Vaporate Gizmo

Submitted: Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 12:10
ThreadID: 23198 Views:3333 Replies:16 FollowUps:16
This Thread has been Archived
OK, who is going to volunteer to be the first Forumite to test the new fuel saving system (Vaporite) to be released by Repco tomorrow morning?

The newspaper blurg indicates suitability for 4WD's (especially) with a fuel saving of 15% - 20%.

With a cost of $289 (plus installation) it promises a quick pay back of about 4-5 weeks by my estimation.

MAN, its gunna be the best invention since Zok invented the wheel. (or was it Zog)
I'll let someone else do the testing first though:-)
Bill


I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Russell B (SA) - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 13:25

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 13:25
Chicken!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The amulet they sold me to avoid crashing into dragons on the road works perfectly, haven't even seen one let alone hit one.

Regards

Russell
AnswerID: 112287

Reply By: dirtdodger - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 15:07

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 15:07
Is that an "UP TO" 15-20 % saving? If so, would 0% saving be OK?

Signed,
A. Sceptic.
AnswerID: 112303

Reply By: trendy - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 15:38

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 15:38
Is it for diesels as well as petrol, also does it affect performance?
Regards Trevor.
AnswerID: 112304

Follow Up By: Sand Man (SA) - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 15:59

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 15:59
Trevor,

The brief article in our Sunday Mail indicated it was for petrol vehicles only. The gizmo is installed in the Injector line to heat the fuel and allow more efficient vaporization of the fuel before it enters the injectors.

Supposedly, most vehicles "waste" fuel due to inefficient vaporization.

Will be interesting to keep an eye on developments of this device. If it's not another "snake oil" derivitive it could save heaps of fuel, both for the individual and for our national resources.

But I also, am somewhat sceptical at this stage.
Bill


I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 368592

Follow Up By: trendy - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 16:05

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 16:05
Sandman thanks for that, was interested to see if it would work for my diesel or just the wife's petrol jack. Will also keep a good eye on this product. Thanks again.
Trevor.
0
FollowupID: 368593

Follow Up By: Muddy 'doe (SA) - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 17:38

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 17:38
Hi Trendy,

I read that same article here and at the bottom (yes I read that far!) it did say that a Diesel version is under development.

Sounds great but like many of these supposedly simple but revolutionary ideas, why have the worlds car makers, with millions (if not even billions) of development dollars, not already thought of it? Surely if the preheating of fuel led to gains of 15 or 20% in combustion and consumption then I imagine the engine manufacturers would have thought of it years ago.

This bloke looks like a backyard inventor but has beaten them all! He has secured patents and all that and I hope he does well but like Sandman I will wait for some positive feedback on forums such as this one before parting with the hard earned.

Cheers
Muddy
0
FollowupID: 368598

Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 12:44

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 12:44
Muddy - probably for the same reason it too 40 plus years for the car manufacturers to fit ABS. They knew damn well that preventing brake locking was a magnificent safety feature that had been in use on aircraft (mainly military) since the 1950s (maybe even earlier). Unfortunately the gizmo ( Maxerette Unit) was quite bulky and expensive. The reason for not adopting gizmos more readily is.......'cause they don't have to as long as we are happy to buy aftermarket. I guess other things fall into this category as well -eg saggy bum suspensions (cruisers and patrols), review cameras and so on.
Come to think of it where would we 4WDrivers be without a bouyant aftermarket market.
Cheers
Pete
0
FollowupID: 368685

Reply By: GOB & denny vic member - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 16:39

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 16:39
goodday fellas

its not put out by hiclone is it?????
lmao

steve
AnswerID: 112307

Reply By: Lyds - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 17:35

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 17:35
try this
AnswerID: 112314

Follow Up By: Rod W - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 13:34

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 13:34
See Mr Rigney's picture. He's never had his hands dirty in his entire life. He looks like a conman.
0
FollowupID: 368692

Reply By: Richard Kovac - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 18:34

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 18:34
or this

AnswerID: 112324

Follow Up By: Sand Man (SA) - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 08:47

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 08:47
Interesting!

Available for the Cruiser, but not Patrols or Jacks.
That helped make my mind up:-)
Bill


I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 368656

Reply By: Member - Chris L (QLD) - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 18:48

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 18:48
Is it going to work and who out there trusts repco I don't like being ripped off ??? If a 4wd is fuel injected is the fuel sprayed as a vapour into the chamber ????? I've had the handbrake at me about this and she wants me to get this thing .. but i'm not so sure about it what do you all think of it
cheers chris
AnswerID: 112326

Reply By: Max - Sydney - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 19:20

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 19:20
Interesting lab tests - but not one single on road test result?

Surely half a dozen vehicles operating under different conditions with fuel and distance controlled would give more conficence than a bunch of fancy lab tests.

Maybe the road test results were not too good?

I will await outcomes from those brave enough to buy it.
Max
AnswerID: 112332

Reply By: Peter 2 - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 20:03

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 20:03
This line says it all
"He said Vaporate was less effective on commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads, vehicles driven on mostly country roads and those driven too fast."

We drive commercial type vehicles, on country roads and can also go too fast so it won't work on a 4wd ;-))
Peter
1996 Oka Motorhome

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 112340

Reply By: Glenno - Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 22:32

Sunday, May 22, 2005 at 22:32
Call me negative, but if it was really revolutionary and really worked that well the oil companies would have purchased the design for a squillion dollars and shelved it.

Makes me think back to the ladder proof womens stockings which threatened to send stocking companies broke. That great design is sitting on their shelf never to see the light of day.

Cheers,

Glenn.
AnswerID: 112370

Follow Up By: Member - Glenn D (NSW) - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 07:33

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 07:33
Thats why Brocky's energy polarizer never went into mass production , it was too effective. LOL

Glenn
0
FollowupID: 368648

Follow Up By: Nudenut - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:37

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:37
even Ralph Sarichs orbital engine is still a dream....
i believe Orbital now concetrate on fuel systems and specifically injection technology within the combustion engine
0
FollowupID: 368666

Reply By: old-plodder - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 08:02

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 08:02
Silly question I know, but if it works on heating the fuel, why don't people who drive from Victoria in winter to Darwin notice such a drop in fuel consumption?
Any one from Victoria noticed such an decrease?

Maybe this is why it can't be used on a hard working vehicle, high temps already.

It can't heat the fuel too high, otherwise vaporisation will occur on the fuel line, remember the old fuel lock on some vehicles!

Of course, I could always put the gas stove under the fuel tank and warm the fuel that way each morning. It certainly would be interesting to see if it works :-).
Any one offering to try?

AnswerID: 112390

Follow Up By: Nudenut - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 08:35

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 08:35
"It can't heat the fuel too high, otherwise vaporisation will occur on the fuel line"...may not be correct Old-plodder, as the fuel is under high pressure in the fuel line and pressure will or may prevent vapourisation..

however, and I agree with what he has to say about ...better vapourisation leads to greater efficiency...

then why do we have high pressure fuel pumps in our late model fuel injected vehicles....?to aid in vapourisation no doubt...and

surely there would be sufficient heat at the point of injection (once the vehicle is at correct operating temps) to aid in vapoursiation?

I reckon it will be as usefull as teets on a bull

0
FollowupID: 368654

Follow Up By: old-plodder - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 17:46

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 17:46
Thanks, wasn't sure fo the fuel line pressures. SAssumed they were reasonably low, as in under 20 psi, or 140kpa.
0
FollowupID: 368713

Reply By: Member - Troopytrek - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 09:21

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 09:21
G'Day All'
There is one thing that confuses me about the system. I own a toyota supra turbo race car, I have worked on several turbo petrol high horsepower street cars all of which are high pressure fuel injected. To increase performance and horse power most of the have an ice box that the fuel line runs through to cool the fuel and an intercooler[bigger the better] to cool the air going to the engine. This invention seems to be a little a** about face for any of my experience. If any one can show me other wise I would be more than keen to choke the rate of consumption to the big girl after all a dollar saved is a dollar earn't and with a 4.5 petrol troopy heading off for three months and approx 15000k's ahead of us it would pay for itself over & over in this trip alone!!!!

Troopytrek!!!!!
AnswerID: 112397

Follow Up By: Nudenut - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:16

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:16
a higher fuel temp will aid in atomisation of said fuel....

cooler air (airintake into combustion chamber) is more efficient than hot air during the combustion process

hope this helps

0
FollowupID: 368663

Follow Up By: Nudenut - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:25

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:25
but having said that...and you as rightly say...the pressure of fuel into and thru the injectors affect atomisation...generally the higher the pressure the better the atomisation...(but not always the case and is generally limited to certain factors)

another factor that affect atomisation is nozzles (injector it self)...size and design of orifice, etc

0
FollowupID: 368664

Follow Up By: Member - Geoff M (NSW) - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:59

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 10:59
Trooptrek,
My old uncle when he was alive raced cars and talked a lot about ice boxes and fuel lines.
His take on the subject was colling a liquid makes it more dense, thus a given injection of cold fuel will actually contain more fuel and therefore more horsepower.
If you apply the reverse physics, heating the fuel will make it less dense and less fuel will go into the engine for a given injection. Therefore the engine will produce less horsepower and be required to work harder to achieve the same amount of work.

Geoff.
Geoff,
Landcruiser HDJ78,
Grey hair is hereditary, you get it from children. Baldness is caused by watching the Wallabies.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 368671

Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 13:02

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 13:02
Geoff - colder air will give more power as you with then get a greater mass of air/fuel mixtiure at the right proportions into the combustion chamber. Simply increasing the amount of fuel will be akin to running the engine with the choke on - ie it will be far to rich.
0
FollowupID: 368688

Follow Up By: Member - Geoff M (NSW) - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 13:21

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 13:21
Hello Patrol22,
That is true, thanks.
I omitted to add that piece of information, having the air/fuel ratio correct is also very important.

Geoff.
Geoff,
Landcruiser HDJ78,
Grey hair is hereditary, you get it from children. Baldness is caused by watching the Wallabies.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 368690

Reply By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 12:58

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 12:58
Most injectors do not vapourise but rather that atomise the fuel. So if the injector collar that this guy has developed does really vapourise the fuel just prior to combustion then burning has got to be more complete and therefore you should get more bang for your buck. All I have to be convinced of is that it actually does vapourise the fuel......the rest dear Watson is academic.
AnswerID: 112422

Reply By: Scubaroo - Monday, May 23, 2005 at 16:31

Monday, May 23, 2005 at 16:31
The lack of a "money-back guarantee" makes one wonder...
AnswerID: 112441

Reply By: Member - Hugh (WA) - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 07:58

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 07:58
Hi Guys,

I am a senior design engineer in the fuel system industry - specifically fuel injector design. I have seen the advertsing blurb - not a lot of facts.

This concept is essentially a metal heat sink that is affixed to the injector tip, in order to transfer heat from the manifold to the tip. Increased heat will supposedly improve vaporisation of the fuel.

The best time this would be effective would be at cold start. Unforunately the engine/manifold is also cold so no net effect. Siemens, Delphi, etc tried the use of electrically heated tips for cold start, then turned off when engine warm. Never made it to production. This may offer improvement for older fuel injectors with pencil stream sprays that rely on vaporisation from manifold/valve heat and air stream, but I would be suprised if it would benefit the later multi-hole fuel injectors which already have atomised spray in the 50-70um range.

Personally I am not a fan of heating the injector tip as this is the primary root cause leading to injector deposits. I note that there are no long term test results showing performance in this regard.

Regards,
Hugh
AnswerID: 112538

Follow Up By: Member - Bradley- Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 17:31

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 at 17:31
spot on hugh, on an old fire hose injector like a ZL fairlane it may have some slight tangible effect, but modern injectors are very good ( as you well know) . My thinking is that as most systems chase lambda constantly, then if it effects the mixtures - ie less fuel mass being injected, then the ecu will just adjust the pulse width to re-gain it's given a/f value.

Just drive em in the torque band, not chugging under load and get the best results i say..
0
FollowupID: 368997

Reply By: Niko - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 23:08

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 23:08
$289 is an expensive Fuel Injector collar! Does it come with diamonds? I remember whilst driving my RX7 with a Mildly ported, 48IDA webber carb, twin exhaust with dog and Lukey turbo muffler 13B Rotory motor would have a very notable increase in progressive power through the gears and little bit on overtaking when it was cold at night. On such nights wouldn't the vaportaor need to cook the fuel a lot more to get it to the right temperature, thus does it have the ability to sense the temperature of the fuel it has heated? If it is 45 degrees and the fuel is (or appears to be) already vaporised, then the vaporator would not be able to become as effective.

I think the guy with the most expensive 4WD drive should test it as he has the money..... ok whose going to own up to having a Lada?
AnswerID: 112707

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)