Carb cleaners

Smokey Yunick was a very interesting guy. I'd agree that he was a
mechanical genius...but he was also a con man and a self promoter.



Do I believe that the Fiero could get 50 mpg - sure. I'll bet one from
GM without the modifications could get close to that on a level road a
45 mph when driven carefully.



Do I believe that Smokey's had 250 HP - maybe. The engine diagrams
appear to show a turbocharger (although it is not called that). With a
turbo it would be pretty easy to get 250 hp out of a 2.5L engine - at
least for a little while.



Do I think the claims, as Smokey wished them to be interpreted, were
true? Nope. I don't believe in vast conspiracies to withhold
miraculous fuel saving technologies from the masses. After graduate
school, I had a short (very short) career at Ford Motor Company. A
significant portion of my time at Ford was spent trying to devise ways
to improve fuel economy. I am certain if the hot vapor technology had
provided a few percents of the benefits Smokey claimed, Ford, GM, VW,
etc., etc., etc. would have been lining up to either pay royalties to
use it, or to try and circumvent any patents so they could use it for
free.



Claims of miraculous fuel saving devices are as old as the automobile.
Occasionally there are breakthroughs, in the past sometimes even by
individual inventors. However, given the advanced state of internal
combustion engine development, I'd say the chances that an individual,
even one as talented as Smokey Yunick, made a truly significant
breakthrough are nil.



My theory is that the car got somewhat better gas mileage that a
standard Fiero because all the crap in the intake restricted power,
until the turbo kicked in. At that point, you got decent power.
However, you never got both at the same time. You could go slow and
get good gas mileage, or go fast. Not both. The same compromise can be
made today - if you are willing to live with it.



One final shot at the hot vapour idea - it seems like the current
trend for maximum fuel economy is direct injection - almost the exact
opposite of what Smokey was doing. Go figure..



Ed



"Henry" > wrote in message
...
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>
>> Because they're engaged in an evil conspiracy to get
>> rich selling you more gasoline. Same reason they've
>> suppressed the 500 mpg carburetor for all these decades.
>
> Back in 1984, Hot Rod Magazine did an article on a
> Pontiac Fiero that was powered by what Smokey Yunick
> called a "hot air engine". Hot Rod said it might be the
> most significant advancement in engine technology since
> the Otto cycle engine. They added that this may seem like
> an extraordinary statement, but the car they tested is
> worthy of it.
> Smokey's 4 cylinder Fiero engine made 250hp, got about
> 50mpg, put out much low emissions than the standard
> engine, and ran very smoothly. Basically, the fuel was
> vaporized using heat from the exhaust before being introduced
> to the combustion chambers. Carburetors and modern fuel
> injection puts liquid fuel into the combustion chambers,
> which doesn't burn cleanly or completely.
> Not saying there was a conspiracy to suppress his
> invention, but given that the car was actually built,
> and how impressed Hot Rod Magazine editors were, I do
> wonder why the technology was never perfected and mass
> produced. From what I've read, it was due to legal and
> patent issues. Here's a link to the original article from
> 1984 along with a couple more.
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m8w8f8
>
> http://www.gassavers.org/archive/ind...ne/t-7868.html
>
> http://digg.com/general_sciences/Smo...iabatic_engine
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net
>

"ben91932" > wrote in message
...
Take a peek he
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=78116
HTH,
Ben
>
> Smokey's hot air engine wasn't turbocharged.
>
> --
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net

Look at the diagram....he doesn't call it a turbocharger, but it sure
looks like one - exhaust driven mixer....hmmmmm

Ed

ben91932 wrote:

> Take a peek he
> http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=78116
> HTH,
> Ben

>> Smokey's hot air engine wasn't turbocharged.


There is a device that looks like a turbocharger, but
it's a homogenizer, and the pressure is produced by
heat, rather than turbocharging.

http://tinyurl.com/m8w8f8

On 14 Aug, 15:59, Henry > wrote:
> TOG@Toil wrote:
> > On 14 Aug, 14:42, Henry > wrote:
> >> TOG@Toil wrote:
> >>> On 14 Aug, 13:23, "Steve W." > wrote:
> >>>> What I don't get are the folks who look at the vehicles used in mileage
> >>>> runs and say LOOK they made that thing get 200mpg, why doesn't MY CAR
> >>>> get that. They did it so it MUST be possible.
> >> * Well, Smokey Yunick's Fiero "only" got 50mpg, and made
> >> 250hp with a naturally aspirated 2.5 liter engine. Are
> >> you saying that's it's not possible, or that it's not
> >> possible to make it reliable? The Fiero engine that Smokey
> >> built back in 1984 is apparently still running.
> >> *http://tinyurl.com/m8w8f8
> >>> It's all a load of crap, anyway.
> >> * So according to TOG, Smokey Yunick never built the Fiero that
> >> was tested by Hot Rod Magazine, it didn't put out 250hp, didn't
> >> burn cleanly on vaporized fuel, and didn't get 50mpg. It was
> >> all a pack of "nutter" lies. Amusing...
> >> TOG has said nothing of the sort.
>
> * He said, referring to the hot air engine under discussion,
> "It's all a load of crap, anyway." Not a very articulate or
> intelligent response, but it does indicate that you "think"
> the article is a bunch of bull****.
>
> > Just that it's a waste of effort,
>
> * Getting a logical, rational, or intelligent reply out of
> you appears to be a waste of effort.
>
> > and if you think 100bhp/litre is massive power, you're in
> > another dream world.
>
> * You failed to comprehend what you read. The engine
> not only made 250hp from a 2.5 liter engine, but it
> got over 50mpg and put out clean emissions. That's
> *very* impressive even by today's standards.
>
> >>> Of course, this won't stop the nutters proclaiming otherwise.
> >> * Apparently, TOG thinks that Hot Rod Magazine and Smokey Yunick
> >> were part of some vast conspiracy of high mileage "nutters".
> >> Only on usenut....
> >> Nope, TOG thinks that you've found another nutter cause to espouse.
>
> * So you *do* "think" that Smokey Yunick never built the Fiero
> that was tested by Hot Rod Magazine, it didn't put out 250hp,
> didn't burn cleanly on vaporized fuel, and didn't get 50mpg.
> It was all a pack of "nutter" lies. It's amusing how easily
> you're confused and frustrated...

If you read the Hot Road article, Hot Rod didn't actually test the
fuel consumption themselves. They started it up. *They didn't even
drive it* or, if they did, there is no mention of it in the article.

"The smoothest car we've been in." *Right*. For the hard of thinking,
or those who don't know how journos work, that's phrased to make you
*think* they drove it, while not deviating from the truth. Not "we've
driven". Just "we've been in". If they'd driven it, they'd have said
so. They didn't, so they didn't. So this leaves all the facts and
figures in the hands of...

.... oh, is there any proper testing cited there? No. So who did supply
those figures? Dear Smokey himself?

And just to correct your earlier assertion that it wasn't
turbocharged, and the other idiot who said it was 'normally
aspirated': read the article. "Because the engine is artifically
aspirated..." and "it is still better than a stock, normally aspirated
engine."

There's even the turbine marked and labelled on the diagram. The fact
that the text then says "This is not a turbocharged engine" means that
the wondrous journo who wrote it manages to contradict himself.
Calling it a 'homogenizer' makes no difference, especially when the
patent text says: "the homogenizer is operative to compress the fuel
mixture under certain operating conditions". That's a turbo.

It's an interesting lump. The fact that it hasn't been adopted
wholesale is... well, let's invoke Occam's Razor[1] he

Is it because there's a conspiracy to keep it down? Are the patents
hidden away? Or is it because it just doesn't work as well as claimed?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The Cornell Cleaner has indeed found
another nutter cause to espouse: How Big Bad Industry Killed The Great
Engine.

In any case, I can get well over 60mpg from a nice powerful engine
like the 150bhp lump in my Subaru. All I have to do is drive slowly.

Now, haven't you got some washrooms to clean up?

[1] "Also Works On 9/11 Conspiracies!"

Henry wrote:
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Henry wrote:
> >> Steve W. wrote:
> >>> Henry wrote:
> >>>> Steve W. wrote:
>
> >>>>> Also in a modern fuel injected engine there is far less than
> >>>>> 1% unburned fuel.
>
> >>>> That seems pretty low. Where'd you get that number?
>
> >>> Current EPA number used for the standards test that manufacturers
> >>> have to meet.
>
> >> Got a link? Not saying you're wrong, but I like to see
> >> claims verified before I accept them if I can't verify them
> >> myself.
>
> > It's hard to translate the EPA numbers into a percentage with any
> > precision--they're specified in grams per mile, so the percentage is going
> > to depend on what kind of gas mileage you're getting and on whether you
> > define percentage by volume or mass or in some other way and on whether
> > you're talking about as a percentage of fuel consumed or as a percentage of
> > total exhaust content.
>
> > The 2001 standard for "non methane organic gas" which is a catch all for
> > what used to be called "unburned hydrocarbons" is .075 grams/mile.
>
> That's probably after the catalytic converter, so it doesn't
> tell us the percent of unburned fuel coming out of the cylinders.

No but burning another couple per cent of the hydrocarbons isn't going
to make a 25 mpg car turn into a 50 mpg car either.


> Burning vaporized fuel is far more efficient that burning atomized
> liquid fuel.

There is no evidence that is true. In fact in most applications it is
false.

I'm not all that familiar with all the details of the Smoky hot air
intake design but it is my understanding that the intake a/f charge was
heated to temps around 450F. At that temp it would mean the hydrocarbons
would break apart and disassociate into simpler compounds (mostly CH4,
CO and H2). So the fuel actually entering the engine was not really
gasoline. That means the engine could be designed around this much
higher octane fuel. The engine apparently had special designed cam and
higher compression and a modified timing curve. The point being his
engine was a lot more than bolting a special intake system onto a
standard engine.


> 250hp, 2.5 liters, and over 50 mpg is proof

I seriously doubt there ever was the claim made that it got 50 mpg and
250 hp at the same time. When it was delivering 250 HP it was probably
only getting 2 mpg.


>- and
> that was just a crude prototype that had yet to be perfected.

Probably the main perfection needed would have involved getting it to
last 300K miles instead of just a few laps around the track.

-jim


>
> http://tinyurl.com/m8w8f8
>
> --
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:4a857ab1$1@kcnews01...
>
> "hls" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> If you look at the theoretical efficiencies possible with the Stirling
>> cycle
>> (an external combustion engine) of ca 78% versus the typically quoted
>> efficiencies for the automotive internal combustion engine (30% or
>> thereabouts),
>> expecting 50 mpg is not at all out of the question.
>
> Theory is fine, but in practice Stirling engines are no more efficient
> than current internal compustion engines and for a given power output,
> likely to provide lower fuel economy becasue for a given power output they
> will be heavier that an internal compustion engine. The Striling engines
> do have the significant advantage of being adapatable to all sorts of
> energy input, so they do have definite advantages but actual thermal
> efficieny isn't one of them.

Well, I think thermal efficiency IS one of the advantages but only for
small engines at this point. They also have the advantage of quietness,
and a few others.

Engineering on these engines has not been able to achieve anywhere
near the 78% for larger engines, as you correctly point out.

TOG@Toil wrote:
> On 14 Aug, 15:59, Henry > wrote:

>> So you *do* "think" that Smokey Yunick never built the Fiero
>> that was tested by Hot Rod Magazine, it didn't put out 250hp,
>> didn't burn cleanly on vaporized fuel, and didn't get 50mpg.
>> It was all a pack of "nutter" lies. It's amusing how easily
>> you're confused and frustrated...

> If you read the Hot Road article, Hot Rod didn't actually test the
> fuel consumption themselves. They started it up. *They didn't even
> drive it* or, if they did, there is no mention of it in the article.

You "know" that Hot Rod didn't drive the car? Did you "learn"
that from the same source that told you I'm a janitor?

> And just to correct your earlier assertion that it wasn't
> turbocharged

According to the man who designed an built it, it wasn't.
But no doubt, a disgraced clown who spews moronic lies about
others on usenet while hiding behind its killfile would
know more about that than the builder himself... <chuckle>

> There's even the turbine marked and labelled on the diagram. The fact
> that the text then says "This is not a turbocharged engine" means that
> the wondrous journo who wrote it manages to contradict himself.

No, it means that you're still spewing a lot of ignorance
based speculation - like when you mindlessly babble on about
me being a janitor.

> Is it because there's a conspiracy to keep it down? Are the patents
> hidden away? Or is it because it just doesn't work as well as claimed?

Hard to say for certain. Clearly, you haven't got a clue. But
the idea of burning vapor rather than liquid, which does not burn
completely, makes sense.

> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The Cornell Cleaner

You're quite proficient at spewing childish "insults" and
making yourself look weak and foolish, but that's about it.

> Now, haven't you got some washrooms to clean up?

No, and I prefer to clean up your usenet lies and idiocy.


--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

jim wrote:

> Henry wrote:

>> 250hp, 2.5 liters, and over 50 mpg is proof

> I seriously doubt there ever was the claim made that it got 50 mpg and
> 250 hp at the same time.

Indeed. It would be foolish to assume that a highway
fuel mileage rating was obtained at constant full
throttle.
But getting 50 mpg out an engine that can produce
250 hp is very impressive. I'm not aware or any
engine available today that can approach those
numbers.


--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt> wrote:

> I seriously doubt there ever was the claim made that it got 50 mpg and
> 250 hp at the same time. When it was delivering 250 HP it was probably
> only getting 2 mpg.

More to the point, the performance/mpg quoted in the Hot Rod article was
unsubstantiated, as they *didn't even drive the ****ing car* as I've
pointed out elsewhere.

It's The Cornell Cleaner fantasising again. Prepare for reams of new c&p
crap in his sig any day now.



--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Coo, down to just five bikes!
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

C. E. White > wrote:

> "ben91932" > wrote in message
> ...
> Take a peek he
> http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=78116
> HTH,
> Ben
> >
> > Smokey's hot air engine wasn't turbocharged.
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://911research.wtc7.net
>
> Look at the diagram....he doesn't call it a turbocharger, but it sure
> looks like one - exhaust driven mixer....hmmmmm
>
It's called a turbine in the drawing, and the patent says it compresses
the mixture. It's a blower.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Coo, down to just five bikes!
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com