Snake oil or real deal? Phoenix Fuel Converter
 

Chip Foose is not known to be the kind of guy to throw his weight behind these questionable devices, but in looking at the site there is a distinct lack of science/facts about the operation of this thing...

Phoenix Fuel Converter [admin edit: Google it or go to fuelconverter dot com]

Anyone heard about this thing?

That is a large increase and it is supposed to improve performance, too. This would make a larger difference than any modifications that most of us will ever make to the same vehicle.

I think this is the page that we want to see:
Test Data - Fuel Converter

There are tables and stuff showing other tests, oh, here is an important detail:

None of these tests lasted anywhere near this long, they show a table with improvement over ten weeks, but it does not specify those are actual numbers, projections, or just wishful thinking.

There is a table showing a Mack dump truck with A-A-A-A-B-B-B-B testing (four days of each), supposedly improving 29%.

I do not know if just the emissions are supposed to continue improving or the fuel economy as well, the Mack truck looks like it continues to improve overall, but the economy varies wildly before and after. If it worked that well, I do not know why they would stop testing. If nothing else, I would think the owner would ask "Can I purchase that off of you? I will report the numbers every day!"

I really want more data points, but I think that explaining what catalyzes fuel is more important.

So... it is a fuel preheater.

I don't see how a catalyst could do anything here as there is no reaction to catalyze before the fuel comes into contact with the air.
I doubt any bonds in the hydrocarbon chains will get broken. They will be weakened a tiny bit though - but that is due to heating the fuel, not any catalyst.

Eh, I'm not sold. But then again, I'm no expert either...

For between $700 and $1,000 that thing better boost my MPG to 70. That price tag is quite a big pill to swallow and cost recovery is quite a long time out...

Well...

That webpage has all the classic markings of a snake oil pitch. Lots of claims, light on details. It does have some testing data, but not for gasoline engines.

Chip Foose is a smart guy with a great vision for designing cars. He's a very accomplished artist. However, he is not an engineer and not a chemist. I certainly wouldn't buy it because of his claims. I wouldn't mind some of his wheels though.

On the other hand, the basis of how the device works appears feasible, unlike most snake oils. I wouldn't immediately throw it in the Unicorn Corral....

yet.

How did chip foose get involved in this?

http://www.fuelconverter.com/wp-cont...ix200-cat1.png

they did post a link to their independent 3rd party "science" here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xllzswp0ue...41534.pdf?dl=0

I looked through the Intertek report. a couple of things stand out:
1.) Its unclear if the fuel that was run through the chromatographic tests was passed through the catalyst multiple times or just once as would happen in a real world application. This is not specifically called out in the test data.
2.) It is hard to determine which pass is the control and which one(s) are the test(s). I am assuming "Stock Sample" listed at the end of the report is supposed to be the control?
3.) The Research Octane Numbers and their Contributions to Total do not match up in any of the tests. They look to be off by +/- a point.
If your catalyst modifies these C13 hydrocarbons, what hydrocarbon does it modify it to? None of the other C1-12 hydrocarbons increase in any of the tests versus what I assume is the control.

$imple, they "paid" for his endor$ement.

There is good scientific basis to catalytic cracking of hydrocarbon chains. However, even the most advanced lab tests need on the order of 260 deg C to have a usable reaction rate. Heated coolant is only going to be around 100 deg C and below.

There is another form of fuel modification where the catalyst is introduced into the fuel stream. This has been done for decades. However, this would mean the system runs out of the active ingredient at some point.

Has there been any substantial evidence yet in favor of fuel preheaters in a gasoline engine?

Heating gasoline in and of itself is not an answer to economy.
 

Coupled with other modifications to air heating, turbulence and lean burn and you might be able to see considerable economic benefits.

Of course, if the fuel is heated it will evaporate slightly easier so it will burn cleaner in a cold engine.
Only problem is that when the engine is cold, so is the coolant and hence the fuel...

It will help. A bit. Even though they name it a fuel converter instead of preheater and charge 10 times what it is worth.
I don't call my HIDs luminosity boosters, my grill block an airflow optimizer or my LEDs candescenses. Though I might in the future ;)

Phoenix Power Converter claims there is no consumption of the catalyst. Their primary claim seems to center on the breaking down of C13 hydrocarbon molecules (Kerosene) into something that burns more freely, freeing up power/energy in the fuel. what they are broken down into is not explained and it doesn't show up in the C1-C13 data in their independent test data.

So, the coolant goes in and out one set of fittings, the fuel goes out the other, presumably one spirals around the other inside, and they charge $850 ± 150 for something that small? Is the catalyst their profits?

Half the price: Laminar Flow Oil to Water Heat Exchangers - Mocal Laminar Flow Oil to Water Heat Exchanger- Large with AN Thread On Water Connections

Fill the fuel passage full of zeolite and see whether it works.

If it does, I bet it won't improve matters by 15-20%.

There is youtube on 150mpg (Honda Insight)2001 with AquaTune.
If two and/or three first person with validity and experience came forth. I may give more interest. Other wise and just like HHO I have real concerns about credible and valid economy and or performance gains..............

150 mpg isnt unheard of from a first gen insight. If this was a mustang or service truck, that would be another story.

Looking back through the test data it doesn't answer or back up the claims of this device. the claim is that this catalyzer converts the Kerosene (c13) hydrocarbon in fuels to a more combustible hydrocarbon, however this conversion is not accounted for in the test data in the above report, nor in the graphs and examples provided in their demonstrations.

In the narration by Foose in their video touting this device, he states:

"The Fuel Converter Breaks apart the molecular structure of the C13 carbon (or Kerosene as you know it) and other large hydrocarbons allowing them to burn more efficiently."

The assertion is that the more combustible fuels are smaller hydrocarbons (C1-C12, things like Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane, Hexane, Heptane, etc.), however this converted fuel does not show up any of the test data. It doesn't show up in the charts in the video and the graphic demo of the catalyzer at work does not detail this either. This is a significant flaw in the test data and explanation being used to assert the value of this device. After seeing what is claimed to be scientific data, I am only more convinced this device is actually snake oil.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...912a2f1e61ecd3

They wanted Foose on board for his name and his swoopy sketches. BTW, Did you know that sketches with arrows showing airflow have made wind tunnel testing obsolete?

WHOA what a rip off... Especially since they arent bold enough to also claim an increase of torque, horsepower, and maroon paint while decreasing celebrity endorsements for less than half the price like cal-cat. CalCat Gasoline Kit |Cal-Cat Gasoline System | gas conditioning system

Think of all that highly volatile, unstable fuel heading back into the tank via the return line. KABOOM! Heh heh.

Seems like a safety hazard that they don't sell an optional de-ionizing, recombining fuel cooler, for installation on the return line. They're probably counting on these going on newer vehicles which are increasingly returnless.

200MC, I am glad you shared that! Foose's product seemed to focus more on the catalyst while CalCat talked about heating the fuel so the catalyst could work--I did not realize the Phoenix heated the fuel until someone pointed it out.

The CalCat does not have any "test data," just six testimonials and then states:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1415265612

I get a red broken line. What were they using that they did not?

Hey, this is interesting:
Extremely similar!

If I understand the flow to the heater core, this is a bad design.
Its installed in-line with the heater core, either the input or output line.
It is only fully functional "IF" the heat is in the any place but cold position.
It will get residual heat if the flow is off or low
Who wants the heat on all the time.
For this design to work all the time it would need to be in the flow all the time not whenever the heater is used.
So it would need to have a heater core bypass or be installed in the larger rad hose.

So they have a magic catalyst that will increase the octane of your fuel that operates below 100C?

The oil refining industry would pay hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars for a catalyst that would do what this one promises.

Snake oil.

Unicorn corral?

^^
Oh yes.

Roam, roam in the corral
Where the unicorns defy rationale
Where truth you won't see
But endorsements run free
No facts, just a star's referral

/torturous rhymes.

Yes, extremely similar.... I'd keep them in the corral together, and reserve the spot next to those 2 for another company has the manufacturer paint one green and makes slightly different claims

It turns out the Cal-Cat system is the first iteration by the same "inventor" of the Phoenix Fuel Converter... Further proof that this is snake oil by the fact that the description of how this works is different between the Cal-Cat version and the Phoenix Fuel Converter version. Looks like are trying to modify the made up story to try and lure in more suckers.

My guess is it has dissimilar metals that work better when heated. It puts positive ion's into the fuel.

If it would put positive ions into the fuel then where do the negative ions go?
A heat differential over dissimilar metals can create a tiny electric voltage difference (millivolts), never enough to do something like ionizing fuel.

Back in the 1990's you could buy a fuel ionizer from summit racing parts. It used 70 watts of power. It was tested on a 700 horsepower BBC and it gained 20hp.

About 3 years in a row a guy came in the shop I worked at too get his racing tires mounted on a 440 powered Charger. It ran high 11's in the 1/4 mile. He put the ionizer on it and he's times consistatly droped .15 sec. and he said 20 more miles too the tank.

The unit is grounded, that could answer your question...




As for a fuel heater, I have seen many MPG enthusiasts place a brass fuel fitting on the exhaust manifold to heat the fuel. Might create a vapor bubble on a hot shutdown, but the EFI pump could easily overcome this in a matter of seconds. Just not sure of the safety of this with standard metal lines.

I have a theory that copper pellets (wire cuttings) could act as a catalyst if the fuel was hot enough. All the crap additives in gasoline would eventually coat the pellets, and reduce the effect.

unicorns of a feather...
 

I find it funny that in a thread about something pretty snake oil-ish, Google saw it fit to show me an ad for "Powerful Healing Water" ...


http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1415571267

Moved to the Corral.

I've known that for a few years now Frank. I sense you have a problem with that.

http://i49.tinypic.com/ab4a1.jpg

Here's my vote On the Fenix Phuel Kornverter FWIW

http://i47.tinypic.com/3463kwl.jpg

No, it does not.
If even a tiny fraction of the molecules were ionized positively without being accompanied by negatively charged ions, then the static charge would be immense. The ions would adhere immediately to anything conductive to de-ionize themselves.
You don't want that to be the piston or the combustion chamber. Condensation should be avoided, not enhanced.

But there is no chance that the ions would come that far.
Any attempt to ionize fuel will just heat it imho.
Formula one racing teams have gigantic budgets to spend and analyzed the combustion process to the bone. None use ionizers.

This device is safe enough as a fuel heater, if we disregard that anything that adds to the complexity of the fuel system can cause it to fail.

Again, there is nothing to catalyse.
Copper pellets would not do anything, and that is a good thing.
The fuel as it is gets burned almost completely in the combustion chamber of a properly running engine.
Suppose a catalyst would induce any kind of reaction before the combustoin takes place.
It is bound to be exothermic, or it would not occur at all. But then it would lower the caloric value of the fuel.

But I doubt I could win this battle of words with scientific arguments, when there is such strong evidence available like guys who walk into shops and say things.

Geez O Pete's, this always gets me here. How is it some people feel that, "Yeah, Sure, It all burns up......but we can super improve the "Way" it burns man."

So like the already complete combustion process can be "Improved" to get more energy out.

To me, there is only so much energy stored in the fuel in the form of chemical potential energy, once you've burned 99.999% of it, there is no more.

Now don't get me wrong, there are still a Gazillion ways to improve getting more of the energy we release during combustion converted into mechanical energy to push our cars down the road, I'd be an idiot of galactic proportions to suggest that there isn't a ton of room for improvement here. I'm only speaking of the efficiency of combusting all the fuel itself in the cylinder.

Seems to me that a lot of the tweeks and lessons learned over 136 years of gasoline engine development have had the ultimate end being complete combustion of the fuel in the cylinder. But now there are scammers trying to gain an edge by saying that the complete combustion itself is not good enough, and they know how to make it better.


Yeah.
Sure.
OK.