A 600 horsepower Hummer that gets 60 miles per gallon of biodiesel!

[mhatrw]

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

"Conservatively," Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, "it'll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You'll be able to smoke the tires. And it's going to be superefficient. Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!" ...

This is the sort of work that's making Goodwin famous in the world of underground car modders. He is a virtuoso of fuel economy. He takes the hugest American cars on the road and rejiggers them to get up to quadruple their normal mileage and burn low-emission renewable fuels grown on U.S. soil--all while doubling their horsepower. The result thrills eco-evangelists and red-meat Americans alike: a vehicle that's simultaneously green and mean. And word's getting out. In the corner of his office sits Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1987 Jeep Wagoneer, which Goodwin is converting to biodiesel; soon, Neil Young will be shipping him a 1960 Lincoln Continental to transform into a biodiesel--electric hybrid. His target for Young's car? One hundred miles per gallon.

This is more than a mere American Chopper--style makeover. Goodwin's experiments point to a radically cleaner and cheaper future for the American car. The numbers are simple: With a $5,000 bolt-on kit he co-engineered--the poor man's version of a Goodwin conversion--he can immediately transform any diesel vehicle to burn 50% less fuel and produce 80% fewer emissions. On a full-size gas-guzzler, he figures the kit earns its money back in about a year--or, on a regular car, two--while hitting an emissions target from the outset that's more stringent than any regulation we're likely to see in our lifetime. "Johnathan's in a league of his own," says Martin Tobias, CEO of Imperium Renewables, the nation's largest producer of biodiesel. "Nobody out there is doing experiments like he is."

Nobody--particularly not Detroit. Indeed, Goodwin is doing precisely what the big American automakers have always insisted is impossible. They have long argued that fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel cars are a hard sell because they're too cramped and meek for our market. They've lobbied aggressively against raising fuel-efficiency and emissions standards, insisting that either would doom the domestic industry. Yet the truth is that Detroit is now getting squeezed from all sides. ... Goodwin's work proves that a counterattack is possible, and maybe easier than many of us imagined. If the dream is a big, badass ride that's also clean, well, he's there already. As he points out, his conversions consist almost entirely of taking stock GM parts and snapping them together in clever new ways. "They could do all this stuff if they wanted to," he tells me, slapping on a visor and hunching over an arc welder. "The technology has been there forever. They make 90% of the components I use." He doesn't have an engineering degree; he didn't even go to high school: "I've just been messing around and seeing what I can do."

[The Traveler]

1. A real American gear head

Now, THAT's the kinda guy I would like to have a beer with. I'd also love to get a look at his work shop ...:bounce:

[Selatius]

2. Ah, so he used a turbine engine instead of a internal combustion engine to generate electric power.

The problem with turbines is they usually aren't made for cars, and unless they're properly maintained, turbines can fly to pieces due to stress fatigue on the metal parts. If it's spinning at 60,000 RPMs, the pieces will fly like shrapnel from a bomb.

[mhatrw]

4. Read the whole article before you get in obnoxious know-it-all debunking mode.

Most of this guy's work has NOTHING to do with turbine engines.

But Goodwin wanted more. While researching alternative fuels, he learned about the work of Uli Kruger, a German who has spent decades in Australia exploring techniques for blending fuels that normally don't mix. One of Kruger's systems induces hydrogen into the air intake of a diesel engine, producing a cascade of emissions-reducing and mileage-boosting effects. The hydrogen, ignited by the diesel combustion, burns extremely clean, producing only water as a by-product. It also displaces up to 50% of the diesel needed to fuel the car, effectively doubling the diesel's mileage and cutting emissions by at least half. Better yet, the water produced from the hydrogen combustion cools down the engine, so the diesel combustion generates fewer particulates--and thus fewer nitrogen-oxide emissions.

"It's really a fantastic chain reaction, all these good things happening at once," Kruger tells me. He has also successfully introduced natural gas--a ubiquitous and generally cheap fuel--into a diesel-burning engine, which likewise doubles the mileage while slashing emissions. In another system, he uses heat from the diesel engine to vaporize ethanol to the point where it can be injected into the diesel combustion chambers as a booster, with similar emissions-cutting effects.

[Selatius]

6. Yeah, I'm reading the article now. I still recommend against a turbine engine though.

Have you any idea why turbine engines aren't for commercially sold cars???

[mhatrw]

7. That's ONE project. Every other has NOTHING to do with turbine engines.

Got it now?

He's also using it for a few seconds at a time just to repower the car's battery. And it works just fine. So why can't it work again?

[Selatius]

11. Yeah, but one question bugs me. Creating hydrogen fuel takes tremendous energy.

OK, as far as using engines go, we could use diesel augmented by, for instance, cellulose ethanol, which will prove more economical than corn ethanol in the long-term, but in order to double or quadruple the fuel efficiency of a diesel engine powered by ethanol or grease or any hydrocarbon applicable, that would require the application of hydrogen gas injected into the combustion chamber during combustion to make the combustion more efficient.

That would necessarily mean, according to the article, that you would need only a fraction of a unit of fuel to generate the same amount of power that would have been required without the hydrogen. This is heart of the reason why you double, triple, or quadruple fuel efficiency.

OK, that aside, how do you generate hydrogen usable for cars? With electrolysis. The only problem is electrolysis takes up so much energy that you're better off utilizing that electricity for other purposes, like powering manufacturing plants that make solar panels and wind turbines. Hydrogen, we must remember, is not a fuel source. It should really be more considered as a battery, a medium that holds potential energy that can be converted into kinetic energy.

As far as the turbine goes, I have no issues if there's a strict maintenance regimen to keep it in working order, just like what the Air Force practices with all its turbine engines. If there is no strict maintenance regimen, then I have a problem with safety.

Maybe if you built an electrolysis plant powered by solar and wind, then you could begin generating hydrogen gas in the quantities needed to "boost" a starter fleet of bio-diesel cars, as opposed to using a conventional power grid powered by coal, oil, and some amount of atomic power.

[mhatrw]

16. Again, you act as if the hydrogen additive is the whole shebang.

You are just trying to find a way to debunk this guy's work.

He has managed to triple power and double gas mileage WITHOUT any hydrogen additives.

He needs the hydrogen to make powerful, supercharged 5000+ lb vehicles get 60-100 mpg. However, he has achieved REMARKABLE results without any hydrogen additives.

The hydrogen additives also cut the already low emissions by 50%. And a single tank of hydrogen lasts for 700 miles.

In any case, vast improvements in the efficiency of electrolysis are on the horizon. And there are other ways to produce hydrogen like bioreactors that eat waste.

[Selatius]

30. I don't think we're in disagreement here.

A diesel engine car is more fuel efficient than a gasoline powered car. A diesel car augmented with plug-in batteries is even more fuel efficient than a regular diesel car with no electric batteries, but if you want to get into territory that he's talking about, you need the diesel engine, the batteries, and the additive to boost power.

You can get to phase two of the three phases he's talking about, and in the end that's enough, but if we want to get to phase three with the "boost" additives, we need to address the issues of hydrogen gas production on a much larger scale than now.

[mhatrw]

43. I agree completely. But people act like fuel cells are what is holding us back.

They are not the technological bottleneck, as this guy has proved. We could be burning 50% hydrogen in diesel engines across the nation in a few years if we would just make cheap and efficient hydrogen production and distribution a national priority.

[Selatius]

56. I want to see him convert a true classic, like a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T.

He can take a 440 RT and double its horsepower with what he does and increase its fuel efficiency at the same time. As it stands, all muscle cars eat gas like no tomorrow, but then again the point of muscle cars like that is to keep them in original condition.

He just needs a diesel engine with comparable power and performance, hydrogen, and a bank of rechargeable batteries, and he'd have an RT more efficient than any other RT in the world with probably the most horsepower.

[gort]

88. he did this with an impala

http://domesticfuel.com/?p=1876

[wtmusic]

89. Half a trillion dollars to build a hydrogen infrastructure.

Ain't gonna happen for consumer transportation in the next 30 years. And as it is right now and for the forseeable future, hydrogen creates more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline because it is enormously inefficient to separate, store, and transport. So fuel cells are indeed holding us back in a big way. Any money spent on fuel cells would be far better spent on hybrid technologies, biodiesel, and clean energy (wind, hydro).

[mhatrw]

91. Suppose you just increased the efficiency of hydrogen production?

Microbes can turn waste water into hydrogen. Wind turbines can be used to produce hydrogen.

[wtmusic]

95. Problem is

by the time you take that hydrogen, compress it or liquefy it, transport it, and get it into a car you've used 60-80% of the energy that's present in the hydrogen itself. There are no shortcuts at present and realistic estimates put technology to lower that percentage at a minimum of 3 decades away.

In the two scenarios you describe you would be far better off efficiency-wise by creating methane from wastewater and using that to generate electricity, or generating electricity from the wind turbine. Then use the electricity from either to recharge battery electric vehicles during off-peak hours.

Special types of high-temperature hydrogen fuel cells do show promise as a means of powering industry on-site, because the waste heat can also be used to heat buildings, and hydrogen can be delivered and stored in large quantities relatively cheaply and safely. Several pilot projects have proven that this is a viable entry point for hydrogen into the energy marketplace, although even still problems need to be worked out.

Gasoline is a truly remarkable fuel. It has more hydrogen atoms per unit volume than liquid hydrogen itself, and can produce 8x as much energy. But oil companies realize the two major factors which will influence their profitably in coming decades are: 1) the availability of oil 2) consumer awareness of global warming and pollution. They have created, with much investment in PR, the illusion that hydrogen is a panacea for both of these problems. This is because hydrogen could in theory be sold by oil companies by adapting their existing infrastructure. What they don't mention is how skimpy hydrogen is energy-wise, and how much pollution and global warming gases are created in processing the hydrogen itself. So IMO it's fine if they want to spend their money trying to find some way to make hydrogen viable, but public money should be spent on hybrid and other technologies which are far more promising in actually reducing atmospheric CO₂ and doing it now. We don't have time to waste.

An excellent reference is the book The Hype About Hydrogen by Joe Romm, who worked in the DOE under Clinton and probably knows more about the prospects of power from hydrogen than anyone else alive.

[Paulie]

37. One is the same reason they were a bad idea for Tanks

They consume quite a bit of fuel while idling so end up getting gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon if you are stuck in traffic for a while. :)

In this case though he's only using a turbine for short bursts to fill batteries. Still, wonder how noisy it is, and does it sound like the BatMobile when the batteries get low. Also, it's probably a small turbine at a relatively low RPM, don't want to have the generator go past its RPM limit either.

One of the awesome things about Toyota and their technology. The electric drive train is done, just need to change out the engine or go completely to batteries/capacitors. Or put in diesel, or a fuel cell. But the underling electric drive and energy management systems is where they are so far ahead of the US companies.

[TheMadMonk]

15. Considering that 500,000 lb thrust jet engines...

...generally manage to hang onto most of their pieces when thrown at the ground at several hundred miles per hour, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[karlrschneider]

18. Someone built a 500,000 lbt jet engine?

On what planet?

[TheMadMonk]

32. lose a zerp, or whatever. The point remains valid.

Turbines are designed to have catastrophically blade failures and not spit pieces of red hot metal and ceramic across the countryside.

[karlrschneider]

39. Captain Al Haynes of United 232 might have a comment on that.

...

[TheMadMonk]

70. He lost his hydraulics. I don't see any mention of shrapnel...

...flying off in all directions to shred wing, passenger cabin and passengers.

Plus you are also talking about a plane designed and flown decades ago. Look to see what shit they put the A-380 engines through before they'd certify them. Among other things, deliberately causing whole intact fan blades to detach. They don't pass certification unless the debris is contained.

[karlrschneider]

72. Well, I do know something about it. The #2 engine shelled out and cut the hydraulic lines.

There are hundreds of DC10s and their MD derivatives flying every day. It isn't possible to duplicate every possible scenario of a separating blade - they would have to destroy every engine they built to accomplish that...kind of like testing flash-bulbs.

Obviously the technology is improved but a manufacturing or maintenance defect can render it useless.

[TheMadMonk]

76. And people get killed by flying wheels too.

Any piece of debris flying off a disintegrating motor vehicle has the potential to be lethal.

And usually the most lethal debris in accidents is the shit idiots leave on their back ledge or floating around in the back.



Did you know <breathless incredulity> that the average car battery contains enough sulphuric acid to strip the skin off an entire football team?

[karlrschneider]

81. Lead-acid batteries don't contain concentrated H2SO4

It is nasty stuff but I think you may have underestimated the size of a football team. Maybe the backs but not the line.

[TheMadMonk]

82. I said football. Not the codpieced linedancers who occupy the gaps between the ads.

[karlrschneider]

83. Mea culpa...I forgot you're down under. (What is it, exactly, you guys are 'under'?

:P

[BrotherBuzz]

42. The 'ol Saturn rocket developed 1,300,000 lbs thrust!....

but it used eight 165,000 pound engines clustered together like a bundle of cigars. ;)

[karlrschneider]

64. I know but they aren't jet engines...

:D

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Is this for a consumer car?? If so, it's just wrong

Sorry, but I don't understand why anyone needs a Hummer, unless he has serious penis-size insecurities. The fact that this blight on the roads can now get 60 mph on the highway is beside the point.

[mhatrw]

5. Read the whole article before commenting. Is that really too much to ask?

For his part, Goodwin argues he's merely "a problem solver. Most people try to make things more complicated than they are." He speaks of the major carmakers with a sort of mild disdain: If he can piece together cleaner vehicles out of existing GM parts and a bit of hot-rod elbow grease, why can't they bake that kind of ingenuity into their production lines? Prod him enough on the subject and his mellowness peels away, revealing a guy fired by an almost manic frustration. "Everybody should be driving a plug-in vehicle right now," he complains, in one of his laconic engineering lectures, as we wander through the blistering Kansas heat to a nearby Mexican restaurant. "I can go next door to Ace Hardware and buy a DC electric motor, go out to my four-wheel-drive truck, remove the transmission and engine, bolt the electric motor onto the back of the transfer case, put a series of lead-acid batteries up to 240 volts in the back of the bed, and we're good to go. I guarantee you I could drive all around town and do whatever I need, go home at night, and hook up a couple of battery chargers, plug one into an outlet, and be good to go the next day.

"Detroit could do all this stuff overnight if it wanted to," he adds.

[Locrian]

9. cool article - thanks

The problem I see is the big companies have drove out almost all creativity and "thinking out of the box" by imposing bean counters on engineers. The level of oversight on almost all "projects" is draconian.

Businesses HAVE to start learning that they need to PLAY in order to find out new things. And that playing around does NOT guarantee payback. BUT when you do get something, it can change the game big time.

That plus the engineers need to get back to hands on, grease monkey, red meat engineering. We have lost a TON of our "game" over the last 30 years.


"They could do all this stuff if they wanted to," he tells me, slapping on a visor and hunching over an arc welder. "The technology has been there forever. They make 90% of the components I use." He doesn't have an engineering degree; he didn't even go to high school: "I've just been messing around and seeing what I can do

[NeedleCast]

23. So your argument is

You don't like hummers because they're big? If it's getting better gas milage than most hybrids, what's the problem?

[dysfunctional press]

80. why does anyone need ANY particular car??

in a consumer-driven society- it's a matter of tastes and choice, and everyone is entitled to their opinion- even you. i'm not a hummer owner myself, but a friend of mine used to have one, and it WAS a fun car to drive, except on long trips- the ride isn't really the smoothest. but- if he could have gotten 60mpg, he'd probably still have the thing...he owns his own business, and was able to buy it for almost nothing due to how the tax code on them had been written several years back. and because he occasionally has to haul samples/products to/for customers, and has a couple of LARGE dogs- that size vehicle is pretty much what he needs.

[SidDithers]

8. Kos discussion here...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/30/153528/46

He's doubled the mileage on a hummer, from 9 to 18 mpg. So that's good.

Sid

[mhatrw]

10. Typical debunking bs. He also tripled the horsepower at the same time

while converting it to biodiesel.

What is your problem with all that? Why are you dismissive of it?

He doubled the gas mileage of 1965 Chevy Impala to 25 mpg while converting it to biodiesel AND increasing its pull from 250 to 800 horsepower. That happened on TV. It is a confirmed fact. Some James Randi worshiping google sleuth at DKos can't change that fact.

[SidDithers]

14. By adding hydrogen into the fuel...

where'd he get the hydrogen from? And how much energy was used to produce the hydrogen?

Sid

[mhatrw]

19. Read the article.

He doubled the gas mileage of his hummer while doubling its power BEFORE he started playing around with hydrogen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. how many gallons of hydrogen did he use?

If you're using hydrogen, mpg is a meaningless statistic.

[mhatrw]

29. Again, he doubled power while doubling gas mileage without any hydrogen.

The hydrogen is to get the gas mileage about 50 mpg while reducing emissions and cooling the engine.

You are acting as if burning hydrogen instead of gas is somehow a bad thing. Why?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Did he use hydrogen or didn't he?

"You are acting as if burning hydrogen instead of gas is somehow a bad thing. Why?"

The reason should be obvious to anybody who passed high school physics, but if you need to know, it's ineffecient. It takes energy to make hydrogen in the first place.

[mhatrw]

40. It also takes energy to make electricity. Does that make electric cars bad, too?

He doubled the gas mileage while doubling the power WITHOUT hydrogen as I said before.

As for the inefficiency of making hydrogen, you can use renewable energy sources or bioreactors that eat waste to produce it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. If you're getting electricity from gas powered power plants, yes.

Duh.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Sure, that works for me.

But why are you going to ruin it by using diesel and a hummer body?

[mhatrw]

54. You don't have to use a hummer, now do you?

You use the diesel engine because it's cleaner and more efficient than a gasoline engine, it can burn 50% biodiesel and 50% hydrogen with great results and you can buy one that will work in any automobile body you desire right now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. No, nor diesel.

[mhatrw]

59. What can you use instead that's better that you can buy today? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Straight biodiesel.

[mhatrw]

62. Then use it until you can get some efficiently produced hydrogen to

supplement it with. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. This guy has developed a suite of simple technological improvements all primarily based substituting gasoline engines with diesel engines. So what is your problem with him, again?

[TheMadMonk]

71. Or you could take a small CO2 hit. And use methane/nat gas for...

...90% (or whatever the actual figure is) of the effect of hydrogen.

[SidDithers]

63. Which is exactly what I said...

he went from 9mpg to 18 mpg. Which is a nice achievement.

Sid

[snooper2]

13. Kos is an idiot on this issue...

eom

[Ganja Ninja]

12. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

He claims he's getting better diesel mileage by injecting other more volatile fuels but how much other fuel is he injecting? How does it effect the reliability of the motor? Diesels use a much higher compression ratio and it's that compression (along with glow plugs) that causes combustion. Adding more volatile fuels would cause pre-ignition which is harmful to a motor.

[mhatrw]

20. The proof is that it works and people are now driving the cars he's made.

What more proof do you want? This isn't on the drawing board. It's driving down the road.

[karlrschneider]

22. Here's the part that proves the whole story is bullshit:

"Putting a diesel engine in the Hummer, however, required Goodwin to crack GM's antitheft system, which makes it a pain to swap out the engine. In that system, the engine communicates electronically with the body, fuel supply, and ignition; if you don't have all the original components, the car won't start."

P. T. Barnum sure nailed it.

[mhatrw]

26. How does that prove the whole story is bullshit?

What is bs about that claim? Please elaborate. And how does that disprove this part of the story?

Goodwin's feats of engineering have become gradually more visible over the past year. Last summer, Imperium Renewables contacted MTV's show Pimp My Ride about creating an Earth Day special in which Goodwin would convert a muscle car to run on biodiesel. The show chose a '65 Chevy Impala, and when the conversion was done, he'd doubled its mileage to 25 mpg and increased its pull from 250 to 800 horsepower. As a stunt, MTV drag-raced the Impala against a Lamborghini on California's Pomona Raceway. "The Impala blew the Lamborghini away," says Kevin Kluemper, the lead calibration engineer for GM's Allison transmission unit, who'd flown down to help with the conversion. Schwarzenegger, who was on the set that day, asked Goodwin on the spot to convert his Wagoneer to biodiesel.

[karlrschneider]

27. If you're going to replace an SI engine with a diesel, all of that interface stuff

is not only unnecessary, it's counterproductive. A CI engine runs just fine with no electricity within a mile. Some people will believe anything.

[mhatrw]

33. Why don't you try it for yourself and get back to us?

When you have produced a few working models like Goodwin has, get back to us.

[TheMadMonk]

73. Because if you want to get the bloody electric window winders to work...

...you need the rest of the vehicle's electronics.

A working motor is not much bloody use if the ABS brakes refuse to work; the indicators fail to indicate and the headlights don't come on.

He could have completely rebuilt the entire electrical system of the vehicle. Or he could trick the computer into thinking everything was hunky dory.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheMadMonk]

77. Remind me not to get on any road you're driving on since you belive...

...running lights, brakes, etc are unnecessary accessories.

Of if you point is he could have got the motor running on the bench then exactly what is your point?

If you want to get a Hummer moving with an engine other than those it is designed to be fitted with, then you have to either replace the electrics or spoof the ones it has.


So far you have not offered one shred of real evidence to back your argument. Merely repeated claims that God exists because you say he does. Sure you're posting on the right board?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheMadMonk]

85. We are talking of a specific vehicle here.

We are not talking of bolting an engine to an old dodge chassis and driving off.

If you want a Hummer, or virtually any modern vehicle at all, to operate correctly in all necessary particulars then one has to play silly buggers with the electrical system/electronics, or replace them all together.


And you have still not actually said what evidence you have to support your belief that the claims are impossible. Until you evidence your claims they are on the same level as claiming one's believe proves the existence of god.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karlrschneider]

17. And the thing cures cancer too!

:eyes:

[mhatrw]

24. Exactly. Repeat after me: Detroit makes the most efficient cars possible.

Gasoline engines are better than diesel engines.

Diesel is better than biodiesel.

Individuals can never produce anything better than large corporations.

We must pay the oil companies countless trillions and use up all the oil before we even consider renewably produced hydrogen as a fuel alternative.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

34. What's funny is how the debunkers love to debunk anything that could

possibly upset the status quo.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. How do you know his engines are more efficient?

They don't say how much hydrogen he uses.

[mhatrw]

46. You're right. The millionaires paying him tens of thousands to

have him modify their cars are all just a bunch of crazy, gullible fools!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Yeah, Neil Young, American Genius.

There's nothing smarter than an American celebrity.

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

52. Except an American message board "voice of reason."

[WilyWondr]

58. Except Neil Young is Canadian

:evilgrin:

[gort]

90. He's a Canadian

eh.

[NickB79]

25. God, this sounds like those snake-oil colon-cleanser people on late-night TV

So, the major US car companies are getting their asses kicked by Asian imports, partly due to the lack of high-MPG cars manufactured here, but they refuse to adopt this technology, why? Because they're sadomasochists?

For that matter, why haven't the Asian car companies implemented this, built a 150-MPG, 500-HP Prius, and just buried the US automakers?

I'm betting there's some scary conspiracy involved, like there always is in stories like these.

[karlrschneider]

31. This guy is the grandson of the guy who invented the 200 MPG carburetor

and mysteriously disappeared when the awl companies heard about it. :eyes:

[mhatrw]

35. Yep. Big corporations are always perfectly efficient!

There is no way that any individual working alone could ever improve on the multinational corporate model of R&D!

[NickB79]

94. This isn't about R&D

According to the article posted, this guy has been doing this for a few years, using off-the-shelf parts from the manufacturers themselves. There is no R&D to do; all a car company has to do is pay this guy an obscene amount of money, patent his ideas, and corner the auto market. They don't have to design an all-new car, just do some engineering tweaks to their existing models. Even the existing factories could still be used. So, why hasn't anyone made this guy insanely rich by now?

Is it A) what he claims doesn't pan out under rigorous testing procedures, or B) it's a spooky, evil conspiracy?

[TheMadMonk]

68. Because the vehicle manufactuers are not alone in the game.

GM, Ford and Chrysler, all make half way decent fuel misers overseas and for export sales. They do not AND WILL NOI sell them in the US despite a demonstrated demand.

Too much of what passes for the US economy is built around making sure every drop of imported oil gets used up. Improving fuel economy is quite simply, bad for business as usual in America. Demand MUST be managed to match supply.

[NickB79]

93. Yep, there's that conspiracy theory

Oil and car companies are in cahoots to make obscene profits, except for the fact that the car companies are suffering BECAUSE of the oil companies today. It makes no sense.

If improved fuel economy is bad for business, why is Toyota kicking GM's ass both globally and in the US? Why is the Prius such a hit?

[TheMadMonk]

96. You missed the tyre manufacturers.

But they're out of the picture anyway, most of their production capacity went overseas long ago.

The simple fact that the US motor vehicle industry, has over a very considerable period of time pursued a course of action that is quite obviously self destructive, is strongly suggestive of the possibility that those actions are intended for the benefit of others. The oil industry. Particularly when those same companies ARE manufacturing and selling reasonably decent fuel efficient cars for and in other (non-US) markets.

Not proof positive by any means. But what other explanation fits the available facts that US motor vehicle manufacturers WON'T deliver fuel efficient vehicles to the US market, and further that they move Heaven and Earth to prevent any legislation that might require them to do something which could only improve their market performance in the US?

[Zookeeper]

44. And it will still be a safety threat to every smaller vehicle on

the road.

How about building a medium sized sedan with the same technology?

[mhatrw]

48. Did you read the article?

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

"Everybody should be driving a plug-in vehicle right now," he complains, in one of his laconic engineering lectures, as we wander through the blistering Kansas heat to a nearby Mexican restaurant. "I can go next door to Ace Hardware and buy a DC electric motor, go out to my four-wheel-drive truck, remove the transmission and engine, bolt the electric motor onto the back of the transfer case, put a series of lead-acid batteries up to 240 volts in the back of the bed, and we're good to go. I guarantee you I could drive all around town and do whatever I need, go home at night, and hook up a couple of battery chargers, plug one into an outlet, and be good to go the next day. Detroit could do all this stuff overnight if it wanted to."

Do you agree or disagree?

[Javaman]

50. Isn't amazing how many times you have to say that? nt

[Zookeeper]

67. Actually, I didn't. My bad. n/t

[WilyWondr]

57. Biodiesel Impala vs Lamborghini

He modified the Impala for Pimp My Ride.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snaJHZEervc

His site

http://saeenergy.com/

[One_Life_To_Give]

61. 60MPG would be interesting if it works

From the scant details given in the article. The increased efficiency of what has already been built comes from using a Diesel Engine. The power increase could be roughly duplicated with a propane injection system and other bolt ons listed in the current issues of JEGs and/or Summit catalogs. Although putting that much power thru the Duramax block could seriously reduce the life of the engine.

The most inteeresting part is the absence of Caterpillar, Cummings, Waukeshaw etc. Whos engines burn the lions share of diesel fuel. And for whom any efficiency improvement has the largest potential for major savings.

GM Engineers used to regularly visit Junior Johnson to see what he had uncovered. And perhaps this guy has insights like Junior did. But you can expect that if he has found an improvement to the diesel engine design efficiency. The engineers for the guys who measure fuel consumption in tons per mile will be in taking a very good look at everything.

[karlrschneider]

69. The reason there are no commercial transistors is because the VACUUM TUBE COMPANIES

put the kibosh on the idea!!!11!1!1!

I'm sERies!!1!


Oh, wait....

[taught_me_patience]

65. Discussions about mpg

are similar to discussions about penis size... almost everybody "stretches" the truth. Seriously, if you belive this guy, I've also got a "super duper" Honda Accord to sell you. It has 800 HP and gets 125mpg. 100k and its all yours.

[karlrschneider]

66. I'll swap you a Size 3 Perpetual Motion Machine for it!

:D

[TheMadMonk]

75. Have you read one actual word that others have written?

Or do you KNOW what you KNOW?

I can tell you right now, I've seen a 60's vintage carburetted petrol engine running with fuel injection economy. And all it takes is preheating the fuel to completely vapourise it.

Dobel steam cars weighing as much as Hummers, had 40 odd MPG fuel efficiency back in the thirties.

And diesel runs better with far fewer emissions if you add a little bit of water to the fuel.


The argument against #1 was it was too finicky. And that is true to a point. The temperature of the fuel is critical, but easily achieved with modern knowledge and equipment. OK. I only "matches" the efficiency of fuel injection, but it does it with a shit load less auxiliary equipment.

#3 is still waiting for the permission of the US military (and probably a few other militaries) who want to know that the fuel will remain "good" after 5 years in the ground.

And steam was killed for a number of reasons:
Too powerful. Yup 10 HP of steam can peel the rubber right off the rims.
Too expensive. No kidding. Hand building anything from scratch is going to cost.
One of the stupidest reasons is that "You can't expect AMURIKANS to wait 30 seconds for the boiler to heat up."

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheMadMonk]

87. Why? That's when I get my best ideas.

So what's it going to be, some actual evidence to back your claim that this is bogus, or fingers in the ears and "la la la"?


I know which way I'd bet based upon your performance to date.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

92. la la la la la la

same f'n story over 'n over

my brain is overtly prominent, back the fuck off you pot-smoking know nuthin'

oops, forgot this thang :sarcasm:

protruding foreheads are hard to overcome

[lectrobyte]

84. So much snake oil, yet so few squeaky snakes. Never understood that at'all.