I subscribe to Mother Earth News' email notices for different interests and once in a while I get neat stuff like this: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/2008-08-01/MAX-100-MPG-Car.aspx
The Toyota Station he used as a donor for the first tests, wouldn't that be close to a Fairmont..... I have to say that my hopes are getting up about this whole contest. The prize money has made people so gready, that they have become inventive!!! (not the guy in the article). His approach sounds very realistic, no fuzzy gimmicks etc.
I found this yesterday showing differences in weight and required HP/MPH http://www.karlsnet.com/mopar/datatables.shtml Here's the formulas: http://www.karlsnet.com/mopar/formulas.shtml
Seems Africa had Fairmonts before we did - 1972 Fairmont Specs: http://www.moby302.co.za/fmnt/fairmont_specs.html
These are the 1978 Fairmont Weights: These are the 1979 Fairmont Weights: The 1980/81/82 Fairmonts are about 10 lbs more. I'd imagine that the Fairmont Futuras and Zephyrs are heavier (dual headlights, better upholstery, etc.) but the Squire Wagons came with more standard goodies than the Futuras and they didn't add that much weight. The 1982 Cougar Wagons weigh a couple 100 lbs. more.
Thank you for those formulas, I haven't done a cube root by hand in twenty years! Then I find an online cube root calculator. Where was the internet in 1990? Anyway, I have determined that my 3980lb Torino, with a 100hp carbureted 3.8 engine, would take about 21.7 seconds to do the quarter mile at 68.8mph. Sadly, that is likely wide open throttle. But how often do I need to get to 70 from a dead stop in that short amount of time? If I'm entering the interstate, I'm doing so from a feeder road at 40-50mph. These formulas have got me over my fear of putting an underpowered engine in my car. The question is, would the 3.8 be more or less fuel efficient than a 302 in my case? Sorry for bringing up the old thread. I know my Torino will never see 100mpg. But 20 would be nice. 22 even?
Actually, the Internet was called INET up here, back in 1985. I owned a research brokerage back then. We'd have to check previous patents and engineering developments and paid as much as $240 per HOUR, at 1,200 bytes per minute!, When the 2,400 baud modems came out, we thought we'd gone to heaven. Then the 9,600 baud, and 19,200. Look at us today, just to open a blank web tab is over 70,000 bytes! Now don't be too hard on the Torino. Mine came with a 302. I pulled it for the 200 I6, and I might come back today with a Turbo I4 from a Mustang. the 302 gave me 12MPG on a US Gallon. OUT!!! - rated at 145 HP the I6 (3.3L) gives me about 20MPG - 85 HP the Turbo I4 offers up to 28MPG or better AND 170 to 195 HP. Might be slower off the line, but she'll cruise like a charm in a 2,645 lb wagon. Plus, all the plumbing and wiring will snuggle right into the Fairmont. That same engine came in the 1987 to 1989 TBirds, which weighed a bit more than your Torino. The only problem you'd have under a big engine compartment like that would be the Air movement (drag) which you could easily solve with an Air Dam running from the front to just under the fan, kind of like this: Part 1: - Theory and charts http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_2455/article.html Part 2: - Actual construction of a cheap prototype (Cardboard and Duct tape) http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_2456/article.html
I don't see (yet) a practical vehicle getting 100mpg. Weight is the killer. There would have to be some special vehicle class set up, with limited safety mandates, that would allow lighter-weight vehicles to be developed. I also don't see any 'push' to utilize this technology, other that this contest. And that, frankly, is not enough to spur widespread demand for a super high-mileage vehicle. America seems to be fine with $2.80/gal gas - for now.
