[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

So a family doesn't need fuel to get around?

If only people with great big vehicles carpooled...

And diesel ain't cheap, either.

Indeed it is, comparatively. It provides more energy/dollar than gasoline.

[sek929]

<replying to Dudeness>

No its way more than gas, I know, one of my work vehicles is a 7.3 litre International Diesel.

and what I'm complaining about here is the rich white moms I see everywhere doing grocery shopping for a family of 4 in a 20 foot long Lincoln Navigator. She doesn't need a 300+ HP SUV, its the people like her that are making fuel costs unbearable, not the ones who buy hundreds of gallons a week.

Also, anyone who buys a V-10 in a truck is an idiot. That huge 7.3 Diesel I meantioned earlier gets around 15-16 MPG, a V-10 Dodge BRAND NEW gets 10-11 MPG (unloaded), and isn't nearly as powerful. You hit it right on the head Eug, Diesel is for people who weigh cost/efficiency, which isn't a large chunk of America.

My mom had a family (we are out of the house now) and drove around everywhere. She had a 4 banger caravan, why does any mom need anything more than that?

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Tenacious Dyl

And all of the people consuming their non-renewable resources protest when prices rise!

Well, whether we like it not, we will have to switch eventually to a different fuel for cars, hydrogen if that pans out (people seem to still disagree)...

I personally disagree with hydrogen as an energy SOURCE. I think it more as an energy STORAGE, one that will revolutionize electric batteries.

[sek929]

Solar as a source makes far more sense, or at least a large addition to the grid.

[Kevin]

Sek the SRT-10 Truck was built for speed. Just like the Viper .

[sek929]

Not the SRT-10. Thats a sports enthuasiast vehicle. Thats where I'm a hypocrit because I do like really fast and impressive vehicles (Only in America would a Viper/Truck exist).

I'm talking about more of the 3500 Dodge series. Most people in the area have started to buy the Cummings Diesels with the Allison tranny (a incredibly durable and powerful engine). They get better mileage then the V-10 3500s and have gobs more tourque, so the MPG is identical at large loads. Same with the huge 460 V-8 Fords. The Int. Diesels get better MPG. Though the initial cost is about 5Gs more, but as far as I'm concerned with raising gas prices you have to factor in a huge amount of money to fuel it. And in the end you get a bomb-proof diesel.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sek929

Not the SRT-10. Thats a sports enthuasiast vehicle. Thats where I'm a hypocrit because I do like really fast and impressive vehicles (Only in America would a Viper/Truck exist).

I believe there are V12 sports cars that aren't made in the US.

The Viper is just a V10.

[ambush]

I'm in France right now and it's astounding to see how everyone uses small, fuel-efficient cars.

How Ford cars are SO much beautiful and smaller. Hell, I'd even buy one.

Europe!

[sek929]

Yeah but in Europe they think we are crazy for making a truck that can go over 156 miles an hour

[ambush]

yo this 60+ yr-old guy drove me up there in the mountains thru deadly roads (you fall, you're dead, litterally, and there's not much that could absorb the shock... very tight roads, lots of turns)... he was doing 180 Km/h++.... I was amazed at how the driver was perfect.

a cool ride.

[Kevin]

I myself like small 5spd cars.

I hate boats. Hard to maneuver in and out of traffic.

I would LOVE a small car with a 6banger that had decent speed.

And maybe a turbo.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by sek929

Yeah but in Europe they think we are crazy for making a truck that can go over 156 miles an hour

Because it's a ridiculous waste.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Because it's a ridiculous waste.

So are some of the European V12s. But it happens.

[Targon]

Its really rather simple. Fuel prices has been pushed up intentionally by our governments to pay for the War in Iraq. This also happened in the early 90's in the previous War on Iraq. Fuel prices went balistic, governments cashed in an the prices never went down.

Thanks Bush, ya nutcase!!

[turtle777]

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/new/

Highest: $ 3.03 Malibu, CA

-t

[sek929]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Because it's a ridiculous waste.

What about F1 racing?

Those V-10s and V-12s get about 1MPG.

[ApplCmptrDood]

yeah, it's getting to be like 2.68 - 2.88 in the Bay Area!

[Eug Wanker]

GasBuddy.com

[tgags]

Ppl do tend to bash the SUVs when it comes to this topic, but again I mention that there are SUVs that are 4 cly. My CRV is a 4cyl (the same engine as the Accord). There are also hybrid SUVs now. So the "SUV" is not necessarily the enemy, it's particularly large vehicles (for home/ family use) that get horrible gas mileage that are not necessary to own. Like the Hummer. Ppl who drive these hummers really kill me. There is no need for that kind of vehicle, it's pure selfishness, bravado, egoism and gluttony. Sure, you can do whatever you want in our lovely society, that's the selfish mindset argument. Now finally the government is getting involved and trying to encourage ppl to make environmentally- (life sustainably) minded decisions (in the form of incentives via the new energy bill).
The best is when I hear they can't sell these large vehicles as much now due to the price of gas. The companies will go with the market, not what's better for the environment. So if that's what it took to slap selfish ppl in line and be a little more considerate of society & sustainability, than I don't mind paying more for gas.

Also, along the same topic, I'm not a a fan of Bill Maher, but did anyone read his book
"When You Ride Alone, You Ride With bin Laden"?

TG

Thankfully, I only have to fill up once about every three weeks. Saw gas this morning was $2.67 for 87 octane.

I'm not complaining. I'll be happy when it hits $6.00/gal here. Maybe then people will wake up!

[Goldfinger]

87 octane ? My car could die running on 87 octane

Here it's something like 1,30euro/litre for 95 octane and 1,41 for 98 octane, diesel is 1,05 or 1,10 don't know exactly since I have a petrol engine. The government has decided to lower taxes on diesel right now so that prices don't go above 1,10/litre. Diesel because most cars sold here are diesels. The prices are excessive but we also have excessive taxes on petrol.

[agentz]

If I've done my sums right, and I'll say right now that I'm not sure I have, then I reckon that at $2.88/usgallon that is roughly equivalent to £1.31/ukgallon or in other words about £0.29/uklitre

Prices around here have just gone up to £0.909/litre so I reckon that makes it about $8.98/usgallon!

Or something like that, hey it's Sunday and I've been on holiday!

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by agentz

If I've done my sums right, and I'll say right now that I'm not sure I have, then I reckon that at $2.88/usgallon that is roughly equivalent to £1.31/ukgallon or in other words about £0.29/uklitre

Prices around here have just gone up to £0.909/litre so I reckon that makes it about $8.98/usgallon!

Or something like that, hey it's Sunday and I've been on holiday!

For those of you in countries with per liter pricing on gas, what are the average commutes in your areas? I drive 27 miles each way to work (although I'm moving 14 miles closer to work).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by agentz

If I've done my sums right, and I'll say right now that I'm not sure I have, then I reckon that at $2.88/usgallon that is roughly equivalent to £1.31/ukgallon or in other words about £0.29/uklitre

Correct.

Originally Posted by wallinbl

For those of you in countries with per liter pricing on gas, what are the average commutes in your areas? I drive 27 miles each way to work (although I'm moving 14 miles closer to work).

How does per litre pricing correlate with distance to work?

I drive 13 km each way to work, but some of my colleagues drive more than 50 km each way.

BTW, my mid-size hybrid car gets about 5.5 L/100 km (43 miles/US gallon) with air conditioning on the highway, and about 6.5ish L/100 km (36 miles/US gallon) in the city. I can get about 0.5 L/100 km more out of it if I drive conservatively and turn off the air conditioning, but it's irritating to drive that way.

[bstone]

The answer is already here.

Ethanol

www.e85fuel.com

[The Godfather]

I wonder if a carburator/injector that takes pure oxygen from a tank instead of plain air would make a motor much more efficient. I imagine that the gas burns more completely this way. Anyone know if it is possible?

[chabig]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

I wonder if a carburator/injector that takes pure oxygen from a tank instead of plain air would make a motor much more efficient. I imagine that the gas burns more completely this way. Anyone know if it is possible?

I don't think it would make a bit of difference--oxygen from a tank or oxygen from the atmosphere. It's still oxygen. As for "burning more completely", the fuel and air ratio is controlled so there is the right amount of each. It already burns completely.

Chris

[The Godfather]

But the air's natural nitrogen (70%) forces engines to be 3 times as big as if they were breathing pure O2.

Maybe harvesting O2 from the air is more work than it is worth.

Or maybe the car will just explode at ignition, who knows.

[Fyre4ce]

It's a good idea, but it doesn't work very well in practice. The major enemy in tuning an engine is detonation, when the fuel explodes like a bomb instead of burning smoothly. In theory, a detonating engine will make MORE power than a normal engine because the burn takes place much faster, but it also transfers a LOT more heat into internal engine parts like pistons and valves. Modern engines are not designed to handle lots of detonation; if they were, they would have to be a LOT heavier for the same power in order to handle all that heat.

If you were running an engine on pure O2, it would detonate wildly. Compression ratios would have to be dropped way down in order keep the engine from melting itself, and this hurts both power and efficiency. The nitrogen in the air acts as a dilutant and helps fight detonation.

You can probably buy a nitrous oxide kit for your car, that works on the same principle. Nitrous oxide is 36% oxygen, compared to air which is 21% oxygen. The system injects nitrous, and the extra fuel needed to burn it, into your engine's intake. The nitrous displaces air but since it has a higher oxygen concentration, the engine still makes more power. The reason these kits use nitrous instead of pure oxygen is because the nitrous does not dissociate (forming nitrogen and oxygen) until some pretty high temperature that doesn't happen until right before the engine's ready to spark. That way, there's not free oxygen floating around and causing trouble until right before it's needed.

Why don't engines run on pure nitrous oxide and fuel, then? Well, there is a limit to the amount of nitrous that can be used before detonation starts in. Many an engine has been blown by using too big a "shot" of nitrous. The cost is also very high. Nitrous is pretty expensive, and the car needs a separate delivery system for it. So, the main reason we don't have engines that use artificial oxidizers are:

-cost
-complexity
-weight (even though the engines would be smaller displacement, they would need to be much more sturdy, and then add the weight of the oxidizer storage and delivery system)
-simplicity

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

But the air's natural nitrogen (70%) forces engines to be 3 times as big as if they were breathing pure O2.

Maybe harvesting O2 from the air is more work than it is worth.

Or maybe the car will just explode at ignition, who knows.

It would a similar strain on the engine as running NOx, and the idiot ricers who fit Nos systems to there cars don't seam to have short term problems (there will be long term reliability issues with there engine parts, as they are running them way beyond there design tolerances, but thats due to them using it for increased PERFORMANCE not fuel efficiency).
It's got to be possible to use a similar system to get improved performance out of smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient engines.
But it's weather the cash spent on development really useful in the long term. Lets go mad and say this sort of tec' could double the vehicles fuel efficiency. But at the end of it still requires Gas. With most technologies taking years and a load of money to develop into commercial reality, wouldn't it be better to spend that cash on Vehicles which don't use Gas AT ALL.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

How does per litre pricing correlate with distance to work?

In the area of the US that I live in, commutes are quite large. There are a number of areas in the US where that is true. If gas prices here hit what they are in Europe, many people would be in a financial crisis because they don't manage their money well. So, I was curious to see if Europeans tended to live closer to where they work.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by turtle777

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/new/

Highest: $ 3.03 Malibu, CA

-t

From my rough sums it is about USD$5.83 a gallon here in Hong Kong, so you can all think of yourself lucky that your prices are not at my levels. (one of the most expensive on the planet)

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

It would a similar strain on the engine as running NOx, and the idiot ricers who fit Nos systems to there cars don't seam to have short term problems (there will be long term reliability issues with there engine parts, as they are running them way beyond there design tolerances, but thats due to them using it for increased PERFORMANCE not fuel efficiency).
It's got to be possible to use a similar system to get improved performance out of smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient engines.
But it's weather the cash spent on development really useful in the long term. Lets go mad and say this sort of tec' could double the vehicles fuel efficiency. But at the end of it still requires Gas. With most technologies taking years and a load of money to develop into commercial reality, wouldn't it be better to spend that cash on Vehicles which don't use Gas AT ALL.

When the term "NOx" is used in reference to engines, it generally refers to a set of chemicals in the engine's emissions, of which nitrous oxide (N2O) is one. But when it's used as a performance enhancer, it's only N20 that's being used.

As you correctly point out, nitrous is generally used to increase performance, not efficiency. It is true that an engine running on nitrous could be smaller, and therefore have lower pumping losses and weigh less, making the overall vehicle lighter. This would make a slightly more fuel-efficient vehicle. But, as I said before, detonation is the enemy and the measures that would have to be taken to control it would more than negate the small gains.

There's not a heck of a lot that can be done to improve the efficiency of modern engines. There are technologies out there that do - lean-burn, stratified-charge, variable compression ratio, diesel cycle, displacement-on-demand - and there are some cars out there that have them. But, the gains are not very big and the costs are pretty high. Diesels are popular in Europe, though.

The problem, as I see it, is that if someone wants to have a huge, luxurious SUV and they want it to have the performance of a decent car, it HAS to have a big, powerful engine, and this means that it HAS to consume a lot of fuel. There is little that I or any other engineer can do about it. Even a 50% drop in fuel consumption (a supremely difficult feat of engineering) would still have these vehicles be inferior to regular cars.

Until a longer-term solution to transportation is reached (fuel cells show some potential, but still have their fair share of major challenges) I think that the government should take steps to encourage people to save fuel. One possible way to do this: impose a huge tax on gasoline and diesel (say, $5 per gallon) and use the money to pay people for owning small cars and hybrid-electrics. By taxing the fuel, it would also discourage people from non-essential forms of consumption (like jet skis) and would encourage everyone to drive less. But, that's just my opinion...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

When the term "NOx" is used in reference to engines, it generally refers to a set of chemicals in the engine's emissions, of which nitrous oxide (N2O) is one. But when it's used as a performance enhancer, it's only N20 that's being used.

As you correctly point out, nitrous is generally used to increase performance, not efficiency. It is true that an engine running on nitrous could be smaller, and therefore have lower pumping losses and weigh less, making the overall vehicle lighter. This would make a slightly more fuel-efficient vehicle. But, as I said before, detonation is the enemy and the measures that would have to be taken to control it would more than negate the small gains.

There's not a heck of a lot that can be done to improve the efficiency of modern engines. There are technologies out there that do - lean-burn, stratified-charge, variable compression ratio, diesel cycle, displacement-on-demand - and there are some cars out there that have them. But, the gains are not very big and the costs are pretty high. Diesels are popular in Europe, though.

The problem, as I see it, is that if someone wants to have a huge, luxurious SUV and they want it to have the performance of a decent car, it HAS to have a big, powerful engine, and this means that it HAS to consume a lot of fuel. There is little that I or any other engineer can do about it. Even a 50% drop in fuel consumption (a supremely difficult feat of engineering) would still have these vehicles be inferior to regular cars.

Until a longer-term solution to transportation is reached (fuel cells show some potential, but still have their fair share of major challenges) I think that the government should take steps to encourage people to save fuel. One possible way to do this: impose a huge tax on gasoline and diesel (say, $5 per gallon) and use the money to pay people for owning small cars and hybrid-electrics. By taxing the fuel, it would also discourage people from non-essential forms of consumption (like jet skis) and would encourage everyone to drive less. But, that's just my opinion...

And punish the people that have no choice but to drive long distances. Fuel needs no new taxes. Whats needed at least here where I live is seperate truck routes, better designed exits on the freeway, more freeway routes, more green waves (lights that sync so if you stay at the speed limit you wont hit a red light) better turn lanes to keep traffic flowing even in rush hour. I burn so much extra fuel when I get stuck in rush hour vs my normal night time drives. Also if people realized that starting up slower and sticking to the speed limits (which is horribly slow) they will save gas, same time every one is more spreed out vs getting to the same point at the same time and then getting stuck moving slow. Driving habbits of how fast you drive and road design will impact fuel, even if we don't cut out the trips and distance.