The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it

reply to post by mbkennel


I don't know anything about 100+ MPG engines and the like, so I'll offer a more simple, manageable debate: All the recent car ads promoting 32 MPG as *amazing*. Apparently the auto industry thinks we've forgotten about the Geo Metro, Honda Civic, etc. that got verifiable 50-60 MPG on the highway in the 1990's. Is it that people really don't want to buy little commuter cars anymore and are willing to settle for 32 MPG, because they want 4 doors and/or a little more bulk and luxury (weight) surrounding them? The point is, we can do much better, but who stands in the way? Is it just big oil, or is it also gullible consumers?

reply to post by NaKeDuSk


Yep.

Students in Portugal moded a normal car to work on electricity with 15 KWs motor and it can drive a total 100 Kms with 1€ of electricity.

ive come across many farmers in rual mid west with similar stories.
thought they were ritch until the govt came knocking.
threatened even if they only used it fer themselves...

kind oh like farmers using the fuel they write off on their taxes in their non farm vehicles.
naughty naughty.

reply to post by PlausibleDeniability

I don't understand though. Many of these cars that supposedly got amazing mileage back in the day have been restored and rebuilt by all sorts of collectors and car fanatics and none of them have had the ability to go 60miles on a gallon of fuel. Why is that?

You know, in all honesty, I wonder about that too. The only thing that comes to my mind is the gasoline itself. Back in the day, gas was Red in color. After the shortages in the 80s, it suddenly became Green in color. I think the gas companies lowered the octane rating in the gasoline. That is the only thing that comes to mind.

reply to post by solids0be

Also id love you to name off some of these cars from back then that were getting these incredible mileage FROM THE FACTORY..please do tell.

I'm not about convincing you, wouldn't do any real good anyway, that Plymouth was crushed many years ago, and is gone. I saw more than a few get 40, a few that got 50, and that Plymouth did get 60 like I said. I heard about a few others, never saw them tested. Gasoline was better then. I also remember running a John Deere tractor all day on 3 gallons of gas, pulling a two bottom plow or 10 foot disk. That thing's engine had cylinders big enough for me to stick my head into.

I see new little bitty cars today that get near 35 mpg, and have to laugh, my van is getting 32 right now. In the Spring we are building a new plate style reactor for it. 7 plate design. That should push it up to 50 mpg, I'm thinking. Don't feel bad, truth is in the eye of the beholder. I have shown my reactor setup to people who just shake their heads, roll their eyes, and don't believe a word if it, even though they can see it working. I didn't believe it fully my own self until I saw all of the money I saved. I am not here to convince anyone of anything, that is impossible in today's world of electronic mind control. Big Oil has everyone controlled into buying the gas at any price, and the auto industry has everyone convinced that the cars they produce it the best they can do. I worked for GM for a time, I know better. The car companies could produce cars that were big enough to ride in, and got 100 miles to the gallon. But they will never do this.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

Yes, I left off the "1" at the end, didn't I? In the context of the final drive ratio (rear end), it's the number of turns the driveshaft makes per turn of the axle. So, on a 2:72:1 rear gear, the driveshaft will turn 2.72 times for every one revolution of the axle/wheels.

Going to a lower (numerically higher) gear will increase your RPMs at a given speed but improve your off the line performance. A higher (numerically lower) gear will get you off the line slower but keep your RPMs lower at a given speed.

Changing your tires will also affect the "effecitve" gear ratio. A taller tire will have the effect of going to a higher gear - this is why folks will go to 3.92s or even 4.10s when moving up to much larger tires than stock. A lower gear counteracts the taller tires to a degree.

I had a Honda Accord that got 45 mpg in 1980. Great car. Wish I could find one today.

I think the reason is simple. Fuel is a residual income to the fuel companies. It's like cable TV. You have to pay and pay to play and play. There is no one time fee. Just like the power meter on your house, the gas pump takes your money.

Our economy depends on this expense reoccurrence to put people to work. If we get 100 mpg, people will lose their jobs. We won't need as many gas stations or people to operate them. We won't need additional refineries to build. We won't need to employ truck drivers to deliver more fuel. We won't need to employ all those people to do research, oil exploration and production. Unemployment will go up.

We have the technology to build cars that get over 100 mpg. The small diesel engines can get superb mileage. The idea is what the Ogle guy was pursuing. The key is vapor. The fuel must be pre-heated to a temperature below spontaneous combustion, then it must be pressurized prior to injection, then a vacuum must be pulled on the exhaust.

A race car driver (can't remember his name) took a diesel engine, ran the fuel vapor through holes bored in the engine block to heat the fuel then turbo charged the vapor injection. He also turbo charged the exhaust to increase efficiency. He reported getting extreme mileage numbers close to 200 mph and he also got very high performance.

Some diesels in Europe can get very high mileage, but are not allowed in the USA. Go figure.

The reason for this is stated as the US not being able to handle the distribution of diesel fuel.

WHAT A SCAM. These will sell like candy to a baby, and there is a diesel pump just about everywhere there is a gas pump.

Ok a friend of a friend no I worked at GM / Delphi Flint in the fuel systems department for over 20 years. Yes we had suburbans that got 100 mpg but you couldn't hardly get them moving and they cost well over $100k. That said the major holdback on most products is the public and their lawyers. The public wants a car that you can drive anywhere in the world without any issues.
Electric cars should be limited to areas that require little AC or heat. Getting the car down the road is the easy part making it safe and comfortable is where it gets tricky.
Hydrogen is only wanted because the gas companies have the money to set up distrubition networks but lawyers will keep that from use anyway.
Electric hybreds are the way to go . Electric with a small diesel generator pakage to pick up the slack and provide heat and AC when needed

My first car was a 1974 Renault 16. Ugliest car ever made. It had a little popcorn popper of an engine, yet it had lots of power and got 50mpg. FIFTY.

I'd like someone to explain to me why "smart cars" can't even get 50mpg.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by solids0be

 

Also id love you to name off some of these cars from back then that were getting these incredible mileage FROM THE FACTORY..please do tell.

I'm not about convincing you, wouldn't do any real good anyway, that Plymouth was crushed many years ago, and is gone. I saw more than a few get 40, a few that got 50, and that Plymouth did get 60 like I said. I heard about a few others, never saw them tested. Gasoline was better then. I also remember running a John Deere tractor all day on 3 gallons of gas, pulling a two bottom plow or 10 foot disk. That thing's engine had cylinders big enough for me to stick my head into.

Well im not convienced because its not true, claiming those cars go that kind of mileage from the factory, or even highly modified is either a lie you've convienced yourself is true, or you have a lot of false memories of stuff that never happened. More simply put is that your totally wrong and your providing untrue statements as fact to back up your claims about gas mileage back then.

and as for the color of fuel

It was Red because it was most likely either high sulfer or Tax exempt/limited tax fuel which is where im sure your confusing what the color of gas was back then...it sure as hell wasn't red because it was a Special super fuel...it was just the dye they added to it so that it could be identified. so that blows that theroy outta the water.

low-tax fuels, high-sulfur fuels Solvent Red 26, Solvent Red 164
Worldwide Aviation gasoline 80/87 red dye
Aviation gasoline 82UL purple dye
Aviation gasoline 100LL blue dye
Aviation gasoline 100/130 green dye

And lastly to top the icing on the cake..."we are all being controlled by electronic MIND CONTROL" and thats why your right and we are all idiots for doubting you..wow dude you need to seek some help....SERIOUSLY SEEK HELP

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
My first car was a 1974 Renault 16. Ugliest car ever made. It had a little popcorn popper of an engine, yet it had lots of power and got 50mpg. FIFTY.

I'd like someone to explain to me why "smart cars" can't even get 50mpg.

They cant because they need to be built to meet stringent safety standards..its all excess weight that kills the performance and batteries weight a alot more then a tank of gas.

To all those 100 mph believers:

If preheating the fuel before it enters the carb/injector burns a higher percentage of the gas, why didn't I smell gasoline coming out of the tailpipe? I've owned cars from the 60's to now and I have never smelled raw gas at the pipe.

and

The government hasn't been able to stop movie downloading as yet. So why don't we have exact plans to make these miracle devices all over the web?

reply to post by DaRAGE


They dont have it because the BIG OIL companies come in and either steal and copyright the idea, or pay off the inventer millions to keep his mouth shut. Or simply make him dissapear. There is Billions at stake, can't underestimate what people will do.

I've owned cars from the 60's to now and I have never smelled raw gas at the pipe.

Ever have a Big Block V-8 and Dual Quads? Or an 1150 CFM Holley?
I owned, and built a 1966 Chevelle SS with a Stage Two 455 Oldsmobile engine, dual 650 Holleys on an Miller/Offenhauser Hi-Rise intake, .401 lift/292 Duration General Kinetics racing camshaft,
11 1/2:1 compression. The car got 9 miles to the gallon, and at idle, raw gas ran out the tailpipe.

Originally posted by solids0be

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
My first car was a 1974 Renault 16. Ugliest car ever made. It had a little popcorn popper of an engine, yet it had lots of power and got 50mpg. FIFTY.

I'd like someone to explain to me why "smart cars" can't even get 50mpg.

They cant because they need to be built to meet stringent safety standards..its all excess weight that kills the performance and batteries weight a alot more then a tank of gas.

What excess weight on a Smart Fourtwo are you speaking of? A stiff breeze will knock them over.

Originally posted by autowrench

I've owned cars from the 60's to now and I have never smelled raw gas at the pipe.

Ever have a Big Block V-8 and Dual Quads? Or an 1150 CFM Holley?
I owned, and built a 1966 Chevelle SS with a Stage Two 455 Oldsmobile engine, dual 650 Holleys on an Miller/Offenhauser Hi-Rise intake, .401 lift/292 Duration General Kinetics racing camshaft,
11 1/2:1 compression. The car got 9 miles to the gallon, and at idle, raw gas ran out the tailpipe.

Well its a shame you did all that work and didn't properly know how to adjust your carbs to not run so rich at idle....

reply to post by AwakeinNM


My bad you did say smart car, I read Hybrid by nature..everyone usualy complains about the mileage on them.
Smart car diesel gets 80+ MPG according to the website but diesels have always been more effecient

reply to post by mossme89


Interesting. You know this is old news, right?

People have come up with loads of this crap and been silenced by the government. This isn't new. It's old. Welcome to modern society, young padawan.

Now, about 10 years ago i remember someone being interviewed on the James Whale radio 2 UK show who stated that they were the inventor of the joe-cell. Once charged this cell required no further charging and was powerful enough to run cars! The guy stated that he had to remain anonymous as he had received death threats from oil companies. He lived in Australia and stated that he was running a car which used no fuel whatsoever.
I found this site, which may explain to in more detail: www.joecellenergy.com...
Here are the faq:
Q. Will this cell run a car completey free of any GAS?
A. Absolutely! Some engines require a bit of a tuning in period. Only a small percentage. For these cars approx 200Km's needs to be driving with the cell operational before switching petrol off completely.

Q. Does this work on Diesel powered cars?
A. Yes. Even though Diesels do not have spark plugs this does not affect the connection or running of this cell. I'll let you in on a little secret. The spark plug spark will not fire this gas on a gasoline engine.

Q. How many amps does it use?
A. In our testing it uses around 0.40 amps typical from plan tapwater. Depending on water and contaminents this will vary.

Q. How much power is required?
A. 1.5 volts minimum after charging for 10 seconds. Simple AA battery will work and works well. Simply put connect a 1.5volt AA battery to the cell, connect to the car battery for about 10 seconds to charge then drive. No need to connect to the car battery after initial charge.

Q. Will there be a better video of the cell operating the car?
A. Yes once hte final cell design is complete in late January. We will show another video that will clearly demonstate the vehicle running on the cell with no gas connected.
Q. How hard is it to connect to the car?
A. It's not hard, takes as little as 5 minutes on some cars. All cars have a way of feeding unburned gas back into the engine to be fired and reburnt. We tap into this connection to feed the cell gas directly into the pistons.