fuel economy???

[boxmonkeyracing]

all I know is my ls1 camaro M6 was getting 27 highway. and depending on how I drove her in town I'd get anywhere from 8 mpg to 13 mpg. it all depends on gear ratios for the most part. so yea. around that would be what i'm expecting for a manual. and that's with out AFM.

[therealkitt]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Good intentions, but you are completely misguided. Like many, you see the end result and think its great. But the big picture isn't quite as bright. Know how he got that to burn? high amounts of energy, basicaly a giant microwave oven. Its like running a fan to power a wind turbine. You get some back, but you lose most of it. And food prices are more closely effected by oil prices than ethanol production. Pestacides, fertilizer, and transportation costs are all linked directly to the price of oil, and they are the bulk of the cost of growing crops.

com'mon genius... burning salt water bottom line is amazing! regardless of how primitive the technology used to make it possible at this point is. it's the ripple in the pond effect...and other brains take this concept to the next level. I could truely see this as being a real step towards something much better.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by therealkitt

com'mon genius... burning salt water bottom line is amazing! regardless of how primitive the technology used to make it possible at this point is. it's the ripple in the pond effect...and other brains take this concept to the next level. I could truely see this as being a real step towards something much better.

agree with you, its has potential

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by therealkitt

com'mon genius... burning salt water bottom line is amazing! regardless of how primitive the technology used to make it possible at this point is. it's the ripple in the pond effect...and other brains take this concept to the next level. I could truely see this as being a real step towards something much better.

I never said it wasn't cool. But that technology will not be practical. First off, what it does is seperates the hydrogen from the oxygen. Electrolysis does the same thing, in a more efficient way. And so Its not about making the process more efficient. I can't remember what the exact numbers I heard (first saw it quite a while ago), but it takes something like 3x the energy to keep it burning than you get out of it. Then consider the fact that you can only use a fraction of the thermal energy that comes out it becomes very counter productive. A better application of this technology would be to simply capture the hydrogen and use it in a fuel cell.

However, research will not be able to advance this very far. It was an accidental discovery by a man who refers to salt water as an element (its an aqueous solution of a compound and a salt). I advise him to focus his research back on curing cancer with his machine and ignore this little discovery. I am all for the advancement of science and technology (I am an engineer in training) but science is not magic, R&D cannot create miracles. ideas can still come from nowhere, but often they are impractical. that is the case here.

(man, I've become a bit of a downer here recently . . . )

[Grape Ape]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I never said it wasn't cool. But that technology will not be practical. First off, what it does is seperates the hydrogen from the oxygen. Electrolysis does the same thing, in a more efficient way. And so Its not about making the process more efficient. I can't remember what the exact numbers I heard (first saw it quite a while ago), but it takes something like 3x the energy to keep it burning than you get out of it. Then consider the fact that you can only use a fraction of the thermal energy that comes out it becomes very counter productive. A better application of this technology would be to simply capture the hydrogen and use it in a fuel cell.

However, research will not be able to advance this very far. It was an accidental discovery by a man who refers to salt water as an element (its an aqueous solution of a compound and a salt). I advise him to focus his research back on curing cancer with his machine and ignore this little discovery. I am all for the advancement of science and technology (I am an engineer in training) but science is not magic, R&D cannot create miracles. ideas can still come from nowhere, but often they are impractical. that is the case here.

(man, I've become a bit of a downer here recently . . . )

Unfortunately DG^3 is correct, this device can not ever save you gas no matter how much work is done on it. :(

It is possible to separate water in the hydrogen and oxygen and introduce them to the intake manifold so they will be burnt in the engine. But amount of fuel burnt to meet the extra load this places on the alternator will far exceed the fuel saved by burn the hydrogen.

You also can't charge your electric car by driving around with a windmill on the roof or by surrounding a light bulb with photo voltaic panels. There is sadly no such thing as a free lunch.

[CaptianSam]

ok this is off topic kinda... i had a gmc jimmy.... and it was a heavy car and SEVERLY underpowered and MPG was WAY WAY DOWWWWNN... the car was constantly lugged and in doing so worsened the economy... my caddy gets better mpg's... so a 4 cyl turbo might lug the crap out of it because its a heavy'r car

[Eisenhower]

I saw on the news that according to a group called Dune Energy & Weiss Research, we'll all be paying $7 - $8 a gallon in 2 - 3 years! They're already paying that in Europe! or is that per liter?

Anyway, I've got to be honest, I "was" planning on buying the biggest engine GM is willing to stuff in the Camaro- but I can't see paying $150+ per tank. I don't want a V-6 and installing a 4 cylinder in the Camaro is absurd. I simply don't agree with 4 cyl. Camaro's. That's like putting a 4 cyl. engine in a vette under the guise of conserving fuel~ I mean, why bother?

I think that because of the fuel situation, none of the automakers are gonna be crankin out many V-8's, in fact, I think that the worst is still to come. How's that Volt comin'!

[Scotsman]

^ I think that depends on whether or not you can adapt to current times and trends. There's truthfully nothing wrong with a 4 cylinder Camaro at all, it's the perception and image people can't digest. A 4 cylinder Camaro will be even more capable and better performing than a 6 cylinder model from the last of the F-bodies. There are even more people I bet that would be on-board for Camaro's with a smaller cylinder count than 8, and they will come in droves. Get use to the engine downsizing trend, this is the future.

[Eisenhower]

In a couple of years, if gas prices reach and or exceed $8 bucks a gal., GM might want to start installing even smaller engines in their vehicles.

[punkdrum01]

I think numbers will be closer to the Pontiac G8. Compare the G8 to what we believe the Camaro will be.......

Pontiac G8 GT

Engine: 6.0L V8 @361 HP (L76)
Curb Weight: 3995 lbs
MPG: 15/24**

Camaro SS

Engine: 6.2L V8 @403 HP (LS3)
Curb Weight: 3750 (Really guessing here)
MPG: ?????

**Not sure if this number is with AFM engaged or not, if its not......then 30 mpg seems very possible.

Bottom line......even though I think the G8 will definately be heavier, the Camaro should get right about the same fuel economy, the G8's extra weight will be offset of a few more ponies under the hood of the Camaro.

Anybody know more about those G8 highway numbers????

[Eisenhower]

Those numbers- if they're what GM is claiming are generated from within a testing facility. The actual mileage will be a lot worse when you account for wind drag, stop & go traffic, up-hill driving etc... 30 mpg is a fantasy.

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Those numbers- if they're what GM is claiming are generated from within a testing facility. The actual mileage will be a lot worse when you account for wind drag, stop & go traffic, up-hill driving etc... 30 mpg is a fantasy.

street maybe, Not highway I bet

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Those numbers- if they're what GM is claiming are generated from within a testing facility. The actual mileage will be a lot worse when you account for wind drag, stop & go traffic, up-hill driving etc... 30 mpg is a fantasy.

The EPA makes the estimates, not GM. Also, they test for drag and average driving in cities. That's why the city number is so low. Optimal speed for a car's fuel efficiency is usually around 55, so highway ratings reflect that. 30 mpg is very possible. I was getting 27 mpg as an average in my Cobalt.

[Mr. Wyndham]

AFM is extremely under-represented in these EPA tests. Real-world highway driving yields astounding results. Like in my case, 40 miles a day, 80% of them highway. I could VERY easily see 30 mpg in the new Camaro.

I mean, 4th gen drivers are reporting 28+ mpg highway, and that was without AFM on an 'old' engine. Same with Current 'Vettes...minus the 'old'.