Burn Rate Modifier - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-14-2010, 06:14 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 427
Country: United States
magua= salesman ?
__________________

spotaneagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:19 PM   #12
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Country: United States
ugh. no

ugh. no. i'm too blunt to be a salesman.
__________________

magua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 05:39 PM   #13
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 262
Country: United States
to blunt that u need 5.7 liters to move ur around
GasSavers_BIBI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 08:04 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Country: United States
does it make sense?

so syntek claims that by lowering the temperature that fuel needs to reach in order to reach combustion, more fuel will combust and will have a longer burn rate - thereby increasing the amount of fuel you actually use and reducing the amount of unused fuel that goes out the exhaust. Does that ACTUALLY make sense?

it sounds good, but what temperature does the fuel usually reach anyway? is their claim plausible? any technical gurus out there??? I guess i'm just having second doubts. i know what i think i saw as improvement. but i've been googling syntec and "xft" all weekend. can't find anything on it that isn't printed by the company or apparent distributors.
magua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 08:20 AM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 427
Country: United States
if you replaced all the words reffering to the fuel additive you're talking about with water injection, it would almost work
spotaneagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 08:46 AM   #16
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
If you are getting 85mpg in your F650GS that is amazing - I have an italian Moto Morini 350 V twin and only got about 80mpg with that back in 1986 when gas didn't have ethanol in it. I did get 60mpg on my 1978 R100s after some major tranny and rear end work and leaning out the carbs and that was also a long time ago before E10 gasoline. Getting fuel to burn better is the number one problem with gasoline these days and anything that helps that will yield some big MPG gains.
JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 09:18 AM   #17
Registered Member
 
Fuel Miser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 156
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanGeo View Post
I have an italian Moto Morini 350
Have you seen the latest (March, you know how it goes) Cycle World?
Oh, you're gonna love it.
__________________
[QUOTE=Project84;147125I'm not "rich" by any means but I do have one advantage if you will... I'm a maintenance man.[/QUOTE]
Fuel Miser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 09:57 AM   #18
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by magua View Post
so syntek claims that by lowering the temperature that fuel needs to reach in order to reach combustion
That sounds similar to, but not exactly the same as, lowering the octane rating of the fuel. I think it would have the same effect, which would be detrimental to fuel economy.

Maybe someone who understands the issue better than I do can confirm or deny that interpretation and explain better.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 01:07 PM   #19
Site Team
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 656
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
That sounds similar to, but not exactly the same as, lowering the octane rating of the fuel.
That's kinda how I'm seeing it. Kinda.

A lower octane-rated fuel will be less volatile, meaning it won't initiate combustion until a higher temperature (or pressure, but we'll assume that's constant). So I would have said it sounds more like a high-octane fuel.

However, if this miracle-juice also slows the burn rate (i.e. modifies combustion as to slow it down), then it sounds like the goal is to "save" some more of the combustion pressure until the piston is further down in the bore.

Think of a completely stationary engine with the piston at TDC- if a mixture in the cylinder now explodes, the engine (theoretically) won't rotate but you'll pound the connecting rod bearings awfully hard. On the other hand, if you picture the stationary engine at about 75 degrees past TDC (or 90 degrees, if that makes it easier for you), you'll have almost perfect transmission of combustion pressure to rotational force on the crankshaft (and that rotational force is what we're all after).

So, if this miracle juice can make peak combustion pressure occur later in the combustion cycle, such that peak pressure will occur closer to the 75-degree point after TDC, it might just improve overall efficiency.

However, since this stuff is dampening the burn rate, I would think that 1) the spark would have to be much earlier in the cycle (probably 10 - 20 degrees, and not many people have that much control over their ignition), and 2) the combustion process would slow such that combustion is probably still occurring when you open the exhaust valve (hence bleeding off more unburnt HCs and cylinder pressure in general) (even more than already occurs in a standard engine already). But if enough advance can be put in the ignition, maybe that will be enough to overcome the exhaust-valve losses.

So if the mixture lowers the initiation temperature AND dampens the burn rate, AND you have enough control over your timing to take advantage of it, there MIGHT be some merit to this product.

But I'm still wicked skeptical.

-BC
__________________
Think you are saving gas? Prove it by starting a Gas Log, then conduct a proper experiment.
bobc455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 12:49 PM   #20
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
Quote:
A lower octane-rated fuel will be less volatile, meaning it won't initiate combustion until a higher temperature (or pressure, but we'll assume that's constant). So I would have said it sounds more like a high-octane fuel.
Shouldn't this be the other way around? High compression engines are the ones that require high octane fuel, and will knock on low octane fuel because that fuel is more likely to preignite under the higher pressure.
__________________

trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bypass Thermostat GasSavers_Scott Experiments, Modifications and DIY 16 01-15-2017 04:54 PM
Going amsoil tomorrow! lovemysan General Fuel Topics 17 10-05-2008 06:26 AM
From Auto-X to Fuel Friendly, a ZX2 PHeller Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 3 05-06-2008 11:34 AM
d15b7 --> d15b2 swappable parts? UfoTofU General Maintenance and Repair 1 10-17-2006 02:41 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.