200 mpg

What do you guys think? Is this possible?

https://youtu.be/ZFxwJ8mIDtA

What a farce !! Listen to how little the engine cranks over to start,if it were actually running on fumes like he claims,the engine would have to turn over far longer. Stop & think about starting an engine with a carburetor,the choke needs to be on to start it cold. The only reason the choke is on to cold start is that there is not enough gas available..... It takes alot of gas to start an engine, & that gas is still liquid. Yes,i am aware that the 1992 he showed likely had fuel injection,but an engine won't start that quickly on fumes.
Another issue.... he restricted the airflow into the engine by covering the inlet on the air cleaner.
How many of us in our younger days made dual air cleaner inlets ? or flipped the lid to allow more air flow to the carb ?

It truly does seem possible to fool many with a video.

Yeah, it could work. But, the lack of air/fuel ratio adjustment could destroy the motor.

BTW, here's a news flash - all cars run on "fumes".

Liquid gasoline will not burn. It has to first be atomized (his bubbler in the gas can). But even then it won't burn. It then needs to be vaporized, which takes heat to do that (intake manifold hot spot and valve/cylinder heat) before it can combine with oxygen to burn.

Also, fuel WILL NOT BURN if the air/fuel ratio is too rich, or too lean. And there's not much leeway in that ratio.

The internal combustion engine is simply a heat pump. It takes heat energy to do the mechanical work of moving a car. Don't make enough heat energy and the car won't move.

And, what these You Tube shade tree mechanics don't tell you is that lots of really knowledgeable people have been tinkering with engines and fuel systems for over 100 years. If even the smallest, lightest cars could get near 100 mpg, you'd see lots more of them by now.

The only way they can get 200 MPG out of a car or small truck that is ONLY powered by gasoline is to always stay on the downward side of a hill.

Paul

"Watch what happens when I put my hand over these hoses", really?
proof enough for me

.... he'd be a lot further ahead if he just mounted generators on the wheels and put in an electric motor lol wouldn't need any gas at all

When I lost the fuel pump on my old '83 Nissan, I dumped a bit of gasoline into the carb and was able to start it and run about long enough to get it out of the garage. Repeat to maneuver it to where the tow truck could reach it. Same principle as this guy, I think. So I suppose his engine could run badly with that setup. Notice he didn't say that HE got 200 mpg with that setup, just that "other guys" were reporting that kind of mileage. But I did think his tinkering was kind of clever -- no need for all those silly complicated carburetor jets and passages, just a throttle plate and you're good to go.

There is no reason this shouldn't work, the gas mileage claims are another thing. Here is a video and he goes through the entire process of building it and doing a basic comparison.



Appears the engine runs a lot smoother with the regular line but the 2 or 3% savings in gas he achieved would be within the margin of error since he's not exactly measuring the gas.

I only half paid attention to the vid, but I saw him "prove" it was running on fumes by blocking off the hoses and stalling the engine. The only thing he "proved" was the engine won't run if you block off all the intake air. Pretty sure we already knew that.

Carburetors or FI are just devices to vaporize gasoline anyway so I believe what is shown/ demonstrated in the video is true.

I remember an issue of Hot Rod magazine years ago about a guy who was a brilliant engineer/ fabricator. He modified the ubiquitous 350 Chevy to use the water jackets in the cylinder heads to be filled with gasoline instead of water. This did two things, it cooled the heads and completely turned the liquid gasoline into a high pressure gas. This was then delivered to each cylinder via a modified diesel injection pump to make a crude direct injection of extremely hot high pressure gasoline vapors. It was demonstrated in a running GM car according to the article. GM then bought the rights to the design.

Vaporizing fuel more efficiently will give more power with less fuel. I doubt this setup does that.

Vapor is a gas that mixes more easily with air as opposed to atomization into tiny droplets. The atomized fuel requires an exact air pattern that matches the droplet pattern to be efficient, while the vaporized fuel only needs the correct amount of air.

I'd love to see what an exhaust gas analyzer shows for amounts of unburned gasoline in that truck's exhaust.

Paul

Sunny Boy wrote: ↑

Sat. Nov. 11, 2017 9:55 pm

I'd love to see what an exhaust gas analyzer shows for amounts of unburned gasoline in that truck's exhaust.

Paul

That would be intesting. A simple aftermarket O2 sensor driven FA ratio gauge would go a long way to that end.

The highest efficiency ever achieved in a gasoline engine is the 50% efficiency reached by Mercedes in their current Formula One racecar engine.

Given that the very best road car engines are likely struggling (dreaming) to hit 30% efficiency, that means that a multi million dollar engine designed by some of the worlds best scientists can potentially get no more than 67% better fuel mileage.

For someone who obviously has no understanding of science to boast 200 mpg in an old truck from gasoline is laughable.

If it got 12 mpg to begin with, the leap to 200 mpg would mean 1,667% better mpg. if his old truck is 15% efficient as is, and it was taken to a totally impossible 100% efficient, the mpg increase would only be 667%, or 80 mpg. And at 667% gain in mpg the engine would have to run cold as the outside air to hit 100% efficiency, since heat is merely wasted energy. it would also have to run without making a sound, since sound is merely wasted energy. And it would have to exhibit zero friction, as friction is merely wasted energy.

For the record, I’m simply stating that a reciprocating, internal combustion engine, will in fact run with a setup as shown in both videos.

If a modern truck with 24 mpg highway capability had Mercedes F1 engine technology applied to it, it would get 40 mpg highway.

Even if 100% efficiency were possible, which it is not, it takes energy to do work. Plain and simple, there just isn't enough energy in a gallon of gasoline to move a car even 100 miles.

Yes, this guy can start his engine on his home made "fumer". You can do the same by dripping gasoline into the air cleaner. That's nothing new about the idea. The earliest carburetors were "drip carburetors" until the invention of the float-feed carburetor.

But, I'll bet the mileage and the performance suck. Plus, with such poor air/fuel ratio control, he stands a good chance of eventually damaging his engine.

Paul