--- What temp to heat Gas to? --- - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2008, 02:06 PM   #11
Registered Member
 
trautotuning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
Country: United States
Ok well my fuel system is returnless, so all the fuel HAS to be sprayed.

The advantage of this is that the fuel will also travel slower in the line, giving it more time to heat up.



"If they're only 70% efficient transmitting heat from air to water, I suspect they will be more efficient with two liquids."

That is such a good point!, so in other words I can still reach probably around 180 degrees, if the fuel is long enough there to reach that point.



Another way of heating it is using those eBay ones, not the ones that you place on top of the radiator hose, but the ones that goes on the heater line and actually have coolant running through them, they are like $30 each, and I could put maybe to inline ones plus a wrap around the exhaust to raise the temp a little more.


However, the question still stands, what is the best temp that I can raise it to? You think 200 degrees is good like almost all sites say?
__________________

__________________
trautotuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 02:11 PM   #12
Registered Member
 
trautotuning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by kit352 View Post
some waste veggie cars have fuel filters that are also heaters to liquify the oil. i dont think they are very expensive and i know their easy to put in. plus their thermostatically controlled.

I have also seen those, but they have glow plugs which means using electric energy and I want to "recycle" some heat energy instead of using more energy.
__________________

__________________
trautotuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 02:42 PM   #13
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Like holycow said, it's 70% at air to water transfer. I imagine liquid to liquid is MUCH more efficient and you will have slow moving fuel surrounded by fast moving coolant. If it leaves the unit even 5 degreesF cooler than the coolant in there I'd be really surprised.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 05:09 PM   #14
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 689
Country: United States
How close are you going to be able to put the inter cooler to fuel rail? If it's going to be pretty far away you could use pipe insulation around the fuel line to retain heat. I thought your water temperature would be more than 180 degrees if you were running a 190-195 degree thermostat. Maybe you could go to a hotter thermostat to get a few more degrees. My scan gauge shows my water temp in my '97 Escort at about 190-195 degrees with the stock thermostat in it. I assume it has a 192 or 195 degree thermostat in it.
__________________
Hipermiler
#47 on my way to #1
Ford Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 06:08 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 446
Country: United States
Location: Charlotte nc
Liquid to air intercoolers are capable of exceeding 100% efficiency, however I have not seen them used to heat another liquid. I am watching this thread. keep in mind gasoline boils at 110*f unpressurised pressurizing it to 55psi only raises the boiling point to 159.8*f I would be careful with this project. very careful.
Philip1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 07:05 PM   #16
Registered Member
 
trautotuning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
Country: United States
^^ Thats what I wanted to know, the boiling point! So why do you suppose many companies say that the best temp is 200 degrees when the boiling point is only 159 degrees?


Anyway, here is the other method I could also use, it would take much less space than an intercooler and I could use two in a row; but I do not know how effective they would be... ?

__________________
trautotuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 07:06 PM   #17
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
The tracker runs 201-203 degF with the stock 195 degree thermostat.

Have you tested to make sure that the water part of the liquid to air intercooler can withstand 45psi for long periods of time? It's not built for that and I'm wondering if the seams for the piquid part can take it. I had a bad radiator cap and the pressure from water expanding without being purged was enough to blow a seam out of the radiator. I'd figured hoses would pop before that but apparently not.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 07:09 PM   #18
Registered Member
 
trautotuning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
Country: United States
And here is one that connects up to to the radiator hose instead of the other one which connects to the heater lines;

__________________
trautotuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 07:12 PM   #19
Registered Member
 
trautotuning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
The tracker runs 201-203 degF with the stock 195 degree thermostat.

Have you tested to make sure that the water part of the liquid to air intercooler can withstand 45psi for long periods of time? It's not built for that and I'm wondering if the seams for the piquid part can take it. I had a bad radiator cap and the pressure from water expanding without being purged was enough to blow a seam out of the radiator. I'd figured hoses would pop before that but apparently not.
Thats the thing, and why I dont know about using the intercooler (well, also because of space the intercooler will take up A LOT of space as compared to the two other ones).



Now which one would be better... I say probably the heater that connects to the heater lines because it would be close to the firewall, and closer to the original fuel line which I can connect it to.

But the radiator heater will probably work better because it has much more space to run coolant through it, AH THE DECISIONS!
__________________
trautotuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2008, 07:28 AM   #20
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Quote:
Originally Posted by trautotuning View Post
Thats the thing, and why I dont know about using the intercooler (well, also because of space the intercooler will take up A LOT of space as compared to the two other ones).



Now which one would be better... I say probably the heater that connects to the heater lines because it would be close to the firewall, and closer to the original fuel line which I can connect it to.

But the radiator heater will probably work better because it has much more space to run coolant through it, AH THE DECISIONS!
I like the heater one. Might even put it on the bypass line as it would have a less restrictive flow.
__________________

__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Matching EPA Type to My Car DastardlyDan Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 10-26-2009 07:16 AM
Hydrogen or H2O Systems 1Jal1 General Fuel Topics 4 10-11-2008 02:20 AM
Why did it take me so long to find this place? Baranfin Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 6 05-31-2008 05:17 PM
Higher speed not as bad as I thought mrmad General Fuel Topics 16 09-22-2007 10:55 PM
An American Perspective on Driving in Canada rh77 General Discussion (Off-Topic) 28 03-24-2006 10:42 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.