Some ridic article by some fool
 

i've read this....
 

I read it...and I just lost all hope when he wanted to wrap foil around his o2 sensor.

This is the annotated version though, :p

oh....
 

I read his personal site. Him and his crazy dodge neon.

Wordpress! Wordpress! :p

Everybody has their "quirks" as it were.

I bought some Torco diesel oil...it's OK...but I found it's not rated all that well overall. Saw no mpg gain in either car. For what I paid I could have bought Mobil synth oil at Walfart.

I don't take everything LaPointe says as gospel...but if I was looking for something to test for mpg gains...I'd look on his site before I'd look on some others.

I've got foil wrapped around my O2 sensor. Want to see? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what the endless need is to put stuff down on this site....hope it isn't catching though.

*sigh* Twas me, I think it's pretty crappy, I'll clean it up one of these days.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! ;)
Specifically, the complete lack of VO powered microcars is what makes me think oil companies and automakers are a bit too close. :(

WTF is wordpress!

Bottom line on LaPointe (as far as I know) is that he tests 99% driveline mods for fuel economy.

NO driving techniques...NO aero mods.

He drives out one way so many miles..then back the other way to factor out wind and terrain. Uses a scan gauge. Highway speeds.

If he says he's seen a gain with something...better believe it...espec if you drive a Neon. Well...maybe not the Torco oil? :rolleyes:

As far as advertising stuff: I find it interesting on the internet the way people tend to jump all over anyone selling something....yes there are a lot of scammers...but then again....people can't just give stuff away either.

If you try to make your own versions of various things you see mentioned...you'll probably find what I did...all the little parts add up quick...and you will probably spend many frustrating hours trying to get something to work.

As far as his political views...my guess is that if the acetone was added to fuel in bulk...there MIGHT be around a 10% avg gain in fuel economy...cleaner air. But no war profits though.

I still dunno what you want me to do with wordpress, *shrug*

ZugyNA, I have a hard time believing buying a certain brand of gas destroyed his GMC's fuel system. He says he saw that, but I'll be damned if I believe it. Also, I've run E10 in my car plenty of times and it has yet to jump and buck, or whatever he says it does.

And to point about selling things, the fact that all he says about most of these things is "wow, they're so cool, call my buddy and he'll hook you up" is suspect. Let's not even consider that the product websites have little merit or proof, but if GS existed for the soul purpose of Matt answering ever post with a product he makes...I wouldn't be here.

Besides that, since you bring it up, it is rather odd he completely disregards aero and driving mods. He claims doubled mileage, but I've never seen it happen (except in the case of driving and aero mods, as shown on this site).

As far as selling/buying products goes...well it's buyer beware.

I really try to look before I leap...and even that doesn't always work.

I only recently started paying much attention to driving style and aero mods.

Driving style changes work for sure...but in a sense are almost a kind of cheating...which confuses results from technical changes.....and probably why LaPointe doesn't use them.

Aero mods work...but can be hard to apply right? Not to mention changing the appearance of the car.

People on some other sites and in some groups pay no attention to either of them at all for the most part...doing mostly driveline mods.

The majority of auto enthusiasts are still after POWER....PERIOD?????

Yes, yes, buyer beware, trust no one, it's all your fault someone lied to you and you bought their crap.

Anyway, how is driving technique cheating? Because it works, or because it blows all this heated fuel stuff out of the water?

Besides, this isn't about what the majority of people want. Change in attitudes won't happen if every fuel economy improvement is pitched with some bs about "and there was a huge increase in horsepower too." I haven't seen a dyno sheet on his site, nor any testing besides "oh wow, he feathered that gas pedal a little bit and tripled his mileage, but then he put ethanol in and threw a rod."

Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense. And unfortunately it doesn't have any of the proof behind it to make me think it does. If he'd cite a mother****ing source besides www.buythiscuzitworks.com I might be a little less of a cynic.

I look at it the other way. Once you max out your driving style you won't see anymore improvement and so you can't cheat by doing something that will get better results. :D

It would be LOGICAL to combine driving techniques...aeromods...AND driveline mods?

But you can't test driveline mods if you are using driving techniques at the same time...or at least it's difficult. Same for testing aeromods.

It's real easy to put some acetone in the tank or install an intake swirler or vgs...and then subconsiously drive a little easier and then say they worked.

Which is why testing things with a scangauge ...2 ways..at highway speeds...is the about the only valid way to test driveline mods?

(or maybe full tank refills with consistant driving and using a 3 tank moving avg?)

Isn't this the guy who also says to add the oil additives in addition to the recommended volume of oil, overfilling your crankcase? What a screwball!

IMHO, it's the only valid way to test any kind of mod, additive, etc. - and only if cruise control is used (takes the driver's foot out of the equation and ensures each run is at exactly the same speed), and only if you're driving essentially alone (not following in any other vehicles' wakes). It's the closest we can get to a dynamometer.

EDIT: and I should have said, accurate-as-possible before/after comparisons can only be done back to back, in identical conditions. Not days or weeks apart (as is the case with tank to tank testing).

How often do I do a scientific test on a modification? Mehbe once a month, less? Should I abandon good FE for that period of time because it'll be better for testing? Unfortunately, I think there is just as much variability in normal driving as there is in fuel conscious driving. If you want to get ****ty mileage so you can "accurately" test your fuel atomizers, that's fine with me, but I have yet to see you post some semblance of a test that's even made an attempt to be free of variability, so I can't say I see what you're gaining.

Howdy all...
The statement at --
?11. Perhaps you still have a carburetor or you own a beautiful antique automobile. I often soldered or plugged the power value shut in many kinds of carburetors to prevent enriching the fuel mixture unnecessarily. ---You will not even notice anything except smoother operation and a lower gas expense with improved mileage.? --is WAY WRONG !

Plugging or disonecting someway the power valve circuit in a carby will result in a stammer (which if serious enough could stall out the engine) when flooring it from idle.
Not the best thing at the lights or across a busy intersection when you need immediate zip.
Other effects can be burnt head valves from lean out conditions or increased seat wear.
Also the engine will be noticeably weak in acceleration when going say from a 3/4 to full throttle condition in any gear.
Bottom line , BAD ADVICE !

In fact ,..that whole article was a complete joke.

gregW:-)

100hp Fiat 128 1100cc 40mpg
std-hp 72 Toyota corola 60mpg

Hey there, onegammyleg! Thanks for the input, it's nice to have you around as a new member. Don't forget to make an intro thread!

I've noticed many, many times that when a mod is proposed that someone...with out fail....will introduce the FEAR FACTOR or the RIDICULE FACTOR.

Not saying that taking care and so forth are not a good thing...just making an observation.....

Ridicule and fear are NOT scientific testing methods.

They are emotional games?

Here's one for ya. I bought a 650 demon carb for 351c. The guy said it had a good base jet setting. I ran full throtle with water injection on. Engine ran very well. I turned water off. It was crackleing out the exhuast. I did research on the carb. It was 15.5 AFR out of the box. But why water dosn't burn? :rolleyes:

Emotional games: "The government and every business in the world is in a conspiracy to rule your life so you can pay 500 extra dollars a year for gas. No one is honest except for me. Everyone wants to poison your gas tank. Now, listen to me solve the problem."

Logic: If acetone improves vaporization of fuel, and fuel is almost already completed vaporated by a stock injector, then where's the gain going to come from? Mehbe I'm just scared, but I tried it on two seperate occasions with two different fuel injection systems on my car; you can guess what happened.

Ten percent gain? That's a lot! A whole lot! :eek:

No, water doesn't burn.... It reacts, chemically! This feature of water makes it unique;ie, rusting (iron oxide) forms when water...in any form / amount ...combines chemically with iron-based metals. Want a faster rusting? Heat the iron! Weld beads rust very fast...from the moisture in the air. Liquid water is as different from water vapor(a gas) as liquid is different from ice! It's all water...just the states are different!

Ahem! Take the driver's foot out of the equation? My foot (on the accelerator) can beat your blind, brainless cruise control any day, any time, under any conditions! I promise you! Cruise control has no eyes, judgement, or sense of smoothness (it's "on", "off", "on", "off" ... just what you don't want! No modulation...no gradients!
The closest thing we can get to a (chassis) dyno? I'm afraid not!

Ted, you missed my main point:

I'm not arguing that cruise is most efficient. I'm saying that it's most consistent, and it also removes operator bias from testing.

Like you, I can also beat my cruise control hands down at FE. But I can't be as consistent as it is for testing purposes, and I doubt you could either.

Not to be a jerk, but I disagree a bit w/ onegammeyleg.:o I have done alot of carb tuning on my '68 Charger. My Charger has a high lift, long duration camshaft (.509 lift on intake and exhaust w/ 292 duration) which causes a low intake manifold vaccum manifold condition. I was having problems with the 383 stalling a bit at takeoff due to too much fuel. Demon (similar to Holley) recommended a plug for the power valve because of my low vacuum (4 in of Hg). It worked for me b/c of my engine combo. I also assume that a plug wouldn't hurt or help a factory motor if the person was driving with FE in mind.

I agree the article is completely wack 'n all, but lets not jump to extremes concerning carb tuning techniques. There's alot to it.

By the way, the Charger is a rarely driven toy...the Civic gets the daily driving and the FE.

Plugging the power valve(s) in my 780 Holley really improves the performance! I do NOT know where you are coming from! Do you? Power valves are for economy...taking the "load" from the main jets at cruise... especially if the jets are "sized" (leaned) for this compromise! Proper A/F ratio with power valves is impossible! "Burned valves"? On what planet?

"Some fool..."?
 

Let's start (another!) a pointless argument.... The article in question certainly has more credibility than all the "expert opinions" offered on this forum! I'm no expert...but I know enough to say " Be very careful who you call "fool"!

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is as good as most. I admit, there are some bright people here... but to call this author a "fool" means but one thing-"The pot calleth the kettle black."

Excuse me, but the person you are calling a fool was refering to himself with the title in the first place, perhaps close reading is your friend.

Besides, this article has no credibility. At least for me, and the scientific community I attempt to imitate, credibility begins with theory, fact, supporting arguments, citations, solids tests and numbers. The original article is nothing but a shady advertisement for a bunch of **** that won't (for the most part) due anything. Until I see any information about your car, your mileage, you're "secrets" I will just assume you're as shady as he...at least I put my knowledge out there for discussion.

SVOboy: I think you did a good job in your analyasis of the article. I agree with your assesements of the BS and their negative direction in terms of misinformation and redirection.

On the carburator power valve issue, their seems to be a lot of confusion, at best. The power valve is an assist device to allow more fuel to be input into the intake, when you try to accelerate. On a normal carburator, if you plug off the power valve, your acceleration ability goes out the window because effectively the carb is only able to put enough fuel into the intake to run the car down the road.

Plugging the power valve generally will use less fuel, but you can't accelerate, very well and the overall driveability is the pits.

In special non-stock setups, if you have big enough carburators, to where they already are dumping an excess of fuel down the intake, then plugging the valve might make it run better. On a average persons car it would not.

In either case, the point of SVOboy's analysis was to point out the inconsistencies and misinformation which are presented to people as absolute fact, based largely on some interest or desire to promote some product or device which is intended largely or solely for their financial benefit, but which is presented as a point of information from a knowledgable source, to promote their personal interest. I think he did a great job!

Well I beleive it, just last week my car died on the way home from work, had to drain some gas and add some fresh, had a bunch of water in it. Same thing with my friend, two weeks ago. It does happen, I don't believe the part that says it wrecked his fuel system though.

Nothing wrong with overfilling the crankcase. Just about any car can take 1\2 to 1 quart extra. Makes the oil run cooler and last longer.

I'm a selfish SOB, so saving gas is about saving money. I want to know something is going to work before I spend money on it.

If somebody has done a comparative analysis on different parts, I'd like to see it. Seriously, who has 2 1997 Honda Civics and wants to try two different sets of spark plug wires, then track the mileage and other data? Very rarely will you see a side-by-side analysis of comparable mods. Did filter X work better than filter Y? Did you drive a lot in the city before using a recommended additive, then start driving on the freeway? Did you use filter J for the winter, and change to filter K in the spring?

The best thing I have seen so far is info from hyper-milers who made a change and got improved mileage. But that's enough for me. There is a wealth of good experience and good info here. Just learning to drive slowly has made being here worth it. But I've got more useful tips.

As a noob (maybe this will change later) I ask myself how many gallons I will need to save to pay for a mod. Do I need to spend $100 to save $5 in gas? Nope, ain't doin' it.

Final note about any criticism. There will always be critics. The ones who point out what won't work without giving an alternate or without verifiable qualifications rarely keep my attention long. If you are intelligent enough to point out what won't work and give good reasons why not, you must be smart enough to point out what will work.

MA4T

ma4t -

I think this is a 100% legitimate litmus test. For me, it's a hobby, so I am less concerned about the cost and more interested in what I discover along the way. Therefore, I consider myself an "enlightened sucker" when it comes to this stuff. The converse to this is that I don't want to destroy my car in the process, so I am also ultra-carefull in what I do.

Different (power) strokes for different folks.

CarloSW2

I wrapped some aluminum foil around my header shield on my xB soon after I baught it to help keep the pipe warmer. Since a lot of my driving is in cooler weather and getting the cat to warm up sooner when I drive slowly most of the time is a good idea. Also it did not require any wire to keep it on probably because my header it between the firewall and engine instead of in front of the engine in the air flow of the radiator. It also keeps some heat from getting to the firewall in the hotter summer months. I didn't see much point in wrapping the o2 sensor other than it gets cooled by air flow around it so I did wrap some foil around it just to protect it from the elements. Big point is since I am burning almost half the normal fuel per mile it probably not such a bad idea to keep it a little warmer since it is getting less heat energy from less fuel burning as well as when coasting.

Acetone apparently come in a few different variations of chemical structure and vary in its ability to improve fuel combustion. I am using some ACE hardware brand now but will get some beauty shop acetone to try before this gallon runs out.

>>How could a 25% gain in gas mileage come from,
>>at most, a 2% increase in fuel vaporization? It couldn't

Just a nit on this analysis as it jumped out on me. Finer misting of the fuel may have other ramifications than just burning some claimed additional 1-2% of fuel... altering the quality of the injector output may alter the efficiency of the other 98% of the fuel being burned as well.... I think... by positively altering the combustion in a way such that more mechanical energy is taken from the overall fuel consumed. Note I am making no claims about his claims, just that there is a "possible" flaw in the argument disputing the claim.

I have wondered is N2O might up mileage for the same reason. Accelerate the burn, get a higher peak combustion pressure, get more work out of the gas... I'm sure it wouldn't be economical, but it's interesting to think about...