Forget the 50 mpg carb; this guy has a 80 mpg Mustang

[Megalodon]

hmmm doesn't sound like they are using normal gasoline..

 No, but he says if he did use regular gas the figures would be even higher, but e85 has less "footprint".

[Toad]

Funny there's nothing online about the results of his run at the Milan dragstrip. That was supposed to be almost a month ago.

[Bones]

There certainly is room for improvement in the efficiency of American made engines.  It would be trivial to boost the efficiency, of current production engines, by 50 to 80% (higher in some cases).  A nominal boost of 25% should be easily achieved while increasing the power as well.

However, I am skeptical that anything more than 100% improvement is possible for a mass produced engine.  Certainly, very specifically designed engines could achieve those numbers, but that removes them from the realm of cost efficient mass production.

If we were not such a litigious society the efficiencies could be much higher through weight savings.

[moot]

Bones you mean from the safety risks of lighter cars?  VW is supposed to have a 600lbs 200+MPG car that's as safe as GT cars.  It costs 30k$ or more, but from what I read, that's because of the lightweight elements, so it ought to be easy enough to get a safe enough price/weight compromise. 

[Bones]

Not so much safety risks.  A 100 pound 5MPH bumper does not do a lot to improve safety when a collision is at 50MPH.

A better structural design could improve safety while reducing weight.  As an example, if large vehicles are needed only to move people, then it should be quite easy to design a vehicle which could carry 8 people that does not weigh 2.5 to 3 tons.  The weight of a 'Suburban' like vehicle is not due to safety considerations.  Better aerodynamic design of vehicles would also yield much higher fuel efficiencies.  Let's face it.  Trucks are large bricks with wheels attach.

There are a number of ways to improve the efficiency of a vehicle without resorting to exotic materials.

The American automobile manufacturer has had little to no impetus to design more efficient vehicles.  It appears when you mention 'efficiency' to most Americans, they immediately think slow and small.  I think this mentality is what keeps the American manufacturer from even trying.  Of course, that is just a search in order to find some reason why they still are not doing what they are really capable of.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

It is true the as many as 8 out of 10 firing events fail to produce measurable power in an internal combustion engine, if you could get EVERY firing cycle to produce 100% of the power a good firing cycle is capable of, I don't think you can do what he claims. The law of diminishing returns still applies. Having made my living full or part time working on engines for near 30 years now, I find it hard to believe this guy has increased efficiency to that level. There's only so much you can do with electronics when you're working with a production engine like he is (it's a 5.0 liter 302 Ford Windsor, fuel injected, with a roller cam). He's getting nearly 80% more HP as well. Electronics cannot change the thermal efficiency, nor can they alter the friction inherent in the engine. They can only manage fuel and ignition better. But I don't see how they can do it 500% better. Even given the extreme HP the Formula 1 guys get from their stuff, I do not see how it is possible with what he has to work with. I hope that I am wrong and he is right. But I seriously doubt he has gotten 100 MPG, or even 100MPGe out of a 302 EFI Ford small block. Ford didn't switch to a 4.6 liter DOHC engine 5 times more expensive to produce because the 302 was that efficient, or even potentially that efficient.

[lazs2]

I'm all for it...

I will settle for 60 mpg and 1,000 hp from my big block.. where do I buy the thingie to plug into my cigarette lighter?

lazs

[Delirium]

Better efficiency on oil isn't the answer, we need to find new technologies to get away from oil altogether. This ideas (if they work) may be good for bridging the gap between now and then, hopefully.

[lasersailor184]

Better efficiency on oil isn't the answer, we need to find new technologies to get away from oil altogether. This ideas (if they work) may be good for bridging the gap between now and then, hopefully.

Which sounds good until you realize that there is no viable alternative to oil.  There is nothing out there that can provide as much energy as easily as oil can.



I still maintain we're on a plateau until we find that Star Trek barillium sphere power source.

[Saxman]

Which sounds good until you realize that there is no viable alternative to oil.  There is nothing out there that can provide as much energy as easily as oil can.



I still maintain we're on a plateau until we find that Star Trek barillium sphere power source.

Ye cannae change tha' laws o' physics!

[Cthulhu]

I still maintain we're on a plateau until we find that Star Trek barillium sphere power source.

You first. Beryllium is toxic.

[Cthulhu]

Electronics cannot change the thermal efficiency, nor can they alter the friction inherent in the engine. They can only manage fuel and ignition better. But I don't see how they can do it 500% better.

Exactly. I smell snake oil.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

IF the production and distribution infrastructure was in place,(or once it is in place), then alcohol could or would be a viable fuel. Even though alcohol contains just under 50% of the energy gasoline does, it CAN be made efficient enough to be a viable fuel. However, engines must be specifically designed AND tuned for it, and that will preclude fueling those engines with gasoline. Therefore everywhere gasoline and/or diesel is sold, alcohol will have to be available. If the infrastructure is not there, alcohol vehicles just are not viable. We have land lying fallow, and there are already plants producing methanol. Recently, in racing, methanol has been oxygenated, producing more power and a more complete burn, so there's room for further improvement as well.

Any gasoline fueled vehicle (or even diesel fueled vehicle) CAN be converted to run methanol, but it can be expensive. The engine needs to be completely rebuilt, the fuel system replaced, and any electronic engine or drivetrain controls completely reprogrammed or replaced. The exhaust system requires modification as well, since burning alcohol creates formaldehyde and higher nitrides of oxygen. Upper engine lubricants will alleviate some of the formaldehyde issues.

Properly built and tuned, an alcohol fueled engine can produce as much as 25% MORE torque than a comparable gasoline fueled engine. In theory, alcohol fueled engines could be smaller and still power the same vehicle at the same level of utility, comfort, and performance. Cooling systems could be reduced in size and weight, further increasing efficiency. Alcohol has an almost limitless octane rating, so turbocharging can also be used to make smaller engines useful in larger vehicles.

Synthetic motor oils are actually alcohol (synthetic esters) based. If we were to use no mineral oils for lubrication  or hydraulic systems, and no mineral oil for fuel, we could make serious gains. But it would be neither fast nor cheap. Further, the very green/eco/liberals who scream for an end to dependence on foreign oil are guaranteed to go ballistic over the agricultural and industrial changes required.

[Swager]

He never should have went public with this until after the election.  I feel this guy is going to have a bad accident.  Unless, of course, he is willing to sell his patent to the oil companies.

Bad Timing!

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

He never should have went public with this until after the election.  I feel this guy is going to have a bad accident.  Unless, of course, he is willing to sell his patent to the oil companies.

Bad Timing!

You left out the