There are quite a few reasons this is complete bunk, but I will go through a quick calculation to demonstrate why any and all of the above examples violates the laws of thermodynamics.



The basics if conservation of energy



U=Q+W



Or the total system energy = waste heat + work done.



For an automobile, a bit more detail in the above



Energy output = waste heat (energy in the exhaust + radiator) + work done (movement of the car + rolling resistance + power accessories + wind resistance + transmission losses + other drivetrain losses)



In an automobile, combusion operates as the otto cycle, which states the the MAXIMUM thermal efficiency is governed by the compression ratio. This explains why diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines as they operate at twice the compression ratio.



Now, for our Ford Galaxie, the compression ratio would be probable 9:6:1, or somewhere in that range. That would give us a MAXIMUM thermal efficiency of around 60%. This means, no matter how much you reduce all other losses, 40% of your potential energy is going to be lost as heat.



One gallon of gas contains 125,000 BTU's or 125MJ.



The curb weight for a 1970 Ford Galaxie is about 3700 lbs.



So how far could we move a 1970 Ford Galaxie with a gallon of gas with only rolling resistance? Assume a rolling resistance of 185 newtons, which seems reasonable for a 1970 Ford Galaxie as the rule of thumb is 100 newtons per ton at 55mph. Since work equals force times distance the distance equals work divided by force. 125MJ's divided by 185 Newtons is 675,000 meters or 420 MPG.



Seems like it would verify the miracle carb, right? Well, no becasue we neglected to account for our thermal efficiency which now takes us to 252 MPG.



Still pretty good, huh? Once again, no because we havent accounted for mechanical losses in the motor, or how much energy it takes to turn the engine over. It doesnt sound like it would take much to do this but think about it for a minute ... all those valve springs 16 on our 1970 Ford Galaxie (ever try to squeeze a valve spring by hand?) ... the tight tolerances on the crank journals and in the piston rings takes a tremendous ammount of work to move.



Consider an average battery .. about 500CCA. Now, if your batter is nearly drained, it might be putting out 8 volts, just enough to turn the motor over. 500 Amps at 8 volts is 4000 watts. Maintaining 4000 watts would consume about 20% of all the usable mechanical energy that our 1970 Ford Galaxie could deliver. So now we are down to around 200mpg.



Now, we come to wind wind resistance, a big gray area considering the lack of readily available data for the 1970 Ford Galaxie, but I will make some assumptions from an old textbook. At 55MPH you add about 140 Newtons / ton to your overall resistance. Since work equals force times distance the distance equals work divided by force. 59 MJ's (the ammount of energy left after the mechanical, rolling, and maximum theoretical work) divided by 260 Newtons is 226,000 meters or 140 miles that you must subtract from your range at 55 mph.



So now we are down to 60 mpg.



Subtract some more for AC, transmission losses etceteral and we are down to what we all see is a much more reasonable number.



Now this is all back of the envelope stuff, but it should demonstrate why a 200mpg Ford Galaxie has never and will never exist.