"It is not the gasoline that is 25 percent efficient, its the the engine itself."

JIMANDMANDY, Thanks! I didn't really think that was accurate, even I should have figured that out!!

 

People tend to drive fast (faster than the speed limit) and that will decrease mpg. I'm not 100% sure, but the speed limit may still have been 55 at that time. The city number may indeed be high, but I have little doubt that the highway number is achievable on a flat section of a rural highway. In city, the problem is that while waiting at a light people are getting 0 mpg.

Personally, usually I don't even bother to compute my city mpg, the only time I compute it when I take a trip. And sometimes I have gotten slightly better results (18+) than my EPA rating. (12/17)

 

If you burn one unit of gasoline, you will get a same amount of heat, no matter what, and because it happens in the same enclosed place all the time, you'll get the same amount of output all the time.

The only way to get less energy if the burn is incomplete, that is, some fuel goes out unburned. 1% or 2% fuel may go out of unburned, but 50% is simply next to impossible in a functional internal combustion engine.

This is BS. You can't "atomize" gas with a carburator. Period. The gasoline will break up during the detonation phase because of the high temperature.


Not sure where you get this particle size thing of the "atomized gas", but I can tell you that it's pure and distilled BS Gasoline contains mostly various hydrocarbons, and for simplicity, this can be represented as CxHy where x and y are some integers. (i.e. C8H16) If you "atomize" hydrocarbons, you get atomic C and H, and their sizes are constant -- didn't change in the last 100 or so years, and it's not going to change in the foreseeable future either.


How do you know that?

 

Hmmm, 200 mpg with a then current V8 car?!! Not bad at all.
I have some waterfront properties with palm trees on the Moon for less than $1/acre. Anyone?

 

The Smart gets about 68 mpg, much better than 50 mpg. If you reread my post you will see that I said we are not at the 200 or even 100 mpg stage. I guess we are 'here' by your definition if 'here' is 50 mpg.[/b]Such things are fairy tales.Don't debunk or dismiss comments by using unsubstantiated opinions, (in this case referring to my posts) as fairy tales, when you don't offer any valid info to counter, the facts, I have offered.

Obviously not a fairy tale at 68 mpg (Cdn.). Check out VW Passat Diesels. High 50s mpg (Cdn.), Comfortable 4 seater, with an ok turn of speed.We will see more high efficiency vehicles if people buy them but they have nothing to do with magic carbs or conspiracy theories.Didn't say they did. I said the secret to the Smart's high mpg, was the fact that it was light, aerodynamic, had a small,(800cc) high efficiency TurboDiesel, with 6 speeds. No magic or conspiracy here, unless you're looking for it.
Kind of what I said, wasn't it? Did you really read my post?

 

lesmore49- I read the post you made, and the smart car you were talking about does not have any bearing on the fabled 200MPG magic carb this thread is about. The existence of high efficiency vehicles has no relationship to the subject and certainly does not prove the existence of a magic carb that defies the rules of physics. This is comparing apples to gooseberries and is totally invalid... Go back and read the first post.

High efficiency vehicles certainly do exist and they are getting better.

Please do not misuse the quote function.

 

lol I sure did open a can of worms, but this is fun to read. BTW the new Mythbusters tried out a lot of the "MPG increasing mods" to do to your engine.

 

What was their conclusion?

 

Their conclusion was that none of them worked. The 300 mgp carb which they put on the vehicle actually reduced the mileage!

 

What a surprise!

 

There is an FTC page where they tested many of the fuel-saver devices: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm
In short, the great majority didn't work at all. A few, mostly behavioral modification devices did work to some degree, however. But one can do that without spending anything at all... just be easy with the accelerator.

And here is one "proof" why such a 'super-carburator' doesn't exist:
This is from: http://community.discovery.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/6151965118

 

Another historical point to ponder. During WWII (a few years after the Pogue patents) there was gasoline rationing and a tremendous effort to supply enough fuel for the war effort. How long would this miracle invention stay "suppressed" with the government pretty much taking over control of all production of goods. Think of the military advantage that device would have had if it actually worked. Aircraft engine technology was being pushed to the limit in order to get more range and payload to fight accross both oceans.

Jim

 

Well now I can see why there wouldn't be one even for sale. If there were, and the gas companies "bought it" they would be able to sell (and most definately would do so) it to every single person and become tremendously rich.

But it was good that the Mythbusters took all those myths and busted them. They also busted the myth about putting the magnet on your fuel line in order to "re-arrange" the particles to give a fuller combustion, they tried it on carbed and fuel injected.

 

I think one likely scenario that he bilked some investors out of their money, and that would nicely explain his disappearence.

 

Either Popular Science or Mechanics magazine tested the fuel savers a few months ago and "busted" them also.

Even if big oil owned the patent it would be registered and someone would have designed around it and be raking in the $$$ by now.