high mileage carb

saw this though i'd post in groups see reaction if possible someone follow through building one. McBurney Cracks the Super Carburetor Code Address:

formatting link

Reply to
ebidd
Loading thread data ...

A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting water into the intake flow.

I see no verifcation of his 70 mpg claim nor any proof that he knows anything about combustion physics, thermal dynamics, fuel manufacture . . .no evidence he's anything but a charlatain.

How does water injection help? It allows a much leaner mixture by moderating the combustion process and preventing lean mixture detonation problems. It was commonly used in WW II on many of our fighters to give higher power outputs under combat conditions. The moisture also flashes into low pressure steam to add to the power output.

In 1970, Mother Earth News magazine ran an article on how to build your own water injection system with an aquarium air stone, a mayonaise jar and some vacuum line. Add water and rubbing alcohol.

On a 225 slant six in a 1964 Valiant, I got 41.25 mpg on a 145 mile round trip between Canon City CO and Colorado Springs CO. The engine was running tighter than stock valve lashes ( mechanical lifters) and a recurved distributor. OTOH, my eldest is now driving my old 1979 D150 (318,auto, 3.55 axle long bed) and getting 19 mpg around town and 23 highway, but the vacuum advance has been seriously recurved. It also kicks 350 Chubbie butt regularly.

Now, what all this points out is there is no miracle carburetor, only careful tuneups and modifictions combined with sensible driving habits (aggressive driving is a no-no for fuel economy, folks) will achieve a net increase in economy.

Budd

formatting link

>
Reply to
Budd Cochran

Budd,

I see no proof that you read the article. Did you read it? Not that I know anything about it, but it's not water injection like they used in WW2 when we were kids.

Can you prove the 318 kicks 350 Chubbie butt? I went to the 50th anniversary of the first Nuke in a friends 350 powered 1/2 ton short bed with a Aluminum shell. We got just over 25 MPG for the complete trip. I think it was throttle body injected but did not look. It was dead stock, automatic trans, and the paint was blowing off the hood, just like both of my white Dodge's:)

Al

Reply to
Big Al

formatting link

formatting link

>
Reply to
Steve W.

Al, I'm not known for lying. I resent your insinuation that I am. The bad part is I tried to help you with your rat infestation. Therefore I will not waste the effort in the future, as you will just consider I'm lying.

And I wasn't born until 47.

Budd

Reply to
Budd Cochran

Yea, but was that 18 or 1947 :-)

Reply to
TBone

Budd,

Didn't want to upset you, sorry I did. Noticed you didn't answer the question. Did you read the article?

Al, still has a rat problem:(

Reply to
Big Al

You insinuated I didn't read it. If you'd read my post a little more closely you would have seen I touched on the most obvious "benefit" of the design which would show I did, in fact, read the article. His system entrains a small amount of water in the gasoline flow. If he gets a smooth engine operation from this then it alone is a little bit amazing.

And you didn't read the suggestion I made for taking care of the rats or disbelieved it. The soda is safe for grandkids, pets and farm animals, unlike poisons. Obviously the traps didn't work . . . .

Budd

Reply to
Budd Cochran

1447, he came to america with Columbus.

beekeep

Reply to
beekeep

A Jack Russel will end the rat problem.

beekeep

Reply to
beekeep

Sorry, Greg, but my first boat ride was as a baby on Noah's Ark.

Budd

Reply to
Budd Cochran

I don't know . . .I saw some Norway rats at the Arvin Ind. factory in Indiana that were about the size of a Jack Russell and had more attitude. One year, they closed the doors and turned a bunch of the Good old boys loose in thee with shotguns to cut down the population ... according to the factory's legend mill.

I figure the rats would have run off the rednecks.

Budd

manufacture .

Reply to
Budd Cochran

To Big Al:

Yes, I read the article, and if it were anymore vague, it could be used as a soap-opera script. More hype about himself that about the carb and not enough about himself to determine if he's even a logical shadetree inventor.

I printed out the Pop Mech article. The water injection they used works off manifold vacuum which drops as the throttle opened, reducing vapor flow. A

5-10% improvement is about the maximum improvement and is about all you could expect * at best* .

The system I used on the slant six drew vacuum off the distributor vacuum advance port (vacuum increases with throttle opening delivering more vapor at higher rpm), used an aquarium air stone, 50/50 water alcohol mix, and a heavily recurved distributor. Full mechanical advance just above idle and full vacuum @ 4 inches of mercury, iirc.

Budd

manufacture .

Reply to
Budd Cochran

There is a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gas (about 50 HP) and a bigger factor in fuel economy is engine comprssion ratio than carb.

Reply to
TheSnoMan

Agreed. While a higher C.R. improves specific horsepower, not always economy, it cannot pull more HP out of the fuel than is available. Go too far with CR and you will lose economy. It's more important to burn all the fuel you can in the cylinder and low octane fuel actually burns faster than high octane.

The water/alcohol system I used added a fuel, in the form of alcohol vapor, and the water vapor reduced the chance of detonation from a lean mix / excessive timing advance situation at cruise throttle.

For example, my 79 Dodge D-150 with 318 ran 55 degrees advance at less than

40 mph ( mechanical and vacuum advances combined. Normally, vacuum advance doesn't come in under cruise throttle until 50 mph) and yielded 20+ mpg from a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a BRICK, but it would detonate under certain conditions.

The 65 225 Slant Six, otoh, ran two light springs in the mechanical advance which brought full advance in at around 1000 rpm. On 87 octane, this would be a massive ping situation under any load, but it only pinged when I forgot to add mix to the bottle. In a 64 Valiant, it towed an overloaded U-Haul trailer over Monarch Pass CO, 11,000+ feet, without strain and delivered 28 mpg at the time.

The water / alcohol injection system was on that engine for over 100,000 miles and during that time my worst fuel mileage was 20 mpg ... the point had burned up and I didn't have another set until payday the next weekend

-- Budd Cochran

WARNING!!!

Poster still believes that intelligence, logic,

common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs

are still important in our society, and may include

them > > To Big Al:

Reply to
Budd Cochran

Tricky old fart aren't ya.

Roy

Reply to
Roy

Budd,

Here is what I was asking about. Again I have no idea if any of this is true, but it is clearly not old fashion water injection.

From the article:

"According to McBurney, the process is really quite simple. You vaporize the fuel through any of a number of methods, then in the presence of heat generated from the exhaust, and added water vapor, run the fuel-water mixture across a catalyzing agent, and a vast portion of the fuel molecules will break down into methanol and natural gas. The heat and catalyst and water drive the reaction."

Here is the complete article just in case:

formatting link
In my 60 years of screwing with this stuff I find most of these types of "discoveries" are pure BS. But someday....

Al

PS: Just toured the Franklin Car Museum. We have not come very far:)

Reply to
Big Al

Reply to
TheSnoMan

No, sorry, I do not have it wrong, according to Chrysler engineers I worked alongside of while they were assisting in the installation of catalytic converter manufacturing equipment at Arvin Ind, Inc in Franklin IN in 1971.

They understood the need for proper combustion, the complete burning process happening IN the cylinder, while the EPA was demanding retarded timings and all when the first emissions laws were enforced . . .uh, correction . . shoved down our throats.

If you remember, for about 4 years, cars in America got horrid mileage because of screwed up tune procedures. My own experience was a 72 Charger with 400/2 bbl engine that got only 14 mpg on the highway / 8 in town when tuned to 1972 specifications, but that jumped to 17 around town and 24 highway when tuned to 1968 specs . . . .and it still ran fine on 87 octane fuel

-- Budd Cochran

WARNING!!!

Poster still believes that intelligence, logic,

common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs

are still important in our society, and might include

them in his posts.

Reply to
Budd Cochran

Exactly my point, Al.

All he's done is found a fancy, expensive way to add a smidgen of water vapor with an infinitesimal amount of fuel. Since it's taking fuel from the same fuel tank it still drops the fuel level at the same rate as before even if the fuel injection O2 sensors leans out the normal fuel flow because of a rich mixture detection.

But the water vapor added isn't enough at cruise speeds to make any difference to speak of anyway, since it draws from manifold vacuum and the modern computers will probably alter the timing and fuel curves to restore the programmed consumption rates.

I installed a matching water vapor injector system to the one on my Valiant on the 75 Oldsmobile taxi ( that anemic 260 v-8 in a Cutlass) I was driving when I got the great results on the slant six and I only gained a best of

10% when I didn't have to drive the crap out of it just to keep up with traffic. But I still got better mpg that any of the other 5 Cutlasses.

-- Budd Cochran

WARNING!!!

Poster still believes that intelligence, logic,

common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs

are still important in our society, and might include

them in his posts.

formatting link

Reply to
Budd Cochran

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.