Mustang 110 MPG could be the answer

Just saw this on NBC News, Chicago a few minutes ago. You can read the story or go to the video but it's all about the 87 Mustang a guy has been working on for ten years, said his grandfather had the knowledge for the war but no one was interested so to speak!!! Check it out maybe the answer to our hobby. He has the horse power also 0 to 60 in 3 seconds!!!:toocool:


http://www.nbc5.com/automotive/16768626/detail.html


http://www.nbc5.com/news/16767930/detail.html

http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=271840#videoid=271973

Richard

Good luck ford2custom, Ive been involved in a similar type thread, Let the bloodbath begin. There are just too many sceptics and I cant say I dont have doubts, but I also have hope, and my glass is always half full not empty.

You can't help but hope it's going somewhere, I will try to stay up on it.

Richard

4-5 times the mileage seems like too big of a jump at this time.

I note that no one commented on what was done.
My guess is that they may have a setup to pull hydrogen out of water and use that in addition to the gasoline for a fuel.
Do a search on HHO and read up on it, some folks are having some reasonable success with it.

I think there is a million dollar contest to the person with the best mileage, if so he doesn't want to give anything up. I would like to believe can't hurt to wish.

Richard

It'd be great if it only got 50mpg. Wonder if he's going to offer stock? :) :toocool:

It starts off with " Traditional gas engines operate at 8 to 10 percent, efficiency, while the engine on the Mustang, he said, is at 38 percent efficiency."

Well, typical efficiencies are 20%, not 10%. 38% represents about the maximum possible in a gasoline engine. That does not equate to 100 mpg. A tuned F1 engine is about 37% efficient.

Fators of 4-5x are not possible IMO using gas and/or alcohol................

I give this one my BS flag.

Kitz

Every time one of these threads show up, I think of the Smokey Yunick gas-vapor engine. It's been over 20 years so my memory is a little cloudy, but I think the basic idea was heating the inlet charge to a point where the gasoline changed from a liquid into a gaseous vapor, which was then "mixed" with the incoming air on a turbocharger. Smokey was able to double the horsepower and MPG on a 2.5 Fiero.

One can only hope! Lots of stuff coming out on video and in the news right now. :)

I'll believe it when I see it under lab conditions as I remember someone in Popular Science back in 1979 or 1980 saying he produced a carb that could be bolted on to any engine and get 100mpg. Funny how when push came to shove this guy crawlled back under his lillypad and faded from sight as magazines pushed for more information and proof. One magazine of course found the hidden gas tanks in his frame rails that fed into the original giving the illusion of getting 100mpg...Again, I'll be the skeptic on this one along with all of the other "get better mileage with magnets, air swirlers, electic black boxes etc"..............

Bill S.

Seems to me the guy went overboard with his claims, probably to grab headlines. The mileage claims were out there far enough, but he totally lost me with his 400 hp, 0-60 in 3 seconds stuff. A 427 Cobra roadster with 500 plus hp won't do that! A Mustang? Well, my '79 with a 350 horse 351 isn't half that quick. Unless the guy is a really savvy chassis man,more so than most drag racers out there, all the power in the world ain't gonna do it.

Well, I think it's possible but the solutions are out there and basically beyond what the engineering community teaches, understands or believes.
A fuel air mixture can only go so lean and still have fuel propagation no matter how well it is atomized.
I don't have the numbers in my head but there is a big difference between thermal efficiency and mechanical efficiency if I remember correctly. Neither is very good on a piston engine at it's best.

Well, let's look at it by the numbers.

Let's assume aluminum heads which will allow a higher compression ratio without detonation. Toss in pistons that have "mystery plasma coating X" up top to keep the heat in the combustion chamber instead of soaking down through the body of the piston. Ditto on coating the combustion chambers in the heads. Our combustion chambers have the perfect shape to squish the fuel - air mixture to give us a perfect flame path. We are going to need gapless rings to eliminate all blowby or leakage down in to the crankcase. We will need to do everything possible to eliminate parasitic loss of power to the reciprocating assembly and valvetrain. Roller everything, as light as possible. Wasted power means less efficiency... If we are using a wet fuel, we need to maintain perfect suspension of the fuel as the smallest possible particles in the incoming air charge. A gaseous fuel would mix more completely, but something like propane only has about half the BTU's of regular gasoline. Since a turbo uses "wasted energy" getting blown out the exhaust to give forced induction, we may as well find the perfect turbocharger to increase the overall airflow through our hypothetical gas miser, while still maintaining minimal fuel used to power the car down the road. If we apply Indy car thinking to our engine and crank this sucker up to around 70 pounds of boost and make our operating range of the engine 9000-12000 rpm, our engine won't have time during a revolution to allow detonation to occur regardless of how lean the mixture is. Pre-heat our fuel to around 180f-200f so we get our perfect atomization through our injectors that create a perfect fog dispersal in to the air charge.

Can it be done? maybe... Can the engine be built in a cost efficient manner that the average Joe can afford?I really don't see how.

I think the headline should have read: "400HP Mustang Gets 11.0 MPG" :LOL:

That would still be a pretty impressive feat ;)

-chris

The honda 4 banger with a turbo computer tuned in a areodynamic body gets 99 ,it was at all the car shows last year .................besides that the japs have it figured out and its illegal to import to the USA ....A car that runs on rain water /creek water and tap water..............There was thread just a while back on it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shawnlee28

The honda 4 banger with a turbo computer tuned in a areodynamic body gets 99 ,it was at all the car shows last year .................besides that the japs have it figured out and its illegal to import to the USA ....A car that runs on rain water /creek water and tap water..............There was thread just a while back on it.....

---

You are right about the car running on any type of water.

This was the thread 6-13-08

The Tata Nano!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26714&src=news It looks like a dead link now.

This link will take you to it.

http://gizmodo.com/5016343/genepax-u...-water-and-air






Richard

Richard, I enjoyed that thread! What a cool car. Wouldn't be nice to see it go into production! Reasonably priced too! :cool:

Now if you had to power it with bottled water, it could get expensive! Bottled water is more expensive than gas sometimes! :D

Steve, it would be nice especially for people going to and from work, short trips, what a savings that would be. Then get the Hot Rod out for the weekend cruises.:toocool:

Richard

Richard, I'm not sure if I've seen a picture of your hot rod. Any chance you could post one? I like putting vehicles with people, it's sort of like associating faces with voices!:3dSMILE:
I'd also love to have a car like that one for the daily commute! Not just to save gas money, but to lower all the smog caused by all of the cars on the hiway everyday. We are pretty lucky in the North Bay Area, in that the urban sprawl of the bay area doesn't effect us too much. But on really hot days, they issue spare the air alerts in San Francisco. The water powered car is also small, which is cool because it fits with the whole SMART car movement.
I like the idea of using less daily to fuel the Hot Rod for weekends!:)

Just a little reminder that S. Carnot derived the efficiency formula for ANY heat engine in terms of the higher and lower temperatures of operation as:

Eff. = (T-high - T-low)/ T-high

The temperatures are in degrees Kelvin and for ANY heat engine since the Thermodynamic cycle of ANY heat engine can be represented on Carnot-cycle graph paper and the internal cycles will only add up along the outer path of the real engine but it still gives the same formula. In order to make the engine more efficient you have to raise the T-high temperature (higher compression helps there) and lower the exhaust temperature somehow by extracting more work out of the engine. The 37% efficiency mentioned above is very respectable for a well tuned internal combustion engine and it will be hard to improve on that for any ICE, but maybe an advanced form of steam engine could do better (restore that Stanley Steamer in your barn!). I just spent two weeks of summer school deriving and proving this; the Final Exam is on Wednesday!

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Don what are your thoughts on the water powered car? I noticed a batery in it, and wonder if it needs to be charged externally for the hydrogen converter to work?

People, it's not a water powered car, it's a hydrogen powered car. The fact that the hydrogen comes from water is immaterial. If the converter was a separate unit that you left in your garage, the whole cycle would be more efficient due to not having to lug around that weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ford2custom

You are right about the car running on any type of water. I put that link on this site but people were not interesed.

This was the thread 6-13-08

The Tata Nano!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26714&src=news It looks like a dead link now.

This link will take you to it.

http://gizmodo.com/5016343/genepax-u...-water-and-air
Richard

---

I beg to differ with you, I myself was very interested in it to the point I've shown it to every one that comes into my office. The main problem with that concept is that the state and feds would loose untold billions in taxes not to mention the fact that oil companys would loose their grip on people.

Steve, I have a few unfinished cars. I have a 454 I had planned on putting in this one but gas was maybe $2.69 a gallon.:( This one I would like to have finished, I might have to drag it out to Dave!! I guess I could call it a cross country drag???.:toocool:

Thanks Steve, now I'll have to at least get it in rat rod primer, before some ask how it is coming.:LOL:


pizzi-man
I should have said some people.

Attachment 31469

Attachment 31470

Attachment 31471

Richard



Attachment 31473

looks good Richard. With a 454 that Ford Tudor will fly!:D