-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Fuel Air Separation Systems
- Thread starter Soundwave16
- Start date
Will it filter snake oil?
Hi Gary,
I'd suppose that snake oil, like any other oil, will work better if it's free of air, water and particulate matter.
Thing is, will the FASS system work as advertised to do these things?
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
Adding more filters to the Diecel system can only be a good thing Diecel fuel is very filthy !
I doubt however it's as good as they claim, but you never know.
My Step Dad had a 6 cyl Perkins Diecel in his Ford f-350 truck with a 3 spd brownie and he had 3 fuel filters on that darn thing.... Old truckers will
tell you " You can never have enough filters on a Diecel !!!!"
Bob........
I doubt however it's as good as they claim, but you never know.
My Step Dad had a 6 cyl Perkins Diecel in his Ford f-350 truck with a 3 spd brownie and he had 3 fuel filters on that darn thing.... Old truckers will
tell you " You can never have enough filters on a Diecel !!!!"
Bob........
Max Midnight
XS650 Addict
The claims they make for their filter are only what I would expect from any good quality item. In a well maintained system where does the air and particulate matter come from.
Modern common rail systems work at some 2500 bar and the nozzle size of the injector is less than 200 µm so manufacturers need to ensure that their filtration systems are up to keeping the unwanted elements at bay.
On that basis I do wonder how they can improve on a well maintained OE system.
Additionally, they don't give any specifics numbers as to the likely improvement in fuel consumption or engine life. If such data existed then wouldn't they publish it?
I suspect that any improvement will be because the replaced filter was well beyond it's service life...a bit like when tired old plugs are changed.
It's not the miraculous new brand that has made the difference, all you have done is put the performance beck to original.
As for filtering the air, water and particulate matter from Snake Oil, once you have removed the crap from it there isn't anything left!
Modern common rail systems work at some 2500 bar and the nozzle size of the injector is less than 200 µm so manufacturers need to ensure that their filtration systems are up to keeping the unwanted elements at bay.
On that basis I do wonder how they can improve on a well maintained OE system.
Additionally, they don't give any specifics numbers as to the likely improvement in fuel consumption or engine life. If such data existed then wouldn't they publish it?
I suspect that any improvement will be because the replaced filter was well beyond it's service life...a bit like when tired old plugs are changed.
It's not the miraculous new brand that has made the difference, all you have done is put the performance beck to original.
As for filtering the air, water and particulate matter from Snake Oil, once you have removed the crap from it there isn't anything left!
Went back, looked at all of soundwave16's posts and now this. My spidey sense is tingling.
I won't buy products from a web site that has multiple spelling errors. If they can't edit a web site, what's the product quality going to be?
Air in diesel? New to me. Show me the science? My full size diesel Sprinter van with direct injection already has a filter and a water separator, it's worked well for 160K miles with 2 changes. I doubt a fancy filter is going to improve on its 23-27MPG....
It's as rule, a load of bad fuel plugs the filter in most vehicles, it doesn't get through to the engine Yes all modern engines are fussy about fuel and yes diesel is more prone to contamination than gasoline. I still smell snake oil here. I would suspect adding all that crap is going to void any warranties. My diesel skid steer which works in nasty conditions and sits for long period also does just fine.
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
My question is Air in diesel fuel ? No, oxigen molicules perhaps,.... but air ? and why would you want to remove it in the first place ? Oxigen would help the burn proccess ! that doesn't make sense !
Gary if your diesel only gets 23 to 27mpg you can improve that by at least double....
my Step-Dads truck got 48mpg hauling a utility box with 10,000lbs of tools in it every where he went ! so it never had a light load ! even with 4 tons of gravle in the back he still got 48mpg ! he went through it extensively with injectors and Pump work.... he said the pump work was the 2nd most critical thing for good milage, the first was the injectors ! replace your injectors with High quality injectors and set that pump up absoultly perfect and put on a 3" exhaust system and I bet you'll get 48mpg as well !
this man knew his diecels ! and he wouldn't own a ford ,chevy or dodge diecel he said they were set at the factory to give poor milage from the get go
and I believe that ! ....just like cars are today.... remember the ford F-100 of the late 70's early 80's ? it took allot of work to engineer a truck to get 15mpg without a load ( empty) and 15mpg with a ton in the back of the truck !.... that goes against logic but that's what they have done !
if it's computer controled those chips can be changed and you can get much better milage from a diecel !
...... I'll hop down from my soap box now and quit preaching ! LOL
you do what ya want but I'ed look into getting better milage from Diecels ! 40 to 50 from a diecle is very common no matter the load
however stock diecels are engineered to get bad fuel echonemy ..... good luck !
Bob.........
Gary if your diesel only gets 23 to 27mpg you can improve that by at least double....
my Step-Dads truck got 48mpg hauling a utility box with 10,000lbs of tools in it every where he went ! so it never had a light load ! even with 4 tons of gravle in the back he still got 48mpg ! he went through it extensively with injectors and Pump work.... he said the pump work was the 2nd most critical thing for good milage, the first was the injectors ! replace your injectors with High quality injectors and set that pump up absoultly perfect and put on a 3" exhaust system and I bet you'll get 48mpg as well !
this man knew his diecels ! and he wouldn't own a ford ,chevy or dodge diecel he said they were set at the factory to give poor milage from the get go
and I believe that ! ....just like cars are today.... remember the ford F-100 of the late 70's early 80's ? it took allot of work to engineer a truck to get 15mpg without a load ( empty) and 15mpg with a ton in the back of the truck !.... that goes against logic but that's what they have done !
if it's computer controled those chips can be changed and you can get much better milage from a diecel !
...... I'll hop down from my soap box now and quit preaching ! LOL
you do what ya want but I'ed look into getting better milage from Diecels ! 40 to 50 from a diecle is very common no matter the load
however stock diecels are engineered to get bad fuel echonemy ..... good luck !
Bob.........
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
lol look at it this way How can a new peterbuilt get better gasmilage than a truck weighing less than 1/4 it's weight ? it can't if everything was the same !
but their not and they changed the Pickups and vans to get bad gasmilage to keep their shairholders happy, after all everyone in the autoindustry owns stock in the oil companies..... you scratch my back I'll scratch yours ! and they have been doing it for decades .... a fuel injected car should get over 55mpg but they never will as long as their playing the game !
food for thought !
Bob.........
but their not and they changed the Pickups and vans to get bad gasmilage to keep their shairholders happy, after all everyone in the autoindustry owns stock in the oil companies..... you scratch my back I'll scratch yours ! and they have been doing it for decades .... a fuel injected car should get over 55mpg but they never will as long as their playing the game !
food for thought !
Bob.........
AND................ We're off and running!
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
LOL..... sooooorrrryyyy ~!
....Bob.....
....Bob.....
Hi Bob,
well, you shouldn't be.
A good list is just like a good stew, if you don't keep stirring the pot the lumps settle to the bottom and stick there.
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
LOL,,, GOOD one Fred I love the anolagy...... but I did take it off topic..... ooops ! My Bad ! HAHAHAHAHA
Max Midnight
XS650 Addict
If you add air into the fuel how do you ensure that it is evenly distributed so that the volume of fuel injected is correct? The volume of oxygen of any air that does make it into the fuel would also be so small compared to what is in the cylinder I doubt that it would make any difference. I also wonder where this air is coming from, assuming that the fuel pick-up is immersed into the fuel.
Engineered to get BAD fuel economy???? Perhaps you could elaborate on this statement?
What you are saying is that either the motor manufacturers have large stakes in the oil companies or that individuals with these corporation hold sufficient stock to AND have the ability to dictate how a vehicle is engineered. It would also have to be that case that they hold similar volume else one group would be making more than another.
Finally, wouldn't the smart producer produce a motor with phenomenally low fuel consumption? Why would the end user buy the vehicle with significantly higher running costs.
Whilst you may be correct I would like to see your evidence before giving your assertions any credibility.
I don't believe that it is the manufacturers that limit the potential in reducing fuel consumption but governments who set emission regulations.
I guess it is the voting public's choice if they wish to have better air quality of lower fuel consumption.
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
Max Midnight :
Ok how else can you explane the ford f-100 of the 1970's and early 80's and their gasmilage ? 15mpg empty and 15mpg loaded ?
that takes some really carefully planned engineering to pull that off ! Normially gasmilage should be like 24mpg empty and 15mpg fully loaded
if that not evidence I don't know what is ! Also the International Travlall was the worst of the bunch it got 10mpg ! empty or 10mpg pulling a 10,000lb trailer.... I have no idea HOW they pulled it off but the manifacturers did it !
I'm talking practical gasmilage here not whats on the window stickers of new cars , You can't believe that anyway. but Milage I have seen myself in my own vehicles and on friends vehicles. this isn't a conspiricy theory, its a conspiricy fact these facts have been known for years and just over looked
who cares when the price of gas is $0.98 a gallon ? , well we might be more concerned when the price of gas went to $1.75 a gallon but no body said anything about their practices..... when gas prices hit an all time High then people started screaming the automanifacturers responded by bring back
some of the OLD technology (labled as new) and cars got an increase in gasmilage all the way up to 20mpg ! WOW ! but that was the milage of the cars back in the 1950's what was that period in the 1970's where you were darn lucky to get 15mpg ?....
Now we are really High tech and have computer controled Fuel injection and should get the best possable gas mile ever ...but we don't ....WHY?
many of the FI cars and trucks get terrable gasmilage... but they shouldn't ! ....
Many years ago the goverment called experts into the senate and asked what is the best gasmilage we can expect ? the manifacturers experts
told them 50mpg is the absoult best you could ever expect from your car. the next year the Honda Accord got over 55mpg on the highway
..... not an American made, it was a forign made vehicle ! now they make them in America and what do you know they get just about the same gasmilage as the Americian made ones do ! ..... Do I think that is suspicious ? do I think there is under handed things goiing on in the minupulation
of automobiles ? of corse ! I'ed have to be blind not to see it ! but Most people believe what their told..... and those guys wouldn't do that to us !!!!
....sure they would and they would laugh all the way to the bank doing it ! .....
as for the proof that you want , you find it if your interested.... prove me wrong if you can, I invite it ! I have no "Proof that you could take to court" if that's all that you want ..... it's Just my Opinion.
does this answer your question ?
Bob..........
Ok how else can you explane the ford f-100 of the 1970's and early 80's and their gasmilage ? 15mpg empty and 15mpg loaded ?
that takes some really carefully planned engineering to pull that off ! Normially gasmilage should be like 24mpg empty and 15mpg fully loaded
if that not evidence I don't know what is ! Also the International Travlall was the worst of the bunch it got 10mpg ! empty or 10mpg pulling a 10,000lb trailer.... I have no idea HOW they pulled it off but the manifacturers did it !
I'm talking practical gasmilage here not whats on the window stickers of new cars , You can't believe that anyway. but Milage I have seen myself in my own vehicles and on friends vehicles. this isn't a conspiricy theory, its a conspiricy fact these facts have been known for years and just over looked
who cares when the price of gas is $0.98 a gallon ? , well we might be more concerned when the price of gas went to $1.75 a gallon but no body said anything about their practices..... when gas prices hit an all time High then people started screaming the automanifacturers responded by bring back
some of the OLD technology (labled as new) and cars got an increase in gasmilage all the way up to 20mpg ! WOW ! but that was the milage of the cars back in the 1950's what was that period in the 1970's where you were darn lucky to get 15mpg ?....
Now we are really High tech and have computer controled Fuel injection and should get the best possable gas mile ever ...but we don't ....WHY?
many of the FI cars and trucks get terrable gasmilage... but they shouldn't ! ....
Many years ago the goverment called experts into the senate and asked what is the best gasmilage we can expect ? the manifacturers experts
told them 50mpg is the absoult best you could ever expect from your car. the next year the Honda Accord got over 55mpg on the highway
..... not an American made, it was a forign made vehicle ! now they make them in America and what do you know they get just about the same gasmilage as the Americian made ones do ! ..... Do I think that is suspicious ? do I think there is under handed things goiing on in the minupulation
of automobiles ? of corse ! I'ed have to be blind not to see it ! but Most people believe what their told..... and those guys wouldn't do that to us !!!!
....sure they would and they would laugh all the way to the bank doing it ! .....
as for the proof that you want , you find it if your interested.... prove me wrong if you can, I invite it ! I have no "Proof that you could take to court" if that's all that you want ..... it's Just my Opinion.
does this answer your question ?
Bob..........
Max Midnight
XS650 Addict
Short answer - no, it doesn't answer my question.
However, you do qualify your assertion with "it's just my opinion". You are, of course, fully entitled to your opinion but that does translate it into fact.
Where we can agree is that there is a difference between windscreen stickers and real world mileage.
That said no manufacturer claims that you will achieve the quoted figures...unless you drive on a rolling road and follow the same test procedure.
They will also work within the rules to maximise fuel consumption and minimise emissions. Some will even go beyond that to incorporate defeat software into the control units. Shock, hooror!
However, until the rules governing test procedures are revised to reflect more realistic driving conditions it's the only way the end user has of comparing one vehicle with another.
I have to say that anyone believing that they will get the same results either doesn't understand how the data is obtained or is naive.
I don't understand your comment that "many of the FI cars get terrible gas milage... but they shouldn't !"
They are limited to a specific weight of fuel (100 kg) yet produce approaching 1000 b.h.p. yet still manage to achieve 7 m.p.g., not a lot compared to street cars but similar to what a friend's Mach I Mustang achieved and he wasn't driving flat out all of the time!
You seem to assert that technology hasn't improved matters. I can't speak for how things have developed where you live but my Mk I Ford Escort 1300 c.c. produced some 45 b.h.p. would cruise at 60 - 65 mph (much more and it started to run out of breath) and on a run give some 32 mpg.
My current Alfa Romeo Giulietta produces 170 b.h.p. cruise comfortably (with plenty to spare) at our legal limit and on a run will gives over 40 mpg.
It would seem that in the UK some small progress has been made.
Finally we can agree that the data you cite regarding unloaded and loaded fuel consumption doesn't seem right. If it's that hookey one has to question how the data was obtained.
I don't necessarily want to prove you wrong but feel it reasonable that when statement are made these can be backed up with hard fact not just opinions.
However, you do qualify your assertion with "it's just my opinion". You are, of course, fully entitled to your opinion but that does translate it into fact.
Where we can agree is that there is a difference between windscreen stickers and real world mileage.
That said no manufacturer claims that you will achieve the quoted figures...unless you drive on a rolling road and follow the same test procedure.
They will also work within the rules to maximise fuel consumption and minimise emissions. Some will even go beyond that to incorporate defeat software into the control units. Shock, hooror!
However, until the rules governing test procedures are revised to reflect more realistic driving conditions it's the only way the end user has of comparing one vehicle with another.
I have to say that anyone believing that they will get the same results either doesn't understand how the data is obtained or is naive.
I don't understand your comment that "many of the FI cars get terrible gas milage... but they shouldn't !"
They are limited to a specific weight of fuel (100 kg) yet produce approaching 1000 b.h.p. yet still manage to achieve 7 m.p.g., not a lot compared to street cars but similar to what a friend's Mach I Mustang achieved and he wasn't driving flat out all of the time!
You seem to assert that technology hasn't improved matters. I can't speak for how things have developed where you live but my Mk I Ford Escort 1300 c.c. produced some 45 b.h.p. would cruise at 60 - 65 mph (much more and it started to run out of breath) and on a run give some 32 mpg.
My current Alfa Romeo Giulietta produces 170 b.h.p. cruise comfortably (with plenty to spare) at our legal limit and on a run will gives over 40 mpg.
It would seem that in the UK some small progress has been made.
Finally we can agree that the data you cite regarding unloaded and loaded fuel consumption doesn't seem right. If it's that hookey one has to question how the data was obtained.
I don't necessarily want to prove you wrong but feel it reasonable that when statement are made these can be backed up with hard fact not just opinions.
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
OK... there is allot of Info on the web about this sort of thing and that the technology is being deliberately withheld from cars that would give us much much better Milage.... one simple device was a small turbin placed under the carburator in the 70's it went under a Holly 2 bbl that the guy plugged the accelerator pumps. he had the idea that the fuel would strike the free turning turbin and be atomized on it's way to the cylinders....
he got something like 60mpg with it ! he was selling the device locally when his place was broken into and everything concerining was stolen.
he refused to sell to the big 4 auto manifacturers because they would not assure him that it would be put into production, all they wanted to do was set on it.... the Pogue Carburator is much the same and it's been almost 100 years sense then, that was a long way back.
.... if you accept the fact that the auto manifacturers are in legue with the oil companies the actions of the past become very clear....
they do have a mutuial interest.... Making lots of money ... however it doesn't make allot of sense to withhold new great technology INLESS they can profet from the action.... which they can .... they could make much more if they came up with a Super high milage car BUT they would rather milk their cash cow that they have built and keep expenses low as possable. this is a sound stragity, and not far from Microsofts actions keeping technology just one step better every year instead of making large leaps forward.
there are many inventions (patents) I have seen some claiming over 400MPG for a car.... you can believe it or not, l prefure to experiment myself with the ideas they use.... gasoline vaporization is the best way I think of getting over 200MPG from our cars the auto manifacturers Have this technology already and are keeping it from the public and have been for decades.... but I can't prove it.... nore do I need to, Anyone can look it up for them selves!
..... I think the best way to get extream High milage is to use the exhaust heat to vaporize fuel, and exhaust heat to heat the intake air to just over 110 degrees and use a Propane carburator or natural gas carburator to deliver it into the engine ( no fooling with rods and butterflys in an attempt to get the mixture correct while trying to drive down the road.) .... I am fairly certain this will work very good as I was on my way to building one for my old Dodge truck and had it to the point of idling and midrange on vapor alone but it ran out of capasity at High RPM.... it just wasn't big enough
then my house burned down and took it all away in a single day....
gasoline vaporization has been in use on Jet engines for shortly after their creation. it gave Jet engines 3 times more fuel echnomeny....
by now they probably have 4 times .... it can and will be used on internal cumbustion engines .... I am sure of that.
.... Its How our Socioty is set up , that keeps technology from us as end users.. Money is the end all goal .... so it makes Manifacturers seek out their allies and plan ways to make the most money they can..... it's called prudent business practices,..... but screws US !
I won't bother making another vaporizer unit again unless the gas prices go above $3.50 a gallon here again. as I am not a rich man and I have very little money to work with in my retirement !
....
Bob.........
he got something like 60mpg with it ! he was selling the device locally when his place was broken into and everything concerining was stolen.
he refused to sell to the big 4 auto manifacturers because they would not assure him that it would be put into production, all they wanted to do was set on it.... the Pogue Carburator is much the same and it's been almost 100 years sense then, that was a long way back.
.... if you accept the fact that the auto manifacturers are in legue with the oil companies the actions of the past become very clear....
they do have a mutuial interest.... Making lots of money ... however it doesn't make allot of sense to withhold new great technology INLESS they can profet from the action.... which they can .... they could make much more if they came up with a Super high milage car BUT they would rather milk their cash cow that they have built and keep expenses low as possable. this is a sound stragity, and not far from Microsofts actions keeping technology just one step better every year instead of making large leaps forward.
there are many inventions (patents) I have seen some claiming over 400MPG for a car.... you can believe it or not, l prefure to experiment myself with the ideas they use.... gasoline vaporization is the best way I think of getting over 200MPG from our cars the auto manifacturers Have this technology already and are keeping it from the public and have been for decades.... but I can't prove it.... nore do I need to, Anyone can look it up for them selves!
..... I think the best way to get extream High milage is to use the exhaust heat to vaporize fuel, and exhaust heat to heat the intake air to just over 110 degrees and use a Propane carburator or natural gas carburator to deliver it into the engine ( no fooling with rods and butterflys in an attempt to get the mixture correct while trying to drive down the road.) .... I am fairly certain this will work very good as I was on my way to building one for my old Dodge truck and had it to the point of idling and midrange on vapor alone but it ran out of capasity at High RPM.... it just wasn't big enough
then my house burned down and took it all away in a single day....
gasoline vaporization has been in use on Jet engines for shortly after their creation. it gave Jet engines 3 times more fuel echnomeny....
by now they probably have 4 times .... it can and will be used on internal cumbustion engines .... I am sure of that.
.... Its How our Socioty is set up , that keeps technology from us as end users.. Money is the end all goal .... so it makes Manifacturers seek out their allies and plan ways to make the most money they can..... it's called prudent business practices,..... but screws US !
I won't bother making another vaporizer unit again unless the gas prices go above $3.50 a gallon here again. as I am not a rich man and I have very little money to work with in my retirement !
....
Bob.........
Hi Bob,
some smart person once said "Never ascribe to malice anything that can be explained by incompetence."
FWIW, accusations of a auto/oil conspiracy were alive and well as far back as the 1930s and the alleged suppression of the Pogue carburettor.
What I say is, if a conspiracy exists it's run by pretty stupid people.
A smart conspiracy wouldn't need to exist. If the 100mpg full size auto could be made, they'd do it. Along with a 5X increase in fuel cost.
That way the environment wins, the taxman wins, the oil barons win, and with any luck the poor bloody motorist gets to at least break even.
So long as he buys a new car, then GM wins too.
some smart person once said "Never ascribe to malice anything that can be explained by incompetence."
FWIW, accusations of a auto/oil conspiracy were alive and well as far back as the 1930s and the alleged suppression of the Pogue carburettor.
What I say is, if a conspiracy exists it's run by pretty stupid people.
A smart conspiracy wouldn't need to exist. If the 100mpg full size auto could be made, they'd do it. Along with a 5X increase in fuel cost.
That way the environment wins, the taxman wins, the oil barons win, and with any luck the poor bloody motorist gets to at least break even.
So long as he buys a new car, then GM wins too.
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
Yep Fred that would make more sense No doubt.... however that is not what we see !
I know for a fact that Gasoline Vaporization works ...I've done it on 2 cars so far
I got 80mpg out of my Ford Pinto in the 1980's with it ( my first attempt at it) however it was clunky and Unwieldy and you had to adjust the mixture on the dash while keeping your fhrottle foot perfectly still..... and that proved to be too much trouble to have on the car....
it also needed about a 15minute warm up to start working .... that one was powered by the hot water system, I read about a guy in Portland Or. that made one so I followed his design and tried it.... it worked... it just was not practical at all .
my best one was on the Dodge truck I have no idea how much the MPG was increased in it because I never got it on the highway
but the engine ran great and was destaned for many miles when I took it all apart and put it in the shed to re work the delevery system so I didn't have to fiddle with a valve in the cab..... it all melted in the intense heat of the house fire... the only thing that was left was the heat tubes on the truck that I left on there..... after doing much research I discovered that a maximun of 400mpg could be obtained..... Yah I know sounds like a pipe dream but if you do the figures you'll see that gasoline expans over 400 times when vaporzed..... and is just as explosive ....well nearly...there is a slight drop in its explosion because it is so much leaner....
One old feller back in the 1920's or 30's took a Modle A ford and made a box and ran the exhaust through it so it was heated
the box had a float valve in it and held a volume of gasoline in it....... the engine had the downdraft carburators of old on it and he simply put a pipe from the box to the intake of the carburator .... he put a butterfly door over that pipe just before the carb... and he clamed to get 400 MPG....
ok I'm a skeptic... I find it hard to believe 400mpg on anything.... but Using gasoline Vapor and not gasoline droplets does seam like a better idea...
so I made a box for my toyota truck.... fed it with the injector line put fuel in it and mounted it on the engine....
the intake was plumbed so it took the fumes out of the box and into the intake..... I hit the starter and the darn thing started...I was shocked !
and it ran really smothe too.... I hopped in and moved the truck but in the proccess it seamed to run out of volume.... ( probably why he ran the exhaust through the box ...I didn't ..... that was just an experiment I did.....
I have a 3.5hp B&S that I have cept through the years that works on gasoline vapor .... it probably trippled the fuel milage on it.... its crude and has 2 ball valves on it for the carb.... one for air one for vapor..... they interact so bad that moving one valve mandates the movement of the other to get it running real good again.... I still have that engine.... and although it went through the fire and there is no spark to the plug I keep it as a success !
..... the Auto companies have had this technology for a long, long time..... all you had to do was a patent search and see it with your own eyes
it would take a GAS or gasious type of carburator to make one of these things work properly though because it's just explosive Air and that won't work in a liquid carb. ...
I have no idea why they are Not using that technology ....but they are not.... it really doesn't make much sense !
Bob.........
I know for a fact that Gasoline Vaporization works ...I've done it on 2 cars so far
I got 80mpg out of my Ford Pinto in the 1980's with it ( my first attempt at it) however it was clunky and Unwieldy and you had to adjust the mixture on the dash while keeping your fhrottle foot perfectly still..... and that proved to be too much trouble to have on the car....
it also needed about a 15minute warm up to start working .... that one was powered by the hot water system, I read about a guy in Portland Or. that made one so I followed his design and tried it.... it worked... it just was not practical at all .
my best one was on the Dodge truck I have no idea how much the MPG was increased in it because I never got it on the highway
but the engine ran great and was destaned for many miles when I took it all apart and put it in the shed to re work the delevery system so I didn't have to fiddle with a valve in the cab..... it all melted in the intense heat of the house fire... the only thing that was left was the heat tubes on the truck that I left on there..... after doing much research I discovered that a maximun of 400mpg could be obtained..... Yah I know sounds like a pipe dream but if you do the figures you'll see that gasoline expans over 400 times when vaporzed..... and is just as explosive ....well nearly...there is a slight drop in its explosion because it is so much leaner....
One old feller back in the 1920's or 30's took a Modle A ford and made a box and ran the exhaust through it so it was heated
the box had a float valve in it and held a volume of gasoline in it....... the engine had the downdraft carburators of old on it and he simply put a pipe from the box to the intake of the carburator .... he put a butterfly door over that pipe just before the carb... and he clamed to get 400 MPG....
ok I'm a skeptic... I find it hard to believe 400mpg on anything.... but Using gasoline Vapor and not gasoline droplets does seam like a better idea...
so I made a box for my toyota truck.... fed it with the injector line put fuel in it and mounted it on the engine....
the intake was plumbed so it took the fumes out of the box and into the intake..... I hit the starter and the darn thing started...I was shocked !
and it ran really smothe too.... I hopped in and moved the truck but in the proccess it seamed to run out of volume.... ( probably why he ran the exhaust through the box ...I didn't ..... that was just an experiment I did.....
I have a 3.5hp B&S that I have cept through the years that works on gasoline vapor .... it probably trippled the fuel milage on it.... its crude and has 2 ball valves on it for the carb.... one for air one for vapor..... they interact so bad that moving one valve mandates the movement of the other to get it running real good again.... I still have that engine.... and although it went through the fire and there is no spark to the plug I keep it as a success !
..... the Auto companies have had this technology for a long, long time..... all you had to do was a patent search and see it with your own eyes
it would take a GAS or gasious type of carburator to make one of these things work properly though because it's just explosive Air and that won't work in a liquid carb. ...
I have no idea why they are Not using that technology ....but they are not.... it really doesn't make much sense !
Bob.........
Bob Kelly III
Ranch Kid from way back,.... that got Old !
Sorry I think I've hijacked this thread long enough ....that wasn't my intention.... so I'll shuddup about it !
Bob.......
Bob.......
Hi Bob,
I reckon part of the reason is that the various fuel economiser devices you mention need a master-tinkerer to operate them.
Big Auto has to sell vehicles to folks that are totally ignorant of how the vehicle works, couldn't tweak or adjust nothin' and would screw it up if they tried.
Heard that back in the day the original Austin Mini sold big on the West Coast to ladies who really liked it's economy and small size.
Except this one lady kept bringing hers back because it was a swine to start, didn't run well and drank gas like a fish.
Time after time she brought it back and they couldn't find the problem.
Finally the sales manager said OK lady, this time YOU will drive and I'll come with you.
The starter grinds and grinds, the accelerator gets pumped and pumped and it takes three minutes to fire up.
See, she said, now will you agree that it's a swine to start? Now I'll show you how badly it runs.
But first she said, pulling out the choke knob and hanging her purse on it, I must say that I DO like this little feature.
It's folks like that you gotta sell cars to.
I reckon part of the reason is that the various fuel economiser devices you mention need a master-tinkerer to operate them.
Big Auto has to sell vehicles to folks that are totally ignorant of how the vehicle works, couldn't tweak or adjust nothin' and would screw it up if they tried.
Heard that back in the day the original Austin Mini sold big on the West Coast to ladies who really liked it's economy and small size.
Except this one lady kept bringing hers back because it was a swine to start, didn't run well and drank gas like a fish.
Time after time she brought it back and they couldn't find the problem.
Finally the sales manager said OK lady, this time YOU will drive and I'll come with you.
The starter grinds and grinds, the accelerator gets pumped and pumped and it takes three minutes to fire up.
See, she said, now will you agree that it's a swine to start? Now I'll show you how badly it runs.
But first she said, pulling out the choke knob and hanging her purse on it, I must say that I DO like this little feature.
It's folks like that you gotta sell cars to.
