200 mpg?

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2015: 200 mpg?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 12:12 pm:

This video link posted by Kohnke on another thread is very interesting. I thought I'd start a separate thread for discussion of this technology.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFxwJ8mIDtA

If those guys can build rudimentary systems and get 200 mpg (or whatever) with them, why aren't the car manufacturers doing it? I know some will say it's because the oil companies have the car companies in their pockets. But if I were in charge of a car company, I'd want to be the first to incorporate this technology into my cars.

Or is it all just smoke and mirrors?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Henry Petrino in Modesto, CA on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 12:33 pm:

A couple of thoughts:

1. It's hard for me to imagine that gasoline vapors inducted into an essentially unmodified engine intended to aspirate liquid gasoline could possibly produce enough power to be useful, if even run at all.

2. There are a number of variables in the stock fuel system that are not resolved by just pulling the fuel pump fuse.

It certainly could very well be possible to develop a car that gets 200 MPG. I don't think this is it. I have always believed that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is not true.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mark Gregush Portland Oregon on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 12:54 pm:

I would say smoke and mirrors on that one. Cars could be made to run on less fuel but there is a point where the valves would not last long unless upper lubricant was added like a 2 cycle mix. Of course the engine would die when he put his hand over the hoses, that is the air intake. No air no run! The gas can didn't look like it had anything in it when he picked it up anyway.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Derek Kiefer - Mantorville, MN on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 12:58 pm:

Stoichiometry be damned...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison North of Iowa on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 01:10 pm:

Yup. It's the redneck way to do it. Mmmm hmmmm. Wanta buy a duck?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim Eckensviller on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 01:11 pm:

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that these are better and 'the man' is holding them back. Without any visible means for adjustment I'd guess that these guys are just saving fuel by running super lean.

It would be interesting to compare ALL of the engine's operating parameters (you know, more than just "See? It runs!") to see the real advantages and drawbacks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey, Hayward Ca. on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 02:12 pm:

Gee! We are paying too much for gas?
A car can run on fumes? No bull.
When a model T is running is that raw liquid gasoline going from the main jet up the manifold and into the cylinders or is it a vapor? Is vapor considered fumes? That truck is sucking vapor, not fumes.
Notice the camera close-up of the guy's face, that is so you don't see the bullshit running out of his ears.
Why not just put super lean jets in the carb or lean out the fuel injection?
He pulled out the fuel pump relay. Nothing to do with a fuse. He couldn't get it straight.
You can screw around with different size hoses, different levels of gasoline in the can and any other magic you can think of and NEVER COME CLOSE to the fuel mileage that today's new cars and trucks with computer controlled ignition and fuel injection provide.
If it was running the way he claims, just lifting the air cleaner cover would kill the engine.
I didn't see a rubber seal under the wing nut either.
I think I'll throw out the crank angle sensor from my Toyota and adapt a VW distributor! Should get me another 50 MPG, don't you think?
People have been doing that trick for years and years, I wonder why those stupid engineers with unlimited funds could never come up with such a great way to save gas.
With all of that air being sucked through the fuel a gallon of fuel will dry up in about 10 miles, IF YOU'RE LUCKY. Otherwise before you get out of second gear.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mark Gregush Portland Oregon on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 02:36 pm:

With the age of my 91 Dodge Dakota I have been thinking along the lines of putting a vacuum advance distributor and normal carb, not that throttle body injection system. They don't look under the hood just stick the probe up the tail pipe anyway when doing emission testing. All I can do is improve the mileage it's getting now.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By kep on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 02:39 pm:

People forget the 1886 Benz used a fuel delivery system not too different from this.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 03:32 pm:

That reminds me of a 67 Dodge Dart I bought in 1969, I drove it to work for a week and thought the gas gauge was broken! It actually got about 29 MPH, The car I had before was a 49 Cadillac which got about 16. Anyway, I went to the gas station and found out it was only down about 1/4 tank. For some reason, the car didn't become as popular as I thought it would. Not many 67 slant 6 stick shift cars left.
Norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Fred Schrope - Upland, IN on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 04:17 pm:

You guys are being to polite.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim Eckensviller on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 04:18 pm:

So... Who wants to try running a T on one of these contraptions?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mack Cole ---- Earth on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 04:37 pm:

I cant watch the video but most all of this type thing is hype and bull.
All I know is I serviced a Husqvarna Zero turn mower that had been converted to propane and that thing was a real piece of junk. 26 hp Kawasaki engine and it was hard to start and weak.
It is my opinion gas mileage is deliberately left low because the oil company own stock in the car company's and it makes sure of job security.
What was it back in 88-89 the little Civic's would get about 50mpg? They dont do that now. to much emissions crap.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gary H. White - Sheridan, MI on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 07:45 pm:

Norman, MPH or MPG? I measure mine in hectoliters per furlong.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 07:59 pm:

Both! :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bill Vaughn on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 08:27 pm:

While in the Air Force in the 60s, a guy in the barracks received from his father a brand new VW. The guy was a real bragger about gas mileage and his new car. Very late at night, we would go out to the lot outside our barracks and pour a gallon or so of gasoline into his new VW. He was writing letters to VW bragging about his mileage. A week or so later we would sneak out and remove a gallon or so.....wasn't long till he was going to sue VW. We finally told him what had been going on. He was a pretty good guy once he learned he was just one of us.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Sunday, February 01, 2015 - 10:47 pm:

There is a limit to the amount of energy you can get from gasoline or any fuel when you burn it in an internal combustion engine. I suggest that 200 MPG would need something other than an IC engine unless the car was driven by a midget downhill with the key off. Now there are people who actually do that and compete with each other. It is called HYPER-MILEAGE. There is a guy who did 75 MPG in his Ranger pickup. What they do is illegal driving since they refuse to ever use the brakes, run the engine only with full manifold vacuum at rediculously slow speeds, turn off their engine and coast at every opportunity and have learned to coast to a stop even if they have a line of cars behind them. Even with that you would want to bet on the Midget among them. I think P.T. Barnum said it "There is a ..... born..."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By kep on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 01:27 am:

i might run my T on that for a laugh.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 01:56 am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&x-yt-cl=85114404&v=nqKEQLBg6a8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=LDMDCT67xBM&x-yt-cl=85114404

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEv8LGHvHvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snCA_xgQFWU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=208o9H1HC1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yseG5MShJn0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwKaMA4jKTQ


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 02:14 am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGQYnJ_aMM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Chris Landry, Hudson, NH on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 11:19 am:

re: 50 mpg Civics --

1988 Civic HF was rated at 50 city/56 hwy, but that was a 1850 lb stripped down car with a 62 hp motor. 0-60 was 12 seconds or more. No power steering, no airbags, no A/C. A Civic LX had 92 hp and was rated 31/35.

Today's Civic LX weighs 2811 lb, has 143 hp, has a 0-60 time of 9.1 seconds, and is rated at 30/39. The HF is only rated 1 or 2 mpg better.

It's all about the weight, which comes from safety and comfort/convenience features that we've come to expect. Modern engines are actually much more efficient, but they're hauling around much more weight at higher performance levels.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey, Hayward Ca. on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 11:56 am:

In the first video herm posted the guy starts out asking if you remember back in the seventies when we still had unleaded gas..........
Then he talks about the lead I the gas today.
I would say he has it backwards. How can I put value on what he says when he talks such b s


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 01:06 pm:

John R.,

How dare you suggest conservation of energy! ;>)

Herm,

Since I don't know the context of how you came to post these videos, I am wondering, are you endorsing this "technology"?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry VanOoteghem - SE Michigan on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 01:19 pm:

But Aaron, the lead gets disintegrated anyway! ZAP, gone!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 07:00 pm:

Uncle Stan has said many times that liquid gasoline must be changed to a vapor in order to burn in an engine. I was hoping he would have some comments on this. (It's very unlike him not to have comments. :-) )


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Clayton Swanson on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 07:09 pm:

i have a 91 honda crx-hf. 55 on the hwy, 49-52 city. i love it! it is a small car, but cheep to run, and my pickup see's little use


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Schramm on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 07:56 pm:

This IMO is truly a joke.

Think about it. If the any particular auto company could get 200 miles per gallon on a vehicle what kind of competitive advantage would they have in the marketplace???

Everyone would be banging at their door to buy a vehicle.

I personally sat in weight (mass) reduction meetings for one of the major auto companies as an engineer to improve fuel economy and many times the weight reductions would be in the ounces for a lighter part.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed Baudoux on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 08:03 pm:

The guy with the Dodge that pulls the fuel pump fuse :-) Go look at the wiring diagram for that truck.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey, Hayward Ca. on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 11:26 pm:

My next door neighbor has one of those '92 Civics that really does get 50 MPG on cross country drives, but it is small, light and a little low on power, but it does the job.

If WW11 was won by the U.S. because they ran the tanks on vapor don't you suppose we would have heard about it before now?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Pat Kelly Montana on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 11:51 pm:

My 06 VW Jetta TDI gets 48 mpg running at highway speeds. These little turbo diesels are really efficient. The best I've gotten is 51.6 running at 55 across Oregon. I really question a lot of the super mileage claims. PK


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By kep on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 12:40 am:

Cars don't need to weigh 3 ton. Imagine a modern engine in a 91 civic. It would use so very little gas.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Eubanks, Powell, TN on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 08:35 am:

Wow, Ford was right with the vaporizer setup!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Chris Landry, Hudson, NH on Tuesday, February 03, 2015 - 04:34 pm:

Pat, I always thought a small turbodiesel would be a much better motor for a Prius. Take out the weight of the batteries and electric motors, keep the aero stuff, low rolling resistance tires, etc, and put in a turbodiesel just big enough to match the performance. Pretty sure you'd match or better the mileage, and it would be less expensive to build.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Pat Kelly Montana on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 12:46 am:

It might be cost effective, the batteries are going to be expensive. People are stuffing the TDI in all kinds of rigs.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey, Hayward Ca. on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 01:01 am:

Last year when I worked at a German auto shop I had to road test a VW diesel. I got on the freeway and got off at the next offramp.
I had it doing 65mph in fourth gear as I had to back off for the exit. It was still picking up speed and I wasn't even in fifth yet.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Wednesday, February 04, 2015 - 01:11 am:

In 1913, a 1911 Franklin Speed Car set a world's economy record of 83.5 mpg.

That car is on display at the Natl Auto Museum in Reno.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration