Anyone tried Vapourate fuel saver?

dogwatch2 · 06-09-2005, 05:30 PM

Has anyone had the vaporate fuel saver device fitted. I will be trying it shortly on my BA Ghia 6
(for free via Leaseplan

:

: ). I'm one of about 200 to be given a trial. It's supposed to give 10 to 20% better economy. It's a "ring" that fits on the injector tip and heats it up, vapourising the fuel better. I'll be interested to see how it goes after fitting.

BuuBox · 06-09-2005, 06:06 PM

You'll have to keep us posted on the results

Sounds interesting.

jzab · 06-09-2005, 06:45 PM

There was a discussion and a poll on this previously. Seems like half of us didn't believe the claims.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...light=vaporate

geckoGT · 06-09-2005, 07:34 PM

Let us know how it goes. Do they have some for of guarantee.

Mike Gayner · 07-09-2005, 05:24 AM

Sounds alot more promising than that stupid helix crap you put in your intake, but I'm still skeptical (I'm a born cynic).

EA2BA · 07-09-2005, 08:46 AM

Still have not heard any "real" feedback from someone fitting it, and I still doubt its claims.

johnydep · 07-09-2005, 09:27 AM

From the picture & descriptions I have seen; it is a metal sleeve that fits over the end of the injector, the purpose is to transfer heat from the engine to the tip of the injector thus causing the fuel to vapourize.

I've always thought that the fuel being cool helps condense the fuel/air mix creating more power, if the fuel has been heated it has two affects;
1) expands, causing less room for air
2) air/fuel mix is sparse.

But according to the Vapourate sales brochure, by helping the fuel to vapourize it ignites better and creates a better combustion.

If that is true, I think that there would be a fuel saving but also a power loss because of the less dense fuel/air mix.

Something so simple giving a 20% fuel saving does sound suss, as the item looks like a $2 metal sleeve for each injector. Why hasn't Bosch used it?

I don't know about this product, I'd like to see some back to back tests with results.

07-09-2005, 09:39 AM

Well, on gas turbine engines and the like the fuel is always pre-heated before injection into the combustion section. Makes sense really. Combustion can only occur at the interface between the fuel and oxygen so if you atomise it better or even vaporise it entirely the interface area is increased dramatically and you get better combustion.

I await proof.

Mike Gayner · 07-09-2005, 03:48 PM

You want dense air in your engine, but the density of the fuel makes a very, very small difference to the amount of air/fuel mixture making it into the cylinders because the fuel makes up a tiny part of that mixture (14.7kg of air for every kg of fuel under normal conditions). Fuel will always ignite better when it is vapourised, which is why injectors have the spread pattern with tiny droplets making it into the cylinders. That's also the reason carburettors have emulsion tubes. Vapourised fuel burns better. I'm still skeptical about any of these little tricks to give you better fuel economy, simply because car manufacturers pump hundreds of millions of dollars researching ways to make their engine more efficient.

MR_SIDO · 07-09-2005, 05:21 PM

we are installing a kit on a company vehicle in the next few weeks, will keep you posted. (the company vehicle is a BA XL Falcon ute)

EA2BA · 07-09-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SIDO

we are installing a kit on a company vehicle in the next few weeks, will keep you posted. (the company vehicle is a BA XL Falcon ute)

I am very interested to see the results, if they are as claimed

dogwatch2 · 08-09-2005, 08:43 AM

I'm a bit sceptical too, as if it's so easy to gain 10 to 20% better economy then the manufacturer's would be fitting it. But I'll try it as it's free. I do wonder if it can cause any "lean" conditions or whether it affects the injector life??

Lawsy · 08-09-2005, 12:03 PM

From a (studying) engineers point of view, having warmer fuel can have a few affects.

Yes, when vapourised it WILL compress easier (part of random particle theory) and it will combust better.
If you double the surface area of the droplets, in total, per molecule (smaller sized molecules but more of them gives this result for any specific fuel mass) you will increase the combustion efficiency by 50% (if in a perfect world). It also takes less effort to combust because the fuel molecules are more evenly mixed through the cylinder so you get another small increase (maybe 5%) in compression efficiency.

The practicle, real world reality is that it might give you a 50% increase in molecule surface area, about a 20% increase in combustion efficiency increase, a 5% increase in power in closed loop and maybe a 10% increase in overall fuel efficiency. These are just numbers I'm spitting out based upon the rough ratio results from larger scale particle tests, most of which I can barely remember so the possibility for this information being false is quite high.....

But hey, it sounds good doesn't it? Thats all that matters....

No really, that is roughly the deal. Anyone else who has done physics will be able vouch for this.
But yeah, thats the basic principle. More area for the oxygen to meet with the fuel, less loss due to compression (like I said though, very minor) and probably a small power increase in some circumstances (in closed loop running near stoich mixtures).
You won't really see any dramatic increase in WOT max power though. The engine is still limited by how much air can get into the cylinders, not fuel. So you will simply be using less fuel to produce the same power. If you just add the same mass of fuel at WOT as before, you'll just be running an 'apparent extra rich mixture' (maybe by 0.3 of a point), but you won't see much more power. What you will see though, its more power per fuel mass... Thus, efficiency is increased. This only really occures at stoich AFR's.

Oh did i mention that? You need to be running roughly stoich mixtures for this to be beneficial so the oxygen sensor can sense the decrease in oxygen (or increase in fuel) through the exhaust and add less fuel as a consequence for each specific throttle position.
So yeah, by making it easier to burn the fuel, you simply make more power per gram of fuel (always based on mass, not liquid quanity) and thus less fuel is added for each throttle position as the computer modifies the mixture to run at stoich.

Hope that long and boring post helps.

LG · 08-09-2005, 12:09 PM

Do you mean stock when you say "stoich"?

Nice information, thanks lawsy

EA2BA · 08-09-2005, 12:13 PM

Stoich:

Stoichiometry consists of the calculations in chemistry that involve how much of each reactant is required to make the products of the reaction. The coefficients in the balanced equation are used to determine the number of moles of each element that are required in the reaction.

LG · 08-09-2005, 12:46 PM

Looking on their website, Vaporate, have actually done some testing... Whether its true or not, is another matter:

http://www.vaporate.com/main.php?page=on_road

Thanks dellboy.

EA2BA · 08-09-2005, 12:53 PM

LG- yeah vaporate did testing, and apparently repco did an independant test and agreed with the results before they would stock it, bet lets face it, any product that claims to reduce fuel is going to sell, so why wouldnt you make the results work to make some money.

MrSparkle · 08-09-2005, 01:02 PM

Allow me to use "marketing mathematics" for a moment. If I were to take 5 of these different devices, each claiming to improve efficiency by 20%, then I would obtain 100% efficiency and therefore need NO fuel!!!!

Ok back to reality. If people want to fork out for questionable and marginal improvements AT BEST, then good luck to them. Better than buying class A drugs or Telstra shares or magnetic healing pillows I suppose...

In the current economic climate, I guarantee there will be an explosion of these ridiculous devices, and I intend to join in the marketplace with a device of my very own!

Sourbastard · 08-09-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

I intend to join in the marketplace with a device of my very own!

Flux Capacitor? Or Warp Coil?

eb2fairmont · 08-09-2005, 05:05 PM

I call my new product the evaporate fuel saver.

It looks like a fuel siphon and lowers the cost of fuel considerably. People who don't have one complain of thier fuel evaporating into thin air.

Buy yours today for $12.50 rrp.

For another 30 bucks extra it comes with an estwing hammer, designed to assist in the evaporate (patent pending) process.

Efficencies of up to 100% have been claimed by the fully sick hendon kids.

David

svo347 · 08-09-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

I intend to join in the marketplace with a device of my very own!

Australias first Pedal assist cars...

geckoGT · 13-09-2005, 10:47 AM

Ok, thought I would go the ford forums V8 guinea pig. I have fitted a set to my car and took it out for a long run to the gold coast last night for an open road test.
Previously I used to get 12-12.5L/100km on the open road. Last night I was getting an average of 11.4L/100km, so bit of an improvement there. I did not notice any problems with idle or power. They claim that you may get a 4-6kw increase at WOT, which would be hard to feel anyway. I certainly did not notice a drop in power and the car purred along nicely.
Fitting was not hard except you have to take so much crap off these things to get to the injectors properly.
It is early days yet and I will keep you all posted on how it goes. I am going to fill the tank today and see how much I get out of normal day to day driving. My normal driving is about 60% stop/ start and 40% highway so I think it will give me a pretty good test. I usually get around 15-15.5L/100km so any improvement would be nice. I am trying very hard to not change my driving style at all so I have ignored the advice in the booklet (still enjoying the grunt).

EA2BA · 13-09-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

I am trying very hard to not change my driving style at all so I have ignored the advice in the booklet

Let us know the results, this is a very good point, changing driving style as well all know can save fuel, which further adds to the "snake oil" perception of this product.

geckoGT · 13-09-2005, 10:56 AM

Wondering how long it would take you to reply Dellboy! We all know you are not afraid of being adventurous!
You are right, I don't want it to be a case of the biggest saving came from following the driving advice and drive in grandpa mode all the time. I want to test the product in the same situation that I drive normally (fairly cruisy with the odd stab of the throttle and certainly not afraid to play a bit)

EA2BA · 13-09-2005, 11:01 AM

How many k's do you normally cover in a week, just wondering how long till we get some good data feedback coming in.

geckoGT · 13-09-2005, 11:06 AM

about a tank a week which is 400km. Just for the record my fuel filter was replaced a month ago with no difference in consumption and the injectors were not serviced or cleaned (except external where vaporate fits) in any way. My car has kept its present consumption for about the last 40 000 km so I don't think it will vary greatly for any other reason (nothing else has changed). In case you wondering I always use caltex 95 fuel (woolies and visa=8c/L off)

EA2BA · 13-09-2005, 11:14 AM

Don't vaporate also suggest the injectors get cleaned at time of fitting as well ?

geckoGT · 13-09-2005, 11:21 AM

External clean was done (should make no difference) but I did not get an injector clean done on purpose as I want to test the product, not the injector clean. Anyway a car that is 65,000 km old and never had anything lower than 95 PULP through it, should not need an injector clean. I actually rang a place enquiring about an injector service a month ago and when the guy heard about my car he said save my money because it would not need it. Good to see some honest ones out there, passing up business like that (if he said it was worth it I would have had it done)

geckoGT · 13-09-2005, 07:37 PM

Well day 1 of the trial is over and I had a fair amount of running around to do so it was a good comparison.
Today was a mix of suburban stop/start driving with a couple of short runs on the motorway mixed in, a typical day for me. A lot of my driving today was around forest lake where I live so although it does not have a lot of traffic lights, there are a lot of traffic calming devices (roundabouts and chicanes mostly).

The result of today is
Distance covered= 65.5km
Average speed= 43km/h
Range remaining= 369km
Indicated fuel consumption= 13.9

Before you ask, no I was not driving like a grandpa. Can't help myself, I love that V8 sound!

I am not getting excited yet as I believe it is too early to tell but the result so far is pretty good.
Will update later.

geckoGT · 18-09-2005, 11:06 PM

Filled up the first tank of juice today after fitting the vaporate.

The indicated figures on the trip computer were as follows.

Consumption= 13.7L/100km (used to average between 15-15.5L/100km)
Av speed= 47km/h
distance= 392.7km
fuel guage indicated approx 1/8 tank remaining
Range= 60km (used to be on the red line on the guage at this distance)

Using these indicated figures as comparison there is an improvement, it used to show 15L/100km and be on the red line at around 400km on the average week of driving. In the interest of keeping all things as equal as I can and using the indicated figures, the first week has shown an improvement of roughly 60km per tank. Power has remained unchanged. if not a touch better but would have had to do back to back dyno runs to prove.

The interesting bit is the actual fuel consumption. Both fills were done with the same nozzle on the same pump so there is little pump variation. On both fills I went to the first click, allowed to settle for a small period of time and then allowed the overflow to click off again. By doing this I have tried to get equal amounts of fuel in both times. today the tank took 51L to fill, showing 51L used for 392.7km. This equates to an actual fuel consumption of 12.99L/100km and a theoretical range of 520km per tank. I never realised the fuel guage on these things is so inaccurate!

Of course this is just the first result so I will see what the figures are for the next tank. It seems the saving in dollars based on the indicated range remaining and todays price on PULP of $1.27 is about $11. At that rate the device will pay for itself within 5 mths.