Saving fuel with some magic pill...

[MG Mighty]

The only way that I see it working is by increasing the amount of fuel which has injected that is actually burned before a certain amount of expansion of the engine chamber has taken place (creating therefore more useful power to make it move the wheels).
How would it make it burn faster, maybe it cause the tension of the liquid to get lower making the particles that are injected to become of smaller size and that will increase the area of the reaction and therefore increase the speed of it.
If this is the process then => it might not be good for the engine

[Rowdoc]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

Can't watch the videos, at work right now.

Same here(bloody remote connections),
Why is saving fuel important ? surely it's all about money & the environment( by emmisions reduction) ?
IMHO That being the case, Biodiesel is the only realistic solution atm

[Rednexi]

Originally Posted by Rowdoc

Same here(bloody remote connections),
Why is saving fuel important ? surely it's all about money & the environment( by emmisions reduction) ?
IMHO That being the case, Biodiesel is the only realistic solution atm

With the upcoming finnish taxation law, the car is being payed yearly depending on the emission rate of which it produces, so the payment could be up to 600% with a high-emission car...i could see saving few bucks with this if it worked... again i think it will ultimately be tied to the CC of the engine, so could be that it doesnt change the payment at all...well will have to wait and see...

[MG Mighty]

Originally Posted by Rednexi

With the upcoming finnish taxation law, the car is being payed yearly depending on the emission rate of which it produces, so the payment could be up to 600% with a high-emission car...i could see saving few bucks with this if it worked... again i think it will ultimately be tied to the CC of the engine, so could be that it doesnt change the payment at all...well will have to wait and see...

Isn't it unfair that the producers of over 50% of the global emissions completely discredit the Quito protocol,
I say that such tax is either a joke (if it based on that protocol) or it is just one more tax on "luxury" (which I'm against has a general idea since it puts a stop on a certain aspect of the drive of the economy that I take into deep regard)
USA is one of the richest countries of the world because the rich people that live there believe that their wealth is safe in that country, unlike many examples of 3rd world countries where the rich people take the money out to more safe locations making their countries in which they live less prosperous.
And another aspect, although the Queen of England isn't need for anything practical this days (compared with the past has no ruling powers) it still server a purpose which is to make people see that their situation can be improved and to set them goals for higher achievements. (That doesn't mean that I don't believe that taxation on certain luxuries isn't fair nor that taxation on property exchange isn't correct)

[Rednexi]

Originally Posted by MG Mighty

Isn't it unfair that the producers of over 50% of the global emissions completely discredit the Quito protocol,
I say that such tax is either a joke (if it based on that protocol) or it is just one more tax on "luxury" (which I'm against has a general idea since it puts a stop on a certain aspect of the drive of the economy that I take into deep regard)
USA is one of the richest countries of the world because the rich people that live there believe that their wealth is safe in that country, unlike many examples of 3rd world countries where the rich people take the money out to more safe locations making their countries in which they live less prosperous.
And another aspect, although the Queen of England isn't need for anything practical this days (compared with the past has no ruling powers) it still server a purpose which is to make people see that their situation can be improved and to set them goals for higher achievements. (That doesn't mean that I don't believe that taxation on certain luxuries isn't fair nor that taxation on property exchange isn't correct)

Hehehee! welcome to the world of crazy finnish legislation, its here designed to support the road-upkeep, and this new setting is to reduce the size of engines and -> thus reduce pollution, which isnt that bad already here in finland. Also there is a added tax to the diesel powered engines, because the diesel is cheaper to aquire, so the money has to be drain to somewhere. This is done here even if its known that it pollutes less. There is already a lot of resistance to the new law, well atleast i am against it anyway woot this is getting offtopic sry for the threadstarter if so....

[Carl]

hehe ive got an old 2.6 straight six ohc injection merk
just startin it up melts 2square km of ice cap
and makes an baby seal cry

im just gettin a bit numb from being force fed this
global warming guff on tv an raido

and sry to go off topic bullet

[aa840]

I'll stay on topic

First tank, 7.5L/100Km

According to the product its supposed to take affect after the third tank or so.

[Bedamax]

There's a much easier way to improve MPG that is guaranteed to work: stop buying heavy 2+tonne vehicles with 3+litre engines, and try walking, a push-bike or public transport instead of taking the car every time.

I already get 50MPG in my (diesel) vehicle, which is about twice that on the news articles even after the so called improvements, and I don't use it except when I need to. I think I'll manage without any magic pills!

[Bullet]

Quite a lively discussion evolved out of my first post.

Originally Posted by Rowdoc

IMHO That being the case, Biodiesel is the only realistic solution atm

Certainly biodiesel is an interesting approach and is being hyped a lot at the moment. But there are several drawbacks with that technology at them moment. I don't want to go into details but it has to do with the quality of the oil and its "freshness" which makes logistics complicated. However there are a few methods dealing with "old" oils as well but a they bit more expensive. And you can't actually grow as much as you need to satisfy fuel demands. But if I'm getting to drive a diesel from time to time I usually go for biodiesel and some "funky" additives

Originally Posted by MG Mighty

he only way that I see it working is by increasing the amount of fuel which has injected that is actually burned before a certain amount of expansion of the engine chamber has taken place (creating therefore more useful power to make it move the wheels).

The way I see it working is by increasing octane or cetane rating of the actual fuel. But the increase is marginal compared to other fuel additives so it can't be the only reason. Then a coating appears inside the engine (I've been able to detect it on spark plugs) so therefore the friction is reduced. The third component is some catalyst which accelerates the burning process similar to NOx but not that aggressive. So it's octane, lubrication, burn catalyst.

Originally Posted by 10th Chemmotological Centre of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine

In the course of application of MPG-Cap additive reduction of harmful exhaust gas emitted into atmosphere from 0.5 to 0.2 % took place and idle engine speed increased when measured with the help of a digital tachometer. When the combustion chamber was checked with the help of the device for adjustment of fuel supply to the combustion chamber the change of flame colour from light red to light blue was detected, which evidences of the acceleration of fuel combustion in the beginning of the compression stroke, as well as of the increase of engine power.

Due to holidays at Universities I don't have access to labs so we could see what's inside, that has to wait until September.

I agree with Bedamax about usage of smaller vehicles, but the thing is that I don't want to use a small car and I don't want my wife be driving a small car and I guess many people don't like it as well. For me it's simply because it's not as safe and comfortable as a 2 something ton SUV or Saloon vit a V6, V8 or W12 engine. I had once an accident in a Fiat Punto, to hell with it.

I don't see the point of the argument here. This is not a sales presentation, I'm just a very curious person and want as many independent skeptics as I can get on board for testing that stuff Plus we are getting bombarded by so called branded fuels from Shell, BP, ESSO etc. Which is basically normal Benzine or Diesel with some additives. And I actually do more kilometers per tank on the more expensive V-Power benzine.

[Bullet]

Some more testing results on MPG-Pills:

The testing vehicle is a 1993 Volvo 460 GLE, with 2.0L benzine engine that has been fed with the MPG-Caps for 3 tanks incl. conditioning now.

The tank's volume is 60 liters (15.85 Gal.). I have also figured out that I'm adding a bit less to the fuel than on the instruction but still the results are becoming visible.

The vehicle is only driven within the city limits (almost no highway),

prior to the MPG-CAPs the consumption was:
12.7L per 100 km - (3.35498 Gal. per 62.1371 Mi. [18.52 Mi. per Gal.])

after the 3 tank the consumption is:
11.5L per 100 km (3.03797 Gal. per 62.1371 Mi. [20.45 Mi. per Gal.] ).

Which gives a nice decrease in benzine consumption by 9.44%.

I have added the correct dose with this tank and will report when the tank is empty.