-
02-01-2008 02:02 PM #1
More MPG with synthetic? What do you think?
now you hear here an there on TV and word of mouth people talking about MPG nowadays with todays gas prices. i watched some TV show on the speed channel about gaining MPG HP&TQ by changing to synthetics. they used a 95-96 chev 4x4 truck and changed all the fluids over to royal purple synthetic (engine,tranny,transfercase, diffs.) and they gained like 3hp and 2lbs of torque and some MPG. i've been thinking about it and trying it on my 97 S15 4dr GMC Jimmy 4X4 with the 4.3 vortec. i average around 15 - 17 MPG the highest i've ever got was 18-20 babying it and driving like grandma but otherwise i have a little of the lead foot syndrom but its income tax season and i'm going to give her a tune up and really go through it change the filters over to K&N change all the fluids over to synthetic and start running premium and see if you really get your bang for your buck and if its not worth it this will be the one time and only time i do this.
have any of you tried this or hear of people doing it ????Derek Doble
-
Advertising
- Google Adsense
- REGISTERED USERS DO NOT SEE THIS AD
-
02-01-2008 02:22 PM #2
Oh yeah I've heard of it but the numbers have not been reliable and what I have seen (like above) are just not significant. What you need to do is change everything over, get some good mileage numbers, and then do a complete cost analysis based on all your results. Then get back with us on all the results.
kitz, (head master of the 'do as I say, not as I do' club for men)Jon Kitzmiller, MSME, PhD EE, 32 Ford Hiboy Roadster, Cornhusker frame, Heidts IFS/IRS, 3.50 Posi, Lone Star body, Lone Star/Kitz internal frame, ZZ502/550, TH400
-
02-01-2008 02:27 PM #3
Originally Posted by kitz
i don't know how big the tank is i think 15 gal. but every 200 miles you have to fill it upDerek Doble
-
02-01-2008 02:32 PM #4
Well I do believe it will lower internal losses due to rubbing friction, especially in the elastohydrodynamic friction arena. So in theory what Denny has actually seen should be true.
KitzJon Kitzmiller, MSME, PhD EE, 32 Ford Hiboy Roadster, Cornhusker frame, Heidts IFS/IRS, 3.50 Posi, Lone Star body, Lone Star/Kitz internal frame, ZZ502/550, TH400
-
02-01-2008 02:33 PM #5
Originally Posted by DennyWLast edited by speedy55779; 02-01-2008 at 02:35 PM.
Derek Doble
-
02-01-2008 02:40 PM #6
also i noticed on my truck it has a ribbed rubber hose from the filter box to the intake was thinking of making a smooth custom one for less restriction.Derek Doble
-
02-01-2008 02:42 PM #7
Originally Posted by DennyWDerek Doble
-
02-01-2008 02:52 PM #8
other friends of mine have bored holes in the bottom of their air box to increase air flow due to air flow sensors where you can't run a cold air intake. not saying i'm going to but its what i've came acrossDerek Doble
-
02-01-2008 02:53 PM #9
In a prior lifes endeavor I was involved in all manner of lubrication application. Whenever we did fuel economy measures, for whatever product tested, we found that doing fleet testing, e.g. taxi or police fleets was more meaningful. We also did the test blind, i.e. so that the driver didn't know whether he had the "old" stuff, or the "new" stuff. We did this because we found individual references were generally unreliable because people would often unconsciously change their driving habits/patterns/style that would distort the data. We would control the variables such as Denny mentioned so they wouldn't be a modifier of the data. Usually the more vehicles involved in similar operating circumstances, and the more time (to "even out" seasonal effects), the more reliable our results.
All that being said, synthetic oils offered a very small improvement by themselves. Driving style had as much or more impact.Your Uncle Bob, Senior Geezer Curmudgeon
It's much easier to promise someone a "free" ride on the wagon than to urge them to pull it.
Luck occurs when preparation and opportunity converge.
-
02-01-2008 03:08 PM #10
-
02-01-2008 03:13 PM #11
Originally Posted by DennyWDerek Doble
-
02-01-2008 03:21 PM #12
the reason i bring that up is my friend has a 93 ford probe GT with a 2.2 turbo and the inlet for the airbox is 1 1/2" and the hose going from the airbox to the intake was 3" and he had the air flow sensor and wasn't able to install a cold air intake so he customized his airbox by boring holes in the bottom to increase air flow.Derek Doble
-
02-01-2008 03:23 PM #13
now me i never looked at the inlet to my airbox i just changed the filter if neededDerek Doble
-
02-01-2008 03:28 PM #14
usually the inlet for the air box is tucked inside the inner fender an i supose he couldn't if the hole is only that sizeDerek Doble
-
02-01-2008 03:30 PM #15
Originally Posted by DennyWDerek Doble
Welcome to Club Hot Rod! The premier site for
everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more.
- » Members from all over the US and the world!
- » Help from all over the world for your questions
- » Build logs for you and all members
- » Blogs
- » Image Gallery
- » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts!
YES! I want to register an account for free right now! p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show
Thank you Roger. .
Another little bird