92 mpg, 180hp, 12.9s 1/4 mile non-hybrid petrol car
 

https://www.fuelvaporcar.com/html/the_car.html

https://www.fuelvaporcar.com/assets/images/TheCar3.jpg

Haha, it's powered by a honda engine and uses CRX front suspension, how awkwardly cobbled together...

It must have awful emissions, running 20:1...

It's running a turbo-powered honda engine. I wouldn't say it's awkwardly cobbled together. It's much easier to utilize something that someone else has already engineered than to create something completely new. It also allows them to use aftermarket components (ie adjustable coilover suspension) made to work with the 'borrowed' parts.

As for the emissions being excessive at such a high AFR, quite the contrary. The most extraordinary aspect of this vehicle is the fact that its engine is powered by petrol vapor rather than liquid. Vapor is a completely different beast than liquid.

Most of the harmful emissions produced by engines are the result of incomplete combustion. Under normal conditions, Nitrogen and Oxygen won't form a bond, but high heat provides enough energy to change that. Must of the fuel injected into a liquid petrol burning engine does not produce any power, but rather quenches the cylinder. This is where production of harmful emission occurs.

Vapor allows for more complete combustion for several reasons (I can go into these upon request).

That is only C02...which is directly related to gas mileage, I care about other emissions too, and would like to see some mention of them.

I say cobbled together because this car is obviously not going to be produced for any one when it is made out of parts built by other companies. A few might like it as a kit, but the actual production ability isn't there.

"Hey, I've got a new car for sale...it's a BMW with a CRX shell and toyota engine, please, give me patents so I can sell my amazing invention."

I like it. I find the aerodynamic body amazing and love the vapor injection. They should be able to sell it. There is an aftermarket company selling reproduction 69 camaros and 67 mustangs. All it takes is money and company politics.

This came up before here
But they were having driveability issues switching between vapor mode. I can't tell from the article but did they work that out? Without the vapor mode they were getting 70 mpg.

I didn't realize it was that small. It's not all that impressive now that I have a better idea of what it looks like.

thats awsome looking and pretty impresive times and fe

I think it looks cool but...
20:1 air fuel ratio is not especially remarkable... Honda Insight did 22:1, I believe.
The whole thermodynamics of it doesn't fit. Liquid fuel vs "vapor" doesn't wash.
1.7 lateral g? Must have measured it on a highly banked curve.

Anyway, looks cool and I bet it is fun to drive, but I think a lot of the rest is suspect.

Anyway the market for 1-seater cars with a small amount of cargo space is going to be fairly limited, perhaps as an alternative to a motorcyle for year around use (although the 3 wheel configuration might be problematical in snow since the center wheel doesn't follow the tire tracks left by 4-wheel traffic).

1.7 lateral gs on a flat road with that thing is totally possible. remember it has the 2 front wheels and only one rear. its also light weight. the suspension theory is completely different. i am interested in the car and in the technology. i also like that they made sure to give it 2 seats. in tandem.

i guess what matters more? the radical engine? or the radical frame?

the next thing to figure out is how that setup would handle something that would give 350whp and run 9s ?

If combustion is efficient there won't be very much(if any) of those other emissions. By being efficient I mean that if you can design the combustion chamber so that the mixture burns quickly, there won't be enough time to produce enough heat to create NOX emissions. That was the basic idea behind the Singh grooves that were put in my cylinder head.

Well, I'm not sure which honda engine is in there, but I doubt there is one that is so clean as to produce no emissions without a catalytic converter...even if they are burning "vapor."

Now shrink it a little smaller -- then throw in a LWB tadpole recumbent and you've got me sold :)

Good point. I have also heard that with proper tuning and combustion chamber design that cat con's would be unnecessary but there is such an economic tie to the production of them that it's highly unlikely that they'll ever go away. Not 100% sure if it's true.

The CVCC originally did not need a cat because it could pass emissions without one, but emissions standards have become such that no car could reliably get away without one. Cats don't really cost all that much to make and don't get replaced very often, and are very annoying to make and recycle, so I don't see much motive to have them. I'm sure the auto manufacturers would love to get rid of them with the 100$ a unit they tack on. *shrug*

It would be interesting to test a car like mine with and without the cat but IN doesn't do emissions tests so I'm not sure there is even a place to do it here.

I would do it if I were home, but alas!

This says something about CO emissions: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyrepor...TB-289-12a.pdf

I've been told that the grooves do work, but it seems like hot air to me. lol.

What you stated about an efficient motor not producing high levels of harmful emissions is true. I'll have to look up the information, but the average duration between ignition and the opening of the exhaust valve(s) is around 7ms. Unfortunately gasoline requires 20ms to burn completely. That means the engine is sending unburnt fuel into the exhaust which is usually at a temperature high enough to create oxides of nitrogen. This is why EGR (exhaust gas recirculatory) valves exist.

Matt