just wondering before I go to sleep

http://www.legendarycollect...our-exclusive-video/

Not sure, there was a head for sale on CL a while back that was his design. It was stripped down and looked brand new.

To be honest there has been many reasons given but no one knows what to believe.

I met Smokey and loved all his work. He was as sharp as they come. But he also could tell a story 5 different ways. He never lied just told it different depending on the need. Kind of like when he said he never cheated but we know better. I really don't think it worked as well in all cases as it was claimed. I think in controled conditions he may have seen some results but it was not something that could be done easy in the real world. His book gives a convoluted reason but I did not buy it. If I recall he tried to sell the rights but never did.

He also was getting older sicker and really had a lot of other things going on.

If you have never read his 3 volume book it is a must for any Smokey fan.

I may have to get the book out again and reread the story. It did not say much on the Fiero but it did on the other engines he used the system on. Most were Chryslers.

quote Originally posted by hyperv6: He never lied just told it different depending on the need. Kind of like when he said he never cheated but we know better. I really don't think it worked as well in all cases as it was claimed. I think in controled conditions he may have seen some results but it was not something that could be done easy in the real world.

I think this is the big catcher right here. Not to go too far off topic and ponder external issues, but there seems to be too much focus on the actual novelty of Yunick's design and the things it does that a normal gasoline-powered engine doesn't, rather than the actual practical implications that the design requires. And this in itself is the big issue - people just assume that what one person has designed, and what likely worked some of the times under controlled conditions worked for the car, should with eventual work be able to be applied to all vehicles. If that was the case, then every turbo build on the exact same build of engine using the same exact parts should theoretically produce exactly the same power, which as we know due to a good handful of factors is not always the case.

The likely truth behind Yunick's design is he probably didn't "stop" it per say because of why you'd think he did. The realization probably came to fruition that the design in it's current form only worked under controlled circumstances, in addition to requiring a lot of work, research, and testing, to even fathom applying to any sort of other vehicle, and simply was too difficult for Yunick to pursue design further (most potential buyers of such technology probably labeled it as too risky [why change what works?] or indeed just saw it as not practical).

Again, there are probably many issues and sides to the story in regards to the design.

quote Originally posted by hyperv6: Kind of like when he said he never cheated but we know better

he didn't cheat, he just figured if it wasn't in the rules it was fair game!

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: he didn't cheat, he just figured if it wasn't in the rules it was fair game!

If you read his book he did cheat at different times. He ran a hidden supercharger for a good while in NASCAR in the 50's and never got caught.
But many of his other things were like Penske and Donohue the gray areas where the rules did not go.

Jr Johnson was also like Smokey working the gray areas but he broke a rule or two. The big engine he won the Winston with DW was well hidden once he clutched it.

I was lucky to have a teacher who was friends with Smokey and I also got to meet him through work back in the 90's. It was great to hear him speak on different things. It was only a pain to speak to him since he by this point could hardly hear. You had to yell at him or write things on a dry erase board he carried.

I have a poster of him with the Chevelle Stock car that he signed for me I still need to hang up.

I got to spend some time speaking to Jr Johnson at Goodyears test track too. I love to hear the old stories from these guys.

The bottom line is on this engine it was far from worked out and I think he hit a wall with the project. If it has been perfected the MFG would have been all over this. It is a lot cheaper to buy this vs spend billions on new engines.

I was joking, but IIRC, "it didn't say I couldn't" was a very common phrase around smokey. I do know he was the reason for many of nascar's rules...

Smokey was an innovator, crew chief, master engine builder, successful racer, author, writer and he held over a dozen automotive product patents. However, the claims that he made for his Fiero were just off the wall. The claims of 50 mpg and 260HP for his Fiero with the hot air Duke engine were heavily exaggerated. It had a turbo that he called a mixer but come on, 260 HP from a Duke?? Notice that he never released any dyno tests. As for mileage, a stock Duke Fiero with a 5 speed will get 40-42 MPG. The 50 mpg figure was a stretch but it might have been possible. None-the-less this all made for good press in Popular Science magazine
Smokey was skilled at creating controversy and things such as the miracle Fiero kept his readers coming back for more and kept Smokeys name in front of the automotive industry. A couple of years ago the Yunick Fiero was at the Fiero Factory and Eric Schneck, a member of this forum drove the car. I beleive that there was a post on his driving impressions.

------------------
" THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, ZZP Intercooler, 3.4" Pulley, N* TB, LS1 MAF, Flotech Exhaust Autolite 104's Custom CAI 4T65eHD w. custom axles, HP Tuners VCM Suite.
"THE COLUSSUS"
87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H
" ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "

[This message has been edited by Dennis LaGrua (edited 09-14-2011).]

Henry was a master of exploiting a loophold or rule. By definition, his claims needed to be taken with a grain of salt because he was so good at that exploitation. Heck, who else would have thought about building close to a 7/8 scale chevelle? nobody could figure out what was done until finally they checked the car with templates and found it underscale. Same goes for the fuel tank. If the tank could only hold XX gallons, then increase the fuel line to hold additional fuel. Genius in his own right. The fiero project worked, but was not idiotproof like what manufacturers wanted.

Smokey's Fiero is real, and it really works. It was at the at the Fiero Factory swap meet twice. However, his design was unstable. Tony Allers, owner of the car, said it caught fire twice.
His design is basically a turbo charger, but it compresses the air AFTER the fuel is added, not before. This is a potentially explosive thing to do. Perhaps with modern computer control, it could be made to work safely.

Smoky was renowned for finding loopholes in the rules. WRT the hot vapor design, the concensus was that the main reason for increased efficiency and power was the turbocharger he used for compressing the fuel/air mixture. In other words, it was a turbocharged car, of course it got better gas mileage and power, that's what turbos do.

There were reports of more than one explosion in the intake system that blew the intake manifold apart, one of the downsides of having heated fuel and air mixture in a closed space.

Modern engines get more power and more gas mileage, and do it without exploding.

quote Originally posted by TopNotch: Smokey's Fiero is real, and it really works. It was at the at the Fiero Factory swap meet twice. However, his design was unstable. Tony Allers, owner of the car, said it caught fire twice. His design is basically a turbo charger, but it compresses the air AFTER the fuel is added, not before. This is a potentially explosive thing to do. Perhaps with modern computer control, it could be made to work safely.

I realize the car existed and your info is correct. That 2M4 Fiero did inject an air fuel mixture before the turbo and by doing so became a bomb on wheels. No matter what you do putting raw gasoline into a hot 400 or 500*F turbo can never be safe. In all probably the heat caused the gasoline to vaporize completely.That is why I said 50mpg may have been possible, but 260 HP from a Duke?. It just isn't going to happen.

------------------
" THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, ZZP Intercooler, 3.4" Pulley, N* TB, LS1 MAF, Flotech Exhaust Autolite 104's Custom CAI 4T65eHD w. custom axles, HP Tuners VCM Suite.
"THE COLUSSUS"
87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H
" ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "

why? because it was mostly BS.

no doubt he was clever & great at rulebook "workarounds"

but - the 100 mpg carb - no. but, if you want more of that stuff, watch a documentary called "gashole". it has more conspiracy stuff on these old vapor carbs

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Smoky was renowned for finding loopholes in the rules. WRT the hot vapor design, the concensus was that the main reason for increased efficiency and power was the turbocharger he used for compressing the fuel/air mixture. In other words, it was a turbocharged car, of course it got better gas mileage and power, that's what turbos do.

That is not what what turbos do. What turbos do, is use more fuel, by shoving more air into the cylinders. It does however, let you use a smaller physical displacement engine, make the same power, and get better MPG, than a larger N/A engine might. Less cylinders generally means less fuel. Adding a turbo on a small 4 cylinder will increase the power, and use more fuel than the N/A 4 cylinder, but still less fuel than the V6. But simply bolting a turbo on your car is not going to get you more MPG. Otherwise, every car and truck sold by GM would have a turbo on it, just for dealing with CARB/CAFE requirements.

quote Originally posted by dobey: Adding a turbo on a small 4 cylinder will increase the power, and use more fuel than the N/A 4 cylinder, but still less fuel than the V6. But simply bolting a turbo on your car is not going to get you more MPG. Otherwise, every car and truck sold by GM would have a turbo on it, just for dealing with CARB/CAFE requirements.

What about Ford's "Eco-Boost" engines. They get better mileage than equivalent NA engines.

quote Originally posted by TopNotch: What about Ford's "Eco-Boost" engines. They get better mileage than equivalent NA engines.

quote The first engine in the EcoBoost series is the V6. The engine first appeared in the 2007 Lincoln MKR Concept under the name TwinForce.[9] The engine was designed to deliver power and torque output equivalent to a typical 6.0 L or larger displacement V8 while achieving at least 15% better fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse emissions compared to the V8 engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine

There are a lot more technology changes in those engines, than simply slapping a turbo on a 3.5L V6.

And they don't seem to get that great of MPG. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/...hiddenField=Findacar

The N/A LLT 312 HP in the 2010/11 Camaro does better than that. Heck, the LS3/L99 in the Camaro almost do better than that: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/...hiddenField=Findacar

[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 09-14-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dobey: That is not what what turbos do.

The Physics of Turbocharging

A turbocharger uses energy from the exhaust flowing out of the engine to compress the air flowing into the engine. The energy of the hot flowing exhaust is usually wasted. In a turbo the exhaust is used to spin blades on a shaft. The exhaust exits the turbocharger cooler than it goes in because of the energy that is transferred to the shaft in the turbocharger.

quote Originally posted by dobey: But simply bolting a turbo on your car is not going to get you more MPG. Otherwise, every car and truck sold by GM would have a turbo on it, just for dealing with CARB/CAFE requirements.

There are disadvantages to installing turbochargers on vehicles. Increased cost and complexity are just a couple of those.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: A turbocharger uses energy from the exhaust flowing out of the engine to compress the air flowing into the engine. The energy of the hot flowing exhaust is usually wasted. In a turbo the exhaust is used to spin blades on a shaft. The exhaust exits the turbocharger cooler than it goes in because of the energy that is transferred to the shaft in the turbocharger.

quote from web site you linked to: But, where turbos really make things better is in decreasing the size of the engine needed to make the car go. Since a turbocharger can make a smaller engine create more power automotive engineers can design a lighter, smaller car with the same power of a heavier and larger vehicle. This weight savings can contribute significantly to fuel economy and drivability.

Firstly, the bit you quoted from your article said nothing about increased fuel economy. What it said is that some difference in air pressure traveling through a circular set of blades in a certain orientation causes them to spin, and that spinning causes the shaft they are attached to to spin, which spins another set of blades, which pumps some more air into the engine.

That extra air pumping into the engine means the engine is now running leaner than it was without the extra air, which means more fuel needs to be added to compensate and keep the AFR in check. More fuel means you are using more gas, and not less.

Secondly, the increased fuel economy comes from using a smaller engine to make the same amount of power by using a turbo on the smaller engine. The smaller engine needs less fuel, either beause it has smaller cylinders and less air will fit in them, or because it has less cylinders. It also weighs less, and therefore less power is necessary to move the car. The weight savings are almost always going to be insignificant in terms of increasing MPG in this case though, as the weight matters most starting from rest, and the difference in weight isn't really enough total savings to make a big difference in power needed to move from a stop. The smaller displacement engine, with fewer cylinders, though, can net a big savings. Aerodynamics of the vehicle also plays a significant role.

Go throw a turbo on your car, without doing anything else at all, and see how much more MPG you get. I bet it will be somewhere in the range of -4.

If you're going to post a link as a rebuttal to what I said, at least read the whole thing and comprehend it first next time. The use of "efficiency" in the article you posted generally refers to the increase in power. Where they are discussing fuel efficiency they use the term "fuel economy" instead. Your original statement I was point out the error of, was that you implied adding a turbo will give you better gas mileage. It won't, unless as part of your adding a turbo, you are swapping the engine as well, to either be one of smaller displacement, or one which has other technologies in place which have already increased the fuel economy of the engine. Or unless you also reprogram the ECM to just run the engine lean. But you don't need a turbo to do that.

Dobey, I am just going to chime in for a second.

From my training in the field of performance engine design, a turbocharger DOES increase fuel economy. This does work AGAINST common knowlage. However, its not the MAX power the engine makes, its the EFFICIENCY it uses the fuel. So lets say a 500hp engine, right? Are you using the 500hp worth of gas all the time? no. You gently drive a turbo vehicle you will get MORE efficiency from the engine, than a N/A engine, which is putting more fuel into the cylinder to try and match the same power rating.

And don't argue that no engineers have put a turbo on a vehicle for JUST fuel efficiency gains. Because, in fact, Saab's 9-5 Turbo V6 has a 3PSI (a whole 3PSI! WOW!) turbo on ONE exhaust manifold, for the only reason of increasing its fuel economy. It is listed in its documentation that the turbo is not for a performance application, but only for increasing fuel economy.

It does work against common knowlage, I know, and wrapping your head around it might be confusing. Where people get "Turbos only decrease fuel economy" generally get it from people who put turbos on origonally N/A engines, they generally don't tune it for an economical ride, they tune it for power. The turbo itself is not what killed its fuel economy, moreso the application the turbo was used for. If you use a turbo JUST for economy, nothing else, it does work

it goes all back to the Physics of Turbocharging, that Jazzman linked to. It has to do with using the energy of the exhaust, generally which is wasted, to apply pressure to the intake air. In physics, remember, energy cannot be created, OR destroyed, but can be converted. But no energy conversion is 100% efficient and will always create a byproduct. Gasoline has stored energy inside of it, it has what is called "latent energy" When you burn it, you are creating the heat, but also pressure, turning the engine over, blah blah, you know how it works. Now the extra heat is wasted and pushed out of the cylinder, the turbo actually converts this energy back into the intake side.

In short, its using the wasted energy to produce more rotational energy with less fuel consumption. It makes more power per gallon of gas, and you never need to use all the power at once, so, lets think science

On a non turbo car, 100hp= xxlbs of fuel. I don't know the exact number, so for examples sake, lets say 1lb. on a Turbo car, that same 1lb of fuel will give you 120hp. Again, for example, not actual numbers. You're still using the energy from the burn, as a N/A car would, HOWEVER you are taking its byproduct, the heat, and routing it back into the engine, by converting the heat into compressed air, which allows more fuel, which allows for bigger bang, etc etc. It's a loop, but the heat energy is now being re-used, instead of wasted.

EDIT: A Supercharger, on the otherhand, will ALWAYS decrease your fuel economy, due to it using the rotational power of the engine, and using engine's power to compress air. it is using the already used energy, to make more energy, which will in turn, decrease fuel economy and make more power, due to losses through the exhaust.

FINAL NOTE: I do NOT want to start an argument, just throwing my two cents in. I probably won't even check back to see your responses.

Now my post is a LITTLE on topic, about Smokey, since his turbo is used for economy. it atomizes the fuel much better than conventional injection methods. But, yes, its a bomb on wheels because atomized fuel, near a hot hot exhaust... it will catch fire. I am sure someone can invent a similar system, that is less.... dangerous.

[This message has been edited by Racing_Master (edited 09-14-2011).]

The Hot Vapor fiero was "similar" to the detroit OEM turbos in the late 70's early 80's that used a suck through design (79/80 ford 2.3L turbo and the 81 301 Turbo Trans Am, just to name a couple). These were all short lived because with the carb upstream of the turbo, the air fuel mixture was heated as it went through the turbo. The fuel was more atomized as it passed through the turbine wheel, but picked up excessive heat which made it prone to auto ignite and sometimes didn't wait till it was in the cylinder with the valves closed to do so.

Think about it, while at WOT there is plenty of cool air/fuel passing over the intake turbine housing to keep things in check, but after you get out of the throttle and shut it down with the turbo glowing red hot, it starts idling with minimal air flow to take away the heat building up on the intake turbine wheel, but still enough flow to have fuel present... once it gets hot enough it will ignite in a spectacular fashion.

Putting a non-intercooled turbo on an engine will normally increase cruise fuel efficiency. It has more to do with heat than boost. Cooler intake charge is best for power, but hot air reduces air density, which means at cruise the throttle blade will be open further for the same amount of oxygen (fixed HP requirement at cruise, so it needs to generate 19 or so hp regardless of air temp), the further open throttle reduces pumping losses, which improves cruise MPG. Granted having the intake air temps too high will increase the chance for detonation, but there definitely is a window where warmer than normal air will result in better fuel efficiency.

[This message has been edited by fieroguru (edited 09-14-2011).]

Turbo engines have evolved over the years. In the past the did make more power and often did not get much or any better fuel mileage. Durability was also an issue as few were water cooled and most were large poor designs.

I today own a 2.0 liter Eco turbo in a HHR that will run 13's in the 1/4 mile. It puts out 290 HP and 315 FT LBS of torque. The Torque is limited due to the transaxle. The Solstice 5 speed will see 340 FT LBS with the same set up.

The engine enjoys great flat torque at 2000-5300 it will hold 315 FT LBS. Variable Valve Timing and DIrect Injection has done wonders as well as the elctronics that control the engine. The engine is built to take much more and handles 23 PSI all day. It is my daily driver and since the Turbo upgrade is a GM part it keeps my 5 year 100,000 mile warranty.

Note to get the gains I have GM used two 3 bar mass airs sensors and a flash of the computer. The gain was 55 HP and I even saw a gain in 2 MPG in daily driving. The increase in the torque gets the car to speed faster and permits more off gas time. WIth DI it shuts the gas off when in gear and you are off the gas.

Improvments by Honeywell in the duel scrolled turbo units give little lag and make the power seemless.

Smokey I believe came up with a concept that kind of worked but it needed more money and time than he could put into it. He often got MFG involved and they paid for his developement. WIth this he tried to sell it but no one would bite. It is a concept that for that was never sorted and today is kind of out dated as with todays engine they have supasssed it with other technologies that just did not exsist.

It is just a part of Smokeys legend and much of what he did is still with him never to be disclosed.

quote Originally posted by Joe 1320: Henry was a master of exploiting a loophold or rule. By definition, his claims needed to be taken with a grain of salt because he was so good at that exploitation. Heck, who else would have thought about building close to a 7/8 scale chevelle? nobody could figure out what was done until finally they checked the car with templates and found it underscale. Same goes for the fuel tank. If the tank could only hold XX gallons, then increase the fuel line to hold additional fuel. Genius in his own right. The fiero project worked, but was not idiotproof like what manufacturers wanted.

The truth is they never suspected a thing till they saw a street Chevelle parked near by and it looked larger. Smokeys car fit the templates as he asked for them when he built the car and then he made new templates that he gave back to NASCAR that fit his car. Since he was the only Chevy they never noticed.

I liked the race he showed up with the car having the fenders flaired over the tires. It kept the air out of the wheel wells. They said you can't do that. He said where does it say I can't? Well they said ok knowing he could not take the tires off the car. After they qualified on the pole he cust the fenders out. They said you can't do that and again he said where does it say I can't?

His books even have a glossery for his curse words. He defines them all as to what they ment to him.

[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 09-14-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dobey: If you're going to post a link as a rebuttal to what I said, at least read the whole thing and comprehend it first next time. The use of "efficiency" in the article you posted generally refers to the increase in power. Where they are discussing fuel efficiency they use the term "fuel economy" instead. Your original statement I was point out the error of, was that you implied adding a turbo will give you better gas mileage. It won't, unless as part of your adding a turbo, you are swapping the engine as well, to either be one of smaller displacement, or one which has other technologies in place which have already increased the fuel economy of the engine. Or unless you also reprogram the ECM to just run the engine lean. But you don't need a turbo to do that.

I'm sorry, you seem to have misplaced your clue. If I see it laying about I'll be sure to send it back your way...