100 mpg carburator

[FrancoR 0]

Quote

>Have you ever driven one of those crap cars?

Yes, I was using the literary device called sarcasm, always a danger around here. Diesels are good engines, and a diesel hybrid based on EPA 07 diesel emissions standards might well push 100mpg even with current technology - and be relatively clean.

Ups, sorry hard to detect sarcasm when it is not in your mother tounge. I should have detected it because you usually are very informed.

If it does not cost anything you are the product.

[billvon 3,006]

>Do you ever think we'll see an electric drive car?

Well, we've seen the Toyota RAV-4 EV and the GM EV1, both of which were real production cars that people could buy.

>Hub-centric electric motors . . .

I don't think those will ever fly. Unsprung weight is a killer when it comes to performance. CV joints to a central motor are pretty proven technology.

>and a (very) small engine to drive the generator or perhaps keep a
>battery bank topped off is what I am thinking of in this instance.

That's what the GM Volt is designed to do. It's not the most efficient way to do it, since gasoline -> mechanical energy -> generator -> battery -> motor -> wheels is less efficient than gasoline -> mechanical energy -> wheels. But it's not a bad idea overall, if 95% of the owner's needs can be met by battery alone.

I think the future is going to be seen in a very gradual swing away from gasoline towards stronger and stronger hybrids, first pure hybrids then pluggable hybrids. It's just plain easier than any other transition (with the possible exception of natural gas and E85.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you ever think we'll see an electric drive car? Hub-centric electric motors and a (very) small engine to drive the generator or perhaps keep a battery bank topped off is what I am thinking of in this instance.

Do you mean something different than Tesla? Or the electric Rav4 or EV1s?

Their model has only batteries, and a 0-60 under 5 seconds, and an intended range of 250 miles. Of course, it's 100k for the first batch and the evidence will wait until production models are out, but certainly it's an ambitious attempt that could lead to more 'affordable' models in the near term.

Having a small gas motor backup (as typical on sailboats) would be an interesting concept, though it's probably simpler just to have a secondary battery supply to get you to the power station.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Diesels are for the gullable masses who want to be seen to be championing a cause...

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/life-of-soot-diesel-pollution-emissions-and-health-effects.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148403,00.html

they're crap cars that are only as fuel efficent as a modern day hybrid

Look! It's the automotive equivalent of 'but Clinton got a blow job'

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Diesels are for the gullable masses who want to be seen to be championing a cause...

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/life-of-soot-diesel-pollution-emissions-and-health-effects.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148403,00.html

they're crap cars that are only as fuel efficent as a modern day hybrid

Look! It's the automotive equivalent of 'but Clinton got a blow job'

Huh? I didn't hear anyone mention a Hummer.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Hub-centric electric motors . . .

I don't think those will ever fly. Unsprung weight is a killer when it comes to performance. CV joints to a central motor are pretty proven technology.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was more efficient - my bad.

Quote

That's what the GM Volt is designed to do. It's not the most efficient way to do it, since gasoline -> mechanical energy -> generator -> battery -> motor -> wheels is less efficient than gasoline -> mechanical energy -> wheels. But it's not a bad idea overall, if 95% of the owner's needs can be met by battery alone.

I would think that a small engine running a generator for the batteries/motor would still be more efficient than a straight mechanical drive, wouldn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,006]

>I would think that a small engine running a generator for the
> batteries/motor would still be more efficient than a straight mechanical
>drive, wouldn't it?

Well, there are three more steps involved. Unless each step was 100% efficient, there will be losses.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I would think that a small engine running a generator for the
> batteries/motor would still be more efficient than a straight mechanical
>drive, wouldn't it?

Well, there are three more steps involved. Unless each step was 100% efficient, there will be losses.

I guess the stuff that I've read didn't take that into account - they made it seem like a system that would be MORE efficient than a straight engine-transmission system due to the smaller size of the engine. They didn't discuss the losses, just the two complete systems compared to each other.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dorbie 0]

Do you know what a carb does?

Obviously this is an idiotic claim.

[tkhayes 348]

Carburation as a 'science' is very inefficient, so there is no silver bullet as was already posted. Fossil-fuel engines are inherently inefficient.

Large amounts of fuel, mixed with oxygen and then burned produce energy and lots of it, but much of the fuel energy goes out the tailpipe, tons is exhausted in heat etc etc.

Kinda like an incadescent light bulb, tons of heat, not much light for the amount of energy it burns.

Regardless of the 'engine', the 'carburation', or the end result use of the energy produced, it is a pretty inefficient process.

The obvious solution if we are to continue to use this technology (and we have no current replacement) is to carry more people per pound of fuel burned. More public transportation, more trains and connectors, commuters and such.

One engine - one man does not make any sense - but it is the American Way (and the Canadian Way too). 100 people on a train that burns electricity generated en masse by burning fossil fuels is far more efficient a way to get around.

As long as the North American population is convinced that the car is the perfect mode of transportation for them, as well as the massive lobbying by oil and car manufacturers, it will never change.

I was all for the hybrid cars, but they are not the solution either. Overstated mileage, and how much to replace the batteries in the Pruis? Thousands. Someday you will have to foot that bill.

A far better solution would be to open the market to smaller lightweight foreign cars with SMALL engines that are already available. 1000cc to 1500cc engines that run on diesel or gas, they go slower, but they do the same job. little Daihatsu minivans, Renault Kangoo, there are dozens out there.

But they do not meet our 'safety standards' so they do not get into the country. I would love to have a Kangoo, but cannot get one.

My 1970's Honda Civic used to get 40+ MPG, but my 2002 Corolla only gets 30 on a good day. How is THAT possible? Mostly because the market 'demanded' more horsepower, so instead of the 70-80HP I need to get around, they make it with a 130+HP engine, totally unnecessary for the size of car that it is.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Carburation as a 'science' is very inefficient, so there is no silver bullet as was already posted. Fossil-fuel engines are inherently inefficient.

Large amounts of fuel, mixed with oxygen and then burned produce energy and lots of it, but much of the fuel energy goes out the tailpipe, tons is exhausted in heat etc etc.

One thing that no one has mentioned is ignition. In order to make an engine more efficient, you have to be able to burn as much of the fuel taken in as possible. In the old days we used points. Single points were very inefficient and much of the fuel was exhuasted unburned. Dual point distributors (and a HO coil) took care of much of the problem but, still inefficient. Electronic ignitions (HEI) addressed the problem with higher output and longer dwell time for coil saturation to provide a hotter spark but, still inefficient. The real solution is to gut your distributor of its stock parts, walk over to the garbage can and toss them in. Go buy yourself an MSD box. I use an MSD 6AL along with a Speed Demon 750 double pumper sitting on top of a Holley Street Dominator single plenum manifold. Now you would think that the engine dranked fuel like a wino on a binge as the last engine that I had this on was a 355 chevy with a heavy thumping cam and 2.02 heads. It had no problem putting a vette in its grave yet got great gas mileage. I never actually calculated the mileage but could drive from St. Louis to Paola Kansas without having to stop for gas. I couldn't do that when it (1980 El Camino SS) had the 305 and a Quadrajunk carb along with stock ignition in it. The magic of the MSD box is its name Multiple Spark Discharge. It fires throughout the entire stroke range burning fuel from TDC to BDC. Had I continued running the stock ignition on this engine, I suspect that I might had been lucky to get 5 to 10 miles per gallon. Do yourself and your car a favor, buy an MSD box. They are not expensive and anyone who can chew gum and walk at the same time could install it themself. You will see a major increase in milleage.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 2,027]

Clearly what's needed is a "breakthrough fuel cell".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Those crap cars may arguably be the downfall of the American auto industry.

The American auto industry is the downfall of the American auto industry. They got lazy and greedy in the 90's. Now they're paying for it.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

The American auto industry UNIONS were the downfall of the American auto industry.

Fixed it for you. Car Manufacturers are doing GREAT in the Non-Union South East US.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Have you ever driven one of those crap cars? American Diesels are crap i agree, they seem to have engine technology from the 80s, that was a time when german auto manufacurers also made crapy diesels. Times have changed and with recent advancements in Diesel Engine Technology Diesels will come to the US in the next two years. What has been keeping them all except Volkswagen off the market is that they could not be sold in all 50 states, that is beein solved with the next generation of Diesels.

American diesels of old were basically converted gas burning engines and they were crap. However I had a 1984 Toyota Corolla diesel that regularly got 50 mpg, personal best of 55 on a long trip. Unfortunately I lost it in 1998 and 210,000 miles (original clutch thank you very much) when I decided to "do the right thing" and get the timing chain replaced. The dealership apparently didn't know how to fix them because it ended up being the death of that car. Europeans have been way ahead of us for quite some time on both diesels and cleaner diesel fuels.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

The American auto industry UNIONS were the downfall of the American auto industry.

Fixed it for you. Car Manufacturers are doing GREAT in the Non-Union South East US.

To blame the ills of the U.S. auto industry on unions is short sighted.

Auto manufacturers did just fine with unions for decades. It was a combination of factors, including non-union competition from foreign manufacturers that contributed to the issues, but the unions, in and of themselves were and are not THE problem.

THE problem is that for a long time US companies were making crap cars that few people wanted to buy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,006]

>I was all for the hybrid cars, but they are not the solution either.
>Overstated mileage, and how much to replace the batteries in the Pruis?
>Thousands. Someday you will have to foot that bill.

?? The cars wear out before the batteries do. And most people understand they will have to replace their car someday.

(freethefly said)

>In order to make an engine more efficient, you have to be able to burn
>as much of the fuel taken in as possible.

Agreed - and modern cars DO burn all the fuel taken in. They're closed loop systems. If the car is exhausting unburned gas, the mixture is leaned until you get complete combustion, then leaned a little _more_ until there is a little excess O2 in the exhaust. That's what the oxygen sensor does.

>In the old days we used points.

Ignition systems have very little to do with how much fuel is burned. If ignition begins at all, the flame front propagates until everything is burned. It's like lighting a bonfire. Are bonfires lit with blowtorches bigger/hotter/more impressive than bonfires lit with a match? Nope, it's mainly what's in the bonfire that makes the difference.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

The American auto industry UNIONS were the downfall of the American auto industry.

Fixed it for you. Car Manufacturers are doing GREAT in the Non-Union South East US.

Not that you're wrong about the unions but companies like Ford got lazy. The SUV craze hit when people were making lots of money and gas was still cheap. The Ford Explorer body was slapped on a Ranger chassis and then they doubled the price. They were making loads of cash without having to do anything innovative. If it wasn't for the F-150 they would have faltered years earlier. The companies that didn't get lazy are the ones leading the pack today (but yes, I believe that they're also non-union).

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

The American auto industry UNIONS were the downfall of the American auto industry.

Fixed it for you. Car Manufacturers are doing GREAT in the Non-Union South East US.

Nonsense. The management is tasked with managing the company.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>I was all for the hybrid cars, but they are not the solution either.
>Overstated mileage, and how much to replace the batteries in the Pruis?
>Thousands. Someday you will have to foot that bill.

?? The cars wear out before the batteries do. And most people understand they will have to replace their car someday.

(freethefly said)

>In order to make an engine more efficient, you have to be able to burn
>as much of the fuel taken in as possible.

Agreed - and modern cars DO burn all the fuel taken in. They're closed loop systems. If the car is exhausting unburned gas, the mixture is leaned until you get complete combustion, then leaned a little _more_ until there is a little excess O2 in the exhaust. That's what the oxygen sensor does.

>In the old days we used points.

Ignition systems have very little to do with how much fuel is burned. If ignition begins at all, the flame front propagates until everything is burned. It's like lighting a bonfire. Are bonfires lit with blowtorches bigger/hotter/more impressive than bonfires lit with a match? Nope, it's mainly what's in the bonfire that makes the difference.

If combustion continues in the exhaust system (catalytic converter) that energy is wasted as far as moving the vehicle is concerned.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

AFAIK the 100mpg was their top, not average.

I often get well over 100 mpg in my mid-size SUV. I know this because the dash meter maxes out at 99.9.

How do I do this? By going down a hill, or taking my foot off the gas.

Max mileage is meaningless.

In other news, I'm also averaging 30 MPG in my full-size SUV. How? It's a Hybrid Highlander.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

To blame the ills of the U.S. auto industry on unions is short sighted.

Agreed. It was more than Just the Unions. Poor Management, Underestimating the intelligence of the American Public and Failing to adapt to new technology all Contributed.

Quote

Auto manufacturers did just fine with unions for decades.

Yep. There was a Time when Unions were very necessary in this country when there were not Labor Laws in place. That time is LONG gone.

The Unions did choke the US Auto Industry to the point that they could not make a better product. It became impossible for them to compete with Non-Union manufacturers. While I agree most of the problems with American cars came from Poor Design and engineering and horrible management. Much of that was caused by having to design cars that Over paid and under motivated Union Help could assemble. Combine that with Seniority Rules where an aging work force was given priority over younger more energetic and motivated workforce also helped lead to the point that most people knew that anything coming out of Detroit was CRAP.

Also Core philosophy Difference between Japanese and American Companies contributed.
Japanese Companies would build a Part to Spec and then look for ways to improve the process and the quality. American Companies would build a part to Spec and then look for a way to make it Cheaper.

I deal with manufacturing plants every day (I sell Engineering Software designed for Manufacturing Plants). I have many customers in Auto Industry both Union and Non-Union Plants. The difference is amazing going from one plant where the work force is motivated, happy and productive (Non-Union) to the Next plant where it generally seems that everyone is sitting around arguing, glum and scared to do anything for fear of getting a Grievance filed against them. Non-Union Shops where change is embraced and accepted and a Union Shop where any change will be fought by the unions especially if it means reducing Labor costs.

[billvon 3,006]

>If combustion continues in the exhaust system (catalytic converter)
>that energy is wasted as far as moving the vehicle is concerned.

Right. Which is why the oxygen sensor system keeps combustion stochiometric (or slightly lean of stochiometric.) Significant amounts of unburned fuel in the catalytic converter will quickly destroy it; most catalytic converters see such amounts of unburned fuel only when the system has failed and is running open loop, or on startup where the mixture is purposely enriched to aid starting and to "light off" the catalytic converter (since it must be hot to operate correctly.)

Generally the catalytic converter does three things:

-Turns NOx (nitrous oxides) into nitrogen and oxygen
-Turns CO (carbon monoxide) into CO2
-Turns unburned HC (hydrocarbons) into CO2 and H20

[ryoder 1,590]

True story: When I took Drivers Education Class, the car was a new Ford Torino. On one fender were separate chrome letters spelling out T-O-N-I-N-O. I'm not kidding. If the factory was so slipshod they couldn't even be bothered to spell the name of the car correctly, you must wonder what kind of care went into assembling the parts you couldn't see.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[skydyvr 0]

This whole discussion is meaningless.

http://www.steorn.com/

. . =(_8^(1)