My latest brainwave on fuel.

The thing is that those plans are a starting point to test with.

I'm still going to follow my plan, because my car hasn't run since November 2006.

1) Tune as per stock setup
2) Change the Advance Curve Springs in the Distributor
3) Set up and test the water injection
4) get the parts to build that Hydrogen DIY cell
5) Test out humidity collection techniques and then build the beast.

In the meanwhile, I'm cruising and saving, AND passing gas stations more often. Might even drive those 2,200 miles to see the Rev, and tow back another Fairmont.

 

For the Fuel Injected cars, even the 1957 and 1958 Imperials with Mechanical Fuel Injection (I think only 300 were built), this DYI system can be merged to control water injection. Hydrogen injection technique were already posted earlier in this thread.

Injecting Water Backgrounders:
http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_0456/article.html

General article for Fuel Injected cars:
http://www.autospeed.com.au/A_107970/cms/article.html

Motor Speed Control Module - Part 1:
http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1522

Motor Speed Control Module - Part 2
http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=1528

Motor Speed Control Module - Part 3
http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_1539/article.html

Water injection is fairly easy and kind of interesting way to see how well it works. It's not an essestial baby-step to hydrogen, but it could help you see how you might refine the system for your particular vehicle.

Just to get the math in the thread:

EVERY CUBIC FOOT OF WATER CONTAINS ABOUT 1,376 CUBIC FEET OF HYDROGEN GAS AND 680 CUBIC FEET OF OXYGEN.

If you've got 3 carbs at 450 Cubic Feet Per Minute, you're gonna need a lot of water to carry around, that's why collecting from the exhaust makes sense. Most cars come stock with carbs under 750 CFM. My little 200 CID six is just a 200 CFM carb. The thing is that you use LESS hydrogen than gasoline, because of the fuel/air mixture. Both the Oxygen and hydrogen mix with the incoming air. So that water generates 1,956 cubic feet PLUS the air. Still a lot of water to carry.

 

Hey Norman check this link.

http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=2668

 

While I am at this site I came across this very interesting thread about Smokey Yunick Hot Vapor engine. He was able to increase his power and mileage,But no one knows how he did it.He took it to his grave.

http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=7868

 

If this is true

If this is true then we can beat the mileage problem by combining several things and get 90 % efficiently

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/...siness/1213325708178740.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

 

Yep, all excellent articles and threads, especially that last one, on vapourizing, referencing the old 1940's technology and patents. Pogue was a local guy from my city, here. That's the same unit I built into my 1975 New Yorker T & C 440 CID and went from 6 MPG to 44 or 46 MPG.

The book is worth its weight in gold. These new guys are adapting to the EFI and computer system engines. But the Turbo Idea is excellent.

The nice thing is you don't have to make any expensive engine mods. I'd be kind of tempted to do it on the Fairmont 6, but you need higher compression to really get the max out of today's fuel - too many additives than when Pogue did it.

 

I wonder if it would work on my engine? I have been reading about making hot air breather intakes and these guy's are actuality making covers to go on their car underneath to keep temps up along with aerodynamics. I'm not sure where to turn since a lot of these mods are cheap to do.

 

I guess I need to get the proper carb for my car and mod my dist for more spark first to get a base line on mileage. Then do one mod to see if it helps or not.

 

This is where I got mine. I'm thinking I may try it on my little Ford Six, after seeing all the complex tangents involved with hydrogen production. I gave the book to my buddy with the 396 pickup, so I'll have to buy another.

http://jabi.com/store/jbp-1729m.html

These guys sell another version of it too.
http://www.himacresearch.com/books/

Cleaned it out about once every week for the first month and then every two months (1,800 miles per month) once I got a handle on the build up. Ethanol was just starting up in the early 80's when we did this, so the gasoline additives changed more often. Back then I used Esso's high-test more often.

 

Norman, What is the point of completely enclosing a engine compartment?

I have been reading about this at gas mileage forums. Seems every one there encloses their engine compartment including the grill to raise the under hood temps to 180*-200*.I don't see how this helps with gas mileage.


I must be missing something.

 

I think there's two possibilities: They cram more in less space to keep the car size down, even though they weigh more than mine. Small has to be cheaper to drive right (perception value) Until you see what's behind the big plastic front bumper cover.

Secondly, by increasing the running heat, some cars make better use of the fuel, others deteriorate faster.

The companies just haven't inspired consumer trust for a long time.

 

I'm thinking about giving up cars and get a horse and buggy.

 

Educate me. I have been reading that the higher the compression engine is more efficient. Now if I understand this correctly most factory engines run around 8:0:1 cpmpression and up to 9:5:1 which is right in the middle between a poor efficient engine and a highly efficient engine.

If I take a 350 Small Block Chevyhave all the machine work done and all the internal parts heat coated and balance and Bump the compression up to 10:5:1 or a little more I will have a more efficient burn rate in the cylinders

Now why hasn't the auto industries follow suit in doing this along with the proper head work and Fuel injections we should have big cars and SUV in the 30-50 MPG range or am I reading all this wrong?

 

Gasoline burns best at 14:1 Air/Fuel Ratio. Compression is only one aspect of engine efficiency. If you've got needle roller bearings instead of babbit/lead bearing caps, you increase response by reducing friction. If the rod length and piston diameter are closer in size, you get a more efficient movement on the crank. I think DOHC engine cam designs are more efficient than lifters and pushrods, as well. Finding all that in one engine is tough. Building it into one should be feasible. Pricey, but feasible.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BhmBNY19M_0