrasive qualities
which disqualified them from use as lubricants.


>


<snip>


> By the way, thanks for your FAQ site. A few weeks ago I bought a
> Honda that was doing some strange things. Your links led me to the
> fault code info that helped me fix it easily. (actually the problem
> was kind of obvious, but it was good to be sure.)



Glad the site was of some help.

Just out of curiosity, what was the problem, and what was the code?



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

In article <h92dnTtVJ51xNtLeRVn-uw@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>buick??? name one single aspect of design in which buick is innovative!
> honda started to move away from egr in civics in 96 iirc -
>reliability problems and the same effects can be achieved with valve
>timing changes.

Nice try. Search of honda odyssey and egr ...

http://www.autopartsfair.com/honda-e...2899_886416rhs.
html


>> (c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of
>> the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of
>> ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel.
>
>vehicles won't smog at that level. the ecu can/does go rich on wot,
>depending on other factors, but what percentage of a vehicle's life is
>spent in that condition?

That's what we were talking about! "high power" = Wide open
throttle! As I mentioned, and a previous post of yours denied,
rich AF are used at high power. Read my post again.

Sheesh.

 

In article <Xns96EFE9A6D9D44tegger@207.14.113.17>, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>If some portion of the gasoline fails to mate with oxygen, the result is
>rich running, or high carbon monoxide readings, which I assure you are
>rather tightly controlled these days. The aim of the oxygen sensor, as Dave
>has pointed out, is to maintain the mixture such that the most complete
>combustion can occur, and emissions are kept to their minimum, even absent
>the cat.

Thanks for the citation. But as I previously mentioned, engines can,
and do, go rich at and near WOT. It is used for (a) more power and
(b) cooler running. But yeah, it will result in more emissions. It
isn't tested for in a typical EPA emissions cycle, which is much
lower power. It is permitted (which I sometimes find surprising).
I suppose the cat's limited O2-storage capability can handle a bit
of this, but not all or for long. I was running ahead of a friend
and when they pressed me, I stomped on it (brand new '05 car). They
said they could smell the HC's permeating into their car!

 

Dave wrote:
> In article <h92dnTtVJ51xNtLeRVn-uw@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>buick??? name one single aspect of design in which buick is innovative!
>> honda started to move away from egr in civics in 96 iirc -
>>reliability problems and the same effects can be achieved with valve
>>timing changes.
>
>
> Nice try. Search of honda odyssey and egr ...
>
> http://www.autopartsfair.com/honda-e...2899_886416rhs.
> html

what part of "civic" confuses you with "odyssey"?

>
>
>
>>>(c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of
>>>the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of
>>>ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel.
>>
>>vehicles won't smog at that level. the ecu can/does go rich on wot,
>>depending on other factors, but what percentage of a vehicle's life is
>>spent in that condition?
>
>
> That's what we were talking about! "high power" = Wide open
> throttle! As I mentioned, and a previous post of yours denied,
> rich AF are used at high power. Read my post again.
>
> Sheesh.

what part of "the ecu can/does go rich on wot" is confusing you? and
you don't run the engine like that all the time, so i say again, it
won't smog at that level. sheesh.

 

In article <58OdnTHMyNPXlM7eRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net>, jim beam
<nospam@example.net> wrote:

>what part of "civic" confuses you with "odyssey"?

You in previous post:
"exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been
dropped these days"

My link shows replacement EGR valves for Honda Accords, Odysseys,
and Civics. Which you claim they don't use. Hey, maybe it's a
scam?

>what part of "the ecu can/does go rich on wot" is confusing you? and
>you don't run the engine like that all the time, so i say again, it
>won't smog at that level. sheesh.

You:
" and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston
crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber
with throttle open? no."

So, fuel rich allowed on WOT, yes or no? First time you said "no".
Now you say "can/does go rich on wot". You are correct the second
time. Or was the first claim only about racing cars (and "fule")?

 

Dave wrote:
> In article <58OdnTHMyNPXlM7eRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net>, jim beam
> <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>what part of "civic" confuses you with "odyssey"?
>
>
> You in previous post:
> "exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been
> dropped these days"
>
> My link shows replacement EGR valves for Honda Accords, Odysseys,
> and Civics. Which you claim they don't use. Hey, maybe it's a
> scam?

so how come my 2000 civic automatic has no egr valve? check one for
yourself.

>
>
>>what part of "the ecu can/does go rich on wot" is confusing you? and
>>you don't run the engine like that all the time, so i say again, it
>>won't smog at that level. sheesh.
>
>
> You:
> " and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston
> crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber
> with throttle open? no."
>
> So, fuel rich allowed on WOT, yes or no? First time you said "no".
> Now you say "can/does go rich on wot". You are correct the second
> time. Or was the first claim only about racing cars (and "fule")?
>
dude, back in the days of carburetted F1, fuel /was/ dumped into
cylinders on /closed/ throttle to cool piston crowns. remember the
flame-back in the exhausts? that's /not/ done any more due to
consumption limits.

regarding modern injected vehicles, whether the ecu goes rich depends on
rpms. at low rpm's, the ecu goes rich to prevent flameout. but that's
not necessary at high rpms. fly by wire systems are much more
conservative with enrichment because throttle opening is contolled by
the ecu, not the drivers foot so less flameout.