http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15369579-2,00.html

look at this link.. what do you think?

Repco have put their name to the invention and obviously Repco is a very well respected name in australia, you would think they would only put something to their name if it works.. what do you all think? i did a quick calculation and it would save me approx 90km's per tank if it actually works! very interesting indeed

:confused:

i just seen this on telly
i geuss its one of those things u gotta try and see for yurself

i just seen this on telly
i geuss its one of those things u gotta try and see for yurself

yeah thats true

i've got one of those fitch fuel savers but i don't really bost about it as it can case a bit of flaming.

i agree that these sorts of things are usually very shonky.. but considering repco has put their name to it possibly its the first time ever that something like this isnt a shonk? They claim to have tested it and that it works, you would think repco would have too bigger reptation at stake to lie about it

I just picked up a brochure for a look see.
$295 for the device. They reckon $10-20 saving per $100 of fuel.

Yeah it could work but it doesn't say exactly how it makes the car more efficient. I'm a bit of a sucker for new inventions though. Here's another of the same type of thing. It's a spark plug that is meant to produce more torque and power that was on the new inventors last year.

www.greenfire.com.au

It uses engine heat to warm the injector (Pintle Nozzle) to heat the fuel prior to injection - it aids in more fuel being vapourised and combusted.
Claims that in normal cars 15-20% of fuel is unburned and wasted - this is supposed to prevent that.
It is a small collar that goes around each injector nozzle.

My bad $289 + installation - claims 2 hours install by a qualified mechanic.

Check out www.vaporate.com (http://www.vaporate.com)

It won't help us



He said Vaporate was less effective on commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads, vehicles driven on mostly country roads and those driven too fast.

I'm always a bit sceptical about these things. Hmmmm, I remember years back when Peter Brock put his name to a miracle little black box or some such that was supposed to fix all your engine problems just by placing it somewhere in the engine bay! :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

VR-X II

These things always sound sus to me.. especially with such big potential savings (10-20%!). Surely the injector manufacturers have gone out of their way to atomize the fuel spray as much as possible already? And how much heat can you impart to the fuel in the split second that it's actually passing through the injector nozzle?

Anyway.. if it really works it will become a standard item on all new cars very very soon. Once that happens, then I might get one retro-fitted.

Surely the injector manufacturers have gone out of their way to atomize the fuel spray as much as possible already?


Absolutely. Fine atomisation is critical to the proper operation of an EFI engine, and indeed is one of the reasons EFI is better than carburettors. If 25% of a car's fuel is going out the exhaust, then there is something seriously wrong with the car.

just a thought

a cold air intake is there to reduce air temperatures, thus reduce fuel vapour temps. to condence the fuel and make it more explosive,

if this device heats up the fuel, isnt that contradictory of what a CAI does, and if u have a CAI and this device wouldnt they cancel each other out, or make your car run lean / rich ???

could a technical minded person please explain ??

just a thought

a cold air intake is there to reduce air temperatures, thus reduce fuel vapour temps. to condence the fuel and make it more explosive,

if this device heats up the fuel, isnt that contradictory of what a CAI does, and if u have a CAI and this device wouldnt they cancel each other out, or make your car run lean / rich ???

could a technical minded person please explain ??




Its not the fuel that needs to be chilled cold air is more dense, dense air has more "air" in it than hot air and that means the fuel that goes in with it has more air to mix with and explode with. pretty bad explanation if its wrong let me know

http://www.aempower.com/product_intake.asp

Its not the fuel that needs to be chilled cold air is more dense, dense air has more "air" in it than hot air and that means the fuel that goes in with it has more air to mix with and explode with. pretty bad explanation if its wrong let me know

That's pretty much it, yeah. The air wants to be as cold (and therefore dense) as possible. I don't know what effect if any, heating the fuel itself would have. I doubt it would be beneficial. As far as I know, atomisation can be achieved by plenty of pressure and careful injector design.

i agree that these sorts of things are usually very shonky.. but considering repco has put their name to it possibly its the first time ever that something like this isnt a shonk? They claim to have tested it and that it works, you would think repco would have too bigger reptation at stake to lie about it

They may have put their name to it as they think it'll sell and their the importer/wholesaler for it. Repco and Supercheap auto (not sure about Auto One) are importer/retailers (which IMHO should be illegal as it is in the US).

But I'll be interested to see if they actually do work.

my mate sells fuel chips for a company called bio-bro. it's these things you stick on the fuel tanks and it does something to the fuel. anyway here's the website if you want to check it out.

www.mybiopro.com/cellshield

the product is called qx-3. just go to products and you'll find it

Gawd what a load of rubbish.

And honestly, does anyone trust Repco as far as they can throw them? It constantly amazes me that they haven't been forced out of business whenever I have the misfortune of dealing with their incompetent staff.

Last time it was 15 minutes waiting to buy a spark plug for **** sake!

"He said Vaporate was less effective on commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads, vehicles driven on mostly country roads and those driven too fast. "

Vaporate was less effective... those driven too fast. ... sounds to me like there's something less than desirable about its effect on your top end.

More information on the subject matter.

http://www.vaporate.com/how_it_works.html#animation

TG

"He said Vaporate was less effective on commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads, vehicles driven on mostly country roads and those driven too fast. "

Vaporate was less effective... those driven too fast. ... sounds to me like there's something less than desirable about its effect on your top end.

well prolly because the fuel going thru the heated nozzle, wouldnt be there long enough to get warmer at higher rpm.

but then it doesnt make sense as to why country driving would be bad, as you wouldnt be constantly changing gears :confused:

I can see that the theory behind the idea is good but why not go all the way and put gas on your car. No probs with that vaporising and you can raise your compression a fair bit due to it's octane raing of about 120. Also cost you half the price, has about half the CO and CO2 emissions and you can remove your cat converter legally (in sa anyway). :D

I can see that the theory behind the idea is good but why not go all the way and put gas on your car. No probs with that vaporising and you can raise your compression a fair bit due to it's octane raing of about 120. Also cost you half the price, has about half the CO and CO2 emissions and you can remove your cat converter legally (in sa anyway). :D

but also, have less power, less engine life and reduced fuel economy (allthought the reduction is made up by with the lower price of gas)

but also, have less power, less engine life and reduced fuel economy (allthought the reduction is made up by with the lower price of gas)
Not true. A car tuned exclusivly for gas will have greater power, the loss is due to compromises for dual fuel