110mpg, 400+hp, 500ft/lb V8

[rookie]

I do not think the OEM companies are too concerned about meeting 2025 targets.

The opposite is true.

There is ZERO possibility of reaching those averaged fuel economy goals with cars and trucks like we drive today.

Big changes to the cars we can buy are coming unless the laws are changed.

The next problem to come will be the problem of the light weight new cars driving on the same roads with heavy old cars, I guess they will tax the old heavy cars off the road.

This and the proven JUNK science about climate change being man made will cause them to have to pull back on these standards.

[af2]

I do not think the OEM companies are too concerned about meeting 2025 targets.

The opposite is true.

There is ZERO possibility of reaching those averaged fuel economy goals with cars and trucks like we drive today.

Big changes to the cars we can buy are coming unless the laws are changed.

The next problem to come will be the problem of the light weight new cars driving on the same roads with heavy old cars, I guess they will tax the old heavy cars off the road.

This and the proven JUNK science about climate change being man made will cause them to have to pull back on these standards.

Rookie,
Don't hold your breath.
California wants to be the first and forefront, I don't see it in the near future. I do see major taxes ( adjustment to energy) being put on EVERYONE that wants to build a house or have a heating and air conditioning replaced. I will continue with a roof replacement that is too dark as it will not comply with the Cool roof design that the CEC has implemented..
I can keep going but............

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

This and the proven JUNK science about climate change being man made will cause them to have to pull back on these standards.

Don't make that leap of logic, the vast majority of people involved in G.W. are concerned about green house gasses

The most important thing to understand about the EPA regulations is that they are not just radical ideas put forth by clueless environmentalists, some of the car makers have lobbyists working hard to make them happen. For some auto makers the regulations are a problem, for others they provide a situation of competitive advantage due to patents and know how; for them the regulations are seen as a way to make more money and beat out their competition.

Looking forward, the people i know working with this problem tell me the availability of battery materials is not enough to supply the whole world or even most of the USA. That leaves the fuel cell, that's where I am seeing money being invested. The good news is, Fuel Cell cars are great to drive.

[af2]

they won't "tax them off the road" they'll just tax you if you don't own a certain car that meets all of their requirements. You won't have to actually use it, just have to own it. And the tax will be an annual thing that is filed along with your normal federal income tax forms.

AP72, Living in Cal gives me the chance to pay $235 this year on a 1999 Express Van. Can't wait till next year!!!

[rookie]

af2, I guess living in Texas makes it easier to be optimistic...builders are selling everything they can build and things are growing pretty steady, I live about 15 minutes from a major city and I could remodel my entire house and never pull a permit, yes my property taxes would go up (if they knew)...thats why I left it the same color and didn't make any major changes to the outside last time I did so.
The GOV has always made unrealistic goals and had to reconsider them, so I don't see this one much different, not to mention as they become more bankrupt they can't afford to enforce them any way...I don't intend to ever own another new car so I am not worried about the standards placed on them.

One thing I will say about fuel standards is, I remember in the late 80's when everyone said it would kill performance cars "forever" "Horse Power Wars Are Over"!... Not!...Fords new Cobra runs 5.80's off the show room floor as well as The Challenger and The Copo Camaro of today... and they get better than 20 miles to the gallon with every option known to man...No 60's Hot Rod Big Block or Early days Exotic Sports Car could touch them in any category.
http://www.adrl.us/2012/07/fords-2013-m ... -showdown/

[rookie]

This and the proven JUNK science about climate change being man made will cause them to have to pull back on these standards.

Don't make that leap of logic, the vast majority of people involved in G.W. are concerned about green house gasses

The most important thing to understand about the EPA regulations is that they are not just radical ideas put forth by clueless environmentalists, some of the car makers have lobbyists working hard to make them happen. For some auto makers the regulations are a problem, for others they provide a situation of competitive advantage due to patents and know how; for them the regulations are seen as a way to make more money and beat out their competition.

Looking forward, the people i know working with this problem tell me the availability of battery materials is not enough to supply the whole world or even most of the USA. That leaves the fuel cell, that's where I am seeing money being invested. The good news is, Fuel Cell cars are great to drive.

I think we will see a lot more EPA regulations shot down in court like we did this year, but I would not disagree about the Lobbyist issue...thats one of the biggest problems in America today and will destroy us if it's not stopped.

[rookie]

Schmidt, do you have any idea why there is not more Natural Gas and Propane tec being researched? it is usable with our current vehicles and the filling stations are already designed plus it is the only replacement for Diesel...I don't get it?

Not to mention we have plenty.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Schmidt, do you have any idea why there is not more Natural Gas and Propane tec being researched? it is usable with our current vehicles and the filling stations are already designed plus it is the only replacement for Diesel...I don't get it?

Not to mention we have plenty.

It is for fuel cells, but the OEMs that have the big money to put laws into place (international laws) see hydrogen as their best future. I wouldn't bet against it.

[Crepitus]

I dont want to get into a lot of political discussion cause I WILL get in trouble but... When the "Anointed One" speaks so boldly about doubling fuel mileage most of the sheep think he is gonna force Detroit and the Oil companies to cough up some kind of "awsum n way cool magic technology" Like the 200mpg carb that the oil companies own the patent to It is actually the answer is simple and all ready in place. Rearrange a few numbers in the CAFE standards and ta da, magic. The way CAFE works is there is a fleet mileage average that each manufacture must meet. In order to sell some powerfull cars and trucks you have to sell X number of small cars that get high fuel mileage. Each small economy car is subsidized by the sales of the more powerfully cars. Guess what is going to happen to the price and availability of any thing that can pull a load or perform.

[Engguy]

This and the proven JUNK science about climate change being man made will cause them to have to pull back on these standards.

Don't make that leap of logic, the vast majority of people involved in G.W. are concerned about green house gasses

The most important thing to understand about the EPA regulations is that they are not just radical ideas put forth by clueless environmentalists, some of the car makers have lobbyists working hard to make them happen. For some auto makers the regulations are a problem, for others they provide a situation of competitive advantage due to patents and know how; for them the regulations are seen as a way to make more money and beat out their competition.

Looking forward, the people i know working with this problem tell me the availability of battery materials is not enough to supply the whole world or even most of the USA. That leaves the fuel cell, that's where I am seeing money being invested. The good news is, Fuel Cell cars are great to drive.

Right on, the auto manufactures are all for the EPA regs. And they are all looking forward to the day we are all forced to buy a compliant car, every 4 years or so. All of the EPA is based on lies. All the industries were and are allowed to create pollution so we could have these nice agencys. They were supposedly made to control industry and their pollution, but as we now see it is really for us. Industry now dumps all their garbage down deep wells into the earth. Its always been the plan, especially from WWII till now, to cause a pollution problem so a fix could be devised. They knew the environment was the only way to have total control over everyone and every thing.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2012/10/26/in ... eneath-us/

[brad_m]

Schmidt, do you have any idea why there is not more Natural Gas and Propane tec being researched? it is usable with our current vehicles and the filling stations are already designed plus it is the only replacement for Diesel...I don't get it?

Not to mention we have plenty.

Liquid injection propane has been around for years. Ford Australia has it's Falcon available off the showroom floor as a dedicated propane fuel car.
GM-H has it as a factory option (as a bi-fuel) on a number of it's cars.

I also have access to a number of conversion kits for a range of Toyotas, Fords, Holdens (GM-H), Mitsubishis. The best bit is it makes more power then gasoline, even as a conversion with no changes in ignition timing, compression ratio, cam profile etc.

Through a second supplier there are even more kits as well as universal 4cyl, 6cyl and 8cyl kits, JTG have a couple of LS power cars running 10s and spending a total of $15 to fuel the car for a night of racing.


At this point in time what more research needs to be done? The problem is refueling infrastructure.

[PRO SYSTEMS]

That whole page looks like B.S. to me designed to get money from banks/investors and run off with it. They offer really nothing to draw in investors and it doesnt appear they even have a working prototype. Just a lot of gratuitous shots to make them look like they have been in the same building as the big dogs. To easily draw in investors, independent tests would have already been done to prove their concept. For the harder road, at least impress us with some intellect in supporting a theory of operation that from here appears inplausible. Plus their computer modeling seems archaic as well..so their technological abilities are probably limited. Too much guesstimated theory for me. I would not invest in it either.

Patrick James
PRO SYSTEMS

[utmost]

Ok, I have not had the opportunity yet to visit the plant or meet the founder, but I have been aware of this project for a few years. I am surprised it has not had more press. Has anyone here seen the car or had any dealings with the technology?

Unless the entire website and related articles are a complete fraud (including several forgeries of Government and other official agency letterheads) - and to be honest, if so the site would have been shut down long ago... there appears to be something here.

Ignoring the fact that most cylinder de-activation systems are not very efficient and have many customers complaining they save no fuel over using all cylinders... this guy seems to have a system that works.

It seems to work on a simple principle that if you only need 15hp to cruise at 65mph then that is all you want the engine to make at that point. It's hard to starve a 5.0 V8 down to 15hp at cruise but how he does it is to reduce down to 1 single cylinder that keeps changing at random to keep all cylinders hot.

On top of that, he employs an electromagnetic pulse that assists the crankshaft to keep turning.... not sure if the same pulses assist pulling the piston up then sending it back, but certainly they assist the rotating mass to turn. This reduces the need for gas to make the required power, but obviously requires a power source - being 2 fairly common batteries that can also be recharged on the go from braking etc.

Best mpg to date 137mpg, average over 45,000 miles 110mpg. Amazingly, this is on E85. I suspect E85 was chosen not for its economy but for its emissions and to get the green vote. I think it likey was on gas when it ran the 137mpg a few years back.

If a privateer can do this - albiet it seems he has attracted some financial help in latter years - I do not think the OEM companies are too concerned about meeting 2025 targets. I just think they are reluctant to be pushed any faster than their incremental approach that has served them so well over the last 100 years. Various skunk works have produced remarkable results that never saw production through the years. I think some dust will be blown off a few shelves in the years to come as well as new technologies come into play that will ensure the ICE does not die anytime soon, although it will certainly lose market share.

Thoughts?

just what we need another solendra, half a billion should keep them going another year.

[Crepitus]

I agree that it all comes down to increased and more centralized power. Enter the very convenient global warming. Are we moving away from the last ice age? Ya you bet. Is the industrialization of the worlds economy a significant factor? Maby. Will gutting the American economy help? Duh, it will move the pollution points to countrys that are unregulated grossly increasing pollution. Is it an opportunity to grab a huge amount of power? BINGO!

[user-9613590]

Back to the original post..110 MPG
If small 3 cylinder 800 kg vechicles can't do that so how big 1400 kg one should?
There is just some laws of nature;big mass don't accelerate without energy and big objects need power to displace the air they pass.More the air the faster it goes.
No gadget can't defy these facts.
Something like new Mustang;it will need about 20 hp to go 100 km/h (may be less;current designs may be surprisingly CD efficient!)
That say 20 hp needed to bo produced somehow.To produce a 20 hp you
A:have a 5 l V-8 running 1200 rpm (and wery poor effiency)

B:A 2 l engine struggling somewhat but still no near being in effiency

C: have a 1 l (probably 3 cyl) that works constantly in the most efficient area?

Yes,you going to see many 3 cylinder new cars..

Bigger cars have cylinder cutting and some other weird means to save fuel ( or more likely emissions!)