The 50% MPG Gain That Detroit Won't Touch

It turned out that the steel box in the trunk of Rowley's old Mazda 626 had an on-off valve leading to a separate fuel line. The car's original fuel line was connected to a larger fuel tank.

"Don't worry," Rowley assured me. "When we run out of fuel in the gasoline cell [the steel box] the car will coast to a stop. I'll get out and switch the valve to the regular tank. We won't get stranded."

I was relieved.

Powered by the fuel in the test-control box, we entered a nearby highway and cruised at a steady pace of 65 mph for 45 miles before the engine sputtered and died, forcing us to coast to a roadway shoulder. I was impressed. That early 1990s Mazda 626 normally would have gotten 30 miles per gallon under those conditions. Rowley's device yielded a 50 percent improvement. It worked. Or, at least, it certainly seemed to work.

Other fuel vaporizer pioneers, such as Canadian engineer Charles Nelson Pogue, inventor of the double-chamber Pogue Carburetor, have made similar claims about their fuel vaporizing devices. And their claims are framed with conspiracy theories about why such technology remains isolated, generally removed from the marketplace. Pogue has pointed a finger at oil companies, allegedly working to keep fuel-efficient technology off the market. Others have accused the car companies of ignoring the technology to protect their multibillion-dollar investments in their current gasoline-engine infrastructure.

There is no proof behind any of those allegations. And, as I pointed out earlier, the car companies have not ignored the idea of getting a more efficient burn through a more thorough vaporization of fuel entering combustion chambers.

The real problem?

My guess is that it has everything to do with our increasingly litigious culture, which is woefully intolerant of the trial-and-error nature of anything related to invention and innovation. What happens to those fuel vaporizers in a crash? What is the increased potential of fire and explosion? How do you maintain government-mandated fuel system integrity with a bolted-on fuel vaporizing device? Is there any increase in ambient gasoline vapor emissions with the vaporizers? Who gets sued if a vaporizer fails and someone is injured or killed, or if a state or federal agency determines that ambient emissions from the devices violate clean-air standards? Who carries the legal and financial weight?

Inventors tend to be shallow-pocket solo artists, men and women with big ideas absent big boards of directors and large shareholder groups. Inventors have more freedom to take chances. Corporations are different. They have deep pockets, which makes them big litigation targets. They are well aware that a good deed gone wrong, even for a moment, can lead to a big and potentially ruinous lawsuit. As a result, they tread more carefully, which means it will be a long while before any of them is willing to take a risk with an externally mounted fuel vaporizing device.