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

A magic carburetor? Modern engines have got electronically controlled direct injection, no way to get better fuel mixture than that.

Preheating air fuel mixture is BS too. Ever wondered why the high performance super/turbocharged engines have got air intercoolers? You actually want the air cold to increase density(more oxygen) and engine efficiency(thermodynamic cycle).

The consumption nowadays is largely affected by the weight from overall vehicle size(they've got larger), impact structures(higher strength steel), airbags, noise and vibration damping, aircon, sound system and other gadgets.

Want a high mpg car? Get a small modern turbo diesel.

reply to post by prism


LOL at that vid..proved absolutley nothing. Plug Silver can into Vaccume hose...heavy zoom..the end?

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.

yep me to- I wish I could get another one- had a renault 8 as well, rwd w engine in rear- great little car - peppy
they are all crushed or rotting out in fields round here

I owe I owe, its off to to the pumps I go
to owe to owe
ow ow ow
BUT an Alternate Radical gas option:
car share, pick up hitchhikers , all on the basis of 'love thy neighbour' and God will bless your travels
works for me

reply to post by Yacov


how much did your little renault weigh? I bet not very much.(980kg)
How much chance of serious damage to yourself do you think you would have got in a 30 mph impact head on compared to a in new renault twingo say?(from 1000kg)

I think your answer may be found somewhere there

Originally posted by solids0be
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

I'll tell you what, I looked at those one afternoon and I didn't see anything very smart about them. There are cars that are more practical and safer that get the fuel mileage those get, and they are competitively priced. Not to turn this into a smart car bashing thread.

I am sure there has been a lot of tech suppressed simply because it would take profit from the 800 lb. gorillas of the auto/oil industries. When you're the 800 lb. gorilla, you can make the rules and enforce them at will with no repercussions.

Originally posted by Pelvi
reply to post by DaRAGE

 

If you were a big wig executive for say.. GM.. and all of the gas companies paid you a pretty penny to NOT create these vehicles, what would you do? Now I know right now you say, turn it down. Well then you gotta remind yourself that no one has showed up at your doorstep yet offering say.. 50 million. Maybe even more for all we know

This is my one problem. Ford Made $2.5 billion in profits last year. If they were achieving even DOUBLE the gas mileage of their nearest competitor does anything think those profits would not double? Triple? Is $10 billion not reasonable? So why would any company take $50 million over $5 billion?

Originally posted by COconspiracyguy

I asked, have you sold many? He said, no. We have a ton of interest, but this
is the only car we've been able to get. There is a 6 month waiting list, and even
then, you aren't guaranteed to get one.

He left out some facts. Sales went horribly and contrary to what he said they have not been able to sell what they produced. It was in the news just last week that the dealers are cancelling their orders because they cannot sell them.

These cars cost the taxpayers over $200,000 each and each one sold is heavily subsidized. The buyers are literally getting a $200,000 gift from the taxpayers.

The fires happened during safety testing. In the test labs after crashing them, they noticed after a day or two the battery would spontaneously ignite while just sitting there.

Originally posted by consciousgod

... 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.

I had always heard the reasoning behind automakers in the US not marketing diesel cars was the perception of the American people that diesel was a "dirty" fuel. Of course, that is an outdated perception, because of advances in diesel engines and fuel economy. But when most of us think "diesel" we still think of exhaust-billowing semi trucks and sputtering Mercedes and Volvos.

I have a bit of perspective on the "new cars are worse than 80s cars on mileage." theory. When I was in high school I had a girl friend with an '88 Honda CRX. Cool car, fast, great mileage. It was also a beer can on wheels, and a volvo nearly cut it in half, and she almost died in it. It got mid 20s in the mpg department with a couple of kids at the wheel. Very respectable... I'm sure more responsible driving would have rendered much better mileage.

I bought a Honda CR-Z back in August. Cool car, fast, great mileage. It's a moderately reinforced beer can with 8 air bags, crumple zones, and a crush cage engineered into the driver compartment. It aslo has ABS, traction control, and a slew of other neat goodies like handsfree bluetooth, and a 360 watt sound system. Even though it looks similar to the CRX, and is basically built in the same "spirit." The Z is 10 times more car. My driving habits have improved greatly since high school, and I average low 30s around town driving "normal." If I employ a few hypermiling techniques I can get as high as 43 mpg. Unlike a lot of hybrids the Z actually get better mileage on the highway. I averaged 42 mpg over about 250 miles on a trip to Colorado last fall with the cruise set on 80 mph.If I hypermile on the highway I can get up to 55 mpg.

On the other hand if I choose to engage the sport features of the car I drop to the mid/upper 20s in mpg. About comparable to the old CRX. From my experience the new CR-Z gets about the same real world mileage as the old CRX. However in sport mode the PCM uses the electric assist to boost torque where the little 4 banger lacks it, and makes for a faster take off than the old CRX could pull. Yes the Z weighs more, but people are walking away from crashes in the CR-Z that would have killed them, or sent them to a hospital in the CRX. The Z is a MUCH tighter chassis, handling is much improved by the better rigidity, and structural integrity of the newer design.

Last week I saw a CRX at a used car lot, and just had to drive it for grins; for old times sake. Given it had 160K miles on it, and had seen better days, but it pretty much drove just like my old girl friend's car. My memories of it were much nicer than the reality of what that car really was. It was loose, creeky, and pretty much an old rattle trap. A fast little rattle trap, but a rattle trap none the less. It had that signature 80s Honda 4 cylinder putter at idle that shook all your homework off the dash board as a kid. The old motor was still rev happy, and moved the little car with verve, and the transmission was still smooth like all old Hondas. It was just spartan, and uncomfortable for my 6' 2" adult frame. I thanked the salesman who pretty much knew what I was doing, and got back in my new CR-Z, and said "Thank God for progress." As I sank in the comfy race inspired seat with more than enough leg, and head room, I turned off the radio, and enjoyed a few moments of near silence as it quietly slipped down the road. Then I cranked the tunes back up!

I gladly trade 1200 lbs for the safety features, and creature comforts of the newer car. Simply knowing there is a crush cage, and an airbag between me, and a collision instead of just a sheet, or two of 20 ga. steel, and a plastic panel. I think even if you took a pristine CRX with low miles, and impeccable maintenance and hypermiled it against a CR-Z the difference would be less than 5 mpg, and I'm not sure which car would win. It would be a fairly even match. The Z is faster than a non-modified CRX though, and handles WAY better. However there isn't much in the way of mods for the CR-Z yet, so a built CRX could be made faster, but I hear Busimoto, Mugen and a few others are already working on that.

… the easiest thing to do is compare costs. It takes about 2¢ worth of electricity to drive one mile. At $2/gal, and getting 20 mpg, your present car would cost 10¢/mi. So that's 5X your present mileage.

Yes, let's compare costs ...

To drive 150 miles: the volt will cost you $15.69, the Toyota Corolla will cost you $17.81. This means the volt will save you $0.0141 (less than 2 cents) per mile compared to the Toyota Corolla.

You would have to drive your volt 1,789,811 miles to make up the $25,296 price difference between the volt and the Toyota Corolla. (The volt costs $43,700. The Corolla costs $18,404.)

I'll take a Toyota Corolla.

Data Source (ConsumerReports, Dec 8, 2011)

reply to post by solids0be

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....

You so easily assume that I didn't know how to fine tune those Holleys? The extra richness was to keep the pistons from burning under full acceleration, and to ensure full power throughout the gear range.

Originally posted by autowrench
I am a long time auto mechanic, spent 38 odd years under the hood. I remember cars that got 60 mpg out of the factory, I had a 1960 Plymouth Valiant with a slant 6 that did that.

A Plymouth Valiant, fresh out of the factory, getting 60 mpg? Never happened. Not fresh out of the factory. At best, you're looking at a little over 30 mpg.

Originally posted by autowrench
… Boncho has been following me around for months attempting to discredit my HHO reactor setup.

I saw that crap a few pages ago. Something about separating the hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis? You can't use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water fast enough to be used in any meaningful way for a combustion engine. Not gonna happen.

But i'm sure you have proof of your claim. Like a video?

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by solids0be

 

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....

You so easily assume that I didn't know how to fine tune those Holleys? The extra richness was to keep the pistons from burning under full acceleration, and to ensure full power throughout the gear range.

yeah, because the jets were wrong.....as said before, this comment and your apparent unawareness of fuel injection and lean burn advances makes your devices claims a little hollow

you heat the fuel , major modern engine manufacturers do all they can to make the fuel air cold....go figure..

Originally posted by NaKeDuSk

Originally posted by consciousgod

... 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.

I had always heard the reasoning behind automakers in the US not marketing diesel cars was the perception of the American people that diesel was a "dirty" fuel. Of course, that is an outdated perception, because of advances in diesel engines and fuel economy. But when most of us think "diesel" we still think of exhaust-billowing semi trucks and sputtering Mercedes and Volvos.

american deisel is generally high sulpher , so IS actually quite dirty, compared to gasoline , though more in particulates, europe uses low sulpher deisels and the cars are tuned to match , inc emissions equipment.

Originally posted by RMFX1

Originally posted by Stryc9nine
tom ogle story makes me sad. you know he was murdered.

You don't know that at all. You suspect that, but that doesn't make it so.

and for the record, there is no reason why the oil companies wouldnt want more life out of their gas. In fact, it would be beneficial to them. If we figure out a way to get 5 times the mileage per gallo, they can simply increase the price by 5 times and that way they have a longer run at the profit. It would simply last longer and if we were paying the same price to travel the same distance that we do now..who would really complain?

This conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

My first thought to this was:

I pay 4 dollars a gallon now that I cannot afford to go 20 miles a gallon. You think if I had to pay 20 dollars a gallon just to go 100 miles per gallon ? would want to do it? Thats crazy..

but it's not.. I would only have to buy 2 gallons of gas to go the same distance i'm going now. It would not cost me any more, just save the oil companies from having to deliver so much product. They could slow down production and storage and still keep up with demand.

Make the same money off of less oil products. Thats an oil companies dream! suddenly every story I have ever heard about big oil killing off these guys doesn't make sense.

So now we ask ourselves why.. whats in it for them? If this is so good for them, you would think they would have figured out how to make super efficient engines long ago. There must be something here we are not taking into account.. an angle. Supply and demand doesn't change. What does?

Find the reason why the oil companies and car companies refuse to produce super efficient engines and thus make more money on gas and you can solve the riddle. I'll bet it has something to do with government involvement or banking.

It is over three dollars a litre in europe , stop moanin about 3 dollars a gallon please ,

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by solids0be

 

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....

You so easily assume that I didn't know how to fine tune those Holleys? The extra richness was to keep the pistons from burning under full acceleration, and to ensure full power throughout the gear range.

??wut?? Pistons burning at WOT?? what are you going on about...next thing you'll tell me is you blew the welds on your intake from too much boost......Still to stay on point, sounds like you overjetted your Carb set up or it was just terribly adjusted..maybe a bad powervalve(s) . So then you don't know how to tune your carbs and your distributor(proper way to ensure power at RPM range Dumping fuel into the carb will never achieve what you said about pistons burning...still confused..did you meant burnt valves???). regardless Theres no reason to be running so rich that your gas is puring out the tail pipe. All you did was foul your plugs with the unburnt fuel and actually decreased your performance in the long run.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Find the reason why the oil companies and car companies refuse to produce super efficient engines and thus make more money on gas and you can solve the riddle. I'll bet it has something to do with government involvement or banking.

Oil companies don't produce engines.

If you look at the actual efficiency of engines they've been going up steadily. The vehicles aren't because they've been getting heavier at just about the same rate. And yes, it's clearly government involvement, since when the efficiency regulations increased with time, the cars' efficiency increased. When the government regulations stopped requiring more efficiency the cars stopped having more efficiency.

reply to post by Paul Rubino

Something about separating the hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis? You can't use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water fast enough to be used in any meaningful way for a combustion engine. Not gonna happen. But i'm sure you have proof of your claim. Like a video?

No, no video. And the Plymouth was not new, in fact, it was 11 years old when I got it, a mechanic owned it. HERE is my last design, and it DOES work, no matter what people says. It is on our truck right now.