Does Acetone Addition to Fuel Lower Consumption?

[PDJetta]

I know there was a post about this a while back, but I just discovered the following article, and it appears to be non-marketing related, unless the author has a bunch of acetone manufacturer stock.

http://www.industrialnewsupdate.com/news/oil-energy/archives/oil_energy_prices/index.php

My concern is that acetone could damage the seals in the fuel system (lift pump (on the PD), feed pump/injection pump) or unit PD injectors. Acetone is a powerful oraganic solvent.

Have any of you that tried acetone addition to fuel noticed any difference in mileage? If it acts like the article states, you would think the benefit would be much greater in gasoline fueled vehicles, since unburned hydrocarbon emission (before the catalyst) is greater.

This article claims the few ounces of acetone per tank of fuel increases the effeciency of the burn and lowers HC emissions.

--Nate

 

[Variant TDI]

There was a rumor that the owner of the Lumber Jetta used acetone. But it started a fire behind his dashboard when Enzo-dude walked by.

 

[mike944]

I have been using the acetone for about 2 months now. I noticed a significant improvement.

My car is an 01, and it's an automatic, so my numbers will be lower than those of you with manuals. I used to get between 39-41mpg. Now i'm getting between 43-46mpg. Around 10-15% improvement! My driving is fairly constant, 75% highway 25% city.

I use 2.5oz of acetone, for my usual 12.5gal fill-up. I measure exactly. The data i've looked at says exact ratio is very important. I also mix in about 6 oz of powerservice diesel fuel suppliment/cetane boost (the white bottle). That might be part of my mileage answer, but about a year ago, i tried just the powerservice, and noticed no improvement, therefore, based on that experience, i'm crediting 100% of the improvement to the acetone.

I keep meaning to stop using it, and get back to a baseline mileage, without additives, but with prices the way they are, i'm not going to stop using it, just for scientific study!

 

[JettaJake]

....for my usual 12.5gal fill-up.....

if I fill up at the low-fuel "ding" I can normally take about 14 gallons, though more often I wait till I need about 15-16 gallons to top up. Just wondered why you like to fill-up so "early" -- perhaps you never top off? not ventectomized?

highly recommended if you want to "measure exactly" and/or if you like to get accurate mileage data.....

 

[Zero10]

FWIW, once enough tanks are taken into consideration for mileage calculations, the un-even filling practices become insignificant. Since the only 2 times it really matters are on the first tank, and the last tank. So him only filling 12.5 gallons each time doesn't matter all that much once 7 or 8 tanks are considered. So, if he calculates how much acetone he needs for each tank, he can work with only what he put in providing the fuel that was in the tank prior to filling up had the proper acetone blend. Of course this does not apply for the first 3 or 4 tanks, but after this point it no longer matters (that is, measurement inaccuracy becomes the dominant source of error).

 

[JettaJake]

accuracy & imprecision

FWIW, once enough tanks are taken into consideration for mileage calculations, the un-even filling practices become insignificant.

Granted, though I might still say "less significant" versus "insignificant". Then again, it is fairly simple to top up, so why not try for clean, valid data from EVERY tank? By the time a TDI consumes 5 or 6 tanks of fuel, the seasons could have changed and lord knows what else.....

I'd also say there's 1600 ounces in 12.5 gallons so whether you're dosing at 2 oz. per 1600 oz. or 3, 4 or 5 oz. per 1600 oz. is not likely to have a large effect ASSUMING there is one to begin with

 

[mike944]

I usually fill up at around 12.5 because it's usually convienient. I have a rather long commute to and from work, and the diesel prices are much better near where i live. I used to let it go longer, but a couple of times i've run too low for comfort, especially when i get stuck in traffic, and have had to fill up close to work, at a higher price. Basically i do it early so i don't run low. I usually do it before the light comes on.

My mileage numbers are fairly consistent from fill-up to fill-up, and that average is over at least 10 tankfulls.

I'd also say there's 1600 ounces in 12.5 gallons so whether you're dosing at 2 oz. per 1600 oz. or 3, 4 or 5 oz. per 1600 oz. is not likely to have a large effect ASSUMING there is one to begin with

The effect does not depend on the actual burning of the acetone, it is a reduction in surface tension in the fuel molecules. Too much acetone, and the effect is not noticable, more than about 5oz per 10 gal, and it will actually start to degrade your mileage. Read the semi-scientific study below. In the graph presented, "Curve D" is for diesel.

http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/

Because i fill up close to home, i don't vent while filling, i often park it soon after filling up. I try to have consistent filling technique, so i don't do it even when i know i'm going to drive off at least 1/2 gal immediately. Besides, personally i don't think it's a good idea (i'm probably going to get flamed for this one). The vent system was designed into our cars for a reason. I don't know excatly what it is, or if anybody is completely sure why it was put there. Car companies, as much as any company, don't intentionally add complexity and cost to their products, without some solid reason, or in response to some problem they were trying to solve. Now, i know it's not an expensive system, but if it truely wasn't necessary, it wouldn't be there! Since this long-winded answer is begging the question, Yes, i'm a mechanical engineer.

 

[jackbombay]

The vent system, is there because it is there on gassers and it is likely cheaper to leave it in the Diesels than to make a special tank just for the Diesels that don't have the vent system.

I once filled up in Mesquite Nevada when it was 107* F. I filled it right to the tippy top then drove less than 100 yards to the hotel and parked it for the night. I was sort of expecting to see a spill mark on the ground the next morning, but there was nothing. I would not have filled and parked like that but while filling my wife decided that she didn't want to be in the car anymore that day, if I had known I would have filled the next mmorning...

 

[JettaJake]

All good reasons Mike, but at least Jackb's nailed the reasons why it's not an issue to vent diesel into a TDI. Consider that the added range might mean you won't feel stranded away from your source(s) of known-to-be-good/cheap fuel and on average might allow you to make only 10 trips to the station where you would have needed 12 previously. That can be claimed as "~17% fewer stops for fuel" -- now that in itself saves fuel ^_^

Anyway, I didn't really chime into this thread to pooh-pooh the potentially beneficial effects of acetone, but then I did see where the effect was attributed to surface tension lowering and have to say I am still highly skeptical of that explanation, much less any actual mileage benefit. Some clean, unfettered data that did not depend on mileage numbers would help.

I'm not planning to run it, but it would be straightforward to measure surface tension of diesel (or gasoline) spiked with increasing amounts of acetone --- a simple, clean experiment to at least nail down whether the surface tension premise has any validity --- would be a good start.

JJ

 

[PDJetta]

"and have to say I am still highly skeptical of that explanation, much less any actual mileage benefit. Some clean, unfettered data that did not depend on mileage numbers would help."

I think that there may actually be an INCREASE in fuel milage attributable to using acetone. But, its not the acetone that is increasing the vehicle mileage, its the driver. If I were to do this test, I most likely would drive in the most fuel effecient manner, just because effecient vehicle operation would be on my mind. This may be what we are seeing.

--Nate

 

[nicklockard]

Which is why acetone adventurers should stop trying to get mileage figures that depend on their right feet and should instead go do a dynometer run and measure the amount of fuel used against KwH of power consumed in a run. It's really not hard...all one needs is the dyno graph and a graduated cylinder with the control fuel/sample fuel and 2-5 runs on the dyno. All runs need to be conducted at the same engine temperature...that's pretty much the only significant constraint.

No offense, but your right foot's accuracy is highly questionable. It just is, no matter how you slice it. It's just such a huge variable that it overwhelms all the others.

 

[JettaJake]

Adding acetone at the 1250ppm level (1 part in 800) to alter fuel surface tension (FST) intuitively just doesn't make sense. Standard or we might say "more traditional" surfactants can have large effects on FST at dosing levels that are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower. So if there was a direct relation between FST and fuel mileage, it would be well known and acted upon by the fuel suppliers, would it not? The idea that the oil companies would suppress such info also does not fly (with me anyway).

JJ

 

[TDIJetta99]

Which is why acetone adventurers should stop trying to get mileage figures that depend on their right feet and should instead go do a dynometer run and measure the amount of fuel used against KwH of power consumed in a run. It's really not hard...all one needs is the dyno graph and a graduated cylinder with the control fuel/sample fuel and 2-5 runs on the dyno. All runs need to be conducted at the same engine temperature...that's pretty much the only significant constraint.

No offense, but your right foot's accuracy is highly questionable. It just is, no matter how you slice it. It's just such a huge variable that it overwhelms all the others.

I think for the money it costs for a dyno run, I could buy enough fuel to drive 1600 miles.. That kinda offsets any gains to be had from using acetone.. Although I would do it in an instant if the chance came about..

I've been tinkering around with acetone for a few months now.. My daily drive is almost exactly the same every day: 43 miles to work, 41 of those miles are on the highway with the cruise set at around 85-90.. Pretty much the same for the ride home, but the cruise is set around 75-80 most of the way.. My results with the acetone seem to be hit and miss with improving mileage.. I've been running 3 tanks at a time both with and without.. My mileage without acetone varies from 39-43mpg. With acetone it's varied from 41-46mpg.. Minimal if any real improvement.. This is over about 4 months.. I fill up every sunday, usually 15-16 gallons.

Overall I don't really think it's doing anything significant for my TDI, although some report significant gains.. Only thing I can say is try it and see what happens..

 

[Zero10]

If you have been conducting these tests recently, there may be another factor to consider, the winterization of the fuel you are using.

I honestly believe that if adding acetone to your tank would give you even a 1mpg gain, that fuel manufacturers would already be doing it. (Perhaps time for an analysis of pump fuel, no?)

 

[JettaJake]

Fuel analysis?

Nah, no value there. Much simpler to just run some lab tests elucidating whether the single reason given for this reputed mileage boost (acetone's fuel surfactant properties) has any merit. It would be straightforward to conduct the tests. Any university-types wanna step up to the plate?

All that is required would be a surface tensiometer or contact angle apparatus, a liter or so of fuel(s), some reagent grade acetone and suitable volumetric equipment.....3 hours, tops, and you would have the hard data in hand. I'd be happy to assist with the DOE and data interpretation.

Anyone? Bueller?

 

[nicklockard]

I gladly would but our small (commercial) lab doesn't have either tensiometer or contact angle sensor

Yo! nhMike! Grab some glassware and get busy

 

[Ernie Rogers]

Maybe surface tension isn't the cause

Hi, Nick,

Are we barking up the wrong tree on this topic? If there is no substantial change in surface tension, there still could be a big effect in how a droplet burns. An example comes to mind. The textbooks say that a water-diesel emulsion burns more promptly because the water component of the fuel droplet flashes quickly and breaks up the droplet.

Can we expect a similar effect for the little bit of acetone in the fuel? Although the proportion is small, when the acetone flashes to gas, maybe it could be enough to blow apart a droplet?

If this model is right, then adding almost any volatile component to diesel fuel could improve combustion. If the component happens to contribute to a high cetane value, that's even better. Like an alkyl nitrate for example, e.g., Powerservice.

Ernie Rogers

I gladly would but our small (commercial) lab doesn't have either tensiometer or contact angle sensor

Yo! nhMike! Grab some glassware and get busy

 

[kotflb]

does acetone addition to fuel lower consumption?

Take this for what its worth. My experiences with acetone in a Mack truck.

I have this 99 mack for five years now and for extended idleing, this unit injected E-Tech engine has always used .66 gal per hour. I only idle it when the temp drops below 20F degrees.

the last cold snap the temp dropped to 15F degrees and I idled the Mack for 10 hours with the acetone blend of 2oz per 10 gal. Each tank holds 140 US gallons. This truck has the Multi Instant Dash Readout Gauges and the mpg/ idle fuel consumption/ trip timer, etc. has always been spot on.

To my suprise, the idle fuel consumption had dropped to .49/gal per hour.
That is over 25% fuel savings, or to be exact .2575% fuel saved with the acetone. I'm Sold!!

 

[Zero10]

Now do that test again, and again, and again.
Wait, I forgot one more and again. I'd like to see at least 5 test results with and without before I am convinced that there is a difference. Once that point is established, then we should focus on why, but I feel that all of this discussion over the theory of it is irrelevant if it doesn't work

 

[jackbombay]

Why don't you run some tests yourself if you want so much repetition?

 

[nicklockard]

Hi, Nick,

Are we barking up the wrong tree on this topic? If there is no substantial change in surface tension, there still could be a big effect in how a droplet burns. An example comes to mind. The textbooks say that a water-diesel emulsion burns more promptly because the water component of the fuel droplet flashes quickly and breaks up the droplet.

Can we expect a similar effect for the little bit of acetone in the fuel? Although the proportion is small, when the acetone flashes to gas, maybe it could be enough to blow apart a droplet?

If this model is right, then adding almost any volatile component to diesel fuel could improve combustion. If the component happens to contribute to a high cetane value, that's even better. Like an alkyl nitrate for example, e.g., Powerservice.

Ernie Rogers

Acetone won't form a colloidal emulsion in diesel. It is miscible in solution with it. It can lower the boiling point. If there's an effect to enhance efficiency through this mechanism, it should be checked on a dyno against control samples at the same engine temperature and loading. Someone on here must own a dyno shop, no

What is the cost to rent a dymometer space for 5 or 6 runs, for say...5 hours or so?

I'll pitch in $40 for it. If people really want to know definitively if acetone increases fuel economy, let's raise the required funds. I can do it locally using my car and glassware.

 

[jackbombay]

You can expect about $75 a run, there is a new Dyno shop up by the airport Home Depot, it's called Torquefreaks.

 

[Zero10]

Why don't you run some tests yourself if you want so much repetition?

Because I don't believe it works, so I'm not going to go and damage the environment running my car needlessly for hours on end just to prove nothing. I say nothing because if I were to get to the end of all of this, and have some results, I would post them up here and people would endlessly debate whether my testing methods were accurate, whether there were outside factors to consider, etc.

Perhaps a little bit pessimistic, but still...

 

[nicklockard]

You can expect about $75 a run, there is a new Dyno shop up by the airport Home Depot, it's called Torquefreaks.

I'll call on them and see if I can get a multi-run discount for this purpose.

Since it is an eddy-current type dyno, the test will have to be on the same day at constant ambient temperature and the same loading profile for control and experimental sample runs.

 

[JettaJake]

Acetone....can lower the boiling point. If there's an effect to enhance efficiency through this mechanism, it should be checked on a dyno

Well how about just running a few simple bp experiments first? If bp is what drives the presumed effect, it should be easy to spot from the data. The data are likely already out there, too. If the change is significant (2+ degrees F?), ya might have something here.

SHOW ME the data

 

[nicklockard]

I can do that, but let's not try and extrapolate that to improved economy. I'll do that first to determine if further investigation is warranted only.

For the record: I'm completely disinterested really. I think acetone effects are probably psychological and right foot dependent, but I'm willing to check out b.p. and dyno runs. Even if acetone (highly unlikely) somehow manages to improve fuel economy a few percent I'd not use it. American diesel has less lubricity than I'm comfortable with as it is!

 

[rotarykid]

I don't know why the stuff works but in all my tries a 10 to 15 % increase was what I saw in my IDIs & TDIs .

And when I ran tanks without any acetone in the mix and my mpgs dropped back to normal . Then after I had made sure the fuel was just fuel I added the same amount of acetone to the mix again . My mpgs went back to extreemly high levels .

50 to 53 with no acetone in my Passat TDI . 57 to 59 mpgs with 2 oz. added per tank .

Low 40s are normal without acetone in my 91 Jetta IDI diesel . 53 + was achieved on both tries with 1.5 oz. added to the 15 gal tank in the Jetta .

I add biodiesel to the mix in around 40 % to the blend to keep lubrication high .

 

[JettaJake]

One part in 800 is not likely to hurt lubricity any more than it is helping improve mileage and, as plausible as it may sound to some, reducing the b.p. or lowering surface tension is not likely to equate better mileage. With no data to establish a basis, this is strictly my opinion at this point.

So Nicko, when can you start the distillation work? I would suggest testing at 3 acetone dosing levels: 1:800 (presumably optimal), 1:400 (double dose), and 1:1200 (sub-optimal). These of course would be compared to the neat fuel data, so you merely need to conduct 4 runs to get a handle on it. They say the effect is larger for gasoline, so perhaps that's the base fuel to try...or make 8 runs and do both ^_^

Cheers,

JJ

 

[nicklockard]

Kinda busy with assay development right now, but I'll try to get something started by Monday-ish.

 

[jackbombay]

I filled up today and added acetone at a ratio of 1 part to 800, I used 17 gallons as the max capacity of the tank, .16 oz of acetone per gallon. My driving is quite inconsistent right now so my case is not all that good of a test.