Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,421 Posts
Never happened. You've been sold a tall tale. There isn't enough energy in two gallons of gasoline to propel a 5000# un-aerodynamic brick of a car 200 miles at 60mph even at 100% thermodynamic efficiency. period.

Please close this thread.

Thanks,

Steve
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
I tend to agree that the energy content of the 2 gal. of gas isn't adequate to deliver the claimed MPG. Primarily, I look at the Insight experience as a basis of the judgement.

It would be interesting to see IamIan do one of his theoretical analyses of this issue. From my reading, the results on the Ogle car were never adequately tested by independent means.

As to deleting the thread, it is in the alternative fuel section so would not seem a problem so long as the discussions are civil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,005 Posts

·
Engine-Off-Coast
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
Hahaha read the first comment on that article lol.

But yeah, sorry Mountain driver, I think Tom Ogle was probably full of BS. Insight has .25 coefficient of drag and weights less than a ton and has LRR tires and I *think* the most fuel efficient gasoline engine ever produced at around 50% of energy transmitted to drive system and a kinetic energy recovery system. There's some guy in Japan who heavily modified his already super efficient Insight G1 and the best numbers he posted was a tank at 164 mpg. I'm assuming this Japanese guy wasn't doing 60 mph on the freeway.

Even if Tom Ogle's engine hit 99% efficiency of fuel->rear wheels as SKeith mentioned above, 100% being impossible in this universe due to 2nd law of thermodynamics, and it was stuck inside the most fuel efficient Insight (probably that Japanese one) without adding any weight and the guy hypermiled it he would only hit a theoretical maximum of 328 MPG -- in a car that's way more efficient (lighter, more aerodynamic, KERS) than the old American car Tom Ogle says he used for his invention. The numbers just don't work out for Tom's story.
 

·
Hypermiler
Joined
·
3,650 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Ok folks, I accept the opinions of the experts. It appears I've bitten on the tall tale and drank too much of the Kool-Aid.

Agreed with Jim, wondering how Ian would analyze it ?

(embarrassingly skulking away )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,097 Posts
There is a dark side to these stories because the concept of feeding the engine with vapor is extremely dangerous.
The fuel-air mixture is explosive. It needs to be - it has to drive the pistons down. Any volume bigger than your average cylinder head would cause damage if ignited. Some people experiment with oil drums... if those go they'd kill all aboard.

As long as there are people around that are willing to believe that some inventor can create a magic fuel saving device and are willing to invest in it without safeguards, there will be people ready to take that investment off them.
Some may do a honest attempt at a device they think might work. Some will just focus on perfecting the scheme. The market will take the money on offer, results be damned.

Don't try this at home. Don't invest.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
About this Discussion
6 Replies
6 Participants
RedDevil
Honda Insight Forum
We’re the ultimate Honda Insight forum to talk about Honda’s hybrid car and its fuel economy and specs!
Full Forum Listing
Top