Propane Injection – Ken’s Findings
04-21-02, 11:46 AM
#1
Propane Injection – Ken’s Findings
Seeing that Greg closed down the other thread I’ll start another one. Reason it was closed was people were not following the rules, I guess. This thread will be a post of my findings of the plusses and minuses of propane injection for all RX-7s.
For those getting the DR NOS kit and attaching it to a tank with propane they can post their results here if they wish.
There were a lot of questions asked on the other thread that were to be addressed by Welsh Technologies this week. If you want to re-ask questions you may do it here. I will be talking with him Monday and encouraging him to respond. I’ll have more to post during the week.
I’ll start it by stating this technology works very well with diesel and turbo diesel. Here is just one web site, but there are others. People in my town are using it with great success. My brother has a 2002 Ford F-350 4dr turbo diesel pickup. He knows people using the technology and it works. He has a chip and when he converts to propane he should have 700-800lbs torque. The propane is good for 90hp and 190 lb torque gains. Much better mpg(up to 40%).
http://www.dieselperformanceproducts.com/home.html
Now I need to find out how well this technology will work for gas burning engines. Some of the claims are next to no emissions, because there is a 99-100% burning up of all the fuel. That’s what it is on diesels. Much more low end torque and hp, much cooler burning engine, higher octane rating, cleaner burning engine, cooler intake temps, 20-30 degrees cooler oil temps, much lower EGTs, etc.
One story Welsh told me about was a fellow in NJ had a high-performance sports car that was overheating. This fellow was moving to AZ and he knew he’d be in real trouble there in the summer. He knew propane could help so he installed it. He has gone through one AZ summer with no over heating problems.
Anyways this post was just to get the thread started. Much more will come during the week.
Ken, 57 years young
'94 white, base, pep, red leather,
mods: street port & polished stage II, 3mm Hurley racing seals, upgraded coolant seals,
AEM EMS ecu(If they can ever deliver),
XS T04e single turbo kit,
SMIC (400+cu.in.),
Aquamist 2s water injection kit,
Propane Injection Kit(maybe),
Pettit ss resonated MP,
Pettit ss cat-back,
RP Racing fuel pump,
1600cc injectors,
Profec B(15&20+psi),
3-bar Map Sensor,
Centerforce clutch,
under pulley kit(no air pump),
Pettit short shifter kit,
boost gauge,
LaBreck's bushings,
Evans Coolant
<http://nopistons.com/luv94rx7.html>
For those getting the DR NOS kit and attaching it to a tank with propane they can post their results here if they wish.
There were a lot of questions asked on the other thread that were to be addressed by Welsh Technologies this week. If you want to re-ask questions you may do it here. I will be talking with him Monday and encouraging him to respond. I’ll have more to post during the week.
I’ll start it by stating this technology works very well with diesel and turbo diesel. Here is just one web site, but there are others. People in my town are using it with great success. My brother has a 2002 Ford F-350 4dr turbo diesel pickup. He knows people using the technology and it works. He has a chip and when he converts to propane he should have 700-800lbs torque. The propane is good for 90hp and 190 lb torque gains. Much better mpg(up to 40%).
http://www.dieselperformanceproducts.com/home.html
Now I need to find out how well this technology will work for gas burning engines. Some of the claims are next to no emissions, because there is a 99-100% burning up of all the fuel. That’s what it is on diesels. Much more low end torque and hp, much cooler burning engine, higher octane rating, cleaner burning engine, cooler intake temps, 20-30 degrees cooler oil temps, much lower EGTs, etc.
One story Welsh told me about was a fellow in NJ had a high-performance sports car that was overheating. This fellow was moving to AZ and he knew he’d be in real trouble there in the summer. He knew propane could help so he installed it. He has gone through one AZ summer with no over heating problems.
Anyways this post was just to get the thread started. Much more will come during the week.
Ken, 57 years young
'94 white, base, pep, red leather,
mods: street port & polished stage II, 3mm Hurley racing seals, upgraded coolant seals,
AEM EMS ecu(If they can ever deliver),
XS T04e single turbo kit,
SMIC (400+cu.in.),
Aquamist 2s water injection kit,
Propane Injection Kit(maybe),
Pettit ss resonated MP,
Pettit ss cat-back,
RP Racing fuel pump,
1600cc injectors,
Profec B(15&20+psi),
3-bar Map Sensor,
Centerforce clutch,
under pulley kit(no air pump),
Pettit short shifter kit,
boost gauge,
LaBreck's bushings,
Evans Coolant
<http://nopistons.com/luv94rx7.html>
04-21-02, 01:55 PM
#2
Questions from other thread for Welsh
Hopefully this will make it easier for Welsh to respond. I'll make him aware of this thread.
Ken
"If you want to use propane all the time for better emissions, etc.. then the Welsh kit is for you.
If you are interested in performance increases in WOT only situations, for OFF ROAD/RACE VEHICLES then the DR kit is for you.
Most of the stuff Welsh talks about is total crap, IMHO.
First of all, regardless of whether you inject propane as a vapor, or propane as a liquid, nothing harmful is going to happen to your engine.
Propane expands from a liquid to a gas when it hits boiling point (-45) -- the expansion ratio is roughly 270:1 -- What that means is, you could inject LIQUID propane into your motor (I have tried it on MY PERSONAL CAR, it worked fine, but the car bogged from running too rich) if you wanted to, however you would need a MUCH SMALLER jet as it would just run EXTREMELY rich if you were to inject liquid propane when your car was normally tuned for vapor propane.
Does anybody know what happens if your car runs really rich for a few seconds? -- Exactly, nothing. It may stumble; you may foul your plugs, no harm done.
Does anybody know what happens if your car runs really lean for a few seconds? -- Can you say broken Apex seals? (heh, correct me if I'm wrong, I’m not a rotary guru)
I see Welsh spreading a lot of disinformation. I see DR being totally honest. DR has not said anything negative about the Welsh kit. DR has not stolen ANY IDEAS, or ANY TECHNOLOGY. Propane injection has been around before Mr. Welsh was born more then likely.
I see Welsh saying things about the DR kit that are just bold-faced lies. I see them trying to scare everyone away from the DR kit, making up lies about the performance aspects, and motor health aspects.
Mr. Welsh, let me ask you something.
You claim that DR stole your ideas and your technology. Yet you go on to state that their kit is total junk, and it wont work and it will damage your motor and it is totally dangerous and unsafe.
If their kit is so much different from yours, then what exactly did they steal from you? You can’t have it both ways. They stole your ideas, and their kit is unsafe -- then that means yours is unsafe too right? They are copying your ideas after all by your own claims.
Your statements make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You contradict yourself constantly.
Another thing I think is extremely low is that you keep saying they stole your ideas... what exactly was your idea. I know you are not naive enough to believe you invented the idea of injecting propane into a motor. The method you use is different from DR's method, and the parts used are completely different as well. In fact, the ONLY thing your kit has in common with DR's is the substance injected (propane) --- There are literally hundreds of companies on the Internet selling the same basic idea. Have you filed a lawsuit against those hundreds of companies? Do you realize that prior art can be found on the idea itself, and that you cannot patent the idea of propane injection?
Lets forget the kit just for a few minutes. Your statements about DR and your boldfaced lies could be construed as libelous statements. I am going to email Matt @ DR and suggest that he pursue charges against you for damaging their name with false accusations. You cannot simply state the things that you have said, complete lies with absolutely no substantiation and expect to get away with it. You are damaging their name with your lies.
John Gonzalez
ekool@fiendish.net
Plz forward to Welsh and have them respond to all my points publicly."
"Ken, all I can say is that your guesses are completely wrong.
DR did not pull the kit for safety reasons. They pulled the kit for patent reasons.
As ridiculous as Welshs' claims are, it’s not worth having to spend money on legal fees having to fight such idiotic charges. You and I can plainly see that the two systems are totally different.
Winning the case would be easy, but it would still cost money.
By pulling the kit in that particular form, and putting up "just the injection" stuff, no one can make any patent claims whatsoever.
Ken,
Can you or Welsh explain to me exactly how injecting propane "wrongly" can damage a motor?
Can you or Welsh explain how the DOT certified DR tank is more dangerous then the Welsh tank?
Can you or Welsh explain how the lines used by Welsh are somehow magically safer then the stainless steel braided line that NOS uses for 900+ psi nitrous oxide, and that DR includes with the kit?
Can you explain how the DR kit is somehow unsafe, as compared to the hundred other propane injection kits on the market?
The issue is not safety. The issue has to waste time and money defending something you know you can win, but which will cost you money regardless.
I still find it quite funny how you believe anything Welsh tells you about how their kit is just so much different from the DR kit, yet he still claims DR copied his ideas, technology, etc.
If this were the case, how can one be so much more dangerous then the other."
Ken
"If you want to use propane all the time for better emissions, etc.. then the Welsh kit is for you.
If you are interested in performance increases in WOT only situations, for OFF ROAD/RACE VEHICLES then the DR kit is for you.
Most of the stuff Welsh talks about is total crap, IMHO.
First of all, regardless of whether you inject propane as a vapor, or propane as a liquid, nothing harmful is going to happen to your engine.
Propane expands from a liquid to a gas when it hits boiling point (-45) -- the expansion ratio is roughly 270:1 -- What that means is, you could inject LIQUID propane into your motor (I have tried it on MY PERSONAL CAR, it worked fine, but the car bogged from running too rich) if you wanted to, however you would need a MUCH SMALLER jet as it would just run EXTREMELY rich if you were to inject liquid propane when your car was normally tuned for vapor propane.
Does anybody know what happens if your car runs really rich for a few seconds? -- Exactly, nothing. It may stumble; you may foul your plugs, no harm done.
Does anybody know what happens if your car runs really lean for a few seconds? -- Can you say broken Apex seals? (heh, correct me if I'm wrong, I’m not a rotary guru)
I see Welsh spreading a lot of disinformation. I see DR being totally honest. DR has not said anything negative about the Welsh kit. DR has not stolen ANY IDEAS, or ANY TECHNOLOGY. Propane injection has been around before Mr. Welsh was born more then likely.
I see Welsh saying things about the DR kit that are just bold-faced lies. I see them trying to scare everyone away from the DR kit, making up lies about the performance aspects, and motor health aspects.
Mr. Welsh, let me ask you something.
You claim that DR stole your ideas and your technology. Yet you go on to state that their kit is total junk, and it wont work and it will damage your motor and it is totally dangerous and unsafe.
If their kit is so much different from yours, then what exactly did they steal from you? You can’t have it both ways. They stole your ideas, and their kit is unsafe -- then that means yours is unsafe too right? They are copying your ideas after all by your own claims.
Your statements make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You contradict yourself constantly.
Another thing I think is extremely low is that you keep saying they stole your ideas... what exactly was your idea. I know you are not naive enough to believe you invented the idea of injecting propane into a motor. The method you use is different from DR's method, and the parts used are completely different as well. In fact, the ONLY thing your kit has in common with DR's is the substance injected (propane) --- There are literally hundreds of companies on the Internet selling the same basic idea. Have you filed a lawsuit against those hundreds of companies? Do you realize that prior art can be found on the idea itself, and that you cannot patent the idea of propane injection?
Lets forget the kit just for a few minutes. Your statements about DR and your boldfaced lies could be construed as libelous statements. I am going to email Matt @ DR and suggest that he pursue charges against you for damaging their name with false accusations. You cannot simply state the things that you have said, complete lies with absolutely no substantiation and expect to get away with it. You are damaging their name with your lies.
John Gonzalez
ekool@fiendish.net
Plz forward to Welsh and have them respond to all my points publicly."
"Ken, all I can say is that your guesses are completely wrong.
DR did not pull the kit for safety reasons. They pulled the kit for patent reasons.
As ridiculous as Welshs' claims are, it’s not worth having to spend money on legal fees having to fight such idiotic charges. You and I can plainly see that the two systems are totally different.
Winning the case would be easy, but it would still cost money.
By pulling the kit in that particular form, and putting up "just the injection" stuff, no one can make any patent claims whatsoever.
Ken,
Can you or Welsh explain to me exactly how injecting propane "wrongly" can damage a motor?
Can you or Welsh explain how the DOT certified DR tank is more dangerous then the Welsh tank?
Can you or Welsh explain how the lines used by Welsh are somehow magically safer then the stainless steel braided line that NOS uses for 900+ psi nitrous oxide, and that DR includes with the kit?
Can you explain how the DR kit is somehow unsafe, as compared to the hundred other propane injection kits on the market?
The issue is not safety. The issue has to waste time and money defending something you know you can win, but which will cost you money regardless.
I still find it quite funny how you believe anything Welsh tells you about how their kit is just so much different from the DR kit, yet he still claims DR copied his ideas, technology, etc.
If this were the case, how can one be so much more dangerous then the other."
04-21-02, 02:09 PM
#4
Old [Sch|F]ool
I don't get it... the Welsh kit is not for boost safety reasons, it is for "better economy and emissions" (somehow).
The DR kit is not for "better economy and emissions", it is for safety under boost by cooling the intake charge and providing additional fuel.
Like I said, I don't get where the patent infringement is.
The DR kit is not for "better economy and emissions", it is for safety under boost by cooling the intake charge and providing additional fuel.
Like I said, I don't get where the patent infringement is.
04-21-02, 03:56 PM
#5
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: new jersey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Gonzalez:
In this country when people and busines develop items and technogoly they patent those ideas and are given the sole right to that intellgentual property. Welsh Technologies has spent decades researching and has numerous patents both US and foreign regarding our technology. Unfortanetly there are people that steal our patents. When it comes to our attention that people are using our patented technology we have the right to order those people to imediately stop or face the penalties.
All propane use on-board a vehicle, no matter the vehicle use, must be in full compliance with N.F.P.A. regulations. The N.F.P.A. regulations are safety code requirements to ensure the safe use of propane and to protect the public. Propane is a fuel and has to be handled with care. As a long time member of the N.F.P.A. it horrofies me to see anyone selling products that do not comply with the safety requlations and it is my duty to report this before something bad happens.
Dumping untreated propane that can be in a liquid or gaseous state into a engine can be extermely harmful to the engine, not to mention the added concern of significant increased combustion temperature, drying of internal combonents such as gaskets and seals, etc. Propane has many physical properties that must be addressed properly before just dumping into a engine. And espically high performance engines.
I hope you are aware of federal anti-tampering provisions that do not allow you or anyone else tampering at will with fuel and emission devices of the engine of any 1984 and later vehicles. The fine is $25,000.00 to the vehicle owner.
If you wish to discuss propane as vehicle fuel rationaly without your inflamatory comments I am more the willing. But do not slander me, my company, safety codes, federal requlations, patent rights, or concern for public safety.
In this country when people and busines develop items and technogoly they patent those ideas and are given the sole right to that intellgentual property. Welsh Technologies has spent decades researching and has numerous patents both US and foreign regarding our technology. Unfortanetly there are people that steal our patents. When it comes to our attention that people are using our patented technology we have the right to order those people to imediately stop or face the penalties.
All propane use on-board a vehicle, no matter the vehicle use, must be in full compliance with N.F.P.A. regulations. The N.F.P.A. regulations are safety code requirements to ensure the safe use of propane and to protect the public. Propane is a fuel and has to be handled with care. As a long time member of the N.F.P.A. it horrofies me to see anyone selling products that do not comply with the safety requlations and it is my duty to report this before something bad happens.
Dumping untreated propane that can be in a liquid or gaseous state into a engine can be extermely harmful to the engine, not to mention the added concern of significant increased combustion temperature, drying of internal combonents such as gaskets and seals, etc. Propane has many physical properties that must be addressed properly before just dumping into a engine. And espically high performance engines.
I hope you are aware of federal anti-tampering provisions that do not allow you or anyone else tampering at will with fuel and emission devices of the engine of any 1984 and later vehicles. The fine is $25,000.00 to the vehicle owner.
If you wish to discuss propane as vehicle fuel rationaly without your inflamatory comments I am more the willing. But do not slander me, my company, safety codes, federal requlations, patent rights, or concern for public safety.
04-21-02, 04:43 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't see how propane is going to increase power in a gasoline engine any as it's only fuel (propane = C3H8) - it doesn't add any oxygen. Without additional oxygen, you're just richening up the mixture, which you can do by altering your fuel map if you wanted to in the first place. I guess you could use it instead of adding more/larger injectors but it would sure suck when the tank runs dry and you lean out.
Henrik
87TII
Henrik
87TII
04-21-02, 04:58 PM
#7
Laying Down Rotary Law
well mr welsh 80% of people on this forum HAVE tempered with emissions and fuel systems on there cars post 84" so you better have your lawyers contact
the owners of this site for permiting people to post info on altering there cars....
the owners of this site for permiting people to post info on altering there cars....
Last edited by kabooski; 04-21-02 at 05:18 PM.
Trending Topics
04-22-02, 05:36 AM
#11
The dyno charts on the turbo diesel show peak torque and hp up by about 33% with propane and a great power curve. If this were anywhere near close for a gas engine this would be amazing to me. It would mean I would not have to run ultra high boost (20+psi). Now if my original configuration were going to get 400rwhp with 15psi then I’d get over 500rwhp with a ton more low-end torque and a much better power curve.
I see no reason why I can't install Welsh's kit that will not blow up my motor and have a switch to just turn it on when I want it. Then it's not a full-time system. When it's off I just don't receive all the benefits. Welsh says lots of people run out of propane and it just runs as usual, so that would be the same as switching it off. He says there are no ecu programming changes with propane being treated and inducted properly. Now I need to check with him today and see what the power increases are for a gas motor compared to the diesels. Also ask him if a switch can be used. As much as I’d like to run it full-time I do not want to have the filling problems. In my case the propane place is not the same place I get gas. I have to drive another 5-10 miles to get my propane. The 6 gallon tank will help a lot. I like the idea of having the fill spot next to the gas filler. I’ll never have to open my hatch except to add water to my 3 gallon fuel cell for my Aquamist 2s water injection kit. I will not have to use methanol/water solution like I planned to increase octane as propane does that for me better than methanol. That will remove another hassle I was going to have.
Ken
I see no reason why I can't install Welsh's kit that will not blow up my motor and have a switch to just turn it on when I want it. Then it's not a full-time system. When it's off I just don't receive all the benefits. Welsh says lots of people run out of propane and it just runs as usual, so that would be the same as switching it off. He says there are no ecu programming changes with propane being treated and inducted properly. Now I need to check with him today and see what the power increases are for a gas motor compared to the diesels. Also ask him if a switch can be used. As much as I’d like to run it full-time I do not want to have the filling problems. In my case the propane place is not the same place I get gas. I have to drive another 5-10 miles to get my propane. The 6 gallon tank will help a lot. I like the idea of having the fill spot next to the gas filler. I’ll never have to open my hatch except to add water to my 3 gallon fuel cell for my Aquamist 2s water injection kit. I will not have to use methanol/water solution like I planned to increase octane as propane does that for me better than methanol. That will remove another hassle I was going to have.
Ken
04-22-02, 03:42 PM
#12
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by Henrik
Well I don't see how propane is going to increase power in a gasoline engine any as it's only fuel (propane = C3H8) - it doesn't add any oxygen. Without additional oxygen, you're just richening up the mixture, which you can do by altering your fuel map if you wanted to in the first place. I guess you could use it instead of adding more/larger injectors but it would sure suck when the tank runs dry and you lean out.
Henrik
87TII
Well I don't see how propane is going to increase power in a gasoline engine any as it's only fuel (propane = C3H8) - it doesn't add any oxygen. Without additional oxygen, you're just richening up the mixture, which you can do by altering your fuel map if you wanted to in the first place. I guess you could use it instead of adding more/larger injectors but it would sure suck when the tank runs dry and you lean out.
Henrik
87TII
This has numerous benefits. With intake temps lower, you have less chance of detonation. Or, you could crank up the boost and not worry about intake temps skyrocketing. Or do both. Cooler intake temps means the engine runs cooler, and EGTs are lower.
All in all it sounds a lot like a better form of water/methanol injection. People also use nitrous oxide systems to help cool off the intake but this obviously also requires additional fueling, and the power gain from the nitrous is a benefit as well.
04-22-02, 08:17 PM
#13
so where do you inject the propane at?
before the TB?
before the IC?
after the TB?
where is the safest place to do it. I would think that you would not want it before the IC as when you left of the gas and boost pressure reverses sending propane gas back to the HOT turbo.
I would have to say it would be after the TB but where.....
before the TB?
before the IC?
after the TB?
where is the safest place to do it. I would think that you would not want it before the IC as when you left of the gas and boost pressure reverses sending propane gas back to the HOT turbo.
I would have to say it would be after the TB but where.....
04-22-02, 09:14 PM
#16
I called Welsh today but he was on the road all day. He did call me back about an hour ago and had to get home right away. He was able to chat a bit. My suspensions were true; the diesels with propane get a bigger power improvement than do gas engines. He said to figure at least 20%. He also said it should be a full-time system not switchable. It’s very technical so he will explain tomorrow when he calls. I have a ton of questions to ask him. His info did not come in the mail today, hopefully tomorrow. I should have a lot more info tomorrow night for you all. I’ll ask him any questions you post also. He did convince me that doing it improperly is very dangerous not only for your engine but your life. That’s why there are strict regulations on how to do it. That was very technical too. When I have time I’ll try to document the reasons. It’s hard to remember everything in a verbal phone conversation.
Ken
Ken
04-24-02, 07:22 AM
#18
Some Misc Comments & Questions from the "Big List"
Can you please ask him if a smaller tank mounted in the trunk area is possible? Also is it possible to adjust the propane system so that I can run higher boost while providing more propane?
Propane is popular. I have no idea (nor am I qualified to speculate) on why it is not more popular in the performance car crowd, but it is quite popular with diesel trucks.
FWIW, at least one kit I know of has a check valve type thing that ensures that the propane is only injected in the gaseous form and that NO liquid surges can get through. They recommend a tank size of at least 25% of the regular fuel capacity (bear in mind that this is for diesel engines, I doubt that the ratio of 'regular' fuel to propane would be the same for gasoline). Aside from the vaporizer piece, the systems that I have seen
have been very simple, based on manifold pressure.
It is funny that this discussion should show up this weekend.
I was watching my car shows this weekend, including Horse Power TV. They are doing a build up of a Dodge Dualy with a Cummings Turbo charged diesel motor. They did some various things to it starting with a base line of 190RWHP. They did a computer upgrade, exhaust and intake, and new upgraded injectors and ended up with ~240 RWHP on the dyno.
Next they installed a propane injection kit on the truck and the HP number shot up to over ~390 RWHP (going from memory here).
The reason they stated they use propane injection was "propane has a higher octane rating than standard diesel"....
I think that this might be why it is more popular with the diesel trucks, as they have to deal with diesel gas which often has a fixed octane rating.
Anyways, with all the go fast parts they added to the dualy, the propane injection was probably the biggest performance gain.
Just thought I would throw in my two cents.
On the surface, it certainly sounds feasible that injecting a lighter fuel that burns faster will help burn the main fuel, but I agree, it should be more popular if it really works that well.
something to keep in mind here ...
for spark ignition engines, the factor to watch
is "octane", which is a measure of the fuels'
resistance to spontaneous, uncontrolled burning.
the higher the number, the harder it is to ignite
the fuel/air mix (roughly speaking).
for compression ignition engines (diesels), the
factor is called "cetane" ... the higher cetane
number, the easier the fuel/air mix ignites!
(high cetane might not be what you had in mind)
diesels, most of which feature direct cylinder
fuel injection, very much want and need a fuel
that readily ignites when sprayed into the
chamber ... due to flame speed issues, 4000 to
perhaps 4500 rpm is the upper limit for diesels.
you can see this in the dyno plots.
bottom line: propane injection in a spark ignited
engine such as the rotary might not produce the
same or ever similar results that compression
ignited engines do.
Propane is popular. I have no idea (nor am I qualified to speculate) on why it is not more popular in the performance car crowd, but it is quite popular with diesel trucks.
FWIW, at least one kit I know of has a check valve type thing that ensures that the propane is only injected in the gaseous form and that NO liquid surges can get through. They recommend a tank size of at least 25% of the regular fuel capacity (bear in mind that this is for diesel engines, I doubt that the ratio of 'regular' fuel to propane would be the same for gasoline). Aside from the vaporizer piece, the systems that I have seen
have been very simple, based on manifold pressure.
It is funny that this discussion should show up this weekend.
I was watching my car shows this weekend, including Horse Power TV. They are doing a build up of a Dodge Dualy with a Cummings Turbo charged diesel motor. They did some various things to it starting with a base line of 190RWHP. They did a computer upgrade, exhaust and intake, and new upgraded injectors and ended up with ~240 RWHP on the dyno.
Next they installed a propane injection kit on the truck and the HP number shot up to over ~390 RWHP (going from memory here).
The reason they stated they use propane injection was "propane has a higher octane rating than standard diesel"....
I think that this might be why it is more popular with the diesel trucks, as they have to deal with diesel gas which often has a fixed octane rating.
Anyways, with all the go fast parts they added to the dualy, the propane injection was probably the biggest performance gain.
Just thought I would throw in my two cents.
On the surface, it certainly sounds feasible that injecting a lighter fuel that burns faster will help burn the main fuel, but I agree, it should be more popular if it really works that well.
something to keep in mind here ...
for spark ignition engines, the factor to watch
is "octane", which is a measure of the fuels'
resistance to spontaneous, uncontrolled burning.
the higher the number, the harder it is to ignite
the fuel/air mix (roughly speaking).
for compression ignition engines (diesels), the
factor is called "cetane" ... the higher cetane
number, the easier the fuel/air mix ignites!
(high cetane might not be what you had in mind)
diesels, most of which feature direct cylinder
fuel injection, very much want and need a fuel
that readily ignites when sprayed into the
chamber ... due to flame speed issues, 4000 to
perhaps 4500 rpm is the upper limit for diesels.
you can see this in the dyno plots.
bottom line: propane injection in a spark ignited
engine such as the rotary might not produce the
same or ever similar results that compression
ignited engines do.
04-24-02, 07:35 AM
#19
A response from Welsh on a previeous question
It’s really hard to comment when someone takes a little knowledge and then makes misstatements based on that. I don't enough know where to start with these comments, but this guy has very little knowledge of the physical properties of fuels.
First the octane of propane is its flame rate, which is how quick the combustion occurs when it’s ignited. Ignition of combustion occurs by spark in a gasoline engine and compression in a diesel engine. Propane's increased flame rate does not cause retarding of ignition. I think what this gentlemen is referring to is the additive of octane mixes to gasoline, typically alcohol blends, to retard the ignition so as to have more fuel vaporized before combustion for smother performance and reduced pin. Such as using "super" gas. We recommend with our system to use the lowest octane gasoline to achieve the best mileage.
Diesel fuel does not combust as its sprayed into the piston as stated, but when compress to an extent that heat causes auto ignition. Again we use the propane's high flame rate to enhance the combustion then.
First the octane of propane is its flame rate, which is how quick the combustion occurs when it’s ignited. Ignition of combustion occurs by spark in a gasoline engine and compression in a diesel engine. Propane's increased flame rate does not cause retarding of ignition. I think what this gentlemen is referring to is the additive of octane mixes to gasoline, typically alcohol blends, to retard the ignition so as to have more fuel vaporized before combustion for smother performance and reduced pin. Such as using "super" gas. We recommend with our system to use the lowest octane gasoline to achieve the best mileage.
Diesel fuel does not combust as its sprayed into the piston as stated, but when compress to an extent that heat causes auto ignition. Again we use the propane's high flame rate to enhance the combustion then.
04-24-02, 10:46 AM
#21
r71's daddy
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y=PN%2F4373493
United States Patent 4,373,493
February 15, 1983
Method and apparatus for utilizing gaseous and liquid fuels in an internal combustion engine
A method and apparatus for utilizing both a liquid fuel and a gaseous fuel with a minimum change in a standard internal combustion engine. The gaseous and liquid fuels are fed from separate fuel supplies with the flow of fuels being controlled in response to engine load so that at engine idle only gaseous fuel is supplied and combusted by the engine and both gaseous and liquid fuels are supplied and combusted when the engine is operating under load conditions.
What is claimed is:
1. A method for utilizing both gaseous and liquid fuels in a standard internal combustion engine utilizing a carburetor having a throttle valve therein for cutting off the supply of air and liquid fuel to the carburetor while the engine is in a no-load idle operating state, said method comprising:
supplying liquid fuel and air to the engine carburetor,
supplying gaseous fuel from a separate gaseous fuel reservoir at regulated pressure stored under substantially high pressure and released from the reservoir at a lower regulated pressure mixing said gaseous fuel with air from a supply independent of the liquid fuel air supply, and feeding the gaseous fuel and air mixture directly to the intake manifold of said internal combustion engine at a point between the carburetor throttle valve and the manifold,
controlling the flow of liquid fuel from said carburetor to said engine manifold to preclude feeding of liquid fuel to said manifold while the engine is in a no-load idling operating state,
supplying only the gaseous fuel and air mixture to said engine manifold at a controlled rate while said engine is in said no-load idling state, and
feeding increasing quantities of both gaseous and liquid fuels to said manifold responsive to increasing engine loads, the feeding of gaseous fuel being controlled by the manifold vacuum, volume displacement of the engine cylinders.
2. The method as defined in claim 1 including the step of controlling the flow of gaseous fuel from said gaseous fuel reservoir in response to a sensed operating parameter of said engine.
3. The method as defined in claim 2 wherein said sensed operating parameter of said engine is an indication of engine oil pressure.
4. The method as defined in claim 1 including the step of providing a regulator device to control the rate of flow of gaseous fuel to increase the rate of flow responsive to an increase in engine load as reflected by an increase in the manifold vacuum pressure, volume displacement of the engine cylinders.
5. An apparatus for utilizing both a liquid and gaseous fuel in an internal combustion engine having at least one carburetor and one intake manifold system and a liquid fuel reservoir operatively connected to said carburetor to supply liquid fuel for distribution by said carburetor to said intake manifold said carbureator having a throttle valve therein for controlling the flow of air and liquid fuel to the manifold system, said apparatus comprising:
a gaseous fuel reservoir operatively connected through a gaseous fuel and air mixer to the intake manifold to supply gaseous fuel by direct flow to said manifold, said mixer having an opening to the atmosphere to supply a separate supply of air independent of the carburetor for mixing with the gaseous fuel flowing to the manifold the air and gaseous fuel mixture entering the manifold between the manifold and the throttle valve,
means to control the supply of both liquid and gaseous fuels to said intake manifold and to close the throttle valve and to supply only gaseous fuel to the engine at no-load engine idle conditions and to supply both gaseous and liquid fuels to the engine at load conditions, said means including the control of gaseous fuel being controlled by the manifold vacuum, volume displacement of the engine cylinders.
6. The apparatus as defined in claim 5 wherein said means to control the supply of gaseous fuel to said intake manifold includes an opened and closed valve means to control the flow of gaseous fuel from said gaseous fuel reservoir to said intake manifold.
7. The apparatus as defined in claim 6 wherein said valve means is selectively moved from its said closed position to its said open position responsive to a sensed operating parameter of said engine.
8. The apparatus as defined in claim 7 including means to sense changes in the oil pressure of said engine and wherein said sensed change in engine oil pressure is said sensed engine operating parameter.
9. The apparatus as defined in claim 6 wherein said control assembly includes means responsive to a warning detector means to close said valve means to preclude flow of gaseous fuel from said gaseous fuel reservoir to said engine manifold responsive to a sensed detection of said warning detector means.
10. The apparatus as defined in claim 9 wherein said detector means is a gaseous fuel leak detector.
11. The apparatus as defined in claim 9 wherein said detector means is an impact detector means.
12. The apparatus as defined in claim 9 wherein said detector means is a position detector means.
United States Patent 4,373,493
February 15, 1983
Method and apparatus for utilizing gaseous and liquid fuels in an internal combustion engine
A method and apparatus for utilizing both a liquid fuel and a gaseous fuel with a minimum change in a standard internal combustion engine. The gaseous and liquid fuels are fed from separate fuel supplies with the flow of fuels being controlled in response to engine load so that at engine idle only gaseous fuel is supplied and combusted by the engine and both gaseous and liquid fuels are supplied and combusted when the engine is operating under load conditions.
What is claimed is:
1. A method for utilizing both gaseous and liquid fuels in a standard internal combustion engine utilizing a carburetor having a throttle valve therein for cutting off the supply of air and liquid fuel to the carburetor while the engine is in a no-load idle operating state, said method comprising:
supplying liquid fuel and air to the engine carburetor,
supplying gaseous fuel from a separate gaseous fuel reservoir at regulated pressure stored under substantially high pressure and released from the reservoir at a lower regulated pressure mixing said gaseous fuel with air from a supply independent of the liquid fuel air supply, and feeding the gaseous fuel and air mixture directly to the intake manifold of said internal combustion engine at a point between the carburetor throttle valve and the manifold,
controlling the flow of liquid fuel from said carburetor to said engine manifold to preclude feeding of liquid fuel to said manifold while the engine is in a no-load idling operating state,
supplying only the gaseous fuel and air mixture to said engine manifold at a controlled rate while said engine is in said no-load idling state, and
feeding increasing quantities of both gaseous and liquid fuels to said manifold responsive to increasing engine loads, the feeding of gaseous fuel being controlled by the manifold vacuum, volume displacement of the engine cylinders.
2. The method as defined in claim 1 including the step of controlling the flow of gaseous fuel from said gaseous fuel reservoir in response to a sensed operating parameter of said engine.
3. The method as defined in claim 2 wherein said sensed operating parameter of said engine is an indication of engine oil pressure.
4. The method as defined in claim 1 including the step of providing a regulator device to control the rate of flow of gaseous fuel to increase the rate of flow responsive to an increase in engine load as reflected by an increase in the manifold vacuum pressure, volume displacement of the engine cylinders.
5. An apparatus for utilizing both a liquid and gaseous fuel in an internal combustion engine having at least one carburetor and one intake manifold system and a liquid fuel reservoir operatively connected to said carburetor to supply liquid fuel for distribution by said carburetor to said intake manifold said carbureator having a throttle valve therein for controlling the flow of air and liquid fuel to the manifold system, said apparatus comprising:
a gaseous fuel reservoir operatively connected through a gaseous fuel and air mixer to the intake manifold to supply gaseous fuel by direct flow to said manifold, said mixer having an opening to the atmosphere to supply a separate supply of air independent of the carburetor for mixing with the gaseous fuel flowing to the manifold the air and gaseous fuel mixture entering the manifold between the manifold and the throttle valve,
means to control the supply of both liquid and gaseous fuels to said intake manifold and to close the throttle valve and to supply only gaseous fuel to the engine at no-load engine idle conditions and to supply both gaseous and liquid fuels to the engine at load conditions, said means including the control of gaseous fuel being controlled by the manifold vacuum, volume displacement of the engine cylinders.
6. The apparatus as defined in claim 5 wherein said means to control the supply of gaseous fuel to said intake manifold includes an opened and closed valve means to control the flow of gaseous fuel from said gaseous fuel reservoir to said intake manifold.
7. The apparatus as defined in claim 6 wherein said valve means is selectively moved from its said closed position to its said open position responsive to a sensed operating parameter of said engine.
8. The apparatus as defined in claim 7 including means to sense changes in the oil pressure of said engine and wherein said sensed change in engine oil pressure is said sensed engine operating parameter.
9. The apparatus as defined in claim 6 wherein said control assembly includes means responsive to a warning detector means to close said valve means to preclude flow of gaseous fuel from said gaseous fuel reservoir to said engine manifold responsive to a sensed detection of said warning detector means.
10. The apparatus as defined in claim 9 wherein said detector means is a gaseous fuel leak detector.
11. The apparatus as defined in claim 9 wherein said detector means is an impact detector means.
12. The apparatus as defined in claim 9 wherein said detector means is a position detector means.
04-25-02, 07:59 AM
#25
r71's daddy
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not encourage him to make a kit specifically for our cars instead? If he can make improvements that are better than the other system and keep the price less, then he will get the business. It is all about competition.
It's better to have 2 good kits to choose from, than just one. And he has already shown that he can keep the price down.
Give this time to play out. Personally, I could go with either system, or make my own.
It's better to have 2 good kits to choose from, than just one. And he has already shown that he can keep the price down.
Give this time to play out. Personally, I could go with either system, or make my own.