110mpg mustang

[justpassntime]

Red,

I want my money back, I just found out for free!

You know I believed the video up to the part where they said it was a Mustang. Had it been a Camaro it would have been totally believable.

[slurp812]

Originally Posted by Duffman

These are always simple to debunk guys. An gasoline engine is roughly 25-30% thermodynamically efficient. Lets say that his mustang is a 25mpg car to start with. Even if he got his engine up to 100% thermal efficiency (that’s with an exhaust temperature at 0 degrees Kelvin), his car could only get 100 MPG. Basically he is claiming to extract more energy out of the fuel than is in the fuel! That’s the problem with these guys who make ludicrous claims, not only do they make claims we know not to be true but they make claims that are in total violation of the laws of physics. Unfortunately someone had to give it coverage.

-=*NOTHING*=- will ever be 100% efficient. sorry, just not going to happen. You could hope for 90, but people have been messing with that idea for years now, and still nothing.

[Re5pect]

These "news" got to mass media in our country only last month I made some calculations regarding this are these correct?


Ford Mustang GT:
E85=23MJ/l=6,4kWh
Cd=0,38 (air drag)
A=1,939 m2
Cr=0,01 (tire drag)
Mass=1300kg
rho= 1.22 kg/m^3
v=100 km/h=27.7 m/s
g=9.81 m/s2

Calculation:
Fd=-Cd*A*0.5*rho*V^2
Fr=Cr*mass*g

Fd=345 N
Fr=127 N
Fsum=472N=47,2 MJ/100km

Only with 100% Q it gets 2L/100km. As about 60% of all energy are used to overcome air drag then including other losses in transsmision and electrical loads the minimum possible MPG is 3.33 L/100km. Remember that this is with 100% thermodynamically efficiency but he claims 2,14 L/100km (MPGe) or 4,6 L/100km (MPG) so the engine efficiency should be around ~70% which I think is thermodynamic limit for steel engines. Looks almost feasible but it should require radical engine modifications.

[SickMPGs]

I still have to do the translation on you numbers but all I can say is if you were at the helm of FORD or GM they would not be in the mess thay are in right now.

[dichotomous]

you guys are all talking radical huge engine changes. why not he just used a bunch of the currently available technologies at once put together wisely?

a VTC and VTEC system with computer control could switch cycles from otto to attkinson, displacement on demand could shut down most cylindars when not needed, hot air intake and a couple extremely fine spray injectors per cyl could help evaporate the fuel better for more complete burn, lighter weight pulleys and no power steering or ac and a dry sump oil system could reduce parasitic losses, an appropriately sized and controlled turbocharger could eliminate the loss from sucking air in, variable valve throttle style would reduce throttle plate losses...... now put all that together and refined specifically for fuel efficientcy and then he goes and drives like this website suggests..... I dont see it as bull at all, I see it as a wise combination of various currently available technologies and refined highly, and then with all that there available to control boost pressure and valve timing and height and intake temperature and how many pistons fire for the load needed, you could easily make way the heck more than 400hp, you could put down over a 1,000hp and then with the flick of a button the tune changes to eco and you've got 60mpg, then you drive really smart and shut the engine off when needed and you get considerably more....

[Frank Lee]

You should join the HP2G team.

Or is it the G.D. B.S. team...

[MadisonMPG]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You should join the HP2G team.

Or is it the G.D. B.S. team...

11-20-2008

[Allch Chcar]

No Wai! MadisonMPG .

Dichotomy made a list of cruddy things that don't improve fuel economy to be sure, Frank.

The only things proven to improve FE: VVT, VCT, Direct Injection, Atkinson Cycle, Medium sized Otto > Smaller Turbo Otto > Big Otto, Electric Accessories; Electric A/C, Electric steering, Electric vacuum pump for power brakes, Electric Water pump(VWP), Electric Oil Pump(VOP) > Belt driven, CVT vs Automatic, Manual transmission beats all, variable displacement in big engined vehicles like V8s some V6s.

Honestly I see a bigger difference if you undersize the engine a little bit, add a small pancake motor and delete all of the belt assemblies for electric/variable components. The exchange? initial cost, extra wiring, and dodgy reliability .

Less than 10% of car, trucks, or anything need 400hp. EVER! I bet you most don't even use 200hp, let alone 300hp, and some don't need 100!

I have 98hp BTW.

* If this conversation could get it's own thread...that'd be great...Yeeah...thanks.*