Quote:
Originally Posted by ps2fixer
First one... I have always been told that fuel injectors are less efficent compaired to carbrator in the department of fuel atomization. Since then it seems the best MPG will be found on small engine powered cars which are fuel injected. Down side of carb was the fact you can't control it as well as fuel injection.
|
Fuel atomization is dependent on fuel pressure and spray pattern, seeing as how most engines that you can compare side by side show both an increase in peek HP and lower fuel consumption, I'm not sure where you get the idea that a carburetor is better.
One of the ideas behind vehicles like that, that vaporize the fuel is that they are not using all of the fuel, just the lightest part of it by bubbling warm/hot air up through it and pulling off the light flammable parts, then at the end of the test when the left over fuel is weighed or measured you have the slower burning parts left over, perfect for varnishing your wood work.
That car is also just part of an Opel shell that has been stripped out and had a very small engine installed, I suspect the whole thing weighs less then a 1,000 pounds.
Quote:
=============================
Second one... Based on racing mojo... nitro boosts car power by tons which basically adds more oxygen allowing the engine to burn more fuel per power cycle, but this largely adds to temp which I didn't think much about before. The idea was to equip a car with an oxygen tank and run it as a boost to engine power expecting better MPG, and back then thinking the savings would bearly cover the oxygen tank refills. My new thinking is that MPG would be nearly the same giving no other factors are changed, just adding abilities for the engine to burn more fuel at a given rpm would lower rpm, but at a huge cost of having the intake butterfly closed more which of what I read is less efficent (basically having a v6 vs having a v4 in a small car). Only good thing I can think of is for using an extremely small engine and maxing out what it can do within reasion (including turbo) and the benefit could be viewed similar to a normal turbo setup but have further gains? Also note that the oxygen used would be huge, and wouldn't last a tank of fuel I suspect..
|
VW has made 1.2 or 1.3L engines for the Golf that are gasoline with turbos and direct injection that get around 50mpg because of their small displacement needing less fuel at cruising speeds then the turbo allowing for higher power output when needed, Ford is doing the same kind of thing with the Eco-Boost engines.
Nitrous Oxide would be safer then pure oxygen because the Nitrous Oxide doesn't release the o2 until it's heated where pure o2 can burn your skin and room temp, either way I'd say that a turbo is a much better idea.