Transonic Claims 75% Increase In Internal-Combustion Engine Fuel Efficiency
So far as we know, oil is a finite resource. But it is still the most widely used fuel for transportation right now, and likely will be for the near future. It could be twenty-five years or more before alternative fuel vehicles make up a majority of the new car market. So until then, we are stuck with petrol engines. But that doesn’t mean they won’t get better.
A California-based company called Transonic claims that its fuel injection system increases fuel efficiency by 75% while cutting emissions in half. No electric motors, no gimmicks… just a supercritical injection process. Which is what, exactly?
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
The supercritical injection process essentially heats a supercritical fluid to about 800 degrees F, taking it to a state in between a gas and liquid. This nullifies the droplets from a standard fuel injector. The picture above is a view inside an engine cylinder using this process. The process supposedly makes it much easier for the superheated gas to mix with the air, vastly improving fuel efficiency. In their own tests, Transonic claims that a 3,200 pound car managed to get 98 mpg while driving steadily at 50 mph. If true, that would be, well, amazing. Furthermore, the emissions from the car are half those demanded by the European emissions standards that come into effect in 2012.
I say if because it sounds just a bit too good to be true. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t. Imagine if 100 mpg became the new standard? You could get halfway across the US on a single tank. It would also scale back demand for oil by a large margin. On the flip side, it could delay or even kill electric cars for decades if fuel mileage suddenly leaps like that. But the world might still be better off for it, at least in the short term.
I’m getting ahead of myself though. Transonic says it is getting ready to test a fleet of up to 100 cars with its technology, and it is in the process of talking to two automakers interested in the technology. They want to bring their system to market by 2014… not that far away.
It would be really nice to get 100 mpg. Even if gas cost $7/gallon, at 1500 miles to a tank, I don’t think there would be many complainers.
So which would you rather have? An electric car, or a conventional car that gets 100 mpg?
Source: Green Car Advisor | Transonic
You Might Also Like
Car Hacking: In the Future, Will Your Car Catch a Virus? 
Climate Bill Promises More Money For Automakers, More Offshore Drilling
EPA Most Wanted: Seeks Emissions Tester for Violating Clean Air Act
United States’ First Electric Car Engineering Graduate Program to Start Up this Fall
March 8th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Sounds a lot like the mythical 100 MPG carburetor to me. It would be great if it worked, better than a standard hybrid but not as good as a long-range, plug in hybrid or a true electric-only vehicle.
March 8th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Which would I rather have? It depends on the cost. But I find this more believable than I do claims that there will be amazing improvements in battery technology in a similar timeframe.
March 8th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
We have a whitepaper available on our downloads section that briefly outlines the 3 main steps setting the net energy efficiency of an ICE (internal combustion engine). It shows it is definitely possible that their claim is true, it would fall under an improvement in the figure used for the “combustion efficiency”. Several university groups have done research in this area for this exact reason.
I do see one technical reason to be catious though about the claim. The energy required to heat the gas to the “supercritical” temperature could be significant, even approaching the amount of energy “gained back” by improving the combustion efficiency. I don’t have the needed facts to determine the answer here, but if there’s a “fly in the ointment” with this system it’s most likely this. I will remain cautiosly hopeful about this one.
March 8th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
i would like a electic car batter.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
I’d rather have both. If it’s possible to build a 100mpg vehicle then why not aim for 200mpg applying a 100mpg/electric hybrid?
March 8th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
PL,
That would be great, if it worked that way. Although it’s relatively easy to take a hybrid system and use it to double the mileage of a comparable vehicle that gets 25 mpg, the returns diminish very fast after that. That is to say, going from 50 mpg to 100 mpg on a straight hybrid system is 10 times as hard as going from 25 to 50 mpg. Going from 100 mpg to 200 mpg would be nearly impossible. The reasons have to do with the fact that you can only improve some things to a theoretical optimum before you can improve them no more (i.e. air resistance, rolling resistance, vehicle weight, engine efficiency, transmission efficiency, regenerative braking efficiency, etc). In this case, the engine efficiency could get a car to 100 mpg, but then a hybrid system on top of that would not really add that much to the fuel efficiency, would add weight and complexity, and would make the car more expensive for little gain. At 100 mpg and $3.50 per gallon gas, you are spending $525 to drive 15,000 miles per year. If our theoretical car could get even 140 mpg with a hybrid system added on to the car, you would be spending $375 per year; a savings of only $150 per year. At that rate, it would take almost two decades to pay back the extra expense of the hybrid system.
March 8th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“The energy required to heat the gas to the “supercritical” temperature could be significant, even approaching the amount of energy “gained back” by improving the combustion efficiency. ”
I’d imagine at least some of that heat can be obtained from the waste heat of the exhaust manifold.
Engineered right, you may even be able to get ALL the heat from the exhaust.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Let’s see. a Nascar racer gets about 4 MPG at the super speed way tracks while running at near 200 mph. that’s 4 times the 50 MPH that Transonic claims for their 98 MPG test. Since the power required for speed is roughly proportional to the cube of the speed change This does not seem to be at all impossible. It just needs good aerodynamics and an engine optimized for the 50 MPH speed.
Don’t forget that the NASCAR cars have quite a bit of drag inducing aerodynamic requirements. This would account for their failure to get 250 MPG or so.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:14 am
battery or 100mpg. i use an electric wheelchair. the torque electric offers would be unmatched by this system. so why not use this technology along with the chevy volt concept. god knows the mileage you could achieve with such a combination.
this is from a non-tech guy. i’d be curious what the techies in this group would say to this approach? viable? and able to bring high performance (from electric motors) while running at low rpm using this system?
March 9th, 2010 at 6:31 am
Now if they used biofuels, like Algae, to get this mpg, everyone would be happy.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:55 am
I’d like a 4 wheel drive serial hybrid (something small like a Golf, not a SUV)
March 9th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Looks like they’re using the tried and true direct fuel injection with fuel preheat at the injectors. Diesel engines use the same kind of setup.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Even assuming their one-off tests will degrade quite a bit under real production, this still could be a huge deal. If you could get diesel type mileage (40-50 mpg) with something approximating a gasoline engine sticker price, that would be a no-brainer for most new car purchases.
The killer will be not so much the mileage improvements but the additional up-front cost, and the ability to put this technology into cars people want to buy. As much as I hate SUVs, an SUV that could run 25-35 city/hwy mpg and cost less than 25K would be a game changer.
March 9th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Sounds like they are doing what Shell oil did with a 1959 Opel in 1973 mpg tests but with worse results.
Supposedly 370+ mpg but who knows and what happened if true?
I would take an electric if they were equal because electric would be faster and much quieter. Instant power.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
50 mph is nothing. I think my diesel Jetta gets close to 70 mpg at 50.
Here, only a 50% increase in efficiency is claimed.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24701/?a=f
Keep in mind there are a number of ways to measure efficiency, and while mpg is a good real-world figure, it involves too many variables to evaluate engine efficiency. Specific fuel consumption would be better.
They’re using a lot of diesel technology (direct injection, compression ignition, high compression, high fuel pressure), I just wonder why they’re applying it to gasoline engines when diesels are so mature and proven. If anybody knows, post up!
March 20th, 2010 at 9:24 am
umb, my 2.4l 5 cylinder diesel gets 99.9mpg at 50mph on a flat road anyway, its the acceleration and high speed that kills it
infact i’m sure the figures are higher but the trip computer is capped at 99.9 for instant consumption, but if i’m on a straight stretch of road for a while thats 50 wap on cruise control, reset the trip average and the average is generally over 98mpg until you have to speed up again, and thats on a big heavy family saloon car, i’m sure many engines today already achive that on a steady 50mph on a flat road