Reality of Fuel Consumption

[Robert Harris]

The biggest bottleneck to both performance and economy is 
the legislatively mandated catalytic converter.  In order to work
the mixture must be in a narrow range - stoichemic - which is 
neither good for mileage or power.  What happens is that an 
engine must pump out crap so the secondary scrubber can 
work and clean the crap up.  Typical government non-thinking.

Virtually all work on running on lean efficient mixtures has stopped
because its a waste of time as long as devices are mandated and
not numbers.  Until numbers matter more than devices, no one will
ever see high efficiency transportation.

"When some one gets something for nothing -
             some one else gets nothing for something "

If the first ingredient ain't Habanero, then the rest don't matter.
Robert Harris <bob at bobthecomputerguy.com>


----------
> From: Dave J. Andruczyk <dave at scarlet.buffalostate.edu>
> To: diy_efi at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu
> Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption
> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 1997 6:49 PM
> 
> > >IF you could capture ALL of the heat energy known to exist in a gallon of
> > >gasoline, and get it ALL to the wheels, 100MPG would not be such a
stretch.
> > >A low-tech Austin Mini 850 from the very early 60's was capable of in
excess
> > >of 50 MPG. That engine is only about 30% efficient, by common knowlege.
With
> > >heat rejection coatings, fuel injection, full engine management, and
> > >turbocharging, possibly a bit of ceramic componentry to allow higher
> > >temperatures, it should be do-able. 100 MPG from a behemoth like a 61
> > >Cadilac IS a stretch.>
> 
> Speaking of MPG, I used to own a 86 Chevy Sprint ( 3 cyl 1 litre
> Carbureted (feedback) that got a consisitent 55-58 MPG on the highway with
> a full load. ( two people plus luggage).  Not bad for a not so wimpy 1
> litre, with a carb.  Ironically the newer version ( geo metro) gets poorer
> mileage with fuel injection..
> 
> Dave
>