An 100mpg car

[bm2boats]

VW has a car with a diesel engine that gets 100mpg. The US will not let them sell it over here. I wonder why?
So VW put a car on the in the US that gets 40mpg.
Why can't we have cars that get over 100mpg?
I read about some guys that have 100 and 150mpg Carbs but, the Big US 3 auto makers buy them out. Why?

[KC Ron Carter]

But have you thought about how much money you could make if you own a bridge?

You could put up a toll booth and charge people to drive over it.

Later,

[2strokebloke]

Well, many cars are capable of getting nearly 100mpg. In the 50's and 60's, "economy runs" were popular, basically people would drive a certain distance and see who managed to use the least gas - getting over 80mpg from a stock VW beetle was easy - you just couldn't travel over 35mph if you wanted to do so!

The 150mpg "carbs" you speak of are not really carbs in the regualr sense, but rather vaporizors. There's two reasons vaporizors are not used on production vehicles, for one thing oil companies don't want them to be, for another thing - they're highly dangerous because vaporized gasoline is exceptionally volatile.

In 1973, employees of the Shell Oil Company turned a new world record for high mileage, with a modified '59 Opel that got 376.9mpg for a contest the company put on. Amazing, but probably not practical for everyday use (slow speeds, but incredible none the less) That record has since been beaten more than two times over, but by vehicles even less practical for the average person than the highly modified Opel.

[ivymike1031]

Originally Posted by bm2boats

VW has a car with a diesel engine that gets 100mpg. The US will not let them sell it over here. I wonder why?
So VW put a car on the in the US that gets 40mpg.
Why can't we have cars that get over 100mpg?
I read about some guys that have 100 and 150mpg Carbs but, the Big US 3 auto makers buy them out. Why?

The VW car you're referring to, I believe, uses a hybrid-electric drivetrain with a 3-cyl diesel engine. It seats two passengers, one behind the other. (see pic @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/highefficiencyvehicles/ ) I don't believe it's a mass-produced vehicle, even in Europe, nor would it be profitable to mass produce it at present. Heck, VW can barely sell a regular diesel in the US to begin with, let alone a diesel-electric hybrid. Another factor that comes into play is emissions regulations. The US has stricter particulate matter emissions standards than many European countries, which makes it difficult to sell a diesel in the US. Also, European fuels have a different composition than those commonly available in the US, and the fuels in the US prevent certain diesel exhaust aftertreatment technologies from being viable. The fuels could be upgraded, but then truckers would have to pay more, and our economy would be hosed.

Honda and Toyota are losing money on their high mileage vehicles, the Insight, Civic Hybrid, and Prius. They expect that the research and development of the technology will pay off in the long run, so they're willing to get soaked in the near-term. In some ways, Honda and Toyota are onto something. Much of the technology required for fuel cell cars is a part of the hybrid cars that they're currently selling. Participating in, and building, the marketplace for this technology will help them to bring their costs down (quality, manufacturing, etc), so that when the fuel cells become cheaper, they'll have a big advantage over their competitors. On the other hand, with a fairly modularized automotive marketplace (as we currently have), it may pay off to be a spectator until the technology matures. Toyota and Honda will have developed a supplier base for these components, but those suppliers will be ready and willing to sell to other mfrs when demand picks up.

That crap about 150mpg carburetors will never die out (I just hooked it up and my power, driveability, and fuel economy increased 500%!), but you'll never meet an honest man who can tell you he's tested one (unless he's just a bumbling idiot who means well but can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to testing). If they really worked the way they do in make-believe land, they'd already be in mass production; capitalism is funny that way. "Big oil" conspiracy theorists seem, for the most part, to have slept through basic economics (or in their terms, refused to be "brainwashed" by the establishment). Usually the proponents of these devices (vapor carbs, supercarbs, fuel catalysts, etc) confuse the thermal efficiency of an engine with its combustion efficiency, and assume that if only 25% of the fuel energy is converted to useful work (a common figure), the other 75% is unburned fuel going out the tailpipe. In reality, nearly all of the fuel is burned (typically better than 99%), and other losses account for the low efficiency of the engine, such as pumping work, exhaust waste heat, heat xfer out of the chamber, friction, etc.

What it all boils down to, in the end, is a question of supply and demand. Auto makers sell what people want to buy, because they want to make money. Different manufacturers find different portions of the market to sell to, based on where they think they can do best, but the goals are essentially the same.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by ivymike1031

That crap about 150mpg carburetors will never die out (I just hooked it up and my power, driveability, and fuel economy increased 500%!), but you'll never meet an honest man who can tell you he's tested one (unless he's just a bumbling idiot who means well but can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to testing). If they really worked the way they do in make-believe land, they'd already be in mass production; capitalism is funny that way.

[rant]Capitalism is funny in the way that people like to make money - car manufacturers make more money off of large vehicle than they do off of small vehicles - this is why Honda left the Kei class in Japan all those years ago, and makers like Toyota and Nissan never even got involved. It has nothing to do with building the most efficient vehicle, but with making money - all the money that could be tapped from that market had pretty much already been sucked up by Subaru and Suzuki anyway, so there was little reason to build a product with a low profit margin in a market sector that's already near saturation point(but most importantly it's the low profit margin). So don't think all automakers would just jump on the boat if these "150mpg" carbs worked.
Secondly I have to agree, the 150mpg crap will never stop. Nobody has gotten 150 or 200mpg on an otherwise normal car using one of these types of carburetors. Some of these mythical carbs will actually return less mpg than a stock unit (like the infamous "Fish" carb) others like the vaporizer may return much higher mpg than stock, but still nowhere near the 150mpg that people seem to think these types are capable of. Production of vaporizors would also be more expensive than current fuel systems (yet another reason automakers don't want to deal with them despite improved efficiency and cleaner exhaust, not to mention decreased performance, and of course the safety hazard of a vehicle with an ammount of boiling gas under it's hood)
So saying that automakers don't produce them because they don't work is like saying Greenland doesn't actually exist because you can't see it from your street (but I assure you it is a real place)[/rant]

[ivymike1031]

saying that automakers don't produce them because they don't work is like saying Greenland doesn't actually exist because you can't see it from your street

not really, because
A) they really don't work, because there is very very little margin for improving combustion efficiency, which is all the devices are purported to do, and
B) if there was anything nearly as cheap as this that would eliminate the need for vvt / regenerative braking / emissions controls / etc., it definitely would make economic sense to use it, and
C) If you could make a two vehicles identical save for a 3x improvement in fuel economy and a $20 difference in mfr cost, you'd definitely take the $20 hit and make the more efficient vehicle. Your competitors certainly will.

Those "vaporizor" heaps may compete well against other carburetors, but they're nowhere near as good as a modern PFI system. Seriously. Hot intake valves do a pretty darn good job of evaporating fuel. The safety concern you keep citing is a non-issue. The fuel in the intake of a standard carbureted vehicle is ready to burn; vaporizing a few more fuel molecules isn't going to make an important difference. Besides, even if all the fuel&air in the intake manifold did explode, the result would be the same as a typical backfire through the carb - a loud noise, a flicker of flame, and an engine that stops running. There's nothing magical about evaporating the fuel. You're really not adding much energy. Heck, you're a fan of two-stroke engines - how do you feel about having all that fuel/air mixture swirling around in the crankcase? Sounds soooo dangerous, doesn't it?

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by ivymike1031

Besides, even if all the fuel&air in the intake manifold did explode, the result would be the same as a typical backfire through the carb - a loud noise, a flicker of flame, and an engine that stops running.

[sarcasm]Gee mike I wish I were so smart as you. I wish I was so smart that I understood that hot gas in a heat exchanger is no more volatile than cold gas in a float bowl. I wish I could understand that since a flame won't travel through a tiny hole in a jet, that a flame can't travel through a much larger port that communicates directly with a heat exchanger filled with highly explosive gasoline vapors - gee if only I knew everything there was to know about anything like you mike.[/sarcasm]

How about you try this little experiment, first light a match above a container filled with gasoline, that has a needle sized hole in it.
Then light another match, this time above a container filled with boiling gas, and hole in it's top the size of a dime.

When you get back from the hospital, if your fingers haven't all been blown off, you can write your opinions on which is more dangerous, using first hand experience.

[ivymike1031]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

[sarcasm]Gee mike I wish I were so smart as you. I wish I was so smart that I understood that hot gas in a heat exchanger is no more volatile than cold gas in a float bowl. I wish I could understand that since a flame won't travel through a tiny hole in a jet, that a flame can't travel through a much larger port that communicates directly with a heat exchanger filled with highly explosive gasoline vapors - gee if only I knew everything there was to know about anything like you mike.[/sarcasm]

How about you try this little experiment, first light a match above a container filled with gasoline, that has a needle sized hole in it.
Then light another match, this time above a container filled with boiling gas, and hole in it's top the size of a dime.

When you get back from the hospital, if your fingers haven't all been blown off, you can write your opinions on which is more dangerous, using first hand experience.

Well, when you finally stop crying, and get over that horrendous shock of having some guy on the internet tell you that you're wrong, especially in a forum that you moderate (gasp!), perhaps you'll pop the hood on a carbureted vehicle, and note that when the engine is running, the entire length of the intake manifold, from the intake valve to the throttle plate, is full of a nearly stoichiometric mixture of gasoline and air (ready and willing to burn). If you've ever worked on a real-life carbureted car (jockeying for status on an automotive forum doesn't count), then perhaps you've noticed that from time to time a little bit of flame will slip out of the combustion chamber in the wrong direction, resulting in the rapid combustion of all the air and fuel between the intake valve and the throttle plate... and a loud noise... and a flicker of flame, if the air cleaner cover is removed... and then the end of the world! oh wait, no, it stops after the loud noise and flicker.

While you're at it, puzzle over the fact that a gasoline & air mixture doesn't ignite in the combustion chamber, even when it has been compressed and heated to many times atmospheric temp & pressure, until somebody actually puts a spark to it...

Then you can go back to nursing your ego.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, a partially-filled gasoline can is more dangerous on a cold day than on a hot day, because on a hot day there won't be enough air left in the can to sustain a reaction.

Jeez, some people, eh?

[ivymike1031]

and here's some more food for thought - how about turbocharged carbureted vehicles, where the intake manifold is not only full of fuel and air, but it's full of hot, pressurized, fuel and air? Nobody would ever build something THAT dangerous, would they? They sure as heck would, wouldn't they... they'd even sell it at a mark-up.

[2strokebloke]

Talk about who's nursing their ego...
I offer some insight I've learned from studying dozens of patents, and research, and you've got a problem with what I'm saying? What's the matter, don't like it when you write about something you have very little idea about?

Frankly, if you try telling me that there'd be no risk running a shelton (patent 2,982,528) then I think I'd loose all faith in any opinion you offered about anything mechanical. Safety isn't even the main point I was trying to make with my first two posts in this thread. Mostly I wanted to point out that there is no such thing as a "150mpg" carburetor, and that the majority of such carbs labeled as such don't even claim increased efficiency in their patents.

I'd also like to point out that if you were to use a vaporizer, it's much wiser to use a fuel like alcohol instead of gas, because a vaporizer is more suited to a fuel that vaporizes at one temperature, instead of a composite like gasoline where different elements vaporize at different temperatures. Unfortunately, you can't fill your tank up with 180 proof ethyl at every street corner like you can with gas - another reason automakers don't build them. I assure you they do work, but they are less practical to use with gasoline, more dangerous, and more expensive to make. You claim to know something about capitalism, so I'm sure you can figure out what the previous sentence means.

To recap why they aren't made, in order of importance:
1: not practical with widely available fuels.
2: expensive to build
3: (when used with gasoline) sludge buildup and expensive maintenance.
4: safety

Now what are you going to tell me? That they are practical to use with gasoline, just because I said they're better with alcohol? (even though you're already of the opinion that they don't work)
Or that they're actually cheaper to make than regular carbs?

[bm2boats]

Gees, I didn't think anyone would get into a pissing match over my post. Thanks for the answers.
I just thought that in the year 2003, that someone can come out with a car that could get 100mpg doing 55 - 65 mph.
Thanks again.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by bm2boats

Gees, I didn't think anyone would get into a pissing match over my post. Thanks for the answers.
I just thought that in the year 2003, that someone can come out with a car that could get 100mpg doing 55 - 65 mph.
Thanks again.

Actually, there is the California Commuter which I think holds the world record for highway driving, I believe it was set at about 150mpg at 55mph. I think the inventor even sells plans over the internet, but it's a single seater!
I also forgot to mention that back in the 70's(and early 80's), there was a three-wheeled car called the "HMV Freeway" that was a 2-seater with a 2-cylinder engine, it's capable of highway travel and it gets about 80mpg, there's a still a few out there.

[Holyterror]

The challenge is not to engineer a car that gets extraordinary mileage; that's been done many times over. The challenge is to engineer a car that does everything that a practical car is supposed to do - and do it well - while also getting extraordinary mileage. Saab is doing just that with their variable compression setup. Last I heard, they had an inline-5 that made ~245 HP and got 60 MPG (I don't know it that was in a test vehicle or just a theoretical figure). Their goal is put a vehicle on the road that makes similar power but gets 80 MPG. Notice that they haven't tried to get the best possible mileage out of this technology; instead, they're concentrating on meeting all of their goals for a useful engine together.

As for all the "150 MPG" vaporizer carbs: most of the people who make noise about these are the same ones that claim the government is suppressing "free energy" devices and cold fusion. In other words, they can be divided into two categories: devices whose usefulness is greatly exaggerated, and pure mythology.

[Chris]

Well, all I can say is that backfires will seem lame after you try this....Take a Ford 429, then, put the distributor in 180 degrees backwords. Try to run said engine (without an air filter, of course).
Observe the massive, 3-4 foot jet of flame coming out of the carburettor, shaking, and many loud noises. Turn off engine as fast as humanly possible, and say a short prayer.


But seriously, the 150mpg practical car doesnt exist, and never did. It probably came about during a session between about 6 people, someone wondered aloud if an oil company ever killed a revolutionary product. Someone got confused, thought they said that it had actually happened...yada yada yada.

As for no current cars getting 100mpg, its mainly because of our demand for a host of other things, such as power, car size (weight), cost, etc.
That and the fact that an engine can only be made so efficient, and the law of diminishing returns WILL come into play.

[biofuelsnow]

Interesting posts, if not uneccessarily hostile.

I think the VW in question is the Lupo, which is sold in Europe, but not in the US. During the publicity event, the a fleet of Lupos averaged 99 mpg. Real-world mileage is closer to about 60 mpg, which is reportedly better than the hybrid vehicles available.

http://www.lupousa.com/

Anotther advantage of choosing a diesel powerplant is the option of using biodiesel or a biodiesel blend. While choosing to use a vegetable oil based fuel or blend adds cost, it also supports an emerging industry of sustainable, renewable fuels. This would reduce the reliance of the US on importing oil. Europe has already realized this and is far ahead of the US with regard to vegetable based fuels, particularly biodiesel. This is probably why most of the research and development of new, cleaner diesels is coming from European automakers.

Based on National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) studies conducted over the last decade or so, emissions of particulate matter and carbon dioxide are signifcantly reduced when biodiesel is blended with petrodiesel and can be reduced even further with emissions reduction devices. The main emission problem with biodiesel is elevated NOx due to the higher oxygen content of the fuel compared to petrodiesel.

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/1998/30biodiesel.html
http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/publications.html

Lastly, there is more to the free market than supply and demand. The US brand of captialism has demonstrated historically that monopolies are preferred to competition because profits are ensured. Maintaining dominance in a market means reducing risk, and innovation is risky in a market of sure profit from SUV sales. If I was an auto company bent on maintaining profit in the US market, it would be much easier and cheaper for me to supress a technology than tool up to produce it. And if you think the bottom line doesn't matter, just ask the folks about 15 miles up the road from where I live at the Ford plant who lost their jobs last year, or the folks at the GM plant 1 mile up the road who will be loosing their jobs in the next few months. A bold foray into new technology might keep those folks working AND produce a fuel efficient vehicle that people would buy, but that's not happening.

There are powerful organizations that lobby legistlators to champion or decry laws that would be detrimental to the immediate bottom line. US automakers peer nervously over their shoulder at the fuel efficient vehicles of the European market because they have testified before Congress that it would bankrupt them to produce cars that get even an average 5 mpg better than they do now, even if they have 10 years to do it (current CAFE standards for passenger cars have been the same since 1986 at 27.5 mpg), yet the technology exists with diesels to easily top 40 mpg. That is if the American public will forgive the attempt by GM to kill the passenger car diesel with their disgraceful engine in the 80s.

Enough said.