Johnathan Goodwin claims he can make a 2005 H3 Hummer get 60 miles to the gallon

Yeh...whatever.. some F'in idiots just don't get it..The Damn problem is the stupid Macho arse**** s who actually want to drive a hummer!

The guy sounds like a good bloke and a a bit of a whizz... but jeez the only thing a hummer is good for is testing improvised explosive devices...they shouldn't be on public roads.. get grip boys..

"...the only thing a hummer is good for is testing improvised explosive devices..."

The civilian Hummers are to the military versions what Chrysler's Jeep division is to the WW2 Willys.

Way different.

In fact, the Hummer H3 is smaller than a Range Rover, and on this side of the pond is considered a chick car.

In defense of their non-military use, they do make good work vehicles for construction, forestry, etc.

Glad you went there first, my northern brother. I was going to, but didn't want to sound like a stereotypical American for defending the Hummer. Other than the Unimog, there is no other off-the-showroom-floor vehicle that can even come close to it off road capabilities. Unfortunately, because of it's $100k price tag, and it's link to military hardware,in the US it's become more of a status symbol than anything else. A shame, really.

Here's one letter to the editor from someone who spoke to John.

The letter mentions a "fuel vaporization" kit John is offering. Such kits have been around for decades and have never had a significant effect on fuel economy, even in carburetor days. Now, "fuel vaporization" is not a problem for engine efficiency (current engines burn 97-99% of the fuel within the cylinder, and the burn is programmed to allow precisely the right unburned amount to fuel the catalyst) Therefore the vaporization kit sounds very very fishy.

I have read this is your comments maybe 2-3 times , 97-99% fuel effiency. Where do you get you figures??? Prove it to all of us. And the fuel vaporization Idea is probably the most advanced fuel system in the world . Everything you know almost runs on it , except the automobile. Like your furnace in the basement of you home,95% effecient. YOu better get the figures straight. I am not saying John is getting or has something to get this milliage but , Your not disproving it with this 97-99% idea. It is just NOT a fact.

Perhaps you should read the post you are complaining about a couple of MORE times.

Nowhere is the claim made that the engine is 97-99% efficient in converting the ENERGY of the fuel into mechanical energy (this is, of course, thermodynamically impossible)

What he said was that 97-99% of the fuel is burnt in the cylinder.

You can burn 100% of the fuel in the cylinder and the engine can still only be 25% efficient.

See Bosch Automotive Handook, fifth edition, pgs 452 - 533 for a pretty good introduction to engine management, in spark ignition engines.

I have never in my life said or written anything so silly as 97-99% fuel efficiency.

Your furnace example might help with your confusion. As you have no doubt heard, liquid fuels do not burn. Only fuel vapors burn. An oil furnace sprays its fuel in a crude way, as compared to an engine, but still, all the fuel is vaporized due to the high temperature. You won't find fuel oil running out the bottom of a furnace.

There are profound differences between an engine and a furnace. Engines produce 75% waste heat, 25% useful mechanical work. Furnaces produce 5% waste heat, 95% useful heat.

(Also see SAE website for technical articles.)

Hi gibson:

Here are a couple links you may find helpful:

The next one explains what happens in the cylinder in simple hot rodder terms. It mentions the common data points of 10% burn and 95% burn that combustion engineers (and educated hot rodders) look for. The 95% point is reached a long time before the exhaust valve opens.

The oxygen sensor used in a closed loop system is called a Lambda (λ) sensor. If λ = 1, then the burn on complete: 100%. If λ > 1, then there is excess oxygen, meaning the all the fuel was burned and there is excess oxygen left over. In most current engines, someone competent can rig the ECU to go from a λ of significantly less than one to significantly more than one, just by tweaking the software, even in an ordinary production engine.

Here's what the Bosch manual I referenced above has to say. "The engine must be operated in a very narrow range, in which λ = 1 =/- 0.005 (catalytic converter window). Such precision can only be achieved with a Lambda oxygen sensor installed upstream of the converter. A second Lambda sensor downstream of the catalytic converter increases the precision even further."

For much of this to make sense, and to understand why the 25% efficiency typically quoted for a spark ignition engine occurs you could study thermodynamics in general and the Carnot efficiency, as well as the reams of material that have been written about engine losses in general.

If none of this convinces you, you can take a fuel injector out of a car, cause it to spray one cycle's worth into the air, and be amazed as you see the spray turn to vapor even at room temperature, let alone in the heat of a cylinder. Alternatively stop in at any university with a combustion program and they can explain it to you.

I hope this brings you a little closer to reality.

Hi Ken,

Great links as always.

Now I just have to hide in my office so I can read them all...

Thanks.

BTW, I emailed John Shore at the XPrize re using a miles-per-kWh system. He was very resistant -- I think they are simply wanting to get things nailed down -- they've been working on the rules a long time. They want to stick to a plug-or-pump to wheels MPGe system. I'd rather see well-to-wheels because I think we need to consider that, until we make significant changes, electricity simple shifts pollution and still uses non-renewable fuels. Plug-to-wheels seems to sweep that fact under the rug.

Here, people think of kWh as a measure of "electricity" rather than a measure of energy -- but that bit of training would be fairly easy to accomplish I think. Much easier than the training required to figure out all the competing ways of looking at fuel economy: from Jim Woolsey's 400 mpg mid-size sedan (counting only the gasoline fraction of e85), the 100, 200, and 300 mpg Prius conversions (all of which are the same efficiency, but the test trip length is different -- and the electric contribution is ignored) 100 mpg Hummers, and 135 mpg Teslas (which is measured by a particularly strange EPA weighting for electric vehicles).

I may see what sort of reception the idea gets at the EPA.

I'm old enough to see this thing happen in the 70's , but I also know that he's on the right track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If there's anything that I or any outher CR4 fellows can do to help ,thats WHAT WE ALL DO it's in all our nature ,because we are the best that the world has to offer ,we support any one who can have the gull to even think that far outside the box , we should stand up and support any and all, in any way . James Michael Kieffer West Farfo ND

A few more thoughts in this and the next couple posts, then I'll get out of here.

A huge part of the problem in measuring fuel economy in plug-in hybrids is that there is no universally accepted test. Promoters can pick any fuel economy figure and can be technically correct, but very misleading. You can take an inherently and woefully inefficient vehicle like a Hummer H2 (which gets about 10 mpg) add a small number of batteries (so, let's say, it can go 4 miles on a charge). Then run your test: drive for 4.1 miles, and measure fuel consumption. 1/100^th gallon consumed. 4.1 miles driven. 410 miles per gallon! Ignore, as Godwin does, the contribution from the electricity that you paid (an environmental and economic cost) to get. That, in a nutshell is how he makes his 100 mpg claim for the 59 Lincoln he plans to convert.

People other than me have called it fraud. Make up your own mind.

The article is very poorly written from a technical perspective, and also reads like an ad for Goodwin, so it takes a lot of jumping around to try to find any factual support for the author's claims. Although the front page headline says "How Johnathan Goodwin's Radical Engine Design Could Revolutionize…" there is nothing in the article that suggests that the engine is of radical design – he simply runs a diesel on H2 and Biodiesel, and the vehicle on that combination plus electricity. The percentage of H2 is obscenely high (at 50%) so he can claim a 50% reduction in diesel fuel usage (completely ignoring the dollar and enviro cost of the H2!!). Injecting small amounts of several gases can improve diesel horsepower somewhat, but injecting large amounts simply means that you are running the engine on large quantities of two fuels -- and in his case accounting for only one.

The article also suggests that there is something unusual about installing a GM Duramax engine in a Hummer. It is, in fact, a factory option! Nothing remotely radical or interesting. Even the description of the Duramax reads like an ad for GM. The photos also seem deceptive. The article describes an H3 Hummer (a recent "small" Hummer) supposedly getting 60 mpg (it won't) but the photos show an H1 (the original really big one). The cover says 100 mpg, and all the pictures show a huge Hummer. (The 100 mpg claim applies to a '59 Lincoln, using the "special" energy accounting I've mentioned above.)

Claims regarding biodiesel making the engine profoundly quiet, and the outlandish hp figures bear no resemblance to the use of biodiesel in practice. Biodiesel fuel has a little over 90% of the energy content of petroleum diesel. I could find nothing in the article that explained where 2000 lb ft of torque might come from: That's far more that a 6.6 liter turbo diesel will reliably produce.

Here is a thread regarding wild fuel efficiency claims, which shows how misleading things can get: I can pick figures to suggest my Pod One gets 700 mpg. Aptera picks figures that say theirs gets 300 mpg. The two are really too close to call, each around 120 mpg (tested as a Prius is tested). The Aptera is much heavier, but might have slightly better aero.

There. That's all. If, after this, you believe in 100 mpg '59 Lincolns and 60 mpg Hummers, so be it.

There. That's all. If, after this, you believe in 100 mpg '59 Lincolns and 60 mpg Hummers, so be it.

YES I DO ! (I should also mention that I believe in fairies, little green men from mars, goblins, ghouls, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and I SWEAR Elvis works at my local 7 11!)

Hi Ken,

I really appreciate the insight that you are willing to share with us about this kind of thing. I believe most of us are interested in doing what we can to reduce our environmental impact, and as you say, this kind of misleading writing (I can't bring myself to call it journalism) does nothing to promote the cause.

To paraphrase Del, why the *u*K does anyone NEED to drive a Hummer? Sixty grand, and my '79 Civic has more headroom in the back than the H3, not to mention less than a third of the weight and about five times the fuel economy.

Perhaps a better way to measure fuel economy would be to measure how far a vehicle can travel on (for the sake of argument) 1 MJ of energy. That way it does not matter if that energy is supplied electrically or chemically, at least you are comparing apples to apples. It also neatly includes any and all efficiencies/inefficiencies in the transmissions and energy storage devices. In the case of a hybrid, that 1MJ would include the energy already stored in the battery pack, and you run the machine until it stops, (In the case of the Hummers, about 25 feet from where it started from!)

The only down side is that to the average Joe in the street it probably would not mean much.

Thoughts?

Perhaps a better way to measure fuel economy would be to measure how far a vehicle can travel on (for the sake of argument) 1 MJ of energy.

Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. It's simple, straightforward, fair, and meaningful. Therefore, IT CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK. Such a system, among other things, would put many marketing and advertising people out of work!

The people at the X Prize are correct, I think, in believing that 100 mpg is a worthy goal and a significant number. But when it comes to measuring gasoline equivalent, things can quickly get muddy. California generates electricity more efficiently than the rest of the country, so a kilowatt-hour there means less fuel, less carbon, and less energy waste than elsewhere. In a way, (given the difficulties of coming up with equivalents) the X prize people have thrown up their hands, and said, "OK lets just measure from pump (or plug) to wheels". But that gives electric vehicles a huge advantage in the race, because electric motors are far more efficient. (Whereas, when measured well-to-wheels, the inefficient generation of electricity balances the relatively efficient production of gasoline, so both vehicles types create close to the same CO2 amounts per mile.) But shouldn't we favor electric cars, knowing that solar power can create clean electricity? "No," someone else may answer, "because according to the DOE, the portion of electricity generated by renewables (9%), despite all the buzz, will not change at all by 2030."

This gets even weirder if the person talking is concerned not so much about the environment as about security. Then, figures like 400 mpg for a hybrid mid-size sedan come up, because they are only interested in the gasoline portion of E85. (Who cares than the ethanol takes more energy to create than the gas... at least it is made here.)

IN the US, MJ would mean, to 98% of the people, a lot of the stuff you can buy at Tiffany's. But kWh is meaningful, because that's how we measure our electricity. At least the kW is an international standard (and mainly only scientific types object to kWh), so maybe I can talk the X Prize people into using that standard. They could retain the idea of 100 + mpg, but do the measurement in kWh, and do some public education (one of their missions) on what it all means.

If half of the proposed vehicle types and fuels proposed come to market, the idea of equivalent mpg could become quite confusing (as it already has, with 100 mpg Hummers). I like your idea. Maybe, if the world could get together on this, then the odd "liters per 100km" and "mpg" logic differences could be resolved too.

On this basis, my Pod One will go 11 miles per kWh. A Hummer will go 1 mile per kWh. Hey, NASA uses mixed units -- why not all of us?

(Hmmm. A human can output .15 kW continuously to pedal a bike 20 miles in one hour: 133 miles per kWh.)

But wait... there's more. This really is the last post. For those unaware of the calculations involved in determining fuel efficiency (and whether you have adequate HP to climb a grade at a particular speed, etc.) there is a commonly used calculation, which John Shore of the Automotive X Prize spelled out. If you read down slightly below his post, there is one from me, that complicates things a little.

(If you read further down, there's a post I just read that seems to suggest that I was quoting 38% as Prius efficiency -- which I was not. The X Prize charts show 38% as the US average electrical power generating efficiency. The DOE says 33%. I'll have to clear that up.)

Reads like last years predictions of grand illusions of high millage, low wear and tear, etc. in Popular Mecsci Rag. Those grandiose multipurpose, low cost, thingamados that never make it to market.

The last link mentions that it sounds too good to be true. The last link mentions that it sounds too good to be true. Hence it probably is. Don't bet the farm on it just yet.

Check it out next year. If Johnathan Goodwin makes good on his claims he will be crowing and showing off all over the map. Otherwise he will crawl under a rock (his desk) or be out and about promoting the same over and over to milk the rubes of their rubles.

I love that the SAE energy website hails him as the "premier Duramax® conversion expert in the world", while the fastcompany article talks about how he had to "jerry rig" the anti theft system and "MacGuyver it" to make it work. That doesn't sound like a premier world expert to me. A few months ago I read an article in Diesel Power Magazine about a guy who had done a Duramax Suburban conversion. Quote:

"The biggest difference between our diesel conversion and other projects is that we figured out how to make the computers talk to each other," Buff says. "We got the Suburban's computer to adapt to the signals from the Duramax." The result is a seamless, integrated engine-management system that can even work with the OnStar diagnostics, Buff notes. Link to article: http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/chevy/0710dp_2000_chevy_suburban/index.html

This guy sounds like much more of an expert than Mr. Goodwin.

I say they should go for it!!!

TRANSPORTATION General Motors "Volt"
www.gm-volt.com

Last but certainly not least, here comes the green car. The GM "Volt" is still on track to be in showrooms by 2010, and this is much more than a plug-in hybrid. The "Volt" is a series hybrid, meaning that while it has a gasoline engine, this engine is completely disconnected from the drivetrain. Instead, the gasoline engine turns an onboard electric generator, supplying power to an electric motor. The Volt also comes with a 400 pound lithium ion battery pack, which will power the car exclusively for 40 miles. But when the battery is drained, the gasoline engine (highly efficient because of no variable RPM requirements) can deliver a 600 mile range at a gasoline-only mileage of 50 miles per gallon. This car is a breakthrough - once cars like this a deployed by the millions, vehicular transportation miles will increasingly be fueled by electrons, not petroleum, and these electrons will come from renewable sources such as photovoltaics and solar thermal power stations. Energy, water, and land abundance is the destiny that awaits us, if we maintain our faith in free market innovations, and let green technology take us there.

***

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=442

another twist?

I think that the Volt (which may end up quite different than shown here) should do very well -- and this is the first GM product I've had any praise for since the 1963 Stingray. My own little vehicle is a flex-fuel plug-in series hybrid too. The technology is not a breakthrough: Porsche had a plug-in series hybrid in 1903. But for GM, it will be a breakthrough in the sense that it will demonstrate the practicality and desirability of such vehicles. If they don't screw it up too badly, I think it (and follow-on models) could sell extremely well.

A plug-in hybrid is less demanding on its batteries that a pure electric vehicle, because you can accept much lower electric range. 40 miles on electricity will handle most round trip commutes, and if your commute is longer, it's no big deal -- the engine just fires up to keep the batteries charged. To their credit, I have not seen publicity calling the Volt a 200 mpg or 300 mpg or 500 mpg vehicle (any of which can be technically accurate (per the logic I referred to in another post). My guess is that 50 mpg on the road may be a little higher than the figure for the production car, but if the vehicle is smallish, that figure is realistic. Promoters have been calling the various plug-in Prius conversions 100 mpg, 150 mpg, or even 300 mpg, so it is refreshing to see GM avoiding such shenanigans.

So they created a toyota prius

No, not a Prius. An entire departure from the current hybrid system in that it uses an electric motor for the final drive 100% of the time. No complex dual drive system to adjust to which one gets priority. That in itself should reduce complexity, cost and parts count, that could lead to faster introduction to the general public at projected cost. I do not see why Toyota opted to bypass this method as it seems much simpler. I supose they had their reasons. Maybe it's time for GM to shine a little. JMO

Maybe it's time for GM to shine a little.

I think you're right. (Of course my own vehicle is a plug-in series hybrid, so I'm perhaps biased.) Series hybrids have all the advantages you mention. That's no doubt why Porsche used the technique in their 1903 version. I hope the Volt will help lower the price of Lithium Ion batteries.

A series hybrid, because the electric motor is larger, requires more batteries. I suppose Toyota's reasoning was that the battery expense would be too high. Toyota has gone back and forth re a plug-in hybrid (still parallel), and probably won't have a series hybrid to compete with the Volt right away. It will be interesting to see how it works out in the market.

Also, I find I go back and forth myself, from plug-in to non plug-in (non plug-in can be lighter, and therefore more efficient) and even from series to quasi parallel, where, for cruise, the gas engine would be hooked directly to the wheels, bypassing the generator and electric motor losses. But there's the complexity...