Fuel Saver Pro

[Badger]

So are you saying that at 55 mph, the car would get better gas mileage than at 40 mph, or whatever the speed is when it shifts into its highest gear? At 55, the engine turns the same number of revolutions per unit distance, but the throttle is opened up more, letting in more fuel per revolution. The optimal gas mileage is the speed when you shift into your car's final gear.

I must correct something. As the throttle opens, less fuel and more air flow into the carb, leaning out the mixture.

So, yes, when the car first shifts into high gear (40 mph for example) the throttle is partly to mostly closed, pulling in more fuel and less air.

Are you familiar with horsepower graphs of engines? At low RPM's there is low horsepower. Then the graph angles up and to the right, indicating that as rpm's increase, horsepower increases, until it levels off at some point. With some engines the horsepower continues increasing as rpm's increase, and with other engines it drops off as the rpm's increase.

Anyway, as you're driving, there's a point where the horsepower versus rpm (gear ratio to get the power from the motor to the tires included here), and speed of the vehicle versus drag interrelate such that most distance is gained per unit of fuel burned.

I don't know if that explanation helped or merely confused things more.

 

[Badger]

I would be very surprised if the auto manufacturers haven't tested this type of thing on a flow bench already. Knowing how the air flows into and through the head is vital to engine performance. Currently all intakes are carefully tuned. Some are dynamically variable and many cars now have variable valve timing. If a swirly device would help it would be in there.



Only partly true. Certainly a dirty paper air filter will hurt fuel consumption but these high flow air filters only give you a benefit when you want a high volume of air flow. In other words a wide open throttle. At lower speeds the engine requires a lower volume of air which is easily handled by a paper filter. No real gain.

Ah, good point! I drive lots of hwy miles so didn't really have lower speeds in my mindset. Thanks for pointing that out!

Still, I'm wondering if a higher pressure in the air cleaner box, between the filter and the venturi wouldn't translate through to a decrease in the amount of energy used by the pistons to pull the fuel/air mix into the chamber. Thus (to my reasoning) a higher flow air filter would allow higher intake runner pressure and so make more horsepower available to the drivetrain. The effects may be negligable. I don't know.

 

[Iamme]

_Q_---I never have an extra $70 laying around!

Teddygrahams---But if you chose downhill ways of getting to where you are going...what do you think is going to happen when you try to return from where you started? Your plan could only work if you were a believer in that artwork that shows all the stairs going up, and yet can meet at the beginning.

 

[Luceiia]

_Q_---I never have an extra $70 laying around!

Surely you can afford a roll of duct tape, and it should get you roughly 0.7% better gas mileage than the tornado (and you'd have some leftover to use around the house).


Luceiia

 

[roger]

But Third Twin. You are discounting the'mother of invention'. Contracts have already been 'let' on components for cars. THEN comes along the better mousetrap. That's the way it is with ALL industry. There ARE plenty of gadgets that come along that really do work.

The Tornado device that goes in-line with your air cleaner? This IS supposed to work. It is heavily endorsed by Jeff Brooks (nationally syndicatred radio car show host). I have seen a show on this device where some independent testing lab has ascribed before and after values to a variety of automobiles, and each vehicles horse power and fuel mileage were recorded and listed. They all went up. The best vehicle brand got about 20 additional horsepower and 22% better mileage.

Why doesn't the factory include these? Hmmmm. Well, they do cost about $70. Car companies don't include a lot of nice things that aftermarket companies sell for vehicles. They must think that it's not worth it for any number of reasons.

Iamme, I think you are either being naive, or not thinking this through carefully.

First of all, car manufacturers are under extreme pressure from congress to improve gas milage. They spend a lot more than $70 on an engine to get milage improvements. Furthermore, they LOVE add-ons, because that is where they make much of their money, charging inflated prices. You get charged $500 for a $200 CD player, for example. If there was a way to add a $70 gadget to the car to effect significant improvements in performance, they would find a way to charge you $300 for it and make you feel you were getting a bargain. The last time I bought a car, they tried to sell me upgraded seats, to spray my undercarriage, to put in theft alarms, to upgrade the carpet thingies under my feet, to put a lock on the gas tank, to put a spoiler on my trunk, etc. They weren't shy about trying to add $70 or more to the cost of the car in aftermarket devices!

But let's discount all that. Let's talk racing. There we are talking big bucks, where trashing a hundred thousand dollar engine is a normal expense of doing business. Fuel economy and management is a huge factor in racing, because of stringent requirments for amounts of fuel that you are allowed to burn in a race. Cars regularly lose races because they don't have enough gas to race full out, or because they had to make one more pit stop than a competitor.

These teams have full time employees that do nothing but design and improve their engines. And yet they don't use these devices.

But discount all that. Let's talk the US military. I'm sure I don't have to explain the importance of fuel economy and improved engine performance in a military context. Yet no military equipment uses these devices.

So why is it car companies that are being pressured by the government to improve economy don't use it, that race teams that have huge financial incentives to use it (if it worked) don't use it, and that the US military does not use it?

Finally, why is it when a car with one of these devices is actually hooked up to a dyno, it shows no increased output?

http://autorepair.about.com/library/products/aafpr052002.htm

The article above is worth reading, as it explains how the consumer's expectation for increased performance led them to believe they really were experiencing increased power even though the dyno showed they weren't.

 

[davefoc]

roger,
Great post, logical, informative and relevant to the subject, plus a spot on link. nice job. I would nominate you for one of the prizes but I don't follow that closely enough to know if somebody has one for just really good posts.

Dave

 

[SquishyDave]

I second davefoc's praise of your post, you're getting it in dave-stereo.

Plus your avatar always makes me hungry

 

[CurtC]

Badger wrote:
I must correct something. As the throttle opens, less fuel and more air flow into the carb, leaning out the mixture.

Now I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I have a good grasp of physics, and I did take some ME courses in college when I got my EE degree. I pretty strongly disbelieve what you're telling me, that as the throttle opens in a carburetor, less fuel goes into the engine. I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too. But if you have a cite for the point, I'd like to read it.

I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.

 

[roger]

Wow, I have a fan club. Cool!

Uh, Dave, why are you walking towards me with that fork with a gleam in your eye? Dave! Dave! Stop!! Noooo!!!!

Davefoc - is your avatar a picture of the top of Half Dome?

 

[_Q_]

Iamme, I think you are either being naive, or not thinking this through carefully.
(rest of very nice post clipped)

roger,

I wanted to say all that and more, but I didn't have the patience (and I didn't know of that article to which you linked). Thanks for taking the time and doing it masterfully.

To blow my own skeptical horn, now - I did finally get up the gumption to write letters to the guys in charge of Cabela's (outdoor outfitters) regarding the Fuel Master magnetic fuel treatment device listed in their catalog and on their web site, suggesting that they might be better off staying out of the snake oil business. A lot of my arguments matched up nicely with yours. I also mentioned fleet use - wouldn't taxi companies (or FedEX, UPS, etc.) just about wet themselves over even a 5% reduction in fuel costs?

I never heard back from Cabela's, but I'm pleased that I can no longer find the item on their web site.

Again, thanks!


_Q_

 

[_Q_]

_Q_---I never have an extra $70 laying around!

If you believe the manufacturer's claims and the endorsements, then this would seem to be very much penny wise and pound foolish - if you drive a motor vehicle much at all, it would pay for itself quickly enough, and then it would all be gravy.

Another option would be to style yourself as a "fuel consumption consultant" for some big fleet operations, with your fee amounting to some small percentage of the savings realized. You'd recommend the Tornado, your big clients would save a fortune, and you'd be riding a gravy train.

The data from a large scale controlled study (your big clients) would be priceless advertising material for the manufacturer - "UPS saves a bazillion dollars a year with the Tornado - so what are you waiting for?". As the recommending consultant, maybe the Tornado people would give you a piece of the action, too. Then you'd be riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels.

I would recommend a good lawyer to make sure that everything's in order - it would be worth it. With so much money at stake, you might be able to get one to do the work for no cash out of pocket - just a tiny slice of the huge piece of pie.


_Q_

 

[roger]

I also mentioned fleet use - wouldn't taxi companies (or FedEX, UPS, etc.) just about wet themselves over even a 5% reduction in fuel costs?

Oh, the fleet use is an excellent point!

Of course, to be fair we have to admit that in some small way we are appealing to authority - that a taxi company or the US government does or does not use these devices does not, in itself, constitute proof. It _is_ a good counter to conspiracy arguments about the non-use of these devices, as there is no way all of these various organizations could be controlled by "them". However, the bottom line are the dyno tests - what HP and fuel use changes occur due to these devices.

It's interesting that people aren't swayed by the scientific evidence, yet are swayed by anecdoctal testimony (a radio DJ touts it) or such.

 

[roger]

I would recommend a good lawyer to make sure that everything's in order - it would be worth it. With so much money at stake, you might be able to get one to do the work for no cash out of pocket - just a tiny slice of the huge piece of pie.

_Q_

How much are you planning on charging for your business advice _Q_?

 

[jimlintott]

Still, I'm wondering if a higher pressure in the air cleaner box, between the filter and the venturi wouldn't translate through to a decrease in the amount of energy used by the pistons to pull the fuel/air mix into the chamber. Thus (to my reasoning) a higher flow air filter would allow higher intake runner pressure and so make more horsepower available to the drivetrain. The effects may be negligable. I don't know.

Unless your vehicle has some special design for air intake, ie: ram air, the air box pressure will be only one atmosphere. The intake runners are under vacuum not pressure. Your reasoning about the air filter resisting the engine's ability to create this vacuum is sound but reall only an issue at high RPM.

The motor can only draw its displacement in air with one revolution (unless a blower is involved). These high flow filters certainly offer less restriction to air volume over time so when the engine needs a high volume of air in a short period of time (high RPM) they certainly work. At the lower RPM demands the effect is slight. For fuel economy you'll benefit more from checking tire pressure. Synthetic lubricants may have more to offer but for the price of fancy air filters and synthetic lubricants you can buy a lot of fuel.

 

[_Q_]

How much are you planning on charging for your business advice _Q_?

Exactly what it's worth, my friend, exactly what it's worth.


_Q_

 

[_Q_]

Oh, the fleet use is an excellent point!

Of course, to be fair we have to admit that in some small way we are appealing to authority - that a taxi company or the US government does or does not use these devices does not, in itself, constitute proof. It _is_ a good counter to conspiracy arguments about the non-use of these devices, as there is no way all of these various organizations could be controlled by "them". However, the bottom line are the dyno tests - what HP and fuel use changes occur due to these devices.

It's interesting that people aren't swayed by the scientific evidence, yet are swayed by anecdoctal testimony (a radio DJ touts it) or such.

The rub here, to me, is that many of these companies do claim to have dyno, emissions, and fuel consumption data from a "certified EPA lab". The article to which you linked is the first time I've seen someone else show results from their own dyno tests of such products. It doesn't seem to me that the truth should be so slippery here - why the disparity between the results? I'd like to see the results of tests from more independent labs; if results are not reproducible, then they don't deserve to be treated seriously. From looking at ads from a number of such vendors, one might think that "California Environmental Engineering" is the only place that can test such things (by the way - do they ever update their web site?).

If lab tests showed some promise, then it might be profitable to perform controlled field trials to see if the lab results are borne out in "real world" use. That's its own sort of "bottom line". If, however, a big fleet user were to want to try a properly controlled field trial based on the notion that there might be some sort of "unknown science" at work, well, I guess it's their money. They can wake me up if it works.


_Q_

 

[Iamme]

Alright you guys. Maybe I *will* have to invest in one of these. They have a 30-day money-back guarantee. You are supposed to get 1-2 MPG increase on the average. I was just over to some websites about it. Balcamp is the diostributor for them and they are being sold aftermarket in NAPA and other automotive stores.

I quickly calculated that one of these $70 devices should save me about $150 a year, or in that ballpark, on gas.

Plus, there would be pleasure in saying, "SEEEEEEEE?"...if it works .

 

[teddygrahams]

Now I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I have a good grasp of physics, and I did take some ME courses in college when I got my EE degree. I pretty strongly disbelieve what you're telling me, that as the throttle opens in a carburetor, less fuel goes into the engine. I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too. But if you have a cite for the point, I'd like to read it.

I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.

I vote for 15:1 nearly constant... but when was the last time you saw a carburator on a new car ?

Engines are designed to be most efficient at Wide Open Throttle.

Horsepower is low at low RPMs because engines produce torque...think about it, force (expansion of gas) times distance (crankshaft radius) = torque, not horsepower.

Horsepower comes into it by the magic "5252" formula... horspower is equal numerically to torque at 5252rpms all the time. If you look at a graph or torque and HP vs RPM and they don't cross there, the graph is wrong. If they do and someone makes a big deal of it, they are wrong. It is always that way. Since HP is proportional to torque and RPM, it will always be low at low RPM. Since HP is low at low RPM, the only way to get power out of an engine is to increase torque at the low end. And the only way to increase torque is to increase the amount of expanding air.


Now, tuning an engine is done by the ECU. But before, the carburator had some control over the mixture. I don't remember what small variations of mixture affected. But a modern ECU should be looking at the O2 sensor which is sensing the post-combusted gases, and adjusting the amount of fuel according to a pre-set formula taking into account RPM, air mass flow, O2 remaining, maybe one more. So putting some tornado in front of it is not going to have a "free" effect. If there is any increase in fuel economy, it must be at the cost of something the engine manufacturer wanted to avoid, such as operating temp, emissions, or maximum available power. Even if it does use LESS fuel and makes MORE power that is not automatically good... if the combustion is not complete, any remnants will go into the catalytic converter and be burned there, leading to higher temperatures and decreased life.

By the way, in a good fuel injection system, the fuel is injected into the cylinder head, not the throttle-body. So this tornado air comes in, pulled by the piston, gas is injected, then it is compressed. So this "tornado effect" is going to still be there after the mixture is compressed to 10 (typical) atmospheres ? Right...


What can magnetizing gasoline do that those giant towers at the refinery didn't ?

And why not install them at the gasoline pump ? Now everybody benefits from the wonderful effects of magnetism !

 

[Iamme]

teedygrahams---it sounds like you have learned your stuff about horsepower and torque. But i have to say, "Huh?"...to you when you said, "Even if it does use LESS fuel and makes MORE power that is not automatically good...if the combustion is not complete..."

If you have some device, and you made no other changes, that increases both mileage AND power...how on earth can this not be better than how the vehicle was before?..from the fuel standpoint, power standpoint AND emmissions standpoint?

 

[Badger]

Now I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I have a good grasp of physics, and I did take some ME courses in college when I got my EE degree. I pretty strongly disbelieve what you're telling me, that as the throttle opens in a carburetor, less fuel goes into the engine. I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too. But if you have a cite for the point, I'd like to read it.

I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.

Basically, when the throttle is closed, little air gets by, and there is decreased pressure on the motor side of the throttle plate. The gas comes in on that side of the plate, not on the airbox side. So when running with the throttle closed (idling, low rpm) more gas is sucked in to the motor.

This explains the whole thing: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question377.htm