my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Adding acetone to your gas to get better milage (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Adding acetone to your gas to get better milage David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 10-12-2005 05:27 PM                        If the maximum recommended pressure on the tire's sidewall is 35, you don't run it at 60. My Pathfinder's Toyo tires run at 35. As far as the Explorer tire failure and rollover issue, Firestone had some serious quality control problems at that time. Firestone employees have stated that they were told by Firestone managers to overlook quality issues and just get the damn tires out of the factory, whether they met all the specs or not. So I don't think you can pin all the blame on Ford. Gosh, I just realized I've driven SUVs since 1993 and I haven't rolled one yet, not once! Nor have my SUVs killed anyone. Typical newspaper headline: "Grandmother Run Down, Killed by SUV". Those crazy, evil SUVs are hunting down grandmothers and killing them for sport!  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-12-2005 06:51 PM                     quote: David Stambaugh Gosh, I just realized I've driven SUVs since 1993 and I haven't rolled one yet, not once! Nor have my SUVs killed anyone. ..because you're one of the safe and responsible driver out there and understand and know the limits that Nissan has put on that vehicle that you own. Myself why I don't like the SUV is due to that fact that these vehicles are just TOO big and too much of a vehicle for me to handle. I do believe that this is half of the problem when you get a small individual handling such a huge mass of metal on four big oversized tires. Are they in control of such a mass of a vehicle? These units actually wear me out, even though they have all the power goodies to help it along down the road. And when you have something that big that wallows all over the road, feels so top-heavy due to the high center of gravity, and rides like a dumptruck due to the heaviness of the frame, where does one can and have control of such a cumbersome beast as these with a person of my smallish frame? Sorry, once again on this - just had a ruffling of a topic of mine that, I guess, that I don't fully understand, yet can't see the objective of such a device. thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-12-2005 07:22 PM                     I know lots of people who have rolled SUVs, slid them into ditches and did all kinds of property damage when they smashed them into things. (Okay, I live in Pennsylvania. We do those things for SPORT around here! ) I'm not trying to paint all SUV drivers with the same brush but David and Monte are two points one one end of the spectrum. They both know their abilities and drive within their own personal limits. Then you have the stupid soccer mom on the other end of the spectrum. Not only does she NOT drive within the limits of her ability, she doesn't even KNOW her limits! I propose that average American SUV driver lies pretty close to the "stupid" end of the spectrum.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 10-12-2005 08:07 PM                        The reason I chose a Pathfinder as my first SUV in 1993 and again in 2001 was because they ride and handle more like a car than any of the competitive SUVs I tested. It's smallish (quite a bit shorter than an Explorer for example), and has a lower center of gravity. I'm not saying its rollover characteristics are the same as a typical passenger car, but neither does it wallow or otherwise feel truckish or overweight. It's actually fairly nimble. I'm about ready to go back to a regular passenger car though, for better gas mileage. Just to bring this back on-topic (heh), I would never dream of putting acetone in my Pathfinder's gas tank.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-12-2005 11:02 PM                     Thx, David and Randy, for putting up with my comments and opinions. - Monte  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-13-2005 02:56 PM                     Hey! I'm pretty much in the same camp with you, Monte. As much as I like SUVs for certain things, I think people need to stop using them as grocery getters and daily driving vehicles. SUVs are TRUCKS. Not a family cars! People need to stop driving them around town so much and start using them for what they were designed... WORK. There are plenty of nice, roomy and featureful family vehicles out there, ranging from minivans to the good old family station wagon. (Station wagons are making a comeback, doncha' know!) As much as we talk about the oil companies playing with supply and demand and as much as we talk about government's inability to deal with the problem, there is one way to help make the gas crisis easier to handle for ALL of us. Use less gas! To that end, drive cars that don't waste so much gas! Any other behavior is just plain stupid!  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 10-13-2005 07:24 PM                        So I should buy, insure and maintain two vehicles? One for 8am-6pm use (and November thru March use) and another for after that. MmmK.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-13-2005 09:40 PM                     Maybe.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-14-2005 02:45 AM                     Thx, Randy for your comments and support. I must add another side to this SUV story is that of their price. Where you point out on the "supply and demand" thingey with the oil companies, so does this "supply and demand" goes for the manufacturers and the dealers stealing the public blind. How this is to be is that who in their right mind is going to afford such a vehicle with the prices that they are off the showroom floor. Sheesh! when I bought my house 20yrs ago, these SUVS nowdays cost more than what my house price was back then. Only difference is that I'm making money on the house with the land value, but SUV's take a horrible beating in the first two years in value being so popular. Is the consumer ahead in that end of the market? No, he want's his "Toy" and candy also and he'll go after it no matter what. Okey, so to "balance" all of this is where the lease program comes in. Consumer plops down 2 to 3 grand to enter into a lease for 3 yrs/15k miles/year for 365 bucks/month. Consumer saves 300 bucks/month if he contracted that thing for 5yrs with 3grand down and have a title to the vehicle after 60months-IT's ALL HIS, nobody can touch him. BUT, signing on a lease is like flushing to toilet once a month for 36 months. He goes back at the end of the lease, see if he comes out ahead of the lease to get another vehicle, or have to fork over some extra bucks to balance the value so he can start the frikken cycle over again. Meanwhile, automakers are seeing this lease trend, so their manufacturer quality take a bit of a nose dive knowing that they'll get their money up front on a sale or lease deal and don't care what happens down the road after the 3yrs of the lease is up. Then to insure a beast like these is murder, especially when doing full coverage. Let alone shoveling umteen hundered dollars in the gas tank per month..then your credit cards take the beating as well with those high percentage rates... Brother! like a pile of dominos - one tips over and you've got a chaotic string happening here......until the consumer begins to get intelligent to get control of himself and face reality, or plunge over the cliff with the rest of the idiotic "lemmings". Granted, people don't like hearing these things due to is sounds so pessimistic, but reality doesn't have to be pessimistic, but optimistic if one would stop and "look down the road from the other end" and realize what one would see. (WHEW! - time to stop and come up for air..LOL) -thx Monte  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 10-14-2005 03:23 AM                        If the energy saved by using two task oriented vehicles outweighed the energy used in producing the second vehicle, Randy, I'd encourage people to consider it. quote: Monte L Fullmer Meanwhile, automakers are seeing this lease trend, so their manufacturer quality take a bit of a nose dive knowing that they'll get their money up front on a sale or lease deal and don't care what happens down the road after the 3yrs of the lease is up. From automotive manufacturing industry experience dating back to when I was three years old, I'd have to say that that is pretty much as far from reality as you can get. For starters the product (the vehicle) hasn't even produced it's normal sale value at the end of three years. If the vehicle was no good at that point they'd have a hard time selling it for an additional 50% of the lease value to another consumer. Many people claim the longevity of vehicles aren't what they used to be, but most any decrease can be traced back to a tradeoff for (often drastically) increased safety (for both the occupants and the public external to the vehicle). Sure the manufacturers want to see you buy a new vehicle as often as possible. That's the business they are in. However, to claim that quality is moving backwards and not forwards, such a person has to be uninformed.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-14-2005 05:00 PM                     When I was a kid, my Dad had a pickup truck and my Mom had a smaller car. My Dad drove his truck for work reasons. My Mom used her car for the family "grocery getter". If, for some reason, my Mom needed to use my Dad's truck they would switch vehicles for the day. On the other hand, if Dad only wanted to drive down the street he was likely to grab the car keys instead. Many people ALREADY have two cars. The difference is that the majority of people don't choose what kind of car their second vehicle is based on economy. They base it purely on style. If the decision of that second car would be made for more practical reasons, LOTS of fuel could be saved. Remember... If that second car was 1% more fuel efficient, 10% less gasoline would need to be refined into oil. Since it takes approximately 2 gallons of oil to make one gallon of gas our oil use and, subsequently our oil imports, would drop by as much as 20%. Assuming that everybody has two cars (They don't, really. Just assume.) and they bought one fuel efficient car to replace gas guzzler we could STILL see a drop in oil imports as large as 10%. This doen't take into account whether or not people keep their cars tuned up and running in the most fuel efficient way possible. ANYBODY can do that no matter WHAT kind of car they drive! If everybody would do just this one thing and get their cars tuned up we could drop our oil consumption by no less than 5% OVERNIGHT! I bet THAT would give the oil companies a shiver!  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 10-14-2005 05:37 PM                        I agree (and always have) that two plus driver families with two task oriented vehicles is a good idea in areas where it's sensible to do so. There are some areas where it's simply impossible to go anywhere in the winter in a car due to clearance issues in some snow belt areas like found on the edge of Georgian Bay, part of Lake Huron. For most of those people I don't think having a third vehicle for summer use is an economically sound idea (you'd have to drive it a lot during those summer months to realize the cost savings due to higher efficiency and to balance the energy consumed in manufacturing that third vehicle). Then again, Canada is, after all, an energy exporter. After the US tanking their dollar and killing my profit margins I don't mind watching them spend lots o' money on oil imports.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.