MTO

So what DID happen to him?

Recommended Posts

I reckon they would just find a reason to charge us more per gallon even if we did double our mileage.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall reading fantastic stories of new carburetors that got 50+ mpg along with hearing all the stories about oil companies buying the patents to keep them off the market so they could sell more gas. It was somewhat believable at the time but, that was almost 40 years ago. The patents ran out long ago. If it was that simple and possible there would be people falling over one another to build those carburetors because it would be worth millions if not billions to the first couple of companies to bring something like that to market. 

It makes interesting stories but other than that it's just a big false conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. With modern vehicles and electronic fuel injection and such, there would be little market for a fuel-efficient carburetor today because it would be too complicated for most of the few do-it-yourselfers and hot-rodders left.

2. The government would probably regulate it out of usage before the oil companies would get rid of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50 to 100 mpg could truly be obtained in the 1970s with no or little electronic engine control there would still be a market today imo. World wide if not in this country. Id toss fuel inj computer and all if i could get 100 mpg without it. But thats just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck.  I do agree that we should be seeing better mileage today, but 100 mpg out of a 427 ,is most certainly a duck, guys.  I remember our caprice classic woody wagon getting 25+ mpg with a 350 small block, why does my 327 (5.3) powered 2000 half ton struggle to hit 17 mpg?  There might be something there, but I'd say Mr ogle was probably a great con artist.  He should have run for office, fit right in! :-)

Edited by ihfarmer1586
Darn auto correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I believe Mr. Ogle was using vaporized gasoline to achieve those fuel mileage figures. Liquid gasoline does not burn, just the vapors from it mixing with air. Carburetors and fuel injection breaks the liquid gasoline into droplets and the vapor on the outside of the droplets burns but the unburned gas droplets exits out the tailpipe. If a person can completely vaporize the gas before entering the engine it should be more efficient with a more complete burn. Typical gasoline begins to vaporize at 140*F and can vaporize at faster rates at higher temperatures, so I assume he was using the engine coolant to heat the gasoline to vaporize it, he probably then limited the CFM of airflow into the engine by using a small throttle body forcing the engine to be more fuel efficient, which would also limit the engine's power at higher RPM's.  I think it would be possible, but I personally have never tried anything like that.

     Do any of the Canadians on here have, or know someone that has a turbo diesel Smart car. I have been told the diesel Smart cars can get 75 MPG, but are not allowed to be sold in the U.S., even though they only emit 1/10 of the allowable emissions. If an American buys one used and brings it back into the states, it will not be allowed to be licensed. The USA version Smart car only comes with a gas engine and it is only rated at 38 MPG, and that is a very small car.  Also in Europe, the VW Jetta was available with a Durotorq diesel engine that would get 75 MPG but was not allowed to be sold in the U.S. because it's emissions were 10% too dirty. The U.S. VW Jetta versions at that time were the 1.9L diesel that could get up to 48 MPG. I really don't think the oil companies or our government want us to have extremely fuel efficient cars.

     My Grandpa had a '54 Ford Crestline 4 door (a large car) with a V8 and 2 speed overdrive that would get 24 miles per gallon on trips and 21 miles per gallon mixed driving between the farm and in town. My other Grandpa had a '62 Ford Fairlane with a 6 cylinder that could get up to 27 MPG on the highway.  It is very unlikely with our level of technology that our vehicles can't get better mileage, unless they (big oil, the government, or both) are purposely keeping them from doing it. Plus when fuel prices spike, the media can blame us consumers, stating that it is all our fault because we are being too wasteful, even though we are not allowed to buy and drive anything super fuel efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://rexresearch.com/yunick/yunick.htm

 


Henry "Smokey" YUNICK

Adiabatic Engine
 

 




 


Grainews ( July 1983 ) -- p. 27

Smokey’s New Hot Vapourizing Engine Creates Heat in Detroit

By Brad Dennis

What engine is smother than an electric motor, meets all emission standards without electronic equipment, produces 2 horsepower per cubic inch of engine, can deliver 60 miles per gallon and weighs only 170 pounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason we are not getting better mileage is because nobody wants to drive a weak car. And realistically, it isn't safe to drive one! Imagine trying to merge in rush hour traffic with 65 hp under the hood while driving a little tin can car??? No thanks. BTW- if it was patented, you can look up the patent and try to replicate it for yourself. Let me know if any of you hit triple digit mpgs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have not seen mentioned is the difference in gasoline available now vs then

Maybe the gas had more "kick" back then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art,

I remember Smokey's engine... Hotrod magazine did a story about it.

Pontiac Fiero Iron Duke 4 cyl with a vaporizer.  It ran the air-fuel mixture thru the vaporizer which used heat from the coolant or the exhaust (can't remember which)before going thru a turbo, this turbo made no boost except what was needed to keep the vaporized air-fuel mixture moving towards the intake valve.

It claimed v-8 power levels, but don't remember the mileage quoted. It must have been between 1980 and Dec 1984 (when I joined the USAF and ended my Hotrod subscription).

 

on edit, found this article:

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1009-what-ever-happened-to-smokeys-hot-vapor-engine/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now