Frustrated drivers are trying to sell their gas guzzlers.

[LongWayToFall 0]

What you mean to say is that energy required equals aerodynamic drag + frictional losses, and if you are going up a hill you must add that in as well, because you are doing work. Fuel consumption only loosely corresponds with energy required. The problem is that all engines are built to run perfectly at a precise rpm. This (in a normal free air breathing engine) happens at peak torque rpm, when cylinder pressure is at its highest. Much of this rpm is decided by the camshaft, also other engine details such as valve area, piston bore to stroke ratio, intake and exhaust runner length, port diameter, etc. If you operate the engine at an rpm below the peak torque, then what happens is that as the piston is starting on its way up on the compression stroke, it actually forces air backwards out the intake port, before the intake valve closes. This is wasted energy, and is being helped by technologies such as variable cam timing and variable lift or cam profiles, such as V-tech by honda. So, when driving on the freeway, try to keep it near the peak torque. Another issue is that on an engine that is twice as big as another, (your 6 cylinder vs 8 comparison) if spinning at the same rpm, with the same amount of intake mixture to produce the same power (almost) the smaller engine will do better. This is because the bigger engine has more vacuum, and such, less mixture reaches an individual cylinder. This extra vacuum means that the cylinder doesn't even start producing pressure until it is significantly farther up in the bore compared to the smaller motor, and when the explosion does happen, it produces less power. Big cylinder and small bang means lousy efficiency. Also, a motor that has more moving parts (including heavy duty tranny and differencial to handle the power) will have more fictional losses. This is why the best mileage you will ever see comes from small 4 (or less) cylinders being spun at peak torque, to produce just the power they need to go the speed you want.
Not trying to stop anyone from dropping in a fire breathing v-8 into a tiny car, that is bad ass! See what you can get away with in terms of compression ratio, and put it there, this will help out hp and efficiency.

On the hydrogen thing, I can't say I know much about it, but what I do know is that converting energy into hydrogen has a poor exchange rate, you loose something like %50 in the process. Being that the majority of our power plants are coal, its not going to help consumption of fuels. You would be better off just using gasoline directly, instead of taking the %50 loss. A nuclear/solar/wind plant and a hydrogen production facility sounds like a winner though. Man, if all cars are hydrogen, there are going to be some crazy car crashes/explosions going on!!!!!!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

HAHA it's a good thing that I just took the 4 cylnder out of my focus and I am now in the process of putting a 351 Winsor in it.
Good bye good fuel economy!
Thats ok though because I also own a Vespa GTS 250ie.
~El Josh AKA Ruby

Fuel economy is largely a function of aerodynamics (frontal area and Cd) and how much weight you're hauling to the tops of hills.

.

AND accelerating that mass away from unnecessary traffic light stops.

...

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

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

but why do you say not hydrogen?

It's relatively expensive to make, storage issues, the technology is not fully developed and most of all, we don't have the infrastructure to support it.
IMO all electric is the answer. We already have the infrastructure AND the technology.

edited to add:
Going all electric would also provide new jobs and would damn near solve our foreign policy problems.

[normiss 622]

John you've triggered a thought....
Here in Orlando, the majority of the major roads do not have syncronized traffic lights...so we seem to go from one green light to a red one...it is amazing how many are still on timers and you spend 8 minutes waiting on a light to change with no cross traffic....can't someone hire a traffic engineer????

Personally, I'm glad I sold my Chevy K1500 extended cab, step side, 4x4, 350 ci V8 for a Scion.
I usually ride the motorcycle ($20 to fill up - but it lasts 2 weeks ). I made the switch 3 years ago...but I miss being able to haul or pull anything,

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

but why do you say not hydrogen?

It's relatively expensive to make, storage issues, the technology is not fully developed and most of all, we don't have the infrastructure to support it.
IMO all electric is the answer. We already have the infrastructure AND the technology.

edited to add:
Going all electric would also provide new jobs and would damn near solve our foreign policy problems.

It would? Don't a lot of those power plants that supply electricty come from old world resources? (in fact, don't Hydrogen producing plants do the same?) Unless we saw an influx of new nuke power plants I don't see that changing and I don't see the footprint per car going down until that happens either (factory by products and waste).

I'm in an interesting spot right now. About 9 or 10 months ago I saw that gas prices were going up and that I wasn't using my car. Now I don't have a car and can no longer rely on public transportation for my workplace commute. Trying to find an affordable gas friendly car is a total pain in the ass right now.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[idrankwhat 0]

I read yesterday (somewhere) that if everyone in the US were to switch immediately to EV that our current capacity (he he) could support 75% of those vehicles. That's primarily because most of the recharging would occur at off peak hours. Secondly, regarding the source concern, even with a worst case scenario of 100% electrical supply from coal you'll come out ahead due to the greater efficiency. Here's a clip from the EV world website.

For starters, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, they generate a fraction that expelled by a normal gasoline engine car. For every gallon of gasoline burned, approximately 22 pounds of CO2, an important global warming gas, are created. If a car gets 25 miles a gallon it will emit 22 pounds of carbon dioxide over that distance, as well as other pollutants. By comparison, an electric car may travel the same distance consuming 5 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electric power at a rate of 200 watt hours/mile. Assuming the local grid is 100% coal-fired, roughly 5 lbs of coal would be consumed to create that 5kWh. Depending on the grade and carbon content of the coal, one kilowatt hour creates approximately 1.4 pounds of CO2. That's 7 pounds of CO2 vs. 22 pounds to travel the same 25 miles. But recall that the power grid isn't entirely coal-fired; it includes hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear and a small, but growing segment of renewables.

But what about other pollutants, aren't today's cars significantly cleaner? Yes they are and getting more so all the time, which is good. But so is the power grid, at least in terms of many criteria pollutants, if not CO2. And as more wind and solar electric power is added to the grid, and older, more polluting power plants are decommissioned, the grid can get cleaner, though it will still take citizen awareness and pressure, especially in the light of the fact that hundreds of coal-fired plants plan to be built around the world in the come decades, to ensure the very best technology is used, including carbon sequestration if we plan to continue to utilize coal.

Electric Car Economics
If you can travel 25 miles on 5kWh of electric power, that means it cost you something like 40 cents to cover the same distance (@ 8 cents/kWh) it takes a gallon of gasoline at $2 and $3 a gallon at current (2006) prices. And if you recharge your electric car from solar panels, like many EV owners in California do, your per mile costs are even less and the payback period on your solar panels dramatically shorter because now you're replacing not relatively cheap grid power, but increasingly expensive gasoline. In the process, you're helping the environment and saving yourself a lot of money for decades to come.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Trying to find an affordable gas friendly car is a total pain in the ass right now.

I'm in a similar boat. My wife's car will need to be replaced within the next year. I was seriously considering converting it to all electric but it's going to be a little more expensive than I originally thought. Where I'm leaning at the moment is buying a used Prius (2004-2008) and going with the $10,000 Hymotion plug-in conversion.

[billvon 2,400]

> First off, veggy oil reduces engine life significantly . . .

So convert it to biodiesel and use that. Biodiesel is almost indistinguishable from regular diesel.

>veg is not the answer. Possibly for some, but nothing wide scale. Also,
>privately owned diesels make up a small portion of fuel consumption. what
>we need is an alternative for gasoline engines, and not ethanol, and not
>hydrogen.

There will be no one answer. Electric (PHEV) will make up a big part of the solution. Cellulosic ethanol and SVO/biodiesel will make up another part. Hydrogen might help if we ever get HTGR reactors on line. And, of course, petroleum. We don't have to completely replace it, just supplement it so that our usage matches declining supplies.

[speedy 0]

Quote

There will be no one answer. Electric (PHEV) will make up a big part of the solution. Cellulosic ethanol and SVO/biodiesel will make up another part. Hydrogen might help if we ever get HTGR reactors on line. And, of course, petroleum. We don't have to completely replace it, just supplement it so that our usage matches declining supplies.

Everything you suggest should have been started 20 years ago.
Further up in this thread you mentioned oil being $122, it is now $123. We are not in a position to supplement the declining supplies. It just won't work.
When gas in the U.S. hit $6-7 a gallon we might start to see a reduced demand that will slow the price increase of crude.

In 5 years time, skydiving will be history (unless you are in the military).

$150 a barrel at the end of this year is optimistic.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Everything you suggest should have been started 20 years ago.

I was indeed started 20 years ago. Well, actually I think it was 18 years ago. It was killed by anti-market capitalists and those with more "free speech" than most of us.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think it will ever crossover unless you get something like this....

Thats what I just bought 2 weeks ago. I got the R1 though. It still cost me $14 to fill a damn bike!

nice! The R1 is a nice bike and I've always wanted one. When it's time for me to upgrade I'll get either that or a ZX-10r. Not sure which at the moment.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[LongWayToFall 0]

If you want a car that gets better mileage than the prius, pretty much the same size, and a fraction of the cost (initial AND long term due to no batteries) look at a honda civic hatchback with the 1.3L engine. On the freeway at reasonable speeds it is getting 50mpg. My next truck will be a VW "caddy" pickup truck with a 1.6L diesel, it also gets 50mpg. Many older, smaller cars with small engines get insane mileage, look it up!

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/09/1982-a-banner-year-for-high-mpg-cars/


Bill- I agree, biodiesel is very nearly the same as regular diesel. It cannot be used on a wide scale basis yet though, because not enough testing has been done on different parameters. Nobody is completely in agreement on what is acceptable for certain levels of acid and other chemicals. One type of oil will produce different biodiesel than another, and we need to keep using it to figure out what the long term impacts are on engines. Biodiesel is an excellent solvent, and for older diesels (before 95ish I think?) you will have problems because they are not using Viton seals. Almost all vehicles have viton replacement kits available though, so its not a big deal.

What it boils down to really, is that to produce HIGH quality biodiesel, you have to build a very good reactor, and be exacting in your production and testing methods. Most people simply do not have several hours to get a batch going and flip a few switches every day. Not to mention moving lots of 55gal drums around, from your car to the reactor and back (your oil, methanol, biodiesel when finished, waste products).

What we really need is small non-profit clubs that produce the stuff in large quantities, meeting ASTM standards, and selling it only to recover the costs. It could also be a company offering free waste oil disposal to local businesses, right now they usually have to pay.

[tonyhays 86]

Skydiving will not be dead, probably very different though.

Less fun jumpers, less twin engine turbines, less outside video.

More single engine turbines, more hand cam, more emphasis on filling the plane.

Fun jumping is doomed...it already happened in NZ, is starting to happen in AU, we will see it here sooner rather than later.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[mnealtx 0]

Not to mention getting fed.gov off people's asses for producing the stuff, if I understand it correctly (fuel taxes) - or has that been solved?

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

[billvon 2,400]

> Not to mention getting fed.gov off people's asses for producing the
>stuff, if I understand it correctly (fuel taxes) - or has that been solved?

Indirectly. No taxes on stuff you produce for yourself. When you sell it you pay standard excise and sales taxes, but the federal government and most states have tax breaks/credits for biodiesel.

[mnealtx 0]

That's an improvement from what I recall reading, then...

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

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

more hand cam,

Yea, that sucks.

I mean, I don't jump nearly often enough to say with fervor, but I've seen a few and they suck.

I'm just saying.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[jm951 0]

Quote

Onsite repairman may become more local in their range. The city of San Francisco is only 7 miles across - the worst drive for someone local is still less than a gallon of gas. But that person may have no interest in taking calls for someone in Fremont 40 miles away. In truth, though, the awful traffic already discouraged that.

False assumption. If the repairman/contractors become more local in their work, then to maintain the equivalent levels of cash flow, more things have to break, or more things have to be built. If they do localize, and the overall level of available work is constant, then the amount of workers needed to cover an area shrinks causing unemployment. There could be an uprising of small shops that serve highly local areas, but the barriers to entry in the market can be substantial.

Make no mistake about it. Those businesses that operate vehicles to transport materials to jobsites will raise their prices. There aren't any hybrids available at the moment at a reasonable cost for the majority of those in the trades.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

False assumption. If the repairman/contractors become more local in their work, then to maintain the equivalent levels of cash flow, more things have to break, or more things have to be built. If they do localize, and the overall level of available work is constant, then the amount of workers needed to cover an area shrinks causing unemployment. There could be an uprising of small shops that serve highly local areas, but the barriers to entry in the market can be substantial.

Make no mistake about it. Those businesses that operate vehicles to transport materials to jobsites will raise their prices. There aren't any hybrids available at the moment at a reasonable cost for the majority of those in the trades.

Not yet. But there soon will. Businesses won't replace their current one until its fully depreciated, but they will have options.

As I mentioned, traffic is already a factor that encourages these folks to focus more locally. The time of driving 40 miles costs much more than the fuel does.

[tonyhays 86]

Outside video is definitely better, but in terms of profit margin you can't compete with hand cam

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

If you want a car that gets better mileage than the prius, pretty much the same size, and a fraction of the cost (initial AND long term due to no batteries) look at a honda civic hatchback with the 1.3L engine. On the freeway at reasonable speeds it is getting 50mpg.

I agree. Originally I wasn't going to go with the Prius. I would consider the Civic or I'd possibly go with a Jetta Diesel or the Toyota Yaris. But I'm seriously considering the Hymotion conversion which, with my commute, should get me an average mpg in the low 90's.
My other option was a full electric conversion but I'd have to add solar panels to get the range I need. That may change if the Li-ion batteries become more available.
Still researching.......

[LongWayToFall 0]

90mpg but how much juice are you going to be taking from your house? The conversion is so you can charge on a house outlet, right? Electrics right now are no good, the huge batteries are very expensive, and capacity is not largely increased over older technology. What has increase though, with lithium Ion and lithium polymer, is the discharge rate. This just means you can do the same as a big battery with a small one, but you still run out of juice around the same time. I fly remote controlled planes with Li-po batteries and they are mad expensive, small ones are $100+ and normal sized are $300-400. One for a car is going to be maybe 100 times larger. Something to consider is natural gas, I have heard about buying compressors for your house that run all day long and store it in tanks, that you put into your car and run. Don't know enough about it though to talk about cost and efficiencies, but I heard its cheaper than gasoline.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Something of interest to this thread:

http://evolution.loremo.com/

156 mpg and coming to the US soon. Not to mention a price of less than $15k-$20k.

[billvon 2,400]

>I fly remote controlled planes with Li-po batteries and they are mad
>expensive, small ones are $100+ and normal sized are $300-400.

RC lipos are pretty application specific. Power to weight is everything, and safety isn't as big a deal.

For traction applications, you can now get a kwhr of lipo for around $1000, and they're reasonably safe. The whole lipo and LiFeSO4 field is about to take off in a big way; demand is incredible, and I think they just passed the minimum performance barriers.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Something of interest to this thread:

http://evolution.loremo.com/

156 mpg and coming to the US soon. Not to mention a price of less than $15k-$20k.

Your numbers are off a bit - the website claims 120mpg for the 15kw (2-cyl) diesel (0-63 (100kph) in 20 seconds)(cost approx $23k) and 80mpg for the 36kw (3-cyl) diesel (0-63 (100hph) in 10 seconds)(cost approx $30K).

Still and all, that's damned impressive mileage!

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