I'd like to start a heated discussion about this topic. Why? There was a recent post here on the forum of some guys squeezing out 18 MPGs on their Discos...I'm lucky to get 15 if I Sunday drive. Squeezing out 18mpgs is great, but got me thinking about this article and vapor fuel systems. Hmmm....

VAPOR FUEL SYSTEM: Tom Ogle’s Invention Resulted in 1000% Increase in MPG & His Death! / What Ever Happened to Tom Ogle? Did the world not go green because of a murder? Maybe 2 murders?


So, is this B.S. or no B.S.?

 

To me, it seems way to simple to not have been implemented by thousands of others, by now, or at least tried. Then again the first light bulb is still burning, yet we purchase new ones all this time.


now, you need to watch your back

 

I LOVE this statement, and yes, it pisses me off every time I buy a new 10yr fluorescent bulb that lasts 6 months to a year! Talk about "Built-In Obsolescent"...

My Dad, now 90 years old, used to swear by the Water Injected in the Carb Systems. His Uncle was one of the first to make one and claimed remarkable increases in mileage and engine life. PS: His uncle also died mysteriously... Ohhh... Wooo...

Personally, I've never tried one, but am curious.

 

There is no possible way that anyone is getting 18mpg in a Discovery. It just doesn't happen. There was one guy on here a while back claiming that he was getting somewhere in the low 20's. Truly a ridiculous claim.

So really man, don't sweat it. Its hard enough just to keep these things on the road.

 

I think sometimes elevation and fuel quality can make a big difference. I'm at work in Little Rock just about 200 miles from home in NW Arkansas, and they have 93 octane premium here, and I can only get 91 at home. This is probably due to elevation differences. When I was in SE Idaho, you could find 85 octane as the cheap stuff, instead of 87 like most places. Anyway, I filled up after being here almost a week, and I was getting about 18 while cruising on the highway, according to ultragauge and the in-dash display (this is on my LR3) and after the fill up I was getting 19.

 

I agree with this completely. I can also relate to the Idaho comment as well after living there 6months for work. I get much better mileage when I fill up at places in Little Rock such as kum and go (I will never be able to say that with a straight face), as opposed to anywhere in Russellville. I average about 12mpg when I'm in Russellville, but I can run around 16-18 when I fill up in Little Rock or at the MFA in Carlisle(non-ethanol 91 octane).

I've also started throwing the P1170 code here in Russellville that I can't solve, so these results are all from about 6months ago.

 

I get 22 mpg around town and 29/30 mpg on a long autoroute run ..............................but it is a TD5. and it is UK gallons and miles.

 

You buy in imperial gallons in France? I figured that liters per 100km would be how you measure things.

 

You are absolutely right Jafir, but even after years living here in France I still look at fuel consumption in imperial measurement i.e. miles per gallon. It's probably the only thing I still relate to as even in the UK we have been metric for measurements and some weights for a couple of decades plus. I can't remember the conversion factor for US gallons to imperial gallons anymore although I used to work for a large US petro-chem designer/contractor for many years and a US oil producer/company. Spent quite some time in Houston and Richmond out there, great places. If I'd known you were such Landrover enthusiasts I might have retired there instead.

 

I'm no scientist, but most things I read say that internal combustion engines are about 20% efficient at the most. Even if we lower that a lot and say that they are only 10% efficient, the only way the gas guzzlers pictured in the link you posted would get 100 mpg, would be if they were boosted in efficiency to nearly 100% (10 times 10 mpg). If those engines are running at 20% already, it would be impossible to get them to 100mpg, because that would be them running at 200% efficiency.

An internal combustion engine running at 100% efficiency would be the same temperature as the environment around it, because no energy would be wasted into heat. I don't see how any cheap to produce, little black box as mentioned in that article could prevent an internal combustion engine from wasting energy as heat or reclaim the energy that was turned into heat.