Thompson power blast plate- Carb innovation?

[leftybass209]

I ran across this product after watching the show, Car Fix. It claims to "atomize" the fuel introduced from a carb, rather than a stream of fuel.

Here's the link....www.thompsonperformance.com/shop_products.html

What say you all; snake oil or viable improvement?

['68OrangeSunshine]

Gee, I dunno. I never used one, or heard of it either. Somebody used to sell the 'Tornado's, which was a swirl inducer between your air cleaner and carb top -- they made the same kinda claims.

Almost surprised these guys [ www.KaleCoAuto.com ] don't have it in their line of fine high performance muffler bearings, flux capacitors and synthetic blinker fluid.

Maybe if you wear it around your neck, you won't get bit by snakes.

[Kenfuzed]

I can't speak for this specific device but there is science and proof behind being able to atomize fuel instead of just dumping it into an intake. We use something similar on motorcycle carburetors to create a finer mist spray coming from the accelerator pump nozzle rather than a solid stream. The only difference is the one we use is a complete replacement of the nozzle to change the stream to a patterned mist.

I spent 3 decades involved in developing fuel system products, some of which were called snake oil before being adopted as factory components. That just comes with the territory.

That company has a dyno sheet for comparison but it might be worthwhile to ask them if there is any sort of money back guarantee. Again I don't know anything about that company but it would be interesting to see it in use under real driving conditions.

[Andy4639]

Common sense thinking

If you take any liquid and pour it out on to the floor and let it puddle up it takes it longer to evaporate.

If you take that same amount of water and spread it out all over the floor it will dry much faster. This is the same thing is it not.

Raw fuel passes by the spark plug and out the exhaust. If it's a fine mist it would burn more of the fuel.

[Blue/72]

I just about ordered one for my 72 but didn't really want to spend $60 on the little plate. Looks like a great idea though and I will probably end up breaking down and buying one here soon

[geezer#99]

A fool and his money will soon be parted!!
In this case there'll be a ton of them. At 40 bucks a pop they'll sell 100,000 easy.
Saddens me that I didn't think of it!
Next will be a screened gasket under the carb to help the vaporization. Wait!! That's been done already!!

[Kenfuzed]

Very similar Andy, fuel that is thoroughly mixed with air has a better chance of a complete burn in the combustion chamber compared to a concentration of fuel. It appears that device breaks up the fuel to assist in that area, which if their dyno sheets are correct is allowing for a more complete burn. Similar to fuel injectors, if they simply dumped the identical amount of fuel in the form of a stream rather than a patterned mist that system would be terribly inefficient.

[truckster]

I hear people comparing this to fuel injection. Remember, this device is only on the accelerator pump - what percentage of the fuel you burn goes through the accelerator pump? So how much do you think it's going to improve fuel economy, even if it does work?

I don't believe there is any way you're going to pick up 15 pounds of torque by modifying the accelerator stream. You might get slightly quicker acceleration (possibly), but by the time you reach 4,000 RPM (where max torque is shown on the dyno sheet) you're probably already at WOT and the accelerator pump isn't in play.

Also notice that the language on their website is full of disclaimers: ...many variables...vary from motor to motor...not designed to achieve added performance...

These types of claims have been around for years, and people spend lots of money on them. Popular Mechanics did an article a few years back where they took about 15 different "fuel savers" and put them on a dyno. The results? None of them actually saved any fuel, and some of them made the fuel mileage worse.

[special-K]

I always thought a carburetor atomized the fuel to some degree when it mixes air with fuel. It's the flow of air that carries the fuel into the combustion chamber, not liquid dribbling in. Isn't it a combustible vapor entering the cylinder that ignites? I can see the benefits of further vaporizing (atomizing) if that's what this product actually does. I'd consider trying one, but they overlooked the Quadrajet. That leaves me out

[davepl]

Any gasoline you dump into my 200F intake that has to go across the 300F heat crossover in the stock manifold and then past the 500F intake valve and into the chamber, to be churned at 1000F during the compression stroke, squished into 0.060" of quench, will "atomize" nicely.

In the sense that if there were raw, liquid gasoline left over it wouldn't burn well and would be inefficient, it could work. But I doubt there's even an opportunity to improve it much, given the environment I just described.

[truckster]

Originally Posted by special-K

I always thought a carburetor atomized the fuel to some degree when it mixes air with fuel. It's the flow of air that carries the fuel into the combustion chamber, not liquid dribbling in. Isn't it a combustible vapor entering the cylinder that ignites? I can see the benefits of further vaporizing (atomizing) if that's what this product actually does.

You're absolutely correct. The venturi tubes atomize fuel as it's drawn into the air stream under vacuum. This device deals only with the stream from the accelerator pump, which is introduced into the air stream under pressure. That's such a small percentage of the fuel burned in a carburetor, and as Davepl says, it's going to be vaporized except when the engine/intake are cold.

[Kenfuzed]

I'm not going to judge the maker one way or the other since I don't have data to back it up either way. I can only speak for some of the different carbs we've worked with, mostly side draft, motorcycle, aircraft, etc that experienced poor burn efficiency when introducing a stream of fuel with every roll of the throttle, as opposed to breaking that stream up in some manner. Manifold designs, flow, and post fuel delivery turbulence were far less effective than changing the patterns in which a fuel mixture was introduced. The improvements were significant when viewed via a wide band sensor during dyno runs. I agree you won't likely see MPG improvements when concentrating on this pump, unless under constant stop and go traffic conditions requiring a constant injection from the accelerator pump.

It would probably be better to get that company to weigh in with data rather than using anecdotal evidence or comparisons (mine included )

As Deming's old saying goes, "In God we trust, all others must bring data." Neither a claim of success or statements that something will not work is of no value unless data is used to back it up either side.

My recommendations to the OP if interested in this:
1) Speak with the company about any guarantee
2) Run back to back test with and without the device under identical driving conditions.
3) Report the findings so that the device's value can truly be judged.

[leftybass209]

Originally Posted by Kenfuzed

As Deming's old saying goes, "In God we trust, all others must bring data." Neither a claim of success or statements that something will not work is of no value unless data is used to back it up either side.

My recommendations to the OP if interested in this:
1) Speak with the company about any guarantee
2) Run back to back test with and without the device under identical driving conditions.
3) Report the findings so that the device's value can truly be judged.

I agree with your comment about data. Anything new in an old market (not just automotive) is often dismissed as ineffective, usually on grounds that a product has been around so long, by virtue of age, every single possible variable must have been tried and disproven already.

I've read some other forum and magazine fodder on this product. The CEO of this company has issued the generic cookie cutter info to every media outlet they've been in, so I doubt calling them will unveil any new information about the product.

My carb is about as well tuned as it can get, so the next air/fuel purchase I make will be EFI.

Just interested in the perspective of people here, whom are much more logical and coherent as opposed to other forums.

Thanks for the replies so far, very interesting opinions and information.

[Overdriven]

Well looking at this logically I think the only way to truly prove the products worth is on a dyno. The throttle application would have to be computer controlled to achieve consistent and repeatable throttle application. Then you'd have to measure rpm change over time to determine just how effective the different pattern is at improving throttle response. That I would assume is the most important factor. Measuring AFR wouldn't tell you much except for how much efficiency was improved. But as it was stated overall fuel economy wouldn't be significantly effected by this since accelerator pumps only kick in during initial throttle application because engine vacuum is reduced and the Venturis don't have a strong enough signal to enrich the mixture. Once the engine vacuum stabilizes after a throttle application the Venturis take back over for the most part.

I don't want to be a skeptic thinking/saying "somebody would've thought of this by now" but I am. With guys like Barry Grant and all the other carb makers like Quick Fuel that have redesigned and optimized older designs, you'd think someone would've done this by now. Maybe they did experiment with it and found it didn't offer enough of an improvement to justify it or it may have effected something else. Either way, it's better than the other garbage like the Tornado, but it's damn expensive for a tiny piece of metal.

[Kenfuzed]

Completely agree Overdriven.

Lefty, probably wise in your situation since you are already fairly well tuned to hold off until ready to make the jump to an EFI setup. The newer EFI kits out there have really improved and cost has come down making them ideal for anyone wanting to graduate up to a worry free fuel system.

[RonG]

Originally Posted by leftybass209

I ran across this product after watching the show, Car Fix. It claims to "atomize" the fuel introduced from a carb, rather than a stream of fuel.

Here's the link....www.thompsonperformance.com/shop_products.html

What say you all; snake oil or viable improvement?

Cast my vote for snake oil. Items like this have been around for years. Different versions come and go and all are most efficient at removing money from your wallet (lighter weight=better mileage).

[Kenfuzed]

Originally Posted by RonG

Cast my vote for snake oil. Items like this have been around for years. Different versions come and go and all are most efficient at removing money from your wallet (lighter weight=better mileage).

I don't know anything about that company or product but without actual test data in support or disproving this I think the use of "snake oil" might be unfair... unless someone has actual test data to back that up. You might be right, or maybe the manufacturer's data is right, but I haven't seen anything that justifies statements in either case.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. Again I don't have any skin in the game either way, I just find the use of that statement rather old and overused.

Seems the OP's question has been answered so now we're just flogging a dead horse... another old saying

[special-K]

It may very well do what they claim. I mean, we can hear the difference. I think the question is how significant of a difference does it actually make to make it worth the bother/expense? That is where the data comes in to play. It seems like a lot of money for what it is.

[Sklptrljay]

I found one review, no data from a dyno, but a claim of better performance.
http://www.chevyhardcore.com/tech-st...ttle-response/

[Kenfuzed]

Originally Posted by Sklptrljay

I found one review, no data from a dyno, but a claim of better performance.
http://www.chevyhardcore.com/tech-st...ttle-response/

Thanks for sharing. I searched their site and they don't seem to be an affiliate or have that company as a sponsor so the review appears legit. Often you'll see web reviews that turn out to be biased since the product in question is a paying sponsor or the site is getting affiliate referral money from the product's maker. It will be interesting to see if other reviews (positive or negative) pop up in the future.

[davepl]

If you had an O2 gauge you'd see, if you could come up with a repeatable way of blipping the throttle, the motor get richer than it did without the device. That's because more of the fuel that's being fired by the accelerator pump should be burning, using up more O2, and that should show up.

Kinda tough to come up with a repeatable test though I think.

[dirtyjim]

I put one of those on last week along with a tornado in the air filter, a couple of those magnet things on the fuel line and a roadkill style leaf blower supercharger. my tired wore out 305 jumped up to at least 2500hp, the truck is now getting 64.25 mpg and it still had two dead cylinders. i'm guessing 3000hp and 100mpg if I put a set of plugs and wires in it.

[truckster]

Originally Posted by dirtyjim

I put one of those on last week along with a tornado in the air filter, a couple of those magnet things on the fuel line and a roadkill style leaf blower supercharger. my tired wore out 305 jumped up to at least 2500hp, the truck is now getting 64.25 mpg and it still had two dead cylinders. i'm guessing 3000hp and 100mpg if I put a set of plugs and wires in it.

I hope you're running STP super additive in it or it's not going to last long with that much HP.

[kcsa75]

Might be interesting to get Lou's opinion. His board name is luckin-fou and he was on last week. He's been pretty honest about stuff like this in the past.

[Kenfuzed]

Originally Posted by kcsa75

Might be interesting to get Lou's opinion. His board name is luckin-fou and he was on last week. He's been pretty honest about stuff like this in the past.

Oh perfect he's tested this item? That would be helpful as opposed to just more opinions and theories. Anything else is just stoking the "snake oil" fire even more... god I hate that term, can you tell?

As someone who has spent the last 3 decades in R&D, these discussions (synthetic oil, new products, better mouse traps) become tiresome and do nothing to prove or disprove the validity of a product's claim without real data to back it up. JMHO.