I noticed that, but y'know what I completely failed to look at? How you have the Dual Dutra Duals plumbed into and out of the turbo! Can you please describe the pipework between the DDDs and the turbo, and coming off the turbo to the rear of the car?
Wouldn't help speed warmup much as has been mentioned, due to minimal flow through the radiator when the engine's not up to temp. But, how 'bout a low-tech solution: A regular, normal, 120-volt engine block heater replacing one of the freeze plugs? These things actually work, see this EPA test. Of course there is some cost involved because they run on electricity, but the fuel savings will probably outweigh the electrical cost. Such heaters were available as factory or dealer optional equipment and were (and are) widely available on the aftermarket, in both freeze plug and tank types.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

That's an interesting test. I wouldn't think the lower radiator hose would be the best place for a heater, but it obviously worked. One thing I noticed is that the heater did nothing for oil temperature as oil temp was close to ambient in all cases. My feeling is that an oil pan heater is of value in allowing the oil to flow faster and create less drag in cranking. At work we have some V12 Cummins engines and each has two 4000 watt tank type heaters. The engines stay about 120°F all the time so the room gets quite warm and keeps the oil around 80-90°F.

_________________
Joshua

I'm sure you're right about reducing cranking effort, but it never gets cold enough in Sam's locale for that to be an issue. The issue here is getting the engine up to temp quickly, for fuel savings.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

And to even out warm up drivability issues. It's not bad now, but I am sure it will become something of an issue once the weather gets cold. Supposedly you can tune for this, and if I stick with it, I should be able to get those things worked out.

The header for the turbo is a pair of "J" shaped tubes that come off the Dutra Duals, and come together just below the turbo. The exhaust from the turbo then comes forward, and bends down just inside the power steering box, and down inside the frame where it splits into two. It must flow just between the bell housing, and the frame, and just under the clutch "Z" bar. The passenger side of the dual exhausts flows under the engine just in front of the clutch inspection plate. The other one follows the path of the stock single exhaust.

It all started life as stock 340 dual exhaust pipes with the front bends left undone. I then cut them off just in front of the torsion bar cross member. An excellent local exhaust shop was hired to create a Y from the turbo down pipe, and bend and install the short pipes needed to get from the "Y" pipe to the cross member sections. I hpe this made some sense to you.

Just to elaborate a little further, the narrow band O2 sensor is just after the turbo, up high. The wide band sensor, is down low, just in front of the "Y".

Sam

_________________

There has been some very interesting discussion here. I feel compelled to jump in.

As for the Pogue carburetor working, it did with the fuel available when Charlie built it. If you search "Thermal Catalytic Cracking", you will see that if the fuel were to be cracked into smaller molecules before entering the combustion chamber, mileage would certainly go up. The 2 things that make the Pogue carb ineffective on modern fuels is the introduction of additives that coat the heat exchanger, making the catalytic effect useless; and the fact that new fuel uses polymer molecules that are much harder to crack.

Whether or not the fuel is burned completely or not is not nearly as critical as how fast and when. The conversion from gasoline energy to power at the crank is a 2-step process. First, the spark plug fires and ignites a small portion of the fuel that has already vaporized. The flame kernel propogates outwardly using the already-vaporized fuel. As this fuel burns, it creates heat which helps vaporize more of the fuel. That fuel then begins to burn. As more heat is generated, the heavier elements in the fuel vaporize, then burn.

A problem with the efficiency of this process is that the heavy elements in gasoline, such as dodecane, boils at 425* F. at amospheric pressure. Once vaporized and ignited, it requires 33 ms to fully combust. Thirty three milliseconds in the scope of how fast things work in the engine is an eternity. It is safe to say that none of the dodecanes or undecanes contribute significantly to kinetic energy.

The fuel has to burn and release its chemical energy in the form of thermal energy. The thermal energy then expands the nitrogen and other gasses in the charge. This expansion is what pushes down on the piston. In a conventional engine, the fuel is still vaporizing and burning as the piston travels down the cylinder. At approximately 90* ATDC, the piston is moving at its fastest. At even conservative engine speeds, the piston is outrunning the flame front. This means that effective pressures must be present while the piston is moving slowly near TDC.

Think about this analogy for a moment. If you shoot an arched bow rated at 80# and a compound bow rated at 80#, which one will shoot farther? The compound bow will, of course. Why? Because the arched bow delivers its 80# of thrust over the distance of about one foot, while the compound bow delivers its thrust over the distance of a mere 3 inches. Likening it to an engine, if you can get the fuel to burn faster, then the thermal energy can be harnessed quicker and deliver more kinetic energy to the crank. This sling-shots the piston down the bore.

On the first consideration, the more fuel that is vaporized when the spark plug fires, the more of it will burn initially. By burning more of the fuel earlier in the power stroke, more of it will be EFFECTIVELY be converted to kinetic energy while the engine can use it. Less of it will be burning out the exhaust valves.

Pre-heating the fuel gets it ready to phase change easier. The real key here is tuning for the differences. Any time you change something, you need to tune for the change. EPA testing mandates that no other changes be made after an alteration is made. Therefore, back in the '70s when the fuel heater was tested, jets weren't allowed to be leaned out to compensate, timing wasn't allowed to be retarded to compensate for the change. To take full advantage of heating the fuel, the engine must be tuned for it.

For what it's worth, I teach fuel economy classes where almost everything the class touches gets 2X mileage. We have had a '98 Breeze that went from 38 to 78 mpg, a '99 Pontiac Grand Am that went from 33 to 68, a '97 Ford F-150 with the 4.6 that went from 16 to 31, and a '95 Ford F-150 4X4 that went from 13 to 33. My personal Duster years ago got a best of 44.7, maintaining an average of about 37 overall. My current '84 Charger got 45 last tank with a worn out engine. On tuning, the Grand Am only got 47 after the class was finished with it. I went back and tuned it later and milked it up to the 68 with only the tuning changes.

Mike

_________________
Recognized by US Federal Courts as a Fuel Economy Expert!

No.

Mike, because you cannot hear my tone of voice by reading words onscreen, I'm afraid this is going to sound like an attack, and that is absolutely not what I intend. Please keep that in mind as you read my comments here.

Now:

Until there is evidence, repeating this claim about pre-heating the fuel will not imbue it with validity. Several principles of physics and numerous controlled EPA tests tend to argue against the claim. So...let's have some evidence, please.
That makes sense, certainly, but it's not a simple either/or question, as I will elaborate below.
That is reasonable and proper, because it is absolutely essential to keep all variables constant except the device or modification under examination. That's the only way to obtain definitive evidence of what the device or modification does, if anything.

Now, you are correct that if a device or modification works in such a manner that ancillary modifications or adjustments are warranted, facilitated, or necessitated, then all such modifications and/or adjustments ought to be made and then the tests run again.

However, and this is the important part, if additional modifications and/or adjustments are made, then it's not enough just to run the simple mileage and basic "smog check" style emission tests that suffice to tell if there's any real and significant benefit to the device or modification. As a matter of law, the complete Federal emissions certification test battery must be run, because what you've done in that case is altered the vehicle's parameters and adjustments from their Federally-certified configuration.

What is more, driveability and performance factors are entirely absent from this discussion so far—more on this point below.
That's not altogether true. If you will sift through the many EPA fuel economy device/modification tests available at this link, you will see that EPA followed all installation instructions supplied with the various devices and systems submitted for test, including making adjustments to the carburetion and ignition timing, and tabulated the test results with and without those ancillary adjustments.
That is certainly very impressive, and I have no reason to doubt this what you say, but there is a missing link between your claim that heating the fuel is beneficial and your claim to be able to double a vehicle's fuel economy. There is no evidence to support the implication that the second claim is true in part due to the first claim.
All of this makes my mouth water, since I have a very thirsty '89 318 Dodge pickup and would be delighted to get even 20% better mileage out of it. But there are some important questions that have not yet been addressed, and are still begging for detailed, solid answers:

•For each of these vehicles, what was the effect on regulated emissions (total HC, CO, NOx) and indicator emissions (CO2)? Whether upward or downward, was any of the vehicles rendered noncompliant with Federal emission standards for the year and model of the vehicle?

•For each of these vehicles, what was the effect on driveability (ease or difficulty of starting, presence or absence of tendency to hesitate or stall or ping, smoothness of engine idle and general running, acceleration, and performance --- all cold, warm, and hot)?

•For each of these vehicles, what other potential tradeoffs were made in the quest for improved fuel economy? For example, when tires are inflated well above ordinary pressures, fuel economy increases at the cost of reduced traction and tire life.


In closing, I want to reiterate some statements I've made several times about your work:

•It is obvious and evident from the photos you've shown us and the descriptions you and some of your customers have given that when you work on a vehicle, you do so in a thoughtful, careful, skillful, thorough manner with great attention to detail. On that basis, I would be quite comfortable contracting for your services.

•I want to believe your claims. I really, genuinely do. I think most reasonable people do, too. The difficulties as I see them are (1) lack of real evidence, and (2) a mixture of claims and products that have sound theoretical foundation, and those that really just don't. If all your claims and products were theoretically sound, it'd be easier to take a leap of faith and try them out. But some of them just aren't, and that compounds the lack-of-evidence problem: Not only is there no evidence to back up the claims for products and mods that seem to have no basis in valid science, but also the dubious ideas and claims cast doubt over the validity and veracity of all the rest of the products and mods, even those that might have some scientific validity.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Nice candor, Dan.

When I start seeing things like "Breaking up into smaller molecules" or boiling point of 425 degrees at atmospheric pressure, 33 milliseconds to burn, I just get tired.

You realize what a molecule is? What atoms are shed and where do they go? Does one type of hydrocarbon molecule become two or more types of others? This sounds ridiculous to anyone with a basic understanding of these things.

The molecules change when they burn. They get hot, very hot, when they they are compressed very quickly on the compression stroke. Not to mention the increased partial pressure of oxygen in there really makes things reactive, ready to burn. The flash point of any hydrocarbon is more relevant than the boiling point in this matter, but still probably moot since it is so hot in the combustion chamber . The amount of time to burn anything is not a constant.

These were not sound points. You are talking about destabilizing the fuel, that is not an advantage. Even if it was, how would it be regulated, what would be the optimum temp?

We are usually trying to avoid pre-ignition, not cause it.

Way back in high school, a few of us from several schools were in a scholarship competition that involved getting the most mileage from a "stock" new Audi. Each schools team got to make some adjustments, but not real modifications to their cars. We had little time with the car before the event. We did air up the tires, change the alignment, remove and realign all the intake ducting, check all the normal systems, remove some weight that we were not supposed to, ran the oil a quart low and a few other things. We talked allot about ignoring any other traffic on the road section, coasting, speed, transversing the crown of the road to get some downhill when possible, etc. We parked our car in the sun before the inspection and trial. Our driver (the smallest guy on our team) even taped his ankle. We got something like 57 out of a car that would normally get something in the twentys. This had nothing to do with actually being able to use the car that way for normal transportation. It was a crawl around being a hazard on the road type of thing. Kind of pointless for the real world. No imagined alchemy, mostly ass draging. The cars went back to the sponsoring dealer afterwards and were sold as new.

Guys, I beseach you to think about my motives. I have PMs asking me to port heads, which I don't have time to do. I'm turning work down. I am not inviting any of you into my classes as I only teach them and cannot solicit seats. I have no products that I offer to you along the lines of my claims. I can say that I wouldn't intentionally steer you wrong. I can say that I practice what I preach. I can say that Einstein's theories are argued daily even in the current era.

If you want to wait for unquestionable emperical data to support anything I say before you ever try things, you'll wait a long, long time. The data I offer is the mileage results. Vehicles are tested on a controlled loop with the cruise control set at 60 mph, both before and after the modifications. Emissions testing after modifications always results in a "Pass". I haven't been able to see immediate before and after tailpipe readings, though. Observing the letter of the law, we are compliant with our modifications. I don't have a multi-million dollar research facility. I don't feel the need to spend tens of thousands of dollars in research just to offer you advice (free advice, I might add). Take it or leave it. If you try it, and want more ideas, I'm here. If you don't think it's worth your time, then blow me off. No skin off my back either way. I personally gain nor loose a thing either way.

My motives are only to help those that are interested.

Mike

_________________
Recognized by US Federal Courts as a Fuel Economy Expert!

It's not your motives I have questions about - I just want to see more proof of specific claims, and some controlled tests to make sure they work. For example, your claim that vaporized fuel burns faster and builds cylinder pressure would be something that would be pretty straightforward to check on a dyno with a cylinder pressure probe and a good crankshaft position monitoring system. For that matter, it should give massive horsepower increases that could be verified without the cylinder pressure probe. I'd like to see this tested out and verified before I'd believe it.

_________________
"Mad Scientist" Matt Cramer
'66 Dart - turbocharged 225
My blog - Mad Scientist Matt's Lair

I have a headache

_________________
Chris'
Autobody
Restoration
Service

No one said anything about motive, myself included. But since you mention it, you should have one. If you are delivering half of what you are claiming there is no reason you should not see a substantial income from it and be all the rage in the media. It would be a good, honest fortune. Be the guy who delivered something everyone wanted and needed and the paying customers would be happy to see you succeed.

Not having valid answers but instead taking the martyr tack looks like what it is. I think it is good at this point that you are not taking peoples money for this.

Have you seen the "fuel cells" going around. Even though they do the opposite of what a fuel cell does and consume more energy than they could ever produce, they are using the name and claiming mileage increases. These things can actually cause a small explosion or fire under the hood. I have seen one "high end" one that had a flame arrester made out of ABS pipe fittings and a generic scrubby pad, not even a real stainless or brass Chore Boy. Guess they don't know that steel wool and ABS are flammable. I suspect at least some of the people selling them or "helping" with free information to build your own honestly believe in them. It does not change anything or make it a good thing.

Same here, although I'm coming in a bit late. Bear with me, my background is electrical engineering, not chemistry. But I've got some questions.


I can see that up to a point, but catalytic cracking is different than what happens when you just heat a hydrocarbon, isn't it? I mean, destructive distillation breaks complex molecules down into simpler ones, but there is wasted (released) energy as the bonds are broken, too. Just burning the more complex molecule would be better, but sometimes (eg. coal gasification) it isn't practical to move the un-broken molecules to the point of combustion.
Well.... yes modern additives coat lots of things. But "new fuel uses polymer molecules?!?? ALL Hydrocarbons are polymers! Virtually everything we make from crude oil is 99% polymer molecues and always has been. So is the fiber in your raisin bran, the protein in your rib-eye steak, and the DNA in your skin cells for that matter.

<snip numerous points about improving fuel vaporization>

OK, granted I take ALL of that as truth and agree that vaporization and "preparing" the fuel by getting everything down to small-chain hydrocarbons is the key... then why don't propane-converted engines get 60 miles to the gallon? Propane is ALREADY 100% consistent small (compared to gasoline) chain hydrocarbon molecules, and its already 100% vaporized by the time it hits the back of the intake valve, so it should be as good as the best system for better vaporizing gasoline, right? Yes, I know that propane contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, but even still, the truth of the matter is that the best propane conversions get about THE SAME mileage as gasoline, which means that they are indeed more efficient, but only by the relatively small percentage that represents the difference in per-gallon energy content.

Don't get me wrong, I know that good tuning can do great things. But I just want to understand the mechanism that's going on here, and right now I don't understand it.

_________________

Well, yeah, and then there are the OmniValve people claiming their 2-piece intake valve makes any engine (and therefore any car) into a hybrid...

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Have not seen those valves.

The Flintstones were running their cars without any hydrocarbon fuel. Hybrid human/animal power. Omnivorous. Yeh, that might work!

If anyone needs to borrow a sawzall......