Heated Fuel

[101Volts]

For some reason even the website it's hosted on isn't working for me. Perhaps it will at a later date.

(Edit, 2013-September-18: And it did.)

Another aritcle about the Fiero is showing up for me now, Though:

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...e/viewall.html

[hungryhunter]

Originally Posted by 101Volts

For some reason even the website it's hosted on isn't working for me. Perhaps it will at a later date.

Another website about the Fiero works for me now, Though:

What Ever Happened To Smokey's Hot-Vapor Engine? - Hot Rod Magazine

HMMMM, It must be the government, oil companies or both.
google it

[101Volts]

I did, Perhaps I wasn't very specific in the last post though: There's an article about Smokey's Fiero at the link posted. Or were you saying the article I linked to isn't quite what you had in mind?

[beatr911]

Back to heating the fuel, as a mod.

I remember reading an article from Misubishi and it's study of direct fuel injection. On the subject motor, the fuel was routed in a gallery in the head, then to the injector. It was a returnless fuel system so the fuel was naturally being heated to the temp of the cylinder head. As I was researching this heated fuel thing at the time, I specifically remember that they attributed a fuel savings of 5% to the heating of the fuel. There were other gains from the very high pressures of DI but since I wasn't about to try to make a DI system, it wasn't about to stick in my head.

Anyway, for a low pressure injection system like most of us have (DI systems run over 2000psi), who knows? Like most things, the effectiveness of heating the fuel 'depends'.

I think why this (these) threads originally died is that no one provided repeatable, measurable data. Data like fuel temps, intake air temps, afr ratios, etc. Also, few people implemented the mod to test it. So in boredom we all let it go.

An easier mod to do (so it was implemented more frequently) is the warm air induction and it was found that certain vehicles respond well, Saturn SL1 I think was a good one.

So, please test this mod someone. I finally have a car with a returnless fuel system and this is on the list of things to do, number 4 or 5 at this point though

[101Volts]

Originally Posted by beatr911

So, please test this mod someone. I finally have a car with a returnless fuel system and this is on the list of things to do, number 4 or 5 at this point though

It's in my "Suggestions" Pile now, I'm not saying I'll do it tomorrow.

- Coming from a person who's at the time of the post, 22 years old and hasn't changed oil in one car yet.

[Awd180]

There is a lot to consider when it comes to trying things like this. For a carbureted vehicle a geet apparatus would help vaporize the fuel such that from vacuum more vapor is present and less fluid. Fuel injected engines it won't work as well, injectors and the heat inside the combustion chamber maintain fuel as a vapor. Changing the injector duty cycle is the only option, the O2 sensor will compinsate for a lean burn, so actually both need to be set at a new range.

Then there are the fluid dynamics, the volume of a fluid is effected by its temperature. A fuel at 90' takes up more space than @ 60'. Most modern cars have an evap system that collects vapor as well as the tank is insulated, mostly for crash purpose, but it allows less fuel to be loss threw heat exchange.

[davelobi]

A couple thoughts on heating gasoline for higher MPG.

One of the old fashoned modifications for street race cars was called a "cool can". This involved a coffee can (or the likes) with many coils of fuel line coiled around inside it. It was then filled with ice to cool (think condense) the fuel for denser gas thus suposedly giving more power by throwing more gas through the carberator. If this in fact worked as intended then the opposite should/may be true. Heat it up (think expand) and use a little less gas for economy.

I doubt it would show even pretty small gains on fuel economy. I suppose the possibility of a very very tiny bit exists. Small temperature changes don't change the btu's per unit.

I also think that if it were a viable method then the manufacturers would be using it. The CAFE standards are simply killing them with a quick hard kill comming up with the looming wall in 2025(?) They are getting desperate enough to experiment with engine off (stop/start) for red lights, grill shutters to close off grill when temperatures allow, smooth belly pans, etc. I know for a fact all these things are in play. They are learning from the hyper-milers.

[euromodder]

The CAFE standards are simply killing them

Not nearly.

[davelobi]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Not nearly.

I don't know what you mean by this.

By 2025 the US Government will enforce a CAFE (corporate AVERAGE fuel economy) of 54.5 mpg! That means sub-compacts all the way through full sized SUVs and Pick-Ups, avreage. This means they will have to sell 10 sixty mpg cars so they can sell one Expedition, Suburban, or full sized pick up. The profits for the manufacturers are well documented as coming from the big trucks and sport utilities. Now they will have to sell more no to low profit cars just to keep selling the ones that keep them in business. They already subsidize the prices of the small cars to keep up with current cafe numbers. 54.5 average is not a reasonable number. How many cars on the road today can claim over 50mpg? Now make that the average with the bug rigs pulling the average down.
It is obviously designed to push for electric and hybrid cars.

The engineers are pulling out all stops already to get the economy we currently have available.
It can be done but it will be very expensive to engineer and build cars to these standards. It will likely be a price well above the threshold that the buyers will be willing to pay for a car.

Look at it another way.. Say you could buy a new car that gets 60mpg but costs $40,000 or a car that only gets 45mpg but only costs $20,000. Which one do you buy? At 12,000 miles per year the 60mpg car uses $700 in fuel (at $3.50/gallon), and the 45mpg car uses $933.33 in fuel. A measley $233 savings per year in fuel cost to be forced to pay $20,000 more for the car? That's less than $20 a month. No thank you!

Sorry, way off topic here but what I'm saying is that the manufacturers really are doing all they can to improve fuel economy. If it helps, they are doing it. Don't get me wrong here, I love eco-modding and hyper-miling as much as many on this site. My wife and kids think I'm crazy for driving so slow, adding air dams, coasting, etc.

[gone-ot]

Uh, you're being *kind* to our gobberment EPA dummies!

Fuel economy would immediately double (possibly triple) if engines were allowed to operate at lean-burn Air/Fuel (16-18:1) ratios instead of only stoichiometric (14.7:1) as they must do now (to feed the damn catalytic converters).

EPA is a master of "unintended consequences" where today's mandate creates tomorrow's headaches. Just wait for the AdBlue™ / Urea (piss) problems coming from the diesel people, such as GM's diesel truck owners.