Fuel Heaters

[GasSavers_Red]

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

I will probably rely heavily on my current figures for a baseline. As for the difficulty of going from "A" to "B", the heater is supposed to have a type of quick dis-connect fittings. It would just be a matter of the pressurized fuel in the line leaking out when the connection is loosened.

usually your fuel rail it attached to your fuel line via a "quick disconnect" fitting. If the fitting supplied is of the same type you shouldn't have any leaks.

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

I will probably rely heavily on my current figures for a baseline. As for the difficulty of going from "A" to "B", the heater is supposed to have a type of quick dis-connect fittings. It would just be a matter of the pressurized fuel in the line leaking out when the connection is loosened.

Larry do you still have the EFIE? I think that is going to be the way to really get it to work well. I had heated lines on the 626(1999) running across the radiator wrapped in foil. Did not really test it per say just one run with and one without showed a 3% increase with the heated lines.

[diamondlarry]

If the fitting supplied is of the same type you shouldn't have any leaks.

I think it is the same type of fitting. I was referring to the fuel that usually sprays out a bit when the fitting is disconnected.

Larry do you still have the EFIE? I think that is going to be the way to really get it to work well.

I do still have the EFIE. I don't currently have it hooked up but will do so with the FOG devices hooked up.

[GasSavers_maxc]

My heated fuel makes my engine ping, then I add water the ping go's away. LOL

[cfg83]

diamondlarry -

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

I don't think I'm familliar with the by-pass valves.

I wish I could find that original picture I saw, because it is for the model you are getting. Anyway, here is one that I am positive is for Diesels :



It's pretty butch and looks like it has a temperature control on one of them. Go to http://www.arctic-fox.com and fish around to see if there is anything adaptable for gasoline.

CarloSW2

[diamondlarry]

Those do look pretty cool! I wonder if you could use the diesel units with gasoline?

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Here's Tony's thoughts (Tony is a clever fellow): http://www.fuelsaving.info/atomisation.htm

I have a comment on Tony's article. I agree with him that modern FI cars burn nearly all of the fuel that goes into them. Where I begin to disagree with him is when he says that a fuel warmer won't help mpg much if any at all. While it's true that there is very little unburned fuel coming out of the tailpipe, the problem is that much of the fuel isn't being burned in the combustion chamber. Catalytic converters do a great job of mopping up after what's left over from the engine but fuel that is burned in the cat does absolutely no work in propelling the car down the road. I believe that by heating the fuel that more of the fuel will be consumed in the combustion chamber where you can benefit from it.

[MetroMPG]

Larry, have you made that point to Tony? I'm sure he'd reply (he actually makes a point of asking for criticism directly).

It's a valid question about his arguments.

(I don't recall whether he states if his claims about combustion efficiency are through measuring cat-cleaned exhaust or "straight" exhaust.)

Somewhere he does talk about experiments Bosch did heating the fuel, though.

[MetroMPG]

Found it...

I have even tested a device that completely vaporizes the fuel on a heated surface*, eliminating fuel droplets altogether, and the economy improvement was tiny (1 - 2% at most).

* As an aside, the idea that improved vaporization would save enormous amounts of fuel has been around for a very long time - at least since 1936 and Charles Pogue's "200 mpg carburettor". This device supposedly gave fantastic fuel savings by heating the fuel to help it vaporize. Well, I have personally tested the modern-day equivalent and the saving is a couple of percent at best.

http://fuelsaving.info/atomisation.htm

That said, a 1-2% improvement means .5 - 1 MPG from a 50 mpg baseline.

I'm wasn't unhappy to see improvements of 2% on my last couple of aero experiments.

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Larry, have you made that point to Tony? I'm sure he'd reply (he actually makes a point of asking for criticism directly).

It's a valid question about his arguments.

(I don't recall whether he states if his claims about combustion efficiency are through measuring cat-cleaned exhaust or "straight" exhaust.)

Somewhere he does talk about experiments Bosch did heating the fuel, though.

I will submit my thoughts to him and see if I may be on the wrong track.