hello, Ive seen a lot of videos of making engines run on fumes to improve gas mileage, one guy had a dodge magnum get 200 mpg. I have a 22r motor. at the most basic form, the procedure is running air into a separate gas tank making the gas inside percolate, then another line coming out running the fumes to the carb. I'm just looking for some more information on if it harms the engine, flaws, or procedures if anyone else has done this. thanks in advance!

 

Subscribed for this one

 

Yup. Going to be awesome or awesome in a bad way. I'm subscribed either way.

 

Some of the earliest gasoline engines used liquid surface evaporation carburetors.
One of the problems associated with them included unwanted concentration of the least volitile fractions of the fuel. (Lowest vapor pressure fuel components are hardest to evaporate)
An engines ability to produce power from fuel is largely determined by its practical compression ratio and its volumetric efficiency (Ability to breathe freely). These considerations favor heavy stationary, relatively low speed engines.
Liquid fuels contain a given calorific (ability to produce heat by combustion) value, and there ain't no free lunch. The most efficient piston engines ever built only give about 40% thermal efficiency.
These vapor carb schemes, are far from new or original, there is nothing new under the sun.
I call B.S. on the 200MPG Dodge.

 

I could see if your 200mpg was calculated with the engine shut off going down a hill

If this did indeed work these inventors would most likely be dead the videos would have never made the internet.

This is right there with the magic chips that give a instant 100 hp gain to any vehicle.

 

200mpg average, would be sight to see. i doubt that would happen. if you end goal is just to improve your average mpg, then we have a different topic to talk about here

 

If it were easy everyone would do it already. You're just going to be sucking a huge volume of "fume air" such that your fuel economy stays the same, or the mixture leans out and you melt some pistons. Not to mention a backfire will literally blow up your vehicle.

 

Considering that the carburetor bowl is vented to the atmosphere via the air filter housing, I suspect one would loose a lot of vapor to the atmosphere.

Second, the Toyota carburetor is not designed to draw in fuel vapor under negative pressure (vacuum). It is designed to draw in liquid fuel using pressure differential, atmospheric pressure above the throttle plate, and negative pressure (vacuum) below the throttle plate. The stock carburetor is also designed to deliver the correct fuel amount for various engine loads via different jets in the carburetor. Atmospheric pressure acting against fuel vapor , I surmise, is significantly less than that of the liquid fuel. In a stock carburetor, the air-to-fuel ratios would be much higher. Since fuel vapor already has air mixed with it, the air/fuel ratio is already biased towards an overly lean mixture, too much air, too little fuel.

 

Not to get too nerdy here, but the theory negates the use of that carburetor, That is, as a carburetor is used to meter fuel.

The throttle valve is the only part of the carburetor that is needed, for the vapor theory. It is the vacuum of the engine, drawn through the intake that produces the negative pressure, which in-turn, is supposed too vaporize the fuel.