digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at kmbc.com

Engineer Gets 110 MPG Out Of '87 Mustang

kmbc.com — The car hasn't traded power for miles per gallon. Pelmear said the car has 400 horsepower, goes well over 100 mph and can go from zero to 60 mph in three seconds.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theliamburns1, on 07/03/2008, -9/+272HES A WITCH. GET HIM
  • 4u21der, on 07/03/2008, -8/+217Proof?

    Sounds good, to good to (maybe) be true.
    The other issue would be how easy to mass manufacture, support and implement.
    Can you retro fit this to existing cars?

    Details!!

    Very weak reporting on an interesting subject.
    • Chicken2nite, on 07/03/2008, -5/+10http://www.mahalo.com/Doug_Pelmear
    • TheLastEskimo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17I would assume you can retro fit because he's got it on an '87 mustang.
    • ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -5/+59
      There is no proof because it's a load of *****.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/04/2008, -14/+1Yeah. 100mph? Sounds like he just put a new tranny in with shorter gear ratios. That would explain the acceleration.
      • kelmaster1, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14Not necessarily, he doesn't say anything because he's in process of getting a patent for this.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12Can it be done? Yes. The next question is always, can it be scaled and cost effective? And, usually, the answer is no.
    • swicken, on 07/04/2008, -2/+9It's been a possiblity for a long time now. All of our internal combustion engines have horrible efficiency. No ones really brought new ideas to the table, save for ones that increase power.
    • faraggi, on 07/05/2008, -3/+14"too"
    • macmichael01, on 07/05/2008, -2/+6The ability to have a hell of a lot better gas millage has been out for 20 years but the douche bag oil companies bought up all the patents and rights to more fuel efficient vehicles in the 80's so that CEOs could make their phat bonuses. I hope we can screw the oil industry as much as possible with newer technologies because they desire it. You don't bite the hand that feeds you and expect to get away with it.
      • jb34304, on 07/05/2008, -6/+0nice nin reference.
      • parallax7d, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2actually they are tearing off the hand that feeds them, and all we are doing is giving them the other hand.
      • Yonson, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2@jb34304
        That's not a NIN reference, it's a common saying that happens to be in a NIN song.
    • ubrikkean, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3According to the site posted by Chicken2nite, he says he hasn't revealed the method because it isn't patented yet. Hopefully it's not to long 'til we find out whether this is real...
    • Mooco, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1The most I could find is the actual entry description on the x-prize website, and the official site itself...

      "The flagship HP2g™ runs on E85, which is a green, alcohol-based fuel that significantly reduces green house gas emissions. Working to build a vehicle that would meet the requirements of the X-PRIZE, Team HP2g started by using the V8 platform. In testing, they have been able to have both fuel efficiency and the power to pass traffic when needed. At this time, their focus is designing their vehicle to be more consumer-friendly without sacrificing basic creature comforts of comparable existing vehicles. Pictures of HP2g’s vehicle will be seen after their June 14, 2008 press release/demonstration at Milan Dragway in Milan, MI."


      http://www.hp2g.com/
  • seymansey, on 07/03/2008, -4/+37Story is slightly vauge, sounds like another one of those DIY hydrogen fuel cell style 'innovations'
    • 12340987, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12the story is VERY vague
    • MadFlava, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7I know a guy designing a car to run in that race. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are not allowed in it. It's gotta be straight fuel so if he's entering it in that race, it's not hydrogen equipped.
  • SpookyPig, on 07/03/2008, -2/+98This article is a little too vague. It would be nice if it would tell us what he actually did.
    • bhavinp, on 07/04/2008, -0/+42He made the car efficient by using "electronics"
      • xShifty, on 07/04/2008, -1/+25He obviously integrated alien technology from "Independence Day" into his car.
      • stretch611, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17Marge: See all that stuff in there, Homer? That's why your robot never worked.
      • jawagas, on 07/04/2008, -5/+2Haha, you made me giggle Shifty. Now all those dinner parties will have award moments.
    • DeLucia, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7He's hiding the information because his patent is pending, although i agree he could give us a *little* more, at least.
      • wiggles, on 07/04/2008, -2/+13hiding information due to patent pending is a sure sign of a guy trolling for VC funds to spend on hookers and blow.
  • AnOMNOMymous, on 07/04/2008, -21/+7This really isn't that surprising.

    Cars go fast when they are efficient. Cars get good gas mileage when they're efficient. So if you can somehow trick someone with a Ferrari into driving it like it's a Dodge Neon, it will get good gas mileage. See: turbochargers. They don't just make cars faster, they give cars better mileage.
    • vawksel, on 07/04/2008, -2/+14Lol. Wrong. Ferrari's and Lambo's (while we're at it) trade off MPG's for overall performance.

      A new Lambo Guillardo (sp) gets like 8mpg according to the EPA, that's driving it nice and easy 55mph etc.

      Also, show me a single car that weighs as much as a 1978 Mustang that can go zero to 60 in 3 seconds.

      The number of production cars that can go 0 to 60 in 3 seconds in the entire world could be counted on two hands probably or maybe less and they have 600, 700, 800hp, and weigh probably half as much as this 1987 mustang.
      • Tonorific, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10Ferrari and Lamborghini make some very inefficient engines, I think what AnOMNOMymous is saying would sound better if he used BMW or Mercedes as examples. My 745i (2003) would get 30mpg at 55mph. However if I lead footed it, the car would go from 0-60 in 5.9 sec. That's fast for a 4500lb luxury sedan. Compare that to my 1994 Accord which gets 28mpg at 55mph, weighs much less and does 0-60 in 8 sec (with a tailwind).More efficient powerplants can sip gas and put out large bhp.

        Where I agree with you is that they can't do it at the same time.

        As far as 0-60 in 3 seconds is concerned, I'd say that's a load of horse *****. regardless of how much power you put out at the crank, the drive train of that car could NOT effectively propel that car forward, at that rate. That car if equipped with the biggest engine option (5.0l) was only designed to handle 225bhp. the transmission, differential and suspension would quickly malfunction.That car, brand new, with a six speed manual transmission and 5.0l engine did 0-60mph somewhere in the neighborhood of 7sec, cutting that number down by 2 seconds would be remarkable, let alone cutting it in half by adding some 'electronics' (flashing LEDs no doubt) . I'm not even going to get into traction control and the lack of an adequate contact patch.
      • LMaxey, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3If you increase engine power, you also increase the strength throughout the car. Upgrade your engine far enough and you buy a new driveshaft, a higher stage clutch, and upgrade the suspension. Traction is also relative to the suspension and tires. Take the tires from an '87 mustang and they would spin all day. Change them to Mickey Thompson drag radials and they would be almost too sticky. Benefit of the doubt says if this man can upgrade a 20 year old car to be half this effecient, then he knows which parts to upgrade for maximum transmission of power to the rear wheels and how to compensate for the additional force of 400 hp.
    • Liquidfire3240, on 07/04/2008, -4/+9No they dont. Turbochargers compress air into the engine, which means with more air, you can burn more fuel...so, lower mileage.
      • illt, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Wrong.
        turbos can improve gas mileage if you don't have too much lag and drive at consistant speeds. Boost increases the compression ratio and in a closed loop will translate into better efficiency. (in fact anything that's forced induction increases efficiency if you ((key point)) drive the car efficiently)

        Most semi-trucks and other commercial vehicles are turbocharged for this reason.

    • ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7You are a ***** moron and have no clue what you are talking about whatsoever.
  • ElTomacco, on 07/04/2008, -4/+141It's amazing the lies people are willing to believe now that gas is over $4 a gallon. 400bhp and 110mpg? Yeah I'd like to believe that too.
    • jmreid, on 07/04/2008, -3/+20"Engineer" "Gets" "110 MPG" Out Of '87 "Mustang"
    • Muyoso, on 07/04/2008, -6/+33Not to mention that it accelerates faster than any Lambo or Ferrari on the market, according to this douchebag.
      • m3th0dm4n, on 07/04/2008, -8/+18Drop a thousand into any V8 mustang and you can out-accelerate any douchebag's Ferrari or Lambo.
      • Schrodinger2, on 07/04/2008, -6/+4Ferrari doesn't even make the list of top ten fastest cars in production.
      • alpha88, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6lambo's and ferrari's are not the cars you should be comparing it to for acceleration.
      • invictus13, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Bugatti? McClaren F1? the new Skyline?
    • dylanmat, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11I want to believe
    • jguy584, on 07/04/2008, -1/+16It probably gets 110mpg when its in 25 HP mode
      • ..eD, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Exactly! The article doesn't say that you get both at the same time.

        My guess, lots of electronics to make the thing take tiny sips when it can get away with it.
      • bradleyland, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3My car accelerates faster and gets better fuel mileage...

        when pushed out of the back of an airplane.
    • jyroflux, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1http://www.horsepowersales.net/news.htm
    • alpha88, on 07/05/2008, -2/+5It's theoretically possible if the engine efficiency could be increased, but I want details on what he did to raise the efficiency..
      • jmreid, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7Your comment is completely useless. Much like this one.
    • cheezintern, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2The 302 Ford was putting in the mustangs in the 80s was one of the first to use electronics to monitor emissions. My '88 tbird used to get 25-30 mpg highway easily (mustang version had different heads and pistons). Not bad for a 3500 pound car though.

      Overall though, it's a pretty good engine, but I'd be very skeptical about this. There isn't even a picture!
      • bury, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1It's 110 "MPGe." That's equivalent MPG, as it uses E85 which has a lower energy density than gas. Also, he states the Mustang should be about a 12 sec car, which means no 3 sec 0-60.

        http://video.stangtv.com/video/6328
        This is another video interview.
    • justjoehere, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I used to believe that gas would never be more than $3/gallon also....

      /sarcasm
  • foxtrot3, on 07/04/2008, -3/+178Zero to sixty in three seconds !!!??? This whole story is complete BS.
    • MissMyZDtv, on 07/04/2008, -17/+4three seconds is not that fast. search for ugly fox racing on youtube... a friend of mine has an 86' mustang that'll do 0-60 in 1.6 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 9.42sec @150+ mph... he only gets 10-11mpg out of his 940Hp 364ci Dart iron block V-8...
      • Tonorific, on 07/04/2008, -2/+10This magical friend of yours has probably 'tubbed out' his Dart, meaning that his rear tires are so wide they would not fit on a normal car. He probably has no-slip rear differential, meaning his Dart doesn't corner very well. He more than likely does not get 10mpg while drag racing.

        The whole idea of this ***** news article was not that a car could do 0-60 in 3 sec, it was that this snake oil salesman could make a piece of ***** Mustang do it while at the same time more than quadruple the mileage.

        That's the BS
      • Reostat, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6A GSXR1000 is what, 2.5seconds? I highly doubt his stang will do 1.6 seconds 0-60.

        A Bugatti is 2.5ish as well.

        I call ***** on that, and therefore ***** on the rest of your post.
      • m3th0dm4n, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1It's called slicks. Learn them. Love them.
      • swicken, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Arguments about how fast cars can go..... no matter what you all lose.
      • ahale97, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4The Fastest 0-60 time ever recorded is 1.7 seconds by the Lingenfelter ZO6 Corvette.

        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=0-6 ...

        I'm going to have to call ***** on your friends car.
    • lennybird, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5I'm no car expert and maybe somebody will prove me wrong, but: When a far heavier Dodge viper can get 0 - 60 in 3 seconds on 500hp, why can't a lighter(?) mustang on 400?

      /confused.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 07/04/2008, -5/+1 How many miles a gallon you think that Viper is getting? And anyway I know of no Viper that comes close to that time, is this a special one or are you mistaken?
      • IrvineKinneas50, on 07/05/2008, -0/+13Vipers don't go 0-60 in 3 seconds. There's only a couple street-legal cars that can do that, and the Viper isn't one of them.
      • BSeffrood, on 07/05/2008, -0/+31000 hp Toyota Supra's have a hard time going 0-60 in three seconds.
      • bradleyland, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3A three second zero to sixty time requires a tremendous amount of traction in addition to lots of horsepower. Achieving this number on street tires requires all-wheel-drive, which isn't really an option with an '87 Ford Mustang. It really damages the credibility of the engineer's accomplishments to make such outlandish claims.
      • lennybird, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Well sorry, I take back my 3 second statement about the Viper. Looking it up, I couldn't find anything, either. I think the closest was 3.6 seconds, and average about 4-5. However, I did find a twin-turbo viper version (Venom) with 800HP that goes 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. Not relevant to my earlier questions, obviously.
    • RationalXubrnce, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3 Exactly this is total nonsense. I'll bet he's not letting anyone see how it works. He should have satisfied with the mileage lies without adding on the insult that it does zero to 60 in 3 seconds.
      • genepooldesign, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1"I'll bet he's not letting anyone see how it works."

        Did you even read the story? He's entered the automotive X-Prize. I'm sure that keeping it a secret is against the rules.
    • leffunov, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2It's not BS. Usually when a for-profit company sees a potential loss from new technology they try to acquire the rights(patent) to that technology while keeping the inventor quiet about his idea through a nondisclosure equipment. This is less expensive for the company in the long run. Exx0n-Mobil holds the rights to Li-Ion battery technologies that were set to be used in electric cars more than a decade ago. The acquisition allowed them to prevent a product that would damage their revenues from transforming the market dependent on their product.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Time will tell but I still think he's full of crap.
    • aelias, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2That would be a record. 400HP isn't enough to do it in a Mustang. Car is too heavy. Hell, an Enzo weighs several hundred pounds less, and has over 600HP, and the best it can muster is a 3.4 on a good day.

      I was interested until I saw that pure nugget of BS.
    • bury, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2It's 110 "MPGe." That's equivalent MPG, as it uses E85 which has a lower energy density than gas. Also, he states the Mustang should be about a 12 sec car, which means no 3 sec 0-60.

      http://video.stangtv.com/video/6328
      This is another video interview.
  • Tonorific, on 07/04/2008, -1/+30I'll bet this car has flashing LED's under the hood, and only those reporters that fail an IQ test get to see em.
    • AxsToro, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1Its a mustang, not a Trans AM... Dont compare a Legend (Trans AM) to a piece of *****(Pony).

      Either way.. its one of the old mustangs... Those arent bad.. Unlike these new pieces of crap Ford is selling.

      BTW: If this was real... I'm sure this would've been front page news of EVERY ***** site.
  • MrMetal, on 07/04/2008, -15/+7I always think it's funny that people try to do so much ***** to cars, when it's so much easier to just buy a motorcycle. My bike cost $7K, gets 50mpg and does 0-60 in 4 seconds.
    • rhartman, on 07/04/2008, -4/+26And your bike is wonderful for taking passengers, driving in poor weather or doing simple errands where you need storage space, like buying groceries.

      Fail.
      • mrzeero, on 07/04/2008, -1/+18I think you forgot the most important drawback. Many minor accidents result in the death of the rider.
      • cl2yp71c, on 07/04/2008, -15/+3Have you ever ridden a motorcycle?

        If not, take that 'Fail.' and shove it up your four-eyed ass.
      • Nintendesert, on 07/04/2008, -6/+2Four-Eyed ass. You made a nerd jab on Digg. You sir are complete fail.
      • LMaxey, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8cl2yp71c clearly has far superior motorcycle skills as he can take passengers with him in a storm to run errands and buy groceries while on his motorcycle. Also should a car slide in said storm and hit his bike it would affect him as much as your average car weighing up to 10 times more.
        Clearly, he does not fail.
      • tehxhorace, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2008/7/11jul3-b ...
      • cl2yp71c, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5My view of motorcycles is strictly from my own perspective, which is that of a college student in Los Angeles, CA.

        We rarily have anything close to a 'storm'.
        If you're doing simple errands a backpack would suffice, if not, there are always saddle bags and side bags.
        As for taking other passengers, there's always the back seat....or a sidecar.
        Plus bikes are great for getting through traffic(lane splitting-in CA), and finding convenient parking spots.

        I'm sorry for my rudeness, but rhartman just pissed me off, and I'm sure we don't share the same views on biking, but you should give it a try sometime.
      • itspuddingtime, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3with a sidecar and a raincoat you can go grocery shopping in ANY storm
      • EtherGnat, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2@cl2yp71c

        Rhartmanrhartman pissed you off because he pointed out (correctly) that cars and motorcycles have very different capabilities? If a motorcycle works for you that's wonderful, but if you ever forget there is still a need for cars you deserve to have somebody make a snarky comment towards you, just like the parent did.
      • lpcustom, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Bikes would be great if everyone else was on one and they weren't so fast. Don't get me wrong, I like bikes. I started riding motorcycles at age 4. They are great for riding in a rural area. Crotch rockets, however, are bad news. I call them donor bikes. They are too dangerous even without the 3000lb automobiles that you have to dodge on the highways with them. I've lost friends to trees. I've seen bikes slide under the rear tires of 18-wheelers,the rider ground into hamburger meat. I know some people are "good riders" which basically equals "lucky." At the very least, everyone should have a few classes on physics before they are allowed to get on a bike.
      • cl2yp71c, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1First and foremost, crotch rockets aren't bad news or 'donor bikes' as you call them. That's like saying that guns kill people -_-
        It's just that the riders who 'usually' buy them are mostly morons.

        Ipcustom, skill and awareness are crucial factors; both that can be raised by taking the proper course.
        Sure it'll cost a bit more than the MSF course, but so does your entire body.


      • rhartman, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@cl2yp71c

        My last bike was a 2005 Honda Shadow Aero:
        http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2005models/2 ...

        It certainly does not rate as a Highway Cruiser seeing as it is only 750cc but it is also definitely not a "crotch-rocket." I didn't address safety/survivability, merely the practicality of a bike vs. a car. It's wonderful that your bike suits all of your needs, but for the majority of people out there (especially those with families) a bike alone is not sufficient which prompted the response I gave Mr Metal. I have nothing against motorcycles or their riders, and I miss my own bike considerably.
    • phyx726, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8my life is worth a few extra thousand
      • Cheeseburgers, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5(no it's not)
      • cl2yp71c, on 07/04/2008, -6/+2Coming from such an ignorant individual, I'd have to say that it's not.
        ...maybe a few thousand less though.
    • petomni, on 07/04/2008, -2/+10so in other words, your motorcycle gets less mileage and is slower than this car (if it exists). Good point.
    • wildcatcs, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5And one other suv not looking and it won't matter how much you save when your dead.
      • cl2yp71c, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1True.
        You've never ridden a bike I presume?
    • diggtoast, on 07/04/2008, -6/+4motorcycles are extremely dangerous
      • cl2yp71c, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2So are cars.
      • EtherGnat, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1@cl2yp71c

        Per vehicle mile traveled motorcycle riders are 26 (!) times more likely to die in a crash and five times more likely to be injured than somebody in a car (per 2001 NHTSA statistics). Stop trying to pretend motorcycles aren't more dangerous.
      • cl2yp71c, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2I've heard the same statistics over and over again.
        What most people don't realize is that they rarely apply to the "smart/cautious" riders.
        The SQUIDs(Stupidly Quick, Underdressed, Ignorant and Dangerous) on the other hand...are road kill.

        Now I'm not saying that bikes aren't dangerous. But what makes them so dangerous are the darn half-awake-half-cellphone-talking cagers(car drivers).

        So what I'm basically saying is, riders who don't ride foolishly and are aware of the road and it's dangerous fall far below your little 'statistic'.

        BTW, You have a greater chance of getting hit by a car on the sidewalk than riding a motorcycle.
        How's that for 'statistics'?
      • EtherGnat, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Yay for people digging down facts.

        "What most people don't realize is that they rarely apply to the "smart/cautious" riders."

        Smart/cautious people are less likely to be in a car accident as well, so I'm not sure how much it alters the statistic. Also if some people fall below the statistic it means there must be people that fall above the statistic by the same amount. I'm sure almost all motorcycle riders think they're smart/cautious and above average drivers--that doesn't change the fact that as a group they're 26 times more likely to die in an accident. Hell, even if you're good enough to cut your odds of being in a fatal accident by 80% your still 5x more likely to die in a crash.

        "Now I'm not saying that bikes aren't dangerous."

        Then why the hell are you arguing with the people who say bikes are dangerous?

        "But what makes them so dangerous are the darn half-awake-half-cellphone-talking cagers(car drivers)."

        Exactly. I have a couple of friends that have been hit by people while stopped at a red light or similar unavoidable situation. I don't care how smart/cautious you are it's not going to make that pavement any softer when some idiot driver runs into you.

        "You have a greater chance of getting hit by a car on the sidewalk than riding a motorcycle."

        [citation needed] I have a hard time believing that. I know lots of people that have been hit on motorcycles and read about more accidents all the time. Off the top of my head I can't remember ever hearing about somebody hit on the sidewalk.

        Even if it's true it's meaningless--If there was a way I could walk on the sidewalk and cut my chances of being killed by 96% I'd choose that too.

        Stop being so defensive. Nobody is trying to take away you're right to ride a motorcycle. There are lots of advantages to bikes and I'm sure they're a crazy amount of fun to ride. I'd consider one myself if it wasn't for all the idiots on the road, and I'm sure as gas prices soar more and more people will choose them.

        The fact remains there are a number of valid reasons to choose a car over a bike, and safety is indisputably one of them. You can argue till your blue in the face, you can digg me down, but it just makes it look like you're in denial.
    • johnpaul191, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6It's a fact that *most* motorcycle accidents involve a rider that drank alcohol and/or a rider that never took a valid motorcycle safety course. I took a safety course and i don't drink. I also own a bike that was considered a sportbike in 1982.
      Look at how many cars have 1 person in them. I own a car, motorcycles and a bicycle. I have a car, but my job often requires me to haul gear and be out for a good 16+ hours (more gear than a sedan or even hatchback can fit). Car share *currently* doesn't make sense compared to the cost of owning my 1996 jeep. When i'm just commuting to work or going out to meet people i prefer to ride on 2 wheels and save gas. My newest motorcycle is from 1982, so they are not the superbikes of today (and because of that my bikes have cost anywhere from $150 - $2000). Even old bikes get great mileage. Hell a brand new scooter can get 85+mpg in the city and new will cost you about $3,000. I've owned and been riding street bikes since 1995 and never been in an accident. There are plenty of times i felt safer on a motorcycle than on a bicycle. Especially before bike lanes, it was probably safer to be going the same speed as cars, with bright lights. The fact that i can out brake, out accelerate and out turn almost any car on my 25+ year old bikes is just a bonus. I don't listen to music or talk on the phone while riding. The awareness you have on a bike, as opposed to a cage (car), makes me a better commuter. I am far more aware of my surroundings than most drivers.
      I can't speak for people that live in the sticks, or have to take highways everywhere. The era of suburban sprawl has taken a massive hit with gas prices. Let's face it... gas will never be 99¢/gallon again. That's probably the biggest selling point for the cities and their networks of public transportation. As more people are moving back into the cities, there will be more money for city services and things will be safer and cleaner.
      City living + scooter/motorcycle + carshare = oh yeah!
      wow, this was all over the place... i just drank a big glass of yerba maté. sorry!
      • fuzzybeard, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1Please forgive me, but I just had the image of Cornholio spazzing out on caffeine pop into my head when you said that.

        /beware the wrath of my bungholio!
  • Cheeseburgers, on 07/04/2008, -11/+3this technology is going to get buried just like all the others.
    • ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8No, don't worry, the technology of being a ***** liar is well distributed and licensed under Creative Commons.
  • burnedtubes, on 07/04/2008, -3/+81Shenanigans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • tehxhorace, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1someone finally built a better mousetrap?
  • kh99, on 07/04/2008, -2/+43Hey Pelmear - that rightmost digit on the odometer is *tenths* of miles.
    • xShifty, on 07/04/2008, -4/+10You're probably right, he's only getting 11 and he's just too much of a stupid redneck to do the calculation right.

      I mean, come on, do you really expect this guy: http://www.horsepowersales.net/pbpix/NOPI%20045.jp ... to do what thousands upon thousands of engineers can't? He's a ***** auto mechanic from Minnesota for christ's sake.
      • SteveCUBE, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2skeleton girls with fake boobs lol
      • bushout, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4Jesus, the one in the middle, I can see what she had for lunch.

      • Badandy127, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Six Pack.
    • itspuddingtime, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. *****. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.
  • MadOgre, on 07/04/2008, -4/+43BS. It would take a hell of a lot more power than only 400HP to do a 3 second squirt to 60 MPH. Unless the car weighs about the same as a Honda CBR motorcycle, this is BS.
    • johnnykwest, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7Indeed you are right I think... I just checked with my ultra cool (but 15 year old) DOS drag racing simulator (go to drop_dot_io_slash_dragrace to get it btw). I took an 89 Mustang GT (225bhp/300lb-ft) and made it weigh 1660lbs (the approx curb weight of a Lotus Elise) and still only got 5.1 sec for a 0-60 time. Of course probably 3 seconds of that was wheelspin. ;)

      • TokenBlack, on 07/04/2008, -5/+1kinda lame
      • fuzzybeard, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Assuming a 2500 pound curb weight (so it's on the porky side...)
        Assuming it's rear-wheel drive
        Assuming it's an automatic

        500 hp at the flywheel would yield this result:

        Power / Weight Ratio: 0.2
        0-60 mph: 3.0023404603814208 seconds

        Source: http://www.060calculator.com/
    • Wolfie351, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6As with most articles and people's generic knowledge of cars, they only look at horsepower numbers. The saying goes, horsepower sells cars...torque wins races. This article fails to mention that this guy claims 500 ft. lbs. of torque out of the engine, definitely enough to propel a car to 3 sec 0-60 times. But, with that said, I still don't believe this guy.
      • bradleyland, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Horsepower is irrelevant given the appropriate transmission and final drive ratios.

        That little saying you quoted is just something rednecks say to justify the huge pushrod V8 under the hood of their "sports car".
      • Joe11Blue, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Apparently, someone missed the memo on what Horsepower actually is. Hint, it's a function of what actually moves the cars. ;)
    • alpha88, on 07/05/2008, -4/+3ACCELERATION = TORQUE. NOT POWER.

      USE GOOGLE.
      • Badandy127, on 07/05/2008, -3/+0A 110 MPG CAR THAT WEIGHS OVER 3000 POUNDS CAN NOT GO TO 60 IN 3 SECONDS.


        USE LOGIC.
      • alpha88, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1WAIT FOR PROOF FOR EITHER SIDE BEFORE BASHING EITHER ONE.

        USE... MORE LOGIC.

        (Also, Tesla roadster = 256 mpg equiv. and 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. It's electric, but you never said anything about gasoline. High mpg are possible with good acceleration and speed though.)
      • mk2ja, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1DUGG FOR PROMOTING GOOGLE

        Also... @Badandy127, I once heard a saying, "everything is impossible until someone shows you how". Regardless of that, your logic is bad: just because you would need a lot of torque/power/energy/balls to make a 3,000 lb car accelerate like that doesn't mean its not possible.
      • bradleyland, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Given two engines that produce equal horsepower, one can produce an equal amount of torque at any given RPM using gearing. That is to say, an engine that outputs 200 HP @ 7500 RPM can be made to produce the same torque as an engine that outputs 200 HP @ 4000 RPM when you apply the appropriate gear ratios.

        Do the math, it's true.
    • joeanon, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Not if it were electric HP or the mechanical lag was reduced.


      That is, HP is not a measure of speed, it's force and every time your engines force goes through something like a crankshaft, transmission or rear you effectively lose seconds on a 0-60.

    • DrKickflip13, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Thumbs up for accuracy. The title had me until I saw that 3 second *****
  • xmod3, on 07/04/2008, -3/+37Something tells me this guy also has an inflatable girlfriend and talks to his plants.
  • OffPiste, on 07/04/2008, -13/+1And I'm not fat, incarcerated, and my dick is six inches long.
    • xObsoletex, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1"my dick is six inches long."

      That explains a lot of your angst.
  • ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -21/+54
    NEWS FLASH: THIS MAN IS LYING.

    If you believed this for 2 seconds you need to educate yourself because you are an ignorant tool.
  • Donwangugi, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1Nice to hear something good come out of Ohio.
  • rowlodge, on 07/04/2008, -4/+12sounds fishy...
  • rabidrabit, on 07/04/2008, -7/+69Take that! Laws of physics!
    • woofer1125, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2"This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps going faster and faster...
      Lisa, get in here…In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

      the simpsons
  • PrometheusBorn, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2110 miles per gallon of... what? Fuel or gasoline? Only 15% of the fuel is gasoline. So if he's calculating it based off of gasoline, then really he's still only getting 17mpg... which seems more realistic for a car like that.

    I'm only guessing, though. It's one possibility.
    • jonnypage, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Teachers hated you in math didn't they?
  • STPZ, on 07/04/2008, -1/+21proof?
  • chiapet, on 07/04/2008, -8/+11The cake is a lie
  • pookkake, on 07/04/2008, -7/+1Bah, he won't win because he didn't invent a car. He invented a modification.
  • doublefelix, on 07/04/2008, -2/+52From the Article: "Traditional gas engines operate at 8 to 10 percent, efficiency, while the engine on the Mustang, he said, is at 38 percent efficiency."

    From Wikipedia ( I know...): "Modern gasoline engines have an average efficiency of about 25 to 30% when used to power an automobile. In other words, of the total heat energy of gasoline, 70 to 75% is rejected (as heat) in the exhaust or consumed by the motor (friction, air turbulence, heat through the cylinder walls or cylinder head, and work used to turn engine equipment and appliances such as water and oil pumps and electrical generator), and only about 25% of energy moves the vehicle. At idle the efficiency is zero by definition, since no useable work is being drawn from the engine. At slow speed (i.e. low power output) the efficiency is much lower than average, due to a larger percentage of the available heat being absorbed by the metal parts of the engine, instead of being used to perform useful work."
    • ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -1/+17
      There's no point in even examining his figures, he is completely talking out of his ass.

      Yes internal combustion engines lose a ton of efficiency to heat loss.

      No there is no good way to correct that unless you are going to sit a tank of water on the exhaust manifold and use it to power a steam turbine that then generates electricity which is used to power an electric motor.

      And the gain from all of that would not be worth the additional weight it would add.

      So again, this guy is talking out of his ass, he is a ***** liar and anyone who believes him is willfully ignorant.
      • pixelguru, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5Steam power driven by engine heat? Now there's an idea! While we're at it, be sure to harness the heat energy from the searing car interior when you park in the sun with the windows up. Then install a windmill on the roof, and solar panels on every available body surface, micro hydroelectric generators in the windshield wipers, and some sort of methane collection system for driver flatulence and we'd have a car that actually produces energy instead of consuming it.


      • vikingsbk, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0Honda is already working on that actually.

        http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/21/honda-touts-hea ...
      • bradleyland, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2There is actually a great way of harnessing the heat energy that is normally lost through exhaust, and it's not some giant secret. The turbocharger. A turbocharger uses the residual exhaust energy to drive a compressor that force feeds air to the engine.

        A smaller displacement turbocharged engine can produce torque and horsepower output similar to larger engines, but with better fuel efficiency.

        Even more interesting is the idea of combining a turbocharger with alcohol injection. One drawback of a turbocharger is that you must run lower compression ratios to prevent detonation. This reduces power output and efficiency when running the engine off-boost (when the turbocharger isn't spooled up). Alcohol injection cools the intake charge and reduces chance of detonation occurring. This is a far better use for ethanol than the traditional method of pre-mixing and burning it as if it were normal fuel. When combined with alcohol injection, you can use a small displacement engine with compression ratios that provide excellent off-boost power and efficiency.

        Basically, you can get the fuel efficiency of a 1.6L 4-cylinder for every day driving, with the power of a larger V6 when you need it.
    • jtinz, on 07/04/2008, -1/+12And the theoretical maximum efficiency for a combustion engine is around 37%. At least in any universe that obeys the laws of thermodynamics.
      • gradivus, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4Actually a new engine company has gotten 39% efficiency out a new design of engine. They have sent it out for independent verification. Revtec is the name of the company.
      • joeanon, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4thermodynamics has nothing to do with the 37% limit. That's just straight dumb design via mankind.


        And may I offer that turbine engines get efficiency of up 75% and more and technically they do use combustion.

        http://www.benwiens.com/energy2.html

        It's not a thermodynamic law that pistons and crankshafts can only get around 35% efficiency. More innovative designs or better shaped combustion chambers can theoretically raise those numbers.

        Wankle had an interesting rotary engine years ago, for instance

        Here is a company that says they've made turbine engines for cars.

        http://www.ttengines.com/technology.html

        Other types of internal engines can be found on the Wankle wiki such as

        Atkinson cycle
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle

        Swing-piston engine
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trochilic_engine

        It's just the current crop of crankshaft based internal combustion engines that get such low efficiency and the sad lack of consumer demand for innovation.

        As in, watching CSI or LOST is not a form of corporate or government protest for energy or transport innovation. A lazy democracy really only has itself to blame.

        I'm certain we could have, if the public acted on the 'belief' that oil was a limited resource, made more efficiency combustion engines.

        I think electric are more ideal when you start to consider current technology, maintenance, lifespan. Electric engines simply have fewer moving part and few replacement needs.


    • MadOgre, on 07/04/2008, -7/+1So you are trying to argue that his horse powers are more potent than normal horse powers.

      Moron.
    • EarlOfLade, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7"Modern gasoline engines"
      The US car industry is not exactly well known for modern design of anything...

  • johnpaul191, on 07/04/2008, -1/+45"Pelmear refuses to reveal his secret, he claims, because he is awaiting patents for his technologies."
    well great..... did anyone verify it at all? How is this reported without proof? I don't need to know his secret, but let's put a gallon of gas in it in see if it really runs over 75 miles.
    • shrewd1983, on 07/04/2008, -7/+1I wouldn't reveal anything until the proper papers are in place to protect my work. Why would you give away your work?
      • PabloMac, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4I hope Mrs. Pelmear has a good life insurance policy on her husband.
      • t0x2c, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2You think there IS a Mrs. Pelmear?
    • ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -1/+12
      His secret is our news media is really, really ***** credulous.
      • nofrickenway, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2He must have learned from the Colorado alien video.
    • brbubba, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8That's the kiss of death line right there, you know he is lying. There are plenty of manufacturer's who market products that are "patent pending." Assuming his work is well documented and real he shouldn't have anything to worry about just because he lacks a patent.
    • fuzzybeard, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1*GASP* Are you saying that he should subject his idea to even minimal scrutiny? The nerve!

      /sarcasm, in the classroom
  • Tyrghast, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1Its not that car companies don't know how to make efficient gas cars that are fun to drive, its that they don't care to. They're in it to make money, just like oil companies.
  • geniusj, on 07/04/2008, -4/+26Well.. He entered it into the contest, so maybe we can withhold judgment until we get proof either way. This is not something that's unprovable, it's just not been publicly proven yet (especially not in a news article).
    • shrewd1983, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8Wow, someone with a brain.
    • lbdinh, on 07/04/2008, -0/+15I agree...even though I'm pretty firm that this is BS, there's that bit inside me that is cheering him on.

      I really hope he shows everybody here wrong. Then he'll become my personal hero.
  • megadan76, on 07/04/2008, -9/+6I'd buy that for a dollar!
  • Jonnio, on 07/04/2008, -0/+30This story should read "Man dupes people into thinking he is a miracle worker"

    I highly doubt he has made a fox body mustang (which is not the most aerodynamic car in the world) out perform a Hayabusa (or Ferrari, or Porsche, etc...) and still get 100 mpg off of an idea his grandfather had back in WWII. If so, he could be a billionaire from sperm bank donations because Einstein has nothing on his gene pool.
  • greeniemeani, on 07/04/2008, -12/+5Spy's sappin mah sentry!
  • dagamer34, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12If it's true, that "engineer" is going to disappear soon.
  • MidnightRIder77, on 07/04/2008, -8/+538% Efficiency! Holy *****! That engine has to be un-*****-believably awesome to get that. I wonder how he keeps the gas from prematurely burning so well.
  • etx313, on 07/04/2008, -2/+17Fake.
  • shrewd1983, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4An engine connected directly to a dyno may be as high as 30% efficient. Add in your torque converter, transmission, rear diff and efficiency dramatically drops. The only type of efficiency you can calculate is "system efficiency" You can only get a precise calculation if you know the exact efficiency of the component's I listed, add in water pump, oil pump etc etc etc 8-15% efficiency would make sense :)
  • e2superman, on 07/04/2008, -3/+10I call total *****. As was said above, how on ***** earth do you take a street manueverable car and make it go 0-60 in 3 seconds and have 100MPG. ***** you damn lying story. How does this BS get dugg up.
    • arcooke, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Because it might actually be true? It might, it might not.. nobody knows but the guy who claims it to be true.
      • e2superman, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Yes. Water people are invading Tucson. Digg me up. Might be true?!?
      • Iztikeit, on 07/05/2008, -1/+0That and the fact he'd be making millions right at this moment. I know engineers, they want money and funding so badly.
  • soulpiercer7, on 07/04/2008, -1/+13from wikipedia:
    Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 20%

    he claims 38% efficiency of his engine. I call *****.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_e ...
    • S5S5S5, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4"That's why I decided to enter the X Prize race. I could have sold this [technology] off, but then people might not have seen it."

      True. There is absolutely no demand for this stuff. No car company is going to make money selling 100mpg car.
      • klasikahl, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Car companies would make a killing selling a 100MPG car because there is enormous demand for such a vehicle. Oil companies would not. The two industries may have similar interests thanks to their diversified ownership, but it is indisputable that automobile manufacturers would benefit immensely from satisfying untapped demand for ultra-efficient vehicles.
      • S5S5S5, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1.......I guess my post is dugg down for missing *sarcasm* flags......
    • WestonP, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4I have doubts about this guy too, but if we always called BS on things that haven't been done before, and refused to explore them, then we'd still be cave men. The only way for something to truly be "impossible" is to close our minds to the idea of finding a way to make it possible.
      • ztexas, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1There is a difference between being open minded, and being gullible.
  • plnegative1, on 07/04/2008, -7/+3There are so many things within a car that could be re-engineered to make it more efficient, but alas if you make these OBVIOUS adjustments.... someone's going to pay you a hefty sum for your design.... so they can destroy it.
  • MrFurious2k, on 07/04/2008, -0/+16Holy lack of information! This is one horribly written story.
  • chiapet, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6More on it http://www.weatherplus.com/going-green-news/mechan ...
    and ya Im not buying it
    • brbubba, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8After I watched that video I am calling triple BS! He has E85 stickers all over that car and everyone knows that ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. Hence 110 mpg is an even more outrageous claim from that perspective.
  • s4g4n, on 07/04/2008, -5/+4Spy is sappin my sentry
  • ixelr8, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6Pic's or it didn't happen.
  • silentb0b, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5oh this guy is dead.
  • frosted, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1SHENANIGANS!
  • Abomonog, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Although a more efficient engine would produce more horsepower there is indeed an upper limit to the efficiency any ICE can achieve. Producing a fuel that burns colder and with more energy might boost this limit a tad but I don't see that happening that soon. This car is *****.
  • lolmacs, on 07/04/2008, -4/+3My segway goes 0-60 in 1.5 secs. Beat that Ford
    • TargetDog, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8If Segways went 60mph the Geico Gecko would have a heart attack.
    • Hale, on 07/05/2008, -0/+10-60 miles per DAY, maybe.
  • BobScratchit, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7I can get about that much. Here's how...just put your car in neutral and push it on flat surfaces. Let it coast down hills. And make sure to have passengers that can get out to push it up hills. You might have to get bystanders to help push it up those steeper hills.
  • Bean888, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Why are these stories always about *one* tweaked out car getting fantastic mpg? I would have been more impressed if the report showed his work duplicated on other cars, at the very least on another mustang. From a practical standpoint having another vehicle with the same modifications would act as a back-up, in case that mustang crashed.

    The Bio-Diesel guy Johnathan Goodwin has churned out decent (mind you not miracle) mpg numbers over multiple projects
    http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead- ...
  • neil1492, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2He will probably patent all of the new ideas then want $1 billion to use them on vehicles, making us stuck with 20mpg cars.
    • bigteebo, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3That will just up the reverse-engineering & Ip theft of said idea(if it actually does what it does) and China, etc will start making knockoffs.
  • WestonP, on 07/04/2008, -0/+11Here's the problem... all kinds of people claim to have major breakthroughs in engine efficiency, new fuels, making cars run on water (possible, but not practical), etc., they get their 15 minutes of fame, don't give any details, and you never hear from them again. So, either they're full of crap, or they just sell out to the oil companies because they care more about making a buck than doing something good for billions of people. What we need is someone who will either take a complete solution to market themselves, or put their technology in the public domain... otherwise, the general population will never see it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.