Old to fuel-saving New to here

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

In the 70's I totally rebuilt a 1963 Ford pickup, using a 361 ci engine (this is the industrial version of the 360), with a Motorcraft 2150 carb, 4 speed manual transmission and 2:1 differential (obviously from some car because it had ball bearings, not roller bearings like a truck rear end and the rear wheels tracked inside the front wheels) This was my first vehicle, assembled from components at hand (I lived on a ranch).

This configuration accidentally (I didn't know what I was doing then) achieved 32 mpg at 45 mph (27 mpg at 70 mph). This was using stock components, no fuel saving technology. The truck had plenty of power, could go from 50 mph to 80+ mph in a couple of seconds. After I twisted the speedometer cable off three times (The gauge only went to 110 mph) I just drove using a tachometer. I've got lots of stories of my travels in that truck.

Was that the transmission that came with the truck? Do you have any recollection of what that axle came from?

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

EM has several of it's own EFIE threads, some not even that old: efie - Google Search

As far as I can tell it is not a resounding success, and it isn't found on the 65+ vehicle modifications list- Evidently Fails to Improve Efficiency.

LOL That is a VERY interesting interpretation of the acronym. I love the way you think.

Seriously, I skimmed over the links that came up (nice job on that BTW) and didn't find anyone that actually understood the EFIE technology (except Mike and I). I know the EFIE 'works' (as in does what it's intended to do) because I started from the very beginning and worked my way to where I am now (it took years).

It's also important to note that the EFIE is NOT a fuel saver and I've never claimed it to be. It is an interface that allows actual fuel savers to be used on EFI engines. Your fuel savings is determined by the effectiveness of the fuel saver, not the EFIE. This is easily proven by adding an EFIE alone and seeing little or no gain. This simple test also proves the skeptics that think it's the EFIE that is saving fuel WRONG!

The EFIE was developed because fuel savers (HyCO 2A and the HyZor), that were working fine on carbureted engines, wouldn't work on EFI until the oxygen sensor signal was addressed.

ecomodders can start where I did and monitor the voltage signal from their oxygen sensor (best to use a high impedance analog meter with a 2 volt scale, digital meters tend to jump about a lot as the voltage signal varies quickly and often).

If they watch the voltage while turning on combustion enhancement technology that actually works (like the HyCO 2A or HyZor) then they'll see the effect I described before, where the oxygen level rises in the exhaust (voltage goes down), and then the ECU adds more fuel to compensate. It'll help if you have some type of meter that measures fuel consumption at the same time so you can see the real time effect. I have a special circuit that I connect to a fuel injector, the scan gauge may do as well.

For anyone who wants to give the EFIE a real try, I'm here now and I'm willing to help.

EFIEs are now being sold by multiple people in various versions. Be sure to get a version that's appropriate for your vehicle. My EFIEs are optimized for the original narrowband oxygen sensors, up to about year 2000 (and beyond in a lot of cases like both my 2003 RV on an E450 chassis and 2008 Aveo still use narrowband O2 sensors).

A KEY thing to note that although oxygen sensors really haven't changed much, ECU programming has! For example, I have no proof it's because of the wild success of my EFIE, but they reprogrammed the ECUs to 'recognize' a floating voltage offset and to either compensate or go into open loop.

A portion of O2 sensors also switched to 'wideband' and to 'frequency' output (instead of voltage).

For more modern O2 sensors and programming, your best source (in my opinion) is Darol Mason (klondikedarol) on eBay.

Which brings me to something I've noticed about ecomodders on this site. They seem to concentrate on vehicle modifications that do not involve combustion enhancement technology. That is excellent and needed but definitely limits the potential for fuel gain. There is a whole world of possibilities, some of which are fairly easy to achieve, if you increase the combustion efficiency of your engine/fuel.

So here's a start. Did you know that, for internal combustion, the 14.7:1 air fuel mixture is a LIE? Yep, I expect to be flamed but try to keep an open mind when you [link removed by admin].

[GeorgeWiseman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman
In the 70's I totally rebuilt a 1963 Ford pickup, using a 361 ci engine (this is the industrial version of the 360), with a Motorcraft 2150 carb, 4 speed manual transmission and 2:1 differential (obviously from some car because it had ball bearings, not roller bearings like a truck rear end and the rear wheels tracked inside the front wheels) This was my first vehicle, assembled from components at hand (I lived on a ranch).

This configuration accidentally (I didn't know what I was doing then) achieved 32 mpg at 45 mph (27 mpg at 70 mph). This was using stock components, no fuel saving technology.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Was that the transmission that came with the truck? Do you have any recollection of what that axle came from?

No, The original transmission was a 3 on the tree, and the mileage I'm quoting actually used that transmission. I didn't change out the 3 speed until a couple of years later. The 4 on the floor came out of a 1973 F150.

The original engine was a 352 which was thrashed so bad (teenagers had owned the truck before me) that my mechanics instructor wanted to have it as a demo model of what all could go wrong with an engine (amazing list and it still ran). He traded me for a 361 that had been donated to the school nearly new because it needed a new cylinder sleeve (they'd left out a wrist pin clip when it was originally assembled).

I'm sorry to say that I do not know where the rear end came from. I only know the ratio because I jacked up one wheel, turned the driveshaft and watched the wheel turn.

Note that ball bearings are NOT good to have in a pickup truck. I think I changed them out at least once a year. Got pretty good at snapping the axels out with a chain.

[whatmaycome14]

First of all, let me welcome you to the EM community George. I have to say I like what you've said so far because it has gotten me thinking. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING we can do is think more!

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

Which brings me to something I've noticed about ecomodders on this site. They seem to concentrate on vehicle modifications that do not involve combustion enhancement technology. That is excellent and needed but definitely limits the potential for fuel gain. There is a whole world of possibilities, some of which are fairly easy to achieve, if you increase the combustion efficiency of your engine/fuel.

I have also noticed that the majority of people here are not getting into the technical combustion enhancement modifications. Easy reason: It seems to be more risky and more expensive. I've duct taped corogated plastic to the back of my car. It was free (except for the duct tape). As a way of testing new fuel saving modifications. I cannot (nor do I wish to) afford risk. I want to do things that I can do for cheap. Tuning the car and changing the engine is a bit too risky from where I sit. The problem is that you would have a hard time convincing me that combistion enhancement tech that ACTUALLY WORKS would also be inexpensive! It's all about percieved value. If it's inexpensive, I wouldn't assume to get much benifit.

However, I'm open minded and can't wait to hear more about what you have to say. Bring it on! Now to go read that blog...

[MetroMPG]

FYI, ending posts with "cliffhangers" that rely on external links does not bode well. (Please see my earlier post.)

I'll be honest: not liking the way things are going, so far.

[GeorgeWiseman]

That's one of the reasons I'm loving this website, so far. I'm hoping it's full of ecomodder thinkers. Thank you for your insight about risk and perceived value. I DO assure you that I work on pretty much zero risk projects and that I try to get maximum gains with minimal expense and resources.

I'm excited to share the stuff I've got with you fellas. I've been wanting to speak with my 'peers' for years and I hope I've finally found them.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

FYI, ending posts with "cliffhangers" that rely on external links does not bode well. (Please see my earlier post.)

I'll be honest: not liking the way things are going, so far.

Would it be better if I just copy my blogs over to this site? I'm willing to do that. I'm certainly not wanting to retype everything I've built into my own website over decades of time. I just don't have time for that. Let me know how to best handle this for the good of all here.

I am NOT trying to 'sell my stuff' here. If some admin can contact me I'd like to make an arrangement so ecomodders can get my eBooks for free. Of course they can browse my website for free.

I have full intentions of being a full active member of this website. It offers something my website does NOT, peers!

And I'm not coming with a know it all attitude, I just want to help and be helped. I'm thinking together we can make stuff even better and be able to PROVE that the Vested Interest (governments, vehicle and oil companies) have been cheating us for profit.

Just let me know how I can present information that its taken me decades to gather, without offending anyone here... And allowing me time to work, which I need to go do now... See you later

[user removed]

In general I agree with your points George, but if you consider the next generation of fuel injection then give this link a look.

Transonic Combustion | Revolutionizing Combustion Technology

My priority is powertrain improvements with capacitive, high efficiency, storage of inertia. My patent US# 7677208 is a result of my efforts to introduce this design to the automotive field.

Combine the Transonic injector and a capacitive regeneration capability and you will see very substantial increases in fuel economy. An additional advanatge of the patented desgin is a virtually unlimited final drive ratio and the elimination of throttle control of the engine. It either runs at open throttle or shuts off while thevehicle uses the stored energy from an accumulator. With this system you also have automatic compensation for any and all aerodynamic improvements.

I tend to keep my posts shorter than I used to to avoid a time out and loss of data.

regards
Mech

[user removed]

It sounds like your oxygen sensor circuit mod was a means on inducing what we call "lean burn" here.

regards
Mech

[whatmaycome14]

I'm going to give you my honest opinion of your website. I skimmed most of what I read because it didn't interest me. It was either too technical, or filled with that I think sounds like empty words. Filler words if you will. Personally, I could care less about Vested Interest, government conspiricies or otherwise. I want to keep it simple. There is too much going to with so much to read there. I also didnt see any actual results from testing, I saw a bit of math that didn't make sense, but not anything that seemed to be "proof" of any of your claims. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

Thusfar, all I'm hearing are a lot of claims that aren't backed up yet. Promises, but no proof.

Maybe I have it completely wrong, I don't know... I'm all ears.