SEMA alert for CA smog..., fyi Options

[horizontally-opposed]

http://echo.bluehornet.com/hostedemail/ema...2305024AA0EEA25

Anybody go to the hearing or hear about the results?

pete

[Jake Raby]

I drove a Peugeot 407 Diesel while on my Honeymoon in Leman in 2006. It was a realy great driving car, but just had too much turbo lag.. It really impressed me!

Ethanol changes lots of things with the engine and higher CR is a possibility and almost a must if you intend to achieve much in the way of MPG. The downfall to ethanol is the loss of MPG and learning how to maximize that with the engine combo is going to be the challenge.

I am not convinced that going to Ethanol is the best option to go in for us here in the states.. Yes, we have a ton of corn crops, but now the Farmers that were producing wheat are producing corn because it is more profitable due to Ethanol demands- thats why the prices of bread ad other products that use a healthy dose of wheat are going up.

There is always going to be a trade off and I am all for taking as much money from the oil barons as possible.

The cost of a kit engine that would get lets say, 40 MPG wouldn't be much more than 4500 bucks... Getting that extra 10 MPG would cost 2K more at minimum due to the processes and extra development to get the results.

As for power:
The 51 MPG engine I built in 2006 still made 134HP and 151 lb/ft of torque, it was no slouch at all and only needed 5K RPM to make all it's power. The combination couples high CR, very mild cam and hi velocity heads with friction resistant coatings and polishing processes to reduce motoring power losses. I have only built two of them and I am working on a third for my Wife's beetle to replace the 2.8L twin plug 249HP engine thats in the car now. Heck that engine still gets 33 MPG!!

Most people feel that underpowering a vehicle produces better MPG- I don't share their thoughts. I believe a bigger engine, built very conservatively, creating a very high amount of torque with a flat torque curve is the key to MPG. When the engine makes more power it takes less effort to push the vehicle down the road and with gear ratio manipulation the results of this theory can be extreme. I'd much rather "idle" down the road as having a "beetle" experience with my foot half way down the carb driving WOT everywhere I go.

A good example of this was my trip cross country in 2006. I averaged 24 MPG with a 180 HP TIV engine travelling at 76 MPH (AVERAGE) across the country (3,450 miles). Several times during that trip I saw averages in the high 80s of large spans of open country, seeing well over 100 MPH for several miles at a time, that driving was also averaged into the 24 MPG figure.

In 1996 I made that same trip in a similar VW Beetle with a stock engine and averaged the same MPG and I damn sure wasn't travelling anywhere near 76 MPH average! That engine made no more than 55 HP, but achieved the same mileage as a dual carbed, 180HP engine travelling much faster over most of the same terrain and interstates...

The biggest difference was in the stock engined beetle I was driving Wide Open Throttle 75% of the time- with the MassIVe engine I seldom used more than 20% throttle...

A great deal of MPG is in the car it's self as well as the driver's ability to use the throttle and gearing wisely. The key to being a good driver, able to attain MPG is throttle manipulation, don't change throttle position unless you have to and be very, very, consistent with gear shifts. Keeping the engine at a stable, optimum temperature is also a big key.

There are certainly bigger variables than the engine that weigh into MPG even more than the engine does...