Chemically modify the gasoline.

[Ford Man]

Originally Posted by Gasalene

So - without further ado, the material in question is napthalene

Amazingly this engineer/chemist doesn't know how to spell his secret ingredient. The correct spelling is NAPHTHALENE. Not just a typo, it's misspelled in two different posts made by the author of the thread. I wonder if he knows how to pronounce it since his spelling variation would give it a completely different pronunciation? I also found an interesting article on naphthalene as a fuel additive/mileage booster. Think I'll just stick with using the poor quality gas the oil companies are pushing on us.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...252708319.html

[Gasalene]

Originally Posted by Ford Man

Amazingly this engineer/chemist doesn't know how to spell his secret ingredient. The correct spelling is NAPHTHALENE. Not just a typo, it's misspelled in two different posts made by the author of the thread. I wonder if he knows how to pronounce it since his spelling variation would give it a completely different pronunciation? I also found an interesting article on naphthalene as a fuel additive/mileage booster. Think I'll just stick with using the poor quality gas the oil companies are pushing on us.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...252708319.html

Ford Man - You are correct; I have been misspelling this word for years! The first "H" disappears phonetically when paired with the "P" (they become an "F" sound). I never saw this "PH". I have also been mispronouncing the word...not "NAP"... , but "NAF"... . Perhaps it was my dyslexia showing. Along with my single finger typing skills!

The ENOZ ad showed the credibility of adding this compound to gasoline - the difference being in the ratio Enoz stated / published ( I don't believe "recommends" is the correct word). HHO4Free also states 5 mothballs per 20 gallons of gas is effective. 5 per 20 ? This is the same as 1/4 of a 'ball per quart! Wow! And this ratio is supposed to make any difference?

Just FYI ... Albert Einstein was a dyslexic. Amazingly.

[Gasalene]

Originally Posted by Gasalene

Ford Man - You are correct; I have been misspelling this word for years! The first "H" disappears phonetically when paired with the "P" (they become an "F" sound). I never saw this "PH". I have also been mispronouncing the word...not "NAP"... , but "NAF"... . Perhaps it was my dyslexia showing. Along with my single finger typing skills!

The ENOZ ad showed the credibility of adding this compound to gasoline - the difference being in the ratio Enoz stated / published ( I don't believe "recommends" is the correct word). HHO4Free also states 5 mothballs per 20 gallons of gas is effective. 5 per 20 ? This is the same as 1/4 of a 'ball per quart! Wow! And this ratio is supposed to make any difference?

Just FYI ... Albert Einstein was a dyslexic. Amazingly.

I am also selling the technology for $50.00. When you think about it, this is cheap (how much is a gallon of gas? ...and how many gallons per fill-up? ...over how many years?). I am constantly showing 46 to 48 MPG (average) on my ScanGauge ll for trips more than a few miles. I've even "touched" 50 MPG briefly on a very few occasions. And, this is an average number. The instantaneous numbers are wild. And useless....IMHO.

[ chembustion at yahoo dot com ] will provide the contact info; I am NOT going to give this info on a public forum. Spambots are everywhere. How do you spell "virus"? ..."worm"?

[Gasalene]

Originally Posted by Gasalene

I am also selling the technology for $50.00. When you think about it, this is cheap (how much is a gallon of gas? ...and how many gallons per fill-up? ...over how many years?). I am constantly showing 46 to 48 MPG (average) on my ScanGauge ll for trips more than a few miles. I've even "touched" 50 MPG briefly on a very few occasions. And, this is an average number. The instantaneous numbers are wild. And useless....IMHO.

[ chembustion at yahoo dot com ] will provide the contact info; I am NOT going to give this info on a public forum. Spambots are everywhere. How do you spell "virus"? ..."worm"?

I forgot to mention : the EPA specs for my car ('02 Nissan Sentra, 1.8 liter, 5 speed, now just crossing the 101,000 mile mark!) are :

(old specs) 27 city, 35 hwy ... average is 30 MPG.
(new specs) 23 city, 32 hwy ... average is 26 MPG.

EPA numbers being what they are, I'll stick with my ScanGauge. And my modgas.

[Jay2TheRescue]

So you're quoting Scangauge readings for mileage? Scangauge is nice for helping you get the best mileage you can, but isn't always accurate. What mileage are you getting comparing the odometer reading to the fuel purchased?

[tradosaurus]

I probably would have pulled the trigger and sent the $50.00 if you only would have added "...and if you act now you will receive....."

[Jay2TheRescue]

Who do you think he is? Ron Popeil?

[Ford Man]

I have a Scan gauge too and by adjusting the fuel usage percentage I could make it read any number I want it to. When I first got it and programmed the information (engine size, tank size, etc.) for my '97 Escort into it and checked it against real numbers (miles, gallons of gas) I found that it was off by several MPG. I still check it against real numbers and often find it's off by 1-3 MPG for the tank although I've had times when it came out exactly correct. That isn't an Enzo mothball ad that you keep referring to it's simply a picture someone has posted on the site. I think if Enzo thought/knew their mothballs improved fuel mileage and wouldn't harm the fuel system/engine they'd be marketing them in such a way to make the whole world aware of it, can you imagine what it would do for the sales of mothballs? Once again I'll add my research link.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...252708319.html

[Gasalene]

Originally Posted by Ford Man

I have a Scan gauge too and by adjusting the fuel usage percentage I could make it read any number I want it to. When I first got it and programmed the information (engine size, tank size, etc.) for my '97 Escort into it and checked it against real numbers (miles, gallons of gas) I found that it was off by several MPG. I still check it against real numbers and often find it's off by 1-3 MPG for the tank although I've had times when it came out exactly correct. That isn't an Enzo mothball ad that you keep referring to it's simply a picture someone has posted on the site. I think if Enzo thought/knew their mothballs improved fuel mileage and wouldn't harm the fuel system/engine they'd be marketing them in such a way to make the whole world aware of it, can you imagine what it would do for the sales of mothballs? Once again I'll add my research link.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...252708319.html

I guess it's my turn....
"Adjusting the fuel usage % I could make it read any number I want." Really? This is news to me (but I guess anything can be fudged to do anything you want). Why would I fudge data if I want others (with a ScanGauge?) to duplicate these ranges of numbers? I don't. I didn't even know you could do this.

"...it was off by 1 to 3 MPG for the tank." The ScanGauge folks might be interested in this....

"...although I've had times when it came out exactly correct." Really? What was different for these times? What were you doing differently? And, "correct"? What was your baseline method for "exact"? These people who think "correct" are assuming
A) all gas pumps display exactly correct numbers;
B) all refill points are exactly the same (geometry-wise & "refill" point-wise);
C) all odometers are exactly correct (the same drives operate the miles traveled wheels as the MPH wheels (or digital read-out triggers).
A) + B) + C) = correct?? As the famous movie line states "Who's on first?".

ScanGauge may not show a "correct" number for average (even the length of trip affects the "correctness" of the displayed average number) but it does show a delta MPG for the ever-changing real world. Temps change, terrain changes, traffic changes, humidity changes, trips are different ... it all affects MPG.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by Gasalene

I guess it's my turn....
"Adjusting the fuel usage % I could make it read any number I want." Really? This is news to me (but I guess anything can be fudged to do anything you want). Why would I fudge data if I want others (with a ScanGauge?) to duplicate these ranges of numbers? I don't. I didn't even know you could do this.

"...it was off by 1 to 3 MPG for the tank." The ScanGauge folks might be interested in this....

"...although I've had times when it came out exactly correct." Really? What was different for these times? What were you doing differently? And, "correct"? What was your baseline method for "exact"? These people who think "correct" are assuming
A) all gas pumps display exactly correct numbers;
B) all refill points are exactly the same (geometry-wise & "refill" point-wise);
C) all odometers are exactly correct (the same drives operate the miles traveled wheels as the MPH wheels (or digital read-out triggers).
A) + B) + C) = correct?? As the famous movie line states "Who's on first?".

ScanGauge may not show a "correct" number for average (even the length of trip affects the "correctness" of the displayed average number) but it does show a delta MPG for the ever-changing real world. Temps change, terrain changes, traffic changes, humidity changes, trips are different ... it all affects MPG.

#1. You obviously know nothing about the Scangauge. You set the % variance with each fuel fillup. The fact that you don't know this means your Scangauge is not calibrated/setup properly for your vehicle, and the readings you're getting cannot be trusted to have any resemblance of accuracy.

#2. The Scangauge is not sold as a precision instrument. A variance of +/- 3 MPG on a properly setup and calibrated Scangauge is considered normal. The only way you can get it as accurate as possible, is to use the same pump every time, pulled up the same direction, and always stop at the first click. Variations in how sensitive a pump clicks off can easily make what appears to be a 3 MPG difference, but it all evens out when you look at tank averages over time.