0-60 in 4 seconds AND 150-200 MPG!

[gern_blanston]

I will venture out onto a limb: never in a million years will a VW tdi or any other current car get 150 mpg with any kind of transmission. This guy says his transmission is very efficient at transferring power. So is a manual transmission, and I don't see us getting that mileage cruising in top gear.

I'm out on the same limb...
Efficiency's one thing, fiction's another. It takes 'X' amount of energy to move a car down the road, and if our tranny's are 80% efficient, how is a 95% efficient tranny going to triple our mileage? It simply isn't possible.
(Granted, he never said that the TDI in a 3,000 lb. car would get that mileage, so he may be talking about a 600 lb. scooter, but to get a car like my Golf down the road at 150 mpg ain't gonna' happen. Neither is 0-60 in 4 seconds, without some serious weight loss and some serious traction.)

 

[tkat]

You mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. Does that apply to the overall mechanism of the Sun evaporating water which rises against gravity into the clouds, rains on the hills, fills the Great lakes, and runs over Niagara Falls
making FREE electricity and is perpetual compared to Mankind's life on Earth? A conventional Freon heat pump can collect 300% of the low grade heat in kilowatt terms and send it to a place of your choosing. This technology utilizes an 'expansion valve', a fancy name for a small hole through which the remaining mechanical energy of compression of the Freon is thrown away, while severely 'rattling' the Freon molecules rushing through the small hole at supersonic speeds and we call the molecular 'rattling' or 'bouncing around'; heat! So with these two imperfections, the system still recovers 3 times the wall plug energy and cut your home heating bill by 3 times in winter. The Hydristor is individually adjustable in each chamber so lets use chamber 1 (12 o'clock to 3 o'clock in the Alan Hitchcox article) as the pump sending hot Freon to the heat exchanger at (?) 250 psi and 350f. The return is cooled to (say) 140f but the pressure is still 250 psi and that is inputted into chamber 2 (from 3 to 6 pistons). Chamber two partially expands the Freon recovering some of the currently wasted pumping energy as motor torque on the common rotor with the pump section. The Freon is further retained internally through chambers 3 and finally 4, each time expanding and recovering yet more currently wasted pumping energy, all of which is fed back into the rotor further reducing the shaft load on the electric motor driving the pump in the first place. And the molecular shear heating is completely eliminated. I haven't built it yet, but internationally issued patent 6612117 covers all this and I predict a return (called C.O.P.) to be 10x. So, for 1 kw from the wall plug, the systen can capture10kw of low grade solar HEAT (not light) and send that to Stirlinf engine which can convert 35% of the heat into shaft horsepower. So 1 kw from the wall plug becomes 3.5 kw at the Stirling shaft which turns an electrical generator making 3 kw of the same electricity as the wall plug ( the variable IVT nature of the Hydristor allows very accurate frequency regulation). Now lets quickly pull the wall plug and switch the output on to the input. You have 2 kw of Free, totally non emissive electrical power to run your stereo, lights, tv, electric sports car, whatever. This is the future. And the second law was concocted in the 1800s. What did they know back then! Tom Kasmer

 

[tkat]

you need to understand a different paradigm. Your golf will easily hit 100-150 Mpg. This comes from the extraordinary waste in car engineering. I had a brand new 72 Z-28/250/M22 in late 71. I installed a Corvette IRS with 3.07, a Hone overdrive 0.7 ratio and raised the mileage from 14 as delivered to nearly 40 Mpg during the first gas crises. The
engine was tacing 1900 Rpm down from 3800. By halving the engine speed, I tripled the gas mileage; and I had also installed a blower at 8psi of boost, not your best economy move. The loss in an internal combustion engine is roughly proportional to the mathematical cube of the engine Rpm. A
1990 Caprice with 350 turns 2300 at 70 with the GM 700R4 locked up and will produce 24 Mpg (EPA). The chevy at that Rpm has an internal loss of about 90 hp and it makes another 30 to give 30 to the 700R4 to get 18 to the road to roll, ideal at 70 on level ground; and it still gets 24 Mpg there. By slowing the engine to 600, the engine loss drops to about 8 hp and with a Hydristor converter, you need about 22 out of the engine to get 18 to the road. So you used to burn 24 Mpg of gas to make 130 hp to do the job and now you make 30 at 600 Rpm. The theoretical fuel economy gain is 130/30 times 24, or 104 Mpg on a full size Chevy sedan at 70. I'll take that bet to get 150 out of a Golf.
And, the Chevy will blast to 60 in 5 seconds due to the IVT nature of the Hydristor converter. Your Golf is lighter and I think it can do 4 seconds by over-revving the engine out of the hole. Tom Kasmer 607-7275709

 

[tkat]

John said I could release it and it will appear soon in a story in the Detroit news. I don't want to inundate the man with calls, but I would ask him to speak to you, Ken if you wish. Let me know Tom K

 

[K5ING]

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain everything to us. It's going to take awhile for us to digest everything (at least I know I'll be awhile). I'm sure that there will be many questions also.

As for John, I'll email you privately.

Thanks again,

 

[LoneLIPumpeDuse]

Tom, what are your plans for releasing this technology?
Are you leasing rights to industry? When will we be using this technology in our cars?

Pete

 

[gern_blanston]

All I can say is 'Good luck.' I wish you all the best, but power-to-weight ratio is what acceleration is all about, and I doubt my poor little TDI (90 hp/3,000 lbs.) is wasting 100+ mpg worth of energy to get its piddling 50 mpg.

 

[MrMopar]

A conventional Freon heat pump can collect 300% of the low grade heat in kilowatt terms and send it to a place of your choosing. This technology utilizes an 'expansion valve', a fancy name for a small hole through which the remaining mechanical energy of compression of the Freon is thrown away, while severely 'rattling' the Freon molecules rushing through the small hole at supersonic speeds and we call the molecular 'rattling' or 'bouncing around'; heat! So with these two imperfections, the system still recovers 3 times the wall plug energy and cut your home heating bill by 3 times in winter.

[Very audible sigh . . .]

My god, what some people will come up with to confuse honestly believing people.

I don't want to get to name calling or put downs because that is not what this forum is for, but if you truely are the inventor of this transmission you obviously have absolutely no grasp on any physics at all and are using ploys and plays with words to confuse less understanding people.

I heat pump (as you describe it) does not magically turn a fixed quantity of energy into a multiple of said energy for heating purposes. A heat pump uses a fixed quantity of energy to move another quantity of energy (in a different form) from one place to another. Take a fictional heat pump that uses 1 kilowatt hour of electricity and ends up MOVING 3 kilowatts per hour of heat into your house. That is not multiplying 1kw/hour and ending up with 3kw/hours of another form of energy in the most basic sense. It may seem like magic or seem like someone somehow "rediscovered" some way to break the laws of physics as if the extremly intelligent people who walked the earth many years ago somehow got it wrong. The heat energy picked up by the heat pump from deep within the earth cannot come flowing out the duct-work in your house by itself - this creation of man allows us to move the heat from one place to the other and naturally it takes some effort (energy) to do this. The most basic test of how this works is just the opposite of what you say in your post. Unplug the heat pump and you get no heat for your house - exactly unlike you propose to unplug some magical generator and end up with free energy to run whatever stereo you want. It doesn't work that way, energy cannot be created from no where - you cannot multiply energy and get more than you started with.

This is the future. And the second law was concocted in the 1800s. What did they know back then!

Constant laws of the universe don't change, no matter how much time passes. People back then knew obviously much more than you do now. I don't know whether you plan to bilk investors out of any money or not, but stop trying to con people into believing you can get something from nothing.

 

[PlatinumGLS]

It is all about the correct RPMs for each situation. Running the engine at the lowest RPM possible is obviously best for fuel economy. And keeping the RPMs at the peak power is of course the best for acceleration. This is exactly why so many auto-companies have invested in CVT transmissions.

But this new transmission is suggested to be much more efficient which would equate to less power loss, better economy and faster acceleration.

Even if the gains don't add up to a 0-60 time of 4 seconds and 150 MPG...any improvement is welcome...I wouldn't mind a stock TDI that did 0-60 in 8 seconds and got 75 MPG

 

[TDILOVE]

If there was a magic bullet there someone would have exploited it by now

this is a false statement, if it were true there would be no more inventions, creations or designing something better.

 

[gern_blanston]

Oh yeah, and the reason we get free energy from Niagra Falls is that we have (for the purpose of this argument, anyway) an infinite power source called 'Mr. Sun'. I don't have a fusion reactor in my heat pump or my TDI.
Where'd I put those doggone Dilithium crystals?!?

 

[madrean]

Man. This is stupid.

 

[GoFaster]

It is not entirely correct that an engine will have lowest fuel consumption when operated at the lowest possible speed. You have to look at the BSFC map and follow the lines of constant horsepower (at whatever horsepower level you are demanding at the time). It will not always be at the lowest possible engine speed. This map can also tell you how much room there is for improvement if you compare it to different engine speeds.

"Efficiency improvement" can only get you so far. As far as I can tell, if you look at it from the "black-box" point of view, this so-called invention is still a device which has shaft power as an input and shaft power as an output with no means of storing anything significant inside it for later use (a conventional manual or automatic transmission also fits this description - it's only the inner workings that are different). The black box CAN NOT be more than 100% efficient. The Toyota/Honda hybrid systems when treated as "black boxes" are examples of transmissions that have an internal "energy storage" so that they can momentarily have greater shaft power output than their input (but it has to be made up later to recharge the battery - somehow).

On flat level ground it is not possible for a 90hp TDI engine to propel this vehicle at 100 km/h at only 600 rpm. The engine doesn't make enough power - even theoretically - until much more than that. And the driver won't be happy with the lugging, vibrating engine that comes with being overgeared, and the engine won't be happy about the pounding that its main bearings are receiving.

For steady-state conditions, it is quite possible to calculate how much the fuel consmption could be reduced using a "black-box" transmission that always uses the ratio for optimum fuel consumption and is 100% efficient. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I do have enough to calculate the following.

We have Cd approx 0.30 and frontal area approx 2 square metres. At 100 km/h and air density 1.2 kg/m3, the thrust required to overcome aerodynamic drag is 278 newtons. The power required is 7.716 kW (about 10 horsepower) - this is quite normal for a mid-size car. If there is NO friction from the tires or bearings or transmission or anything and the engine were 100% efficient - obviously a completely unreasonable scenario - this would require 0.556 kg (i.e. 0.67 litres) of diesel fuel. In reality, the road friction is about half the aero drag at that speed - now you are at about 1 litre per 100 km. People who are capable of driving slower than I am, have actually achieved about 4 litres per 100 km under these conditions, suggesting a combined engine and transmission efficiency of around 25%, which is plausible. The manual tranny is probably around 90% efficient under those conditions, so the engine is probably around 27% - 28% efficient. This can be cross-checked against the BSFC map, which I don't have in front of me - it should be in the ballpark.

For reference, 17 horsepower at 100 km/h (total aero + road friction with 90% transmission efficiency) and 2200 rpm is about 40 lb.ft of torque, which is about 25% of full load at that engine speed for the stock engine.

It is not possible to achieve ANY gear ratio at this low power demand which can reach the maximum-efficiency "island" of around 40% thermal efficiency. It is conceivable by overgearing it and lugging the engine to get maybe 15% - 20% better than stock. THAT'S IT - that's all that can be done without changing the engine.

You could chop half the cylinders off this engine and get close to 40% efficiency of a half-size engine under those conditions for a 50% economy improvement from stock. Real-world improvement WILL be less than this. You will have to floor the accelerator to get anywhere, and as for hills, forget it. So much for 4 seconds to 100 km/h, which isn't even plausible for the standard engine - it requires transferring thermal energy to kinetic energy at a faster rate than the standard engine is capable of doing (i.e. it needs MORE POWER).

You are not going to get better transmission efficiency than Toyota's hybrid system, which includes provision for "storage". We all know how well THOSE have lived up to their stunning promises. Better than a standard design? Definitely. Magical results? NO.

My experience with industrial hydraulic systems is that they normally have rather high power losses.

To put it mildly, the claims being made are overly optimistic.

 

[Davin]

Thanks, GF, took the words right out of my mouth! As for the 0-60 in 4 seconds claim, saGhost's post above covers it... unless the transmission itself is generating extra power somehow (and some of the explanations above seem like they indicate that) it is impossible for a 90hp engine to get a Golf to 60 in 4 seconds regardless of the efficiencies of the various parts.

This invention may have an improvement in efficiency over existing transmission designs, but the 150mpg and 0-6 in 4 sec claims are ludicrous.

I'd like to know more about what you were getting at talking about the heat pump/stirling engine/generator example you mentioned above. Such a system (assuming that you could get a heat pump anywhere near COP of 10 and the other efficiencies bore out) may generate free energy in the $$$ sense, but not in the 2nd law sense. The energy would come from the ambient air outside, which is heated by the sun. So... the energy is coming from somewhere. Your implication was that this transmission gives you extra energy somehow... could you elaborate?

 

[dieseldorf]

Where'd I put those doggone Dilithium crystals?!?

Great material!! It must be Fried-day

 

[dropFROG]

I trump your magical tranny with my Flux Capacitor..
0-60 in -4 seconds.. thats right.. BACK IN TIME BABY....
You'll get there before you left and have more fuel in your tank then you started out with....

 

[TDIMeister]

I trump your magical tranny with my Flux Capacitor..
0-60 in -4 seconds.. thats right.. BACK IN TIME BABY....
You'll get there before you left and have more fuel in your tank then you started out with....

Actually, you'll get to 60 MPH in the same time and use the same amount of gas in the process as a standard DeLorean with all the weight added to it from the flux capacitor, Mr. Fusion, wheels that double as anti-gravity devices, etc. Why? Because until you hit 88 MPH, you're still on gasoline power.

Even in the movies, the writers at least had the good sense to admit that you need ENERGY INPUT to get something out.

 

[JettaJake]

Oil company conspiracies?!? Outdated laws of thermo??!!!!!! lololololol Amusing stuff.

You mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. Does that apply to the overall mechanism of the Sun evaporating water which rises against gravity into the clouds, rains on the hills, fills the Great lakes, and runs over Niagara Falls making FREE electricity and is perpetual compared to Mankind's life on Earth?

Why, yes! It does!

A conventional Freon heat pump can collect 300% of the low grade heat in kilowatt terms and send it to a place of your choosing.

I can certainly think of a place of my choosing, but you might not like it....

Oh, and what becomes of the high grade heat (?!

) in non-kilobunk terms? sheeesh, I mean COME ON! If you collect 100% of ANYTHING, just what's left to collect?

Hey, not to date myself, but I recall a fellow Johnny Carson had on as a guest once....his "thing" was some sorta whiz-bang, water-to-gasoline invention or carburator or whatever....essentially, another "free lunch". uh huh ya, sounds great, but show me the $. I'd imagine Letterman, Leno or O'Brian would offer Mr. tkat an appearance.....as you can see in this thread, there are always people who **really** WANT to believe.

Corollary to the 2nd Law of Thermodymanics: there is no free lunch.

Okay!! ONCE MORE NOW, EVERYBODY SAY IT WITH ME (with 110% effort and enthusiasm) ---> IISTGTBT,IPI

We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming

 

[gdr703]

I'd conjecture that it might get 75mpgUS
That's based on:
At 100km/hr requires 13.25 hp
engine currently runs at 2064 rpm, but could produce the 13.25 hp at 1000rpm, That would be more fuel efficient, so instead of giving 60mpg, you'd get 75mpg.

 

[gern_blanston]

No because once again, the oil industry rules all, and probably paid them all to can the idea.

If the 'Evil Empire of Oil' really quashed such ideas, then wouldn't they have somehow figured out how to make our TDI's unavailable?!?

 

[dieseldorf]

I never met an Evil Oil Empire I didn't like!

 

[GeWilli]

I'd conjecture that it might get 75mpgUS
That's based on:
At 100km/hr requires 13.25 hp
engine currently runs at 2064 rpm, but could produce the 13.25 hp at 1000rpm, That would be more fuel efficient, so instead of giving 60mpg, you'd get 75mpg.

i'd say that a constant velocity tranny...

a couple things should be considered and before we bring up the fact that this "inventor" is qouting mechanical engineering text from 1938

#1 a hydraulic tranny (CVT type) could keep the motor at 90 hp the whole time... 4 seconds? not a chance... anyone got the equation to determine mass (3000 pounds) and a constant 90 hp (4300 rpms) and accelleration? assume 90 and 95 % efficiency (I know there are engineers here that can do it).... GoFaster!!! TDImeister???

#2 at a steady state the TDI is most efficient at the torque peak: 1900 rpms or so... below that the turbo is ineffective and the motor looses efficiency...

if the engine could be kept at 1900 with a very light load that'd be pretty damn cool...

very damn cool.

Not impossible from what it sounds like with this tranny.

The "inventor" suffers from too many years of marketing and fish stories. Rather than being "realistic" he's being more of an advertising guy than an engineer.

The tranny may have a "place" but what about the CVT that Honda's uses and what about other CVTs...

how's the efficiency compared between a mechanical CVT and a hydrostatic CVT...

okay - and - how much is a unit going to cost?

And everyone knows hydraulic units don't last forever... how about performance in cold vs hot weather?

Fluids have this property that changes with temps... how does a -10 degree F morning/cold start affect it?

Has this ever been put into a vehicle? Can it be adapted to an efficient vehicle? Cost, reliability?

The only think i can see as a benefit is the potential to hold a specific engine RPM across an increasing driveshaft rpm....

But keep in mind the TDI starts filling the intake with junk below 2,000 rpms (meaning don't use the motor with more than 20% throttle or your intake will require cleaning and if you can't do it yourself it'll cost major $$$$)

150-200 MPG? Totally completely impossible
4 sec 0-60 with 90 hp? ditto

75 mpg? Possible
8-10 second 0-60? Possible...

too bad people can't be realistic with their passion...

 

[gern_blanston]

...if the engine could be kept at 1900 with a very light load that'd be pretty damn cool...

Exactly. And my 5-speed, which keeps my engine just slightly above 1900 rpm, lightly loaded, at 55 mph, is pretty damned cool. But not 200 mpg cool. (That's why my first post suggested perpetual-motion machines.

) GeWilli's right, it's all smoke-and-mirrors-and-if-I-say-it-fast-it-sounds-pretty-good B.S.

 

[GoFaster]

1500 kg (3300 lbs - include the driver!) accelerated to 27.778 m/s (100 km/h) on level ground has 578704 joules of kinetic energy, which can only have come from the powertrain. To do that in 4 seconds requires 144 kW of mechanical energy averaged over 4 seconds - that's 190 horsepower.

But this is not realistic, because delivering that 190 horsepower in the first moment off the line requires the forward thrust to approach infinity. Traction will limit the forward acceleration - and on a front-wheel-drive car (wrong-wheel-drive car!) it is an even bigger issue. Accelerating to 100 km/h in 4 seconds requires acceleration of about 0.75 g, which is normally not even possible at all in a normal front-drive car that only has 60% - 65% of its static weight on the drive wheels, and less than that when accelerating.

If you somehow manage to achieve accelerating at 0.75 g, then maintaining that 0.75 g acceleration while you are already travelling at 100 km/h requires 306 kW of power (about 411 horsepower) - plus a bit more to cover the frictional losses and aerodynamic drag. That's a more realistic estimate of what it takes to do zero to 100 km/h in 4 seconds.

You CAN get a 90hp 1500 kg car to 100 km/h in 4 seconds (or less) if you drop it out of an airplane ...

 

[Powder Hound]

I agree.

According to someone, bumble bees are not suppose to be able to fly ....... well?

Yeah, that statement was made by engineers that don't know enough about fluid dynamics and reynolds numbers. At the reynolds number a bumblebee flys at, air gets 'sticky' and is relatively much more dense than it is to you. Suffice it to say, some engineers don't know what they're talking about.

And, according to the above, there's someone who claims to be an "inventor" with an "international patent". Really? FYI: there's no such thing as an international patent. Each country does its own. And the chinese, which have (well for the last 5000 years, anyway) never shown any interest in patents and protecting someone else's, to have awarded any patent based on outlandish claims, well, that is a bit much also.

The above mentioned inventor, to keep from being shown as a charlatan or flim-flam man, should produce said invention, complete with the miracle motor that would be required, and let an independent lab verify the claims. If true, it would be world beating headline news. If false, the reality of the naysayers should keep him quiet. Well, if he has any self respect, anyway.

So, let's just wait for the invention. Forget the claims, outrageous or true. Prove it.

 

[K5ING]

I guess I had better jump back into this, since I'm the one who started it. I had originally written him, asking him if a TDI engine would be a match to his transmission, and would be possible to power a larger car using a TDI engine combined with his transmission.

I told him about TDIClub.com, and he got on here, read the posts, and thought he would join and try to explain it himself. He has not mentioned money or funding to me, or the board, at any time that I've noticed, so comments about him being a crook are uncalled for. Also, it's fine to tell him he may be wrong, and explain why, but IMHO rude comments, and comments just making fun of him are uncalled for since he's taking the time and effort to explain it to everyone. We don't do that to each other, do we? He's here at my invitation, so please play nice. Just my two cent's worth.

He really believes he has something here. It's more than a simple CTV. Do a search for his name and/or Hydristor. He, and his Hydristor IVT (infinitely variable transmission) have been written up in several trade journals. Favorably I might add. It also wouldn't hurt to take a good look at the three patents he has on it, just to see how it works.

I also told him that it was his claims more than anything else that is putting people off. Even if the claims were true (and I don't know if they are or not), doing 0-60 in 4 seconds would put so much strain on the associated parts that the car wouldn't be able to take it. Imagine the stress on the CV joints, axles, not to mention the tires! I also mentioned that while he talks about cruising along at 600 rpm, our cars (and others I suspect) idle at 950 rpm and won't go any lower than that. I also think the turbo would be damaged running at only 1000 rpm.

Mr. Kasmer has the tendency to talk in technospeak most of the time. I'm used to that since my ex-father-in-law was the youngest member of the Manhattan Project in Oak Ridge, TN., being a nuclear chemist by education (how many of those were around in 1944?). Asking him the time will get you 30 minutes of solar vs. sidereal time, the Mayan calendar, and how two quartz clocks next to each other will be inaccurate due to the vibrating quartz crystals interfering with each other on a micro level...and so on. Listening to him is like reading a technical paper. It's frustrating to those of us without advanced degrees.

I've suggested that he might want to tone down both the claims and the technospeak a bit. Even if it does what he says, it's always better to underpromise and overdeliver (if possible) than the other way around.

Like I said, I don't know myself if it works or not. I think it has potential, and even if you cut the claims in half, it's worth looking into.

 

[NoSmoke]

Like I said, I don't know myself if it works or not. I think it has potential, and even if you cut the claims in half, it's worth looking into.

I believe it already has been sufficiently "looked into" (by GoFaster and others). You do not need the thing sitting on a test bench (or in a TDI) to realize that the claims are not credible. As has been pointed out, even a 100% efficient transmission (ie. no losses) would not produce anywhere near the touted benefits (and no matter what the provided gear ratio).

This "invention" has pseudo-science written all over it as it does not pass even elementary engineering analysis, the inventor's technobabble rhetoric notwithstanding. BTW, continuously variable hydraulic transmissions (which I gather this is) are commonly found on lawn tractors and small farm tractors - they are used because they provide selection of exact speed and easy forward/reversing. They also tend to be quite inefficient compared to manual transmissions.

I'd avoid this thing as I would the fabled 150 mpg carburetor.

 

[tkat]

ok, I have been contacted by a major construction equipment
manufacturer who wants me to build a prototype for a skid steer machine. I can't mention names yet. The last time I did that, somebody in Australia tried to be part of a teleconference between me and the company's engineers. So
I have to be non descript. Anyhow, this company wants to
build the Hydristor themselves and pay me a royalty. That is a great business model since another very large hydraulics (actually two of them) wants exclusive rights and they are willing to pay big bucks. I am not for sale. My kids and yours cannot have me bury this technology. I
will stay the course. I am building a Hydristor converter for a Ford and Tom Sneva (4 time Indy500 winner) is helping me by financing the first one. I am hoping to build a second one for the military and make the same converter fit both a Ford Expedition and a HumVee. If I prove any substantial gain through this, I have gotten the interest of a VERY wealthy individual (again I cant say the name yet)
and this individual will consider putting together a 200 billion dollar consortium to change EVERY car and truck on the US highways to the Hydristor and I believe we can double the average fuel economy on the highways from 20.8 to 40+. We could stop the oil wars and not drill the Alaska preserves. We have to put a stop to the raping of the planet for the bottom line profit today at the terrible future expense of our children. This is my dream. Ken, you are concerned that I am spending my limited time answering questions from this club. I appreciate your concern but I must at least try to spread the word about the possible. The Hydristor technology was always there. I did not invent it, I discovered it, and it can change the World for our kids. I hope to win the support of all the club members and I am ready to discuss anything with anyone. Tom Kasmer

 

[whitedog]

I have 40 pages of this thread printed and I hope to make the time this weekend to read more of what has been said here.

Initially, I am of the mind that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but will wade through what was said here.

 

[nicklockard]

Even if the gains don't add up to a 0-60 time of 4 seconds and 150 MPG...any improvement is welcome...I wouldn't mind a stock TDI that did 0-60 in 8 seconds and got 75 MPG

Now that seems entirely possible.