New Plant To Open Monday : 110mpg Engines

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by autowrench

 

Oh please give me a break. Throttle body injection is about one of the most in-efficient injection systems ever made. And there is no way you are getting 37 MPG in a 350 TBI motor. Sorry it ain't happening. The computer in those vans/trucks is far from sophisticated, also with you bypassing the oxygen sensor, which is what the computer uses to determine Air fuel ratio, you are undermining it's performance. Enough hogwash in this thread. Unless someone has some independent verification from a testing company with paperwork and video documentation it is all hogwash. I can verify the mileage on my diesel truck perfectly well in the low to middle 20's MPG.

Well, bigshow, you are entitled to think whatever you wish. I didn't post that for anyone to believe it, as in a cult belief, I posted it for other car people who may wish to investigate how to get better mileage on their own vehicles. I do not use the factory TBI setup, as it stated in the post. Holley has done wonders in the fuel management tech dept. You response is about average of the many I get when talking about how to do this on a big V-8 engine, the men stand around and claim it cannot be done, while the women ask where do I get the parts, and how do I do this at home? I will be thinking about you as I drive right past the station today.

Here is another car my son and I built a few years ago. Several mechanic friends said this could not be done, period. Shows that I am not good at listening to current tech.
We bought a 1980 Pontiac Bonneville from a scrap yard for $250, rust free body, blown engine and trans.
My son has this 1976 Oldsmobile 455 V-8 that has been built. 0.40 over bore with 10.5: 1 compression Jahns forged pistons, Polished and internally balanced steel crank, with knife edged throws, and cross bored. General Dynamics .292/269 lift cam, roller lifters and heads adapted for Ford style roller rockers, heads shaved 0.40, polished and ported intake and exhaust ports, these are the "D" heads, for you Olds fans. 750 Holley 4bbl carb on an Edelbrock high-rise duel stage intake, big tube headers. 50,000 Volt MSD ignition system. The engine produced 416 HP on an engine dyno.

To install this monster in the Pontiac, a 4dr sedan 2800 pound car, we had to fabricate engine mounts, the engine had to be lowered 4", and moved back 3 1/2" to clear the hood and fan assembly. Coupled to a Street Fighter Turbo-Hydromatic 400 trans, this car got consistently 28 miles per gallon. Not as good in town, of course. The car is now wrecked, but we still have the engine. Now nobody has to say I don't believe it, most of you will never believe any of this. I don't care. For those motor heads out there, pay attention. For the rest of you, nothing to see here, move along.

Originally posted by korath
I remember I had a '78 Ford truck, the top speed on that was 110 we couldn't go that fast legally then and we can't go that fast legally now. So what's the point of making them that speedy? One thing I do like about the old ones is you could open the hood and you had the engine, battery, radiator. and a couple of other simple things to look at. You could see the ground underneath when you popped the hood. They got so much crap in there now you need a genius to figure it out, and it's all still about going from one place to another.

I agree when I had my 85 grand prix there was nothing under the hood. Than when I look under my 07 silverado its so complicated under the hood and for what? Some a/c and onstar maybe. They just don't want you working on your car and fixing it for free now u hot to take it in just to put in a new headlight. Its all about money. And not efficiency

The point to always remember is this, people. We the People will never be able to buy a car that gets this mileage, because the car makers will not make them that way. I once worked for GM in R&R, and I can tell you those people are doing just what they are told, not a thing more. Think for a minute that a car plant cannot produce a 100 mpg car that is big enough for your family? Well they can. But they will not.

The big secret is, as I said, in the ignition system. Advance Auto Parts carries MSD products, and MSD makes replacement coils for all engines. The digital controls are universal, and will work on any engine. If you go to upgrade your family go getter, be sure to replace your spark plug wires and spark plugs with premium parts. I always get 8mm high performance primary wires, and Bosch double platinum spark plugs. A good ignition upgrade will cost about $200. You will have this back in your pocket in a month or two, dependant on how much your drive.
Be sure to take out your car's computer, and take off the access plate. Then remove the PROM chip for a few minutes to clear the system before you drive. I have been running like this for years now, without a problem. Instant starts are the norm, your tailpipe will burn grey, or white. You will need to replave those plugs twice a year, all that voltage is hell on them.

Originally posted by liveandlearn
This could be a major setback for even hybrids that get 40-50 mpg. But it looks like very slow going and the price may not be doable for the average person.

Current hybrids are ridiculous imho. Not just that they cost way more to maintain, but they are not very environmentally friendly... from a fuel standpoint, but even more so because of all of the other stuff that goes into manufacturing them which will have to be disposed eventually.

In the 90s I had a Geo Metro with a 3-cylinder Rotax (Isuzu-made) engine and I got 59 MPG from it on regular ethanol/gas... I think a 10% mix at the time back then. No "new" technology, probably not even as well tuned as it could have been.

100 MPG + isn't "new" technology either. That this hasn't been made a secret patent for "national security reasons", or sold to big-oil... and the inventor isn't dead yet... is somewhat of a surprise.

Originally posted by imeddieone4202003
When we look at the automotive industry as a whole since its inception one can notice two things:


-Engines have gotten exponentially more complicated and advanced with the integration of computer components

-These advancements have NOT translated into any sizable contributions to the efficiency of MPG

Seriously? That's what you believe?

I have a Honda with a 2.4Liter 4 cylinder motor. The motor produces approximately 164hp and gets approximately 22mpg. (Would be more but it's an AWD vehicle.)

My first car had a 351cu inch (5.8L) motor that produced 160hp (due to emissions restrictions) and got approximately 15mpg.

So the size of the engine was reduced by 3.4L and the fuel efficiency was increased by about 50%. I'd say that's a sizeable contribution.

reply to post by kelbtalfenek


I believe his point was that your Ford 351 could get better gas mileage, not that it did get better gas mileage. Ford basically used the same engine design from the 60's until the mid 90's. While your 351 was only able to achieve 15 mpg, you did not mention any efforts to improve the performance, which suggests that you do not know how to improve the performance or you did not care and as such have no real data. I was the same when I first started driving an old car. People tend to not know much about their car until they get one they really like.

When someone can give you detailed specs for their engine, they usually take care of their auto and perform regular maintenance. Many people never realize how much money they would actually save by spending the money needed for regular maintenance. (Not implying that you dont, its the first rule for self tuners and I have family members that forget to add fluids other than gasoline.)

reply to post by DrumsRfun


battery technology was not advanced enough to be a viable option. If they had to continued to develop it maybe by 1950 they would have had something that worked, but people wanted cars their cars now and didn't want to wait

I'm sorry but I am very skeptical of these stories. Unless there are independent validation from an accredited testing center I will have to chalk this up this story as BS. if it was legit shouldn't that have been the first thing this inventor did? There are tons of these stories whenever the economy is bad or there is a fuel crisis. If GM, Ford Chrysler or whomever had this tech I just can't see why they wouldn't be developing and selling it.

They would make a fortune, and revolutionize auto tech. Why is BMW spending a fortune developing fuel cells when they could already be selling 100+ mpg sedans? Whoever did it would corner the market. I don't know if I buy into the idea that the gas companies are that aligned with automakers. If cars got 100+mpg tomorrow gas would just triple in price, it would balance out, wouldn't it?

think of how much reliability there is in a modern car, now think of how much research goes into achieving this. Will this motor be 99.9999999 % reliable? Is it safe? All realistic questions.

I just wonder how long the plant will be open before there is

1) an unexplained burglary
2) an unexplained fire
3) a 'suicide' or 'single vehicle accident with fatalities' that takes the guy out
4) or some combination/permutation of the above incidents.

rock on autowrench these guys will never learn...

I have a 74BMW 2002 w/ m10 2.0ltr 9:1 flatop pistons ported and polished intake and exhaust.shaved head a shrick 290 cam and balanced crank and rods..with 1 3/4 stailness header 2 1/4 exhaust with two weber 45 DCOE's msd blaster coil pertronix and Ms6 box I constantly average over 45 mpg and as much as 54mpg on a trip to Cali last year and its 34 years old if I do the turbo upgrade (t45 and 3" down pipe JDM intercooler) and stay out of the throttle..i can expect maybe another 10-15% increase in mileage hopefully putting me at 50-55mpg...your hybrid get what..?? some people will just not listen..I also want to try the Hydro Gene and hopefully can put one together to run my 99 fatboy (30-35mpg stock...50-55mpg after my tune and ignition upgrades)...it is all about ignition and fuel mixture...the big 3 have been detuning cars for years...I used to run a vortex blower system on a 454 chevy 1 ton dually that if you could stay out of the throttle you could easily average 25-30 mpg out of an 89 454 in a 1ton dually and 550HP over ten years ago when it was almost ten years old..better than the diesel guy above...who if he really knew how to get his hands dirty could easily get over 40 mpg ...but he knows everything....whatever

reply to post by korath


Whats wrong with just being able to go fast?? You might get your man card taken away for sayin things like that!!

well I'm not sure what happened but i tried to start another thread on energy suppression and...now suddenly it's blocked ... a 404... what the f over...

are the ATS mods trying to suppress this stuff...?????

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I sent them an email...but I am pissed ...they didn't even let me finish it... I was trying to get the whole article up and by the time I got to the last page (4000 character limit..I hate that) ...it disappeared ...

I wonder if they will block this ..??

www.fuel-efficient-vehicles.org...

I seriously doubt we're going to be reading about some clandestine effort to suicide this guy or anything. Simply due to the fact that the drag racers have been using these modifications for performance purposes for decades now.
Ethanol fueled dragsters even have their own class, right under top fuel dragsters which use nitro methane. The key being you can run these fuels under much higher compression than gasoline which is why most dragsters are either turbo or super charged.

Higher compression means of course, higher Horsepower better yet higher torque. Torque is what gets things moving.

If the car only requires for example 40 Horsepower to maintain 55mph, a powerful engine could potentially generate this by even running at even lower RPMs which naturally translates into using less fuel.

Ford actually sold a 4 cylinder variant of this car that attained 29 mpg highway mileage with a measly 88 HP But high torque 132 lb/ft engine.

This might have been what sparked the idea. What about using a high torque V8 using cylinder deativation to run on 4 cylinders instead ?

The formula is relatively basic:

1. He's using a relatively light car, an 80's Mustang LX notchback.
2.) Build a high compression engine generating lots of low end torque.
3.) Utilize cylinder deactivation, as the Big 3 are to save even more gas with the big V8s in Vettes and Hemis, by turning off 4 cylinders and is now running on 4 of 8 cylinders easily generating the miniscule power necessary to maintain highway speeds but at extremely low RPMs where all engines are using minimal fuel and V8s generate lots of torque.
4.) Combine that with some tall gearing, and there's your 100 mpg car !

The good thing about this though is that he's already using this in a Ford, making it relatively easier to swap this engine into the most popular vehicle in the USA today. The Ford F150.


My wife's 1st car was an 80's 5.0 Mustang...with a stick IMA !
My kind of woman...

Originally posted by autowrench
Well, bigshow, you are entitled to think whatever you wish. I didn't post that for anyone to believe it, as in a cult belief, I posted it for other car people who may wish to investigate how to get better mileage on their own vehicles. I do not use the factory TBI setup, as it stated in the post. Holley has done wonders in the fuel management tech dept. You response is about average of the many I get when talking about how to do this on a big V-8 engine, the men stand around and claim it cannot be done, while the women ask where do I get the parts, and how do I do this at home? I will be thinking about you as I drive right past the station today.

the thing is most drivers don't care about custom modifications which may void their factory warranty. they want to get into the car in the morning, commute to work, then get back home safely after picking up something on the way home. some of these customizations can be expensive (cost and time) to get and maintain. do you see the single minivan mom having the time or qualification for that? it's the same with computers - they did not enter the mass market until they were friendly enough to be used by pointing your mouse. how many non-computer geeks are using command prompt to tune their stuff?

Originally posted by nh_ee
The formula is relatively basic:

1. He's using a relatively light car, an 80's Mustang LX notchback.
2.) Build a high compression engine generating lots of low end torque.
3.) Utilize cylinder deactivation, as the Big 3 are to save even more gas with the big V8s in Vettes and Hemis, by turning off 4 cylinders and is now running on 4 of 8 cylinders easily generating the miniscule power necessary to maintain highway speeds but at extremely low RPMs where all engines are using minimal fuel and V8s generate lots of torque.
4.) Combine that with some tall gearing, and there's your 100 mpg car !

the car industry for the masses needs something that works without much special tuning and can be easily mass produced. i can see specially tuned engines in $100k cars but i don't think your average sub-$20k car is anything else than a set of parts thrown together by a few workers who may not care much about quality.

reply to post by SoulOrb


I am not so sure I believe that. What good is it doing them now? Their companies are in bankruptcy and the gov will now own part of it? If Chrysler had one fuel efficient car then they may have lasted a little longer...I mean who knows

I dont buy the conspiricy theory that the car companies wouldnt want the technology...I also dont buy what was said about the big 3's R&D not trying to develop new technology. I spent 8 yrs in a facility where diesels and natural gas engines were designed developed and tested. There was a whole division of crazy PhD Engineers working on technology that was years ahead of what is out there. I know that Cat isn't the only company doing it.

If I read the article correctly it stated this was all done on E85 fuel...which is roughly 25% LESS efficeint than gasoline....(some reports were 20 some were 27 and some were 17%) It does have a high octane level but everything I have read state that you need MORE fuel to make the same amount of power.

A guy smart enough to make an engine like this would know that...why not make the gasoline engine that got close to 140mpg then?

This is for real. The engine plant will be using leased space (100,000 Sq feet) in an existing Industrial Complex in Wauseon that is owned by Fulton Industries. The guy that came up with this engine is well known in the drag racing community and owns a company called HorsePowerSales.Net. The engine is based on a concept that was designed by his grandfather in the 1940's, he has now perfected it. He already got funding in the way of state grants to get his engine and car ready for an X-Prize contest which he later pulled out of and has now gotten full funding to build the production lines needed to initially build 20 engines a day using only 25 employees.

He already has an order for 2,000 engines from a company in Las Vegas that will be building the already discussed supercar.

I have personally seen his Mustang driving around the Napoleon Ohio area. I will admit that I have not seen the engine under the hood, but that car has amazing power... that I can confirm.

I don't think this guy will sell out. He comes from a farming community and he genuinely believes that this engine will not only help the local community (including his friends and family) and the country, he knows it will be commercially successful.

Don't forget, Sam Hornish Jr is from Defiance Ohio and the racing community in this area all know each other. I would not be surprised if Penske Racing (exclusive rights to sell Smart Cars and probable future owner of Saturn) gets involved in the future.

As for the comment about why would he use E85 instead of Petrol? This guy comes from the Drag Racing community. Have you ever looked at racing fuel? It is very high octane because racing engines run a very high compression. Current dual fuel vehicles that run on 87 octane or E85 do not take advantage of the higher octane of E85. High compression engines are much more efficient then lower compression engines that use 87 octane. Therefore, E85 use in those engines requires alot more E85 then Petrol.

This guy is utilizing the high octane of E85 with a high compression engine. I would imagine that you could potentially use a high octane petrol with his engine as well. However, as his engine depends on the "green" crowd just as much as the "performance" crowd, why not run E85.

Also, like I said, this guy is from a small farming community that grows alot of field corn.... the community loves this guy.

reply to post by WhiteHorse


Exactly WhiteHorse !

The Current E85 vehicles are minimally configured to accept E85 with different gaskets and such but nothing in the realm of what they could potentially do.

Thats' why I brought up the point that we've had alcohol fueled dragsters generating massive amounts of horsepower for years now.

I deducted that He was using this in his Mustang.
I was fortunate enough to have lived during the 60's muscle car era outside of Columbus Ohio during my adolescence. My first high performance experience was in my uncle's fuel injected 62 Corvette where we would exceed 120 mph on curvy two lane roads...talk about a rush !
. Afterwards I was fortunate enough to have experienced Everything from 63 GTO's , 69 Z28s , 68 Road RUnners and such in my family..... all on the beautiful country roads of Ohio.

Holy Crap!

Does any of the veteran's on this site remember Beerguy?

He claimed an engine like this and had working models and was from Ohio too.

I chatted with him a couple of times but then he just disappeared from ATS.

Anyhow here is the link to the old thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But the link to his original thread is not there.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Realtruth]

I feel you guys are missing some info on this particular claim. namely the person has been making these claims without proof for well over a year now. He has had multiple news agencies report on his claims but so far not 1 valid verification of his claims.

The cars curb weight is listed @ 2850lbs yet when he took the Vegas trip he claims car weight was 4895lbs. so 2045lbs of undisclosed components. Im betting batteries.

Just to be clear, I pray that the guy is being truthfull. but given the c/d and rolling resistance of the chassis, along with almost 5,000 lb weight during his trip. I seriously doubt that he is being in any way truthful.

If you go to his site. you will notice the weight for his tests vary by distance. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to wonder how he gets better MPGe with more weight.