Do people in Seattle and London get better gas mileage?

Last night while driving home, it was that type of drizzly rain that was like steamy and foggy. I got thinking once again of how people have claimed in the past that moisture added to the gas causes more complete combustion. That there have been aftermarket companies that have come out with water vapor injection devices.

This has been argued.

But wouldn't the end-all to the argument be in finding out how mileage is in cities known for fog and drizzly rains, and compare with the same cars in areas that have dry climates?

While driving I was contemplating just WHY moisture in the combustion chamber could cause more complete combustion. I imagined that water droplets would seperate fuel droplets and perhaps allow more oxygen around each fuel droplet. Then during the combustion process, perhaps the oxygen in the water itself may play some role. But then I realized I was thinking while driving, rather than scanning for deer, so I stopped thinking.

Rather than argue theory on this, I really am curious if there might be any evidence in backing any theory behind this, by analyzing mileage results in areas prone to higher moisture, humidity, etc., in the air.

I do want to point out though that just because it is raining out does not mean there is the highest amount of humidity, as odd as that initially might seem. I am actually prone to believe that areas that have fog are more likely to see the best results if there is anything to this business.

And if there IS, I'm wondering just how much mileage might go up.

 

You might find this discussion interesting and informative:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...cientific.html

 

Yes, Moisture and altitude are definitely factors in combustion efficiency. I dont think it would be worth packing up and moving to London, but there definitely is a difference.

I owned an old Plymouth that rain great in the rain, and all winter. During the summer, it would fall flat on its face from a stoplight, and stall at every stop sign..

 

i worked in TN, AL, IN and now in WA, Seattle metro. same car driven in all the states, 04 Honda CR-V. for what it is, it is worse in Seattle. AL and TN were the best.

 

I read all the replies. Mixed opinions. Interesting read though. Will read a link provided there also.

If we have several days in a row of rainy weather I am going to fill up and take before and after readings and see if I can tell anything. Trouble is, my mileage has had swings of about 2.5 mpg on either side of 22.5 mpg, and I have been trying to figure THAT one out. I do know that my gas mileage goes from about 20 in below zero temps, to about 25 mpg in the summer.

 

Because Seattle maybe has lower summer temps?

 

Gotta take into account hills and traffic as well.

 

Yes. He is not comparing apples to apples in various ways. But *I* am. I commute 40 miles the same stretch and drive all over the town I get to, in the same mannor. I even get my gas at the same station/same octane + 10% ethanol. All that really varies in a week's time is the weather conditions + lots of idling and heat lamp DC load on invertor/alternator, in the winter.

 

it is absolutely true, that seattle area is much more "hillocky" than TN and AL.
plus, traffic is much worse.
plus, roads are much worse in WA than in TN. i miss those A LOT.
those who live in nashville metro and NE AL also know what true humidity is. seattle ain't got it anywhere close.

with that being said, and i am slowpoke, this came back upon me while driving back from work:
1. my wife's RX300, with trip computer, averaged 19.9 in Nashville metro. it is 19.6 here.
2. end of 2005 through 2006 and into some of 2007, i experimented with a specific gas additive. purpose was to check if it improves gas mileage. to have statistically reliable results, i had Scangauge connected to OBD2 port, and had following data logged into the mileage log:
mpg to work and from work, same route; air intake temperature; traffic grade, from none to heavy; RAIN OR NO RAIN, as at that point i was well aware of water vapor injection idea as mpg enhancement (matter of fact, it is not water, but water/methanol mix, H2O 95%/Methanol 5%, but it's ok).
most of this experiment was done on Honda CR-V. at some point i garaged it and stopped using, and started using ford ranger for about 7 mths, thus experiment was moved to that vehicle.
so, with over a year and a half of logging such data, i have found no statistically significant variations related to RAIN variable.
ambient temp had direct influence on mpg, colder=worse mpg.
traffic was the most important one.
i used same gas station for the sake of experiment, to the best of my possibilities.
i had solid 10% mpg improvement with that additive on Honda CR-V, roughly 15% on ford ranger. i had no improvement on RX300 and none on 2000 silverado, total indifference to it.
for reasons many, and mostly not to start an idle discussion, i'll not mention what additive it is. you most welcome to go here:
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:...Fuel_Additives
and come to your own conclusions - or experiments.
PS: i do not use a/c, just run it for maintenance purposes for a few minutes once a month, so that variable is negligent.

 

if you lived in ok, tx, you would run the a/c that i promise
murphy was an optimist.

 

You have confirmed what I have noted with my vehicles. Even ones with throttle body with computer controlled mixture. I guess computers can't overcome that factor. I'd image same could be said about individual port fuel injection cars?

Perhaps this is one big area the gov't should push car manufacturers to try to do something about - in upping the cold weather gas mileage, perhaps by some sort of better heating system?

 

By the way, those odometers that display the MPG is not an accurate way of determing gas mileage.

I don't feel bad at all for the people complaining that their 4000+lb truck or SUV get crappy gas mileage, because it's one of the main reasons why gas prices are they way they are today.

 

I saw a tank SUV today that had a soccer mom sticker on it. And paying to train at fitness center. Figures. They could probably care less what gas costs. So goes for all these people everyday who try to take cuts around me and jackrabbit start at the green light in the wrong lane in hopes of cutting me off at the pass.

 

Any of you guys old enough to remember when the JC Whitney catalog had those "water injection" outfits for sale? Consisted of a plastic water bottle and some plastic tubing and an injection fitting which tee'd into a vacuum line. Object was to introduce atomized water into the combustion chamber and as a result reduce detonation and boost horsepower. Like most stuff JC Whitney sold, it was great fun reading about it, but doubtful it did anything other than make the purchaser a few bucks poorer.

 

Well - either there is something to this, or there isn't. One day someone woke up and got a brainstorm on a good scam? I dunno. Sounds like something plausible in the theory.
And there has to be a definite answer on this out there - like - crop circles?

 

h2o in fuel may not help mileage only(in some instances) power. hydrogen and oxygen will improve power slightly(before it causes problems) in the proper mixture with fuel(except on FUEL INJ. vehicles). i DO remember the water nozzels and lines from jc whitney and others. i rank them with the magnetic gizmos that you put around the fuel line!!
the key is volumetric efficiency! how much of your fuel are you actually using effectively!

 

the only use for water in fuel is to reduce combustion temps to help with preignition. the ones that hooked up to the vac lines didn't help because the vac is highest at low throtle opening, preignition usually happens at high throttle. knock sensors work much better.
life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies

 

I am a member of a skeptics and educational forum, and this week the owner of the forum has a commentary on how these devices with magnets are making a comeback. I have yet to read his commentary. I think I will.

 

i forgot there is a use for water injection, my wifes uncle in michigan builds super stock pulling tractors and they use water injection to keep from melting the engine. of course that is with 200 psi of boost from 4 turbos on diesel, use about 2 gal of water per 100yard pull. and the water injection doesn't come on till about 75 psi of boost. the bad thing about that much boost is when the engine blows it is usually spectacular. they now have to wrap a explosion blanket around the engine.

remember murphy was an optimist

 

Those diesel explosions are pretty spectacular even with the Blanket....

Consider the boost , coupled with 20:1 plus compression......I dont see what a blanket is going to do, other than Flame control....

Back to the topic......

Back in the mid 90's , When Enhanced emissions became popular, The key to lowering NOx emissions was to lower combustion Temperature. Water Injection would accomplish this.

As a long shot, in theory, It is possible that more efficiency could be gained, by lowering combustion chamber temps, But as mentioned, There is a difference between Efficiency and Economy. Reducing fuel consumption does not necessarily mean using fuel more efficiently. Getting the most out of the "Fuel Charge" doesnt Change the quantity of fuel needed to form the charge in the first place.

 

It don't? You'd think it would. You'd think that if a given amount of fuel would be introduced, and burned more completely and efficiently, that that then would mean that you would not have to step on the gas as much, to achieve the same powerful or economic result.

I'm perplexed if indeed does not.

 

that's what i'm talking about!!!

 

just because y'all really got into it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF8IsifMuBs
and the famous joecell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foRB0...eature=related

find a good video of a car running on joecell with fuel line DICONNECTED. better than water.