Quote:
I would love to study their work. |
brucepick,
Please tell me where to post about thermal efficiency or among people who are willing to look at different approaches to automotive refinements. |
I'm not sure if this is true but back in the 50-60s someone came out with a carb that made 100mpg , it used fuel vapors. The big oil companies bought the inventors patent and quickly locked them away. but again I'm not sure on the facts on this, a teacher told me when i was in collage.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
A long rod favors sustained upper rpm it lengthens the amount of time the piston is at top dead center. Ask NASCAR engine builders why they use shorter rods on shorter tracks. The differences may be small but so is the differance in winning and loosing. I am a groupie of anyone who can back what he or she says. Therefore, I guess that would make me a groupie of truth. What do you stand for? |
The whole "100 mpg carburetor" thing makes as much sense as saying I've got a "100 mpg gas tank." It's the entire vehicle, including the driver, that matters. A 100+ mpg car that performs well is technically quite possible today, but it very likely wouldn't pass government safety and emmission stands and would be considered "ugly" by most consumers, be impractical to drive, and most importantly, cost quite a bit.
|
Quote:
Being born and raised in the Dallas area I am well aware of Reher Morrison Racing I have done business with them in the past. I also know a considerable number of people who have had to change the combo that they received from them in order to be competitive. This was not the case years ago. Money changes every thing. The shop that does my machine work and dyno?s my engines has personally had to rework several of their combos do to lack of power or catastrophic engine failer. A local track record holder used them for short blocks but had to do his own heads and spec his own cams because what they where doing was nowhere close to the power or power range he needed. He has recently had to take his work elsewhere. I do not personally know Darin but I was told two days ago, he would be leaving for untold reasons; he is well respected, but not allowed to do what he is capable of is what was said. You have to ask your self why they have not been competitive in prostock for years. Hot Rod Mag. and Reher Morrison have become parts pushers, the R&D for GM was 12 years ago. The person in question that started all this hoopla still does R&D for most of the major Auto manufactures, Cylinder head, Intake, Cam companies. That?s saying something. So as far as credibility goes, I guess you have to judge for your self. As for Grumpy, you only have to watch Nhra to see he builds some of the most competitive engines in the field. Smoky Yunicks work goes with out saying, I shudder to think about what he would have done if he was not so set on pissing people off. Not only Smoky but all of us in this field or any field could benefit from looking at the good in what people have done instead of trying to find something to stab them with. |
Quote:
Just keep in mind that when these major auto/defense/contractor manufacturers make a "mistake" - it's not called a mistake. They call it an anomaly or some derivative thereof. Feel free to trust me, or not - but these "anomalies" happen more often than one would hope :/ ------ As for the point on thermal efficiency... Yes, TE will be the ultimate cap. But many people here have proven that: Quote:
I am also drawn to the 70/80's claim from Luigi Colani of a 50% FE gain on semi trucks only VIA aerodynamic modification. Even though trucks are decent on efficiency to begin with (when hauling). Another thing comes to mind too... The Opel eco-speedster which averaged, over a 24 hour test, 140mph getting 113mpg. Personally, I have no problem with 155mph top speed, really - the average commuter car will live between 0 and 80mph ;) Small frontal area, light weight, aero design, small engine (1.3l diesel). Whenever someone asks for money for a claim they have not yet prototyped... I run away. Unless they're asking for VC money - which is a different story. But if they're asking, they better be saying wtf. it is they're doing first. If he's trying to create an engine that runs at 1200F reliably, great - I'd back a claim for FE gain (perhaps not to the extent he is, but shoot for the stars ;) ). I mean, really - we already have the materials tech for such high operating temps :p ------ My last point.... I think "98% at least", of all mileage improvements will be switching away from petrol based fuels (note my lack of time frame) ;) I got to ride in a vehicle that got 170mpg equivalent and did 0-60 in 3.07 seconds this past summer (it was a modified ariel atom). That beats the 160mpg claim in that article :p |
Interesting article, it's odd that he goes on and on about how fuel delivery is not the problem. He's hinting at the fact that he's vaporizing the fuel better and a carberator cannot meter vapor (neither can an injector), so he's changing the delivery.
The way his article reads it sounds to me like he's hinting at doing something similar to these: https://fueleconomytips.com/2005/12/0...gallon-of-gas/ https://www.fuelvaporcar.com/index.html https://fueleconomytips.com/2006/12/0...2%80%99s-tale/ The issue is in dealing with leanburn, if he's changing the engine to handle that somehow, that's fine but I don't think any of these article's increase the thermal efficiency of the engine itself, they may increase the efficiency of the fuel because it is no longer being used as cooling and and is being metered more closely to have more of it's energy go to motive force. I would like to try some of that but it's more mods than I can deal with although I have thought that cannibalizing the old K-jetronic fuel distributor on my Audi would make a good way to inject water. |
There is no way that a 4, 6 or 8 cylinder car is ever going to get 100 mpg at normal (55-65 mph) highway speeds.
A 100 mpg car is possible, but its engine has to be running at its most efficient point: WOT, and while at the best efficincy rpm while at highway speed. 1.5 to 2 liter 4 cylinder engines make way too much power to run at WOT an efficient rpms. Smaller 4 cylinder engines, like the Japanese "liter car" class operate at WOT at about this rpm, but cylinders are too small to be efficient. (The smaller the individual cylinder, the less efficient it is. Really small cylinders like 50 cc scooter motors are only about 20% effient, but big 12" bore diesels are about 40%) The solution is to use fewer, larger cylinders. SO, Here's the recipe for a 100 mpg car engine: 1 cylinder, long stroke, 400 to 800 cc displacement, with all the goodies: four valves, direct injection / lean burn and tuned intake and exhaust. Of course, the usual aero body and LRR tricks would be needed. So what do you get? https://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/to...-liter-car.htm |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.