|
vacuumizing fuel for better economy
has anyone else added a quart jar of gas to the vacuum lines of the car???? i did and got about 7 mpg increase on my 1997 jeep grand cherokee the only bad thing is that it only really gives my the gains in economy if i hold a sufficiant amount of vacuum. I have a 8 gallon compressor i modifide to fit under my jeep that i'm going to fell with 5 gallons of gas and i want to add a 35 inch pound vacuum pump to it and have a ball valve to control the amount of fuel the pump sucks out by connecting the ball valve to the throttle so i have gains throughout the throttle position.
|
Quote:
|
How does it compare to dumping the quart jar of gasoline in to your fuel tank?
Basically what you are doing is vaporizing the fuel, leaving behind the thicker varnish. The good way to truly test this would be to put a valve on your vacuum line so that while you are driving you can disconnect it, otherwise you are just adding fuel vapor to your intake and at that point the question is, what are you going to do with a tank or jar of varnish? most modern cars already run with the fuel tank under a slight vacuum to prevent vapor emissions, you are just taking it to the extreme and causing the fuel to boil in your jar. |
I'd like to know how on earth 7mpg gain was calculated.....
|
Quote:
i know it sounds ridiculous but i'm getting that fuel economy and i'm not doing anything else but acetone it does drop the FE quit a bit driving on the highway though cause i have to stay at a TP that has to low a vacuum to work efficiently |
|
...LOVE Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy!
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...urel_hardy.gif ...HATE snake-oil MPG contraptions! |
I dunno...
On the one hand, it might possibly (and I am going out on a limb here) be a rather novel form of heterogeneous charged combustion. That is, a pocket of stoich air/fuel mix is developed within a homogeneous mixture of much leaner air/fuel mixture, and the result is burned within the combustion chamber. The stoich pocket reliably ignites, and reliably burns the rest of the mixture inside the chamber. Modern cars with direct injection can do this easily. On the other hand... Well, there is the question of the procedure used to test this claim. I am pretty skeptical right now. |
Quote:
Case in point In my civic I have a 11.9 gallon tank. I can go 150 miles at 50mpg before it drops off of the full peg (that's 3 gallons used gauged by an MPGuino). If I use an extra gallon to go to 200 miles it drops to just above the 3/4 mark. If I look at the fuel gauge at that point it looks like I have used only a quarter tank on the gauge which is just shy of 3 gallons. 200 miles by 3 gallons is 66MPG that is about a 15 mpg error if I go by the gauge. Moral of the story is get an average of a couple tanks with the mod and without as a bare minimum for getting an estimate of the effectiveness of your mod. It would be better if you could eliminate the variables of changing driving conditions but we know that it is not always possible when testing a mod for your self. Gauges are indicators, right now you have an indication of a great boost in mileage we are looking forward to some real data. Don't forget to include the fuel you are sucking in the vacuum lines in your total fuel for the tank. |
I like vago's swept-winged cat head but imagine how awesome he'd be with a ram implosion wing?!?
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...go_RamWing.jpg |
|
Go ahead and put that ball valve in your fuel system. It will not do anything to change the actual NEEDS of the engine. Thus you will lean it out excessively and burn some valves or put a hole in a piston or 6. I also want to know how the bloody hell you could even get a quart of fuel into your vacuum lines? It's not like there is that much volume in even the most vacuum line choked V8 from the 70's, let alone a modern engine. Plus, most of the vacuum related components of the emissions controls and power brakes are not designed to be in close contact with gasoline. You will likely damage your power brake booster and dump all that fuel into the floor of the driver's side of the car where the next spark inside of a relay or old switch will be ready to ignite the mixture.
|
you are forgetting about the 02 sensor
no matter what
the ECM is going to use input from the 02 sensor s to keep the mixture at 14.7 to 1 or stoich there is not going to be any gain in FE the 02 sensor will report a slight change in the mixture and the ECM will adjust using first Short term fuel trim then long term fuel trim end result under the same conditions - fuel added through the vacuum lines plus fuel from the fuel tank will add up to the exact same amount of fuel used prior to the "modification" there simply is not another possibility . this is blarney proposed by someone who does not know how the system works . case closed . |
first off jim-bob the ball valve is going to be placed inline of another tank that i'm adding made from a dead compressor that i have so it can handle the vacuum pressure and i also said i'm getting a vacuum pump there's 1 online that i want that goes to 35 inch pounds of vacuum and it's going to go after the ball valve from the tank, so in other words it's going to go tank, ball valve vacuum pump then into the motor and it's all going to be with 1/2 inch line
second the vacuum line i connected to is from my evape canister and it connects to the center of my intake manifold, i used a QUART JAR and a hose line then just t'd into the vacuum line oh and mwebb i only used about 1/3 of a gallon on 3/4 of a tank!!! this tank is a little bit less then expected (between 24 and 26) but thats because it's been 60% highway driving witch doesn't allow enough vacuum on my jeep to evaporate the fuel very good at all it needs to be as close to idle as possible to be most efficient it's only about 4 - 6 inch pounds of vacuum at cruising speed |
HUH? How the hell did you only use 1/3 of a gallon on 3/4 of a tank? Did the tank suddenly shrink as a result of your experiment? You still have not explained WHY this would work. What theory are you operating off of? As mwebb (a respected member of two forums I am a part of) said, the ECU will compensate for whatever you are doing through the O2 sensor. So, unless you change the fundamental nature of the engine you are using through modifications that alter it's combustion efficiency, nothing you have described has any basis in scientific fact that would lead to it working. Please provide ACTUAL data points to substantiate your claims and prove that this is not more quackery like HHO generators or magnets on fuel lines. Otherwise, no one on this board (or any other that is populated by intelligent people) will believe a word you say.
|
Did anybody notice this part of the original post?
Quote:
-soD |
The reason that this would show some improvement at all is that it is feeding vaporized fuel in to the engine, granted it is only a small amount but it is there and vaporized fuel is going to burn quickly and help to speed flame spread, so there is something behind his idea, same idea as heating your fuel, only he is boiling his fuel by putting it under a vacuum.
but as I said before, when you do this you end up with the less volitial parts of the fuel being left behind, so you end up with a tank of varnish and goo. |
Sooo... introducing fuel to the intake via vacuum port gives it different and superior properties than otherwise? Evidently the regular carb or EFI should be done away with...
|
good going!
i have a supermileage carburetor book in which a coupa designs are vacuum type carburetors. incredible mileage is possible if all gasoline is vaporized, but exposing gas under a vacuum or preheating it can be dangerous.
smokey yunick took an 80's chevy to a hundred MPG by preheating fuel. think this is the link: http://www.rexresearch.com/yunick/yunick.htm personally i felt carburetors were never fully explored. i once heard of a 70MPG carb having been left on a 70's dodge pickup and accidentally slipping off the assembly line... chryser got wise to its mistake and offered a brand new top of line truck in exchange for carb alone - to no avail! |
Bosch
on the other end of the spectrum is Bosch who are developing direct injection
of a HIGH pressure mixture of air and gasoline - that too would be a type or carburetion! |
...Spark-Ignition Direct-Injection (SIDI) for gasoline engines is the "next BIG thing"--Toyota, GM and Ford are using it already with 10-15% increases in both HP and fuel economy and 10-15% decreases in emissions.
...to be followed by Homogenious-Charge Compression-Ignition (HCCI) which is essentially a gasoline-fed diesel engine that reverts to spark-ignition when compression-ignition cannot be reliably maintained. |
The only time that I see this possibly helping is on a cool start when the fuel is warm. The reason being is faster flame front helping completely burn the mix adding a little power calling for the IAC valve to close a bit more while maintaining idle rpm.
The only other way I see it helping is in OpenLoop since the car ignores the O2 sensor but you would have to reprogram the PCM to tell it that there is less incoming air so It will inject less fuel, but that will work with out the jar. |
from what i read online it says that fuel would boil at 68 degrees F at 15 inch pounds vacuum i can't find the link any more but thats what gave me the idea and then i found this video on youtube of this guy running a moped off of a jar that he bubbled air through to atomize it so i thought i'd do the same but with the vacuum to atomize the full better at lower temperatures, and the fully atomized air increases the flame front(from what i understand) so then the fuel burns faster and more completly. also i read this paper online that says the temperature of the engine is mostly needed for atomizing of the fuel so i was thinking that by using the coolant to heat the fuel to 180 degrees would allow it to atomize almost completly once injected in the intake and if it causes vapor lock then i'll use a 165 degree t-stat to hopefully fix the overheating of the fuel and the engine should run better at that temperature with the fuel heater???
i did some aba testing at 35mph and heres what i got A - 45mpg B - 32mpg A - 48mpg so theres my data on the effectiveness of the vacuumed jar heres the youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E_F4Qh9A0k |
I like Stovie's idea.
He also reported a genuine experiment documenting the results. He doesn't need to formulate a theory of operation but just to report gain/loss. This is what this site is about. |
It makes sense, although I'm surprised the difference is that big, particularly on a ZJ with a 4 liter engine built with mostly 1960s designs.
|
How was this tested?
Did you account for the gasoline being used from the secondary source? It sounds almost like your idea, or what you propose would fog the intake manifold with gasoline from a secondary source, and if that is the case mainstream ways of tracking fuel consumption would be out the window. A scan gauge is not going to be able to tell that your car is getting gas from a second source, although, it could pick up on the fact that primary fuel system is delivering less fuel at a given speed. |
Quote:
Doug |
cortez - if you look at 1 of my previous posts on here you'll see that i said i only used like 1/3 of a gallon through the jar to 3/4 of a tank so the usage is quit small on mine so accounting for the added gas isn't really possible you know
swiftbow - yea i was thinking psi but i was looking online and was told vacuum is in inch pounds so i went with it but i thought it was kind of wierd for a vacuum pump manufacterer to go with psi if it only used inch pounds so i was told wrong cortez - the jar only adds gas in it's atomized form so then it burnes almost instantly in the combustion starting the burning of the injected droplets of gas quicker so they burn more thoroughly or so i've read, so then the lower amount of o2 in the exhaust tells the computer that your running rich and leans out or so i'm also told. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just be careful. Lean burn is okay at cruising, but if you try to load the engine too much while in lean burn mode (like trying to accelerate or trying to tow something at cruise), then you'll rather quickly melt something inside your engine. |
^ Being vacuum operated, it's got a built in safety for that. The more pedal he gives it, the less vacuum, and therefore the less vapor pulled in from the jar, reducing the effect.
|
Quote:
|
no , wrong - end this HOAX
first off
the 02 sensor does NOT see 02 , it measures presence of COMBUSTIBLES not 02 2nd on your system , with 02 sensors it can only operate at 14.7 to 1 or stoich because the 02 sensors can only operate at 14.7 to 1 so your system is operating at stoich adding supplemental fuel through a vacuum line can not cause the system to operate in a "lean condition" therefore the amount of fuel you use DOES NOT CHANGE you are adding fuel from another source and claiming you do not need to figure the additional fuel into your FE calculation but as you have been told already you are wrong your claims are FALSE you need to measure and add into the FE calculations all of the fuel used , including the fuel in your contraption . stop your HOAX quit while you are behind just because you are unable or unwilling to comprehend the theory involved does not mean that the theory does not apply to you . Quote:
|
Geez, crucifying him for so little!
Stovie, run a tank with the mod and a tank without (or more). Don't trust any measuring device since you're feeding your system from multiple ports. |
i did and only used a little bit over 1/3 of a gallon "IN THE JAR' throughout the hole tank so that should of only add 7 miles to my hole tank but i hit 28mpg stop seeing what you want and look at what i'm saying!!!!!!!
|
it is you who are not looking at what i am saying
all cars
have an evaporative emissions system all cars use the evap purge valve to apply intake manifold vacuum and extract fuel / hydrocarbon vapors stored in the fuel tank and charcoal canister in the course of normal operation what ever benefit you think you have created is already present on each and every car sold in USA including your own that is three strikes you are out your HOAX has been debunked - again thank me very much quit while you are behind it is time for you to hit the books , study and learn about the systems you are thinking to modify before you modify them and make false claims regarding your bogus modifications Quote:
|
yes my jeep does have a evap emissions canister and it only sends 1/2 a pound of vacuum to the back tank why because it's mostly to reduce the release of gas into the atmosphere it even says that in the manual what i am doing is completely different in that i'm using the vacuum pressure to evaporate the fuel rather then just to keep the vapor in the tank from entering the atmosphere i have proof in my A-B-A testing that shows the difference in fuel use and i'm sorry but you are yet to debunk my "HOAX" as you put it. I have seen the increase and am going to voice what i've seen with my own eyes as long as it works so deal with it!!!!!!!
|
Very neat; A-B-A is a good indication that it's working. I assume you drove exactly the same way for all runs, hopefully measured by something or externally controlled by something (e.g. cruise control)?
-soD |
Wonder if you would get the same (or even better?) improvement if you used water (or alcohol) in the jar instead of gasoline...
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com