Gas Saver Question.

Page 1 of 3  
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. I'm not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs.
Thanks in advance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here is a link for this thing. http://www.ramjet.ca/englishram.html

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've always liked Dire Straits, but that won't 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I went to this website and found the Gov test case's on these. I would say read it. There your going to find it tells you there was no increase in mpg.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 wouldn't sell the design to them, they'd purchase one, adapt it and patent it themselves.
Don't 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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Screw Ford, *I* would like to see 20 MPG out of my V10.. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you can just shut the engine off and coast *grin*
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's 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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

so your saying what? drive a diesel? *grin*
--
-Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 1 May 2006 09:04:06 -0400, "Christopher Thompson"
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

I'm 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 May 2006 20:30:33 GMT, "Stephen N."

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

My Hemi Durango's manual states to use 89.
It has been shown time and again with the vast majority of vehicles mpg's will not go up by using higher octane. There are a few exceptions. My Durango is one of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Add later Subarus. I see about 2 MPG better and a whole lot smoother running on 89 or topping up with 92 at about 2/3's 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

EPA required that manufacturers show that vehicles run on 91 RON fuel (equal to regular gasoline) show little or no affect on emissions or 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 don't know where the economy is in that. This is very old news but I guess some people are kinda slow here.
Stephen N.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Am I going to see better than a 8% gas mileage increase going to 91 octane over 87 octane? I don't think I would, and 91 octane costs me 8% more per gallon here then 87 octane. If it doesn't save me any money, and the knock sensor prevents any engine damage, I don't see the advantage.
-Darren
SnoMan wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

you realize the dodge 360/318 doesnt have a knock sensor and does not retard timing to eliminate/reduce detonation? They have

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 140,000 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.
here's 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 120,000BTU (plus or minus depending on blend) and 6.5 lbs of propane has approx 145,000 BTU's (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 140,000 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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We've been thru this
see http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1802932.html

($1.16
to
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

</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. I'm 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 JohanB)<br> "There's 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--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.