If anyone's curious, that's a '59 Opel Rekord P1 Caravan.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I had a 76 Opel Manta in my college days. Loved that car.

*promote...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, December 21st, 2008 1:01pm PST - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

Wow, a promotion so soon, it's only been up a few hours

I didn't know John Goodman was a car collector. It was also a shame when Saturn's EV1 electric car was scrapped by GM and others

so how exactly does it achieve such efficiency?!

as mentioned in the video, apparently by -complete- pre-heating vaporization of the fuel before intake.

this link
http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/Shell%20Opel.htm
states

The chemically correct air/fuel mixture for total burning of gasoline has been determined to be 15 parts air to one part gasoline or 15/1 by weight. Changing this to a volume ratio yields 8000 parts air to one part gasoline or 8,000/1 by volume. The system of the present invention vaporizes liquid fuel before the fuel enters the engine. Theoretically, a homogenous mixture can yield gas mileage in excess of 300 miles per gallon.

also interesting is the .pdf of the book written by Shell engineers

149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973

With this new old knowledge revealed the big 3 automakers should be forced to build it before they get any more Billions in Bailout money!

fascinating pie in the sky numbers.... I bet if you gave these guys a fair shake at it and said "Make it a daily driver and give us the MPG realized" I bet it's a SAD number compared with 376 mpg

I hate to be a "FAKE" caller, but I think if the answer to the world fuel crisis was "run it lean" the car manufacturers might have caught on to that by now. Most modern cars actually adjust the fuel air mix on the fly to achieve maximum efficiency. I'd be pretty amazed if a carburated engine could beat that in real world conditions.

Reading the links given above, it would be easy to get caught up in what is potentially fakery as Jimbo points out. The guy in the video was pointing out less than a 3rd of the 376 mpg should be possible, but I think the market is only now beginning to cry out for such numbers. It would be interesting to see how the car performs...

Well jimbo, car manufactures have historically been very uninterested in fuel efficiency and are good friends with the oil industry.

Baloney. This kind of bull only makes sense to conspiracy theorists and people with lobotomies. There is no such thing as a magical mixture of air and fuel that will miraculously give cars 300MPG efficiency. Nor is it possible to give cars 100MPG, 50MPG, or anything else. The levels they are talking about are only possible under test conditions that cannot be duplicated in actual use. Sure, if you were on a 5 mile straightaway track with no wind, a perfect temperature, no traffic, no need to brake, a fixed MPH, and all the time in the world to accelerate REALLY slowly, coast when you want, no passengers, no air conditioning, and a dozen other favorable conditions... SURE you could probably achieve 75MPG or maybe even 100 under those conditions. Know what? You could probably get 75 to 100 MPG out of your CURRENT car under that kind of artificial circumstance (BTW that is called "Hypermiling"). But take that OPEL P-1 and put a family of 4 in it, a full load of groceries, in the middle of summer with air conditioning, on a windy day, in the middle of stop-and-go traffic and I bet it couldn't get 20 MPG. Wake up. There is no conspiracy. Auto companies aren't trying to 'bury' technology. The simple fact is that the technology does NOT exist on this planet in this dimension that will allow super-efficient MPG under REAL LIFE driving conditions. DUH!

I tend to agree, the conditions you mentioned all played an affect on the mpg in question. If the mpg is correct, I'm not sure what kind of conditions they were under but I'm sure they were tightly controlled. Unreal and unexpected by today's driver in the multitude of conditions you see. My car (a Mini Cooper) does about 3-4mpg less during the winter season than the summer regardless of slower drive times, etc...

Ya, I seriously doubt the rationality of such a vehicle. If automakers could do it, they would. Even if the oil companies hated them, they'd make billions in the first year alone since it would be cheaper for everyone to buy new cars than use the existing. I would also imagine the government would mandate it since it would stop ALL dependence on foreign oil.

I don't know the testing conditions, but I do know that if acceleration is taken out of the equation (i.e. the car is propelled to it's cruising speed by some other means) and all it does is maintain it's cruising speed then it could work.

Of course this efficiency was set under ideal circumstances, but even with much less MPG in real world driving, this technology could still be very efficient.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/souped_down_old.php
"The Opel's rear axle was narrowed and super-hard low-friction tires were used. To save even more weight, a chain drive was used. The engine was pretty much the stock 4-cylinder that came with the car, but the fuel line was insulated and heated so the gasoline entered the combustion chambers as lean vapor.

The record was achieve by driving the car at a steady 30 mph (48 kph).

Now of course this isn't exactly a practical car. But even if you changed it enough to reduce its performance by 250 mpg, that still leaves you with 126 mpg! With modern technology, we should be able to do much better than what we're doing now."

As a comparison, the most recent record of high MPG (with ridiculously unpractical 'cars')
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2006/07/on_track_for_10.html
"The winner of this year's Shell Eco-Marathon achieved 10,128 miles per gallon with a one-person vehicle design."

This is that car
http://la-joliverie.com/index.php?id=91

376 mpg with a minimally modified combustion engine in a chassis with a drag coefficient and the weight of a brick ... that does sound odd to me. I'm not calling bollocks on it, but what i do know is that a mere six years ago, Volkswagen presented their 240 mpg concept car and that sucker was running at less than 10 bhp and looked like a sperm.

On a sidenote: you can easily get 50+ mpg in a city with TDI/CDI/BlueMotion cars.

The Opel's rear axle was narrowed and super-hard low-friction tires were used.

Makes the car unfeasible to drive on wet roads, snow, ice, high heat, or any other real world driving conditions. The narrow rear axle and super-hard low-friction tires would have to be replaced with standard equipment to meet safety regulations. There goes the theoretical 'efficiency'...

To save even more weight, a chain drive was used.

Chain drives exchange the $4 bucks per fill-up in gasoline you save for about $2,000 a month in increased repair bills. They're also noisy and messy.

Now of course this isn't exactly a practical car. But even if you changed it enough to reduce its performance by 250 mpg, that still leaves you with 126 mpg!

Like far too many people, you are subscribing to a complete logical fallacy. You are assuming, "Well, if this thing gets 350 MPG, then even if we tweak it a LOT it would still get 150 MPG when we put it in the market." That assumption is patently false. If it was that simple then someone would be making a car right now TODAY that got over 1,000 MPG. These 'tech demo' and 'eco challenge' cars have no place in practical consumer markets for a reason. Most of what makes these fantasy-dream cars function is either illegal, impractical, or incredibly expensive.

For example - the wired blog link you supplied indicated that the record is over 10,000 miles per gallon. Following your logic, "Well SURELY we should be able to build a car with only one TENTH of that..." Well, yeah we probably could... However, it would cost about 10 million dollars to make and you'd only get 1,000 MPG when you use it exclusively on 1,000 mile long downhill racing tracks with no cargo, perfect weather, and with you pedalling like Lance Armstrong the entire time.

That last post was the only one that started to make your point to me. I had written you off as just some shit-on-it pessimist. But that last post you make several good points.

You make some good points Winstonfield. But I do think there's a lot of improvement to be had in efficiency, maybe not so extreme. It's not like car companies have put much effort into efficiency. If you look at the difference in efficiency between European and American cars you already see that it's not hard to get better efficiency. Only when the car companies are really pressured by the consumer or by regulation do they make an effort to actually produce efficient cars.

But I do think there's a lot of improvement to be had in efficiency, maybe not so extreme.

I'm sure there is a lot of improvement that could be made, but it becomes a matter of cost to benefit ratios. If that super-efficient car that gets 70MPG costs $40,000 to make, then you have just priced it out of the range of the average consumer. The car not only has to achieve high degrees of fuel efficiency, but it has to be AFFORDABLE. If a high-efficiency piece of junk costs as much as a Lexus or BMW, then you damn well better believe that people are going to buy the Lexus 99 times out of 100.

The 'efficient car' crowd far too often ignores the basic realities of the market. Most people in the US need an affordable car (sub-$20,000) that can carry thier families, handle long commutes, deal with adverse weather, and can haul light cargo. 'High efficiency' cars ONLY WORK when you use extremely expensive materials, travel very short distances, have no cargo, have no passengers, and always travel in perfect conditions. The SECOND you start trying to design a car that can cope with these basic, fundamental, CRITICAL market needs you have just had to throw 'super efficient' out the window.

It's not like car companies have put much effort into efficiency.

I disagree. They put a LOT of thought into efficency. But they aren't miracle workers. They can't wave a wand and make thier cars weigh 2,000 fewer pounds while still meeting cafe standards, safety regulations, and UAW working requirements. The first US car company that tried to sell one of those tinker toy 'Euro' style cars would get creamed in the marketplace.

you said BMW

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The first US car company that tried to sell one of those tinker toy 'Euro' style cars would get creamed in the marketplace.


Is that why there's a waiting list for Smart Fortwos? They can't keep up with the demand for them, even if the US model is half as efficient as the European model.

Is that why there's a waiting list for Smart Fortwos? They can't keep up with the demand for them, even if the US model is half as efficient as the European model.

The reason there is a waiting list is because the UAW won't allow that kind of car to be built, and because Diesel engines do not meet US cafe standards. Funny isn't it? Diesel is the most efficient fuel for cars, but we can't use it in the US except in big trucks. Maybe our problem isn't the car companies. Maybe our problem is an asinine Congress.

Anyway - some facts about 'green' cars in the US...

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/06/04/088884.html
http://blogs.internetautoguide.com/6271445/industry-news/best-selling-cars-in-2008/index.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/us-sales-of-hyb.html
http://www.hybridcar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=680&Itemid=45

As of August 2008, only about 26,000 TOTAL 'hybrid' cars (all brands, makes, models) were sold in the U.S. as compared to the bottom of the top 10 list (Nissan Sentra) which sold 59,000 units. So the #10 car in America more than DOUBLED the sales of all hybrid cars. That's in a year where gas prices were kicking consumers in the crotch.

http://www.hybridcar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=680&Itemid=45

European style cars don't sell in the US for many reasons. One - diesel. Two - UAW objections. Three - theyr'e TINY and Americans hate tiny, cramped cars. The market reality is that very few Americans will ever walk into a showroom and buy a tiny Eurocar when they have better options.

1. MPG is a terrible at-a-glance indicator of fuel efficiency, it doesn't scale smoothly as its metric inverse, litres/km.

2. I didn't upvote because this video contains next to no technical details about what sets this car apart.

It never starts, says it all.

Who put Al Franken's voice in this guy's body?

>> ^fissionchips:
1. MPG is a terrible at-a-glance indicator of fuel efficiency, it doesn't scale smoothly as its metric inverse, litres/km.


I've heard this argument before, and I don't believe it. MPG is as good of an indicator for fuel efficiency as L/km. It's purely semantics.

Maybe it's just more popular because of marketing in the US - "bigger is better". So higher mpg = better fuel efficiency.

I think consumers should get access to more rigorous testing and numbers than the simplified city/highway. a car driven in a primarily flat region with constant warm weather will perform better than a mountainous region with 4 seasons. Also mpg (or L/km) charts vs. average speeds. Even if your average consumer only looks at 2 mpg numbers, those of us who understand 8th grade algebra might be able to make a more informed decision with a chart/graph.

If the high-efficiency BMW prototype 3-wheeler (the one that leans into turns) was sold in the US, I would buy one. As fun as a motorcycle, but much more practical (safer, can drive in rain/snow, has luggage space)

If the high-efficiency BMW prototype 3-wheeler (the one that leans into turns) was sold in the US, I would buy one. As fun as a motorcycle, but much more practical (safer, can drive in rain/snow, has luggage space)

That kind of vehicle does not apply to the market as a whole. Americans like larger cars for good reasons. Americans travel further than Europeans. Americans have larger families. Americans typically have more 'stuff' to carry around. A 1-passenger BMW motorcycle bubble that can carry the equivalent of a tiny suitcase is not a practical solution to the needs of the average US car buyer who has a spouse, 2 kids, and needs to haul around groceries, & use the car for work related purposes by hauling frieght.

So while a bubbled motorcycle might be an OK solution for YOU personally, it is not an acceptable solution to the greater needs of the larger marketplace. You're asking the consumer to essentially need to DOUBLE the number of vehicles they own... Vehicle 1 is a 'family' car they use only when they need to carry around the kids or haul stuff (which is most of the time). Vehicle 2 is a 'single person' Eurocar for single person travel.

If the 'single person' vehicle only cost maybe a thousand dollars then it might be an OK concept. But the average Eurocar costs as much (or more) than the average American car - so it ends up being a ridiculous proposition when presented to a buyer. "Why would I pay for ANOTHER car? I don't NEED another car because THIS car carries my family and does all the stuff I need already." See?

The only persons the Eurocar really can satisfy are single people with no family. College kids and no-family career types. Pretty narrow market...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm sure there is a lot of improvement that could be made, but it becomes a matter of cost to benefit ratios. If that super-efficient car that gets 70MPG costs $40,000 to make, then you have just priced it out of the range of the average consumer. The car not only has to achieve high degrees of fuel efficiency, but it has to be AFFORDABLE. If a high-efficiency piece of junk costs as much as a Lexus or BMW, then you damn well better believe that people are going to buy the Lexus 99 times out of 100.

Consider the aptera , which is taking orders at the moment for early '09 shipping to California. It's a two seat three wheel composite electric car. They plan to ship it with a gas-generator hybrid option it '10 which they claim gets 150mpg in field (not track) tests. the hybrid is priced at $30k. I plan to buy one when the hybrids start shipping.

The only persons the Eurocar really can satisfy are single people with no family. College kids and no-family career types. Pretty narrow market...

Right, that's why nobody in the US has a two seater sports car.... Look, most family's in the US are multi vehicle, which means that one or two small commuters in addition to one big road-trip/shopping machine is not only reasonable, it already pretty standard, the only diff is that the commuter cars are fuel inefficient souped up racers which are poorly suited to the fact that they actually spend most of their life sitting in traffic.

*length=247

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 4:07 - length declared by oritteropo.