Hey Jake what do you have for us on the MPG engine Options

[r_towle]

50 MPG minimum...you can do it...

Rich

[LarryR]

Pete,
Yeah.. I'll ring you this evening..

Keep this realistic guys... If you have the money for programmable EFI- you also have the money to spend on a Super 2 Liter...

There are constraints we must work around on this one:
Prioritized
MPG
cost
reliability
longevity
performance

That means making an engine that needs no special support equipment! No 2K headers, no external oil coolers or DTM systems, cost effective ignition and induction.

Its a big picture and I'll tell you now that programmable FI would not be cost effective on this one, it would cost 3K to get 2 extra MPG. do the math.

The 1911 base engine would be easy for 2.0 guys to source a complete new core to build the engine from and the 1911cc parts are dirt cheap and VERY strong!!

I think the best way to proceed with the design of the project is a "you design it, I build it" approach... I'l start a thread on my forums where I'll give a list of goals and give a list of available components along with a list of objectives. We'll get everyone involved designing the engine online.
Then I'll build it, dyno it and optimize it.

But all that critical info can't be shared where I don't have all copyright control over it, unfortunately..

Ok I could not resist I went ahead and did the math. If you figure it @ 3 mpg based on 4 dollar a gallon gas and my driving 26K miles a year it would take ~20 years to recoup the investment...

Then I figured well they are saying that gas is supposed to hit 5 bucks a gallon just this summer... At that rate getting just 3 mpg better recoups the investment in only 16 years...

If you give a constant linear growth to the price of gas it gets more interesting though since gas seems to have been going up roughly .39 per year over the last 6 years if it really hits 5 bucks this summer.

so the yearly savings @ just 3 mpg goes from 144 @ $4 ->180 @ $5 -> ~216 @ 6

I am not saying it is worth it ... Just that with a fairly typical bay area commute a 3 mpg difference is worth maybe 1K over a 3 year period.

Oh lets not forget the Iran factor if things heat up there and hello 10 dollar a gallon gas I guess I will have to throw in the towel and put in a cot at work (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

[Jake Raby]

50 MPG minimum...you can do it...

Rich

Yes, and already have... BUT getting the extra 8-10 MPG doubles the cost of the package and there is no way around it..

Like I said, keep the results attainable, simple and make it effective.

[toon1]

Jake, is it possible to start a thread on tuning for MPG??

If so, where would you like to start it, here or on your forum??

[RJMII]

There are constraints we must work around on this one:
Prioritized
MPG
cost
reliability
longevity
performance

That means making an engine that needs no special support equipment! No 2K headers, no external oil coolers or DTM systems, cost effective ignition and induction.

Its a big picture and I'll tell you now that programmable FI would not be cost effective on this one, it would cost 3K to get 2 extra MPG. do the math.

OK, I got a chart going with that math.

[RJMII]

Ok I could not resist I went ahead and did the math.

LOL me too.

i had to see the numbers and spent the last two hours playing with the kids and making a graph.

[r_towle]

Base the difference on what you would spend with $5000 as the minimum.

What I am trying to point out is this.
for $5000 you can have a nice 2056 motor built for you.
So,
what would the price of the super 2.0 liter or whatever, in kit form be?
What is the difference?
Personally I would prefer the higher mpg and for me it would also be higher HP from stock...so I win both ways.

If you are already going to spend $5000, then you really need to do the math from that point forward.

Rich

[TravisNeff]

The super 2 Liter does not come in a kit

[r_towle]

Well,
I went over to Jakes forum...I looked around, nothing jumped out as the MPG thread or forum....

Anyone care to post a link??

Rich

[TravisNeff]

Check post #3 for the urls to the forum topic and store

[r_towle]

Pete,
Yeah.. I'll ring you this evening..

Keep this realistic guys... If you have the money for programmable EFI- you also have the money to spend on a Super 2 Liter...

There are constraints we must work around on this one:
Prioritized
MPG
cost
reliability
longevity
performance

That means making an engine that needs no special support equipment! No 2K headers, no external oil coolers or DTM systems, cost effective ignition and induction.

Its a big picture and I'll tell you now that programmable FI would not be cost effective on this one, it would cost 3K to get 2 extra MPG. do the math.

The 1911 base engine would be easy for 2.0 guys to source a complete new core to build the engine from and the 1911cc parts are dirt cheap and VERY strong!!

I think the best way to proceed with the design of the project is a "you design it, I build it" approach... I'l start a thread on my forums where I'll give a list of goals and give a list of available components along with a list of objectives. We'll get everyone involved designing the engine online.
Then I'll build it, dyno it and optimize it.

But all that critical info can't be shared where I don't have all copyright control over it, unfortunately..

Please point to THIS THREAD....I could not find one with this topic...

Rich

[TravisNeff]

The high mpg engine is already in the pricelist. It's called the SUPER 2 liter
http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/Type4.html bottom of the page.
http://www.shoptalkforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=86957

Sorry, I thought you meant the ones above.

[Root_Werks]

Jake,

I like the idea of the 1911cc engine. I have a 74' stupid beetle with the stock 1600 with solex single 40's, header, 3.88 RP and .084 4th etc. But bottom end is all stock. I just put on 185/65/15 tires that scaled in at 16lbs on 914 fuchs with front disc brake kit to reduce drag. The bug is getting about 35mpg average right now and I am betting I could get even better with a stronger 1911cc. I like these engines because you retain the short stroke. I put about 2200 miles a month on my bug.

Good idea on the 1911cc, I think if you put together a simple kit, people would buy it.

Dan

[r_towle]

nope, I am waiting for Jake to reply to this.
He will eventually see this and start a thread.

Rich

[Jake Raby]

The thread on super MPG was on my forum when it was hosted at www.shoptalkforums.com

The site is down right now, so I can't rab the link, but my entire old forum is there in archive form.


Its been a while since we had a chat on my community about MPG and its time we have one. I'll put some time into the big picture of the plan and post something next week that can be universally applied to all my TIV applications.

The 1911 is THE way to go... For once I am trying to do something that you guys can afford, and then you want to pay more!

This could be done for much less than 5K.

[jd74914]

Hmm. I'm really interested to see where this goes. I think that a 120hp 1911 that gets good gas mileage would be amazing.

A we design -- you build engine sounds like a really interesting learning experience, for those on our end. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[LarryR]

One kind of interesting note is that the right combination can sort of optimize fuel economy and performance.

I point to the bmw z3 because I was toying with the idea of picking up one of those since they are light weight (initial assumption) and get descent gas mileage.

When researching what is the best one I was actually shocked that the best MPG was not the 2.5 or the 2.8 it was the 3.0 made in 2001 that goes 0 - 60 in 5.6 seconds and can still pull off 28 mpg..

So I figued ok this must mean the 4 cyl z3 is going to be significantly better with its 2.0. I have to admit I was really shocked to find out it only did about 2 mpg better on the hwy and about the same in the city but yet the 4 cyl goes 0-60 in the mid 6 second range.

I know the fuel miser 1911 wont be a rocket but it would be pretty cool if it got 45 mpg and could still hit 60 in the 6ish second range.

I realize the performace and economy are 2 different objectives but again I point to the Z3 example as to the 'perfect balance' at least for that particular car. The Z3 is pretty heavy though weighing in at 2900 pounds and that 3.0 car started production in 2001.

[messix]

low end torque and gearing make a quick car get good mpg.

and a really good engine managment system.

remember the c4 corvete pulling down 26-28 mpg highway

[biosurfer1]

Larry,

That is why I drive an old, worn, 1.7 that does 0-60 in the 60ish second range...so anything I do will be a HUGE improvement!!!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Eric_Shea]

Hmmmmmmmmm 76 912E, Super 2... Hmmmmmmmmmmmm