376.59 MPG! - in 1973

[quote author="BeGreen" date="1234132646"]Can't be done with conventional technology, right?

Makes good coffee table reading and that's about all. Mostly BS.

That was not "conventional" tech. We built many similar rigs back then. All based on the "magical" Pogue vaporizer carburetor that Detroit was "killing people over", to keep secret. Basically creates an almost undriveable time-bomb on wheels. Uses heat from the exhaust pipe to heat the gasoline mixture into exposive vapor. First one I built I damn near blew myself up.

Of all the ones that were made safer and more drivable in real-world situations, full size cars sometimes got 40 MPG, and even then they were still pretty dangerous.

Now, the little Opels in stock form? Not bad. Late 50s cars got 30 MPG and sometime better. Same with the old English Ford Anglias, 600 Fiats, etc. Fact is, most Americans wouldn't be caught dead driving one.

BMW has a little Isetta car, early 60s, with a 250 cc motorcycle engine that got over 50 MPG. I had several. I bought one for $50 and took it into the woods and crashed it (on purpose).

Citroen built the little 2CV for many years, and in the 1940s it could get 60 MPG.

Exhaust being used for vapor recovery has been tried and has failed. You have to consider the car must also meet safety standards, emissions and be drivable in both a highway and a urban environment. You also have to consider longevity of the engine which lean-burn engines are not known for.

We need workable solutions, not single use technologies.

The EPA is the biggest problem with drivable high mileeage, the car companies can increase gas milage by running a super lean mixture (not the best for engine life without a lot of modification) but this won't work with emissions as the catalytic converter needs unburned fuel in the exhaust to burn hot enough to convert the CO into CO2. This is sort of like the reason diesels here can't be as efficient as in Europe, the emissions gear takes away fuel mileage.

1 US gallon of gas is 125000 Btu of stored energy. Roughly 1.0 horsepower (hp) = 2545 Btu per hour (just as a reference for thinking on). Four stroke gas engines aren't very efficient, 20 per cent is giving them a lot.

The Tillitson lawmmower carb and the lack of a grade or the need to start from a dead stop during the test.. It's better to look at it as a test device made from a car

A dog with a harness would be a better ecological choice and easier to drive.
1 dog power= a can of Alpo and a pat on the head.

Newer four-stroke engines can be ~30% efficient, the problem is the low grade heat leftover isn't very usable.

It's worked great blowing into the cab of my truck the past few months. :lol:

Matt

The MPG is doable (I guess) - but who'd ever want to drive the car? Even their own web page states - "This vehicle is designed to get good fuel economy using a tiny Tillotson Lawnmower carburetor, and does not have the power to climb a grade or run in stop and go traffic" They go on to mention..."single seat car"..."no suspension" , etc. So if you're willing to drive a gutted out tin can on rock hard tires, chain drive, top speed of 30mph on flat ground, 0-30 mph in 5 minutes flat and no way to climb a hill, you too can get 300 mpg.

http://www.race-cardrivers.com/Shell Opel.htm

Surprisingly, there are some 'real world' cars closing in on 100 mpg. Look up hypermiling at the Insight forums. Some guys are actually getting a little over 100mpg as a lifetime average. This is in an actual roadworthy car with the full compliment of safety gear, interior, electric windows/locks, etc.

http://www.insightcentral.net/