PDA

View Full Version : Would diesel cars be the best thing to happen to America?



Langers
01 Apr 05,, 08:24
As I'm from England, I can't understand why diesel cars have never really caught on in America. We have had pressure from governments all over Europe to buy more diesel cars for years. In light of the fact that Emissions is a hot topic at the moment this could prompt an interesting debate........?

dalem
01 Apr 05,, 08:58
As I'm from England, I can't understand why diesel cars have never really caught on in America. We have had pressure from governments all over Europe to buy more diesel cars for years. In light of the fact that Emissions is a hot topic at the moment this could prompt an interesting debate........?

We don't have a Green Party in power over here wetting panties about emissions. We have more of a "Green-light Party" in the Democrats.

That being said, certain areas with dense traffic - most of the U.S. is quite empty, not like Europe at all - do have more stringent emission requirements than the average. One-off cities though clearly have far less regional influence than a European state government does, so a major shift towards diesel, which wouldn't give us the kinds of cars we like to drive, is not going to come from that direction anyway.

-dale

Langers
01 Apr 05,, 09:20
which wouldn't give us the kinds of cars we like to drive,

-dale

Isn't this a little irresponsible? I could give you a list of about 20 cars that I'd like to drive (one of which Mr Shelby derived from a AC Ace). Not many of them are diesel I have to admit but if we all thought like that things would go downhill pretty rapidly.......

Having said that there are some pretty potent diesels out there, VW Touareg V10, Jaguar S-Type Disel (lapped the Nurburgring in under 10 minutes - that's better than a Porshe 911!) to name but a few!

dalem
01 Apr 05,, 11:22
Isn't this a little irresponsible? I could give you a list of about 20 cars that I'd like to drive (one of which Mr Shelby derived from a AC Ace). Not many of them are diesel I have to admit but if we all thought like that things would go downhill pretty rapidly.......

Having said that there are some pretty potent diesels out there, VW Touareg V10, Jaguar S-Type Disel (lapped the Nurburgring in under 10 minutes - that's better than a Porshe 911!) to name but a few!

Irresponsible? Not at all. What responsibility do you feel that the desire to drive the kind of car you wish to abrogates?

-dale

Bill
01 Apr 05,, 12:24
I prefer my fire breathing Porsche V-8 thank you very much. :)

Julie
01 Apr 05,, 13:53
Diesels are noisy and sound like the motor is about to sling a rod, the emissions from think stink, and they are not mechanically dependable. I also prefer V-8.

Bill
01 Apr 05,, 13:55
Actually, diesels are a lot more mechanically reliable.

Julie
01 Apr 05,, 14:00
Actually, diesels are a lot more mechanically reliable.I have 3 or 4 friends that bought trucks with diesels in them...they stayed in the shop. THEY recommended that I NOT buy a diesel. :)

Bill
01 Apr 05,, 14:03
If you can find a commercial gas cargo hauler i'll be impressed.

Diesels normally last about 1,000,000 miles.

Julie
01 Apr 05,, 15:43
If you can find a commercial gas cargo hauler i'll be impressed.

Diesels normally last about 1,000,000 miles.True. But I prefer fast acceleration. Fast turning diesels have substantially shorter life spans. Slow speed diesels have longer life because they do turn much slower. The adaptation of a commercial diesel engine in a 250 pickup just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry. Diesel engines are more costlier to replace than a V-8 gas engine.

2DREZQ
01 Apr 05,, 19:26
I'd give up a ductless gland for a VM diesel powered Grand Cherokee. My homebrew Biodiesel costs me less then $0.75/gallon.

BenRoethig
01 Apr 05,, 22:18
Most of the european diesels won't pass U.S. emissions laws and are very expensive compared to gasoline engines. Believe me, if it were feasible there would be very few gasoline powered trucks.

bonehead
02 Apr 05,, 07:18
I have 3 or 4 friends that bought trucks with diesels in them...they stayed in the shop. THEY recommended that I NOT buy a diesel. :)

Were they by any chance the older diesels in GM trucks. Those were crap. I have found the newest generation of diesels in the big three full size trucks to have impressive acceleration, gas milage and longevity vs the gas counterparts. I doubt a gas engine will ever match the combination of torque and gas milage of a diesel. The "lack of tunups" is also nice. If they could only find and remove that damned can of marbles from the engine. I once knew someone who had an 80,s model toyota 2WD truck. It had 40+ mpg. The moter was loud, but it never seemed to get tired.

Bill
02 Apr 05,, 13:13
The Dodge Ram Cummins Turbo deisel is probably the most serious passenger truck on the road.

But julie is right about several things:

Diesels cost more initially.
Older technology diesels cost more to maintain.
High-revving diesels are ticking time bombs.

Julie
02 Apr 05,, 13:32
A few years ago my neighbor had a (1998?) Dodge Ram Cummins Dually for sale. He was straight up with me when I approached him about it. His neighbor across the street had a white 2000 model (I believe it was a GMC) diesel dually also for sale at the same time. I took the 2000 to drive for a few days, but took it back, and said, nah.

For pulling (gasoline engines), I have found you can't beat a Ford 300 STRAIGHT 6, which they do not make anymore.

Bill
02 Apr 05,, 16:08
The 300CID ford motors are AWESOME...but a Cummins Turbo Diesel has a lot more torque.

Julie
02 Apr 05,, 18:06
Screw the diesel -- Hydrogen fuel-celled autos are our future. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=5258

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 18:13
Screw the diesel -- Hydrogen fuel-celled autos are our future. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=5258
I think hydrogen is the ticket too. Most common element in the known universe.

dalem
02 Apr 05,, 19:28
I think hydrogen is the ticket too. Most common element in the known universe.

What about all that water vapor though? Worst greenhouse gas of the lot you know.

:)

-dale

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 19:46
What about all that water vapor though? Worst greenhouse gas of the lot you know.

:)

-dale
I never said fuel-cells, just hydrogen. ;) I think the research should be going into the efficent production/extraction of hydrogen really. Make the extraction process small enough and that water vapor could be recycled directly.

ZFBoxcar
02 Apr 05,, 21:26
How about this?

Cellphone batteries power fuel-less vehicles
Prototype needs no fuel, makes no noise


Canada and the United States live within a culture that dotes on the raw speed and brute power that come from the internal combustion engine. It's a culture that uses fossil fuels like bodybuilders use steroids.

Should you doubt this, all that's necessary for confirmation is to sit through an evening of television and watch the ads for cars, SUVs and trucks that tear up the landscape, scream across salt flats and perform feats of Xtreme Power.

To Jeff Fisher and William Scully, as odd a couple bound by friendship as you're likely to find, this culture is a legacy of the past outdated, environmentally destructive and, they say, about to be outstripped by technologies that will make fuel as obsolete as the paddlewheel steamer.

As with all visionaries, they are out to change the world. They want to replace cars with vehicles that require no fuel, produce no noise and, except for wheels, create no friction and have no moving parts meaning no pistons, no gears, no transmission, no drive shaft, no flywheel, no clutch and, as a consequence, much less weight.

On a factory floor in east-end Montreal, they've built prototypes to demonstrate that their ideas will work. There are about a dozen among the clutter of work tables, old bicycle parts, pieces of pipe, nuts and bolts.

The vehicles look boxy and rudimentary, like golf carts designed from a Meccano set. But they work, as Fisher and Scully demonstrated in a lane behind the factory.

Conventional terminology would refer to them as solar vehicles. Fisher and Scully call them fuel-less vehicles to mark them as different from other so-called vehicles for the future.

Hydrogen-burning cars, for instance, need hydrogen as a fuel, as do vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. It requires a lot of electricity to derive hydrogen from water, so, really, the fuel for these kinds of vehicles is electricity from generating plants. Electric cars run on electricity and make similar demands on generating plants. Hybrid cars burn gasoline or ethanol.

The Fisher-Scully prototypes develop electricity from solar cells mounted on a Plexiglas roof and on a Plexiglas windshield. What's unique about their efforts is their focus is on minimum weight and minimum demand for electricity. Their prototypes have a maximum speed of 28 km/h, and they've tested them successfully on a 280-kilometre run.

Instead of heavy conventional lead-acid batteries, they use cellphone batteries assembled in packs of up to 48. A pack weighs a fraction of a conventional battery and can be recharged from the solar cells in 20 minutes. A conventional battery can take up to 12 hours to recharge.

A vehicle will have three to five cellphone battery packs. It can run on one, and when that is depleted, the driver can switch to another, allowing the depleted one to recharge on the go.

Fisher and Scully buy surplus solar cells and cellphone batteries from stores for about $3 a cell or battery. Parts for the entire vehicle come to about $1,600. The prototype weighs 136 kilograms and can carry up to its own weight.

It's driven by two magnets in the hub of the front wheel. Pulses of electricity are sent to the magnets, creating a negative charge on each. Since negative charges repel, the repelling force is used to turn the wheel. Speed is varied by changing the frequency of pulses to the magnets. The more pulses, the greater the repelling force, and the faster the speed.

Scully, 30, owns the factory where the prototypes are being developed. An English major graduate, he is the fifth generation to head William Scully Ltd., a manufacturer of regimental clothing and insignia that employs 30 people.

Fisher is a 62-year-old former hippy who created psychedelic light shows in the '60s and then moved into electronic, psychedelic art.

With Fisher, you don't have a conversation. You listen to a rapid-fire discourse that can range from the molecular composition of the thyroid gland to nanotechnology to the fine points of soldering, all within the time space of a hiccup. He supplies the technical expertise, Scully offers organizational skills and articulates the vision. In partnership, they fit hand in glove.

Their websites, http://www.solarvehicles.org and http://www.uprightsolar.com, contain technical drawings, which are free to anyone wanting them. They ask only to be informed of improvements. Since the beginning of January, they've recorded 17,088 visits to the sites.

"We're spreading these ideas like spores all over the world," Fisher says.

The spores will germinate, new ideas will sprout, and the world will change, of that the two of them have no doubt.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1112395811030&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

TexasOutlaw
03 Apr 05,, 07:00
Well to err on the side of the devil's advocate..I've got this to say about diesel's vs. the 300 big 6

Since I have both..I have this to say about the big 6...while it may be a strong engine and can easily get 350-400k miles out of it...I have yet to see a big six pull 18,000lbs across 2000 miles with hardly a stutter...it just doesn't happen. My 6cyl has approximatley 150ft. lbs of torque compared to the almost 300 in my 6.5 turbo chevy.

You can get high performance from a diesel quite easily...
can be done in a couple of steps..
1. 4" stainless exhaust...*she's gotta breathe...lol*
2. Propane injection...*extra 50-75 hp and 75-100ft lbs of torque*
Total price about 1500.00

High performance for the big 6
1. Bore and stroke the engine
2. Balance and blueprint engine
3. Competition cam and pistons
4. Larger throttle body
5. Super charger
Total price..about 3500.00 - 5,000.00

Julie
03 Apr 05,, 13:07
I have two "300 Big 6's"; one 350 (GM) and one 302 (Ford). When the crews have to load and pull 5,000-10,000 pd. of materials, consisting of a pallet of concrete 3,360 pd.s + Sch. 40 posts @ 5,000 lbs. SHORT HAULS being 20-30 mile runs, they drive the 300's because there is NO strain or struggle with them.

The only setback is about every two-three years the clutch and/or transmission have to be replaced.....the motors are still tickin'.

Long hauls, 2,000 miles you describe, of course, the diesels would hold up much better.

Bill
03 Apr 05,, 17:49
"Screw the diesel -- Hydrogen fuel-celled autos are our future."

F that...Hydrogen-combustion is the future. :)

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_170.shtml
http://www.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r.htm/printable

"the H2R features a 6.0-liter, V-12 hydrogen-powered combustion engine(285 horsepower, 185mph top speed). Whereas other carmakers have gone the route of hydrogen fuel cells, BMW has opted for a more traditional-style engine that utilizes a nontraditional fuel. The hydrogen combustion engine operates on the same principle as other internal combustion engines except that liquid hydrogen is used as the fuel source rather than gasoline or diesel oil."

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/bmw-h2r-8.jpg

Bill
03 Apr 05,, 17:52
"High performance for the big 6
1. Bore and stroke the engine
2. Balance and blueprint engine
3. Competition cam and pistons
4. Larger throttle body
5. Super charger
Total price..about 3500.00 - 5,000.00"

You left out nitrous oxide injection. For about 1000 dollars you could get a 300CID straight six into the 500 horsepower region.

It wouldn't last very long without a thorough strengthening of the bottom end...but you could do it. :)

I'm quite fond however of my naturally aspirated Porsche 4.7liter(285CID) hemi V-8, which puts out in excess of 300 horsepower. That's in excess of 1HP per cubic inch...something that very, very few of the legendary muscle car big blocks ever managed. :)

Julie
03 Apr 05,, 17:59
Nice. ;) Whatever to drive the Saudi's D's in the dirt, I'm all for it. :biggrin:

Bill
03 Apr 05,, 18:57
Me too. :)

Here are more pix of the ultra sleek BMW H2R:

http://www.newstreet.it/home/foto.asp?img=/img/magazine/674/Bmw-H2R-Idrogeno-02.jpg&Tit=Bmw%20H2R%20Idrogeno%2002#

http://www.newstreet.it/home/foto.asp?img=/img/magazine/674/Bmw-H2R-Idrogeno-03.jpg&Tit=Bmw%20H2R%20Idrogeno%2003#

http://www.newstreet.it/home/foto.asp?img=/img/magazine/674/Bmw-H2R-Idrogeno-06.jpg&Tit=Bmw%20H2R%20Idrogeno%2006#

And some more background info on the vehicle:

BMW has heralded the age of the hydrogen-powered production car by setting nine world records with its groundbreaking H2R Record Car. Using an adapted version of the 6.0-litre 12-cylinder engine taken from the BMW 760i, the aerodynamically efficient carbon fibre-bodied H2R posted the results following one intensive day of testing at the Miramas Proving Ground in the south of France.
The successful record attempts have proved to be particularly poignant because this was a major hurdle to overcome before a production version of a hydrogen-powered car could be offered for sale by BMW. In its quest for glory, the H2R attained world best times and speeds for a hydrogen-powered car in the flying-start kilometre, flying-start mile, standing-start 1/8 mile, standing-start mile, standing-start kilometre, standing-start mile, standing-start 10 miles, standing-start kilometre and standing-start 10 kilometres. To comply with the regulations of the record attempts, the H2R remained in hydrogen-only mode for the duration.

H2R records: time in sec speed mph
Flying-start kilometre: 11.99 187.62
Flying-start mile: 19.91 181.85
Standing-start 1/8 kilometre: 9.92 45.62
Standing-start kilometre: 14.93 60.62
Standing-start mile: 17.27 65.15
Standing-start mile: 36.73 98.60
Standing-start 10 miles: 221.05 163.81
Standing-start kilometre: 26.56 84.72
Standing-start 10 kilometres: 146.41 153.90

NOTE: BMW has been examining the possible use of hydrogen-powered vehicles since 1978. In May, 2000, BMW became the first carmaker in the world to run a demonstration fleet of 15 hydrogen-powered 750iLs and in 2001 BMW started the CleanEnergy WorldTour aimed at raising awareness of the technology.

http://www.newstreet.it/home/article_id_674.html

Julie
03 Apr 05,, 19:32
LOL...my son walked by as I was looking at those pics....he's drooling. :biggrin:

TexasOutlaw
03 Apr 05,, 19:41
not to be rude or crass Julie...but the 302 is a small block ford v-8... :biggrin: :)

TexasOutlaw
03 Apr 05,, 19:43
I know that the future of the auto industry is leaning more and more towards a more aerodynamic vehicle...that bmw just plain didn't look attractive at all...thought it was quite the ugly car to be honest...

Bill
03 Apr 05,, 20:04
"not to be rude or crass Julie...but the 302 is a small block ford v-8..."

Both the SB ford 302 and the inline six 300 are 5.0 liters, but the inline six is 300 CID, whereas the v-8 is 302CID.

Bill
03 Apr 05,, 20:05
"I know that the future of the auto industry is leaning more and more towards a more aerodynamic vehicle...that bmw just plain didn't look attractive at all...thought it was quite the ugly car to be honest..."

It does 185mph on hydrogen...i can overlook it's ugliness. :)

Julie
03 Apr 05,, 20:47
not to be rude or crass Julie...but the 302 is a small block ford v-8... :biggrin: :)Not to be more rude, but my post said 302 (Ford). I am well aware of it and there is still no comparison to the 300 bad ass 6 of which I have 2. Further, the Silverado 350, still strains to pull, unlike the 300 straight 6.

TexasOutlaw
04 Apr 05,, 03:48
Both the SB ford 302 and the inline six 300 are 5.0 liters, but the inline six is 300 CID, whereas the v-8 is 302CID.

302 is a 5.0 liter..yes *well...4.94L...but rounded up to 5.0*
300 inline 6 is a 4.9L

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 04:29
5.0L is 302.5 cubic inches(one liter is 60.5 cubic inches).

In the automotive field the 300 Six is referred to as a 5.0liter.

Julie
04 Apr 05,, 04:34
*whatever* -- out~

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 04:46
No, no...now im debating with him silly girl. ;)

LOL

TexasOutlaw
04 Apr 05,, 05:15
LMAO :biggrin:
the 300 inline 6 is not referred as a 5.0L in the automotive world...
I own a 95 ford f150 4.9L Y-block inline 6 cylinder...otherwise known as a 300 Big 6
the 302 is a V-8 5.0L engine
remember the 5.0 mustangs in the late 80's and 90's?
If you looked on the valve cover of those engines..they say 5.0L

If you look on the throttle body of a fuel injected 6...it says 4.9L
I can take pics of my engine if you'd like... LOL :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 15:57
Hmmm, i owned an auto shop for 4 years. All my guys called it the "300-six", or the "five-six".

If you do your math like you were taught to in school then 300CID is rounded up to 5 liters.

300/60.5 = 4.9586 Liters.

302/60.5 = 4.991 Liters

So if we go by your theory, both are 4.9 liter engines, and the 305 Chevy is actually a 5.1(which says 5.0 on the engine emmisions sticker but it's 'technically' a 5.1 just as the 300 six is technically a 4.9).

And yes, i know what a 5.0EFI HO engine is, i've smoked enough of them over the years(and fixed enough blowed up ones along the way on customers cars) to be far too familiar with them for my own taste.

I hate Fords(Fuccked Over Rebuilt Dodges) to be quite honest. I'm more of a GM and German car guy. I do love smoking Mustangs on the street or track though. :)

TexasOutlaw
04 Apr 05,, 17:27
Hmmm, i owned an auto shop for 4 years. All my guys called it the "300-six", or the "five-six".

If you do your math like you were taught to in school then 300CID is rounded up to 5 liters.

300/60.5 = 4.9586 Liters.

302/60.5 = 4.991 Liters

So if we go by your theory, both are 4.9 liter engines, and the 305 Chevy is actually a 5.1(which says 5.0 on the engine emmisions sticker but it's 'technically' a 5.1 just as the 300 six is technically a 4.9).

And yes, i know what a 5.0EFI HO engine is, i've smoked enough of them over the years(and fixed enough blowed up ones along the way on customers cars) to be far too familiar with them for my own taste.

I hate Fords(Fuccked Over Rebuilt Dodges) to be quite honest. I'm more of a GM and German car guy. I do love smoking Mustangs on the street or track though. :)

Didn't I pretty much say the same thing in an earlier post.. LMAO :tongue:
GMC - Generic Made Chevy :biggrin:
I will say that the Germans did set the standard for engineering when it comes to cars....But Ford has set the bar when it comes to overall truck performance and reliability... :biggrin: :tongue:

Julie
04 Apr 05,, 19:18
I have to agree with Ford being best at performance and reliability. You almost can't kill them with a sledgehammer...lol. The Fords are considered our "workhorses."

BUT, I love my Chevy Silverado for style and the more comfortable ride. However, my Chevy does require more maintenance than the Fords.

platinum786
04 Apr 05,, 19:31
You american peoploe just haven't been open to the european market that's all.

I mean you all love your power cars i accept that....but look at this....

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/1093-1.jpg

Subaru imprezza p1....

0-60 in 4.6 seconds...not bad for a 2000CC car is it?

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=1093

There are loads of cars like that,

new BMW M5, mazda Rx-7, Audi RS6, to name a few....

go to the new topic in the mutlimedia bit....you'll see....

Julie
04 Apr 05,, 20:00
The US did the Subaru thing back in the 70's early 80's didn't we?

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 20:48
"I have to agree with Ford being best at performance and reliability. You almost can't kill them with a sledgehammer...lol. The Fords are considered our "workhorses."

Their trucks maybe.

Their cars are junk.

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 20:51
There are just as many(if not more) superfast american cars Platinum, and some of them use equally small 4 cylinder turbo engines.

When you blow a 2000cc motor it is no longer a 2000cc motor, but rather a 2000cc motor performing as a much larger engine due to the atmospheric overpressure created in the cylinders. A 2000cc motor with a turbo running at 10psi boost is actually much closer to a normally aspirated 4000cc motor in fuel consumption and performance.

TexasOutlaw
05 Apr 05,, 04:21
M21Sniper
Their trucks maybe.

Their cars are junk.

Oh 'lest Ye forget the '69 Mach I? Or maybe the '66 Cobra 427? How about the GT 40? Oh and we surely can't forget the Pantera. Yeah I know...I'm pickin those from the past generations...but by your own quote it seemed as though you lumped all Ford cars in the same category. :biggrin:

As far as the trucks go...pound for pound...I honestly believe that the powerstroke is the toughest diesel on the market today...minus the cat diesel in peterbuilts...
Fords are built to last...when a part does need replacing..they are a bit more expensive than their Chevy counterparts...where parts are so cheap, because of their mass abundance...and this part will interchange with that part and so on...

Langers
05 Apr 05,, 07:53
There are just as many(if not more) superfast american cars Platinum, and some of them use equally small 4 cylinder turbo engines.

When you blow a 2000cc motor it is no longer a 2000cc motor, but rather a 2000cc motor performing as a much larger engine due to the atmospheric overpressure created in the cylinders. A 2000cc motor with a turbo running at 10psi boost is actually much closer to a normally aspirated 4000cc motor in fuel consumption and performance.

But it's still a 2000cc engine.

However, the great thing about the Impreza is the fact that it will go roound corners very fast - hence the rallying success it's had over the past decade. Mind you, the Mitsubishi Evos have given it a run for it's money.

Let we forget the Grandaddy of them all - the Audi Quattro Sport.

Langers
05 Apr 05,, 07:57
Oh 'lest Ye forget the '69 Mach I? Or maybe the '66 Cobra 427? How about the GT 40? Oh and we surely can't forget the Pantera. Yeah I know...I'm pickin those from the past generations...but by your own quote it seemed as though you lumped all Ford cars in the same category. :biggrin:


Texas Outlaw, are you assuming that the Cobra was a Ford? It was based on the AC Ace, don't forget. Albeit with a bloody great V8 shoehorned into the engine bay. Praise the Lord for Carroll Shelby!! Great car - it's one of the reasons we have a 70 mph speed limit on our motorways. The other reason - the Jaguar E-Type.
Also, De Tomaso was a wholly-owned subsidiary company. The Pantera was also not a Ford. :)

Bill
05 Apr 05,, 13:25
"Oh 'lest Ye forget the '69 Mach I? Or maybe the '66 Cobra 427? How about the GT 40? Oh and we surely can't forget the Pantera. Yeah I know...I'm pickin those from the past generations...but by your own quote it seemed as though you lumped all Ford cars in the same category."

I was referring to their recent history...but even back in the 60s and 70s ford was noted for their stupidity.

Who builds 3 different 351 CID engines, and 7 different big blocks(427, 427CJ, 428CJ, 428SCJ, 429CJ, 429SCJ, 429 Boss)?

LOL....Ford.

Bill
05 Apr 05,, 13:28
"But it's still a 2000cc engine."

The US car companys have produced a pretty huge amount of turbo-4s over the years.

And BTW, the king of turbo cars is the Buick Grand National(here's a pic of mine).

TexasOutlaw
05 Apr 05,, 18:43
"But it's still a 2000cc engine."

The US car companys have produced a pretty huge amount of turbo-4s over the years.

And BTW, the king of turbo cars is the Buick Grand National(here's a pic of mine).

Oh there's no doubt that the king of turbo is the Grand National...I'll agree 100% on that...


Langers...
If you read up on the Pantera...what was the powerplant that was stuffed in the pantera? From what I've read.. a 351W or Cleveland.
While it is true that the body style of the cobra came from an English designer...it was Carroll Shelby that made the car famous under the manufacturing shop of Shelby-American....

September 1961 - When AC Cars of Thames Ditton, England, loses the source for its six-cylinder Bristol engine for its two-seat roadster, Carroll Shelby airmails a letter of proposal to the company to keep building the chassis for a special Shelby sports car to be powered by an American V8. As yet, he knows nothing of a new lightweight, thinwall-cast, small-block Ford V8.

October 1961 - Charles Hurlock, owner of AC Cars, returns Shelby's letter, stating he would be interested in Shelby's plan as long as a suitable engine replacement could be found in the States. The same month, Shelby finds out about the new 221-cube Ford small-block and dispatches a letter to Dave Evans explaining his idea for a sports car and his need for a V8.

Hell...all I'm sayin is that Ford makes some extremely outstanding cars and trucks...but like the song goes...you say tomatoe, I say tomato.. :rolleyes:

Bill
05 Apr 05,, 19:14
I believe all Panteras came with the 351C, but im no expert on the subject.

2DREZQ
25 Apr 05,, 20:35
Big problem with hydrogen: It isn't an energy source. It is a method of transporting the electricity (or other energy) used to make it in a mobile form. You still need coal, hydro, nuclear, or wind (or solar) to MAKE the stuff, and the energy density isn't there for heavy haulers (An 18-wheeler would burn 1/3 of it's cargo-capacity on hydrogen doing a trip that a diesel does on one fill-up.)

Ironduke
09 Dec 06,, 01:24
bump

omon
10 Dec 06,, 06:59
why do we even bother with hydrogen, it only complicates things, why not store electricity itself, the cell phone battery car is just the begining. we can easily control electricity, this hydrojen idea is much more complicated to control and produce.
i remember i drove once a vw golf tdi 5 speed its so easy to take off.. just slowly let go of clutch, no step on gas needed, amazing tourge,i hate stick shift but that one i didn't mind, and no smoke and smell, but sounded like bulldozer.

omon
11 Dec 06,, 21:28
electic motors have more tourge and much easy to control than combastion engines. that is why diesel locomotives are driven by el. motors. the diesel powers generators rather than used for propulsion.

ArmchairGeneral
11 Dec 06,, 22:40
why do we even bother with hydrogen, it only complicates things, why not store electricity itself, the cell phone battery car is just the begining. we can easily control electricity, this hydrojen idea is much more complicated to control and produce.
i remember i drove once a vw golf tdi 5 speed its so easy to take off.. just slowly let go of clutch, no step on gas needed, amazing tourge,i hate stick shift but that one i didn't mind, and no smoke and smell, but sounded like bulldozer.

1) Energy density; batteries simply can't store as much power as a gas tank or a hydrogen tank. Same reason diesel submarines are using liquid oxygen tanks to run AIPs; they last a lot longer than the batteries do.
2) Weight; batteries weigh a lot more than a tank of fuel.
3) Toxic waste; batteries tend to use lots of nasty heavy metals and acids that we prefer not to have to deal with.
4) Hydrogen is new, and of course we have to try the new thing 'cause it's cool. :tongue:

omon
11 Dec 06,, 23:42
1) Energy density; batteries simply can't store as much power as a gas tank or a hydrogen tank. Same reason diesel submarines are using liquid oxygen tanks to run AIPs; they last a lot longer than the batteries do.
2) Weight; batteries weigh a lot more than a tank of fuel.
3) Toxic waste; batteries tend to use lots of nasty heavy metals and acids that we prefer not to have to deal with.
4) Hydrogen is new, and of course we have to try the new thing 'cause it's cool. :tongue:

1. not the case with lithium polimer batteries
2. not true for litium polimer batt.or lithium ion
3. true with lead acid batt, not true with batt. mentioned above
4. considering difficulies involved, not so cool:tongue:

gunnut
15 Dec 06,, 20:52
Lithium batteries will explode if made by Sony. :biggrin:

pdf27
15 Dec 06,, 21:06
1. not the case with lithium polimer batteries
2. not true for litium polimer batt.or lithium ion
Wiki (I know, I know) has energy density for Lithium Polymer batteries being up to 200 Watt Hours/Kg, or 720 kJ/kg. The LCV (lower calorific value - i.e. all water goes to steam) of Petrol (C8H18 - Octane, Gasoline in the US) is 44,430 kJ/kg. Thus the energy density of a petrol tank is at least 60 times that of the best Lithium Polymer batteries. The LCV of Hydrogen is about 3 times that of Octane making things even worse, although storing Hydrogen is tricky and takes up a lot of space/weight.

In summary, even Lithium Polymer batteries are nowhere close to liquid fuels, and even some very simple checking of numbers would show you this.

omon
15 Dec 06,, 22:23
Wiki (I know, I know) has energy density for Lithium Polymer batteries being up to 200 Watt Hours/Kg, or 720 kJ/kg. The LCV (lower calorific value - i.e. all water goes to steam) of Petrol (C8H18 - Octane, Gasoline in the US) is 44,430 kJ/kg. Thus the energy density of a petrol tank is at least 60 times that of the best Lithium Polymer batteries. The LCV of Hydrogen is about 3 times that of Octane making things even worse, although storing Hydrogen is tricky and takes up a lot of space/weight.

In summary, even Lithium Polymer batteries are nowhere close to liquid fuels, and even some very simple checking of numbers would show you this.

batteries don't power internal combastion engines, just like liquid gas isn't used to power electric motor. so these numbers don't mean anything. it takes much more energy to operete IC engine.
ev1 proved to hold enough charge in it's ancient led acid batteries to last for 100 miles, on the highway. even more in the city(regenarative braking is used to assist charging) and it was about 10 years ago. remember cell phone batteries 10 years ago? ev1 wasn't crapy even for a first try. battery isn't a problem. there are many ways to charge battaryes on the go.
oil is the problem, too much money is in the oil. world economy depends on oil.oil is money, money is power, power is never given up without a fight.
watch the movie "who killed electric car". you'll see what people who had them have to say,don't listen to those who never drove it.

gunnut
15 Dec 06,, 23:02
EV1 had a real world range of less than 70 miles. Many of them less. It was disclosed by GM to a newspaper. That's about 1 hour of driving time. It takes about 8 hours to charge the car.

On the other hand, a normal passenger car has a rage of 300 to 400 miles, depending on driving conditions. It takes about 10 minutes to fuel up for 6 hours of driving time.

pdf27
15 Dec 06,, 23:09
batteries don't power internal combastion engines, just like liquid gas isn't used to power electric motor.
OK, so if you want to get picky take a Carnot efficiency of 40% for a Diesel cycle, 35% for an Otto cycle and an optimistic 90% for an electric motor (they aren't 100% efficient - you get both iron and copper losses).

That gives a recoverable energy of 650 kJ/kg for Lithium-Polymer batteries, and 15,550 kJ/kg for an Otto cycle engine running on Octane. That still leaves an Octane engine with 24 times the energy density of Lithium-Polymer batteries.


ev1 proved to hold enough charge in it's ancient led acid batteries to last for 100 miles, on the highway. even more in the city(regenarative braking is used to assist charging) and it was about 10 years ago. remember cell phone batteries 10 years ago? ev1 wasn't crapy even for a first try. battery isn't a problem. there are many ways to charge battaryes on the go.
So what? You posted a big steaming pile of rubbish, I pulled you up for it and you're trying to post a load of unrelated stuff to hide your original failure to check your facts.
Besides, 100 miles in a vehicle that was heavily optimised for range at the expense of pretty much everything else isn't impressive. Figures of 10,705 mpg have been achieved by a combustion engined car in testing, although admittedly this was more heavily optimised for efficiency than the EV1.

You still don't get the numbers do you? A lead-acid battery will do perhaps 40 Watt-Hours/kg. A Lithium-Polymer battery will do at best 200 Watt-Hours/kg. The very worst Otto cycle engine will manage an equivalent to 4,800 Watt-Hours/kg. In other words a century of battery development has managed to close 3.4% of the gap between batteries and the Otto cycle engine. Add in the fact that a fuel tank can be refilled in seconds while batteries take an hour or two to charge, and claims that batteries are nearly there are shown for the bad joke they really are.

As for mobile phone batteries, the technology for Li-Ion or Li-Poly batteries is nothing new (1912 and 1970ish, respectively). The constraints are in manufacturing and development, turning a concept into something that can be mass-produced. As soon as a big market appeared, the designs followed. As the market is now there, further improvements on that scale are unlikely.
Incidentally, a major reason for size reduction is also the reduction in power demand with the proliferation in base stations and the improvements in electronics allowing lower radiated power/circuit consumption.

omon
15 Dec 06,, 23:47
OK, so if you want to get picky take a Carnot efficiency of 40% for a Diesel cycle, 35% for an Otto cycle and an optimistic 90% for an electric motor (they aren't 100% efficient - you get both iron and copper losses).

That gives a recoverable energy of 650 kJ/kg for Lithium-Polymer batteries, and 15,550 kJ/kg for an Otto cycle engine running on Octane. That still leaves an Octane engine with 24 times the energy density of Lithium-Polymer batteries.


So what? You posted a big steaming pile of rubbish, I pulled you up for it and you're trying to post a load of unrelated stuff to hide your original failure to check your facts.
Besides, 100 miles in a vehicle that was heavily optimised for range at the expense of pretty much everything else isn't impressive. Figures of 10,705 mpg have been achieved by a combustion engined car in testing, although admittedly this was more heavily optimised for efficiency than the EV1.

You still don't get the numbers do you? A lead-acid battery will do perhaps 40 Watt-Hours/kg. A Lithium-Polymer battery will do at best 200 Watt-Hours/kg. The very worst Otto cycle engine will manage an equivalent to 4,800 Watt-Hours/kg. In other words a century of battery development has managed to close 3.4% of the gap between batteries and the Otto cycle engine. Add in the fact that a fuel tank can be refilled in seconds while batteries take an hour or two to charge, and claims that batteries are nearly there are shown for the bad joke they really are.

As for mobile phone batteries, the technology for Li-Ion or Li-Poly batteries is nothing new (1912 and 1970ish, respectively). The constraints are in manufacturing and development, turning a concept into something that can be mass-produced. As soon as a big market appeared, the designs followed. As the market is now there, further improvements on that scale are unlikely.
Incidentally, a major reason for size reduction is also the reduction in power demand with the proliferation in base stations and the improvements in electronics allowing lower radiated power/circuit consumption.

not as much trash as you posted. keep relying on wiki numbers. didn't i say there are many ways to charge battery on the go. ever heard of pulse charging?? you have no idea of recent developmets in power generation.
while it's not as developed as IC engeines it has geater potential.but you're too blind to see it. your numbers don't mean sh..t.

pdf27
16 Dec 06,, 00:16
not as much trash as you posted. keep relying on wiki numbers. didn't i say there are many ways to charge battery on the go. ever heard of pulse charging?? you have no idea of recent developmets in power generation.
while it's not as developed as IC engeines it has geater potential.but you're too blind to see it. your numbers don't mean sh..t.
Ummm... there was one wiki number in there, clearly identified as such. That was the energy density for Li-Poly batteries. But if you don't like that, here are a big pile more:
140 Wh/kg - http://www.plantraco.com/hobbies/product-lpcells.html
125 Wh/kg - http://brightsurf.com/news/headlines/14264/New_system_for_storing_lithium-polymer_energy.html
400 Wh/kg as the practical limit - http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001065.html
250 Wh/kg lab prototype - http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2671573
125 Wh/Kg - http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/bericht-12671.html
460 Wh/kg for electrolyte only, running at 100C on a bench test - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VP5-3YB4DX4-T&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2000&_alid=509296284&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6197&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ffe7a09400872b42dcaeefed1ce976a4

Going by those numbers, and remembering that a cell will degrade over time in use, 200 Wh/kg looks like a downright generous assessment of what the batteries can do, with 125 Wh/kg looking like the practical limit for a car-sized cell in mass production.

The LCV for Octane comes from "Thermofluids Data Book for Part I of the Engineering Tripos" published by Cambridge University Engineering Department dated 18/8/02, for the reaction C8H18 _ 12.5*O2 -> 8*CO2 + 9*H2O, with the water going to steam.

Lead-Acid figures come from here: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6532045
Note that Lead-Acid batteries suffer particularly badly from degradation, and an old battery will have less than half the stored charge of a new one. Your EV1 figures are no doubt for a new battery pack.

omon
16 Dec 06,, 00:43
Ummm... there was one wiki number in there, clearly identified as such. That was the energy density for Li-Poly batteries. But if you don't like that, here are a big pile more:
140 Wh/kg - http://www.plantraco.com/hobbies/product-lpcells.html
125 Wh/kg - http://brightsurf.com/news/headlines/14264/New_system_for_storing_lithium-polymer_energy.html
400 Wh/kg as the practical limit - http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001065.html
250 Wh/kg lab prototype - http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2671573
125 Wh/Kg - http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/bericht-12671.html
460 Wh/kg for electrolyte only, running at 100C on a bench test - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VP5-3YB4DX4-T&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2000&_alid=509296284&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6197&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ffe7a09400872b42dcaeefed1ce976a4

Going by those numbers, and remembering that a cell will degrade over time in use, 200 Wh/kg looks like a downright generous assessment of what the batteries can do, with 125 Wh/kg looking like the practical limit for a car-sized cell in mass production.

The LCV for Octane comes from "Thermofluids Data Book for Part I of the Engineering Tripos" published by Cambridge University Engineering Department dated 18/8/02, for the reaction C8H18 _ 12.5*O2 -> 8*CO2 + 9*H2O, with the water going to steam.

Lead-Acid figures come from here: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6532045
Note that Lead-Acid batteries suffer particularly badly from degradation, and an old battery will have less than half the stored charge of a new one. Your EV1 figures are no doubt for a new battery pack.

ok, fine you'against batteries, it's ok at this stage it's not something to brag about,but would you say if that battery pack is constantly charged do you care how much energy it stores at one time? just like cellphone it won't last whiout charging for more 3-5 days, but if you charge it before it runs out, not that important how big the battery is.
like i said there are new and also some old ways to do just that.the bigger problem is to make battery to take charge fast, that where pulse charging steps in, and other ways to do the same.

there is much more to electric car than battery, we might not even need battery all together to drive electric motor. tesla knew how.

just read about Tesla, if it wasn't for him we wouldnt have AC. he new electticity better than anyone did,

omon
16 Dec 06,, 00:54
using links you provided
led acid 41w\kg
li pol 130 w\kg
that is more than 3 times as much.
ev1 range was lets say 80 miles with led acid, by numbers alone it looks like with li pol it'd be around 300 mi. not considering anything else

pdf27
16 Dec 06,, 01:19
using links you provided
led acid 41w\kg
li pol 130 w\kg
that is more than 3 times as much.
ev1 range was lets say 80 miles with led acid, by numbers alone it looks like with li pol it'd be around 300 mi. not considering anything else
And the Otto cycle is around 4,800 Wh/kg (note it's Watt-hours per kg, not Watts per kg which measures something entirely different and irrelevant). Applying the range calculation gives you a range of 11,000 miles, for a weight of around 700kg at 50 mpg.
The actual EV-1 battery pack weighed in at 1175 kg and had a capacity of 53 Ah at 312V (all nominal). Assuming no voltage drop that gives a value of 14 Wh/kg for the battery pack. All figures come from: http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/genmot.pdf
Anyway, the numbers show a fairly salient point - for the weight and space given over to the battery pack to get this vehicle 100 miles, a conventional fuel tank could have got it half way around the world, assuming reasonable fuel consumption (50 mpg - which my last car was regularly exceeding before I crashed it a couple of weeks ago).

It's a bit of a stretch to say "Tesla knew how" - he never got close to making it actually work, and there are some pretty fundamental reasons why his ideas for passing energy through the air are a bad idea.

omon
16 Dec 06,, 06:55
The actual EV-1 battery pack weighed in at 1175 kg and had a capacity of 53 Ah at 312V (all nominal). Assuming no voltage drop that gives a value of 14 Wh/kg for the battery pack. All figures come from: http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/genmot.pdf
Anyway, the numbers show a fairly salient point - for the weight and space given over to the battery pack to get this vehicle 100 miles, a conventional fuel tank could have got it half way around the world, assuming reasonable fuel consumption (50 mpg - which my last car was regularly exceeding before I crashed it a couple of weeks ago).

It's a bit of a stretch to say "Tesla knew how" - he never got close to making it actually work, and there are some pretty fundamental reasons why his ideas for passing energy through the air are a bad idea.

do you find that, in a 1347 kg car, battery weights 1175 kg?, is it a little out of wack? it is to me.
you stil missing a point, the idea is the battery does not run out in 100 miles. it's charging while draining, by one means or another.

omon
16 Dec 06,, 08:05
So what? You posted a big steaming pile of rubbish, I pulled you up for it and you're trying to post a load of unrelated stuff to hide your original failure to check your facts.
Besides, 100 miles in a vehicle that was heavily optimised for range at the expense of pretty much everything else isn't impressive. Figures of 10,705 mpg have been achieved by a combustion engined car in testing, although admittedly this was more heavily optimised for efficiency than the EV1.

You still don't get the numbers do you? A lead-acid battery will do perhaps 40 Watt-Hours/kg. A Lithium-Polymer battery will do at best 200 Watt-Hours/kg. The very worst Otto cycle engine will manage an equivalent to 4,800 Watt-Hours/kg. In other words a century of battery development has managed to close 3.4% of the gap between batteries and the Otto cycle engine. Add in the fact that a fuel tank can be refilled in seconds while batteries take an hour or two to charge, and claims that batteries are nearly there are shown for the bad joke they really are.
As for mobile phone batteries, the technology for Li-Ion or Li-Poly batteries is nothing new (1912 and 1970ish, respectively).
let's check your facts.

at what expence was it optimized? it had everything small 2 seater would have and more.
? thaere was a IC engined car that did in a test 10,705 mpg ??? wow that would be something don,t you think??? if it was real. do you belive that this is even posible???
according your own numbers, the same ev1 would have 5 times longer range if we simply exchange led acids bat. to litium polimer. thats 500 miles, that not that bad,for the beginer, is it?
i had know idea that Li-Ion or Li-Poly were being developed in 1912 and 1970ish, respectively. was industry that developed back than to come up with these batterys?? you cant even charge any of those two batt. without a charger full of ic's and other electronic stuf. where did you get that b.s? Li-ion in 1912,..extreamly funny.

pdf27
16 Dec 06,, 09:01
do you find that, in a 1347 kg car, battery weights 1175 kg?, is it a little out of wack? it is to me.
Ummm... you really aren't actually reading my posts are you, just flaming me for them after you start skim reading them.

All figures come from: http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/genmot.pdf
That's the EV1 data sheet at the Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity centre which is shared by the Idaho National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Authority, both US government testing organisations.
That data sheet states a delivered kerb weight of 1330kg of which 1175 kg is the weight of the battery pack.


you stil missing a point, the idea is the battery does not run out in 100 miles. it's charging while draining, by one means or another.
No point on earth on charging while draining - it would be more efficient to run the electric motor off the current you're suggesting should be dumped into the battery.
There are valid reasons to want to use hybrid battery-IC engine vehicles, but the majority of these benefits can be achieved by using a Diesel rather than Otto cycle engine. The major benefit is achieved by removing the throttling effect of running an Otto cycle engine at part-load. Diesel cycle engines aren't throttled, so you don't lose the pumping work (although you do lose something due to running further from the Stochiometric combustion ratio, this isn't as bad). For hybrid battery-IC engines you can use the battery as a booster and for low speed use, enabling you to use a smaller engine that is either on or off. That is beneficial, particularly if you enable people to plug in the vehicle overnight so the battery does not always have to be charged by the IC engine - but the optimal size is pretty small, enough for perhaps 20-30 miles.


at what expence was it optimized? it had everything small 2 seater would have and more.
Body design driven by aerodynamics rather than styling, two rather than four seats, limited boot space.


thaere was a IC engined car that did in a test 10,705 mpg ??? wow that would be something don,t you think??? if it was real. do you belive that this is even posible???
Yep. That was the 2003 winning mileage by team Microjoule in the Shell Eco Marathon (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=eco-marathon-en). That is a documented mileage, scrutinised in competition using calibrated equipment. This is more heavily optimised than the EV-1, but not by the factor of a million or so you would need to get comparable energy densities.


according your own numbers, the same ev1 would have 5 times longer range if we simply exchange led acids bat. to litium polimer. thats 500 miles, that not that bad,for the beginer, is it?
May or may not scale like that put straight into the car. They have built and tested a variant using NiMH batteries (data sheet here (http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf)) which achieved a range of 160 miles at a constant speed of 60 mph. This compares to 89 miles at a constant speed of 60 mph for Lead-Acid batteries, so that scale factor is plausible.
Note that the energy density per litre is also important - lead acid batteries are quite dense, so it may not be possible to slot the same weight of Li-Poly batteries straight into the car without (major?) modifications.


i had know idea that Li-Ion or Li-Poly were being developed in 1912 and 1970ish, respectively. was industry that developed back than to come up with these batterys?? you cant even charge any of those two batt. without a charger full of ic's and other electronic stuf. where did you get that b.s? Li-ion in 1912,..extreamly funny.
Charger technology is simple - just stick a DC voltage across the terminals and wait. They use ICs for that nowadays because they're easy and cheap to manufacture, but they aren't required - a transformer and a bunch of diodes will step down mains power for you just fine, or you can even generate DC directly.
Li-Ion batteries were invented in 1912 by the American Chemist Gilbert N Lewis. If you don't believe me, whack his name and lithium ion into google and see the dates you get back. They weren't commercialised for a hell of a long time because they are both hard to make and there wasn't a market - but the science was there.

It's getting thoroughly irritating arguing with someone who both accuses me of lying without even bothering to check the facts I'm putting across and who keeps changing the subject when pinned down. I put the link to my source on the EV-1 up there, but you didn't even bother to look before accusing me of lying. that and your refusal to use capital letters is driving me up the wall, frankly.

omon
16 Dec 06,, 18:42
Dude. why don't you check you numbers first.
so far you giving me all these numbers, and francly i don't see you using them right.
1330kg, weight of the car.
1175kg, weight of the battery.
That lives 155kg for everything else; body, wheels, and everything else that we call a car? don't you find it unrealistic?? i do. does that mean that a could lift batteryless ev1 and just carry it?? i can easyly do that with 155kg.
the links you gave nowere said of economy of 10,705 mpg. and also you call that egg on whells a car?? can 2 people comfortable drive it with radio on, ac on, in the rain, uphil, down hill..ect. no you cant. ev1 could. and since you brought up that egg on wheels, i,ll bring up solar car, no batt. no gas at all, and they run. but niether of them is a car.
"No point on earth on charging while draining - it would be more efficient to run the electric motor off the current you're suggesting should be dumped into the battery."- wasn't i saying that before? remember me mentioned diesel lokomotive??
There is a good point charging while draining, motors use a lot of current, battery give you a lot of current to drain, chargers usually give you small curent, not enough to drive motors, or sometimes even pulse of high voltage low current still not enough for motors.
"just stick a DC voltage across the terminals and wait." that is a very good way to kill a battery, not eficiently charge it. i know it firsthand. and also forget about dc in electric car it's not a way to go, ac is.
i've looked on the net Chemist Gilbert N Lewis ,on many sites, it does not say anything about lit ion batt. he invented in 1912, the only reference about 1912 is that he got married, if you could pinpoint where it says he invented lit ion batt. i'd really aprishiate it.
i never ment that we should keep making ev1's. no it was a good first try,i my view future cars would have a small diesel 200-400cc(or any other small efficient engine) to charge it's battery and ac motors.(plus power managment sys.) all complicated stuf like ic engine trasmission.., and ecpecially hydrogen converters and god knows what else should be gone from the car.unless you want to pay $100.000 for a small car.(that hydrogen stuf makes a car very expencive, not to mention it's not upto date yet.
you get thoroughly irritated too fast,that,s bad for you health, not that i care tough. stop imagining i "keep changing the subject when pinned down" i never even for a second change the subject,(we are still talking about electric cars, are we?) and neither i feel pined down. You on the other hand keep giving me numbers that don't make sence, and exampleas that are quite frankly funny, to say the least.
if i was flaming you i,d say "you full of sh..t, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're as dumm as a bell, get lost looser, or something like that." but i didn't. i don't even know how to flame,never did that on this board, and anywhere else. that is not why i,m here.

p.s. when you're irritated your nerves play game with you. try to calm them down.
and the only reason why hydrogen is developed(ruther than other forms of energy), is that the same people who control oil will be in control of hydrogen as well. does conlict of interests ring your bell??
thinking that a battery is the problem is very not smart.imo

pdf27
17 Dec 06,, 00:52
Not got time to answer properly right now (1am and just been to a party) but...
1) Vehicle empty weight and battery weight are quoted on that website I linked to. They are plausible if the battery is used structurally.
2) Gilbert Lewis see http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=li+ion+gilbert+lewis&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 - wasn't hard!

omon
17 Dec 06,, 03:37
Not got time to answer properly right now (1am and just been to a party) but...
1) Vehicle empty weight and battery weight are quoted on that website I linked to. They are plausible if the battery is used structurally.
2) Gilbert Lewis see http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=li+ion+gilbert+lewis&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 - wasn't hard!

look at the pic. do you belive that everyting you see (not including batt. in between seats, and above rear axle) weighs 155 kg? Batts. are not used stractualy.no way i belive that. aluminium space frame alone is almost 130kg. that i belive.
http://ev1-club.power.net/ev1faq/ti6.htm

History
Gilbert N. Lewis pioneered lithium batteries in 1912; the first non-rechargeable cells were created in early 1970s. The rechargeable lithium-ion battery required nearly 20 years of development before it was safe enough to be used on a mass market level, and the first commercial version was created by Sony in 1991, following research by a team led by John B. Goodenough
http://www.answers.com/topic/lithium-ion-battery
lithium non-rechargeable cells are not what we are talking about.they are not the same as rechargeable lithium-ion .
you still missing the piont, mine at least, Future cars should be propelled electricaly, not by IC engine. IC should be a charger. this way i'll be simpler, cheaper, and "green".

pdf27
17 Dec 06,, 21:59
My bad on the batteries - that's what you get for skim reading late at night.
Aluminium spaceframe is just that - a frame. All the panels themselves are composite, and when you see them using magnesium castings you know they're trying to seriously reduce weight.
IC engine used as a charger helps to reduce the throttling losses, but does nothing about the Carnot losses associated with combustion. That's the real benefit of fuel cells - you don't get any Carnot losses associated with combustion, which means your peak achievable efficiency goes up from about 40% to somewhere in the region of 80-90%. That's an incredible improvement.

omon
17 Dec 06,, 22:59
My bad on the batteries - that's what you get for skim reading late at night.
Aluminium spaceframe is just that - a frame. All the panels themselves are composite, and when you see them using magnesium castings you know they're trying to seriously reduce weight.
IC engine used as a charger helps to reduce the throttling losses, but does nothing about the Carnot losses associated with combustion. That's the real benefit of fuel cells - you don't get any Carnot losses associated with combustion, which means your peak achievable efficiency goes up from about 40% to somewhere in the region of 80-90%. That's an incredible improvement.

i still dont think(even with compasite use)that wheels, all stuf uner the hood and inside, suspension..ect. weigh about 20kg, someting wrong with numbers, they probably mistook lb for kg,
what do you mean by Carnot losses?? is losses due to firction?

ArmchairGeneral
18 Dec 06,, 00:22
i still dont think(even with compasite use)that wheels, all stuf uner the hood and inside, suspension..ect. weigh about 20kg, someting wrong with numbers, they probably mistook lb for kg,
what do you mean by Carnot losses?? is losses due to firction?

I'm not sure what Carnot losses are, but I do know that a lot of energy is lost due to heat. IC engines produce loads of heat that goes unused, while fuel cells produce little or no heat. Helps a lot. Now if only they could develop a fuel cell that burns gasoline, then we'd have a nice product.

ArmchairGeneral
18 Dec 06,, 00:23
I'm still a little hopeful about Stirling engines. If you could get better power out of them, that would be a nice little powerplant.

omon
18 Dec 06,, 02:08
I'm still a little hopeful about Stirling engines. If you could get better power out of them, that would be a nice little powerplant.

many years ago i had a toy sterling engine, if i remember correctly it runs on diference in temp. i used to put it on a hot cup of coffe and it would come to life, very neat toy.
imo combusting anything isn't future. there is so much inventions that work on veriaty of ways other than combastions.
http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm

half of them are useless, but the other half worth studiyng.

pdf27
18 Dec 06,, 10:37
what do you mean by Carnot losses?? is losses due to firction?
Carnot losses are pretty critical to understanding the situation.

Not easy to explain, but as a really crude approximation the Carnot efficiency is the maximum theoretical efficiency of any heat engine, and is equal to ([peak temperature] - [temperature at which heat of working fluid is rejected to atmosphere])/([peak temperature] - [atmospheric temperature]) for any engine using air as a working fluid. Start using anything that changes phase or Cp/Cv as a working fluid and things get a bit different. Strictly that's also true for any combustion engine, but the differences are close enough to ignore.

Diesel engines benefit here because they run at higher compression ratios (petrol engines start "pinking", i.e. the fuel/air charge detonates before top dead centre if the compression ratio gets too high). This means that the exhaust gas is cooler than for a petrol engine, but still very hot. That's also why engine fuel efficiencies have barely changed for petrol engines in the last 20 years - they're running at the peak compression ratio for the fuel, which defines the Carnot limit. It's also why jet engines put so much effort into cooling the first turbine stage - if they can get the gas at that stage any hotter, it translates directly into better fuel efficiency.

The real benefit of fuel cells is that because they don't use a combustion process, they aren't limited by the Carnot efficiency. They have their own limits - notably that quite a few designs run very hot, thus inducing losses there - but are nowhere near as bad as any form of heat engine.

omon
28 Dec 06,, 19:21
someone else shares my opinion on electik cars, Tesla motors, they just got in this busines, i hope they stay in it long.
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

pdf27
28 Dec 06,, 23:12
That's somewhere where electric cars have been able to succeed for years - but nobody has tried. Electric motors are ideal for that kind of load cycle, as they have fantastic peak torque and can get rid of the gearbox entirely. Furthermore, cars of this type tend to be toys rather than day to day transport so problems like battery range, powering the heater, etc. don't really come into it.

Good luck to them.

highsea
29 Dec 06,, 02:33
The best anti-theft device yet invented is the word "diesel" on the trunk.

tw-acs
01 Jan 07,, 05:14
Diesel cars in america: It is my belief that diesel cars have not caught on for numerous reasons:

The most obvious reason: American Auto Makers have not promoted the offering of diesel engines in many automobile styles.

Diesel exhaust smells bad: Clarification- Petroleum based diesel smells bad because it creates about 90% more pollution consideing from the beginning of the mining process to the use as fuel compared to biodiesel; that is diesel created from vegetable oil. Biodiesel exhaust is said to have an aroma of a kitchen or french fries.

Performance issues with petroluem diesel. Petroleum based diesel leaves deposits in the engine. Over time this decreases efficiency of the engine.

Biodiesel behaves differently than Petro diesel in that it actually cleans the engine, removing deposits in the engine .

glyn
01 Jan 07,, 16:36
After years of running petrol engined cars I changed over to diesel power about 12 years ago. I will never go back to petrol, as diesel gives similar performance and gives far more miles to the gallon. Diesel engines are simpler, longer lasting and avoid electrical problems. Exhaust systems last longer as combustion occurs at higher temperatures - so less imperfectly burned particulates are available to the exhausted gases to rot the metal. I cannot comment on the smell as I find both petrol and diesel to be unpleasant, but I approve of Biodiesel manufacture - although it is not on sale in my area. If it reduces the import of of oil it's a further bonus. If petrol is both cheap and plentiful in the US there is probably no need to have diesel cars. There seems to have been little enthusiasm among the car makers in promoting the benefits of diesel. It may be a 'cultural' thing as not too many folks want to be seen in something of modest size and proven frugality in a land of conspicuous consumption.

tw-acs
01 Jan 07,, 17:04
Diesel and gasoline prices have been on the rise, since I was a little kid. Within the last couple of years we have seen a huge spike in the prices of both fuels.

Biodiesel can be made at a fraction of the cost of diesel. If wanted a person could purchase a biodiesel converter thing. Basically consisting of two barrels and a pump.

Homemade biodiesel should work well for the savvy consumer willing to use something in its infancy... that seems strange since biodiesel was the fuel that the first DIESEL engine ran on in 1894.

I see a few diesel cars, more diesel trucks, and industry uses diesel. The puzzling thing to me is: If biodiesel works better than petro diesel then why isn't it sold widely in the US?

Side topic:

What would be the best source for biodiesel?

ArmchairGeneral
02 Jan 07,, 07:08
Diesel and gasoline prices have been on the rise, since I was a little kid. Within the last couple of years we have seen a huge spike in the prices of both fuels.
On the first statement- not if you adjust for inflation. See attached chart. Assuming, of course, that you were born before 2002.


Biodiesel can be made at a fraction of the cost of diesel.
I kind of doubt this. If it were true, then trucking companies would be buying all the vegetable oil they could, to save costs.


I see a few diesel cars, more diesel trucks, and industry uses diesel. The puzzling thing to me is: If biodiesel works better than petro diesel then why isn't it sold widely in the US?

Because petro diesel is cheaper.


Side topic:

What would be the best source for biodiesel?
Here's one promising possibility: http://worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=32653

omon
13 Mar 07,, 22:27
there is some new development in battery tech.

For 200 years the basic theory of obtaining electricity from the energy potential which exists between different materials has been the foundation upon which the advances have been made in technology. It is only because of this simple electrochemical fact that we have an amazing spectrum of products and facilities available to us today. Vehicles, mobile phones, camcorders, watches, laptop computers, cordless tools - the list of consumer applications is endless. Military capability and scientific developments depend upon batteries and space exploration, manned or unmanned would be impossible without them. Over this time, enormous resources of time, research and money have gone into finding the most efficient and viable materials which can give the greater power needed to open the gates for the vast range of products and developments waiting in the wings.

Many different combinations of materials and construction have been investigated and the advances which have been made in the last 30 years have been remarkable, but there is still a demand for even higher power ratings. Some of the combinations have proved effective but have proved subsequently to be dangerous to our environment and have been banned on ecological and environmental grounds.

In 1989, Ab Europositron was founded to pursue a radical new theory which had been propounded by Mr Rainer Partanen concerning one of the materials which had been investigated before but had always run into the same difficulties, namely the apparently insurmountable problem recharging a sealed cell battery using aluminium. Rainer Partanen has progressed the theory to the point of detailed specifications of cell construction, the electrochemistry involved and has registered patents covering all the necessary areas.

The fundamental basis of the Partanen technology can be applied to all formats of batteries, from tiny button batteries to high capacity stand-by power supplies. Using one of the most abundant metals available and incorporating existing manufacturing processes, this is an avenue which demands and deserves investigation to fruition.

Why Aluminium

Aluminium is one of the most plentiful materials on earth with a low cost and has the highest electrical charge storage per unit weight except for alkali metals. It has already proved itself to be a viable material in battery application: the Zaromb cell produced in 1960 stored 15 times the energy of a comparable lead acid battery and achieved 500 Wh/Kg with a plate density current of 1A/sq.cm

Salomon Zaromb working for US Philco Company and in this concept for an aluminium air cell, the anode was aluminium partnered with potassium hydroxide with air as the cathode.

The main drawback was corrosion in the off condition which resulted in the production of jelly of aluminium hydroxide and the evolution of hydrogen gas. To overcome this problem Philco added inhibitors to avoid the corrosion and had a space below the cell for the aluminium hydroxide to collect. The battery had replaceable aluminium electrode plates.

Another more recent attempt was made in 1985 by DESPIC using saline electrolyte. Additions of small quantities of tin, titanium, iridium or gallium move the corrosion potential in the negative direction. DESPIC built this cell with wedge shaped anodes which permitted mechanical recharging using sea water as electrolyte in some cases. The battery was commercially developed by ALUPOWER.

Other attempts have involved aluminium chloride (Chloroaluminate) which is molten salt at room temperature with chlorine held in a graphite electrode. This attempt in 1988 by Gifford and Palmison gives limited capacity due to high ohmic resistance of the graphite.

Equally significant is work by Gileardi and his team who have succeeded in depositing aluminium from organic solvents though the mechanisms of the reactions are not well understood at this time.

Between 1990 and 1995 Eltech Research (Fairport Habour, Ohio, U.S.A.) built a mechanically recharge Aluminium battery for the PNGV program. It had 280 cells and stored 190 kWh with a peak power of 55 kW and weighed 195 kg. This battery used a pumped electrolyte system with a separate filter/precipitator to remove the Aluminium Hydroxide jelly.

Since then, even higher ratings have been achieved but only in primary batteries i.e. where a single use is applicable. Examples of this are emergency stand-by power or torpedoes.

The reason for this is that there has been no way up to overcome the problem of aluminium hydroxide 'sludge' building up during the generation of electro- chemical energy. This has meant either disposal of the battery, or complete rebuilding and replenishing the active materials with no possibility of recharging the battery. The Partanen technology has overcome this barrier which means that the energy potential of an aluminium based battery can be utilised to a degree never before attainable and, radically can be recharged to over 3000 cycles.

Current development of batteries

Over the recent years a great deal of time and money has been spent developing increased energy ratings of secondary batteries. The latest Lead Acid, Nickel Metal Hydride and Lithium Ion batteries have produced up to 200 Wh/Kg and although USABC (United States Advanced Battery Consortium) have invested $90 million over the last six years and produced a NiMH battery with a capacity of 100 Wh/Kg, it is deemed commercially non-viable because of the high expense in producing it. The required target for a viable battery system for electric vehicles is 300 Wh/litre and 200 Wh/Kg.

However the latest advanced batteries are, without exception, just variations of the same basic 200 years old principle.

Aluminium is a good solution because of four reasons

a) Abundance

b) Low Cost

c) High Energy Storage

d) Lightness


In all attempts to benefit the energy of aluminium is that no one has succeeded in solving the recharging except mechanically (by replacing the aluminium plate with a new one). As the right solution was not found the results were such drawbacks as aluminium hydroxide jelly, too big current resistance, corrosion problems etc.

Europositron technology

Partanen Europositron technology overcomes the existing difficulty and electropositive metal ions are reduced to metal through analytic and catalytic reactions in normal temperature and with a calculated electrical current. The flow resistance of the solution and the required excess voltage are taken into account.

The creation of aluminium hydroxide is eliminated and recharging for large number of cycles is possible. The technology applies to all existing methods of battery production including spiral wound sandwich examples. Another advantage of the Partanen Technology is that there is no "memory" effect as is found with many existing versions of today's batteries.

Thus batteries of various sizes can be manufactured with the following calculated performance characteristics:

Energy Density/Volume: 2100 Wh/litre

Energy Density/Weight: 1330 Wh/kg

Cycle Life: 3000+ cycles

Minimum Working Temperature: - 40C

Maximum Working Temperature: +70C

Life: 10-30 years

Discharge Rate: Adjustable

A good example of the difference the Partanen Technology would have is EV 1 by General Motors.

The total weight of the car without batteries is 816 kg. With the batteries the weight goes to 1550 kg. The power supply consists of 26 Lead-Acid batteries of 53 Ah each, which weigh 736 kg i.e. almost half of the total weight of the car. Without recharge the EV 1 runs 145 km on highway and in city traffic about 115 km.

With a Partanen technology battery weighing 60 kg, and with a volume 40 liters it would have a capacity of 80 kWh. Installed in a 816 kg EV 1 it could run 870 km on highway and 690 km in the city traffic.

Implications for Aluminium manufacture

After the Partanen Technology has been proven and verified, the subsequent consequences for aluminium manufacture will be significant. Large scale energy savings will be possible and the site of aluminium producing plants will not be governed by the proximity of large scale power resources such as hydroelectric services.

There are many other aspects which will be affected and these will be taken into consideration and how they can be exploited by collaboration with energy and aluminium industry bodies.

Patent protection

The old, expired patent application was left as is. New application will be prepared during the year 2007. The patent applications will be under the name of Mr. Rainer Partanen.

tw-acs
28 Apr 07,, 00:25
Armchair General

Look at those prices again and again.

Bio fuel is less expensive