93Xtra-Cab

Has anyone ever used/experimented with fuel vaporizers to increase fuel economy? A co-worker was telling me about them today and I decided to do a bit of research after I got of work. I've read of increases between 10% and 60%. The one I was really looking at is the AGS Vaporizer MPG: http://www.agsvaporizermpg.com/

http://wyominginstruments.com/g_inst.htm

Testimonials:
http://www.wyominginstruments.com/g_testimonials.htm

Thread for AGS Vaporizer 2000. Similar system made by the same company: http://www.fuel-saver.org/Thread-Fuel-Vaporizer-2000

I've read they can be built somewhat cheap. It might be something cool to mess around with if I had more time or money. Is even the mere thought of doing this a stupid waste of time? What do you guys think?

Budsboy

This technology is right up there with deer whistles andthose pills that people were putting in their tanks. Car companies have verylarge engineering budgets and if something as simple as a “tornado” in theintake would give a .1% improvement – it would already be there.

bone collector

intrigued....

wyoming9

iTrader: (1)

Now does it get into the physics .

In both fuel injected and carb engines when the fuel mixture enters the combustion chamber it can`t be any more of a vapor. Things can be adjusted and tweaked within certain limits.

So just where does this fuel vaporizer enter into the system??

dark_fairytales

Looks like snake oil to me.

To start off, the vaporizer is not installed inline to the injectors; therefor the injectors are still operating as they would be normally. This vaporizer is installed in a parallel fashion, which leads to over fueling the engine, because it is not possible to for the engine to regulate the extra fuel coming from the vaporizer. A fuel injected engine adjusts the amount of fuel to the injectors with regards to how much air flow is sensed, and how much free O2 is observed in the exhaust by the O2 sensor. So, my wise judgment says B.S..

I am not saying that the vaporizer would not produce vaporized fuel, because the drop in air pressure theory would do just what is claimed. Elementary physics declares just that; we all know that water vaporizes (boils) at a lower temperature when high in the mountain. So, the claims are not B.S., the device will vaporize fuel, but the claims of improved MPG's would be a fairytale. By the way, wouldn't the same vacuum, or lower pressure be present in the cylinder when the piston is going through its intake stroke, which is where the vacuum is created in the first place that the PCV works off of.

The only way I know to aid an engine with vaporization, or atomization, is too heat the fuel close to its vapor point. This can be down by making modifications to the fuel line. By constructing a heat sink made of metal tubing that contacts to the hot radiator. It is possible to heat the fuel as it passes through the heat sink on its way to the cylinder.. This kind of mod was done in the 70's when making your own alcohol fuel was popular. Engines with low compression ratios ran better when the alcohol fuel was heated, due to the high octane rating of alcohol. If you would like to know more its very easy to read about with a google search.