mbabbitt Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 how come this guy can invent this and all you engineer's at ford can't???????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 how come this guy can invent this and all you engineer's at ford can't???????????????? how come you post idiotic things with no links? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbabbitt Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 how come you post idiotic things with no links? all you got to do is search 110 mpg mustang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coreground Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 all you got to do is search 110 mpg mustang And come up with a 4 yr old hoax... http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/06/05/there-is-something-about-this-110-mpg-car-that-doesnt-smell-right/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbabbitt Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 And come up with a 4 yr old hoax... http://blogs.howstuf...nt-smell-right/ OK thanks for the info i was wondering what happened to this mustang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 search Tom Ogle. thats the only one that I believe was ever documented/no hoaxes found...he got like 200 MPG supposedly, but with press on board only got a bit over 100- in a 71 LTD 351- and no carburetor...he basically put the throttle where the gascap normally goes- sucked air under the fuel in a heater core warmed tank to run the engine at high vacuum un vapor...woulds been a literal bomb if it ever backfired, but aside from that, kinda neat. Bruce Crower built a super high compression SBC back in the late 70s/early 80s- like 18:1 compression or something rediculous like that- he ground a severly late intake opening cam, so the engine never got a full breath of air- limiting actual compression- his theory was smaller chamber built pressure faster- and it worked. (I woulda opted for a secondary set of buterflies as a vacuum limiter on the throttle, so as not to limit higher RPM airflow, seriously wanted to build one, but never got off my butt to try.) Crower recently made a 5 stroke or something like that- basically he injects water into the exhaust after holding most of it in and recompressing- the secondary steam power stroke supposedly boost efficiency BIGTIME at least in reduced thermal losses... Smokey Yunick built a insulated motor- ran the exhaust thru what normally would be a intercooler to preheat the fuel-air mixture before the engine inhaled it- aside from obvious risks of explosion again, or pinging at least, his thoughts were pre-expanding took less mixture to reach the same compression pressure- and as I recall it worked quite well, except the heat destroyed it pretty quick- but again, that was like in the 70s/80s...think he called it the adiabatic principle or something like that- all about reusing the heat. made sense. something like 50-60% of our gasoline energy is sent out our radiators, another 10% out the tailpipes, even on todays 'efficient' designs. I still think we NEED a lower RPM (less frction/less heat) high volumetric efficiency motor for highway useage... yep IMO a totally separate low rpm motor that runs at full throttle, putting out just enough power to maintain cruise +maybe 20%. Our engines at highway cruise RPM are basically running in a vacuum(unless youre talking diesel or throttleless/DI gas) and in high vacuum you have basically no compression, so a slow to build combustion pressure... search 'Lister Diesel' they had one of these old 6hp, 600rpm water pumping half ton diesels documented that ran for 40 freaking years... a true 6hp, around a quart of diesel per hour- in a slippery shell that takes 5hp to maintain 55 mph, wouldnt that be over 200 MPG highway? Yeah, that would be on level ground, blah, blah, blah 5 hp to go 55, but still- THATS OVER 200 MPG with 1940s technology. Get rid of all the parts flailing around at 2000-2500 RPM making heat, its gotta help. still think easiest with 2 engines- one for start/stop (hi power loading), one for wimpy cruise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 search Tom Ogle. thats the only one that I believe was ever documented/no hoaxes found...he got like 200 MPG supposedly, but with press on board only got a bit over 100- in a 71 LTD 351- and no carburetor...he basically put the throttle where the gascap normally goes- sucked air under the fuel in a heater core warmed tank to run the engine at high vacuum un vapor...woulds been a literal bomb if it ever backfired, but aside from that, kinda neat. Bruce Crower built a super high compression SBC back in the late 70s/early 80s- like 18:1 compression or something rediculous like that- he ground a severly late intake opening cam, so the engine never got a full breath of air- limiting actual compression- his theory was smaller chamber built pressure faster- and it worked. (I woulda opted for a secondary set of buterflies as a vacuum limiter on the throttle, so as not to limit higher RPM airflow, seriously wanted to build one, but never got off my butt to try.) Crower recently made a 5 stroke or something like that- basically he injects water into the exhaust after holding most of it in and recompressing- the secondary steam power stroke supposedly boost efficiency BIGTIME at least in reduced thermal losses... Smokey Yunick built a insulated motor- ran the exhaust thru what normally would be a intercooler to preheat the fuel-air mixture before the engine inhaled it- aside from obvious risks of explosion again, or pinging at least, his thoughts were pre-expanding took less mixture to reach the same compression pressure- and as I recall it worked quite well, except the heat destroyed it pretty quick- but again, that was like in the 70s/80s...think he called it the adiabatic principle or something like that- all about reusing the heat. made sense. something like 50-60% of our gasoline energy is sent out our radiators, another 10% out the tailpipes, even on todays 'efficient' designs. I still think we NEED a lower RPM (less frction/less heat) high volumetric efficiency motor for highway useage... yep IMO a totally separate low rpm motor that runs at full throttle, putting out just enough power to maintain cruise +maybe 20%. Our engines at highway cruise RPM are basically running in a vacuum(unless youre talking diesel or throttleless/DI gas) and in high vacuum you have basically no compression, so a slow to build combustion pressure... search 'Lister Diesel' they had one of these old 6hp, 600rpm water pumping half ton diesels documented that ran for 40 freaking years... a true 6hp, around a quart of diesel per hour- in a slippery shell that takes 5hp to maintain 55 mph, wouldnt that be over 200 MPG highway? Yeah, that would be on level ground, blah, blah, blah 5 hp to go 55, but still- THATS OVER 200 MPG with 1940s technology. Get rid of all the parts flailing around at 2000-2500 RPM making heat, its gotta help. still think easiest with 2 engines- one for start/stop (hi power loading), one for wimpy cruise... Ok lets leave the fantasy world behind and give a reality example that is well documented and replicated. http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/20/biodiesel-turbine-super-capacitor-series-hybrid-hummer-60/ Arnold Schwarzenegger owns and drives one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marginal Economist Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Ok lets leave the fantasy world behind and give a reality example that is well documented and replicated. http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/20/biodiesel-turbine-super-capacitor-series-hybrid-hummer-60/ Arnold Schwarzenegger owns and drives one.... Not so well proven - My link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You have to be curious with all of the technology and advancments we've made in the last few decades why we haven't seen dramatic increases in fuel mileage. Sure we are seeing improved mileage with more power and lower emissions, but in my opinion there's no reason most mid size cars shouldn't all be in the 50+mpg range right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You have to be curious with all of the technology and advancments we've made in the last few decades why we haven't seen dramatic increases in fuel mileage. Sure we are seeing improved mileage with more power and lower emissions, but in my opinion there's no reason most mid size cars shouldn't all be in the 50+mpg range right now. In a nut-shell look up the inverse square law. as for not so well proven.... I am not sure how your link disproves anything except that you could not find a patent for his company. As far as I was aware he doesn't have a patent, but his work has been verified by multiple sources. Is it cost effective.....hell no, but it works. I am not sure if he deserves a patent, as nothing he is doing is considered secret sauce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.