I am a retired truck driver. The company I drove for had over 1,000 trucks so fuel economy was real important. They determined that driving habits were a huge factor. A gentle foot on the go pedal and coasting, while in gear, made a huge difference. I usually had a gross weight of around 75,000 lbs.and at 65 mph I hovered around 6.5 mpg. When I took my foot off the throttle my mileage meter would go up to 99 mpg. I learned to lift my right foot well ahead of exit ramps, stop signs etc. Going down hill was like a free ride. These tricks apply to cars as well.

I had a customer come to our shop after he had a new exhaust system put on his truck. I asked him about the claims of x% better fuel economy, and x% better performance. His reply was priceless, he said "I'm not sure about any of that but it does make 30% more noise". Haha

thanks for the unbiased info. My favorite conundrum is that we keep building cars that run more efficiently and then packing them with more gadgets that make them heavier and ruin the efficiency we gained.

Years ago, I installed a special ignition system to give me 35% better mileage, a special carburetor, to give me 50% better gas mileage, and a special intake system, to give me 20% better gas mileage. I drove about 1/4 mile, and my gas tank overflowed!

worth the watch just to listen to that engine

I always get suspicious of something when the instructions for it are photocopies of photocopies

Good video guys. I'm an old man now but back in the early seventies a buddy of mine and I made a vapor type of system and was getting an improvement of 10 to 20% using the vapor system. After a while we noticed a sludge in the bottom of the tank and asked a Rodchester carburetor engineer what was going on. He explained (as much as we could understand) that gasoline is made up of many chemicals that include hectares, methane and such and each chemical vaporizes at a different temperature. So, although our engine did run on the vapors, the power output, lubrication and other factors prevented the motor from having the same power output as the gasoline when sprayed into the engine through the carburetor (nowadays, with injected fuel systems and especially the ultra high pressure rail systems the fuel is pretty much completely vaporized as it leaves the injection nozzle). There is a reason why engineers get it. They understand research into fields of hydraulics, chemicals, electronics and much more. My hat is off to those brilliant engineers and to the garage guys looking for the better mouse trap. Sometimes, just sometimes, the garage hack invents something the world needs, but that happens very vary seldom. Keep up the good work.

What I like is that Uncle Tony probably knew that the thing wouldn't work, but he approached it in an enthusiastic and unbiased manner. That's what I like here : just the facts, with enthusiasm. He knows more than all the people commenting added together. Me ? I know nothing.

These fuel saving gadgets were common in the days before the internet when all you really had was word of mouth. None of the ones I tried 25 years ago worked either. Best mpg results I ever had was with a well tuned carb and keeping my foot out of it. Magic!

Hi Tony, I really enjoy your "real world" JFDI approach. I tried a number of fuel saving tricks and tips a long time ago. I'm in the UK, so small engines and manual transmissions. Following the recommendation of a friend , I found the most effective was fitting a vacuum gauge. The higher the vacuum the cleaner the burn and the better the economy. After a while i learned how to drive without needing it. 40 years later i still get good mileage. In the simplest terms, don't put your foot down . Give it enough pedal to get going then leave the pedal alone. let the engine spin up and change at a higher RPM, this keeps the engine unloaded and maximizes efficiency. I have a small car still, Fiat Panda Multijet. According to the car's computer over the last 2200 miles I have averaged 77 MPG. I have always enjoyed a sporty driving style and make good progress on the backroads and lanes, which I prefer to highway driving. I gave up a bit of acceleration and learned how to carry the speed in the bends. And its still fun..

When I went from 5 days a week to 4 days a week working. I saw an increase of 20% fuel economy in the refill of my fuel tank. Its amazing. And I never had to touch my carburetor. 🤣

Back in the early 80's I was involved in some SAE fuel economy testing on heavy trucks. You needed two trucks, one being the control truck that nothing was changed on. We had removable tanks that were weighed before and after. We found a section of interstate that gave us an East/West and North/South 20 mile trip on one run. We normally had multiple trucks and spent 4 to 5 days on site. Aerodynamic improvements probably gave the largest boost in economy. The advent of fully electronic engines made a big jump, but the biggest improvement was making the driver drive the truck for economy.

It went as I was expecting. Seems it's not much more than a vacuum leak in a shipping box.

Now this is the kind of content I come here for. Uncle Tony cutting out the bs and giving us straight facts!

I had an 88 silverado 350 long box extended cab and achieved over 1000km on 113 litres, basically one full tank without running out of fuel. I had a K&N air cleaner, Air raid throttle body riser and shorty headers with very conservative driving habits, mostly highway miles to work and back home to city

I remember the JC Whitney catalogs of the 70's, during the fuel crisis of the time. There were many "miracle" fuel saving devices listed that we all knew had to be bogus, but they were fun to look at. I still have a 1973 copy.

Hey uncle T been a long time viewer and I’m extremely excited to hear about a fuel mileage build! I’ve never heard of any hotrod channel attempting such a feat!

An ex-brother-in-law of mine never trusted vehicles that said "dodge" on the front and "ram" on the side. He thought they were instructions.

Just put on a 2 barrel carburetor like they did after the gas crunch and it really helped. For today's cars if you can just limit your throttle travel to 25% you'll get great mileage.

Putting high pressure 35 inch tall tires on my 1977 painfully stock F-150. Boosted my gas mileage from 8 miles to the gallon to 12. I also have a first generation modified Toyota Prius that puts out 160 horsepower almost as much as the Ford. I drive it like a sports car and still get 33 miles to the gallon. Plus I got into the car's computer with my laptop. And turned off the traction control. It's the only Prius I've ever seen to do 14 ft burnouts.

When I had my shop, a lady walks in with a package and ask me to install this magic milage device on her car. I responded I would be happy to but don't expect any change in milage. With a confused look she responds its guaranteed to work. I responded to her every car manufacturer spends millions on research for a fraction of a mile per gallon increase in milage, if this device worked every car coming off the assembly line would already have it installed. She looked at the package then at me, hands me the device and ask me to throw it in the trash, that she had wasted eighteen dollars, thanked me and walked out

With very careful testing and application, I was able to get a 10-17% better gas mileage on a 2005 Chrysler minivan, but adding acetone to my fuel tank before topping off. As I recall the ratio was a quarter bottle (16 oz bottle) to a tank of fuel (17 gallon tank in the minivan.) Prior to acetone I could get about 295-305 miles on a tank of gas and after acetone reliably 350-360 miles per tank. Supposedly the aceone reduces the surface tension of gasoline and it atomizes better on its own in the cylinders. But I drove like this reliable for a few years. (same driving habits both ways)

You need an ✨HHO ✨Generator system to actually improve mileage. An HHO system produces hydrogen out of splitting water with electrolysis and that hydrogen is fed into the air intake. The hydrogen increases combustion which increases horsepower and that reduces gas consumption. The exhaust that comes out the tail pip is also greatly improved with drastically reduced emissions from more through and complete combustion. There is a lot of fakery out there but there is also the holy grail if you keep looking…there are people that have achieved astounding results. Would love to see an HHO system test on this channel. Thanks for all the great content!

It might be better to pick route on the hwy at say 30 miles distance at 60 mph and check each system before and after. I have done similar testing (with a few changes) that yielded over 40% improvement at 60 mph on flat ground and 600 ft elevation.

In addition, you have the fuel from the vapor container to calculate into the totals... so if it drew a measurable amount from the vapor cannister, then it's mpg was even worse than you thought!

3rd test: Install a vacuum (mileage) gauge and repeat both scenarios with attention to the vacuum gauge.

The vaporizer carb is a thing, and it nearly doubles MPG, but its an explosion risk. You effectively boil gasoline into vapor in the intake instead of putting liquid gasoline into the intake. You get perfect atomization and mixture, but if something fails or you get a backfire, the stoic vapor mixture will explode and catch the car on fire.

Years ago for $50 I made a water dissociation gadget that brakes a water molecule into 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen molecules, I’m sure you prolly heard of them, 4 inch piece of pvc, I ordered from a metal shop strips of 416 SS that were around 2mm from each other and perfectly fit into a 4 inch pipe, my g20 conversion van with high top captains chairs and all the bells went from around 13mpg to around under 30! Until pvc got too soft by the temperature and buckled and created a huge vacuum leak on the way to niagra falls from Brooklyn with a bunch of my family members. Cars are not made to transport you, they are made to sell you gas insurance registrations repairs and parts, tickets and parking fees, BTH when I was experimenting with it when I had it off I couldn’t take 1 breath from exhaust pipe, when I’d turn it on i could breathe the exhaust without having a brain-freeze! And yes water was coming out of exhaust, also I passed a tech inspection and I know I wouldn’t without this thing. TEST THAT!

Approx 22 % different Here's the thing: the average emissions controlled carbureted engine is calibrated to run pretty lean. I suspect that that engine is not. Adding a supplemental fuel source might drive it over rich, which means you're going to have to get in the gas pedal MORE I don't know where your idle circuit was set, if the mixture screws were set to run at maximum vacuum or maximum rpm, then the tiny bit of extra fuel you added would have made it overly rich, costing efficiency, making you step in the gas pedal harder If it was calibrated like a lot of stock engines are, where you would have the idle circuit set leaner by 50 or 75 rpm, you may have got a different result from this system. Personally, the only way I see this thing really getting you gas mileage is if your engine is lean, and you don't count the gasoline you pour in the supplemental bottle Other than that, doubt it'll do a damn thing for anyone. But that's just my uninformed opinion having not tried it myself Oh, and all the guys who were talking about the idle node on that engine... Hell yeah!

Here’s a couple of observations. Warmed up for the engine and warmed up for gear oil after driving a couple circles on level ground is different. Your mixture was set correctly. Add fuel vapor and now it’s rich. No defense of either setup, just observing.

Me and my buddy when we were 15 sent for some plans on how to make a Pogue carburetor , it was supposed to get up to 205 miles per gallon in old Detroit iron , we spent weeks working on this thing but never got it working , then again we were only 15 , maybe it was the best system ever invented. lol 😎

My dad made a system that heated the gas into a vapor. He put it on our Chevy 4x4 350 V8 pickup and it got 40 MPG. He used the exhaust to heat the gas. I was only 14 at the time. I wish I had paid more attention.

It's great to see another experiment in the UTG lab. Keep them coming!

There’s one out now that my sister in law was packaging and shipping (part time employee) that claims to use “quantum technology”. You just put the box anywhere in your car and you get more horsepower and fuel mileage - no joke, that is their claim. She got one for free to use and you wouldn’t believe the results… No difference…

In 80s around 1985 I bought plans and a few devices from a place in Oklahoma called The Carb research center I believe the name was. I didn’t do the vapor carb myself but a janitor who worked at my middle school when I was a kid built and put a vapor set up but it used engine coolant to heat the exchanger. His motor home was a 454 and best mileage back then was 8 mpg. I was a mechanic back the and personally witnessed the motor home get over 20 mpg once we got in dialed in it took a few weeks to figure it out. He did it to his 1980 Toyota pick up and he said he was getting close to 50 mpg but I never witnessed it. The motor home did work.

I remember these gas saving devices back before fuel injection became common. There were special spark plugs, spark enhancers, vaporizers, yada, yada. Put them all together and you had a car that never burned gasoline. In fact it actually made gasoline!

I would like to see an o2 sensor added and have the carb leaned out, so there is approximately the same air fuel ratio in both setups.

He's right: I can't believe what that fuel vaporizer/water system did for the fuel mileage.

My father had built these types of units back in the early 80's they worked but had some issues. On carbs, they would create "vapor" lock etc. Heat exchanger leaks were common as were under the hood fires. What they did do is take an 8mpg vehicle and turn to a 20mpg vehicle (before the days of electronic fuel injection). The issue was they also tended to flatten the power profile which probably contributed to the fuel savings too. Later we added H2O which boosted mpg another 5-8 mpg but engines ran hot and had corrosion and leak issues. At the end of the day, it would require rebuilding engines installing sleeves etc instead of minor modifications. Perhaps on more modern vehicles (say late 90s') there would be different issues. In the end, did they work, yes, were there problems yes, were the problems a dead end, no, but a lot more resources would be required to work them out than a small shop could probably afford in the 80's. I recall the units we installed were about 4x the size of this unit.

Best gas mileage saving was years ago. I had a slant six Dodge Dart, and it was getting 20 miles to the gallon. But after I put "Slick 50" into the oil it got 32 miles to the gallon. Haven't found the same stuff since.

I haven't watched the whole video yet as of making this comment, but a carburetor isn't going to adjust for the extra fuel ie no milage increase. It's going to consume the same amount with or without the vaporizer. I would like to see it on something fuel injected defiantly would have better chance at seeing a positive result being that something fi reads how rich it may be and cut some fuel out with injector duty cycle.

Oh wow. That’s amazing. I can’t believe the results. !

Only gadget I've ever had that improved mileage is an adjustable pressure regulator. Keeping it around 3.5 to 4 lbs of fuel pressure

Suggestion. Run the same test at least 3 times to see if there is much variants . Another Suggestion is to run it stationary on block at a consistent rpm. This would make for a consistent findings.

Well, you have proven that your car runs more efficiently without a vacuum leak. Imagine that.

Well tuned engine, good maintenance, proper driving habits...oh, and everyone on mopeds!

I had a similar system on an old chevy. It worked best when I hooked it up to a purge valve from the evaporative emissions charcoal canister so it gave more when I step on the gas.

Back in the 1970's a guy in El Paso said he had a device that would make a big V8 get 200 miles per gallon. I think Car & Driver sent a couple writers and pro mechanics down there to check it out. The mechanics verified that the device was the sole source of fuel and used an one gallon gas can to hold the gasoline. The writers took the big Oldsmobile for a 80 mile drive then turned around for the 80 mile drive back to find there still was some gas in the gas can. The man's device was a metal tube or box that held a coil of metal fuel line that held electric heating coils that vaporized the gasoline in the fuel line plus some other items to ensure it's safe operation. They hooked it back up to the gas tank then took a series of longer drives where they verified it was delivering 200 mpg. The magazine ran an article about it with GM buying up the plans and device from him. They did nothing with it which drove the inventor into drinking and doing drugs until he died young. The magazine writers figured GM made more for testing then decided it posed a major safety risk if a vehicle got into an accident.

We use to make a water vaporizer in the early 70's with a Mason jar in a bracket next to the exhaust manifold. It worked exactly like a water pipe. They only work when you are cruising. When you give it the gas there's no vacuum. And it does keep all the carbon off the plugs and valves. Makes the engine run cooler. Put a sponge under the lid so if you turn too sharp, you don't suck straight water in your engine. You're only going to fill the jar have ways up.

Over 40 years ago I installed a home made hydrogen converter on my 1693 425 cat. Went from 4 mph to 6 with increased horse/torque. Now have one on my Triton V10, 10 mph to 13, horse/torque not a factor with the beast..lol. Filled an old truck battery with distilled water, reversed polarity (electrolysis) hooked to air intake. "keep the faith people and keep on keeping on"

Back in 1956, I was a young engineering student also working at Chatham Dockyard on British Naval ships, and I bought my first second-hand used car. I played about with many so-called fuel savers but the best I found was to keep the carburetor well adjusted, the ignition timing and the gap in the make and break, and also the spark gaps as indicated for the type of car I had. I had mastered the SU Carburettor to adjust the fuel float height, the mixture, the choke system, and also the spring that operated the needle to rise with the vacuum from the intake. The acceleration was left to the minimum required while the four tires on the wheels were always correctly inflated. While others who used similar cars got about 35 mpg I got nearer to 50 mph and even slightly more if I drove steadily on the motorway. I must say that everything had to be just right, and given constant attention, as anything that was not perfectly correct would reduce the performance mentioned.

Had a 73 century with a 350 2 barrel. 15mpg with regular and lead additive. 20mpg premium (92). Best “fuel saver” technique? I replaced the point distributor with a used HEI from a ‘76 Buick, advanced the timing 4* and dad rebuilt and tuned the carb. He did similar on his ‘77 Impala-timing adjustment, changed the jets in the carb and changed the weights on the distributor. He squeezed 22mpg (highway) out of it vs the 18mpg it originally got.

Yup, I remember this kind of thing back around late '70s, early '80s. Water injection systems back then. All the parts places had them (Western Canada) and so many made the claim that the car ran better and more efficiently. All I can say was no, it didn't. someone I knew tried it. They do seem to me to be more involved now and more expensive though. 😆

I bought a 78 Blazer years ago and it had 2 super strong magnets on the fuel line.(supposedly to break up the fuel molecules, to increase mileage). Ya it did nothing but help collect small rust particles and clog up the fuel line. Also the magnets worked great to hold my paperwork to my toolbox. LOL.

I agree with Nick all that you did was create a vacuum leak. In WW2 they used alcohol/ water injection on fighter planes to boost hp 50 percent alcohol cooled intake air water slowed the burn no engine failures

I like your shows a lot. If you look at how BMW makes this system work and the recent SAE tests performed on a 2L direct injected turbo - they were able to advance timing by up to 20 degrees and lean out the mixture by about 10% (12 afr to 13.5:1. If you could try the test with these adjustments, I think it would show a greater improvement. 1 thing to note is that engines which aren't turbocharged/ supercharged will have colder air coming through the intake, so less gains will be made imo.

This looks like a variation on something my Dad stumbled across in the 70's -- a 100 mpg DYI add-on. It involved a canister with a coil of tubing inside that circulated exhaust gasses through it (a heat exchanger). Gasoline was jetted into canister where it was heated and pressurized and then siphoned off into a fitting on top of the carb. A guy in a nearby town actually built one and we went to have a look. He had it mounted on the firewall, I think. He started it with the carb system only and it ran like hell because the timing had to be shifted to accommodate the doodad. After it warmed up a bit he switched it over to the "vaporizer". The engine smoothed out and it ran fine and revved with the throttle. We didn't drive it but the guy said it lost some of its performance on the road (I'm guessing like a propane system). We went home and Dad actually got as far as building a canister, but I think he concluded that any improved gas mileage was countered by having a live bomb under the hood.

Thank you. This is at least some kind of test. More then most do who make claims about these things.

I had a bunch of cars with fuel vaporizers. If I'm not mistaken, they were called carburators. This is probably as good excuse as any to break out the "A body". Nice car.

I’ve been told the military had technology where they were getting crazy gas mileage in WW2 with carburetors that ran off gas vapor. My great uncle spoke about it.

My first thought and I'm sure others as well. You add fuel in a carbureted car like this, it needs air, actually more air. You get the air through the carburetor and we all know when air goes through a carburetor it's sucks a certain amount of fuel with it. You can't just step on the gas pedal and add more air, without more gas. Just sounds like a really bad plan straight away. One could argue a fuel injected engine might do better because the O2 sensor will cut back fuel to the injectors. In a modern car this set up would probably make the MPG display a higher number. That would fool a few people. Honestly I think only useful purposes this, and every other "fuel saver" I've seen in 57 years is for leaning out people's bank accounts. P.T. Barnum would've loved it!

One thing about the water vapor portion, to really make that part work you need an air intake hose the goes all the way to the bottom of your water bottle and then an outlet hose at the top that just draws air from a vacuum connection, and you want any water OR fuel vapor to be routed to the intake of the engine, NOT directly into the PCV connect. You can still use the PCV for vacuum, but you'll want to have a T-connector to feed your vapor(s) to the intake. You can also use your brake booster or any other vacuum connection. It works like a bong and the air bubbles is what agitates the water to create water vapor. I think you might see a difference if you set it up that way.

Fun to watch👍👍👍 thanks for posting Uncle Tony!!

Hey good day, as a mechanic most my life mad scientist Blacksmith you name it, have always messed around with fuel mileage for the last 50 years maybe or more. Love how you’re doing these tests. Also, noted the holes drilled in the air filter housing, exactly the sort of things I do. Those Mopar‘s are awesome!! The car you did the test with, is the ultimate for my personal taste :-). Love all vehicles. Even with the body cancer in the car I would almost give my right arm :-). Also figured out a better air filter system better than KnN. Just have not had the time to make them other than for myself. Very simple you would probably love it. After all, we want the engines to breathe. Would love to converse, but I’m sure it will never happen. However I’ll see if I can look you up and find your phone number and connect with you. Thank you for the videos very inspiring you’re the man. Stay well and have a beautiful day. Jim. PS enjoy those great cars👍

I built a hydrogen system a few years ago when gas got real high . It really did nothing until I tuned the engine to it . I was able to get 20 mpg out of a 78 f150 with a 351 m engine I started around 14 .mpg

50 years ago we used to put a coffee can full of salty water on the exhaust manifold & fed the vapours into the air cleaner. The engine ran smoother & cleaner, esp on long trips.

I had a 1988 dodge 13 passenger van i ran on hydrogen and gas and got about 65 mpg. You have to use heavier oil in your engine because it runs hotter. Its like high oct fuel. We used backing soda and distilled water and ran electrodes in a tube to charge the water to create hydrogen gas. Ran it to the vapor line to the carb. It had alot of punch to the pedal.

My most successful mpg increase was a 63 nova with the 194 high- thrift 6.it had a 2- speed powerglide auto, which was switched over to a 3 speed on the floor manual conversion. That 3rd gear + the rear end gear was like overdrive. Got 30+ mpg on highway, as good as my 82 Honda prelude. 4 speed would yield better although 4th could only be used on flat level driving, as you would be constantly downshifting for inclines.

Water into ported vacuum, supposedly works , I've been going to test it out, use a needle for an injector ,plastic tubing to a water bottle. In theory it should be able to run on vapors alone, never seen it done in person, I can't see that system providing enough vapor for a large displacement engine..I enjoyed the video, I always wanted to know if these fuel saving ideas would work. Thank you

There were 2 things that DID work, and amazingly well, on my '81 Toyota PU, but had no effect on more modern vehicles: A fuel additive called MIXIGO OR MIX-I-GO which boosted mileage by 20% AND power also seemed 20% higher. I used this for 18 years. Any time I ran out, after a couple tanks without it, I felt the gross loss in power. It was MLM but I soon gave up trying to sell it to anyone. An overpriced $125 magnet also sold MLM. I think the brand was GMX or something. Put on fuel line, this also boosted mileage about 20%. But if I used both MXO and the magnet together, the net increase was still only 20%, and the magnet killed the power increase I would otherwise have gotten off the MXO.

As a teen in the 60's in FLA always messing w/cars heard of a guy in S. fla developed a high mileage carb/eng combo. Wanted to build and market his own car using his system. The whole thing died out when he couldn't outlast the major manufactures and govt regs for mfg a car to market to the public. As I remember his claims were for over 50 mpg.

Uncle Tony, something that has been proven to improve mileage is Thunderhead289's carburetor fine tuner kit. Basically a controlled vacuum leak that makes a carb run at 14.5ish to 1 at light to moderate throttle. He built a custom intake, and added this gadget along with a lawnmower carburetor and got 35-45 mpg in an early 70's Maverick with a 302 4 spd. He also took it on the Hot Rod Power Tour in that configuration, and it it dynoed at a whopping 55 rwhp, I think. Top speed around 75-80 mph. He has since been experimenting using the vacuum gadget with normal carbs with positive results. Would love to see you review this product. Just check out Thunderhead289's KZfaq channel.

Many years ago I blocked the main jet on my dirt bike (grain of sand) 20+ kms from home, I worked out I could ride the bike quite reasonably just on the idle screw with the spring removed and it wound all the way in I could sit on 50k in top gear. When I got home I'd burned less than a litre of fuel. I'd like to see Tony do a lean burn carb test I think it would be interesting to see what could be done with an old 2 barrel a screw driver and a hand full of jets.

Every time I hear that car I can’t help but think how great it sounds. I see the headers but what mufflers is it running? Not surprised it did better without the “ system “ .

It works, it gave my father in law 2 to 3 miles a gallon more with a 454 chev he was driving also better pulling power on a hill, pulling a 35 ft 5 th wheel in the late 70's with a sw. Witch I Believe ran a pump from the back of the trunk at the water tank not sure, he later ran it off the ignition switch. He forgot to turn off the switch, filled up his cylinders with water and had to rebuild the motor, but he swore by the system. Pulling that trailer made a big difference.I think a better test would have been running it on the highway at a steady speed for distance not stopping and starting when you hit the highway waiting for cars to go buy, but thank you for your test. Was still educational Not sure how they filled their gas tank, his water sprayed in the top of the carburetor.

I love it, just great work, par excellence as always 👍

In the late 60s/ early 70s, I saw something like this installed on some cars that rolled into the service/filling station that I once worked at. One of the customers swore by it and showed me an add for the product that read “run your car on water and increase your MPG”. I was skeptical then and today I still am.

I saw details for a rig once that ran a vacuum line into a capped water container. It pulled vapor from the top of the container, above the water level. The jug had an aquarium bubbler in the bottom, with a line running out through the cap to create "fog". You could run water or alcohol in it. I believe it was for turbo or other high performance applications. You could probably run any sturdy jug that would resist collapsing from the vacuum.

Aircraft water injection has been around since the '40s. Modern perfomance water-methanol kits like Snow Performance give a pretty nice Hp boost for fairly low investment.

Warming the gas to a hotter temperature before it goes into the engine does work. Think of it this way, when you take a gas vapor and cool it ,it concentrates or become more dense. If you heat the gas vapor it expands. If you heat up the gas and control the out flow you will notice the expanded fumes will last much longer than spraying liquid gas into the engine.

Interesting test ! I enjoyed the other vids explaining about how these systems won't work and why, it was the one about the secret of it all regarding the speed at which fully vaporized fuel burns and how it effects the push on the piston. It all made a lot of sense to me and answered many of the questions about fuel vapor and how it worked in a vehicle. However it also gave me other ideas lol. The only thing with this test that stuck out was regarding the water bottle. I think it was meant to be a bubbler system and pull air through the water creating water vapor from the bubbles it created yet still holding decent vacuum. Using the washer fluid container inna vehicle would make sense here as the vacuum would pull air threw from the squirters creating the water method vapor in the strong plastic container holding the washer fluid. The lid would be sealed holding vacuum and the small amount of air being pulled threw the spray nozels wouldn't impact vehicle vacuum so drastically if at all this not impeding its efficiency. The added moisture would simulate the steam engine boost you can read about in researching about water injection systems. As for the fuel being vaporized well I'd have to see the system myself to think it threw. However Tony's explanation in his vid about the secret bit explained how the fully vaporized fule gets burnt faster where as the not as vaporized fule has a obvious longer burn and pushes down on the piston longer giving a longer duration of burn. I think the idea if incorporating water into a vapor sys like this one is smart but needs to be set up properly as a bubbler. Using the water as cylinder fill duration the ignition of the fuel has the water expanding to 17 000 times it size at combustion Temps amongst absorbing the extra heat from the meth of the washer fluid and vaporized fuel burning, amongst cleaning the piston in the process. It would be interesting to see this test done again using a proper bubbler system set up and a needle valve used to limit the inlet air to the water tank just as the washer fluid nozels are supposed to do. Anyway that's just my 2 bits, love your vids Tony I have learnt a lot from them along with my 80 k20 teaching me a lot as well.

Best system to test this on would be an early 90's Throttle Body Injection system. TBI for short. No mass airflow sensor, but there's an O2 sensor that does adjust the amount of fuel the injectors use.

Wow...thanks Tony...your 'schematic' walkthrough reminded me of when people try to explain how perpetual motion is easy...That additional gas tank (not your test tank) is...well, doesn't seem like the best idea...

Back in '71 I owned a '65 Bug with the 1300cc 40 horse engine. A friend asked me to allow the placement of a micro screen on the carburator. My milage went from 32 mpg to 59 mpg. Unfortunately, my spouse stole and sold that screen to his buddy. Never could find another. But for 4 months the 16 cent per gallon gas from the Texas Star Gas in College Station got me to and from campus on not quite 22 gallons that semester

You do great work Tony, and of course your driver too but let us not forget the camera operator, and video editor as well 😁

The way I increased the fuel mileage on my 1965 Chevrolet Impala SS, was to reduce the main jets size, and a 2.52 differential gear ratio.

Try putting diesel in the vaporizer part, if your exhaust heater part is heating the fuel enough, it will run off of it. I made a Chevy 250 six idle off of one of these, the rest of the time it ran off the recalibrated carb, long story short, I got 26 MPG. In the fall I had to add a preheater that I made from an old toaster. One of these systems would work great in the desert, where the motor never really cools off. I don't think your fuel is preheating correctly on the headers. I used an air conditioning filter that came off and old Chrysler. That little round tank looking thing on the hose with the gauge fitting on the side. With that against a cast iron manifold, with a cover, to keep the fan air off of it, it gets hot enough to work. My dad was a mechanic, and when I was a kid we lived next to a big salvage. It was my playground. I had one of these on another car, I could run it off of windshield washer fluid. You're probably destroying the vacuum with yours, and the carb can't work right so it's not vaporizing either. It's 20 % worse mileage, by the way. 2 less laps than 10 is 20% . I had to have a ball valve, 1/8 inch, to set how much went to the intake manifold. Maybe ideally, it could have been hooked up to the gas pedal. The main is to keep the vacuum high enough for the carb to work. Looks like you have a lot of experiment left.

I believe that with the system in use, the fuel mixture should have been adjusted leaner, because the system should be providing more fuel and running richer. You would probably have to dial in the correct fuel air adjustment with the system on, before doing the experiment, and then switch the mixture back to normal. Also you have to measure any fuel loss in the systems special added fuel tank. I don't know if the water lost would matter? We are measuring how much fuel is being used. I'm not sure how this vapor system works because I don't know what is on the inside of the system. The heat should help. I don't know why it's connected to the vacuum line.

Nice to see and hear the Dart running again! That 273 is a sweet motor. Thanks to Al for driving and to Kathy for filming and editing this one. As far as the vapor system, I'm not surprised, honestly. If this stuff worked on a mass scale, they'd be more popular. Maybe with extreme tuning for a single vehicle you might be able to get the advertised results, but it's still probably bs.

This is the exact conversation I hoped would happen years ago. Hot rodders focusing on squeezing miles per gallon instead of horsepower per cubic inch. Good tv.

what worked for my 95 Nissan Pathfinder was unplugging the one oxygen sensor and adding an adjustable 20k pot inline with the mass airflow sensor. It would force the ECU into open loop mode (no feedback mixture value) and give you manual mixture control. around 10k ohms gave me over 20 MPG. stock is 16 MPG. There is a performance hit so I can turn it off when I need power. Does not work on newer cars.

Back in the 1930s a mechanic in Winnipeg Manitoba last name Pogue invented a vaporizing system that increased gas mileage exponentially. In the 60s I worked for International Harvester Motor Truck in parts. Our manager told me that they had tried a Pogue carburetor on a parts delivery pickup truck. While a significant mileage increase did take place the preheated, vaporized fuel was very hot causing the engine valves to burn out prematurely. Our big truck gas engines had sodium cooled valves and whether that would have solved the vale burn out is unknown because apparently the system was only tried on a standard pickup. Interestingly I went to school with a nephew of Mr. Pogue. He told a story whereby his uncle was approached by a major oil company who bought him out to quash the design. I was never able to collaborate that fact but many years ago the Winnipeg Free Press did a review on the Pogue system. It is probably available from their archives.

You should try one that adds water vapor to the fule. Sounds crazy , but if you have the time and resources to check it out you'll see, and if it has a hydrolysis device if it isn't up to a certain efficiency then it will always be a bigger pull than a gain.

I tried a lot of different things back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. What actually did something were two systems. The first, and best, was a "sonicater" that was essentially two ultra sonic transducers that sat just underneath the carb barrels, on the floor of the intake manifold. There was an amp that sat under the hood and drove the transducers. As the gasoline hit the transducers, it vaporized incredibly well, and fast. The result was noticeably more power, about 12-15% better fuel economy, and a much cleaner burn. When the car went for emissions testing, they thought there was something wrong with the machine because the 74 Impala was meeting emissions numbers for cars in 1982. The other system was a "steam" injection system, similar to what appears in this video, but with only aerated water. Essentially, heated air was drawn through a water tank creating a big bubbling jug of hot water, and resulting water vapor was drawn into the intake manifold by way of vacuum port between the carb and the manifold. Did it work? Yes, marginally better economy of about 3-5%, and a very slight power improvement. The downside was overheated pistons, with one of them basically melting a bit. The engine ran over temp. Had to enrich the air fuel mixture to cool it down but then lost any gains in economy, although it also increased the power output a bit more as measured by dyno.

I have seen this before. Another thing I remeber is that they would fill the intake manifold with steel wool to help vaporize the fuel further.

Hi, Your Retriever 520 wrecker bed, I have one a 79 (Dodge)with factory double rail frame is W350 One Ton 4X4 Powerwagon, I actually Pulled a House on log skids with it 1/4 mile and a semi w 40ft van and 15K lbs in trailer on dirt road stuck in a ditch without putting it in 4x4, never even slipped a tire. Amazing truck. Far as Vapor type Gas fuel systems there is a Canadian fellow who owned a clutch factory and the vapor system he invented put on a flathead V8 Ford near the beginning of WWII and managed 51MPG, Our US Gov. got the patent from him and Used it on TANKS, which doubled and tripled their milage , was used on several vehicles and at the end of the WAR it was SHELVED and the patent hidden from the citizenry and may still be in the patent vaults. True story. I Know it is Past time that those devices should be pulled out and USED!!! Greedy Damn Gas and Oil industry. Which Pushes the AUTO Industry to make crappy fuel economy on Cars or did ...?? I do NOT think there has been much change.

Would be cool to see a 1/8 or 1/4mile time difference, or how it drives up and down hills under load. Or even fuel economy at freeway speed

Great video, Uncle T!!! In my experience (quite a bit less than most, I'll admit) A high quality, well tuned carburetor (I've almost always used Edelbrock) will achieve better fuel mileage than a lot of aftermarket EFI options... Plus, like so many have already mentioned; if you tinkered on cars/trucks at all pre-internet, we all tried something like the product shown... and I never found one that really delivered either.

I use this and several other aftermarket fuel saving devices in my care and have not filled-up in over 15,000 miles. Now I do run a 1,000 gallon gas tank, but still....

I tried some duel saving stuff over the years. The only things that improved my mileage was a product called TMT ( Teflon Motor Treatment) which made cold ND -40* starts a breeze and improved my mileage in a 1978 Caprice 9 passenger wagon with a 350/350 from 11 to 18 mpg. When I could no longer get the oil treatment the mileage dropped back to 11 so I added a platinum fuel saver that sucked vapors into the intake from a vaporizer much the same as buddy's setup but without the heating tubes. I went back to the 18 mpg almost immediately. Then the price of platinum went up and they went out of business so I left the system hiiked up to see if it was just the liquid they used to suspend the platinum particles, but alas the milage dropped back down when the time to add platinum came and I had none.....and dropped to below 11 to about 9 so I took it out and went back up to 11. Then the added alcohol to all the gas and it dropped down to 8.