OK, FZ FE. can we try running on fuel vapor? (1 Viewer)

[94L C8E]

Hi Guys,
wouldn't it be nice.

In case you have been living under a rock, 'hillbilly science' has shown (on youtube) that cars can run on fuel vapor alone; or reap increased MPG, with the injectors working.

In terms of the 1FZ-FE, some areas possibly to explore, or tap vapour into, in my mind, may possibly include:

- charcoal canister (EVAP)?
- debris/dust collector under intake?
- EGR?
- PAIR?

I'm curious if anyone out there has input, ideas, or experiences.

thanks for constructive discussion.
as we may just be able to develop the 2FZ-FE

 

[94L C8E]

does anyone here care about reducing emissions?

 

[e9999]

I guess I've been living under a rock indeed. I still believe in the laws of Thermodynamics...

 

[Bax454]

Sorry, already a Hybrid. I burn gas and oil.

 

[scottryana]

You do know that when the fuel is injected it atomizes into a fuel vapor??????

You are not running off of liquid gas. For one it doesn't ignite and 2 it would not mix well enough with the oxygen to cause combustion.

So really I have zero idea what you mean by "Tap vapour into"

But regardless of what source you use to get your fuel vaporized. Whether it is from the atomization of fuel through the tiny nozzle in the fuel injector into the fast moving warm air stream of the intake tract, or if you somehow created a gas tank warmer and caught the vapors coming out of the tank and then used them to run the truck, the exact same amount of fuel would have to be used because that is what the O2 sensors are looking for is the stoichiometric combustion values of air to fuel.

But if you would like to create a gas tank warmer, capture the off gas fumes, seal and pressurize the charcoal canister (which is not a rated positive pressure vessel) and then try and push those vapors (while they are still vapors) into the intake tract, please do it! But please do it from a safe distance and PLEASE video it for youtube when the charcoal canister blows open and all of the fumes fill the engine bay and ignite with an errant spark. It will make one hell of a video.

Hi Guys,
wouldn't it be nice.

In case you have been living under a rock, 'hillbilly science' has shown (on youtube) that cars can run on fuel vapor alone; or reap increased MPG, with the injectors working.

In terms of the 1FZ-FE, some areas possibly to explore, or tap vapour into, in my mind, may possibly include:

- charcoal canister (EVAP)?
- debris/dust collector under intake?
- EGR?
- PAIR?

I'm curious if anyone out there has input, ideas, or experiences.

thanks for constructive discussion.
as we may just be able to develop the 2FZ-FE

 

[94L C8E]

i know.

and i know it sounds crazy, but my thoughts were, if there was an engine to test these vapor ideas on (link provided) - i think this would be one good choice.. and Tom Ogle inventor/mechanic died in '81 so he never lived to see this great machine. also, new engines are still not designed to reduce fuel consumption either, they are designed to reduce emissions.

http://rexresearch.com/ogle/1ogle.htm#nohoax

and why would 'big oil' companies and investors have any interest in 100MPG capable cars? they're happy to lobby government to use science to invent and mandate catalytic converters, EGR's, Charcoal canisters and all are failed attempts at being emissions reducers, while helping us consumers burn more unburned fuel while keeping efficiency low and consumption of gas and diesel high and adding on 'emissions reducers,' which actually starve MPG increases while attempting to recapture and reburn, unburned fuel. .


- today, for a very modern example, the modern diesels have to run at a super hot idle, for 15 minutes, every 300 km, to burn off carbon deposited in the engine; this is said to be for a better environment, while instead it consumes more diesel, by government mandate, and carbon build up is, as we know, caused by unburned fuel...

- learned a lot from you guys over the past year and value your input.

thanks, and sorry to rant, please keep it coming.

 

[scottryana]

Haha, well I have a pretty strong understanding of internal combustion and there is nothing on that page from 1978 that would lead me to believe that any of this would work any better than what is currently available in 2015.

a few points you made that I will kindly refute.
- Yes the oil companies would not like to see a 100mpg car, but I guarantee you the car companies would. There is not a car company in business today that would not like to take a big heavy tank like described in the article and have it go 100mpg, they would sell hundreds of thousands.
- Catalytic converters, and charcoal canisters really have nothing to do with combustion only emissions. If a car company can get a car to run cleaner it would get better MPG's and the catalytic converter is just doing less work. No different than a cat in a 2015 car will last longer than one on a 1978 chevy running rich.

I saw a lot of glaring problems in the articles but the most telling was:
"Gas in the tank passes through a series of filters, which stretch the energy available in each gallon. The ??? also store excess vapors for later use for up to 45 days. Premium gas is needed, as its higher octane level allows for more vapors to build."

By passing vapors/fumes through a filter you can not add energy to it? Think about that for just a second. Fuel vapor or evaporated hydrocarbons if you will, are nothing more than hydrocarbon atoms suspended in air. SO by running this through a filter media you are doing nothing but removing hydrocarbons from the vapor. You are actually removing the volatile material from the air going into the engine. Basically creating a lean condition.

Vapor/air mixtures are flammable only over a limited range of vapor concentrations. This range is defined by the lower and upper flammability limits. Mixtures outside this range are described as, respectively, too "lean" or too "rich" for ignition. In gasoline that is 1.4-7.6% That being said in that range the gasoline will still ignite, but it will not consume all of the gasoline or oxygen available. The point at which that happens is called the stoichiometric air to fuel ratio and for gas that is 14.7:1 or 6.8%

Ok so we also know that with a standard internal combustion engine you can only run so lean before you have significant internal problems. This is mostly because lean combustion runs very hot and causes knock and melted pistons. By adding a little unburnt fuel to the mixture going rich you cool the cylinder temperature.

The other aspect is that oxygen is usually your limiting factor in power production, that is why we see cars with turbo and superchargers to push more air into the engine. Fuel is not your limiting factor the oxygen that you combust with it is.

So I will relent and give you this. If you could design an engine that could withstand the incredible temps of running very very lean, and could super cool it to keep it from preignition since the flash point of gasoline is 536 degrees, and you could design a car around it that would not need the power of burning all of the oxygen, you could theoretically produce a car that could run at 54:1 air to fuel, but it would not make any power.

 

[Landseer]

"Big Oil" may have no interest in 100 MPG vehicles but last I checked Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. aren't in the business of manufacturing vehicles. On the other hand automakers have a huge incentive to make vehicles more fuel efficient. Imagine if Toyota came out with 4Runner that got 80 MPG, everyone would buy one and Toyota would make billions of dollars off of it. Same applies to GM, Ford, Honda, Isuzu, etc. This is capitalism at its finest.

Emissions controls are sometimes going to have a detrimental effect on fuel economy and performance but they drastically improve air quality. The leaded gas of yesteryear had some great advantages over the current unleaded but I'm sure as hell happy to not be breathing lead. If you think air quality is a minor problem compared to minor increases in fuel efficiency you should take a trip to Beijing or look at some picture of Pittsburgh from the 50's.

Automotive corporations and engine manufacturers spend billions on engine R&D every year to increase efficiency. This massive effort by some of the brightest engineers out there yields improvements of ~10% every 5 years. Do you really think that $20 of Harbor Freight parts and a few hours of "hillbilly engineering" are going to improve upon thousands of hours of design and testing that went into the 1FZ-FE? If you are looking for revolutionary engine designs I suggest that you check out Liquid Piston and Achates Power.

 

[scottryana]

Funny you should mention liquid piston. I really want one of their mini gas engines, but would want something in the 150-200cc range. Lol

 

[Landseer]

You could be the first person to turbocharge the 70cc liquid piston

 

[scottryana]

Lol, I don't think there is a turbo charger made that is small enough for 70cc's! You literally could use a small electric fan.

 

[MoustacheMike]

FYI: The 99-05 Audi A2 had a 78city/94hwy MPG rating (1.2L I3 TDI turbo-diesel engine). From my understanding it was a combination of engine, weight, and having a coefficient of drag between 0.25 and 0.29.

No special black-magic carburetor vapor voodoo required. If you want a super fuel efficient car, stay away from large & heavy petrol vehicles...

 

[tacosupreme]

does anyone here care about reducing emissions?

No. Check the pious forums for those guys. That said check out "hydroxy" aka Brown's gas. The long and the short of it is you use DC power to split water molecules and burn the resulting gas. It works, and the only emissions from burning it are pure water. The problem is most guys try to use power from the alternator to recharge the battery that powers the "fuel cell", and of course you can't make enough gas to keep the alternator spinning and at some point the battery dies. I always wondered if you had a bank of deep cycle batteries separate from the car's DC system (recharged by solar or whatever) you could run entirely on Brown's gas for short distances.

 

[scottryana]

Better option would be to have a brown's hydrogen station setup at home with a large solar array doing the splitting and then you just have a hydrogen tank on your vehicle. But even then it is very inefficient and the cost for the solar array could buy A LOT of gas.

No. Check the pious forums for those guys. That said check out "hydroxy" aka Brown's gas. The long and the short of it is you use DC power to split water molecules and burn the resulting gas. It works, and the only emissions from burning it are pure water. The problem is most guys try to use power from the alternator to recharge the battery that powers the "fuel cell", and of course you can't make enough gas to keep the alternator spinning and at some point the battery dies. I always wondered if you had a bank of deep cycle batteries separate from the car's DC system (recharged by solar or whatever) you could run entirely on Brown's gas for short distances.

 

[tacosupreme]

Better option would be to have a brown's hydrogen station setup at home with a large solar array doing the splitting and then you just have a hydrogen tank on your vehicle. But even then it is very inefficient and the cost for the solar array could buy A LOT of gas.

Plus that whole hindenburg thing. I made my own generator a while back that produced about one liter per minute of gas. I left it running in the garage when disaster struck. My wife likes to say I "blew all the sheetrock off the walls" but that's not entirely true, the sheetrock behind the shelf was just fine.