Improved Mileage and fuel economy (MPG) with gasoline blends

Single Tank WVO systems and blending SVO WVO to thin it.

Moderators: SunWizard, coachgeo

Improved Mileage and fuel economy (MPG) with gasoline blends

Postby bio_cowboy » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:42 pm

Hello blenders, SunWizard asked me to post support for my premise that blending gasoline with vegetable oil improves fuel economy. While it is often stated on the various bio-fuels forums that MPG will drop along with power when gasoline is blended with vegetable oil (VO), thus making gasoline (petrol) no cheaper per mile than using Kerosene or D2; however there is growing anecdote claiming that mileage with VO improves with the addition of gasoline.

In fact I have observed that my engine has more power with gasoline added to WVO, and I seem to get better fuel economy, and the engine starts just fine down to 38°F; however I have no accurate means of calculating my fuel consumption at this time, because I have no meter on my transfer pump. However, if the reader were to examine the collection of testimonials in support of RUG blending (links below), one will find that I am not the only person who has found more power, better fuel economy and better cold starting with a VO blend that includes gasoline.

I have also read on bio-fuels forums about a French research project with vegetable oil fuels that found adding alcohol at about 10% to a vegetable oil fuel stock, will improve fuel atomization and actually result in increased fuel economy, even though alcohol has fewer BTUs/unit volume than do WVO or diesel, in spite of what many believe. The study is based upon the Schur 'Eco-Fuel' Blend.

If there is more power, better fuel economy and better cold starting with a gasoline and/or alcohol blended with WVO, even though alcohol and RUG have fewer BTUs/unit volume than WVO or diesel, then the question is why? I believe the thermodynamics of mixed fuel combustion answers this question. While thick fuels, such as WVO and WMO, tend to retard ignition in a compression ignition engine, gasoline and alcohol tend to advance ignition in such engines. Thus, with a skillful blend one could theoretically maximize combustion and thus end up with ideal fuel economy and reduced emissions.

Additionally, in the case of cold starting, there are users of blends with regular unleaded gasoline (RUG/petrol) that claim that it acts as an anti-freeze for WVO/WMO down to about -40°F/C, although, at extremely low temperatures a block heater, and even a battery heater is likely to be needed.

This forum is where we hope people who observe improved fuel economy with VO blends that include gasoline, will post their blend and its effect.
bio_cowboy
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:01 am
Location: Amarillo, TX, USA

testimonials

Postby bio_cowboy » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:46 pm

chipmonster
http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/ ... 9711016562
[*] posted on 17-6-2008 at 11:32 AM
mpg increase with petrol
I normally get 50 - 55 mpg to the gallon on the trip computer on my 1999 Passat using DINO. Since using BD (100 %) this dropped to about 42 - 45 mpg.

However, I had about half a tank of BD left in the tank. I put in about a litre of petrol into the tank over a week ago.

Since then, the MPG has gone back up to 53 -55 mpg to the gallon with BD, very pleased with the result.

I am thinking of putting petrol in the tank every few tanks, is this recommended?

Tim c cook
Posted 23 August 2008 11:54 PM
RUG in my cold blends -- I can't say I have seen any differance in how the blends run with or without the RUG, no higher exhaust temps, no difference in smoke, no loss of milage or power, etc. I use it because it is a cheaper and thinner solvent than diesel or kerosine so I can run a bit higher percentage of veg in the blend and still have everything thin enough to flow through the unheated fuel system.

John Galt
Location: Possum Lake, Northern Canukland
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:34 pm
The common solvents available for mixing with VO are
[a] D2
[b] D1/KErosene/JetA/Stove Oil
[c] RUG/NAptha/JetB
in order of increasing volatility.

I suspect that a mix of VO with a percent of type [b] and a percent of type [c] solvent will come close to the burn characteristics of D2 type [a]. The specific percents will vary with vehicle fuel systems, different operating temperatures and different types of VO.

I'm experimenting with mixes of D2+VO+jetB+D1 in an '89 3.4L TDI.

curently using 60% D2 20%VO 10%D1 10%JB
operating temperature above freezing 5°C to 25°C

Good success so far over 2 years 30k with various VO mixes, no smoke on cold start, minimum smoke on heavy acceleration [less than with D2], no noticeable loss of power or MPG, emissions tests very clean.
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/about267.html

David
Location: Sydney Australia
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:10 pm
Blending with RUG is far from all bad.
Having used RUG and many other blends (pretty much all I could get my hands on) I have to say it may not be the optimal blending agent engine wise but for many vehicles, it is certainly a very viable blending agent and has several things in its favour.

RUG is easier to get that some other blending agents like Kero, B100 or turps in many places.

It is the thinnest of the blending agents so although the percentage you can use is limited, its thinning power is the best.

RUG is cheaper here in OZ than anything else you can blend with. I believe Diesel may be cheaper in many places but thanks to taxes, here it is about 15C/L more exy than unleaded ATM.

I have found RUG to be very effective in helping with cold weather starts. When using any of the other blending agents, I have found the addition of 5% RUG makes starting better in my old car.

In my own tests, RUG is the most effective blending agent at lowering the gel point of WVO and as a friend has recently tested and found, it also lowers the gel point of Bio very effectively as well. As mentioned above, the percentages it can be used at vary with a number of factors but having done testing on my own vehicle and discovering what works best, I would use it at with complete and utter confidence.

I have found RUG to work very well as a blending agent and honestly think that there is a lot of ill founded misinformation about it that has become almost " Folk law" these days.
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/about267.html

td2dv
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:57 am
Post subject: Single Tank Systems and Blending
My hand operated transfer pump moves 1 us gallon per 10 revolutions. I get 30 mpg on D2 and 32 on WVO/10% rug. I chose RUG for blending because of it's availability and price. D2 may work as well but I don't think it thins as much. I filter cold to trap the thick stuff. The RUG dissolves the rest. I'm curious how cold this will work. Here is my viscosity test, again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4hgvSe3c2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiGdk2VSglk&NR=1
The injection pump determines timing. I think the RUG helps propel the flame front and increases the efficiency of the combustion event. In addition to my gas milage improving my operating temperature went up to the extent I had to take out the winter thermostat (88ºc) and put the summer one (80ºc) back in.
_________________
Benz 240-D
Minneapolis
WVO/RUG (10%) 5 mo/yr
http://www.burnveg.com/forum/about267.html
bio_cowboy
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:01 am
Location: Amarillo, TX, USA

Postby John Galt » Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:13 pm

@#$*&^%$!!!
Last edited by John Galt on Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby 240Volvo » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:57 pm

Thanks for posting this info, but I think that the problem is that anecdotal information is that it is not reliable. If you test for mileage by how many miles you travel before you need to refuel (for instance), it gives only the most general idea of performance, enough to indicate a dramatic change in performance that should be investigated further (such as to avoid engine problems), but not at all accurate enough to reliably indicate actual mileage performance.

The kinds of testing Sunwizard was suggesting would give empirically derived data, which is of a different order of accuracy.

In saying this, I do not mean to diminish or dismiss the observations that those experimenters have to offer, I mean only to give some context to the discussion. Measured data is more reliable than observation. Accurately derived information helps us all.
1984 Volvo 240 diesel with a single tank Elsbett conversion: electric fuel filter heater, FPHE, glow plugs, and injectors. Also injector line heaters and block heater, running 20%kero/80%WVO winter blend.
240Volvo
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:34 am
Location: New Jersey

Postby Turbogeno » Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:38 am

One of the biggest proponents of increased economy by mixing RUG into SVO can be found here. http://www.oilcrusher.5u.com/ He grows Sunflower and presses his own SVO from it. He’s used around 15,000 gallons to date. He cuts it with rug and uses a hydrometer to get the SG the same as diesel. No heating of his blend in the engine. The increased economy he sees is significant. My experience (4000 miles) with WVO and ~10% rug, heated to ~180°f at the injectors does not show increased economy. He and I are members of another forum and have discussed this a bit. WVO and raw, unprocessed SVO are most likely quite different. I have the ability to measure fuel consumption in my Benz quite accurately. Sometime this winter he will be sending me a tank or 2 of his uncut SVO. I’ll cut it with RUG using his method and in the spring when I put the Benz back on the road I’ll do some mileage testing.

Quote of his from another forum
“I do know back when I first started making RUG"(SVO/RUG blend, GD) "I had a small fleet of 55 gallon barrels. After the gas was added, and at the right mixture it would sit for 3 days or more and make little micro bubbles. A fuel chemist told me later that is the catalyst action going on of the exchange of the 2 fuels reforming into a more balanced fuel chain.”

I've seen these micro bubbles in a glass I have on the shelf which is 70% WVO, 30% RUG. They started after a day or three and stopped a few days later. This did not happen in the glass or WVO/ULSD.

Thanks, Geno
1985 MB 300D. 215k. Home made 2 tank conversion.
MB 300D
Listeroid
Centrifuge
Turbogeno
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:52 am
Location: Upstate NY

Postby SunWizard » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:18 am

I agree with 240volvo, none of the examples you linked show any signs of being careful or scientific about measuring mileage or power. Most of the quotes you gave said "not noticably worse" which is far different than saying it was better.

Here is a good page from an automotive engineer who specializes in fuel saving methods, who states:
"Fuel consumption measured on the road is subject to so many confounding factors - traffic, journey type, driving style, weather, etc, etc - that it is very, very easy to see changes of 10%, 20% or even more, even when the true engine efficiency has not altered at all."
Much more info from him:
http://www.fuelsaving.info/testimonial.htm
YVORMV - Your veg. oil results may vary.
95 Dodge Cummins 4x4 SVO WVO conversion.
81 Mercedes 300D- stock and happy on V80/D20 blend.
Low fossil net zero house- 100% solar power and heat.
SunWizard
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: N. Colorado

Postby John Galt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:58 pm

@#$*&^%$!!!
Last edited by John Galt on Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby coachgeo » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:03 pm

SunWizard wrote:I agree with 240volvo, none of the examples you linked show any signs of being careful or scientific about measuring ..
Measuring ...... a discusion on measuring tools, Reliablity, Validity etc. is Here.

This thread can go on discusing why (if it is truely happening) blends theoreticaly produce equal or better to Bio-D and or quality heated WVO two tank systems.
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby coachgeo » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:29 pm

so their is two possible theories floating out there.

1. Dual Flame fronts, one enhancing the other creating a more total fuel burn.
2. Automization improved so much that you get more total fuel burn.

Is there any other theories?
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby John Galt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:50 pm

Stuff bananas in your ears, observe that fuel economy apparently increases.
Conclude that bananas in ears increases fuel economy .

Just as relevant as any other 'theory' presented.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby coachgeo » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:04 pm

John Galt wrote:Stuff bananas in your ears, observe that fuel economy apparently increases.
Conclude that bananas in ears increases fuel economy .

Just as relevant as any other 'theory' presented.
Actually that is a produtive comment John.

That is an extreme example of an invalid and unreliable test. It's actually simular to one of my sig lines one one of the board Im on. Then again maybe you were playing off on that.

Think most all of us are in agreement that all the means of measuring if these blends really work are somewhere in the range between too antidotal and just downright unreliable and/or invalid measurments.
The existing MPG stuff brought to support RUG blends.... is brought up mostly cause not much of other means evidence in support of the RUG blends has been brought up YET. Mostly cause little to no other testing has been do so its all there is. Thusly we got a thread started on valid and reliable testing methods.

As to this thread; IMHO there is nothing wrong with discussing theories here while testing methods are coming to light in the other thread.

Once theories worth testing are established.... and testing methods are matched to them..... then we can test them.
Last edited by coachgeo on Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby coachgeo » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:18 pm

lol.... here it is. It's my sig line at infopop

coachgeo Sig. line infopop wrote:Originally Posted by anvil of Pirate4x4.com
your very informative reply has been noted. I think this is the same type of logic you used to draw your conclusion.

Place banana in your ear.
Observe that there is no alligators around.
Conclude bananas placed in ears keep aligators away.
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Postby John Galt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:30 pm

Might as well stick to airy fairy theories since any real world experience is belittled as 'non-scientific' and 'anecdotal' by the forum 'experts'. Carry on in your fantasy world, I'll be sharing no more actual test data or other useful information with this group.
Last edited by John Galt on Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby John Galt » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:47 pm

coachgeo wrote:lol.... here it is. It's my sig line at infopop

coachgeo Sig. line infopop wrote:Originally Posted by anvil of Pirate4x4.com
your very informative reply has been noted. I think this is the same type of logic you used to draw your conclusion.

Place banana in your ear.
Observe that there is no alligators around.
Conclude bananas placed in ears keep aligators away.


get a spellchecker
John Galt
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Coldest North America

Postby coachgeo » Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:53 am

bio_cowboy wrote:....the point of this forum was to acquire anecdotal support of the value of blending VO with gasoline,...
The anecdotal support all in one place is a good idea.

Just be aware that I don't think anyone is going to be able to stop folk from picking apart anecdotal or slightly better data. It's just the nature of man. Especially the very detailed anal type... anecdotal just infurates them cause its just not detailed enough to fit into their comfortable box of works/dont work or right/wrong. Thats not an insult... just human behaviour.

Look forward to the info you and others dig up. (Anecdotal or not)

Look forward to what theories we can pull out of it

In the other thread look forward to figuring out how to test these theories.
Life; It's all in the Balance

Moderator
coachgeo
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am
Location: North Texas

Next

Return to Single Tank Systems and Blending

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron