Gas Saver Question.
From : marc
Q: here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these days $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. .
Replies:
From : sc tom sc
here is a link for this thing. http//www.ramjet.ca/englishram.html ive always liked dire straits but that wont get me to buy this thing. just think if you put this the splitfire plugs the magnets on the fuel line and all the other fuel-saving devices and additives you could be a gasoline manufacturer if you had somewhere to store all the gas coming out your filler tube. sc tom .
From : snoman
on sun 30 apr 2006 202512 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote its just another of many gimmicks that do nothing but increase the pocket book of the company producing them. yes everyone is looking for that magic silver bullet. the cold hard fact are that there is about 50 hp in a gallong of gas in stored heat energy and heat energy drives the motor and in a best case senerio you might get 30% of that at flywheel so you have to burn 2 gallons a hour to make about 30 hp a hour and 4 gallons a hour to make 60hp and this power has to overcome accessory needs drive train losses tire losses and aerodynamic drag and no magic add on is going to change that. to improve mpg a lot you need to reduce power needed to roll down the road use a fuel with a higher energy content or run a much higher compression ratio with proper fuel that will increase overall engine efficeny and allow to extract more work for a gallon of fuel. ----------------- the snoman www.thesnoman.com .
From : advocate
here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these days $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. if they worked the manufacturer ford in this case would already be installing them on their vehicles. the have a hard enough time meeting the epa standards as it is. even if ramjet wouldnt sell the design to them theyd purchase one adapt it and patent it themselves. dont you think ford would like to be able to state their v10 gets upwards of 20mpg in a f350 or 25mpg with the 5.4 .
From : marc
here is a link for this thing. http//www.ramjet.ca/englishram.html nge5g.274$vv2.26032@20.bellglobal.com... here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these days $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. .
From : miles
its just another of many gimmicks that do nothing but increase the pocket book of the company producing them. http//www.p2pays.org/ref/07/06082.htm marc wrote here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these days $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. .
From : johanb
weve been thru this see http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these days $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. .
From : agave
this is a multi-part message in mime format. --------------050802060904060203030401 content-type text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed content-transfer-encoding 7bit johanb wrote weve been thru this see http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these day $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. from the conclusion in the pm article sited above by johanb theres no ignoring the laws of physics people. your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism. --------------050802060904060203030401 content-type text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 content-transfer-encoding 7bit !doctype html public -//w3c//dtd html 4.01 transitional//en html head meta content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=content-type /head body bgcolor=#ffffff text=#000000 johanb wrote blockquote cite=midwmf5g.35$cu6.2717@.uswest.net type=cite pre wrap=weve been thru this see a class=moz-txt-link-freetext href=http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.htmlhttp//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html/a /pre blockquote type=cite pre wrap=here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto !----!----35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these day $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. /pre /blockquote /blockquote from the conclusion in the pm article sited above by johanbbr theres no ignoring the laws of physics people. your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism. /body /html --------------050802060904060203030401-- .
From : miles
snoman wrote also think what would happen to sales if they printed manuals to state 89 or higher riquired my hemi durangos manual states to use 89. it has been shown time and again with the vast majority of vehicles mpgs will not go up by using higher octane. there are a few exceptions. my durango is one of them. .
From : al bundy
you deserve every flame that comes your way on this. the question has come up numerous times and the answer is always the same. a tiny bit of research on your part would reveal how stupid your question really is. if someone here could ever find such a product we would not hide it from the public. we would scream from the bell towers. you are exactly the type of person that these scammers depend on for profit. next month they change the color or wording on the magic device and you will be back asking the same question. some people can be told the fire on the stove is hot and understand while others need to touch it for themselves time after time. .
From : christopher thompson
on sun 30 apr 2006 202512 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote its just another of many gimmicks that do nothing but increase the pocket book of the company producing them. yes everyone is looking for that magic silver bullet. the cold hard fact are that there is about 50 hp in a gallong of gas in stored heat energy and heat energy drives the motor and in a best case senerio you might get 30% of that at flywheel so you have to burn 2 gallons a hour to make about 30 hp a hour and 4 gallons a hour to make 60hp and this power has to overcome accessory needs drive train losses tire losses and aerodynamic drag and no magic add on is going to change that. to improve mpg a lot you need to reduce power needed to roll down the road use a fuel with a higher energy content or run a much higher compression ratio with proper fuel that will increase overall engine efficeny and allow to extract more work for a gallon of fuel. ----------------- the snoman www.thesnoman.com so your saying what drive a diesel *grin* -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango 06 liberty crd .
From : kevin weaver
i went to this website and found the gov test cases on these. i would say read it. there your going to find it tells you there was no increase in mpg. here is a link for this thing. http//www.ramjet.ca/englishram.html nge5g.274$vv2.26032@20.bellglobal.com... here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these days $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. .
From : robin brumfield
idont@thinkso.com says... johanb wrote weve been thru this see http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these day $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. from the conclusion in the pm article sited above by johanb theres no ignoring the laws of physics people. your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism. yabut isnt 1% included in that range upto 35% vbg -- robin charleston wv .
From : snoman
on mon 1 may 2006 090406 -0400 christopher thompson kf4drr-nospam@alltel.net wrote so your saying what drive a diesel *grin* no i am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ecm retarding of spark to control knock which hurts efficency power and mpg. they have gotten so good with kbock sensors being able to here the knock before you do that you do not realize what is being lost. also if the industry would scrap 87 completely or and go to 89 and 93 or 93 only they could build gas engines with higher cr ratios and improved thermodynamic efficency. 87 was designed for low compresion engine and millions of gallon of gas are wasted everyday as people hang on to this legacy fuel in there modern engines think they are saving money when they are really not most of the time. . ----------------- the snoman www.thesnoman.com .
From : stephen n
snoman wrote no i am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ecm retarding of spark to control knock which hurts efficency power and mpg. they have gotten so good with kbock sensors being able to here the knock before you do that you do not realize what is being lost. also if the industry would scrap 87 completely or and go to 89 and 93 or 93 only they could build gas engines with higher cr ratios and improved thermodynamic efficency. 87 was designed for low compresion engine and millions of gallon of gas are wasted everyday as people hang on to this legacy fuel in there modern engines think they are saving money when they are really not most of the time. . im not sure what this means. are you advocating the use of higher octane in cars designed for 87 do you mean manufacturers stop porducing engines that run on 87 in favour of higher cr engines is there a substantial difference in efficiency in vehicles that run 93 i think it has been shown that simply using higher octane fuel in a vehicle designed for 87 has no advantages. i must be misinterpreting you on that. stephen n. .
From : kirbyator
am i going to see better than a 8% gas mileage increase going to 91 octane over 87 octane i dont think i would and 91 octane costs me 8% more per gallon here then 87 octane. if it doesnt save me any money and the knock sensor prevents any engine damage i dont see the advantage. -darren snoman wrote no i am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ecm retarding of spark to control knock which hurts efficency power and mpg. they have gotten so good with kbock sensors being able to here the knock before you do that you do not realize what is being lost. also if the industry would scrap 87 completely or and go to 89 and 93 or 93 only they could build gas engines with higher cr ratios and improved thermodynamic efficency. 87 was designed for low compresion engine and millions of gallon of gas are wasted everyday as people hang on to this legacy fuel in there modern engines think they are saving money when they are really not most of the time. . ----------------- the snoman www.thesnoman.com .
From : the other kevin in san diego skiddz at adelphia dot net
on mon 01 may 2006 032321 gmt advocate advo@hotmail.com wrote dont you think ford would like to be able to state their v10 gets upwards of 20mpg in a f350 or 25mpg with the 5.4 screw ford *i* would like to see 20 mpg out of my v10.. .
From : christopher thompson
you can just shut the engine off and coast *grin* -- -chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd the other kevin in san diego skiddz at adelphia dot net wrote in on mon 01 may 2006 032321 gmt advocate advo@hotmail.com wrote dont you think ford would like to be able to state their v10 gets upwards of 20mpg in a f350 or 25mpg with the 5.4 screw ford *i* would like to see 20 mpg out of my v10.. .
From : snoman
on mon 01 may 2006 203033 gmt stephen n. steelystephen@coldmail.com wrote im not sure what this means. are you advocating the use of higher octane in cars designed for 87 i guess some are kinda slow here. they are not designed to do there best on 87. the only reason they have a knock sensor on them is to limit consumer complaints and keep the illusion alive that 87 is a great fuel for them. also think what would happen to sales if they printed manuals to state 89 or higher riquired also like i have said before detriot uses 93 octane in all epa mileage tests and emisson certifications not 87 and if it did not make any difference they would not use it. there is a persistant and false believe that the octane needs of a engine is constant when it is not and the warmer it get and the harder it works the more octane it needs. everytime you retard spark to control knock before you hear it you lose power and mpg. you really do not know what you are missing untill you try it. 89 will work fine on cooler days with no power loss and 87 might work out in winter but on a hot summer day if you are not running 89 or better you are lossing power and mpg and especailly if you are heavyly loaded or towing too. ----------------- the snoman www.thesnoman.com .
From : stephen n
snoman wrote on mon 01 may 2006 203033 gmt stephen n. steelystephen@coldmail.com wrote im not sure what this means. are you advocating the use of higher octane in cars designed for 87 i guess some are kinda slow here. they are not designed to do there best on 87. the only reason they have a knock sensor on them is to limit consumer complaints and keep the illusion alive that 87 is a great fuel for them. also think what would happen to sales if they printed manuals to state 89 or higher riquired also like i have said before detriot uses 93 octane in all epa mileage tests and emisson certifications not 87 and if it did not make any difference they would not use it. there is a persistant and false believe that the octane needs of a engine is constant when it is not and the warmer it get and the harder it works the more octane it needs. everytime you retard spark to control knock before you hear it you lose power and mpg. you really do not know what you are missing untill you try it. 89 will work fine on cooler days with no power loss and 87 might work out in winter but on a hot summer day if you are not running 89 or better you are lossing power and mpg and especailly if you are heavyly loaded or towing too. epa required that manufacturers show that vehicles run on 91 ron fuel equal to regu
From : christopher thompson
fuel economy. http//www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/vpcd9701.pdf i have done tests on long trips using premium and regular. there was no substantial difference in power or fuel economy when using premium. it did cost a lot more though and i dont know where the economy is in that. this is very old but i guess some people are kinda slow here. stephen n. . 222 317095 4ba5b$4456a69e$d8602e80$6002@alltel.net idont@thinkso.com says... johanb wrote weve been thru this see http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these day $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. from the conclusion in the pm article sited above by johanb theres no ignoring the laws of physics people. your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism. yabut isnt 1% included in that range upto 35% vbg -- robin charleston wv so is 0% -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango 06 liberty crd .
From : marc
thanks bundy i see your a person who types before he thinks. you make a judgement without knowing me i just asked a question hoping to get which i got from most an intelligent answer. i could jump on your bandwagon with insults but it would only bring me to your level. for all the others thanks for your replies. ive always been very sceptical of these types of claims however after reading on this forum for a while i figured this would be a good place to ask. marc 1146487678.203825.211170@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... you deserve every flame that comes your way on this. the question has come up numerous times and the answer is always the same. a tiny bit of research on your part would reveal how stupid your question really is. if someone here could ever find such a product we would not hide it from the public. we would scream from the bell towers. you are exactly the type of person that these scammers depend on for profit. next month they change the color or wording on the magic device and you will be back asking the same question. some people can be told the fire on the stove is hot and understand while others need to touch it for themselves time after time. .
From : christopher thompson
on mon 1 may 2006 090406 -0400 christopher thompson kf4drr-nospam@alltel.net wrote so your saying what drive a diesel *grin* no i am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ecm retarding of spark to control knock which hurts efficency power and mpg. you realize the dodge 360/318 doesnt have a knock sensor and does not retard timing to eliminate/reduce detonation they have gotten so good with kbock sensors being able to here the knock before you do that you do not realize what is being lost. also if the industry would scrap 87 completely or and go to 89 and 93 or 93 only they could build gas engines with higher cr ratios and improved thermodynamic efficency. 87 was designed for low compresion engine and millions of gallon of gas are wasted everyday as people hang on to this legacy fuel in there modern engines think they are saving money when they are really not most of the time. . hmmm then its a conspiracy between dialmer crysler and shell oil for example to recomend in the owners manual that you use only recomended octane rating for your vehicle most are 87 so that the oil company makes more money seems a bit of a stretch to me. and you also realize that you stated this in another post. the main reason that diesel get good mpg is because the fuel has a higher energy content about 140000 btu/gal and with the very high cr or 16 to 20 to 1 you get much higher thermodynamic efficency convert more heat energy to work. and now to improve mpg a lot you need to reduce power needed to roll down the road use a fuel with a higher energy content or run a much higher compression ratio with proper fuel that will increase overall engine efficeny and allow to extract more work for a gallon of fuel. now i realize that the other post im referanceing is clipped there so ill post it again completely. and note that in your fuel examples the diesel fuel had the highest btu per gallon. heres what you posted in the exchange my v-10 for a diesel cost effective thread i have read about several of them and i have a 79 jeep j20 that i want to restore someday and i am seriously considering making it a propane only vehical. the problem with some conversions is that they put propane in a stock engine and it will burn fine with extremely low emissions too but propane has about 25% les energy per gallon than gas so you need more of it in a stock engine but since propane has a lot higher octane you can raise cr to 12 to 1 no sweat and increase power and efficency and get mpg simular to gas on stock compression but with a lot cheap fuel. it also burn a bit slower so more spark advance is needed to which most dual fuel gas/propane engine do not properly do. the draw back is you have to install a somewhat heavy tank for fuel stored under pressure but since propane weighs 4 lbs a gallon vs 6.5lbs/gal for gas the lighter fuel ofsets most or all of this weight. pound for pound propane has more energy than gas. by weight 6.5 lbs of gas one gallon contain about 120000btu plus or minus depending on blend and 6.5 lbs of propane has approx 145000 btus this heat energy is what drives the engine while the same amout of e85 has only about 60.000 btu and a gallon of e85 weighs almost 8 lbs too. the main reason that diesel get good mpg is because the fuel has a higher energy content about 140000 btu/gal and with the very high cr or 16 to 20 to 1 you get much higher thermodynamic efficency convert more heat energy to work. but if you use a fuel like propane or even high octane fuel it is possible to raise cr ratio a good bit and improve efficency. some mention running cars on natural gas or hydrogen but the problem there is it take a lot of pressue and technology to store them in a ligud state to get a lot of range where propane is a lot easier to store and handle. ----------------- the snoman www.thesnoman.com ----------------- the snoman www.thesnoman.com .
From : agave
this is a multi-part message in mime format. --------------070805010605070000000207 content-type text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed content-transfer-encoding 7bit robin brumfield wrote idont@thinkso.com says... johanb wrote weve been thru this see http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these day $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. from the conclusion in the pm article sited above by johanb theres no ignoring the laws of physics people. your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism. yabut isnt 1% included in that range upto 35% vbg and i believe going off a cliff with a 100 mph tail wind is required to get upto the 35% vbg 2 --------------070805010605070000000207 content-type text/html; charset=iso-8859-15 content-transfer-encoding 7bit !doctype html public -//w3c//dtd html 4.01 transitional//en html head meta content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-15 http-equiv=content-type title/title /head body bgcolor=#ffffff text=#000000 robin brumfield wrote blockquote cite=midmpg.1ec0123182d7080b9896f3@.individual.net type=cite idona class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href=mailtot@thinkso.comt@thinkso.com/a says... /pre blockquote type=cite pre wrap=johanb wrote /pre blockquote type=cite pre wrap=weve been thru this see a class=moz-txt-link-freetext href=http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.htmlhttp//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html/a /pre blockquote type=cite pre wrap=here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these day $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. /pre /blockquote /blockquote pre wrap= from the conclusion in the pm article sited above by johanb theres no ignoring the laws of physics people. your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism. /pre /blockquote pre wrap=!----yabut isnt 1% included in that range upto 35% <vbg> /pre /blockquote and i believe going off a cliff with a 100 mph tail wind is required to get upto the 35% <vbg 2>br /body /html --------------070805010605070000000207-- .
From : robin brumfield
nospam@alltel.net says... idont@thinkso.com says... johanb wrote weve been thru this see http//www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/newcarstrucks/1802932.html here goes has anyone actually tried a ramjet gas saver they claim upto 35% in savings hard to believe. but with the price of gas these day $1.16 a ltr i was thinking of looking into these things. im not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. thanks in advance. from the conclusion in the pm article sited above by johanb theres no ignoring the laws of physics people. your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism. yabut isnt 1% included in that range upto 35% vbg -- robin charleston wv so is 0% ding...ding...ding...give that man a seegar...- -- robin charleston wv .
From : nobody nobody likes spam info
miles wrote snoman wrote also think what would happen to sales if they printed manuals to state 89 or higher riquired my hemi durangos manual states to use 89. it has been shown time and again with the vast majority of vehicles mpgs will not go up by using higher octane. there are a few exceptions. my durango is one of them. add later subarus. i see about 2 mpg better and a whole lot smoother running on 89 or topping up with 92 at about 2/3s tank. must be something about that 10.0/1 cr ;. my old b ii never seems to care about 87 or higher as lomg as it was decent gas. .