 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / October 2005high mileage carb
saw this though i'd post in groups see reaction if possible someone follow through building one. McBurney Cracks the Super Carburetor Code Address: http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/McBurney/press_release031117.htm A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting water into the intake flow. I see no verifcation of his 70 mpg claim nor any proof that he knows anything about combustion physics, thermal dynamics, fuel manufacture . . .no evidence he's anything but a charlatain. How does water injection help? It allows a much leaner mixture by moderating the combustion process and preventing lean mixture detonation problems. It was commonly used in WW II on many of our fighters to give higher power outputs under combat conditions. The moisture also flashes into low pressure steam to add to the power output. In 1970, Mother Earth News magazine ran an article on how to build your own water injection system with an aquarium air stone, a mayonaise jar and some vacuum line. Add water and rubbing alcohol. On a 225 slant six in a 1964 Valiant, I got 41.25 mpg on a 145 mile round trip between Canon City CO and Colorado Springs CO. The engine was running tighter than stock valve lashes ( mechanical lifters) and a recurved distributor. OTOH, my eldest is now driving my old 1979 D150 (318,auto, 3.55 axle long bed) and getting 19 mpg around town and 23 highway, but the vacuum advance has been seriously recurved. It also kicks 350 Chubbie butt regularly. Now, what all this points out is there is no miracle carburetor, only careful tuneups and modifictions combined with sensible driving habits (aggressive driving is a no-no for fuel economy, folks) will achieve a net increase in economy. Budd > saw this though i'd post in groups see reaction if possible someone > follow through building one. > McBurney Cracks the Super Carburetor Code > Address: http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/McBurney/press_release03 1117.htm >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting water > into the intake flow. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Budd Budd, I see no proof that you read the article. Did you read it? Not that I know anything about it, but it's not water injection like they used in WW2 when we were kids. Can you prove the 318 kicks 350 Chubbie butt? I went to the 50th anniversary of the first Nuke in a friends 350 powered 1/2 ton short bed with a Aluminum shell. We got just over 25 MPG for the complete trip. I think it was throttle body injected but did not look. It was dead stock, automatic trans, and the paint was blowing off the hood, just like both of my white Dodge's:) Al > >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting water > > into the intake flow. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Al Al, I'm not known for lying. I resent your insinuation that I am. The bad part is I tried to help you with your rat infestation. Therefore I will not waste the effort in the future, as you will just consider I'm lying. And I wasn't born until 47. Budd > > >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting > water [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > careful tuneups and modifictions combined with sensible driving habits > > > (aggressive driving is a no-no for fuel economy, folks) will achieve a > net > > > increase in economy. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > And I wasn't born until 47. Yea, but was that 18 or 1947 :-)  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting >> water [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > >Yea, but was that 18 or 1947 :-) 1447, he came to america with Columbus. beekeep Sorry, Greg, but my first boat ride was as a baby on Noah's Ark. Budd > >> > >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting > >> water [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > beekeep >> >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting > water [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Budd Budd, Didn't want to upset you, sorry I did. Noticed you didn't answer the question. Did you read the article? Al, still has a rat problem:( > >> >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting > > water [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Al, still has a rat problem:( You insinuated I didn't read it. If you'd read my post a little more closely you would have seen I touched on the most obvious "benefit" of the design which would show I did, in fact, read the article. His system entrains a small amount of water in the gasoline flow. If he gets a smooth engine operation from this then it alone is a little bit amazing. And you didn't read the suggestion I made for taking care of the rats or disbelieved it. The soda is safe for grandkids, pets and farm animals, unlike poisons. Obviously the traps didn't work . . . . Budd >>> >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting >> water [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >Al, still has a rat problem:( A Jack Russel will end the rat problem. beekeep I don't know . . .I saw some Norway rats at the Arvin Ind. factory in Indiana that were about the size of a Jack Russell and had more attitude. One year, they closed the doors and turned a bunch of the Good old boys loose in thee with shotguns to cut down the population ... according to the factory's legend mill. I figure the rats would have run off the rednecks. Budd > >>> >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting > >> water [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > beekeep To Big Al: Yes, I read the article, and if it were anymore vague, it could be used as a soap-opera script. More hype about himself that about the carb and not enough about himself to determine if he's even a logical shadetree inventor. I printed out the Pop Mech article. The water injection they used works off manifold vacuum which drops as the throttle opened, reducing vapor flow. A 5-10% improvement is about the maximum improvement and is about all you could expect * at best* . The system I used on the slant six drew vacuum off the distributor vacuum advance port (vacuum increases with throttle opening delivering more vapor at higher rpm), used an aquarium air stone, 50/50 water alcohol mix, and a heavily recurved distributor. Full mechanical advance just above idle and full vacuum @ 4 inches of mercury, iirc. Budd > >>> >A computerized, overly complicated, overly expensive way of injecting > >> water [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > > >Al, still has a rat problem:( > To Big Al: > [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] >>> >>>Al, still has a rat problem:( There is a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gas (about 50 HP) and a bigger factor in fuel economy is engine comprssion ratio than carb. Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com Agreed. While a higher C.R. improves specific horsepower, not always economy, it cannot pull more HP out of the fuel than is available. Go too far with CR and you will lose economy. It's more important to burn all the fuel you can in the cylinder and low octane fuel actually burns faster than high octane. The water/alcohol system I used added a fuel, in the form of alcohol vapor, and the water vapor reduced the chance of detonation from a lean mix / excessive timing advance situation at cruise throttle. For example, my 79 Dodge D-150 with 318 ran 55 degrees advance at less than 40 mph ( mechanical and vacuum advances combined. Normally, vacuum advance doesn't come in under cruise throttle until 50 mph) and yielded 20+ mpg from a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a BRICK, but it would detonate under certain conditions. The 65 225 Slant Six, otoh, ran two light springs in the mechanical advance which brought full advance in at around 1000 rpm. On 87 octane, this would be a massive ping situation under any load, but it only pinged when I forgot to add mix to the bottle. In a 64 Valiant, it towed an overloaded U-Haul trailer over Monarch Pass CO, 11,000+ feet, without strain and delivered 28 mpg at the time. The water / alcohol injection system was on that engine for over 100,000 miles and during that time my worst fuel mileage was 20 mpg ... the point had burned up and I didn't have another set until payday the next weekend -- Budd Cochran WARNING!!! Poster still believes that intelligence, logic, common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs are still important in our society, and may include them in his posts. > > To Big Al: > > [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com > Agreed. While a higher C.R. improves specific horsepower, not always > economy, it cannot pull more HP out of the fuel than is available. Go too [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > -- > Budd Cochran Tricky old fart aren't ya.<VBG> Roy You have it wrong on CR ratio, as you raise it you increase the thermodynamic efficency of the engine and it will boost MPG if you use the correct fuel octane and valve timing with it. (it capture more energy from expanding gasses.) One of the main reasons oil burners get better MPG is because the same higher CR that is needed to ignite fuel also extract more energy for expanding mixture. CR ratio is a key factor in MPG and if you bulit a gas engine properly with 12 to one or better CR you should see a 10 to 15% or better improvement in MPG. If you ran one on propane you could do up 13 to one with ease because of its high octane. > Agreed. While a higher C.R. improves specific horsepower, not always > economy, it cannot pull more HP out of the fuel than is available. Go too [quoted text clipped - 219 lines] >>----------------- >>www.thesnoman.com Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com No, sorry, I do not have it wrong, according to Chrysler engineers I worked alongside of while they were assisting in the installation of catalytic converter manufacturing equipment at Arvin Ind, Inc in Franklin IN in 1971. They understood the need for proper combustion, the complete burning process happening IN the cylinder, while the EPA was demanding retarded timings and all when the first emissions laws were enforced . . .uh, correction . . shoved down our throats. If you remember, for about 4 years, cars in America got horrid mileage because of screwed up tune procedures. My own experience was a 72 Charger with 400/2 bbl engine that got only 14 mpg on the highway / 8 in town when tuned to 1972 specifications, but that jumped to 17 around town and 24 highway when tuned to 1968 specs . . . .and it still ran fine on 87 octane fuel -- Budd Cochran WARNING!!! Poster still believes that intelligence, logic, common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs are still important in our society, and might include them in his posts. > You have it wrong on CR ratio, as you raise it you increase the > thermodynamic efficency of the engine and it will boost MPG if you use [quoted text clipped - 235 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com The EPA did not demand retarded timing. They "demanded" NOx reduction which at the time could only be done with lower peak combustion temps and pressures and retarding timing. Today people make matters worse by clinging to 87 octane fuel in a high comprssion engine. The ONLY reason your engine has a knock sensor is for tolerance for low octane fuel and nothing more. And everytime the ECM retards spark for low octane fuel, it reduces power output and MPG. > No, sorry, I do not have it wrong, according to Chrysler engineers I worked > alongside of while they were assisting in the installation of catalytic [quoted text clipped - 335 lines] >>----------------- >>www.thesnoman.com Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com > The EPA did not demand retarded timing. They "demanded" NOx reduction > which at the time could only be done with lower peak combustion temps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nothing more. And everytime the ECM retards spark for low octane fuel, > it reduces power output and MPG. Easy, pal. I'm not the enemy. I dislike the EPA as much as anyone. They only recently hired their first real scientist and he's an evolution / ecology freak. By demanding reduced NOx, in effect, the EPA demanded retarded timing. Source? Chrysler, Ford, and GM engineers that were overseeing the cat converter machine installations at Arvins. 87 octane fuel is the result of the catylitic converters . . .no lead allowed, although later tests proved it settles out of the exhaust less than 20 feet from the pipe. Gawd I miss that good old 105.5 octane Sunoco 260. . . . The first engine I've ever owned with an ECM is my 95 Lebaron and, to be honest, I'm pleased with it's performance ( 3.0 V-6). With my current state of health, I don't tinker as much as I usta could. My last vehicle was the 79 D-150 that my eldest son is still driving and now has over 400,000 miles on the 318 under the hood. Budd > > No, sorry, I do not have it wrong, according to Chrysler engineers I worked > > alongside of while they were assisting in the installation of catalytic [quoted text clipped - 340 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com OOPS! Forgot to add one thing: Part of Diesel economy comes from the way the fuel ratio curve works, the leanest mixture is at idle, not cruise rpm, since the A/F ratio is what determines the rpm of the engine for a given load as well as specific power output. A gasoline engine requires a richer, in proportion, mix at idle than a diesel. When it comes to engine operation, they are darn near apples and oranges to each other. -- Budd Cochran WARNING!!! Poster still believes that intelligence, logic, common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs are still important in our society, and might include them in his posts. > You have it wrong on CR ratio, as you raise it you increase the > thermodynamic efficency of the engine and it will boost MPG if you use [quoted text clipped - 235 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com CR- Increasing compresion will increase efficentcy but on a decrease rate of improvement as pressures increase.. Going from 8:1 to 10:1 is apx 12% Going from 10:1 to 12:1 is apx 6% or a total of 18% over 8:1 It continues to drop as rates increase. As others have stated, the fuel is an issue as head temperatures predetenate the fuel. Head/Combustion chamber design comes into play. Many times the reality is that they put cams in these higher compression engines that have higher valve overlap periods to increase exhaust gas evacuation from the bore. This, lowers real world increases in "mileage" that may be gained from the cr. Water/Meth Injection of these items supposidly increase compression(due to fluids don't compress), slow the burn more, raise the octatane rateing, and lower the exhaust gas temperature. In addition, it helps keep clean the engines. That said; I have a dual pressure injection system from SNOW, on my diesel truck. I expected at least 200F exhaust gas temp drops and 80hp. I can not report this? Maybe I have it set wrong? Others report good results?? DIESEL Yes the higher CR does help mileage. Unit comparing, gas to diesel, diesel has 10% more energy. Most of todays Diesel have turbochargers which increase power on demand. Boost levels of 40lbs boost are easy, and up to 120lbs are do-able! These presures help hp(apx 10hp per 1lbs boost<40lbs boost is about 400hp>) and TORQUE, but it takes fuel to do this. ARTICLE Is a mixture of trueth and misinformation. Vapor Pressure point of the fuels depend on the pressure(altitude). At sea level, gasoline will start to vaporize at about 140F, diesel about 300F. I am unclear where they get 430F? As pressure decreases the tempreture should decrease. Fuel that is pulled from a carburator is NOT VAPORIZED. The fuel is mixed as very very fine droplets. IN FACT, some of the older engines that were designed for PERFORMANCE were designed with large ports in the heads with large carburators. As the word "performance" in those days ment, it was capable of good power at mid to high rpm levels. The engine was designed for high volumes of air and fuel. At "normal" lower rpm use, such as cruse speeds or idle. The airflow in these large ports could be so slow that droplets of fuel would fall out of the stream of air/fuel. Pudles of fuel could actually collect in parts of the ports, until more airstream would again start to pick up the fuel. This is one reason that FUEL INJECTION is much better. Hydrogen Boost system, is a good idea, but it generally takes more energy to make the hydrogen than it provides in practice. In addition, it may be dificult to regulate the amount that could properly be used. Your adding fuel to your running engine without regulation control.(this is unfair of me to say. I have not read the book). Years ago, there was a vapor carb that used exhaust gas as a heat source to vaporize the fuel. You used a normal carb to start the engine and ran it to normal operating tempertures. Then you switched to the vapor carburator. The issue was that as you increased the efficency, you lowered the waste heat produced. Of the people I spoke with using this said it worked fine, for a few miles(<4miles) until the exhaust temps would no longer vaporized the fuel. I quote: In 1987 McBurney converted a '76 Dodge minivan to his design, and it got 70 mpg "when it was working well." end quote. I owned a 1976 van. Dodge had a van and an extended version about 16in longer. Both of these are VANS, not minivans. Mini vans did not exist until the 80s. My 76 318ci v8 3sp manual got 14mpg in town. I never took it on the road, but would expect 18-20mpg. So much of this article is "ghost tales" and not about the real meat and potatoes. IF this exists, then there are a number of automotive mags and tv shows that would welcome this. It would spread like wild fire. Members in the press may not wish to give such wild claims the time of day. BUT, if such an item exists it would take little proding by these smart engineers to get on the good side of the reporters. Friends of friends that know someone they could give a test ride to prove it too.Then these people would add their voice to their bosses to get a real test and report. Everyone heard of the guy in El Paso Tx back in 69 with a Ford Galaxy getting over 100mpg. They had inspection of the car, reporters in the car and in the convoy run. The guy was killed in a hotel and car stolen. Yet, I tried to find evidence of this myself. I could not. I suggest you do a search on Pogue Carburetor on the net to see what is said.... IF THIS EXISTS, LETS SEE IT! > You have it wrong on CR ratio, as you raise it you increase the > thermodynamic efficency of the engine and it will boost MPG if you use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one on propane you could do up 13 to one with ease because of its high > octane. > CR- > Increasing compresion will increase efficentcy but on a decrease rate of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > periods to increase exhaust gas evacuation from the bore. This, lowers real > world increases in "mileage" that may be gained from the cr. Here again, moderation is the key. My 68 Road Runner with the 383 magnum engine obtained 23 mpg when either my mom or my sister drove it. I, otoh, never got better than 12 out of it . . . of course, I was only 21 in 1968 . . . . . BG > Water/Meth > Injection of these items supposidly increase compression(due to fluids don't > compress), slow the burn more, raise the octatane rateing, and lower > the exhaust gas temperature. In addition, it helps keep clean the engines. I'ts not the lack of fluid compressibility raising effective CR that does the trick, but the water content "flashes into steam adding a slight "steam engine" effect. The alcohol (any kind will do) is a fuel / oxydizer / octane booster / anti-freeze for the water. Since it as a bit of fuel / oxidizer component to the cylinder, less gasoline is needed for a specific HP level . . .more gasoline economy. > That said; I have a dual pressure injection system from SNOW, on my diesel > truck. I expected at least 200F exhaust gas temp drops and 80hp. > I can not report this? Maybe I have it set wrong? Others report good > results?? Go for it!!! In modern diesels, water injection is a blessing, but too much water will cause an engine to miss or run poorly. > DIESEL > Yes the higher CR does help mileage. Unit comparing, gas to diesel, diesel > has 10% more energy. > Most of todays Diesel have turbochargers which increase power on demand. And allow a lower CR for starting ( it takes big poewer to crank a 22 or higher : 1 engine) > Boost levels of 40lbs boost are easy, and up to 120lbs are do-able! Here again, it boosts the effective CR. > These presures help hp(apx 10hp per 1lbs boost<40lbs boost is about 400hp>) > and TORQUE, but it takes fuel to do this. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > unclear where they get 430F? As pressure decreases the tempreture should > decrease. They added the two together but got the wrong answer? 300 + 140 = 440 <BG> > Fuel that is pulled from a carburator is NOT VAPORIZED. The fuel is mixed as > very very fine droplets. "Atomized" > IN FACT, some of the older engines that were > designed for PERFORMANCE were designed with large ports in the heads with > large carburators. As the word "performance" in those days ment, it was > capable of good power at mid to high rpm levels. The engine was designed for > high volumes of air and fuel. Yep. > At "normal" lower rpm use, such as cruse > speeds or idle. The airflow in these large ports could be so slow that > droplets of fuel would fall out of the stream of air/fuel. Pudles of fuel > could actually > collect in parts of the ports, until more airstream would again start to > pick up the fuel. Sorry, but this is incorrect. The problem was poor fuel distribution. Turbulence in the runners, in effect, partially blocked the flow to some cylinders requireing a richer overall mixture than was actually needed. > This is one reason that FUEL INJECTION is much better. Curiously, the 57-65 Corvette F.I. was a constant flow/wet port system that had no computer control at all and delivered 25% better economy, over 1 HP/cu.in. and reduced emissions . . . .have we reeally come so far?? > Hydrogen Boost system, is a good idea, but it generally takes more energy to > make the hydrogen than it provides in practice. In addition, it may be > dificult to regulate > the amount that could properly be used. Your adding fuel to your running > engine without regulation control.(this is unfair of me to say. I have not > read the book). And you're about to fall for the hype. Hint: If it sounds to good to be true, then it proabably is. > Years ago, there was a vapor carb that used exhaust gas as a heat source to > vaporize the fuel. You used a normal carb to start the engine and ran it to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the people I spoke with using this said it worked fine, for a few > miles(<4miles) until the exhaust temps would no longer vaporized the fuel. Think on this: Gasoline gets real touchy when heated . . .would you want boiling gasoline under your hood? > I quote: > In 1987 McBurney converted a '76 Dodge minivan to his design, and it got 70 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My 76 318ci v8 3sp manual got 14mpg in town. I never took it on the road, > but would expect 18-20mpg. I had a 72 B-350 maxi-van for a while with the 360/2bbl engine and got 14 also with a 4.11: axle > So much of this article is "ghost tales" and not about the real meat and > potatoes. IF this exists, then there are a number of automotive mags and tv [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The guy was killed in a hotel and car stolen. Yet, I tried to find evidence > of this myself. I could not. Urban legends come and go. This was my point as well; no verifiable evidence, no proof that the "inventor" was even a good shade-tree tinkerer. -- Budd Cochran WARNING!!! Poster still believes that intelligence, logic, common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs are still important in our society, and might include them in his posts. > To Big Al: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enough about himself to determine if he's even a logical shadetree > inventor. Budd, Here is what I was asking about. Again I have no idea if any of this is true, but it is clearly not old fashion water injection. From the article: "According to McBurney, the process is really quite simple. You vaporize the fuel through any of a number of methods, then in the presence of heat generated from the exhaust, and added water vapor, run the fuel-water mixture across a catalyzing agent, and a vast portion of the fuel molecules will break down into methanol and natural gas. The heat and catalyst and water drive the reaction." Here is the complete article just in case: http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/McBurney/press_release031117.htm In my 60 years of screwing with this stuff I find most of these types of "discoveries" are pure BS. But someday.... Al PS: Just toured the Franklin Car Museum. We have not come very far:) Exactly my point, Al. All he's done is found a fancy, expensive way to add a smidgen of water vapor with an infinitesimal amount of fuel. Since it's taking fuel from the same fuel tank it still drops the fuel level at the same rate as before even if the fuel injection O2 sensors leans out the normal fuel flow because of a rich mixture detection. But the water vapor added isn't enough at cruise speeds to make any difference to speak of anyway, since it draws from manifold vacuum and the modern computers will probably alter the timing and fuel curves to restore the programmed consumption rates. I installed a matching water vapor injector system to the one on my Valiant on the 75 Oldsmobile taxi ( that anemic 260 v-8 in a Cutlass) I was driving when I got the great results on the slant six and I only gained a best of 10% when I didn't have to drive the crap out of it just to keep up with traffic. But I still got better mpg that any of the other 5 Cutlasses. <BG> -- Budd Cochran WARNING!!! Poster still believes that intelligence, logic, common sense, courtesy, and religious beliefs are still important in our society, and might include them in his posts. > > To Big Al: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Here is the complete article just in case: http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/McBurney/press_release03 1117.htm > In my 60 years of screwing with this stuff I find most of these types of > "discoveries" are pure BS. But someday.... > > Al > > PS: Just toured the Franklin Car Museum. We have not come very far:) http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html > saw this though i'd post in groups see reaction if possible someone > follow through building one. > McBurney Cracks the Super Carburetor Code > Address: http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/McBurney/press_release031117.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.