the ultimate "Ale"

[tecoyah]

Could this be the next step in automobile production? And, why the hell cant the big three do something like this?

Not only does the “alé” have extreme mileage capabilities, but its performance is outstanding and better than many high-end sports cars. It accelerates from 0-60 in 5 seconds, and will pull over 1.7 g’s in hard corner's on street tires. Brad Zimmerman, head tech for the company stated during testing at the Mission race track, “I drove it hard for 4 solid hours, throwing it into corners, accelerating and braking hard. The car’s performance is spectacular. After all that hard driving, we only went through $10 in gas.”


The “alé” runs on regular gasoline, and easily achieves the level of “super low” emissions with a 30% reduction in CO2. Even more impressive is the fact that all the data to date has been gathered without a catalytic converter.

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

[LoganSnake]

The specs sure are impressive. Too bad the car itself is fucking ugly. If they can implement this technology in a more conventional design, that'd be great.

[Redlemon]

The “alé” runs on regular gasoline, and easily achieves the level of “super low” emissions with a 30% reduction in CO2. Even more impressive is the fact that all the data to date has been gathered without a catalytic converter.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. CO2 is the expected result of burning fuel in the presence of oxygen. The only way to reduce the amount of CO2 would be to have really poor combustion, and therefore you would have huge quantities of CO.

Can anyone else figure this out? Where's the carbon in the fuel going to if it isn't going to CO2?

[BadNick]

I'm not sure it's this simple ...but they said they can run this "fuel vapor technology" engine at air/fuel ratios of 20:1 vs current typical stoichiometric a/f of 14.7:1. That's about a 36% reduction if fuel burning so if the motor doesn't blow up or wear out too fast, I can see how buring 36% less fuel can lead to 30% less CO2 emission. Yes/No/Maybe?

[Redlemon]

Originally Posted by BadNick

That's about a 36% reduction if fuel burning so if the motor doesn't blow up or wear out too fast, I can see how buring 36% less fuel can lead to 30% less CO2 emission. Yes/No/Maybe?

Ah, so it's 30% reduction based upon unit of energy output, as opposed to 30% reduction based on unit of fuel consumed? That might make sense. They could make that a lot clearer, however.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by Redlemon

Ah, so it's 30% reduction based upon unit of energy output, as opposed to 30% reduction based on unit of fuel consumed? That might make sense. They could make that a lot clearer, however.

That's what I'd think. Sure it would make more sense to present it as 30% less fuel used per unit energy output but most people wouldn't make the connection.

[MSD]

I call total bullshit on the skidpad spec and severe exaggeration on the acceleration and 1/4 mile times. I'll believe them when Car and Driver or some reputable source gives them to me rather than a press kit, or maybe if they would put up some videos. I also doubt it would pass US safety standards.

[Crack]

Originally Posted by BadNick

I'm not sure it's this simple ...but they said they can run this "fuel vapor technology" engine at air/fuel ratios of 20:1 vs current typical stoichiometric a/f of 14.7:1. That's about a 36% reduction if fuel burning so if the motor doesn't blow up or wear out too fast, I can see how buring 36% less fuel can lead to 30% less CO2 emission. Yes/No/Maybe?

Baxter... you know I don't speak spanish!

[BadNick]

Originally Posted by Crack

Baxter... you know I don't speak spanish!

You're so wise. You're like a miniature Buddha, covered with hair.

[Painted]

On the website it said it has a high-mileage Honda engine. I wonder how large the modifications were to it to do this fuel vapor thing and if they could be done on current cars. Cause I mean, the technology sounds cool but I don't like the car.

[QuasiMojo]

Zip Dop De Doh Deh.