Maybe I'm missing something? Doesn't a finer mist provide more power due to the larger surface area (per volume) of the droplet? Which is supposed to give a more complete burn.
Please educate me.
HMW polyisobutylene
- Thread starter GMorg
- Start date
- Status
Please educate me.
JHZR2
Staff member
what is the pink glop??? Is it the HMW polyisobutylene, or something else? Id like to reduce the NOx in my E30 BMW.
Thanks,
JMH
Here is the raw and summary data for the old and new runs. I have added a new component that I must explain. I have found the PIB to be too thick to use easily at the pump. So, I decided to dilute the PIB with something that I felt could handle the heat of riding around in my car. I settled on MMO. It seemed to be a great solvent for PIB and did not seem to be too volatile. So, I am running a 50/50 mixture of the GTA product and MMO. I use the concoction at 4 oz. per 15 gallons. That equals 2 oz of GTA PIB per 15 gallons of fuel and 2 oz of MMO per 15 gallons of fuel. My previous experience with MMO suggested that it would not affect mileage, but I ran a single tank of MMO at 2 oz per 15 gallons just to have the treatment in the mix. The GTA PIB is being used at the recommended dose (plus a little MMO). For summary data, I am ignoring the presence/absence of MMO. However, the raw data is presented for those that want to separate the various treatments. I am working from the assumption that MMO does not affect mileage and that there is no MMO/PIB interaction. For now, it is a working hypothesis. Also, for clarity, I am calculating means and standard deviation on a "per tank" basis -- I am not weighting the data by mileage or gallons. I have taken a quick look and there is not much difference between weighting and non-weighting. In any case, for the purpose of calculating means and standard deviation, each tank is a single, unweighted observation.
Summary:
without PIB I am getting 20.32 +/- 1.1 MPG.
n=8, total miles equals 2702
with PIB, I am getting 22.13 +/- 0.63 MPG
n=5, total miles equals 1829
Raw data:
Summary:
without PIB I am getting 20.32 +/- 1.1 MPG.
n=8, total miles equals 2702
with PIB, I am getting 22.13 +/- 0.63 MPG
n=5, total miles equals 1829
Raw data:
Almost a 9% increase - that's pretty good. The difference between the avg means appear statistically significant too.
Will this additive also act as an UCL?
Will this additive also act as an UCL?
GMorg, can you fill us in on your engine spec's again and cruise RPM?
Also, what is the head design (swirl port, tumble port, high-quench?), and number of valves? Thanks!
Also, what is the head design (swirl port, tumble port, high-quench?), and number of valves? Thanks!
Impressive. Since I am already usong FP/LC, I wonder if it would work as well mixed 50-50 FP60/PIB?
Surfstar,
It does seem to be working and I think that I am convinced. However, I am going to try to go through several cycles before a become an advocate. As for UCL, I don't know! I really think that this stuff is diluted to point that droplet formation is the only effect, not UCL. However, I know that I don't know.
Rodbuckler,
The test is in my daily driver, a 2005 Pontiac Montana SV6 with the LX9 3.5 liter V6. Most trips are "country road" - not stop and go, not highway. I have several stop signs and traffic lights, a lot of 45 mph and 55 mph, and a single, hated, poorly designed intersection that routinely results in setting through 2-3 long light cycles. Most trips are around 15 miles. It seems that except for crossing mountains, the tach stays between 2000 and 3000 rpm.
Oldmoparguy1,
I don't know about mixing with FP/LC. I don't know much about either. I can tell you that HMW PIB will not stay in solution in products that contain much acetone or isopropyl alcohol. It is easy to test though. HMW PIB is very easy to see if it falls out of solution. A large white insoluble wad immediately forms whenever the solvent won't hold the PIB.
It does seem to be working and I think that I am convinced. However, I am going to try to go through several cycles before a become an advocate. As for UCL, I don't know! I really think that this stuff is diluted to point that droplet formation is the only effect, not UCL. However, I know that I don't know.
Rodbuckler,
The test is in my daily driver, a 2005 Pontiac Montana SV6 with the LX9 3.5 liter V6. Most trips are "country road" - not stop and go, not highway. I have several stop signs and traffic lights, a lot of 45 mph and 55 mph, and a single, hated, poorly designed intersection that routinely results in setting through 2-3 long light cycles. Most trips are around 15 miles. It seems that except for crossing mountains, the tach stays between 2000 and 3000 rpm.
Oldmoparguy1,
I don't know about mixing with FP/LC. I don't know much about either. I can tell you that HMW PIB will not stay in solution in products that contain much acetone or isopropyl alcohol. It is easy to test though. HMW PIB is very easy to see if it falls out of solution. A large white insoluble wad immediately forms whenever the solvent won't hold the PIB.
I thought that it is worth mentioning that the GM average MPG calculator appears to be within +/- 3.6% of my "per tank" calculations. There is a tendency for the computer to over estimate the mileage, but all in all, I think that one can follow their GM MPG calculator and have a fairly good estimate of actual MPG. I will continue to "do the math", but if PIB is really working, I think that one would be able to "see" it by following the GM estimate.
Out of curiousity, I mixed PIB with several other things that I wouldn't mind pouring into my gas tank. I now know that at 50/50 one can mix GTA-PIB with either Valvoline multipurpose 2-stroke ashless oil, Techron, or Sta-Bil. The Sta-bil surprized me because it's MSDS states that it is up to 95% isopropyl alcohol and earlier efforts suggested that isopropyl wouldn't work. However, Sta-bil doesn't smell much like isopropyl. In any case, MMO, 2-stroke oil, Chevron Techron, and Sta-bil can be used to dilute the GTA product.
Isn't STP a concoction of viscosity index improvers?
Last night I tried diluting the GTA-PIB in Chevron's Delo diesel fuel injector cleaner. There are some solubility issues. Delo injector cleaner is not satifactory as a diluent.
Shannow,
What are you planning to do with your STP extraction?
Shannow,
What are you planning to do with your STP extraction?
molakule..."The base for STP is polyisobutylene, an olefin copolymer. It increases oil viscosity much the same as bright stock, except it leaves very little residue as compared to brightstock."
and a hair brained experiment.
So I decided to try getting the part that I wanted out of the STP.
Rodbuckler,
After your RPM question, I started paying more attention to my tach. I have to correct what I wrote above. My RPM are generally between 1000 and 2000. The above numbers are close for highway driving, but not my daily route.
After your RPM question, I started paying more attention to my tach. I have to correct what I wrote above. My RPM are generally between 1000 and 2000. The above numbers are close for highway driving, but not my daily route.
As a diluent, I suggest that Sta-bil should be removed from the list. A precipitate has begun to form. It is visible as a slight haze. If something similar were happening in the 2-stroke oil, I would not be able to see it due to the dye.
Shannow,
If you want to use STP-PIB as a surrogate for GTA-PIB, I bet that you won't see the same effects. The key to droplet size appears to PIB molecular weight/size. So, if STP-PIB is shorter/smaller than GTA-PIB, then the average droplet size may be different. Maybe your observations will be better, who knows. I am just suggesting that PIBs of different MWs are different beasts.
If you want to use STP-PIB as a surrogate for GTA-PIB, I bet that you won't see the same effects. The key to droplet size appears to PIB molecular weight/size. So, if STP-PIB is shorter/smaller than GTA-PIB, then the average droplet size may be different. Maybe your observations will be better, who knows. I am just suggesting that PIBs of different MWs are different beasts.
I notice differences in throttle response of my 4.6L with swirl-port head with plain gas, Lucas UCL, and Evinrude XD-100. I never give the engine heavy throttle at less than 2000RPM, but I sometimes cruise at 1500-2000RPM on the country highways in 5th gear. I would imagine there is PIB in both of these lubes.
Any load at all below 2000RPM with plain gas and the engine would get a just a tad stumbly. I used the Lucas UCL at 1:650 and got similar result to plain gas. When I tried the XD-100 at 1:650 the change in response was immediately obvious. At 1:850 with the XD-100, the response improved yet again. Mileage is up, as is 2000-2500RPM cruise response.
I will try 1:1000 with both the XD-100 and the Lucas UCL. The engine runs smoother with both. Cleaning and lubrication are my primary goals.
Any load at all below 2000RPM with plain gas and the engine would get a just a tad stumbly. I used the Lucas UCL at 1:650 and got similar result to plain gas. When I tried the XD-100 at 1:650 the change in response was immediately obvious. At 1:850 with the XD-100, the response improved yet again. Mileage is up, as is 2000-2500RPM cruise response.
I will try 1:1000 with both the XD-100 and the Lucas UCL. The engine runs smoother with both. Cleaning and lubrication are my primary goals.
Filled the tank this morning. Here's the data update:
Interesting, in almost every case the in dash MPG calculator overstated the actual MPG. Maybe they use the in dash unit for CAFE requirements.
[ July 27, 2006, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: another Todd ]
[ July 27, 2006, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: another Todd ]
another Todd wrote: "in almost every case the in dash MPG calculator overstated the actual MPG"
Maybe..
Maybe the odometer is underestimating miles, maybe my local station(s) is ignoring NIST standards. I don't know.
As a side note, two stations here have recently added warnings on the pump that state that calibrations failed. One station fixed the problem, the other closed.
Maybe..
Maybe the odometer is underestimating miles, maybe my local station(s) is ignoring NIST standards. I don't know.
As a side note, two stations here have recently added warnings on the pump that state that calibrations failed. One station fixed the problem, the other closed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked