We've also got proven 100mpg carbs, too.

Post #47,480 by jb4 7/30/02 1:34:52 PM Reply	We've also got proven 100mpg carbs, too. Those suckers were demonstrated in middle '70s. How many of 'em do YOU see in production today? Me neither! QED jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #47,491 by wharris2 7/30/02 2:15:53 PM Reply	Right. There's only so much energy you can get out of a gallon of various fuels. I've read about those so-called 100 mpg carburators - and am skeptical of the veracity of the claims. The auto industry has no more desire to throw away money than any other industry. I remember some of their first efforts at higher-mileage cars, and they sucked dead bunnies. It wasn't just engine performance, it was total quality and general crap. It's going to take me quite a bit of convincing that they pushed that suckage out the door if a carburator would have given them 100 mpg. At least they'd have had high-mileage suckage. And it's hard for me to believe that Toyota and Honda and BMW and even the Yugo wouldn't have cleaned their clock in any way and every way they could have. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #47,502 by Ashton 7/30/02 3:03:33 PM Reply	~14.5:1 air / fuel ratio for gasoline. Period. ie No Such Thing\ufffd as "the 100 mpg carb." Old husband's tale(s). Your oxygen sensor closes the loop on Optimum fuel/air mix every 20-100 mSec. No crude 'carburetor' could come more than sorta close. Sorry but: all the auto conspiracies are in the same arena as all the Other$ - Corporate manipulation designed to... (Well - just examine the Profits on UAVs - biggest markup on a commodity in History? Certainly close-to.) We can have >35 mpg whenever Joe Sixpack ceases being Walter Mitty / Harrison Ford on alligators: and buying Dreams, not transport. Ashton
Post #47,512 by Simon_Jester 7/30/02 4:06:49 PM Reply	Well...we've had several cars that got 50+ mpg (iirc). They had lousy acceleration, were small and people didn't buy them, but they do exist. Getting 100+ mpg isn't impossible, as I suspect some [link\|http://www.spacecoastmotorcycle.com/tomos.shtml\|motorcycles] get close to that. [link\|http://www.rqriley.com/t-car.html\|(100 mpg+ cars exist too)] Of course, motorcycles aren't nearly as safe as cars either.
Post #47,514 by boxley 7/30/02 4:39:01 PM Reply	Steam works also [link\|http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/3589/efficiency.html\|steam engines] "Of course this is not an exact comparison. The differences, however, favor the steam car. Popular Science recently ran a chart showing that typical coefficients of aerodynamic drag of car bodies of the 1920s are about twice as high as those of modern cars. This means that for the same frontal area, a modern car has only half the air drag of a car of the 1920s. So the 1920s Stanley gets the same fuel mileage as a modern vehicle of the same weight and frontal area, while its engine is overcoming twice the air drag! Plus, for a given vehicle weight, the old-fashioned bias ply tires on a Stanley have higher rolling resistance than modern radial ply tires. This suggests that the 1920s Stanley powerplant is more efficient than its modern gas car equivalent. If a 1920s Stanley powerplant were installed in a modern SUV, truck, or van, it would have less rolling resistance and air drag to overcome than in the original Stanley body of the same weight and frontal area. That means it would use less horsepower and therefore get better fuel mileage than the 10-14 mpg it got in its original (1920s) vehicle. Since the gas engine gets 10-14 mpg in the modern vehicle, and the Stanley powerplant would get better than 10-14 mpg in the modern vehicle, that means the Stanley powerplant would give better fuel mileage than the modern gas powerplant, with both powerplants installed in identical vehicles!" Also burns almost anything from cow chips to kerosene. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #47,523 by Simon_Jester 7/30/02 6:38:33 PM Reply	Well, if you want to go external combustion... you really should go with a [link\|http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/~amit/courses/371/abhishe/main.html\| Sterling Engine ] rather than steam. Live steam is fairly dangerous and the Sterling was developed in part to answer those dangers. Of course, Sterlings (like Steam Engines) do suffer from some problems. They're not instanteous (they have to heat up first), and they don't have the power curve that gasoline engines have. However, during the 1970's, Ford and other manufacturers did look at the [link\|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge/cuttingedge011130.html\| sterling engines. ] [link\|http://www.motorshow.or.jp/eng/show/history/history_23.html\| Note the Nissan ]
Post #47,559 by dmarker2 7/31/02 2:17:06 AM Reply	Re: Stirling Engines - Still on the boil (links) Many years ago (1976) Ford had a 'Philips-Stirling' engine fitted to one of their standard Torino chassis models (see GM link below re engine), was 20% more fuel efficient than a standard engine of similar weight. Had fewer parts etc:. Started almost straight away (20 secs), but there was not enough advantage to change cars also they still require fuel although the range and types of fuel can vary significantly. [link\|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/Geek/geek000320.html\|Stirling & Miller Engines] This link below highlights the potential of HYBRID DRIVE vehicles where there is more than one type of engine. This may prove the direction the industry goes in. Here is a link based on research done by the big US vehicle mfgs. The article goes back to 1997 but shows how long the industry has been experimenting behind the scenes. [link\|http://www.uscar.org/techno/ng_power.htm\|USCAR ORG - HYBRID CARS] [link\|http://www.uscar.org/techno/hyb_gm.htm\|GM's Stirling Engine] Cheers Doug
Post #47,628 by Simon_Jester 7/31/02 2:08:10 PM Reply	Damn, I was LOOKING for that link! grrr....couldn't find it when I wanted it.
Post #47,690 by ben_tilly 7/31/02 10:30:19 PM Reply	Since this topic came up in another thread... The Innovator's Dilemma predicted that car makers would explore hybrids. But they would never really be popular, and would come to be looked at like today we look at the period where sailing ship builders put steam engines in their ships. The problem is that the technology still cannot meet the minimum needs for the existing market (for cars they lack range, acceleration, for ships lacked range) and won't for years. So you have to invent some alternate market to serve between now and then... Cheers, Ben "Perl is like vice grips. You can do anything with it, and it's the wrong tool for every job." --Unknown
Post #47,707 by Ashton 8/1/02 2:46:46 AM Reply	Boffo sig________fer a Perlmonk_________Aauuuummmmm
Post #47,526 by Andrew Grygus 7/30/02 6:56:22 PM Reply	Steam is unusable . . . . for the very simple reason that there is no replacement for water, and water freezes. Size of heat exchangers to condense spent steam is also a problem (the Stanley stopped for water). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #47,513 by jb4 7/30/02 4:30:54 PM Reply	~14.5:1 air / fuel ratio for gasoline, semicolon... ...at what compression? In the 70's, we had a doohikus that would inject some small amount of water vapor into the mixture. Supposed to increase compression. Increased mileage about 10-15% if memory serves. jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #47,548 by Another Scott 7/30/02 11:45:07 PM Reply	Are you serious? :-) The [link\|http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_150.html\|Pogue carburetor] and water injectors and the like aren't magic. The Pogue carburator was a fraud. It's easy to get 30+ MPG out of a 330 HP 428 CID Mustang Mach I. It's easy to get 40+ MPG out of a Ford Expedition. You simply have to restrict the fuel available to the engine and you have to accelerate very slowly. E.g. in the Mach I the owner wired the secondaries of the 4 barrel carburator shut and soldered up the jets in the primary circuit then drilled it out with a smaller orifice. It ran like a turtle, but got much better mileage. It also blew a head gasket shortly thereafter (probably due to detonation). The best air/fuel ratio is set by the chemistry of gasoline combustion. It has nothing to do with the compression ratio. Emissions are lowest and efficiency is highest at [link\|http://www.forparts.com/emission.htm\|14.7 to 1] (by mass). Power in a gasoline engine is limited by the amount of oxygen in the cylinders, so for more power lower ratios (e.g. 12.5 to 1) are used to make sure all of the oxygen is used. Water injectors work in engines that suffer from premature buring of the fuel (pinging, detonation, etc.). It cools the input charge and makes the fuel more likely to be ignited at the proper time by the spark plug. It doesn't increase the compression (increasing compression make premature buring more likely). Water injection isn't terribly effective in engines that don't suffer from pinging. And water injection introduces various corrosion issues, possibly increased emissions, worries about oil dillution and increased wear, etc., etc. TANSTAAFL. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!