Fuel Savings Answer...

MikeC78

http://www.preignitioncc.com/ps/index.htm

This actually looks interesting and makes sense...

bobman1235

If they had said "we got a 10% increase", I MIGHT have given that a tiny bit of credence.

"We got 9x the fuel economy from a V8"? Um, no you didn't.

treitz3

Bobman1235, it seems you are quite pessimistic on any kind of fuel savings. Not dogging, just an observation.

Since my monthly gas bill exceeds my mortgage payment consistently, I went ahead and signed up for more information and a quote on this product. I am questioning the high claims of this product as you are Bobman1235, but I just have to check into it. Any savings is a plus to me. Helping America to rid it's dependence on foreign oil is a plus to this nation. Win-win situation if you ask me*.

Note* If it works as they say it does.

Thank you for posting this Mike.

avguytx

I have a piece of ocean front property up here north for Dallas for sale....if anyone's interested.

I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin'. If it would work on my Ram Quad Cab, I'd be tickled pink.

Edit: Sooooo....you can't get a quote till you fill out the form and someone contacts you? Beautiful...

treitz3

Eh, they can contact me all they want, I still have the right to simply hang up and then block the # they call from if they try to blow smoke up the ol' ringer. Only other information required was an e-mail addy in which case I gave them an old e-mail addy I just found out about a couple of days ago. Haven't used it in years and don't plan on using it any time soon except to check out follow up with this.

avguytx

What kind of rig would it be for? Let me know if you find out what it might run. Who knows...it might be the next shiznit thing.

treitz3

2004 Chevy Silverado 2500HD PU usually hauling close to 8-10K pounds depending on the day and driving semi-long distances. 90,000 miles in 3.2 years. Yeah, gas ain't cheap.

hockeyboy

Here is a rebuttal thread I cut from another website responding to an inquiry about this very item:

I saw their ad in PopSci and looked at their website. Both are the usual “scientobabble” that comes with this kind of product and surfaces in a slightly different version every so often.

They say a conventional catalytic converter (CC) “works by breaking down the large gas molecules that were not burned in your engine and turns them into smaller particles that can be burned in your tailpipe”. NOT SO. The CC provides a catalytic surface on which three reactions occur at the right temperature and fuel/air mixture:
1. Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
2. Oxidation (burning) of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
3. Oxidation (burning) of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: 2CxHy + (2x+y/2)O2 → 2xCO2 + yH2O

The engine oxygen sensor feeds information to the engine control module (ECM) which manages the fuel/air mixture to provide the most complete combustion.

They ask “In other words, what if we “cracked” the gas and broke it down into smaller particles before it went into the engine — not after the engine had wasted it? Everything you would otherwise be throwing away would now be burned IN YOUR ENGINE, providing additional mileage and power! Well, that is what we did!”. MORE NONSENSE.

Gasoline is a complicated mixture of hydrocarbons boiling between 120 and 400 degrees F, with chemical formulas between C6H14 and C12H26, but a good "average" compound is C8H18. (this is normal octane). To break these molecules down into smaller one requires breaking carbon-carbon bonds. If you break an octane molecule in half and add back two hydrogens to get two molecules of butane, you find that the energy of combustion goes from 48.23 to 49.59 kiloJoules per gram including the extra energy obtained by burning the two added hydrogens to water. So even if you broke the octane down to smaller molecules you would not get any extra energy form combustion. You would actually get less.

They claim to turn water into a “pure gas that is mixed with your gasoline in the combustion chamber. The HHO (water) gas is so rich (5x the potential energy of gasoline) that the amount of gas used to get the same power needed can be leaned out” (whatever that means). HHO gas is just water vapor. If it’s hot enough, we call it steam. In any case, being already oxidized, water does not burn.

They say “we got 9X the fuel efficiency from a gas guzzling 318 V-8 Chrysler engine”. While sometimes higher and sometimes lower, the operating efficiency of a typical gasoline internal combustion engine averages around 25%. The rest of the energy in the fuel is lost in exhaust gas, as heat to the cooling system, and to internal friction. A 9x improvement would give an average efficiency of 225%. That’s one hell of a perpetual motion machine………..

I could go on, but basically, don’t waste your money!
2 weeks ago
Source(s):
I reviewed multiple sources - DOE articles, chemistry sites, Wikipedia articles etc. A P.Chem Ph.D helps too.

treitz3

Interesting.

[Deleted User]

Over a 100 miles per gallon. Breaking down fuel molecules into their elemental state hence the term 'plasma'! That was nice of you to share, Mike. I myself do not believe in the fuel savings, needless to say 100mpg, or even 200 mpg as stated. I have an auto repair/body/performance shop, tried and have seen countless scenarios to save gas, its not really going to happen. The quest for a super efficient motor, power with less fuel, is the only way, else, 4 bangers!

Little off topic, but the most efficient motor I have dealt with to date, is the LS1, on the Vettes, Trans Am, and Camaro! I am no Chevy fan by any means, I bleed Ford Blue(guys, dont question it), but damn it, what V8 natural aspirated gets over 300 plus horses and does 27-30 on the highway? Bam, LS1....

Back on topic, I would be very interested in what you find out about this plasma thing.

Halen

tonyb

We need warp drive,not band-aided combustion engines.

[Deleted User]

Hell, lets go back to steam engines! I am confident levels of auto accidents with fatalities will drop significantly!

Its a conspiracy theory.. Make em cars fast and snazzy, destroy the americans!! Its the ultimate revenge on the great US of A... sorry off topic...

tonyb

Revenge for what ??

I love all these people who try and squeze every mpg out of a combustion engine.Only prolonging the inevitable.Need a new technology....soon.I just hope I am still alive when the day comes when we can tell opec to shove it.

bobman1235

treitz3 wrote: »

Bobman1235, it seems you are quite pessimistic on any kind of fuel savings. Not dogging, just an observation.

No offense taken, I'm a skeptical kinda guy.

There's lots of reasonable ways to save gas which I mentioned in the other thread. However, there's no magical product that will give you 10x your fuel economy. And I don't think it's worth expending boatloads of effort to save 20 bucks a year like the suggestions in the other thread. I think technology has made us so used to seeing things we never thought possible that now when we want to solve a problem we expect it to come in a nice little box and perform wonders, and in some cases, it just ain't gonna happen.

Early B.

tonyb wrote: »

I love all these people who try and squeze every mpg out of a combustion engine.Only prolonging the inevitable.Need a new technology....soon.I just hope I am still alive when the day comes when we can tell opec to shove it.

The "new" technology has been around for decades, but it's been suppressed by auto manufacturers and the oil industry. The auto industry has no financial incentive to build cheaper, more fuel efficient automobiles any more than the medical industry has an incentive to make you healthier.

Demiurge

treitz3 wrote: »

Bobman1235, it seems you are quite pessimistic on any kind of fuel savings. Not dogging, just an observation.

I don't think it's being pessimistic, it's being realistic. I'm in the same boat. You're being sold a bill of goods, and a new one at that. It's important to understand what is being sold to you -- they talk about the positives, and the consumer looks for the negatives. It's naive to accept the words of a company who stands to gain financially at face value.

Speaking about the hybrid automobile market specifically, there are a lot of unknowns out there. The vehicles cost more, but the common belief is that over time you'll make up the difference in gas savings. The unknown is how much repairs will cost. How long these vehicles will last in relation to normal ones. All very fair concerns for consumers.

I have always said that it is private industry that will get these products to the marketplace. I do believe we will probably all be driving hybrids in time, and that is a good thing. The question is when to jump in, and right now things are still in their infancy. There's no way I am shelling out $3,000 - $10,000 more on a vehicle just so I can get a little emblem that says hybrid on it.

Despite what some want you to believe, the shift to hybrid is almost completely for economic reasons, not environmental. Individual motivations will clearly vary, but I will bet if you took a poll the results would be hugely lopsided.

Demiurge

Early B. wrote: »

The "new" technology has been around for decades, but it's been suppressed by auto manufacturers and the oil industry. The auto industry has no financial incentive to build cheaper, more fuel efficient automobiles any more than the medical industry has an incentive to make you healthier.

This is so unbelievably ridiculous. The only thing surpressing technology is consumers. Businesses can't sell what people don't want. We're in the Information Age.

Gasoline has only recently become expensive and the marketplace is now asking for alternatives and we're getting them. To turn this into some sort of collusion of evil corporations is just stupid.

The companies that make the most money are the ones who are the best at giving consumers what they want.

Early B.

Demiurge wrote: »

The companies that make the most money are the ones who are the best at giving consumers what they want.

The sole purpose of a business is to make money, and fulfilling the desires of consumers is often inimical to this objective. That why advertising is the heart of a successful business -- it is designed to tell people what they want, not vice versa. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak," they say. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the pet rock. Did consumers actually demand a pet rock? Hell, no! Some dude was smart enough to advertise it well enough to create a demand for it. And that's what corporations strive to do -- to create demand. That's how you make money -- by convincing people that they want or need a product.

Most consumers are not well informed and don't even know what choices they have. For instance, what percentage of consumers do you think know enough about the mechanics of an automobile to make an informed decision on parts and design quality? Another example -- what percentage of consumers can judge the quality of their health care? If most consumers don't have an objective means of measuring quality and aren't aware of all of their choices, how then can they know what they want?

Auto manufacturers primarily sell brand, style, comfort, and features -- things consumers can relate to, but most of us don't have a clue about the more important mechanical and reliability aspects of an automobile. And there's the common practice of engineered obsolescence...who benefits?

markmarc

The proof that EarlyB may just be right is in 1984 Nissan made a Sentra that got 45 hwy mpg. I owned that model for a couple of years and I can testify that was exactly what I got on runs between Denver and Phoenix. For a part of that time I delivered for Dominos, with my mad dashes to deliver pies I averaged 32 in town.

What has happened in the 20+ years since, no manufacturer offers a gas only vehicle with that kind of mileage, why? Because manufacturers would rather sell comfort and style. Smoother ride-bigger tires more friction, quieter ride-more insulation weight increase. Then their is the biggie, MORE POWER. That little Nissan engine put out 92 horsepower. It seems to me with lighter frames than twenty years ago, that if the same size engine that used to put out 92 hsp, now can get 140hsp, the engineering exists for 60-70 mpg. It's all a matter of directing the engineering resources.

bobman1235

markmarc wrote: »

The proof being EarlyB may just be that in 1984 Nissan made a Sentra that got 45 hwy mpg.

Not that it's TOO relevant, but Nissans (Datsuns) of the early 80's were kind of death traps.

What has happened in the 20+ years since, no manufacturer offers a gas only vehicle with that kind of mileage, why? Because manufacturers would rather sell comfort and style.

CLOSE. Consumers would rather BUY comfort and style. If that 1984 Sentra was the best-selling auto for Nissan that year you think we wouldn't be flooded with 90HP cars nowadays?

If people weren't still filing out in droves to buy sports cars and pickups that get 12 MPG do you REALLY think the industry would try to force them down our throats? They'll sell exactly what they CAN sell, what people want. No one wants a 90HP deathtrap these days.

tonyb

No,but they may want a 90 hp deathtrap that say's "hybrid" on it.

Face

Part of the reason newer vehicles are so heavy is because of all the safety mandates. Better crumple zones, more air bags, etc...

jcaut

I admit that I didn't read through the whole thread, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating stuff that others said. Here are some ways to save fuel that really work. Not all of them will work on all vehicles, but in general you can:

Keep your tires properly inflated.

Don't be a leadfoot.

Idle less and try to take less congested routes. 0 Mph = 0 Mpg.

Turn off the A/C. Many new vehicles with "automatic climate control" will tend to run the A/C compressor much of the time, even if it's not hot outside.
True, it's not a huge difference, but if you can override and turn it off, so much the better.

Gain as much speed as is reasonable when you're going downhill and don't try to agressively maintain your speed when you go uphill. Put gravity on your side. Coast when you can.

Don't drive if you can walk or ride a bike, etc..

If you wish to modify your vehicle, consider the following modifications:

Underdrive accessory pulley systems, electric (vs. engine driven) cooling fans.. Anything that reduces parasitic drag on the engine will pay you back in fuel economy.

Exhaust modifications can sometimes improve fuel mileage but it depends on the vehicle and on the exhaust system. Also, it's not hard to spend more than you will recover in fuel savings, so be careful.

Opt for less-wide tires. You won't be as fashionable, but more rubber on the road = more friction = lower fuel economy. Wide tires also contribute substantially to aerodynamic drag.

At highway speeds (and above, if you're a leadfoot, see #2) aerodynamic drag costs you substantial fuel economy. Not a whole lot you can do about this, but on pickups and/or vehicles pulling trailers it's something to think about.

That's about all I can think of. Many newer vehicles have instrumentation that will show you instantaneous fuel economy while you're driving. While they may not be absolutely accurate, you can use the information to learn how your driving habits affect your fuel economy. Just don't be staring at the readout all the time while you're driving.

Demiurge

Early B. wrote: »

The sole purpose of a business is to make money, and fulfilling the desires of consumers is often inimical to this objective.

Most businesses are started to provide a product or service where there is a need. They're started to give people what they want, when they want it, and lots of it. One of the most lucrative business ventures around in this country right now is the services industry. The nature of that business is to give people exactly what they want.

Selling people on features within that product or service is marketing. It's about how to get people to want your product or service as opposed to someone elses. Hell, the biggest question people have when it comes to marketing is "How do I make my product or service more attractive?"

Comparing automobiles to the anomoly of a product like the pet rock is comparing apples to oranges. Claiming that industry is surpressing technology is absolutely ridiculous. Gas prices went up and there was a sudden interest in vehicles that offered alternative fuels. Nobody cared when gas was .99 cents a gallon -- which wasn't that long ago. Now that people care, the need to offer consumer alternatives is important. If we spent 20 years with $3.00/gallon gas prices I might buy into the conspiracy theories.

Face

I remember averaging more than 30mpg on the highway in my modded 99 Regal GS. I had a free flow intake, 3" exhaust, smaller supercharger pulley, and was lowered almost 2"(less drag). It ran 13's and had around 300hp to boot. As long as you could keep your foot out of the fun pedal, it did really well all around.

treitz3

The HAFC system [part one] costs $995 for my truck. To me, it sounds like a generic price to me and not an actual quote as they led you to believe.

jcaut

There are three cars in my garage, all with Chevy V8's with 300 horspower or more. Two of them will get 30+ mpg on the highway pretty easily and average in the mid-20's in mixed driving. The other one might get close to 30 on the highway, but is a guzzler in stop-n-go situations thanks to its relatively loose torque converter and lopey cam. It'd probably average about 12. They all use premium fuel, so it costs a bit more. But, honestly, I don't drive a whole lot (I have a 4cyl. Ranger company vehicle that I drive to and from work that gets about 14 mpg, but I don't have to buy that gasoline.) and therefore I don't buy a lot of gas. I do feel for all you that have to commute long distances to work. I might be driving a VW diesel if I had to do that.

Early B.

Demiurge wrote: »

Most businesses are started to provide a product or service where there is a need. They're started to give people what they want, when they want it, and lots of it. One of the most lucrative business ventures around in this country right now is the services industry. The nature of that business is to give people exactly what they want.

Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

If you ever start your own business, your motivation will be to make money. Period. It won't be "to provide a product or service where there is a need." There are plenty of non-profit companies out there who provide a lot of those services for people wth "needs."

jdhdiggs

Uh, he did start and does run his own business. And how you make profit is to make products people want and need....

Demiurge

Early B. wrote: »

Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

If you ever start your own business, your motivation will be to make money. Period. It won't be "to provide a product or service where there is a need." There are plenty of non-profit companies out there who provide a lot of those services for people wth "needs."

:rolleyes:

I have my own business. Brick and mortar, employees, the whole works. If there wasn't a need for my products we wouldn't be in business. I never said that businesses don't exist to make money, so don't stuff words in my mouth.

I said businesses are typically started to provide a product or service where there is a need. Fulfilling that need is where money is made.

jdhdiggs

Come on Dave, quit being so damn dumb! You know the only way to make money is to make something people don't want and don't need and market the crap out of it! Geez, WTH is wrong with you!?!?!? :rolleyes: