I have a 1990 Acura Legend, 2.7 L auto. It is rated at 21 mpg. I am getting 28 - 30 mpg COMBINED. That's tickling the lower end of sub-compact and hybrid performance. It is tuned, including new O2 sensors. Otherwise, my driving habits make most of the difference.

I accelerate slowly, coast to lights, and turn off the engine at long lights. Most of all I have slowed down when and where possible: 35-45 mph in town and 45 - 55 mph on the highways: I-95 and the Florida Turnpike. I get a 33% increase in mileage, so I pay $2.25 for a $3.00 gallon of gas, proving that time is money. I give myself enough time to get where I'm going. I floor it or cruise at higher speed if I have to, but not if I don't.

I think that the problem is as much the driving population as it is market forces. We could influence the situation if we'd all agree to slow down. That would reduce demand and increase supply, and therefore drive down the price. That would require cooperation, patience, sacrifice, altruism, as well as acting in one’s own self-interest. Ain't gonna happen. When I'm killed for driving too slowly, I hope it is prosecuted as a hate crime.


'90 Legend
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/6637.shtml

Most fuel efficient cuurent vehicles
http://www.gasefficientcars.com/?src=overture&ovmkt=6EFNHKPOFI7UTOI6S93BE7FI8G&OVRAW=fuel%20economy%20comparisons&OVKEY=fuel%20economy%20comparison&OVMTC=standard

when i drive my dad's golf slowly i get 50mpg. and that's a 2.3-litre V5.

driving style makes all the difference.

Well done....driving style does make all the difference, as you've learned. If you take it easy and engage in the tactics you mentioned, you can beat the EPA estimates....

I consistenly beat the EPA estimates... but the other way :) My current daily driver gets 9 mpg :D

I consistenly beat the EPA estimates... but the other way :) My current daily driver gets 9 mpg :D

Leadfoot.

(But damn, you're having more fun!!) :iceslolan

The way you drive has just about as big an impact on fuel economy as what you drive. Keep the rpm's low and you'll use less fuel. It's as simple as that. It's funny how some people complain about poor mileage yet they constantly gun it making the engine work harder than it needs to.

Good stuff!

The way you drive has just about as big an impact on fuel economy as what you drive. Keep the rpm's low and you'll use less fuel. It's as simple as that. It's funny how some people complain about poor mileage yet they constantly gun it making the engine work harder than it needs to.

Good stuff!

I get about the EPA estimate in my F150. I know that I get much better mileage going 70 rather than 77 or 78, but I just can't stand going that slow when I'm on my way home from work.

Your starter is going to die if you keep shutting your car off at long red lights.

Also, if you drive 45-55mph on I-95 you're suicidal. And, a Trooper wouldn't have any problem pulling you over for being a "road hazard."

BTW, you're numbers aren't very impressive either.

I put my foot into it every single day and I get 36-40 mpg in my 1.6 CRX with just about every bolt-on you can buy short of a swapped engine.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The crx is a 4-cyl and weighs 2174 lbs. The 90 Legend is a 6-cyl and weighs 3280 lbs. I am satisfied that I've maximized performance.

BTW: Starters take tens of thousands of starts and the minmum speed on I-95 is 40 mph.

Speed makes a huge difference in gas mileage. After the gas crisis in 1973 Congress passed the mandatory 55 mph limit on all roads. They showed that at 55 mph cars use 17% less gas than at 75mph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States). Later they lifted the restriction so it's not 55 everywhere anymore. Here in the mid-Atlantic region where i live almost all roads are 55, but few people drive below 70.

Point is I myself have noticed a huge difference. I drive to my college campus and work almost every day. The school drive is inner suburb roads, and i usually don't go above 50mph to get there. The work drive is almost all highway and it's pedal to the floor. Even though my school is, distance wise, almost twice as far away as my work, and it has traffic lights and everything, i still waste less gass going to school than work, which is only like 10 min away.

The again i hate driving and i don't want to be on the road a second longer than I have to. Feels like I'm wasting my life.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The crx is a 4-cyl and weighs 2174 lbs. The 90 Legend is a 6-cyl and weighs 3280 lbs. I am satisfied that I've maximized performance.

BTW: Starters take tens of thousands of starts and the minmum speed on I-95 is 40 mph.

Actually, my car weighs less and with me in it. Also, I drive smoothly and try to avoid accidents. Driving 40 miles per hour on I-95 is retarded and extremely dangerous.

It's not how fast you drive, it's how smooth.

Yesindeedy. That's why I drive 45-55.

When I did highway and city driving alot (I drive to school 1 mile each way not by choice now) I would always beat the epa estimate.

I will cost up to stop lights at 15 mph (that's where it shifts into 2nd gear), I won't accellerate hard from stoplights or at all for that matter, and if it is an area with alot of stoplights, I'll crawl along at like 5 or 10 below the speed limit and not have to stop for a single one - accelleration takes alot of gas.

It's not how fast you drive, it's how smooth.
not true!!

i own an 84 caprice classic.

every so often i have to drive from charlottesville to richmond. you can take either I-64 and drive 75, or take 250 and drive 55. when i drive on 64, it will use about a half a tank of gas (25 gallon tank, 12.5 gallons of gas). on 250 it barely uses 1/8 of a tank.

You're talking about a 20mph difference for 2 separate types of highways. Apples and oranges...

Apples and oranges...indeed.

Actually, some apples and oranges are comparable. Suppose the two roads are roughly equivalent. Then the difference in mileage for the two speeds is certainly significant. I doubt 250 is a better road than 64, so its safe to assume 250 is worse. The worse road will give worse mileage. Therefore, the mileage difference is even more significant.

1990Legend (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=454378)

CRX=four banger with half the size of Legend. It is pointless to compare this two cars in the same light. But it is an awesome mileage for the legend. I never get past 16MPG in the city, terrain makes a big impact on the car's mileage. I live in the SF and constantly drive in Pacific Heights, gas mileage goes way down from crusing up and down 30 degree slopes.

back to 250 v. 64,
it is the same distance, but 250 is older and has lots of hills.
i adjusted my kickdown cable, and now i get better mileage on 64. (the tranny was staying in 2nd until 70 because of the way the cable was adjusted. on 250, i didnt press the pedal as much and tranny went into 3rd)
if you want better mileage on the highway, do a rearend swap. i'm looking into going from a 3.08 to a 2.25 or less. this will help a LOT

I do appeciate the advice, but that's way beyond my skill level.

back to 250 v. 64,
it is the same distance, but 250 is older and has lots of hills.
i adjusted my kickdown cable, and now i get better mileage on 64. (the tranny was staying in 2nd until 70 because of the way the cable was adjusted. on 250, i didnt press the pedal as much and tranny went into 3rd)
if you want better mileage on the highway, do a rearend swap. i'm looking into going from a 3.08 to a 2.25 or less. this will help a LOT
You have 3.08 gearing!? But your car probably has low end torque and horsepower to pull high gears.

You have 3.08 gearing!? But your car probably has low end torque and horsepower to pull high gears.
yeah. my acceleration will suffer but with 2.25's my RPM's will be reduced by 25%. i'll expect a 10% increase in MPG.

1990legend, you dont have a kickdown cable. dont worry.
if you want better mileage try reading my post (#28) in "Saving Gas In Neutral" in the "fuel economy" section of "cars in general".

There is one problem with too tall of a gear ratio, your engine has to put out more power to overcome the difference in ratio, it's a leverage thing.

There is a fine balance in the gear ratios of the rear end.

Sacrifice a few engine rpms, and use less fuel because the engine isn't working as hard. If you need an image, picture yourself riding a multi-speed bicycle up a hill. Sure, higher gears will have your feet turning the pedals fewer revolutions, but, you're not gonna make it up the hill with out busting your rump. Downshift, and you'll have to pedal faster, but you're not putting as much force into the job, hence you expend less energy to do the job.

Keep the engine in the rpm power band, and you'll strike gold every time.

You might be able to get better output to input with a lower engine rpm, but upset the balance and you'll have to use more fuel to generate the power to overcome the additional load of that ratio. At that point in time, the lower engine speed is hurting your economy and your wallet.




back to 250 v. 64,
it is the same distance, but 250 is older and has lots of hills.
i adjusted my kickdown cable, and now i get better mileage on 64. (the tranny was staying in 2nd until 70 because of the way the cable was adjusted. on 250, i didnt press the pedal as much and tranny went into 3rd)
if you want better mileage on the highway, do a rearend swap. i'm looking into going from a 3.08 to a 2.25 or less. this will help a LOT

true, but...

if the engine requires more throttle to go the same speed, and is turning the same speed, in the same gear, you will ge better mileage, because there will be less drag on the engine.
when you are driving down the highway in a 500 hp car using 10% throttle, you efficiency sucks. you could have a super tall rearend, like the viper, which helps some, but still your mileage sucks.

driving in an old honda hatchback at the same speed, using 85% throttle your efficiency is much better, and you get better mileage.

that is why increasing your HP nearly always hurts mileage.

best mileage would come from a car that has a CVT, and an engine that runs at 80-100% throttle all the time and uses the tranmission to limit horsepower, and speed.
or, in otherwords, a diesel w/ a CVT.

...turn off the engine at long lights.

It take the same amount of gas to start your car or run it for 1 min. So you may be waisting gas in shutting it off. As well as running out the starter.

Man, I don't know exactly where you got that info, but you're missing a few points.

If you have two engines that are identical in displacement and relative fuel consumption, but have one engine that is better designed to generate more power at a lower rpm so that it can drive a taller gear ratio than the other, then the engine that is more powerful will get better fuel mileage. This is because that engine will require less fuel to perform.

If you have a weaker engine trying to run the same gear ratio, you might get the same number of rpm's, but you'll require more throttle to generate the power to move. This will needlessly burn more fuel.

Your reference to "less drag on the engine" is pure bull.

If you have two engines that consume the exact same amount of fuel, but one generates 20 more horsepower than the other, then the more powerful engine will prove to be more efficient on fuel. PLAIN and SIMPLE.

You are possibly right about the 500 HP engine. But, there are several factors that come into play. What will truly count is the fuel mileage.

Also, why would you want to rev an engine at a higher throttle and regulate the speed and power through the transmission?

If you can control the power output by using less throttle and achieve the same level of performance, then you'll burn less fuel. This, is a GOOD thing.

true, but...

if the engine requires more throttle to go the same speed, and is turning the same speed, in the same gear, you will ge better mileage, because there will be less drag on the engine.
when you are driving down the highway in a 500 hp car using 10% throttle, you efficiency sucks. you could have a super tall rearend, like the viper, which helps some, but still your mileage sucks.

driving in an old honda hatchback at the same speed, using 85% throttle your efficiency is much better, and you get better mileage.

that is why increasing your HP nearly always hurts mileage.

best mileage would come from a car that has a CVT, and an engine that runs at 80-100% throttle all the time and uses the tranmission to limit horsepower, and speed.
or, in otherwords, a diesel w/ a CVT.

ok, i dont know how this got so confused but here are the basics...
(all statments assume that you are using the same engine, and unless stated, are using it under the same conditions)

running an engine uses fuel
running an engine at a certain rpm uses a certain ammount of fuel
running an engine at a lower rpm uses less fuel and produces less power
to compensate for producing less power at a lower rpm, more throttle must be applied
when an engine produces the same power at a lower rpm it is running more efficiently
when an engine is running more efficiently it uses less gas.


the reason engines run more efficiently at lower rpms with more throttle is that there is less drag on the engine.
the major source of drag on an engine is the throttle plate. when it is closed there is so much drag on an engine that it produces verry little power and does it very in-efficiently.

think of a washing machine. when you want to wash your clothes, you save up until you have enough to fill the washing machine befor washing your clothes. you wouldnt run a wash if all you wanted was to wash a single pair of socks. it would be hugely in-efficient. an engine works the same way. it all has to do with loading. an engine gets its best mileage under a high load, at a low rpm, under full throttle.

this is why high horsepower engines use more gas. it is like having a washing machine running to wash a pair of socks.

i hope this clears things up a bit.
there was an article in Car and Driver that used this same analogy in an article about Hybrid technology and why it works.

Ok, hybrids are a completely different animal. They work entirely differently.

Hybrid technology has been around for decades.

How do you think the diesel locomotive works?

It uses a VERY large diesel engine to drive a VERY large generator. That generator provides electric power to VERY large and VERY powerful electric motors that drive the wheels.

In any engine, the purpose of the throttle plate is to control the amount of AIR that flows into the engine.

More air requires more fuel to be fed into the engine. A larger air-fuel charge in the combustion chamber results in a bigger bang. A bigger bang means more power.

Regardless of the engine's actual rpm, if you're putting a bigger charge in there, you're consuming more fuel. A lower gear allows the rpm to be higher, therefore putting the engine in it's working powerband.

If you can use a smaller fuel charge to accomplish the same end, you're conserving fuel. Thus, a lower gear ratio, under the right circumstances will quite likely reduce the actual load on the engine and reduce the amount of fuel you need to consume to perform the desired work.

If you're an astute driver, try driving a car with a manual transmission in too high a gear for the speed you're driving at. See how much throttle it takes to try to achieve a certain speed or performance level.

Now try downshifting.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

You can achieve better results with less throttle and therefore, achieve a higher fuel mileage than you would have otherwise.

HOW DID THE ENGINEERS MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

Amazing how the laws of mechanics works in your favor if you apply them correctly.

Yes, I believe I did say that using a higher ratios will actually reduce the load on the engine, allowing it to spin faster. Though the rpm's are higher, the actual working load on the engine will be lower. You can use less throttle to spin faster because there is less drag on the engine from the load.

THAT WILL reduce the amount of fuel you need to achieve the goal.


NUFF said.

If you're so obtuse as to not comprehend this, then not even an engineer can help you.


Allan



ok, i dont know how this got so confused but here are the basics...
(all statments assume that you are using the same engine, and unless stated, are using it under the same conditions)

running an engine uses fuel
running an engine at a certain rpm uses a certain ammount of fuel
running an engine at a lower rpm uses less fuel and produces less power
to compensate for producing less power at a lower rpm, more throttle must be applied
when an engine produces the same power at a lower rpm it is running more efficiently
when an engine is running more efficiently it uses less gas.


the reason engines run more efficiently at lower rpms with more throttle is that there is less drag on the engine.
the major source of drag on an engine is the throttle plate. when it is closed there is so much drag on an engine that it produces verry little power and does it very in-efficiently.

think of a washing machine. when you want to wash your clothes, you save up until you have enough to fill the washing machine befor washing your clothes. you wouldnt run a wash if all you wanted was to wash a single pair of socks. it would be hugely in-efficient. an engine works the same way. it all has to do with loading. an engine gets its best mileage under a high load, at a low rpm, under full throttle.

this is why high horsepower engines use more gas. it is like having a washing machine running to wash a pair of socks.

i hope this clears things up a bit.
there was an article in Car and Driver that used this same analogy in an article about Hybrid technology and why it works.

In any engine, the purpose of the throttle plate is to control the amount of AIR that flows into the engine.

GreyGoose is right.
It takes a lot of power to suck air through a closed throttle. The wider open the throttle is, the less "throttling loss" there is and the more efficient the engine becomes.

Higher gearing gives you two immediate fuel efficiency benefits:
1. Wider throttle opening for lower throttling losses
2. Lower engine speed for less work against friction and lower pumping losses.

If I could upload photos then I could show you a graph showing speed, load and specific fuel consumption (efficiency).

KiwiBacon, email me at gordon_bowe@yahoo.com and i'll put them up.

Please do so.

Apparently, we're not exactly coming to an understanding here.

If someone can show me some concrete evidence regarding the flaws of my understanding, I may be persuaded to see the other side.

As it is, since you've explained it in THOSE words, it makes some sense. However, there's still a greater issue here. The MIDDLE ground in the two arguments.

I've also just read Goose's post in the Saving gas in neutral thread on page three.

There he thoroughly explained the logic behind his argument.

I therefore must sadly state the following three words.

It makes sense.

Since this was posted in a completely different thread, I've taken the liberty of pasting his entire post below.

Also, here is the link for his post there directly, so you can see the context of his post.
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4247516&postcount=44


ok, i dont know how this got so confused but here are the basics...
(all statments assume that you are using the same engine, and unless stated, are using it under the same conditions)

running an engine uses fuel
running an engine at a certain rpm uses a certain ammount of fuel
running an engine at a lower rpm uses less fuel and produces less power
to compensate for producing less power at a lower rpm, more throttle must be applied
when an engine produces the same power at a lower rpm it is running more efficiently
when an engine is running more efficiently it uses less gas.


the reason engines run more efficiently at lower rpms with more throttle is that there is less drag on the engine.
the major source of drag on an engine is the throttle plate. when it is closed there is so much drag on an engine that it produces verry little power and does it very in-efficiently.

think of a washing machine. when you want to wash your clothes, you save up until you have enough to fill the washing machine befor washing your clothes. you wouldnt run a wash if all you wanted was to wash a single pair of socks. it would be hugely in-efficient. an engine works the same way. it all has to do with loading. an engine gets its best mileage under a high load, at a low rpm, under full throttle.

this is why high horsepower engines use more gas. it is like having a washing machine running to wash a pair of socks.

while it is true that you cannot easily compare different types of engines, you can compare them to figure out why smaller engines get better gas mileage. consider the engine from a dodge viper. it makes 500 hp, and has 10 cylinders. now consider an old honda engine. they typically made 80 hp and had 4 cylinders. lets say it takes only 30 hp to drive 70 mph. in the viper, you are going to be driving at maybe 10% throttle. in the honda, you are going to be using something more like 85% throttle. the honda will get better mileage because the engine is sized more accuratley to the load required of it. why move 10 cylinders, when 2 is all thats required. why run a wash to wash a single pair of socks when you could save up until you could fill the washing machine and use it more efficiently.

I just thought of something.

Though I didn't quite grasp the drag via throttle thing initially, I think that's part of what I was alluding to in earlier posts regarding using a slightly higher gear ratio in the final drive to allow the engine to rev at a slightly higher rpm, but using less fuel to overcome the load of using the lower gear ratio.

the main killer of gas mileage is rpm's. the higher you rev, the more friction there is, the stronger the pumping losses are, and the more energy is wasted in the form of heat, and vibration.

i can post the pic, but it can be found eslewhere on AF.

since i'm too lazy to find it, here ya go

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g103/GreyGoose006/bsfc_map1.jpg

I just thought of something.

Though I didn't quite grasp the drag via throttle thing initially, I think that's part of what I was alluding to in earlier posts regarding using a slightly higher gear ratio in the final drive to allow the engine to rev at a slightly higher rpm, but using less fuel to overcome the load of using the lower gear ratio.

You're contradicting yourself.

Higher gear ratios = lower engine revs. Which do save fuel through less work against friction and making the engine run with a more open throttle.

Gearing an engine down to reduce load and save fuel doesn't work.

its a little OT, but since i turboed my GSR i saw a jump in mileage...

In town was 25-27, now it is about 26 (22 when i get on it)

Highway was 30-32, now it is 32-36mpg

By no means did i boost it for the mileage, but hell, it doesn't hurt

its a little OT, but since i turboed my GSR i saw a jump in mileage...

In town was 25-27, now it is about 26 (22 when i get on it)

Highway was 30-32, now it is 32-36mpg

By no means did i boost it for the mileage, but hell, it doesn't hurt

Is it boosting at cruise?

A mate of mine bolted a larger turbo to his Mazda MX6, taking the boost range to above cruising speed. His fuel economy improved noticably.

Is it boosting at cruise?

A mate of mine bolted a larger turbo to his Mazda MX6, taking the boost range to above cruising speed. His fuel economy improved noticably.

my crusing speed is about 4000rpm on my GSR and full boost on my turbo is 4500-4600rpm depending on the gear so i dont think i'm getting boost per say, but i'm getting the benefits from the extra air moving through

Schister, you are cruising in boost. That is pretty cool because you have power without downshifting. My wife's 1.8t VW passat is boosted but it really doesn't run smoothly and efficiently (ie. having to gas it to get it going... 2nd gear in 5 speed auto is worthless) unless cruising over 60mph. Full boost is at 3k rpms. The car only operates at this engine speed continuously in the highest gear at say 70-75mph hence making the most torque and having my foot back off the accelerator...

just a thought, but what if you purpose built a turbo to improve gas mileage.
are there any turbo designs that make lots of boost at cruisin rpms, w/o causing too much back pressure? i know that the smaller your turbo is, the lower rpms it makes boost at. what about on a V8-I6 with small diameter headers to get the exhaust moving fast, and a fery efficient turbo design that was engineered to make 75% boost at around 2500 rpm. maybe just a dream, but maybe not... anyone know anything

just a thought, but what if you purpose built a turbo to improve gas mileage.
are there any turbo designs that make lots of boost at cruisin rpms, w/o causing too much back pressure? i know that the smaller your turbo is, the lower rpms it makes boost at. what about on a V8-I6 with small diameter headers to get the exhaust moving fast, and a fery efficient turbo design that was engineered to make 75% boost at around 2500 rpm. maybe just a dream, but maybe not... anyone know anything

For a turbo to be needed at cruise, you'd be looking for a very small engine.
Something like the smart cars.

I am getting 110-130 mpg depending driving conditions. I first got my 4 popper 2005 Canyon last summer and found it got worse gas mileage than a 1984 4 cylinder S-10. So I made a part to crack gas and get sweet mileage.

Originally Posted by GreyGoose006
just a thought, but what if you purpose built a turbo to improve gas mileage.
are there any turbo designs that make lots of boost at cruisin rpms, w/o causing too much back pressure? i know that the smaller your turbo is, the lower rpms it makes boost at. what about on a V8-I6 with small diameter headers to get the exhaust moving fast, and a fery efficient turbo design that was engineered to make 75% boost at around 2500 rpm. maybe just a dream, but maybe not... anyone know anything

Yes! it was on the cover of popular meachnic a few months ago it made 300 horsepower and ran on something like 1500 PSI.

Heres a generator that makes 20,000 watts free and runs by intself - http://www.lutec.com.au/index.htm
"The technology is currently performing at a robust 150% net gain, an overall efficiency of 250%, so the 100% net gain used in the above examples is more than achievable now, not after tweaking or adjusting or changing anything. It is available for testing and to go into production immediately."

I am not a total hippie, I just love not paying more when I don't have to. Especially when I can get from here, Indiana, to L.A. on one tank of gas...

Heres a generator that makes 20,000 watts free and runs by intself - http://www.lutec.com.au/index.htm
"The technology is currently performing at a robust 150% net gain, an overall efficiency of 250%, so the 100% net gain used in the above examples is more than achievable now, not after tweaking or adjusting or changing anything. It is available for testing and to go into production immediately."

I am not a total hippie, I just love not paying more when I don't have to. Especially when I can get from here, Indiana, to L.A. on one tank of gas...


Dude that didn't even run, let alone generate any power.

hmmm. interesting, BUT...
COMPETELY OFF TOPIC...

that is a generator. we are talking about engines. the latest discussion as about turbos.

about the generator however. there are laws of physics and science that, while not guranteed, have never been broken. it is not possible for a machine to be more than 100% efficient in the REAL WORLD. in fact, it is un likely that any machine will ever even approach 100% efficiency. most machines run at around 78-96% depending on how well they were engineered and constructed.

it is not possible to have a motor run only with permanent magnets. there must be something making it GO... unless you have just discovered perpetual motion, which is what this is nearly claiming to be.

sorry to be so long winded, but i have shown this link to many people and everyone agrees that it is IMPOSSIBLE...

thank you.
that is all.

GreyGoose006 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=442866) I like you, and I will not waste our time with what this thread is not intended for, sorry for even mentioning generators.

In the 50's I am sure if you told a Sovtek tube engineer the year 2000 would see thousands of Class D Mosfet amps on the market that are near 90-95% efficient. I believe that you are in this mindset. I can appreciate this particularly because if you are reading this threadwith any intent to get something out of it, that means you are hear for the right reasons.

The Meat and Potatoes...
Th device I have installed on my truck takes gasoline in heats it up splits it into 2 parts. both are in gas form, before we get into that you need to get people on the same page as far as a standing motor works. At present your motor does not burn gas. Gas as a liquid has vary few uses, what actually burns is the vapors from the gas. This is why your ignition starts detonation right after TDC and continues to fire for a few degrees, this is also why cars have Catalytic converters, the fuel stays in the CAT still burning vapors, which is why on most cars it is not reccommended to remove this part. What temp does gas boil? Anybody, anybody? Buehler....Buehler....

140 degrees to 400 degrees.
Ok so its not point its more of a range. Ani-hoo - (I had to ask about 30 people before I found out) My device has an internal 900W water heater nickel plated to resist wear from the gas, dual 1,000 PSI reverse failsafe solenoids on each side( in and out) to prevent 250 PSI 750 degree gas from going back into my sending unit and gas tank, that would be a hell of a show. And from being forced into the throttle body.
With this device you need to do a timing adjustment to correct for detonation, since the vapor is being burnt in an instant and completely, and not over 5-12 degrees. One interesting side effect is the engine no longer seemingly needs anti-freeze, since the spark is being utilized so greatly the piston sleeve on the head stays cooler since it only sees heat a fraction of the time it used to - READ: it is burning hotter, 1400 degrees but in about a fraction of the time it did before.
02 sensor readings, a mod may need to be done to most EFI cars because the 02 sensor is trying to see an acceptable operating range, when it does not - it adjusts. We cant have that, Currently at the 02 sensor I am seeing 99.3% efficiency. Not 100% but day-um close. You want sommit suicide you are not going to be able to if you park my truck in the garage with the windows down and the engine on. You still need a muffler to damp the sound, but it does nothing for efficiency - allong with the CAT.

The best news, I have to yet to get it Dyno'd but you can't jump in, crank it stomp on the gas. You will burn the tires off, think about it - if you were about 50% effieciency before, you could stomp on the gas and get ALL of your 50%, 99.3% on a full size 1988 Chevy 4x4 with a 383 stroker, it was running great, until the "Let's see what she can do" sentance was uttered, he completely shredded his U-joint on the front and rear driveshafts. the front one on the rear and the rear one on the front, thats means everything up to the transfer case was good, after that, need to upgrade.

Weel, I have spewed yet more yummy goodness upon hopefully a willing few, lmk if you guys have any questions...

Laters

oOo...
i'm intruigued (did i spell that right).

so your engine now burns GAS... COOOL.

what are the technical details and such. how does it work.
is this similar to using ACETONE to completley vaporize gasoline before you combust it?

GIMMIE INFO

oh, and sorry about going off about the generator but it was off topic, and is probably not really as good as it says. there is no way to get more energy out than you put in "LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY"

Greygoose, There are several laws that you can bend. One of them is the Law you stated - "LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" I tend too look at it like this, everything in the world has the possibility to become an atomic bomb. Everything. Thats means that this dormant energy in everything has a potential for being used for lesser purposes. We are about to change some wordage here so hold on( I am sicker than sh!t this morning, so if this riddled with spelling errers, you all can deal with it) Wordage, perpetual motion i s happeneing right now on a few diferent forms, life on earth, nature can be construed as perpetual, but the word here is "over-unity" This is a devise that can run bu itself and produce excess power in the process. There is a fair in Illinois each year to learn about and test these devices, there rules are very strict, it must not be gravity powered, solar powered, stream power, ect, I think they have a clause for permamnet magnets an thier usage aswell.

Don't expect to walk into the event, cut a lemon in half and wire it ti said light bulb abd walk out with 1st prize. They are doing some interesting things.
http://www.get113to138mpg.com/100mpg[1].jpg This is the same thing I am using.

One of my buddies has a site @ www.get113to138mpg.com (http://www.get113to138mpg.com). His stuff is off the chain, he is going to starting taking orders on these they are $955 from him, or he will sell you his older plans, or you can get them from me. I you know a plumber and a machinist, you can have it for aout $300. I have to go drive the porclian bus, I will check back you guys in a bit.

See also www.himacresearch.com (http://www.himacresearch.com), Bruce Mcburney has done about 20 years of research on this. Also I have to add, fuel additives have been diluted with thing to counteract the use of the fuel crackers making one that are more than 5 years ole useless, there is a reason for this. It has alot to do with why a Checy s-10 from 85 gets better gas mileage than a brand new verion of itslef.

well, if we were to assume that permanent magnets are the key to a non-fossil-fuel-dependant future, you have to explain to me how this generator works.

there is a device called a transformer that can take 5 volts in and put 50 volts out. is your generator working along these lines?
thing is, you dont actually get any more energy with 50 volts than 5 because there is still a loss. you must trade volts for amps and such.

Greygoose, There are several laws that you can bend. One of them is the Law you stated - "LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY" I tend too look at it like this, everything in the world has the possibility to become an atomic bomb. Everything. Thats means that this dormant energy in everything has a potential for being used for lesser purposes. We are about to change some wordage here so hold on( I am sicker than sh!t this morning, so if this riddled with spelling errers, you all can deal with it) Wordage, perpetual motion i s happeneing right now on a few diferent forms, life on earth, nature can be construed as perpetual, but the word here is "over-unity" This is a devise that can run bu itself and produce excess power in the process. There is a fair in Illinois each year to learn about and test these devices, there rules are very strict, it must not be gravity powered, solar powered, stream power, ect, I think they have a clause for permamnet magnets an thier usage aswell.

Don't expect to walk into the event, cut a lemon in half and wire it ti said light bulb abd walk out with 1st prize. They are doing some interesting things.
http://www.get113to138mpg.com/100mpg[1].jpg This is the same thing I am using.

One of my buddies has a site @ www.get113to138mpg.com (http://www.get113to138mpg.com). His stuff is off the chain, he is going to starting taking orders on these they are $955 from him, or he will sell you his older plans, or you can get them from me. I you know a plumber and a machinist, you can have it for aout $300. I have to go drive the porclian bus, I will check back you guys in a bit.

I'd like to see some of your examples of "perpetual motion that is happening right now".

There have been no documented examples of the laws of thermodynamics being broken.
Here is a simple translation of them.

Law #1:
You cannot win, you can only break even.

Law #2:
You can only break even at absolute zero (-273.15 C).

Law #3:
You cannot get to absolute zero.


There are many different ways to spell "SCAM". Your link just showed another.:grinyes:
Go ahead and lay down your money, let us know if anything shows up.

See also www.himacresearch.com (http://www.himacresearch.com), Bruce Mcburney has done about 20 years of research on this. Also I have to add, fuel additives have been diluted with thing to counteract the use of the fuel crackers making one that are more than 5 years ole useless, there is a reason for this. It has alot to do with why a Checy s-10 from 85 gets better gas mileage than a brand new verion of itslef.

Did you know that combustion "cracks" liquid fuel particles already?

Put in a liquid hydrocarbon, burn it, out comes water and carbon dioxides.
There is nothing to be gained by splitting liquid fuels into alcohol and gas.

Internal combustion engines are not more efficient when run on gas.
There is no 4-5 times increase in fuel economy to be gained.

Older vehicles get better mileage because they're generally smaller, lighter and have less restrictive emissions controls.

I insereted a trans-inducer on my fuel regulator and gained about 5 miles more per gallon on my z-3 without a noticable loss of power

Pop Sci did an article a while back on a volkswagen designed car that got 238mpg. high miles per gallon is really not all that hard to do.

this specific example used a very small 8hp diesel engine, and what looked like a streamliner body you would find on the bonneville flats. the car actually reached 70mph i believe, and exceded its rating of 238 mpg. i think pop sci averaged 250 or something.

my point is this: "getting outrageous mileage" is really not all that hard if you know what you are doing. the better designed a car is to get good mileage, the more likely it is that you will get good mileage. when consumers stop demanding frames that have torsional strength of 5000+ lbs/degree of torsion, cars can be made a lot lighter. when we stop demanding "aggressive" looking cars with big wide tires, large swept frontal areas, and enormous engines to get us to 60mph in less than 6 seconds (there are many that can do it in under 4, and one or two that do it in under 3), gas mileage will continue upward. if cars were not required to have 13 airbags, and numerous crush zones, and frame bracing to withstand crashes, even better mileage would be possible. if we went without AC, radio, speakers, wiring, sound dampening, 20" wheels, convertible tops, reinforced glass windshields, leather interiors, and everything else that makes cars heavy, we would get even better mileage.
problem is, we cant do without most of these things, and consumers require the others.
the best way to save gas is by not driving.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/d7213bcc2eb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

here's the link to the 235mpg VW

when consumers stop demanding frames that have torsional strength of 5000+ lbs/degree of torsion, cars can be made a lot lighter. when we stop demanding "aggressive" looking cars with big wide tires, large swept frontal areas, and enormous engines to get us to 60mph in less than 6 seconds (there are many that can do it in under 4, and one or two that do it in under 3), gas mileage will continue upward. if cars were not required to have 13 airbags, and numerous crush zones, and frame bracing to withstand crashes, even better mileage would be possible. if we went without AC, radio, speakers, wiring, sound dampening, 20" wheels, convertible tops, reinforced glass windshields, leather interiors, and everything else that makes cars heavy, we would get even better mileage.

I think you just described a moped.:grinyes:

well, um, yea...

that VW i was talking about...
it weighs 500-ish pounds.

there are PEOPLE that weigh more than that.

I consistently match EPA estimates +/-2mpg in my cars.

well, um, yea...

that VW i was talking about...
it weighs 500-ish pounds.

there are PEOPLE that weigh more than that.

i think it was BP who made a car that weighed about ~65lb and got over 1,000mpg, i'll try find the magazine ad.