Checking your float level...OEM carb..FA2000

[takza]

The level of the fuel maintained in the fuel bowl can effect how the engine runs.

* If the level is too high...it might flood...or you might see lower gas mileage.

* If the level is too low...the engine might hesitate when you try to accelerate.

To check the fuel level...you need to remove the air cleaner by removing the (2) bolts holding it to the valve cover ( 10 mm wrench needed)...the PCV intake line....heat stove duct...and a couple other lines...plus the (4) clips and center wingnut.

You can then get a look at the sight glass on the front of the carb....



I just checked mine and found that the level is exactly at the lower level that is allowed.

Since I have no issues with the car not accelerating...it can at the least...be set this low.


I will be testing a FA2000 clone this summer.



This is basically an gas supply teed from after the fuel pump, that is run thru a sensitive valve so that just a trickle is allowed to get into a 3-4 foot long extended part of the PCV circuit...causing an amount of fuel vapor to be fed into the engine.

Along with adjusting the slight fuel flow thru the FA2000 valve...they recommend adjusting the float level using this method:

* adjust the float level 1/16" lower...then take the car out on the highway at 60-65 mph and step on the pedal...if it bogs down...it is adjusted too low...if not...drop it another 1/16". Keep doing this till it bogs. Then with the TC2000...you are supposed to be able to turn it on and the "bog" effect will go away.

This same method could be used without the FA2000...adjust till it is CLOSE to bogging down.

This float adjustment method should work with ANY carb to improve your mpg.


* I've installed the FA2000 clone (GasMileage+) and am having no issues with it such as hard starting...etc.

* Impressions so far? Car seems to have more power....last tank came in at +36 mpg....but the atomizer was only on the car for the last 120 miles or so.

* Still need to tune it in by adjusting the float level down and adjusting the flow rate.

[splatterdog]

You sure love miracle gadgets! Your car should be producing it's own gas by now. haha

I think I would leave carburation to the carb. Taking away gas to add it thru the PCV? I don't get it. A pcv gas drip won't atomize better than venturi fed fuel. As usual with mileage devices, I'm very skeptical. Must have been designed by a retired HHO "water for gas" engineer.

And to think I've been called a mad car scientist. At least there are no mayo jars under my hood.....

Sorry to be your continual antagonist. About the only way your are going to get significantly more mileage will involve wind tunnel testing and clown like body appendages or a radical powertrain transplant.

At least your mileage hobby keeps you busy instead of brooding about the end of the world!

[Petros]

The idea of better atomizing the fuel to improve efficiency is a false and common claim of many of these devices, or "miracle carburetor", and similar devices. The reason this is always the prelude to fraud is that it has been dermined experimentally that an engine actually looses efficencey if you have 100 percent atomized fuel going into the combustion chamber. that would be pure fuel vapor. that is because pure fuel vapor is very low density, and when mixed with air, it actually results in lower peak tempertures and pressures than a vapor/droplet mixture.

About a 70 perceten droplet/30 percent vapor ratio is what yeilds the best efficiency, dermined experimentally. Fuel injection better controls this ratio, as well as the air/fuel ratio, to yeild remarkable effiency and max hp. When I worked for the Nissan factory team we did a number of experiments with both carbs and fuel injectors (fuel injection was fairly new than, and most racers removed it and installed side draft solex carbs at the time). WE found we could get more hp with the EFI, and a specially designed controller that was programable from the drivers seat (so the driver would adjust the mixture as condtions may change during a long race). These early systems were primative compared to even the typical EFI used to day, but it was way better than any other way to boost either power or effieincy.

It is also interesting to point out to the "miracle carb" true believers that the only thing you will improve is the combustion efficiency by altering the vapor/droplet ratio with a different carb. Combustion efficiency is the ability to burn all of the fuel within the chamber and extract all the of heat energy out of the fuel. It does not include mechanical friction losses, or thermodynamic process losses. Combustion efficiency, even with the old carbs, was about 98 percent, the EFI improved on that even further. Trust me, I know, I have measured this directly on lots of engine dynomometer runs, so I do not have to take anyone else's word for it. So even if you can make combustion efficiency 100 percent (not possible in the real world), you would not even see it in your MPG.

So there is no possible way to take an old Cadillac and install the mythical carb to give you 100 mpg. It is just not possible, no matter what anyone claims. But there are always people that dream that all the car companies are in "cahoots" with big oil. Yes, 100 mpg is possible, in a 300 lb plastic bubble go-cart like car that seats one, or maybe two. But not with a magic carburetor, ventilator, turbulator, vaporator, or any similar device to add to your car.

[4wdchico]

Pedros:

You are not going to get an argument about from me about combustion efficiency. Well said.

Further improvements in vehicle fuel economy will have to come from evolution in several areas:

Weight reduction thru smaller vehicles, improved materials, design and manufacturing.

Aerodynamics: The shape popularized by the Prius is going to be hard to beat.

But the biggest changes will come from energy recovery tech:

Regen braking is already being used. Not nearly enough has been done with recovering and using the waste heat of an engine's cooling system and exhaust.

While I'm sure that reduction of mechanical frictional losses will come along, I'm also fairly sure that the relatively small gains left to be made won't make a huge difference in fuel economy.

[takza]

To get to the point...talk is cheap...testing is tedious. I'm emailing with a guy who claims a 10-15% mpg gain with a later version of this "device" This is before he turns on his EFIE...which modifies the signal to the computer to make it think the engine is running rich. He has an AFR on 96 model 4x4 Jeep 4L 6 I believe...and claims to do this at a 14.7 ratio. He uses a 10' hose from the FA to the intake. Might be associated with those who sell the atomizer...or might not be...hard to say....seems legit.

I checked the flow rate for the added gas yesterday...and found no flow at all...so testing might take a while at this rate. Opened the valve up to hopefully clear it...and reset it. Also added some hose for a length of 7' from FA to intake. As a method to lean it some...I added an air bleed into the R port...which air I intend to offset with added vapor. I'm also using added heat to the intake air...set up so I can manually adjust the flow from the heat stove...since warmer air tends to keep the NOX and exhaust temps down if running leaner than 14.7. Or so I think.

Might try testing this on my truck with EFI using a $5 "needle" valve...assuming it will regulate down effectively. Have the truck set up to run leaner...was likely running it too lean for sure. Signs? Minor loss of power...no mpg gain...tendency to run hot. Problems I have...a lack of instrumentation.

When the end of the world gets here...in a couple of years...I'll be making gas as I drive along?

As far as end of the world issues...ask yourself...did the powers that be warn you of the economic meltdown? No...they claimed everything was peachy keen right up to the end. And as far as issues of over population...resource depletion...global warming...debt overhang...perpetual wars....it will happen in the same way. Expect it.

They can't afford to panic the herd due the the 70% consumer spending input into the economy....which is up to it's eyeballs in debt. As a sheep and member of the herd....you are being kept ignorant so you can be "fleeced" for profit....you should be proud to do your part....so don't worry...be happy.

My testing tells me that there are several methods to increase mpg by enhancing fuel combustion...but that they are not "additive"...can't double them up and expect extra gains. Overall...there is the "law of diminishing returns" as far as mpg gains to contend with...combustion..aero...reduced friction losses. And 4x4s are about the poorest candidates for mpg testing.

Bottom line? I either see a gain...or I don't. Expecting anyone else to try it? Who's going to jump thru these hoops to gain 3-4 mpg? It's a hobby.

[Petros]

The way to improve fuel economy over a properly running engine (try that first), is to increase the compression ratio (limited by the quality of gasoline), reduce friction on both engine and drive train, as well as the tires, and aerodynamic drag, and reduce weight of all the moving parts, and the car (and cargo) it self. Also you can reduce "pumping" loses by enlarging the ports, enlarging the intake and exhaust manifolds, larger carb (or switch to EFI, less loss in the intake), and enlarge the exhaust system. That is about it.

If adding the vapor to the intake had any real gains someone making cars would be doing it. The engine labs they have (and I have worked in several) are so sophisticated they would know exactly, if any, there is to gain by it a long time ago (and no car maker is using it). If there is any gain at all, I would guess it would have the same effect as using higher octane fuel, there can be a slight gain by advancing the timing a degree or two, because of the raise in resistance to knock.

[takza]

Go visit this guy...and get right with the god of engineering?

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/i ... ntion.html

The company started out by heating gasoline enough to vaporize it before it entered the piston chamber -- an idea inspired by one of Reid's acquaintances, who ran a car off a 6-foot-long tank of vaporized fuel.

The idea isn't new: In patent searches, the company found a 1940s picture of a guy with a similar tank. But the vaporized and expanded gasoline burned far more efficiently than the fuel injection systems that Bushnell bypassed. Driving up Interstate 5, Reid's acquaintance got up to 90 percent increases in gas mileage. He could get 50 percent increases without noticeable performance drops.

But the idea had a fatal flaw, pointed out in 2005 by Tony Dean, a Colorado School of Mines chemical engineering professor who partnered with Toyota on fuel technology when he worked at Exxon.

The problem, Dean told the company, was one the auto industry had long faced in trying to increase mileage. Putting less gas in the mix increased the ratio of oxygen-to-fuel and caused a condition known as "lean burn." And the higher oxygen content baffled the pollution control system's catalytic converter, hampering removal of nitrogen oxides, a smog-causing pollutant.

"The day that Tony Dean came in to explain NOX was not a good day," Bushnell said. "It was like falling off your bike onto the bar in the middle."

Automakers are responding to the problem in various ways, including technology that explodes gas in the combustion chamber through compression, like a diesel engine, rather than a spark.

But Bushnell continued tinkering, now with Dean's critiques, settling on an idea that they believe the auto industry hasn't thought of. Why not heat the incoming air, too?

That causes it to expand ( the same principle a hot air balloon relies on) and fill up more space with less air. Combined with vaporized gasoline, they could keep the air-fuel ratio the same, dodging the pollution problem.

The heated mixture had another benefit, Bushnell and Dean said. Its "flame speed" -- how fast it burned -- and its explosive potential were higher than normal. That meant much more of it could be exploded when the piston was at its optimum position. And that meant they could use less gasoline without sacrificing power.

The system pulls heat from the radiator system to heat the fuel, and waste heat from the exhaust manifold to heat the air.

"We're the poor folks from Beavercreek. We aren't in the (automakers') club," Bushnell says. "We got outside the box, because we can never be included in the box."

[4wdchico]

takza,

Went to the VFT site. They talk about creating conditions for "chain reaction autoignition". Please correct me if I am wrong, but does that not imply that they will be turning off the engine's ignition system once the target operating parameters (fully warmed up) are met? If they have autoignition happening, at anywhere near the same time, as conventional spark ignition the result will be terminal pinging, IMO.

In an autoignition engine, as exemplified by diesel engines, the peak combustion pressure event is precisely timed by the introduction of fuel into an already highly compressed and heated air charge. So VFT is claiming that by juggling FOUR variables: fuel temp, fuel quantity, air temp and air quantity, that they can precisely control the exact time that a gasoline f/a mix autoignites across the engine's full operating range? I am being a bit lax here in calling it only four variables as ambient barometric pressure (air density) and humidity further complicate the issues. Great trick if it can be reliably pulled off. However, I have huge doubts that it can be done.

FWIW: if I were going to start tinkering with improving on the 4 stroke internal combustion engine it would involve small lightweight turbocharged direct injection engines with injectors that spray a mix of fuel and pressurized air right into the combustion chamber. The injectors would also be capable of directly injecting knock suppressing agents such as steam, water, EGR or even oxygen depleted air (mostly nitrogen). Cleaning EGR gasses up to the point where that could be directly injected might prove difficult. The advantage of using O2 depleted air for knock suppression is that it could potentially be produced onboard the vehicle from atmospheric air so the car's operator would not need to add yet another consumable to keep the vehicle running.

Most modern diesels that comply with today's stringent emission laws require a urea solution (supplies nitrogen) to help control NOX. However, Honda's clean diesel tech does not require this urea solution and is said to produce the NOX lowering ingredient onboard, so it is a reasonable guess that Honda is producing nitrogen from ambient air.

[splatterdog]

I like how their 100 mpg three wheeler runs on vapors, not liquid fuel.

Someone should tell them no engine runs on liquid fuel, it doesn't burn.

They look like they are hunting for investors more than solutions.

[Petros]

So VFT is claiming that by juggling FOUR variables: fuel temp, fuel quantity, air temp and air quantity, that they can precisely control the exact time that a gasoline f/a mix autoignites across the engine's full operating range? I am being a bit lax here in calling it only four variables as ambient barometric pressure (air density) and humidity further complicate the issues. Great trick if it can be reliably pulled off. However, I have huge doubts that it can be done.

this is actually done on the older model airplane/car motors (made by Cox and others), they are rather primative, and inginte by glow plug like a deisel, but it has simple carb, and is two stroke. Though it could work the same way with a 4 stroke. It is simple, it just leaves too much of the process you can not control as you could with spark ingision and EFI. I so no advantage other than simplity (and most model engines are not really for economy, but simplicity).

FWIW: if I were going to start tinkering with improving on the 4 stroke internal combustion engine it would involve small lightweight turbocharged direct injection engines with injectors that spray a mix of fuel and pressurized air right into the combustion chamber. The injectors would also be capable of directly injecting knock suppressing agents such as steam, water, EGR or even oxygen depleted air (mostly nitrogen). Cleaning EGR gasses up to the point where that could be directly injected might prove difficult. The advantage of using O2 depleted air for knock suppression is that it could potentially be produced onboard the vehicle from atmospheric air so the car's operator would not need to add yet another consumable to keep the vehicle running.

EGR (putting in O2 depleted air) does not increase effective octane, but rather lowers combustion temps (to reduce NOx emissions), which means less efficiency. Many companies have attempted direct cylinder injection going back over 50 years, there is reliability and long term durability issues with an injector subject to combustion temperatures right in the camber. It can be done but for cost and reliability reason almost all of the manufacturers have chosen to use intake port injection where the injectors stay relatively cool.

I think an efficent small turbine engine for a car would be a really cool development. I love to have a sports car that whines like a jet. They are very clean running, but unfortuantly when made very small (in the 100-200 hp range) they are just not efficient. The very large ones use on commercial jets are very effienct (and clean) but they just do not scale down.

[4wdchico]

Pedros:

My thinking about using direct fuel injection along with a supplemental directly injected knock suppression agent was based on the premise that a well timed and aimed very high pressure but very low volume squirt could possibly be able to quell knock AND induce a very beneficial swirl effect to a combustion chamber process. Since modern diesel engines have up to 26k psi in their common rails, handling a very high pressure knock suppression agent should not be out of the realm of possibility. What might that agent be? I don't know what might turn out to be the best, it could even be a combination of several ingredients. A supplemental knock suppression agent might not be needed for street gas direct injection engines as the injection of gas into the CC has a significant knock suppression effect on boosted engines.

I have been following the evolution of direct fuel injection (DFI), in both gas and diesel engines, for at least two decades. I have been looking forward to a time when the tech of DFI would mature. As far as diesel engines go, DFI is mature and proven reasonably reliable. Both GM and Ford have production very high output DFI gas engines in mass production currently. Hyundai is very close to releasing a DFI engine as well. So, I'm not silly enough to call DFI gas engines a mature tech, but it won't be really long until I will be able to.

A decent article on the evolution of DFI: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engi ... index.html

[Petros]

If DFI for gas engines turns out to be reliable for up to 200K plus miles of driving, it has yet to be seen, but there are a number of promises it offers. I just like KISS when it comes to mechanical devices, and the first gen or EFI has proven to be both fairly simple, and reliable. Emissions standards have driven them to OBD2 and even OBD3, but those are not only much more complicated, it just smacks of too much "big brother" to me, so I will stay away from it, forever. I would rather buy or build me a restored classic (with a lot of modern "up grades") that avoid all the government (big brother) requirements. heck, our great little Tercel4wd are considered "classics" once over 25 years old. That would be mine!

[4wdchico]

Sigh,

My t4's are over 25 years old and need to be smogged every two years here in California if I want to drive them. You out of state folk are really lucky to not have to deal with the way things have gotten here.

California has more than twice as many "do not" laws on the books as any other state. Call me strange, but I feel that fact speaks to something basic being wrong...

[garyfish]

My t4's are over 25 years old and need to be smogged every two years here in California if I want to drive them.

Luckily, I live in one of the areas of CA (Humboldt County) where the biennial smog certification is not required (here, the smogging requirement is in effect only when registering an older vehicle for the first time). I can see how it would be a pain to have my Terk smogged every other year... not to mention the extra expense!

[splatterdog]

Emissions standards have driven them to OBD2 and even OBD3, but those are not only much more complicated, it just smacks of too much "big brother" to me, so I will stay away from it, forever. I would rather buy or build me a restored classic (with a lot of modern "up grades") that avoid all the government (big brother) requirements. heck, our great little Tercel4wd are considered "classics" once over 25 years old. That would be mine!

Not much out there on obd3. What is, doesn't sound too pleasing.

http://www.wep-inc.com/NEWS1.html
http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/may/obd_iii_new.cfm

Takza- I hope this doesn't keep you up at night.