Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry
rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad


<<< New Site Update >>>

100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Moderator: Mod Squad

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #1 by BIG 6 farmer » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:00 am

Seems there is some truth to this. Maybe the Oil Companys & our Goverment ? Dont want MPGs to increase ? Look up the Pogue Carb. & Smokey Yunicks Heat Engine. They both used lota heat to fully vaporize gasoline. Pogue was bought off, & killed? Ol Smokey had working cars, that had WAY more power & better mpg. In the 80s, he was working with GM, to make kits for then new S10 4 cyl. trucks. Never got off the ground. Good reading, might change the way you think about how to get better mpg on our 300 sixes.
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #2 by Asa » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:24 am

No.
There is no logical reason for that to happen. If there had been a carb it would have been exported to another country

Look at how many manufacturers are increasing mileage, for pete's sake VW has a diesel car that gets 75MPG, if someone could get 100MPG out of an engine it would have been done by now.

The government and the oil companies are not hiding anything or suppressing anything. There is a goal to increase MPG for all vehicles to something like 50MPG by 2025 or such.



There is no conspiracy. None.
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do

Susie - a work in progress
Clyde - ya mule!

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #3 by CoupeBoy » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:07 am

Asa wrote:There is a goal to increase MPG for all vehicles to something like 50MPG by 2025 or such.
I agree no conspiracy, but what the rules and regulations aren't telling us about this magic 50mpg number is how they are going to meet it. My guess is that they will exempt heavy vehicles (3/4t and higher, maybe full sized pickups/SUVs altogether) and then they will mass produce tiny tin can cars with horrid aesthetic exteriors that look really good when you compare the coeficient drag numbers. And as a topper they will lower all interstate and highway speed limits to 55 and under.

The only other way would be mas hybridization with electric motors powering everything, massive battery building excercise that rapes the Earth for precious metals and then uses a small stationary engine for producing heat and electricity for recharging the batteries while on the road. I woke up to -15°f temps this morning, straight electric ain't going to work around here..

You know, somebody recently posted real world numbers from a Fish carburator and installation pictures, he isn't getting 100mpg either...
It was first brought up under this thread..
The Fish Carburetor
sdiesel wrote:never an economy carb, my best in a 3/4 ton pickup was 13., but every mile was a smile!
throttle response like amazing,( probably explains fuel mileage)
no jets,
no fuel bowl issues, ( no fuel bowl)
only 2 adjustments.
atomized fuel very effectively
Followed by a link to a photo gallery on this thread.
pictures of FISH carb and the 300 install project.

The one thing that people seem to forget is that when Multiport Fuel Injection came into play it sprays directly on the backside of some very hot intake valves, The chances of having a superheated intake manifold that is hotter than the combustion chamber temps seems, not only like a bad idea, but like it would take a massive amount of energy to accomplish. Where would that energy come from?
1968 Mustang Daily Driver Rebuild (on hold for the Season 3/1/2015)
1963.5 Falcon Convertible Build (just getting started 3/15/2015)
Case 1830 Skidsteer FordSix Repower Thread (started 4/4/2015)
1970 170/C4
1967 200/C4
1965 240/bellhousing/flywheel/clutch/3.03 bell pattern
1975 250/flexplate
1975 300/flywheel

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #4 by BIG 6 farmer » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:22 am

The reason is GREED. Anybody that thinks that the Oil Companies & your Goverment wouldnt lie to you, needs to wake up. You need to read about this before you dis it. Minds are like parachutes, they work best open.
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #5 by CoupeBoy » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:47 am

/ron don't like to be insulted saying he is close minded and or ignorant. /ron get mad. /ron smash!

Seriously though I google searched Pogue Engine Theory..

Number 3 hit is this one
http://www.allpar.com/cars/imperial/pogue-imperial.html
The Pogue Patents wrote:Some journalists might have been confused by earlier reports of Roy Marks’ “200-mile-per-gallon carburetor,” which really could have been a 200 mpg carburetor — under conditions nobody would endure today, or, for that matter, at the time it was made.

As for the stories Pogue was “bought out by the big oil companies,” while they make a good fireside tale, the truth is simple. It never happened. The carburetors simply were not economically feasible.

Pogue’s patents, like all patents, are open to the public. A patent only protects an idea, and Pogue’s ideas are now free for the taking if anyone wants to pursue them. For the record, the Pogue carburetor patents are:
•Great Britain patent GB296238 issued August 30, 1928
•Canadian patent CA279189 issued April 3, 1928
•Canadian patent CA279190 issued April 3, 1928
•Canadian patent CA279191 issued April 3, 1928
•Canadian patent CA289771 issued May 21, 1929
•Canadian patent CA353538 issued October 15, 1935
•Canadian patent CA358727 issued June 23, 1936
•U.S. patent 1750354 issued March 11, 1930
•U.S. patent 1938497 issued December 5, 1933
•U.S. patent 1997497 issued April 9, 1935
•U.S. patent 2026798 issued January 9, 1936


Followed by the next hit..which claims this is FALSE!
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

What I can't find is any actual information on this thing. Post em up if you got links to solid facts...
1968 Mustang Daily Driver Rebuild (on hold for the Season 3/1/2015)
1963.5 Falcon Convertible Build (just getting started 3/15/2015)
Case 1830 Skidsteer FordSix Repower Thread (started 4/4/2015)
1970 170/C4
1967 200/C4
1965 240/bellhousing/flywheel/clutch/3.03 bell pattern
1975 250/flexplate
1975 300/flywheel

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #6 by BIG 6 farmer » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 pm

My favorite is Smokeys Heat Engine. It was real. Thinking some day would like to build one on a 300 six. Smokey Yunick was one sharp dude. Read his life story, entertaining.
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

User avatar
MechRick
Registered User
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:43 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #7 by MechRick » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:21 pm

A gallon of gasoline has about 125,000 btu's of heat energy. A gallon of propane has 91,300 btu's of heat energy. If it were simply a matter of vaporizing the fuel, propane powered vehicles would get phenomenal mpg compared to their gas counterparts.

You can get 100 mpg with a gasoline powered car. Pick a body style with good cd, low rolling resistance and an optimized power plant and run it a constant 30 mph on a closed course. It's been done many times. Making an average car (or truck) go 100 mpg on gasoline with an internal combustion engine and normal freeway speeds is a pipe dream.
1994 F150, 4.9L/ZF 5 speed, C-Vic police driveshaft
EFI head w/mild port work, 3 angle valve job
1996 long block, stock pistons, ARP rod bolts
Stock cam, aluminum cam gear
Hedman header, full mandrel bent duals, crossover, super turbos
http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73244
Bronco II with a 2.3L swap http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=72863
1988 F250 2x4, 460 ZF 5 speed.

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #8 by CoupeBoy » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:23 pm

http://www.firebirdfever.com/pages/fierohistory.htm
An interesting article was published in the May 1984 Car & Driver about Henry "Smokey" Yunick and his Hot Vapor Fiero. Smokey Yunick reportedly produced 250 HP from the GM 151 2.5 4 cylinder engine using heated fuel pumped through a turbine "homogenizer" and an exhaust-heated "heat exchanger". In this instance, the HP was reportedly doubled as well as the fuel economy. A 14 second car became a 5.9 second car. This concept is based on the theory of the adiabatic engine, where no heat is gained or lost during the process.
And from Hot Rod Magazine..

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engi ... ewall.html
Normally, different parts of a standard nonhomogeneous air/fuel mixture burn at different rates within the same cylinder, creating turbulence and colliding flame fronts. Under such "normal" conditions, cooling the intake charge to create higher mixture density is beneficial to keep some of the fuel molecules from undergoing spontaneous combustion (aka detonation). But a standard Otto-cycle four-stroke internal-combustion engine utilizes only about 25 percent of its potential energy to make power. The remaining 75 percent is lost out the exhaust or transferred as heat into the cooling system and radiator. Hot-vapor technology attempts to recapture this heat energy, using it to superheat the incoming air/fuel mixture to more than 450 degrees F going into the cylinder, thereby achieving a homogeneous, perfectly vaporized condition that's said to prevent detonation while ensuring complete combustion
And while there is a whole article.. it is ended with this..
Smokey did take out patents on the basic hot vapor technology; the Yunick family allowed the patents to enter the public domain back in '03. Still, Smokey took much of the knowledge with him to the grave. As Smokey's daughter Trish Yunick puts it, "A patent application is a balance between disclosure versus secrets. You want to reveal just enough information to get the patent, but not so much that people can reverse-engineer your ideas. Smokey is gone, and some of the secrets went with him."
Well that's not the whole story...
As to the fate of the original Smokey hot-vapor engines, Trish Yunick still retains four different prototypes in long-term storage; the others have been sold. One is said to be in the custody of the Smithsonian Institution. Tony Allers, a longtime friend and customer of Smokey, has the only known good running engines. He built a Fiero that's identical to the original car, using the original drivetrain salvaged from the HOT ROD Fiero by Smokey before he returned the car to Pontiac for crushing. Allers drove the car daily for 21/2 years before he donated it in Christmas '09 to Don Garlits' museum where it is currently on display.

Perhaps Ralph sums it up best, "Hot-vapor technology won't die. Other kids are coming along that are smarter than me. It will continue to develop along with the technology needed to support it. The time will come when engines will be fully accepted as a heat pump."
*if* the gub'ment is trying to hide them, they sure aren't doing a very good job.. but maybe that's what I should expect from them by now...

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #9 by CoupeBoy » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:37 pm

There are quite a few 100mpg (and higher) vehicles listed on this page..
http://www.dragtimes.com/video-viewer.p ... lM&feature

You just have to be willing to live with the packaging and limitations.

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #10 by Asa » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:00 pm

BIG 6 farmer wrote:The reason is GREED. Anybody that thinks that the Oil Companies & your Goverment wouldnt lie to you, needs to wake up. You need to read about this before you dis it. Minds are like parachutes, they work best open.

My mind is awake. It follows simple logic.

Oil is running out. Oil companies love the stranglehold they have on transportation, for them to suppress something that could make that stranglehold last for another several generations is completely silly.

An open parachute is of use in one situation and one situation only.
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #11 by CoupeBoy » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:11 pm

Asa wrote:An open parachute is of use in one situation and one situation only.
I thought there were 2 situations..

1. When falling from a plane..
2. When slowing down from a speedy 1/4th mile run..

-ron

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6046
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #12 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:13 pm

A third of the heating value of a gallon of gas goes out the exhaust. Another third goes out the cooling system.

Figure out how to reduce those two factors to near zero and you will get your 100 mpg and be a national hero.

...until the government sends its black helicopters over to kill you...
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

Fordman75
Registered User
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:43 am
Location: Southern, Minnesota

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #13 by Fordman75 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:02 pm

My dad made and ran some kind of vaporizer on a 70 chevy he owned when I was a kid. He said it more then doubled his mileage. I don't know what or how he had it set up. That was back when I was around 8 years old.
Ted

54 Ford F100/F150 4x4
300, NP435 4spd, NP205 transfercase

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #14 by Asa » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:49 pm

CoupeBoy wrote:
Asa wrote:An open parachute is of use in one situation and one situation only.
I thought there were 2 situations..

1. When falling from a plane..
2. When slowing down from a speedy 1/4th mile run..

-ron

"Used when requiring enough air resistance to slow an object traveling at an excessive velocity to a safer velocity."
:lol:
Fordman75 wrote:My dad made and ran some kind of vaporizer on a 70 chevy he owned when I was a kid. He said it more then doubled his mileage. I don't know what or how he had it set up. That was back when I was around 8 years old.

Did he ever say what the starting mileage was? 7MPG doubles to 14MPG
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

Fordman75
Registered User
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:43 am
Location: Southern, Minnesota

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #15 by Fordman75 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:05 pm

Asa wrote:
CoupeBoy wrote:
Asa wrote:An open parachute is of use in one situation and one situation only.
I thought there were 2 situations..

1. When falling from a plane..
2. When slowing down from a speedy 1/4th mile run..

-ron

"Used when requiring enough air resistance to slow an object traveling at an excessive velocity to a safer velocity."
:lol:
Fordman75 wrote:My dad made and ran some kind of vaporizer on a 70 chevy he owned when I was a kid. He said it more then doubled his mileage. I don't know what or how he had it set up. That was back when I was around 8 years old.

Did he ever say what the starting mileage was? 7MPG doubles to 14MPG


Went from 12-13 mpg to mid to high 20's. Not spectacular by today's standards but in a full size 70 impala/caprice ( I don't remember what model it was ) it was pretty good mileage.
Ted

54 Ford F100/F150 4x4
300, NP435 4spd, NP205 transfercase

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #16 by Asa » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:12 pm

Shoot, that would work for me. I'd be happy with it.
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

Lazy JW
FSP Moderator
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:25 pm
Location: Careywood, Idaho

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #17 by Lazy JW » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:43 pm

BIG 6 farmer wrote:My favorite is Smokeys Heat Engine. It was real. Thinking some day would like to build one on a 300 six. Smokey Yunick was one sharp dude. Read his life story, entertaining.


I've read all of those mentioned above. Smokey never did make outrageous claims, but he did make some nice improvements. Same for Pogue.

Before you get too excited about vaporizing gasoline, just think about propane. It's already vaporized, but it doesn't accomplish anything magical in the MPG realm. In fact, it's worse than gasoline because it has fewer BTU's per gallon.
Joe
"The White OX" 1974 F-350 300-6, Stock single exhaust, Carter YF, T-18A, Dana70 w/4.11, Flatbed dually w/dump bed. "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox" (Proverbs 14:4)
Image

User avatar
woodbutcher
VIP Member
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: LaFollette Tn.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #18 by woodbutcher » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:46 pm

:rolflmao: Amen,Joe.BUT it sure burns clean.Tree huggin` shark kissers REALLY love that.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo
"People never lie so much as after a hunt,during a war,or before an election".
Otto von Bismarck

User avatar
tom954x4
Registered User
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:32 pm
Location: Twilight zone, WA

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #19 by tom954x4 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:27 am

To my knowledge, the most efficient internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency of about 40-41 per cent, which is a bit better than FTF's reported 33 percent, and the ones with 40-41 percent efficiency I am most familiar are diesels which inject liquid fuel as a mist.

Regaring propane, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the reduction is mpg with propane vehicles is roughly proportional to the percent reduction in BTU/gallon of propane as compared to gasoline, which would suggest that if gasoine was introduced into the engine in the form of a vapor it would give little or no increase in mpg as compared to a normal carbeurator.

So, to my way of thinking, any carb or other device that provides for vaporizaion of gasoline is probably not going to yield miraculous gains in mileage versus conventional technology. Carl Sagan's quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" seems apropos here. Surely if there was a miracle carb/technology out there, it would be known, and used, by now.
1995 F-150 XL, 300-6, 4x4, ex-cab, sb, 3.08 5-speed, 2 1/2 in. exhaust w/flowmaster 50, MSDignition failed with no warning, now out, canopy, 179,000 + miles. Gone but not forgotten 1965 F-100 240 3spd lwb "the green hornet"; 1960 F-250 4x4, 223 six, 4sp with wrap-around rear window, two-tone paint, overhead camper.
Tow vehicle: 2012 F-250 4x4 6.7 diesel XLT s/c lwb

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #20 by Asa » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:47 am

Tom, look at the direct injection engines that are coming out, they mimic diesel's delivery characteristics (mimic, not duplicate). They get more power and better milage than older style engines, but they also are much more technologically advanced.
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #21 by StrangeRanger » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:17 am

...and the direct injection gasoline engines give only about 10% improvement in fuel economy over port injection at cruise, nowhere near the claims made for the magic carburetor.

100 MPG is available, look at the hypermilers, but they aren't getting there from powertrain improvements. They're stripping off weight, making massive aero improvements and using driving techniques which range from impractical to downright dangerous.

What I do not understand is the weight of current vehicles. A current Mustang weighs 25% more than a 5.0 Foxstang. A FIAT 500 weighs in at an unbelievable 2363 lbs. That's at least 363 too many. If we would put out fat-arsed cars on a diet, we could easily get a 10% improvement in fuel economy
1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #22 by Asa » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:21 am

StrangeRanger wrote:A FIAT 500 weighs in at an unbelievable 2363 lbs. That's at least 363 too many. If we would put out fat-arsed cars on a diet, we could easily get a 10% improvement in fuel economy

That's almost what a classic Mustang weighs, WTF?
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

1986F150six
Registered User
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:11 pm
Location: Northwest Alabama

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #23 by 1986F150six » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:12 am

StrangeRanger wrote:...and the direct injection gasoline engines give only about 10% improvement in fuel economy over port injection at cruise, nowhere near the claims made for the magic carburetor.

100 MPG is available, look at the hypermilers, but they aren't getting there from powertrain improvements. They're stripping off weight, making massive aero improvements and using driving techniques which range from impractical to downright dangerous.

What I do not understand is the weight of current vehicles. A current Mustang weighs 25% more than a 5.0 Foxstang. A FIAT 500 weighs in at an unbelievable 2363 lbs. That's at least 363 too many. If we would put out fat-arsed cars on a diet, we could easily get a 10% improvement in fuel economy


Amen, Mr. StrangeRanger!

The "new" F150s brag about 22 MPG with all the improvements of multispeed transmissions, fuel injection and computer control. What does a modern F150 [2WD] weigh? Maybe ~4800#? My 1986 F150 with 4.9L and manual transmission [Duraspark 2 conversion] weighs ~3750# and gets 20-22 MPG @ 60 mph. Imagine "today's" powerplant in a truck weighing 1000# less! What kind of performance could one expect with 20% less weight?

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #24 by CoupeBoy » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:29 am

But then you wouldn't have all of the modern amenities that come with that weight... button controlled foldable mirrors, throttle and shifting by wire, ABS, Electronic Stability Control, Traction Control, 12-way power heated leather seats, tire pressure monitoring, electronic adjustable pedals, crumple zones. Would you really want to give up all fo that for increased MPG and control over your automotive functions?

I would.

My wife has a '12 Tahoe and if you drive it like she does in 4wd Auto, it is like driving with the biggest wet blanket ever! In this mode you can't spin a single tire (it has limited slip rear), put it in 2wd and disable traction control and you can finally spin the tires but not slide a corner or cut a cookie. 320HP of wasted fun if you ask me...

User avatar
tom954x4
Registered User
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:32 pm
Location: Twilight zone, WA

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #25 by tom954x4 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:47 am

good writeup and some history on gasoline direct injection, with pics of the ecoBoost internals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection

Seems light most automobile manufacturers are doing little to reduce mass by using lighter wieght materials. There are a few notable exceptions (Audi, and now-defunct Saturn). It maybe because the efficiency gains from lighter weight parts (particularly body/frame) are not all that great and worth it compared to the increase in cost. Not to mention the inertia in Detroit when it comes to new technology.
1995 F-150 XL, 300-6, 4x4, ex-cab, sb, 3.08 5-speed, 2 1/2 in. exhaust w/flowmaster 50, MSDignition failed with no warning, now out, canopy, 179,000 + miles. Gone but not forgotten 1965 F-100 240 3spd lwb "the green hornet"; 1960 F-250 4x4, 223 six, 4sp with wrap-around rear window, two-tone paint, overhead camper.
Tow vehicle: 2012 F-250 4x4 6.7 diesel XLT s/c lwb

User avatar
THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER
VIP Member
Posts: 6046
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: FRENCHTOWN

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #26 by THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:46 pm

tom954x4 wrote:To my knowledge, the most efficient internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency of about 40-41 per cent, which is a bit better than FTF's reported 33 percent, and the ones with 40-41 percent efficiency I am most familiar are diesels which inject liquid fuel as a mist.



My statement was a sweeping generality to get people's heads pointed in the right direction that mere combustion improvements will not get you there. So if you all want to use the ratio 40/30/30 thats fine with me, instead of my 33/33/33. My point is that mileage improvements must address the other /33/33 or /30/30 if you please to see real change.

And I totally agree that safety and creature features improvement have added far too much weight to the weight of vehicles, which are still being constructed much like they were fifty years ago. Give me a day with a hole saw and a pair of snips and I can show you drastic improvements in weight with little loss of structural integrity. Finite element analysis can do much better of course, but it might add a skoosh more cost to the car.

Look at aircraft construction. Heck, look at something as mundane as high-end bicycle construction. These industries have gone to ultra lightweight construction techniques - exotic metals, carbon fiber frames, composite component construction. If we are to drastically reduce the fuel consumption of cars we must drastically reduce its weight. That may mean building stronger, lighter cars with a much longer life span, with the ability to be retrofitted with improvements as technology progresses, much like airplanes are built. I heard somewhere that the average age of jet airliners is something like 16 years old. Yet they continue to be serviced and retrofitted with high tech stuff. A TV show I recently watched was about a firm that has made a business solely of rebuilding WW II era DC-3s and C-47s! They retrofit modern engines, increase power and range so that these planes can keep flying economically.

Something similar may have to happen with cars. The biggest concern I have with that path is now consumers will treat a car purchase as a long term deal like buying a home. That alone will make car companies reluctant to take the FTF Approach to Car Design.

Pity.
FORD 300 INLINE SIX - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN DRAG RACING

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #27 by BIG 6 farmer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:47 pm

THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER wrote:A third of the heating value of a gallon of gas goes out the exhaust. Another third goes out the cooling system.

Figure out how to reduce those two factors to near zero and you will get your 100 mpg and be a national hero.

...until the government sends its black helicopters over to kill you...
Glad to see i got yal thinking. Ol Smokey was able to reclaim alot of that heat loss. But by his own admission, he reached the limit. Maybe with todays High tech. coatings & materials, much more might be possible ?
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #28 by Asa » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:53 pm

BIG 6 farmer wrote:Maybe with todays High tech. coatings & materials, much more might be possible ?

That's what all the modern manufacturers are doing...
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

User avatar
CoupeBoy
VIP Member
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Fargo, ND
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #29 by CoupeBoy » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:06 pm

The hotrod article I listed to has some info on that.
One of the key secrets is the exact tune-up or technique used to get the engine past the detonation threshold into the super-hot, super-lean running condition. Ralph provides some intriguing hints. He points out that "any good race driver that ever had a meltdown, he'll tell you the car never ran as well in its whole life as it did just before it let go." In short, an engine makes its most power running on the verge of detonation. For example, a typical small-block Chevy runs reliably at a 1,750-degree F stabilized exhaust temperature. At 2,250 degrees, you're definitely in trouble from engine-destroying detonation. But Ralph says "if you can take it to 2,600 degrees F, you can control the burn rate of the hydrogen molecule in the fuel, the major radical in the gas that's causing detonation. Control this burn rate at that temperature and you'll make more power without detonation." So the key seems to be getting safely past 2,250 degrees. Not only is the tune-up critical, but there may have been some special camshaft timing wizardry involved as well.

All of which brings us to another limiting factor in the context of the '80s: Internal changes are required to get the engine to reliably survive long-term at elevated temperatures in the hands of the average, nonautomotive-savvy consumer. There is some question as to whether the metallurgy of that era was up to the task, and if it was, would the cost be affordable in a mass-produced car? Also, any system malfunction (the wrong air/fuel ratio or temperature, for example) could lead to instant engine failure.
But technology has continued to evolve in the 20 years since the engine was built. Ceramic engine parts or even an entire engine made from ceramics (which are stable to 4,000 degrees F) could be an answer, but the material remains expensive. Cast or molded ceramics are subject to random voids and flaws, which are very hard to detect by conventional inspection methods. Ceramics can be extruded from solid stock (some fighter jet engines have ceramic parts), but the technology and manufacturing process at present is too costly for consumer use (extruded ceramics can only be cut by diamond tooling). Carbon-carbon technology (ultralight and stable to 5,000 degrees F) is another possibility, but again, costs must decline significantly.

Although the original hot-vapor engines relied on a carb with no computer, modern 21st century fuel injection and computer enhancements could be used to fail-safe the engine in event of system malfunction. For example, present engine management systems still rely on an oxygen sensor and a knock sensor to provide feedback to correct the air/fuel ratio and timing, respectively, but this a catch-up game, subject to a potentially deadly time lag on an engine always operating close to the limit. It is theoretically possible to put an inductive pickup on a spark plug wire that can be used by the computer to measure the ionization gap across the spark plug in real time. A change in the ionization gap indicating a problem in the cylinder would manifest itself as a slight change in electrical current read in milliamps. "If there's going to be a failure from temperature or heat, you'll know it instantaneously," Ralph says. "I worked on the genesis of this at Ethyl Corp. [using analog milliamp meters] all the way back in the '50s when I was still a student. With real-time feedback, the computer could then change the spark, the fuel ratio, and someday the compression ratio or the displacement to compensate before catastrophic failure occurs."

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #30 by BIG 6 farmer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:08 pm

Asa wrote:
BIG 6 farmer wrote:Maybe with todays High tech. coatings & materials, much more might be possible ?

That's what all the modern manufacturers are doing...
Yes, to a point. Smokies next step for his Heat Engine was, to get close to zero heat loss. We will prob. never see that, because THEY wont allow it. Same reason a new Ecoboost F150 doesent get any better mileage than my 85 F150 i bought new.
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #31 by BIG 6 farmer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:11 pm

Yes Coupe Boy, Your on it !
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

RobbieAG
Registered User
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:23 am

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #32 by RobbieAG » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:03 pm

BIG 6 farmer wrote:
Asa wrote:
BIG 6 farmer wrote:Same reason a new Ecoboost F150 doesent get any better mileage than my 85 F150 i bought new.


Part of that is all the government safety regulations force the manufacturers to make heavier and heavier vehicles. My 88 Mazda 626 used to get 36 mpg on the highway no problem. New mid-sized cars are just getting back to where they get that mileage again.

EDIT: Not to mention the Ecoboost has 365 hp, 420 ft/lb of torque and can tow around 11,000 pounds. Not bad when you're getting 21 mpg. I don't think your 85 F150 could do that.
Last edited by RobbieAG on Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #33 by Asa » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:18 pm

BIG 6 farmer wrote:
Asa wrote:
BIG 6 farmer wrote:Maybe with todays High tech. coatings & materials, much more might be possible ?

That's what all the modern manufacturers are doing...
Yes, to a point. Smokies next step for his Heat Engine was, to get close to zero heat loss. We will prob. never see that, because THEY wont allow it. Same reason a new Ecoboost F150 doesent get any better mileage than my 85 F150 i bought new.

If by "they" you mean "physics" then yes, you will never get a zero heat loss engine. If you have no heat loss at all then all of the heat from the combustion of the gas will eventually be transferred into the block. At that point the engine components will start to melt.
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #34 by BIG 6 farmer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:43 pm

. .[/quote]
If by "they" you mean "physics" then yes, you will never get a zero heat loss engine. If you have no heat loss at all then all of the heat from the combustion of the gas will eventually be transferred into the block. At that point the engine components will start to melt.[/quote] I ment THEY, as the people that control the Goverments. They dont want mpgs to increase. Yes a zero heat loss piston type engine, prob. is not possible @ this time. I assume it would take some type of Ceramic engine parts. To quote, the quote Coupe Boy posted.
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

User avatar
Asa
Registered User
Posts: 4355
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Tallahassee, Hangin out in some Florida woods somewhere
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #35 by Asa » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:51 pm

BIG 6 farmer wrote:I ment THEY, as the people that control the Goverments. They dont want mpgs to increase. Yes a zero heat loss piston type engine, prob. is not possible @ this time. I assume it would take some type of Ceramic engine parts. To quote, the quote Coupe Boy posted.

The government has mandated an increase in overall automotive mileage 2025.
Right and Wrong are just words, what matters is what you do



Susie - a work in progress

Clyde - ya mule!

BIG 6 farmer
Registered User
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 am
Location: On a dirt road near Washington Nebr.

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #36 by BIG 6 farmer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:42 pm

Asa wrote:
BIG 6 farmer wrote:I ment THEY, as the people that control the Goverments. They dont want mpgs to increase. Yes a zero heat loss piston type engine, prob. is not possible @ this time. I assume it would take some type of Ceramic engine parts. To quote, the quote Coupe Boy posted.

The government has mandated an increase in overall automotive mileage 2025.
Ya, Gov. has had CAFE Fuel standards since 1975 ? Hasent done much. Its just a cover to look like they are trying.
83 F 150 SB 4x4 300 six NP 4speed - - 1950 IHC L162 (1&1/2 ton?) - 87 & 88 T-Bird Turbo Coupes - 2000 Triumph Tiger , 76 Honda GL 1000 , & other toys and parts (& junk) -

nightwatchman59
Registered User
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:00 pm

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #37 by nightwatchman59 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:27 pm

Summer 2012 I ran my fuel line to the Trans cooler fittings on the radiator , then to the YF carb.. everything else stock original (except radiator for auto....truck has 4spd) It ran fine for short trips, and if I pulled off the air cleaner after while it idled and warmed up, you could see vapor coming out of the float vent and being sucked down into the carb... like some people smoke cigarettes.
Didn't get mileage figures. My curiosity made me take it for an extended run. It vapor locked... Or leaned out inthe beer store parking lot... so I put the hoses back.
My intent was to warn the fuel to increase volatility .....

nightwatchman59
Registered User
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:00 pm

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #38 by nightwatchman59 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:05 pm

.... lots of stuff on the internet about this... a young man back in the early 70's claimed 40mpg in a Lincoln...Argosy magazine did a story on it. I took a 5 gal. water jug, filled it w/ tap water,and mixed in some baking soda to promote conductivity and ELECTROLYSIS. 2 stainless steel rods ran through it. Ran 12volts from the battery to it. A hose ran the resulting hydrogen and oxygen to the carb. I played w/ vacuum a bit, and at one point I recorded 20 mpg highway- 5mpg increase. I took the set up off my truck when I moved- I needed the space in the bed. I may get back to it this year. Kids are the gift that KEEP ON GIVING.... the purpose of this was to enhance 87 pump gas for more complete combustion....

(My truck is a wore out '84 F150 4x4 300 six 4spd granny low, 3.55's, posi, stock suspension, 35 12.50 BFG's courtesy of Mr. sawsall...) a testbed for the mad scientist in me..

User avatar
StrangeRanger
VIP Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:54 pm
Location: Copley, OH

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #39 by StrangeRanger » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:53 pm

Sorry but that whole electrolysis thing is bogus which anyone who has taken Thermo 201 can tell you. The energy required to separate water into H2 and O2 is always going to be greater than the energy you can recover by combining them. It's an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Josiah Gibbs proved - and more importantly quantified - it over a century ago. If you can prove him wrong, there's a Nobel prize waiting with your name on it.

Read the section headed "Thermodynamics of the Process"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
1996 F-150 (tow missile)
1993 Mustang 5.0 (hot rod and auto-x monster)
1982 Tiga Formula Ford (SCCA racecar)
2013 Hyundai Elantra Coupe (daily driver)

DeltaV
Registered User
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:35 am
Contact:

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #40 by DeltaV » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:46 pm

So this is an old thread but I need to chime in here. As one poster pointed out, gasoline is 125k BTU's/gallon and propane is 91k BTU's/gallon. And he's right, if vaporization was all there was then propane would get exceptional mileage. However, its much more nuanced than that. The ideal end results, the emissions, should be nothing but Co2 and water vapor. In order for the hydrogen and carbon to bond to oxygen we first must break the alkanes, alkenes, and alkynes bonds holding the carbon and hydrogen atoms together. By vaporizing and then breaking down the fuel into methane and methane gas-like states, super short chains that do not require nearly as much bond breaking we reduce how much energy from the combustion is robbed to first vaporize and then break the bonds. We can even take this a step further, by using a catalyst to reduce the temperatures required to break these bonds down we can get even more energy from the same amount of fuel. By using waste heat to heat and vaporize the fuel we are recapturing the waste heat, rather than using in cylinder heat to vaporize the fuel we're using waste heat from the exhaust and coolant system. By getting the temperatures up even higher, we break the bonds down to reduce how much energy is required to ignite and oxidfize the fuel as the flame front propagates in the cylinder. And by using a pure vapor, we get a more homogeneous faster more consistent burning fuel.

The legendary vapor fuel systems work, but there are caveats to them. It requires high pressures, high temperatures, catalysts, elimination of the throttle plate for best results, and a whole host of expensive components that will cost more than the engine itself. Read "DR Blackmores fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine." We can all get over 200 MPG from a full size pickup truck, but its going to require a pulse detonation engine with over 80% thermal efficiency and a thermal catalytic cracker, essentially an oil refinery downscaled to fit under your hood, to do it. I'm literally working on it right now.

I also need to point out here that though conventional internal combustion engines get about 25% to 30% thermal efficiency, thats assuming a 100% perfect clean burn and combusting the fuel at the right time. As we both know, not all the fuel burns and a lot of it is burning when the exhaust valves are open. And furthermore, even if it burns in the cylinder if its not burned before 15 degree's ATDC then its essentially wasted anyway. So once these factors are taken into consideration, especially the not a completely clean burn and the energy required to breakdown the bonds of the fuel before oxidizing, we really can get over 100 MPG but like I said, we literally need to downscale and simplify and entire oil refinery to fit under your hood. Also we need to eliminate pumping losses by eliminating the throttle plate. That induces a massive parasitic loss that most people really underestimate the effects.

There are of course a lot of other factors I can't get into right now for the sake of time. But its a lot more nuanced than just vaporizing the fuel. Its also not bogus hokus pokus pseudo science, either. Turns out everyone is right and wrong at the same time.

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 1109
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: 100 m.p.g. Carb. with lotsa heat ?

Post #41 by drag-200stang » Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:16 am

There are microbes deep in the earth that are constantly producing crude, If we do not pump it out , the pressure will crack the crust and flood the ocean.



:shock:
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests