I have read of an engineering firm in London is about to produce a Vaporized fuel injection system for naturally aspirated cars. I have read alot about this kit and similiar inventions from early 70 and 80s.
Supposedly it will increase our MPG 30 to 70% with 50% average. It will also increase HP. Seems to reason our vehicles are not properly burning the fuel we inject currently due to needing a catalytic converter. This will also reduce emissions by almost 0%. The last time I read about a concept like this was from a guy named Tom Ogle. He managed to get a buick skylark to travel on 2 liters of fuel for an average of 100mpg. He mysteriously encountered some strange visits after publicly going to some large car manufacturers with his invention. Weeks later a shop mechanic of his was killed when a car came down on top of him and then Tom himself died of an apparent drug and alcohol overdose at the age of 26. His wife at the time said Tom never touched an ounce of alcohol in all his life.
What do you guys think? One of my concerns is the extra heat this would produce seeing how your igniting pure vapor instead of droplets of water molecules.
Its amazing to see how many people come online join a forum group and then automatically become genius wizards. Without you doing ANY research on the matter you get your fat a$$ on your high horse and attempt to belittle someone. Put down your sammich get off your sister and research how combustible engines work and what they prefer to operate efficiently. Your probably a little guy with napolean complex and this makes you feel good. Loser.
Its not liquid gas that burns. Its the vapor that comes off it. (this is why things explode.) When you light a puddle of gas on fire, its the vapor its making thats burning.
It stands to reason that the spray of fuel into a piston may be more effiecent if its just the vapor, not the liquid.
Im just saying the science is there for a more efficient process. I have no idea about the rest of it.
lando76...keep us up to date about this....strange deaths do not surprise me when this level of MPG`s are attained...back in 1973 during the first gas crisis there was a chevrolet malibu brand new this guy at my school had...thought something was wrong with the gas gauge...needle didn`t move very much brought it back to the dealer and guess what...someone stole the car...makes you wonder dosen`t it
Well, I wasn't going to dignify this thread with a response of any scientific merit, but it seems now I must at least throw out a few terms for folks to google:
- Energy Density, specifically about 35 MJ/L for gasoline
- Carnot Cycle, the maximum theoretical efficiency for an engine
- the "efficiency" of the Pentastar
The we need to do some research into things like drag coefficients, friction losses, etc. Someone once posted a good link that did a lot of the comps for you. What all this will give you a feel for is how much work is required to move your JK. Then you can compare it to how much energy/work is being "wasted" by the Pentastar and judge for yourself if you think a 75% improvement in fuel economy is possible.
The relevant point is that there are real limits to performance - Gas has only some much energy, no matter how you combust it. Engines can be only so efficient in their usage of that energy.
If your engines is dumping unspent fuel through your catalytic converter seems to reason your losing efficiency and mpg. Hell thats why we have catalytic coverters. You can bring up aerodynamics all you want but its the burn I am talking about.
We'll, I took a break from eating mayonnaise sandwiches and doing "Pilates" with my sister long enough to laugh at this. I love this thread, keep it coming. I need something to entertain me. If I were smarter, I might realize that the biggest problem with my catalytic converter is that it restricts air flow through my engine and that set of high flow cats would greatly benefit my power production. It might also realize that engine efficiency is totally different from fuel economy - the former deals with power production, the latter with fuel consumption. If I were really clever, I might realize that my ignition timing, valve timing and fueling have more to do with an overly rich fuel mixture and wasted gas hitting my cats than how the fuel is injected. If I were terribly smart, perhaps I'd have disassembled my Honda CBR600RR fuel injection system to replace a few bits and noticed that vaporized fuel injection is nothing new because the top four injectors shower fuel into the air box and velocity stacks to allow the vapor to pulled into the cylinders. I might even realize that vaporized fuel injection is an easy retro fit on any vehicle ever made by virtue of changing an injector/injector nozzle.
Alas, I need to go back to my sammich...at least this is fun to watch.
Back in the 70s there were a group of guys who found that by putting a piece of stainless mesh (window screen) in the base gasket of the carburetor they were able to substantially increase fuel mileage. Claims were anywhere from 30-50mpg for a bigblock ford and Dodge. Small blocks didn't have the torque to carrier the weight so the process did not work as well, longer stroke more time for fuel to burn.
The theory was that the fuel atomized more efficiently when sucked through the screen at the throttle plates.. But , alas that was then when carbs didn't atomize fuel well. However now we have injectors that atomize fuel very efficiently. As far as gas vapor, that doesn't work, its called vapor lock, cold fuel is more dense, packs more volume in the cylinder and burns better. But we also have poor fuel with too many additives that don't burn well. In 1968 an average Dodge dart at about 3000# with a 318 A/T and no overdrive would average 21mpg. This same motor with that fuel, the efficiency of fuel injection, and overdrive would easily pull 50mpg. We are stepping back in the mpg game folks not going forward..
Fuel itself does not ignite. Its the vapor that ignites. Never heard of cold fuel but colder air will have an affect. So theres a few here that absolutely believe our engines and injection system are properly and completely burning fuel at the most efficient rate possible.
I invite you to remove your catalytic converter and drive to any smog station to see if you pass.
Vapor lock will occur if you dont properly adjust the air ratio needed for vapor form vs mist form injection. Compression ratio will change also. Glad to see this opened up for dialogue vs belittlement. If you disagree state your reasons and support with facts.
Fuel itself does not ignite. Its the vapor that ignites. Never heard of cold fuel but colder air will have an affect. So theres a few here that absolutely believe our engines and injection system are properly and completely burning fuel at the most efficient rate possible.
I invite you to remove your catalytic converter and drive to any smog station to see if you pass.
Vapor lock will occur if you dont properly adjust the air ratio needed for vapor form vs mist form injection. Compression ratio will change also. Glad to see this opened up for dialogue vs belittlement. If you disagree state your reasons and support with facts.
I will not say that internal combustion engines run at 100% efficiency. I will state that manufacturers are doing their best to achieve as close as possible to that rating.
I will state that there are no black helicopters circling auto manufacturers to make sure they don't come up with new technology.
Propane==== boils at -44*F. When one puts a propane conversion on their vehicle, that includes a heat exchanger that vaporizes the liquid propane to vapor, yet they are still not 100% efficient. Also propane does not contain as much energy per gallon as gasoline, therefore there will be some power loss in an engine burning propane vs same engine burning gasoline.
Any one that says they can squeeze more energy from a gallon of any particular type of fuel than said fuel actually contains is selling snake oil.
Diesel it is. DJL2 being a fellow jeeper I just expected a little more respect. As most others besides you have given regardless how much I know or don't know.
I'm laughing at that...but, I get the sense that perhaps you're serious. As my father once said: "To expect is to be disappointed." As I remind my Paratroopers: "If you want it, earn it." Also, you should at least try to show a little more love to sandwiches.
" Also, you should at least try to show a little more love to sandwiches. "....and sisters.......
Sisters need love too.....
in fact, one of my buddies had a sister that was really into hot rods & high horse power big blocks....
she even had a t-shirt that said something to the effect that 'blown is nice'[big front graphic here] but she'd rather be injected [big back graphic here].....
always seemed to get her a conversation at the pub.....
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Jeep Wrangler Forum
9M posts
468K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to Jeep Wrangler owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about reviews, performance, trail riding, gear, suspension, tires, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, for all JL, JT, JK, TJ, YJ, and CJ models!