Now all of us know that until you get those Type R emblems and stick 'em all over ur truck, no HP increases at all!

However, what fuel does when it is cold vs hot may be vastly different but no one will know until someone tries something out. As for vapor lock, didnt think that was as much of an issue with electric fuel pumps as it was with belt driven fuel pumps of old. The concept behind the Tornado is about the same as those throttle body spacers that some swear by and others curse as a waste of money. As for the magnet, if it dont work, use it to hold up your kids' finger paintings on the fridge.

 

I have TypeR stickers plastered all over my back window. Even some hidden ones...makes for one heck of a sleeper


Vapor lock isnt as much of an issue with an electric fuel pump located in a gas tank like most cars are today, as compared to older vehicles where the fuel pump was located in the engine compartment on the engine.

The reason that these older cars with the fuel pumps under the hood had more vapor lock problems is because of all the heat in the engine compartment though. With the pump in the tank, the fuel stays cooler, reducing vapor lock.
So you see here again, its a heat issue. Of course the fuel back then had a bit to do with it, but mainly the heat.

Im all for trying something new and different, but when it plainly goes against all logic I just dont see the point. I think time would be better spent by trying to figure out a different invention.
I really think you would have more of a positive effect by cooling the fuel. But in reality, I doubt there is a noticible difference between them either way in these trucks.

 

That does make a lot of sense, and one way to alleviate that would be to put a fuel cooler on the return line. I dont know what the gph or lph rate would be on the flow of the return fuel but a rated 35 to 65 psi pressure in the fuel rail and 14 to 20 mpg for just about most ppl here would mean that fuel isnt flying back to the tank too fast. Fuel coolers are some $$ but an idea for the sake of an otherwise risky experiment.

Not much more can be done, I would think, short of someone completely reverse engineering the PCM code. Mike of TP probably knows that code better than anyone short of Detroit, and they aint talkin'! It would be like anything else, time and patience and lots of testing and inspections for unforseen damage(s).

As for logic, remember a guy that tried to convince folks to give up travel on their four legged noble beasts or noisy and sometimes slow steam locomotives and instead use this silly looking thing called the horseless carriage? Even after a hundred years not everyone here in the US has yet to own one of these things that still goes against their logic. Heck, I can only imagine how crazy it sounded long ago when someone suggested replacing the clutch fan with an electric fan on large V8 engines.

I have tried those things in the past, Tornados, fuel magnets, and yes, they didnt really work, didnt hurt either except knowing I got ripped off, but at least I can say I tried them and they dont work in case someone else asks. Same with these fuel heaters or any other elaborate item, someone has to step up and bite the bullet. If it works, great, if not, at least we know. All experiments are a waste of money until one of them works out.

It is like the acetone in the fuel tank discussion. Most say stay away, others have tried it and got good results once the right amount was found. I am leery of such stuff but who is to say that the fuel injector cleaners I have used in the past were any safer in reality? I don't know, all I did was trust the maker of that stuff.

In one of my past professional lives, I remember a manager telling me that I would be very lucky as an engineer if 1 out of 20 projects ever went to production, and luckier yet if it ever sold. He wasn't being mean, but realistic. So you can imagine that if some of these gadgets actually worked on one or two vehicles convincing someone to take them to market, just think of all the crazy things that might have been tried and did nothing but fail. Might shock us all!! Discussions are great, but hard data is indisputable, whether successful or a failure.

That guy still hasnt wrote back, hope he didnt pull an UH OH!!

 

Ok, install went surprisingly easy. maybe 45 mins for the plumbing and 15 for the line insulation.
I wont know mileage until I run at least 1 tank through, im not a firm beiliever in the MPG-on-the-fly on the dash indicator. (if you are a believer of the dash indicator right now it is showing an increase of 1.9 mpg highway on the only 80some miles I have driven).
Take that with a grain of salt. I will publish findings once I actually get some hard facts, like same pump, same place, same highway, and just driving like I usually do, instead of watching the dash. (which I am doing now) .
I am trying to stop thinking about it and driving like I didnt install anything, but it isnt very easy. Its very tough to not be over-eager on seeing some type of result.

Note, the higher psi on todays EFI vehicles raises the boiling/vapor-lock point also.

 

About 20 years ago, a retired Spokane City police LT. was building gas heaters and installing them by the dozens on mostly motor homes and gas guzzlers. They were all carbureted vehicles. Essentially, he used a 3'' copper tube about a foot long, soldered an end cap on one end, then made a loop inside, out of 1/2 " copper tubing and 90 degree elbows, both ends coming out the other end cap and soldered. On opposite ends, another 1/2" tube was soldered through the end caps, and the rig was spliced into a heater hose. An inline one way valve was installed and a pressure regulator, in which order I don't recall. This guy had people waiting in line to do these things, with mileage increases consistently around 2 mpg., sometimes more. Setting the pressure regulator just right seemed to be the main ingredient to prevent vapor locking. When you're getting 6-8 mpg, 2 mpg increase is big news.

 

My first thoughts exactly, BUT I cant judge because Ive never seen anyone do it, therefore I build. PS. here is a sight with many people doing this type of thing and some more "off the wall stuff" with positive results. BUT, I dont believe unless I see myself, once again, therefore I build. www.mpgresearch.com

 

and when youre paying over 3 bucks a gallon its bignews too LOL

 

Good to hear back from you on this and better yet to see the truck seems to be running fine. Do you have any pics of the install? The dash scanner would make you more conscience of driving habits, but you are right, the best way is to drive like you didn't install anything because that is the style you like.

I have seen kits that would splice into the factory upper radiator hose, if I were to even consider such a thing, I would just stop by the junkyard near where I work and get one off of a wrecked F150 and use it if it looked good, and keep my original for going back to stock. As always, please keep us posted!

 

maybe u can post some pics? thanks so much for the reporting on this!

 

I did get some pics of the install. I went inline with the heater core so the unit would have a constant flow and would get heat even before the thermostat opens up. It might end up in the radiator hose eventually , or maybe someday in the corner on a scrap pile
i cant even find where to put a pic on my signature ,..... nor have i posted a pic on a forum before...

 

I believe this website's gallery is typically what you would link from. Post your pics in your gallery(might have to set up by entering username and password again) and then link to them in a forum post.

 

ok first off, heating the fuel in my pickup did in fact raise my mileage!
I also learned that the computer in the 04 generation is very strict.
Have you ever heard someone say "I get the same mileage no matter what I do, loaded or unloaded." ???? Personally , I have had the same experience and I am now a believer that "Detroit Fever" does exist!
"ondensed version of "Detroit Fever" from www.mpgresearch.com : car PCM's out of detroit are the worst for this type of milege sabotage in which they will richen your AF ratio to achieve whatever mileage was set by them in the original programming. This defeats all of our driving habits which seem to only gain 1 MPG average. "

Here are my findings in chronological order:

1- installed home-made fuel heater inline with heater core
2- test drove (after about 5 mins I have heated fuel pumping into the rails at around 150-160 degrees)
3- first 100 miles averaged 19.7
4- 2nd 100 miles averaged 17.6
5- 3rd 100 miles averaged 16.3
6- 4th 100 m. ave. 15.3 (my original mileage) before any modifications

feel free to ask me anything about this, I saw it work, then saw it drop back, and all other variables were equal.

so, in my personal experience the facts are clear to me...
"PCMdefeatedmy goodmileage"

QUES: how deep are the oil companies into the auto industry manufacturers pockets???????

ANS: IMHO "deeper than I originally thought before my experiment"

 

Would diconnecting the battery and clearing the computer make a differance? I know the computer learns and afjusts itself for changes but undoing the battery brings it back to factory programing.

 

Interesting results but I see some potential pitfalls.
By heating the fuel, you will be changing its density as in the actual amount of hydrocarbon molecule compared to volume.
As the fuel quantity squirted in by the injectors will remain the same at the start of the test (assuming no fuel temp sensor fitted) then the A/F ratio probably went weak.
This may have produced a little more power (depending on how rich the original A/F ratio was) resulting in reduced throttle for the same performance. Obviously, this will increase economy.
Under cruise conditions, this probably won't harm the engine but the PCM does indeed have a learning strategy and over a time period, has no doubt increased the the amount of fuel being injected to return the A/F ratio back to the original PCM setting.
Of course, the fact that you knew you were "on test" may have resulted in a slight driving change which will affect the results.
The only surefire way to test this would be to do back to back tests on a dyno, maintaining the desired A/F ratio and then measuring BSFC as a measure of efficiency.

BTW, I heard that it was the man on the grassy knoll who wrote the fuel strategies for the big 3 and the oil companies

 

Would getting a custom tuner in conjunction with the fuel superheater help? Cause then they could adjust the fuel maps so that the computer WONT go in and add fuel which in turn negates the positive effect of the fuel heater.