http://www.mustangevolution.com/20080702712/
Wow 
That is BY FAR the most impressive X-prize entry I've seen so far...and it could get even better mileage on gasoline!
1
2
3
-
July 3, 2008 9:52 a.m. GameboyRMH Dork
-
July 3, 2008 10:03 a.m. therex Dork
coughbullE36 M3cough
-
July 3, 2008 10:08 a.m. GameboyRMH Dork
therex wrote: *cough*bullE36 M3*cough*
Could be...I have a feeling it has variable displacement, automatic engine shutoff/start, and there will be a lot of pulse-and-gliding involved. Still if it even gets half of what he's claiming it will be a major breakthrough.
-
July 3, 2008 10:17 a.m. Tyler H Dork
How about 100mpg and 200hp? Sign me up.
Think of how many fox body mustangs you could buy with $10M.
-
July 3, 2008 10:26 a.m. Rangeball New Reader
Saw that yesterday too. Neat idea and hope that it could be applied to our cars. Think of the potential if the SUV you are driving now could have its mpg increased by 50% or more!!!
-
July 3, 2008 10:29 a.m. MadScientistMatt HalfDork
38 percent is about the maximum efficiency the laws of thermodynamics will allow on an engine with normal compression ratios. I have my doubts that he's pulled that off in the real world.
-
July 3, 2008 10:36 a.m. ignorant UltraDork
trickery to get through the test.
Impressive none the less. but.. pulse and glide won't work for most soccer moms.. It'll scare them.. HA!
-
July 3, 2008 10:42 a.m. ignorant UltraDork
MadScientistMatt wrote: 38 percent is about the maximum efficiency the laws of thermodynamics will allow on an engine with normal compression ratios. I have my doubts that he's pulled that off in the real world.
38% is diesel range.....
Isn't that massive engine from japan, the really big one, like 51% efficient.
BS meter rising...
-
July 3, 2008 10:46 a.m. therex Dork
Nope, sorry. Nobody with a myspace page as ugly as his could ever make anything beautiful. It's trickery and deception, or it's total bullE36 M3.
-
July 3, 2008 10:52 a.m. GameboyRMH Dork
ignorant wrote: Impressive none the less. but.. pulse and glide won't work for most soccer moms.. It'll scare them.. HA!
It could work if it could be automatically engaged and disengaged like cruise control...
-
July 3, 2008 10:57 a.m. ProDarwin Dork
MadScientistMatt wrote: 38 percent is about the maximum efficiency the laws of thermodynamics will allow on an engine with normal compression ratios. I have my doubts that he's pulled that off in the real world.
He/you never say what efficiency is in question.
Combustion? Thermodynamic? Volumetric? Overall?
I can only assume you are referring to the Carnot cycle, therefore thermodynamic efficiency.
Overall efficiency is around 10% but that's the efficiency of the entire vehicle, not just the engine Thermodynamic is about 35-40% for most gasoline engines already A good NA motor hits 100% volumetric, boosted is well over Most engines are 95-99% combustion
-
July 3, 2008 11:09 a.m. ignorant UltraDork
ProDarwin wrote:
Thermodynamic is about 35-40% for most gasoline engines already
source?
last time I looked at it.. gasoline engines are in the 20's with most diesels being int he 30's-40's.
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/clean/diesel_gasoline02.html
isuzu quotes 25-30 for their Gasoline engines and 30-42 for their diesels.
I'd love to see a practical 40% efficient gasoline engine. I'd love it in my honda.
-
July 3, 2008 11:23 a.m. seann New Reader
I'm going to hold off judgment till it's tested.
This quote however is pretty silly: "His engine also would be more efficient if he had sacrificed some of its 400 horsepower or 500 foot-pounds of torque, but Mr. Pelmear said his design is intended for “real-world” uses, not the laboratory"
How is less than 400 hp not sufficient for real world use and mid 80's saftey standards are? It does make a statement though.
-
July 3, 2008 1:07 p.m. ProDarwin Dork
ignorant wrote:
ProDarwin wrote:
Thermodynamic is about 35-40% for most gasoline engines already
source?
last time I looked at it.. gasoline engines are in the 20's with most diesels being int he 30's-40's.
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/clean/diesel_gasoline02.html
isuzu quotes 25-30 for their Gasoline engines and 30-42 for their diesels.
I'd love to see a practical 40% efficient gasoline engine. I'd love it in my honda.
I'll check my powertrain book when I get home, that number may be a tad off. I thought atkinson/miller cycle engines were definitely above 30.
Regardless, 38% is not the maximum efficiency of a gasoline engine. The second law of thermo says max efficiency of a heat engine is given by 1 - (Tc/Th). Do some math (70 deg = 294k, 1500F = 1088k), and you end up with a number a bit higher than 70%. Granted, we are far from a frictionless engine, but that's the theoretical maximum. Not necessarily utilizing the otto cycle though.
-
July 3, 2008 1:28 p.m. John Brown UltimaDork
Since it is impossible to have a 0 friction IC engine, let's focus on what he could do to reduce internal losses, then maximizing HP versus fuel consumption, then minimizing suspension losses.
Could a crankshaft be built that would utilize (1)roller bearings for rods and mains and (2)use end loading to keep it together and stay together for industry testing and capable of taking 500hp? Can a spiraling teflon swiper seal be used in place of steel rings? Can electrohydraulic lifters be packaged in the head? A unit that opens the valve and also ats as the spark plug would improve cylinder and chamber design for rapid intake and exhaust.
That guy is running 17" Cobra Rs, not a light wheel by any means, and likely not skinny as well.
Maybe this needs to be it's own thread ;)
-
July 3, 2008 1:52 p.m. ProDarwin Dork
John Brown wrote: Could a crankshaft be built that would utilize (1)roller bearings for rods and mains
There are motorcycles out there with this already.
-
July 3, 2008 1:54 p.m. John Brown UltimaDork
weak quick idea.
-
July 3, 2008 2:07 p.m. MadScientistMatt HalfDork
Sorry I wasn't clear - I meant maximum thermodynamic efficiency, which I suspect was what the article was saying too.
-
July 4, 2008 4:19 a.m. problemaddict New Reader
US Patent office shows a Doug Pelmear who does indeed have a patent out, but it doesn't look like its going to change the world....
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week34/OG/html/1321-3/US07258094-20070821.html
-
July 4, 2008 7:50 a.m. therex Dork
problemaddict wrote: US Patent office shows a Doug Pelmear who does indeed have a patent out, but it doesn't look like its going to change the world....
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week34/OG/html/1321-3/US07258094-20070821.html
He sells those on his website...is small block v8's cracking down the middle a serious problem?
-
July 4, 2008 7:53 a.m. ignorant UltraDork
ProDarwin wrote:
ignorant wrote:
ProDarwin wrote:
Thermodynamic is about 35-40% for most gasoline engines already
source?
last time I looked at it.. gasoline engines are in the 20's with most diesels being int he 30's-40's.
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/clean/diesel_gasoline02.html
isuzu quotes 25-30 for their Gasoline engines and 30-42 for their diesels.
I'd love to see a practical 40% efficient gasoline engine. I'd love it in my honda.
I'll check my powertrain book when I get home, that number may be a tad off. I thought atkinson/miller cycle engines were definitely above 30.
Regardless, 38% is not the maximum efficiency of a gasoline engine. The second law of thermo says max efficiency of a heat engine is given by 1 - (Tc/Th). Do some math (70 deg = 294k, 1500F = 1088k), and you end up with a number a bit higher than 70%. Granted, we are far from a frictionless engine, but that's the theoretical maximum. Not necessarily utilizing the otto cycle though.
Ohh Ok.. Miller cycle. Yes those are more efficient, but there has never been a commercially viable one in the states. S/C 2.5 mazda v6 was a bit of a loser.
-
July 4, 2008 8:07 a.m. GameboyRMH Dork
problemaddict wrote: US Patent office shows a Doug Pelmear who does indeed have a patent out, but it doesn't look like its going to change the world....
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week34/OG/html/1321-3/US07258094-20070821.html
The guy patented an engine block brace. I think that's the worst patent I've seen on a physical object.
-
July 4, 2008 9:08 a.m. matt_fulghum New Reader
yeahhhh... I saw this guy before... except before he was saying that he had 110 miles per gallon.
such total bullE36 M3!
All this guy is is another fraud, who when his car doesn't get the fuel economy he says it does, he'll say that it's been sabotaged by big oil or some crap like that. This guy talks about how he's trying to bring hope to people, but all he's doing is leading people along.
Yes you might be able to get 80 mpg or 110 mpg or whatever this guy says out of an 87 Mustang... with a tiny tiny tiny engine and radical gearing. No way in hell could you get it out of a full size 400 horsepower V8 though. :P
-
July 4, 2008 9:11 a.m. matt_fulghum New Reader
ignorant wrote: Ohh Ok.. Miller cycle. Yes those are more efficient, but there has never been a commercially viable one in the states. S/C 2.5 mazda v6 was a bit of a loser.
Not too many Miller cycle engines, because they require the use of forced induction, but there have definitely been Atkinson cycle engines which work effectively the same way. Notably, the Prius.
And even then, it's only worth a fairly small boost in fuel economy, and it inherently cuts power output.
-
July 4, 2008 9:22 a.m. Osterkraut New Reader
therex wrote:
problemaddict wrote: US Patent office shows a Doug Pelmear who does indeed have a patent out, but it doesn't look like its going to change the world....
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week34/OG/html/1321-3/US07258094-20070821.html
He sells those on his website...is small block v8's cracking down the middle a serious problem?
For Ford Windsors, almost to the engine, will crack straight down the middle when boosted (with a factory shortblock) past 500hp.
