100 MPG

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
I agree with you totally, which is why I talked my wife out of a Prius. When you can plug a Prius into the grid, and have part of that grid as solar panels on your roof, it makes better sense.

But, this thread started out questioning the mythical 100 (or 200) MPG carb, and this is what I was commenting on.

I don't agree with your viewpoint on hydrogen. I feel the cost of producing hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen-powered vehicles will be unavailable for the masses. This leads to a radical (for someone who usually votes conservative, anyway) shift in logic, away from transportation for the individual and more public transportation such as trains, subways, etc. This will be the inevitable outcome when the oil finally does run out. After all, considering it takes something on the order of 800,000 years for plankton to form crude, and the earth currently is not enjoying the worldwide tropical climate necessary for this process to take place, it's obvious that at some point, the crude will *run out*, regardless of what the environmentalists want.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. One of the problems with replicating Pogue's carburetor is the difference between today's additive-laden, long carbon chain gasoline blends, and what was available then. Back in Pogue's day, there were no additives in the fuel and the simple distillation used to produce it resulted in a fuel that vaporized easier. It was called 'white gas'. Any attempt to replicate Pogue's setup would mandate using this fuel.

Is it still available? Not sure if there are other sources for white gas, but one readily attainable one is in the sporting goods section in many stores. It's called Coleman lantern fuel.
 
I kept away from this thread, with just one contribution, and that was setting some road load ground rules. I joined the Ecomodder forum in 2012 when I realised that the 100 MPG car existed already....a wind cheater lean burn Civic makes 100 mpg at certain mph's. A modulated displacement wind cheeter would do the same thing.

I notice that the non MPG Forum posts from David Vizard no longer link, but that ex Ford and now pro Honda doyen Larry Widemers soft head links still do.

Ford and Honda did an immense amount of work on the cutting edge lean burn engines in the late 70's. The landmark Aussie Falcon XD/XE/XF crossflow got a co-op head which ran a lot of those basic high compression gospel tenants on a 8.6 to 9.35 c/r on 87 to 93 AKI gas (91 to 97 RON) from 1980 to 1992 on x-series Falcons, 1980 to 1985 F100's and 1980 to 1982 TF Cortinas

I know the first elements of soft head, lean burn technology were starting to be employed by Ford. The HSC 2.3, 2.5, and 1986 lean burn EFI Mustang 5.0 kept the process alive, and then the LS1 Chev alloy engine of 1996 used a lot of high compression principals to improve efficiency. After that point, Federal Emissions requirements have quashed lean burn, high compression engines, and its those same 50 000 mile durability and EPA restrictions that probably stop automakers in the pursuit of a classic 12 to 14:1 engines today. Ford claimed in the lates 70's that the 4 cylinder stratified charge engine was a little like getting the Wankel rotary through the US emission and CAFE tests, very specific, very expensive process control would need to be employed, and that it couldn't easily meet the cost targets.

And that's where we are today.

I've done the research, and found that its possible to push the mpg threshold up on a Falcon six in my 81 Mustang, and I've been actively working on making a lean burn 12.5:1 compression carb engine using aviation lean burn EGT technology with some safeguards, and its starting to look an awful lot like the ENDYN engine set-up.



I advocate using the aerodynamic limits of frontal area, co-efficient of drag, coast-down rolling and drive train resistance, engine brake specific horsepower, all on a 0% grade. These are EPA/FMV/CAFE ground rules for determining US miles per gallon, but would say this. Its awfully easy to make a 12.5:1 compression engine from any Classic Inlines, log head or Aussie cross flow head on a 3.3 or 4.1, or for that matter, 4.9/300 big six.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69145&p=530764#p530764

And using a really good quality exhaust valve so you can lean cruise without detonation

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=70883&p=551201#p551201

Then the induction, from vaporizing carb to any breed of independent runner carb, to any type of fuel injection is dead easy to test.

I've been using anti detonation water and alcohol injection and a stock 170 small chamber head on my Mustang, and fuel consumption has plummeted.
 
110 mpg, anyone?

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1017 ... #more-1819

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dKlOCde4Vk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBXCxO0py0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3FF67XBQBE

An Electromagnetic Pulse HP2g ™ powerplant engine incorporates ceramic magnets that act on the crankshaft to variable capacity generate electric current, creating an electric motor of sorts to power spark and accessories. The engine is said to both deliver 400 hp and, combined with cylinder deactivation, more than 100 mpg.

check out http://www.toledoblade.com/Automotive/2 ... entor.html

In 2008, Doug Pelmear of Napoleon, Ohio, reworked the block of his 5.0 1987 Ford Mustang with an advanced cylinder deactivation and electrimotive cylinder energy control unit. After over 5 years of development, it lookes like the engine, now called the HP2g ™ , is a technical success.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2008/07/04/ma ... in-3-secs/

http://www.hp2g.net/images/920_scan0001.jpg

http://hp2g.com/images/624_scan0008.jpg

http://hp2g.com/images/533_roadtestSEMA_3_.jpg
 
The 80 to 110 mpg ethonal 85 Mustang is really a Hybrid electric engine, so its not the same as a classic gasoline engine.



Look again at the specifics...http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... dKlOCde4Vk

How many people have called this guy a scam artist shows that people don't even get the concept at all. He's got an electric motor which allows an engine to be driven off it on anything from 1 to eight cylinders, with its counterweights as inductive motors. How simple is that. No wonder the hood was locked down, his engine can run on just one 600 cc cylinder and recharge the whole regenerative circuits. Stunningly simple!

Instead, we get this crap...

http://jalopnik.com/5070914/80-mpg-400- ... ng-to-sema
http://forums.finalgear.com/general-aut ... ang-28529/
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f57/ ... ang-87988/
http://www.possumliving.com/2008/07/110 ... stang.html
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html? ... 4&t=727621

At least the Ecomodders forum, which I'm a member of, have done some work on understanding the concept,

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.p ... -3493.html

and the latest video information shows us just what it is

It does show what is possible though. Whats really funny is that the sceptics simply didn't understand the concept in 2008, and probably don't today in 2013. I don't think he's being paid off the Shut the Fensored Up, a hybrid engine with an electric motor crank is going to be expensive, but its doable technology right now.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?3915483
http://www.v6mustang.com/threads/400-hp ... pg.228370/

I know I can get perhaps 40 US miles per gallon at 55 mpg out of my six if I keep up the compression and Anti Detonation Injection, so I'm at an aspirational halfway house to this guys stratospheric effort.
 
I try to limit my posts to what I know, what I've seen-
1) In1973 or so, ARGOSY magazine did an article on a young man who'd pulled 43 mpg out of a Lincoln Continental. SHELL offered him 20k for his idea. He declined. He never saw his 30th B'day.
2) A co-worker of mine (diesel mechanic) won a brand new 1979 Chevy Chevette in a raffle, complete w/ a full tank of gas. He drove it for a week, and the guage still read over 3/4 tank. He topped the tank, but it only took a couple dollars. He ran the numbers and found he was getting 90 mpg (mostly highway driving). He contacted the dealership that had raffled the car. They called him back and offered him a trade. They said the car had been sent to them by mistake and that it had no warranty. He traded the car for one his wife wanted. I saw the car- but I was only 20, and looking at a Chevette was painful. He was a very experianced mechanic and said the "carb looked weird".
3) I re routed my fuel line through the trans cooler in my radiator, just to see what would happen. The truck ran fine for the first 10 miles- between mile 8 and ten the engine was fully warmed, and it was running nice... but then it started missing and bucking like it was running out of gas. It was. The fuel was vaporizing as I hoped, but the engine wasn't getting enough to run right. I reconnected the line properly and drove on. If I could figure out how to regulate the temp...... I'll get back to it one day...
 
By preheating fuel vaporization allowing a 500 times leaner than stoich 8000 to one air fuel ratio, and and despite claimes of a constant 30 mph, this baby made 376 US miles per gallon in 1973 by driving between 13 mph and 3 mph, with the engine turned off on coastdown after reaching 13 mph. It ran on a motorscooter carb. Ben Visser and co-worker Martin came clean on the quest in 1975 in this newspaper article.

http://www.59fiattestcar.com/apps/photo ... d=51547958
http://www.59fiattestcar.com/apps/photo ... =151704232
http://www.59fiattestcar.com/apps/photo ... =151704528

Its preheating is a giant EGR system. Key thing is, it only works for a for a short while, as

The system requires heat.Perpetual heat from the exhaust feeding carb vaporization violates the law of first law of thermodynamics ( U = q + w ). See http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

The article is found on http://customrodder.forumactif.org/t210 ... ild-custom


And the car on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEiwWVY2j_8

Any car with EGR has an exhaust to intake heat stove, and it cannot physically heat the air fuel mix enough to perpetuate a 500 times leaner air fuel ratio.

Jaguar tried it in 1968 to pass Clean Air Act emissions. So did everyone else. Its called Exhaust Gas Recirculation...

 
Back
Top