Maker of twin-turbo kit for Corvette claiming massive (167%) city MPG increase.
 

Via GreenHybrid ...

http://www.greenhybrid.com/assets_c/...mb-300x199.jpg

I don't quite know what to make of this. The claims are so outrageous I was compelled to contact the company for more information.

First, the story:

The car's EPA rating is 16 mpg city / 20 highway.

(FYI, 40 mpg is 167% higher than 16 mpg - that's the figure I'm referring to in the thread title.)

The kit consists of twin turbos plumbed into the exhaust under the rear of the car in place of the OEM mufflers, with plumbing to get the PSI back forward to intercoolers up front and then into the engine.

The company says the turbos are CARB registered and 50 state legal.

http://www.greenhybrid.com/assets_c/...mb-300x199.jpg

To try to build some eco credibility, they've given the kit a silly name, in my opinion: "Green Interactive Hybrid System"

I wrote to the email address on their site (http://www.neohydrotechnology.com) and asked what exactly made it a hybrid in terms of the general understanding of what a hybrid is in automotive terms:

The response:
Okey dokey! Techically true. Also confuses the issue. Perhaps that's one of their goals, so I'll chalk it up to simple overzealous marketingspeak. (I didn't ask what exactly makes it "interactive".)

I also asked about the fuel economy figures: 1) if they were US gallons (because the company is in Canada), and (2) how they were determined:

So, unfortunately here we have another example of an organization with dyno time (!!) which does not deem using said dyno appropriate for producing valid fuel economy comparisons. Shades of the Truck Trend K&N filter/intake debacle?

I was also told:

:rolleyes:

Doug Palmear must be involved somehow...

Sounds too good to be true.
Did they tell you the price? There are similar rear-mounted turbo systems available, but they don't claims the mpg figures...

Rear turbos aren't new.

They turbo it, chip it, and do the standard performance remapping.

That's it.

There is no hybrid even though they named it "Green Interactive Hybrid System". No batteries, no motors, no hydraulics, no compressed air, no flywheel... nothing hybrid.

My understanding of "CARB #s" is that having one doesn't automatically make it street legal. It just means the CARB has identified it.

They will be the first tuners in the world to double fe by merely throwing a turbo on. :rolleyes:

Well why not. It seems there are no bad repercussions from lying your *** off these days.

I was editing the post as you guys were reading it. They explained the "hybrid" moniker because... a turbo + a conventional engine = technological "hybridization".

Technically true, but...

They're actually saying on their site:

I saw that.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermk...es/amquery.php


http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermk...rmktdevice.php

There are, oh, a zillion turbo kits listed so that in and of itself isn't special or unique.

Oh, I remember what it was about CARB numbers: having one is NOT an endorsement for power or fe increases. It merely doesn't break any laws.

CARB ID doesn't mean it's legal, CARB EO does. (Exemption Order)

I'm not doubting that there was SOME FE increase, but I think 40MPG city is just a ridiculous thought.

Then again, check out that site name: NeoHYDROblahblah.com

I bet they're running some HHO in those turbos.

According to STS, makers of one of the rear-mount turbo kits, they don't even need intercoolers, and having them gives no performance increase, rather just increasing boost restriction and pressure drop. They did a piece on PowerBlock a few years ago on the STS kits. They were actually quite impressive.

Same thing with "EPA registration". You have to register with them as well if you're going to market an aftermarket fuel economy product in the US. As with CARB, registration does not = endorsement, but some dubious companies market their registration in the hopes people do not know that. (Which is probably the case.)

Yes, I do find the rear-turbo concept appealing and wouldn't mind having one.

I wouldn't expect any fe increase at all though.

If, as CARB says, boost is limited to 6 psi, then according to this boost/HP estimator:

Wallace Racing - Estimate HP From Adding Boost Calculator

their claimed increases:

GenesVettes.com - The Radical Solution

are rather generous.

Well, that would match the generous fe claims too.

This is like that 8 second Mustain (intentional misspelling) that got 200mpg or w/e.

OMG @ the Silverado's gas mileage... it made me lol

I had the same reaction. Red Flag Alert.

I just choke on a pork chop!!! Frank you almost killed me. LMAO:thumbup:

Heh heh... I wonder what our Boy Wonder Doug is up to these days? Prison? On the lam?

I got it:
That bi-turboed Vette gets much better milage when being towed by a Silverado!!

I wanna play too!

Your new HP computed from your old HP of 65 at Blower Boost of 6 psi is 91.54 HP.

Yep, I bet I could get those kind of numbers, even with a blower. So the 'Vette was driven with a full grille block, overinflated Insight tires, 35mph P&G, all the windows closed and electrical loads off, etc. On the highway, it was 45mph. Isn't that how everyone drives their Corvette?

So to sum up:

• take one part "grain of truth" (turbocharging's ability to increase thermodynamic efficiency),

• add a large portion of unsubstantiated, unscientifically obtained fuel economy claims,

• stir in dubious (overblown? pardon the pun) horsepower claims,

• sprinkle with cringe-worthy marketing speak ("interactive hybrid!")

Et voila! A recipe for diminished credibility and massive skepticism on the part of the EcoModder membership.

What is amazing is this guy can get away with saying this crap. I've owned Turbo Charged cars since 1981 and know what you can and can't do with them to improve gas mileage.

Slapping on a Turbo with out making changes to the fuel system is a recipe for disaster. Boost means an increase in cylinder and piston temperatures.
You have two choices to cool the cylinder add more fuel or add a water/alcohol injection to cool it. Either way you are not going to get better fuel mileage. Adding fuel mean less gas mileage and adding a water/alcohol mixture means less power.

Sure adding a turbo will increase fuel mileage if you drop the cubic inches of the engine. I can't tell you the people I have told not to just slap a low pressure turbo (4-6 psi) on a stock engine. I'd say 75% had major repair bills with a year or two or the car just never ran well from that point on. One the repair bills usually involved a new head gasket or a hole through a piston due to running a lean mixture. They never increased the fuel mixture under boost to compensate for the increased heat and pressure involved with adding the turbo charger. I've never ever seen someone get better gas mileage by adding a turbocharger to any car.

I could get 40 mpg in a Corvette with a turbo charged engine. I would pull the
5.7 liter and drop in a Buick 3.8L V6 Grand National engine. :D

So basically theyre saying I currently drive a 1988 Ford Thunderbird Hybrid?

Oh maybe the turbo has to be rear mounted to be a 'hybrid'.

Well in that case check out this sweet Festiva Hybrid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdY2_lmeTX0

167%
 

I suspect reverse-engineered Alien technology from Area-51.

I hate to discredit anyone when it comes to making something better. I really hope that this company's claims are real.

IMHO I believe that any engine can improve on performance and FE when you run a turbo charger with a manditory programmable engine management system. I have seen this with the cars I have tuned and others that have been tuned by someone else first hand.

Now in this case as far as their HP claims I have no problem believing in their HP numbers. Major HP gains with turbos are being done all the time. With the turbos their running and the Corvette engine this should be pretty easy. The changes I would make...throw away the FMU and install larger injectors. FMU's are a cheap way to flow more fuel and are very hard on the injectors themselves.

Now as for the mpg claims I can see that its possible but my question is why aren't they getting a better freeway number when they are getting a extremely good city number? This part really confuses me???
The city part of the fuel and ignition maps are by far the hardest to tune for performance and FE. The freeway part is the easiest to tune. So one would think their freeway mileage would be a lot better then what they advertise?

For one thing it looks like they aren't making anything; they are merely installers and marketers.

For another, who gets that level of HP and fe increase with up to 6 psi boost- the level they registered with CARB? Boost from the back of the car isn't magic; it's still just boost.

You shouldn't be confused by their numbers once you realize they are all made up.

This looks like a cheap knock off of an STS turbo setup which is patented. While the STS turbo system is innovative in terms of packaging, it doesn't make any outlandish fuel economy claims. Its purely a performance product.
http://www.ststurbo.com/

This is so monumentally bogus that it doesn't merit discussion.

They're driving in the city at under 2400 RPM. The highway (and performance) tuning takes place at a higher RPM range, so no point in tuning below that.

They're able to claim increased efficiency (as with any turbo setup) because the mix runs slightly lean below the tuned point.


These are assumptions, of course. I have no idea how/if they tested.
One commonly forgotten thing about turbos is that they're ALWAYS working, as long as your foot is on the throttle. Just because you're not showing positive boost doesn't mean the turbocharger isn't doing anything - its' still pumping air, just not enough volume to create pressure in the intake. The engine still doesn't have to work as hard to suck in air, though, since there is more of an atmosphere readily available at the throttle plate. This means that more air is getting in than would normally be sucked in under the engine's vacuum, and thus, less pumping losses. Better low-speed FE comes from 2 things - less load on the engine, and leaner AFR, usually. The latter isn't always true, when EFI systems are self-monitoring, but most times, noone tunes standalones that low, so they end up with a stock basemap with tuning on top of it, and run slightly lean at low speed/throttle angles.

By the way, I got the honker. Good Gods, man. That thing is massive. :thumbup:

I'm glad to hear it got there. It is massive, my index finger can still its mass. LOL

On the city driving tuning the thing that is a pain in the arse when trying to conserve fuel is the accelerator pump part of the software. Stop and go traffic can kill your FE because of this.

But there are ways you can get around this if you don't mind having a lean stumble.;)

Any time I tuned a turbo car (not too many, but a few) I never even touch the basemap below about 2500 RPM. The turbo never spools any lower than that, regardless of load, so I always just left that part out. Besides, if you're racing (which was the whole point of the turbo setups I was tuning), you seldom see engine speeds under 2500 anyway, if at all.

650 is not much power, the 09 Z06/7 makes 638.

I worked on a Z06 last year and with nothing but a different tune from GM it made 490.

I wonder if their system is a Turbo-Normalized setup not a pure turbo?

I know planes that have a turbo normalization kit get better mileage than full turbo planes.

Dave

The '08 MY was rated 436/428... 650 is a huge jump for a street car.

Ground vehicles get normalized? :confused:

In theory it could work, just to offset altitude and keep the engine tuned.
Run a turbo with a electoinic boost control modulated by the AFR?

My 4 cyl jeep would be a candidate, it falls over about 9000 feet.

Just thinking around...

Dave

Their HP numbers are very believable. Its happening all the time!!!

I have a good friend that has a trans am on the "the turbo forums" and its in "Car Craft" that made 775whp at 22psi with junk turbos on a junk yard engine with very crappy smog heads etc.
http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/in...?topic=61219.0

The most recent turbo engine I have been working on is a low dollar 351 CI windsor, single BW S476 that made 622whp at 6psi(we stopped there because we ran out of fuel pump). This engine is way less then these guys are running.
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r...702090828a.jpg

Both these cars are now getting better FE then when they were N/A. The benefits of running a turbo are more then just helping with engine pumping losses. I'm not going to get into this now because its basically a book.:eek: A well thought out turbo system will improve your performance and FE.

A lot of people on this forum seem to think its a snake oil modification? Its not!!! I personally have over ten cars that I tuned that have gains in performance and FE from a turbo system. In last ten years turbo charger technology has come a long ways. Whats really sad is it not from the OEM automobile manufactures its from the grass roots racer. Now GM and Ford and a few others are waking up and putting turbo cars back in their line up:rolleyes:

Whats really sad to me is why aren't the manufactures building an affordable
1.0L turbo diesel and running it in a aero subcompact???
Can you say 150+mpg.;)

Yup!

Well, by their definition, any vehicle that combines 2 or more different "technologies" is a hybrid. So everyone gets a prize!

The difference being: you're not trying to sell us something, so nobody's on your case asking you to "prove it!" by showing some acceptable, reliable & valid data.

The problem with the company in question is that their MPG data, which they're relying on for marketing purposes, is JUNK.

If they want to market MPG, they need to scientifically demonstrate the difference between pre- and post- turbo fuel economy. "Driving around" testing is all they've done to date, according to the company itself, and it doesn't qualify as good data.

So, my engine is a diesel (technology #1), has commonrail (#2) and a turbo (#3). It also has an intercooler (#4) and catalyst (#5). Not counting A/C, power steering and a bunch of other stuff, that's at least 5 technologies under one hood. How many more do I need to call my car a hyperhybrid?

We all know turbos can produce huge power.

I was under the impression that since the CARB discription for the system is 6psi max, that it is a 6psi max system.

I don't think those power numbers are representative of a 6 psi boost.

And I REALLY don't think those fe numbers are representative of... anything.

I have noticed that many vehicles that have an aftermarket turbocharger installed end up getting much better mpg off boost.

The new-found torque from the back-pressure of the turbo translates to better throttle response off-boost. If the driver of the vehicle were to be driving a vehicle with cylinder de-activation (most modern V8 engines) essentially they would be driving a 4 cylinder around town and with the proper driving technique it's really not hard to see a significant increase in mpg.

As for claiming 40mpg city, if the remapped ECU or standalone engine management is tuned to run very conservative and lean off-boost you would certainly see an increase, but probably not 40 mpg for the average driver.

By average, I do mean.. typical enthusiast that can't stay off the gas pedal and resist the temptation to hear that v8 exhaust note even in stop and go traffic just for show.

With one of us eco-minded individuals driving the vehicle, we could probably get 40mpg out of it exercising our driving techniques.

Then again, a base model corvette could probably obtain significantly higher gas mileage with one of us behind the wheel anyway, with out spending $10,000 on a twin turbo kit.

I hear what your saying.;)

I live fairly close to them and I'm trying to find someone that has had them mod their Corvette. I will let everyone know if I find anything.