We Put A Gas Mileage Fuel System Vaporizer To The Test
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 01. 2022
- Buddy's Fuel Vaporizer is a device that sells for $169 and is purported to increase gas mileage between 25 and 40%.
We installed it as directed and then ran a direct back to back test with a completely impartial driver.
Truthfully, we had no idea the results would be so crazy.
*MERCHANDISE
OUR STORE: uncle-tonys-garage.creator-sp...
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
Instagram: / uncle_tonys
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
Instagram: / uncle_tonys
#hydrogen #vapor #gasmileage - Auta a dopravní prostředky
I am a retired truck driver. The company I drove for had over 1,000 trucks so fuel economy was real important. They determined that driving habits were a huge factor. A gentle foot on the go pedal and coasting, while in gear, made a huge difference. I usually had a gross weight of around 75,000 lbs.and at 65 mph I hovered around 6.5 mpg. When I took my foot off the throttle my mileage meter would go up to 99 mpg. I learned to lift my right foot well ahead of exit ramps, stop signs etc. Going down hill was like a free ride. These tricks apply to cars as well.
I have always been amazed at the incredible fuel economy large diesel trucks get for the amount of weight they carry.
Take my half ton pick up that gets 10 miles per gallon with an empty bed. Lol
Works exactly the same with cars. Stay off the brakes as much as possible and don't idle if you can avoid it. In that short loop they were driving there may have been a few unavoidable circumstances that made a difference in the amount of gas they were using
Georgia cruise control works wonders (coasting in neutral). Not very safe though 😂
@joshuablades8851 how is it not safe?
@@n5sdm because if the brakes overheat there’s nothing else to slow the truck down except the compression of the engine but the transmission has to be in gear and thus connected to the drive wheels to work.
I had a customer come to our shop after he had a new exhaust system put on his truck. I asked him about the claims of x% better fuel economy, and x% better performance. His reply was priceless, he said "I'm not sure about any of that but it does make 30% more noise". Haha
Lol
Good video guys. I'm an old man now but back in the early seventies a buddy of mine and I made a vapor type of system and was getting an improvement of 10 to 20% using the vapor system. After a while we noticed a sludge in the bottom of the tank and asked a Rodchester carburetor engineer what was going on. He explained (as much as we could understand) that gasoline is made up of many chemicals that include hectares, methane and such and each chemical vaporizes at a different temperature. So, although our engine did run on the vapors, the power output, lubrication and other factors prevented the motor from having the same power output as the gasoline when sprayed into the engine through the carburetor (nowadays, with injected fuel systems and especially the ultra high pressure rail systems the fuel is pretty much completely vaporized as it leaves the injection nozzle).
There is a reason why engineers get it. They understand research into fields of hydraulics, chemicals, electronics and much more. My hat is off to those brilliant engineers and to the garage guys looking for the better mouse trap. Sometimes, just sometimes, the garage hack invents something the world needs, but that happens very vary seldom. Keep up the good work.
A hectare is approximately 2.5 acres. That's a LOT of sludge on the bottom of the tank.
Are you talking about Thomas Ogle?
@@northerniltree He probably meant heptane or hexane.
Da ogle carb would need a specific type of fuel mixture.
The documentary of the late seventies called
Who killed the electric car
discloses the blatant greed and evil Oil monop.
Long-chain hydrocarbons were introduced into gasoline formulation in the 1930s, because the Pogue carburetor was getting extremely high mileage by fully vaporizing fuel. Can't have that! You can still use a Pogue carburetor if you run ethanol or methanol (or other clean-vaporizing feedstock)
Years ago, I installed a special ignition system to give me 35% better mileage, a special carburetor, to give me 50% better gas mileage, and a special intake system, to give me 20% better gas mileage. I drove about 1/4 mile, and my gas tank overflowed!
So 10 gallons turned into 12. Awesome. Where you get these, lol
@@dougs3084 @ 1/4 miles there was a filling station.
My wife got some low-calorie bread from the store - "25% fewer calories per slice". When we opened the loaf, lo and behold the slices were about 25% thinner than the usual bread. Genius!
Drive it backwards and it won’t do that. Lol
Why did your tank overflowed ""..
worth the watch just to listen to that engine
He hasn't started it yet 😎🤘....I'm going through the comments because this is interesting
@@mnmountainman9343 imu
definitely sounds like aftermarket exhaust though
Exhaust problems.
“Psh! Use this hack saw!”
Problem gone.
HP gain zero,
but sounds awesome!
🤘😎🤘
Sounds like my 360 w/duel cherry bombs
These fuel saving gadgets were common in the days before the internet when all you really had was word of mouth. None of the ones I tried 25 years ago worked either. Best mpg results I ever had was with a well tuned carb and keeping my foot out of it. Magic!
A good set of high quality radial tires helps as well
@@bbo40 Actually, I think the old-school bias-ply tires have lower rolling resistance! Skinny bias-ply tires pumped all the way up - now we need a rolling-resistance test between those vs. same-sized radial tires.
A wideband o2 sensor with a gauge is probably the best fuel saver addon for a carbureted rig. It allows you to tune a carb precisely for the type of situations your engine sees most.
@@bbo40 I get best mileage with bias play trailer tires.
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 I know, as all of my first few vehicles had bias ply tires on them. I actually bought a full set of them new in 1983 as they were the least-expensive new tires available.
Back in the early 80's I was involved in some SAE fuel economy testing on heavy trucks. You needed two trucks, one being the control truck that nothing was changed on. We had removable tanks that were weighed before and after. We found a section of interstate that gave us an East/West and North/South 20 mile trip on one run. We normally had multiple trucks and spent 4 to 5 days on site. Aerodynamic improvements probably gave the largest boost in economy. The advent of fully electronic engines made a big jump, but the biggest improvement was making the driver drive the truck for economy.
True…..
Yep. And I don't know about yall but my (water tank) aka coolant res is under pressure and I won't be drilling any holes in it
My dad made invented a gasoline vaporizer using the heat from the exhaust. Our Chevy 4x4 350 V8 got 40mpg with it. A friend of his used an ultrasound transducer attached to the Carb and his v8 achieved 78mpg. So higher mpg is possible, you just have to get the gas into a vapor BEFORE it gets to the Carb.
@@timusa3937 I have a 2010 prius. Bought in 2012. I lost about 7 mpg when I eventually lost the hub caps, and undercar plastic shields around wheel wells, bumper, etc. Still have it with 330k miles, getting 38-40 mpg. They are built so well. Designed for mpg everywhere.
@@timusa3937 I also got it for $14,600, in perfect condition, $29k on window sticker. Had cash but got 1.5% loan on cash. Cash in bank made 1% then. 3 yr note.
When I went from 5 days a week to 4 days a week working. I saw an increase of 20% fuel economy in the refill of my fuel tank. Its amazing. And I never had to touch my carburetor. 🤣
MEANWHILE YOUR RIDE IS LIKELY FUEL INJECTED AND YOU AREN'T FUNNY!
Thats funny.
Of course the realization ,that the Fuel vapor systems is a great additive with a regular gasoline vaporizing system . And that is about it ! The use of hydrogen as a gas immediately . Is a tiny fart in a hurricane wind storm. Comparison! The volume over all needed of Hydrogen gas to operate a Heat Engine properly ,is crazy ! Plus yr amount of timing firing order the horsepower will be notice strictly on hydrogen gas . This experiment is great. Thank yu ! But a truly vaporizing trial is having a mini 1gallon gas can .tubular set up in such a way of one line draw in air and a float inside of the g.1.can covering a inside majority of floating inside . In theory having a floatlistic semi spikey Point looking to help bring Air vapor ratios up ! Visually is the greatest see thru props. Now back to the brilliance of mopar vacuum with gasoline
Engines is yr true friend in developmental setting up yr volume deliverance of WOFT . Full throttle and not straight gas liquids. Only vapors always just that. Hey i truly love it hearing pure mopar throaty power . Thank yu so much Uncle Toni and mechanical Engineers . 💪🛠️
@@jeffmatson2046 THATS A LOT OF JIBBERISH THAT MAKES ABOUT ZERO SENSE AND HAS ABOUT ZERO VALIDITY. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
When I quit my job I saved 100% on gas. I even sold my truck saving more money on insurance and licenses. Now I walk and ride my bicycle to go everywhere. I just sold and moved out of my home. No more water, electric, insurance, taxes, upkeep. My tent is not very nice. It doesn't come with the fancy things my home had.... but I'm free!
I always get suspicious of something when the instructions for it are photocopies of photocopies
So what?
That's what I thought when I saw them as well:-)
Pictures of photos that have been copied
If it looks like s**t, smells like s**t and sounds like s**t……safe to say it is s**t.
MJ12 🤣
thanks for the unbiased info. My favorite conundrum is that we keep building cars that run more efficiently and then packing them with more gadgets that make them heavier and ruin the efficiency we gained.
@@andyjames1494
Cars cost the same relative to inflation as they have since 1965.
It's the dollar that's decreasing in value not the cars increasing
Not exactly, it's 3 steps forward and 1 step back
At least we still have Lotus around to remedy the latter.
What I like is that Uncle Tony probably knew that the thing wouldn't work, but he approached it in an enthusiastic and unbiased manner. That's what I like here : just the facts, with enthusiasm. He knows more than all the people commenting added together. Me ? I know nothing.
I remember the JC Whitney catalogs of the 70's, during the fuel crisis of the time. There were many "miracle" fuel saving devices listed that we all knew had to be bogus, but they were fun to look at. I still have a 1973 copy.
Wow that's is neat, I hope you dident get sucker in to those, Instant stop oil smoking pellets with that can of crude unrefined oil like I did.🤣🤣🤣
Yeah I remember that! It about that I bought a 61 Ford pu.
Went to do an oil changed and realized someone had put one of them JC Whitney toilet paper oil filters on it. lol 🙄. Yeah that was removed immediately. Some of that role had disintegrated.lol
How'd that oil filter commercial at the time go " you can pay me now or you can pay me later"
@@Ozarkprepper643 back in 72 I bought my first car it was a1962, 4 door Mercury Comet, had a 6 cylinder, I believe it had a 170 cid in her...3 on the tree. But the kid who sold it to me broke the steering column on it,so he used a screwdriver & JB welded it in to the housing, called up good old J C Whitney and they had one, 5 weeks later, it arrive. It fit perfect. No more grinding the gears to shift,
@@Ozarkprepper643 O yea that was a marketing brain storm, (FRAM) there several videos out that compare oils filters that have been disassemble to show and explain which one are the best.... Like I said it was a genius idea to sell a filter.
@@daleslover2771 👍 got to love J-B Weld LOL.
What a coincidence. I had a 62 Falcon with an inline 6 and three on the tree until it broke. The housing where the little pin went through to hold the shifter stick broke off. And yeah grinding was a bitch before that. That was just before I put a clutch in it. I broke down and bought a Fenton floor speed shifter. I think I paid $18 for new. But then new tires for that car only cost $12 each.
Miss those days. Miss that car I should never ever sold it for $50 lol
Now this is the kind of content I come here for. Uncle Tony cutting out the bs and giving us straight facts!
Real world efficiency includes efficiency during warm up, so Tony should not have excluded warm up from his test. but results would have been similar.
so it reduced mileage by 18.1%, but Tony still needs to measure the reported performance boost at the strip. because if the kit boosts performance, then it still may have value even if improperly marketed.
In the 1980's my friends and I experimented(for Power) w/ Water injection. We included: Benzene, Methanol, Ethanol, & other stuff. Saw various efficiencies, but was never cost effective. Above Distilled H2O. Which,BTW, made the engine 'happiest'.
@@frankdmioli925 Both my cars are too old, and have too low compression, to benefit from water injection, or to spark knock even with advanced timing. I put it in the truck but stopped using it for that reason.
@@alan6832 The strip? The best way to test these snake oil gimmicks, is a dyno. The strip wouldn't tell us anything.
It went as I was expecting. Seems it's not much more than a vacuum leak in a shipping box.
A moisture enhanced vacuum leak. lol
That's what I saw the moment I saw the instructions.
The Feds will jump all over that company for claiming 25-40% increase in gas mileage. Only a matter of time. Like promising 25% returns on a stock fund.
heck, that camshaft grind is a vacuum leak in a box :)
@@DaveGreg100 lol yeah..... No!😂 The feds don't want you saving gas anyway that doesn't make them money however they do want you burning controllable fuel to charge electric cars it's all smoke and mirrors to make the public believe they're doing the best for the environment.
You need an ✨HHO ✨Generator system to actually improve mileage. An HHO system produces hydrogen out of splitting water with electrolysis and that hydrogen is fed into the air intake. The hydrogen increases combustion which increases horsepower and that reduces gas consumption. The exhaust that comes out the tail pip is also greatly improved with drastically reduced emissions from more through and complete combustion. There is a lot of fakery out there but there is also the holy grail if you keep looking…there are people that have achieved astounding results. Would love to see an HHO system test on this channel. Thanks for all the great content!
Another worthless waste of time and money. You will get the same result.
@@lookingbehind6335 Maybe...Maybe not. We need a test on this channel.
Sorry partner. Also snake oil bullshit that does nothing. No such thing as a free lunch in the laws of thermodynamics.
Projectfarm has a good video on this. It turns out the laws of thermodynamics are still a thing and they don't work.
The vaporizer carb is a thing, and it nearly doubles MPG, but its an explosion risk. You effectively boil gasoline into vapor in the intake instead of putting liquid gasoline into the intake. You get perfect atomization and mixture, but if something fails or you get a backfire, the stoic vapor mixture will explode and catch the car on fire.
You understand nothing about car engines. All v8 and v6 engines have an exhaust crossover built into the intake manifold under the carburetor. The intake plate under the carb is heated very high, to vaporize all incoming fuel..
Please stop.
All v8 intakes has an exhaust crossover built into the intake. The exhaust heats the intake under the carb, to vaporize all fuel going into the cylinders. You understand nothing about engines, when you spew your old wives tales..
@@KBS117 What are you even talking about? The only engines that had something like what you are talking about are Inline engines with reverse flow cylinder heads. Exhaust and intake were on the same side with those.
The engines Ive had apart from the 70s-90s had COOLANT crossover in the intake, not exhaust. Coolant does NOT get to a temperature that will flash boil gasoline.
The only thing exhaust related on those intakes would be EGR/smog pumps.
@@karathkasun hahaha, just as I thought, genius stupid. All v8 intakes had exhaust crossovers, Chevy, ford, dodge. Goggle it genius. The exhaust heated the intake under the carb..
@@karathkasun What is the function of heat passage in intake manifolds?
Modern intake manifolds are heated to assist in the vaporization of the gasoline in the charge. The outgoing exhaust gases or the engine cooling system provides the heat for the purpose. In addition, a thermostat controls the heat.Nov 9, 2019
Hi Tony, I really enjoy your "real world" JFDI approach.
I tried a number of fuel saving tricks and tips a long time ago. I'm in the UK, so small engines and manual transmissions. Following the recommendation of a friend , I found the most effective was fitting a vacuum gauge. The higher the vacuum the cleaner the burn and the better the economy. After a while i learned how to drive without needing it. 40 years later i still get good mileage.
In the simplest terms, don't put your foot down . Give it enough pedal to get going then leave the pedal alone. let the engine spin up and change at a higher RPM, this keeps the engine unloaded and maximizes efficiency.
I have a small car still, Fiat Panda Multijet. According to the car's computer over the last 2200 miles I have averaged 77 MPG.
I have always enjoyed a sporty driving style and make good progress on the backroads and lanes, which I prefer to highway driving.
I gave up a bit of acceleration and learned how to carry the speed in the bends.
And its still fun..
An ex-brother-in-law of mine never trusted vehicles that said "dodge" on the front and "ram" on the side. He thought they were instructions.
If you can't Dodge it, Ram it! Fords are best for deep water crossings.
Crises. Cr cr cr cr cr cr cr cr crises
Just put on a 2 barrel carburetor like they did after the gas crunch and it really helped. For today's cars if you can just limit your throttle travel to 25% you'll get great mileage.
Well said man throttling alot is like flushing fuel down the to*let.
I know Alot of people believe a two barrel is cheaper but honestly a well tuned four barrel and keep your foot out of it like you said they get way better. A two barrel doesn't have secondaries to fall back on so it throws all the fuel all the time. Then if you jet it down too far you risk leaning out a cylinder. I seen a guy put a lawn mower carb on a V8 Ford but how Hard would it be on the engine over period of time?
@@garycrawford6912 you mean you watched thunderhead428 do it lol good content he has.
@@garycrawford6912I watched that video too
Anything that has 'carburetor' as the solution is heading right straight up the wrong alley
I had an 88 silverado 350 long box extended cab and achieved over 1000km on 113 litres, basically one full tank without running out of fuel. I had a K&N air cleaner, Air raid throttle body riser and shorty headers with very conservative driving habits, mostly highway miles to work and back home to city
Hey uncle T been a long time viewer and I’m extremely excited to hear about a fuel mileage build! I’ve never heard of any hotrod channel attempting such a feat!
They used to do it all the time back in the magazine days. Used to run emissions screwdriver-optimizations, too. Remember one where they helped the hell out of a '68 Firebird 400 in both respects !
Back in the day, I had owned several slant 6s and an amc 232. This was while the national interstate speed limit was 55. I enjoyed 3 on the tree. No power brakes, not so much the lack of a/c, those were the days. I also had a 318 duster and a 67 383 polara.
All the magazines did articles in the seventies and eighties. Even the aftermarket got involved. Anyone remember the edelbrock sp2p2v intake manifold or the holley economizer carburetors? No I don't remember them fondly.
@@davidleonard8369 The 4 barrel SP2P woke up my buddies 4000+ pound long bed 76 D100 with the stock 318 big time. That intake was made specifically for heavy vehicles and was designed with long runners to work best with stock/lower RPM cams and had a RPM range of 500 to 4000 so I advanced the stock cam 4 degrees with a timing keyway kit to make the stock cam more responsive/effective in the low-mid RPM's where that intake works best and topped the combo off with a Qjet and 4 hole spacer to make the runners even longer and the truck was finally able to break traction with no help from the brakes for the first time in its life.
The advanced stock cam and the SP2P with 4 hole spacer matched each other so well that it made a whole different animal of that smogger 318. Honestly I can't wait to put the same combo together in a little car with the stock 318.
@@davidleonard8369 Put one on my 63 Valiant 225 [which I still own]. Got it from JC Whitney.
When I had my shop, a lady walks in with a package and ask me to install this magic milage device on her car. I responded I would be happy to but don't expect any change in milage. With a confused look she responds its guaranteed to work. I responded to her every car manufacturer spends millions on research for a fraction of a mile per gallon increase in milage, if this device worked every car coming off the assembly line would already have it installed. She looked at the package then at me, hands me the device and ask me to throw it in the trash, that she had wasted eighteen dollars, thanked me and walked out
Actually, car companies are more interested in profits than fuel mileage. Manufactured cars are not the best they can be. There are a lot of shysters out there also.
When a realist meets an optimist
Good on you, Man.
You were a plus in the balance of our profession.
I don't think anybody ever marketed such horseshit for airplanes especially the old giant prop-jobs for the obvious reason (had one crew member that's all he did was try and get mileage).
Re: What You Said - Japan INC. did in fact slay it's way into the US Market on mileage after the Oil Shock of the Mid-Seventies.
So the Lady bet $18 some stranger outsmarted Japan INC and she was going to benefit, guaranteed.
No WONDER bad people get elected here !
A car salesman working at a ford dealership in 1966 had a customer who came in after watching weekend racing. He told the salesman i want the 427 cobra. The salesman told the customer the 427 is way to radical you should look at a 289 version. The customer said he wasn't interested in a 289 only a 427 would do. The salesman said ok and got the keys for a new red cobra with white stripes. The customer took the cobra on a short test drive with the salesman. He lost control of the car twice,and returned to the dealership shaking and sweating. He told the salesman youre right this is way to radical for me. Let me test drive the 289. The salesman responded, that was the 289
@@curtiscriscoe367 Should've directed that guy to a 6-cyl Mustang.
Putting high pressure 35 inch tall tires on my 1977 painfully stock F-150. Boosted my gas mileage from 8 miles to the gallon to 12. I also have a first generation modified Toyota Prius that puts out 160 horsepower almost as much as the Ford. I drive it like a sports car and still get 33 miles to the gallon. Plus I got into the car's computer with my laptop. And turned off the traction control. It's the only Prius I've ever seen to do 14 ft burnouts.
I remember these gas saving devices back before fuel injection became common. There were special spark plugs, spark enhancers, vaporizers, yada, yada. Put them all together and you had a car that never burned gasoline. In fact it actually made gasoline!
I wasted money on a Jacobs ignition system. Engine never ran right as long as it was on there. It was supposed to provide multiple sparks to insure complete combustion.
that explains how its so cheap on that side of the big blue
I had one car set up like that myself back in the 90's. I had so much trouble storing all of the extra fuel that I just took it out.
I actually heard of systems that supposedly use water to make Hydrogen Peroxide in the carburetor.
@@ThatsMrPencilneck2U HHO? OR H2O2? check out george wiseman and eagle research
Well, you have proven that your car runs more efficiently without a vacuum leak. Imagine that.
The pcv is already a vacuum leak..??
@@gulfy09 Sure but adding more leaks would only help fuel economy if it was running rich to begin with.
@@davidleonard8369 Both of you guys wrong. Not a leak. Just redirecting where the air was coming from.
@@fireballxl-5748 then remove the check valve from a pcv and see how it runs. I did it once just to prove to a smart alec what would happen. Yep, didn't have enough manifold vacuum to pull fuel through the idle circuit. So there's that. One of the first things we would check back in the days when carburetors ruled the road if a car had trouble idling was to check if the valve was stuck open. Just shake it to make sure it rattled.
The PVC was not seated in the valve cover, it was actually a 16th or so out of the gromet.
With very careful testing and application, I was able to get a 10-17% better gas mileage on a 2005 Chrysler minivan, but adding acetone to my fuel tank before topping off. As I recall the ratio was a quarter bottle (16 oz bottle) to a tank of fuel (17 gallon tank in the minivan.) Prior to acetone I could get about 295-305 miles on a tank of gas and after acetone reliably 350-360 miles per tank. Supposedly the aceone reduces the surface tension of gasoline and it atomizes better on its own in the cylinders. But I drove like this reliable for a few years. (same driving habits both ways)
No luck on my 2014 F150 (in 2023).
@@MR-backup Things like this don't really work with newer cars, the sensors and computers will just change ratios to account for and cancel whatever you are trying.
Back in 1956, I was a young engineering student also working at Chatham Dockyard on British Naval ships, and I bought my first second-hand used car. I played about with many so-called fuel savers but the best I found was to keep the carburetor well adjusted, the ignition timing and the gap in the make and break, and also the spark gaps as indicated for the type of car I had. I had mastered the SU Carburettor to adjust the fuel float height, the mixture, the choke system, and also the spring that operated the needle to rise with the vacuum from the intake. The acceleration was left to the minimum required while the four tires on the wheels were always correctly inflated. While others who used similar cars got about 35 mpg I got nearer to 50 mph and even slightly more if I drove steadily on the motorway. I must say that everything had to be just right, and given constant attention, as anything that was not perfectly correct would reduce the performance mentioned.
Well said. I began my apprenticeship at a British independent shop when I was 13 years old and by 14 I was rebuilding like 3 SUs a week. I used to see them on Volvo boat motors too and the Zenith-Strombergs too
My father loved MGs, and in the mid 60s I remember doing rebuilds and adjustments on those SU carburetors with him...that and replacing segments of burned wiring and faulty Lucas electric devices. The good old days. Thanks for sharing your story, which stirred those memories.
@@djirvin1014 Thanks for replying/commenting. I too commenced my apprenticeship at the age of 14 and I was so fascinated by the technology that I really enjoyed going to work!! The SU carburetor is easy to master and once one understood every part of and operation of its structure, then one could say that they were almost as good as any modern injection system.
@@Robnord1 Thank you for replying/ commenting. I too was rather emotional about your interest in the SU carburetor which I did enjoy adjusting to its full potential. I cared a lot about the contact breaker where I ensured that they were perfectly flat at the contact to get the best rate of change of cut-off for a better spark. They were good old days in many ways, and tinkering with what I had I felt rather more intelligent than replacing a unit as one needs to do these days. Thanks again
Hey good day, as a mechanic most my life mad scientist Blacksmith you name it, have always messed around with fuel mileage for the last 50 years maybe or more. Love how you’re doing these tests. Also, noted the holes drilled in the air filter housing, exactly the sort of things I do. Those Mopar‘s are awesome!! The car you did the test with, is the ultimate for my personal taste :-). Love all vehicles. Even with the body cancer in the car I would almost give my right arm :-). Also figured out a better air filter system better than KnN. Just have not had the time to make them other than for myself. Very simple you would probably love it. After all, we want the engines to breathe. Would love to converse, but I’m sure it will never happen. However I’ll see if I can look you up and find your phone number and connect with you. Thank you for the videos very inspiring you’re the man. Stay well and have a beautiful day. Jim. PS enjoy those great cars👍
In addition, you have the fuel from the vapor container to calculate into the totals... so if it drew a measurable amount from the vapor cannister, then it's mpg was even worse than you thought!
The other predicted "increase" in mileage was from the washer fluid bottle. I think they were expecting it to still have washer fluid in it. Hold a flame to it and you quickly learn it isn't just blue water.
Approx 22 % different
Here's the thing: the average emissions controlled carbureted engine is calibrated to run pretty lean. I suspect that that engine is not. Adding a supplemental fuel source might drive it over rich, which means you're going to have to get in the gas pedal MORE
I don't know where your idle circuit was set, if the mixture screws were set to run at maximum vacuum or maximum rpm, then the tiny bit of extra fuel you added would have made it overly rich, costing efficiency, making you step in the gas pedal harder
If it was calibrated like a lot of stock engines are, where you would have the idle circuit set leaner by 50 or 75 rpm, you may have got a different result from this system.
Personally, the only way I see this thing really getting you gas mileage is if your engine is lean, and you don't count the gasoline you pour in the supplemental bottle
Other than that, doubt it'll do a damn thing for anyone. But that's just my uninformed opinion having not tried it myself
Oh, and all the guys who were talking about the idle node on that engine... Hell yeah!
Hell, pre emissions economy cars were sometimes running on the 20:1 range on the idle/cruise circuit. usually considered dangerously lean by modern standards.
i have seen so many test on this even if u vapor the fuel it does not matter u get close to the same milage we use a lawn mower engine and ran it with just vapor and one with raw fuel it ran the same amount of time and we did test after test with no improvement we even measured the fuel used with a glass beaker then we would vapor the fuel for the test all most to the second both did on the test with a 15 min run
All that means is it doesn't work!
Doesn't mean it couldn't work but to buy and fit and expect a fuel decrease consistent with the claims of the manufacturer is as usual unrealistic - along with all the other ambit claims out there about performance of anything from a battery brush cutter to a refrigerator.
I figured 18% drop between them, Here's what i used, 2.25/2.75= 0.818 which means the system was 82% (rounded) of the stock PVC system. Meaning the new system lost 18% against the stock PVC system
That contraption will never add any fuel. It's just an adjustable vacuum leak. Even if it did the minute you step on the gas vacuum falls. So there's that too.
I had a bunch of cars with fuel vaporizers. If I'm not mistaken, they were called carburators. This is probably as good excuse as any to break out the "A body". Nice car.
Yup! They all ran on specially formulated hydrocarbons also!
I had triple atomizers on my inline 6... beat a couple of V8's with their 4 barrel fuel flushers... 🤣
Atomizer.
Carburetors are atomizers AND vaporizers, let's not conflate the 2 fluid states shall we?
@Derpy Redneck the idea is that on a more accurate note the carburetors and even injectors create a "finer mist" it's technically almost vapor. And what truly burns is the vapor. Complete vapor is when the gas undergoes a true phase state change. Liquid> Vapor. And even though the term "atomized" is used. Really even today we are spraying finer mist.
If you can prepare the fuel beforehand across a larger surface area and have it truly atomized, like thru a ultrasonic nebulizer (found in household humidifiers) and or having the right amount of heat. You can have True vapor. That is the idea... basically sorta a reinvented carburetor but using a diffrent law. Not Bernuli's principle, but sublimation using pressure and or heat. Now finding what range of air/fuel vapor mix is ideal across load ranges. That is where we need to experiment.
It might be better to pick route on the hwy at say 30 miles distance at 60 mph and check each system before and after. I have done similar testing (with a few changes) that yielded over 40% improvement at 60 mph on flat ground and 600 ft elevation.
🐂💩!
It's great to see another experiment in the UTG lab. Keep them coming!
He's right: I can't believe what that fuel vaporizer/water system did for the fuel mileage.
I knew a guy bought and older maybe desoto bought cheap ran crappy he found a mason bottle under hood he thought was wiper wash fluid not knowing filled it with water and wha la it ran perfect for year.
I believe it... 100% LOL
None of us can.
John, that was a water injection system. They can be beneficial.
Years ago for $50 I made a water dissociation gadget that brakes a water molecule into 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen molecules, I’m sure you prolly heard of them, 4 inch piece of pvc, I ordered from a metal shop strips of 416 SS that were around 2mm from each other and perfectly fit into a 4 inch pipe, my g20 conversion van with high top captains chairs and all the bells went from around 13mpg to around under 30! Until pvc got too soft by the temperature and buckled and created a huge vacuum leak on the way to niagra falls from Brooklyn with a bunch of my family members. Cars are not made to transport you, they are made to sell you gas insurance registrations repairs and parts, tickets and parking fees, BTH when I was experimenting with it when I had it off I couldn’t take 1 breath from exhaust pipe, when I’d turn it on i could breathe the exhaust without having a brain-freeze! And yes water was coming out of exhaust, also I passed a tech inspection and I know I wouldn’t without this thing.
TEST THAT!
My father builds hydro generators. We have ran them on all sorts of cars. Our 2000 Ram Van did not get better milage....but quit needing to down shift on small grades. Had a couple Honda accords that went from 29mpg to 34ish, and had notably increased pep to their step.
But....even when showing people my milage books they would argue that I was wrong and it never worked.
@@followFREEMAN1984 Hola! Hey I know personally it DOES work, look up my post earlier! Made it my self and installed it on my van that I fixed, WHOEVER DOESN'T BELIEVE GO TO CHIRCH - HERE ITS ELEMENTARY PHYSICS PEOPLE ARE TOO DUMBED DOWN TO UNDERSTAND.
Lmao
My dad made a system that heated the gas into a vapor. He put it on our Chevy 4x4 350 V8 pickup and it got 40 MPG. He used the exhaust to heat the gas. I was only 14 at the time. I wish I had paid more attention.
That efficiency wouldn't be possible even if the engine was 100% efficient.
bs
Oh wow. That’s amazing. I can’t believe the results. !
There’s one out now that my sister in law was packaging and shipping (part time employee) that claims to use “quantum technology”. You just put the box anywhere in your car and you get more horsepower and fuel mileage - no joke, that is their claim. She got one for free to use and you wouldn’t believe the results… No difference…
Did she add the right amount of quantum fluid?
I prefer full synthetic quantum fluid. Really gets the flux capacitor going.
@@VinnyMartello lol, yeah yall can have dat 5 geee wizzz bull sh^t... Maybe someday humans will open their eyes up & see what is really going on... Cheers
I agree with Vinny
@@VinnyMartello that stuff will blow out the quantum seals. Scotty Kilmer has a video about it.
Back in the 1970's a guy in El Paso said he had a device that would make a big V8 get 200 miles per gallon. I think Car & Driver sent a couple writers and pro mechanics down there to check it out. The mechanics verified that the device was the sole source of fuel and used an one gallon gas can to hold the gasoline. The writers took the big Oldsmobile for a 80 mile drive then turned around for the 80 mile drive back to find there still was some gas in the gas can. The man's device was a metal tube or box that held a coil of metal fuel line that held electric heating coils that vaporized the gasoline in the fuel line plus some other items to ensure it's safe operation. They hooked it back up to the gas tank then took a series of longer drives where they verified it was delivering 200 mpg. The magazine ran an article about it with GM buying up the plans and device from him. They did nothing with it which drove the inventor into drinking and doing drugs until he died young. The magazine writers figured GM made more for testing then decided it posed a major safety risk if a vehicle got into an accident.
Bullshit
If you vaporize the fuel in tbe lines ..it's called ..vapor lock .. and it stops running ...get your facts straight
@@jamesgibson5876No vapor lock if there's no liquid in front or behind the vapor. His device only sent gasoline fumes/vapor to the intake manifold. Ever hear the phrase "running on fumes" before?
@@billwilson-es5yn well according to what was posted it said fuel being vaporized in the lines .. ... and yes only vpor will burn not liquid .. what is your point ? .. my point is you Cannot vaporize fuel before the carburetor.. It won't pass thru .. causes vapor lock ..
@@billwilson-es5yn vapor lock comes not from liquid before ore after vapor ..it comes from carb are not designed to pass vapor ..they wok of of pressure difference and the atmospheric pressure ..pushes fuel thru. Atomizer.. there for . The engine starves for fuel when vapor is present
I had a similar system on an old chevy. It worked best when I hooked it up to a purge valve from the evaporative emissions charcoal canister so it gave more when I step on the gas.
Here’s a couple of observations.
Warmed up for the engine and warmed up for gear oil after driving a couple circles on level ground is different.
Your mixture was set correctly. Add fuel vapor and now it’s rich.
No defense of either setup, just observing.
^^ This!
I think the initial 2 miles easily could have had greater rolling losses than the "warmed up" laps. Probably would have made the losses closer, but I really did not expect that gadget would deliver as promised.
He literally warmed it up prior to the first official run. It was warmed up for both runs. Also, where in the directions did it state you need to lean out your carburetor? It doesn’t. Because if it was necessary, you couldn’t use this on fuel injected cars without huge expense in updating computers, injectors, etc.
@@saleenmav The directions may not say to adjust the carb or FI. But of course you will have to "tell" the system to use less fuel from the stock carb or injection because its getting some from another source. Of course it got worse mileage. Carb must be tuned to fit what you're trying to do.
Yes, on FI this would require additional expenses
@@ajtex196 There is literally no logic on that. The manufacturer is selling this product to average folks. Most people don’t understand air/fuel mix. For them to assume that the end user understands how to maximize the efficiency of their product is ludicrous. If it made any difference with their product, they would have included it in the instructions, because to not do so is sabotaging their own work. In this case they did not include instruction, which means they have probably done testing and realized it made no difference.
I would like to see an o2 sensor added and have the carb leaned out, so there is approximately the same air fuel ratio in both setups.
So, identical amounts of the same fuel and air?
The average person would not add an O2 and would not lean out the carb. The kit idea is to bolt it on and go. It is proven to not work.
it's was called the “Electronic Feedback Carburetor Control System” (EFCCS), by Chrysler, which would adjust the carburetor, still not as good as fuel injection.
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
@@markw1791 With fuel injection the fuel is vapor when it enter the cylinder, but you'll notice with all these systems, they never live up to the hype, they don't get better fuel mileage, they don't make more power.
Unless you can maintain constant pressure and use a feedback system you're not going to get the same performance as fuel injection.
Fun to watch👍👍👍 thanks for posting Uncle Tony!!
I love it, just great work, par excellence as always 👍
3rd test: Install a vacuum (mileage) gauge and repeat both scenarios with attention to the vacuum gauge.
Yes as well as an O2 sensor
The theory is that the vapors enhance the engine's efficiency
One should then be able to lean the carburetor without sacrificing performance
I thought that was the mission statement of the "daily driver"
My Bad
I bought a 78 Blazer years ago and it had 2 super strong magnets on the fuel line.(supposedly to break up the fuel molecules, to increase mileage). Ya it did nothing but help collect small rust particles and clog up the fuel line. Also the magnets worked great to hold my paperwork to my toolbox. LOL.
I use mine on my refrigerator, by the back door, to hold my keys. It's strong enough to the hold the non-ferrous keys by the steel ring.
That's a sweet idea to tape a couple small magnets to a see thru filter. 👍
It was supposed to align the fuel atoms . Lol
I built a hydrogen system a few years ago when gas got real high . It really did nothing until I tuned the engine to it . I was able to get 20 mpg out of a 78 f150 with a 351 m engine I started around 14 .mpg
What did you do? Lean the carburetor?
@@deanbean85 Or tuned it. Or repaired something in the process. Or drove lighter on the throttle while watching the gas mileage. Confirmation bias is sneaky and can creep up on you.
@@deanbean85 I leand out the carb and advanced the ignition I t was after hurricane sandy when fuel prices exploded . I think I put in colder spark plugs . Also moved the line from the hydrogen generator around a lot until it was the right vacuum. The pvc was the wrong spot because of too much vacuum ..
The thing you have to keep in mind is that hydrogen burns much faster than gasoline. It's an instant burn and will turn back into water very quickly . If gas prices stayed high I was thinking of drilling a manifold to gave a direct injection system.
I have been saving mayo jars to make another one. Ill.make a video of it
Also , the computer controls on your engine will compensate for the cleaner running and compensate by during more fuel .... canceling any gain .
@@walterdavis4808 Be nice too see your videos on this.
Best gas mileage saving was years ago. I had a slant six Dodge Dart,
and it was getting 20 miles to the gallon. But after I put "Slick 50" into the oil it got 32 miles to the gallon.
Haven't found the same stuff since.
Bullshit
@@davidmann4533 you have the means to look it up.
I remember slick 50, made people's wallets a lot lighter thus saving fool... um ...fuel !
Slick50 made my truck burn absolutely no fuel clogged up the oil holes to the main bearing and spun them put only oil in your crankcase all of those additives are a gimmick they have solid particles
I used it in 1985 in a 1980 Ford E-100 302 V8 as a one-time treatment then again in 1990 in a new Dodge Caravan 2.0 L4. The Ford was a former cable company fleet vehicle that ran like a dog when bought. I did the basics to get it running better then tried the Slick 50 in the second oil change which did make a difference, including raising the mpg's. I waited until the Caravan had 12,000 miles before using it. My wife used it for commuting to work 80 miles a day at breakneck speeds plus more miles during weekends visiting family that lived 120 miles away. Ran up 199,000 before selling it without any need for repairs plus the mpg's remained the same. My older brother recommended using it due to being a four cylinder and my wife's driving habits.
Thank you. This is at least some kind of test. More then most do who make claims about these things.
This looks like a variation on something my Dad stumbled across in the 70's -- a 100 mpg DYI add-on. It involved a canister with a coil of tubing inside that circulated exhaust gasses through it (a heat exchanger). Gasoline was jetted into canister where it was heated and pressurized and then siphoned off into a fitting on top of the carb. A guy in a nearby town actually built one and we went to have a look. He had it mounted on the firewall, I think. He started it with the carb system only and it ran like hell because the timing had to be shifted to accommodate the doodad. After it warmed up a bit he switched it over to the "vaporizer". The engine smoothed out and it ran fine and revved with the throttle. We didn't drive it but the guy said it lost some of its performance on the road (I'm guessing like a propane system). We went home and Dad actually got as far as building a canister, but I think he concluded that any improved gas mileage was countered by having a live bomb under the hood.
There was the Fish carburator, and Pogue carborator. There was one more but I don't recall.
The Pogue was reported to get 200+ mpg back in '30's? The Pogue used the heat off the exhaust. Others tried to use the water coolant. I heard that didn't get the gas atomized.
Now supposidly all these new carburators were getting an improved fuel milage, but the gas industry changed the formula of the fuel. Cracking is s term they use for producing gas from oil. Also around that time they removed lead and added some other cancer causing agent.
I have three of the build diagrams of these carburators.
To do it safely you'll want to add a spark arrestor. You can make it with a one-way ball check valve and some fine steel wool. The ball check valve goes AFTER the fuel source so that vacuum pressure holds it open while the engine is running. Then, the steel wool goes between the check valve and the engine intake. In case of a back fire, the flame front travelling back down the fuel line gets all or mostly extinguished when it hits the steel wool, and the back pressure in the line forces the check valve to close. The flame front can't travel fast enough to ignite the contents of the fuel container.
@@Hindsight-ep3hf And none of them will work, even if you put the lead back in.
@@integr8er66 Hard to argue against that.
@@worryphree Now that you mention it, I do remember a check valve of some sort. Still, a pressurized ball of vapourized gasoline seems a bit iffy...
I like your shows a lot. If you look at how BMW makes this system work and the recent SAE tests performed on a 2L direct injected turbo - they were able to advance timing by up to 20 degrees and lean out the mixture by about 10% (12 afr to 13.5:1. If you could try the test with these adjustments, I think it would show a greater improvement. 1 thing to note is that engines which aren't turbocharged/ supercharged will have colder air coming through the intake, so less gains will be made imo.
Over 40 years ago I installed a home made hydrogen converter on my 1693 425 cat. Went from 4 mph to 6 with increased horse/torque. Now have one on my Triton V10, 10 mph to 13, horse/torque not a factor with the beast..lol. Filled an old truck battery with distilled water, reversed polarity (electrolysis) hooked to air intake.
"keep the faith people and keep on keeping on"
We use to make a water vaporizer in the early 70's with a Mason jar in a bracket next to the exhaust manifold. It worked exactly like a water pipe. They only work when you are cruising. When you give it the gas there's no vacuum. And it does keep all the carbon off the plugs and valves. Makes the engine run cooler. Put a sponge under the lid so if you turn too sharp, you don't suck straight water in your engine. You're only going to fill the jar have ways up.
WW2 planes had water injection. Improved performance in some fashion. You could look it up. :-)
Hookah rigs work good also 👌
In the late 60s/ early 70s, I saw something like this installed on some cars that rolled into the service/filling station that I once worked at. One of the customers swore by it and showed me an add for the product that read “run your car on water and increase your MPG”. I was skeptical then and today I still am.
Yes. Aside from Mazda, MKII Vapor Injector marketing kept Road Test magazine in ad revenue. Fascinating. People were selling how to books for more mileage and kits to block off cylinders on V8s to get better mileage.
You do great work Tony, and of course your driver too but let us not forget the camera operator, and video editor as well 😁
I had a 1988 dodge 13 passenger van i ran on hydrogen and gas and got about 65 mpg.
You have to use heavier oil in your engine because it runs hotter.
Its like high oct fuel.
We used backing soda and distilled water and ran electrodes in a tube to charge the water to create hydrogen gas.
Ran it to the vapor line to the carb.
It had alot of punch to the pedal.
Could I have some information on how you did that?
@@mechanicboulevard5208 you can CZcams it they have all kinds of information on it
Interesting test ! I enjoyed the other vids explaining about how these systems won't work and why, it was the one about the secret of it all regarding the speed at which fully vaporized fuel burns and how it effects the push on the piston. It all made a lot of sense to me and answered many of the questions about fuel vapor and how it worked in a vehicle. However it also gave me other ideas lol.
The only thing with this test that stuck out was regarding the water bottle. I think it was meant to be a bubbler system and pull air through the water creating water vapor from the bubbles it created yet still holding decent vacuum. Using the washer fluid container inna vehicle would make sense here as the vacuum would pull air threw from the squirters creating the water method vapor in the strong plastic container holding the washer fluid. The lid would be sealed holding vacuum and the small amount of air being pulled threw the spray nozels wouldn't impact vehicle vacuum so drastically if at all this not impeding its efficiency.
The added moisture would simulate the steam engine boost you can read about in researching about water injection systems. As for the fuel being vaporized well I'd have to see the system myself to think it threw. However Tony's explanation in his vid about the secret bit explained how the fully vaporized fule gets burnt faster where as the not as vaporized fule has a obvious longer burn and pushes down on the piston longer giving a longer duration of burn.
I think the idea if incorporating water into a vapor sys like this one is smart but needs to be set up properly as a bubbler. Using the water as cylinder fill duration the ignition of the fuel has the water expanding to 17 000 times it size at combustion Temps amongst absorbing the extra heat from the meth of the washer fluid and vaporized fuel burning, amongst cleaning the piston in the process.
It would be interesting to see this test done again using a proper bubbler system set up and a needle valve used to limit the inlet air to the water tank just as the washer fluid nozels are supposed to do.
Anyway that's just my 2 bits, love your vids Tony I have learnt a lot from them along with my 80 k20 teaching me a lot as well.
I agree, perhaps Tony can do this test again with the variables Nick Boers described fixed. Do the test on an uninterrupted path without and stop and go too. This will minimize variables in driver acceleration/deceleration and idling time.
I saw a Ultrasound carburetor before. It really worked.
Yes I'm with you the water vapour was supposed to be aerosol..
They're over 900 US patents of water vapor injection systems, for obvious reasons they never made to general consumers, a simple and effective water vapor injection system or passive turbo is John Heeley dated 1840, look up.... suppressed inventions 🤔
@@popeantichrist8847 I saw a Bigfoot once on a flying saucer being drivin by a leprechaun on a unicorn 🦄. He really worked !
Only gadget I've ever had that improved mileage is an adjustable pressure regulator. Keeping it around 3.5 to 4 lbs of fuel pressure
I rehabbed a 1950 Ford F-1 w/239 V8 in 1975-77. Had a flathead pro go thru thru the engine and he told me to use a 12v electric fuel pump with an adjustable pressure regulator to get better mpg's. Did that and was getting 24 to 28 mpg's doing 55 mph. Sold the truck in 1978 and the buyer is still driving it today with the same 12v pump and regulator.
My father had built these types of units back in the early 80's they worked but had some issues. On carbs, they would create "vapor" lock etc. Heat exchanger leaks were common as were under the hood fires. What they did do is take an 8mpg vehicle and turn to a 20mpg vehicle (before the days of electronic fuel injection). The issue was they also tended to flatten the power profile which probably contributed to the fuel savings too. Later we added H2O which boosted mpg another 5-8 mpg but engines ran hot and had corrosion and leak issues. At the end of the day, it would require rebuilding engines installing sleeves etc instead of minor modifications. Perhaps on more modern vehicles (say late 90s') there would be different issues. In the end, did they work, yes, were there problems yes, were the problems a dead end, no, but a lot more resources would be required to work them out than a small shop could probably afford in the 80's. I recall the units we installed were about 4x the size of this unit.
Yup, I remember this kind of thing back around late '70s, early '80s. Water injection systems back then. All the parts places had them (Western Canada) and so many made the claim that the car ran better and more efficiently. All I can say was no, it didn't. someone I knew tried it. They do seem to me to be more involved now and more expensive though. 😆
Water injection actually works, BUT if you're not using distilled water (which, unfortunately, has a HUGE energy cost), you're going to have a lot of mineral buildup inside the cylinders and possibly even the intake manifold and intake and exhaust ports. And the energy cost of making distilled water is equal to the benefit you would get from water injection, meaning no net gain, unless you're using waste heat from the ending (like using the coolant water to heat your distiller...and with that, it will be very slow, because coolant water doesn't get very much over the boiling temp anyway...and you have to clean out all of the mineral scale.
Later models of WW2 Spitfires had water injection (about 8 minutes worth). The carb would get leaned out to close to stochiometric air fuel ratio (with none left over for heat removal from the engine), but that circuit that closed off to lean out the mixture would only shut off if there was pressure on a sensor in t he water injection tank (water / glycol mix to keep it from freezing at altitudes above a few thousand feet). The expansion ratio for water is pretty good, producing a tremendous burst of power... so much that the engines would have to be overhauled after landing (bearing replacement, etc), because the Rolls-Royce Merlin was not designed for the power output produced by water injection water injection.
Due to the energy required for distilling water, it actually requires less fuel to use the heat of evaporation for unburned fuel to keep a gasoline engine cool than to use distilled water. But if you have other fuel (say coal, etc.) then it's essentially adding power derived from coal, or hydro-electric, or whatever, to your gasoline engine).
No duh ever heard of inflation of course things are going to be cheaper in the 70s compared to nowadays but if you did the conversions it was probably more expensive back then for less stuff old timer 😝 lol jk noy emoji hpt
I’ve been told the military had technology where they were getting crazy gas mileage in WW2 with carburetors that ran off gas vapor. My great uncle spoke about it.
Made a lot of sense in an era where carbs were extremely basic, fuel shitty and tunning media poor. But I don't think you would see gains in any car designed from the 50's to this day
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
Physics say that modern management systems are as efficient as we can get without using exotic and costly engine modifications like variable displacement.
They were useing fish carbs!
They came in 3 different one barrel cfms 250 ,350 and 500!
Only had 3 moving parts !
They did atomize!
I had one! They worked good! Probly 20 to 30 % increase in mileage, but thats just my best guess! I played with it on a road runner and we were looking for more power not milage! Lol
Then why is the Army buying HMMWVs for $80,000+ each and they get UP TO 10MPG? They’re not gas but they also don’t have the fuel economy wrecking emissions systems and are really underpowered. F250 would outperform a HMMWV in every way except being utterly wasteful. But if they made the F250 the new combat vehicle we could get parts for them that they only want the government to have, because people can’t fabricate their own exhaust pieces.
My first thought and I'm sure others as well.
You add fuel in a carbureted car like this, it needs air, actually more air. You get the air through the carburetor and we all know when air goes through a carburetor it's sucks a certain amount of fuel with it. You can't just step on the gas pedal and add more air, without more gas.
Just sounds like a really bad plan straight away.
One could argue a fuel injected engine might do better because the O2 sensor will cut back fuel to the injectors. In a modern car this set up would probably make the MPG display a higher number. That would fool a few people.
Honestly I think only useful purposes this, and every other "fuel saver" I've seen in 57 years is for leaning out people's bank accounts.
P.T. Barnum would've loved it!
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
Me and my buddy when we were 15 sent for some plans on how to make a Pogue carburetor , it was supposed to get up to 205 miles per gallon in old Detroit iron , we spent weeks working on this thing but never got it working , then again we were only 15 , maybe it was the best system ever invented. lol 😎
My most successful mpg increase was a 63 nova with the 194 high- thrift 6.it had a 2- speed powerglide auto, which was switched over to a 3 speed on the floor manual conversion. That 3rd gear + the rear end gear was like overdrive. Got 30+ mpg on highway, as good as my 82 Honda prelude. 4 speed would yield better although 4th could only be used on flat level driving, as you would be constantly downshifting for inclines.
Those old 6 bangers did provide decent gas mileage. I once drove a 33 year old '62 Mercury Comet from Many, Louisiana to Paris, Texas where it's L6 w/automatic trans delivered 28 mpg's. This was going down state highways that passed thru towns and cities. Also once owned a '67 Chevy C-10 panel truck with a 250 L6 and 3 speed on the tree that got 26 mpg's when overloaded cruising at 55 mph.
Excellent Test! You guys did great. I hope you test the hydrogen system that project Farm tested. If you do, please put a back flow stop valve on it to prevent explosions in the line. Happy New years!
I watched it: czcams.com/video/dOiXpCpVofQ/video.html. The kit was effective at relieving his wallet of $200, and appeared to reduce economy. I also feelTony's test was more objective.
I can't even breathe for 6 weeks, that's not gonna do a mafia style explosions
Projects farm's test didn't run enough power through his set up. I would like to see this, not with a small dry cell, but a larger one, such as the 25-cell Liberator, which is more efficient and won't get as overheated.
If you pursue this, use O2 sensor spacers to offset the computer's leaner readings and run enough power (above 20-30) amps to your dry cell. All the best to you. 🌎✌️
During the Depression and WW2 farmers made hydrogen gas by submerging scrap aluminum in a strong lye (sodium hydroxide) solution. The gas was piped to the air cleaner where it allowed the farmers/drivers to lean out the carburetor to reduce fuel consumption. They used a large glass jar with a screw-on lid and a steel wire basket to hold the scrap. The routine was to start the engine first before lowering the basket into the jar to start producing the hydrogen gas. The basket was removed before turning the motor off so the gas couldn't accumulate inside the air filter housing. I think the USDA website has their 1930's instructions for making that set-up. Their website also has one for making a wood gas generator from common items so one could use wood to run IC engines.
wow!@@billwilson-es5yn
One thing about the water vapor portion, to really make that part work you need an air intake hose the goes all the way to the bottom of your water bottle and then an outlet hose at the top that just draws air from a vacuum connection, and you want any water OR fuel vapor to be routed to the intake of the engine, NOT directly into the PCV connect. You can still use the PCV for vacuum, but you'll want to have a T-connector to feed your vapor(s) to the intake. You can also use your brake booster or any other vacuum connection. It works like a bong and the air bubbles is what agitates the water to create water vapor. I think you might see a difference if you set it up that way.
@spartacusnow Interesting. Can you tell me more about this?
Why bother it's bollocks
@@worryphree he’s thinking hho
This episode was extremely shillllllllly. Ax sin as i heard the way he was saying “they said you can hook it up to the pcv” I got c the shilllll vibes.
All these followers in the comments just having a big ol laugh at their own expense. Hho works awesome and still you have the shilllls pumping disinfo.
Right. I made simple 3cell hho in my civic straight to intake I've had some fuel saving it just makes combustion use all the gas instead of waiting it
At first I was expecting this to be about those fuel vaporizer systems that use only fuel vapor and eliminate the injection of liquid gas. The results of this test is no surprise.
50 years ago we used to put a coffee can full of salty water on the exhaust manifold & fed the vapours into the air cleaner. The engine ran smoother & cleaner, esp on long trips.
It probably kept your cylinders clean as well, as it was essentially "steam-cleaning".
There is actually a guy that got 100% fuel vapor using a the exhaust with a heat exchanger and a turbo faced directly into the intake. He shows exactly how its done on the Facebook group Gasoline Vapor Systems.
@@markw1791 why not just run propane or natural gas would be easier and a lot safer it sounds like to me, but I could be wrong
The way I increased the fuel mileage on my 1965 Chevrolet Impala SS, was to reduce the main jets size, and a 2.52 differential gear ratio.
Try aluminum wheels, aluminum driveshaft, lighter fan blade, clean windshield, replace idler pulleys and aerodynamic wiper blades. Reduce friction, drag, and rotating mass.
@@dwj7386 replace idler pulleys with what?
Why not get rid of the fan altogether and put in an electric fan?
Well tuned engine, good maintenance, proper driving habits...oh, and everyone on mopeds!
Good stuff, Tony!! I giggled right along with ya!!
It works, it gave my father in law 2 to 3 miles a gallon more with a 454 chev he was driving also better pulling power on a hill, pulling a 35 ft 5 th wheel in the late 70's with a sw. Witch I Believe ran a pump from the back of the trunk at the water tank not sure, he later ran it off the ignition switch. He forgot to turn off the switch, filled up his cylinders with water and had to rebuild the motor, but he swore by the system. Pulling that trailer made a big difference.I think a better test would have been running it on the highway at a steady speed for distance not stopping and starting when you hit the highway waiting for cars to go buy, but thank you for your test. Was still educational
Not sure how they filled their gas tank, his water sprayed in the top of the carburetor.
Nice to see and hear the Dart running again! That 273 is a sweet motor. Thanks to Al for driving and to Kathy for filming and editing this one. As far as the vapor system, I'm not surprised, honestly. If this stuff worked on a mass scale, they'd be more popular. Maybe with extreme tuning for a single vehicle you might be able to get the advertised results, but it's still probably bs.
The petroleum industry doesn't want these things to work cuz you pay more for gas if they don't
Man that’s a 273 it sounds like a big v8 sounds great
@@jonathanlawson4667 He has this one on video going 15.60 with a 2.7 ratio open rear. Not exactly a dog.
Water into ported vacuum, supposedly works , I've been going to test it out, use a needle for an injector ,plastic tubing to a water bottle. In theory it should be able to run on vapors alone, never seen it done in person, I can't see that system providing enough vapor for a large displacement engine..I enjoyed the video, I always wanted to know if these fuel saving ideas would work. Thank you
Excellent test! Thank you
In 80s around 1985 I bought plans and a few devices from a place in Oklahoma called The Carb research center I believe the name was. I didn’t do the vapor carb myself but a janitor who worked at my middle school when I was a kid built and put a vapor set up but it used engine coolant to heat the exchanger. His motor home was a 454 and best mileage back then was 8 mpg. I was a mechanic back the and personally witnessed the motor home get over 20 mpg once we got in dialed in it took a few weeks to figure it out. He did it to his 1980 Toyota pick up and he said he was getting close to 50 mpg but I never witnessed it. The motor home did work.
I haven't watched the whole video yet as of making this comment, but a carburetor isn't going to adjust for the extra fuel ie no milage increase. It's going to consume the same amount with or without the vaporizer. I would like to see it on something fuel injected defiantly would have better chance at seeing a positive result being that something fi reads how rich it may be and cut some fuel out with injector duty cycle.
Suggestion. Run the same test at least 3 times to see if there is much variants . Another Suggestion is to run it stationary on block at a consistent rpm. This would make for a consistent findings.
I agree with Nick all that you did was create a vacuum leak. In WW2 they used alcohol/ water injection on fighter planes to boost hp 50 percent alcohol cooled intake air water slowed the burn no engine failures
In the 70s I had a 1979 ford f150 with a 351 inch Windsor engine. I bought a water vapor kit that had a small water bottle with a hose protruding from fill cap and extended to the bottom of the bottle and it had a fitting on the top of the bottle that was above the water line the fitting on the top had a hose that went to a plastic fitting that you screwed into the PVC hose. The fitting looked like a tapered screw that came to a point. It was hollow and had a small slit in it so when you threaded it in the hose it would Pierce the hose to make a tee connection . You would point the slit towards the engine. When the engine was running you could see the water bubble in the water tank like a aerator in a fish tank. I definitely noticed less pinging in the engine under acceleration. It definitely raises the octane rating of the fuel. As far as mileage goes it helped a little. Maybe because of the reduced pinging of the engine. In the winter I had to add isopropyl alcohol to keep the water from freezing. I also added a aeration filter from an aquarium on the end of the hose in the water bottle.
Every time I hear that car I can’t help but think how great it sounds. I see the headers but what mufflers is it running?
Not surprised it did better without the “ system “ .
Many years ago I blocked the main jet on my dirt bike (grain of sand) 20+ kms from home, I worked out I could ride the bike quite reasonably just on the idle screw with the spring removed and it wound all the way in I could sit on 50k in top gear. When I got home I'd burned less than a litre of fuel. I'd like to see Tony do a lean burn carb test I think it would be interesting to see what could be done with an old 2 barrel a screw driver and a hand full of jets.
One summer i tuned up my camero, tweaked the ignition and leaned main jets as far as it could go. It about doubled mpg but cold weather or going up hills it backfired thru the carburator. Oh, running too lean can be hard on the motor. The lean mixture and hot burn burns the Air forming smog. I had never thought about using a water vaporizer that might cool the cylinder. now days they make ultrasonic vaporizers.
That's got to be the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Running an engine lean.....
Had a 73 century with a 350 2 barrel.
15mpg with regular and lead additive.
20mpg premium (92).
Best “fuel saver” technique? I replaced the point distributor with a used HEI from a ‘76 Buick, advanced the timing 4* and dad rebuilt and tuned the carb.
He did similar on his ‘77 Impala-timing adjustment, changed the jets in the carb and changed the weights on the distributor. He squeezed 22mpg (highway) out of it vs the 18mpg it originally got.
I tried a lot of different things back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. What actually did something were two systems.
The first, and best, was a "sonicater" that was essentially two ultra sonic transducers that sat just underneath the carb barrels, on the floor of the intake manifold. There was an amp that sat under the hood and drove the transducers. As the gasoline hit the transducers, it vaporized incredibly well, and fast. The result was noticeably more power, about 12-15% better fuel economy, and a much cleaner burn. When the car went for emissions testing, they thought there was something wrong with the machine because the 74 Impala was meeting emissions numbers for cars in 1982.
The other system was a "steam" injection system, similar to what appears in this video, but with only aerated water. Essentially, heated air was drawn through a water tank creating a big bubbling jug of hot water, and resulting water vapor was drawn into the intake manifold by way of vacuum port between the carb and the manifold. Did it work? Yes, marginally better economy of about 3-5%, and a very slight power improvement. The downside was overheated pistons, with one of them basically melting a bit. The engine ran over temp. Had to enrich the air fuel mixture to cool it down but then lost any gains in economy, although it also increased the power output a bit more as measured by dyno.
I installed this on my 2014 V8 Truck in 2023 and it didn't work.
@@MR-backupwhich one?
@@NativelyBornAmerican Buddy's Gas Flash Vaporizer #4 w/ Volo VP16 (tuner).
@@MR-backup just looked that up. Yeah, looks like a POS. And $195 for THAT? Looks like the typical snake oil scam. 🤷♂️😒
@@NativelyBornAmerican That's also not including a $250 VP16.
It was for me :(
Great comparison, I'm sure you saved a lot of folks $169!
...less the electricity I used to watch this video,lol.
Great video, Uncle T!!! In my experience (quite a bit less than most, I'll admit) A high quality, well tuned carburetor (I've almost always used Edelbrock) will achieve better fuel mileage than a lot of aftermarket EFI options... Plus, like so many have already mentioned; if you tinkered on cars/trucks at all pre-internet, we all tried something like the product shown... and I never found one that really delivered either.
Edelbrock carburetors are the only way to go man. If you know what you are doing they've outperformed any Holley I've ever tried to use too temperamental seemed like to me. Edelbrock carburetors you fire it up and it's the same as the last time you ran it even if it was ripping on it doing burnouts! Thanks for making me feel like I've been doing it right cause i hear crap from my buddies especially when I'm watching them tune their engines yet another time! It's always an excuse float bowls or some crap to justify it. Lol! Have a good day
Water electroysis systems to produce hydrogen for the air:fuel mixtures CANNOT improve your gas mileage, because you would be getting more energy returned from the hydrogen system than the amount of energy required to electrolyse the water.
If you did get more energy back than what you put in, that would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Patent offices won't even consider such device without a working example sent to their offices (and so far, nobody has ever been able to deliver a working device that requires violation of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd laws of thermodynamics.).
@@ronlemon640 My 1963 Mercury 223 cid 1 barrel carb gets 25 mpg when driven 55mph(90 kph) I carry things in my truck and rarely get less than 20 mpg. I have customers who ask about better mileage and driving habits are the biggest change.
I had the opportunity to have a customer with this system on a toyota camry who almost never leaned into the throttle and spent alot of time getting this system "tuned". I asked him to leave it with me and realized they never re-programmed anything ( other than putting a resistor in the MAP sensor).
He came back after a longer trip and was very happy with his 38 to 42 mpg average. He asked what I did !
I had removed / disabled the system and put the proper spark plugs in and a new O2 sensor upstream.
On a computer controlled engine they will always try to correct for non Lambda/ 14.7 to 1 mixture.
Quadrajet is much better than edelbrock
LOL! You were stumped :) Good set up. Good test.
I saw details for a rig once that ran a vacuum line into a capped water container. It pulled vapor from the top of the container, above the water level. The jug had an aquarium bubbler in the bottom, with a line running out through the cap to create "fog".
You could run water or alcohol in it. I believe it was for turbo or other high performance applications.
You could probably run any sturdy jug that would resist collapsing from the vacuum.
This is the exact conversation I hoped would happen years ago. Hot rodders focusing on squeezing miles per gallon instead of horsepower per cubic inch. Good tv.
This system might be based on a system like I had on a 70 Buick lesabre. It was a water vapor system. The way it worked is there was a large glass jar ( think bulk pickle jar ) that held roughly a gallon of water. It had a hollow stem that passed through the lid of the jar and terminated in a thing that looked like a tiny shower head that was close to the bottom of the jar. The other opening in the lid had a barb fitting that would be plumbed into a live vacuum port on the manifold, the “ inside jar “ part of this fitting was well above the water level in the jar. When you would run the engine, vacuum from the engine would pull air into the water jar through the tiny shower head facilitating water vapor in the head space of the jar, where it would then be sucked into the intake track. It was suggested through the instructions printed on the jar, that a methanol/water mixture should be used ( whew! ) . This system did well in the Buick ( it was equipped with a 350. 10.5 :1 compression- according to my chilton motor manual ) in the late summer, fall/early winter months. I live in central Mississippi, so we are pretty close to sea level with HIGH humidity. In late spring/early-mid summer, the motor would hardly run on the system - there was more water than gas going into the combustion chambers! My point to this tirade is: maybe there is too much relative humidity in the Nashville area at this time of year ( as well as the temperature range ) for this system to work optimally . I would give it another shot when it warms up again!
wasnt this in like one of the first turbo GM cars Oldsmobile i think, and it was mostly used to quiet spark knock?
@@koniseatskimchi5541 I think what I had was strictly JCWitney aftermarket, but I am sure that the turbo olds probably had a water injection option on their stuff. Water injection really works well, but it can be finicky when you live in the Deep South.
@@koniseatskimchi5541 you thinking of water/methanol injection and Tony show this car in a older video the guy even have the original boost juice a thing it called
Water/Methanol is nearing a century of use.
As is Turbo's with Intercoolers.
Direct-port, Electronic Fuel Injection was offered on the Chrysler and DeSoto Hemis.
All derived from Aircraft.
Modern Fuel Injection was from B-36 bomber engines.
The Turbo/Intercooler was on British aircraft overflying Mt. Everest to check it's height around 1930.
Water/Methanol Injection as a anti-detonation device was well developed by the various 'Cup' races thru the '30's, but it was started develpment before that.
The 215ci Olds turbo used water/methanol system.
Holley sold a kit for squirting water/methanol, with squirters located over the carb.
Set up to spray into carb opening when you got on it to prevent detonation.
Used a electric pump on a small plastic tank.
Good insurance for a high-compression engine on the street.
Thinking you need to add a valve tonthe system to control flow. I use a ultrasonic humidifier for mine in my 80 k20. It works great I don't have a flow valve yet but it doesn't seem to effect it too much. I use a power inverter to run the humidifier.
You should try one that adds water vapor to the fule. Sounds crazy , but if you have the time and resources to check it out you'll see, and if it has a hydrolysis device if it isn't up to a certain efficiency then it will always be a bigger pull than a gain.
Car looks and sounds awesome! Keep up the great videos! Mopars rule!
As an avid hypermiler and with my own mileage build going I can appreciate you testing such devices. What’s worked for me has been so far reducing pumping losses, taller gears, reducing aerodynamic drag
There were 2 things that DID work, and amazingly well, on my '81 Toyota PU, but had no effect on more modern vehicles:
A fuel additive called MIXIGO OR MIX-I-GO which boosted mileage by 20% AND power also seemed 20% higher. I used this for 18 years. Any time I ran out, after a couple tanks without it, I felt the gross loss in power. It was MLM but I soon gave up trying to sell it to anyone.
An overpriced $125 magnet also sold MLM. I think the brand was GMX or something. Put on fuel line, this also boosted mileage about 20%. But if I used both MXO and the magnet together, the net increase was still only 20%, and the magnet killed the power increase I would otherwise have gotten off the MXO.
As a teen in the 60's in FLA always messing w/cars heard of a guy in S. fla developed a high mileage carb/eng combo. Wanted to build and market his own car using his system. The whole thing died out when he couldn't outlast the major manufactures and govt regs for mfg a car to market to the public. As I remember his claims were for over 50 mpg.
Uncle Tony, something that has been proven to improve mileage is Thunderhead289's carburetor fine tuner kit. Basically a controlled vacuum leak that makes a carb run at 14.5ish to 1 at light to moderate throttle. He built a custom intake, and added this gadget along with a lawnmower carburetor and got 35-45 mpg in an early 70's Maverick with a 302 4 spd. He also took it on the Hot Rod Power Tour in that configuration, and it it dynoed at a whopping 55 rwhp, I think. Top speed around 75-80 mph. He has since been experimenting using the vacuum gadget with normal carbs with positive results. Would love to see you review this product. Just check out Thunderhead289's CZcams channel.
Add bigger tires, change the rear to a lower ratio, and empty the ash tray….instant fuel savings
Take the floor mats out too. I get an easy 5-7mpg more when I remove the floor mats.
Hey UT I am an old (retired) Automotive Machinist, for those that don't know, that means I spent my life building/repairing engines. Engines are air pumps. The more efficiently your pump (engine) moves the air from the atmosphere through the exhaust and back to the atmosphere, under normal driving conditions, the more power OR mileage you can achieve. I can tell you from personal experience that a well built and tuned engine will get significantly better fuel mileage when driven "normally" i.e. you keep your foot out of it, than a stock engine running all the same externals, Carb, intake manifold, PCV system fuel pump etc. Back in the '80's we were able to see "hotrods'" (with honest 375-400 HP to the rear wheels) small block V8 engines getting 17-20 mpg when driven normally. EDIT: I forgot to mention that I love your content lol see you in the next video!!
what worked for my 95 Nissan Pathfinder was unplugging the one oxygen sensor and adding an adjustable 20k pot inline with the mass airflow sensor. It would force the ECU into open loop mode (no feedback mixture value) and give you manual mixture control. around 10k ohms gave me over 20 MPG. stock is 16 MPG. There is a performance hit so I can turn it off when I need power. Does not work on newer cars.
It did sound like it was idling rough with the system, meaning, it was like a vacuum leak. This would cause the carb to run in the enrichment(power) circuit at less throttle. Might be different with more timing, especially if relying on vacuum advance =vacuum leak=less vacuum=less vac adv.