Fuel Atomizer Followup
02-28-2003, 07:50 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Atomizer Followup
Hey folks,
I was just wondering what the situation was with the Fuel Atomizer debate that was taking place back in January. I recall that several owners were considering the purchase. Any new news?
-Davis
I was just wondering what the situation was with the Fuel Atomizer debate that was taking place back in January. I recall that several owners were considering the purchase. Any new news?
-Davis
02-28-2003, 08:20 PM
#3
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just installed a heat exchanger to ensure complete atomization of the fuel from my Fuel Atomizer. I will be driving my truck all weekend and will post mileage results next week. So far, it looks really good.
I'll have the write-up nearly completed on the installation of the unit on a 3.4L. Hopefully, I can put the finishing touches on it this weekend.
I'll have the write-up nearly completed on the installation of the unit on a 3.4L. Hopefully, I can put the finishing touches on it this weekend.
03-01-2003, 03:41 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Deep Gap, NC
Posts: 4,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Alan! I can't wait to see the differences. By the way, to all those that don't beleive the fuel atomizer works, you can't argue with Alan's numbers. Anyone else getting that kind of mileage? Nope! And, he's the only one with both now, so it tells me that I need to do both mods on my truck.
Chris
Chris
03-01-2003, 06:27 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: b
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to argue with his numbers, but you can't leave out the possibility that adding the atomizer was more of a psychological thing than a scientific one. Maybe he subconsciously altered his driving habits to improve the gas mileage (nothing wrong with that, he still got better mileage) and the atomizer didn't really do anything. I personally have a hard time buying the whole atomizer idea.
03-01-2003, 07:00 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Far western Kentucky (transplanted from central PA)
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Rick F.
Me thinks smoke and mirrors....
:pat: 
Me thinks smoke and mirrors....
:pat:
If it worked that well, why aren't the manufacturers using it to raise their overall fleet fuel mileage?
Trending Topics
03-01-2003, 07:51 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chino Hills, CA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please note we have covered this under the thread "Gas Mileage Enhancers"
From HaveBlue
From gonserarch
As for gas mileage:
HaveBlue's supercharged 3.4 is getting better mileage (19 to 24+) than mine is without a supercharger (19 to 20). Just a change in driving style cannot account for this.
I am the ultimate skeptic. I might even be cynnical. 
But, I am science driven. This process has data worth further investigation. 
I do want to thank all those in this forum that do these applications and are willing to take the time to share their experiences with the rest of us.
Rich
From HaveBlue
Why aren't there more cars with this technology?
Fact is, there is! Just not in the U.S. My research has revealed numerous fuel sipping cars overseas...
...It costs big money to make an economical car.
Fact is, there is! Just not in the U.S. My research has revealed numerous fuel sipping cars overseas...
...It costs big money to make an economical car.
Haveblue's data is enticing. It is hard to argue with improving one's gas mileage...
...As to why the concpiracy theorists believe that the gas companies are twisting the arms of the manufacturer's I believe there are two reasons:
First, in general, owners don't want to do more maintenance on their cars. To have to dump and handle that sludge as often as required would be a tough sell. Most family car owners and little old ladies would complain to no end about this.
Second, this additional sludge would require more dumping and/or treatment. Environmental laws make this extroidinairily difficult in both legal and political terms from a corporate perspective.
The net result is that by the time one were to put all the costs in place; you end up with a system that costs more money in the US that the cost of the gas it saves.
Simple logic, no conspiracy.
As individuals we don't carry the overhead that the vehicle manufacturers do. So our economic calculation is simpler and we also have a bent towards taking care of our vehicles to a much higher level.
That's the simple reason why it makes sense for us to look seriously at this improvement and not for a Toyota.
...As to why the concpiracy theorists believe that the gas companies are twisting the arms of the manufacturer's I believe there are two reasons:
First, in general, owners don't want to do more maintenance on their cars. To have to dump and handle that sludge as often as required would be a tough sell. Most family car owners and little old ladies would complain to no end about this.
Second, this additional sludge would require more dumping and/or treatment. Environmental laws make this extroidinairily difficult in both legal and political terms from a corporate perspective.
The net result is that by the time one were to put all the costs in place; you end up with a system that costs more money in the US that the cost of the gas it saves.
Simple logic, no conspiracy.
As individuals we don't carry the overhead that the vehicle manufacturers do. So our economic calculation is simpler and we also have a bent towards taking care of our vehicles to a much higher level.
That's the simple reason why it makes sense for us to look seriously at this improvement and not for a Toyota.
HaveBlue's supercharged 3.4 is getting better mileage (19 to 24+) than mine is without a supercharger (19 to 20). Just a change in driving style cannot account for this.
I am the ultimate skeptic.
I might even be cynnical. But, I am science driven. This process has data worth further investigation. I do want to thank all those in this forum that do these applications and are willing to take the time to share their experiences with the rest of us.
Rich
03-01-2003, 11:51 AM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to try and look into the physics behind the idea a little further. I was curious about the following things:
1) Is there any data out on the relative ratio of fuel:air (e.g. mixture is 40% fuel 60% air)?
2) Any clue as to operating pressure of the system (note, not really all that important because it can be calculated)?
3) What is the standard flowrate on the injectors for the 3.0 and 3.4 motors. I know you folks have changed them out, but I never recall what the stock injectors supply.
My concern is that the fuel atomizer "vaporizes" the fuel, but the increased pressure between the atomizer and the injectors simply condenses the fuel again (making the mod worthless).
-Davis
1) Is there any data out on the relative ratio of fuel:air (e.g. mixture is 40% fuel 60% air)?
2) Any clue as to operating pressure of the system (note, not really all that important because it can be calculated)?
3) What is the standard flowrate on the injectors for the 3.0 and 3.4 motors. I know you folks have changed them out, but I never recall what the stock injectors supply.
My concern is that the fuel atomizer "vaporizes" the fuel, but the increased pressure between the atomizer and the injectors simply condenses the fuel again (making the mod worthless).
-Davis
03-01-2003, 01:48 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: currently at large
Posts: 905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said it before, I'll say it again... If I can get 20 to 22 mpg hiway on a regular basis..... I'll be one happy camper. When I first bought my 2nd gen, I was getting 16 mpg. hiway. With what I've done (Aisins and air tube mod) I'm now getting 19 mpg hiway. There ARE things you can do to increase your mpg. Some believe that, others dont. I believe........
Yeah, I'll get 22mpg.
Yeah, I'll get 22mpg.
03-01-2003, 05:54 PM
#11
yeah something is fishy here---
namely, toyota has already implemented this "atomizer" thing into the design of the stock 270cc injectors. So i have a hard time believing that another type of atomizer on top of the stock atomizer would do anything at all.... Dont believe me!!! yank out an injector and observe the holes near the end of the orifice, then trace the line from the air pump and see where it goes, you will find that there are lines cast into the head which carry air into the head, around the fuel injector orifice and through the holes directly into the path of the fuel stream. Thus it atomizes the fuel already-- sorry guys , toyota thought of that first.
Tim
namely, toyota has already implemented this "atomizer" thing into the design of the stock 270cc injectors. So i have a hard time believing that another type of atomizer on top of the stock atomizer would do anything at all.... Dont believe me!!! yank out an injector and observe the holes near the end of the orifice, then trace the line from the air pump and see where it goes, you will find that there are lines cast into the head which carry air into the head, around the fuel injector orifice and through the holes directly into the path of the fuel stream. Thus it atomizes the fuel already-- sorry guys , toyota thought of that first.
Tim
03-01-2003, 06:00 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Deep Gap, NC
Posts: 4,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The still remains that if more fuel atomization can occur, then the better the gas mileage.
So, the question isn't why they don't put them on the vehicle already. The question is whether or not it's worth the money to get 22+ mpg in a S/C 4Runner. That's the question.
Who cares if they do or don't put them in vehicles already. What we should be concerned with is whether they wil increase our MPG, and Alan has proved on two difference cars that it's worth the money, period.
Chris
So, the question isn't why they don't put them on the vehicle already. The question is whether or not it's worth the money to get 22+ mpg in a S/C 4Runner. That's the question.
Who cares if they do or don't put them in vehicles already. What we should be concerned with is whether they wil increase our MPG, and Alan has proved on two difference cars that it's worth the money, period.
Chris
06-19-2004, 03:31 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Atomizer 2000
Newbie to the forum, but not to 4x4s. I had a jeep cherokee 4.0 for 9 years (until it died recently and I picked up an old 4runner 3VZ-E). ~7 years ago I put a Fuel Atomizer 2000 in the jeep (I did LOTS of road trips, and did this before putting 20kmi in 1 summer). It took some tuning, and I noticed a consistent 1-2mpg increase. Note, this was on a newer truck, that still had all the juice in the fuel pump.
A few words on how the thing works: It does NOT effect the injectors. Injectors are fed by a high-pressure gas line, and in order to work properly, they need correct pressure to properly atomize the gas into vapor. Too little pressure, and they don't work right. To much, they don't work either. It's a matter of fluid dynamics. Kinda like holding your thumb over a garden hose to spray the water. If you don't hold it just right, or if the pressure isn't there, you simply can't get a good spray.
The fuel atomizer 2000 (FA2000) uses the intake vacuum pressure to suck both PVC outs and a *small* amount of gas into the INTAKE MANIFOLD. Not the fuel line. Really I think it uses the PVC as it's input just so it can get some airflow *through* the unit, without screwing up the vacuum of the system, and it stops sludge on it's way through as a byproduct. It has a small spray inside, nothing really technical. But then it has a 6' run of tubing, that hangs around your engine. So guess what, the fuel has 6' to heat up, and atomize itself better than your typical carb or feul injector can in it's basic state. ie- it works like a combo of heat exchanger, fuel atomizer, and sludge remover. Not big science or scam.
With it working, you don't get more power. Or less. To explain, I'll just address modern engines, which use O2 sensors to regulate gas into the engine. Since the FA2000 is putting gas into the intake manifold, each breath the engine takes is getting gas, regardles of what the injectors are spitting out. The computer will then cut back on the gas going out the injectors. And since it's preheated & pre-atomized, you generally get a little better mileage with this replacement source vs. the stock injector source. This better mileage comes at no cost really (aside from the $156 investment), since it doesn't effect the injectors, and it doesn't effect your intake manifold pressure. In fact, I'd argue that the intake would stay cleaner, since it's got petroleum products lightly running through it continuously. Petroleum products make great cleaners. Ever soak some bearings in gas?
So, my point is the thing is not a scam. It probably works better on carb engines more so than injected. And probably works better on aged cars vs. newer ones (regaining lost mpg vs. gain more). And it takes a little tuning (don't forget to give each setting at least a full tank of gas to give the computer time to adjust). Aged (older) cars fuel pumps lose some pressure, and so injectors don't work as they should. I'm guessing some of the numbers posted on the website about 140% improvement are *bs*, or maybe they were driving downhill and were just overjoyed at the results. Or maybe they had really sloppy handwriting and meant 10 -> 14 mpg increase, but the "inventor" put on the website 10 -> 24 increase.
I'm guessing the heat exchanger will have more effect on performance & gas mileage, since it effects ALL gas going into the engine (in fact, for those with both heat exchanger and FA2000, you'd do well to wrap the FA2000 output tube around your exchanger as well). And any chemist (where'd that chemist go anyway) will say gas atomizes & combines with air (ie-burns) faster & better when preheated than if cold. Of course, combine that with a supercharger or turbo and you can squeeze more air into the combustion chamber, and since your burning more fuel, you get even more enhanced results.
Now, has anyone put a heat exchanger on the 3VZ-E? I'm looking to do this (I get 15-17mpg, mostly stock except with 31x10.5 tires). I'd like to get that close to 20 (or above) if possible. Anyone know of forums, links, etc that have done this? Especially to this V6 engine? Just not looking forward to pulling up the intake manifold if I don't need to (twice the # of injector pipes on the V6 vs. the old 22RE).
cheers-
-jk
A few words on how the thing works: It does NOT effect the injectors. Injectors are fed by a high-pressure gas line, and in order to work properly, they need correct pressure to properly atomize the gas into vapor. Too little pressure, and they don't work right. To much, they don't work either. It's a matter of fluid dynamics. Kinda like holding your thumb over a garden hose to spray the water. If you don't hold it just right, or if the pressure isn't there, you simply can't get a good spray.
The fuel atomizer 2000 (FA2000) uses the intake vacuum pressure to suck both PVC outs and a *small* amount of gas into the INTAKE MANIFOLD. Not the fuel line. Really I think it uses the PVC as it's input just so it can get some airflow *through* the unit, without screwing up the vacuum of the system, and it stops sludge on it's way through as a byproduct. It has a small spray inside, nothing really technical. But then it has a 6' run of tubing, that hangs around your engine. So guess what, the fuel has 6' to heat up, and atomize itself better than your typical carb or feul injector can in it's basic state. ie- it works like a combo of heat exchanger, fuel atomizer, and sludge remover. Not big science or scam.
With it working, you don't get more power. Or less. To explain, I'll just address modern engines, which use O2 sensors to regulate gas into the engine. Since the FA2000 is putting gas into the intake manifold, each breath the engine takes is getting gas, regardles of what the injectors are spitting out. The computer will then cut back on the gas going out the injectors. And since it's preheated & pre-atomized, you generally get a little better mileage with this replacement source vs. the stock injector source. This better mileage comes at no cost really (aside from the $156 investment), since it doesn't effect the injectors, and it doesn't effect your intake manifold pressure. In fact, I'd argue that the intake would stay cleaner, since it's got petroleum products lightly running through it continuously. Petroleum products make great cleaners. Ever soak some bearings in gas?
So, my point is the thing is not a scam. It probably works better on carb engines more so than injected. And probably works better on aged cars vs. newer ones (regaining lost mpg vs. gain more). And it takes a little tuning (don't forget to give each setting at least a full tank of gas to give the computer time to adjust). Aged (older) cars fuel pumps lose some pressure, and so injectors don't work as they should. I'm guessing some of the numbers posted on the website about 140% improvement are *bs*, or maybe they were driving downhill and were just overjoyed at the results. Or maybe they had really sloppy handwriting and meant 10 -> 14 mpg increase, but the "inventor" put on the website 10 -> 24 increase.
I'm guessing the heat exchanger will have more effect on performance & gas mileage, since it effects ALL gas going into the engine (in fact, for those with both heat exchanger and FA2000, you'd do well to wrap the FA2000 output tube around your exchanger as well). And any chemist (where'd that chemist go anyway) will say gas atomizes & combines with air (ie-burns) faster & better when preheated than if cold. Of course, combine that with a supercharger or turbo and you can squeeze more air into the combustion chamber, and since your burning more fuel, you get even more enhanced results.
Now, has anyone put a heat exchanger on the 3VZ-E? I'm looking to do this (I get 15-17mpg, mostly stock except with 31x10.5 tires). I'd like to get that close to 20 (or above) if possible. Anyone know of forums, links, etc that have done this? Especially to this V6 engine? Just not looking forward to pulling up the intake manifold if I don't need to (twice the # of injector pipes on the V6 vs. the old 22RE).
cheers-
-jk
06-20-2004, 06:18 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: ga
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you take a good look at the atomizer unit it looks cheap and cheesey, not worth the membership fee at all(imo). the material thats need to construct one might cost around 25- 30 $ hell a couple of needle valves, tubing or hose, a baby food jar, and an aluminum block and a few other little items. ive been working on an idea to construct one of these at work (lack the memory to get the stuff to complete it)
i am glad however; that Blue took the time to purchase one and do all of the leg work for us and coupled with the heat exchanger i think its a worth while adventure.
now Blue did you run the heat exchanger on the fuel line to the atomizer or from the atomizerto the intake ? please more write ups
i am glad however; that Blue took the time to purchase one and do all of the leg work for us and coupled with the heat exchanger i think its a worth while adventure.
now Blue did you run the heat exchanger on the fuel line to the atomizer or from the atomizerto the intake ? please more write ups
Last edited by instigator; 06-20-2004 at 06:22 AM.
06-20-2004, 06:36 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nashville
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering, once the fuel is 'atomized,' doesn't it go right back into a narrow tube where it is recondensed into the same liquid it was before? It would have to be the same dense liquid in order for the injector to use it wouldn't it?
06-20-2004, 06:46 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: ga
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm thinking you need more specialized equipment to recondense fuel vapors. with the heat thats inside the intake track i dont think it would condense back in to the liquid form. it will stay a vapor until burned.
06-20-2004, 04:35 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The atomized gas is feed straight into the intake mainfold, via vacuum suction, where it mixes directly with air BEFORE going into the engine block. It does not go through the injectors at all, nor is it in anyway recondensed to liquid gas. It stays vapor all the way. That's the point: it makes more efficient vapor of liquid gas than many injectors do.
instigator: It is an extremely simple device. If you made prototypes that worked, I'd be into buying a membership into your club
instigator: It is an extremely simple device. If you made prototypes that worked, I'd be into buying a membership into your club
06-20-2004, 05:54 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: ga
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what i want to do source things that are pretty much made already then piece them together to make this contraption. once done and tested i will post the list of what i made it out of and how it was made, want to incorperate the heat exchanger thingy that haveblue has developed. the tubing and the valve are easily sourced from grainger. its the block and jar i'm having trouble with, i have thought of a remote oil filter as the block and a oilfilter threaded base from a small filter and welded onto an empty stainless jar for the sludge container. the in and out of the block would be reversed so the a drip tube could be inserted into the threaded portion of the block( just so it doesnt get sucked back into the PCV line,
will have to get one to try out and will post when complete
will have to get one to try out and will post when complete
06-21-2004, 02:40 PM
#20
Contributing Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mission, British Columbia
Posts: 1,610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would this device prevent the running lean situation on supercharged 4runners? It sounds like the injectors have to add less fuel because the fuel is injected into the plenum. The injectors wouldn't max out and you could prevent the lean situation.
