Extreme Fuel Economy And The Classic Car
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 ноя 2024
- A look at the mythical hyper-miler carburetors and the conspiracies surrounding them, engines that run on vapors, and Smokey's adiabatic hot vapor concept that may still revolutionize the internal combustion engine. When is a turbocharger not a turbocharger
*MERCHANDISE:
Get Your UTG T-Shirts Here: uncletonysgara...
Get Your UTG Stickers Here: uncletonysgara...
OUR STORE: uncletonysgara...
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
Instagram: / uncle_tonys
#classiccar #musclecar #MPG
Some guy has a RUclips video how he made a V8 get 45 mpg using a lawn mower carb. I don't think he was being totally honest in the video. He was driving the car, but it didn't seem to have any power/acceleration.
Like Tony said the carb is just the metering device.
Although from the comments a lot of people believed it.
he faked it
@@peralispayne you saw that too?
What do you think he did ?
@@edbeck8925 video editing. if he can make his own app he can edit a video, 1. with 30+yrs working on car/building hotrod I know better (not enough air can pass through something the size of a nickel to sustain idle in a 5.0L. lawnmowers are maybe 0.1/0.2L) 2. Changing the timing will not fix a fuel/air issue.
oh and its 5.0L 500/700 time per minute
Yeah, I couldn't believe that so many people in the comments believed it and wanted one.
It's kind of like a teeter trotter. If you have 100 pounds on one side, 10 pounds on the other side isn't going to do much
I had a 100 mpg carburetor. It was on a 50cc four speed moped(like what they drive in India). Topped out at 43 mph. It was so much fun
Love those things lol
That's about the end of mpg in a cold carb. I have a CB250 (234cc) that consistently gets 90MPG US or 110MPimpG....that's running up and down mountains averaging 45 to 50mph. A little less for cruising at 65mph. Bike maxes out at 78mph on a 18hp bike weighing 300lbs + rider with a windscreen (which helps).
Honda analog motors are extremely efficient. If a wind tunnel tested long nose cone fairing was added....it might get 100mpg US at 50mph steady on level terrain.
So no automobile is likely to ever get more than 60mpg on the gasoline engine alone, unless someone invents frictionless paint and puts a 2 cyl 600cc motor in it.
Restricting air is the only way to restrict fuel while maintaining air/fuel ratio. Nascar has used restrictor plates for some tracks and surely fuel economy would increase. Free flowing heads and exhaust is always key to making horsepower. Has anyone ever tried a restrictor plate that was adjustable? Ridiculously small but can open up like a second set of butterflies under the carb. My old friend would always use the acronym 'kiss' 🍻
Check out ThunderHead garage on RUclips. He has run a 302 using a actual lawnmower carb, getting crazy mileage
I have some experience with Lohmann engines on bicycles, these are an old 17cc engine made in Germany that functions on a 2 stroke HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition) cycle. This is somewhere between a diesel and a gas engine. The cylinder head is set up so that the top of the combustion chamber moves up and down to vary the compression ratio, controlled by one of two hand throttles. The other throttle controls the air/fuel mixer which is somewhat like a carburetor with a slide valve and a jet. Riding a bike with one of these is a bit complicated, you have to find the right balance of compression and mixture to get it to run, otherwise it won't make much power, or it will smoke a ton. They run on kerosene with 2 stroke oil best, they top out at about 12-13,000 RPM and 20-25 miles per hour, and they can easily squeeze out 200-250 miles per gallon of kerosene if operated correctly. Since is compression ignition, by adjusting compression and mixture you are basically just changing the timing at which the mixture will ignite. The goal with one of these is to get it to run at the highest compression with the widest open throttle position, since the mixture on these is not constant across throttle position. This results in the leanest mixture with the highest compression and so the most efficient setting. Very cool engines but getting very hard to find , my friend has a couple he brought back from Germany. They do come up on German eBay sometimes but they are $1000+ now.
To get maximum efficiency from any engine optimum fuel to air mixture with completely vaporized and burned fuel are necessary, I modified a 440 mopar in a motorhome that was getting 5mpg on gasoline to propane. I increased the compression to 12:1, stainless valves, special cam and maxed out the timing, not only did it increase the hp but now I do 8+ mpg, cleaner exhaust and less than half the price of gas here in Canada.
"I increased the compression to 12:1" // What kind of fuel do you supply for this ration?
@alextrezvy6889
He said he was using propane.
@@jerryw6577 thanx. First I read "was getting 5mpg on gasoline or propane".
The description of a carb as "a mechanical computer" makes the whole system's operation blindingly clear!
I always appreciate your knowledge and ability to educate, but this video might just be the best one yet. Thanks, Uncle Tony.
I think they ment ANALOG computer, and they are coming back. They allow for immediate adjustment for a multitude of variables.
@@montyrayza7220 lotta crap for no content!
To an extent, yes. The perfectly setup thermostatic choke is capable of doing close to what an efi engine can. Within a certain temperature range, usually stated in factory manuals. Carbs were set lean, and the chokes allowed to stay closed, kind of like how a vacuum secondary works on a holley carb. Opens with enough airflow. Mind you most aftermarket or performance setups are not like this, they open up within a minute or so and stay open regardless of temperature.
Why are carburators coming back.??
@@alfonsomorales4251 actually they never left. Carbs are on mowers, generators, lots of small engines. Many other fuel burning things, such as heaters use a "carburetor" to mix fuel and air. Same as airplane wing.
My great-uncle used a 1953 carburetor that was sitting in his office for ten years ( a customer wanted it rebuilt but never picked it back up), installed it in a 1980s Plymouth Reliant K-car, tested numerous times at FIFTY-FOUR MPG. (At 60 mph highway speeds) and almost 50 mpg on back roads. It was pretty gutless, but still!
Yes it was guttless because it was running lean and because it was running lean it went further per gallon of gas 👍
@@Dirt-Diggler It's not as simple as leaning it out to the max. There's a balancing equation between power to weight and AFR. While most tuning is trying to squeeze power out per liter of air displaced economy tuning is trying to squeeze out power per liter of fuel.
So, I was enthralled with this idea back in the 70’s. I had a Chevy Malibu with a 194-6. I acquired a Rochester 1-bbl from a stationary engine. I had accumulated a stash of main jets and started leaning it out a bit at a time. The short story is that it couldn’t get out of its own way… and… I burned 4 exhaust valves. All with no improvement in mpg. To make power, you need to burn fuel!
He knows how to make a 100mpg carb, he just cannot tell us because he knows that they'll disappear him. So he makes this video. Smart man.
He should talk to Ron Hatton to get a full explanation, but he had (2) instances of his brakes failing within a 6 month time frame... the 2nd one finally silenced him. Gadgetman Groove!
I have been in love with the automobile for 84 years, And I have learned so much more just from experiencing your programs, Thank You So Much!
John from Toronto Canada!
Hey Uncle Tony! I've got a 70 Roadrunner 440 6pk, looks like brand new, I always park in the econo spot in parking lots! No one has ever said a word! But I drive it only 500 to 1000 mi a year, very economical at 7 mpg! Lol!! Peace🤙🤙
Great video! I had a 1976 chev 3/4ton with a 454. I changed the jets and metering rods. And with no loss of power went from 16mpg to 22mpg!
Thanks for the description of Smokey's engine, I remember reading about it years ago and wondered how he did it. If I recall right, he used a Buick V-6 and disabled three cylinders. He had two turbo's on it, and was getting something like 60mpg. The article didn't go into detail how the system worked or why the need for the turbos.
Turbos would atomize the fuel passing through the blades spinning at 100,000 rpm and also heat the mix
Tony you've done it, taken a subject I couldn't care less about and made in interesting. This is a good one.
Pure click bait B.S. he said nothing of any significant value on how to build a 100 mpg carburator or engine, that horse poop has been around since I was a toddler, ads in the back of Popular Mechanics Magazines, with a request for money, for them to send you the sacred secrets of a (non working) gadget.
@@carminemurphy4836 From the makers of fake turbo whistles that clip onto your tail pipe.
@@carminemurphy4836 you must not have heard what he said very well. The thing of value he said is that the idea of a carburetor producing fuel economy like 100 mph is bunk because it doesn't control fuel economy of the engine rather it controls the delivery of fuel the engine demands. This was near the start.
He then talked about fuel delivery processes that were different but not practical.
But bottom line was the same as you already know. It's all nonsense.
This was very informative.. just the notion that the engine wants what it wants is a good concept to get across..With my sunbeam i changed the gear ratios by installing a Toyota five speed trans to replace the 4 speed that had really high revs and i changed out the rear to a higher ratio as well..i went from factory (when new) of 27mpg to up to 35 and even 40 on highway. engine runs at 3k at 75mph now and much more comfortable highway speeds.
"just the notion that the engine wants what it wants is a good concept to get across" The diesel, for example, has no throttling on its airflow, only the fuel flow. There is a very wide ratio spread at which diesel will happily burn.
If mpg changed that much the engine was working way harder than it needed to
Gearing up to run slower only works just so good. It works well on a tiny car as there isn't as much weight to push around. Back in 1970s and 80s we found that putting a bit LOWER gear in the rear of our big chevies and running a nice high revving motor would get better mileage if set up right. Plus be pretty quick too.
The 55 mph speed limit was introduced at a time when most cars were still big sleds with high gears to go 70 mph on the freeway, then kept at 55 or less they were probably using MORE fuel than normal. Like trying to ride a ten - speed bicycle in 9 and 10th gear all the time.
You should go lower. I put taller tires on my 96 civic and swapped to the CX trans and went from 40mpg to 55mpg+ around 50-60mph lol. You had to down shift more often but that really is extreme fuel economy. Most gasoline engines have peak efficiency around 2000 RPM depending on piston speed and about 90-92% throttle.
*should add the car was geared for 2100 rpm at 70mph.
is it the tiger or the alpine?
When I can get one of my hero’s experimental engines explained to me by another hero of mine, you know it’s going to be a great video.
Thanks, Uncle Tony.
I am 76 years old, and these tales have been around most of my life. People said tires should last 100,000 miles, and engines 1,000,000 miles. I simply asked how long would they last wrapped around a rim.
I read an article about a guy that designed a carb for a V8 that got 57 mpg. he was a retired GM engineer and I guess they had a court ase against him because he designed it while working for GM. Long story short, they won.
I saw a chevy get 100 mpg while being driven by a Sasquatch. True story! 😅
These guys are funny.
Good Lord, the Smokey vapor motor is stirring the memories. I have forgotten so many things, this was nice.
It's refreshing to see someone that knows what they're talking about. This is the first of your videos I've seen. The title caught my interest, I was like lets see what kind of bs this person has to say. To my surprise you're spot on about carburetion and carburetors.
As to what you were describing about Smokey's idea, it's all about fuel atomization. The fuel molecules will only ignite when surrounded by air/oxygen at a ratio of approximately 14:1. Therefore if fuel molecules are clumped together(droplets), only the ones that has access to the air/oxygen molecules(outer layer of droplet) will ignite. So the inner molecules will not ignite till the outer ones are burned away. This slows the combustion process, and combustion pressure will be lowered as the combustion chamber volume increases because of the piston moving away and farther down it's bore. The key to efficient combustion is to burn as much of the fuel as quickly as possible so that combustion pressure is as high as possible while the piston is still close to TDC to take advantage of the combustion expansion pressure to exert the maximum amount of pressure on the piston therefore increasing force(torque) on the crankshaft.
Same! My first time watch this guy, and he lays down the knowledge.
Maybe mix in a little HHO to increase the speed and efficiency of the combustion?
OK, so how do we 'seperate' the molecules to make them burn better???
Thank you, your so correct, I've heard this nonsense about carbs 50 yrs ago. The other thing that comes into play is BTUs, wind resistance, and much more
I tried something similar to this fuel vapor idea some years ago. I had a 327 Chevrolet engine in my car with a 3 speed standard transmission and a 4 barrel carburetor. I made sure the exhaust crossover under the carburetor wasn't blocked and I noticed the radiator had fittings for an automatic transmission cooler. So I connected the outlet of the fuel pump to the cooler and the outlet of the cooler up to the carburetor and that pre-heated the fuel, to the temperature of the thermostat around 180 degrees. I assume it was anyway. It ran pretty good in the winter but I never tried it in the summer. I need to try this again . Great videos.
Having either the exhaust crossover or preheated fuel in a carb is a recipe for vapor lock in the summer, and having both could make the car undriveable. It's even more of a problem these days with ethanol in the fuel.
@@ShawnD1027 yep vapor lock was my first thought.
I love this series. I hope you keep doing more. I find that maximizing efficiency excites my ADHD.
I have a 68 383 4sp H/T Roadrunner with 10/11 mpg ! I now get 16 + mpg after headers-750 carb to 650 ,RV cam w/323 rear. single plane to duo plane intake manifold. Looking for 20+ mpg ? It still run's good.
Uncle Tony is highly intelligent. He talks about springs oscillation. Where did you learn that did you take a physics class? I worked on cars many years before I took a physics class and learned about sine cosine oscillation of springs. Molecular makeup, man Uncle Tony really gets it.
This guy isn't even able to describe the purpose and function of the accelerator pump on a carburetor. Even given the title is clickbait there's very real limits to how lean you can set any fuel metering system that inherently creates a homogeneous air fuel mix. His mental aptitude appears fairly pedestrian to me. Especially since he spends way too much time saying the engine is "asking" for fuel. A carburetor is a metering device that controls the fuel delivery rate. A metering device is not a computer. Silliness
@@coldlogic800 Most intakes have a "dual plane" design, so each half of the carb seems like it's running a 4-cylinder engine.
Airflow comes to a complete stop every 180* of crank rotation, giving a pulsing vacuum signal, thus the enrichment springs oscillation.
Yeah - some of his terms were wrong, Smokey called the Turbo the "homogenizer"...there weren't supposed to be any fuel droplets past the turbo, but there wasn't any real pressure there either.
A carburetor isn't a digital processor, but it IS programmable, and can have 6 independently tunable circuits.
-The amount and timing of electronic choke
-The idle speed and fuel trim
-The accelerator pump volume and timing
-The "main" circuit jetting and air orifices, venturi
-The "secondary" circuit and power valve
_The float height.
The story was the guy that invented the 100 mpg carburetor for his 70 Coupe DeVille was either bought off or rubbed out by the evil petroleum industry. Anyone remember cow magnets for your fuel line to increase mileage? Don't forget about the spacer you could mount under the carburetor with swirl inducing projections, or a simple piece of screen wire across the bore.
I always heard the story as big oil buying the patents and burying them..
Of course, this denies even oil reality, which is that oil producers would LOVE for cars to get 10x the mileage they get today. It's all relative. They can sell 1 gallon for 10 dollars taking you a hundred miles, or 2.50 a gallon for 4 gallons (the same 10 dollars) to take you 100 miles. But in the first scenario, their oil lasts a lot longer and they have to drill fewer wells and they have to have fewer refineries etc...
Also, "big oil" is a bit of a misnomer. Most oil producers are state owned oil companies. Outside of a few Western countries, virtually all oil produced in the world is produced by state owned oil companies. It's more big government than big oil.
They use the same stupid story on youtube ads to sell everything from swap coolers to vitamins.
@mike kokomo mike...
Looks like the Clinton's have been busy longer than anyone thinks they have 😉
I saw that exact system in los chavez NM at a air port in the 70.' I was in my teens. The way it was explained to me was it was not a carb system. It was a like fuel injection. The fuel was put under extreme pressure then metered into the intake. It was just 1 off setup. It was very dangerous to say the lest.
Yeah, what about the air twirling thing you put in the air cleaner? It’s all bs. Lol
On carbureted engines a good way to get real, better fuel economy is to make a vapor injection setup. This is technology that came from piston-engine aircraft in WW2. It uses water, or water/alcohol mix in winter. I made one for a '76 Elite with a 400M engine. Could actually get almost 24 MPG highway, without a heavy foot, and cruising at 70 - 75 MPH.
@@suzukiltz8902 German MW50 was designed to help get around the low octane fuel the Germans had in WW2. It does a number of things. It is a charge cooler, yes but, it's also fuel itself that has high octane rating. So you can maintain performance at high altitudes with added boost pressure. German Bf109s were running 87 octane fuel a lot throughout the war and with MW 50, they could still match P51s and Spitfires using 150 octane, that allowed for way more boost pressure and make more power. The drawbacks of MW 50 use was drastically reduced engine life due to low combustion chamber temps, washout of the cylinders and degrading of fuel system components but, at that point in the war, the Luftwaffe would probably lose the aircraft and possibly the pilot before they wore out the engine.
diy vapor injection system ... or... replace carburetor with Pinsker EFI VV system or Predator 9000 vv carberuretor with street idle circuit!
@@EffequalsMA The German engines were quite a bit larger, and could match the smaller Allied engines on the 87 octane fuel.
The mechanics didn't like the 150 octane fuel as it lead fouled the spark plugs.
i believe the Grrmans used a 50/50 mix of water and methanol
You can run methanol injection on blue windshield washer fluid. It's basically the right mix of methanol and water and you can find it anywhere.
One of my favorite channels. Always a depth of knowledge, never just infotainment, I always learn about how something works and why rather just than blind faith (I could probably crack a book open too, but what would be the fun in that). There is a young blood on another channel just trying to run a car on a lawnmower carburetor. It's working surprisingly well. He is just doing to see if it works and will be checking mileage soon. Much like going from a 4 barrel to a single barrel carburetor. I have to find the link. My point being he is like an Uncle Tony proteget. Brilliant work as always Tony.
I just bought an 85 Camaro Berlinetta V8 305. My dream car since I was a kid. Not really a car guy but I love my car so much I am eager to understand as much as I can about it. Thanks for explaining everything in a way that's easy to understand.
Actually in the beginning the "Otto Cycle " engine was intended to run on vapor, gasoline came along and gave them an ez way to supply fuel. But bottom line is you have to turn any liquid fuel into
a vapor before it can burn, that's why your propane fed IC engines have a coolant heated vaporizer to flash the liquid LP to vapor or you would just have a hunk of ice shortly because LP boils at -44 deg. f. Not an issue with gasoline.
Fully vaporized gas burns at like 5ms, which is way to fast to vehicles built after around 1950 because they made a big change to 1 component across all automobiles that increased power, but fortunately for them, it made it where people cant run vaporized gas because it will cause MAJOR spark knock and burnt intake valves. Sneaky bastards
I used to have a 1966 stock Mustang with a 289 4 barrel 4speed and 2.75 rear end. The stock carburator gave me 36 miles per gallon on the highway at 75 miles per hour. This was a 600 miles trip and I had to refuel only once and come home with a 1/2 tank.
And nowadays small engines can't come close to that old technology it doesn't make sense
@@gulfy09The fuel in 1966 is basically what is used only by Airplanes now.
Today's petrol is seriously light compared to back then (so more is required).
That car also only weighed about 2,500 lbs vs cars now routinely running close to 4000 in the same compact/economy platforms like the original mustang was based on.
I'd like to see the data on that Sol can improve my 1 970 Mustang w/ 302 2bbl & A/T.
@@MelaniaSideWigga That's much too different from "multifunctionals" '66.
Different fuel
Different and higher compression engine
Huge difference in gearing
Heavier body.
Yours will be much like a 2000s SUV in average fuel consumption.
The big secret is -highway driving, where you are on a windless flat or downgrade crack and pothole free asphalt and not having to slow down or stop.
Most people in cities are forced to ride the brakes all day which gobbles fuel like a drunkard.
You can get your driveline zeroed in (eliminate chassis drag and have the body going dead straight)
Drivetrain in perfect condition (transmission serviced the bands re set and pressure tested) the engine valving in spec, and whatever else, timing etc.
Then go on a long trip.
That's the best milage you will experience.
At least it's a better chance than a 1973 74 those were really awful years. Bogged down with extra junk that robbed milage and performance
In racing there was no one else that could bend, stretch, exploit, as well as occasionally break the rules like Smokey Yunick. He was the Leonardo Da Vinci of cheating, an absolute genius.(also one hell of an entertaining character) I remember reading about a test of a car with Smokey's adiabatic engine, the first thing they noticed was how many squeaks and rattles it had along with a noisy exhaust leak which seemed to be trying to cover a ton of knock, but the thing did run.
Vehicles after 1950 have a different component that makes it impossible to run straight vaporized fuel without spark knocking all to hell and burning intake valve
I meet a gentleman in Herrin Illinois that owned a car parts store. This gentleman's name was Charlie White. Around 1992 I told him I was learning how to read blueprints. He asked me if I was interested in seeing some blueprints he had made? I didn't know it at the time but he used to be an engineer. This gentleman was very eccentric. His car was a Dodge/ Chrysler 1965-68 approximately. It had a 426 Hemi. The car was piled to the roof inside with everything, papers, car parts. His car parts store was piled up inside the same way. 12 ft to the ceiling, full of boxes with a small path for walking. I never fully walked into the store, I always walk to the door and hollered for him. He would greet me outside and asked me what I needed? This gentleman had all the hard to get parts so, if you needed a part that was hard to get go to Charley's. If you needed a regular part that wasn't so rare, you could go to any of the other stores in town. With Charlie it took a little longer because of his filing system. Things were piled to the ceiling everywhere. Now to get back to the blueprints....
He was in there for about 10 minutes looking for These Blueprints after bringing me my car part. He kept telling me " hold on don't leave, you're going to want to see this!" After about 10 minutes he came out with the long tube & pulled out three big rolled up blueprint papers. He laid them on my hood and said what do you think about that? I told him Charlie this is Way Beyond me buddy. What the heck is it?
He said "This is a..... well, I'll just call it a carburetor that gets 75 miles per gallon". He was talking about old V8 cars .I said what? Why are we not using this thing Charlie? He told me that the oil companies bought the rights to it but, he had a copy of the blueprints.
His auto parts store was filled to the rim with just about every auto part that you can think of. In his backyard he had three 426 hemi engines, unopened in crates. I'm telling you that some of these 75 miles per gallon stories you hear are true.
A Sad thing happened to Charlie over the years. One day a wrecking ball and dump truck showed up. They knocked down Charlie's Auto Parts store with all the car parts inside. They did the same thing to his house. His family that was a live didn't give a crap for what Charlie owned. I thought well Charlie must have passed away. Then about five years later I seen Charlie hanging onto a walker with a nurse at his side. I ran up to him I said all my gosh Charlie, I thought you passed away years ago! I can't believe you're standing here in front of me! The nurse looked at me and said you must be an old friend of Charlie's? I told her yes kind of. She told me that Charlie had experienced a stroke years earlier. But he was getting by living in our facility and they were on their way to a doctor's appointment right then. I told Charlie that I was sorry to hear that. Charlie didn't talk anymore. He did look at me & I'm sure he did remember me. I found out years later that Charlie what is a veteran and and served our country as an aircraft mechanic.
He was very unique guy I wish I could have spent more time talking with him.
He ended up living for around another 10 years.
bluefuneralhome.com/obituaries/charles-e-white/
So glad Tony covered this. I’m Same age as Tony and come from a very similar background as far as working on cars and racing. It drives me nuts when I hear somebody talking about these urban legends of the car. They got 70 miles miles per gallon back in 1971. I still hear somebody talk about it at least every other week.
As a teenager, I was kept with a constant flow of Popular Science magazines from my engineer uncle. I always read with keen interest the series “Say Smokey”. I remember the articles about the adiabatic engine that he was trying to accomplish. I believe he was teamed up with General Motors of the time, but I can’t say that for sure. Even as a teenager I saw challenges with the project. The biggest challenge that I saw was the manufacture and use of carbide pistons to handle the extreme heat. I knew the material was difficult to work with and also that it would change the reciprocating mass in the engine enormously. I never knew what became of the project. Nothing ever showed up in mainstream media, or as a product to buy.
I remember that.
Carbide pistons would be extremely expensive unless I am mistaken but last forever.
If you watch the documentary gashole it talks indepth about the carb vaporizer. I believe the first successful run was a straight 8 Packard and it was in Texas I Wanna say. I believe shell bought the patent and it disappears from their library.
exactly. it seems strange that oil companies love to buy the advanced technology and put it on the shelf so they can keep robbing people at the pump.
Patents are public knowledge and if you want to keep something secret, don't patent it.
Anyone can try these techniques today with zero threat of lawsuits or other legal action to stop production of these so called miracle carbs.
I believe it’s called the Pogue carburetor
Disappeared, Yeah...right.
@@tabbott429 it may be their undoing the way things are headed.
In 1980 I added a very simple water injection system system to a 1973 Gran Torino wagon. With no other changes it went from 10 to 13 mpg and ran stronger. No dyno test, just feel.
Just imagination
I had a 302 before that got 28 mpg. Had a Motorcraft 2 barrel on it. I always wondered why that 78 Mercury Cougar always got such good gas mileage. Because every car I have owned with a 302 always got 18 to 22 mpg. I had the jets gauged and they were smaller then the other carbs. It really made a big difference in mileage. Just my knowledge from back in the day. Good video.
In 1978, I had an 1970 Ford Torino ,got 25 mpg at 60 mph, with a 302, auto trans , 2 dr hardtop, points , 2 barrell carb ,no cruise , no ac ,235x15 tires , don,t know rear axle ratio , windows up , summertime ,70% ,no wind , dry Canadian prairies , late 1970,s (gas ? ). Wife was pissed when I sold it ,she was right . Was a great car.
302 in a 83 Lincoln mark vi gets 20 to 25 mpg. Tight timing chain, dual exhaust, emmissions delete. Good sensors running on ethanol free gas. Only use overdrive on a highway. 3.08 gears.
I'm surprised the cougar got that with out emmissions delete and lower rear end ratio. They usually sucked down the gas in factory trim. I got 8 to 12 on 2 78 Ltd Landaus I had with 400 and 460. With non retarded timing, emmissions delete,dual exhaust and better rear ratio. Got up to 18 to 26 on 400 and 14 to 18 on the 460. Woke them up too.
I have a 1979 mustang.4 speed standard, I installed a rebuilt 1970 302 . I installed a Motorcraft 2 barrel carb. Lots of power, and I got 27 mpg. Average, at 70 mpg!
I'm loving this direction because I've been thinking about this. I love my Mopars but I also love my Chevys. I also think a lot of go-fast tricks can work in the fuel economy World too, especially with cars already have a lot of aftermarket support. I imagine doing the feather Duster treatment to a 67 Camaro with a 230 inline 6. Put a lightweight fiberglass front end on it, some 14x4 lightweight Centerline Convo Pro Wheels, spoiler that works, and some tuning tricks to see what you get.
This is the first time Tony has explained different systems without driving the train WAY off the tracks.. I made it all the way through!!!
Huh?
Tony give the clearest most detailed explanations of anyone on RUclips. This video is just typical UTG
@@ericlandstrom6155 You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am.
Ha!
I noticed that also
In the early 70s my father had a really nice really Fast Hurst Olds. The car was undrivable in the winter, so he always bought a beater in the fall fixed it up and drove it the winter and flip it in spring. He had all the classic economy cars you could think of. He said it was not far fetched to get 20-25 MPG out of a small body, V8, two barrel carb, bare option car. The best winter beater he had was A Valiant 273 two barrel, automatic car. He said it averaged 20 MPG City Highway. And would get 28 on the highway.
I have a Ford Explorer 2000 model, 5.0 fuel injection, and it only gets 17 mpg at best on the highway. But it's more like 15 mpg usual. It's still better than my dad's Ford truck with a 7.5 liter which gets 9 mpg.
I had an 82 Buick Lesabre with the Oldsmobile 307 V8 with a factory 4 barrel and the overdrive automatic, I got 23 mpg on the Taconic parkway from Albany NY to NYC.
That car didn't have more than 150 hp and none of the cars from the mid 70s into the mid 80s had much power, but I was so surprised for that heavy comfortable car to get that mpg.
In stop and go it would suck though.
@@richtomlinson7090 had to take a trip to Iowa from Wisconsin last Oct. I drove my pickup which is a 15-17 mpg vehicle. Once I got it onto flat ground in Iowa, Wisconsin is pretty hilly, It turned into a 20mpg vehicle. Its amazing what a difference in terrain does.
@@mikerobinson3672 or sometimes to have the wind at our back helps too.
I believe the man's name was Tom Ogle. It is what's known as a vapor carburetor. Gasoline turns into vapor at a certain temperature. It was like a metal box with a hot plate under it. Keeping the Plate at a certain temperature the system would drip gasoline onto the hot plate where it would turn into vapor and be ran into the engine. He claimed 2500 MPG. Reportedly he was was found dead in the car on the side of the highway.
Yes the fuel liquid is not flammable but the vapor is what is flammable.
I recall that story now that you mention it. An unfortunate end to a wacky idea.
It was 100 mpg and he suddenly collapsed at his girlfriend’s house in El Paso, and died on his way to the hospital. Supposedly he died of an overdose. There was a lot of controversy surrounding his death at the time.
The problem with the hot vapor engine is that it doesn't really add much more efficiency versus a modern fuel injected motor and it is extremely hard to keep it from going bad in a hurry. Many many engines use similar ideas with blinding hot intakes to spray the fuel on top of with very negative results back in the '70s. Extremely hot expanded gas vapor takes up more room but you still need the correct amount in order for the engine to run correctly.
@@lsrengines Agreed. When we speak of 14.84:1, we speak in mass; at 60 mph, its about 0.943 lb/min of fuel & 14.0 lb/min of air @STP.
In terms of volume, 350 liters/min fuel & 4,900 liters/min of air. Which of course is highly combustible requiring out-of-cylinder storage.
It’s almost the definition of an external combustion engine LOL.
I had a 75 Buick Estate station wagon. 455. It had the Rochester quadrajet with an altitude compensator. I closed off the back barrels adjusted the compensator. I got 25 mpg, no door in the tail pipe.
I've felt that a 2-stage injection system (One takes-over for the other as key operating temperatures are reached) on the hot-vapor engine was the way to go for some time. And with the current generation of onboard engine management computers, I'll bet they could easily handle the needs seamlessly.
Those Motorcraft 2 BBL's on the 351C gave great economy with good power. I put a 650 DP Holley on it and it emptied the tank in 50 miles.
My original unrebuilt 1966 289 with a 2100 autolite gets about 19 miles per gallon driving around town. Everyone says they’re “hard to get tuned right” but I think they’re one of the most basic carburetors ever made. They just work (at least pre-emissions examples, I don’t know anything about the 2150’s)
Those two Barrel carburetors were the best I ever seen
on my fresh rebuild with a comp cam street cam my 351c is getting 23mpg city and 27 highway. if i drive like an asshole i can get it down to under 16 though. its all about driving style
@@Ahnenerbe1944 I found you just have to clean them. Especially pilot jets.
@@marcoceccarelli6415 It was on a Fairlane. The torque was amazing with the 2-Barrel. And I still had the iron manifold!
I wish my dad could have lived long enough to have seen this video as he would have been completely fascinated by it. He was always trying to squeeze more fuel economy out of his drive to work Mopars back in the 70's. I don't remember the exact details, but one exception to those cars was a Gremlin with a straight six and a manual transmission and he was always experimenting on it.
My best friend..sadly passed away too early, with a brain tumor.
Back in the 70s he was always talking about designing a carbed..gas engine that would be injected with water.
He never...sadly never wrote down his plans.
Back then..I thought he was nuts...not so crazy now !!
To this day..I am so sorry I never took him seriously.
@@williamb2854 Water injection was one of the things my dad tried on the Gremlin but he eventually removed it. What he had to work with was just too primitive. I wish I'd paid more attention to the actual set up back then.
Injecting water won't increase mileage in itself but it does allow you to run higher compression and higher compression is more efficient.
Forgive me for a double post but.... there was a story about a 70's Chrysler Imperial in White pine Tennessee that got stupid gas mileage. Chrysler supposedly contacted the owner and told him they let a 'defective' carburetor get put on his car and they needed to swap it out. He never did let them...or so the story goes.
@My Pronoun is WTF 7s is fast.
My buddy knew a guy who's brothers cousin's nephew had a 63 GTO with one of those 460 hemi tri powers.
Couldn't keep a differential in it so before it was finished on the assembly line, so they bought a Ford Galaxy and took the 9" out of it and put it in that GTO.
Scrapped that galaxy too.
Damn thing only ran 9s ,that's why I'm wondering how your hemi went 7s that's awesome.
@My Pronoun is WTF story goes it was for fbi or special government workers to have these cars
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@My Pronoun is WTF gas is a liquid they would simply convert it to a gas state like propane ..carbs are not efficient.
This is the first time I've heard about smokies hot vaper engine in probably 30 years. Your description is probably the best I've heard especially for people that aren't as well versed in internal combustion engines.
I had some early mechanically fuel injected cars. They didn't have a choke, but did have an extra fuel injector near the top of the intake, hooked up to a thermal switch in the cylinder head. When the engine was stone cold it would make that extra fuel injector fire for a moment. The thermal switch has an electric heater in it, which cuts it off after a short time. If the coolant was warm, the switch wouldn't activate.
I think Smokey described the "turbo charger" as a one way valve that overcame the pressurized intake charge. Neat idea.
Smokey's engine worked by lowering the amount of air going into the engine. Want to increase the HP on an engine? Turbo charge and intercool the air. This increases the amount of air going into the engine. Heating it up decreases the intake change. It will cut down HP and increase fuel miy.
Turbo is the way to go if you want to make power . No bottles to fill all the time and you can turn the boost up or down .
It always seemed to me that the versatility of car engines is a major factor in how inefficient they are. Like if they could design an engine around a specific output and RPM, it could be more efficient than an engine that needs to operate under many, many different conditions and loads. So like the engine could turn on when your battery got low and run for a while at it's fully optimized output to charge the battery that powers an electric drive train.
Of course, if it worked, they'd probably already be doing it.
@@tarstarkusz I think this is in the not too distant future for range on mass produced electric vehicles if other technology can't keep up. Check out the Jaguar C-X75 concept that came out a decade ago if you are not familiar with it. It used diesel turbines as generators for the electric drive train. I think most manufactures will go to an electric drive train that can basically be swapped around all their platforms with ease and the mid-size or larger vehicles will have a small gas/diesel generator on board.
@@tarstarkusz that's why we only got cats and feedback bullshit on new generators after 2012.
Steady speed definitely changes the pollution game.
The problem has always been the vaporization of the liquid fuel before the spark plug ignite the mixture in SI engines.
The intake manifold has a lot to do in that process on carbureted engines. The carb is responsible for the atomization of the liquid fuel in fine droplets. The manifold plenum & runners do the vaporization job. Some intake manifold designs are better at doing this job then other design. This subject is rarely discussed imo.
Natural gas running engines do not suffer from this issue and are more efficient at using the calorific energy available in the combustive agent.
yes the hot intake valve works as the lasy line of atomization.
I remember reading about Smokey's engine in Hot Rod. Article came out just before Hot Rod Magazine started to really suck. He had it on a Pontiac Fiero seems like it got 80 mpg. Never heard another word about it for years. Finally they had a little write up that said he'd sold the patent to a company that did nothing with it. That's how all these stories end. 😆
There was a story in Hotrod about 2001ish where a guy built a system where the fuel was metered out of orifices in the intake valve seat after being heated behind the exhaust valve seat and the air was throttled by a variable rocker arm ratio with a rolling fulcrum, at idle the valves were just barely opening uncorvering the orifices very little. He had it on a 4. 3 V6 and a 454 Chevy. .never heard any more after that. Black helucopter must've showed up
That Fiero is now at Don Garlits place in Florida. Was drivable but suffered many issues, like poor acceleration and stalling during stops. Was also prone to overheating as it used the cooling system to heat the fuel system doing away with the radiator cooling the coolant in the block. It used the heat from the block to heat the fuel.
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 the government has the ability to keep the patent secret. They do that with energy patents a lot. They will say something like we are keeping this secret for eight years to review and your not allowed to do anything with this or develop it further. Then if they ever release the patent they will say something like your not allowed to use the idea for weapons research and development, then put the pressure on you if anyone does that, you will go to prison forever. They will also keep you from receiving funding to develop the idea or even trying to develop it in ways making it harder for people to weaponize it.
Yes, and it will sit on a shelf in a highly protected basement room in one of the Big Car Companies and will only be seen when THEY want to bring it out 30 years later and say it has been in Development for some years, they LIE. They also don't want anyone to get better than about 30 miles to the Gallon, Max, because they are in League with the Petroleum industry to keep THEM in Buisiness. if you could easily get 100 miles to the Gallon, the Petroleum Industry would NOT BE HAPPY.
@@danielmarlow55 bmw did it with Valvetronic. for their new engines there is no throttle body. its all don't by a double intake rocker thing so that at idle the intake valves barely open then full throttle the second rocker allows the cam to push down the calve all the way. What's old is new again but they are doing direct injection, instead of the valve orifice thing.
Thanks for that video, Ive been a mechanic for 50 years. Now I can quit looking for that carburetor. Everything you said make complete sense. Think Ill get back to work.
THE best explanation/refutation I've ever seen of "high mileage" claims!!!
More mpg is in your foot. Driving habits and knowing your engines power producing characteristics etc. My big block Chevy pickup gets the best mpg of any of my vehicles including my wife’s 4 cyl Hyundai. The reason is the raw torque it makes at a low rpm and barely any throttle. I can drive around all day at 1/8 throttle or less, never going over 2000rpm and it just sips the fuel. It seems like it will coast forever as well on flat open road.
This
GM's delving into Smokey's system was called "EFE, Early Fuel Evaporation". That's the best application they could adapt for production manufacture of it. Mostly just put a grid plate under the carb, and electrically heated it up. I remember those.
Heating the base underneath the carb is the function of the heat control valve. Electric heating would only be needed in the short time it takes for the exhaust heats up. After that, it´s just parasitic drain.
I guess they introduced it to meet mandatory emission standards, and dumped it after EFI?
That was put on a Buick wildcat engine experimental carburetor see one many years ago
My grandfather actually told me he knew the gentleman personally who created a system to get near 100mpg back in the 60's in yes, eastern Ohio.. He used GM and a few other machined parts to compile the set up. He told me soon after trying to find investors and marketing, the guy ended up dying in a freak accident on his way home from work. Not sure what happened exactly. BUT, rumor was EXXON and a couple other big oil companies tried to buy the prototype from him to keep it from being manufactured.. After he said no, well.. That's really the unkown.
I´m a bit of a dreamer, and often ideas I come up with have already been tried in practice. Using the heat of the engine to atomize the fuel is a great example. Thanks for showing.
Future cars have electric motors, and these concepts could make for efficient in-car generators at a constant RPM. I´m not convinced using coal plants and batteries is a cleaner sollution, let alone practical.
Mid 90's to early 00's Jeep 4.0 have problems with hot/boiling fuel in the lines. I can tell from experience that my fuel mileage does not get any better when the under hood temps get hot.
Great explanation. The vapor carburetor is practical for an engine at a specific rpm and output as a generator for a serial hybrid EV. I would expect the same would apply for a hot vapor engine. Reclaiming lost energy from heat always improves efficiency.
I find the best way to get the most fuel economy out of my Plymouth is to zip tie the float arm on the fuel sending unit to the highest point of travel and unscrew the speedometer cable, disabling the odometer. Can’t complain about a bad number if you cant do the math to get it.
I like that Austin, you're going places.
Perfect logic 👍
Sounds like hitchhiking is in your future.
Unrelated question, does anyone have any gas they can spare?
@@austinlacroix888 Got a can in back of truck👍 where ya at? Lol😁
Uncle Tony be careful man you know what they did to that guy.
Does it involve aman screaming you poisoned me😁
They Did him like they did Tesla 😬
Yea be careful. Remember Seth rich shot himself in the head. 3 times. 🤔
yeah tell him man . becareful very careful. gasoline controls everything . everything...help me withy my dodge caravan..worst mileage ever .o6.. 10 mpg..terrible runs great except that .horrible
Tom Ogle
Thank you 1 horsepower needs appropriately 1/2 pound per hour of gas. I always laugh when people with small fuel pumps and 5/16 line try to tell me they make 600 hp.
Oh but that's what their guy tells them and it makes them feel good, hahaha.
You can have 1/4 fuel line and make 600hp just need a higher pressure pump that's less then 40 gph. Early sbf fuel pump Carter m4009 has 40gph rating so really not even really having to upgrade for fuel pump and easy to find fuel pump that can do that especially when go for 6 psi to 10 or electric. I prefer 100 gpm plus pump and bigger line but really is it need on paper.
There was a carb produced decades ago called the Fish or Brownie carb . 1 barrel, 2 or 3 moving parts used on 4-8 cylinder engines. gutless sipper but did give 40-50 mpg if you were not a heavy footed or in a hurry.
I tweaked a 75 datsun 620 to 31 mpg with a z24 engine. Extra air inlet in manifold under the carb. Would get to 30 mph, then open it up for the "mother of all vaccuum leaks" if you wish. Wouldn't idle, so closed it off below 30 mph. Pretty impressive mpg increase. And no, the valves didn't burn up any.
I read an interesting piece by Mike Brown who was remaking Fish carbs for a while (sort of a predecessor of a Predator). He apparently built an engine with 16 : 1 static compression and utilized a custom ground cam that held the intake valve open for half of the compression stroke resulting in an 8 : 1 pump gas pop with half the fuel. Legend has it that the cams were manufactured and sold for a while. I think it's an interesting idea that comes with a unique set of problems.
Basically he made a Miller 5 cycle engine. This is where the power stroke has a longer effective motion than the compression stroke. Mazda did this perhaps 15 years ago on production engines.
Crower cams had the idea too, and a Hot Rod magazine article in 1980 built the engine for a 39 chevy hot rod. They claimed it had little power below like 3,000 rpm or so--as you'd imagine with the intake valve acting like a giant leak :)
I have two of mike's carbs from the eighties, crudely made and finicky to adjust, that said one on my flathead gave it a serious kick in the ass power wise
@@Ron36415 Running an original Fish on my 261 and really love it, no miracle mpg though, just like 20% better compared to the factory Carter.
The 1NZ-FXE in the Toyota Prius also held open the intake valve just like that. It has 13.4:1 static compression.
I had an IC engine class in college. We went thru the chemistry of gasoline combustion. Just one more death dagger to the ‘100 mpg’ engine.
Nice explanation from the carb side though.
High pressure direct injection of gasoline is almost a form of flash-vaporizing the fuel - doing almost the same thing with a very high pressure pump rather than "slowly" with complicated heating system and a turbocharger. The "holy grail" is homogeneous mixture that auto-ignites throughout the mixture, something like a diesel, without the need for a spark plug. We're kinda getting there but gasoline is somewhat uncooperative and less consistent than diesel.
I had a 76 Buick Lesabre 350 engine that I bought used. It got better than average fuel economy for that model and ran beautifully with good power. Then the day came when I was replacing the air filter and took off the filter housing to clean it that I noticed that the rod to open the secondaries on the 4 barrel carburetor was missing.
I made an intake air preheater, for a 84 Ford Ranger carbureted 4 cyl, years ago. The milage went up from 18 mpg to 22. I could also take off in 3rd gear. The motor wouldn't shake or vibrate at all. I never knew a motor could run at that low of RPM. I just put a heater core in a sealed box and made the motor intake hot air.
You must have had some carb issues that the hot air helped. Hot air is less dense so will make less power. That's the whole concept behind cold air intakes, brings in cool dense air increasing power.
@@tylerbonser7686You hit the nail on the head. I did have carb problems. It seemed to be running lean, but when it warmed up it would run better. One day, i noticed that it was running much better than usual, it was also summer and one of the hottest days of the year, and the truck ran great. The next day was hot and it ran great again. So I put 2 and 2 together and I remembered that article about "Smokey's Amazing Engine" and I made the intake preheater. The truck would still run like crap, until it warmed up. I know a cold air intake can make more hp. What the hot air helps with is turning liquid gasoline into vapor. Most of the time, the fuel is vaporized by air movement, and the turbulence helps. But straightening out the airflow helps with power. So the manufacturers put water jackets through the intake manifolds, to heat the intake. Most people think this hurts the power. I don't. I think it helps smooth out the idle and allows the engine to idle at a couple hundred RPMs less, and it helps smooth out power delivery, no vibrations. And once the engine is running at a higher RPM, the air can't be heated by intake anymore, because it's just going to fast and it's not in contact with the heat long enough. With my preheater, the air was in contact with heat much longer. I also put a preheater on a Honda Civic, the model that had the throttle body injection and a 4 spd. That thing would only get about 30 mpg. I blame it on not having overdrive. I tried indexing the sparkplugs, and the milage went up to 33. I drove it for 6 months and I wanted to see if my old preheater trick, would have any effect on things. My mileage went up to 38. It probably won't work on something with the injectors close to the valves or with direct injection. But with a carb and throttle body injection, it could work.
Like he said heated fuel in the intake will give better fuel economy. We want dense air with vapour fuel. so why not heat the fuel line before the carburetor and have cold air intake. A copper connection from the exhaust to the fuel line could heat the fuel. The fact is that stock vehicles fuel economy can be improved with less restriction in the intake and exhaust. Another fact is fuel companies want you to burn lots of fuel! Would they influence vehicle builders? Would they influence municipalities to synchronize traffic light to hinder traffic so they burn more fuel. I have concluded that they must be intentionally trying to make us burn far more fuel with vehicle builders and traffic lights. When Government push CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA, they should be doing everything to reduce the amount of fuel needed to travel. Electric Vehicle ARE NOT THE ANSWER! Hydrogen should be a fuel alternative.
@@Brian-gx7yx I was going to try the heated fuel line on the Ranger, but I thought it might vapor lock, so I never tried it. It might not vapor lock. IDK . I read in your comment about the cold air intake and you say that you will increase your mileage by having less restrictions. I'm pretty sure if your engine is intaking colder air it it will use more fuel and you will get more power. And when you have less exhaust restrictions you will probably lose mileage too. When you free up HP you can lose fuel economy. On All the Chevy v8's, back in the 80's had these little restrictors in the exhaust ports, they called them "smog bumps", everyone that wanted more power would grind them out to increase flow, and it works, for power, but no increase in mpg, it actually hurts mileage. I think more exhaust is left in the cylinder because of the restriction so close to the valve and having the extra exhaust in the cylinder takes up space and makes more compression when at part throttle. Just like the egr system.
@@terryj257 I guess I will try it in the spring and try to achieve vapor lock. Then I can reduce the size of copper to eliminate vapor lock. Check my fuel economy before and after and see if It has better fuel efficiency.
Right now I have an Air Raid throttle body spacer, Massive K&N air filter and headers. I will be doing a Throttle body Modification and a functional Cowl induction system. The effort is to achieve over 1000 kilometers on a full fuel tank. I have achieved this on a similar truck 88 chev silverado, My new truck is a 94 GMC Sierra, both 350 engines extended cab and long box with a canopy. Any fuel efficiency suggestions would be appreciated
The system was multi-stage
A) Intake through fuel metering device, carb, whatever
B) Heated by a heat exchanger with engine coolant before it hit radiator
C) Drawn through turbocharger, which he called a "homogenizer" because it further broke up the fuel droplets to hopefully completely dissolve the gasoline in the fuel.
D) Another heat exchanger that used heat from the exhaust system with the goal of making the intake mixture a SOLUTION of gasoline dissolved in air, not an atomized suspension, so every gasoline molecule was surrounded by oxygen molecules, ready to ignite it and burn it completely.
When you applied throttle, the "boost" climbed instantaneously, as the turbo was not to add compression, per se, as it was a one-way valve merely to keep the natural expansion of the last stage, which was the exhaust heat exchanger, from expanding the fuel and air to the point where you had far less of it, mass-wise, entering the engine, which would cost power.
If the turbo was being used to boost the system, there would have been lag, but the pressure in the intake manifold increased almost directly with the throttle position, as it was not designed to add power via boost, but to prevent power loss due to excessive expansion of the intake mixture, and to "stir" the fuel/air mixture after the first heat exchanger to help the fuel evaporate more readily.
The functional concept was preservation of heat coupled with far more complete combustion, which would allow one to run a FAR leaner mixture, as complete combustion was assured by dissolution of the gasoline. The heat normally entirely discarded by the radiator (around 60 percent of heat energy from the fuel) was recycled into the intake charge, thermally compressing it, ready to push the piston down, from the moment the intake valve opened.
The target temperature, said Smokey, was 400 degree fahrenheit, for complete gasoline vaporization.
Smokey Yunick claimed that knock was a phenomenon that was more related to atomization than temperature, so his system, by dissolving the gasoline, solved that problem.
Of course, the big automakers panned the system, as it would have returned us to cars WE could work on, minus a bank of "HAL 9000's" at the dealership or garage. Also, the efficiency and power production was quite high.
Rest in Speed, Smokey. I still think this concept bears more exploring. Perhaps one could get away with lower compression, which would produce less heat upon the compression stroke, as the engine is already compressing the mixture via heat before it reaches the combustion chamber.
As an example, 100 degree air compressed to 10:1 yields 5000 degrees in temperature, whereas 400 degree air at 6:1 yields 4800 degree temperature, actually cooler than conventional intake air temperature and compression.
By eternally trapping heat in a loop in a closed loop in the engine, you end up with no greater peak temperatures, and increased efficiency, as that heat was formerly discarded to heat the atmosphere.
If it's something we can work on then it's something we can build.... have you built one?
actually, "turbo lag" is just when one uses too large a turbo for the engine RPM in hopes the increased volume will be used at a higher RPM (or there's a lot of plumbing to blow thru with a front mount intercooler, but that's not really lag, it just feels like it). plenty of OEM turbo setups not running heated intake air (other than an EGR valve, natch for emissions) don't have "lag" or have too little of it to be noticed--a lack of noticable lag doesn't mean the turbo isn't boosting, just that its at an optimum rpm for its designed size (like the IHI turbos ford used in their turbocharged 2.3 litre 4 cylinders in 1987 Thunderbirds to replace the T3 turbos used prior). however, heated air will have increased pressure over cooler air (such as created by the "venturi effect" of a carb's venturis). I also don't think automakers would have even wanted folks working on a hot engine--more than just outfitting carbs with plastic plugs over the idle screws and putting on those lousy plastic covers they use today, when Chrysler tried out their turbine cars, one of the concerns was the temperature of the exhaust coming out. The average car owner can barely find the oil dipstick, much less understand "don't touch the hot stove!" :) And what did you mean exactly by the engine "already compressing the mixture via heat before reaching the combustion chamber (to be compressed by the piston)"? Heat tends to expand the distance between molecules, not compress them.
@@DrewLSsix If I had the money, I would have.
Good ole Smokey. I haven't heard his name in decades!!! I got a Holley Sniper for my 70 442 project and am curious about what MPG's will be like compared to the old Dominator it ran
What size engine ya got
Awesome info Unk! Most of my
mpg improvements come from driving like an old man....come to think of it that's what I am.
I did have an idea I kicked around some 35 years ago that looked pretty good on paper. It worked like this......You start with a holley 6 pack and apx 14 to 1 compression. At 10 inches of vacuum the cylinder pressure would equal WOT at 9.3 to 1 compression. That should get a 360 A body set up down the hi-way more efficiently. To handle 14 to 1 you need methanol in the outboards at WOT. To transition, methanol from an outboard float bowl would be routed to an isolated power valve on the center carb.
.....A lot messing around with jetting, power valve and timing but it should get better mileage and close to 20% more power. Like I say....it looked pretty good on paper
Where did you come up with this, its very intriguing
@@EitriBrokkr I had been looking at methanol for street use for a while and then I picked up a damaged 6 pack manifold and started to scab that setup together. I made a half-hearted attempt to persue the idea but wasn't willing to invest the time and money but.... I was intriged enough to build it in my head.
Would this also work with E85 ?? I don't think I want to buy and handle Methanol - E85 is available at common gas stations.
@@peterdarr383 ethanol (E85) is around 100 octane....methanol is 140 octane
In 1980 a farmer I know bought a new Cadillac he told the dealer he was getting 100 mpg GM came took the car and gave him another new one that got 15 mpg his said the oil companies would not like a car getting that kind of mileage.
Thanks so much for your explanation of the carb/engine relationship.
I very much wish to compliment you on the detailed explanation of how an engine determines its needs not the carburetor. I thought that a segment would be interesting that sheds a little light on the fuel efficiency of the engine. Blended fuels like hydrogen mixed with gasoline in a small ratio (i.e. 5%-8%) cause a much faster fuel burn rate of gasoline that can, if applied right, mitigate a large part of the unburned fuel that normally goes out the exhaust without producing any energy. Hence the addition of catalytic converters. We are not talking 100mpg or even close, but a 20-30% increase in net gas mileage can be obtained (minus of course the cost of the hydrogen). I have done experiments in the 70's where tested emissions on a Snap-On emissions analyzer dropped to near nil and gasoline mileage tests shot up as high as 27% on controlled tests. The engine is still demanding the same amount of energy to operate, but the waste factor is lowered allowing enough improvement to show high mileage. The hydrogen itself in such low doses is not enough to run the engine, but it does cause the fuel to burn much faster across the pistons so a net gain is achieved. Of course, now we are entering into increased complication of infrastructure to deliver the hydrogen in the appropriate dosage to not cause an excessive rise in cost of operation due to the use of hydrogen instead of just getting a better burn. Same rules apply to Smokey's system. Perhaps with the hydrogen fuel cell advances we have seen lately, a hybrid engine could be developed that would provide the best of both worlds until using Hydrogen Fuel as a sole fuel becomes cost effective. The exhaust coming out of a hydrogen engine is as clean or cleaner than the air that goes in in smoggy cities. And greenhouse gas issues could be improved.
Finally someone got out an accurate description of the fuel ratio demands being determined by the engine primarily as opposed to the carb. Personally I believe some carbs are greatly superior to others, but in the whole picture, aerodynamics makes a much bigger factor than carburetors.
The only caveat I might add is that a WELL TUNED carburetor sends what the engine asks for. A poorly tuned one sends a lot more or a lot less than what it asks for. They do have minds of their own.
This is also the same guy that tunes his engines by ear also lol. Bad tuning and timed by ear
@@lsrengines timed by ear can actually be superior when taking into consideration wear and slight manufacturing defects of the timing components.
He said that 5:23
@@lsrengines Lots if not most carburettor guys do it too. Setting the idle and etc isn't rocket science, now venturi and jet sizes is another thing entirely. There's books with the appropriate venturi's and jets according to the car and the carb.
14.7 to 1 air / fuel ratio is why I always dismissed the 100 mpg carburetor as an urban legend.
Yes. The main problem isn't the air/fuel ratio or the devices or the method of controlling it, the main problem is an internal combustion engine is far from 100% efficient. Even if a car's engine that got 25mpg was made 100% efficient you'd still only be looking at 75mpg.
That , and if there was such a thing it would have been used on cars.
I can't buy into some conspiracy about the oil companies bribing the car companies to keep it hush hush (if that's the supposed deal).
Actually ,haha they developed fuel injection to throw us off course so they didn't have to develop the 200mpg carb 😆😆😆
back in the 20s or so the ideal air fuel ratio was considered to be around 20:1 if i remember correctly my book . probably because of how different the fuel were back then
@@albapor1 do you have a source of that? Old car books are fascinating
@@EitriBrokkr yep Cours d automobile théorique et pratique 1933 paris delagrave library and i just checked it says 20:1 is ideal but it can burn as low as 25:1
This is a great video. I have have a 1964 Ford f250 and have gone with a Pertronix Igniter and replaced the points. I had to change the 410 ratio differential and replaced it with a 373 differential and have a 4 speed on the floor rather than a 3 on the tree. I replaced the 2 bbl with a 4 bbl Holley. These changes have increased the mpg.
I had a 1979 f150 with 2.75 differential, overdrive 4 speed, and the 300ci with a one barrel carb. It got 23 mpg on the highway in 3rd 1:1. Wouldn't get out of it's own way and overdrive bogged out at 75mph.
I got a story for you.
In the 1960s my grandfather worked with a man who had a buwick that had around 60 miles per gallon. When this man went to the mechanics shop the mechanics didn't believe it. So they called the car manufacturer. The manufacturer then responds by saying they'll give the man who has the 60 mile per gallon vehicle the fanciest car that they have.
Turns out there was an experimental carburetor in the vehicle. 60 miles per gallon. Truly an astounding story and if it is real it should infuriate everyone.
One other factor that the engine demands from the carburetor is “weight”! Lighter cars will demand the engine less to make the mass/vehicle to get it rolling.
That reminds me I gotta clean out my trunk.
Indeed, less weight = less inertia, less tire resistance, faster acceleration
What about finding a way to pulverize the fuel into vapor with an ultrasonic transducer between the carb and intake manifold?
MSD tried that in the late 70's early 80's
did it... ultrasonic transducers in the intake manifold. A complete kit I Ibought in the 1980s. not much mpg gain, but instant cold start!
@@jimcharlton7869 interesting, maybe worth revisiting to see what can be done nowadays.
@off spec transducers vaporize.
Actually, Mercedes has developed a particularly clever method of pre-heating the fuel and has been using it in F-1 for a few years now, and it accomplish's the same kind of lean burn that Smoky was going for. All of the other F-1 teams have a "version" of this same idea but Mercedes has done it the best so far. Their engine is over 50% thermally efficient.
This is the first I have herd of this,, I wonder when it will b ok for auto makers to use this technology? Probably at the end of Gass cars that have to compete with electric
@@DANTHETUBEMAN farmer use passive combustion spark plugs to increase their MPG on crappy made industrial engines and yet F1 has been using the same design in the last 5 years to have an extra or pre combustion to stage the burn more completely. Water is another additive that makers are playing with in direct injection.
Over 10 years ago when I studied Engineering at university, a lecturer was always very interested in Economy, and getting the most out of a fuel source. He use to do aerodynamic tests with his car lol with cardboard, well he made something that he said has improves his engines economy, and has a meeting with a company who are interested in his concept. To cut a long story short they bought his concept and the rights to it. Must of been millions and he said they just shelved it? Never to be used on public roads again. He went travelling not much time after that, and I never saw him again the whole time I finished uni.
Charles Nelson Pogue of Canada. 200 mpg vapor carburetor. Don Garlits has the test carburetor and it achieved 198 miles per gallon on a flathead V8 Ford 1936.
I really found this interestingly educational
I saw a video the other day where some kid put a lawn mower carb on his 74 maverick with a 289 in it and it got 41 mpg.
Now I definitely trust you and I am suspicious of the maverick, but I was wondering if you had seen this video I was talking about?
With what could end up being the second gas crisis, maybe that lean burn controller I have lying around will finally be worth more than it’s value as an oversized paperweight!
If you can get the stuff to function correctly. I tried to keep the lean burn set up on my 86 5th Ave years back when I bought it. Maybe 9- 10 years ago. I went through 3 computers, 2 carburetors, new O2 sensor, new charge air temp, coolant, knock sensors.. new distributor... All of it. And for what ever reason I couldn't get a bad bog out of it. And it would run much too rich cruising and foul plugs. Idled amazing tho! Haha. I still have the car and it's my daily driver. I've been thinking about the lean burn stuff lately because I have seen a few 5th Aves for sale online with low miles. Say 100k and down. And most of the low mileage garage kept one still have all the original stuff. Makes me wonder if some are still functional.? The thing is I really don't believe that these cars got better milage with that stuff. If they did it was at most 1mpg. Because I know on my car after putting standard electronic ignition and an early 70's Carter bbd n my car. I average usually 21-22mpg. Mostly highway and two lane road miles. But even with strictly city driving the car will get 17mpg or so. It makes me think that it was only emissions related. What always concerns me with this car is I will have it tuned and running PERFECT. But when I pull spark plugs even after hundreds of miles. The porcelain is as white as a brand new plug. I automatically think LEAN. But the car runs 💯.. it's very strange. I plan on hooking up an air fuel gauge soon to see. But what I wonder is is it possible to tune a 318 so perfect that the plugs never show color,carbon,blistering... ??? Haha cause I feel as though I accomplished this
Just run a heated air cleaner at cruise. I’m surprised that newer cars don’t run them, they really bring back mileage over the winter months.
@@mcqueenfanman you might be on to something. Cause actually my heat riser is wired open. Takes forever for the engine to get warmed up. I wired it open because the thermo spring was so weak it would never open up. It's not stuck tho. However even during the hot days in summer the plugs looked lean. Ive just never seen another engine have plugs that clean. Any other car that has had lean problems always had a stumble or detonation... Some driveability issue. I guess I've only seen plugs look this good on a modern fuel injected car. I've tried putting lower heat range in as well. And checked for vacuum leaks. It has a steady 21 1\2 of vacuum at idle. And around 16-17 while cruising. Only other thing maybe is my timing is too advanced. I think I have it at 10 or 12 btdc base. And 38 all in. Just checked compression tonight actually. Engine mostly cold had 125idh across the board... Everything seems perfect. Just those plugs make me uneasy
My first car was a 74 Corvette with a mild cam, long tube Hookers, and a 750 CRM Holley. I've never really been a speed demon so I got decent mileage out of it. In town, I was averaging 17 to 18 and on the highway, I was averaging 20 to 21 MPG. I didn't mind that it wasn't the most high powered car, but I loved the reliability and the fact it was decent on fuel economy was a major plus.
First time watching this channel, I like the down to earthiness of it and explanation from experience. I like how it was mentioned that with todays advancements in technology the Smokey engine is now possible. I will be looking out for more videos.
time to build a still in my backyard and make my own fuel.
🌘🌒yep👍
hydrogen is the answer
Interesting, reminds me of a 68 f250 my dad played with. With gaskets and a fine screen he managed about 20 mpg from a 390. Problem was it killed exhaust valves.. fuel injection would be much easier to control, direct injection would control detonation, but how would the pistons hold the heat? Like a torch, more air and less fuel makes more heat...
Water injection reduces the heat and boosts compression slightly also.
Combustion in a cylinder when the sparkplug fires I'm told is a constant temperature it doesn't get hotter ..
An engineer from GM stated this years ago ..
@@pauljimenez4026 I think that engineer need some schooling, more air less fuel= ever lit a torche? Tuned a race car?
Modern EFI engines are as good as they can be, running at a relatively steady state, fully warmed up.
Efficiency Improvements are feasible for engines used in peculiar ways. I have a car that is used a lot for short trips.
The choke is closed to “eliminated” and I devised a propane enrichment of the gasoline only for start up. (with a small tank) Propane is way more efficient for warming up an engine. As a result the “short trip car” is more efficient than modern EFI cars. It is a carbureted Chrysler import from the 80s.
Heehee I've seen propane generators that have had a block heater failure in the winter go to start and break stuff.
Like cracked exhaust manifolds and occasionally it'll wipe out a head if you're really lucky
@@MrTheHillfolk This isn't a propane issue, a diesel generator will do this too. The issue is slamming a load on a cold engine. The exhaust manifold will expand at a faster than the bolts and the bolts will break.
"Propane enrichment" gas needs oxygen to burn, not propane. Either use gas or gasoline, mixing both isn't an good idea.
@@MrTheHillfolk Propane generators are an well known scam.
So good to hear you mention Smokey and his contributions...Sugest you reach out to Crandall Sizemore, in Ormond, Fl. Start the conversation regarding Holley carberation...and let him run from there. He's about 80...so ya might wanna do it soon.
The truth is, the carburetor is real, What the carb was doing was only burning the vapors from the fuel, And using the exhaust manifold to heat the fuel to make more vapors.... Kind of like burning propane.... Or natural gas...
I read in a very well known mag, pop mech, about an famous engine builder who built an engine that used multiple valves per cylinder and the basic principle was the engine was 1/2 fuel, 1/2 steam engine. would run on fuel to a temperature point then the 2nd valves would take over and water was used to create steam in the cylinder and you get "free strokes" until the temp dropped to a point then goes back to fuel. It was years ago but I always remembered that article. This fellow actually had his invention in a car and would drive it daily. I don't believe it was McLaren but somebody equally famous. I imagine it would have to be a diesel type engine and some kind of lubricate added to the water but the "exhaust valves" would send the steam back to the water tank to be reused. Fascinating concept. Uncle Tony you rock!
Wow
I love the idea.
Imagine going up a hill you previously overheated.
That would only make you go faster !
Good job Tony. It's funny how some people think a really smart person can defy the laws of physics. ...."carburetor sends what the engine asks for..." Brilliant!
This is exactly how well tuned carbs that are "too big" for the engine can operate so well. They can only supply what the engine asks for.
they didnt disappear the carb guy they killed the water fuel guy
There! Uncle Tony well explained why homemade DIY vaporizers will not work for car engines! Well said!
I'm waiting on someone to make a cold vapor carburetor using the same transducers that are used in these humidifiers you see in all of the retail stores. That might possibly hold promise.
Been done but most designs are very crude at the moment ruclips.net/video/n150d9DGtww/видео.html
I'd come across the hot vapor engine before. I thought it might be a great candidate for electric hybridization. Batteries and an electric motor could cover the shortcomings you mentioned.
A electric heating element with a fuel injector in a vapor tank
The Shell Opal got 376 mpg by vaporization of the fuel with a very small carburetor. Set the record.
Honda CVCC was a succesful hot vapor carb production car.
Overall, there's a lot of waste material, space and fuel in 110+ci carbureted engines.
I had a 1969 318 in a dodge A100 van.
It had a Stromberg 1 barrel that routinely got 30 mpg.
You deserve a standing ovation man seriously your understanding and profound knowledge is impeccable