It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 7
109
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 

Yeah, but where does one obtain a set of plasma spark plugs these days? There would also have to be some heat shielding around them, so they would not melt the cylinder heads. I am glad we are all brainstorming here.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by solids0be
reply to post by autowrench
 



I remember cars that got 60 mpg out of the factory, I had a 1960 Plymouth Valiant with a slant 6 that did that.


lol The hell you did, I was barely stretching 47 MPG highway in a 1994 Geo metro and that was a 1.1lt straight 3 cyl. Please don't fill this topic with false testimony. The only way you got a 1960 valiant to get that kind of mileage is if it was stripped down to nothing, had a fiberglass shell and it was going down hill the whole time.


How old are you? That Plymouth did not have a ton of mandated emission controls on it, and had at least a little power, Geo's can barely pull the hat off your head. I dare say you have never bought gasoline over 87 octane either. I stand by my claim.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 



Here's my thought on what should be done with the 100+ mpg carb: The US government should take it from big oil or who ever has it and engineer a kit that will retrofit to any vehicle with proper attachments etc. Now before you say "Give? You F-ing crazy!!!"- it would come with a price in the end!

Yeah, like that's going to happen anytime soon. The car companies do what they are told to do, I discovered that working for Dealership garages.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by solids0be
 

Actually, the 170 engine got great mileage, just as I said, we ran it on Premium gas, it had a 2:72 rear end gear ratio and manual shift. I saw other cars back then that got real good mileage too. I also saw cars that would lift the front tires on a staged first gear take off. But then that is impossible too, isn't it?
Gasoline was much more efficient then, and cars ran better then. And it was cheap. $0.35 a gallon. In those days I didn't care, and had a few hot rods that only got 9-10 mpg. Who cared?

I really don't care what you kids believe or not believe, makes no difference to me at all. Boncho has been following me around for months attempting to discredit my HHO reactor setup. Blast away!
Americans will try anything when the price gets too high.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I always thought the "air car" was pretty cool.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


The 800lb Gorilla sitting in the corner
All these engines are fitted with a manifold that maintains a Vacuum at the intake valve.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb
I always thought the "air car" was pretty cool.
en.wikipedia.org...

I saw one of these too, not like in the photo, at a truck stop back in the 80's. It was a Honda Civic. The guy had a small one cylinder engine pulling a compressor and had air lines all over the inside of the car. I didn't have a long time to look it over, but he was driving it. I do remember he had a catcher on the tailpipe, to catch the oil that dripped out.
When the price of gas goes up, the mechanics and tinkerers come out. There are all kinds of ways to enhance a vehicle's gas mileage, and I don't understand why people would rather scream it don't work that do it themselves? I remember a guy has a 1955 Buick Special. Big, heavy car, right? Had a V-8 engine in it. This guy loaded the car up with cement blocks, making it a lot heaver that is really was. When he drove, he took off from a hill on his property. He never stopped unless he absolutely had to. He had a very light foot on the gas pedal. He could drive all day on a few gallons of gas. Stan Meyer proved beyond doubt that Hydrogen can be used as a fuel, and people still say it won't, even thought it is in fact the fuel of the Space Shuttle. The keys to a good mileage engine are:

Efficiency
Minimum Rolling Resistance
Optimum Tune
Premium Grade of Fuel
Complete Combustion

I drive a 1990 Chevy G-20 van. Not known for it's good gas mileage.
I keep the front, steer tires and wheels in perfect alignment, 0 degrees toe, 1 1/2 degree positive caster. I run 4 ply HD truck tires, and run them with 50 psi of air. The engine runs premium Rotella oil, has a 50,000 Volt MSD ignition coil, and HP Module with 30 degree of advance timing. Accel 8 mm Primary Wires brings that to the plugs. No air conditioning, wheel bearings are kept greased with silicon racing grease. The timing is set at 2 degrees retarded initially. Rear end gear ratio is 2:73. Transmission is R-700 OD. I never stand on the gas, and keep slamming on the brakes at a minimum. I pick up speed smoothly, and keep the engine running at near the same RPM range throughout the range. This isn't rocket science. Just simple Auto Mechanics.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


Nah, if I worked for them they would just tell me who to eliminate and I wouldn't have to check on ATS to see if anyone is up to trickery.

I'm just a simple laid back guy who is bored with the mundain life I live and could use a little excitement.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Ok i was just thinking, the common link with all of these modifications is that they were kept in secret. Some of the people behind it were murdered.

Lets say you stumbled upon some modifications from a friend or in an attic or something that actually worked to double or triple gas mileage. Am I the only one who would release the mods online for everyone to see? I mean, the way I think about it is that if people enjoy it enough, they would probably donate to you as a thanks. Look at Linux. Totally free but a near $1 billion a year business.

Reply or star this post, just so I can get an idea over whether people would do this or not.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by brilab45
 


Has anyone tried to replicate his designs, or do you know where someone can access them?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
this is amazing

what this did was remind me of my cousin who was a big car guy, mechanic..

he told me 20 years ago about stuff along this lines!!! wow, it WAS TRUE?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperTripps
this is amazing

what this did was remind me of my cousin who was a big car guy, mechanic..

he told me 20 years ago about stuff along this lines!!! wow, it WAS TRUE?

Can you be more specific, what did he say? And did he ever try things like this out?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


Yes you are right about the automotive industry toiling on the inefficient gasoline fired internal combustion engine. Have you ever heard of Herman Anderson? He invented a hydrogen powered car that didn't run on gas (I hope no one says oh but his car used oil for lube and that comes from big oil too you dummu, thats not the point) his technology ran on slightly radioactive water called deutrium (I think) and hydrogen LINK

I think the problem is that the car is designed around oil more or less that its heart is the gas fired internal combustion engine for the most part, and to reiterate I do agree with you that Auto industries and mechanics really are trying to solve these problems Im just saying that there is interference going on there.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maestromason


I simply stated that gasoline is an extremely dirty and inefficient fuel. The gasoline engine in its rough 100 years of existence is antiquated as well. The differences in energy densities mole per mole of Gasoline vs. Lithium as a energy source is like comparing the tortoise and the hare. Gasoline no matter how high the grade is archaic as a fuel source for a reason.

Gasoline will always be a very inefficient fuel due to its structured energy density mass not holding the potential and is literally prehistoric.


Can you explain more technically what you mean by "structured energy density mass not holding the potential"



I worked for Energizer Labs as a Analytical Systems Engineer and was involved in modifying the electrolytic base formulas for Energizer batteries. Lithium imide is now replacing Li-ion as Nickel-cadmium was replaced by li-ion for high drain applications.


Please don't be hostile, I like technical discussions.

The takeaway that I've generally read previously shows a much higher energy density (mass terms) for gasoline/liquid hydrocarbons compared to a charged Li-Ion battery, though of course the thermodynamic cycles for liquid fuel are only 20-35% efficient, and once in the battery energy can be practically transformed into mechanical work at 80-95% efficiency.

I'd be interested in more modern updates to this understanding.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

I am also a mechanic (with no where near as many years experience as you have) and have heard stories like yours from many of the old timers I've worked with over the years. They all seem to remember these old beaters getting amazing gas mileage. If its true then someone has worked hard to erase the facts from history.

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?

Also, over the years my fellow mechanics and I have tinkered around and built all sorts of crazy contraptions to up our gas mileage, the most successful of these using hydrogen, and a las, none of us has found anything that makes a hugely significant gain.
I'm not so sure what to believe. I know I'm relatively young and even I remember civics, crxs, sentra, etc getting way better mileage then anything today. You can still find Honda CRXs that get over 40 mpg on a 4 banger so why the heck are cars today not able to achieve that? The retarded new trend lately has been tiny hatchbacks and midget cars and none of them get close to or surpass what an old CRX could do as far as gas mileage. It doesn't make sense.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability

I'm not so sure what to believe. I know I'm relatively young and even I remember civics, crxs, sentra, etc getting way better mileage then anything today. You can still find Honda CRXs that get over 40 mpg on a 4 banger so why the heck are cars today not able to achieve that? The retarded new trend lately has been tiny hatchbacks and midget cars and none of them get close to or surpass what an old CRX could do as far as gas mileage. It doesn't make sense.


I've seen a study on the actual efficiency of the engine system (steadily increasing throughout years) and the end efficiency of the end product (MPG), which was going up steadily and then flat-lined.

All the efficiency gains were expended in extra mass. So the modern tiny hatchbacks must weigh a whole bunch more than an old Honda CRX.

The other takeaway fact is that the MPG averages nearly exactly tracked the government regulation. My conclusion is that there is plenty of headroom in efficiency if people are willing to accept lighter cars and changed government regulation.
edit on 29-1-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


whatever dude your memory must be going out, im quite familiar with cars from the 60s and 70s and have one sitting in my garage in fact, But if your trying to sell bull stories about a slant 6 in a plymouth valient getting 60 plus to the gallon Im sorry it just didnt happen. First if it was an automatic it would have had a 904 3 speed transmission or a 4 speed manual so overdrive gears is out of the picture, and even if it had the stingest of highway gears it would still be getting no where close to that kind of mileage. id say of you stripped that car down to nothing no AC, no heater/ no steering pump/ manual brakes and put the thiinest tires you could buyand the stingest highway gears in the back it still would be amazing to see it get more then 35 MPG on the highway. even if you were a magician with a carter caburator that thing still wouldent get near as many miles as you claim. So please stop exaggerating stories to impress these people with no knowlede of engines or cars from that era. 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.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by solids0be
reply to post by autowrench
 



I remember cars that got 60 mpg out of the factory, I had a 1960 Plymouth Valiant with a slant 6 that did that.


lol The hell you did, I was barely stretching 47 MPG highway in a 1994 Geo metro and that was a 1.1lt straight 3 cyl. Please don't fill this topic with false testimony. The only way you got a 1960 valiant to get that kind of mileage is if it was stripped down to nothing, had a fiberglass shell and it was going down hill the whole time.


How old are you? That Plymouth did not have a ton of mandated emission controls on it, and had at least a little power, Geo's can barely pull the hat off your head. I dare say you have never bought gasoline over 87 octane either. I stand by my claim.


First what does age have to do with anything..lol you dont think these cars still exsist and are available to test these claims on. And assuming ive never bought over 87 octane is a joke..you do know they sell high octane racing fuels at the pumps still in certain places across the country.. im talking 100 octane Cool Blue or even low lead aviaition fuel.
The fact is yes those cars had less emission gear, but then again they were using ancient technology. Running stock a valaint was likely to have what most Cryslers had on them in those years, Points ignition, low voltage coils that all the plugs had to fire off of, no vaccume advance, non hardened valve seats (hence the leaded gas) and was using a unbalanced straight 6 single cam pushrod engine with poor flowing geads a non HP exahaust manifold attached to an ineffiecent slushbox drivetrain. Please tell me how im wrong?
edit on 29-1-2012 by solids0be because: sp



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by network dude

excellent thread. I see you didn't even mention Stan Meyer, but his little world may well have been a hoax. I am a bit confused as to how Honda could make a CRX HF in 1986 that got 54 miles to the gallon, but now cannot do any better than 40MPG without battery assist.


I totally agree..... my Geo Metro Convertible got 52 HWY and 48 City. That was 20 years ago..........you seriously mean to tell me that the great minds of the auto world have actually managed to go backward from those type of mileages??? I wonder what kind of mileage a Hybrid Geo Metro would get??? Car and Driver put the Metro up against the Prius and Insight and it tied for first place with the Prius for best mileage.

Just following a 2% year increase in mileage performance per year would put the CRX at 90 MPG.

I don't think the auto industry wants to make a super efficient vehicle.


well, there's a few reasons for that....but i'll talk about the biggest one: Weight.

you ever notice how over the years, cars have gotten bigger, and bigger? more bulky, cumbersome, and just plain ugly. Longer body, wider wheel base, more seats, more gadgets, more fluff...more weight.

i'll give you an example: the Nissan Pathfinder. from the time it was introduced, through the 1995 model year, it was more or less a modified variant of their hardbody truck. from the 1996 model year forward, it got bigger, bulkier, heavier, and uglier. the '95 got 14-cty, 17-hwy on regular gas, now that's for a 6-cyl 3.0L 4-speed auto with 4WD...i used to own one of these. the 2012 model gets 14-cty, 20-hwy, and that's on premium gas...put regular in it, and the fuel economy would most likely be WORSE than the '95 model. oh, and the engine for the 2012? 6-cyl 4.0L 5-speed auto with 4WD...a very similar engine, but it's gotta carry around like twice the car

my point? car engineers like to make things big. heavy, ugly, and inefficient to drive. in addition to that, it wouldn't matter how much fuel we were consuming if it were alcohol, instead of industrial waste.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 



it had a 2:72 rear end gear ratio and manual shift.

You meant to write 2.72:1, right?



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join