mystery engine in 87 Mustang - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-18-2008, 07:39 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 110
Country: United States
mystery engine in 87 Mustang

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...SS02/807010341

The video of it still sounds like a V8. Hard to believe, but I guess 1.4 million could build a nice motor. http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=271839

?????????
Direct fuel/air injection, variable valve timing, multispark ingition, roller cams, roller bearing crank, cylindar delete cycles, blower with clutch and variable speed, custom ECU and fuel/timing maps
?????????

If this is for real, then it simply proves the auto industry doesn't give a #$%#!!$
__________________

__________________
http://www.maxxgraphix.net
maxxgraphix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 04:52 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxxgraphix View Post
?????????
Direct fuel/air injection, variable valve timing, multispark ingition, roller cams, roller bearing crank, cylindar delete cycles, blower with clutch and variable speed, custom ECU and fuel/timing maps
?????????
Direct air injection? Like, an intake valve hooked directly to a turbocharger?
__________________

__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 07:24 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 110
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
Direct air injection? Like, an intake valve hooked directly to a turbocharger?
I'm taking wild guesses. None of that was ever in any documentation about what they are doing.

But yes, why not direct air injection? Use a compressor and a tank to store highly compressed air. Then inject the air directly into the combustion chamber. No need for cams or valves on the intake side. Precise timing and let's spray the fuel into mist with the air at the same time. We could even dump the exhaust quickly with another air only charge.
__________________
http://www.maxxgraphix.net
maxxgraphix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 07:39 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 39
Country: United States
I'm calling shenanigans. First the article says 80 MPG, then in the video it has 110 MPG on the car. He won't show him under the hood, but he just popped the hood in the beginning. So many electronic gizmos he doesn't want to show. Yeah, we can say the high tech air cleaner and Holley carburetor. The faraway shot looks like standard plug wire location coming from the distributor. Over a 100 MPH, that's not very fast by any standard. I love his pause when he talks about the performance, "Ummm, to 60 in, ehhh, 3 seconds." Are you kidding me? On what tires? 400 HP does not propel a LX Mustang to 60 MPH in 3 seconds no matter how much the car weighs, especially on those tires. He rounds all his numbers, 400 HP and 500 lbs of torque, no RPM given, nice big whole numbers, just like his 3 seconds to 60 MPH. Damn shame news reporters can do articles like this and not investigate one damn claim.
92VX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 04:54 AM   #5
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 557
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxxgraphix View Post
I'm taking wild guesses. None of that was ever in any documentation about what they are doing.

But yes, why not direct air injection? Use a compressor and a tank to store highly compressed air. Then inject the air directly into the combustion chamber. No need for cams or valves on the intake side. Precise timing and let's spray the fuel into mist with the air at the same time. We could even dump the exhaust quickly with another air only charge.
Not wild guesses, dumb guesses.

A five liter, four stroke will use 2.5 liters (at 100% filling efficiency) of air per revolution. Lets cut that to 25% for part throttle operation or .625 liters per revolution. At 1000 rpm that's 625 liters or 165 gallons per minute. Even if the air is compressed to 150 psi (10 atmospheres) that still is a mighty big air tank to provide just one minute of idle operation.

Air charge to 'dump' exhaust? That adds pressure on the top of the piston as it is trying to come up on the exhaust stroke and partially counters the pressure on another piston's power stroke.
Lug_Nut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 05:06 AM   #6
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 110
Country: United States
The one mustang with the hood open was green. It's not the same car. But, yeah 0-60 in 3 seconds. NOT. Maybe it's a just a promotional gag.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancho VX View Post
I'm calling shenanigans. First the article says 80 MPG, then in the video it has 110 MPG on the car. He won't show him under the hood, but he just popped the hood in the beginning. So many electronic gizmos he doesn't want to show. Yeah, we can say the high tech air cleaner and Holley carburetor. The faraway shot looks like standard plug wire location coming from the distributor. Over a 100 MPH, that's not very fast by any standard. I love his pause when he talks about the performance, "Ummm, to 60 in, ehhh, 3 seconds." Are you kidding me? On what tires? 400 HP does not propel a LX Mustang to 60 MPH in 3 seconds no matter how much the car weighs, especially on those tires. He rounds all his numbers, 400 HP and 500 lbs of torque, no RPM given, nice big whole numbers, just like his 3 seconds to 60 MPH. Damn shame news reporters can do articles like this and not investigate one damn claim.
__________________
http://www.maxxgraphix.net
maxxgraphix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 05:08 AM   #7
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 110
Country: United States
Thanks for the math. I hadn't got that far yet. Just trying to think outside the box. I thought air volume would be an issue anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lug_Nut View Post
Not wild guesses, dumb guesses.

A five liter, four stroke will use 2.5 liters (at 100% filling efficiency) of air per revolution. Lets cut that to 25% for part throttle operation or .625 liters per revolution. At 1000 rpm that's 625 liters or 165 gallons per minute. Even if the air is compressed to 150 psi (10 atmospheres) that still is a mighty big air tank to provide just one minute of idle operation.

Air charge to 'dump' exhaust? That adds pressure on the top of the piston as it is trying to come up on the exhaust stroke and partially counters the pressure on another piston's power stroke.
__________________
http://www.maxxgraphix.net
maxxgraphix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 03:05 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 68
Country: United States
direct injection liquid oxygen mixed with fuel?

mmmh......yes...!
Rayme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 07:49 AM   #9
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 557
Country: United States
Tough to 'idle' with a kerosene / lox engine.
NASA has long used P&G, and EOC techniques to hypermile in their vehicles.

Using a small amount of compressed air to create fuel turbulence, rather than a cylinder filling amount, will reduce the volume per stroke to a level that an on board compressor might be able to provide, but air compression is notoriously inefficient, maybe a net loss even with improved combustion efficiency.
Compressed air on the exhaust manifold through a venturi to aid in scavenging by pulling spent gasses out, rather than by blowing into the cylinder to push them out, may help, but enough to offset the compressor energy?
Lug_Nut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 01:32 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
rgathright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Country: United States
The Automotive X prize requires the applicant to have a production line capable of producing several thousand cars. The competition did not want to give millions to another venture capitalist who just pockets the money.

Just another example of an individual and news organization who neglect to read the fine print.
__________________

rgathright is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incorrect Milage Calcuatlion PatM Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-17-2009 08:21 PM
ECT Analyzer/manual TC lockup GasSavers_Bruce Transmissions and Running Gear 60 04-01-2008 11:37 AM
NPR piece on $100 oil ajohnmeyer General Fuel Topics 4 11-01-2007 10:51 PM
How far do you drive daily? OdieTurbo General Fuel Topics 56 03-31-2007 02:49 AM
Solar in Central Oregon. QDM Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 4 08-04-2006 04:17 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.