|
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
On Feb 11, 11:10*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
PDQ wrote: J. Clarke wrote: SNIP The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? -- I hate to burst your bubble, but, --- When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted. They had to be. *If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons of cargo then you defeat the purpose. The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. *Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as Detroit made. *Even the large sedans are smaller now. Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer?? All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE. What of it? *All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan. As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer. If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing the specification. Do you also remember mini-vans? As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't like mini-vans. *And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. *Or do you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in engine technology? Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest". Volvos? This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles. Bite who? *If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one. I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated. You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer. There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. *You are acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started producing SUVs exclusively. http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/pag...tml#autosalesA I could only find Jan 2009 data. Not all 2008. Based on Jan 2009 data over half of the vehicles sold in the US fall into the truck category. So only about half the vehicles meet the CAFE standards. Or have to meet them. No, auto companies have not changed one iota in the last 30 years. Less than half the vehicles sold are cars. Most are some form of truck. No personal opinion required. Just the numbers. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
J. Clarke wrote:
PDQ wrote: J. Clarke wrote: SNIP The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? -- I hate to burst your bubble, but, --- When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted. They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons of cargo then you defeat the purpose. The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are smaller now. Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than the Falcon. Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer?? All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE. What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan. What of it? This was when they really started to tout these vehicles and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful bill of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about the miniscule mileage (and some of us did). As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer. If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing the specification. No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. Even Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer. Do you also remember mini-vans? As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in engine technology? Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest". Volvos? They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor performance. Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious cargoe". This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles. Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one. I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated. You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer. There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started producing SUVs exclusively. There sure are - and they all come under CAFE. This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got. -- P D Q |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
On Feb 11, 1:08*pm, "PDQ" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: PDQ wrote: J. Clarke wrote: SNIP The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? -- I hate to burst your bubble, but, --- When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted. They had to be. *If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons of cargo then you defeat the purpose. The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. *Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as Detroit made. *Even the large sedans are smaller now. Remember the Falcon?? *I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. *It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than the Falcon. Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer?? All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE. What of it? *All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan. What of it? *This was when they really started to tout these vehicles and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what it is today - (supply and demand) *They sold us a wonderful bill of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom line. *Any improvement in economy was because we griped about the miniscule mileage (and some of us did). As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer. If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing the specification. No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. *Even Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer. Do you also remember mini-vans? As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't like mini-vans. *And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. *Or do you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in engine technology? Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest". Volvos? They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor performance.. Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious cargoe". This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles. Bite who? *If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one.. I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated. You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer. There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. *You are acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started producing SUVs exclusively. There sure are - and they all come under CAFE. This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got. -- P D Q Both of my Safari trucks get excellent mileage for the durable/high payload small vans that they are. A great combination of mileage and 'real' truckishness. Which is why the assholes at GMC stopped making them in 2005. I would rather have a 4-year old GMC Safari than anything new those idiots now pass off as a working van..(Not including the big Savannah's etc.) Those Uplanders and Montanas are pure nonsense.... and for what? A few MPG's? |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:08 pm, "PDQ" wrote: J. Clarke wrote: PDQ wrote: J. Clarke wrote: SNIP The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? -- I hate to burst your bubble, but, --- When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted. They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons of cargo then you defeat the purpose. The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are smaller now. Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than the Falcon. Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer?? All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE. What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan. What of it? This was when they really started to tout these vehicles and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful bill of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about the miniscule mileage (and some of us did). As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer. If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing the specification. No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. Even Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer. Do you also remember mini-vans? As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in engine technology? Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest". Volvos? They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor performance. Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious cargoe". This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles. Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one. I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated. You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer. There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started producing SUVs exclusively. There sure are - and they all come under CAFE. This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got. -- P D Q Both of my Safari trucks get excellent mileage for the durable/high payload small vans that they are. A great combination of mileage and 'real' truckishness. Which is why the assholes at GMC stopped making them in 2005. I would rather have a 4-year old GMC Safari than anything new those idiots now pass off as a working van..(Not including the big Savannah's etc.) Those Uplanders and Montanas are pure nonsense.... and for what? A few MPG's? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Those wannabe's are just for looks and to motor the "Precious Cargoe". The only stuff that works for farmers and merchants are true trucks. Its nice that every now and then a cost concious motor is dropped into them. P D Q |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
PDQ wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: PDQ wrote: J. Clarke wrote: SNIP The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? -- I hate to burst your bubble, but, --- When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted. They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons of cargo then you defeat the purpose. The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are smaller now. Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than the Falcon. Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer?? All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE. What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan. What of it? This was when they really started to tout these vehicles and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful bill of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about the miniscule mileage (and some of us did). Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. At one time the standards were lower for AWD, but that has not been the case for at least a decade (incidentally, Audi discovered that AWD actually gave _better_ gas mileage in the original Quattro--had something to do with some fine point of tire dynamics IIRC). As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer. If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing the specification. No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. Even Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer. Shame that it wasn't transferred to Iraq. The "insurgents" don't seem intimidated at all. In any case, since the real Hummer was never produced by any Big Three automaker it remains irrelevant to any discussion of their attitudes toward fuel economy. I find 18-wheelers to be much, much more intimidating than Hummers, but then my normal daily transporation is such that I lose in a collision with a Pinto. Do you also remember mini-vans? As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in engine technology? Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest". Volvos? They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor performance. Who, Volvo? Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious cargoe". I don't remember any such "hype" coming from anybody but Volvo and Saab and occasionally Mercedes. Ford tried it once and it hurt their sales. This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles. Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one. I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated. You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer. There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started producing SUVs exclusively. There sure are - and they all come under CAFE. This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got. Further, the SUVs come under CAFE as well. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
J. Clarke wrote:
PDQ wrote: J. Clarke wrote: PDQ wrote: J. Clarke wrote: SNIP The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? -- I hate to burst your bubble, but, --- When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted. They had to be. If you base CAFE on vehicles that have to carry tons of cargo then you defeat the purpose. The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. If they were carrying on as before then they would still be producting vehicles such as my '76 Lincoln and would not be producing vehicles such as the Ford Focus. Perhaps you do not remember the Falcon, which would today be mid-size but in the late '50s was about as small as Detroit made. Even the large sedans are smaller now. Remember the Falcon?? I remember the Nash Metropolitan of that era. It had a really nice A50 to pull it and it gave even better mileage than the Falcon. Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer?? All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE. What of it? All the manufacturers were making SUVs long before CAFE and AWD was an Audi innovation first introduced in a small sedan. What of it? This was when they really started to tout these vehicles and a truck went from some $1200 (I paid that for one I got new) to what it is today - (supply and demand) They sold us a wonderful bill of goods, duded it up with all manner of luxe and created in us a demand for more goodies. No where was there a thought for CAFE just bottom line. Any improvement in economy was because we griped about the miniscule mileage (and some of us did). Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. At one time the standards were lower for AWD, but that has not been the case for at least a decade (incidentally, Audi discovered that AWD actually gave _better_ gas mileage in the original Quattro--had something to do with some fine point of tire dynamics IIRC). As for Hummer, the Hummer was _never_ produced by a big three auto maker until GM bought the product line in 1998 and started rebadging other vehicles as Hummers, all of which are smaller and lighter and more fuel efficient than the original, non-big-three produced Hummer. If you don't like the Hummer you need to blame the Army for writing the specification. No problem with Army Specs - just the thought of this "Go anywhere - Intimidate all" attitude tha6t was transferred to the highways. Even Arnie has caved in and replaced his Hummer. Shame that it wasn't transferred to Iraq. The "insurgents" don't seem intimidated at all. In any case, since the real Hummer was never produced by any Big Three automaker it remains irrelevant to any discussion of their attitudes toward fuel economy. I find 18-wheelers to be much, much more intimidating than Hummers, but then my normal daily transporation is such that I lose in a collision with a Pinto. Do you also remember mini-vans? As the car manufacturers downsized their sedans and dropped station wagons from the product line, people needing such vehicles had no choice but to go to SUV or mini-vans and for some reason people don't like mini-vans. And CAFE is what killed the station wagon. Or do you really think that high gas mileage station wagons that do what station wagons are supposed to do can be built without a breakthrough in engine technology? Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest". Volvos? They had to think of something to overcome their dismal motor performance. Who, Volvo? Beyond that, seems you have conveniently forgotten all the hype about what vehicles could best survive a crash and thus protect your "precious cargoe". I don't remember any such "hype" coming from anybody but Volvo and Saab and occasionally Mercedes. Ford tried it once and it hurt their sales. This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles. Bite who? If you're being bitten by it then you must have bought one. I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated. You're welcome to think whatever you want to but you clearly aren't familiar with the product lines of any domestic auto manufacturer. There are many kinds of car in production that are not SUVs. You are acting as if Detroit just stopped producing cars entirely and started producing SUVs exclusively. There sure are - and they all come under CAFE. This is probably why my Monte Carlo gets about 32 mpg on the highway and some 26.7 overall instead of the 12.5 my old Merc got. Further, the SUVs come under CAFE as well. -- Ainsi soit il. I shall leave you with this: CAFE, as originally enacted excluded vehicles based on a truck platform. This caused the rise of SUV et al as a basic means of people transport. At some future date subsequent to 1978 the act was amended to include the light truck platform. This is about the time that the big 3 again began to complain about their inability to attain the newly mandated efficiency and Congress, in its wisdom, gave extentions. How interesting it is to note that everything comes back to politics and big business. Adieu. P D Q |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
dpb wrote:
Phil Again wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:36:29 -0600, dpb wrote: .... I think I will wait to pass judgment. Isn't that what I've said in every response??? :( That's not allowed on the Internet! G |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Chris Friesen wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote: Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5 mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph. What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the 5th wheel). It creams the 14-15 MPG mileage of my 6 cylinder Jeep Wrangler! G |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
... LD wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: J. Clarke wrote: Lee Michaels wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote Right now it looks like he's got a cute little air motor. If it actually runs on fuel, doesn't overheat at high power, holds together for a few thousand hours, gives reasonable throttle response, passes emissions, and if it really achieves the efficiency he claims, _then_ he's got an engine. The air is used in public settings to meet fire codes. He has run them on fuel for awhile now. The easiest fuel for it to use is deisel. All of his initial offerings will be in deisel. He can make a few changes to use other fuels. Does he have a video of it running on something other than air? I didn't see one on his site. I know he _says_ that he has, but where's the meat? Again, he has to build something beyond prototypes. I wish him the best. It is a real creative feat. But real life has a way of dashing dreams. I wish him well too, but don't really expect him to deliver. In engineering when someone comes to you with something that looks too good to be true, it generally is. People including those in Washington do not understand there is a fixed amount of energy in the Carbon bond. When the Carbon molecule is oxidized it release a known amount of energy that can be calculated. (This energy can be found in any Handbook of Engineering, Physics, or Chemistry and probably hundreds of sites online) Regardless of what you do, you can only recover 100% of this energy. The trouble is that current cars (or base-load power plants for that matter) do not come anywhere close to recovering 100 percent of that energy. 30 percent is very good for an internal combustion otto-cycle engine, so there is considerable room for improvement. Hence with cars to get higher miles per gallon you have to reduce the size of the car. Or increase the thermal efficiency. A roller skate should be able to get a couple of hundred miles per gallon. Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it still is not real. I'm not sure how relevant that is to the engine in question. He's claiming that it gets the performance of a really good diesel or maybe a wee bit more in a much smaller and lighter package--if that's so then in addition to the thermal efficiency benefit the car could be smaller and lighter due to the smaller, lighter engine, which would again provide a gas mileage benefit. The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his door, but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his design. The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? It's possible. I saw similar idiocy at Xerox and Tektronix. |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Chris Friesen wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote: Some of the "really big" vehicles do pretty well. My '04 Silverado 2500 Duramax diesel (6500 lbs) gets 21 mpg highway at 75mph and 14.5 mpg towing a 10,000 lb 5th wheel at 65 mph. What's the criteria for "pretty well"? A smaller vehicle could get twice that mileage on the highway (but of course couldn't pull the 5th wheel). Seems like a question that pretty well answers itself. -- -Mike- |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
"PDQ" wrote in message
... CAFE, as originally enacted excluded vehicles based on a truck platform. This caused the rise of SUV et al as a basic means of people transport. At some future date subsequent to 1978 the act was amended to include the light truck platform. This is about the time that the big 3 again began to complain about their inability to attain the newly mandated efficiency and Congress, in its wisdom, gave extentions. How interesting it is to note that everything comes back to politics and big business. Adieu. P D Q ================= Am I being too much of a pedant to point out that it's the buyer, not the lawmakers or manufacturers, who values the "truckness" of the trucks used in personal transportation roles? In the way back time machine, I recall my high school buddies ****ing and moaning about the emissions crap burying the engine; the mandatory catalytic converters; the truck chassis on the Blazers and Jimmies. As far as I can tell, none of those attitudes have changed in the intervening 35 years. (In that sense, it's your parent's fault. Your relevant attitudes were already entrenched before you were even presented with the choice.) |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Leon wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message ... "Lee Michaels" wrote I am downloading more about this guy and his technology. It is fascinating stuff. Where did you learn about him? I am going to spend a very pleasurable hour or two perusing this topic. Thanks for the heads up. Here's hoping his bodyguards are top notch .... And or does not get offered 10 million for the patents and then we never hear anything again. Yeah, and we Pittsburghers are worried to death some football billionaire is going to buy Ben Roethlisberger's contract and stick him on a bench to nowhere so some loser can play. You guys kill me... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Like Bigfoot, I have heard of the supper carburetor for years, but it still is not real. You mean the carburetor that runs on plain old water isn't real? I guess some oil billionaire tycoon bought the rights and buried it, or did they hire some spook to do him in... Damn, I HATE when that happens... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
J. Clarke wrote:
The question is whether he can actually deliver that thermal efficiency in an engine that passes emissions and is reliable and driveable. If he can the world is going to beat a path to his door, but if their engineers thought that he could the car manufacturers would have engaged in a bidding war to get the rights to his design. You mean they wouldn't have him snuffed or buy the rights to the worlds greatest engine and bury it so they could continue competing with the rest of the engine makers on a level playing field? How surprising... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
KIMOSABE wrote:
I must be reading more into this than is there. Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a car which can be driven as a demo? Don't fret, Obama ben Laden and his fellow socialists will give GM $50 Billion of our fake money and force them to build a better car, or else... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
J. Clarke wrote:
KIMOSABE wrote: I must be reading more into this than is there. Does anyone see a reason that he doesn't have this engine mounted in a car which can be driven as a demo? That's a very good question. Given what he says about the dimensions it would certainly fit in most of them. Given what he says about the power it could certainly propel most of them. Yeah, but it ain't got nothing on the carburator that runs on tap water... Thats been around more than 50 years and not one auto manufacture uses it. They buried it so their buddies, the billionaire oil tycoons, can keep selling gas... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Lee Michaels wrote:
"willshak" wrote in My thoughts exactly. If he can design a complex motor, why can't he design a motor mount for a standard vehicle and put it to the test? I feel an episode of sarcasm comin' on. Good call! Cuz designing the motor mounts would be too difficult of an engineering feat?? -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
LD wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... While it is true that fuel mileage has improved over the last few years, Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy for the whole fleet is the same as it was in 1919 with the model "T" - aprox 21MPG US. Well, you are talking "Ford". ;~) The only one of the Big Three not standing on the corner with a tin cup. Doesn't Ford sell a diesel powered car in Europe that gets 60 mpg? It was all over the internet so it has to be true, right? -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
LD wrote:
The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. True, otherwise we would be driving around on tap water... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
J. Clarke wrote:
You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? Look what they did to the water carburator! Where have you been... Actually, I think some billionaire oil tycoon paid a spook to bury the water carburator guy in the bottom of some huge oil tanker, otherwise we wouldn't be caring much about engine efficiency would we. -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
PDQ wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: SNIP The car manufacturers, particularly in the US, are victims of NIH Syndrome. You really think that if Ford could reduce the size of their engines by a factor of ten while doubling the efficiency in these days of CAFE they'd ignore it because of "NIH"? -- I hate to burst your bubble, but, --- When CAFE was adopted there was a big hole in it for trucks - they were excepted. The big 3 thought, and rightly so, that they could carry on as before as long as the cars they produced were on a truck platform. Do you remember SUV, Crossover, AWD, Hummer?? All of these are produced on a "truck" platform and, as a result, did not get counted in CAFE. Think about which vehicles have been touted the most and which ones sold as "safest". This has come back to bite us with 10 or less mpg in a lot of the really big vehicles. I think the greed of the "bean counters" prevailed and any effort to garner efficiency was castigated. My 2001 GMC 4 wheel drive V8 pickup truck got 19 mpg on a trip with 4 LARGE adults and about 10 cases of beer, 5 cases of pop, food clothes and misc stuff packed in the bed. It gets 13 mpg around town, less in 4 wheel drive... still, not running on water. -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
J. Clarke wrote:
wrote: No, auto companies have not changed one iota in the last 30 years. Less than half the vehicles sold are cars. Most are some form of truck. No personal opinion required. Just the numbers. While you were googling all this bull**** did you happen to google the standards? If you had you would have found that light trucks have been subject to CAFE since 1978. And the Ford F series pickup has been the most popular vehicle in America for more than 30 years. You just don't seem to be able to get past the notion that Americans, dogs, and elderly Japanese gentlemen love trucks. I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams, horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few other things I can think of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned car that does almost nothing? I sure hope no wood workers drive cars around here... sheesh! -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
J. Clarke wrote:
Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess GM didn't know about the government requirements? -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...: I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams, horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few other things I can think of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned car that does almost nothing? Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls". -- -Mike- |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Mike Marlow wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of wisdom...: I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams, horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few other things I can think of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned car that does almost nothing? Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls". Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com.... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
On Feb 13, 10:51*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of wisdom...: I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of resources. *A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams, horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few other things I can think of. *Why would anyone waste money on a damned car that does almost nothing? Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". *Not "halls". Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com.... You're a bit of an abrasive ****, ain't you Jack? |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 13, 10:51 am, Jack Stein wrote: Mike Marlow wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of wisdom...: I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. In a truck you can hall people, 2x4's, 2x6's 2x8's 2x10's 2x12's, full plywood sheets, fire wood, stoves, refrigerators, people, shingles, dogs, baseball teams, horse manure, people, brush, logs, scrap metal, table saws, band saws jointer's, planers, furniture, dog kennels, cat houses, people and a few other things I can think of. Why would anyone waste money on a damned car that does almost nothing? Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls". Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com.... You're a bit of an abrasive ****, ain't you Jack? Be nice Rob. ****s are useful, twits are not. BEG P D Q |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
... J. Clarke wrote: Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess GM didn't know about the government requirements? -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com What part of the word "average" don't you understand? Did the GM dealer show up at your house with a gun and make you buy a van with a V8 engine? If you want to blame someone for GM selling a van in 1978 that got 10mpg, you can go find the nearest mirror. todd |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 13, 10:51 am, Jack Stein wrote: Mike Marlow wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of wisdom...: I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls". Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com.... You're a bit of an abrasive ****, ain't you Jack? I never react well to spelling cops... So yes! I notice you ain't so full of sugar plums either... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
todd wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message J. Clarke wrote: Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess GM didn't know about the government requirements? What part of the word "average" don't you understand? What part of "required" don't you understand? There is no way the average GMC truck got 17 mpg. My little bitty GMC van only got 10! Did the GM dealer show up at your house with a gun and make you buy a van with a V8 engine? Nope, I had no problem getting 10 mpg. I loved the van, much better than any car built by anyone. MPG was a NON ISSUE to me. If you want to blame someone for GM selling a van in 1978 that got 10mpg, you can go find the nearest mirror. Why would I blame GM for anything other than selling me a GREAT van. This thing gave me ZERO trouble for the whole 14 years I owned it. My very next NEW vehicle was a 2001 GMC pickup and it is the nicest vehicle I've ever owned. Had a few minor problems at first all under warranty. It has a big V8, 4 wheel drive and it gets 19 mpg on the road loaded, 13 in the city empty, in the summer... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
... todd wrote: "Jack Stein" wrote in message J. Clarke wrote: Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess GM didn't know about the government requirements? What part of the word "average" don't you understand? What part of "required" don't you understand? There is no way the average GMC truck got 17 mpg. My little bitty GMC van only got 10! You mean your little bitty GMC van with what looks like a GVWR of 6800 lbs and a roughly 6 liter V8? From what I can tell, CAFE requirements didn't include light trucks until 1979. In any case, if your van had a GVWR of over 6000 lbs, it would have been exempt anyway. And of course, the calculated MPG doesn't necessarily correlate to real-world numbers. todd |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
todd wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message todd wrote: "Jack Stein" wrote in message J. Clarke wrote: Well, actually in 1978 light trucks were required to average 17 mpg. They are now required to average better than 23. My brand new 1978 GMC Van with a small 305 V8 averaged 10 mpg... I guess GM didn't know about the government requirements? What part of the word "average" don't you understand? What part of "required" don't you understand? There is no way the average GMC truck got 17 mpg. My little bitty GMC van only got 10! You mean your little bitty GMC van with what looks like a GVWR of 6800 lbs and a roughly 6 liter V8? No, my little bitty GMC van was a 1500 and had a small 305 cubic inch engine. I have no clue how many liters 305 CI is. America was not yet Amerika in 1978. From what I can tell, CAFE requirements didn't include light trucks until 1979. Who knows, just that my response was to the requirement for light trucks to average 17 mpg in 1978. I didn't say my 1979 van got 10 mpg. My wife's 1979 Caddy got around 10 mpg though, in the real world though, possibly not the same as in the world of government gobbledygook. In any case, if your van had a GVWR of over 6000 lbs, it would have been exempt anyway. It didn't, and it was definitely considered a light duty truck. And of course, the calculated MPG doesn't necessarily correlate to real-world numbers. That's possible. "They" could require every vehicle sold to get 1000 mpg but if that is a fake number, or that number converted to a "real world number" of 10 mpg, then who really cares other than those that do not live in the "real world"? What I do know is my "real world" light duty, 1978 GMC van got 10 mpg and from my recollection, no one much cared, certainly not me. At any rate, now that we live in a government controlled, socialist country, I think Big Brother should ban cars altogether as a waste of resources, considering cars do nothing a truck can do, but a truck does everything a car does, plus a ton more. Beyond that, I don't see why any woodworker, other than perhaps pen turners would not own a truck for all the reasons listed in my previous post. -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:14:47 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote: No, my little bitty GMC van was a 1500 and had a small 305 cubic inch engine. I have no clue how many liters 305 CI is. Oh, that's so hard: 305/61. It's almost exactly 5 liters. You're obviously not a car guy. Anybody following sports cars and/or Formula One since the '50s would know that. America was not yet Amerika in 1978. Wow, misspelled the word appearing twice in one sentence half the times. Abrasive AND ignorant. Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant. C'mon lightweight, give me your best shot. I'll never see it, though, as you've just been demoted to the "never read because they're ignorant buffoons" list. Buh, bye. -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net http://www.normstools.com Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month. If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't care to correspond with you anyway. |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
LRod wrote:
Jack Stein wrote: Todd wrote: You mean your little bitty GMC van with what looks like a GVWR of 6800 lbs and a roughly 6 liter V8? No, my little bitty GMC van was a 1500 and had a small 305 cubic inch engine. I have no clue how many liters 305 CI is. Oh, that's so hard: 305/61. It's almost exactly 5 liters. Whelp the guy that thought my 305 was a 6 liter V8 should have done the math... is that your point? You're obviously not a car guy. Obviously. This is a wood working group. Anybody following sports cars and/or Formula One since the '50s would know that. I was a car guy in the 50's and 60's, and I didn't give a crap about sports cars or Formula One then either. I guess in your mind a "car guy" is into sports cars and Formula One?. I'd call that rather ignorant. But, more to the point at hand, my little bitty GMC van WAS considered a light truck, are you arguing that point, or just being ignorant and abrasive for the hell of it? America was not yet Amerika in 1978. Wow, misspelled the word appearing twice in one sentence half the times. Abrasive AND ignorant. Glad you managed to pick up on that... I'd hate to waste abrasive and ignorant on someone too ignorant to pick up on it... Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant. So you did just chime in to be ignorant and abrasive and nothing else. C'mon lightweight, give me your best shot. I'll never see it, though, as you've just been demoted to the "never read because they're ignorant buffoons" list. That's good, at least I see why you're ignorant, abrasive probably just come naturally... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
On Feb 17, 2:20*pm, Jack Stein wrote:
That's good, at least I see why you're ignorant, abrasive probably just come naturally... That's good, at least I see why you're ignorant. Abrasive probably just comes naturally... There... fixed it for you. |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
... Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant. So you did just chime in to be ignorant and abrasive and nothing else. I can't speak for Rod, but I can speak for me. It was my hope you would take the gentle hint and tone it down, rather than up the ante. |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:48:14 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...: Robatoy wrote: On Feb 13, 10:51 am, Jack Stein wrote: Mike Marlow wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:13:38 -0500, Jack Stein cast forth these pearls of wisdom...: I think the government should ban cars completely as a waste of resources. A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls". Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com.... You're a bit of an abrasive ****, ain't you Jack? I never react well to spelling cops... So yes! I notice you ain't so full of sugar plums either... Well - then learn to spell when you're posting in public forums and you won't suffer the heartburn of people correcting you. Oh - by the way, I didn't have to look it up on Dictionary.com - apparently you should have. -- -Mike- |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
MikeWhy wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message ... Oh, you're trying to make some sort of political statement? Well, at the risk of repeating myself, abrasive AND ignorant. So you did just chime in to be ignorant and abrasive and nothing else. I can't speak for Rod, but I can speak for me. It was my hope you would take the gentle hint and tone it down, rather than up the ante. If calling someone ignorant and abrasive is a "gentle hint" then I took the hint and went with it. Thanks for the insight though... -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
Internal Combustion Breakthrough?
Mike Marlow wrote:
Jack Stein said: A truck halls people just like a car, but is easier to get in and out of than a pot hole with wheels on it. Pssssst.... "hauls" man, "hauls". Not "halls". Try moving your lips and reading out loud, and the meaning will be much clearer than looking everything up at Dictionary dot com.... You're a bit of an abrasive ****, ain't you Jack? I never react well to spelling cops... So yes! I notice you ain't so full of sugar plums either... Well - then learn to spell when you're posting in public forums and you won't suffer the heartburn of people correcting you. Well, learn that public forums are not second grade spelling contests. If you had trouble figuring out the meaning of the sentence that gave the other guy so much trouble, then there is little hope for you in the public forums. Oh - by the way, I didn't have to look it up on Dictionary.com - apparently you should have. Why? I doubt anyone that spent more than a day in the public forums had trouble understanding what was meant. I also doubt anyone thinks I, or anyone else posting, doesn't know the difference between hall and haul. I appreciate the sanctimonious attitudes of the spell cops but they are seldom to never needed on a public forum. As a matter of fact, the spell cops generally rear their ugly little heads when they have nothing left other than an ad hominem attack. -- Jack Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org http://jbstein.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter