|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, I've heard of that too. It's supposed to make the gas vaporize more easily, which proves that gas isn't fully vaporized before it enters the combustion chamber. I think I might try that out on my Duster next fill-up, actually...
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
My two cents: There may not be a lot of interest in these theoretical subjects since this is a performance forum, and who cares about mileage. I'm sure there are chatrooms where guys get into theoretical tweaking of designs to improve engine efficiency. Most of the people in this forum have been making cars go fast for 20, 30, 40, 50 years and more. They know there ain't no magic wand anymore, and the odds are no one is gonna find one. It's simple: You cram as much fuel and O2 into a combustion chamber and ignite it. Practically anything you need to make more power than you will ever be able to use is in the Summit or Jegs catalog already. Also, the engine is a heat pump, and theoretically it is only something like 33% efficient at creating power at the max. In addition, AA dragsters go real fast, but they use something like 5 gallons of fuel a second! So, you want power, or fuel economy? Nothing wrong with speculating, but I can see why some folks would just look at some of the ideas discussed here and shrug their shoulders or laugh, because they have heard it all before. 99% of the time, it don't work. Hope I have not offended anyone!
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
"pishta, I think the guy you might be talking about is Somender Singh."
I think I remember seeing him on TV a few years ago. He was carving grooves in the combustion chamber with an angle grinder to promote swirl as the charge ignited. He claimed real world increases in power and economy, along with improved emissions but the big 3 blew him off if I remember rightly. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Oh and BTW, you wanna know how to improve the power/mileage of the new vehicles, even more than worrying about the "unburned fuel". That would be to take all of the emissions crap off, get the engine, as much fresh air as possible, maybe even plumbing in a little oxygen (if you could do it safely), getting rid of a crapload of weight. Including all electronic gadgets, cushy seats retarted body panels. Basically make the car like you would one of those dumbarse solar cars. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
My Duster is pretty spartan right now. No radio, front split bench seat, no headliner, no driver's side door panel, no insulation.... I'm going to be putting some of that stuff back in though because that car loses so much heat through the roof and doors that it never gets warm enough inside in cold weather. I'm going to put in a new 195-degree thermostat too when I put on my 4-bbl. manifold, so that may help heat things up a bit too.
I really want to ask an actual automotive engine designer about these concepts (no offense to you guys though). I'm going to take a trip to CU Boulder sometime soon to visit the engineering school and I might talk with some of the professors and ask them about engine efficiency and if the whole "engineers know and do what's best" thing is really true. I was thinking also, if you had really hot gas (not boiling, but pretty hot) and a cold air intake, wouldn't the gas evaporate even more quickly than if the incoming air was warm? Ugh, now I'm getting into thermodynamics... |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
good fuel mileage
Quote:
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
great mileage
Quote:
bought the rights to the formula. They will never let it out to the public |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I don't put too much faith in the conspiracy theories about mileage improvers, however I did know a guy. I worked at a harware store and this guy was always building some variation of the under carb screen. He would find different materials to make it out of and then get a heating element bonded to the screen. Each one he'd build was a little different than the last. He always told me as soon as he would patent one "someone" would show up to buy the patent off of him. His basic theory was to cool down the air/fuel before and at the carb then heat it up and pass it through the screen after the carb. He claimed 80-85 mpg out of a Ford 2.3 liter. He was an odd duck but I never saw him with a real job......
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
If you find anyway to burn anything especially efficently you will be stopped. There was a guy that figured out how to burn water(yes water) through the use of radio waves. He ran a small block chevy v8 on it for quite sometime. It was written about in a few articles and then nothing. He was silenced. More than likely fuel companies because the less of a dependency for oil. Water is a very abundent source. lol. Anyway, also this is not the best place for asking people how to improve mpg's. Mopar guys in general, but not all, are guys that are fast. Performance motivated guys. If you want mpg's get a cobalt or a turbocharged 4cyl. Gas is 3.10 a gallon here and no matter how much i will buy it i need to get around and make sacrificies were need be. I see how you would want to get more mpg's outta your daily driver but it gas is a problem you should have got a beater 4cyl that gets like 30pg's. Everyone wants power and fuel economy. But it is a fine balance you have to give to receive. 22mpg in your car is pretty good. I have a pontiac g6 that gets 21/22 which is pretty well in my mind. If you want some power and 20 mpg's thats a good balance. You have good ideas just be careful you dont blow your self up expirimenting.
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Yo, dumping something into your gas, just to see if you run better or make more power would be VERY UNWISE. You don't know what it will do to your fuel system or engine. What if it melts all the gaskets and seals in your carb, or causes damaging detonation in your combustion chamber, or caused nasty cracking on your valve seats. Unless its a proven additive, why use your car as a science experiment?
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Ya...use a Chevy....LOL
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Ah, yes......the famous "Fuel Conspiracy" brought up again. The oil companies bought the secrets to getting 100 mpg from cat piss.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
QUOTE - If you find anyway to burn anything especially efficently you will be stopped. There was a guy that figured out how to burn water(yes water) through the use of radio waves. He ran a small block chevy v8 on it for quite sometime. It was written about in a few articles and then nothing. He was silenced.
Actually, he may have been flaring off the hydrogen in the water and then burning it. Penn State University is preparing a paper on this very subject. They use high frequency radio waves to separate the H from the 20 in the H2O and have gotten great results. It was recently on the discovery channel! AARRACER |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
edit: Cool, PSU! I lived in State College for most of my life and my dad studied Civil Engineering there. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Do any of you know what zero point energy is? With that kind of thinking, it's a wonder that anyone would want to move away from fossil fuels. Remember this; the guy who designed your car was greedy and inconsiderate. His agenda was and is formulated to make money. The government taxes oil to get people to use less of it and still make the same or more money from it, annually. Of course they care about fuel efficiency. They tell you that it's good for the environment, but don't hit on any of their other reasoning. They want to sell less of it for more money. They have been and they will continue to. If you would like to know how to set your carburetor and distributor up to run on e-85, just let me know. It's been done with little or no money, with great success. Your MPG goes down, but the amount of actual fluid/fuel you use becomes insignificant; The fuel is less efficient, but still pollutes far less than gasoline and is still cheaper to run, even when compared to more efficient fuels, since they pollute and cost more. The only thing that matters is cost and carbon footprint. Not the amount of fluid used. So, for the time being, until zero point energy is available to the public on a practical level, if you want to spend less money per mile and pollute less per mile, run e-85 and a decent percentage overdrive and a final gear that will allow you to keep your engine running easily in it's power band. Not just as low as you can get your RPM. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Another point is that MOPEkid has talked of replacing the motor soon, so now might be the right time to play around with the current setup. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Are You sure you didn't mean (OXYTANE)
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
One of my oval track friends mixes - Aviation gas, 94 octane pump gas, and acetone for a healthy bang. Don't ask me how detrimental to parts it is, but it was worth the season championship! In a Mopar!
Cheers AARRACER |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Where i work we use methylethylketone, acetone, rollwash, thinners etc. Acetone is something we use to clean paint off rolls. Its nasty sh!t same with mek, don't get it on your skin for prolong times and both have a low flash point and will continue to burn at high heats and are hard to extinguish. If your putting acetone in gas be extremely carefull if it ignites it will not go out unless it wants to, we had a few fires controlled and not and never was it easy to get out
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Isn't the fuel line metal in classic Mopars? I'm going to be putting a rebuilt ThermoQuad+manifold on my 318 soon, would the acetone eat away at the "phenolic resin" carb body?
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, the main line is metal. A rubber line connects that metal line to your fuel sender/pickup assembly. You have a nylon sock on the fuel pickup. A rubber line connect that metal line to your fuel pump. A rubber line connects from the fuel pump to the metal line that goes to the carb.
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
So it wouldn't be too hard to replace all of that stuff, right?
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
I just rebuilt a ThermoQuad I'm going to be swapping in hopefully over the holiday break, so there won't be any gunk in it, but I was wondering if the acetone would dissolve that plastic main body on the carb.
I want everyone to know also that if I had another smaller daily driver (like an '80s 4-cyl) I wouldn't really care about trying to squeeze some mileage out of Detroit's finest. But this is my only car, and while I want to live up to the Mopar tradition of feasting on Chevys and Fords and snacking on imports, I still want to be able to go a couple hundred miles between refills. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
I tried Acetone in my gas after reading a post in another forum by a guy who seemed like he knew what he was talking about. I used the stuff for 2 months in a pretty fair study. I got zero gas mileage improvement. In fact, if anything I got a slight reduction. I have since seen a segment on "Mythbusters" that came to the same conclusion. Nothing is ever that easy. If acetone in the gas provided ANY MPG improvement whatsoever some slick Willy would have already put it in some cleavor packaging and sold it for 3X what it costs. -Bob
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Also ... run as much timing in the motor as it will allow. To ever get MORE timing and extra mpg ....try some water injection. The auto manufacturers have tried this WITH great success ... but DUE TO the fact that you can RUIN a motor if you run out-of-water - the idea was abandoned. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
efficiency at home | scredneck | Joke Forum | 1 | 04-16-2008 11:32 PM |
efficiency aluminum vs iron cyl heads? | HankL | Performance Talk | 5 | 07-24-2006 07:50 AM |
hp gain from efficiency | *Ng* | Ram Truck Chat | 18 | 09-18-2001 10:13 PM |
5.9 Efficiency | Walkentall | Ram Truck Chat | 4 | 07-26-2001 07:56 AM |
volumetric efficiency, hp and torque from a dyno test | Jesse Lackman | Performance Talk | 13 | 04-13-2000 01:22 AM |