high mileage carb

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) 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(

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

"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.

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.

Easy, pal. I'm not the enemy. I dislike the EPA as much as anyone. They only recently hired their first real scientist and he's an evolution / ecology freak.

By demanding reduced NOx, in effect, the EPA demanded retarded timing. Source? Chrysler, Ford, and GM engineers that were overseeing the cat converter machine installations at Arvins.

87 octane fuel is the result of the catylitic converters . . .no lead allowed, although later tests proved it settles out of the exhaust less than 20 feet from the pipe. Gawd I miss that good old 105.5 octane Sunoco 260. . . .

The first engine I've ever owned with an ECM is my 95 Lebaron and, to be honest, I'm pleased with it's performance ( 3.0 V-6). With my current state of health, I don't tinker as much as I usta could.

My last vehicle was the 79 D-150 that my eldest son is still driving and now has over 400,000 miles on the 318 under the hood.

Budd