[zoharj]

This is BS. Thermodynamics places a limit on engine efficiency at about 37%, the top of the line combustion engine is maybe 25% efficient. Thus an increase in efficiency of 3.5 times is BS. The only possible way to get the efficiency above 37% is to have the engine get super hot, ~>1500F. Which for obvious reasons is not practical

[cantankerous]

"As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines." It's talking about fuel efficiency, not thermal efficiency. Figuring in that the generator weighs a lot less and can make the car a lot smaller is probably where these numbers come in. The article could be a bit more specific about it, though.

[anamax]

> Figuring in that the generator weighs a lot less and can make the car a lot smaller is probably where these numbers come in.

The only relevant question is whether "the generator" is significantly more efficent than a conventional engine with the same power output, size, and weight. After all, we can make smaller conventional engines to put in smaller cars.

Disagree? Then I'll point out that there are micro-vehicles with conventional engines (albeit tiny ones) that do even better, thus "proving" that conventional engines are far superior....