Falling MPG any ideas?

BeenThroughItAll

JustinR1979 wrote: »

At last check, stp in a silver bottle was the only one with a chemical that did any good, can't remember it's name.
Was a few years ago now, so one you mention (and maybe others) may actually have an additive that works

God knows what's in them. Not being a chemist I've never worried about it. I occasionally chuck some in the tank on the basis it's unlikely to do any harm, but I'm sure that ECP stuff has made a difference, however small.


Of course, it could be different batch of fuel, weather conditions, etc etc just as easily, but for the couple of quid it costs me if it does anything I've come out on top.

JustinR1979

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

God knows what's in them. Not being a chemist I've never worried about it. I occasionally chuck some in the tank on the basis it's unlikely to do any harm, but I'm sure that ECP stuff has made a difference, however small.


Of course, it could be different batch of fuel, weather conditions, etc etc just as easily, but for the couple of quid it costs me if it does anything I've come out on top.

You just never know


Polyether amine is the name - patented by Chevron.
If you try these additives, maybe give it a try some time.

BeenThroughItAll

JustinR1979 wrote: »

You just never know

Polyether amine is the name - patented by Chevron.
If you try these additives, maybe give it a try some time.

Can I buy it for two quid a bottle is the key for me

JustinR1979

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Can I buy it for two quid a bottle is the key for me

Having it actually work is key for me
Don't think it's cheap - had diseasals for 4 years so not bought any for quite a while.


ETA: £11 on ebay.

BeenThroughItAll

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Having it actually work is key for me
Don't think it's cheap - had diseasals for 4 years so not bought any for quite a while.


ETA: £11 on ebay.

Well, like I say, for the occasional 2 quid when I'm in ECP, it's not likely to do any harm.


Since I buy the cheapest diesel and petrol I can, and I've worked with the suppliers and know what the additive packs in more expensive fuels claim to be able to do, I see it as worth a punt, even though I don't really believe it's likely to make any difference.


Same reason the car always seems to run better when it's been cleaned.

Norman_Castle

mcpitman wrote: »

So it's not currently installed to any marketplace cars but could be (in theory)?

Its theoretically in use.

Ultrasonic

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Its theoretically in use.

It is either in use or it isn't, something can't be in use 'theoretically'! Possibly what you mean is that is has been used on a demonstration vehicle as a proof of concept but that it isn't available on any vehicle on general sale?

Recognising journeys which seems extremely unlikely to be viable. From your initial description I'd quickly thought it would be at least theoretically possible to calculate based on a known steering angle, and the separation of the wheels. But thinking about this more I think that could only tell you about the difference in speeds between the wheels and not the absolute speeds required. At present I'm struggling with how you could do this without a GPS measured speed, at which point might you not just as well use GPS for distance calculations and take variations in tyre circumference completely out of the equation?

Norman_Castle

It doesn't exist!. It was a throwaway comment at the start which someone picked up on. I'm tired of waiting for someone to shout !!!!!!!!.

<<< Here's a clue.

I doubt it would be accurate. A small drop in tyre pressure would be more noticeable than tyre wear. Loosing 5mm of tread over 10,000 miles is 0.5mm per 1000 miles reducing the circumference of the average tyre by ?.. Only NASA needs to calculate fuel use this accurately.

Recognising regular journeys would be simple. They are just time, speed and distance patterns which can be matched.

BeenThroughItAll

Norman_Castle wrote: »

It doesn't exist!. It was a throwaway comment at the start which someone picked up on. I'm tired of waiting for someone to shout !!!!!!!!.

<<< Here's a clue.

I doubt it would be accurate. A small drop in tyre pressure would be more noticeable than tyre wear. Loosing 5mm of tread over 10,000 miles is 0.5mm per 1000 miles reducing the circumference of the average tyre by ?.. Only NASA needs to calculate fuel use this accurately.

Recognising regular journeys would be simple. They are just time, speed and distance patterns which can be matched.

I did try to give you the option to end it way back in post #42. I was trying to be polite about it.


What exactly was the point though? Are you missing Darkmatter101 that much?

AdrianC

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I'm tired of waiting for someone to shout !!!!!!!!.

People have been doing that for two pages now, and you've been trying to defend the claims.

Recognising regular journeys would be simple. They are just time, speed and distance patterns which can be matched.

It'd require a lot of storage and processing, for inaccurate results that could be bettered far more easily.