Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 80-96-list); Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:21:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:21:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server <listar ford-trucks.com>
To: 80-96-list digest users <listar ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: 80-96-list Digest V2000 #241
Precedence: list

==========================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts 80-96 Truck  Mailing  List

Visit our  web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com

To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject  of  the
message.
==========================================================

------------------------------------
80-96-list Digest Sat, 18 Nov 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 241

In This Issue:
Fantastic gas mileage
Re: Fuel Gauge - '85 Bronco
Re: Fantastic gas mileage
ADMIN: Tragic loss
Hello, Newbie with E-150

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:57:45 -0600
From: Tom Wiggins <wigginst earthlink.net>
Subject: Fantastic gas mileage

Tom writes; I ran onto this a while ago and thought you guys might be
interested.

Gotta do something to get this list rolling again.

Tom Wiggins
Valley Center, Ks


Bruce; I was very happy and not suprised to see so many other inventors
who have had reached                  the same conclusion: The internal
combustion engine is capable of 2-5 times better fuel
                 economy with little changes. I too have stumbled on to
fantastic, supposedly unachievable fuel
                 economy. I have a 1987 Ford F150 Four wheel drive
pickup truck with a 302Cu In V-8, Fuel
                 Injected (Sequential port) and the Ford EEC-IV engine
Management system. For the past 3
                 years, I have averaged 42 to 85 MPG while running on
the front fuel tank (the truck has two
                 tanks). The reason for the increased mileage is that
the in tank fuel pump is defective, it runs
                 HOT HOT HOT. So, guess what is supposed to cool the
pump? The gasoline! When you run
                 the truck with 1-5 gallons in the front tank, the fuel
is heating up to 100 to 140 degrees F prior to
                 reaching the fuel injectors. Since this heated liquid
is pressurized in the fuel delivery system, it
                 can't vaporize. But, once it reaches the cylinders, it
vaporizes at a fantastic rate. Since fuel
                 injection systems use a closed loop design, unused
fuel is returned to the fuel tanks. The
                 computer determines the fuel injector pulse width
duration based on exhaust pipe sensors (O2)
                 to determine the appropriate fuel/air mixture. So the
system determines it needs much less
                 gasoline for a given air mixture at each cylinder.
When the gasoline super evaporates, the O2
                 sensor senses an overly "rich" mixture, then starts
retarding the fuel injector pulse width to lean
                 out the mixture. This mileage gain is not dependent on
gasoline supply, I have used Texaco,
                 Amoco, Super America, Phillips 66, Holiday Gas, with
no variation. Also, there is no mileage
                 degradation over time as you have reported with the
TCC systems. This phenomenon is
                 repeatable and occurs with NO modifications to the
truck, engine, computer, or fuel system. The
                 Fuel tank has the original cap which starts venting at
1.4psi. When I use the rear fuel tank, I get
                 the normal 13 MPG. There have been no derivability
problems, the truck runs the same on either
                 tank. I have applied for a grant from the Department
of Energy (NIST) to further develop an
                 add-on system for all sequential fuel injected
vehicles that could be cut-in during automobile
                 manufacturing as well. My grant application has made
it through 3 of the 5 rounds of evaluation. I
                 also am filing a provisional patent application (good
for 1 year), the invention is called the "Fuel
                 Vaporizer & Economizer" Ford Motor Company has shown
interest, they requested me to sign a
                 release document and send them all my data. I refused
of course. The EPA has a test program,
                 but it cost $6,000 to test one vehicle. They require
two vehicles for testing that represent the
                 majority of vehicles on the road today and in the
foreseeable future. I have not spoken about this
                 device in public, only family and a few close friends
are aware of it. I am working to add fuel tank
                 heaters (360Watt) and controllers to a GM vehicle to
see if we can duplicate the mileage gains. I
                 am looking for your recommendations, suggestions, and
any detailed explanation on why my
                 system works so well. Thank you for your help. Mark
Sampica
                 mark_d_sampica notes.seagate.com 17275 81st Ave. North
Maple Grove MN 55311 Although
                 automakers have deliberately made automobiles more
complex, and oil companies incorporated
                 additives to their gasoline mixtures





------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:44:56 -0600
From: Jim Cannon <jcannon SoftHome.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Gauge - '85 Bronco

At 18:51 14-11-00 -0600, you wrote:
>Having a problem with the fuel gauge on my '85 Full-size Bronco. Gauge
>barely reads above empty, and will not go higher even with more gas.
>Checked voltage to sender - 5V with key on. Have good ground at other
>sender wire. Shouldn't this be 12V? Is there a voltage regulator for the
>guages? Any suggestions?

Yes, there is a voltage regulator for the gauges. It is supposed to give
you about 5 volts, so that seems to be OK. It also feeds temp and oil
pressure gauge, so if they work, it is either your sender or your gas gauge.

Do not "ground" the wire that goes back to the sender to test. It messes up
the voltage regulator. Connect the wire to ground through a big 10 ohm
ceramic power resistor. (Pick it up at Radio Shack for a buck or two). With
this connection the gas gauge should read Full. If it does, the sender is
bad. If it does not, the gauge is bad OR the wire running up between tank
and gauge is broken....

Good luck.

Jim Cannon
Houston, TX                            "A Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech
'29 Ford Model A Phaeton                 and a helluva' engineer!"
'80 Ford F-150 300 I-6 2WD              '63 Buick Riviera 401 V-8


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:51:38 +1100
From: les williams <lesw cyber.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fantastic gas mileage

Hi Tom,

I do agree with the quietness of the list, but isn't it an indication of
the fantastic work our beloved list co-ordinator has done in the area of
archiving all past posts ?
Is there anything left to 'chew the fat' over ?? Are we now collectively
redundant ?? Or has interest really just fallen off and almost every
body else has gone and traded up/down to a Chebby ? ;-))

Ok, Getting back to the real question of Fantastic gas mileage, Well I
gotta say, I'm a non-believer, and would like to think the creator of
the system goes about testing the MPG in a more um, how should I put
this, a more scientific manner, before He blows his dough$.

My Nephew Phred may like to correct me, but I thought the Original
Purpose and the reason for the invention of MSD ignition systems was to
still perform at an A/F ratio in excess of 14.7 - extreme lean burn
situations. Higher ratios are simply harder to sustain total combustion,
and I would think that 85 MPG is extreme lean burn situation, or a one
way trip heading down hill, with a tailwind all the way.
Also, isn't there an optimal temperature that injectors run at ?

I have had my fair share of involvement in Car Club fuel economy runs,
and trying to wring every last MPG out of a gallon of petrol, by fair
means OR foul, and I can tell you it isn't a realistic or sustainable
way of driving, AND having Fun.

The other thing that spooks me, is the installing a 360 watt heater in a
petrol tank. Hmmm and I thought playing with propane could be dyn-O-mite
!!

Tom, you didn't indicate your position on the topic ...


regards

Les
Still lost in the Land of OZ,
in an '85 F100 351 Clevo fuelled on propane, ignited by MSD6al
and having FUN just doing it ...





Tom Wiggins wrote:
>
> Tom writes; I ran onto this a while ago and thought you guys might be
> interested.
>
> Gotta do something to get this list rolling again.
>
> Tom Wiggins
> Valley Center, Ks
>
>  Bruce; I was very happy and not suprised to see so many other inventors
> who have had reached                  the same conclusion: The internal
> combustion engine is capable of 2-5 times better fuel
>                   economy with little changes. I too have stumbled on to
> fantastic, supposedly unachievable fuel
>                   economy. I have a 1987 Ford F150 Four wheel drive
> pickup truck with a 302Cu In V-8, Fuel
>                   Injected (Sequential port) and the Ford EEC-IV engine
> Management system. For the past 3
>                   years, I have averaged 42 to 85 MPG while running on
> the front fuel tank (the truck has two
>                   tanks). The reason for the increased mileage is that
> the in tank fuel pump is defective, it runs
>                   HOT HOT HOT. So, guess what is supposed to cool the
> pump? The gasoline! When you run
>                   the truck with 1-5 gallons in the front tank, the fuel
> is heating up to 100 to 140 degrees F prior to
>                   reaching the fuel injectors. Since this heated liquid
> is pressurized in the fuel delivery system, it
>                   can't vaporize. But, once it reaches the cylinders, it
> vaporizes at a fantastic rate. Since fuel
>                   injection systems use a closed loop design, unused
> fuel is returned to the fuel tanks. The
>                   computer determines the fuel injector pulse width
> duration based on exhaust pipe sensors (O2)
>                   to determine the appropriate fuel/air mixture. So the
> system determines it needs much less
>                   gasoline for a given air mixture at each cylinder.
> When the gasoline super evaporates, the O2
>                   sensor senses an overly "rich" mixture, then starts
> retarding the fuel injector pulse width to lean
>                   out the mixture. This mileage gain is not dependent on
> gasoline supply, I have used Texaco,
>                   Amoco, Super America, Phillips 66, Holiday Gas, with
> no variation. Also, there is no mileage
>                   degradation over time as you have reported with the
> TCC systems. This phenomenon is
>                   repeatable and occurs with NO modifications to the
> truck, engine, computer, or fuel system. The
>                   Fuel tank has the original cap which starts venting at
> 1.4psi. When I use the rear fuel tank, I get
>                   the normal 13 MPG. There have been no derivability
> problems, the truck runs the same on either
>                   tank. I have applied for a grant from the Department
> of Energy (NIST) to further develop an
>                   add-on system for all sequential fuel injected
> vehicles that could be cut-in during automobile
>                   manufacturing as well. My grant application has made
> it through 3 of the 5 rounds of evaluation. I
>                   also am filing a provisional patent application (good
> for 1 year), the invention is called the "Fuel
>                   Vaporizer & Economizer" Ford Motor Company has shown
> interest, they requested me to sign a
>                   release document and send them all my data. I refused
> of course. The EPA has a test program,
>                   but it cost $6,000 to test one vehicle. They require
> two vehicles for testing that represent the
>                   majority of vehicles on the road today and in the
> foreseeable future. I have not spoken about this
>                   device in public, only family and a few close friends
> are aware of it. I am working to add fuel tank
>                   heaters (360Watt) and controllers to a GM vehicle to
> see if we can duplicate the mileage gains. I
>                   am looking for your recommendations, suggestions, and
> any detailed explanation on why my
>                   system works so well. Thank you for your help. Mark
> Sampica
>                   mark_d_sampica notes.seagate.com 17275 81st Ave. North
> Maple Grove MN 55311 Although
>                   automakers have deliberately made automobiles more
> complex, and oil companies incorporated
>                   additives to their gasoline mixtures

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:39:53 -0500
From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: Tragic loss

I've just received notice that Jan and Pat Ford had a tragic loss.
Their youngest daughter was killed by a drunk driver about 3 weeks
ago.

For those of you who don't know the Ford's (no relation to FoMoCo),
Pat and Jan Ford have been an enormous part of the Ford truck hobby,
especially for antique trucks.  They put on the F100 Supernationals
and have done so for over 20 years.  Not only that, but they are
really nice folks.

I'd like to show them we care.  Ford Truck Enthusiasts is asking
its members to send loss/sympathy cards and we'll put them together
in a package and send it to Pat and Jan Ford.

The cards should be written to Pat and Jan Ford and sent to Ford
Truck Enthusiasts at:

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
PO Box 422
Lilburn, GA 30048

Your participation in this would be greatly appreciated.  I'm sure
this is a difficult time for them and any comfort, no matter how
small, is sure to help.  Please try to send something by next Friday
at the latest.

Sincerely,
Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts



------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 06:14:50 -0600
From: Zach Collard <zdc497s smsu.edu>
Subject: Hello, Newbie with E-150

The 95' 5.8l were rated at 210 hp and 310 lbs x torque. Your gas millage will
depend apon the overal weight of the vechicle, I have a F-250 (6,000lbs or
2,727kg) and get around 13 miles per gallon in the city and 15 mpg on the
highway. I don't know the metric conversion of these numbers, sorry.
Daywalker
92' F-250 351 4x4 xlt 4.10 5spd sprcab lngbed

""From: "Conrad" <conrad conrad.uk.net>
Subject: Hello, Newbie with E-150
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:28:53 -0000

Hi there all. Just joined a couple of days ago and only one message - is
it just me?
Anyway, I'm in the UK and I've just bought a 1995 LA West converted 5.8
Econoline. Superb van, going to tour several of the european GPs next
year in it.

>I have no documentation other than the VIN type stickers, and I can find
>very little info on the net, wondering if anyone here can help.
>
>For starters, could someone tell me the expected power output/milage of
>the 5.8, and what this particular engine model is (351W??), and identify
>what the axle code '19' and trans code 'E' are please?
>
>Do the normal things like K+N filter serve any useful purpose on this
>engine?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Conrad
>
""


------------------------------

End of 80-96-list Digest V2000 #241
*********************************** ....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.