Fuel Heaters
 

Do they work? Or just a 'Net myth?

Run down on the theory. Your fuel line to your injectors or carb are rerouted to a holding canister that is heated by your engine coolant. The now warmed fuel can be atomized into a finer spray by your fuel injectors resulting in a more efficient burn.

https://brightgreen.us/explanation.htm

Thanks

I'm going with net myth. Properly design modern FI systems should atomize the fuel over a wide range of temperatures... But, it may be like acetone, where it can clean out older injectors, or in this case, help injectors that are in poor shape.

Red -

The Hydrogen-boost guy uses them in his solution :

https://www.hydrogen-boost.com/

Other people have gotten mixed results. My mechanic doesn't want to mess with them because he doesn't want to cut the fuel line. They are common in (older?) Diesels for pre-heating the thick diesel fuel. In one Mercedes Benz, my mechanic told me that the fuel line runs *through* the coolant reservoir.

I also agree that the older the car, chances are, the better the results.

The one you are showing appears to be the best manufactured.

CarloSW2

I may have some results to report on the Brightgreen unit. I have one on order that should be here by this week or next. I also have one of thier squirter units coming.

What kind of testing are you going to do? Can it be controlled? (Would be tough, I imagine, if you have to do a lot of wrenching to go from "A" to "B".)

Here's Tony's thoughts (Tony is a clever fellow): https://www.fuelsaving.info/atomisation.htm

I will probably rely heavily on my current figures for a baseline. As for the difficulty of going from "A" to "B", the heater is supposed to have a type of quick dis-connect fittings. It would just be a matter of the pressurized fuel in the line leaking out when the connection is loosened.:eek:

diamondlarry -

Are those the "bypass valves" I saw before? I keep trying to find a picture on the net of the fog device with the bypass valves, but they seem to have vanished.

CarloSW2

I don't think I'm familliar with the by-pass valves.

Thanks, that report matches with what I originally thought, FI vehicles vaporize fuel to such a high degree that heating it is pointless. But I figured it was worth a shot.

usually your fuel rail it attached to your fuel line via a "quick disconnect" fitting. If the fitting supplied is of the same type you shouldn't have any leaks.

Larry do you still have the EFIE? I think that is going to be the way to really get it to work well. I had heated lines on the 626(1999) running across the radiator wrapped in foil. Did not really test it per say just one run with and one without showed a 3% increase with the heated lines.

I think it is the same type of fitting. I was referring to the fuel that usually sprays out a bit when the fitting is disconnected.

I do still have the EFIE. I don't currently have it hooked up but will do so with the FOG devices hooked up.:p

My heated fuel makes my engine ping, then I add water the ping go's away. LOL

diamondlarry -

I wish I could find that original picture I saw, because it is for the model you are getting. Anyway, here is one that I am positive is for Diesels :

https://www.arctic-fox.com/images/products/inlines.jpg

It's pretty butch and looks like it has a temperature control on one of them. Go to https://www.arctic-fox.com and fish around to see if there is anything adaptable for gasoline.

CarloSW2

Those do look pretty cool! I wonder if you could use the diesel units with gasoline?

I have a comment on Tony's article. I agree with him that modern FI cars burn nearly all of the fuel that goes into them. Where I begin to disagree with him is when he says that a fuel warmer won't help mpg much if any at all. While it's true that there is very little unburned fuel coming out of the tailpipe, the problem is that much of the fuel isn't being burned in the combustion chamber. Catalytic converters do a great job of mopping up after what's left over from the engine but fuel that is burned in the cat does absolutely no work in propelling the car down the road. I believe that by heating the fuel that more of the fuel will be consumed in the combustion chamber where you can benefit from it.

Larry, have you made that point to Tony? I'm sure he'd reply (he actually makes a point of asking for criticism directly).

It's a valid question about his arguments.

(I don't recall whether he states if his claims about combustion efficiency are through measuring cat-cleaned exhaust or "straight" exhaust.)

Somewhere he does talk about experiments Bosch did heating the fuel, though.

Found it...

https://fuelsaving.info/atomisation.htm

That said, a 1-2% improvement means .5 - 1 MPG from a 50 mpg baseline.

I'm wasn't unhappy to see improvements of 2% on my last couple of aero experiments.

I will submit my thoughts to him and see if I may be on the wrong track.

Cool. I'd like to know his answer to your question too. It's a good one.

I just sent him an email. That is, if I decoded his email adress properly. :confused:

Yeah, bit of a glitch there! I think it's just: mail (at) fuelsaving (dot) info

I sent one to both addresses. Neither one came back as udeliverable. :confused:

Wouldn't this situation be detected to some degree by the O2 sensors?

Yes, and I would think that a cat burning that much gas would be dead in no time not to mention spewing smoke. The way larry makes it sound is that cars are perpetually running extremely rich.

That's a good point. The previous owner of Firefly #1 had burnt out 2 cats due to a bad O2 sensor. But they've got to be able to handle burning some level of HC without frying.

I'm not sure I would say that cars are running extremely rich but I think a significant amount of fuel is wasted by keeping the cat hot. I would venture a guess that modern FI cars probably don't need a cat but there is too much money wrapped up in the cat industry for them to go away. It would be interesting to see some side by side emissions tests with and without a cat. My uncle, back in the late sixties/early seventies, took a Rambler straight-6 and milled the head .100"(after doing the measurements to make sure there would be any valve collisions) and put the car on an exhaust gas analyzer and found that the emissions were nearly non-existent. This shows that if cars are PROPERLY tuned that there is no need for a cat; even with 60's/70's era technology.

I'd like to do a test on an car with no catalytic converter. Checking the HC one foot away from the exhaust valve, then at the tail pipe. By the time the mixture reaches the end of the tail pipe the HC's will probably drop a lot. Fuel burns very slow.

That does sound like an interesting test. I hadn't thought about fuel burning in the exhaust pipe before it gets to the cat. Below is the response from Tony at fuelsaving.info:
Hmm, with a response like that, I may have to dust off the ol' open mind.:)

Nice followup, Larry.

(I'll admit part of me was hoping to learn that the 1-2% reading was post-cat...)

PS - you might want to edit his email address in your post so it doesn't get spidered here by the spambots.

Yeah, me too.:(

Thanks. Done.