Old to fuel-saving New to here

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Re: Carb "Enhancer" and other carb mods: Seriously, how many of us have carb'd daily drivers?

By now, I'd expect there are few carbureted vehicles but there are some and they deserve higher mileage too, particularly because the people who are driving them are likely the same people who can't afford a newer vehicle and/or those people who really like their vehicle and don't want to give it up.

Personally, the only reason my wife now has an Aveo is that I didn't have time/energy to put air conditioning on the 1984 Honda Civic. She has a health issue which gets serious if she gets too hot.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Speaking of daily drivers (see post #10) I wanted to know what you drive, it's mods, and it's fuel efficiency. Why bother putting up your wife's car with no data?

My wife's car is my only current 'driver' daily or otherwise. I WILL get mileage data posted on it as I get time. I only fuel it once or twice a month so it'll take awhile. I'm just getting used to this website and I haven't checked if I can enter 'past' data into the record.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You have thousands of satisfied customers with your successful 30-year-old business- that according to what you put on Manta, brings in $250,000/year and only gets divided up between two people.

I truly wish that were true, but I'm sorry to say you looked at the wrong Eagle Research. I had no idea Manta existed until you referred to it. I checked it out and this is me.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You said you have spent tens of thousands of dollars on R&D on one project alone. You said you have mpg records. Surely you have been able to drive your own vehicle and are able to provide records on something.

If I respond to this am I 'defending myself?' Yes to all the above.
And I will provide mileage records as they happen. I'm currently only driving the Aveo which, as I explained before, totally unmodified. I will explain the fight I've had with Chevy to get it up to 'reasonable' mileage; so I can then improve upon it. I see absolutely no reason I can't double its mileage once my wife allows me to work on it and I get the time.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

Pretty much, yes! I do explain my theories in my books but in the end it's all about results. Most of my customers are generated from word of mouth, a happy customer tells his friends and often even installs a few himself. A few people bought my book, installed on their own vehicle and then went on to make a good living installing on other people's vehicles.

Once I wrote the Carburetor Enhancer Manual and started selling it, the people who 'self-installed' reported the same gains as I and my customers noticed. Again, all empirical evidence, not independent scientific validation.

George, this is America and I realize that we all have to make a buck - but your long posts always revert back to being one long, tedious sales pitch for your products.

I do have self-generated data, which is in storage 2500 miles away. I have very few independent scientific studies. For my customers I have a 60 day no questions asked moneyback satisfaction guarantee. I have less than a 2% return rate and most of those are from people who never tried the product/project. I may be fooling myself but I think that makes it pretty clear that people are getting what they think they'll get.

The sales pitch is the real message, and the real reason why you are here, isn't it, George?

Sorry, I KNOW you are looking for proof that qualifies with the standards of this website. I don't have it now. I WILL have it this spring, once I get the 84 Honda Civic back on the road. Not only will you have my fuel mileage records in the ecomodder garage, but anyone who wishes can visit and prove it for themselves. Again, this is where I ask for patience.

You haven't addressed any of my comments or questions in my previous post, so I will raise them again:

Quote:
Please have some patience on the 'real results'. First, I've given you all nothing but real results that I've achieved in the past. Second, I'm away from my home on an extended writing sabbatical. I'm quite happy to have anyone check out my project vehicles once I get home and they are on the road. This will happen during this summer.

Why did you decide to begin discussion of your products now in February, on this list? You claim to be away from home until next summer. Your being away from your cars provides an excuse that you think is acceptable for not providing any tangible proof of testing your claims.

The best I can do now is make my eBooks available for free and then help ecomodders duplicate what I've done, one step at a time; using their own skills and resources and at low cost (buying nothing from me).
I'll have no financial interest in their projects beyond trying to help them get the best mileage possible (without hurting their vehicle). Then the ecomodders who actually have equipment that can make proper scientific tests will be able to prove for themselves that the technology works or not.

Again, [broken record:] the burden of proof is upon YOU - not upon us to buy your stuff and prove or disprove your claims.

You admit you have no proof - yet you relentlessly implore us to believe in your theories and the products you are promoting.

As for which vehicles, pretty much everything but there's no way I can list them or prove who did what to what; except my own vehicles and that's where my 'stories' come in. I can tell you my 'stories' but that's not proof.

So we get to endure your relentless stories that are one big sales pitch from now until summer?

Remember the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes? You can spin your long-winded yarns and sales pitches as long as the moderators allow it, but in response we can point and laugh...

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

So if I have it all correctly figured out, ALL the extraordinary mpgs this Ford got were due to the extreme gearing, as there are no modded fuel "systems" or really, anything modded that would impact fuel efficiency, other than the gearing. So the truck has pretty much standard weight, standard aerodynamics, maybe a little better than average rolling resistance from the ball bearing axle but standard- not even oversized- tires (not needed because of that extreme axle)... and possibly because you were always in there wrenching on it, it had a high state of stock engine tune, right?

Right! The carburetor was a 2150 Motorcraft, which turned out to be significant because it can be a very efficient carburetor, and the engine had excellent power so in spite of the high gearing, it operated pretty normally. It wasn't 'gutless' at low speeds, but I never had to worry about smoking my tires because it simply wouldn't do it.

All the 'performance' was at high speed (60+ mph).
A short story: I once went from a dead stop to 5 miles away in 2.5 minutes. The guy riding with me never rode with me again, and frankly, I never drove that fast again either; that was too hairy (think Hot Rod Lincoln).
He looked at his watch at the stop sign and said "we have 5 minutes to make the bank" I said "we'll make it" and held it on the floor for about 3 miles, which was a slight downhill straightaway. He looked at his watch again as we passed the 40 mph sign coming into town.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What are the particulars on this one?

This is the 1974 GMC pickup my brother and I used to build the system described in my 'Extreme Mileage, 101' book; which I will make available for free as part of my ecomodder contribution. It started as a 1/2 ton with a 252 ci engine, and an automatic transmission (Carburetor Enhancer book). I converted it to a 292 ci engine and a 4 speed manual transmission (Extreme Mileage, 101 book).

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

No, the 'lie' math has absolutely nothing to do with wide open throttle. The math is for normal driving with normal throttle use. The math simply takes the weight of air that ACTUALLY goes through the engine and compares it to the weight of fuel that ACTUALLY goes through the engine during NORMAL vehicle operation.

You can confirm this by using your own scan gauge on your own vehicle just like I show you. I never mention anything about wide open throttle.

Can you tell me why you think I'm talking about wide open throttle?

You claim to be this know all wizard who says they are more capable than NASA and yet you cannot make a simple deduction and calculation correctly. This puts ALL of your claims in doubt.

The video shows nothing about the manifold air pressure which, along with air temperature, would tell you what the mass flow potential is going into the engine. You use this LIE as a gateway to your theory of greater mileage. But your logic is a lie in and of itself. The assumption of 0.8 as your volumetric efficiency, in the Aveo video, can only happen if you have the throttle fully open. The throttle is a variable volumetric efficiency valve! You cannot have 0.8 VE at idle, can you? Only diesels, which have no throttle valves can make that claim. This is why members of this forum work towards lean burn engines so that they may use greater throttle settings and greater VE along with the reduction in fuel used per unit of air. Take the reading of the MAP sensor along with the air temperature sensor and apply the basic gas laws and you can correctly calculate the mass of air used by the engine. Your video evidence does not support your claim.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by sarguy01

HyCO-2DT Installation Instructions This is your product, correct?

It's a fellow who is manufacturing HyCO 2DT canisters for sale. It's my technology but not my product. I do not patent my innovations. Anyone who purchases my books can build themselves and make their own business, which is what this man (and many others) have done.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

I googled HyCO and found this. Basically, the HyCO is a can that is plumbed into the fuel return line. Then, using compressed air, the vapors that collect in the top of the can are forced into the intake manifold, correct? Left over gas is then sent back to the fuel tank.

That's a close enough idea of how the HyCO 2DT works. Please know that the HyCO 2DT and the HyCO 2A, while both are 'evaporitive fuel' technologies, are different devices. The HyCO 2DT is designed to work on turbocharged (diesel or gasoline) engines. The HyCO 2A only works on gasoline engines.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

This system is used to add fuel vapor into the intake manifold. I am assuming, from what you talk about on your website, is that the fuel vapor is burnt and less fuel will be injected via the fuel injection system, hence the huge gains.

I'd change the word 'huge' to 'respectable'; and note that any gains are only acquired if everything is working correctly (which I assist anyone I can).

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Questions...

How do you regulate the amount of fuel vapor going into the engine? Is it the same amount at all times? An engine needs a different amount of fuel at idle then at 3,000 rpm under load. How does the HyCO regulate the amount of fuel vapor needed?

The HyCO 2DT regulates fuel vapors using turbo pressure. As the engine comes under load, the turbo pressure increases and 'more' vapors are formed.

The HyCO 2A generally depends on engine vacuum so reduces it's vapor as the engine comes under load... Unless you put a venturi in the intake air, then the vapors will pretty much match air consumption.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Why does the EFIE need to be used if the engine is still burning gasoline? Am I incorrect to say that burning gasoline vapors are the same as burning gasoline coming out of a fuel injector? Wouldn't the O2 sensor read this the same?

Yes, so you answered your own question. It doesn't matter if you are burning gasoline in liquid or vapor; as you increase combustion efficiency your exhaust oxygen content will rise.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

How do you know that the engine is being run off of the vapors? How much vapor is produced?

Those are good questions which become really obvious once you start using the technology. You cut back on the liquid as you add vapor, so the air:vapor fuel ratio stays consistent (which is why you don't lose power). I can't tell you how much vapor is produced because there are too many variables.

With diesel, the HyCO 2DT doesn't produce enough to have a combustible mixture in the intake manifold, but it will for gasoline.

The HyCO 2A will produce enough vapors to idle a 300 ci engine but I don't recommend producing that much, it makes it harder to make a smooth transition between the vapor and liquid fuel systems.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Does the EFIE simply lean the engine out and allow for these huge MPG gains?

No. That is a common misunderstanding. The EFIE is NOT a fuel saver, ask anyone who has installed it without also installing an actual combustion enhancement technology.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Is it safe to have a homemade can full of gas in my engine compartment?

It is as safe or safer that the vehicle's fuel tank. In hundreds of installations over decades of time, on all kinds of vehicles, I've never heard of a mishap.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Re: your Aveo...
I would really love to know what you had them correct. I assume these were items that affected fuel economy. Might be extremely helpful to other Aveo owners.

I had non-fuel related issues like faulty front brake rotors (eventually replaced), a faulty fuel tank wiring seal (where the wires entered the body of the vehicle) that allowed a mouse to take up residence (a $1500 story) etc.

The biggest fuel related thing was something to do with the oxygen sensor. They eventually replaced it at no charge and it did help. I'll be replacing it again with a heated oxygen sensor when I do my personal upgrades.

The next big thing was the deceleration fuel shutoff. It would NOT go into DFS if the air conditioning was on (I think because the throttle position was advanced) and we bought the Aveo for two reasons air conditioning for my wife and fuel mileage for me. Since we HAD to have the AC on, I lost part of the fuel economy that would be gained with DFS. I finally got them to 'upgrade' the programming and after that the DFS would come on when the AC was on.

The Aveo DFS 'programming rules' are a joke. The DFS units I build myself (for carbureted and EFI) work much better. I'll be upgrading this too, once I can get to the car.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by sarguy01
HyCO-2DT Installation Instructions This is your product, correct?

George replied:

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

It's a fellow who is manufacturing HyCO 2DT canisters for sale. It's my technology but not my product. I do not patent my innovations. Anyone who purchases my books can build themselves and make their own business, which is what this man (and many others) have done.

George,

In your post #58 you are quoted as saying the following:

Only several thousand people I call customers What they care about is that it saves them fuel. $350 is not much for 25% to 100% gain in fuel economy. My HyCO 2DT costs $3000 and will save a trucker a guaranteed $60,000 over 5 years time... They call that a good investment.

And now you are DENYING that you sell this as your product?

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Let’s review George’s actual posts and ask some questions.
Post #22: That sounds like a sales pitch, not a give away.
#37: The phrase “help you with” implies buying your product, doesn’t it?
#38: Again, your idea of "help" will mean buying your units. The burden of proof is yours, not ours.
#56: Again, this amounts to a promotional ad for products you are selling. NASA is not in the vehicle modification business, but your comparison implies that you are smarter than their scientists are.
#58: Not only is this a sales promotion, it reveals the price of the more expensive unit.
#70:That’s an admission that is contradictory. It amounts to saying “I’m not here to sell anything, but I AM selling things”.
“MUCH MORE than money”… Like free publicity and promotion?
When anyone says that's it not about the money, you can rest assures that it IS about the money.

I'm not quite understanding the attitude I keep seeing. Somebody must have seriously messed with you guys. I'm not here to sell you anything. I'm here to learn and converse and help as I can. I DO have stuff for sale and it functions as claimed but I again and again tell you NOT to buy it!

I DO have user-proven technology, that can be inexpensively built yourself, with information I freely provide. Once we get going on these projects (if anyone cares to) I think you'll really appreciate my contribution to this community.

I don't think I'm smarter than a NASA scientist. Heck, I'm probably not smarter than a lot of you. Just because I can do something they haven't, doesn't make me smarter than them. I just developed something in a way they didn't think of (at least publicly), which is what inventors DO.

I can't help it that I have products for sale, that's how I make a living. But I'm not here to sell you anything and I'm (consistently) asking people NOT to purchase my products. Do you think I've got some sort of reverse psychology marketing going on? My wife will tell you I'm not that smart

Originally Posted by XYZ

Why did you decide to begin discussion of your products now in February, on this list? You claim to be away from home until next summer. Your being away from your cars provides an excuse that you think is acceptable for not providing any tangible proof of testing your claims.

I began discussion because I wanted to talk to 'peers'. People who are interested in saving fuel for the sake of saving fuel. People who seriously pay attention to anything that can save fuel (like removing a decal from a window). I jumped in because I wanted to really share what I've learned with people who would want to understand.

I've since been flamed for my lack of 'proof' and while I understand why that is... I have told you the truth about my situation, 'acceptable' or not is up to you... I'm not going to 'defend myself' for telling the truth. You'll believe me or not as you choose, depending on your paradigm.

Originally Posted by XYZ

Now you say “in addition to not taking any chances with the warranty”. But you steadfastly insisted that nothing you produce or install would void a warranty. So why the precaution? That too is contradictory.
Besides, your Aveo is a 2008. This is 2014. The five year warranty is expired. So who do you think you are kidding with the excuses and rationalizations?
#73: You just said that you aren’t taking any chances with the warranty (which no longer exists). The contradiction is glaring. Why should we believe you?

The one not taking chances with the warranty is my wife. It's her car and believe it or not women have shoes and the vote. I explained the situation and if it doesn't make sense to you, join the club, it doesn't make total sense to me either. In fact, I feel untrusted. But she is my wife and it is her car so it doesn't have to make sense, I just have to abide by her wishes. I think she is holding out for 100,000 km.

Originally Posted by XYZ

#74: This indicates that you admit being investigated “7 times so far” for possible fraudulent claims. That’s enough to raise everyone’s eyebrows, isn’t it?

Indeed! Especially since every investigation resulted in the conclusion that I was NOT a fraud! So... From my paradigm, it means that the Vested Interest would really like to see me shut down and this is one of the 'tools' that they use to do it. I've been through hell a few times, but here isn't the place to detail that. Suffice it to say (for me anyway) it adds to my credibility that my business is government sanctioned.

Originally Posted by XYZ

#73:Okay, George. Since you want so much to convince us and since you are not here to sell anything, here’s a way to prove yourself. Send all of your products (the units themselves) and their instruction books (two sets of them each), to both moderators of this list. Let them do an independent study of the results of before and after your units are installed. Probably most everyone on this list would trust the founders of this list to report objective results.

The final question is: Would you trust the founders of this list to verify your claims?
If not, I think we are headed towards the Unicorn Corral.

Interesting suggestion. How about the founders contact me directly with such a proposal and I'll see what we can work out?

I have no vested interest one way or the other because I'm not here to sell you anything and I'm beginning to really not understand why I'm answering posts like this one. The real deal here is fuel saving... Why don't we get on with that?

There's no need to 'send' books or product because I'm gifting all ecomodders who want them, the books already, and the 'products are easily built by anyone with reasonable handyman skills; so anyone can test the innovations and technology. I'm quite sure that there are ecomodders that the founders would trust to properly test and report.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

You claim to be this know all wizard who says they are more capable than NASA and yet you cannot make a simple deduction and calculation correctly. This puts ALL of your claims in doubt.

The video shows nothing about the manifold air pressure which, along with air temperature, would tell you what the mass flow potential is going into the engine. You use this LIE as a gateway to your theory of greater mileage. But your logic is a lie in and of itself. The assumption of 0.8 as your volumetric efficiency, in the Aveo video, can only happen if you have the throttle fully open. The throttle is a variable volumetric efficiency valve! You cannot have 0.8 VE at idle, can you? Only diesels, which have no throttle valves can make that claim. This is why members of this forum work towards lean burn engines so that they may use greater throttle settings and greater VE along with the reduction in fuel used per unit of air. Take the reading of the MAP sensor along with the air temperature sensor and apply the basic gas laws and you can correctly calculate the mass of air used by the engine. Your video evidence does not support your claim.

Ah, I now understand. Thank you. Thank you VERY much. That statement was helpful. I think I now see a consistent paradigm here.

Some people think that the throttle plate/valve restricts the engine's air intake, significantly lowering the VE when it is closed or nearly closed and that a VE of 0.8 MUST be at or near at WOT. This isn't true..

Even a lot of mechanics make this mistake. In previous posts I've tried to explain WHY this miss-conception isn't true but people are still miss-understanding.
I'll try to do explain better... and I'll go looking for references since I sense I have little credibility here and this seems to be a major stumbling block. Thank you for pointing out this stumbling block.

It is true that if the throttle plate totally blocked off the air intake, the piston would create a high vacuum and no air would get into the cylinder.

This is so obvious that the next natural conclusion is that if the throttle is 10% open, that the cylinder would get only 10% air, 20% open 20% air and so on; but that logical assumption is wrong!

The truth is that pretty much as soon as the throttle plate cracks open just a little bit, just enough so the engine can idle, the VE goes up to about 0.8.
As the throttle opens up more, the VE goes up more, but only a little more.

And now the REALLY counter-intuitive part, as engine rpm increases, the VE decreases, even though the throttle is open MORE.
Now I'm talking about 'normal' engine design here, not custom tuned intake manifolds that can actually exceed 100% VE (yep, just PACK that air in even without a turbocharger).

Air pressure and air temperature are important considerations but as far as VE is concerned, they are only 'fine tuning' considerations.

Here are some links to places that can explain volumetric efficiency.

Basic VE explanation

Find your VE with a scan tool

Volumetric Efficiency calculator
Note that this calculator shows the Aveo's VE to be 79.999%
Givens: CFM=62.37, CID=97.64, RPM=2760

Here is a forum discussion about calculating VE

A good experiment to do, to better understand how the throttle restriction and VE interact, would be to take a large syringe (sans needle) and hold it in your left hand with your index finger ready to 'cap' the luer fitting hole (tiny hole where the needle would go.

If you 'cap' the hole and then try to pull the plunger back (with your right hand), you will feel the pull against vacuum
(OK you science guys, I know vacuum is only a relative lack of pressure and that it is the atmospheric pressure that is pushing on the back of the plunger, but work with me here, we're talking to mechanics).
and when you release the plunger it will 'snap' back to the bottom because no air came into the cylinder.

That would be throttle plate 100% covering the engine's air intake, it's not going to run because it isn't getting any air.

So now we take our finger off the orifice and pull the plunger back slowly. As soon as we are done pulling, we instantly cap the orifice...

We now find the plunger doesn't move at all (or maybe only a little bit), the air pressure inside and outside are equal so the cylinder is 100% full of air, even though the air had to come in through a tiny orifice.
This is a principle of fluid dynamics whereby the air will move 'faster' through the orifice, to try to fill the area in the cylinder that becomes available as you pull the plunger out (and the absolute pressure will drop, making a vacuum in the orifice and the cylinder as air moves).

So, when the engine is near idle, the VE is fairly high, even though the throttle plate is near closed.

Next we reset the syringe, plunger to bottom and pull harder/faster and again cap the orifice just as we get done pulling. Ah HA!, the plunger now goes back down the cylinder if we release it!

So the faster we pull the plunger, the LOWER the VE!

Now in real life, we're opening up the throttle as we increase rpm, and valve timing usually allows air to enter the cylinder for a bit after BDC and other factors (like air velocity and intake tuning) help keep VE up, but the point is that VE usually decreases when rpm increases.

I hope I've now convinced you that I do know what VE is and how it works so you will believe that my 'lie' calculation is reasonably accurate and that anyone can duplicate it on their own vehicle.

The next question is... If the throttle plate isn't really restricting air flow, if it doesn't have a significant effect on VE... Why is the throttle plate even there?

It's there because the engine needs the vacuum to lower the 'boiling point' of the gasoline, so vapors will be produced from the volume of liquid being dumped into the engine.

While the throttle plate doesn't significantly affect VE, it DOES put a significant load on the engine. It takes energy to maintain that vacuum. Remember how much more power you needed to use to pull that syringe plunger back faster?
With my Aveo, I'm 'consuming' about 0.3 gph of fuel just to idle. This is a crazy amount of energy that is wasted, just to help the fuel partially vaporize. If we feed the engine with vapor, we can eliminate the intake manifold vacuum and dramatically lower that parasitic power loss.

We still need a 'fuel regulating valve' of some kind, but it wouldn't have to cause a vacuum. That is how my RV generator is currently set up and, come spring, I'll make a video of it.

But one step at a time. Let's resolve this VE question first.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarguy01
HyCO-2DT Installation Instructions This is your product, correct?
George replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman
It's a fellow who is manufacturing HyCO 2DT canisters for sale. It's my technology but not my product. I do not patent my innovations. Anyone who purchases my books can build themselves and make their own business, which is what this man (and many others) have done.

In your post #58 you are quoted as saying the following:

Quote:
Only several thousand people I call customers What they care about is that it saves them fuel. $350 is not much for 25% to 100% gain in fuel economy. My HyCO 2DT costs $3000 and will save a trucker a guaranteed $60,000 over 5 years time... They call that a good investment.

And now you are DENYING that you sell this as your product?

I am selling it on my website and it is technology I both invented and consulted with him to develop but it is NOT my product. I'm acting as a distributor for him, and another HyCO 2DT manufacturer in Columbia.

Both of these guys bought my HyCO 2DT Manual and are now making a business selling them. They were both above board and consulted with me as they developed and tested their versions. I asked them if I could sell them because I know the product works and has a HUGE marketing potential. If I say more I'll likely be accused of 'marketing' again so I'll wait until we start a HyCO 2DT DIY project here on ecomodders. A home shop can build a fully functional unit for less than $200; that's what I'll help ecomodders do, if anyone cares to.

I haven't manufactured HyCO 2DTs since the early 1990s.

I'm never going to lie to you guys. I don't lie to anyone. If something seems out of sync it's either ignorance or miss-understanding and respectful communication should clear it up.