• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

376.59 MPG Automobile

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Linky

Simplicity in power

The secret? According to a paper detailing the event (published in 1977), "Firstly, the power needed to propel the vehicle must be kept to an absolute minimum, and secondly the engine and operating conditions must be chosen so that power requirement is met with minimum fuel utilization."

All of the cars listed above were from tests conducted in 1973, 1968 and 1949. Specifically, in 1949 a modified 1947 Studebaker achieved 149.95 miles per gallon. In 1968 a 1959 Fiat 600 (the two-door sports car above) achieved 244.35 miles per gallon. And in 1973, a modified 1959 Opel achieved 376.59 miles per gallon. That's enough fuel economy to drive from Indianapolis to Chicago, and back again, on a single gallon of fuel costing roughly $1.79 using fuel prices found in Indianapolis today.

Citation: Shell Oil Company's "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

OK, wtf? There are plenty of folks that run around screaming the evils of big oil and accusations of them suppressing technology that would have led to much greater fuel efficiency many years ago. After reading this, how do you effectively refute them? I understand that amenities included in modern vehicles would eat up some of the efficiency described here, but are our creature comforts and safety features really costing us ~340 mpg? C'mon. If a 1947 Studebaker can be modified to get 150 mpg I can not realistically believe we can't achieve 100 mpg + in a standard production vehicle today.

What say you?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Please go to your bedroom and do not come out until supper time. Then you're going back to think about what you've done.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Because people don't want small and slow cars. Car buyers are at fault, not the car manufacturers. VW had its 78 mpg diesel out a few years back and it sold so poorly that it got discontinued.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
In other words, use the tiniest engine possible to move the vehicle and drive as slowly as possible.

No, there is no conspiracy of oil and car companies.
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
And Smokey Yunick (sp) had a Fiero with a 250Hp engine getting 50mpg by atomizing and heating the fuel away from the liquid state in the 80's but it hasn't gone anywhere.

99% of people won't give up the power for th empg.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
414
126
Originally posted by: mooseracing

99% of people won't give up the power for the mpg.
they would adapt if we only offered the MPG ones
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I say....WTF mate?

This is as bad as the report that I read about air bags being tested in the early 70's but ruled out of production because the cost of litigation of lawsuits involving death would be cheaper to the manufacturer than the cost of installing them.

Here's more on it:

http://www.safetyforum.com/airbags/
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
I can create a car that will get 500mpg and 0 emissions. Hell I can probably make it do double if you quadruple my budget. All you need is some titanium and carbon composites to make it work...

What do you think is the draw back ? It will costs millions.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
50
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I say....WTF mate?

This is as bad as the report that I read about air bags being tested in the early 70's but ruled out of production because the cost of litigation of lawsuits involving death would be cheaper to the manufacturer than the cost of installing them.

Here's more on it:

http://www.safetyforum.com/airbags/
airbags back then were like a Kimbo Slice direct hit.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,900
14
81
and secondly the engine and operating conditions must be chosen so that power requirement is met with minimum fuel utilization."
My Civic could get 377 MPG with that constraint, but it probably wouldn't be drivable once it hits the ground.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
There are tiny diesals today that get good mileage. The problem is we dont want to buy an 11 hp engine that takes 25 seconds to go from 1-60.
Secondly a lot of our enviornment laws have hampered our ability to get higher mileage.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
a lot of our enviornment laws have hampered our ability to get higher mileage.
This. It's one of the great ironies of the history of environmentalism that we have decreased mileage by an order of magnitude in an effort to decrease emissions. While it is true that some of the chemical species that we now eliminate have a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 per mole, the vastly larger amount of CO2 that results from these systems limiting mileage probably yields a net increase in deleterious effects.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,671
9,808
136
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Genx87
a lot of our enviornment laws have hampered our ability to get higher mileage.
This. It's one of the great ironies of the history of environmentalism that we have decreased mileage by an order of magnitude in an effort to decrease emissions. While it is true that some of the chemical species that we now eliminate have a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 per mole, the vastly larger amount of CO2 that results from these systems limiting mileage probably yields a net increase in deleterious effects.
This was true 20-30 years ago, with early emissions equipment, but not now. Modern computerized emissions and fuel injection systems actually increase mileage, not hamper it. Per unit of power, today's cars and trucks get better fuel mileage than ever before.
This is because a gasoline engine is much like a blowtorch or a campfire. Run them too rich, and you choke out the flame. But up to a crucial point, they put out more power and run better the more efficient (leaner) you set them. And modern engines can run consistently leaner air/fuel ratios than could have ever been possible with old carb'ed engines. This efficiency gets even better with newer turbo direct-injection engines coming, which can run lean, high boost, and high compression with less fear of detonation.

CO2 is another story though. That's actually a by-product of this modern efficiency. Yesterday's rich-running engines put out a lot of carbon monoxide and other noxious emissions. Now that we have these highly efficient engines, combined with catalytic converters, their emissions are almost entirely CO2 and water vapor, both greenhouse gases.

What is really hurting fuel mileage in today's cars are the crash safety requirements. Even compacts today weigh over 3,000 lbs, when just 15 or so years ago they weighed closer to 2,000 lbs. And most of that difference is in safety reinforcement.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Linky

Simplicity in power

The secret? According to a paper detailing the event (published in 1977), "Firstly, the power needed to propel the vehicle must be kept to an absolute minimum, and secondly the engine and operating conditions must be chosen so that power requirement is met with minimum fuel utilization."

All of the cars listed above were from tests conducted in 1973, 1968 and 1949. Specifically, in 1949 a modified 1947 Studebaker achieved 149.95 miles per gallon. In 1968 a 1959 Fiat 600 (the two-door sports car above) achieved 244.35 miles per gallon. And in 1973, a modified 1959 Opel achieved 376.59 miles per gallon. That's enough fuel economy to drive from Indianapolis to Chicago, and back again, on a single gallon of fuel costing roughly $1.79 using fuel prices found in Indianapolis today.

Citation: Shell Oil Company's "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

OK, wtf? There are plenty of folks that run around screaming the evils of big oil and accusations of them suppressing technology that would have led to much greater fuel efficiency many years ago. After reading this, how do you effectively refute them? I understand that amenities included in modern vehicles would eat up some of the efficiency described here, but are our creature comforts and safety features really costing us ~340 mpg? C'mon. If a 1947 Studebaker can be modified to get 150 mpg I can not realistically believe we can't achieve 100 mpg + in a standard production vehicle today.

What say you?
Do you not realize that a car company that makes a car that goes 300+ mpg will make more money than what the oil companies could bribe them with?
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Linky

Simplicity in power

The secret? According to a paper detailing the event (published in 1977), "Firstly, the power needed to propel the vehicle must be kept to an absolute minimum, and secondly the engine and operating conditions must be chosen so that power requirement is met with minimum fuel utilization."

All of the cars listed above were from tests conducted in 1973, 1968 and 1949. Specifically, in 1949 a modified 1947 Studebaker achieved 149.95 miles per gallon. In 1968 a 1959 Fiat 600 (the two-door sports car above) achieved 244.35 miles per gallon. And in 1973, a modified 1959 Opel achieved 376.59 miles per gallon. That's enough fuel economy to drive from Indianapolis to Chicago, and back again, on a single gallon of fuel costing roughly $1.79 using fuel prices found in Indianapolis today.

Citation: Shell Oil Company's "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977. On page 42, Shell Oil quotes the (then) President of General Motors who predicted in 1929 that cars would achieve 80 mpg by 1939. Pages 221 through 223 have Shell writing of their test circuit achievements, specifically the 49.73 mpg achieved in 1939; the 149.95 mpg achieved in 1949 (using magnetos); 244.35 mpg in 1968 and the biggie, 376.59 mpg in 1973.

OK, wtf? There are plenty of folks that run around screaming the evils of big oil and accusations of them suppressing technology that would have led to much greater fuel efficiency many years ago. After reading this, how do you effectively refute them? I understand that amenities included in modern vehicles would eat up some of the efficiency described here, but are our creature comforts and safety features really costing us ~340 mpg? C'mon. If a 1947 Studebaker can be modified to get 150 mpg I can not realistically believe we can't achieve 100 mpg + in a standard production vehicle today.

What say you?
i say no one will buy the stupid thing. have you seen what this thing looks like? well here's a few pictures. it's basically a rolling death trap coupled to an engine only slightly more powerful than a lawn mower. a few things it can't really do: go fast or climb hills.

you can get about 100+ mpg on modern cars right now. the problem is that you have to be willing/able to drive between 10-20 mph and coast with the engine off. this isn't legal on highways though since you'd be going too slow (minimum of 40 mph).

but if you really want fuel efficiency at a usable speed, just drive slower! just by driving 50-55 mph, you can easily get 40-50 mpg with modern cars.

 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
I can get 500 mpg with my car.

1) Fill empty tank with one gallon of gas
2) Drive until empty
3) Push car the rest of the way :p
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
60,805
9,052
126
www.uovalor.com
Whenever something TOO efficient comes out, the oil industry just snags it. It's a very dirty game they are playing and it's sad that they have such power. TBH patents should not exist. They are what supresses good ideas from being used by everyone. The oil industry holds patents to so much stuff that other people have invented, it's not even funny. All these things could be put to good use, and help save the environment, if it was not for patents.

I've always thought of how cool it would be to study different types of ways to propel a vehicle but then it dawned on me what's the point? Do all that work only for the oil industry to steal it from me if it's "too good".
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Whenever something TOO efficient comes out, the oil industry just snags it. It's a very dirty game they are playing and it's sad that they have such power. TBH patents should not exist. They are what supresses good ideas from being used by everyone. The oil industry holds patents to so much stuff that other people have invented, it's not even funny. All these things could be put to good use, and help save the environment, if it was not for patents.

I've always thought of how cool it would be to study different types of ways to propel a vehicle but then it dawned on me what's the point? Do all that work only for the oil industry to steal it from me if it's "too good".
Uh-huh... Just have a seat over there, the nice men in white coats will be with you shortly.

ZV
 

Quixfire

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2001
6,892
0
0
300 mpg defies physics, there isn?t enough energy in a gallon of gasoline to move a vehicle that far. If there was we would have motorcycles doing 600-900 miles per gallon let alone 300 mpg.

Using gasoline alone like they would have in 1949, 1968, & 1973.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
This was true 20-30 years ago, with early emissions equipment, but not now. Modern computerized emissions and fuel injection systems actually increase mileage, not hamper it. Per unit of power, today's cars and trucks get better fuel mileage than ever before.
This is because a gasoline engine is much like a blowtorch or a campfire. Run them too rich, and you choke out the flame. But up to a crucial point, they put out more power and run better the more efficient (leaner) you set them. And modern engines can run consistently leaner air/fuel ratios than could have ever been possible with old carb'ed engines. This efficiency gets even better with newer turbo direct-injection engines coming, which can run lean, high boost, and high compression with less fear of detonation.
If I take a catalytic converter off of a car from the early '90's, the mileage/power will improve (at least, for my old car :p). More recent cars should be able to account for the change in pressure that results from such things.
What is really hurting fuel mileage in today's cars are the crash safety requirements. Even compacts today weigh over 3,000 lbs, when just 15 or so years ago they weighed closer to 2,000 lbs. And most of that difference is in safety reinforcement.
Agreed.
 

RU482

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
12,686
2
81
If GM or Ford had a 365MPG car in their back pocket...I'm thinking they would have played that card... right about now
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY