Landracing Forum

Misc Forums => NON LSR Posting => Topic started by: Dean Los Angeles on July 08, 2008, 01:40:17 AM

Title: 100 mpg?
Post by: Dean Los Angeles on July 08, 2008, 01:40:17 AM
Ok, 100 mpg. We all want it.
The government has a "250" mpg (or 100, 200, or 500) carburetor salted away somewhere.

So you guys are extra smart, let's do some math.
To be useful, lets say 60 mph @ 3,000 rpm.
Since that is a mile a minute, 100 miles = 100 minutes.
100 minutes times 3,000 rpm = 300,000 revolutions.

one gallon = 128 ounces divided by 300,000 revolutions = .000427 ounces per revolution.
No matter how many cylinders we have, we can't use more than 4 ten thousandths of an ounce per revolution.

one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline = 114,100 btu
114,100 btu divided by 300,000 revolutions = .38 btu per revolution.
That ain't much heat.

1 horsepower = 2,544 btu/h
114,100 btu times 0.6 gallons/hour = 68,460 btu = 21.91 horsepower.

It better be a REALLY dinky car.

If I made some basic math error let me know. Don't quibble over SAE VS brake hp. The point is, no matter how you cut it, you are never going to see 100 mpg in a car you would buy. And be happy with it. Or carry a stick of lumber. Or 4 people.

The Honda Ruckus might be your best bet. 5 hp, 43 mph, 107 mpg
(http://powersports.honda.com/assets/images/model/model_hero_shot/Scooters/2009/small/Ruckus.jpg)

Or you can stick with that 30 gallon gas tank times $7 bucks a gallon = $210

Side note: So the gas prices are putting a severe crimp in your budget? Do you run out and get a Toyota Prius? No!

According to Edmunds.com the answer is a Chevy Aveo! The Aveo doesn't get the mileage, but the $10,200 price advantage ($23,770 VS $13,595) makes up for it. Yes, the Aveo is a pile of crap, but the only criteria was best bang for the buck. ($10,200 divided by $4.50 a gallon = 2,267 gallons of gas.)

Interesting Edmunds note #2:
So that SUV is killing you with $100 fill ups? Trade it in on a Toyota Prius? No!

For a lot of owners, you either can't find a dealer that will take it as a trade in, or they will give you less than you owe. You end up paying on the old car AND the new car. The answer is, if saving money is the object, to keep the SUV!
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: MCR on July 08, 2008, 05:49:37 AM
I owned 2 cars that have no counterpart today:

~1980 Toyota Starlet - 4 pass, Manual trans, RWD econobox, 50mpg actual.

~1990 Chevy Sprint - 4 pass, Manual trans, FWD econobox, 45mpg actual.

Both of these were low-cost, low-tech (carburator, no computer), and suitable acceleration and hill climbing ability.  These were freeway safe commuters.  Today we have the Smart Car with 41mpg, seats 2, and is not freeway safe.

If a modern car company took one of those old econoboxes, put in current digital engine controls, it would perhaps improve mileage another 20% at the same HP level.  Common Rail diesel technology would go 20% more than that.

While the V8 engines went from 15 mpg hwy to 26 mpg, and jumping from 200HP to 505HP (Corvette), economy cars didn't show similiar gains in mileage, and in fact, lost mileage in general.

The best economy I ever got out of a freeway commuting motorcycle was 70mpg on a XT500 Yamaha thumper.  Maintenance costs outweighed the fuel savings though.  And it sucked at carrying groceries in the rain.

While I don't think 100 mpg is possible, I don't understand why must lose ground either.



Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 10:14:50 AM
For cost stamped steel construction is hard to beat. However, if the car companies ever got serious about sandwich composite cars I believe we could see 1,800 lb to 2,000 lb four passenger road cars at least as safe as today's much heavier stamped steel cars. The ripple effects would be better handling and smaller engines.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/gmcar.html

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: sanger351 on July 08, 2008, 10:42:35 AM
When in Italy we drove around in my brother in laws Opel Astra diesel.  With 5 adults, luggage and me driving it like I stole it (any one who's driven in Rome knows) We averaged 40 mpg.  With one or two people and in the country we averaged almost 60 mpg.  Sure it topped out at about 90 mph, but I would buy one in a heart beat if that car was offered here in America.  I see GM plans to offer a version of it here, but it does not get the mileage of the euro car because of our EPA requirements.  BTW why do we have to go backwards like MRC said, compare the mileage of a new diesel truck to a late 90's diesel truck. 
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: bearingburner on July 08, 2008, 11:01:58 AM
My problem here in the Northeast is not $4/gal gas but $5/gal heating oil. I used approximately 1200 gal last winter and it was not particullly  cold just snowy.Sure puts a hole in tne lakster budget.
With the gas pricing I can just stay home.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: jimmy six on July 08, 2008, 11:20:17 AM
I too look to MPG. I drive a Honda Civic HX a very rare model no one bought, mine is a 2003. I think they were made from 1996 to 2005 or 6. 38 city 44 hyway. I have a 5 speed and the automatics were a constantly shift style which aparently no one liked. The 1.7 liter engine had the highest compression but was tuned for milage. I have no idea why Honda quit making them. They were the lightest available including aluminum wheels, no antenna, wind-up windows, no AC, etc.

Kelly retail is now $500 over what I paid for it. 40K miles and added factory air. I hope by the time we needa new car the little diesels will be here. Europe laughs at the Prius.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 08, 2008, 02:04:02 PM
I owned 2 cars that have no counterpart today:

~1980 Toyota Starlet - 4 pass, Manual trans, RWD econobox, 50mpg actual.

~1990 Chevy Sprint - 4 pass, Manual trans, FWD econobox, 45mpg actual.

Both of these were low-cost, low-tech (carburator, no computer), and suitable acceleration and hill climbing ability.  These were freeway safe commuters.  Today we have the Smart Car with 41mpg, seats 2, and is not freeway safe.

If a modern car company took one of those old econoboxes, put in current digital engine controls, it would perhaps improve mileage another 20% at the same HP level.  Common Rail diesel technology would go 20% more than that.

While the V8 engines went from 15 mpg hwy to 26 mpg, and jumping from 200HP to 505HP (Corvette), economy cars didn't show similiar gains in mileage, and in fact, lost mileage in general.

The best economy I ever got out of a freeway commuting motorcycle was 70mpg on a XT500 Yamaha thumper.  Maintenance costs outweighed the fuel savings though.  And it sucked at carrying groceries in the rain.

While I don't think 100 mpg is possible, I don't understand why must lose ground either.

I'd like to add my 78 Ford Fiesta to this list.  Not only did I get 42 MPG with it, it handled as well as my MGB, and I could carry all my band gear in it.  All from a 1600 with an overhead valve engine, 4 speed tranny and seating comfortable enough for my 6'5" frame.

Imagine what it would do with EFI! 

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: 38Chevy454 on July 08, 2008, 03:37:19 PM
The biggest problem with newer cars is weight.  All those 14 air bags, power (seats, door locks, windows, mirrors, sunvisors, etc) add weight.  The crash requirements add weight.  Emissions equipment adds weight.  Accelerating and maintaining that weight takes some fixed amount of energy.

One of the simplest and most effective mpg increase was the overdrive trans.  Fuel injection also helps part throttle mpg.  More aerodynamic shapes help mpg.

Engine technologies like common rail diesel and direct gas injection have more advantages.  Hybrids are only recapturing some of the energy already expended, thus extending the mpg.  There is no voodoo or black magic.  You can not defeat the laws of physics.

But unless we all drive in too small of vehicles without all the luxury and safety requirements I think 100 mpg will never be realized.  You can add my $.02 to the pot.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: sockjohn on July 08, 2008, 04:10:26 PM
I seriously considered building an entry for the automotive X-prize, but didn't like the way they did the rules.  Basically they were stuck on getting 100mpg, regardless of how slow the speed was, as opposed to getting the highest mpg at normal highway speeds.

100mpg was done over 30 years ago by some pretty normal vehicles, low drag, small engine, and at a whopping 45mph or so.  One of these I'm thinking about ran at Bonneville.

Anyway,  I would think some of the big fuel savings out there would be a simple fiberglass tail cone added to a trailer.  How much diesel would that save on your trip out?  Heck, it might do double duty as shade with some extra poles once on the salt.  It's not a new idea by any means, but why aren't we of all people doing it? 
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: fredvance on July 08, 2008, 04:22:50 PM
What is a tail cone Ive seen the nose cones?
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: sockjohn on July 08, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
What is a tail cone Ive seen the nose cones?

Pretty much only seen in research, but same idea as a nose cone, except covers the entire trailer rear end.  Imagine you would have to make one, as I don't know of any production ones.

On second thought, a vortex generator might make more sense for less effort, assuming your trailer fits in a wind tunnel  :-D
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Glen on July 08, 2008, 04:37:53 PM
Vortex generators for trailers have been around for years. I believe that Nishmotorsports.com has info on their use.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: John Burk on July 08, 2008, 05:09:11 PM
In the 1980s before Congress scrapped the planned CAFE standards GM , Ford and Mopar were planning to go with direct injected 2 cycle engines . They say they run cleaner and get better milage per hp plus being lighter and cheaper to make . If the fuel prices stay high maybe they will renew the rights to the design with the Australian patent holder .

John
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Tom Bryant on July 08, 2008, 05:12:55 PM
I would like to bring something up that I don’t hear too many people addressing. INFLATION…has anyone checked what part of our income was being spent for gasoline in the 50s, 60s, etc. (Today it take $4 to buy what $1 did in 1970 and fuel mileage was in the toilet) I don’t like pay $4/gal for gasoline, but the truth is that we have been spoiled by the “good life”. Our cars today require almost as much to operate the accessories as was required to propel the car 50 years ago. I drive a 2002 Firebird TansAm. I love the car, it gets 26 mpg on the highway, it has A/C, P/S, P/B power seats, rides like a wagon and handles like a dream. Do I want to give it up for basic transportation with none of the amenities? No yet!

I just finished reading a three-book set by Smokey Yunick. Among the very interesting things he had to say (unfortunately laced with blue language and numerous sexual exploits) he was heavily involved in alternative energy research in the mid-80s. With the exception of his “Hot-air Engine, which he never did get the corporate world to buy into, his basic conclusion was that there wasn’t an alternative fuel that was viable. He was looking at the BTU cost and the BTU delivered. 

Technology is advancing and we may see something in the near future that will satisfy our needs/wants. GM has a car in the works that sounds interesting. Check http://www.teslamotors.com/ for another interesting car…only 99,000 euros (155,000 US) but they promise a family affordable car in 2010.

Tom
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Ratliff on July 08, 2008, 05:27:13 PM
I would like to bring something up that I don’t hear too many people addressing. INFLATION…has anyone checked what part of our income was being spent for gasoline in the 50s, 60s, etc. (Today it take $4 to buy what $1 did in 1970 and fuel mileage was in the toilet) I don’t like pay $4/gal for gasoline, but the truth is that we have been spoiled by the “good life”. Our cars today require almost as much to operate the accessories as was required to propel the car 50 years ago. I drive a 2002 Firebird TansAm. I love the car, it gets 26 mpg on the highway, it has A/C, P/S, P/B power seats, rides like a wagon and handles like a dream. Do I want to give it up for basic transportation with none of the amenities? No yet!

I just finished reading a three-book set by Smokey Yunick. Among the very interesting things he had to say (unfortunately laced with blue language and numerous sexual exploits) he was heavily involved in alternative energy research in the mid-80s. With the exception of his “Hot-air Engine, which he never did get the corporate world to buy into, his basic conclusion was that there wasn’t an alternative fuel that was viable. He was looking at the BTU cost and the BTU delivered. 

Technology is advancing and we may see something in the near future that will satisfy our needs/wants. GM has a car in the works that sounds interesting. Check http://www.teslamotors.com/ for another interesting car…only 99,000 euros (155,000 US) but they promise a family affordable car in 2010.

Tom


The energy density of hydrocarbon fuels is what makes the airline industry feasible.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: manta22 on July 08, 2008, 05:34:43 PM
You've brought up a point that all the "TV Experts" seem to have missed, Tom.

In the fall of 1964 I ordered a new 1965 Pontiac GTO Coupe with every performance option in the catalog-- 389, 3- 2bbls, close- ratio 4-sp, Positraction, full metallic brakes ram air package, etc, etc. It cost $3501.20 back then and gas was around 32 cents a gallon for high octane-- 36 cents for Sonoco 260.

My guess is that a similar new car now would cost about 10 times more; guess what-- gas is now also about 10 times the 1964 cost.

Of course it only got about 12 mpg but it was fun, fun, fun.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Richard Thomason on July 08, 2008, 05:56:29 PM
I'll add my 1960 Corvair to the list. Gutless, needed a valve job every 30,000 miles, a real econobox that when you ran the gasoline heater in the winter got a whopping 13 mpg. Go figure.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: panic on July 08, 2008, 06:50:25 PM
What to do about the price of energy?
The thing they won't talk about:
change this:

(http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/saudi-arabia/images/saudi-arabia-flag.jpg)

to this:

(http://www.libertytechnologies.us/_borders/USA_flag.gif)


Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 08, 2008, 07:08:53 PM
The biggest problem with newer cars is weight.  All those 14 air bags, power (seats, door locks, windows, mirrors, sunvisors, etc) add weight.  The crash requirements add weight.  Emissions equipment adds weight.  Accelerating and maintaining that weight takes some fixed amount of energy.

38chevy454 is spot on with this comment.  If you'll permit me a soapbox, we've become accustomed to driving around in our nanny-inspired cocoon-cars so someone else in their nanny-inspired cocoon-car doesn’t kill us.

Personally, as a guy who routinely drives a vehicle with the crashworthiness of an oatmeal box, it can be scary being passed by a pickup that you can look up into the wheel wells of.

But little buzz-boxes can be a lot of fun to drive, are usually more efficient, and are easier on the pocket book.  And if the technology that has developed in the last 20+ years were to be applied to a smaller, lighter chassis with fewer bells and whistles, better fuel economy could easily be had.

As far as safety is concerned, cars don't kill people, people kill people.  Better drivers education, not airbags, 5-mph bumpers, or crumple zones, are what will be necessary if we want to have a 100-MPG car.  Until then, I don't think people will give up their cocoons.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 08, 2008, 07:18:48 PM
What to do about the price of energy?
The thing they won't talk about:
change this:
(http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/saudi-arabia/images/saudi-arabia-flag.jpg)
to this:
(http://www.libertytechnologies.us/_borders/USA_flag.gif)


Are you proposing invading Saudi Arabia?   How will that get us a 100-mpg car?
Let's stay on topic

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: MCR on July 08, 2008, 07:29:51 PM
I take it back.

I believe it can be done, and more importantly SHOULD be done.  At least as an example to spit in the eye of the naysayers.

Yes, nobody would buy one, our government would ban it, Ralph Nader would roast it, but much like the EV-1 (first modern electric car was a Chevy), it would prove that it can be done with off-the-shelf technology.

>80PSI small dia narrow tires full faired and enclosed.  Tubular chassis, tilt up glass body with polycarbonate fixed windows.  Chain front wheel drive.  Small turbo diesel or high compression fuel injected low-rpm gasoline engine.  Seating for 4 in a semi-reclined attitude.  Perhaps the two rear seats pointed backwards.  Helmets, harnesses, and perimeter bars for safety.

It might take as little as 12 HP to go 60mph with 4 people on level ground.  For hills or emergency acceleration?  Nitrous oxide assist.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 08, 2008, 08:14:43 PM
I take it back.

I believe it can be done, and more importantly SHOULD be done.  At least as an example to spit in the eye of the naysayers.

Yes, nobody would buy one, our government would ban it, Ralph Nader would roast it, but much like the EV-1 (first modern electric car was a Chevy), it would prove that it can be done with off-the-shelf technology.

>80PSI small dia narrow tires full faired and enclosed.  Tubular chassis, tilt up glass body with polycarbonate fixed windows.  Chain front wheel drive.  Small turbo diesel or high compression fuel injected low-rpm gasoline engine.  Seating for 4 in a semi-reclined attitude.  Perhaps the two rear seats pointed backwards.  Helmets, harnesses, and perimeter bars for safety.

It might take as little as 12 HP to go 60mph with 4 people on level ground.  For hills or emergency acceleration?  Nitrous oxide assist.

NOW you're talking like a Land Speed Racer!
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on July 15, 2008, 10:16:54 AM
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/a-410-cubic-inc.html

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Dean Los Angeles on July 15, 2008, 11:02:55 AM
Complain about the safety equipment if you want, with 40,000 deaths and 600,000 injuries a year it's no wonder the government has to keep you from doing stupid things.

Every day I read about someone that was ejected because they didn't want to bother with the seat belt.

There is a place for these people:
http://www.darwinawards.com/ (http://www.darwinawards.com/)
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: MCR on July 15, 2008, 11:41:14 AM
Complain about the safety equipment if you want, with 40,000 deaths and 600,000 injuries a year it's no wonder the government has to keep you from doing stupid things.

Every day I read about someone that was ejected because they didn't want to bother with the seat belt.

There is a place for these people:
http://www.darwinawards.com/ (http://www.darwinawards.com/)

It's also been proven that running into things is related to injuries and deaths.  If you reduce the number of times you run into stuff, you reduce the body count.

Driver's training is worse today than before but there are better airbags.  I don't think that's a wise trade, but that's me.

I logged about 200,000 miles on street bikes, commuting 200 miles a day.  The greatest threat to my life wasn't crumple zones, it was drivers that should not have been issued licenses.  What made me hang up my jacket wasn't SNELL ratings, it was the Cell Phone.  Risk became too great.

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 15, 2008, 07:39:53 PM
Complain about the safety equipment if you want, with 40,000 deaths and 600,000 injuries a year it's no wonder the government has to keep you from doing stupid things.

Every day I read about someone that was ejected because they didn't want to bother with the seat belt.

There is a place for these people:
http://www.darwinawards.com/ (http://www.darwinawards.com/)

It's not safety equipment specifically that I object to.  But I do object to vehicle designs being dictated by the government based on lowest common denominator drivers and worse case scenarios.

When I say "cocoon cars", what I'm referring to are heavy inefficient automobiles that have so isolated us from the physics and real-world effects of operating a motor vehicle that one can be lulled into a sense of security that belies that fact that we're piloting two tons of steel, iron, plastic and rubber down the highway. 

The padding, thick doors, heavy bumpers, power steering and brakes - all work to give a driver a sense of security that is out of line with the true physics of operating a car.  It's my contention that this sense of security leads to complacency because the driver is not sufficiently physically engaged in the act of driving.

And that is precisely why I like smaller cars.

Maybe I'm hardcore, but I'll take manual brakes, a non-assisted rack-and-pinion, a tight seat belt that I control the tension over and no AC, and the associated awareness that driving such a light, nimble vehicle gives me, over hydraulic assisted steering, power brakes, passive restraints, and 900 lbs of extra equipment that is only there for the worse case scenario.

And if natural selection prefers the comfortable, unaware driver in the 4000 lb pickup/sport ute/minivan over the proactive, aware, engaged driver in the in the 1800 lb econobox or sports car, then it's unlikely we'll ever see a 100 MPG car.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: desotoman on July 15, 2008, 08:30:57 PM

Complain about the safety equipment if you want, with 40,000 deaths and 600,000 injuries a year it's no wonder the government has to keep you from doing stupid things.


Now if we could just keep our Government (Politician's) from doing Stupid things...............
Sorry Dean, I could not resist.

Tom G.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: racer x on July 15, 2008, 09:56:12 PM
The Sr 50 from Aprilia in restricted form will give 120 mpg with out any trouble. In unrestricted mode and riding like I stole it I got over 100 mpg on a daily basis. after boring out to 70 cc with  a top speed on gps of 64 mph it still got 85 mpg and has storage under the seat.(http://)
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Jonny Hotnuts on July 16, 2008, 11:39:44 AM
In Spain I rented a car made by Skoda (VW group).
It made 110 BHP and got 50 mpg on Diesel.

In truth....I really liked the car. Most cars that get good MPG have no power but this car had plenty of hp and great MPG to boot.


Too bad they are not in the US.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: 836dstr on July 18, 2008, 01:14:00 AM
I have lately been thinking about selling my '32 HiBoy with a thumper 383, TH350, hugh rear tires and steep rear gear. It's a daily driver in good weather and fun to drive.

I've been thinking about building a light weight 'glass '27 Track style T Roadster with a 2.3L Pinto or Ranger 4 cyl. and 5 speed. Should get decent MPG, perform well and still be fun to drive. No airbags or side bars, just a cautious driver.

Hotrodders do adapt. Should be some interesting rides being built in the next years.

Tom
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: joea on July 18, 2008, 05:10:33 AM
in the 1990's we bought a used 1990 geo metro lsi......go
to fueleconomy.gov.....look up the sticker mpg for it.....the old
standards......it was rated at 55 city......58 hwy........

we got 61 mpg going to denver one trip.....

what the f have we been doing.......cant even buy a hybrid now that gets that
kind of mileage that a used car got almost 20 yrs ago.......

and we got a patient in our ER/OR/ICU that was in a head on collision with one of them.....who survived
just fine.....

check out:  (this is a production fricken car..a real car)

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/01/audi-a3-tdie-crosses-australia-at-71-3-mpg/


Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: hawkwind on July 18, 2008, 05:57:47 AM
unfortunatly Joe they start at 40K ( down under) for a  bare basics car ,which is well above the cost of the discounted large gas guzzlers ,cannot see many sales , especially amoung the working class I associate with , costs for regular unleaded is passing through the $1.75 liter and Diesel is just off $2.00 liter and our govt is about to increase the excise /tax on lpg substantly along with a new carbon tax and not satasified with that have levied a tax on all alternate fuels based on BTU's per liter ,a no win for us plebs  :cry:
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Sumner on July 18, 2008, 12:16:57 PM
I have lately been thinking about selling my '32 HiBoy with a thumper 383, TH350, hugh rear tires and steep rear gear. It's a daily driver in good weather and fun to drive.

I've been thinking about building a light weight 'glass '27 Track style T Roadster with a 2.3L Pinto or Ranger 4 cyl. and 5 speed. Should get decent MPG, perform well and still be fun to drive. No airbags or side bars, just a cautious driver.

Hotrodders do adapt. Should be some interesting rides being built in the next years.

Tom

Hey Tom put a 700R4 in the hiboy and fuel inject it and you would be in the mid 20's with the right cam.  I have a friend with GM's 383 ram jet in a '34 coupe that gets 24-26 mpg all the time running on the open road.  I just got 23 mpg on a trip to Moab recently with my new motor and I'm going to go the EFI route next winter with it.

c ya,

Sum
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: desotoman on July 18, 2008, 01:06:53 PM
I have lately been thinking about selling my '32 HiBoy with a thumper 383, TH350, hugh rear tires and steep rear gear. It's a daily driver in good weather and fun to drive.

Tom

Hi Tom,

When you say steep rear gear, what are you running a 4.11? You might try a lower numerical gear and use the torque that motor puts out to get better mileage. Just a thought. Cheaper than building a new car.

Tom G.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: mrdodge on July 18, 2008, 05:48:59 PM
Hey Hawkwind

Further to your comments, in NZ right now unleaded is $2.19. a litre and premiun is $2.24 a litre. For our friends in the US, that converts to NZ$8.40 a US gallon which in turn converts to approx US$6.40 a gallon :cry:. Sure am looking forward to our trip to Bonneville so we can put some "cheap" gas in the car :-D
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 22, 2008, 11:35:04 PM
I've been thinking about building a light weight 'glass '27 Track style T Roadster with a 2.3L Pinto or Ranger 4 cyl. and 5 speed. Should get decent MPG, perform well and still be fun to drive. No airbags or side bars, just a cautious driver.

A 4-popper track-T would be a righteous ride.  A lot of performance parts are available for the 2.3, or the 2.5 Chevy, for that matter.  I've contemplated a 2.5 Mopar with a Dakota 5 speed in a Morris Minor, but not until the Midget is done.

It's not always about power alone - HP to weight ratio is where efficiency and fun meet.  With today's EFI systems and properly geared, a 4 cylinder fiber-T could probably get better mileage than a lot of current economy cars.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: 38Chevy454 on July 24, 2008, 12:25:55 PM
It's not always about power alone - HP to weight ratio is where efficiency and fun meet.  With today's EFI systems and properly geared, a 4 cylinder fiber-T could probably get better mileage than a lot of current economy cars.

That is very true, a lightweight efficient rod could probably get even better than the typical new economy car.  It would also be pretty fun to drive as the hp-to-weight ratio would still be in the pretty fun range.  Imagine a 1800 lb rod (could even be less) with a 180 hp 4 cyl engine.  That is 10 lbs/hp.  Same as a 4000 lb car with a 400 hp engine.  Most new cars at 4000 lbs have 200-300 hp range, unless they are specifically performance models.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: 1212FBGS on July 24, 2008, 12:59:07 PM
Whats all this gotta do with land speed racing? you guys bag on Ratliff for posting stuff that ya think is not related to lsr...
kr
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Stainless1 on July 24, 2008, 01:03:37 PM
Kent, it is in the non LSR section, which might be a good spot for a "bagging on Rat) post.... just kidding y'all
See ya on the salt  8-)
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: desotoman on July 24, 2008, 08:44:10 PM
Some pretty interesting stuff on new diesel technology.

http://www.greendieselcorp.com/index.html

Tom G.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 25, 2008, 01:30:14 AM
Kent, it is in the non LSR section, which might be a good spot for a "bagging on Rat) post.... just kidding y'all
See ya on the salt  8-)

Man, I hope you are kidding, because moderating ANYTHING the gallant defender of the propeller driven composite car has become a nightmare of late.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: MCR on July 25, 2008, 05:41:00 AM
Some pretty interesting stuff on new diesel technology.

http://www.greendieselcorp.com/index.html

Tom G.

Sounds interesting, but my Snake Oil sensor is vibrating. 

160,000 PSI injection pressure achieved by replacing the existing injectors for 3% of engine cost?  Since they have pictures of a Duramax (LBZ most likely, if you look at the passenger side feeder pipe) in their ads let's use that.  IIRC, the retail on the engine is $15,000.  What's that, $450?  That is how much one factory Bosch injector is at retail, roughly. 

The existing LBZ engine runs at 180mPa (26,000PSI) injection pressure, which is about the highest out there.  When we crank up the pressure to 29000, we crack injector bodies occasionally, so they must be running all new injector bodies.  No way for $450.

Then they have have graphs of their system reducing cylinder pressure in half. 
Uhhh...  Wait.  I can do that too by reducing engine output.  Cylinder pressure is closely tied to torque/HP.  Reducing spikes is good, reducing average pressure ATDC is bad.

I could go on, but I've probably bored most the readers already.

Point being, their is no free lunch.  I love the idea of high rail pressure, but it's not going to happen by magic.  Nor is high rail pressure the end all of common rail.  They claim ultra high pressure will stop engine knock.  Really?  Crank your rail pressure up to max at idle and it will sound like the pistons are .020" undersize to the bore.

So if anyone is thinking about investing with them (that is their goal today) please be careful.  Every time fuel prices climb, there are alot of Get Rich Quick schemes popping up everywhere in the transportation industry.

Anyone for a Hydrogen Generator?  :-D

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: MCR on July 25, 2008, 05:51:06 AM
Whats all this gotta do with land speed racing? you guys bag on Ratliff for posting stuff that ya think is not related to lsr...
kr

Efficient use of HP and good brake mean efficiency is the essence of high performance.  Get the most power out of your fuel, and use that power to it's best advantage.

It is no surprise that 505HP Corvette gets 26mpg hwy.  The 505HP tells you they know how to build and tune an engine.  The 26mpg tells you the body is slippery and the fuel consumed is being used completely.

As far as Ratliff goes?  I read newspapers, magazines, and watch TV, as well as read the internet.  If something doesn't interest me, I don't read it.  Some folk have a hard time of it.  Not a popular opinion perhaps.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: 836dstr on July 25, 2008, 11:45:51 AM
The double overdrive 6-Speed manual transmission also helps a lot for highway mileage.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: MCR on July 25, 2008, 11:56:58 AM
On our 2002 Z06, you hit redline (6800?) in 5th (overdrive 1), then shift into 6th(overdrive 2) it actually slows down nearly 15mph.

But...  It will actually take off from a stoplight in 6th if you are good.  Runs clean from idle to 7300 if you remove the limiter.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: 1212FBGS on July 25, 2008, 01:39:57 PM
what ya trying to say beer boy?...so what, ya gonna pm me again cuz ya dont like what i have to say and dont want to do it in public ? before ya go all high and mighty, you might want to realize you actually are the one who made a derogatory public post directed at me... so you sir have brought to public attention that fact that my recent posts have been moderated... so my question is... "are you the punk (i was gonna say asshole but am censoring myself) that has been deleting my posts?
Kent
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on July 25, 2008, 01:55:27 PM
what ya trying to say beer boy?...so what, ya gonna pm me again cuz ya dont like what i have to say and dont want to do it in public ? before ya go all high and mighty, you might want to realize you actually are the one who made a derogatory public post directed at me... so you sir have brought to public attention that fact that my recent posts have been moderated... so my question is... "are you the punk (i was gonna say asshole but am censoring myself) that has been deleting my posts?

.
Kent


I have locked up a few topics, but I have never deleted a single post.  If something you've written was locked up or I've offended you here somewhere, I'm sorry.

When I first started posting, you were one of the people who encouraged me to move forward on my project, and I'm grateful for that.


Chris Conrad
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: edweldon on July 25, 2008, 02:29:06 PM
It's not always about power alone - HP to weight ratio is where efficiency and fun meet.  With today's EFI systems and properly geared, a 4 cylinder fiber-T could probably get better mileage than a lot of current economy cars.

That is very true, a lightweight efficient rod could probably get even better than the typical new economy car.  It would also be pretty fun to drive as the hp-to-weight ratio would still be in the pretty fun range.  Imagine a 1800 lb rod (could even be less) with a 180 hp 4 cyl engine.  That is 10 lbs/hp.  Same as a 4000 lb car with a 400 hp engine.  Most new cars at 4000 lbs have 200-300 hp range, unless they are specifically performance models.

Check out this book on how to build your own Lotus 7 knockoff (easily under 1500 lbs):
Build Your Own Sports Car for As Little As 250 Pounds and Race It! (2nd edition)
Author: Ron Champion, Hardcover, 191 pages
Publication Date: December 2000
Publisher: Haynes Pub Group
ISBN-10: 1859606369
ISBN-13: 9781859606360
 Barnes and Nobel List Price: $34.95
And another note -- there's someone in the UK or maybe the Netherlands, can't remember for sure, that makes a reversing transmission add on for the Hayabusa engine.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Vortex1 on July 25, 2008, 02:47:05 PM
Ed, It think Nova Racing Transmissions is the name of the company in the UK.



Jim B
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: manta22 on July 25, 2008, 02:54:52 PM
Ed;

Years ago I built a little mid- engine sports car based on a design by John Sable of Rockville, MD. It had one of John'e fiberglass bodies and a steel tube space frame with aluminum stressed panels. The engine was a 140hp Corvair driving a Porsche transaxle. The whole thing weighed only about 950 lbs and went like stink! If the car is lightweight it doesn't take much power to give high performance. I never checked the milage, though. :)
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: hotschue on July 25, 2008, 03:12:13 PM
Niel, FYI, John Sable is alive and well living in Carlisle, Pa.  He has volunteered to help construct the nose cone for my MS project.  John still has Sable Sports Racer #001 which he is restoring.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: manta22 on July 25, 2008, 03:28:06 PM
Thanks for the reply-- I'm glad to know that John is still around-- he was a very nice guy. I have a few photos that I took of his car and in his shop back in the late '60s; if they would help his restoration effort I'd be glad to scan them for him.

Here is John holding his daughter and me adjusting his wing. This was at Summit Point.
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: joea on July 27, 2008, 03:29:35 PM
kent...........Im SOOOOO glad to see ya back.....

miss ya.....

Joe :)
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Stainless1 on July 27, 2008, 10:12:12 PM
Joe, are you back? or still posting from your post  :-D 
Where are you and Judy celebrating your honeymoon anniversary?
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: canadianrocky on August 18, 2008, 05:39:27 PM
Back in the day (1978) I stumbled upon a stone stock 1963 Chevy II that had less than 10,000 miles on it. I asked the guy if he wanted to sell it, and after some huming and hawing he sold it to me for about $1,500. It was in perfect shape and he told me that no one had even sat in the back seat since it was brand new, and it sure showed that way. Everything on the car was original, and he even had the original battery in the back of his shop. All I had to do was to get the shifting lincage fixed.

It had a six cylinder with a three on the tree. I took it one a trip once and got a very respectable 32 mpg with it at about 60 mph on the highway.

Of course, it did not have air bags, crumple zones, shoulder straps, etc, etc. As long as I did not get hit by anything, I was fine. It also did not have Air Conditioning, MP3 player, comfortable seats, etc, etc.

Now I have a 2008 Toyota Tacoma. It has comfortable seats, crumple zones, air conditioning, shoulder belts, MP3 player, four wheel drive, a box in the back I can sleep in, towing capacity of 6,500 lbs AND it gets a very respectable 28 MPG on the highway. Also, I would doubt the Chevy would get what the Tacoma get around town to boot.

They don't make cars like they use to, and thank God for that.

As far as the 100 mpg, i think that it would be much more important to get rid of the Land Yachts that get 10 to 15 mpg and put out more cars that get 40 to 60 mpg. That is a much more realistic goal.

I am not so much amazed at how much people with pay for gas, as I am what people will pay for milk and bread. If someone goes to the store in their $50,000 1 ton 4x4 that gets 12 mpg in the city, that is VERY, VERY expensive milk and bread.

Oh, I don't have the Chevy anymore. When I got my divorce, my X got half the stuff. I just did not know that her lawyer would make sure she got the best half of it.

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: mightymanx on August 18, 2008, 11:40:13 PM
100 mpg in a car has been blown away quite a while ago VW got over 200 with there car.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/laugh-at-high-g.html

The US does not allow the import of the small high efficiency diesels like the new Mini with a compound turbo diesel made by Toyota. My 1979 VW rabbit gets 37mpg and its diesel twin gets over 60 for  a 30 year old car. :-o The US auto industry has the public brainwashed that if they don't have a 4000lb car with a hemi they are not safe and will die. the scare tactic worked we have made no improvements in fuel economy sense the late 70's

that is my $.02 on the subject.

Dan
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 21, 2008, 12:28:55 AM
100 mpg in a car has been blown away quite a while ago VW got over 200 with there car.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/laugh-at-high-g.html

The US does not allow the import of the small high efficiency diesels like the new Mini with a compound turbo diesel made by Toyota. My 1979 VW rabbit gets 37mpg and its diesel twin gets over 60 for  a 30 year old car. :-o The US auto industry has the public brainwashed that if they don't have a 4000lb car with a hemi they are not safe and will die. the scare tactic worked we have made no improvements in fuel economy sense the late 70's

that is my $.02 on the subject.

Dan

Dan, you're spot on, and I encourage anyone to go to this blog and read the comments made by people knocking this car, or any lightweight vehicle.  It has gotten to the point that instead of defensive driving, many folks feel it's necessary to armor themselves.  Below is my quote on a comment by 38Chevy454 from earlier in this thread, and I really believe it bears repeating.

The biggest problem with newer cars is weight.  All those 14 air bags, power (seats, door locks, windows, mirrors, sunvisors, etc) add weight.  The crash requirements add weight.  Emissions equipment adds weight.  Accelerating and maintaining that weight takes some fixed amount of energy.
. . .
As far as safety is concerned, cars don't kill people, people kill people.  Better drivers education, not airbags, 5-mph bumpers, or crumple zones, are what will be necessary if we want to have a 100-MPG car.  Until then, I don't think people will give up their cocoons.

I'm sorry if I sound preachy about this, but it gnaws at me, because the responsibility of operating a car safely never enters into the argument.  It almost always falls on the shoulders of the manufacturers through the acts of knee-jerk governmental agencies to change the cars.  I really believe that the cars are not the problem, it's the operators.

So Dan, with your $.02, and mine, we can buy $.04 of gasoline and travel about 3 miles down the road in this very cool VW concept, or idle at a stoplight for a minute in an Escalade and pray we don't get hit by a Hummer.

Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: 4-barrel Mike on September 21, 2008, 11:10:26 AM
New 65 mpg European Ford:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm)

Mike
Title: Re: 100 mpg?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on September 21, 2008, 11:48:02 AM
New 65 mpg European Ford:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm)

Mike

Hey, Mike -

Read this one earlier this week.

Once again, diesel technology.  We were in Ireland 2 years ago, and I was taken aback by the number of small diesel vans they had, most of which were completely capable of doing what most working pickup trucks do here in the states at twice the mileage, and made by manufacturers with a presence in the US market.  The vehicles are out there today, and I can't get my hands on one.