Where does Detroit go from here (gas milage)

As I believe, it is inevitable that the government is going to push up gas milage on both cars and probably even more on SUVs and trucks. I was wondering were the automakers can go from here? While improvements in milage will be modest, how much is left to squeeze out of the high HP V8s and other high output motors?

You can improve aero and other things left in the vehical, but how much more aerodinamic can a SUV or even a truck get? Other then converting to another fuel, how much do you guys think is left in the pump gas engine.

This question came to mind while I was thinking about some of the high HP vehicals that are getting ready to come out of Detroit. I was thinking, just how far will the government let this go before they force the auto maunufactures to improve gas milage and emissions?

thanks
Jeremy

i think the next big thing will be the new variable displacement engines, such as the ones GM is getting ready to start rolling out. that will help meet higher milage and lower emissions standards for a while, while allowing even larger displacements with higher power output

People need to stop buying SUVs because its the "in" thing to do. My mom included. Her explorer gets like 14 mpg, and all she uses it for is driving to work and home. People just think they need an SUV.

There are afew things I think Detroit will do to increase mpg:
1. Hybrids
2. CVT or 5,6,7 speed auto trans to keep rpms down
3. Hydrogen fuel cells

My $.02 :D

There are afew things I think Detroit will do to increase mpg:
1. Hybrids
2. CVT or 5,6,7 speed auto trans to keep rpms down
3. Hydrogen fuel cells

My $.02 :D

1 & 3 are probably our best bet for significant increases. Variable displacement (DOD in GMese) may be 8% improvement, and 5-7 speed automatics are a little help. Some of that is trans rotating efficiency and maybe engine-off at idle like the hybrids. If I recall, a good hybrid actually gets better MPG in traffic that on the freeway.

Vehicle gross weight is the biggest culprit. At a given performance level, overall lifetime fuel economy is pretty much proportional to gross weight. Here's where big SUVs get bit

IMO, hybrid SUVs are going to become popular, perhaps in small medium and gigantic sizes.

I think GVW (gross vehicle weight) is a big part of the problem too.
I have herd many times that 100lb more weight can slow you a 0.1sec on the 1/4mile and cause you to loose at least 1mgp city and high way.
I'm going to put a tubular k-member, fab me some frount LCA's from Titanium for my V6 and even with my crane 272 cam I should still be able to get at least 26mpg and be under 3000lb with full trim.
Titanium scraps and ebay, the best thing I have going now.

BTW 7SPD transmissions are here just not at all levels ;)

Anyone look a t the New Mercedes?

Efficentcy is the key. Lighter more efficent cars till fuel changes

lighter cars should come into play no matter what because all the drivetrain componets are doing less work and it allows for a numerical lower gear to keep the rpms down on the highway. DOD is going to be the next thing from GM alothough its not very exciting its better then nothing and already developed. I believe one piston is all a corvette needs to keep going after its on the road so it should help.

I'm really surprised that Turbine/Electric hybrids haven't hit the market, or are even on the horizon.

weight is one way. increasing price if steel means hydroforming which means less weight.

want to know how much weight and aero "matter?"

Silverado 5.3-285hp - 17mpg highway- maybe 18 with same gearing as a Z06
Z06- 5.7L, 405hp- 31mpg highway.


my measly 4.8 goes 17 pure highway at my gearing isn't that bad. around 2000rpm at 74mph.



what it all comes down to is you need to make enough power to overcome friction/powertain losses for the highway.

higher rpm means more friction
8 cylinders means more friction
etc etc

but its not like the V8 HAS to guzzel gas. it can have lower RPM to make the same power.

What Boost it! said
The Z06 proves V8's don't have to drink gas.

Thoughts:

Mileage is more about acceleration than maintaining speed on a "level" road. Except in some parts of west Texas, there aren't really many "level" roads which you notice if you bicycle, or for us lazy louts, watch an instantaneous MPG computer on a car.

Just maintaining a steady 60 mph on a road that rises 100 feet in a mile requires about 15 more hp than it does to overcome friction, and aero losses on a 5000 lb Ute. The friction and aero losses might consume 45-60 hp (probably high), so that 1.9% grade can be 25-33% more power required. If the gross weight of the vehicle was 2500 lb, the extra hp would only be 7.5.

A Z06 has fairly low friction and aero drag as well as relatively low gross weight so less hp is required to cruise so lower gearing can be used than in a Ute. It just gets better (or worse) depending on weight.


Turbine engines are notoriously thirsty. Controlling them is also expensive. High bypass ratio turbofans are a big help, but not unless you are cruising a few miles high at speeds approaching 600 mph. Even Detroit freeways don't reach that average speed. :)

HSLA (high strength low alloy) steels and hydroforming do reduce the amount of material needed for structure, but only by a few %. Exotic materials could reduce weight a ton (pun fully intended), but at what cost? Even aluminum which is 1/3 the density of steel is less strong than steel so lots more of it is needed. A well designed cast steel rocker arm is much stiffer that any aluminum rocker arm and can have the same or less moving mass.

The highest strength aluminmun, 7075-T6 for example, is about as strong as HSLA steel which has been formed. Recently some OEM suspension components of steel are lighter and stronger than some aluminum ones doing the same job. You might save a few kilos on control arms, but it's the ton of body/chassis attached to them that makes the difference.

Much of the DOD savings is fuel not burned by the 4 dead cylinders, but also from the lower pumping losses because the valve is held open. Friction is still there, but at low, often below 2000, rpm it is fairly low. Remember inline 4s have the same number of main bearngs as V8s, and more cam bearings and cam drive losses if they are DOHC vs. the pushrod V8.

Not sure about domestic 7-sp autos, but 6 sp autos are coming. With a 1st to 6th ratio probably over 6:1 (4l60 is 3.06/.7 or 4.37) they will help heavy vehicles at lower speeds with smaller engines keep up with traffic and still cruise at low rpm. Of course with different ratios they might be nice in the high-end cars also.

FWIW, a C5 probably takes well fewer hp than what one cylinder provides at max power to maintain 75 mph. Of course, who would want to have that one lung running 6000? Efficient part throttle low rpm power production often needs the opposite things from what full throttle high rpm power demands. That's a huge challenge to OEMs. We tweak our engines for more WOT power and live with lower mpg. Not allowed in OEM. One design requirement for the C5 and C6 was NO gas guzzler tax. Ferrari, Lambo, etc. don't really worry about that as much, I suspect.

My $.02

Valves controled by a electric motor or magnet. This way we can control have much duration, lift and lobe seperation the valves have vs rpm and throttle. This would really help out gas milage.

We can controal the lift and duration a little with rhoads variable lifters.
There are is the chevy VVT that changes valve timing, exhaust valve only I think.
They need to combind the 2.
RPM based varible lift and duration and load based valve timing (advance/retard for one side if it has to be).

Valves controled by a electric motor or magnet. This way we can control have much duration, lift and lobe seperation the valves have vs rpm and throttle. This would really help out gas milage.

Variable Valve Timing (VVT), even solenoid actuated as you suggest, certainly can help mileage, but not to a great extent. Shutting off cylinders probably does more, and combining DOD & VVT would probably be even better. We're still not talking a huge improvement. Maybe 15% max over what we have now.

Direct Fuel Injection(DFI) into the cylinder is coming, which again can help. I think Audi Racing used DFI in their LeMans winners of the last few years. They seemed to get better racing uel economy that the competition who were not using DFI. So maybe DFI, VVT and DOD might get us 20-25% if we do everything right. I may be optimistic at that level.

There really isn't a magic bullet that will improve mileage on today's internal combustion engines dramatically. Well maybe the Tornado might, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. :)

Thoughts:

Much of the DOD savings is fuel not burned by the 4 dead cylinders, but also from the lower pumping losses because the valve is held open. Friction is still there, but at low, often below 2000, rpm it is fairly low. Remember inline 4s have the same number of main bearngs as V8s, and more cam bearings and
My $.02


excellent points here. How could i forget about them with both volumes of Taylors books on the coffee table 5 ft from laptop!


Just out curriousity, do the dead cylinders have a problem with drawing in exhuast charges?



Another point Id like to bring up is simply the continual improvement of the Internal combustion engine.

For example, our race engine at work has great BSFC compared to a street car (pump gas). with fuel pressure set at 40psi, we run much smaller injectors than what something like a blown 383 LT1 would need even at 46psi.

I was actually in shock when I saw the numbers all worked out. I was expecting 75-80lb injectors and we ended up with 65ish i think. mmm engineering:)

Just out curriousity, do the dead cylinders have a problem with drawing in exhuast charges?



Here's a quote from Chris Meagher of GM:



"In order to eliminate the pumping losses," says Meagher, "you need to disable both the intake and exhaust valve." This results in a completely sealed, deactivated cylinder, which is essentially an air spring being acted upon by a piston. Virtually all the work put into it during compression is returned to the crank during decompression, finally giving credence to the old joke about piston-return springs. (That's nothing. Wait 'til you hear about the muffler valve...)

"Currently, we could disable just the fuel delivery," says Meagher, "but the valves would still be opening and closing and each cylinder would still be doing work pumping air in and out. So there would be no net gain in efficiency--you wouldn't have eliminated the pumping losses at all."

In support of cylinder deactivation is some very interesting choreography from things ranging from throttle valve modulation to active exhaust tuning, but it all starts with the additional job tasked to the lifters. "We disable the valves through a device called a switching lifter," explains Meagher. "This differs from a normal lifter in that there is an inner body and an outer body connected by a spring-loaded pin. For V-8 operation, the pin is fully expanded by the spring so the two pieces act as one and the lifter acts like a regular lifter. When we want to disable the valve operation, we deliver high-pressure oil to a groove in the lifter that leads to the outside end of the pin, forcing the pin to collapse the spring. Now the two parts of the lifter are free to move relative to one another and as the cam lobe pushes on the follower the inner portion of the lifter pushes against another spring at the top of the lifter and does not transfer force to the pushrod."

The new Hemi has "special" lifters like the old man stated above. One of the reasons I think that we don't see performance cams for that motor yet. Another being that DC needs a performance platform for the Hemi. It's probably as good of a motor as the LS motor but it's in pigs for vehicles. I mean why would I give up a performance car for a 4000lbs+ old mans car or station wagon?

On the point of fuel ecomony......

Chamber design has a big part in that, and companies getting much more power thru airflow development. In the 60's the camshafts where a much bigger reason for the HP levels they had. A LT1 in a 1970 Camaro or Vette had a bigger cam to go with the Double Hump heads to make a 360 HP STD not installed in the car, where a LS1 makes the same amount installed in the car in SAE conditions. The heads are obviously better in the ports and chambers, but the camshafts also have much less overlap and therefore have better gas mileage. I think some things that are coming out of the race arena like wet flow development will also play a part in the fuel economy picture. As time goes on it's all the little things added together that make the improvements. Kind of like how the little things in a motor add up to a big gain in HP. 5-10hp here and there can add up to a lot.

Bret

haven't they been trying to make additives that make less heat when burned(to transfer it into work, or pressure)?

haven't they been trying to make additives that make less heat when burned(to transfer it into work, or pressure)?

I'm not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

Thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

Thanks.
thats what my chem teacher said. i don't think he's a car guy but it made sense when he said it. change in internal energy of a system= heat + work
it was along the lines of if you create heat you give off energy and if the system does work it gives off energy. i guess he was saying someone was trying to change the structure of the gas to create more work and less heat?

thats what my chem teacher said. i don't think he's a car guy but it made sense when he said it. change in internal energy of a system= heat + work
it was along the lines of if you create heat you give off energy and if the system does work it gives off energy. i guess he was saying someone was trying to change the structure of the gas to create more work and less heat?

I'm still confused. We are talking about combustion, right? Isn't the idea to get MORE heat out of each pound of fuel to produce more power to improve the efficiency? Maybe he meant less heat out the tailpipe and cooling system so that more was used to produce power. I'm not sure how one goes about "changing the structure" of the gasoline to do that. The thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines isn't very high, and engineers have been working over a century to improve it.

In any event, I wouldn't look for a breakthrough in this area.

My thermo professor was part of GM's plan to make the 60% efficent engine- or at least eliminate lossed through coolant with a ceramic motor.

well the did just that, and now the EGT just doubled :o

it gained a bit of efficiency, but not much. He (as well as myself) dont believe there is much of anywhere to go with the traditional (think SBC, not hybrid, DOD or antying like that) internal combustion engine. They are pretty much going to be at efficency levels they are at.

Overall, the ICE hasn't done much since 1970ish. BSFC improved a bit, but 95% of it is still the same- most advancements are thanks to improved metalicurgy and machining. EFI is a bit of a jump but overall on the street, its basically just more green happy and reliable

I think number77 is talking about some thing like a high explosive fuel insted of a combusting fuel.
Some thing like methanol, nitromethane (CH3NO) or hydroziene. They make more power than gas but you have to burn a lot more of them.

Not sure if you guys have seen it yet, but ford came up with an interesting concept a couple years ago. It's mainy geared for city driving. They called it "hydradrive" or something like that and was showcased in the superduty line of trucks.

What it does is utilize hydraulic pressure built up in a tank mounted near the center of the truck. When coming to a stop, a pump mounted on the drivetrain (leading end of the DS) is engaged and uses the momentum of the truck to turn it and build pressure in the tank. When accelerating from a stop the pump is reversed and the pressure built up in the tank is released and the pump essentially accelerates the truck for the first 5-10 seconds. Testing showed that it only took about 30-40% of the energy required to go from a stop versus accerlating under the engine's power only. It's also intended to make it easier for the truck to tow a load since much more fuel is needed to accelerate than cruise with a load. Pretty interesting, would like to see this technology developed and perfected.

Another way to increase mpg could be to follow VW's lead. The jetta TDI can get over 40mpg (i've heard of 50mpg before) on the highway and some 30mpg in the city.

Kinda going on this idea....one thing i've been thinking about is something like the railroad industry uses. They have big 10 or 12 cylinder, 4000+ hp turbocharged diesel engines that only turn generators (these diesels redline at a measly 900rpm and operate normally at 700rpm).... which power electric motors mounted on the truck wheels which moves the train. If motors like these were to be employed in cars and batteries were used, a small diesel engine could be used to only turn a generator to charge the batteries when needed. Say, you're driving down the road and your batteries are at 100% charge, the diesel engine is off, and the motors are the only thing powering the car. You drive for an arbitrary amount of time until the batteries run down to about 30-40%, at which point the diesel engine cranks up (seemlessly and unnoticeably, hopefully) and recharges the batteries until they reach full charge. Then the cycle starts over as needed. This could be used well in city driving too. I guess packaging issues are what's holding the automakers back on a system like this. A single electric motor could be mounted to a normal automatic transmission and get the same benefits fuel-powered engines get with gear multiplication, lower revolutions, etc. Highly efficient batteries and small generators would need to be developed so the engine won't have to run all the time. I'm sure the electric motors could produce a substancial amount of power too.... i live near a railroad track and they will constantly come by, two or three locomotives hooked together, pulling over 150 fully loaded cars at 40+ mph. Who knows how much weight that is? And given that amount of weight, they accelerate at a reasonably fast pace.

Just some random thoughts.....

Ford didn't come up with that. Its just an application of the age old concept of a gyroscope/flywheel and inertia.

Not sure if you guys have seen it yet, but ford came up with an interesting concept a couple years ago. It's mainy geared for city driving. They called it "hydradrive" or something like that and was showcased in the superduty line of trucks.

What it does is utilize hydraulic pressure built up in a tank mounted near the center of the truck. When coming to a stop, a pump mounted on the drivetrain (leading end of the DS) is engaged and uses the momentum of the truck to turn it and build pressure in the tank. When accelerating from a stop the pump is reversed and the pressure built up in the tank is released and the pump essentially accelerates the truck for the first 5-10 seconds. Testing showed that it only took about 30-40% of the energy required to go from a stop versus accerlating under the engine's power only. It's also intended to make it easier for the truck to tow a load since much more fuel is needed to accelerate than cruise with a load. Pretty interesting, would like to see this technology developed and perfected.

Another way to increase mpg could be to follow VW's lead. The jetta TDI can get over 40mpg (i've heard of 50mpg before) on the highway and some 30mpg in the city.

Kinda going on this idea....one thing i've been thinking about is something like the railroad industry uses. They have big 10 or 12 cylinder, 4000+ hp turbocharged diesel engines that only turn generators (these diesels redline at a measly 900rpm and operate normally at 700rpm).... which power electric motors mounted on the truck wheels which moves the train. If motors like these were to be employed in cars and batteries were used, a small diesel engine could be used to only turn a generator to charge the batteries when needed. Say, you're driving down the road and your batteries are at 100% charge, the diesel engine is off, and the motors are the only thing powering the car. You drive for an arbitrary amount of time until the batteries run down to about 30-40%, at which point the diesel engine cranks up (seemlessly and unnoticeably, hopefully) and recharges the batteries until they reach full charge. Then the cycle starts over as needed. This could be used well in city driving too. I guess packaging issues are what's holding the automakers back on a system like this. A single electric motor could be mounted to a normal automatic transmission and get the same benefits fuel-powered engines get with gear multiplication, lower revolutions, etc. Highly efficient batteries and small generators would need to be developed so the engine won't have to run all the time. I'm sure the electric motors could produce a substancial amount of power too.... i live near a railroad track and they will constantly come by, two or three locomotives hooked together, pulling over 150 fully loaded cars at 40+ mph. Who knows how much weight that is? And given that amount of weight, they accelerate at a reasonably fast pace.

Just some random thoughts.....

Thoughts:

Turbine engines are notoriously thirsty.

What about turbines driving generators, so that the turbine can be relatively small and stay in an efficient range?

Not sure if you guys have seen it yet, but ford came up with an interesting concept a couple years ago. It's mainy geared for city driving. They called it "hydradrive" or something like that and was showcased in the superduty line of trucks.

What it does is utilize hydraulic pressure built up in a tank mounted near the center of the truck. When coming to a stop, a pump mounted on the drivetrain (leading end of the DS) is engaged and uses the momentum of the truck to turn it and build pressure in the tank. When accelerating from a stop the pump is reversed and the pressure built up in the tank is released and the pump essentially accelerates the truck for the first 5-10 seconds. Testing showed that it only took about 30-40% of the energy required to go from a stop versus accerlating under the engine's power only. It's also intended to make it easier for the truck to tow a load since much more fuel is needed to accelerate than cruise with a load. Pretty interesting, would like to see this technology developed and perfected.

Another way to increase mpg could be to follow VW's lead. The jetta TDI can get over 40mpg (i've heard of 50mpg before) on the highway and some 30mpg in the city.

Kinda going on this idea....one thing i've been thinking about is something like the railroad industry uses. They have big 10 or 12 cylinder, 4000+ hp turbocharged diesel engines that only turn generators (these diesels redline at a measly 900rpm and operate normally at 700rpm).... which power electric motors mounted on the truck wheels which moves the train. If motors like these were to be employed in cars and batteries were used, a small diesel engine could be used to only turn a generator to charge the batteries when needed. Say, you're driving down the road and your batteries are at 100% charge, the diesel engine is off, and the motors are the only thing powering the car. You drive for an arbitrary amount of time until the batteries run down to about 30-40%, at which point the diesel engine cranks up (seemlessly and unnoticeably, hopefully) and recharges the batteries until they reach full charge. Then the cycle starts over as needed. This could be used well in city driving too. I guess packaging issues are what's holding the automakers back on a system like this. A single electric motor could be mounted to a normal automatic transmission and get the same benefits fuel-powered engines get with gear multiplication, lower revolutions, etc. Highly efficient batteries and small generators would need to be developed so the engine won't have to run all the time. I'm sure the electric motors could produce a substancial amount of power too.... i live near a railroad track and they will constantly come by, two or three locomotives hooked together, pulling over 150 fully loaded cars at 40+ mph. Who knows how much weight that is? And given that amount of weight, they accelerate at a reasonably fast pace.

Just some random thoughts.....

More random thoughts..

Yep, the diesel/electric railroad locomotives were probably the first true hybrids! BTW, You have pretty much described current hybrid cars except most are using gas not diesel.

"Reasonably fast pace" acceleration? How about 0-50 mph acceleration measured in 10s of minutes rather than seconds. Hybrid cars actually accelerate well with both IC engine and electric motor helping out.

FWIW, steel wheels on steel rails on a track with a maximum grade of a couple percent is what makes railroads work. Friction is very low except on curves, and once you get them going, it only takes 12-16,000 hp to keep them going. 150 loaded freight cars as somewhere around 30 million pounds. That's in the neighborhood of 18-1900 lb/hp. Any wonder why they are a little slow in the quarter mile? ;)

"Highly efficient batteries" still don't come cheap. More's the pity.

finding a way to harness the energy using in braking would be an excellent start too, but without hybrids.


as Oldstroker said, i dont think there is a magic bullet. but 5 or 6 of these 3-4%'s will make a big difference. call me cynlical but i dont think the IC engine will be much more efficient than it actually is right now. just gotta find a way to need less power (gears, weight, aero, hybrid)

I wonder how much electric brakes will help our cause. they should be able to make it so the pad has zero contact with the rotor. I remember my LT1 Z28 around 3 or 4 years ago, with it jacked in the air and spinning the wheel you could hear/feel the rotor rubbing the pads a bit

Any wonder why they are a little slow in the quarter mile? ;)

LOL, that's why i used the term loosely. I see those around here coming to a stop, waiting for another train to go over a bridge a couple miles up the track, and then getting back up to 45-50mph (limits set on the tracks around here) in just a few minutes. Quite impressive to me. The latest GE AC6000 locomotives are using 16 cylinder diesels making 6000hp and some 35,000 lb-ft of torque. A couple of those should get 30M pounds moving good.

It still puzzles me that the latest hybrids are one-off, albeit ugly, vehicles. Why won't some of this technology be incorporated in to the vehicles we know to day? The cars, SUVs, and trucks we know today should have enough room available to mount these systems. A normal looking cavalier, accord, ranger, canyon, trailblazer, explorer, durango...(whatever you can imagine) would be great vehicles to use these system in. Most are used only for getting from point A to point B without much need for power. Comfort, looks, and miles-per-gallon are what matter. And emissions too if you're into environmental preservation. The heavy duty line of trucks like the silverado, super duty, and ram will still need their gas/diesel powerplants for obvious reasons. And also the performance cars like the vette, viper, mustang, hopefully future f-body will have their need for it too. But much of everything else out there is just wasting fuel. I spend around $30/week on gas in the camaro, ~$1,500/year on fuel. Cutting that expense down to a 1/4 would justify spending a few grand more on a hybrid vehicle i actually like in the long run. Oh the benefits of a capitalist, petroleum driven economy....

I'm sure the cost is the main thing... but with prices rising on everything else wouldn't this balance out? I mean if more vehicles on the road today were to adopt these systems wouldn't the need for petroleum drop and the prices with them too? Less money spent on fuel means more money in people's pockets, and that can be used to afford slightly more expensive hybrids and then save money in the long run. But it all is just a dream for now....

Detroit does have somewhere to go from here. I hope they just get there really quick. I'm sick of paying $1.90/gallon for gas. And paying rising tuition too.... it's more than doubled here at CU in the last 2 years. $4300/semester sucks.... it was $2000/semester when i transfered here back in 2002. And my sister in med school is paying $40k/year. It's rediculous.

Whoa... got a little carried away there. If only i had more money haha

LOL, that's why i used the term loosely. I see those around here coming to a stop, waiting for another train to go over a bridge a couple miles up the track, and then getting back up to 45-50mph (limits set on the tracks around here) in just a few minutes. Quite impressive to me. The latest GE AC6000 locomotives are using 16 cylinder diesels making 6000hp and some 35,000 lb-ft of torque. A couple of those should get 30M pounds moving good.

It still puzzles me that the latest hybrids are one-off, albeit ugly, vehicles. Why won't some of this technology be incorporated in to the vehicles we know to day? The cars, SUVs, and trucks we know today should have enough room available to mount these systems. A normal looking cavalier, accord, ranger, canyon, trailblazer, explorer, durango...(whatever you can imagine) would be great vehicles to use these system in. Most are used only for getting from point A to point B without much need for power. Comfort, looks, and miles-per-gallon are what matter. And emissions too if you're into environmental preservation. The heavy duty line of trucks like the silverado, super duty, and ram will still need their gas/diesel powerplants for obvious reasons. And also the performance cars like the vette, viper, mustang, hopefully future f-body will have their need for it too. But much of everything else out there is just wasting fuel. I spend around $30/week on gas in the camaro, ~$1,500/year on fuel. Cutting that expense down to a 1/4 would justify spending a few grand more on a hybrid vehicle i actually like in the long run. Oh the benefits of a capitalist, petroleum driven economy....

I'm sure the cost is the main thing... but with prices rising on everything else wouldn't this balance out? I mean if more vehicles on the road today were to adopt these systems wouldn't the need for petroleum drop and the prices with them too? Less money spent on fuel means more money in people's pockets, and that can be used to afford slightly more expensive hybrids and then save money in the long run. But it all is just a dream for now....

Detroit does have somewhere to go from here. I hope they just get there really quick. I'm sick of paying $1.90/gallon for gas. And paying rising tuition too.... it's more than doubled here at CU in the last 2 years. $4300/semester sucks.... it was $2000/semester when i transfered here back in 2002. And my sister in med school is paying $40k/year. It's rediculous.

Whoa... got a little carried away there. If only i had more money haha

Thoughts on your thoughts:

Diesel electric locos use the diesel to generate electricity for the electric motors at each axle or even each drive wheel. No connection of the diesel to the drivers.

Current hybrids are coming in SUV forms, which is exactly where they are needed most, IMO. It's hard to tell them from non-hybrids in most cases.

In the early 70's the everage car got about 14 mpg over it's lifetime. High perf. cars got below 10 and VW bugs bested 20-25. New perf cars get 20+ overall and 25+ on long freeway trips. My C5 Vette does, and is considerable quicker in the 1/4 mile than my then-new '64 GTO. The C5 also has a top speed about 40+ mph faster than a geared-for speed Goat, and 60 mph faster than a 3.90/4.10 geared Goat.

BHL's who refer to us as a "capitalist, petroleum driven economy" usually aren't driving high perf. F-cars and hanging out on Advanced Tech. Of course, those BHL college and sometimes high school teachers pour out that stuff like it was gospel. More's the pity.

Hybrids aren't the ultimate petro-killer. Hydrogen fuel probably is. We'll see that in the forseeable future, IMO. I'm not saying our fuel bills will go down 75%, but we won't run out of hydrogen. We've been working on the petro-burning engine design and efficiency for over a century now, and replacing it with anything which gives similar performance will more than likely cost nearly the same to own and operate.

It looks like tuition is rising faster than gas. It's the BHLs again. :)

BHLs? What is that? I'm republican, FWIW. Not that it really matters to me. As long as i have the freedom to live my life the way i want, get that engineering degree i'm working on, have the family i hope to have, and have all the freedoms we're entitled to, i'm happy.

I like efficiency. When traveling the highways no one can argue that having a vehicle that gets great MPG, "cheap" to insure, and "cheap" to own, and gets the travel chores done is the most efficient way to go, even if the price of the vehicle is a little more to start off. I'd like to hear more on the SUVs you speak of, if you don't mind... i'm obviously a little behind on the latest developments.

The hydrogen-powered vehicles do show some promise. I haven't really researched that much on the concept in the past few months. But i do remember some of the benefits of changing the latest vehicles over to hydrogen being quite possible. The worst problem is packaging and saftey, which should be overcome with stronger, lighter materials being developed constantly. How does powering a current engine ( like the LS1, LT1, etc,) on hyrdrogen compare to gasoline? Does is compare to fueling an engine by propane?

My cousin drove a truck for Georgia Pacific that ran on propane and i thought that was a cool idea. Not sure how it compares as far as $/mile to a traditional gasoline or diesel engine.... is it actually cheaper? I have heard that they are cleaner burning than HC fuels, but filling them up when the tank gets low is a problem since the vast majority of gas stations don't carry propane in a manner to make filling them as easy as "pull up and fill it."

BHL = Bleeding Heart Liberal :)

BHL = Bleeding Heart Liberal :)

Oh ok, lol. That's definitely not me.

Have any thoughts on the questions i posted last? You're one of the members i like to hear thoughts and ideas from. All others are welcome too.... getting ideas flowing is what benefits everyone :cool:

For examples of changes that are occurring now, Ford is going to sell it's Escape in hybrid form in the next few months if they're not already taking orders. Jeep is now taking orders for it's diesel powered Liberty. Both of those powerplants are baby steps in comparison to fuel cells. The days of gasoline engines being the primary power provider for cars is numbered, and I'm guessing I'll see them become the minority in the years I have left in my career. Gasoline cars are already a minority in Europe I believe.

Bret, I'm with you on being sad that Chrysler hasn't put the Hemi in a fun platform. However, if you're looking for a touring car that is fun the SRT8 will be coming out very soon now. Jeez, did that sound like a sales pitch or what?

BHLs? What is that? I'm republican, FWIW. Not that it really matters to me. As long as i have the freedom to live my life the way i want, get that engineering degree i'm working on, have the family i hope to have, and have all the freedoms we're entitled to, i'm happy.

I like efficiency. When traveling the highways no one can argue that having a vehicle that gets great MPG, "cheap" to insure, and "cheap" to own, and gets the travel chores done is the most efficient way to go, even if the price of the vehicle is a little more to start off. I'd like to hear more on the SUVs you speak of, if you don't mind... i'm obviously a little behind on the latest developments.
If that little lo-perf car cost as much as a new GTO would you be happy having it as your only car? If you want to play, so far you need to pay. Of course, with enough demand and enough money (that's the rub!), an OEM could build a C6-like hybrid vehicle with a small diesel and a BIG electric motor for acceleration, but getting folks to actually like the car enough to buy it would be a challenge.

IMO, "green" or really high fuel economy vehicles which lack high performance, cost lots to buy and have fewer of the creature-comforts we've gotten used to appeal only to a minority. My guess is they don't yet appeal to the posters here.

The hydrogen-powered vehicles do show some promise. I haven't really researched that much on the concept in the past few months. But i do remember some of the benefits of changing the latest vehicles over to hydrogen being quite possible. The worst problem is packaging and saftey, which should be overcome with stronger, lighter materials being developed constantly. How does powering a current engine ( like the LS1, LT1, etc,) on hyrdrogen compare to gasoline? Does is compare to fueling an engine by propane?

Most of the hydrogen (H2) power folks are working on are fuel cells which produce continuous electricity by oxidizing a fuel. Using H2, only heat and water vapor are the only emissions. I don't think they plan to use H2 as a fuel for IC engines. Search around; there are some interesting articles on this:

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/edu_k-12/5-8/fc_energy/autonomy_hywire_011303.html

http://www.detnews.com/2004/insiders/0406/28/insiders-196445.htm

or the BHL viewpoint :)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/fuelcellcars.html

My cousin drove a truck for Georgia Pacific that ran on propane and i thought that was a cool idea. Not sure how it compares as far as $/mile to a traditional gasoline or diesel engine.... is it actually cheaper? I have heard that they are cleaner burning than HC fuels, but filling them up when the tank gets low is a problem since the vast majority of gas stations don't carry propane in a manner to make filling them as easy as "pull up and fill it."

LPG is a good source of hydrocarbon fuel for IC engines, and natural gas exploration has never been higher. That might be the interim step from petro-based IC engines to H2 fuel cell power which is called the Holy Grail. The original Grail was never found (Indiana Jones notwithstanding).



Just my thoughts. Thanks for asking.

Good stuff!

Everyone is starting to push out the Hybrid's GMC has a Work truck that will support a work site with electricity as well as save fuel driving. Seems to me it is DOD and Hybrid 420V system

Old Stroker may be able to tell us on this one. Why no Diesil Hybrid's? My guess is it is harder to get seemless operation like with the gas units. They tend to be loud, even the new generation is louder then a gas unit. either that or RPM factors. I do not see why they could not get 60+ MPG with a system like that.

As well as my love of fast cars I now have a 60 Mile commute every day. When gas prices sky rocketed I bought a 86 EFI Celica. Hey $35 and I had to build the trans. The wife won't drive a stick for medical reasons so It is a A4. We are averaging 30mpg on our daily commute. This is a geat deal better then the 18-20 we get out of her Z28. Our drive is 1/3 highway, 1/3 40MPH 4% grade and 1/3 stop and go.

This is the part that relates to earlier postings. So we take it on a trip thinking we should get near 40MPG. well Washington state is not as flat as Texas or Kansas. we got 27MPG and it would barely pull it self up a 10% grade :(

Now it got better MPG then our Bolt on Z28 but took and extra 45 minutes for a 140 mile trip! When we take the Z we get 24-26 MPG and travel in style ;)

ON the one cylinder operation. Above and beyond what Old Stroker pointed out about having to turn it 6,000 to get the power there is a huge potetial for problems in the future. Just for this part here. Lets say they get it to run on one cylinder. what happens if that cylinder goes out? I have EFI cars come in the shop everyday with dead cylinders. the problem ranges from pluged injectors the holes in the pistons. Many times the EMC is fairly un-aware of the problem because the other cylinders have degraded a great deal also...and yes even with Our great savure OBD-II

well at this point I am just rambling. I just wanted to type up a few thoughts

Later ;)

BTW I am looking at a Duramax to replace my ElCamino. heck 20+ MPG and I can pull a trailer!!

What I don't get is why japinese people don't have that many battery or hybrid cars.
Gas is $4 a gallon for cheap stuff. They don't drive very far to work, 8-10 miles is a very very long drive to work over here.
660cc engine powerd crap boxes is the way most of them go, I don't think they can get real good city gas milage, they make no torque I think they weigh less than 1000lb and there is enough stop and go driving to drive an american use to open roads insane.
A lot of people back home drive the same way back not far form home and with gas prices going up battery powered car would be good for scooting around town on nice days. I still would keep my gas eaters.

I like the idea of propane as an alternative fuel. Propane has an octane rating of 104, burns cooler than gasoline so the engine won't have to run as hot, has more BTU's of energy for a given amount than gasoline for better fuel mileage, and burns so clean you could run an LS6 Chevelle in a closed room with no issues. The only drawback is filling up, but that could be easily fixed. I thought this article was interesting in Car and Driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=26&article_id=2279

Jason

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

I really hope this company takes off. This could be a HUGE asset to our economy.

Jason

Not true, based on the information I just looked up. Propane is about 91,000 BTUs/gal and gasoline is about 125,000 BTUs/gal. A propane fueled vehicle will also get less fuel mileage than a gasoline fueled vehicle.

No freakin doubt! I had seen an article about this a few months ago, but I hadn't seen one with this level of detail. Excellent reading, and an exciting finding. I just hope it isn't folly.

OBTW, this should prolly be in the lounge. Not exactly Advanced engine stuff (although it WOULD mean a lot to us hot rodders who love this sport :) )

Dave C.

What I don't get is why japinese people don't have that many battery or hybrid cars.
Gas is $4 a gallon for cheap stuff. They don't drive very far to work, 8-10 miles is a very very long drive to work over here.
660cc engine powerd crap boxes is the way most of them go, I don't think they can get real good city gas milage, they make no torque I think they weigh less than 1000lb and there is enough stop and go driving to drive an american use to open roads insane.
A lot of people back home drive the same way back not far form home and with gas prices going up battery powered car would be good for scooting around town on nice days. I still would keep my gas eaters.

Electric cars are still expensive to produce mainly due to the batteries. Until parking meters and garages have "hookups" to recharge, you might strand yourself. Running to the nearest utility for a can of electricity doesn't work. :)

Seriously, electricity isn't free, and it may be more expensive in the long run to use little electric cars in Japan than the 660cc gas boxes. I suspect electric power generation in Japan is expensive. About 9% is hydroelectric and about 30% is nuclear. The balance of 61% is from burning hydrocarbon fuels which I think they have to import.

Not true, based on the information I just looked up. Propane is about 91,000 BTUs/gal and gasoline is about 125,000 BTUs/gal. A propane fueled vehicle will also get less fuel mileage than a gasoline fueled vehicle.

Must have been a different formulation of propane than the stuff in the article. The article I submitted said it had more BTU's and engines don't need as rich of a mixture with propane to run well. Also I post at jeepsunlimited.com, and a guy on there from England has a 5.9 Grand Cherokee with bolt ons. He runs it on propane, and he gets in the low 20's mpg in the city on a vehicle that would otherwise get 13 or 14mpg city. My 94 Grand Cherokee with a 318 averaged between 14-15mpg in the city.

Jason

Yeah I know it should, but I posted this in response to the thread about Detroit and gas mileage standards in this forum. :)

Jason

[EDIT] This thread will be merged with the "Detroit..... milage" thread.

Jason, I don't think the formulation of propane makes a real difference here. Do a quick web search and see if you find anything else to back up the C&D story. I'm a bit suspicious. I would bet that if the Jeep owner is getting better mileage with propane he's making a lot less HP.

Quite honestly if propane had less emissions and better fuel mileage you'd see it much more commonly used. There's a reason gasoline is still the most commonly used fuel to date, and it's not just the infrastructure.

OldSStroker, good point about the electric cars, but I do wonder why hybrid cars aren't used more in Japan. Their traffic congestion is horrendous there and that's exactly what hybrids would be best at.