Another miracle fuel saver

[BLACK 346]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15369579-421,00.html

[VooDoo]

Heating fuel = more power??? I wouldnt have thought so. Im sure ive seen some drag cars actually chilling the fuel before they run. Then again, they arent looking for ecconomy

[jed55]

"He said Vaporate was less effective on commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads, vehicles driven on mostly country roads and those driven too fast."

Won't be of much value to us then. :lol: :lol:

[VooDoo]

We dont drive too fast, everyone else is just too slow :)

[Padina]

We dont drive too fast, everyone else is just too slow :)

HAHA..Good point :p

[myles]

It seems it will be good savings for cars that spend $10 fuel a week. A $2.50 saving. :p

[VQ304]

I bet it's just some useless gimmick like the Hiclone. If it really is this good, why don't cars come with it as standard?

Or there's some catch, like you get 20% better economy but 90% less power.

[VFast]

I had a quick look at a brochure for these a couple of days ago.

They are a small metal (possibly Aluminium alloy) collar that fits around the base of each fuel injector.

The heat from the intake manifold is transferred to the collar and then to your injector, thus heating the fuel. Obviously those cars with manifolds made out of materials other than a metal alloy, such as the LS1 with its plastice manifold would have limited success.

I believe the theory is to vaporise the fuel better by heating it enough to change it from a liquid state to a gaseous state, which will result in less unburnt fuel, hence better fuel economy...

Sounds believable, but I am not sure how much fuel is actually unburnt?

[paulvdb]

More Snake Oil :rolleyes:

"...Mr Rigney said the device would not affect new car warranties"

yeah is that so????. I'll bet absolutely anything that if you cook your engine and this thing's still attached when you visit the dealer, that your warranty is worth NOTHING. If it changes the way the fuel's burnt and in the process runs the cylinders at a different temp and/or A/F mix then the spark plugs may not be real happy, nor the ECU, or O2 sensor. Surely this sort of thing would only work well if you re-set up the whole motor to allow for the different burning characteristics (that's if this even works).

Also be interesting to see REAL data on which part he's heating. If the fuel turns to vapour before being injected then how well does the injector work? and for how long?

As with all snake oil, if this was genuine then all the car manufacturers would have it standard. This is the same for all these fuel-saving scams.

[VFast]

...Also be interesting to see REAL data on which part he's heating. If the fuel turns to vapour before being injected then how well does the injector work? and for how long?...

The fuel will not vapourise inside the injector because the fuel is under pressure, which effectively raises the temp required to induce phase change of the fuel to a gaseous state. I don't have any specific figures in front of me ATM, but temps of this magnitude would not be seen from an intake manifold.


...As with all snake oil, if this was genuine then all the car manufacturers would have it standard. This is the same for all these fuel-saving scams.

Ever heard of new technology? :rolleyes: Happens all the time...

[mmciau]

IIRC, diesel injector pumps over the last 20 years, maybe much longer, have had the temperature raised by and to the engine coolant temerature.

The air is kept as cold as possible but the fuel temp is raised, not only to gain longevity for the pump but to aid vapourisation of the fuel

Mike

[VXII SSimo]

It is an interesting idea, and the theory has been around for a long time, not new tech by any means. I thought half the concept of fuel injection was the 'hot' fuel delivery idea??!! But if these collars are generating increased, localised heating at the tip of the injector, is this going to result in long term damage to injectors and injector manifolds??

Simo

EDIT: Another afterthought, he claims Premium users can switch to regular?? I don't think it can increase octane??? And what if one of these little clips or collar halves comes off your injector...

[Redfox]

Little alloy rings for $289? :rolleyes:

[Falcon Freak]

Mr Rigney said it worked by enabling vehicles to use petrol that normally was spewed into the environment.

I my car was leaking fuel into the environment I would be more worried about an under bonnet fire than the cars fuel consumption!

Anybody who knows modern fuel systems knows that there are NO leaks allowed into the environment. Any fuel leaks would result in an instant recall of the affected vehicles.


He said most cars wasted between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of petrol because they failed to turn it into vapour.

The only time i have seen a fuel injector not vapourise fuel properly is when the either the spray plate was blocked of the fuel injector pintle seat had contamination.


Vaporate added heat to a fuel system, ensuring all petrol was vapourised and used.

And where would 'Vaporate' draw this heat from? The engine bay. And what is already in the engine bay? The fuel rail, fuel hoses and fuel injectors. So once a car has been drive for a number of minutes all of the components in the engine bay will become heated. Adding a collar to the fuel injector wouldn't add much more heat (if any) than what is already available.


He said Vaporate was less effective on commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads, vehicles driven on mostly country roads and those driven too fast

If Vaporate principle is to add heat to the fuel injectors then wouldn't vehicles which are working harder and had hotter under bonnet temperatures have an increased benefit?

I cannot see how this device could make any impact let alone savings of up to 25% This device belongs in the same category as the Energy Polariser from the 1980s

FF

[muzza]

....and the independent laboratory and real-world fuel consumption tests that verify these claims are............ where?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[BLACK 346]

....and the independent laboratory and real-world fuel consumption tests that verify these claims are............ where?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Look in here under Laboratory results Muz

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.vaporate.com/&e=9707

[Febs]

"Repco merchandise manager Stephen Bird said: "We are very excited. It has a very important place in the history of the motor car.""

:lol:
If the Repco merchandise manager said it's good, it must be good! :rolleyes:
(Never mind the fact that Repco are the distributor...)

[Tombo]

I'd like to know the results if anyone tries this product on their LS1

Cheers Roy

[EvillBill]

Looking at this from a purely thermodynamic point of view, I can see the reason behind it. It takes energy to change the fuel from a liquid to a gas, this is known as the heat of vapourisation. Theretically it would take more energy to burn the same mass of fuel if the fuel was at a lower temperature, i.e. some of the energy of the burning fuel would go 'nowhere' as it would be used to heat the rest of the fuel to a gas. If you externally heated this fuel to a temperature just below the flash point, then that extra energy would be available for the reaction.

However, in the real world, all bets are off...

The Otto cycle does not allow the fuel to be completely burnt to water(H2O) and carbon dioxide(CO2). That describes an engine that has totally leaned out( burns at 2330 degrees C). Fuel and Oxygen are burnt to produce H2O, CO2 and CO (carbon monoxide). This burnt gas has more volume than just H2O and CO2, and burn waaayy cooler (just under 1000 degrees C). Happy engine and more power. So there is less energy to save compared to the total burning of fuel.
As fuel cools is become more dense, and as a fuel system delivers a fixed volume not mass, more fuel is injected as is cools down.

OK for the one person who managed to hang on til this far, the thing to find out is this...

Does the extra energy available due to the improved heat of vapourisation outweight the loss of energy due to the lower mass of fuel being added due to the lower density. Iwill calculate this today and post this arvo. Got to get back to my real but boring job...

[muzza]

Look in here under Laboratory results Muz

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&s...ate.com/&e=9707


Huh - what a surprise, some data on their website that "has been tested at NATA accredited laboratories in Australia" - but gee, it doesn't say which ones, where or when. Do you reckon they could have just made them up? (heavy sarcasm)

Hmmm..................

Their own dyno tests show it works (wow would you have guessed) but there are no INDEPENDENT VERIFIED TESTS that prove it works, in real world driving situations.

Must send a letter to autospeed and see if they will run a before/after comparison on a real world driving loop - then I might believe it works if they could show it.

[Pishk]

I bet it's just some useless gimmick like the Hiclone. If it really is this good, why don't cars come with it as standard?

Or there's some catch, like you get 20% better economy but 90% less power.

Hey don't knock it. My mates dad made his own hi-clone sort of thing from the aluminium of coke cans for his VQ, and that seemed to increase the performance a bit. I guess it just makes the engine run more clean, same sort of thing as extractors. He's going to make up 8 small ones and have one per cylinder or something...

When he first bought it from the dealer (second hand) it went back in for something, and the guy was curious as to what he'd done (he could noticably tell the difference) - The dealer offered to buy it back for himself at $2k more than he had just bought it for, haha!

I guess if you do it properly for your car, it does have some benifits!

[karter42]

Ever heard of new technology? :rolleyes: Happens all the time...

Yep, Microsoft NT (New Technology) 4.0. Never worked.......

[VFast]

Yep, Microsoft NT (New Technology) 4.0. Never worked.......

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[THE308]

I bet it's just some useless gimmick like the Hiclone. If it really is this good, why don't cars come with it as standard?

Or there's some catch, like you get 20% better economy but 90% less power.


Have YOU actually used a Hiclone?

I haven't, but know several people who swear by them.

BTW. Hiclone offer a money back guarrantee if you aren't happy, so if it fails to deliver you can get your money back.

[Jphdg]

hmm, well I know it will have some benefit on a diesel, particularly if you plan to run it on vegie oil or other biodiesel in cold climates, however I doubt anyone with an LS1 is going to attempt to run their cars on vegie oil. lol.

[Oranom350]

hmmmm all sounds interesting

[Goggles]

hmmmm all sounds interesting

oh dear thread mining again :hmmm:

[calais04]

I have this fitted to my Calais, I was not sure but it was offered supplied and fitted for free to get "real world figures". It can and does improve economy! I record fuel consumption every time the vehicle is filled.

Before fitting - covered 20,000 klms - average 11.1 lt per 100

After fitting - covered 20,00 klms - average 9.7 lt per 100

A recent trip to Shepparton I saw 8.9 lt per 100, but on cruise on the limit (not much fun)

You can still make it drink but it is easier to get good economy out of it.

Car is a VY II 2004 Calais, has covered 100,00 klms and not one fault to date. Wish I could say that about the old VX

[VX2VESS]

I my car was leaking fuel into the environment I would be more worried about an under bonnet fire than the cars fuel consumption!

Anybody who knows modern fuel systems knows that there are NO leaks allowed into the environment. Any fuel leaks would result in an instant recall of the affected vehicles.



The only time i have seen a fuel injector not vapourise fuel properly is when the either the spray plate was blocked of the fuel injector pintle seat had contamination.



And where would 'Vaporate' draw this heat from? The engine bay. And what is already in the engine bay? The fuel rail, fuel hoses and fuel injectors. So once a car has been drive for a number of minutes all of the components in the engine bay will become heated. Adding a collar to the fuel injector wouldn't add much more heat (if any) than what is already available.



If Vaporate principle is to add heat to the fuel injectors then wouldn't vehicles which are working harder and had hotter under bonnet temperatures have an increased benefit?

I cannot see how this device could make any impact let alone savings of up to 25% This device belongs in the same category as the Energy Polariser from the 1980s

FF

Not on the GM plastic manifold anyway they won't aborb extra heat. If the Injectors mount close to the heads in a alloy manifold it would absorb much more heat through these collars to the injectors. but in a plastic composite manifold designed not to absorb heat, not as effective i'd say as the later

[bejay]

Several people at work had their cars fitted with the system around 4 months ago, supplied free from their lease company and installed where ever they get their cars serviced.

They all found improved fuel savings. One person lives in Geelong and travels to Laverton to work. His car is a V8 Calais, auto, stock. Around town now gets 10.5 L/100k and to work 8.1 l/100k.

He says besides the fuel saving, acceleration off the mark has definitely improved too.

[Clubby250]

its crap,
my old man has a vy1 calais and has had them on as part of a testing thing for the vaporate crap
he had to right down distance for each trip between filling type of driving time of driving for temp purposes and type of fuel

he is having them removed since the test is finished

need i say more

[THE308]

its crap,
my old man has a vy1 calais and has had them on as part of a testing thing for the vaporate crap
he had to right down distance for each trip between filling type of driving time of driving for temp purposes and type of fuel

he is having them removed since the test is finished

need i say more


Just because your old man is having them removed doesn't mean anything.

Doing so could indicate that he's a drongo or it could mean he simply sees no value in them. (I'd be highly surprised if they made the car drink more fuel than without them)

But without providing us with any rationale behind the decison to remove them, your post is meaningless, unlike bejay, who actually has some scientific evidence in the form of fuel consumption figures as well as anecdotal driver reports to substantiate his post.

I wonder if your old man will be smart enough to keep measuring fuel consumprion after removing them so that he can establish if removing them was indeed the intelligent decision you are inferring.

[Clubby250]

the words NEED I SAY MORE

have a think!

[RedVYIISS]

Hot fuel = less dense = less fuel

Std commo tune = rich as buggery!

less fuel = leaner tune = better power/fuel economy

[just dont use 'em on a car thats properly tuned (ie ours!!!)]

[Clubby250]

well each to ther own
but my old man said fuel economy is not better at all and thinks there a scam.
im sure he didnt wake up one morning and go hrmmmm they work really good so im gunna take em off.

[saaz]

This site is a useful read on all things fuel saving and fantasy. Also covers the other miracle fuel savers out there.

http://www.fuelsaving.info/vaporate.htm

Reminds me of a thread I saved from a GM engineer (who develops GM engines and the oil monitors we don't seem to get here) on the engineering realities of oil, as opposed to religious beliefs by some.