100 mile per gallon engine!
I just read an article about a 100 mpg carburetor https://www.gofastnews.com/board/tech...lly-exist.html by David Vizard.
What he is saying is that the fuel system is already capable of better than a 100 mpg but the thermal efficiency of the engine is not. So regardless of what we do with induction systems, fuel injection or carb, o2 sensor, aero mods, hot air intakes or anything else we will still be limited by the thermal efficiency of the machine burning the fuel, So it’s back to the drawing board to look at the fuel burner not the fuel supplier so may be we need to push engine manufactures as much as oil and gas suppliers. |
I just read the referenced article. David Vizard is a well respected performance writer among automotive journalists. With that said I continue......
I think he may be severely disillusioned when he implies he may be the only person with the knowledge required to drastically improve fuel mileage. There are large numbers of GasSavers members and other FE sites that have demonstrated what can be done with ingenuity and hard work. When I first became a member of GasSavers, I was in awe of members who had posted 70-90 mpg tanks. I had just reached my first ever 50+ mpg tank. Currently my car, Old Reliable, is listed with 104.7 average mpg for the last 90 days. My last tank amounted to 107.3 mpg. AND I do not have the highest recorded tank on GasSavers. Antoine in his Smartan2 posted his most recent tank at 107.9 mpg along with other previous 100+ mpg tanks. MetroMPG recently posted a 104 mpg tank in his Firefly 2 Blackfly. And others are within striking distance. I am sure not all these tanks were accomplished at moped speeds. What really gets me is that, of the three cars mentioned above, none have drastic engine modifications, if any at all. This is in direct conflict with what Mr. Vizard considers possible. He no doubt has considerable education and experience but it may be time for him to expand his horizons. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I believe his article was refering to carbs not injection and electricity. |
Quote:
Quote:
What I'm saying is that there's nothing new under the sun. You design a car based on aesthetics, performance, emissions, ergonomics, cost, and efficiency. And it's all a trade off to some extent. Anyone, including yourself, can improve various aspects of your car, but these improvements will all come at some cost. Stating you need seven figures to research something has got to be one of the silliest pitches imo. Most people who know or can learn at least a little bit about physics and mechanics can figure out how to optimize their car according to their own wants and needs. It ain't rocket surgery man! :thumbup: |
Quote:
I find it interesting the number of people in the industry that cannot hold a candle to him in writing or engine building and they usually make smart-!@# comments with nothing to back them up with. |
Please move thread - is in wrong forum
I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out yet.
This thread does not belong in the FE Challenge forum, probably belongs in the General Fuel Economy Discussion forum. As to the usefulness of what Vizard wrote - assuming it's all an honest portrayal of what was done and what was learned, then fine, it might be useful to someone somewhere. The question of thermal efficiency is valid. I think something like 20% of the energy released by combustion is actually converted into motive mechanical energy. The rest is given off as heat, mostly through the exhaust and the cooling system. If we could capture even part of that energy and make use of it we could get much higher FE numbers, all other things assumed equal. Maybe run a turbine off the exhaust and use it to charge a battery bank or compress a gas to bank the energy. IMHO, the whole business of a 100 mpg carburetor is moot. That is, pointless. No carb will give you 100 mpg if it's driving a Hummer or a "performance" car that weighs 3500 lb. And, um, I've owned cars with carbs. I'm very glad we've worked out electronic fuel injection so we don't have to deal with those d**n carbs any more. Ever have to pay to get one rebuilt? My estimate, every couple years in normal driving, if you want to pass your local emissions test. For performance people, there are fuel injection based aftermarket engine management programs such as Megasquirt that let you program anything you want for fuel/air mixture, spark advance, etc. Much more flexible and detailed than any carb ever was, and more reliable also. Sorry for the rant. Hope there's something useful in here. |
Quote:
the whole point of the post was to point out that what ever you do to save fuel, the thermal efficiancy needs to be taken in to account. Regardless of what your fuel delivery system is. Also that there is no such thing as a 100 mpg carb. because the engine is not capable of it under NORMAL DRIVING conditions. Also you can rebuild a carb. for less than the price of one fuel injector and an avrage 300 dollar, 750cfm carb. will out perform most 2500 dollar fuel injection systems they both have ther place. As John Meany, one of the most advanced fuely guys said to fully understand fuel injection you first need to understand the simple workings of a carb. |
Quote:
The whole rod/stroke ratio thing has been disproven. Disproven for what, piston speed, rpm, torqe,side load on the block,there has been a lot of use for tailoring rod/stroke to a given application. Lets suppose for a second that David was wrong on half of everything he ever did in the automotive industry,the amount that he has contributed world wide would still be twice what anyone else will ever contribute. As for the engines he has built. Track records (half) would be about 84.5 National Championships (half) 2.5 As a full time writer half his articles about 1550. Books (half)13.5 Half of the results from MSN search for David Vizard 8938 but who is counting? As for the website it's only been online two weeks and hasen't been advertised yet, already has 61 members.only time will tell. |
Quote:
Be it our driving habits, the physical characteristics of our cars, or both. We may get LRR tires and add plastic panels to smooth our airflow, only to find that we haven't seen gains as large as we would've liked because now the engine is operating less efficiently. So we change our driving style a bit, and get even better mileage, but we still aren't where we would like to be. So when we've changed our driving style, and the Crr/CdA characterstics of the car as much as we find acceptable, we know the only thing left is to address engine operating efficiency. Going after that first is silly because it's a relatively large amount of work, and likely already optimized for normal driving from the factory. We have to be willing to change many different synergistic things if we expect any significant change in mileage. |
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 |
Quote:
The 3L Lupo is capable of ~100mpg@55mph, and probably more given that any trip will involve cruising speeds higher than the average speed. It already had a freewheeling CVT and auto shut-off so there really isn't much for the driver to do except keep the speed on the freeway down and try to time lights. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're right Information out there about the speedster is, for the most part, sketchy. https://www.hydro.com/en/press_room/n...speedster.html Appears to state things in a not so misleading fashion :p That's 8.9L/100km (31mpg) during the speed trial which averaged 141mph |
Quote:
But it does beg the question: Why can't we buy a 100 mpg turbodiesel sports car? |
Because no one will make them. Why won't anyone make them? Iono... They'd probably sell well. I mean, how hard would it for Mazda/Ford to shove the 1.6L 100hp MZI-C6 in a Miata and adjust the weight distribution accordingly? Sure, it'd cost a few grand more off the lot, but it'd be a ton of fun to drive and get great mileage. I'd get one for $25k if they were available.
|
Quote:
1. Emissions 2. Weight/Safety 3. SUV's 4. Oil prices have leveled off such that attractive options such as that may not be economically viable/profitable. 5. Aesthetics Seems to be the general idea behind all the reasons why we don't have such things :/ |
Yeah, I can't stand it.
Emission is about the only valid thing on that list and that's taken into account everywhere else in the world as well. SUVs... I believe that right there is one of the main contributors to a lot of the problems, very little fuel milage, driving up prices and putting out much more emmisions than needed to haul that bulk around. Plus I really just hate the people that drive them. I grew up in the back woods and you got and SUV because half your roads are dirt and you like going off road, but in NYC and stuff people have them, WHY? They're not even DESIGNED for off road anymore, it really bugs me. They're basically just minivans that 'look cooler'. Because 'everyone' hates minivans. I guess even SUVs aren't the problem, the problem is that the car companies and TV and every thing else works together to promote a certain 'image' of the vehicle I want to drive and it can't be a minivan and has to show off the wheels and still haul my 8 friends. At least streamlined looking cars are a lot more popular now but then again so are rear spoilers. As for lightweight diesel (or not) vehicles, I love them. I typically buy older 80s cars because they seem to be the lightest cars were. Even motorcycles, I'd love to buy an awesome 250cc, but they're not made, Europe and Australia have about 10 different 250cc bikes, we have 2. They also have 400cc options and a bunch in the middle, we get 600cc as the 'standard'. We're a nation of excessive power and flaunt but I really miss the lightweigth and nimble. EDIT: I meant to mention, there's an sv650 now, that's a giant one cylinder bike of 650cc and it gets like 60MPG (almost the same as a 250cc). There's definately something to having just 1 very efficient cylinder. Shouldn't it also dump out loads of torque (especially if it's high stroke)? Although I also don't see why an 8cyl can't get 100MPG, at least not with pulse and glide (which maybe we were discounting). I've overheard many people in conversation say something to the effect of, "I don't care how much MPG a Prius gets, I'll never drive one they're just too ugly". But by the same token I have a lot of family and relatives that really want them or have already bought them. Of course out of the 3 people I know with them they all 'rave' about their 45mpg! 45MPG! WTH? The 1982 Diesel Rabbit from VW was EPAed at 52MPG city and 60MPG highway! And we're raving about 45MPG? Bah. Edit Edit: Sorry for the ranting, but boy do I feel better :-). |
Quote:
As a status symbol, the Prius has been very successful -- and then on top of that, the 100+mpg plug in hack/kit is awesome :p |
Quote:
I have an XR650L. It maxes out at about 50 mpg. I'm thinking of trading it in for a 250. This would about double the mileage. Eight cylinder cars are just too heavy to get 100 mpg. The weight on the tires contributes to high rolling resistance. And it takes a lot of energy just to spin a V8 motor in its bearings. I agree about older cars getting better FE. I had a cheap (it was under $5000 brand new) 5 speed Mercury Lynx. It would hit 40 mpg on the highway. No diesel, no hybrid, just a 1.6 liter motor and good gearing. I wonder what it would have gotten if I knew about hypermiling back then. |
So even a billion dollar company like VW had to build a special one off car and drive it very carfully to acheive good results.
The Lupo 3L TDI is the world's first-ever production-line 3 litre car, a milestone of energy conservation in automobile engineering. Volkswagen presented this ultra fuel-saving version for the first time at the automobile salon in Paris in 1998. Only 9 months later the champion fuel-saver was already on its way to the showrooms. There are fine details of difference, both inside and outside between the normal Lupo and the three-litre Lupo. It is 150kg lighter because, in order to reduce fuel consumption, it had "to loose a bit of weight". The vehicle body is made of completely galvanized sheet steel. Aluminium was used both for the bonnet and for the doors. In addition, the tail gate consists of aluminium on the outside and magnesium on the inside. Even the heat absorbing glass is lighter. Rolling resistance is lessened by particularly light, narrow tyres which have been mounted on aluminium-forged light wheels. Of vital importance is the engine: a brand-new three-cylinder Turbo-Diesel with 1.2litre cubic capacity, performance 45 KW or 61HP. Its highlight is the new pump- nozzle-system which produces an extremely high pressure for each individual cylinder . This enables a more efficient combustion of the fuel than in conventional diesel engines. The result is impressive: a high torque i.e. a good thrust of force, even from low speeds and still an absolutely sensational consumption of 2.99 litres to 100 km. The maximum amount of fuel is saved when the 3-litre Lupo is driven in the so-called Eco-Mode. This means changing up gear early and changing down gear late, in other words, at the most suitable speed for saving energy. Our record-breaking drivers are naturally trying to drive very defensively and to even manage on 2.5 litres in this mode. They will be supported in these endeavours by Volkswagen's so called stop-start system. When standing for longer than 4 seconds a touch on the brake switches the engine off. It starts up again when the brake pedal is released. Although as regards fuel consumption the Lupo is absolutely unique, our record-breaking team is nevertheless facing an enormous challenge. It is no small task to be on the road for 80 days in all kinds of countries under hard climatic conditions and coping with some extremely bad roads and driving conditions and still keep to the prescribed speed. The examples you have given are not real world cars, in real world conditions, driven by real world people, in everyday life. So like I said, It's back to the drawing board. There is no 100mpg carb.and if you are going to increase fuel consumption thermal efficiency is another place to look. Just ask VW. |
I think rookie missed this article where VW drove the 3L Lupo around for a while, and got pretty darn close to 100mpg@55mph average speed.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Why isn't it a 100mpg EFI system, seeing how Efi's generally get much better mpg?
Because that's folklore, the 100 mpg carb :p Makes for good story telling thou. |
Back the summer I think it was "Mazda"? I read an artical in Hot rod magazine about there directed injected gasoline engine. It runs on a 60 to 1 air fuel ratio. 100 mpg, no problem.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.