mystery engine in 87 Mustang
 

https://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. https://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 #$%#!!$

Direct air injection? Like, an intake valve hooked directly to a turbocharger? :confused:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

direct injection liquid oxygen mixed with fuel?

mmmh......yes...!

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?

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.