What is Digg?277 Comments
- 4u21der, on 07/03/2008, -8/+215Proof?
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. - foxtrot3, on 07/04/2008, -3/+177Zero to sixty in three seconds !!!??? This whole story is complete BS.
- ElTomacco, on 07/04/2008, -4/+140It'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.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+97This article is a little too vague. It would be nice if it would tell us what he actually did.
- burnedtubes, on 07/04/2008, -3/+81Shenanigans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- rabidrabit, on 07/04/2008, -7/+69Take that! Laws of physics!
- ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -5/+58
There is no proof because it's a load of *****. - 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." - 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. - bhavinp, on 07/04/2008, -0/+41He made the car efficient by using "electronics"
- kh99, on 07/04/2008, -2/+43Hey Pelmear - that rightmost digit on the odometer is *tenths* of miles.
- 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.
- xmod3, on 07/04/2008, -3/+37Something tells me this guy also has an inflatable girlfriend and talks to his plants.
- 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. - seymansey, on 07/03/2008, -4/+37Story is slightly vauge, sounds like another one of those DIY hydrogen fuel cell style 'innovations'
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- xShifty, on 07/04/2008, -1/+25He obviously integrated alien technology from "Independence Day" into his car.
- 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).
- rhartman, on 07/04/2008, -4/+25And your bike is wonderful for taking passengers, driving in poor weather or doing simple errands where you need storage space, like buying groceries.
Fail. - STPZ, on 07/04/2008, -1/+21proof?
- stretch611, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17Marge: See all that stuff in there, Homer? That's why your robot never worked.
- jmreid, on 07/04/2008, -3/+20"Engineer" "Gets" "110 MPG" Out Of '87 "Mustang"
- TheLastEskimo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17I would assume you can retro fit because he's got it on an '87 mustang.
- MrFurious2k, on 07/04/2008, -0/+16Holy lack of information! This is one horribly written story.
- mrzeero, on 07/04/2008, -1/+17I think you forgot the most important drawback. Many minor accidents result in the death of the rider.
- 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. - jguy584, on 07/04/2008, -1/+16It probably gets 110mpg when its in 25 HP mode
- inactive, 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. - etx313, on 07/04/2008, -2/+17Fake.
- 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.
- kelmaster1, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14Not necessarily, he doesn't say anything because he's in process of getting a patent for this.
- 12340987, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12the story is VERY vague
- 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 ... - 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. - 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.
- faraggi, on 07/05/2008, -3/+14"too"
- 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.
- ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -1/+12
His secret is our news media is really, really ***** credulous. - wiggles, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12hiding information due to patent pending is a sure sign of a guy trolling for VC funds to spend on hookers and blow.
- ebbv, on 07/04/2008, -3/+13Only if lying is considered sorcery.
- dylanmat, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11I want to believe
- uncwidiot, on 07/05/2008, -1/+10I'm gonna pistol whip the next one of you who says shenanigans.
- m3th0dm4n, on 07/04/2008, -8/+17Drop a thousand into any V8 mustang and you can out-accelerate any douchebag's Ferrari or Lambo.
- 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. - dagamer34, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12If it's true, that "engineer" is going to disappear soon.
- 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.
- 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 282 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is