Comments on: Transonic Claims 75% Increase In Internal-Combustion Engine Fuel Efficiency http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/ What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction. Sat, 26 May 2012 14:59:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John Bender III http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-69992 John Bender III Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:49:40 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-69992 Just get it going.Test it in a car. It sounds better than the OPOC engine. How long will it last on the road ? Don't talk about it do it. If you do,let me try one in a car. I like new and better ways. So get it going. How much HP and Cubic size. jbsax Just get it going.Test it in a car. It sounds better than the OPOC engine. How long will it last on the road ? Don’t talk about it do it. If you do,let me try one in a car. I like new and better ways. So get it going. How much HP and Cubic size.
jbsax

]]> By: crazy http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-37855 crazy Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:24:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-37855 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 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

]]> By: crazy http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-14069 crazy Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:24:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-14069 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 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

]]> By: Colin http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-14068 Colin Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:41:40 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-14068 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! 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!

]]> By: Colin http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-37854 Colin Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:41:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-37854 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! 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!

]]> By: Flip http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-14067 Flip Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:46:59 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-14067 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. 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.

]]> By: Flip http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-37852 Flip Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:46:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-37852 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. 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.

]]> By: Flip http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-37853 Flip Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:46:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-37853 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. 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.

]]> By: pjc http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-14066 pjc Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:50:20 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-14066 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. 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.

]]> By: pjc http://gas2.org/2010/03/08/transonic-claims-75-increase-in-internal-combustion-engine-fuel-efficiency/#comment-37849 pjc Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:50:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=5714#comment-37849 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. 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.

]]>