Vaporate

[BA_Turbs]

The picture I saw of it made the device itself seem like just a washer. FYI, it was the picture in the NT Times already mentioned that also featured the "designer".

Maybe if we all added washers to our household taps we'd stop wastage there too (as if that would work! )

[Macktheknife]

From a strictly mechanical viewpoint, the theory is sound.

Under any set of circumstances (within reason) at a moment in time, the ECU has taken all its info and has set a particular course.

Then we introduce a "little something" that increases the efficency of one particular ignition stroke by virtue of better atomisation of the Petrol componant of that particular charge to the cylinder.

Not more Petrol. Not more air. Just a potentially more efficent "bang for your buck" (more of the available Petrol is burned before the exhaust stroke pushes the spent charge out)

So, more power is made in the cylinder for the same amount of Petrol/Air that was used before.

So, under that particular set of circumstances, drivers of cars other than XR6T's may have used less throttle opening to get the same result therefore a saving is had.

Simple to me......

[Guest Rota_Motor]

I had a look at the write-up when in at repco getting parts today (I'm a mechanic so it interested me, and they had an ad playing on the TV)

the only time it could possibly get better economy IMO, is when the motor is cold. now read on when I get technical, if you want.

in normal operation, fuel is injected (or mixed in a carby) on its way into the combustion chambers, and it touches hot valves, pistons, etc. then gets heated up during compression*, ignited by a spark, and then burns, before being blown out the exhaust.

so there is plenty of heat available to vaporise all of the fuel entering the engine, especially at low to mid engine speeds. engine operating temp is around 90 degrees or so normally, and if anyone has ever tried touching the inlet manifold after a drive in a car, you know that's pretty warm too.

*the heat during compresion can sometimes be enough to ignite the fuel without a spark (detonation, pinging etc.) so it definitely has enough heat to vaporise all fuel, IMO)

the only reason I can see it being good when cold, everyone knows a cold start enrichment is needed, and that is because fuel can condense on the cold parts of the engine, or become droplets, meaning more fule needs to be added to run properly, heating the fuel as it is going into the engine may help with some of this, but the system surely needs time to heat up itself...

as for people saying the computer wouldnt like it, I read somewhere that the falcons run up to 60% or something throttle on closed loop mode, where the EGO sensor senses the oxygen in the exhaust, and adjusts fuel accordingly, and the very small difference the computer wouldnt even notice.

bad things would include the fact hot air going into the engine would undo some of that cooling that the intercooler just did on the way to the inlet manifold.

I have no idea where the claim of running cars designed for PULP on ULP came from, the only time that is really an issue is full (or close to full) throttle opening, where the extra heat in the intake charge would be detrimental to pinging, making it even worse.

sorry for the long post, but I felt I had to voice my opinion, and tried to answer any questions before people asked them.

oh and to make me seem really stupid, it could work, but not on anything performance, rule of thumb is the hotter the car runs, the less fuel it uses, and the colder it runs, the more. but most cars this would be applicable to would already be running fairly warm, and transferring plenty of heat, as stated earlier.

[turb06]

Everyone must rush to get one of these to go with their tornado fuel saver. With these two combined you will go 1000km on a tank!  :ooops:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even better, just leave it in neutral and hire a group of pigmees to push you around, you will never have to fill up again.

Dazza.

[Grass]

crap crap crap.

How pi$$ed would all the major makers be at spending millions each year on research in improving their engines efficency at a snails pace when these clowns claim 20% (yes 20%!!) of fuel goes down your exhaust unburnt. Give me a break.

Load of absolute crap.

20 percent ? I think you'll find the figure is a lot higher than that, but I always thought it was fuel burnt in the exhaust manifold / pipes was where the high percentages were...

From memory, a figure of 20 -30 percent being burnt in the combustion chamber sounds right..