Greetings;

I posessed a 87 F150 4x4 with the 5.0 V-8, 3.55 axle ratio, 4 speed manual (granny gear tranny)and was able to get 38 to 42 mpg with it. No, I am not off my rocker, I am a Mechanical Engineer and actually peformed a number of tests with it.

I also had the emissions measured and noticed a significant difference in emissions when I am achieving the hi mpg vs. the standard 15 mpg.

The "problem" or opportunity seems to be centered on the front tank, it was pulled a couple of years ago for water in the gas and I believe that the fuel line (feed or return) is kinked, causing the in-tank pump to work harder than normal and generate heat in the tank. I first run the front tank dry, then put in 5 gallons. I then run the back tank dry and switch to the front. If I fill the front tank, and run it, I don't get the hi mpg. It appears that by somehow pre-heating the fuel, that it more fully atomizes in the combustion chamber instead of being burned as part of the exhaust in the cat converters. It seems to me that an elevated fuel temp is causing the "super vaporization" of the fuel when the injectors open. I can only theorize that the EEC-IV system then retards the injectors timing (lowering fuel consumption) to compensate based on an o2 sensor reading?? After trying to get others interested, I gave up and sold the truck to a gentleman in Coon Rapids MN. I also gave him my files. Anyone else getting hi MPG? The flashpoint for gasoline is approximately 400 degrees F., so you can heat it somewhat without causing an explosion (provided you aren't heating with an open flame!!). I thought of using an electric heater powered by the 12VDC system to preheat the fuel in a small pint or quart size insulated container wrapped with resistive heating wire and a temp sensor that would cut off the current flow if the temp of the container exceeded 300 F. The fuel line would empty into this chamber from the fuel tank pump, be heated and forced into the line going to the injectors by normal system pressurization. There are a number of patents related to super vaporization with the resultant hi mpg, none of which the major manufacturers have adopted.

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 20-Nov-00 AT 03:57 PM (EST)[/font][p]That definitely sounds intriguing. I guess it's pretty difficult to reproduce, though, as you seem to have problems getting people interested in it. What would your idea be to reproduce that effect? Such a heater as you describe shouldn't be too difficult to build and test - have you done that?

 

A friend of mine used to experiment with various fuel delivery systems that would dramatically improve the mileage that one would expect to get from a gallon of fuel. He had many stories of how to achieve additional milage. Sadly, my friend passed away a few months back. Anyway, Ed was brilliant and often spoke of the systems that he and his partners would develop.

The trouble with all of these things is that they could never market any of their developments... nobody would buy them... don't know why... but, despite near fleet deals on a couple products, they could never close a deal. The potential customers would always back out. One product in particular, was a single barrel 750 cfm carburator that he used on his '79 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, with the giant Cadillac power plant... he used to get 41 miles to the gallon... I saw myself... even held the cutaway model they had done up for display purposes... was a real neat piece of work... No matter what throttle position it was in, it was the perfect venturi... Anyway, they wound up selling the patents for this little item to our good friends in Dearborne, yup, Ford bought it... bastarized it into the variable venturi carb that we saw on many 351s in the 80's... and later scaped it... it didn't work... and it didn't resemble Ed's patent in any way except that they both had a variable venturi.

One thing Ed was always afraid of was that Ford would find out that he was still using one of his proto-types on the Caddy... eventually they did and removed it from his car in his own garage.

Anyway, one of their later experiments involved heating fuel prior to hitting the air with it... they had incredible milage results... like 200-300 mpg... mind you they were literally boiling it. It proved dangerous when one day on a test run a small explosion sent the fender into the ditch... I don't know where the experimenting ended up on that one.

There are gains to be made in this field... I believe the technology is in place... but, the will isn't... It doesn't much matter, if you operate a vehicle with a fuel delivery system that is experimental or otherwise does not comply with a variety of approval criteria... you will void warraties, insurance policies and may in fact violate local and or federal laws...

Someday, we will see these things happen... I hope.

Perry

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 20-Nov-00 AT 04:34 PM (EST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 20-Nov-00 AT 04:33 PM (EST)[/font]

How about using the engine's cooling system to pre-heat the fuel? That should be easy enough to do and should also never risk an explosion, as the water never get's more than 80-90° centigrade (whatever that is in F). What one would have to do is insert a coiled piece of tubing into the fuel lines and thread it into a coolant tubing. Or the other way around: divert a small piece of collant and wrap the tube around the fuel line. Does anyone here see any potential in that? Is it mechanically possible, i.e. do the coolant and fuel tubes come near enough? Is tube length an issue?

 

Thanks Perry!

I did find a gentlemen in Detroit that was experimenting with the same fuel theory-- basically boiling it prior to atomoziation in the combustion chambers with similiar results. He had a patent, but had lost his wife to an accident and lost interest in pursuing this project. He also mentioned to me that he did have one test vehicle that "exploded" and burned, so you are right, there are risks associated with this methodology.

Maybe the automakers aren't interested because of the safety issues and liability?

 

I suppose that is possible... I'm a little more synical than that... I think the manufacturers own too much oil stock... if vehicles suddenly got as efficient as possible the world economy would be sent into a tailspin... we would have a much cleaner environment... and... well, lets not get me started on all that... LOL!

Anyway, I dreamed of messing around with these things myself, but, I just buy my fuel like everyone else... and my 460, just loves the stuff... LOL!!!

Perry

 

I just have one question. Are you sure your tank selector valve was working right? I believe your year Ford was one of several years where they valve was frequently bad and allowed the front tank to suck gas from the rear tank. This may explain why you're getting great mileage on the front tank but not the rear.

Dustin Siebert
mrlaserboy(No Email Addresses In Posts!)
Registry: http://www.superford.org/cgi-bin/sf.cgi?uid=default&vr2=1&ID=201
Home Page: http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/gear/40
'88 Bronco XLT 302EFI/AOD/BW1356/44IFS with 8 lugs(open)/10.25 FF(Lockright locker)/4.56/6" Superlift complete/35's-street/38.5's-trails
2 BIG BRONCOS 4X4 CLUB - GREAT LAKES CHAPTER

 

Bjoern,

I thought of running a heater hose along the fuel rail on my 460 to preheat the fuel inside it. I haven't tried it as yet, and I'm not sure I will, but, it is tempting to give it a try. I wonder if the injectors would stand up to the heat.

I also run propane in the truck, which even at the current high prices for propane saves me about 15-20% on my bill. When the truck is running on propane the fuel pump is shut off and the gasoline stands in the rails... it would boil in the rail and I would get all kinds of build up and gunk in there that would foul the injectors.

Anyway, I guess these are the reasons I've left well enough alone... Hmmm... so far!

Perry

 

Interesting. The complete reverse of your problem happened on the 300 I6 when they added fuel injection. The fuel was getting too hot because the injectors were so close to the exhaust manifold. This caused some problem where the engine would not run right. They solved it by adding a little cooling fan that sits somewhere around the fuel rail.

 

mrlaserboy,

yes, it would definitely be reassuring if mark s could exclude that explanation :-)
Before I checked the contents of both tanks, I was pretty amazed at the difference in mileage on my tanks :-) Got to get it fixed eventually, though :-)

 

I havent' tried this following product, but I am looking to talk with others who have. The website at www.wyominginstruments.com/gas_home.htm has a invention by fellow claiming to vaporize a higher % of the fuel. Check into the "history" section of the website to see his comments about the "BIG BOYS". If anyone has tried this invention, I'd like to know how you liked it. Also, Has anyone tried the "direct-hits" spark amplifier? They also claim slightly better fuel mileage.

Tony

 

Mark S- are you sure you didn't inhale some gasoline fumes when doing these experiments? The Stutz bearcat had preheated fuel in about 1910, some diesels still use heat in cold weather. If it worked to get better mileage the auto companys would using the idea, at least enough to keep the government off their backs about fleet averages. I'm not sure where this 100mpg plus carb myth got started, but it just is not possible. Lets assume that your truck gets 15 mpg while turning 33 and 1/3 % of its energy into usefull work. If we could triple the effiency to 100% we would still be only getting 45 mpg, not even half way too the 100 mpg myth. It is not a question of will, it just can't happen. If you really want to understand why it can't happen try taking a high school physics class. DF

 

DF,
According to some folks, todays engines' efficiency ratings are based on British Thermal Units...which works ok for external combustion engines such as the Sterling 'air-motor'. Gasoline offers it's power and efficiency via it's explosive qualities. Even so some say that todays engines are operating on 10-20% fuel efficiency. Multiply that same 15 mpg by 6 and you'll get 90 mpg. Check out some of the reading at http://www.himacresearch.com/default.html Maybe we've all been sniffing to much carbon monoxide and listening to greedy oil companies to have an open mind.
Tony G

 

>
>How about using the engine's cooling
>system to pre-heat the fuel?
>That should be easy enough
>to do and should also
>never risk an explosion, as
>the water never get's more
>than 80-90° centigrade (whatever that
>is in F). What one
>would have to do is
>insert a coiled piece of
>tubing into the fuel lines
>and thread it into a
>coolant tubing. Or the other
>way around: divert a small
>piece of collant and wrap
>the tube around the fuel
>line. Does anyone here see
>any potential in that? Is
>it mechanically possible, i.e. do
>the coolant and fuel tubes
>come near enough? Is tube
>length an issue?

Bjoern,
I have a radiator in a F350 that has removeable plugs for either an automatic or standard transmission. What about the idea of sending the fuel line through radiator via the unused auto transmission coolant lines? That would heat the gas to about 200-220.
However, some say that heating the fuel isn't the answer as gas engines operate best at 150-160 degrees. Properly atomized fuel would require so much less fuel that the operating temp of the engine and exhaust system would drop to about 150 deg F.
Tony

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 27-Nov-00 AT 09:07 AM (EST)[/font][p]>I have a radiator in a
>F350 that has removeable plugs
>for either an automatic or
>standard transmission. What about
>the idea of sending the
>fuel line through radiator via
>the unused auto transmission coolant
>lines? That would heat
>the gas to about 200-220.

That's pretty much what I had thought of, yes.

>However, some say that heating the
>fuel isn't the answer as
>gas engines operate best at
>150-160 degrees.

Well, that's exaxtly why I would like to try it. If it works, fine, if it doesn't, then we know. I haven't done an extensive web-search, yet, but I bet there are quite a number of contradicting reports out there. I personally am very doubtful that it should make much of a difference. Maybe a few percent, but not more than 25%. I'd be pretty happy if such a fairly easy and safe modification produced a 25% increase in mpg. Hell, even 10% would be fine. I'm pretty sceptical, though. But I don't believe much that is written about it, as there's way to much money involved for honesty :-)

If you did it and it worked, I'd only believe you if you wouldn't want to sell it :-)

Are you going to try it?

Bjoern