Old to fuel-saving New to here

[sarguy01]

George, if you are here to help, post some useful data for us to look at. Show us some numbers. MPG before and after, A/F ratios, etc. Show us why your technology, that you have told us several times that you aren't trying to sell, works. Show us why it is safe. Quantifiable data is needed. Show us why car manufacturers have it wrong. So far, I have read three pages of a thread that has some links to outside websites that I really don't care to go to. The only thing you've showed us is where to buy your product.

I'm not buying a book either.

[RustyLugNut]

I have followed your work for literally decades. I started college back in the 70's and purchased information packages out of the back of Popular Mechanics magazine. I think I have some of your books from way back then.

Just like you, I felt that fuel savings were not what they should be, but instead of simply tinkering, I went out to get a mechanical engineering degree plus additional degrees in industrial and electronics engineering technology and extended coursework in physics and industrial chemistry. Additional coursework in combustion science rounds out my formal education. I don't watch much television.

Even while getting sidetracked to work on the Reagan Star Wars accelerators and later on, the medical applications of some of that science - I still tinkered with fuel savings technology. However, I now had a background that allowed me much more insight and a collection of tools that allows me to build and test pretty much anything I dream up.

And, I can attest with great conviction and authority, that modern fuel systems are about as efficient as they can be with only percentages to be gained in improvements - not integer factors or orders of magnitude. This is why members of this forum start with the low hanging fruits of driving techniques, mass and aerodynamics. A modder can double his fuel economy easily and consistently.

Engine and fuel systems are far more costly and complex. And combustion theory is beyond the average persons understanding. And it may put your emissions legality in jeopardy. And I'm just scratching the surface. We do have several members who have good understanding of modern fuel systems and are working on engine improvements. As Old Mech pointed out, lean burn is one of them.

Again, welcome to the forums. But understand, the "flaming" is a parallel to "peer review" as found in presenting papers to a science society. Of course, since this is an open forum, pretty much anyone can comment with impunity even if they utterly lack in training and experience. But, there are always gems of thought mixed in with the drivel. You just have to sort it out.

Now on to the flaming.

Much of what you talk about is based on your research and understanding without much in the way of peer review. You see a result and you postulate the reasons why it is so. If you do not have enough of an understanding, you can make errors - errors which you build upon and lead yourself astray at a later date. I have seen this repeatedly with many inventors.

I will start with your discussion of the "Lie". The need for the 14.7:1 fuel ratio you discuss in your blog. You show by your simple math that the vehicle in question is running an air to fuel ratio of about 36:1. However, you omitted one important aspect - what is the manifold vacuum at that speed and load? 20 mpg @ 60 mph at full throttle is what you have calculated if you do not have the manifold air pressure accounted for. This makes your math useless and your conclusions utterly false.

I do not make this discussion just to make argument. If you are here for honest review, I only ask that you make an honest effort to discuss in kind. Otherwise, I and others, will question your intentions of being here in the first place.

Again, welcome to the forum and for your willingness to put your ideas up for scrutiny.

[poomanchu]

"I 'hastily' typed this (carefully typed document copy paste), but go to my website to get the full story." Lol, hard to you take serious with statements like that.

Here is my big issue with EFIE. As I understand all EFIE is, is a circuit to trick the o2 sensor into reading higher, thus leaning out the engine. I have a device for my Integra called a S300, which is basically a fully tunable engine management system. We can tune the car for whatever A/F ratio's we want, disable check lights and sensors, manipulate them, etc. I have mine for power and safety as the engine is modified enough that I do not want to detonate by running too lean an a/f. I also have a wideband o2 installed in place of the factory narrownband o2 (the s300 can accomodate this).

However, there are many people who use this device to tune for fuel efficiency. This is easily searchable on google. How does plugging in your device give much better mpg (by your calculations) than people running fully tuned and custom maps? It seems to me that this would 'blindly' manipulate the o2 sensor, yet give results that people who custom dial in fuel maps. In my experience regarding tuning whether for power or for economy, a car must be 'read' off the wideband and the fuel maps adjusted for whatever a/f at the targeted engine load. This seems to be another magic 'plug and play' device, and engine tuners know it just doesn't work that way. Adjusting the o2 readouts without anyway to monitor seems like a recipe for detonation. Also you achieve 36/1 af under load? Where I come from that means detonation and you needing a new motor.

Obviously leaning out the car will increase fuel economy. It just scares me to lean the car out in the way you do, a o2 sensor 'hack' if you will. I probably have a incorrect grasp on this and am not fully understanding so please enlighten me I will be the first to say I know enough to get me into trouble, and I would rather pay someone to tune my car than do it myself as I would probably blow it up.

Lastly and it has been asked; what are you driving currently and what is your mpg?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

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.

I love that body style and I'm fascinated by this truck.

Did you build it in '74?

When it surprised the hot cars- going from 50 to 80mph in seconds- did you have to downshift or was it already in the sweet spot and all you had to do was floor it?

I think you swapped that carb onto it- did that engine come with it? Besides the carb swap(?) and the low rear gears, were there any other mods or was the rest of it stock parts?

Re: rear axle origin: Was it Ford or something else? I wonder if you were able to use the original wheels or if you had to run different wheels front and rear. 14" or 15"?

Thanks, I have so many questions about this- I don't want to get hung up on EFIEs or blogs or anything until I can wrap my mind around this truck.

[poomanchu]

I just perused your site.

Brown's gas, book 1. $12.00 (eBook) - 25 pages.
Brown's gas, book 2. $22.00 (eBook) - 59 pages.

Lol, I am convinced fully. Ignore my previous questions. Eagerly awaiting 66+ efficiency mods, Book 1 for $22.00 (EBook download) lol.

[Daox]

Originally Posted by poomanchu

Also you achieve 36/1 af under load? Where I come from that means detonation and you needing a new motor.

At some point, you lean out the mixture so much that you end up lowering the combustion temperature so that detonation is no longer a problem. But, at this point your fuel charge is so diluted that you run into ignition problems because there isn't enough fuel to properly propagate the flame through the cylinder. This is why lean burn engines have specially designed heads or pistons or both, to increase swirl within the cylinder and more evenly disperse the fuel through the cylinder.

Here is a graph that represents things well. We know NOx is created at high cylinder temperatures. As you continue to lean things out, the temperature starts to go back down. However, as you continue, hydrocarbons increase as the fuel isn't completely burning anymore.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

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

Sigh... Here's where there's a fundamental misunderstanding between traditional thinking and the truth; which I try to point out on my blog; and many other places as well.

I understand that you think if the volume of fuel going into the engine is reduced, that the mixture is 'leaner'. I was taught that too. And if you are using 'traditional' liquid fuel technology it IS TRUE!

However, I've since learned it's just another lie we are taught. It seems obvious on the face of it, but it's only because we mechanics aren't taught the truth... And unfortunately it's my experience that most mechanics aren't interested in learning the truth.

That's why I was so excited to find this website, so I could actually share my thoughts with people who already know the truth or are open minded enough to learn it. I'm sorry to see that ecomodders don't seem to already have knowledge of the lies/truth about what actually happens during internal combustion. Maybe that's why I'm here now...

This truth can make a HUGE difference to your fuel economy, and there are quite a few things you can do that are not expensive or difficult.

The truth is that it does NOT matter how much liquid fuel you put into the engine, (except as I explain about quenching the afterburn in the 'LIE' blog).

I once made a mistake, hooking up a HyCO 2A backwards and was sucking fuel directly into the intake manifold of a 350 GM engine. It was a little hard starting, didn't idle well and smoked a bit but I was in a hurry to get to town so I just left. The truck drove pretty normally. But as I drove I saw I wasn't going to make it to town, the fuel gauge was dropping like a rock. I was 'burning' about 5 gallons to the mile. I stopped, checked it out, saw my mistake, corrected it and continued driving (that truck doubled it's mileage with the HyCO 2A once we fixed the leaky rod wells in the Quadrajet).

My point (and the truth is) is that it's the percentage of fuel that turns to vapor, and mixed with air, before the spark plug fires that is the actual (and only) air:fuel ratio that powers your engine.

Anything you can do to increase the percentage of the fuel that turns to vapor before the spark plug fires, will allow you to reduce the total volume of fuel without losing power or performance. In fact, as you go more and more to vapor, performance increases.

We once installed a HyCO 2A into 1950s International pickup that a fellow had put a corvette drivetrain under. The amount of power was scary, my foot hurt from having to hold it so carefully all the time and the owner really enjoyed beating 'muscle cars' away from stoplights.

Yes I know there are exhaust heat issues and I assure you I address them totally. Done correctly, converting to pre-vaporized fuel will reduce your exhaust temperatures (saving your valves and reducing NOx), at the same time as increasing engine life for several different reasons (like no carbon buildup and liquid gasoline NOT washing the oil off the cylinder walls).

As I've stated before, pre-vaporizing the fuel can get extreme mileage gains, with performance increases and pollution drops to almost nothing. You burn your fuel in the engine instead of in the exhaust.

So, getting back to the 'lean burn' comment above. The truth is, if you increase the percentage of fuel that is vapor before the spark plug fires, you can reduce the total volume of fuel without having a 'lean burn'. Your actual air:fuel ratio will still be the same because it is ONLY the vapor fuel that matters. Liquid fuel cannot burn!

Believe me guys, it took me years to understand this. I don't expect you to get it in one day. But if you give me a chance, I CAN help you prove it to yourselves.

BTW, this is KNOWN by the vehicle manufacturers, every so often I acquire 'proof' information; which I hope to post someday. Pre-vaporizing the fuel is how Pogue, Ogle and hundreds of other people did it. It's why updraft carburetors are more efficient than downdraft. It's why engine manufacturers put heat plates under carbs and hot spots in the intake manifolds. It's a recurring theme (suppressed for over 100 years) of most of the 10,000 fuel saving patents in the patent office.

It works, it's been proven thousands of times. I've helped hundreds of my customers do it. You need to stop thinking if it works and start thinking how to apply it to your ecomodder project. Thats what I'd like to help you with.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

...
And, I can attest with great conviction and authority, that modern fuel systems are about as efficient as they can be with only percentages to be gained in improvements - not integer factors or orders of magnitude. This is why members of this forum start with the low hanging fruits of driving techniques, mass and aerodynamics. A modder can double his fuel economy easily and consistently.
...
I will start with your discussion of the "Lie". The need for the 14.7:1 fuel ratio you discuss in your blog. You show by your simple math that the vehicle in question is running an air to fuel ratio of about 36:1. However, you omitted one important aspect - what is the manifold vacuum at that speed and load? 20 mpg @ 60 mph at full throttle is what you have calculated if you do not have the manifold air pressure accounted for. This makes your math useless and your conclusions utterly false...

Again, welcome to the forum and for your willingness to put your ideas up for scrutiny.

Thank you all for your welcomes, I do feel welcomed and I appreciate the level of respect, honesty and integrity that I feel from you all.

I appreciate you trying to 'educate' me on my 'obvious' wrong thinking but I ask that you bear with me as I address your points.

My thinking started out just like yours. I AM a certified automobile technician. I got all the 'normal' training, experience, etc. However, I had experiences that took me on a different track and I'm thinking (as an ecomodder) you really need to know what I learned.

My customers didn't care why they got higher mileage (most got at least 25% higher mileage and I was able to double mileage of about 20% of them), they only cared that it worked. I've built my business with a 100% satisfaction guarantee from day one. So you are unlikely to 'convince' me that I'm wrong, since I can help you prove (for yourself) that I'm right.

To address your specific question above, concerning the engine vacuum. I'm thinking that you did not read the comments at the bottom of my blog, where I addressed that very issue. I'll address it again here.

As a mechanic I was taught about volumetric efficiency. Since there seems to be a general misunderstanding about it, you can review it here WikiPeadia and/or in your mechanics texts. The key point here is that the engine intake vacuum has only a little effect on volumetric efficiency!

Yes, the engine has to work to maintain a vacuum, and that work can consume up to 30% of the engine's power (again review my blog). But that work is separate from volumetric efficiency. My mechanics instructor explained it this way, 'vacuum is stretched air'. When you move air faster (in an enclosed space) its absolute pressure drops.

So the engine is sucking 'against' the restriction of the throttle plate and that is creating the vacuum... But the air is STILL getting into the cylinder, it's just having to move faster to do it! So, in the end, as the piston has finished sucking on the intake stroke and has started on the compression stroke, the engine has at least a 70% air charge in the cylinder. This is what is known as volumetric efficiency... the more air charge in the cylinder, the higher the volumetric efficiency.

You can do a little experiment with a syringe to see the effect. As you pull back on the syringe, it sucks in air; there is a vacuum but air still gets in anyway, it just moves faster as the vacuum rises. If you suddenly plug the end of the syringe as you pull it, you'll find that the plunger will go back to that point when you release it. Air was sucked in as long as air could move. The throttle plate allows air past, and as you accelerate (and go under load), it allows more. So your volumetric efficiency stays up.

You should be able to find out the actual volumetric efficiency curves for your engine from your OEM. But as my mechanics textbook told me, 70% is on the low end of average (some engines do much better).

If you review my blog again (I'm suspecting from the comments I see that many of you will need to read it several times as I clear up points), you'll see I DID include the volumetric efficiency into my calculation, so quite literally considered (took into account) the effect of the engine's intake vacuum. And again, if your engine's volumetric efficiency is higher that the 70% I used as a given, then you'll notice an even 'leaner' ACTUAL air:fuel ratio than the 36:1 I calculated.

Do the math, it's simple for most of you fellas because you have scan gauges. I've showed you mine (my math) now show me yours. Prove me wrong with your own vehicle (show me your math).

This is a simple calculation, doable by anyone who is open minded enough to try it. Most people (especially mechanics) are afraid to try, because if I'm right, their whole world is shaken.

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by poomanchu

Here is my big issue with EFIE. As I understand all EFIE is, is a circuit to trick the o2 sensor into reading higher, thus leaning out the engine.

As I explained in a previous blog, the EFIE is not a fuel saver. It cannot lean out the engine more than the CPU will allow (and that isn't much). The EFIE is designed to allow ACTUAL combustion enhancement technology (like my HyCO 2A or HyZor) to work on EFI engines.

The amount of fuel you save will depend on the fuel saver, not on the EFIE. The EFIE is designed to 'correct' the oxygen sensor signal when it lowers voltage due to increased oxygen in the exhaust. This increased oxygen is NOT caused by a 'lean' mixture (see previous posts).

Originally Posted by poomanchu

However, there are many people who use this device to tune for fuel efficiency. This is easily searchable on google. How does plugging in your device give much better mpg (by your calculations) than people running fully tuned and custom maps?

It doesn't. But most people don't understand the difference between traditional combustion and efficient combustion. When you increase combustion efficiency, your exhaust oxygen percentage WILL rise and you will NOT lose power or have high exhaust temperatures. I know it sounds hard to believe, but this is exactly what you need to learn to duplicate what I've done for years.

The EFIE allows people who don't have your equipment to simply and easily 'correct' the oxygen sensor signal so that the CPU doesn't know that there is extra oxygen in the exhaust.

Modern computers are programmed to react to traditional combustion parameters. They do not 'know' how to handle the changes that happen when the combustion characteristics change. But then most 'engine tuners' don't understand this either. Their equipment is programmed to (and the tuners) make certain 'assumptions' based on the combustion characteristics they 'know'.

When the combustion characteristics change, so must the thinking and programming of the tuner and his equipment. The key is to learn what's actually going on. You don't need to believe just me, go onto YouTube and see the people running lawnmowers on fuel vapors, see how long they run compared to dumping the liquid fuel into the engine. (there are vehicles too but a lawnmower is easy to experiment on, for you ecomodders)

Originally Posted by poomanchu

Adjusting the o2 readouts without anyway to monitor seems like a recipe for detonation. Also you achieve 36/1 af under load? Where I come from that means detonation and you needing a new motor.

The EFIE will never cause a mixture so lean that the engine detonates. The worst that will happen is that the CPU goes into limp mode (open loop) if it 'thinks' the fuel mixture is too lean. The EFIE is not intended to lean a mixture (although I understand that people try). The EFIE is designed to correct for a change in the exhaust oxygen that is caused by combustion enhancement technology.

And the 36:1 af isn't 'lean'. You missed the point of the calculation. The 36:1 af is the ACTUAL fuel ratio of an engine that mechanics are taught to assume is getting 14.7:1.

Do the math yourself on YOUR vehicle. Ignore your tuning equipment for this exercise (I know that'll be hard for you). Go straight for the RAW DATA! Actually travel down the road, looking at your scan gauge. Lock in at 60 mph and find the engine rpm and gph (or mpg). You already know your engine cubic displacement. Check with your OEM to find your volumetric efficiency, and then do the math.

My experience is that most 'knowledgeable' people will not do this experiment, because I might be right and then they'll KNOW that they've been taught lies. It's a really hard thing to find out that the education system you've trusted has let us down for generations. I've had years to be OK with it. I don't expect any of you to change overnight... But the truth always wins in the end, even against the billions of dollars that've been spent suppressing it.

Originally Posted by poomanchu

Obviously leaning out the car will increase fuel economy. It just scares me to lean the car out in the way you do, a o2 sensor 'hack' if you will.

Lastly and it has been asked; what are you driving currently and what is your mpg?

I don't 'lean out' any vehicle with the EFIE. It pretty much can't be done because the CPU won't allow but a small percent change. I increase combustion efficiency (decreasing the need for fuel volume to get the same performance) and then use the EFIE to 'correct' for the resulting extra oxygen in the exhaust. The extra oxygen comes as much from lower (almost none) CO and NOx as it does from lower fuel fed into the engine.

And lastly, when I get the time I'll be entering my projects into the garage. They currently include an 1974 Onan RV generator, a 1984 Honda Civic, a 1984 Volvo 245, a 2003 27 foot class C RV, and a 2008 Aveo.

Once in the garage I'll start entering data so you all can see the charts and won't have to 'take my word for it'. I really like that about this website!

In the meantime, I'll spend a little time here whenever I can, to clear up some of these combustion enhancement misunderstandings. Again, thank you all for the welcome and respect you've shown.

I hope to be a real contributor here. I can now see my first challenge is to persuade some of you to actually look into true combustion enhancement technology. I'm seeing it'll involve a paradigm shift. I'd forgotten how far I'd come because I stopped talking to skeptics years ago, I found it to be a waste of my time. I spend my time actually helping people. My customers only care about results, the WHY is of no issue (to them) when it works. Here I hope to talk to peers, about the WHY and then about the HOW and then see the results One step at a time.

[dmodified1]

I checked out your site. It explains what products are supposed to do but not how they work unless you buy a book for each one.