Increasing an engines fuel economy
Submitted: Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 19:30
ThreadID:
30198
Views:
2877
Replies:
13
FollowUps:
20
This Thread has been Archived
TUFF IFS LUX
g'day all,
Just wondering if anyones heard of any "proven" ways of increasing a vehicles fuel economy. I own a Hilux 4x4 3.4litre, and I'm not going to take the accessories off or remove the 265/75x16 wheels and tyres that I have fitted. I want to improve what I got.
Has anyone seen results with the Repco marketed vaporate? Does it work and how much improvement have you seen?
Hiclones - I know they've been talked-to-death here but has anyone recently fitted one and seen results?
What benefit could I get out of a Finer-filter?
Are there any other methods of making the engine use less fuel? Fuel catalysts?
Also, why is it that I get far better fuel economy from BP Fuel, but when I put
Shell or Safeway fuel the cars fuel economy goes out the window? Are they putting more "quick-burning" ethanol in their fuels than they are allowed to?"
Theres is definitely some sort of conspiracy going on with the quality of Unleaded going around.
I know I know, sell it and get a turboo-diesel, but finances can't make it happen and the cars got all the goodies on it.
GO HARD OR GO
HOME MATE!
Reply By: Member - Mike H (VIC) - Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 19:37
Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 19:37
G'day Tuff ?
the only "proven" way I know of ist to take the lead out of your boots :-)
"GO HARD OR GO
HOME MATE!" simply isn't compatable with fuel economy.
Mike
AnswerID:
151506
Follow Up By: gramps - Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 20:26
Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 20:26
hahahaha .... tend to agree with that one Mike. For
mine it is the ONLY proven method to work with all vehicles/drivers :))))))
FollowupID:
405139
Follow Up By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 08:25
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 08:25
On a more constructive note, remove all unecessary items from the vehicle. Extra weight needs extra hp to push it. Very easy to accumulate 20-30 kg of extra "stuff" that you might need someday, when in fact you will never really need at all.
FollowupID:
405181
Reply By: Member - DOZER- Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 20:03
Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 20:03
One proven way to get better $$ per km travelled is to install gas...the new injected gas systems have finally put gas technology up there with efi. Not only that, but you will have better
suspension with that extra weight to carry around on the back, and your range has also doubled with both tanks onboard.
Forget about the other things...if they made that much difference, why arnt they selling them to Toyota diect for fitment on the production line???
The last thing that will give you better economy is a unichip....it will also give you more torque, power and drivability. They can be bought duakl map for a gas conversion aswell, then you get the best of every world....
Andrew
AnswerID:
151507
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:57
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:57
IN relation to fuel econamy unless you are talking about fuel catalysts which alter the fuel structure you are __not talking sense.
Every thing else is like shutting the
gate after the bull got out.If you shut the
gate before he gets out you have acheived something,think about it????
Why do you think the exhaust catalyst was invented some of you will remember the cafuffal about this years ago, now we all accept it as part of motoring,I will wait and SEE what happens here.
Another point here
JOHN FITCH was instrumental in the development and inception of the exhaust catalyst,
John Fitch also invented the FITCH FUEL CATALYST I will wait and see.what developes from here,What all the my nockers can say is at least I was told but I did not believe/////
HAPPY MOTORING BILLS
.
FollowupID:
405351
Follow Up By: Member - DOZER- Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:35
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:35
Bill
You have a nice way of conveying personal attacks..."all of my knockers" are just people with a different opinion to yours...its like you saying agree with me or you are my enemy...if we all were thesame, wouldnt life be ordinary......with regard to economy, it depends on what point of view you have, you will see i mention a conversion of $$ per km as a measure of how much it costs to run a car on a certain fuel.....gas will actually be consumed faster, but its cost will return a more economical car to run.
Making a statement that we dont make sence is like saying you are sane and everyone, or most of us anyway, are insane...think about it!
No Bull please, we r talking about transport via machine, and these machines are developed with economy and power as the most important feature next to safety...why everyone who builds cars with petrol powerd motors doesnt build in swarl chambers and buy fitches like they buy tyres is beyond me if they are so good.
I reserve my judgement also, but please consider.....engineers looking for fuel savings on drawing boards are bypassing these lovely contraptions in favour of weight cutting and lean burning technologies.
WHY....is this all a conspiricy by the fuel companies????
Andrew
FollowupID:
405357
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:21
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:21
HI Andrew, I am but a normal person who sees the world as black and white,I never mean to be rude or crude,I guess it is my way of calling a spade a spade.
I know what I say of this product it is just a matter of time and those who count will also be aware as will all concerned.In the meantime I will wait and see for my knowledge to become public knowledge.
Thank you for your input. Regards BILLS
FollowupID:
405365
Reply By: Sir Diamond - Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 21:05
Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 21:05
i shouldnt be posting this as yet but i will even though i havnt done the final figures and probly coz im half cut.
last week with our daewoo i tried something that most people dont even think of when trying to cut fuel usage.
we managed with out to much effort to cut our fuel bill from 40ltrs last week to 25 this week.
we walked to the shops ect lol
cheers
AnswerID:
151528
Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 21:46
Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 21:46
Jim, I would love to say I had done the same, but it would take me all week to walk to ours and then be hungry as hell when I got there. Best wishes to you guys there Diamonds..
FollowupID:
405150
Follow Up By: Leroy - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 21:14
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 21:14
ROFLMAO....... I find your response hilarious because I should walk to work but my excuse is I still drive because it's so hot!!
Leroy
FollowupID:
405264
Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 22:42
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 22:42
Leroy, I can walk to work ok but the shops are a lot further away - 12 kms or 50kms depending what I need. My arthritic ankles seem to stop me walking far these days. Bushwalking is no longer the pleasure it was, I can still paddle my kayak though if there is water.
FollowupID:
405293
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:30
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:30
HI Jim. Mate you hit the nail on the head walking and water what a fuel saving it acheives,
Regards BILLS
FollowupID:
405370
Reply By: D-Jack - Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 23:12
Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 23:12
Surprised it hasn't come up yet, but there are proven things to improve economy. A tuned exhaust system will help, at a price, but when you consider the $500 for a Fitch which arguably does squat (c'mon Bill) it makes sense. Has even been proven through dynotesting.
AnswerID:
151555
Follow Up By: TUFF IFS LUX - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 20:16
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 20:16
exhaust is too dificult with the 3.4 V6 in the hilux as there is bugger all space for ext
ractors and a custom set will set me back 2-3 grand.
not willing to spend that much without a guaranteed outcome.
thanks for the advice thou,
TUFF IFS LUX
FollowupID:
405245
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:31
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:31
OK GUYS//// A recent
test carried out by NSW RTA in Botany,a 94 petrol cruiser finely tuned before testing by a local
shop here in ILLAWARRA.
On dyno first
test without FITCH vehicle using 20.4 litres per 100klms.
First with FITCH 19.1 litres per 100
.Now if this is diong squatt I just dont know how to make you happy.\
For example if you multiply this saving over 400,000klms how much money is back in your pocket?
And note this particular vehicle had covered some 265,000klms with out FITCH so it will take some time to clean the internals up to realise the full benifit of fitting.
And this clean up occurs due the more complete combustion of the fuel. Further to that you are unknowenly putting less pollutants into your engine oil once again due to the better burn of the fuel.
And in answer to my quietness I am awaiting results from various establishments to varify just what I have been trying ti tell you all.
Kindest regards BILLS (and THANK YOU)
FollowupID:
405346
Follow Up By: chump_boy - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:00
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:00
And the results of this
test can be seen.......where?
I thought as much!
lol
Chump
FollowupID:
405361
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:25
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:25
Guys, Keep your eyes on the
forum all will be revealed in due cource.
Regards BILLS
FollowupID:
405368
Follow Up By: chump_boy - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 14:27
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 14:27
Silly me - I thought a dyno measured power and torque - not fuel consumption. Have you assumed more power equals better fuel economy? lol... It is going to be interesting to see how you have proven no other changes have taken place in the engine (like turning that little screw that introduces more fuel, or installing a new unichip, or whatever)
And was it tested in Botany, or Illawarra, or in both locations? What RTA location exactly?
the more you talk Bill S, the more I am convinced about the Feltches lack of capabilities......
Chump
FollowupID:
405377
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 14:52
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 14:52
There is only one RTA depot in BOTANY to my knowledge Lord street to be exact.Report ID9177B without and report ID9180B with convince yourself
check it out.
BILLS
FollowupID:
405379
Follow Up By: Member - Ian W (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 15:08
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 15:08
Bill,
Why don't you give it a rest? You are an advertiser on this
forum - just leave it at that instead of trying to insert self promotion into the posts.
If you are going to self promote yourself then just show us where we can see some GENUINE INDEPENDANT TESTING DATA.
Ian
FollowupID:
405380
Follow Up By: chump_boy - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 15:19
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 15:19
Ian,
You beat me to it!
This pratt probably doesn't realise how many sales he is losing by going through all this garbage.
So now, even if he shows us 2 dyno tests, they will mean nothing, because there is no way to say what else has or hasn't changed between the two tests..... I notice the
test numbers show the second
test was done 3 tesys after the first - i bet the car was driven
home, modified, then brought back.
I wish I had my own dyno sometimes......
FollowupID:
405381
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 15:56
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 15:56
First
test 10.25 second 11.12 but never mind I take note and will offer NO MORE BY BY .30/01/06
BILLS
FollowupID:
405398
Follow Up By: chump_boy - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 16:02
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 16:02
I rekon this clown went to the same school as Harold Scrubby!
Only answer the questions you want, and ignore everything else.
What about answering how a dyno measures fuel consumption?????
And showing us the tests?????
The reports are not public knowledge - only the person that paid for them can publish them. If you are afraid to publish your dyno tests showing the drop in fuel consumption, go away.
All you have done is made me less likely to believe you about your Feltch system.....
FollowupID:
405402
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 16:34
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 16:34
TO Answer your question as to how a dyno reads fuel consumption all dynos read power and torque and rpm etc.But fuel consumption is calculated by the drop in exhaust emissions,and this is done electronically by the computor.Further to this I could not care less if you dont use it or any other as you are the loser,As stated I will wait and see.
BILLS
FollowupID:
405417
Reply By: Member - Barry W (VIC) - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 01:19
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 01:19
The only tried and proven way that beats "ALL" fuel saving devices !!!!
Don't drive your rig ??????
Cheers All
Cya in the bush
Barry
AnswerID:
151563
Reply By: Wayne (NSW) - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 07:07
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 07:07
Go diesel or go and fill up again.
The other methiod is to place a piece of wood about 50mm thick between the pedal and the fire wall.
You already know what to do, just do it...
Wayne
AnswerID:
151569
Reply By: Footloose - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 09:12
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 09:12
Changing your vehicle for a bicycle is pretty fuel effecient :))
Most 4wds aren't (so far) really designed to be fuel effecient. Then we go and stick an extra few hundred kg of weight in them and hang roof racks and spare wheel carriers on em and wonder why it costs us so much in fuel.
Going slower is the only way that I know of to reduce consumption in either petrol or diesel vehicles.
As the man said, "liftum foot" !
AnswerID:
151579
Reply By: Big Woody - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 09:19
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 09:19
Hey Bill, you are a bit slow off the mark.
Tuff IFS Lux has put the soapbox out ready for you.
Ha!
Tuffy,
I think as mentioned above, there are small improvements to be made with a tuned exhaust system and a
snorkel all helping the engine breathe a bit easier but that is about it.
The improvements in doing this are still minimal and will take some time to recoup the cost of the intital expense in doing the modifications.
In saying this I had a Sahara Landcruiser in 1986 that dropped 2mpg when I put the bullbar and spotlights on it, and another 3 mpg when I put the roofrack on. All up a 5mpg loss in my fuel economy taught me a lot about the aerodynamics of the
accessories that you add to your vehicle.
Brett
AnswerID:
151582
Reply By: Member - Collyn R (WA) - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:27
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:27
HiClone marginally effective with a few older engines. May increase desirable turbulence with badly designed inlet manifolds (and marginally improve performance) but unlikely to be any measurable effect on modern engine.
A few minor points:
Keep those
tyres about 10% above recommended pressures - big wide
tyres have high rolling resistance.
Ensure thermostat working correctly so engine heats up fast.
Drive away the moment you start the engine. Use light throttle openings until engine up to temperature.
Remove any excess weight from car.
Avoid using cruise control in hilly going (can make big difference).
If feasible drive at 80 km/hr (consumption escalates above this).
Am not convinced re Shell/BP! More likely the Shell station has a sloping driveway or something so you are filling to a lower tank level. My Nissan has 235 litre tankage so measurements more meaningful. I use both Shell and BP and detect no difference - consumption remains within about 3% (the closest you will hope to measure this way) with either.
As an ex-GM research engineer I can only add that if any of the 'add-ons' improved both performance AND consumption (instead of one at the invariable expense of the other) - the car makers would include them themselves - as they did with the turbo-charger and inter-cooler).
Collyn Rivers
AnswerID:
151595
Reply By: matt000 - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 19:19
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 19:19
I saw a fuel saving device on e-bay once. Guarenteed to work. It was a bit of 50 by 50 that slid under the accelerator limiting its travel. Soon to be availible in carbon fibre look.
AnswerID:
151636
Reply By: Fast_Patrol - Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 21:08
Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 at 21:08
put an extra 10psi in each tyre - reduces rolling friction, saves fuel, no cost ... only downside is a bumpier ride
cheers
andrew
AnswerID:
151664
Reply By: Neil & Lynne - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:23
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 13:23
Has anyone tried this?
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/
I would like to give it a go as it sounds feasible & may just work.
According to the reports it works as well in diesel as petrol.
Or is it another of those 'too good to be true' things.
Regards
Neil.
AnswerID:
151782
Reply By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 16:39
Monday, Jan 30, 2006 at 16:39
Quote "exhaust is too dificult with the 3.4 V6 in the hilux as there is bugger all space for ext
ractors and a custom set will set me back 2-3 grand.
not willing to spend that much without a guaranteed outcome." /Quote
Mate, most benefit can be gained from exhaust mods from the headers back. Stock headers are usually quite good but fitting a larger bore system (about 2.5" for the 3.4LT) and a free flowing cat converter will give quite a measurable increase in performance/power or economy... Depends on how you drive it after the mods :-) and it won't cost a fortune either....
AnswerID:
151833