You are an idiot if you really believe in a 200 mpg carburetor and the 100 mpg system. Neither work, its pretty simple. It is physically impossible. Period. End of story. Internal combustion engines are not capable of running at that level of efficiency. If you doubt it, go to school, take a physics class. Maybe even graduate this time.

 

I think you're the idiot because you don't have comprehension. If you take a moment to use some of your brain, you'd understand that I was using theories as examples. Of course, I don't think a patent from 1936 is a viable technology for 2008. IT'S AN EXAMPLE, jackass.
I understand thermodynamics. I get the constraints of a typical internal combustion engine. Going back to the original post about the hydraulic hybrid, I said "MAYBE THE OIL COMPANIES PUT A SQUASH ON THIS FUEL SAVING TECHNOLOGY". It was a POSSIBILITY that I was suggesting. Now I'm get flamed WITHOUT ANY FACTS to back up allegedly that oil companies have nothing to do with today's fuel economy. If you want to truly debate this with me, show me facts to debunk my theory that fuel economy CANNOT be substantially increased in the present (other than Myth Busters testing). Am I mistaken that the Bush administration passed into law that a corporate average must be a minimum of 35 MPG by 2020. So the fact that MPGs have increase barely over 15 MPGs in 100 years, now mileage is supposed to almost double, BY LAW, in the next 12 years?
Look, if people don't agree with my theory, fine. I'm ok to agree to disagree. But any jackass that wants to start throwing personal insults WITHOUT FACTUAL merit, is flat out wrong.
I'm eluding to the current technology, of say, THIS ORIGINAL POST. Hmm, internal combustion engine combined with hydraulics. Wow, there are 2 old technologies. Nothing ground breaking there. Why can't Ford or someone else marry the two? YOU TELL ME WHY THEY CAN'T. Plenty of people to say it can't happen, but why not? Just because it hasn't happen is NOT a reason to why it can't. So Mr Engineer BennyHani, please use your intellect to explain to my idiotic self WHY this technology is NOT possible. What degree do you hold that us average joe's can't comprehend?

 

Well I just completed a degree this semester in Econ and I'm continuing with a degree in Petroleum Engineering to answer your question. Secondly, you are the one with the burden of proof. You claimed that this was possible, but where is the proof? Where is the 200 mpg car? I'd like to see pics, 0-60 times, etc.

Next, the economics of it doesn't make sense either. How much money could be made by a car capable of even 100 mpg? You obviously think that the oil companies are so greedy that they'd try to kill this technology. Well, why wouldn't they sell the use of the technology and make billions which would expand their business and allow them to keep in business longer? You say its because they are making so much money now, they don't care about the future, or what? Thats crazy, every and I mean every major oil company is pouring money into other forms of energy. These guys are in the business of making money, not in the business of making oil. They don't care how they make it, as long as its legal they just want to show a profit for money invested.

Oh and by the way, just because its on the internet doesn't make it true. If this guy actually did patent this system in 1979 and some nameless big oil conglomerate did purchase the technology. The patent would have expired in 1996, which would make it available for anybody to use. Why wouldn't the auto companies use this technology, rather than dump millions of dollars into other technologies (such as the fuel management system that "turns off" cylinders)? There is nothing legally keeping them from using this patent (assuming the patent actually exists). And even if it does exist, it still doesn't mean it works. It doesn't work.

 

'Hybrid' technology is a whole seperate can of worms from the 'high mileage' smoke & mirrors witch's brew stuff like 'Pogue carburetor' & what have you that you were suggesting. Hybrids are just that, combination technologies that are largely unproven in the automotive world. There are plenty of regulatory & reliability issues even with something like a 'hydraulic hybrid'.....carrying a couple large tanks of a dangerous/flammmable good isn't the first best choice for a fuel efficiency answer. It opens a whole new can of worms in possible accident litigation.

There already is relatively proven hybrid tech in 'diesel-electric-battery' systems that are pretty much thee best answer & can be applied to all kinds of vehicles.

I think the best route in heavier duty vehicles like pickups are to continually refine the options available.....direct injection, slightly lower displacements, more forced induction w/intercooling etc. But stay with pure powertrains, gas or diesel. More can be done with that & changing driving habits to save gas than pretty much anything.

Milage figures can be fudged & are fudged, including EPA figures....so i wouldn't count on
the new US government demands on vehicle efficiency actually producing vehicles that hit that mark. I suspect there will be all kinds of ways to dodge that bullet somewhat for Ford and others.

Oil corps have no need to 'suppress technology' to keep efficiencies down, again they can sell as much as they can pump, regardless of price.

 

Andy,

Thanks for a normal reply. I should apologize for being all over the place defending myself from being called an "idiot" and such.
If you look back to my original post, I was talking about the hydraulic hybrid to begin with. The other references were just to state that over the years there have been other high mileage technologies that went no where. Look, I know the carburetor is outdated for automotive usage.
So now if I can get back to the topic. Ford was releasing the info on the hydraulic assist. It's not like I said it was viable, they did. So I was wondering what happened to it? Did they find out it was NOT feasible after so much testing?
And then a question for future petroleum engineer benny. How are the car companies going to reach the newly mandated 35MPG average in less than 12 years if they've only gotten to 15MPG in over 100 years (pickups)? Since it's a corporate average of 35MPG, I understand that a pickup will not have to be in that range but I could realistically see an increase of over 20. I'm not trying to be a smart-guy. I'm being serious. This is why I still feel the technology to increase mileage using fossil burning fuels is out there. Maybe the oil companies aren't directly involved in hiding any possible solution. I guess it would be the buying public, if anything. As long as Ford is selling over 400,000 F-Series truck per year, the public is saying they're ok with under 20MPG.
So what do you guys think the answer will be then? Cylinder management? Battery hybrids? Something else? Combo of multiple?
Speaking of thermodynamics, the theoretical limit to a gasoline burning engine without assistance from other sources is about 80MPG. Lots of factors to that but assuming all things equal, I assume that it would be cost ineffective for any manufacture to squeeze that out of today's engines. I'm sure, especially with today's fuel prices, there would be high demand for such a vehicle but how small would it have to be? How much safety could be added to such a car? And finally, how much would luxury and convenience have to be sacrificed? If you were at the reigns of a car company would you chance ROI on this? I think (my opinion) that if gas drops back into the mid $2/gallon, the American public would see that as cheap gas and would probably return to more convenience-based driving habits.....that's IF gas ever lowers and stays at the level for some time.

 

Hey, well i hate quoting qualifications but i've a mechanical engineering degree & have spent a lifetiime working in the 'patch' (aka oil & gas drilling industry).....not that i know a whole heckuva lot, but blaming oil corps is a bit of a sore spot for me personally. It would be quite an undertaking for oil companys to squelch all R&D in all universities globally, simultaneously, for decades, related to fuel efficiency technology. There are no smoke&mirrors tech that can radically increase fuel effiiciency on a conventional pure gas or diesel engine above let's say 20,30 up to lets say 60,70,80 mpg for tiny small displacment turbo diesels in micro mini cars. Gettting that upper limit in a large displacment higher output gas or diesel is impossible, period....much less getting 150-200mpg.

Yes i agree, that it is possible to get 'better' efficiency out of large high output engines....this will be happening soon with the slightly lower displacement DI turbo V-6 for example in f150....& the next gen of V-8 to succeed 4.6/5.4 will be more efficient for the specific output.

To my eyes the hydraulic system isn't a great answer....extra ,heavy hydraulic tanks....filled with a hazardous flammable material....i think the liability aspect of having extra large oil (flammable) reservoirs in vehicles is worrisome for attorneys at Ford. Then you have the massive development testing costs. In the vehicles that need the most help in mileage, trucks & what have you, you are taking the biggest risk in trying to implement this. The problem is that pretty much most of the time, the bean counters, not the engineering dept ,have the say as to what goes and what doesn't. Ford needs to make money & R&D and implementation & manuf costs are alwasy huge.

I think the right direction to go is to offer more choices, larger motors for those that require it but also viable slightly lower output, higher efficency, turbo v-6 for example. for those where fuel econ is #1. Keep the tiny high efficiecny engine in the small vehicles. That's how things have been done for decades overseas for example.....50-60-70 mpg is nothing new, there's a ton of high mileage tiny cars over there, gas has been a ton more expensive
in europe for a long time already.

As to which 'hybrid' solution is the best.....i don't know the tech name, but a 'triple hybrid' of a 'small' turbo diesel, an electric motor, & a small battery pack all working together in varying degrees. Can run in pure diesel, pure elect, both together for max output & braking forces are regenerated through motor to keep batteries charged. To me it's the perfect technology & borrows from areas that are all proven & doesn't eliminate/threaten any current industry/technology.

As to gas prices 'recovering'....there may be dips and valleys, in the near term, but long term oil prices are up, big. 2010 could see 150+usd for a bbl of Brent crude & 2012 could see 225-250usd bbl.....so basically double todays price of gas in 5 years.

 

First of all I agree completely with almost everything you say, the only problem I have is that the hydraulic fluid doesn't have to be flammable. The military has had Non-flammable hydraulic fluid for several years now it just costs so much to retrofit everything its not being used like it should. If they designed the system with the different seals and non-ferrous metals needed, then the problem with fire wouldn't be an issue.

 

....good point, i imagine it wouldn't be as cost prohibitive if a system were developed to use it from the get go.

 

I ordered my truck last month. I am stationed in Japan in the USMC. We have a car buying program over here where we can order vehicles directly from the manufacturer (only Ford, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Harley) and have them delivered to a dealership of our choice in the states. During the month of March and April they run a special where we can order 2009 vehicles at 2008 prices, so I ordered and locked the price of my truck. Now granted, I won't take delivery of this truck until the summer of 2009, but that is when I PCS back to the states. And yes, I already have the confirmation and the print out of my truck and all the goodies that I put on it....a pretty nice price too. I guess being in the military and serving overseas has a few perks.

 

I doubt it. If they did, it would be rushed to market and it would be all over the news. The 4.4 would be a non issue as would the BOSS 6.2

 

Gas prices slip for first time in weeks, may be near top

By JOHN WILEN, AP Business Writer 41 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Retail gas prices fell slightly Friday — the first time in 18 days they haven't risen to a new record — and analysts say pump prices may be peaking for the year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/...oil_prices_148

 

Just , even if you had 100% efficency, there is not enough chemical energy stored in gasoline to yield 100+MPGs. Only though hybrid technologies could we even begin to approach those levels.

In regards to the first link, the 100+mpg ford, it says If you're relying on the vacuum of the engine to draw in fuel vapors I highly doubt you'd be able to make much power. What good is an engine if it only can provide 10HP?

- NCSU

 

I'm not changing my vehicle or driving habits even if gas went to $10/gal. There are plenty of other people who feel this way too. We're not going to run out of oil in our lifetimes, and by the time we do we'll have feasible alternatives for fuel.

- NCSU

 

........................

 

What happened to those Fedex trucks they were putting them in?