Use regular instead of Super! ? ? ?
 

Has anyone heard of a device called Fuelstar? www.fuelstar.com

The web site says you can run unleaded instead of super and still get better gas milage and lower emmission and runs engine cooler and better for your engine .. and .... and ....... !

I am thinking of buying this and putting it one my 88 260e. Just wondered if someone else has had any experience with it.

I drive 700 miles a week and need to cut my gas bill or I am going to have to get a new more efficent car if the price of gas keeps going up.

Broke in Houston
Anthony

Hmmmmm. High fuelprices always seem to bring out the Nutcases & their 100 mpg carburetors. :o
Do you really think if these things worked ( cleaner emissions, better mpg., lower grade fuel required ), the OEM's would not use them ?

Look into buying a diesel. Nice MPG, a w123 or w126. w123 is not a luxury (have 300D Turbo) as the w126 (own 300SE) the w123 saves me a lotta gas...

I got a pyramid that sits in my trunk over the gas tank that energizes the fuel and it gets me 68MPG. I put my golf clubs next to it and I get an additional 60 yards on my tee shots.

I'll second that !

Junk technology
 

Most of those gizmos and gadgets don't really work.It looks like this one is another of those inline fuel(ionizers,stabelizers,molecular structure of fuel improvers).They pop up every few years,and they're all just magnets.Whenthey do work,what's actually going on is the magnet is attracting the rust particals in the fuel system and causing a fuel restriction.Which leads to you'r engine running leaner.Slightly leaner fuel mixture can increase you'r mileage and power.But you'll burn you'r exhaust valves out and cause premature wear on the engine.Vapor carburators actually do work and give unbelievable fuel mileage.100-200 and more miles per gallon on big full sized cars.But you need pure,raw gasoline for them to work long term.I believe all modern gasoline has oil that has been molecularly cracked to create more gasoline mixed in.You try vaporizing the cracked oil,and you get a tar residue left over.These carburators worked great back in the 1920's and 30's when you bought raw gasoline with no addatives or fuel cracking to increase gasoline production.And even though they did really work back then,the car makers never installed them.Yes there still are super high effiency fuel systems around that do work with modern fuel.And the car manufacturers know about them,because they own the patents by hostile acquisition.THIS is not an urban legend.They could be building 300 mpg cars today.I don't know why they don't.But I personally know of at least two carburator designs belonging to one of Americas big three auto makers that are real.And the inventor of one of them who I used to know personally was threatened to sell his patent to them or he and his family would disapear.Yes he sold to them,but he doesn't dare ever tell anyone about his design.I knew about it before the patent.

"You'r" (sic) just making this stuff up as you go, right? :rolleyes:

No, it's all true. Really. Time to go fire up the Flux Capacitor in the Delorean. :rolleyes:

There is a long thread in the archives on this from a while back, take a look.... talking about premium vs regular and probably some talk about "wonder gyzmos" to get you to 54 mpg :D

I've heard this story for at least 23 years, and I'm less and less open-minded about its veracity. Patents expire after 17 years. A savvy business person can profit from it's exclusivity for up to 20 years. Why hasn't something like this surfaced by now, and with the internet why aren't there bootleg plans available for the DIYer? Heck, everything else is bootlegged on the internet!!! I don't buy it.

Know where I can get a Mr. Fusion rebuild kit?

I recently installed a phased-trionic sub-molecular inversion reactor. Fits in the trunk near gas tank of course.

Instead of filling the tank with gas, one simply fills the tank with water from the public water supply along with 8 oz. of hydrogen peroxide and 4 oz. of sodium benzynol. This mixture is drawn into the reactor and the output is 95 octane gasoline.

Gas mileage is a little better than with conventional gasoline...about 25mpg in my case, but the cost of operation has been greatly reduced.

The reactor was developed at the University of Schlitterbahn by Professor Hans Dorkmunder and Professor Renaldo Geech.

They'll soon be available at Wal-Mart for $79.95

A restriction won't lean out the system much on an EFI engine, which pumps far more fuel out of the tank that it injects, and cycles the unused fuel back to the tank. A restriction won't lean a carburetor unless it really slows down the flow to the bowl, and again most pumps can pump a lot faster than the bowl can drain.
Yes, it is unbelievable fuel mileage. Modern gasoline engines are about 33% efficient. A big full sized car may get 30mpg, so with a 100% efficient engine it could at best get 99 mpg! No carburetor will increase engine efficiency that much.
Gasoline starts in the refinerey as crude oil. The 'refining' process 'cracks' the long chain molecules of the crude oil into molecules with shorter chains to become your "pure, raw gasoline." It is then blended with detergents and octane boosters to make what we know as gasoline.
As stated above, cracking is what produces the gasoline. It is not brought up 'pure' from a well... :rolleyes:
Because they can't violate the laws of physics? Because nobody would buy or ride in a 1,000 pound, 5 horsepower car that had a top speed of 10mph downhill with a tailwind.
All of the designs have to mix air and fuel at a 14.5:1 ratio or it won't burn. How they do that is governed by physics too...

Apologies to all for Off Topic response. I feel better now... :pukeface:

Best Regards,
Jim

Okay, I'll let you in on my secret.
I bought a fuel-saving device 6 months ago & ever since then I have to remove gasoline from my overflowing gastank, twice a week.
Boy, that overflow sure ruins my waxjob. :D

On a more serious note, long distance truck drivers are getting more than a bit peeved at "NASCAR dads" attempting to "draft" them on the interstates to save gas.

I would think there's too much airflow under the trailer to allow for drafting.

This thread cracks me up, whenever someone has this "great" fuel mileage idea I laugh so hard. Trust me, if any automobile manufature could produce a car that got substantially better fuel mileage than there counterparts they would bring that "magic pill" to the market as fast as possible to garner a larger share of the market and make more money. Common sense here. :P
Chris

These things do seem to have a placebo affect on people. After someone spends $29.95 on something they want it to work, and they start paying more attention to their driving. So they get better mileage, no thanks to the device. After a while they forget about it and their mileage goes back to normal. If everyone spent the same money on tune-ups and new air filters we would be better off.

Motorcyclists looking to shave time off of a long trip will do this, but the more learned ones will spot an independent trucker in a truck stop and buy his chicken fried steak + maybe a pack or 2 of cigs.

Bad numbers,but true
 

I don't remember the numbers on exact mileage,but I know of two designs that work.The best kept secrets are kept in plain view and made to seem rediculous.I've never bought any plans or worthless gizmos myself.And saying a 300 mpg car is impossible is ignorant.A hybrid electric car with a gas or diesel engine powering an onboard generator can be built from readily available parts and plans that can achieve in excess of 100mpg at 30% engine effiency.You don't need 100% or more effiency,which are both impossible,to build ultra effecient cars.I can only say I know of two designs that work giving around 70% effiency.Try to tell me it's impossible.Just like not that long ago it was impossible for a heating furnace to be more then 60 some % efficient,Right?Everyone knew it was impossible to get better efficiency from a furnace.And the people who claimed they could do better were nut cases.Huh.And all of a sudden 85% efficient furnaces or better were a reality.I'm not making outragous claims of anything at all impossible.Hey,don't most people KNOW you can't run a diesel on SVO and expect it to last?And as far as patent rights go.Before the patents ever run out the owner of the patent can copyright it and have all patent records removed from public access.Right?Go ahead and ridicule me for two designs that I know work.Then when they someday do surface,remember what I said.Every one used to know space travel was a great fantasy,but went against the laws of physics also.Perpetual motion machines are most likely impossible.But why is 70% fuel efficiency impossible?Why so closed minded?Traveling faster then the speed of sound was know to be impossible.Only a few years ago,almost everyone knew a non hybrid car could never be built that woud be practicle and get more then 90 mpg.Everyone knew that if it was possible,the car makers would jump at the chance to build them.Just like everyone knows it now right?So I guess the VW Lupo is just another urban legend also?Doesn't that cars engine already exceed those laws of physics about fuel to air ratio and effiency?

Almost forgot
 

Does anyone here remember the 2.2 turbo gasoline engine Smokey Eunick built,tested,proved worked and recieved media coverage of?Didn't he get around 45% effiency with only slightly modified parts?And then it even got media coverage about how Chrysler Corperation slapped him with a multi million dollar lawsuit in order to shut him up?And then not another word was heard.And this is a well respected race engine builder and engineer.Goes against the laws of physics,doesn't it?So I guess that's another fuel system I know of that actually works.But most believe to be completly impossible.
And early oil refining was done with alcohol style pot stills.No molecular cracking done there.Just simple distallation with the end products being propane,RAW gasoline,kerosene(then known as coal oil),oil and tar.Molecular cracking to increase gasoline production begane durring WW II with chemical and mineral catalysts.It takes a catalyst of some type before it is considered molecular cracking as far as I have ever been able to find out.
But I guess I'm just another ignorant fool who doesn't know anything.
I don't begine to know everything there is about anything.A person would have to be perfect for that.I'm far from stupid or ignorant.But believe me or not,I know I'm right on this.And most scientists worth their degrees now admit they shouldn't say anything is impossible.Just highly improbable.The experts used to be certain that no engine could be designed with better effiency then the 12% efficient steam engines of the time.And along came Rudolf Diesel with his 25% efficient compression ignition engine.Like I said before,tell me it's impossible.

Utoh...it's obvious you KNOW TOO MUCH. Worse than that, you've failed to keep your FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE quiet. By now, THEY will have noticed this thread. We are all in DANGER for having read it, but you especially, for stating THAT WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED :eek: Even now, I fear it's too late. There's a plain white van suspiciously sitting parked down the street. In trying to warn you, I may have waited too long to save myself, but you still might have a chance.

Remember...



























...shiney side out. :rolleyes:

[IMG]http://www.digitalfox.com/digitalfox/john******kerry/foilhat_files/foil5.jpg[/IMG]

I hate to do this, but it's time for Thermodynamics 101. According to the second law of thermodynamics, there is an upper limit on the amount of work that any device can extract when operating between a high temperature source and a low temperature sink. This is called the Carnot Efficiency and can be calculated as follows:

Eff = 1 - TL/TH

where TL is the absolute temp of the low temp sink and TH is the absolute temp of the high temp source.

Accomplishing this efficiency would require a "reversible heat engine" which is a theoretical device that is completely reversible (no heat loss, no friction, ideal transfer of thermal energy to mechanical energy). No practical device approaches this limit, certainly not an internal combustion engine.

If you put numbers in this equation (and assume about 70F ambient temperature) you will find that 70% efficiency can be achieved with a high temperature source of about 1300F. Therefore, it is possible to have a 70% efficient engine without violating the second law of thermodynamics. So I will not tell you it's impossible.

However, the "engine" required to accomplish this does not exist. The internal combustion engine can be approximated by something called the "Air-Standard Otto Cycle" which can be thought of as an ideal internal combustion engine. The efficiency of this cycle is significantly lower than the Carnot Cycle due to the fundamental design of the engine. In addition, real engines have significant additional losses (i.e., every BTU of energy removed by the cooling system). The current state of the art for actual internal combustion engines is around 30%. Much of this limitation has to do with the nature of the Air-Standard Otto Cycle. Another significant limitation is the maximum temperature that current materials can withstand. Obtaining a significant improvement will require a change to the fundamental design of the engine. This has lead to proposals such as ceramic engines with no cooling. By way of comparison, a state of the art power generation stationary combustion turbine can achieve efficiencies in the range of 50%. This requires operation at the extreme limits of the materials and some fairly exotic designs. We are talking about installations that will spend (literally) millions to increase efficiency by a couple of percent.

The bottom line is that no-one on the planet has an actual practical device (engine) of any type that will convert thermal energy (at these temperatures) to mechanical energy with anything close to 70% efficiency. Very little of this limitation is due to the combustion process, which is the only part of the process that the mythical "100 mph carburetor" could improve.

Sorry for the rant, but it annoys me when I hear statements that directly contradict undergraduate physics presented as fact. This nonsense has been around forever, and I don't think we need to propagate it any further.

As far as thermodynamics go,
 

I believe you are right with you'r numbers.Which it why Smokey's engine used ceramic coatings on the pistons.What is being ignored here though is the ammount of unburned hydrocarbons leaving the engine,which is the main reason for catalytic converters.And if I remember correctly,wasn't a mostly ceramic engine actually built and tested back in 82?Increased thermal effiency requires lower tempratures to achieve the same overall effiency.There is more then just thermodynamics involved.If I remember correctly,Smokey's engine reached a maximum coolant temprature of something like 140 degrees F.
But I guess I'm wasteing my time here because the currant known laws of physics are infallible now.All the past misconceptions in physics have now been discovered and corrected.All science is now perfect.And there are NEVER more then one set of equasions to be considered to solving a problem.And it's also known that increased efficiency doesn't supply more usable power that can be better utiliesed with higher gearing resulting in lower engine rpm's,resulting in less fuel being used.You don't have to have increased heat to be able to better utilize the heat being generated.I agree with the general laws of thermodynamics,which I have studied on several occasions over the last 25 years.But I don't agree with all the assumptions made concerning those laws.No I can neither prove nor disprove them.But some of those conclusions don't seem to make sense when all factors are taken into consideration.



But this is where I quit.Everyone now knows all know laws are absolutly perfect.Mankind has become infallible in his sciences.It is impossible to build an affordable engine that can better utilise the fuels being used.It's impossible to use more of the fuel entering the combustion chambers,and decrease the ammount of unburned hydrocarbons in any kind of practical application.And all mathamatical theories concerning this have now been proven by practical application of those former theories.Opps,I guess that hasn't been done yet.But the experts know their theories must be 100% correct.I don't claim to be an expert on anything.Which is why I always try to learn more.And I already admitted my numbers may be off some.But my origional points remain that most,if not all the mileage boosting gadgets advertiesed are junk technolodgy.And science is not perfect.And secrets are kept from the worlds population about better technologies every day.But it seems I'm the only one here who is guessing the technology that can greatly increase fuel effiency is being kept secret until the auto manufacturers feel they can make the greatest profits due to demand for super efficient cars.And any manufacturer looking to get their car on the market before general consensus agrees the maximum profit potential has been reached,would be ruined,discredited,and bankrupted just like the Tucker car company was for building his vastly superior car.The tucker automobile was decades ahead of the compitition.Even though they could build cars just as good,they didn't want to because they didn't see a potential for maximum profits for safer and more efficient cars.You believe what you want to.Keeping technolegy from the public has been done before.And science facts have been supressed before to keep the public ignorant of the potential bennifits.And no,I'm not a conspiricy kook.I'm just an inquiring mind who has had access to some little known technology,and questions what are the real reasons past and preasent for supressing new knowledge.But you just keep on believing that you've been told the truth,the whole truth,and nothing but the truth.I have nothing more to say.

I'm getting a headache.

No-one is saying that incremental improvements are not possible, or that we have reached the limits of this technology. Improvements in internal combustion engine efficiency will continue until something better comes along. There are many trade-offs in the design of a modern engine. The cost-benefit of improving efficiency is always changing, and the state-of-the-art in engine controls and materials continues to move ahead. It is inevitable that efficiencies will increase as fuel prices increase. Design concepts such as hybrids are not new ideas, they have been around for many years, but they were not developed for production until they had a market. Companies are going to protect their intellectual property, even if they are not using it at the moment. I think everyone understands that there are new technologies out there that have not yet been commercialized. No-one is trying to bury useful technologies for some nefarious purpose.

However, we are talking about incremental improvements to the same basic 100 year old design, not doubling or tripling efficiencies with a single new concept. I think it's safe to say the internal combustion engine is a mature design, and that design improvements are well into diminishing returns. Historically, one of the biggest limitations has been materials. The ceramic engine concept (another idea that's been around forever) has just not reached the point where it is practical to implement. Maybe fuel prices will get to the point where it is cost-beneficial someday.

With regard to the laws of physics, we are not talking about unproven cutting edge theory here. These are fundamental laws which have been well established for a couple of hundred years now. Anyone who's designed any type of "heat engine" has bumped up against these limitations. For some reason, there seems to be an endless supply of "inventors" who believe they have found a loophole in these laws. There must be a whole department in the pattern office just to weed out these wing-nuts. Of-course, when industry tells them to get lost they assume that they are the victim of some vast conspiracy to silence them. Everyone seems to know someone who knows someone who had the solution to the worlds energy problems until they were silenced by "them." Classic urban legend.

I think we're on the same page now
 

So bear with me please.Okay.So there are multiple factors involved in figuring the overall efficiency of an engine.I already stated that I agree with the basic princaples of thermal dynamics.What I've done a poor job trying to explain though is this.I'm not nessasarily disputing the thermal efficiency factor.But what most people seem to overlook is the efficiency of the combustion itself.If I remember correctly.Around 45% of the exhaust emissions on average are unburned hydrocarbons.Of course this is right out of the cylinder before fresh air is added and the mix is exposed to the high temps created in the catalytic converter to try burning off most of the remaining hydrocarbons.We agree that the average engine has about 30% combustion efficiency because it's true.And I believe the thermal effiency is about the same.Okay.Now consider that thermal efficiency remains nearly the same or slightly better by introducing better materials like ceramic coating on the pistons and sodium filled stainless steel valves for heat resistance as Smokey Eunick did in building his engine.As far as thermal efficiency goes,I believe his engine reached about 38% thermal efficiency.All well within reason by cost effectiveness and thermal laws.Correct?The factor most ignored though is the unburned fuel these engines waste.By creating a better vaporization and burn pattern in the combustion within the cylinder.Smokey acheived somewhere near 70% complete combustion of the fuel.That doesn't in any way contradict the laws of physics now does it?Not when they can get more then 85% + combustion efficiency with modern furnaces.Due to the natural tendancy of cracked oil molecules trying to recombine to their origional long chain state.Which by the way is the reason for varnish deposits left behind by the evaporation of old,stale fuel.With the cracked modern gasoline plus addatives.I don't believe there is any practicle way to achieve the high efficiency seen if furnaces burning fuel that is more in it's pure state.but why do people find it so hard to believe in 70% combustion efficiency.Droplets of fuel,no matter how small,can't burn as efficiently as true fuel vapors.Which is the fundamental reason for the 30 or so % combustion we commonly see today.If you had a source of raw gasoline available.And a good method of mostly vaporizing that fuel in a combustion chamber designed for as little flame pattern obstruction as currantly possible.Shouldn't it then be possible to obtain the same combustion efficiency as a modern furnace?Yes,yes and yes.Now with increased combustion efficiency,there isn't a need to use as much fuel to get the same amount of usable energy.And therefore while you would get an increase in thermal tempratures,they wouldn't be unmanagable if you made the same kinds of changes as were made to Smokey's engine.You don't have to break any thermal laws to get substancial combustion efficiency.With the cracked oil added to modern gas.I don't think it's possible to get more then around 70% efficiency due to the tar/varnish residues that woud be left behind in both the fuel system and combustion chamber.That would create as much as,or more problems then the partially burned hydrocarbons now commonly left behind as carbon buildup.I'm sorry if I offended anyone earlier.But I got quite frustrated by being ridiculed like some kind of gullible sucker who falls for the most likely impossible pipe dreams being sold to the unwary public.
It's just that I know first hand on the one fuel system that does work.And he never got his patent.He drove the old truck for many thousands of miles with only two changes made.The rear end gearing.And the carburator he designed.And averaged slightly better then 100mpg.He the took the engine apart to inspect for damage because of his extreemly lean fuel mixture.No where near the commonly accepted absolute of 13.5:1 -14.5:1.and when he knew it would work he applied for a patent.Never did get a reply from the patent office.Instead he got a vague but threatening letter from one of the big three auto makers(no way will I say who) on a day I was helping him and his family do some recarpeting and painting in their house.I know this one from first hand experience and can guarantee it's not a friend of a friend urban legand.The other one I know of is second party,who I trust the source.

I hope with the way I explained the seperate aspects to be considered that are involved in the seperate factors of efficiency have shown you the practicle,and very possible gains that can be made to modern engines without extreem re-engineering needed.It's entirely possible to greatly increase combustion efficiency,without much altering to thermal efficiency in any way.
And I'm sorry this is long,but if you've read it word for word,you should be able to see that it's something that can,and has been done.There are other set ups that have gotten short term coverage in the media,and the inventors claim consperisie.There's sometimes worked also,but not without engine damage because their systems create 90 some percent vaporization of the fuel.Leaving tar/varnish residues that destroy their engines.These are the examples held out to the public as proof all such systems are impossible.These guys didn't do enough research as to what the limits are for vaporizing modern fuel,and paid the price with their reputations and dignaty.I hope you now understand why it's possible to build super high efficiency engines.And why the systems that failed were so easily used to confuse the public about the viability of this very real technology.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you might try posting verifiable information, rather than relying on "you'r" (sic) memory, what you believe, and guesses.

Oh, and if you're going to edit "you'r" (sic) messages for spelling errors, you might try actually correcting your spelling errors. Or are you guessing until you believe "you'r" (sic) correct?

You have to remember to also include what is cost effective for the car manufacturers to produce. Sure you can get more efficient engines, energy wise, but is it cost effective? Will they last as long? What will it cost to fix them? I remember long ago some major manufacturer producing an all ceramic type combustion engine that was somewhere over %60 efficient. Problem was it was a little more delicate than aluminum or cast iron blocks. They could not make it basically stay together in the real world and it was not exactly cost effective either.

Now to the big manufacturers and quieting people up! Well remember Tucker? The big boys do not like to be beaten by anyone, let alone some small backyard guy building anthing that is better, more cost effective, more effiecent than there highly paid Engineers can think of. Also believe what you want but the oil companies and the car companies have big ass lobbying teams and lawyers and each other to make sure they all remain rich for a very long time. The oil companies have a big stake in car engines and cars in general not getting the best economy they can. Think about it, what would 300 MPG efficient vehicles due to the big oil companies? What would happen if we all of a suddent found a way to be more effiecient and our dependance on oil dropped significantly? Someday it will, but not today and not until someone steps up to the plate about a new design or even an old one and gets it out there. Hopefully soon as the Internet would be a great way to do it without the big boys stomping on it too fast. And yes there are all kinds of stories about the big Auto guys buying people to keep them quite or forcing patents away from them. No one want to be made to look bad, especially the big guys. But alas who can actually prove these rumors true? Not likely unless someone has the key to the safe where the secrets are hidden!!!!!:D

Hey Craig:
Please dont flee from the boards in disgust. We need as many reasonable people here as possible. I could learn a lot from you, and you can help me remember stuff that I haven't seen in years.
Rick & Connie: You are, of course, entitled to your opinions as we all are, but for goodness sake please don't misquote science and make it out to be fact. You don't know physics (Craig has a very healthy recollection of PHYS 101....I had forgotten half of the stuff he summarized but he is dead on correct about the thermodynamics of engine efficiency) and you definitely don't know chemistry or really much about how an engine works for that matter. You're saying that you don't dispute thermodynamic limitations when in reality you have absolutely no clue about thermodynamics. How the heck can you make your arguments when you literally have no idea what the science of thermodynamics actually is?
I'm not going to even attempt to try and explain how stuff works to you, Rick & Connie, cuz I'll bet that you won't even consider it to be possible. I'm part of the establishment (ie people who actually understand the science and accept thermodynamic barriers as reality). 70% efficient engine? Absolutely! Achieved through carbueration and gearing? NFW! Add in some ceramic cylinder sleeces, and throw a crock pot in the back seat....still NFW! It's going to take quite some time and a [B]hell[/B] of a lot of money and many, many breakthroughs in engine technology to get close to 70% and I have no doubt that it will eventually happen. Call me crazy!!
Sorry everyone. This is going to be the catalyst for another 2000 word essay on conspiracies, but I couldn't help it.
BOTH of you need to get some sleep and stop internet surfing so darn late!
Brian

Just trying to keep things interesting. :)

The simple definition is the ratio of useful ENERGY output to total ENERGY input.

Since the input energy is heat content (BTUs) in the fuel, and the output is mechanical work (mechanical horsepower) some conversion is needed, but the efficiency can be calculated.

Rough numbers are 33% of the heat energy in the fuel is converted to rotational energy, 33% is output to the coolant and 34% is output in the exhaust. The proportions will vary but total must equal the 100% input.

Actually, most of the engine's exhaust is hot air! :D

Well, now, the furnace has an unfair advantage here, since the desired output furnace is heat, while the poor engine has to translate this heat into mechanical rotational energy! Remember it is not unburned fuel, it is wasted heat energy that lowers efficiency, and any engine will waste heat. More combustion energy goes out into the cooling system and out the exhaust pipe than is converted into mechanical energy.

Heat is not difficult to extract from combustion. High efficiency (90%+) furnaces have a second 'condensing' heat exchanger to recover more heat from the exhaust gases, resulting in even lower exhaust temperatures.

The combustion process of a modern gasoline engine is actually quite efficient. Assume the engine produces 1 gram of unburned hydrocarbons per mile. 30 grams (1.2 ounces) in 30 miles is not much fuel. An engine at 30mpg uses 99.2 ounces (6.25 pounds/gallon) of gasoline in 30 miles, while exhausting only 1.2 ounces of unburned hydrocarbons. This calculates to about 98.8% combustion efficiency, if I did the math right.

As I showed above, a modern gasoline engine achieves extremely high combustion efficiency. The issue is not combustion efficiecy, but energy conversion efficiency, or how much of this heat can be converted into mechanical work.

I am not offended, and I am not trying to ridicule.

Surely you didn't ride along with him to record how many miles he drove, how much gasoline he put in the tank. How did he then calculate 100 miles per gallon? You may believe this, but it cannot be accepted as proof.

When the air:fuel ratio is too 'lean' or too 'rich' the mixture cannot be ignited by a spark. You may be able to get the fuel to burn by applying some other ignition source, but not with a spark plug.

Adjusting the idle mixture screw on a carburetor results in the engine stalling if too lean or too rich. Been there, done that.

I remain unconvinced that any device, carburetor, fuel injector, or whatever, could provide a dramatically 'leaner' fuel:air mixture to an engine and allow it to continue to run.

I hope I have explained why I can't believe that this is possible.

Best Regards,
Jim

While I am no genius on physics or anything of that matter... Car and Driver did an article on Smokey Yunicks stuff and said he was pure and simple a scam artisit at times. He sold patents to Chrysler that didnt work!! Car and Driver tested one of his "super efficient" 2.2 liter hot injected or whatever engines and they said it knocked like hell and blew up in a matter of minutes of test driving and were unable to substantiate any claims of his. He was a smart man and made some advances in the automotive world but truth be told he never had a 70% efficient motor or a 100mpg carburator. My 2 cents you guys can now go one with your discussion as I find it most intriguing. :D
Chris

Oh and everyone here needs to remember if we are to produce a more efficient engine we should probably stray far from the current 4 cycle engine. Its design itself will NEVER lead to 70% efficiency since only 1 part of the four cycles is producing energy. The other 3 waste it. :D
Chris

So all we need is a one cylinder engine? Now we just need to figure out which one to keep. :sun_smile

I think it worthy of mention that an A/F mixture around 14.7:1 is also necessary for controlling exhaust emissions. A too-rich mixture will cause CO and HC to climb, while too-lean causes an increase in NOx. 14.7:1 represents the best compromise between power, economy, driveability, and emissions.

No no no.....a One Cycle engine!! lol :P

To me I think the rotary design has more potential for efficiency than the current piston design...but as stated above physics is not my forte!

Chris

One Cycle - That's even better. :D

I don't know much about rotary engine design, but the thermodynamics are the same as a four stroke piston engine. I believe there were some early issues with the seals, but I guess they work well now. I suspect they are better for performance than efficiency, but I don't really know. I'm also surprised they have not caught on more.

I'm still waiting to see diesel hybrids, with a small, high efficiency, constant speed diesel running a generator; a battery bank for storage; and a variable speed electric drive system. Simple technology, but the weight and/or cost must still be prohibitive. Maybe fuel prices will start to make things like this more attractive. I hope there is some silver lining to the oil price increase. :(

Right the overall efficiency of the combustion would be the same, Im talking about reducing wasted energy, hence the comment about the 4 cycle piston engine:intake, compression, power, exhaust....alot of wasted movement.

And with this "great" movement towards hibryd technology, people are forgeting about the great amount of hazardous waste this can create not to mention the cost. Batterys have a life span and many toxic chemicals are with in them....Im sure there is a recycling solution in place but it is of concern where all these battery packs may end up.

Chris

Good points. However, rotary engines still have the equivalent of all four of these strokes. The area of the combustion chamber is still decreased during the compression and exhaust "strokes", and increased during the power and intake "strokes." The only difference is that these "strokes" are accomplished by the eccentric movement of the rotor, instead of the up and down movement of a piston. Either way, it still takes the same amount of energy to compress the air/fuel during the compression "stroke." There may well be efficiencies due to reduced friction, less mass changing direction within the engine, etc. I am not an expert on engine design, someone here probably knows.

I completely agree with your concerns about battery waste. Hopefully there will be an industry recycling these components when/if hybrids become widespread. I would hate to see all those heavy metals end up in landfills. Lots of people now have the same concern about old computers.

Hybrids are pretty much snake oil. Unless you live where it never gets too hot, or too cold, and no hills, you'll not realize all that much savings in fuel efficiency. You'll run the engine in the winter for heat, and in the summer for A/C. Compared to the cost to own and operate (and manufacturers are still selling hybrids at a loss), versus a like-sized conventional car, you'll never drive one enough to offset the added costs with fuel savings.

Craig, your diesel/electric is cost- and performance-prohibited. The main drawback is the battery technology. Until battery weight, cost, and lifespan are addressed by some yet-unknown technology, hybrids will not compete with conventional internal combustion drivetrains.

Jim H! You forgot about the heat that dissapates off the block! That is even more of a waste of energy. Unfortunately only a totally ceramic block will reduce the heat transfered out and make a more efficient engine. Unless there is some other big mistery material that will hold together under the pressure and heat to build the block and head out of that will not bleed the heat energy like Cast Iron and Aluminum.

I agree, at the moment. I also agree that current hybrids are only really useful in urban applications. Battery technology is clearly the limiting factor. Also, it probably does not make economic sense for anyone to buy one today. I'm certainly not standing in line to get one, but lots of people are.

Having said all that, I don't know enough about the current state of battery design to say how close the required technology is. I don't know if we are talking about revolutionary, or just evolutionary changes. I do know that there is significant battery R&D going on now. I also remember when my cell phone was the size of a brick and held a charge just about long enough to order a pizza.

What has gotten my attention is the fact that people are actually buying these things. Normally, the is a "chicken and egg" problem with any new technology. You can't get industry interested until there is a market, and you can't get a market until the technology actually works. In this case, there is a market. My guess is that serious money is being spent to make this a viable technology. My personal opinion is that we are maybe 10-15 years away from hybrids being "real" mainstream vehicles. We'll see?

A Brock Yates column from Car & Driver magazine several months ago quotes some industry sources as stating that hybrids will top out at around 3% of the market. Other sources think that's optimistic.

Your cell phone is an electronic device, and great savings have been made in terms of power requirements. Laptops, too. A car is, at the basic level, a mechanical device. It takes X amount of energy to move Y weight for Z distance at V speed. Not a lot of room for improvements there, other than slowing down, traveling shorter distances, or moving less stuff.

I think I do understand the physics, and you're correct, electronic devices have become more efficient (although my powerbook can start small fires), but small batteries have also improved significantly in the last decade or so.

I don't pretend to know what is going to happen in any industry in 10-15 years. I'm lucky if I know what I'm going to be doing next week. I'm also not really trying to defend current hybrids, I think the design is less than elegant. However, I would not rule out a significant improvement in battery technology driving some version of hybrids to become mainstream in the future. 10-15 years is a LONG time when you are talking about electronics. I have no clue if the 3% value is correct, and I'm sure the industry guys are more qualified to predict this than I. I'm still not sure I would buy one anyway.

My original comment was based on my surprise that the current hybrids are all based on gas engines. It's not clear to me why a gas/electric hybrid is better than a diesel/electric hybrid. The only thing I can think of is the fact that gas/electric hybrids shutdown the engine and restart it on demand. A diesel/electric would probably have to be left running all the time.

A little Thermo and more
 

I just read with increasing interest this thread, it is relevant (we all want better mileage) and timely. Just want to clarify, if possible, some points made by all.
First off, Craig's statement of thermodynamic efficiecy is right on the money. It does not matter what engine, cycle etc you use, efficiency only depends on maximum and minimum temperatures achieved in the engine. By the way, the maximum temp is not the coolant temp but the combustion temperature which is much higher, depends on the type of fuel and fuel/air ratio among other things.
Second, Rick & Connie are right in that science, by definition, is fallible and imperfect and will change with time. It is possible that in the near future all this knowledge is proven wrong. If you are a scientist you have to keep an open mind and be prepared to accept new improved science. Having said that, however, I must also say that you have a much better chance of winning the lottery in all 50 states in the next couple of years than finding, in the next couple of years, that these basic laws are wrong.
Third, there is a piece of the puzzle missing. Engine efficiency is only part of the equation. A car stopped at a red light has zero efficiency as a transportation system. The car needs to move to have a propulsive efficiency above zero. The overall efficiency is the product of the thermal efficiency and the propulsive efficiency. Propulsive efficiency is lower than one and changes from car to car, that is why the same engine on a car and a truck would give different mileages. Hybrids do not alter either efficiency directly but rather recover and store kynetic energy that would be lost when braking for later use. Last generation hybrids however have been designed to increase low rpm acceleration rather that improve mileage.
Improving mileage is an extremely complicated process involving a great number of factors both mechanical and human. I am convinced that there are no magic solutions. I guess I'll play the lotto.
That's my 1/2 cent.

JL

That's a fair summary. If I was smart enough to have all these solutions I would be out shopping for my own island instead of hanging out with you guys. :sun_smile

Batteries will have to approach the energy storage efficiency of gasoline, and the longevity of the internal combustion engine if they're going to make a dent in the market. IMHO, of course.
You seem like a reasonable guy. What would have to happen for you to seriously consider buying a hybrid, as they exist today? Since we're not going to improve the hybrid technology or reduce the cost for this thought exercise, what would have to change about your personal circumstances to get you into one? For me, a job that required me to drive long distances and paid enough for me to be able to afford to replace the car with a new one every couple years. For personal use where it's not a deductible business expense, I just can't see it. With that in mind, what percentage of reasonable new car buyers fit the profile? 3% sounds generous to me.
It may be as you say, but the diesel uses next to no fuel at idle. Without looking it up, air/fuel ratios of 100:1 is the number that comes out of my admittedly foggy memory. My own WAG is that the manufacturers currently selling hybrids just don't have a suitable small diesel engine to use in the application. Plus, the tightening diesel emissions standards are a big technological problem all by themselves. I'd have to say that they didn't want two cutting-edge tecnology problems in the same vehicle. Again, IMHO.

Never claimed to be an expert.
 

And at the end of an 18 hour day I'm bound to make mistakes.I've got plenty of experience as a professional mechanic,and have studdied what materials I could find on related sciences like metalurgy and thermodynamics.And like I said,from all I've seen and read I agree with the basic laws involved.But one indevidual here(not you Craig,You've been more then civil enough) basicly calls me an inexperienced fool because he disagrees with me.Wasted motion can't be changed much in currant engine designs.And thermal efficiency increases of any appreciable ammount are not cost effective.To the best of my knowledge the 98% efficiency in burning the fuel is after the catalytic converter.Not in the combustion chamber.I rode in his truck several times with one pint of fuel being gravity fed to the carburator.We went just over 20 miles each time in city driving.And you'r absoultly correct about wankel engines being more efficient due to fewer moving parts and less parasitic power loss.The outer edge of the rotor uses a spring loaded scraper which acts like a piston ring to maintain the fuel air mixture in each chamber section.The problem with the engines design though is the blowby which occurs past the ends of the rotor.If someone can devise a way to better seal the chambers,I believe the engine would then come into more wide spread use.The reason fuel injected engines get better fuel mileage then comercial carburator designs is due to the high pressures in the injection system.The fuel enters the combustion chamber as a very fine mist,which burns more readily then the droplets common in a carburated engine.A direct injection engine(gas or diesel) is even more efficient because the mist goes directly into the combustion chamber and has almost no chance to clump into drops before being exposed to spark or the heat due to compression igniteing the fuel.But the most effective combustion would be a vaporized fuel.I realize furnaces are both thermaly efficient as well as fuel efficient.Which an auto engine couldn't begine to compare to.But combustion efficiency could stand improving.But most who have tried have vaporized the fuel to much,and left tar residues behind that are even more damaging then normal carbon deposits.While I don't deny the basic laws of thermodynamics,I do question some theories of application.Please try to understand the different aspects that are involved when considering efficiency.Thermaly,I personally doubt a 4 stroke piston engine will ever be practicle at more then 45 or 50% efficiency.My point of the coolant temps in Smokey's design were lower waste heat output due to better heat utilisation.And I know his design was supposedly later proven not to work and instead self destructed.But this was after showing others previously,for many hours of opperation which the press witnessed,that his engine worked well.He never sold his engine willingly to Chrysler.And I tend to suspect the engine was tampered with causing a convenient catastrophy.Is that an unreasonable thing to suspect?And I don't know what the parasitic power loss percentage is in a piston engine.I doubt if it can ever be much improved either.But my point all along was combustion waste.The main reason for catalytic converters.And thanks Moneypit for reminding me leaner mixtures create higher oxides of nitrogen emmissions.Considered as the main cause of acid rain,this alone could be the reason lean burn technology is supressed.

Efficiency Revisited
 

I do not know if I am the person that Rick & Connie allude to in terms of calling them "inexperienced fools" if that is the case, I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention to call anybody anything.
My only points were that the development of the gas engine is such that we can only expect marginal efficiency improvements on the thermal side. I think we will have better luck improving the propulsive efficiency that is: drag, transmission, rolling resistance, weight etc. Further improvements can come from the energy lost in braking and decelerating. In other words improving engine efficiency alone will no get us to 100 mpg. By adding the other two we have a good shot at achieving it.

JL

Back to the origional question
 

Besides better driving habits,tune up improvements and some types of modifications.The only gadget on the market that might work to improve mpg's without causing problems is called the turbonator or something like that.It's a device that fits under the air filter.What it does is to cause a swirling of the intake air which would help reduce the amount of fuel clumping into larger drops.Of course it would also cause a small drop in airflow cfm's.And it would be most effective in an engine where the air filter is over the intake manifold,as in most carburated designs and throttle body injection desings.Remote air filter and turbo engines probably would gain absolutly no benifits at all.Alot of race car engines have the intake passages in their heads ported in a spiraling pattern to help keep intake air volocity as high as possible,and create turbulance,to help in keeping the fuel as misted as they can.Nascar engines also have an insert directly below the carb,inside the manifold,for the same purpose.They call the insert a turtle.It helps prevent puddling of the fuel under the carb.Improves airflow,valocity,and helps keep the fuel mist suspended in the airflow instead of dropping out as droplets.