I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know what you're basing these assertions on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops
If what is written is correct, the engine is only able to make use of 30% of the fuel fed by a carb Throttle Body Injection, Turned Port Injected and even Direct injection.
Based on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
Gasoline (petrol) engines
Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of more than 50%,[1] but most road legal cars are only about 20% to 40% when used to power a car.[2][3][4][5] Many engines would be capable of running at higher thermal efficiency but at the cost of higher wear and emissions.[6] In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 60-80% of total power is emitted as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft.[7] Approximately half of this rejected heat is carried away by the exhaust gases, and half passes through the cylinder walls or cylinder head into the engine cooling system, and is passed to the atmosphere via the cooling system radiator.[8] Some of the work generated is also lost as friction, noise, air turbulence, and work used to turn engine equipment and appliances such as water and oil pumps and the electrical generator, leaving only about 20-40% of the energy released by the fuel consumed available to move the vehicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops
All these systems are gasoline droplets trying to convert to vapor. There is NO time for this to happen with in the combustion cycle.
How long is needed?
How quickly does a micro-droplet of a volatile hydrocarbon take to vaporize when it's suspended in a 3000° kelvin gas?
EDIT: I just looked up the auto-ignition point of gasoline - it's 280°C, or 536°F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops
SO If the fuel in converted to 100% vapor and then fed to the engine, it is said to burn much faster than any standard system and there is NO need to throw 100% of current fuel feeds to GET that 30% power making vapor.
What's interesting to me is that diesel engines burn their fuel by compressing it until it explodes - 100% ignition, instantaneously.
Diesel has around 15%(?) more energy content per volume of fuel.
At work, we have a Rav4 gasoline, and a Rav4 diesel, both with similar engine sizes. The diesel gets around 15% better fuel economy.
If the diesel is getting around 35mpg, should not the gasoline version get only 10mpg? What am I missing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
Diesel engines
Engines using the Diesel cycle are usually more efficient, although the Diesel cycle itself is less efficient at equal compression ratios. Since diesel engines use much higher compression ratios (the heat of compression is used to ignite the slow-burning diesel fuel), that higher ratio more than compensates for air pumping losses within the engine.
Modern turbo-diesel engines use electronically controlled common-rail fuel injection to increase efficiency. With the help of geometrically variable turbo-charging system (albeit more maintenance) this also increases the engines' torque at low engine speeds (1,200–1,800 rpm). Low speed diesel engines like the MAN S80ME-C7 have achieved an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%, which is the highest conversion of fuel into power by any single-cycle internal or external combustion engine.[9][10][11] Engines in large diesel trucks, buses, and newer diesel cars can achieve peak efficiencies around 45%.[12]
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops
Direct injection has already shown it to be a bad idea, unless YOUR selling the intake valve cleaning services which can be a new money maker for car dealers.
Mazda's direct injection engines have been torn down north of 200,000 miles, and the valves have still been essentially clean. Evidently it depends on the implementation.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Whi...lves%3F&ia=web
Lots of reports…
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops
They still have the same problem getting the fuel to vaporize.
Based on? What manufacturers publish suggests incomplete combustion is 2% or less. Are we being lied to?
Perhaps:
https://strutdaddys.com/the-truth-ab...ur-gdi-engine/
I'm not suggesting there isn't gain to be had by improving vaporization, but we have the engine makers saying <2%, and you saying 70%. And, we have examples of engines that do not have vaporization problems which show only marginal improvement.
A standard vaporization problem was vapor locked fuel systems….
There are hundreds of stories going back over 80 years from the Fish Carb, to Tom Ogle…
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Historial+...&t=ffab&ia=web