everwiser

30 square meters of PV's? You know how much money you'd have to have to put that many PV's on your house? This isn't cost effective in the least...It's just yet another method that can only be afforded by movie stars and ruling class pundits...

Isn't Nocera one of the largest producers of PV's? Things that make you go, "hmm"...

The same way that most of the guests on Coast-to-Coast AM and nearly all 'independent' inventors do...They take donations and sell subscriptions to newsletters and sell independently published books. That doesn't necessarily mean they're peddling bunk but it is how most persons pursuing full time endeavors outside of 9 to 5 jobs get the money to pay for the necessities.

This is a nonsensical idea. If they want to help the economy they should just hand us out the money directly. As it is, they want us all to go deeper in depth 'to save the economy'...

It is impossible to borrow yourself to prosperity...Too bad government can't figure out this simple fact.

I can't argue with the "room to work" factor. I've got a 78 Chevette, and an 85 Dodge stepside I intend to "modernize" (I like easy starting when it's below freezing ). I've previously owned a 68 Beetle, 74 Karman Ghia, and a 68 Dodge stepside. The latter two were very difficult to get "the little things" for to keep them comfortable to live with. I also live where we don't do State mandated inspections so the big city (and whatever state you're in) is working against you in that regard.

It basically comes down to "each their own". I just advocate tech where possible because it truly does make life easier.

It depends upon the level of control and sophistication you're looking for. In my previous post I mentioned the MegaSquirt. These can be assembled by the do it yourselfer or bought completely assembled with the end user putting together their own hardware in the configuration they choose. This opens up the "black box" aspect of engine controls so that anyone can take over control of how their engine responds to changes. If you check out their site, there are people pursuing the entire range of possibilities, from extreme fuel economy to extreme performance. When it comes down to driving satisfaction, driveability, and repeatability, engine management systems can not be beat IMO. Of course, I'm also an EET so the programming and electronics don't bother me because the learning curve is already somewhat flattened by what I do for a living.

In the case of fuel preheating, something to keep in mind is the fuel pressure. With a carburator, fuel pressure is somewhere around 3 psi so if the fuel gets too warm, you've got vapor lock. With fuel injection, you've got fuel pressure of around 40 psi which will keep the fuel in liquid form to a higher temp than you can at 3 psi (same principle as having a pressurized cooling system). I read somewhere that your average fuel injector is good to around 400 F. I think a combination of heated fuel, heated intake air, and the atomization of the fuel injectors will achieve better in-cylinder vaporization with driveability and control than carburated vapor induction alone will get you.

There are many newer vehicles and engines that have millions of copies on the road, are dirt cheap, and have inexpensive parts available. The problem with 70's (and many 80's vehicles as well) is that you can get anything for the engine but you'll be hard pressed to find anything for the body or chassis that you will need to keep it on the road. Most salvage yards crush anything/everything that is over 20 years old unless it's a collector vehicle making it very difficult to keep such an old vehicle for a daily driver.

Just my .02.

Getting more air into each cylinder (which is easier with cooler/cold air as it's denser) does increase performance but it also increases the fuel demand else you'll end up running lean and under full power/load the detonation/pinging will destroy your piston rings and/or ring lands. Max fuel economy and max engine power do not necessarily go hand in hand (nor are they mutually exclusive).

Modern vehicles will automatically lean the fuel mixture if the intake temps are higher (at least to limit of their programming) so by preheating the air entering the engine you're killing two birds with one mod. The warmer air will cause the computer to deliver less fuel (better mpg) and if the fuel vaporizes better in the warmer intake air, the oxygen sensor will detect a "richer" mixture and then lean the fuel mixture even further.

There is no free lunch. You'll have to decide what you want. If you want max power you're hurting fuel economy. If you want fuel economy, you'll be hurting max power. Some have had some success using the MegaSquirt controller and developing dual fuel maps for switching between power and economy but you can only do so much and maintain drivability. A freer flowing exhaust will give you more power and top end but will require more fuel to compensate for the better cylinder filling that less backpressure creates. I know I'm contradicting myself but it really comes down to the type of engine you're modifying and how you're modifying it. If engine mods make the engine more thermally efficient then it might help both power and economy. It just really depends...

If you have long freeway runs where you can keep your foot out of it, you can use an EFIE system to lean the fuel out on the fly. As long as you don't have to pass or climb any big hills, you can probably gain some MPG using this method and then turn it back to "normal" for stoplight action.

Just an FYI. Most of the "power" kits for cars you see on Ebay or the internet for dirt cheap are simply a resistor kit that varies the intake air temp signal going to the engine computer. Turn the resistor up and the computer thinks the air is cold and richens up the fuel curve. Turn it way down and it thinks the air temp is hot and leans out the fuel curve. To far either way and a person can end up with more problems than they need.

From the studying I've done on the subject it seems that the "modern" formulations of gasoline prevent all but the lightest elements of it from vaporizing causing the heavier, less ignitable, elements to "gunk up". However, I've read many articles saying that modifying the intake system to be preheated by the hot exhaust does improve fuel economy on newer vehicles.

Based on my own observations of fuel mileage on my vehicles, my gas mileage is always better in the summer when the air entering the engine is hottest and worse when the outside temps drop off. I've measured a difference of around 3 to 5 mpg between summer and winter driving.

It makes sense to me if the fuel is warmer and the air is warmer, then fuel injected/atomized will have a tendency to remain atomized and/or further vaporize whereas cooler temps in the intake/cylinder will have the tendency to condense/coalesce the atomized fuel into larger liquid droplets thus hurting the burn efficiency.

So I guess the answer is "it depends".