Porsche 911 UK Enthusiasts Online Community Discussion Forum GB

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

A solution to making our petrol cars greener.

bazhart

Barcelona
Joined
20 May 2009
Messages
1,341
As the founder of a PORSCHE BUSINESS specialising in engine remanufacturing and performance upgrades, you might wonder why I love our all electric Peugeot 2008GT and how just about perfect it is for LOCAL DRIVING – plug in recharge – not expensive and not polluting the atmosphere for our grandchildren to choke on. Yes it is no good for distance driving and the mileage quoted is at 30 mph not motorway speeds. As long as you realise what it is best at (and many people have a family car only used locally) there is nothing wrong with it.

However – I wonder how many of you also realise that we @ Hartech have for the last 3 years been pioneering an amazing solution to improve the economy (and therefore reduce the emissions) of the gasoline powered cars we all love (and that makes them faster and more responsive into the bargain as well).

We managed this simple solution after discovering that a lot of the established science that everyone believes (including us originally) was actually wrong, most of the R & D results published are irrelevant or misleading and no one has addressed the issues of very high fuel consumption in the driving conditions we are all forced to use most of the time in preference to the 'tuning" of the cars for the very rare occasions that we want to go extremely fast (that results in very much higher fuel consumption most of the time we are driving them).

If it was a set up to preserve fossil fuel consumption it couldn't have been done better! (just saying).

To work it all out we had to unravel misleading graphs and conclusions (that are universally believed) and prove scientifically why they were wrong (but you are always on a loser trying to persuade anyone their basic foundations beliefs are actually misplaced).

We have built several test cars (all fulfilling their objectives and available for actual driving - proving the theory) but finding the time to drive the around while recording and analysing data is difficult when there is so much else we need to spend that time on.

We are already achieving very significant improvements in economy but it is extremely expensive work when our micro company has to survive from income in a difficult business environment (with this R & D funded by the shareholders up until now) and so we naturally would like to find ways to receive some external financial support – which is proving almost impossible.

Government Innovation funding sources use established 'experts" to verify the technology - who still think the Sun goes round the Earth and reject the concept on grounds we have absolutely proved wrong while funding other projects that are not yet proven and have much more limited impact.

Large businesses express interest but want the final data before committing (that will take a long time at the rate we can afford to collect it) and yet all the established automotive engineers we have both discussed the concepts with, shown the scientific proof to and allowed to drive the cars agree it is absolutely astounding and right.

Crowd funding has been suggested (but I don't even know how to handle it or if it is likely to be worthwhile).

It would be nice to publicise the solution as well but then we would be asking magazines (and perhaps TV) to promote a solution that preserves the use of fossil fuel when there are some that want it abandoning totally and immediately (which would actually increase global warning a lot). But these organisations are instead funding work on alternatives (or publicising them) rather than improving the USE of fossil fuels instead (and many other projects that are funded or promoted will make no difference whatsoever but are politically acceptable) so the whole area is still a minefield.

The 'Carbon" cost of replacing gasoline fuelled cars too soon is actually very much higher than keeping older cars running for longer (and the necessary infrastructure will take even longer) – so improving their fuel consumption while reducing emissions of existing cars is therefore a massive overall potential benefit capable of making a genuine global impact on greenhouse gas reduction.

So on the one hand we have a viable proven solution and on the other it seems almost impossible to fund it sufficiently to bring it to the attention of those that can make a difference.

Any ideas very welcome – please headline E-Mail replies to this topic to me at the address below with 'Hartech Eco-Power Solution" - thanks.

Barry Hart (Technical Director) AKA 'Baz" @ Hartech [email protected]
 
Said it before - what you're going through is exactly the same as Frank Whittle with the jet engine. It's not scientific any more, just political.
 
Hi Baz

Sounds promising, is this something to benefit our Porsche sports cars ? thanks
 
Well yes - but it kind of came about partly by accident.

I have always understood three things differently to most people in the engine game, (1) concentrating on torque wins races and provides better road cars than just tuning for peak BHP figures (because we have to drive through the gear revs for each gear change to the next gear and need the maximum torque within that band - not a buzz box) (2) our cars are over-geared anyway and most drivers will never reach high revs in top gear. The rev drop is larger in lower gears and that's where we drive them most often - so a nice wide power band is better than enlarging the porting and flow areas just to create better BHP figures on full throttle (3) Tuning to increase BHP is only properly beneficial if you can also change the overall gearing to suit (and sometimes the internal ratios as well) and since this is unlikely - tuning for the ratios we already have can be more beneficial.

So when I designed our capacity conversions I did so to enhance that "mid range" more than the "top end" (which was also increased just not by as much as the mod range) and everyone seems to love them. The shock came when owners reported improvements in MPG of around 10-15% and I wanted to understand why.

After three years of testing we uncovered some amazing things - not least of which was how small throttle opening angles, cfm and revs most of us use most of the time and that driven like this our engines are extremely thermally inefficient.

From all that we worked out how to make them even more economical (which automatically means lower emissions) and that this might enable us to use them legally in more locations and more years - but what was also a bit of a shock to me was that the resulting ECO-POWER cars are much more tractable, accelerate faster and are much nicer to drive as well.

We have applied that technology to standard capacity and enlarged capacity versions and it works for both - unfortunately using Gen 1 5 chain engines initially (as we had a couple knocking about) when we think when our next step is taken using 3 chain engines - the benefits will be significantly higher.

Also extended it to a 9A1 Gen 2 but encountered ECU plausibility issues with the much enlarged and complicated system on them that we struggled to solve (soon to receive more expert help with),

Overall we found things we didn't expect and we don't think many realise - that our engines work quite differently to how many thought they did.

So the net outcome should enable ICE's to be used for more years and with significantly reduced emissions (and of course also works with new fuels as well).

Because the things we discovered were unexpected - we had to move our goal posts a few times to optimise the benefits and that delays statistical analysis to support our claims - but there is much more to come soon as we obtain more data results and put them into scientific notation.

Baz
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,567
Messages
1,446,408
Members
49,714
Latest member
amitr
Back
Top