Try this at home. Paper V-6 run on air

[Greg Myers]

http://www.wimp.com/man-constructs-functioning-model-paper-engine/    wish there were plans.  

[Ace-Garageguy]

Supremely cool little paper engine.

But now of course, we're going to see a rash of "expert" internet opinions saying that if it's possible to make a PAPER engine run on AIR, that it should be possible to do it with a real engine, and that the fuel companies have been cheating us even worse than we already know.

And too, whoever wrote this pathetic paragraph would have failed 6-th grade science class when I was a kid.

"There are two types of engines, diesel and gas turbine. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. In addition to the power intake type, engines are categorized by how they produce power. The V6 engine is an example of an internal combustion engine, which allows the fuel combustion to operate with the help of compressed, high-temperature and high-pressure air." 

Oh wait...science is now considered unnecessary in today's educational environment, and apparently, so is understanding what you're writing about and being able to explain it correctly.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Greg Myers]

Now don't forget yer 100 MPG Carburetor.  

 of course you'll need an adapter  

Edited August 23, 2015 by Greg Myers

[Ace-Garageguy]

Same group...                   

[Greg Myers]

[bismarck]

[blunc]

ummm, the Fish carb is real, and even though the 100mpg was a bit exaggerated, a big improvement in MPG could be realized with proper tuning.

I know this firsthand because my father had one and had tried it on several engines. He was able to double the fuel economy on just about every application he tried it on..including a mopar powered motor home.

Admittedly, you won't see high performance due to the restrictive nature of a single throat carb but that's not the goal if you're working to maximize fuel economy.

Edited August 23, 2015 by blunc

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think it was the outlandish and wildly exaggerated 100MPG claims that turned the tide of acceptance against the Fish carb. Other variable-venturi and variable-choke carbs have been known to work very well.

Though I have no experience with a Fish whatsoever, I've read British tuning wizard David Vizard's work with it. He rated it highly in certain applications. Good enough for me.

[blunc]

I think it was the outlandish and wildly exaggerated 100MPG claims that turned the tide of acceptance against the Fish carb. Other variable-venturi and variable-choke carbs have been known to work very well.

Though I have no experience with a Fish whatsoever, I've read British tuning wizard David Vizard's work with it. He rated it highly in certain applications. Good enough for me.

I thought that photo looked like it was marketed for British applications, that v8 intake manifold reminded me of a Rolls Royce I performed a tune up on a while ago, the owner made me swear not to touch the side draft carbs.

I bet the side draft adapted versions were easier to maintain than SU carbs since you wouldn't have to keep adding oil to the carb venturi dampner.

My father told me that the Fish had only one moving part in it, quite a feat for those days.

OMG, variable venturi brings back very bad memories of Ford's total failure on their variable venturi card. The concept might have been sound but the materials used made that carb a failure.

We are so lucky these days for fuel injection... even though I prefer "none-electric" carbs on my own "fun cars".

Edited August 23, 2015 by blunc