HP2G/PELMEAR V8: ONLY 200 POUNDS?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Team HP2g's departure from the Progressive Automotive X-Prize and the June 2, 2009, announcement of an Ohio production facility for the Pelmear "mystery" motor has a number of internet wags in a tither.

Some internet "experts" are quick to brand HP2g and Pelmear as frauds.

Others, question whether any V8 in a twenty-two-year-old Mustang could ever achieve 80+ m.p.g. and 400 horsepower.

A few, including "Truth With Speedzzter" are withholding judgment until we see more.

Thus far, Doug Pelmear has kept the "miracle" Mustang's hood locked tighter than Fort Knox. However Pelmear did suggest some interesting details to the local Ohio press about the Pelmear V8:

While the E85-only engine was not on display for the general public, Pelmear did reveal that it was quite a bit smaller than the normal engine of today and only weighs about 200 pounds. He also showed the documentation that he had taken it to an Ohio EPA station last Friday for an emissions test. His emissions were half of the legal limit and that mark was achieved without a catalytic converter.

Is the HP2g/Pelmear "mystery" motor in fact a pocket-sized, ultra-low-friction, forced-induction engine with an array of electronic engine management strategies and perhaps some sort of unthrottled, lean-burn prechamber ignition? A downsized Miller-Atkinson-Otto (MAO) cycle engine that is turbocharged within an inch of its life on 85-percent Ethanol could possibly produce significant increases in low-power fuel efficiency.

Given that Pelmear has suggested that some of the proprietary technology was first envisioned by his grandfather back in the 1940s, could the "mystery" motor be some sort of high-tech Ford V8-60 derivative?

The original V8-60 was a 136-cubic-inch (2.23 liter) flathead engine designed to skirt European displacement taxes and U.K. bore size taxes. It simply lacked the torque necessary for satisfactory performance in Ford's full-sized cars, but was a modest hit in American midget oval track racing. The V8-60 had a tiny 2.6" bore and a short 3.2" stroke.

A modern turbocharged "2 liter" V8 could take advantage of multiple overhead valves, direct injection, cylinder deactivation, and valve timing alterations to dramatically boost low-speed efficiency.

But 200 pounds?

That suggests that maybe even two liters is on the high side of displacement estimates. Most certainly it excludes cast iron as a predominant material and the antique V8-60 as anything more than an inspirational starting point.

The last of the Cosworth Indy V8s (the XF) was approximately 162 cubic inches (2.65 liters) and weighed in at a svelte 264.6 pounds (120 kg). That's about 1.6 pounds per cubic inch. Theoretically, downsizing the XF to two liters at the same CID-to-pounds ratio could result in a new engine around 200 pounds dry. However, the XF was hardly a low-cost production-style engine.

And while a 400 h.p. road-car V8 would have only half the horsepower of the low-boost, 12,000 r.p.m. XF, it would need to go 1,000 times longer between rebuilds to be practical. Moreover, a fairly dominant percentage of the road-car V8's duty cycle would be at net power outputs of less than 30 horsepower (and would necessarily be so to achieve fuel consumption within the ballpark Mr. Pelmear suggests).

But a road-car V8 would not need to be a structural member of the chassis (which was a key feature of Cosworth V8s starting with the legendary DFV) which theoretically could allow for some additional lightening.

Current power density assumptions suggest that about the minimum displacement for a 400 h.p. alcohol-fueled engine of reasonable potential durability would be in the 66-100 cubic inch range. For example, RB Racing sells air-cooled Harley-Davidson style Vee-twin turbo "Orca" engines with similar power-per-cube outputs (notwithstanding only two valves per cylinder). Of course, even making an off-the-shelf 400 h.p. motorcycle engine function adequately in an automobile would be a daunting task. Moreover, nothing suggests that any of the turbo Orcas would yield 80+ m.p.g. in a lightweight motorcycle, much less a compact automobile. Thus, the HP2g?Pelmear "mystery" motor would have to be something more than just a tiny V8 with a turbo.

The design challenges of creating a hyper-efficient micro-V8 for highway use would be significantly different than for an 800 h.p. turbocharged Indy Car engine or a 500h.p. Harley. Whether HP2g/Pelmear have achieved such a "breakthrough" remains to be conclusively proven. It is premature to speculate either for or against the Pelmear "mystery" motor.

NOTE: This news story contains unverified information based on forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 27E of the Securities Act of 1934. Statements contained in this report that are not historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain. Actual performance and results may differ materially from that projected or suggested herein due to certain risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, ability to obtain financing and regulatory and shareholder approvals for anticipated actions.

Truth With Speedzzter is wholly unaffiliated with HP2g, LLC, Doug Pelmear, Revenge Designs, Inc. or anyone affiliated with these entities. All trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective holders and any use herein is under the "fair use" provision of U.S. Copyright law.

WHY AN ECOBOOST V8?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

“Why an EcoBoost V8?”

1. Better breathing (more valve curtain area possible for a given displacement) with better port velocities.

2. Increased firing pulses per crankshaft revolution provides smoother torque delivery.

3. Only a V8 can produce the classic V8 burble. Six cylinders sound . . . like sixes. A
“buzzin’ half dozen” simply doesn’t sound as good as a proper V8. (Even V8s of less than two liters sound like V8s)

4. Higher RPM potential in modified form with direct injection because injector dwell time is less.

5. No American manufacturer has built a world-class turbocharged V8 . . . ever (the Oldsmoblie Jetfire and the V8 Turbo Trans-Am were poorly done and did not have DOHC or modern engine controls).

6. Heritage: Harley-Davidson is known for V-Twins (even though that's not the best for high power density) and it's part of their brand persona. Similarly, Ford introduced the mass-market monoblock V8 to the world in 1932 and the 135-cube V8-60 (later a Simca engine) in 1937. Ford V8s have been legendary in 70+ years of motorsports. Ford has led American V8 development with its Modular and Boss/Hurricane engines in recent years. An EcoBoost V8 would be a worthy successor to this tradition and heritage.

7. Cylinder deactivation: Although Honda and GM successfully deactivate 3 of 6 cylinders, cutting 4 of 8 is inherently less vibration prone.

8. Motorsports: An EcoBoost V8 (if it were small enough in displacement) could homologate a hand-grenade-sized V8 for several forms of grassroots motorsports. A larger EcoBoost V8 would also be a boon to grassroots motorsports.

9. Efficiency: The current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s lack sufficient fuel efficiency for the coming CAFE standards. An EcoBoost V8 could increase off boost efficiency.

(Probably what will eventually happen someday is a computer-controlled, electrically-assisted Miller/Atkinson/Otto-cycle (MAO) engine with a clutched Eaton TVS, split-pulse turbocharging, intercooling, and direct Ethanol/E-85 injection. Such a MAO engine would allow for dramatic off-boost efficiency gains (Atkinson Cycle with cylinder deactivation, hybrid electric torque assist, and engine start-stop), low-boost efficiency gains (Miller Cycle), instant torque upon full throttle acceleration (via the TVS blower operating in the Otto Cycle, transitioning to larger-than-otherwise split-pulse turbos), an even broader torque curve than the current EcoBoost engines, waste energy recovery at mid and high R.P.M. (via the turbos) and dramatically increased power density. An EcoBoost V8s would be the first step toward the MAO engine. While a MAO engine would take a large amount of computer processing power to manage its transitions, it would not be as hard to manage as an HCCI or HCCI/Otto-cycle engine.

10. Intake ram-tuning/variable geometry intake: Unlike the current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s, an EcoBoost V8 could use a variable geometry intake manifold for Helmholtz resonance tuning, and multiple torque peaks (Ford, if it were so inclined could also add some intake runner length to the Eaton supercharged Modular V8s (ala Saleen & Edelbrock), but it’s more likely they’d do it with a turbo engine)

11. Halo Effect: V8 EcoBoost engines would stand out as unique in a sea of similarly-sized turbo sixes that will likely flood the market as CAFE requires increased power densities.

12. Camshaft timing: V8s can run wilder cams with acceptable levels of low-speed driveablity because of the increased number of firing pulses per revolution. Thus an EcoBoost V8 could potentially not have to sacrifice as much cam timing on the altar of the idle smoothness that the Japanese-dominated marketplace expects.

13. Dashes the “Gas Guzzler” stereotype: Many uninformed people believe that V8s are inherently thirsty. Displacement, not number of cylinders is the primary factor in fuel consumption. Thus a properly-sized EcoBoost V8 would go a long way in rebutting the mistaken belief that V8s cannot be fuel efficient.


WHY COMPARE THE 2010 TAURUS TO JAPANESE TUNER CARS?

Comparison of the WRX/EVO to the 2010 Taurus SHO is not as unreasonable as it might seem. Each of these cars are all-wheel-drive performance cars using turbocharged engines. The EVO and the SHO have the same basic layout (transversely mounted engines). Each of these cars are four-door sedans. Thus, it’s reasonable to see the SHO as a larger, “grown-up,” Americanized version of a Japanese WRC homologation car.