high mileage carb

Page 2 of 2  
CR- Increasing compresion will increase efficentcy but on a decrease rate of improvement as pressures increase.. Going from 8:1 to 10:1 is apx 12% Going from 10:1 to 12:1 is apx 6% or a total of 18% over 8:1
It continues to drop as rates increase. As others have stated, the fuel is an issue as head temperatures predetenate the fuel. Head/Combustion chamber design comes into play. Many times the reality is that they put cams in these higher compression engines that have higher valve overlap periods to increase exhaust gas evacuation from the bore. This, lowers real world increases in "mileage" that may be gained from the cr.
Water/Meth Injection of these items supposidly increase compression(due to fluids don't compress), slow the burn more, raise the octatane rateing, and lower the exhaust gas temperature. In addition, it helps keep clean the engines.
That said; I have a dual pressure injection system from SNOW, on my diesel truck. I expected at least 200F exhaust gas temp drops and 80hp. I can not report this? Maybe I have it set wrong? Others report good results??
DIESEL Yes the higher CR does help mileage. Unit comparing, gas to diesel, diesel has 10% more energy. Most of todays Diesel have turbochargers which increase power on demand. Boost levels of 40lbs boost are easy, and up to 120lbs are do-able! These presures help hp(apx 10hp per 1lbs boost<40lbs boost is about 400hp>) and TORQUE, but it takes fuel to do this.
ARTICLE Is a mixture of trueth and misinformation.
Vapor Pressure point of the fuels depend on the pressure(altitude). At sea level, gasoline will start to vaporize at about 140F, diesel about 300F. I am unclear where they get 430F? As pressure decreases the tempreture should decrease.
Fuel that is pulled from a carburator is NOT VAPORIZED. The fuel is mixed as very very fine droplets. IN FACT, some of the older engines that were designed for PERFORMANCE were designed with large ports in the heads with large carburators. As the word "performance" in those days ment, it was capable of good power at mid to high rpm levels. The engine was designed for high volumes of air and fuel. At "normal" lower rpm use, such as cruse speeds or idle. The airflow in these large ports could be so slow that droplets of fuel would fall out of the stream of air/fuel. Pudles of fuel could actually collect in parts of the ports, until more airstream would again start to pick up the fuel. This is one reason that FUEL INJECTION is much better.
Hydrogen Boost system, is a good idea, but it generally takes more energy to make the hydrogen than it provides in practice. In addition, it may be dificult to regulate the amount that could properly be used. Your adding fuel to your running engine without regulation control.(this is unfair of me to say. I have not read the book).
Years ago, there was a vapor carb that used exhaust gas as a heat source to vaporize the fuel. You used a normal carb to start the engine and ran it to normal operating tempertures. Then you switched to the vapor carburator. The issue was that as you increased the efficency, you lowered the waste heat produced. Of the people I spoke with using this said it worked fine, for a few miles(<4miles) until the exhaust temps would no longer vaporized the fuel.
I quote: In 1987 McBurney converted a '76 Dodge minivan to his design, and it got 70 mpg "when it was working well."
end quote.
I owned a 1976 van. Dodge had a van and an extended version about 16in longer. Both of these are VANS, not minivans. Mini vans did not exist until the 80s. My 76 318ci v8 3sp manual got 14mpg in town. I never took it on the road, but would expect 18-20mpg.
So much of this article is "ghost tales" and not about the real meat and potatoes. IF this exists, then there are a number of automotive mags and tv shows that would welcome this. It would spread like wild fire. Members in the press may not wish to give such wild claims the time of day. BUT, if such an item exists it would take little proding by these smart engineers to get on the good side of the reporters. Friends of friends that know someone they could give a test ride to prove it too.Then these people would add their voice to their bosses to get a real test and report. Everyone heard of the guy in El Paso Tx back in 69 with a Ford Galaxy getting over 100mpg. They had inspection of the car, reporters in the car and in the convoy run. The guy was killed in a hotel and car stolen. Yet, I tried to find evidence of this myself. I could not.
I suggest you do a search on Pogue Carburetor on the net to see what is said....
IF THIS EXISTS, LETS SEE IT!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here again, moderation is the key. My 68 Road Runner with the 383 magnum engine obtained 23 mpg when either my mom or my sister drove it. I, otoh, never got better than 12 out of it . . . of course, I was only 21 in 1968 . . . . . BG

I'ts not the lack of fluid compressibility raising effective CR that does the trick, but the water content "flashes into steam adding a slight "steam engine" effect. The alcohol (any kind will do) is a fuel / oxydizer / octane booster / anti-freeze for the water. Since it as a bit of fuel / oxidizer component to the cylinder, less gasoline is needed for a specific HP level . . .more gasoline economy.

Go for it!!! In modern diesels, water injection is a blessing, but too much water will cause an engine to miss or run poorly.

And allow a lower CR for starting ( it takes big poewer to crank a 22 or higher : 1 engine)

Here again, it boosts the effective CR.

They added the two together but got the wrong answer? 300 + 140 = 440 <BG>

"Atomized"
Yep.
Sorry, but this is incorrect. The problem was poor fuel distribution. Turbulence in the runners, in effect, partially blocked the flow to some cylinders requireing a richer overall mixture than was actually needed.

Curiously, the 57-65 Corvette F.I. was a constant flow/wet port system that had no computer control at all and delivered 25% better economy, over 1 HP/cu.in. and reduced emissions . . . .have we reeally come so far??

And you're about to fall for the hype. Hint: If it sounds to good to be true, then it proabably is.

Think on this: Gasoline gets real touchy when heated . . .would you want boiling gasoline under your hood?

I had a 72 B-350 maxi-van for a while with the 360/2bbl engine and got 14 also with a 4.11: axle

Urban legends come and go. This was my point as well; no verifiable evidence, no proof that the "inventor" was even a good shade-tree tinkerer.
-- 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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:
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/McBurney/press_release031117.htm
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:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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. <BG>
-- 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.

1117.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.