Recently the BS-o-meter of many forum members was tripped by a guy claiming to get 110 mpg out of his 1987 Ford Mustang. Though the claim seems a little ridiculous, and I think most people would be quick to dismiss it, the fact that it’s getting some media attention warrants a debunking.
The first thing to say is that conspiracy theories will not be considered here. I am not on the payroll of big oil, the government, Saudis, terrorists, or any of that. Nor is there any real evidence that any of these agents are going above and beyond normal business tactics to keep the US addicted to oil. Sure, the Saudis may produce more oil to lower prices and make the need for alternatives less pressing, but is Exxon assassinating the “water4gas” internet spammers? I think not. So, if your argument for the feasibility of this device is that it’s always been possible and the man is keeping it down, then don’t waste your breath arguing.
Now on to this specific case. Here we have a mechanic named Doug Pelmear with an ’87 Ford Mustang that he claims gets 110 mpg, 400 horsepower, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. According to Doug, the builder:
“My grandfather had the idea back in the 40’s that he can make a difference then,” Pelmear says, “There was quite a need at that time also with the war going on and everything, there was quite the need then.” And quite a need now.
This should throw up our first red flag. His grandfather had an idea back in the 40s that this guy has remade into some sort of miracle device 60 years later? Nevermind the fact that automakers spend billions of dollars working on having the best of the best in terms of both power and efficiency, and that to date the Honda Insight holds the mileage crown at with a combined EPA rating of 53 MPG. Doug Pelmear claims to more than double that using something his grandfather thought up 60 years ago? Engine technology from that period is nothing like the fuel injected, computer controlled tech of today, but this device still works wonders?
Those this technology could be working to increase the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine, as one ecomodder pointed out, thermodynamic efficiency can only be increased so much before it is at 100%, which would be impossible. Given that car engines are typically 25-30% efficient, there is only so much gain to be had before you’re claiming to have broken the laws of physics.
As for the car itself, 1987 Mustangs come with EPA ratings from 17-24 MPG, with 17 being the number assigned to the V8 variety. Completely disregarding the performance claims Doug is making, if we are to assume he’s using the 5.0L V8 as a base, he’s claiming a 640% increase in fuel economy. While ecomodders regularly report increases of 50% to 100% on the extreme side, does such a huge improvement seem feasible? And if so, how could it be done while dramatically increasing power output?
The next red flag comes up when we learn that Doug won’t tell anyone what he’s done to the car or what technology he’s using:
While Pelmear won’t let us look under the hood, he says the technology can easily be applied to smaller engines for even better gas mileage. He’s entering the car in the prestigious Progressive Automotive X competition; a race where inventors from around the world compete for the best mileage with a car that is the most marketable. Pelmear says, his technology is very marketable because it will allow people to drive large cars and SUV’s without sacrificing gas mileage.
As the original report notes, the X-Prize is a prestigious competition, but to me it seems like he is only using the name in order to make his claims appear more legitimate. While his plan to sell his design to automakers in order to make it big certainly could explain why he wouldn’t want to make a DIY and post it online, but he can’t expect anyone to believe his claims if he’s not even willing to drive the car around and fill it up at the pump to throw a little weight behind his claims.
And even that brings up another question. Evidently Doug’s job was recently cut in Ford’s latest round of lay-offs. If he intends to use this invention to bring back the US automotive industry, why didn’t it see the light of day during the years he worked for billion-dollar manufacturer? This kind of technology would have definitely gotten him a nice promotion, a fat paycheck, and position as the savior of his company. Instead, he doesn’t mention until he’s out of a job.
If you watch this video from CNN, you will see a few more interesting things:
httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=sBG2QGM8SUI
The first thing that I notice is that he’s running (or at least claiming to run) E85. While E85 is higher octane, it is also known for returning lower fuel economy in flex-fuel vehicles. Wikipedia notes that the flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe is rated for 18 mpg with regular gasoline, but only 13 mpg using E85. That’s 38% less fuel economy in a vehicle designed to run on E85.
Secondly, when the 110 mpg image pops up, you’ll note that it actually says “MPGe.” This stands for “miles per gallon energy equivalent,” which, coupled with the knowledge that he is running E85 suggests that he is getting less that 110 mpg and using a conversion factor to make the number sound more impressive than it otherwise would. Using the previous Chevy Tahoe example as an analogy, this means that he might only be getting 80 mpg while deceptively claiming 110 mpg. Though his website does show “MPGe” and state that it means “energy equivalent,” he neither explains this to readers nor to the reporter. This, at least, seems as if he is trying to mislead us and makes me question his other claims.
Finally, you’ll notice that even though the two men behind the scenes are talking up the performance of this car, we only see it peacefully cruising the neighborhood streets. Were the reporters to daft to ask for a ride or is that another one of Doug’s secrets? Surely a muscle car like that would be capable of a few burnouts or revs to show off for itself. However, we’re left knowing nothing more than that it actually runs under its own power.
In the end, Doug Pelmear doesn’t give us any reason to believe his claims. All his website states is that on the 14th of June the car will be tested at a race track. Sadly, that was posted on the 16th of June, and there were never any results. There are plenty of reasons to believe this is nothing more than a fuel price-related scam cooked up by someone pissed off that he got fired from his job at Ford, and unless there is some great revelation, I’m calling this a hoax. As always, feel free to disagree.
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
Popularity: 8% [?]
{ 45 comments }
Next Comments →
It was a red flag when he said that 400hp got him from 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds. Only a few cars can get to 60 that fast, and they have a whole lot more than 400hp.
Yes, I would think that 110 would be pushing it. I think the long haul, higher gas prices are a good thing. Although we may not like to pay the higher prices, if, as a result, this spurs permanent changes in how we use energy and we develop new and better ways to run our vehicles, then it has been a plus.
If he intends to use this invention to bring back the US automotive industry, why didn’t it see the light of day during the years he worked for billion-dollar manufacturer?
Yeah. Because big corporations would certainly give him a few thousand more per year for that. If it’s true, he’s poised to make B I L L I O N S. I would be willing to bet a decent amount of money that you have never worked in a corporate office before.
Stephen 500 ft/lbs of torque would definately get a 2800 lb mustang to 60 in under 4 seconds – provided that there was no wheel spin etc… Torque gets you moving HP keeps you moving.. Regardless, he is still full of BS especially since it looks like he has the stock 4 brl carb on a 5 litre engine.
I will argue ion favor of this guy because NOBODY has yet to debunk his claim. Firstly if he has this sort of technology why on earth would he let anyone, including Ford in on it? Was Ford offering 10 million dollars for it? No. Are you offering 10 million dollars for it? No. He will keep it a secret until he needs to let it out. Secondly you say “he might ONLY be getting 80 mpg.” Last time I checked 80 mpg was way above the industry high of 53 mpg, and that was only through one modification, so 110 mpg is feasible. So in the end YOU dont give us any reason to support your claims.
PS. you are wrong about the conspiracy theories. The government makes a killing off oil companies with oil prices high everyone is happy except for us. I suggest you go watch, Who killed the electric car, before you try and debunk something you know nothing about.
Do your home work.
Actually he claimed 80MPG before (while running on E85), but has obviously changed it to reflect what it WOULD get on regular fuel. I don’t really see what’s wrong with that. However, he also claims that regular engines run at 8-10% efficiency (which is wrong) while his runs at about 38% (so not much better than the 25-35% efficiency of real engines in our reality).
http://www.mustangevolution.com/20080702712/
I wouldn’t call this totally smoke and mirrors yet (YET!), but I would say he’s… embellishing just a tad.
@Stephen, if you know much about cars, you would know that torque is what gets you off the line, not necessarily HP, and 500 Ft-Ib of torque is quite a bit for any car. It might be stretching is 0-60 in 3s claim, but 500 would easily get it to 60 in under 5 and depending on the weight possibly get it in under 4.
I called bullshit on this right away, it’s obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of engineering.
Definitely worth a point of contention, yet I have two criticisms:
1. Your proofs regarding the absence of collusion between large automakers and the oil producers fail to convince, although I understand given the limited space and lack of insight into the machinations of trillion-dollar industries can hamper that.
2. The claim that earlier engineers must necessarily be incapable of providing more advanced fuel economy than today’s engineers is also false; computer controlled, fuel-injection engines may yield safer cars that offer more power with the same efficiency, yet it was possible in the 1950s to take a Packard frame fitted with a diesel tractor engine and a heaping of tinkering to get 90-100 mpg. Naturally, such a machine in that age would have been unmarketable given the price of fuel, so it is not surprising that no automobiles with such high fuel ratings showed up; the point is thus: discounting the hidden wisdom of forebears is generally idiocy.
He says “it does 0 to 60 in umm 3 seconds”. Notice the pause before he says “3 seconds”, like he is trying to dream up a number that sounds plausible, not just rattling off a number that he is very familiar with…
Stephen,
0 to 60 in under 4 seconds in a 2900lb Mustang is completely plausible when you have 400 horsepower and slicks.
His website says 80mpg on E85. So the equivalent would end up being 110 correct? I’m not saying the guy isn’t lying, but what you wrote here is comical “means that he might only be getting 80 mpg while deceptively claiming 110 mpg”.
Oh my god he only gets 80! that bastard! I don’t think there is anything deceptive about saying I get 80MPG or 110MPGe.
You haven’t debunked anything…
I was a little disappointed by this post. I thought there was some real, concrete evidence against his claims–which are pretty far-fetched.
There could be an explanation for each red flag: It’s possible he’s running a partial electric setup which would explain MPGe, high torque/low 0-60s especially if the car is gutted and low weight. If it’s real he would be stupid to give the idea to Ford…he’s probably too busy to update his site 24×7, etc. etc.
I want some hard evidence one way or the other! “Red flags” don’t cut it…haha
If you were only going to run e85 you could bump the compression ratio up to around 13:1 and get far better gas mileage from e85 than flex fuel motors get. They can not get good gas mileage on alcohol because they do not run enough compression to unleash it.
You might want to check the rules for the Automotive XPrize before bashing the guy. The rules clearly state that the entry eligibility and winner are determined by using MPGe not MPG.
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/files/downloads/auto/AXP_Draft_Competition_Guidelines_20070402.pdf
“Pump to wheels energy efficiency in terms of petroleum based gasoline MPG, Conversions will be based upon energy equivalency”.
Good research there, ecomodder. Did you happen to even look at the videos on his site? There is a video where he clearly states this is MPGe, which is equivalent MPG. You say he is being deceptive and then go on yourself to say that he clearly shows MPGe on his website.
Anyway, I don’t believe his claims are very accurate myself, but he has managed to gain a nice gov’t investor. This is also mentioned in the video you missed. The intriguing thing is, he mentioned his grandfather came up with the idea in the 40’s then mentions that this innovation is due in large part to electronics.
The video is here:
http://video.stangtv.com/video/6328
Totally agree that high gas prices is a good thing in terms of innovation. Just like high cigarette prices help people save their health 🙂
Here in france we are currently at $9/gallon gas & $7.5/pack marlboro ..urg 😛
Front engine, rear wheel drive. There simply isn’t enough traction for that car to hit 60 in 3 seconds flat. It would have to be all-wheel drive or weight 1200lbs to meet that claim. Not even a rear-engine, all-wheel drive, 480hp Porsche 911 Turbo can hit 60 in 3 seconds.
Ethanol is the way. In World War 2 when we were cut off from oil supplies we pumped up ethanol output within 6 months. We just need a leader with some vision.
Btw Ethanol can produce the same or more mileage if the engine is optimized for it. Gas engines are not built for ethanol use.
The closet thing I’ve seen is a diesel powered impala with 800 hp that gets 20 mpg. http://car-reviews.automobile.com/news/galpin-auto-sports-creates-800-hp-1960s-bio-diesel-impala-ss/2842/
This would be a perfect topic for Penn and Teller’s Bullshit television series.
Ok, I understand that you pointing out the flaws in this guys claims. But pleas don’t start of with qoute
“Nevermind the fact that automakers spend billions of dollars working on having the best of the best in terms of both power and efficiency, and that to date the Honda Insight holds the mileage crown at with a combined EPA rating of 53 MPG. Doug Pelmear claims to more than double that using something his grandfather thought up 60 years ago? Engine technology from that period is nothing like the fuel injected, computer controlled tech of today, but this device still works wonders?”
What about the guy in the link below who converted the Hummer H2 to obtain 25mpg. The GM Engineers came to visit because they didn’t think it was possible.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/24/it.greentech
So, he’s not getting 100mpg but he can do something the car makers couldn’t or didn’t want to. The truth may be the big car manufacturers can take those big risks.
Anyway, if he’s entered the X-Prize we’ll know for sure if he’s full of BS or not. Let the results speak for themselves…
Unfortunately working for the auto industry does not mean he could pitch an idea and make money off it. Most good ideas hardly get past accounting or PR when they come from engineers let alone regular line workers. US auto is hardly fertile grounds for innovative thinking support.
I’m not saying that I believe him, but I think there are alternatives that people don’t consider. Where are the diesel hybrids at? This guy maybe simple and smart, perhaps he has converted the engine to a six stroke E85/Steam engine. There is a huge weight savings in removing all of the cooling stuff and a significant increase in fuel economy. If you assume that he is converting MPG to MPGe using the ethanol equivalent that’s still 70 mpg, plus some water.
As far as throwing this idea to Ford, I know for a fact that ideas like this within the company do not profit the individual greatly. Doing it from the outside is several magnitudes more profitable.
I think all of his numbers are based on possibilities with some careful math on the side but I do think that his success is useful and worth while to the automotive industry and the future of America’s economic potential.
Caution is fine, but don’t be like IBM when they told Bill Gates that, Money isn’t in software it’s in hardware.
Hmm. This guy seems to be putting in some real work on this project, but the claims are aweful far fetched.
The story does talk about the engine as though it may be something OTHER than the traditional “cylinders turn a shaft” internal combustion engine.
For the claims he is making, it would have to be a different technology than simply modifying a standard engine.
If he really is onto something, good luck to him. If not, it’s sad to be leading the public on.
Isnt the 1987 LX model a 4 cylinder turbo?
I have to agree on taking a position of moderation on this one. He’s making a lot of claims that sound otherwise impossible. 400 horsepower with _500_ pounds of torque on “pump gas,” all while remaining economical, low maintenance, and safe?
To harken to another example would be a man claiming that turbine technology was making a diesel H2 get some incredible number for efficiency. The problems with that would be that when comparing a turbine to the typical internal combustion used today, the turbine is much more delicate, expensive, and very high maintenance. It also doesn’t have the convienence that today’s engines do, as it needs time to warm up rather than “turn the key and go.”
While I won’t attack his claims as being absolutely impossible or a hoax, I will definitely still hold by the facts that he never addressed the exact same things that the Turbine H2 dodged. How much will this affect production costs, how safe is it, how affordable is it to own, and so forth. His claims might be workable, but nowhere did I see anything that claimed that they were practical, and it’s foolish to claim he’s a liar until those issues have been addressed. Perhaps his technology is viable if the cost of the vehicle is meassured in millions and not thousands.
And as a side note on acceleration, please do recall that torque plays a significant role as well. Torque makes you move, horsepower keeps you moving. Those numbers are also fairly worthless without knowing how many RPM the engine was running at when they were recorded. While we could assume they were recorded at the typical 4000-5000 range of an 8 cylinder engine, if we do so then we’re already assuming that whatever he’s doing follows the same technological constraints of an internal combustion engine which has not been proven.
So scientifically, he’s holding back facts that are necessary to back up his claims of a miracle solution. This implies he’s either taking great steps in trying to protect his intellectual property, or he’s not being entirely honest.
It is also worth noting that one article on his website makes a claim of 80 miles per gallon without the energy equivalent “disclaimer.”
Stephen – you can definitely do 0-60 in under four seconds with 400hp, you just need a lightweight chassis (Fox body – check), good low-end power (5.0 – check), good suspension and tires that can hook up in a straight line (Fox body, again – check), and then throw in a 4.11 or shorter rear gear.
Of course, it will also cruise at higher RPMs and get terrible fuel mileage, but there you go 🙂
There is a new article. Doesn’t clear up the BS-meter.
My STi will do 0-60 in 4 seconds if I can consistently run 93 octane (not avail in california). It’s “300”hp (more like 270) but its awd. I can’t imagine a 2 wheel drive car doing a faster time with out some very large rear tires. I get about 15 mpg average… when I’m going balls out like that… maybe 3mpg?
I also don’t get why if it has 400hp, he’s boasting that it will do ‘over 100mph’? My jeep will do that and its a piece of crap. A 400hp mustang should be able to do 175 easy.
Yes, too many things to pick at for this to be true-at least FTM- even though i love the thought of high mpg.
i will say though that if the EPA/manufacturers were really concerned about mpg you would actually be seeing it… the fact that mpg has gone down since jimmy carter was in office, EPA never really imposing their minimum mpg regulations, GM buying and canceling-1 month later-the hummer hybrid, the killing of the EV+the bait and switch from EV to hydrogen–which BTW achieves no greater MPT(Tank), and one more thing they choose not to do is put water injection on cars… -or lower the number of cylinders and add turbos instead.
Can he do it? dunno, BUT I had an 82 or 83 Chrysler fith ave 318 V8 rear wheel drive. it had a high altitude computer in it. it ran lean but would get 32 MPG on the highway. Ran fine but was no racer. “Smokey” Yunick did it in the 1980 with a number of engines using his fuel delivery system. the only problem at the time was the heat was to much for the oil. With the advent of synthetics this is now doable. http://schou.dk/hvce/
Firstly, as always, I would like to thank you all for your comments. This article is just my opinion, but I will do my best to defend it, 🙂
wat – Oh, come on now. I’m sure he’s holding out for billions! That’s about as much as major manufacturers are losing now, so why is he running around talking to local news and working on the XPrize instead of pitching it to them? But then there’s no point in arguing about his “business strategy,” but I think it suggests that he doesn’t have anything more than smoke and mirrors.
KDP – 80 mpg woohoo, there are plenty of people getting much more than that in the 53 mpg rated Honda Insight. The fact stands that under the EPA cycle, 53 is king. Anyone could get 80 mpg or 110 mpg coasting down a hill, but if he’s not even going to discuss testing procedures, why should we care what he claims?
Fine, keep the tech a secret I say, but if you’re not going to show us some sort of authoritative videos of track runs and independent fuel economy testing with some sort of credit, then there isn’t anything to what he’s saying besides his word. If his goal is to make a ton of money, why should we believe him at his word?
I have seen Who Killed the Electric Car, and while it is a good movie, one of the things I come away from it with is that even though GM failed and gave up, they spent over a billion dollars trying to get a better solution, and this was at the behest of the government forcing EV regulation down their throats. Neither of these suggests some huge oil conspiracy suppressing electric cars or any other fuel economy tech.
Matt – I understand the concept behind MPGe, but personally (and I say personally, because I can’t speak for you), when I watched his videos and read his site it took me awhile to figure out how he was calculating his numbers. Given that he always presents the 110 mpg up front and seems to let the reporters ignorantly take it at face value, I wouldn’t necessarily call him up front about it. I think consumers (the target of the XPrize, after all), would be pissed to learn that their 110 mpge car only got 80 mpg. That’s why FFVs don’t come with MPGe ratings, I think.
Repository: Oil company conspiracy theories do not account for things like current hybrids or the new chevy volt. Sure, you could say they have to maintain the “illusion of progress” to “keep the masses in ignorance,” but then there’s really no basis for this view except for the distrust of everybody you don’t like because you feel sad that you have to pay them money. Given that every manufacturer is bringing out electric and hydrogen vehicles, as well as phasing in hybrids on a large scale, leads me to believe they are not under the thumb of the oil companies.
Secondly, I’ve seen plenty of cars get good mileage on an old 20 hp diesel engine, but not any on a 400 hp engine. I don’t discount the possibility for fuel efficiency, I just do not believe it is possible for him to raise the efficiency of an engine enough to create the numbers he claims.
autohow – if you think about the efficiency of a engine, and even the efficiency of an electric motor, you’ll see that such huge increases in both fuel economy and power aren’t possible. Is that enough for you? The way hoaxes tend to work is that the creators never give out enough information for a real debunking, and just rely on the hopeful to support them…
hereandthere – This article has nothing to do with the xprize rules. I understand how they work, but I didn’t like how I felt he was manipulating the numbers. Mehbe you don’t see it that way, but when I saw people on TV talking about 110 mpg and not explaining anything, I realized that obviously someone had forgot to spill the beans on “mpge”
paupier – 25 mpg out of a hummer might seem nice, but so what? GM wasn’t trying to make the hummer a fuel efficient car. If he took an insight, though, and made it much more fuel efficient, I would be impressed. It’s not hard to improve on crap.
Anyway, I’m not going to respond to any more “but you don’t know how the oil companies control the world, idiot” comments. Feel free to believe him if you want. When he makes a mustang that gets 80 mpg on e85 or 110 on regular gas, I’ll send all of you five dollars in the mail.
“The first thing to say is that conspiracy theories will not be considered here.”
Uh, you realize this ENTIRE article you wrote is trying to prove this guy conspired to fool people into believing his car was more efficient, right?
You can tell by the way he answered the “off the line” question at 1:00, pausing, then saying “3 seconds” that he pulled the number right out of his butt.
While I do think 100mpg is possible, I don’t think he’s doing it.
Throw this in the same group as the perpetual motion machines.
Maybe its a hoax. However, I have come across some interesting new engines that leave current technology in the dust. This guy made a biodeisel hummer that gets 60mpg while doubling horsepower.
http://gas2.org/2007/12/14/car-hackers-hummer-gets-60-mpg/
And Tata Motors (huge Indian company that recently bought Jaguar Land Rover) has made and plans to soon sell cars that use compressed air to get 100+ mpge.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/21/air-car-coming-to-america-by-2009-2010-will-cost-17-800/
1) Looks like only one person caught the significance of the top speed being a mere 100mph.
2) With enough computer control you could control whether a car got good gas mileage or high horsepower. Could be changed dynamically. I doubt he’s suggested 110mpge while thrashing the car.
3) 400 hp and slicks could certainly get you 3’s or 4’s. Ok, he screwed up and was guessing. limited funds means he hasn’t taken it to the track and blown the engine.
4) I don’t think it was the 4 cylinder turbo though that would be the best to use with a high octane fuel such as e85. 110 octane anyone? Unfortunately the placard in the video shows a v8, and the sound was from a v8.
5) I certainly wouldn’t use those tires if I was trying to win a mpg race.
Conclusion. I’d have to remain skeptical. Sure would be nice though.
No one has de-bunked him because he hasnt let anyone look at what he has done.
I need to see some hard facts and not just some guy flapping his jaw.
Until then I remain pessimistic.
Surprising enough. All of you pseudo-scientists know absolutely nothing about the characteristics of an electric motor or an APU for that matter. Get a grip a**ho*es!
Why not win the X-Prize, THEN sell your patented technology to the auto industry, especially as the competition would substantiate his claims. As for the incredible-sounding 0-60 times; saying “it will go over 100 mph with 400 HP tells me that he’s using some very short gearing, which could make those kind of numbers possible, though it would be counter-productive to high MPG. Yes, it does all sound too good to be true, but hey, ya never know… It wouldn’t be the first time technological breakthroughs came from unlikely places.
Ive been doing some reading on this before I saw an article on this guy on CNN.
This technology goes way back to Henry Ford. I am pretty sure he is using a version of fuel cracking where the fuel is vaporized prior to entering the engine. I was kind of curios as to why he was using E85 since it is known to get worse mileage. An article not related to this gentleman stated that this process worked more effeciently with Ethanol so then I understood. There have been many people that have had some success with this but by various means they have been shut down. Im not one of those conspiracy theorist but it does make since in some ways. You can look up high mileage carburators and find alot of articles on this process. If I remember right, it works best with carburators.. Go figure.. I guess it is just getting the engineering right. I am sure it wants to get a few dollars for this if he has it right. I guess I cant blame him too much there. Would be cool though if someone has made it work for them to just put it out there for everyone to use or build a setup for themselves. I think it would be a major turning point for all business in the world. I can imagine that if your car, or a generator, or any gas fired device were able to use something like this that it might put a screeching halt to alot of the alternative energy source development, on the other hand it may prove that there are ways to make alot of sources more effecient.
Im not sure if it is real but I sure hope it is.. I would put another high performance 460 in my custom ford truck and probably drive it everyday. hehe.. I guess time will tell if it works.
have a great day all.
Kelly
I’m still somewhat skeptical about his claims, but I do see how huge advances could be made.
For one, if there is no emissions testing he could have removed some parts.
another big example (that ties into the 1940s) would be the use of a stirling engine, or similar device, to recapture heat energy and drive things like the alternator and water pump. That would remove a lot of load from the engine itself.
I love how so many commenting folks are such experts in engine mechanics… Has reading comprehension gone right out of the door? The method the particular gentleman used to increase his cars mpg rating, has been used before… The car was a 1984 caprice classic, and with its 305 Chevy small block it achieved 85mpg… The idea was sold to chevy in 1992 for $3.5 million dollars… And what do you know, it was NEVER heard about again… Attempts to make offers to Ford motor company were met with court papers from Chevy… How do I know all of this? Because the guys name was Daniel D#$@$%, my uncle… If this guy with the 110mpg isnt carefull, he might just end up having a “heart attack” or commiting suicide…lol
I think i iknow what technology he is using, it runs on Bull Sh!+
I wrote to Doug and asked him specifically about the MPGe question and how the motor will be marketed. Here is the answer I got from a “Business Developement VP”:
Hello Dave: Thank you for your interest in the HP2G. I’ll see if I can help you. First, the reason that we use the term MPGe is because the HP2G runs on E-85 fuel (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) because it runs cleaner. Because we run E-85 fuel and not standard gasoline, we have to classify our fuel economy as MPG equivalent. We get 80 MPG on E-85 fuel which equates to 110MPG of regualr gasoline. Second, It is our intention that the engine gets to market as a complete engine with its designe and performance specifications intact. The engine will fit any 8 cylinder capable vehicle. If you have an 8 cylinder vehicle our engine will fit into it. I hope this helps. Makr Schintkey, VP Business Development
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 5 trackbacks }