Anyone Install a Fuel Cooler?

The argument I don't think is about how many BTUs are in a gallon of fuel. I am saying you can inject denser fuel at a higher rate (engine cannot compensate for fuel temp now because of fuel wire) and that is where your power gain and mpg comes from.

 

Probably to help with algae. I'm guessing it's in the return line. Does anyone know more about this setup?

 

Power gain yes MPG no. Remember the increase in BTU density is equally offset by a decrease in total volume of fuel. The total BTU (thermal energy) of the fuel is the same regardless of temperature, density, or volume.

 

Perhaps you should take a gander at the caterpillar fuel temp wire harness threads. It has been discussed at length.

 

Everybody I know with an aftermarket tuned ECM also runs the fuel temp wire, it's cheap and easy. I don't know how to explain to you in any better detail that as fuel heats up and expands the BTU content of it ALSO spreads out as well causing it to be LESS efficient overall. A pretty simple concept to grasp, again the FACTS are on MY side here... Also, I'd really like to know what practical experience you are speaking from or are you just an internet genius company driver troll who has nothing better to do but argue? I have a CAT and drive it every day. I know exactly how my engine responds to different variables. I also know lots of folks who have been doing this way longer than me, many mechanics etc, who all tell me CAT's love cooler fuel and a fuel cooler is a cheap easy thing to add making the truck better.

 

See, you have it bass ackwards.... As the fuel heats up it does NOT contract in volume. It EXPANDS. The energy content that's in it spreads out.. less efficient.... etc, etc... this is what fuel wholesalers have known for decades and why they sell bulk quantities of fuel at 60* F or they adjust the price of the fuel downwards if it is whatever degree's above that level because it has less energy content. The exact same principle applies to fuel in the tanks of a truck as it heats up and expands. That's why you can't fill a 150 gallon fuel tank up with 150 gallons, you're lucky if you can get 140 gallons in there, it's done that way intentionally to allow room for expansion as the fuel warms....

 

I was talking about cooling the fuel.

Efficiency has nothing to do with the temperature of the fuel. I don't know why you keep pushing that. Thermal efficiency is btu output/btu input. If you increase the btu input by giving it cooler fuel at the same volume (fuel cooler mod + wire), you are not increasing efficiency of the engine because both numbers increase equally. Thermal efficiency is a ratio.

Lets take this to the extreme. Say you cool the fuel to double the BTU density. By doing so you also halved the volume. Remember this is after you bought the fuel.

So your "MPG" doubles. But you have half the fuel. This doesn't change how many gallons you bought at your last fill up.

MPG doubles.

Half the fuel.

Think about it. Total cost = exactly the same.

 

You're wrong - efficiency DOES have something to do with fuel temperature.

As everyone knows 10ppm sulphur ULSD has far less BTU's in a gallon than 500ppm LSD fuel. You will get worse fuel mileage from ULSD than you will LSD in a pre-emissions motor. It just takes more of the ULSD to get the same effect from LSD.

By the same token. If a gallon of fuel at 60* F is heated up it WILL expand in volume (as everything in nature does except water which only expands when cooled) if you warm it to 90* F. The total weight will be the same, nothing was created nor destroyed, but the volume is larger. If that gallon of fuel contains 120,000 BTU's at 60* F when you heat it up you will end up with (for the sake of discussion here) 1.25 gallons of diesel that have 120,000 BTU's. You're going to burn more fuel at 90* F than 60* F to get the same power out of the engine.

Does that make sense? You're effectively "thinning out" your fuel when it gets heated up. It has less energy content per gallon. It takes more of it to push the truck down the road if it's hot. It is exactly the same thing as LSD versus ULSD. This is why BTU's are relevant to the whole fuel cooler discussion. This is why fuel coolers are a sensible upgrade.

 

allan,

You seem to have an issue with understanding fuel density which is based off fuel temperature.

The clearest answer I've heard to date is that the coefficient is 0.00046 per degree Fahrenheit. That is to say that for every degree rise in temperature your volume will go up that amount. The math works like this, say you have a temperature rise from 60 degrees f to 84 f over the course of a day and a tank with 100 gallons of diesel in it. Multiply the coefficient by the number of degrees temp rise (24 x 0.00046=0.01104) then multiply that answer by the total number of gallons you started with to get the number of gallons increase in the tank when the diesel warmed up to 84 degrees (0.01104 x 100=1.104 gal.)
Remember the liquid itself has to rise in temperature and it may take a long time to do but this is a handy way to figure the amount of room to leave in a tank for expansion.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_thermal_expansion_coefficient_for_diesel_fuel#ixzz241UblUCG

 

Gentlemen I completely understand expansion of the fuel.

What you folks don't seem to understand is expansion after you've bought the fuel has no effect on overall cost. It's only important at the pump.

Density(specific gravity), volume, and temperature are all part of a formula. You cannot "take" from one side of the formula without "giving" on the other side. If you make the fuel more dense by cooling it off, you must give up volume. There's no magic trick here, it's simple physics. You cannot create BTU's out of thin air.

If I bought 100 gallons at the pump, and you bought the same 100 gallons at the pump but cooled it off to 50 gallons(double the density, half the volume), and we both went 600 miles on that fuel, who is ahead?

Both of our tanks are empty after 600 miles.