# Think your mileage is good? Try 376.59 mpg!



## begreen (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes, that's correct. But the story is more interesting because this wasn't done in some slick space composite, techno capsule. It was accomplished by a homely Opel, in 1979.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/artic...l-it-gets-376-59-mpg-1264903.php#photo-681729


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 13, 2012)

I thought it was a joke at first,but it appears legit. Any reason why there has not been an attempt to repeat this experiment?


----------



## carpniels (Apr 16, 2012)

I saw this actual car for sale on Ebay a few years ago. And recently too, for $425,000 if I remember correctly.


----------



## Jags (Apr 18, 2012)

Hey Carp - good to see you back.

What the heck???  There had to be more done to the car than the article alluded to.  I don't plan on doing the math because I don't have all the numbers (specs for the car), but I suspect that the amount of energy in a gallon of gas, even at 100% efficient transfer to the ground is pushing the boundary of their claim.  Just say'in


----------



## firebroad (Apr 18, 2012)

Unfreaking believable.

I think the numbers might have been fudged a bit, but only by a bit.  I always suspected Big Oil has been suppressing improved gas mileage, I somehow remember cars in the 60's-70's getting better mileage than their modern, lighter counterparts.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 18, 2012)

firebroad said:


> Unfreaking believable.
> 
> I think the numbers might have been fudged a bit, but only by a bit. I always suspected Big Oil has been suppressing improved gas mileage, I somehow remember cars in the 60's-70's getting better mileage than their modern, lighter counterparts.


As jags said there is only so much energy in a gallon of gas. I think most of the "better" MPG in the 60-70s came from lack of pollution controls. Case in point the new VW jetta diesel gets about 10MPG less than just a few years ago because of new pollution devices.


----------



## firebroad (Apr 18, 2012)

Good point, I forgot about that. Still, MPG used to be pretty important. 

I remember ads like this in the backs of magazines in the 70's.  Nice to see the same blighters are still at it
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...MvroX0vyTfjqJ6XAQ&sig2=4ltonhYYV-zkwB2B1OO3vA


----------



## Armoured (Apr 19, 2012)

Seasoned Oak said:


> As jags said there is only so much energy in a gallon of gas. I think most of the "better" MPG in the 60-70s came from lack of pollution controls. Case in point the new VW jetta diesel gets about 10MPG less than just a few years ago because of new pollution devices.


 
I believe they have also changed the MPG methodology (because it wasn't realistic and easily 'gamed' by manufacturers), so are you sure you're comparing like-to-like? Plus manufacturers have continued to add features and esp HP to newer cars. Safety features have, however, reduced MPG just because of weight.

Although there is a hit from pollution devices it is pretty small and likely compensated by other engine improvements; the pollution 'hit' that was seen when e.g. catalytic converters were first brought in has been reduced by improved technology, and is probably close to nil now. I seriously doubt the better figures in 60s-70s were due to this; more likely the biggest impact is simply from the fact that what we think are 'comparable' cars are in fact larger and heavier cars nowadays. Compare a BMW 3-series to what it was 20-25 years ago, or a Civic or an Accord. They were virtually all a class or two smaller then than they are now, and as much as half the horsepower.


----------



## Jags (Apr 19, 2012)

Armoured said:


> Compare a BMW 3-series to what it was 20-25 years ago, or a Civic or an Accord. They were virtually all a class or two smaller then than they are now, and as much as half the horsepower.


 
I'm not disagreeing with you, but there is a flip side also.  My father has a 1953 Packard convertible that weighs in at over 6000 pounds.  A true land yacht.  At 60 mph it will routinely get 19 mpg.  You would think that after 59 years there would be advancements that would improve on this and allow our "todays" pickup trucks to better that.  For the most part, they don't.  (and comparing the 1953 to a pickup truck would be an apples to apples comparison for drag, weight, etc.)


----------



## gmule (Apr 19, 2012)

The average hp rating for a 50's pickup was about 100hp. Today's trucks have close to 400hp and they can tow and haul a  whole lot more. I am always amazed at how much work my brothers Diesel truck can do. I wouldn't want to try and tow 15K behind a 1950's  pickup.


----------



## Jags (Apr 19, 2012)

gmule said:


> The average hp rating for a 50's pickup was about 100hp. Today's trucks have close to 400hp and they can tow and haul a whole lot more. I am always amazed at how much work my brothers Diesel truck can do. I wouldn't want to try and tow 15K behind a 1950's pickup.


 
I do understand what you are saying, but that is why I choose to compare the 53 Packard (car) and pickup truck.  Specifically my pickup truck.  I run a 318 v8 that is comparable in torque to the straight 8 in the Packard.  A pretty apples to apples comparison.  Yet after 50 years of advancements, my truck gets 16 mpg.

(I didn't specify "My" truck in the above post, sorry for the confusion).


----------



## begreen (Apr 19, 2012)

16 mpg was the same gas mileage my '56 Packard got with a 352 V8.


----------



## Jags (Apr 19, 2012)

begreen said:


> That was the same gas mileage my '56 Packard got with a 352 V8.


Which was considered a very powerful V8 and hugely torquey. The 1955 Packard Patrician set a 25,000 mile speed record averaging a bit over 104 mph. It was a factory car - no mods. Driven from the end of the assembly line to the track (Packard had its own test track). Get in and stuff you foot to the floor. All stops were included in the average speed (tires/drivers/fuel).

We are talking BIG cars too:


----------



## begreen (Apr 19, 2012)

What stopped development was cheap fuel. That was back in the days of 10-15 cent gas. By 1959, everyone want to own a rocket ship.


----------



## oldspark (Apr 19, 2012)

30 mph, stripped car, and rock hard tires, still impressive but I wonder what my old Metro would have got under the same conditions.


----------



## Jags (Apr 19, 2012)

oldspark said:


> 30 mph, stripped car, and rock hard tires, still impressive but I wonder what my old Metro would have got under the same conditions.


 
In reality, Sparky, there was probably very little to gain on that machine.  It was already a featherweight with marginal HP.  The biggest gain for that car would probably be improving drag.


----------



## oldspark (Apr 19, 2012)

Yea I forgot about the chopped top.


----------



## Armoured (Apr 19, 2012)

Jags said:


> I do understand what you are saying, but that is why I choose to compare the 53 Packard (car) and pickup truck. Specifically my pickup truck. I run a 318 v8 that is comparable in torque to the straight 8 in the Packard. A pretty apples to apples comparison. Yet after 50 years of advancements, my truck gets 16 mpg.


 
I'm also not disagreeing that there should have been much more advance in mileage, but I doubt it's apples to apples. Acc to Wiki (so apologies if wrong), the '53 had 180hp - probably less than your truck. Probably comparable torque, though. And just given the height, I'd suspect the drag would actually be much worse. You're probably running tires with more grip. Lots of other differences as well could contribute easily.

Anyway, we could also compare to modern luxury cars, Beemers/Audis/Acurai and the like that are much more powerful and hit in the 25-30 MPG range. That's a pretty big improvement in mileage, and they're clearly not trying hard in that class.

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread: I for one am very, very skeptical of the ~250+ mpg figure this car above supposedly got. There's no way this technology they refer to made that big a difference. Even if it was of no interest to American producers, Europeans have been paying well in excess of $5 / gallon for years now, and it would have got snapped up. It seems far more likely it's just a function of the testing cycle they used.

There's a fairly recent study saying that about 75% of technological improvements that _could_ have been used to increase mileage have gone to faster, more powerful cars.

And of course there's a limit to how much you can wring out of the engines - after a certain efficiency level of an internal combustion powertrain, it's mostly about drag, speed, and weight.


----------



## begreen (Apr 19, 2012)

In what way do you think the testing of the actual mpg achieved by the car was false or inaccurate? Why would Shell do that?


----------



## Armoured (Apr 19, 2012)

begreen said:


> In what way do you think the testing of the actual mpg achieved by the car was false or inaccurate? Why would Shell do that?


 
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it was false or accuse anyone - but unless this is repeated or compared to some other vehicle, I think it's misleading, as it doesn't necessarily tell us anything useful. There are implied claims about the technology, but nothing more really - most of what they've identified is driving the car slow and reducing the weight. So I'm skeptical that it tells us much of anything. For example, was this tested just by running the car at 30 mph for hours and hours? What would you get in a different car with that? Does it have any usable power at that speed?

It's sort of an internet meme to believe there is some magic technology out there but I just don't believe this car is the holy grail - at least, not without more substantiation.

If the figures could be compared under a recognisable test methodology, we might have some better understanding, too, but it's just not clear from this.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 19, 2012)

Its seems mind boggling that if these numbers are accurate that the test was not repeated or more research was not done to find out exactly how it was accomplished.


----------



## Armoured (Apr 19, 2012)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Its seems mind boggling that if these numbers are accurate that the test was not repeated or more research was not done to find out exactly how it was accomplished.


 
Which is why I'm skeptical! Too good to be true, is what it sounds like.


----------



## oldspark (Apr 19, 2012)

Some more info on the car.
http://www.race-cardrivers.com/Shell Opel.htm


----------



## gmule (Apr 19, 2012)

Jags said:


> I do understand what you are saying, but that is why I choose to compare the 53 Packard (car) and pickup truck. Specifically my pickup truck. I run a 318 v8 that is comparable in torque to the straight 8 in the Packard. A pretty apples to apples comparison. Yet after 50 years of advancements, my truck gets 16 mpg.
> 
> (I didn't specify "My" truck in the above post, sorry for the confusion).


 
Your dodge with the 318 is at the mercy of drag. Those 1st gens are like a concrete block on wheels when it comes to drag. Then add to the 3 speed trans and you are not going to get very decent mileage. The Packard at least had some rounded fenders and was overall more narrow in the front so it had a smaller cross section to push through the air with.


----------



## Armoured (Apr 19, 2012)

oldspark said:


> Some more info on the car.
> http://www.race-cardrivers.com/Shell Opel.htm


 
Thanks, it pretty much says it there, that it is running a tiny lawnmower engine without the power to even climb a grade. It's a specialized vehicle designed and tested to achieve high MPG. Digging around a bit on the net, more recent records have been set with MPGs _ten times_ that. see http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_record_mpg_for_a_car . And more recently, over 12,500 MPG - see http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/extremeMPG.jsp .

And my point is just that taking these vehicles' designs and mpg records and comparing even to a Honda Civic doesn't tell us much about where mpgs 'should' be for street vehicles. There's no secret tech bullet that the oil companies are suppressing - here at least .


----------



## StihlHead (Apr 20, 2012)

When I was a kid, gas was 18 cents a gallon and my mom bought 'a dollar's worth of regular' at a time. At that time, 12 MPG was considered really good. Auto manufactures have consistantly made more efficient cars, but whenever gas gets cheap Americans flock to larger more powerful engines and larger frame vehicles. We have gone through this cycle several times now. In the 1960s we wanted muscle cars. Then came the gas embargo, and large cars were junked and we bought smaller more efficient cars. Then with inflation figured in, gas got cheaper again in the 1990s, and we bought SUVs and larger PU trucks with big engines and lots of power. I have an early model Toyota Tundra and that was considered under-powered for a V8. I think it has pleanty of power and it gets reasonable mileage (used to anyway, with pure gas it got 18 MPG on the highway, now its 17 MPG with E-10). But they have since come out with a bigger engine and bigger frame Tundra to please the American PU truck crowd with worse mileage. And now gas is spendy again...

So we are (again) building smaller commuter cars, like the Smart, Fiat 500s, and lots of hybrids. 30 to 50+ MPG vehicles. As long as gas remains expensive, we will buy these vehicles and demand will push more and better mileage cars into being produced. But... if gas drops in price again, as it is likely to do, we will again start to drift toward larger cars with more power and less efficient vehicles. Human nature. Humans are naturally rather inefficient creatures. We are more interesed in instant gratification, staus and overkill than economy, altruism and long range goals.


----------

