Reducing Fuel Consumption in IC Petrol Engines

By supplementing the oxygen content of the air it would be possible to increase petrol consumption and the power output of the engine. Too much power will damage the engine.

If you want to reduce the fuel usage of an IC engine, use less power.

Yes; no.

If your vehicle is equipped with a computer controlled ignition and fuel injection, I believe you would save a small amount of fuel, due to more complete burning of the fuel/air charge.

If your vehicle is equipped with a carburetor, probably not. I'd say there's a risk of buring a piston on carb. equipped vehicles.

It's not worth the effort and expense in any case.

Like Ace said, just drive like you've got an egg taped to the gas pedal, and don't carry any extra, unnecessary weight in the car..

Changing the natural atmospheric mix of gases is an energy intensive process, and not likely to improve overall efficiency....A turbocharger which increases the atmospheric pressure using the exhaust gas flow, is a way of increasing efficiency...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_engine_more.shtml

proper tire inflation would probably help more than discovering a new oil field. But we need to take a long-range view. Biodiesel and hydrogen, American-made batteries of lithium-ion cells, natural gas, and public transportation could extend the current supply of fuel into the next century. Coal-fired, closed-circulation steam engines may seem like a step backward, but it would be another highly efficient means to creating private transportation. The maldives islands are at their highest point eight feet above sea level. If we don't find a way to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we will have to deal with perhaps close to a billion refugees who will have no homeland and no prospects for the future. We'll likely see generations of people in refugee camps, uneducated, minimally fed and housed, and it will all be our tax money that supports them. Add that to the cost of gasoline, along with the wars of the bush administrations (the war with Japan was sparked by our blockading fuel sources the Japanese had conquered and France was unwilling to give Vietnam its independence not entirely because of the source of robusto coffee and michelin rubber, but because Vietnam has a legitimate claim to the Spratly Islands, a rough pile of rocks many miles wide thought to contain petroleum and potentially so valuable that brought half the world to war during vietnam and it will likely lead to future wars. Making sure your tires are properly inflated could save your son's life. My son is a gunnery sergeant in the marine corps. If you don't want to save the lives of your children or grandchildren, consider saving the lives of my children and grandchildren. Get a tune-up, buy the proper grade of fuel, and make sure your tires are in good condition and properly inflated. It's surprising how much difference a seemingly insignificant action can make. Like the flutter of a butterfly's wing. You can make a difference. Keep polar bears from going extinct, avoid destroying the ogalala aquifer with the keystone pipeline, avoid killing hundreds of thousands of refugees. Check the inflation of your tires.

Do we need to discover new oil fields? How much oil do we really have? Depends on who you ask.

If you ask the current administration we have only a few percentage of the worlds total oil at our oil fields.

However, that is just political spin. If you add all of the recoverable oil (using today's technology to extract and refine) to that list we have enough known deposits to last us 250 years at current consumption rates.

We have 175 years supply of known natural gas and about 500 years of dirty old coal left.

The whole idea that is pushed on the public that we have an energy shortage is simply a wrong (if not a flat out lie). We do not need foreign oil at all if we tapped our own supply. The problem with tapping our own supplies is that it will be more expensive than current foreign sources.

The real reason to transition from oil to other sources should be driven by the need to clean up our act, not because we are running out. We are not. All this hype otherwise is simply an act to manipulate people into doing the bidding of others seeking to maintain control over people.

This false sense of urgency with this topic will do us far more harm than good to our liberties, standard of living, and economy.

Oh, by the way, the Arctic polar bear population seems to be doing just fine and actually increasing in some regions in Canada. Estimates in the 1950s put that population in the 5,000 to 10,000 range. Recent estimates of that population is about 20,000 to 25,000. Must be fuzzy math striking again.

Someone did told me that topping fuel to the maximum can prevent the fuel tank goes rusty internally. Therefore I often top-up to its max. Very often when i top up almost to the rim, I notice inside the fuel tank, there is a "Internal Fuel Flow Back" into the Fuel tank. Than I can add another 1-2 litres more. Why is that so?

Just fill until it stops. The recovery system does not need to be filled with that extra 1 to 2 liters. It is not a good idea to over fill as it may just get purged out and you lose that gas.

There is a small expansion tank, with a tiny hole as access to the main tank, inside the main tank, the reason being that petrol from underground tanks is usually cold, winter and summer.

But on a warm day, it will then expand considerably, if the expansion tank is already full (that is what you are doing), it may force another way out via the charcoal filter system for example...or even swell a sealed tank (seldom today).

Only do this if you are going on a long journey and immediately, on a cool day.....if at all....

All engines are designed to put the correct amount of fuel in with the correct amount of oxygen. What else would an engine manufacturer do? Unless the engine is very old or has a low quality carburator it's probably already near its best performance.

Get your engines exhaust tested and see if the fuel air ratio is correct.

Remember, if something is not already being done on a large scale for a mature technology like IC engines, then it probably isn't worth the trouble. (I'm thinking of water injection, magic additives, magnets, HHO etc)

No. Fuel provides the energy, oxygen allows the fuel to burn. More O2 might allow cleaner and more complete combustion, but the engine is already set up to burn at the optimum air-fuel ratio.

With today's sophisticated electronic engine control systems, the air/fuel ratio is adjusted based upon various sensors. The mass air flow sensor monitors the amount of atmospheric air mixture being 'inhaled' by the engine. The O2 sensor(s) in the exhaust monitor the amount of unconsumed oxygen in the exhaust and adjust the fuel input to the injectors. The more oxygen available for combustion, the more fuel that is provided, up to the limit of the system parameters.

I live at about 7,000' elevation and I get much better gas mileage at this elevation than I do at much lower elevations. The reason for this is that the engine control system senses the oxygen content of the intake and exhaust and adjusts the fuel accordingly. Since there is less oxygen and a lower atmospheric pressure at higher altitudes, there is not as much fuel required for complete combustion. There is also a loss of power - the rule of thumb is about 3% for each 1,000' of elevation increase - as the power level is a function of the amount of fuel burned.

I happen to have a supercharger on one of my vehicles and had to install a smaller pulley on the supercharger to permit a 7 psi boost, by speeding up the rotors. If I were to return to a lower elevation, I would put the larger pulley back on to avoid over-boost and possible damage to the engine on account of pre-ignition.

Nitrous Oxide systems do just what you are suggesting by introducing more oxygen to the combustion chamber, but that does not lower fuel consumption it increases it and the resulting power, provided the ECU is programmed to accommodate it.

I suspect Charanjit rai isn't using an engine with a sophisticated engine management system.

Lots of older style carburated engines are still in use around the world and some just slop the fuel in (controlled spillage was a term I heard once).

Spending money on a better carbie and getting it set up properly using an exhaust gas analyser may give a good return on investment.

As Ace Boeringa said the way is to reduce the used power.

For a 2008, ~100HP IC engine the fuel consumption when idling is about 0.9 liter/hour. smaller engines have smaller idling fuel consumption.

For going 100 km/h an automobile needs around 30 HP (~20 kW).

For climbing 10% road with 54 km/h (that is ~ 15 m/s) in a 100 kg automobile you need another 20 HP (15 kW) of power.

From this you can see the power requirements for an average car, that being around 50 HP.

The problem with automobiles usually lies in how to transmit that power. For example the electric motor of the same power has a much better starting torque than an IC. When people buy 150 HP cars they want to shoot from the stop light or go 200 km/h with a brick.

Now to give an answer for your questions. If compare an IC turbo and one without, the same power rating, you'll see that the fuel consumption is lower for the turbo IC engine. Not by much but it is because for the same power you have smaller engine and better fuel burning because of the extra air.

The basic rule for low fuel consumption is "Low and slow!"

cheers

I first ran across this one when i read a guy in India was trying to push his idea for NOS or "Normal Oxygen System"(or similar) and then went on to explain how we were all being Mugged as IC Engines would run perfectly with Oxygen and little if any Fuel as such : ) He even had People offering him their Bikes to perfect his Tuning on ! I felt it only right to join the Forum and point out the flaw in the idea in an attempt to save some Scrap Motors.Anyone interested in my new concept for "Twin Inlet Tract System" ?

Are you guys discussing something similar to this

simplewaterfuel.alfwcw.com

No, not at all.

This BS has been floating around for years. It's just not practical.

of course, a water engine is a blue unicorn perpetual motion machine (available for $5000 from my factory--just make the checks out to cash). But engines (at least carbureted ones) run more efficiently on moist air. You can save a bit of fuel by building a spray nozzle into your air intake. Hook it by a rubber hose to a water tank. The vacuum in the carburetor wil suck atomized water into the fuel mix and you'll get a mile or two more per gallon optimally. Of course, nothing is optimal (with the exception of my Loch Ness Sasquatch Personal Dimension Traveling Device, available from my factory for $10,000--just make the checks out to Miss Kitty's Massage Parlor and Car Upholstery), and you may actually see a decrease in milage--even if there is an improvement, it's not likely to be something you can measure using standard techniques (buy my Gods of Olympus Car Efficiency Tester, $25,000--make the checks out to the Kim Jong-Un Political PAC). It's worthless in fuel injected vehicles. For those, you'll want to buy a set of People's Democratic Republic of North Korea spark plugs which use "surface spark" and a fixed spark gap to ensure maximum milage. $8000 for a set of four. Just make the checks out to me.

Water injection is sometimes used on hyper performance engines to cool the engine down, so allowing higher compression etc., without overheating.....therefore more power, but with more fuel and some say an increase in efficiency.

There is a good link here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29

To do it properly is not a simple matter......not doing it properly is simply a waste of time.

GA

excellent take on the subject, best so far.

Thank you.

In all IC engines, because of cam specifications (valve overlap), there is a probability of unburned fuel being exhausted. Modern engines have addressed that to a great extent but there is still some wasted fuel. In race engines, that is a sin. To address this, very high performance ignition systems are installed that give a "hotter" and/or multiple spark. MSD offers a test box for field testing of their systems. I have seen this used and I was IMMMPRESSED!!! at the high frequency spark ball generated. I had worked for a jet engine manufacturer in their ignition lab where ignitor systems were tested. When each ignitor fired it put out a three inch ball of spark that sounded like a gun shot. In the MSD test it was more like a one inch ball that buzzed (multiple sparks per firing) loud enough to attract people from other pits. The down side is that these systems have a high failure rate that manufacturers couldn't deal with for production vehicles. In the 70's I installed a Capacitive Discharge system, a Delta Mark X unit, on my Roadrunner and clocked quicker 1/4 mile times without changing carb adjustments. It ran for years and never failed. There are manufacturers that make higher reliability systems for everyday use. Even a hotter coil would help a bit, if you have a vehicle with a stand-alone coil. Hot coil paks are also available.

This is old news, its called Nitrous Oxide.

If the engine is well tuned, no.

Another useless gimmick in an attempt to get something for nothing.

The ONLY way to increase engine efficiency is to raise compression.

Anyone foolish enough to port oxygen into an engine better have a scatter shield over it...oil, gas and oxygen react instantly, and very violently.

And yes, I remember the fellow playing with motorcycles in India. Is he still alive?