Extreme Fuel Economy And The Classic Car
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 12. 2021
- A look at the mythical hyper-miler carburetors and the conspiracies surrounding them, engines that run on vapors, and Smokey's adiabatic hot vapor concept that may still revolutionize the internal combustion engine. When is a turbocharger not a turbocharger
*MERCHANDISE:
Get Your UTG T-Shirts Here: uncletonysgarage.com/product/...
Get Your UTG Stickers Here: uncletonysgarage.com/product/...
OUR STORE: uncletonysgarage.com/shop/
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
Instagram: / uncle_tonys
#classiccar #musclecar #MPG - Auta a dopravní prostředky
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Some guy has a CZcams video how he made a V8 get 45 mpg using a lawn mower carb. I don't think he was being totally honest in the video. He was driving the car, but it didn't seem to have any power/acceleration.
Like Tony said the carb is just the metering device.
Although from the comments a lot of people believed it.
he faked it
@@peralispayne you saw that too?
What do you think he did ?
@@edbeck8925 video editing. if he can make his own app he can edit a video, 1. with 30+yrs working on car/building hotrod I know better (not enough air can pass through something the size of a nickel to sustain idle in a 5.0L. lawnmowers are maybe 0.1/0.2L) 2. Changing the timing will not fix a fuel/air issue.
oh and its 5.0L 500/700 time per minute
Yeah, I couldn't believe that so many people in the comments believed it and wanted one.
It's kind of like a teeter trotter. If you have 100 pounds on one side, 10 pounds on the other side isn't going to do much
He knows how to make a 100mpg carb, he just cannot tell us because he knows that they'll disappear him. So he makes this video. Smart man.
To get maximum efficiency from any engine optimum fuel to air mixture with completely vaporized and burned fuel are necessary, I modified a 440 mopar in a motorhome that was getting 5mpg on gasoline to propane. I increased the compression to 12:1, stainless valves, special cam and maxed out the timing, not only did it increase the hp but now I do 8+ mpg, cleaner exhaust and less than half the price of gas here in Canada.
My great-uncle used a 1953 carburetor that was sitting in his office for ten years ( a customer wanted it rebuilt but never picked it back up), installed it in a 1980s Plymouth Reliant K-car, tested numerous times at FIFTY-FOUR MPG. (At 60 mph highway speeds) and almost 50 mpg on back roads. It was pretty gutless, but still!
Yes it was guttless because it was running lean and because it was running lean it went further per gallon of gas 👍
So, I was enthralled with this idea back in the 70’s. I had a Chevy Malibu with a 194-6. I acquired a Rochester 1-bbl from a stationary engine. I had accumulated a stash of main jets and started leaning it out a bit at a time. The short story is that it couldn’t get out of its own way… and… I burned 4 exhaust valves. All with no improvement in mpg. To make power, you need to burn fuel!
I had a 100 mpg carburetor. It was on a 50cc four speed moped(like what they drive in India). Topped out at 43 mph. It was so much fun
Love those things lol
That's about the end of mpg in a cold carb. I have a CB250 (234cc) that consistently gets 90MPG US or 110MPimpG....that's running up and down mountains averaging 45 to 50mph. A little less for cruising at 65mph. Bike maxes out at 78mph on a 18hp bike weighing 300lbs + rider with a windscreen (which helps).
Honda analog motors are extremely efficient. If a wind tunnel tested long nose cone fairing was added....it might get 100mpg US at 50mph steady on level terrain.
So no automobile is likely to ever get more than 60mpg on the gasoline engine alone, unless someone invents frictionless paint and puts a 2 cyl 600cc motor in it.
Restricting air is the only way to restrict fuel while maintaining air/fuel ratio. Nascar has used restrictor plates for some tracks and surely fuel economy would increase. Free flowing heads and exhaust is always key to making horsepower. Has anyone ever tried a restrictor plate that was adjustable? Ridiculously small but can open up like a second set of butterflies under the carb. My old friend would always use the acronym 'kiss' 🍻
Check out ThunderHead garage on CZcams. He has run a 302 using a actual lawnmower carb, getting crazy mileage
I have some experience with Lohmann engines on bicycles, these are an old 17cc engine made in Germany that functions on a 2 stroke HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition) cycle. This is somewhere between a diesel and a gas engine. The cylinder head is set up so that the top of the combustion chamber moves up and down to vary the compression ratio, controlled by one of two hand throttles. The other throttle controls the air/fuel mixer which is somewhat like a carburetor with a slide valve and a jet. Riding a bike with one of these is a bit complicated, you have to find the right balance of compression and mixture to get it to run, otherwise it won't make much power, or it will smoke a ton. They run on kerosene with 2 stroke oil best, they top out at about 12-13,000 RPM and 20-25 miles per hour, and they can easily squeeze out 200-250 miles per gallon of kerosene if operated correctly. Since is compression ignition, by adjusting compression and mixture you are basically just changing the timing at which the mixture will ignite. The goal with one of these is to get it to run at the highest compression with the widest open throttle position, since the mixture on these is not constant across throttle position. This results in the leanest mixture with the highest compression and so the most efficient setting. Very cool engines but getting very hard to find , my friend has a couple he brought back from Germany. They do come up on German eBay sometimes but they are $1000+ now.
Uncle Tony be careful man you know what they did to that guy.
Does it involve aman screaming you poisoned me😁
They Did him like they did Tesla 😬
Yea be careful. Remember Seth rich shot himself in the head. 3 times. 🤔
yeah tell him man . becareful very careful. gasoline controls everything . everything...help me withy my dodge caravan..worst mileage ever .o6.. 10 mpg..terrible runs great except that .horrible
Tom Ogle
I have been in love with the automobile for 84 years, And I have learned so much more just from experiencing your programs, Thank You So Much!
John from Toronto Canada!
So glad Tony covered this. I’m Same age as Tony and come from a very similar background as far as working on cars and racing. It drives me nuts when I hear somebody talking about these urban legends of the car. They got 70 miles miles per gallon back in 1971. I still hear somebody talk about it at least every other week.
The description of a carb as "a mechanical computer" makes the whole system's operation blindingly clear!
I always appreciate your knowledge and ability to educate, but this video might just be the best one yet. Thanks, Uncle Tony.
I think they ment ANALOG computer, and they are coming back. They allow for immediate adjustment for a multitude of variables.
@@montyrayza7220 lotta crap for no content!
To an extent, yes. The perfectly setup thermostatic choke is capable of doing close to what an efi engine can. Within a certain temperature range, usually stated in factory manuals. Carbs were set lean, and the chokes allowed to stay closed, kind of like how a vacuum secondary works on a holley carb. Opens with enough airflow. Mind you most aftermarket or performance setups are not like this, they open up within a minute or so and stay open regardless of temperature.
Why are carburators coming back.??
@@alfonsomorales4251 actually they never left. Carbs are on mowers, generators, lots of small engines. Many other fuel burning things, such as heaters use a "carburetor" to mix fuel and air. Same as airplane wing.
The story was the guy that invented the 100 mpg carburetor for his 70 Coupe DeVille was either bought off or rubbed out by the evil petroleum industry. Anyone remember cow magnets for your fuel line to increase mileage? Don't forget about the spacer you could mount under the carburetor with swirl inducing projections, or a simple piece of screen wire across the bore.
I always heard the story as big oil buying the patents and burying them..
Of course, this denies even oil reality, which is that oil producers would LOVE for cars to get 10x the mileage they get today. It's all relative. They can sell 1 gallon for 10 dollars taking you a hundred miles, or 2.50 a gallon for 4 gallons (the same 10 dollars) to take you 100 miles. But in the first scenario, their oil lasts a lot longer and they have to drill fewer wells and they have to have fewer refineries etc...
Also, "big oil" is a bit of a misnomer. Most oil producers are state owned oil companies. Outside of a few Western countries, virtually all oil produced in the world is produced by state owned oil companies. It's more big government than big oil.
They use the same stupid story on youtube ads to sell everything from swap coolers to vitamins.
@mike kokomo mike...
Looks like the Clinton's have been busy longer than anyone thinks they have 😉
I saw that exact system in los chavez NM at a air port in the 70.' I was in my teens. The way it was explained to me was it was not a carb system. It was a like fuel injection. The fuel was put under extreme pressure then metered into the intake. It was just 1 off setup. It was very dangerous to say the lest.
Yeah, what about the air twirling thing you put in the air cleaner? It’s all bs. Lol
Thanks for the description of Smokey's engine, I remember reading about it years ago and wondered how he did it. If I recall right, he used a Buick V-6 and disabled three cylinders. He had two turbo's on it, and was getting something like 60mpg. The article didn't go into detail how the system worked or why the need for the turbos.
Turbos would atomize the fuel passing through the blades spinning at 100,000 rpm and also heat the mix
I read an article about a guy that designed a carb for a V8 that got 57 mpg. he was a retired GM engineer and I guess they had a court ase against him because he designed it while working for GM. Long story short, they won.
Forgive me for a double post but.... there was a story about a 70's Chrysler Imperial in White pine Tennessee that got stupid gas mileage. Chrysler supposedly contacted the owner and told him they let a 'defective' carburetor get put on his car and they needed to swap it out. He never did let them...or so the story goes.
@My Pronoun is WTF 7s is fast.
My buddy knew a guy who's brothers cousin's nephew had a 63 GTO with one of those 460 hemi tri powers.
Couldn't keep a differential in it so before it was finished on the assembly line, so they bought a Ford Galaxy and took the 9" out of it and put it in that GTO.
Scrapped that galaxy too.
Damn thing only ran 9s ,that's why I'm wondering how your hemi went 7s that's awesome.
@My Pronoun is WTF story goes it was for fbi or special government workers to have these cars
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@My Pronoun is WTF gas is a liquid they would simply convert it to a gas state like propane ..carbs are not efficient.
On carbureted engines a good way to get real, better fuel economy is to make a vapor injection setup. This is technology that came from piston-engine aircraft in WW2. It uses water, or water/alcohol mix in winter. I made one for a '76 Elite with a 400M engine. Could actually get almost 24 MPG highway, without a heavy foot, and cruising at 70 - 75 MPH.
@@suzukiltz8902 German MW50 was designed to help get around the low octane fuel the Germans had in WW2. It does a number of things. It is a charge cooler, yes but, it's also fuel itself that has high octane rating. So you can maintain performance at high altitudes with added boost pressure. German Bf109s were running 87 octane fuel a lot throughout the war and with MW 50, they could still match P51s and Spitfires using 150 octane, that allowed for way more boost pressure and make more power. The drawbacks of MW 50 use was drastically reduced engine life due to low combustion chamber temps, washout of the cylinders and degrading of fuel system components but, at that point in the war, the Luftwaffe would probably lose the aircraft and possibly the pilot before they wore out the engine.
diy vapor injection system ... or... replace carburetor with Pinsker EFI VV system or Predator 9000 vv carberuretor with street idle circuit!
@@EffequalsMA The German engines were quite a bit larger, and could match the smaller Allied engines on the 87 octane fuel.
The mechanics didn't like the 150 octane fuel as it lead fouled the spark plugs.
i believe the Grrmans used a 50/50 mix of water and methanol
You can run methanol injection on blue windshield washer fluid. It's basically the right mix of methanol and water and you can find it anywhere.
One of my favorite channels. Always a depth of knowledge, never just infotainment, I always learn about how something works and why rather just than blind faith (I could probably crack a book open too, but what would be the fun in that). There is a young blood on another channel just trying to run a car on a lawnmower carburetor. It's working surprisingly well. He is just doing to see if it works and will be checking mileage soon. Much like going from a 4 barrel to a single barrel carburetor. I have to find the link. My point being he is like an Uncle Tony proteget. Brilliant work as always Tony.
Excellent descriptions of the carburation systems and the ins and outs. Covered some things I was unfamiliar with and refreshed some others. Thank you.
Hey Uncle Tony! I've got a 70 Roadrunner 440 6pk, looks like brand new, I always park in the econo spot in parking lots! No one has ever said a word! But I drive it only 500 to 1000 mi a year, very economical at 7 mpg! Lol!! Peace🤙🤙
Those Motorcraft 2 BBL's on the 351C gave great economy with good power. I put a 650 DP Holley on it and it emptied the tank in 50 miles.
My original unrebuilt 1966 289 with a 2100 autolite gets about 19 miles per gallon driving around town. Everyone says they’re “hard to get tuned right” but I think they’re one of the most basic carburetors ever made. They just work (at least pre-emissions examples, I don’t know anything about the 2150’s)
Those two Barrel carburetors were the best I ever seen
on my fresh rebuild with a comp cam street cam my 351c is getting 23mpg city and 27 highway. if i drive like an asshole i can get it down to under 16 though. its all about driving style
@@Ahnenerbe1944 I found you just have to clean them. Especially pilot jets.
@@marcoceccarelli6415 It was on a Fairlane. The torque was amazing with the 2-Barrel. And I still had the iron manifold!
I'm loving this direction because I've been thinking about this. I love my Mopars but I also love my Chevys. I also think a lot of go-fast tricks can work in the fuel economy World too, especially with cars already have a lot of aftermarket support. I imagine doing the feather Duster treatment to a 67 Camaro with a 230 inline 6. Put a lightweight fiberglass front end on it, some 14x4 lightweight Centerline Convo Pro Wheels, spoiler that works, and some tuning tricks to see what you get.
I love your shop Tony, thanks for all the great knowledge you share for us car enthuisiasts
I used to have a 1966 stock Mustang with a 289 4 barrel 4speed and 2.75 rear end. The stock carburator gave me 36 miles per gallon on the highway at 75 miles per hour. This was a 600 miles trip and I had to refuel only once and come home with a 1/2 tank.
And nowadays small engines can't come close to that old technology it doesn't make sense
@@gulfy09The fuel in 1966 is basically what is used only by Airplanes now.
Today's petrol is seriously light compared to back then (so more is required).
That car also only weighed about 2,500 lbs vs cars now routinely running close to 4000 in the same compact/economy platforms like the original mustang was based on.
I'd like to see the data on that Sol can improve my 1 970 Mustang w/ 302 2bbl & A/T.
@@archlab007 That's much too different from "multifunctionals" '66.
Different fuel
Different and higher compression engine
Huge difference in gearing
Heavier body.
Yours will be much like a 2000s SUV in average fuel consumption.
The big secret is -highway driving, where you are on a windless flat or downgrade crack and pothole free asphalt and not having to slow down or stop.
Most people in cities are forced to ride the brakes all day which gobbles fuel like a drunkard.
You can get your driveline zeroed in (eliminate chassis drag and have the body going dead straight)
Drivetrain in perfect condition (transmission serviced the bands re set and pressure tested) the engine valving in spec, and whatever else, timing etc.
Then go on a long trip.
That's the best milage you will experience.
At least it's a better chance than a 1973 74 those were really awful years. Bogged down with extra junk that robbed milage and performance
Tony you've done it, taken a subject I couldn't care less about and made in interesting. This is a good one.
Pure click bait B.S. he said nothing of any significant value on how to build a 100 mpg carburator or engine, that horse poop has been around since I was a toddler, ads in the back of Popular Mechanics Magazines, with a request for money, for them to send you the sacred secrets of a (non working) gadget.
@@carminemurphy4836 From the makers of fake turbo whistles that clip onto your tail pipe.
@@carminemurphy4836 you must not have heard what he said very well. The thing of value he said is that the idea of a carburetor producing fuel economy like 100 mph is bunk because it doesn't control fuel economy of the engine rather it controls the delivery of fuel the engine demands. This was near the start.
He then talked about fuel delivery processes that were different but not practical.
But bottom line was the same as you already know. It's all nonsense.
I have a 68 383 4sp H/T Roadrunner with 10/11 mpg ! I now get 16 + mpg after headers-750 carb to 650 ,RV cam w/323 rear. single plane to duo plane intake manifold. Looking for 20+ mpg ? It still run's good.
Great video! I had a 1976 chev 3/4ton with a 454. I changed the jets and metering rods. And with no loss of power went from 16mpg to 22mpg!
If you watch the documentary gashole it talks indepth about the carb vaporizer. I believe the first successful run was a straight 8 Packard and it was in Texas I Wanna say. I believe shell bought the patent and it disappears from their library.
exactly. it seems strange that oil companies love to buy the advanced technology and put it on the shelf so they can keep robbing people at the pump.
Patents are public knowledge and if you want to keep something secret, don't patent it.
Anyone can try these techniques today with zero threat of lawsuits or other legal action to stop production of these so called miracle carbs.
I believe it’s called the Pogue carburetor
Disappeared, Yeah...right.
@@tabbott429 it may be their undoing the way things are headed.
This was very informative.. just the notion that the engine wants what it wants is a good concept to get across..With my sunbeam i changed the gear ratios by installing a Toyota five speed trans to replace the 4 speed that had really high revs and i changed out the rear to a higher ratio as well..i went from factory (when new) of 27mpg to up to 35 and even 40 on highway. engine runs at 3k at 75mph now and much more comfortable highway speeds.
"just the notion that the engine wants what it wants is a good concept to get across" The diesel, for example, has no throttling on its airflow, only the fuel flow. There is a very wide ratio spread at which diesel will happily burn.
If mpg changed that much the engine was working way harder than it needed to
Gearing up to run slower only works just so good. It works well on a tiny car as there isn't as much weight to push around. Back in 1970s and 80s we found that putting a bit LOWER gear in the rear of our big chevies and running a nice high revving motor would get better mileage if set up right. Plus be pretty quick too.
The 55 mph speed limit was introduced at a time when most cars were still big sleds with high gears to go 70 mph on the freeway, then kept at 55 or less they were probably using MORE fuel than normal. Like trying to ride a ten - speed bicycle in 9 and 10th gear all the time.
You should go lower. I put taller tires on my 96 civic and swapped to the CX trans and went from 40mpg to 55mpg+ around 50-60mph lol. You had to down shift more often but that really is extreme fuel economy. Most gasoline engines have peak efficiency around 2000 RPM depending on piston speed and about 90-92% throttle.
*should add the car was geared for 2100 rpm at 70mph.
is it the tiger or the alpine?
I love this series. I hope you keep doing more. I find that maximizing efficiency excites my ADHD.
First time watching this channel, I like the down to earthiness of it and explanation from experience. I like how it was mentioned that with todays advancements in technology the Smokey engine is now possible. I will be looking out for more videos.
Good Lord, the Smokey vapor motor is stirring the memories. I have forgotten so many things, this was nice.
Actually in the beginning the "Otto Cycle " engine was intended to run on vapor, gasoline came along and gave them an ez way to supply fuel. But bottom line is you have to turn any liquid fuel into
a vapor before it can burn, that's why your propane fed IC engines have a coolant heated vaporizer to flash the liquid LP to vapor or you would just have a hunk of ice shortly because LP boils at -44 deg. f. Not an issue with gasoline.
Fully vaporized gas burns at like 5ms, which is way to fast to vehicles built after around 1950 because they made a big change to 1 component across all automobiles that increased power, but fortunately for them, it made it where people cant run vaporized gas because it will cause MAJOR spark knock and burnt intake valves. Sneaky bastards
I had a 75 Buick Estate station wagon. 455. It had the Rochester quadrajet with an altitude compensator. I closed off the back barrels adjusted the compensator. I got 25 mpg, no door in the tail pipe.
I tweaked a 75 datsun 620 to 31 mpg with a z24 engine. Extra air inlet in manifold under the carb. Would get to 30 mph, then open it up for the "mother of all vaccuum leaks" if you wish. Wouldn't idle, so closed it off below 30 mph. Pretty impressive mpg increase. And no, the valves didn't burn up any.
In racing there was no one else that could bend, stretch, exploit, as well as occasionally break the rules like Smokey Yunick. He was the Leonardo Da Vinci of cheating, an absolute genius.(also one hell of an entertaining character) I remember reading about a test of a car with Smokey's adiabatic engine, the first thing they noticed was how many squeaks and rattles it had along with a noisy exhaust leak which seemed to be trying to cover a ton of knock, but the thing did run.
Vehicles after 1950 have a different component that makes it impossible to run straight vaporized fuel without spark knocking all to hell and burning intake valve
More mpg is in your foot. Driving habits and knowing your engines power producing characteristics etc. My big block Chevy pickup gets the best mpg of any of my vehicles including my wife’s 4 cyl Hyundai. The reason is the raw torque it makes at a low rpm and barely any throttle. I can drive around all day at 1/8 throttle or less, never going over 2000rpm and it just sips the fuel. It seems like it will coast forever as well on flat open road.
This
I've felt that a 2-stage injection system (One takes-over for the other as key operating temperatures are reached) on the hot-vapor engine was the way to go for some time. And with the current generation of onboard engine management computers, I'll bet they could easily handle the needs seamlessly.
I just bought an 85 Camaro Berlinetta V8 305. My dream car since I was a kid. Not really a car guy but I love my car so much I am eager to understand as much as I can about it. Thanks for explaining everything in a way that's easy to understand.
In 1980 I added a very simple water injection system system to a 1973 Gran Torino wagon. With no other changes it went from 10 to 13 mpg and ran stronger. No dyno test, just feel.
Just imagination
It's refreshing to see someone that knows what they're talking about. This is the first of your videos I've seen. The title caught my interest, I was like lets see what kind of bs this person has to say. To my surprise you're spot on about carburetion and carburetors.
As to what you were describing about Smokey's idea, it's all about fuel atomization. The fuel molecules will only ignite when surrounded by air/oxygen at a ratio of approximately 14:1. Therefore if fuel molecules are clumped together(droplets), only the ones that has access to the air/oxygen molecules(outer layer of droplet) will ignite. So the inner molecules will not ignite till the outer ones are burned away. This slows the combustion process, and combustion pressure will be lowered as the combustion chamber volume increases because of the piston moving away and farther down it's bore. The key to efficient combustion is to burn as much of the fuel as quickly as possible so that combustion pressure is as high as possible while the piston is still close to TDC to take advantage of the combustion expansion pressure to exert the maximum amount of pressure on the piston therefore increasing force(torque) on the crankshaft.
Same! My first time watch this guy, and he lays down the knowledge.
Maybe mix in a little HHO to increase the speed and efficiency of the combustion?
OK, so how do we 'seperate' the molecules to make them burn better???
Thank you, your so correct, I've heard this nonsense about carbs 50 yrs ago. The other thing that comes into play is BTUs, wind resistance, and much more
Thanks for the info. Really appreciate it.
This is a great video. I have have a 1964 Ford f250 and have gone with a Pertronix Igniter and replaced the points. I had to change the 410 ratio differential and replaced it with a 373 differential and have a 4 speed on the floor rather than a 3 on the tree. I replaced the 2 bbl with a 4 bbl Holley. These changes have increased the mpg.
I had a 1979 f150 with 2.75 differential, overdrive 4 speed, and the 300ci with a one barrel carb. It got 23 mpg on the highway in 3rd 1:1. Wouldn't get out of it's own way and overdrive bogged out at 75mph.
Thank you 1 horsepower needs appropriately 1/2 pound per hour of gas. I always laugh when people with small fuel pumps and 5/16 line try to tell me they make 600 hp.
Oh but that's what their guy tells them and it makes them feel good, hahaha.
You can have 1/4 fuel line and make 600hp just need a higher pressure pump that's less then 40 gph. Early sbf fuel pump Carter m4009 has 40gph rating so really not even really having to upgrade for fuel pump and easy to find fuel pump that can do that especially when go for 6 psi to 10 or electric. I prefer 100 gpm plus pump and bigger line but really is it need on paper.
In the early 70s my father had a really nice really Fast Hurst Olds. The car was undrivable in the winter, so he always bought a beater in the fall fixed it up and drove it the winter and flip it in spring. He had all the classic economy cars you could think of. He said it was not far fetched to get 20-25 MPG out of a small body, V8, two barrel carb, bare option car. The best winter beater he had was A Valiant 273 two barrel, automatic car. He said it averaged 20 MPG City Highway. And would get 28 on the highway.
I have a Ford Explorer 2000 model, 5.0 fuel injection, and it only gets 17 mpg at best on the highway. But it's more like 15 mpg usual. It's still better than my dad's Ford truck with a 7.5 liter which gets 9 mpg.
I had an 82 Buick Lesabre with the Oldsmobile 307 V8 with a factory 4 barrel and the overdrive automatic, I got 23 mpg on the Taconic parkway from Albany NY to NYC.
That car didn't have more than 150 hp and none of the cars from the mid 70s into the mid 80s had much power, but I was so surprised for that heavy comfortable car to get that mpg.
In stop and go it would suck though.
@@richtomlinson7090 had to take a trip to Iowa from Wisconsin last Oct. I drove my pickup which is a 15-17 mpg vehicle. Once I got it onto flat ground in Iowa, Wisconsin is pretty hilly, It turned into a 20mpg vehicle. Its amazing what a difference in terrain does.
@@mikerobinson3672 or sometimes to have the wind at our back helps too.
You deserve a standing ovation man seriously your understanding and profound knowledge is impeccable
Absolutely got everything you talked about, now waiting for your next video, thank you
Smokey was a genius. Really enjoyed reading about his hot vapor engine back in the day. Would make a good power generator for a hybrid vehicle nowadays.
Volatile fuel vapors give a new meaning to backfire.. This engine would need to be 100 feet from anything flammable. Smokey was a genius, but this was an insane concept made reality.
@@member57 it also worked flawlessly
@@ryanstuckey8677
If call catching on fire flawless... 😂
@@ryanstuckey8677 Yea, no.. no, it did not work "flawlessly". There were major flaws. Tony just explained a couple for you. And if they worked "flawlessly" there'd be a hundred thousand on the roads and highways. It idled "flawlessly". That's about it.
@@lilmike2710 that's wrong. The reason why there's not a hundred thousand out on the roadways today is because Smokey kept a critical piece of what made it work secret because he couldn't get any of the big automotive manufacturers to give him a decent offer (including a sufficient guarantee that they wouldn't just get the rights to it and then bury it rather than putting it into full production).
There's a very few of us out here who figured it out but we aren't talking, essentially for the same reason.
The problem has always been the vaporization of the liquid fuel before the spark plug ignite the mixture in SI engines.
The intake manifold has a lot to do in that process on carbureted engines. The carb is responsible for the atomization of the liquid fuel in fine droplets. The manifold plenum & runners do the vaporization job. Some intake manifold designs are better at doing this job then other design. This subject is rarely discussed imo.
Natural gas running engines do not suffer from this issue and are more efficient at using the calorific energy available in the combustive agent.
yes the hot intake valve works as the lasy line of atomization.
Great video Tony! Makes it more clear how a engine works!
I knew an old fellow that had two of those carbs. He had an R196 International. Pulled a low boy and a D 9 Caterpillar and got 15 mpg. That is phenomenal. He only used one, the other was still new in box.
I believe the man's name was Tom Ogle. It is what's known as a vapor carburetor. Gasoline turns into vapor at a certain temperature. It was like a metal box with a hot plate under it. Keeping the Plate at a certain temperature the system would drip gasoline onto the hot plate where it would turn into vapor and be ran into the engine. He claimed 2500 MPG. Reportedly he was was found dead in the car on the side of the highway.
Yes the fuel liquid is not flammable but the vapor is what is flammable.
I recall that story now that you mention it. An unfortunate end to a wacky idea.
It was 100 mpg and he suddenly collapsed at his girlfriend’s house in El Paso, and died on his way to the hospital. Supposedly he died of an overdose. There was a lot of controversy surrounding his death at the time.
The problem with the hot vapor engine is that it doesn't really add much more efficiency versus a modern fuel injected motor and it is extremely hard to keep it from going bad in a hurry. Many many engines use similar ideas with blinding hot intakes to spray the fuel on top of with very negative results back in the '70s. Extremely hot expanded gas vapor takes up more room but you still need the correct amount in order for the engine to run correctly.
@@lsrengines Agreed. When we speak of 14.84:1, we speak in mass; at 60 mph, its about 0.943 lb/min of fuel & 14.0 lb/min of air @STP.
In terms of volume, 350 liters/min fuel & 4,900 liters/min of air. Which of course is highly combustible requiring out-of-cylinder storage.
It’s almost the definition of an external combustion engine LOL.
I tried something similar to this fuel vapor idea some years ago. I had a 327 Chevrolet engine in my car with a 3 speed standard transmission and a 4 barrel carburetor. I made sure the exhaust crossover under the carburetor wasn't blocked and I noticed the radiator had fittings for an automatic transmission cooler. So I connected the outlet of the fuel pump to the cooler and the outlet of the cooler up to the carburetor and that pre-heated the fuel, to the temperature of the thermostat around 180 degrees. I assume it was anyway. It ran pretty good in the winter but I never tried it in the summer. I need to try this again . Great videos.
Having either the exhaust crossover or preheated fuel in a carb is a recipe for vapor lock in the summer, and having both could make the car undriveable. It's even more of a problem these days with ethanol in the fuel.
@@ShawnD1027 yep vapor lock was my first thought.
Great explanation. The vapor carburetor is practical for an engine at a specific rpm and output as a generator for a serial hybrid EV. I would expect the same would apply for a hot vapor engine. Reclaiming lost energy from heat always improves efficiency.
Phenomenal information and explanation Tony, thank you!
I think Smokey described the "turbo charger" as a one way valve that overcame the pressurized intake charge. Neat idea.
Smokey's engine worked by lowering the amount of air going into the engine. Want to increase the HP on an engine? Turbo charge and intercool the air. This increases the amount of air going into the engine. Heating it up decreases the intake change. It will cut down HP and increase fuel miy.
Turbo is the way to go if you want to make power . No bottles to fill all the time and you can turn the boost up or down .
It always seemed to me that the versatility of car engines is a major factor in how inefficient they are. Like if they could design an engine around a specific output and RPM, it could be more efficient than an engine that needs to operate under many, many different conditions and loads. So like the engine could turn on when your battery got low and run for a while at it's fully optimized output to charge the battery that powers an electric drive train.
Of course, if it worked, they'd probably already be doing it.
@@tarstarkusz I think this is in the not too distant future for range on mass produced electric vehicles if other technology can't keep up. Check out the Jaguar C-X75 concept that came out a decade ago if you are not familiar with it. It used diesel turbines as generators for the electric drive train. I think most manufactures will go to an electric drive train that can basically be swapped around all their platforms with ease and the mid-size or larger vehicles will have a small gas/diesel generator on board.
@@tarstarkusz that's why we only got cats and feedback bullshit on new generators after 2012.
Steady speed definitely changes the pollution game.
I wish my dad could have lived long enough to have seen this video as he would have been completely fascinated by it. He was always trying to squeeze more fuel economy out of his drive to work Mopars back in the 70's. I don't remember the exact details, but one exception to those cars was a Gremlin with a straight six and a manual transmission and he was always experimenting on it.
My best friend..sadly passed away too early, with a brain tumor.
Back in the 70s he was always talking about designing a carbed..gas engine that would be injected with water.
He never...sadly never wrote down his plans.
Back then..I thought he was nuts...not so crazy now !!
To this day..I am so sorry I never took him seriously.
@@williamb2854 Water injection was one of the things my dad tried on the Gremlin but he eventually removed it. What he had to work with was just too primitive. I wish I'd paid more attention to the actual set up back then.
Injecting water won't increase mileage in itself but it does allow you to run higher compression and higher compression is more efficient.
brought out very well where anyone can understand and pretty thorough as well.
good job
There was a carb produced decades ago called the Fish or Brownie carb . 1 barrel, 2 or 3 moving parts used on 4-8 cylinder engines. gutless sipper but did give 40-50 mpg if you were not a heavy footed or in a hurry.
Uncle Tony is highly intelligent. He talks about springs oscillation. Where did you learn that did you take a physics class? I worked on cars many years before I took a physics class and learned about sine cosine oscillation of springs. Molecular makeup, man Uncle Tony really gets it.
This guy isn't even able to describe the purpose and function of the accelerator pump on a carburetor. Even given the title is clickbait there's very real limits to how lean you can set any fuel metering system that inherently creates a homogeneous air fuel mix. His mental aptitude appears fairly pedestrian to me. Especially since he spends way too much time saying the engine is "asking" for fuel. A carburetor is a metering device that controls the fuel delivery rate. A metering device is not a computer. Silliness
@@coldlogic800 Most intakes have a "dual plane" design, so each half of the carb seems like it's running a 4-cylinder engine.
Airflow comes to a complete stop every 180* of crank rotation, giving a pulsing vacuum signal, thus the enrichment springs oscillation.
Yeah - some of his terms were wrong, Smokey called the Turbo the "homogenizer"...there weren't supposed to be any fuel droplets past the turbo, but there wasn't any real pressure there either.
A carburetor isn't a digital processor, but it IS programmable, and can have 6 independently tunable circuits.
-The amount and timing of electronic choke
-The idle speed and fuel trim
-The accelerator pump volume and timing
-The "main" circuit jetting and air orifices, venturi
-The "secondary" circuit and power valve
_The float height.
When I can get one of my hero’s experimental engines explained to me by another hero of mine, you know it’s going to be a great video.
Thanks, Uncle Tony.
In 1951 a mechanic from Burbank did some modifictions to a 4 barrel Holly carb and added a Water Injection system. Engine ran cooler, mileage doubled and Standard Oil bought him out.
Charles Nelson Pogue of Canada. 200 mpg vapor carburetor. Don Garlits has the test carburetor and it achieved 198 miles per gallon on a flathead V8 Ford 1936.
GM's delving into Smokey's system was called "EFE, Early Fuel Evaporation". That's the best application they could adapt for production manufacture of it. Mostly just put a grid plate under the carb, and electrically heated it up. I remember those.
Heating the base underneath the carb is the function of the heat control valve. Electric heating would only be needed in the short time it takes for the exhaust heats up. After that, it´s just parasitic drain.
I guess they introduced it to meet mandatory emission standards, and dumped it after EFI?
That was put on a Buick wildcat engine experimental carburetor see one many years ago
I find the best way to get the most fuel economy out of my Plymouth is to zip tie the float arm on the fuel sending unit to the highest point of travel and unscrew the speedometer cable, disabling the odometer. Can’t complain about a bad number if you cant do the math to get it.
I like that Austin, you're going places.
Perfect logic 👍
Sounds like hitchhiking is in your future.
Unrelated question, does anyone have any gas they can spare?
@@austinlacroix888 Got a can in back of truck👍 where ya at? Lol😁
Always the best information Tony.
Tony,
Great that you are covering these issues. No one else is, so eloquently.
Smokey is one of my heros. I paid close attention to his theories when I was stock car racing. Race the rule book & the physics...smart man. Self educated. I too have few NASCAR no- no's in the short track book...
A few direct observations:
The Rochester Quadrajet (i know...)
With it's tiny primaries & vacuum door secondaries does the best job of the vacuum controlled needle jet in any American carb. I have built and tuned all major brands. Most hot rodders don't understand them. Your explanation is superb. Try 18mpg/135 mph in a 7000lb Caddy 500 Q-jet powered '67 Ford F250 flatbed!
Even better are the side draft British SU (Skinners Union) and Honda motorcycle constant velocity carbs. They are just not sized for American Muscle. (8 Individual 2.5in. SUs on a 340 anyone?) Think outside the box...
Ignoring arguments over atomization advantages, all vapor designs (even Smokey's!) are an effort to deal with fuel drop out and intake runner wetting. Unavoidable in carburetor systems. I have ported intakes & heads to ski jump the liquid fuel back into the airstream with good results. But nothing solves the issue short of the complexities you speak of. Multi- point fuel injection largely makes it a mute argument. Direct injection is another dysfunctional animal altogether. Carbs have 4-5 circuits. EFI has upwards of 500. I rest my case
For the record i agree with your take on the "black helicopter" conspiracies. However I have direct personal experience with a prototype 2bbl variable venturi design that made 50+ mpg in a 1971 Vega 2.3 (? go figure...). This design had squared off venturies not unlike later Predator designs. 1 end wall of each venturi was vacuum controlled. Atomization was amazing under all conditions. The inventor (I knew him) patented it. Patents are public.
Shortly thereafter legal reps for GM approached him with an offer to sell the rights for $250,000 (1972$$$). They implied he would be unable to afford the lawsuits if he refused. He sold.
Later GM sold the patent to Ford. Autolite division bungled it trying to make their own version. Committee engineering?
It did go into production briefly in 1975-76 in 302 powered Granadas. It did improve milage but only by about 2mpg. Ford dropped it afterwards due to drivability issues from the changes they made.
Electronic carbs and then EFI were the writing on the wall. Analog carbs were for the OEMs a dead end.
Sorry about the length off this post...
Good ole Smokey. I haven't heard his name in decades!!! I got a Holley Sniper for my 70 442 project and am curious about what MPG's will be like compared to the old Dominator it ran
What size engine ya got
As a teenager, I was kept with a constant flow of Popular Science magazines from my engineer uncle. I always read with keen interest the series “Say Smokey”. I remember the articles about the adiabatic engine that he was trying to accomplish. I believe he was teamed up with General Motors of the time, but I can’t say that for sure. Even as a teenager I saw challenges with the project. The biggest challenge that I saw was the manufacture and use of carbide pistons to handle the extreme heat. I knew the material was difficult to work with and also that it would change the reciprocating mass in the engine enormously. I never knew what became of the project. Nothing ever showed up in mainstream media, or as a product to buy.
I remember that.
Carbide pistons would be extremely expensive unless I am mistaken but last forever.
Thank you for clearing up some of the questions i have had . 🤔
Thanks UT. Superb as always.
I read an interesting piece by Mike Brown who was remaking Fish carbs for a while (sort of a predecessor of a Predator). He apparently built an engine with 16 : 1 static compression and utilized a custom ground cam that held the intake valve open for half of the compression stroke resulting in an 8 : 1 pump gas pop with half the fuel. Legend has it that the cams were manufactured and sold for a while. I think it's an interesting idea that comes with a unique set of problems.
Basically he made a Miller 5 cycle engine. This is where the power stroke has a longer effective motion than the compression stroke. Mazda did this perhaps 15 years ago on production engines.
Crower cams had the idea too, and a Hot Rod magazine article in 1980 built the engine for a 39 chevy hot rod. They claimed it had little power below like 3,000 rpm or so--as you'd imagine with the intake valve acting like a giant leak :)
I have two of mike's carbs from the eighties, crudely made and finicky to adjust, that said one on my flathead gave it a serious kick in the ass power wise
@@Ron36415 Running an original Fish on my 261 and really love it, no miracle mpg though, just like 20% better compared to the factory Carter.
The 1NZ-FXE in the Toyota Prius also held open the intake valve just like that. It has 13.4:1 static compression.
The system was multi-stage
A) Intake through fuel metering device, carb, whatever
B) Heated by a heat exchanger with engine coolant before it hit radiator
C) Drawn through turbocharger, which he called a "homogenizer" because it further broke up the fuel droplets to hopefully completely dissolve the gasoline in the fuel.
D) Another heat exchanger that used heat from the exhaust system with the goal of making the intake mixture a SOLUTION of gasoline dissolved in air, not an atomized suspension, so every gasoline molecule was surrounded by oxygen molecules, ready to ignite it and burn it completely.
When you applied throttle, the "boost" climbed instantaneously, as the turbo was not to add compression, per se, as it was a one-way valve merely to keep the natural expansion of the last stage, which was the exhaust heat exchanger, from expanding the fuel and air to the point where you had far less of it, mass-wise, entering the engine, which would cost power.
If the turbo was being used to boost the system, there would have been lag, but the pressure in the intake manifold increased almost directly with the throttle position, as it was not designed to add power via boost, but to prevent power loss due to excessive expansion of the intake mixture, and to "stir" the fuel/air mixture after the first heat exchanger to help the fuel evaporate more readily.
The functional concept was preservation of heat coupled with far more complete combustion, which would allow one to run a FAR leaner mixture, as complete combustion was assured by dissolution of the gasoline. The heat normally entirely discarded by the radiator (around 60 percent of heat energy from the fuel) was recycled into the intake charge, thermally compressing it, ready to push the piston down, from the moment the intake valve opened.
The target temperature, said Smokey, was 400 degree fahrenheit, for complete gasoline vaporization.
Smokey Yunick claimed that knock was a phenomenon that was more related to atomization than temperature, so his system, by dissolving the gasoline, solved that problem.
Of course, the big automakers panned the system, as it would have returned us to cars WE could work on, minus a bank of "HAL 9000's" at the dealership or garage. Also, the efficiency and power production was quite high.
Rest in Speed, Smokey. I still think this concept bears more exploring. Perhaps one could get away with lower compression, which would produce less heat upon the compression stroke, as the engine is already compressing the mixture via heat before it reaches the combustion chamber.
As an example, 100 degree air compressed to 10:1 yields 5000 degrees in temperature, whereas 400 degree air at 6:1 yields 4800 degree temperature, actually cooler than conventional intake air temperature and compression.
By eternally trapping heat in a loop in a closed loop in the engine, you end up with no greater peak temperatures, and increased efficiency, as that heat was formerly discarded to heat the atmosphere.
If it's something we can work on then it's something we can build.... have you built one?
actually, "turbo lag" is just when one uses too large a turbo for the engine RPM in hopes the increased volume will be used at a higher RPM (or there's a lot of plumbing to blow thru with a front mount intercooler, but that's not really lag, it just feels like it). plenty of OEM turbo setups not running heated intake air (other than an EGR valve, natch for emissions) don't have "lag" or have too little of it to be noticed--a lack of noticable lag doesn't mean the turbo isn't boosting, just that its at an optimum rpm for its designed size (like the IHI turbos ford used in their turbocharged 2.3 litre 4 cylinders in 1987 Thunderbirds to replace the T3 turbos used prior). however, heated air will have increased pressure over cooler air (such as created by the "venturi effect" of a carb's venturis). I also don't think automakers would have even wanted folks working on a hot engine--more than just outfitting carbs with plastic plugs over the idle screws and putting on those lousy plastic covers they use today, when Chrysler tried out their turbine cars, one of the concerns was the temperature of the exhaust coming out. The average car owner can barely find the oil dipstick, much less understand "don't touch the hot stove!" :) And what did you mean exactly by the engine "already compressing the mixture via heat before reaching the combustion chamber (to be compressed by the piston)"? Heat tends to expand the distance between molecules, not compress them.
@@DrewLSsix If I had the money, I would have.
My first car was a 74 Corvette with a mild cam, long tube Hookers, and a 750 CRM Holley. I've never really been a speed demon so I got decent mileage out of it. In town, I was averaging 17 to 18 and on the highway, I was averaging 20 to 21 MPG. I didn't mind that it wasn't the most high powered car, but I loved the reliability and the fact it was decent on fuel economy was a major plus.
Carburetors are literally rocket science: The F1 engines of the Saturn V are a beautiful example. You *can* improve the overall mileage of an engine a little by putting in a carburetor that tunes it to less power and thus limits over-travel of the fuel mechanics that lead to manifold wetting but they largely only work "better" until the engine reaches temperature. This is what Ford did with all those 3.8l V6 Thunderbird engines back in the 1980s... they put on a 3.2l's dual injector body.
I had an IC engine class in college. We went thru the chemistry of gasoline combustion. Just one more death dagger to the ‘100 mpg’ engine.
Nice explanation from the carb side though.
time to build a still in my backyard and make my own fuel.
🌘🌒yep👍
Over 10 years ago when I studied Engineering at university, a lecturer was always very interested in Economy, and getting the most out of a fuel source. He use to do aerodynamic tests with his car lol with cardboard, well he made something that he said has improves his engines economy, and has a meeting with a company who are interested in his concept. To cut a long story short they bought his concept and the rights to it. Must of been millions and he said they just shelved it? Never to be used on public roads again. He went travelling not much time after that, and I never saw him again the whole time I finished uni.
Thanx for the lesson on carbs and vapor engine. Enjoyed it immensely. I remember Smokey Yunick. 😮
I remember reading about Smokey's engine in Hot Rod. Article came out just before Hot Rod Magazine started to really suck. He had it on a Pontiac Fiero seems like it got 80 mpg. Never heard another word about it for years. Finally they had a little write up that said he'd sold the patent to a company that did nothing with it. That's how all these stories end. 😆
There was a story in Hotrod about 2001ish where a guy built a system where the fuel was metered out of orifices in the intake valve seat after being heated behind the exhaust valve seat and the air was throttled by a variable rocker arm ratio with a rolling fulcrum, at idle the valves were just barely opening uncorvering the orifices very little. He had it on a 4. 3 V6 and a 454 Chevy. .never heard any more after that. Black helucopter must've showed up
That Fiero is now at Don Garlits place in Florida. Was drivable but suffered many issues, like poor acceleration and stalling during stops. Was also prone to overheating as it used the cooling system to heat the fuel system doing away with the radiator cooling the coolant in the block. It used the heat from the block to heat the fuel.
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 the government has the ability to keep the patent secret. They do that with energy patents a lot. They will say something like we are keeping this secret for eight years to review and your not allowed to do anything with this or develop it further. Then if they ever release the patent they will say something like your not allowed to use the idea for weapons research and development, then put the pressure on you if anyone does that, you will go to prison forever. They will also keep you from receiving funding to develop the idea or even trying to develop it in ways making it harder for people to weaponize it.
Yes, and it will sit on a shelf in a highly protected basement room in one of the Big Car Companies and will only be seen when THEY want to bring it out 30 years later and say it has been in Development for some years, they LIE. They also don't want anyone to get better than about 30 miles to the Gallon, Max, because they are in League with the Petroleum industry to keep THEM in Buisiness. if you could easily get 100 miles to the Gallon, the Petroleum Industry would NOT BE HAPPY.
@@danielmarlow55 bmw did it with Valvetronic. for their new engines there is no throttle body. its all don't by a double intake rocker thing so that at idle the intake valves barely open then full throttle the second rocker allows the cam to push down the calve all the way. What's old is new again but they are doing direct injection, instead of the valve orifice thing.
Very good Tony , brilliant explanation. My personal was add paxton supercharger = plus 7 mpg... hiway cruise. Volumetric efficiancy is the key. Down fall of this is that peak (for any given engine) will only occur at a given rpm. Most interesting subject.
Love the videos!!! Very cool!
I had a 302 before that got 28 mpg. Had a Motorcraft 2 barrel on it. I always wondered why that 78 Mercury Cougar always got such good gas mileage. Because every car I have owned with a 302 always got 18 to 22 mpg. I had the jets gauged and they were smaller then the other carbs. It really made a big difference in mileage. Just my knowledge from back in the day. Good video.
In 1978, I had an 1970 Ford Torino ,got 25 mpg at 60 mph, with a 302, auto trans , 2 dr hardtop, points , 2 barrell carb ,no cruise , no ac ,235x15 tires , don,t know rear axle ratio , windows up , summertime ,70% ,no wind , dry Canadian prairies , late 1970,s (gas ? ). Wife was pissed when I sold it ,she was right . Was a great car.
302 in a 83 Lincoln mark vi gets 20 to 25 mpg. Tight timing chain, dual exhaust, emmissions delete. Good sensors running on ethanol free gas. Only use overdrive on a highway. 3.08 gears.
I'm surprised the cougar got that with out emmissions delete and lower rear end ratio. They usually sucked down the gas in factory trim. I got 8 to 12 on 2 78 Ltd Landaus I had with 400 and 460. With non retarded timing, emmissions delete,dual exhaust and better rear ratio. Got up to 18 to 26 on 400 and 14 to 18 on the 460. Woke them up too.
God stuff Tony. Good to hear the 'Smokey Yunick' name. I'm thinking a good amount of the younger followers are scratching their heads.
My grandfather actually told me he knew the gentleman personally who created a system to get near 100mpg back in the 60's in yes, eastern Ohio.. He used GM and a few other machined parts to compile the set up. He told me soon after trying to find investors and marketing, the guy ended up dying in a freak accident on his way home from work. Not sure what happened exactly. BUT, rumor was EXXON and a couple other big oil companies tried to buy the prototype from him to keep it from being manufactured.. After he said no, well.. That's really the unkown.
I made an intake air preheater, for a 84 Ford Ranger carbureted 4 cyl, years ago. The milage went up from 18 mpg to 22. I could also take off in 3rd gear. The motor wouldn't shake or vibrate at all. I never knew a motor could run at that low of RPM. I just put a heater core in a sealed box and made the motor intake hot air.
You must have had some carb issues that the hot air helped. Hot air is less dense so will make less power. That's the whole concept behind cold air intakes, brings in cool dense air increasing power.
@@tylerbonser7686You hit the nail on the head. I did have carb problems. It seemed to be running lean, but when it warmed up it would run better. One day, i noticed that it was running much better than usual, it was also summer and one of the hottest days of the year, and the truck ran great. The next day was hot and it ran great again. So I put 2 and 2 together and I remembered that article about "Smokey's Amazing Engine" and I made the intake preheater. The truck would still run like crap, until it warmed up. I know a cold air intake can make more hp. What the hot air helps with is turning liquid gasoline into vapor. Most of the time, the fuel is vaporized by air movement, and the turbulence helps. But straightening out the airflow helps with power. So the manufacturers put water jackets through the intake manifolds, to heat the intake. Most people think this hurts the power. I don't. I think it helps smooth out the idle and allows the engine to idle at a couple hundred RPMs less, and it helps smooth out power delivery, no vibrations. And once the engine is running at a higher RPM, the air can't be heated by intake anymore, because it's just going to fast and it's not in contact with the heat long enough. With my preheater, the air was in contact with heat much longer. I also put a preheater on a Honda Civic, the model that had the throttle body injection and a 4 spd. That thing would only get about 30 mpg. I blame it on not having overdrive. I tried indexing the sparkplugs, and the milage went up to 33. I drove it for 6 months and I wanted to see if my old preheater trick, would have any effect on things. My mileage went up to 38. It probably won't work on something with the injectors close to the valves or with direct injection. But with a carb and throttle body injection, it could work.
Like he said heated fuel in the intake will give better fuel economy. We want dense air with vapour fuel. so why not heat the fuel line before the carburetor and have cold air intake. A copper connection from the exhaust to the fuel line could heat the fuel. The fact is that stock vehicles fuel economy can be improved with less restriction in the intake and exhaust. Another fact is fuel companies want you to burn lots of fuel! Would they influence vehicle builders? Would they influence municipalities to synchronize traffic light to hinder traffic so they burn more fuel. I have concluded that they must be intentionally trying to make us burn far more fuel with vehicle builders and traffic lights. When Government push CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA, they should be doing everything to reduce the amount of fuel needed to travel. Electric Vehicle ARE NOT THE ANSWER! Hydrogen should be a fuel alternative.
@@Brian-gx7yx I was going to try the heated fuel line on the Ranger, but I thought it might vapor lock, so I never tried it. It might not vapor lock. IDK . I read in your comment about the cold air intake and you say that you will increase your mileage by having less restrictions. I'm pretty sure if your engine is intaking colder air it it will use more fuel and you will get more power. And when you have less exhaust restrictions you will probably lose mileage too. When you free up HP you can lose fuel economy. On All the Chevy v8's, back in the 80's had these little restrictors in the exhaust ports, they called them "smog bumps", everyone that wanted more power would grind them out to increase flow, and it works, for power, but no increase in mpg, it actually hurts mileage. I think more exhaust is left in the cylinder because of the restriction so close to the valve and having the extra exhaust in the cylinder takes up space and makes more compression when at part throttle. Just like the egr system.
@@terryj257 I guess I will try it in the spring and try to achieve vapor lock. Then I can reduce the size of copper to eliminate vapor lock. Check my fuel economy before and after and see if It has better fuel efficiency.
Right now I have an Air Raid throttle body spacer, Massive K&N air filter and headers. I will be doing a Throttle body Modification and a functional Cowl induction system. The effort is to achieve over 1000 kilometers on a full fuel tank. I have achieved this on a similar truck 88 chev silverado, My new truck is a 94 GMC Sierra, both 350 engines extended cab and long box with a canopy. Any fuel efficiency suggestions would be appreciated
My brother and I made a "fuel bong" for our go cart when we were kids from a mason jar and garden hose - it worked great. The motor sounded crisper if that makes any sense. Er had no idea what the AFR was. The mason jar would get very cold with the motor running.
Tony, like I have said before on your videos, I am working on heated fuel systems to increase mileage and power. The problem with Smokey's engine is gasoline needs 450F to vaporize all of it, so it required ceramic pistons and all the prechambers to heat it. I am doing it with ethanol, because ethanol vaporizes at 173F at sea level, and lower as you go up in altitude or in the relative vacuum of the intake ports. No need for pre chambers, 450F, or any of that. Carbs won't work without the positive pressure, aka turbo, because it will vent vapor from the bowl vents.
173F is well within the operating parameters of our engines, and as ethanol vaporizes it cools the intake charge making it more dense, thus it makes more power, as well as it has oxygen in it, and is vastly less prone to ping/knock. Its very easy to do with ethanol, gasoline is much harder like you said.
I have done it to some extent with a Qjet on a 455 Pontiac, but its in a 65 GTO which has horrible aero. Have EFI on it now, but have not heated the fuel as yet, the FiTech has a return on it, and I need to deadhead it with an external regulator. We do not want heated fuel going into the tank now do we? So far with just compression and a 210F thermostat, I have equaled ethanol mileage with gasoline. Currently it has 11.5:1 with iron closed chamber heads, I have another set of 13:1 heads I can run on it, but that much cylinder pressure requires MLS head gaskets, and I am still kinda cheap. Trying to do it without special stuff on a low budget like you do, so it can be easily replicated.
The project has been back burner for the last 8 years as I rebuilt my life from a divorce. She hit me right in the middle of it and left me homeless for a couple years. Fun times. The cost of fuel is going up again, and E85 that I have been running is going up as well. So I will be going big on my tree sap fuel vodka project over the winter and in the spring. I'd like to make 500 gallons of fuel next year, that would allow me to put the muscle cars and the LS powered trucks on it. I'll keep the winter beaters on pump gas because that waste heat is so damn nice when its 20 below here in Michigan.
Gasoline is limited, because under best case scenarios it still wastes 80% of its energy as heat that must be shed by the cooling system. Real world cars are lucky to get 18% of the fuel converted to power. Then you have to deal with low compression because of ping/knock, vapor lock, and limited advance, just so it will live.
In contrast only 60% of the energy in ethanol goes to waste, and that is real world, in the lab it uses 42% under perfect conditions to make power. The cool part is you can crank up the compression a lot with ethanol, into the 25:1 range as long as you don't add gasoline to it, and it won't light until you give it a spark. Increase compression and you increase mileage because you are working a given amount of fuel 'harder' to so speak. Gasoline is limited because it wants to ignite with heat and pressure, but ethanol is cool and waits for the spark.
I have another Pontiac engine going in an as yet to be determined chassis, two 6.0 LS engines going in a 76 C10 the other in a tube chassis Opel GT, and two 3800 Buick V6s, one supercharged, the other NA. All will have heated fuel systems, high compression, and run on E98/E100. Ethanol makes the most power below 3500rpm, and still more than gasoline higher in RPM. Pontiacs are grunt engines, so making even more torque from 2000 to 5000, along with the incredible ease of raising static compression with just a head swap makes them ideal for this sort of thing. I can take a flat top 455 and go from 7.6:1 all the way to 13:1 with a factory head because they adjusted compression with chamber size rather than the piston crown, its kinda cool.
I will have video on my channel as I progress. This year was a building year, so the fuel project and cars didn't get much attention.
Yeah I know, nobody reads book length posts like this. I am trying to make a video of all of it instead.
What is your channel btw
The greatest temperature in the system is at full compression, and you can mollify that with lower static compression, then you need only to cool the piston tops from beneath and you are golden.
Its not a full book, maybe brochure length
@@exploranator no need for any of that on ethanol, just crank up the compression, heat the fuel in the EFI rails to over 200F, and you're there. Hot air and EGR pick up mileage too, and no worries on power because ethanol cools the intake charge as it vaporizes, even if its 200F in the rails.
@@gulfy09 just click my name on here. Thats my channel.
I really found this interestingly educational
This is an interesting subject and a lot of fun as i have screwed with this off and on for years , thanks Tony for bringing it out here
I meet a gentleman in Herrin Illinois that owned a car parts store. This gentleman's name was Charlie White. Around 1992 I told him I was learning how to read blueprints. He asked me if I was interested in seeing some blueprints he had made? I didn't know it at the time but he used to be an engineer. This gentleman was very eccentric. His car was a Dodge/ Chrysler 1965-68 approximately. It had a 426 Hemi. The car was piled to the roof inside with everything, papers, car parts. His car parts store was piled up inside the same way. 12 ft to the ceiling, full of boxes with a small path for walking. I never fully walked into the store, I always walk to the door and hollered for him. He would greet me outside and asked me what I needed? This gentleman had all the hard to get parts so, if you needed a part that was hard to get go to Charley's. If you needed a regular part that wasn't so rare, you could go to any of the other stores in town. With Charlie it took a little longer because of his filing system. Things were piled to the ceiling everywhere. Now to get back to the blueprints....
He was in there for about 10 minutes looking for These Blueprints after bringing me my car part. He kept telling me " hold on don't leave, you're going to want to see this!" After about 10 minutes he came out with the long tube & pulled out three big rolled up blueprint papers. He laid them on my hood and said what do you think about that? I told him Charlie this is Way Beyond me buddy. What the heck is it?
He said "This is a..... well, I'll just call it a carburetor that gets 75 miles per gallon". He was talking about old V8 cars .I said what? Why are we not using this thing Charlie? He told me that the oil companies bought the rights to it but, he had a copy of the blueprints.
His auto parts store was filled to the rim with just about every auto part that you can think of. In his backyard he had three 426 hemi engines, unopened in crates. I'm telling you that some of these 75 miles per gallon stories you hear are true.
A Sad thing happened to Charlie over the years. One day a wrecking ball and dump truck showed up. They knocked down Charlie's Auto Parts store with all the car parts inside. They did the same thing to his house. His family that was a live didn't give a crap for what Charlie owned. I thought well Charlie must have passed away. Then about five years later I seen Charlie hanging onto a walker with a nurse at his side. I ran up to him I said all my gosh Charlie, I thought you passed away years ago! I can't believe you're standing here in front of me! The nurse looked at me and said you must be an old friend of Charlie's? I told her yes kind of. She told me that Charlie had experienced a stroke years earlier. But he was getting by living in our facility and they were on their way to a doctor's appointment right then. I told Charlie that I was sorry to hear that. Charlie didn't talk anymore. He did look at me & I'm sure he did remember me. I found out years later that Charlie what is a veteran and and served our country as an aircraft mechanic.
He was very unique guy I wish I could have spent more time talking with him.
He ended up living for around another 10 years.
bluefuneralhome.com/obituaries/charles-e-white/
High pressure direct injection of gasoline is almost a form of flash-vaporizing the fuel - doing almost the same thing with a very high pressure pump rather than "slowly" with complicated heating system and a turbocharger. The "holy grail" is homogeneous mixture that auto-ignites throughout the mixture, something like a diesel, without the need for a spark plug. We're kinda getting there but gasoline is somewhat uncooperative and less consistent than diesel.
*laughs in aircooled VW*
Rabbit diesel: "that's cute"
Emission scandal diesels:
“You guys are getting driven?”
Lol, laughs in poppet style port injection
@@PurpleNinja-vn4hv all the vw diesels before the diesegate cars met emissions
*laughs in boiling oil*
I saw a video the other day where some kid put a lawn mower carb on his 74 maverick with a 289 in it and it got 41 mpg.
Now I definitely trust you and I am suspicious of the maverick, but I was wondering if you had seen this video I was talking about?
excellent explanation of the Smokey's tech implementation ...
u can get 30% increase in mpg just by recycling some heat in the engine, (using coolant heat to heat vapor/fuel ) u can get 5% just by heating intake air (but sacrifice a little HP) ...
This is the first time Tony has explained different systems without driving the train WAY off the tracks.. I made it all the way through!!!
Huh?
Tony give the clearest most detailed explanations of anyone on CZcams. This video is just typical UTG
@@ericlandstrom6155 You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am.
Ha!
I noticed that also
Wow I got the notification for this within 3 minutes this time!
Hello Tony hello everyone!
THE best explanation/refutation I've ever seen of "high mileage" claims!!!
very well explained - thank you
You are a walking encyclopedia! Thanks Tony!
14.7 to 1 air / fuel ratio is why I always dismissed the 100 mpg carburetor as an urban legend.
Yes. The main problem isn't the air/fuel ratio or the devices or the method of controlling it, the main problem is an internal combustion engine is far from 100% efficient. Even if a car's engine that got 25mpg was made 100% efficient you'd still only be looking at 75mpg.
That , and if there was such a thing it would have been used on cars.
I can't buy into some conspiracy about the oil companies bribing the car companies to keep it hush hush (if that's the supposed deal).
Actually ,haha they developed fuel injection to throw us off course so they didn't have to develop the 200mpg carb 😆😆😆
back in the 20s or so the ideal air fuel ratio was considered to be around 20:1 if i remember correctly my book . probably because of how different the fuel were back then
@@albapor1 do you have a source of that? Old car books are fascinating
@@EitriBrokkr yep Cours d automobile théorique et pratique 1933 paris delagrave library and i just checked it says 20:1 is ideal but it can burn as low as 25:1
Thank you. Well said. It is much clearer to me now. Did anyone ever try to engineer the heated vapor system to kick in, or become available, after warm up? Long distance vehicles would probably like that. Around town , ya get what ya get.