Engine gets 100mpg in a fox chasis

[02SilverZ]

Didn't you read? 68GTO (who happens to know more than ANYONE on EVERY subject) said it's impossible.

[ratrod 1]

hmm you might be right..so the guy was not lying...

[68GTO]

I didn't read your whole last post. I got bored 1/4 way through. My response was to your question...what's my point? My point was that your little equation of X energy to move Y mass Z distance (or whatever it was) is not necessarily correct when referencing gas mileage because most of the energy (which you referred to) is used to heat the water in our radiators and heat our tail pipes. All of this has nothing to do with a fox getting 100 mpg and I think it's BS too. I was just answering your question.

Show me how the physics is wrong. Prove to me that the equation I mentioned is flawed? It it not. What you got hung up on is that this is not efficient. Ahhhhh. I agree, but nobody has yet developed a more efficient model with the internal combustion engine and certainly not this guy. BTW, I am EXACTLY correct when referring to gas mileage. Show me otherwise.

I'm sticking to the point.

[68GTO]

why do you guys think it is immposible??? did any one go to the gsta show at the fairgrounds?? they had cars there that high school kids built,and the one from armsrong sr high got 800 miles to the gallon.of gas,and some where e-85. true they were nothing more than souped up biycicle's .butt none the less it can be done. and the fox body car ran on e-85 not gas..there is nitrogen kits out there that dramaticly improve milage.a friend of mine put one on his hhr chevy and it's getting 46 miles to the gallon ..

We are not talking about nitrogen or flux capacitors here. We're discussing the claim made. I am addressing the claim made by this guy with his V8 fox body car on GASOLINE, which is a defined substance. When you change the inputs, you change the outputs.

[ratrod 1]

why does that mousestang have a e-85 sticker on it then????

[Steve]

Show me how the physics is wrong. Prove to me that the equation I mentioned is flawed? It it not. What you got hung up on is that this is not efficient. Ahhhhh. I agree, but nobody has yet developed a more efficient model with the internal combustion engine and certainly not this guy. BTW, I am EXACTLY correct when referring to gas mileage. Show me otherwise.

I'm sticking to the point.

I really don't care to, what's the point? You like to argue, I have things to do.

[68GTO]

I really don't care to, what's the point? You like to argue, I have things to do.

If, by argument (true sense) you mean to discuss differing points of view, then yes I enjoy the debate. However, the point is that you have created a tangent and have made a declarative statement that I have challenged as incorrect. You made the statement and I asked you to clarify why yours is right. You can not back your claim. My challenge to your claim, and your unwillingness (inability) to defend it, disproves your claim. That's the point.

Funny though...you have enough time to tell me that you don't want to defend it, then tell me you have other things to do.

[Steve]

Yeah defending takes time, posting each time I come inside to take a piss takes seconds, felcher.

[Paul]

This was posted a while back. The guy is using theoretical gas consumption. All he is doing is running E85. Since its 15% gas it takes 6.66 gallons of E85 to have 1 gallon of gas. The car gets 15mpg on E85, so thus it is getting 100mpg on gas because for everyone 100 miles only 1 gallon of gas was theoretically consumed.

That sounds like government accounting shifts to me! It must be accurate then.

[GoldenPlump]

I really don't care to, what's the point? You like to argue, I have things to do.

He's not arguing...he's educating you ........

[68GTO]

He's not arguing...he's educating you ........

Yes, I realize (by the frequency of his posts) that he wants to extol the first-hand accounts of felching for all. Go ahead, let us know about your years of experience...