OT: how far we've come?, 35 years of non-progress Options

[lapuwali]

No one has yet built a *real* hybrid in production form. Something an IC engine of 250-300cc that's tuned to run very well at one set engine speed and make about 30hp, which spins a generator that charges batteries to drive electric motors. Yes, there are lots of losses in this chain, but a 300cc IC engine wouldn't have the torque to pull a 2500lb car around. An electric very much would have the torque. You'd see something over 60mpg, with a 75mph cruising speed. Could easily run electric only at surface road speeds, with the IC engine there only to keep the batteries charged, and run only as the batteries demand it.

40mpg is simply too low a target. That's been easy to do for years. 60-75mpg should be the real target, and should be readily achievable.

[balljoint]

QUOTE (TonyAKAVW @ Mar 7 2006, 04:15 PM)

Regarding the ethanol fuel cars... Somone was telling me that it produces more pollution to produce the fuel than it does to use regular gasoline. Its apparently a marketing gimmic and doesn't produce any reduction in the emission of pollution. This is all based on what someone told me. Does anyone here know if this is true? -Tony

Just what I have read....I think the point of ethanol as a fuel is that you are not increasing the net amount of carbon (dioxide) in the air if you are using an annual crop (corn or jerusalem artichoke). You grow it and the plant absorbs Carbon-dioxide from the air, then you ferment it and let some out, then you burn the alcohol product and release the rest. So it is a carbon cycle of it's own, less efficient than gasoline (lower BTUs), but it is a complete cycle. Fossil-fuels are releasing carbon that has been locked up for a long time and they aren't putting anything back.

[fiid]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Mar 7 2006, 01:31 PM)

No one has yet built a *real* hybrid in production form. Something an IC engine of 250-300cc that's tuned to run very well at one set engine speed and make about 30hp, which spins a generator that charges batteries to drive electric motors. Yes, there are lots of losses in this chain, but a 300cc IC engine wouldn't have the torque to pull a 2500lb car around. An electric very much would have the torque. You'd see something over 60mpg, with a 75mph cruising speed. Could easily run electric only at surface road speeds, with the IC engine there only to keep the batteries charged, and run only as the batteries demand it. 40mpg is simply too low a target. That's been easy to do for years. 60-75mpg should be the real target, and should be readily achievable.

I think I'm going to build a lotus 7 in pretty much this trim.

[anthony]

People keep mentioning diesels. The reason we don't make more diesels is because of the relatively high particulate emmisions.

[lapuwali]

QUOTE (anthony @ Mar 7 2006, 01:47 PM)

People keep mentioning diesels. The reason we don't make more diesels is because of the relatively high particulate emmisions.

WAS the reason. I'm led to understand this has been fixed for several years in European cars (where they have LOTS of diesels), but hasn't appeared here, largely because the EPA is still using the same data you are to decide diesels are too dirty.

I'm not a huge fan of diesels, and I'm certainly not much of a cheerleader for the bio-diesel movement, mostly because I think it's oversold using bad data. I actually heard one bio-diesel type saying: "but what comes out of the tailpipe is all ORGANIC!".

I had to explain to him what the term "organic" actually means in chemistry terms (means: contains carbon).

[Mike D.]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Mar 7 2006, 01:59 PM)

I had to explain to him what the term "organic" actually means in chemistry terms (means: contains carbon).

I keep telling that to people offering me "Organic" foods. Isn't all food organic? Aren't you organic? dumbass!

Anyway, my second car was a 84 Chevy Malibu Classic with a V6 diesel. That thing got around 35-40 mpg, but that was the days of black smoke when you stepped on the gas, and the loud knocking engines. I always got "hey kid, you need to put oil in that car before you burn up the valves" and "you know your putting diesel in that car right?"

I read a report that the premium paid to own a Hybrid, like the Prius, is about $10k. And with gas prices the way they are now would take over 12 years to brake even.

Now, for probably around $15K you build a really nice electric 914 with 150 mi. range. Use it to comute to work and plug it in while your at work, I see big money savings (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

Just a thought, electric 914 hummmm
Electric 914

[kart54]

I'm amazed at people that believe the mantra of the Japanese car companies and the hybrids. A recent news show went out and drove them in real life. Actual average increase in mileage was less than 5 miles per gallon over a gasoline vehicle of the same make and type. Average price paid over a like car was $15,000.00 for the hybrid. The individuals that bought these cars were really sold a bill of goods. I've got a bridge in San Francisco they might be interested in.
Neighbor of mine was thirlled by the gas mileage with his new prius. Of course he was, he went from a older Yukon XL with 33 inch tires to a prius. What a surprise that he would be thrilled.
I just bought the 2006 Yukon (not XL). On a recent trip to Mammoth I averaged 23 miles per gallon at 74 miles an hour. With all the bells and whistles, 4 family members, the dog and about 600 pounds of luggage. ( If any members of the Ventura, Lancaster, Rosamond or Bishop CHP are on this site, not really, it was actually just 65 miles an hour). I think that's great. It's close to what my BMW 528i got.
Hauling the race car, which, with the trailer I've got adds close to 4500 pounds plus almost 1200 pounds of spares and tools I got 17 miles per gallon on the last trip to Buttonwillow and 19 on the last trip to Willow.
My point: GM and Ford are doing better if your bothering to pay attention and not get pulled in by the hype. My real life mileage is better than any of the full size Honda, Nisssan or Toyota trucks.
As to why anyone would own something like the Yukon try fitting two kids, a dog, and 600 pounds of luggage in anything smaller. Doesn't work unless you tie the kids to the roof and I haven't figured out how to mount their car seats to the roof racks yet.
My twin turbo V-6 Volvo fits everybody for shorter trips and still gets over 30 on the highway and it goes like stink. 300+hp out of 2.8 liters. Beauty of that car is that CHP doesn't take a second look at a silver 4 door Volvo even with 18 inch rims and high perfomance tires. Can you say wolf in sheep's clothing?
Randy

[wbergtho]

Two reasons for cars being heavier these days. 1: Everyone has to have 10,000 airbags, reinforced I-beam girders in the doors, 60" HDTV, 22" rims, electric dog polishers, etc. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wacko.gif) This has already been voiced by many of you. BUT #2: (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/ar15.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/ar15.gif) Asshole lawyers & litigation. We now have to have all sorts of safety mumbo jumbo bullshit junk that 1970 Civics never had. As a result, your average car weighs more than a jumbo jet. You now need 400 HP to get up your driveway for christ's sake! (Do you hear Dennis Leary talking here?) The only way we can go back to that distant memory of lightweight no frills commuter cars is simply buy a 1970 Honda Civic and drive it. Hell, put some platform shoes on...slip into some groovy bell bottoms and hit the road and watch out for the other monster sized vehicles on the road. Auto manufactures cannot look back and start building cars like they used to. I wish they could. For now, we'll have to just buy these old tiny "out of place cars" and drive them in this materialistic era we live in. Old cars are cool any how. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/aktion035.gif)

[byndbad914]

Wow - there were actually 2 Escort diesels built (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif) I was rofl when I saw the comment where people would run up to him at the truck stop pumps - I had exactly the same thing a solid 1 outta 3 times at the pump.

Secondly, I agree with lapuwali on the emissions. Euro standards are getting brutal for diesels, and US standards are getting brutally tight as well. I have done some stuff with a company working on diesel truck solutions to lower emissions and I think they are really onto something so may go to work for them.

Not totally convinced on the biodiesel stuff either. Low sulfur is good and with the particulate filter technology already out there (for soot) and precombustion technology coming like the company I am working with (already have a 1.8L diesel car engine with nearly zero emissions in prototype testing without any need for filters - but focusing on truck engines now since that is the US market now) I think diesels would be very viable solutions. Buses in CA are under strict guidelines already and hell, you hardly see any smoke at all in controlled buses and way less smell to the exhaust if fitted with the right filters.

Filters hinder power (i.e. catallytic converters) whereas the precombustion stuff can actually increase power, so that is why I am so interested in them.

I will take the heavier car with all the safety features myself. 85% of the people behind the wheel are f'ing CLUELESS and I figure I need all the help I can get (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wacko.gif) I just wish Americans (generally speaking of course) weren't so fickle about diesels... they are way more efficient by design than gas (which is why they get better mileage) and if anywhere near the effort had been put into diesel emissions as has been gas emissions, you could probably plumb the exhaust right into the car and not die (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)

[fiid]

Biodiesel is a good thing IMHO. It's good because it's almost exactly diesel, but has lower particulate emissions and it has a zero carbon footprint.

That doesn't mean that it's not emitting carbon (CO2) when it burns. All it means is that the carbon it's emitting was captured by a plant from the atmosphere within the last say 10 years.

The problem with fossil fuels is they are putting carbon into the atmosphere that used to be buried in the ground. The level of carbon in the air at the moment is the highest it has been in 650,000 years or so. It's probably not a good thing.

Most diesels will actually run on straight corn oil if it's heated a little bit, which does actually mean you can run on stuff stolen from behind McDonalds.

[anthony]

QUOTE

I'm amazed at people that believe the mantra of the Japanese car companies and the hybrids. A recent news show went out and drove them in real life. Actual average increase in mileage was less than 5 miles per gallon over a gasoline vehicle of the same make and type. Average price paid over a like car was $15,000.00 for the hybrid.

That is a huge exaggeration. Personally I agree that the Hybrids are a rip off but they aren't that out of whack with reality. A Prius costs like $25-30K out the door. There isn't a direct comparison but one could make the case that it's between a $15K Corolla and a $25K Camry. Realistically, it's $5K overpriced but you get back some because of the Federal tax credit.

It does take forever to get back the $5K on fuel savings. Comparing a 30mpg Corolla and a 50mpg Prius shows that one only saves less than $500/year on fuel. That's 10 years to break even on the $5K premium.

For some people the free commuter lane pass is worth the $5K. For others they will gladly pay the extra $5K up front in order to make a political statement by driving a Prius.

[jimtab]

QUOTE (Joe Ricard @ Mar 7 2006, 12:08 PM)

.....Well hey... i'd like a hummer....but not the truck Never turn down a good Hummer (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

Let's hear you say that when you visit SAN Francisco..... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

[johnmhudson111]

QUOTE (balljoint @ Mar 7 2006, 04:34 PM)

Just what I have read....I think the point of ethanol as a fuel is that you are not increasing the net amount of carbon (dioxide) in the air if you are using an annual crop (corn or jerusalem artichoke).  You grow it and the plant absorbs Carbon-dioxide from the air, then you ferment it and let some out, then you burn the alcohol product and release the rest.  So it is a carbon cycle of it's own, less efficient than gasoline (lower BTUs), but it is a complete cycle.  Fossil-fuels are releasing carbon that has been locked up for a long time and they aren't putting anything back.

Went to the product intro for the '07 GMC Yukon. The reps were telling us that when the trucks are burning E85 that they lose 2 to 3 mph vs. regular gas. They are also telling us that in some areas that E85 is as much as 75 cents less than regular gas, can any of you midwesterns give us some insight into the cost of E85?

I guess it is time to crank up grandpa's still (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/beerchug.gif)

[johnmhudson111]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Mar 7 2006, 04:59 PM)

QUOTE (anthony @ Mar 7 2006, 01:47 PM) People keep mentioning diesels. The reason we don't make more diesels is because of the relatively high particulate emmisions. WAS the reason. I'm led to understand this has been fixed for several years in European cars (where they have LOTS of diesels), but hasn't appeared here, largely because the EPA is still using the same data you are to decide diesels are too dirty.

If I remember right the EPA is changing the regulations that concern diesel fuel to match or get closer to the European standard. The heavy truck manufactuers are having a number of issues getting engines to perform using the new standard.

[jonwatts]

Today's Mercury News has this article about growing hybrid rage.

[alpha434]

QUOTE (TonyAKAVW @ Mar 7 2006, 12:15 PM)

Regarding the ethanol fuel cars... Somone was telling me that it produces more pollution to produce the fuel than it does to use regular gasoline. Its apparently a marketing gimmic and doesn't produce any reduction in the emission of pollution. This is all based on what someone told me. Does anyone here know if this is true? -Tony

Produces a LOT of CO2. But get this; they can contain the CO2 and use it for other things. One idea is to pump it underground to force crude oil up. YEAH!


And nobody forget the new 6-stroke. The first company to bag that is going places, for sure!

[Porcharu]

QUOTE (johnmhudson111 @ Mar 7 2006, 10:02 PM)

[/QUOTE] If I remember right the EPA is changing the regulations that concern diesel fuel to match or get closer to the European standard. The heavy truck manufactuers are having a number of issues getting engines to perform using the new standard.

The low sulfur fuel has really lousy "lubricity" and kills the injection system. That is one reason that the new fuels will have 2% or so bio in them - bio has great "lubricity".

Anyone see the new Car and Driver with the Audi R10 article - 650 hp and 800 ft/lb of torque and they claim no smoke and quiet.

[Pistachio]

QUOTE (johnmhudson111 @ Mar 7 2006, 09:56 PM)

QUOTE (balljoint @ Mar 7 2006, 04:34 PM) Just what I have read....I think the point of ethanol as a fuel is that you are not increasing the net amount of carbon (dioxide) in the air if you are using an annual crop (corn or jerusalem artichoke).  You grow it and the plant absorbs Carbon-dioxide from the air, then you ferment it and let some out, then you burn the alcohol product and release the rest.  So it is a carbon cycle of it's own, less efficient than gasoline (lower BTUs), but it is a complete cycle.  Fossil-fuels are releasing carbon that has been locked up for a long time and they aren't putting anything back. Went to the product intro for the '07 GMC Yukon. The reps were telling us that when the trucks are burning E85 that they lose 2 to 3 mph vs. regular gas. They are also telling us that in some areas that E85 is as much as 75 cents less than regular gas, can any of you midwesterns give us some insight into the cost of E85? I guess it is time to crank up grandpa's still (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/beerchug.gif)

RE: E85
Lowered emmisions & "the enviroment" has been kicked around here as the reason behind E85. NOT SO. The idea behind E85 is it's an immediate, renewable, domestically produced, energy source.

By producing a ethanol blended fuel, we (the country) effectively reduce our dependance on foreign energy sources. The main advantages of E85 being:
1) The one thing the USA has historically done/produced better than anywhere else is farming/food. In fact we do it so well we, the people, pay farmers not to produce crops each and every year. This idle land and some of the "excess" wheat land could/can easily produce crops for effective fuel production.
2) E85 is a blend that most every gas burning car on the road could take advantage of with relatively minor retrofits. (rubber seals/gaskets in the fuel system & ethonal don't mix well for instance)
3) The distribution system for this energy source already exists at every street corner. (Hydrogen's nice & certainly where we're going, but aside from the 2 "stations" in Sacramento, have you ever seen a hydrogen "fuel pump"?)

As a fuel source, ethonal's really a rather poor choice. It takes roughly twice the amount of ethanol to achieve the same btu content of a given amount of gasoline. What's nice about it is, it's easily produced - "cheaply" produced - & domestically produced with more or less zero capital investment. The infrastructure to produce ethanol on a large scale effectively already exists - all we need to do is utilize it. It's an "immediate", practical solution for our tremendous dependance on foreign crude. E85's a good, immediate, band-aid for our energy concerns until a more practical/efficent/"cleaner" fuel souce can be developed.
(read hydrogen there). Unfortunately, to put this into play, we all need to be on the same "bandwagon" so to speak. E85's not going anywhere unless it can be "sold" to the public, hence the ad campain underway by GM. Not a solution, but a temporay stop-gap to a very real problem while other things are developed.

It's has nothing to do with "enviromental" concerns.


edit 2 add

[balljoint]

Very good point, and I would concede that the potential for domestic production is a much greater (in magnitude) reason to look hard at ethanol. That said, it still has lots to do with environmental concerns, especially when you look at the people either using it now in their converted vehicles or pushing for it to spread out from KY. It also has more to do with the lower initial cost/gallon than it does shutting out Johnny-Foreigner, again to those same people.

[Pistachio]

yeah, I think it's being "sold" as enviromental, but honestly believe that's not the reason behind the current push.

The word enviroment's become a nice catch-phrase to sell just about anything to the proletariat. exactly the same as "it's for the children" - say that, and people will follow your idea like sheep with blinders on. "oh, it's for the children - better do it".

As for cost vs volume - yeah, certainly a price at the pump issue - from stretching any given crude amount - instead of getting a gallon of gas, ya get 1.3(?) of E85, hence lower cost per unit of measure. I'm not sure where the price-point is on a $/gallon scale is, but I think we came pretty close this past summer at $3.40 (here in my part of CA anyway) to having a dire effect on the nations economy. A can see an uncontollable sprial effect once fuel hits that point, I think we got a slight taste this past year since fuel cost affects everthing in the ecomony & it's unfortunately one of those "passed on" costs to the people that can least afford it. Therefore, I can see a simular "Black Monday" effect that the stock market had a few years ago for the national economy once fuel hits that mysterious point . An uncontrolable spriral of inflation coupled to stagnate wages = depression, not recession. JMO (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/sad.gif)