It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more


page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:12 AM
a reply to: bbracken677

I am wondering what kind of results we could see with an ISUZU 3 cylinder mini truck. It already gets 50-60 miles to the gallon. Im thinking we could see 300-400 mpg results from it. My belief in the gasoline vaporizer stands btw.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 02:42 AM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I think it is easy to understand. It is ugly.

I don't think it has to be, and I would buy it.

I think you are missing the whole point which is they are a non-profit company on a shoestring budget that have achieved better results than major manufacturers. I have already said my piece on that in previous posts.

My point is that it is missing 99% of the features consumers expect. So that is not as impressive as it sounds.

They are a licensed manufacturer which I have listened to videos talking about the hoops they have gone through. To poo poo a company because they have yet to sacrifice several cars in actual crash tests is ignoring the realities of start-ups such as these. In fact, they have achieved better speeds and milage however you can't watch the videos ATM. When you can you should go to their youtube channel. They have achieved so much with so little yet major manufacturers think we should jump for joy if a car gets over 40MPG on the highway.

If being realistic and not hugging their nutsack is poo-poo them then yep, I did. I stated numerous times what they have done is impressive, if that is not good enough for you and only unadulterated admiration and treating them like the Second Coming will suffice you won't get that from me.

When these guys start offering kits for 10K I may buy a new toy. After watching how they are designed and thought out it looks far simpler than replacing the trainey on my 4X4 truck.
I would definitely consider it as well.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 05:42 AM
Adiabatic cycle engines were a thing in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Supposedly giving over 100MPG without any major loss of performance. However those things had to be babied. Clean gas, oil and filter changes on schedule, a short maintenance schedule, etc. It's because they purposely ran hot and lean. If you slacked on maintenance, oil could carbon up fast, or you could get deposits cylinders. Deposits means predetonation happens and there goes a connecting rod... Or sludge build up from oil cooking on a hotspot and journal bearings would wipe rather fast under those conditions.

If the average person wasn't lazy about car maintenance, it might have worked.

It did work. But it was more of a thing for research engineers and a few dedicated enthusiasts.

I read on the stuff because it was interesting, and wondered why it didn't see adoption. But when you get into details, you start to see why auto makers did what they did. (And remembering how successful diesel was implemented on cars back then.)

The other option is to go ultralight and give up a lot of performance, but then you're basically having to register the vehicle as a motorcycle rather than as a car due to safety standards.

Of course there are hybrids and electrics that are approaching the sweet spot, but the tech still has a ways to go to make it affordable.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link fuel-system-tom-ogle-full-story%2F&ei=bYGtU5DoHoWqyATRqoKQDg&usg=AFQjCNGJFAqUwXXe9nHhsxmnMpVCLB_RaQ&sig2=9OyIqbvL3CwxwxRTKrLzig&bvm=bv.69837884,d.aWw< br />
I've followed this type of technology for a long time. When I was in banking there were several auto techs that worked for new car dealers that knew of prototype cars that got exceptional gas mileage, but those car never saw the light of day.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 10:29 AM
My new car, which I got in December last year, has averaged 202 MPG over the 3,300 miles I've driven it. I've used a total of about 16 gallons of gas in over the last 6 months. That's because, like the Volkswagen XL1, it's a plug-in hybrid and spends most of its time driving on electrical power.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:07 AM
What I find most amusing about these threads is the fact that nearly all will say "big oil runs it all" and then say "there is no free ride with gasoline." They can't seem to put together the idea that the discouragement by big oil et al makes it so their beloved economies of scale will never enter the equation. Worse, They can't seem to see what is happening in front of them.

The most obvious is right in front of everyone. In the 70's, after the move to the petrol dollar, the staged "gas crises" was on. There was a move to get to diesel and the oil companies made the price of diesel commiserate with the price of gas - at the time it was way cheaper. The wave of folks buying diesel was stopped in its tracks after a Sunday morning price hike if diesel to make it no cheaper then gasoline.

Soon, more efficient cars were made and gas use was going down, despite the need for the petrol dollar via huge gasoline sales. In order for inflation to be kept in check money must leave the country and never come back. The oil deal with the ME countries made sure this happened. So when we needed more war ships we printed money but to keep the economy from collapsing that money must vacate the US, the best way to do this is to buy oil.

But then, low and behold, the car makers made gas guzzlers and used marketing campaigns to sell cars that no one demanded at the time. The CRX got amazing mileage, up to 60mpg and was a great car. But shockingly, the SUV became all the rage and it wasn't as if the consumer was building cars.

It takes YEARS to develop a car. So ask yourself: Why were GM and Ford developing gas guzzling cars during the gas crises? Every president since Kennedy has given a speech about "getting America off its dependence on Foreign Oil. The supreme leader says every few years, "America must get of its addiction to foreign oil now!!!!!!!!" Yet while each was demanding this happen Ford and GM was making cars that made the country MORE dependent on ME oil?

To understand you have to understand the printing of money, inflation and the deals struck with the ME countries on oil. This fact prevents real high mileage cars from being developed.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:01 PM
I am not sure if it actually works, but if it indeed does work, you can expect your engine to die...
It will just run extremely lean, that will result in overheating and more wear at the engine parts.
The valves will probably slowly melt.
It will detonate early and result in gasket failures etc. etc.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 08:50 PM
a reply to: aLLeKs

A voice of reason, of experience. Thank you.

People will always believe what they want to believe. If an auto mfg could make a car that got 100 or 200 miles per gallon, not have to be plugged in, would have good acceleration... it would sell a ton and make billions. If an auto mfg has an opportunity to radically increase market share, they would tell the oil industry to suck it.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:42 PM
a reply to: aLLeKs

What do you expect have a genie pop out of a bottle and grant you the wish to drive on just the fumes of the gas perfectly with no trouble ever.

That is where a butterfly valve on the out port tube pipe or hose of the tank that is connected to a cable leading to the accelerator. May take some working with but everything that is worth doing takes some work...

Cheers brother, sorry if I sounded crass.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:47 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

Its not about the auto manufactures...its about government regulation. Like everything else. Cant believe the words that are coming out of your mouth. I would propose that I build on on a lawn mower meet you somewhere and if it works you admit that it IS POSSIBLE. On top of a 2k bet. But... egotistical narcissists would never do anything that would remotely tarnish their reputation or prove them wrong.

posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:35 PM
a reply to: lme7898354

Anyone who understands basic concepts understands Tom Ogle's system is a HOAX. There simply is not enough useful energy in gasoline to move 4,000 lbs for 100 miles on 1 gallon. Any car getting close to this MPG is going to weigh about one third of that, and be fully designed from the ground up to be fuel economic. It's literally impossible. The original car got 15mpg, he would have to had increased efficiency by 700%, meaning only about 4.5% of the gasoline energy was captured and used originally, and that is only if the Ogle system was 100% efficient.

It's a HOAX, it's 100% impossible.

posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 04:08 AM
With energy recover systems (currently used in top level racing) and better and better technologies, we will be able to buy 100mpg cars from almost every manufacturer in a few years.

Hell, 10 years ago I took this picture while driving my rental Mercedes in Europe:

That's 51mpg AVERAGE. I reset the average later and was doing 67mpg cruising on the highway. Diesel tech in Europe has always been WAY ahead and also Diesel fuel has more energy per gram, and operates at MUCH higher compression ratios so the efficiency is massively increased.

posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 04:15 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

"Why the technology isn't being implemented in other cars across the board is the big question. "
Well, the technology is already being used in other vehicles and it is being developed further.
The VW XL1 is a concept to concentrate and show all these technologies in one car.
It is also used as a marketing feature, to improve VW green image.

Now, a question:
would you buy a 2-seater car, having 69 HP output, not even reaching 100 mph top speed, for 100 to 150k $?

I am sure the answer is no, as for most people.
This sort of car reached 261 mpg on a low constant speed on a track, driven by experts, without any comfort system on (AC, etc.)
The exact same engine in a Golf (C-car) would return 60 mpg at best... which is what it is already doing.

As an automotive engineer, I can tell you that if I could develop a car that would cost 20k $ maximum, run on a V10 600HP and doing 500mpg, capable of reaching 400km/h, with leather seats, AC, super looks, weighing 500 kgs, well I would waste no time in designing it.

There is no conspiracy here, just physical limits (and market customer aspirations as well).

edit on 28/6/2014 by KarmaComa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: KarmaComa

Now, a question:
would you buy a 2-seater car, having 69 HP output, not even reaching 100 mph top speed, for 100 to 150k $?

No I wouldn't buy the VW for 150K however if you keep reading the thread I would buy the car from Wikispeed with a top speed of 149 that can go 0-60 in 5 sec and gets 109MPG. No I wouldn't give a damn if it had cup holders either.

As an automotive engineer, I can tell you that if I could develop a car that would cost 20k $ maximum, run on a V10 600HP and doing 500mpg, capable of reaching 400km/h, with leather seats, AC, super looks, weighing 500 kgs, well I would waste no time in designing it.

I have to ask. If you are an automotive engineer as you claim then WTH are you thinking? V10 and 600HP even leather seats. It is that type of thinking that lands so many unsold cars in storage lots across the world to rot. We do not need super hp engines. We need cars that will get us to work and run us around that don't cost $50-$60-$80 dollars to fill up the tanks.

For years car manufacturers were increasing the HP while keeping the gas millage about the same when they should have been going the opposite direction.

posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 02:58 PM
a reply to: eso322

I have a bunch of those What I Call COILS
just lying around
What kind do you need ?

posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 03:13 PM
Direct injection is proof that improved atomization can increase fuel economy and other engines prove leaner fuel rates and higher compression can do the same but all of these are done at extremely high pressures and are highly controlled. Vaporized gas is highly volatile and dangerous, the moab is proof of that. But to capture the same levels of energy released would simply take a literally bomb proof motor or a completely new design like the Atkins cycle etc.

posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: eso322


Meet you in Dallas then.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:51 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Grimpachi, customers want power (actually torque), with low fuel consumption, comfort (-> added noise reduction pads, added equipment such as bluetooth, nicer, heavier materials such as leather, PVC foils), safety (-> added airbags), lots of interior space, for a low cost.
An automotive engineer has to compromise and trade off between all these points

You can see that the XL1 has reduced its equipment & comfort to a minimum, as well as interior space (e.g. luggage compartment is 120 liters), increased its cost to a high level, to reach super low fuel consumption.

Good examples of which compromise can be achieved are the VW Golf Bluemotion, Ford Focus Econetic.

What I mean is that reducing fuel consumption will effect other part of the car which the customers want, and therefore reduce sales.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:55 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

"We need cars that will get us to work and run us around that don't cost $50-$60-$80 dollars to fill up the tanks."

I agree, this is what we need. But this is not what customers want.
Example: there are several electric cars on the market, who have proper performance. However they also have a high price.
These cars do not have high sales number at all.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 02:36 AM
a reply to: KarmaComa

I sold cars for a little over a year. (not my cup of tea) I will say there are plenty of customers looking for transportation without all the gimmicks. Forget the XL1 I already posted links to wikispeed. The ca they have at the moment I am not that interested in although I am very impressed with the performance and economy and their planned model assembled for 17K where most of the bugs are fixed I imagine will keep them busy building or one can buy a kit for 10K which I may buy if it delivers what is promised.

Hell I would buy an Elio if I knew it would ride alright with a couple surfboards on top.

I think a lot of you guys designing cars have convinced yourselves that the general public really wants all the extras you guys keep cramming in cars. A lot of people were pretty happy with the cars they had but wished they were built better. Seems like cars wear out faster nowadays. I know a lot of people want stick shifts in cars but you only find them in the bare bones no AC models of many cars yet I find those same cars with stick and AC every time I go down to Central America. From a sales point of view many customers looked at many of the dodads as an inconvenience or completely unnecessary in their daily life.

You know what I would love to have for running around town? One of those old military style bare bones jeeps with an inline 4 banger yet jeep did away with selling the inline 4 and 6 for an engine that isn't even as reliable. Sure their are people that want luxury but if that was the route I wanted BMW even older model BMWs deliver that and seem to last a hell of a lot longer than most of the competition. IMO there is so much added to everyday driving cars that is pretty much pointless unless the point is to drive up the cost which it does.
edit on 29-6-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in