Outstanding Amsoil results!!!

Ok, this is going to sound like BS and someone who's smoking crack or something like that. Just had to warn ya! I Auto-RX'd my engine a while back and just changed it tonight. I put in full synth Amsoil. I've been keeping good track of my MPG for a while and It did increase with the ARX. What is most impressive to me is the MPG increase with Amsoil. I filled my tank before I changed the oil so this isn't based upon real world results. It's based upon the trip computer calculations. Now, first off, the computer is actually fairly accurate. Over the coarse of one tank it is usually only off about 10 miles or so out of ~550. Anyway, it also has a capability of doing instantaneous mileage. There's one stretch of road I've been using to test mileage. I start the mileage meter at the beginning of that stretch and check it at the end...about 3 miles. I do this with the cruise control on. So, at 55MPH I normally get ~15.1MPG. I did this same test tonight after changing to Amsoil and I swear to you that with no other changes it jumped to 15.9!! Just oil! It had been 14.3 before the ARX so with the two combined I've seen about a 1.5MPG increase. Now, this is at 55MPH so on the highway it may actually be different. So, this whole post was just to say that synthetics are the way to go IMO. Mikie
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
21,989
Location
Oakville, Ontario
Could be other variables here too. I had a trip computer in my 97 GTP and on a windy day the results would change a lot, if you get wind behind you the MPG goes way up, if in front of you, it goes way down. Was the road totally flat? Was the outside temp the same? AC on or off both times? And I agree, 15.9 MPG at 55mph is awful mileage to begin with, unless you are driving a Winnebago! [Smile]
 

Al

Messages
19,199
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
I think its real hard to get more than 3% increase no matter what you do in terms of lubrication(IMHO). I truly believe that many people who say they are getting an increase (not saying this is you, Weatherlite) drive better because they hope for better milage. They then drive much more efficiently. Its a known fact that if you put a vacuum gage on your vehicle and drive to keep a higher vacuum you can easily get a 10% increase in milage.
 
Messages
1,874
Location
Ocala, Florida
I think now is the time to really mess you up here. Here is a little experiment that I encourage everyone to try that knows what their common gas milage is on an overall tank of gas.... fill your tank completely up to the point you know you have it full. drive your vehicle, BUT!... DO NOT let your gauge drop all the way to the 3/4 mark on your gauge(this means you have used just a hair less than 1/4 of a tank at this point). Refuel your tank again back to the same fullness you did before starting. Take your readings and you'll find you have a better fuel average than if you let it run completly down. Now this is just an experiment that I have done because on mechanic had told me this would happen and I didn't believe it. Well, I did it and I think you'll find it to show some interesting results. This will also help explain his increase in mileage, not due to the synth oil but in his measuring as he did not drive lower than a 1/4 drop like his normal readings would indicate as an overall but in the short distance it will read much higher. try it, I suspect you'll find this to be very interesting.
 
Messages
874
Location
Pacific NW
Bob, shouldn't this be in the "riddle of the day" forum? [Smile] I can think of 3 reaches. -Measurement error, wishful thinking, careful driving, etc. Enter Leonard Nimoy. -Mechanical difference making top 25% more efficient. Thermal? Something to do with full tank better dissipating/averaging heat from fuel-pump/return cycle hence cooler a/f mixture? -Temperature of gas when filling tank. Catching degree days right can mean 10%. David
 
Messages
93
Location
Near Chicago, Illinois
I always figured the fuel gauges were less accurate at the very top. I've seen some cars in which the gauge would read full for a long time then once it began moving it would drop fast. Another way to measure mileage without starting with the tank above the full mark would be to start measuring the mileage when the tank is 3/4 full and stop when it's 1/4 full. This gives your mileage for 1/2 of your total tank volume. I think the most accurate way to measure gallons used is to fill the tank till you can see the gas level in the filler neck, then read the volume off the pump. This allows you to fill to the exact same level before and after the driving. I'd expect the overall efficiency of the engine to be worse with a full tank vs a nearly empty tank due to the extra weight being carried. Someone recently wrote to me about how he preferred to use aluminum flex duct on his air intake rather than a PVC pipe because the extra weight of the PVC would rob him of maybe 0.5 HP. He could probably save more weight by removing his clothes. I don't think that much weight loss is detectable on a 3,000 pound car.
 
Messages
1,874
Location
Ocala, Florida
It wouldn't matter how many miles you drop over a given time, if you were to fill it up to the neck as you pointed out, therefore it being measured back to the starting point and take the miles driven divided by the gal's used gives you a fairley good idea of mpg's. But in the instance above, you will find that if you measure a short trip of less than a quarter off the top of the tank, and refill, you're mileage is different than if you were to run it all the way down and refill to the same levels. Point is, you can have an average of say 20mpg on normal tank, do this little experiment time and time again just to make sure your not fudging, and it will show an increase over and above your normal 20mpg. You've got to see it to believe it. What I suspect is there is more margin for error over a full tank than just a few miles of driving such as in his instance stated above.
 
Messages
874
Location
Pacific NW
PVC works very well actually. It can be formed with heat and is great for areas that need strength. It can also be glued & sealed very easily & securely. Big bonus is there are many ready made shapes from which to choose. Hit home depot for saw, sandpaper, heat gun, pvc glue, time. Anyone can make a custom intake. David
 
Messages
47,693
Location
Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
quote:
I wouldn't believe anything from somebody that jerry rigs an intake pipe with PVC
Careful - you guys are hitting aweful close to home.....PVC is a fairly famous intake mod on the infamous B21FTi motor in the Volvo 240 Turbo. Works really great!!! Never done did my questioned anwered - what kinda car?
 
Messages
22,188
Location
Colorado Springs
Oops, didn't mean to offend anyone [Smile] I tried the 3 inch PVC with huge cone filter on my Grand Am, even ran it way down into the fenderwell for nothing but ambient intake temps, and all I got was a nice intake growl and a major loss in bottom end torque. Went back to stock with a stock paper filter but removed most of the air silencer, enough to keep it still in the fenderwell for cold air, and found that setup to be the best. On a trubo Volvo though, I can see where the least restriction, the better.
 
Messages
1,253
Location
michigan
there is in most tanks a (high) volume of gas that renders the level sender useless until the level sender starts to float down. aside from that, most fuel system manufacturers will calibrate the level sender to show changes more slowly on a full tank than an empty tank. they don't want you running out of gas or running the pump dry.
 
Messages
874
Location
Pacific NW
quote:
Originally posted by tweeker43: there is in most tanks a (high) volume of gas that renders the level sender useless until the level sender starts to float down. ...
If we compare miles driven against actual fill gallons then gauge inaccuracy doesn't come into play. We only have to assume 3/4 is always 3/4 which they should do well, or at least consistently on level ground. David
 
Messages
1,856
Location
PA
quote:
Originally posted by OneQuartLow:
quote:
Originally posted by tweeker43: there is in most tanks a (high) volume of gas that renders the level sender useless until the level sender starts to float down. ...
If we compare miles driven against actual fill gallons then gauge inaccuracy doesn't come into play. We only have to assume 3/4 is always 3/4 which they should do well, or at least consistently on level ground. David

Correct. When I do my mileage I always fill to full, drive as long as I like (half, quater, E, fumes, whatever) and then fill again (hopefully on the same pump). I divide miles by gallons and vavoom... miles PER gallon. I have noticed nothing but inaccuracy with the Fbody gauge. 10 Gallons for me though is the 3/4 mark which makes knowing my fuel economy within +/- 2mpg pretty good. I don't understand your logic Bob, I've never seen anything like you describe no matter when I fill my tank?!? [I dont know]
 

Weatherlite

Thread starter
Messages
98
Location
Mountain Home AFB, ID
Pablo, it's a 2000 Ford Excursion with the 6.8L V-10 and 4.30 gears. For that 15MPG is phenomenal! Bob, concerning your 3/4 tank experiment, I'd have to agreee that it is most likely due to a couple of factors. Consistency of driving habits for the first 1/4 tank is probably the major one because over the course of a full tank there's lots of room for a lot of variables. Mikie
 
Messages
47,693
Location
Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
quote:
2000 Ford Excursion with the 6.8L V-10 and 4.30 gears
[Cheers!] You could have calmed the crowd if you wooda said that first [Duh!] I agree with most of the other stuff, though - I'm sorta an average of 10-20 tanks, with one controlled change at a time, kinda guy. I'm still thinking you saw some (small) improvement, just hang with it to see if it sticks. Be sure to do an oil analysis and post that as well!
 
Messages
5,785
Location
Dixie
Mikie, I was thinking you changed over the engine/transmission and differential in this truck to Amsoil? If that is the case, I'm not surprised by the increase in mileage, as I've seen an increase of up to 7%-8%, just from going to the Amsoil Series 2000, 0w-30 synthetic in place of a 10w-30 petroleum oil in some vehicles. Changing over the transmission and differential to synthetic normally gets you another 1%-2% increase in fuel efficiency. I would expect the performance to increase for the next 1000-1500 miles. TooSlick
 
Messages
1,874
Location
Ocala, Florida
quote:
Originally posted by Weatherlite: Bob, concerning your 3/4 tank experiment, I'd have to agree that it is most likely due to a couple of factors. Consistency of driving habits for the first 1/4 tank is probably the major one because over the course of a full tank there's lots of room for a lot of variables. Mikie
interesting point so the 14.3 is an avg you've had as a standard based on full tank avg's but was not on this same 3 mile test you did, therefore, the jump to the 15.?? cannot be a true measure from the 14.3 I myself have been driving well over 30yrs with more miles than some my age having been a truck driver and sales person at different times of my life and I too have never noticed this increase of mileage in the less than 1/4 tank theory until this guy brought it to my attention and so I tried it and it was true, more miles to the gal each and every time I did this. The accuracy of a gauge is of no consequence when you are doing this except that it gives consistent readings. So here's my thoughts why this jump in mileage is of no value.. In short mpg checks like the 3 miles suggested, you are doing a very controlled experiment. but that cannot be a bases to show in dramatic increase over the standard over a full tank mpg reading based on the simple fact that the longer you run your vehicle, the mpg's are going to drop because you will introduce more variables such as idle time at lights and in traffic, more accelerations and stop's, more climbing up and down hills, and of course mpg's are different when the engine is cold vers hot, so depending on how many stops and starts you do during a course of the tank of gas will immensely affect mpgs as well. That's why comparing mpg's to normal average calculated on standard use, to a 3 mile controlled test would be very mis leading.
 
Top