HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 9/13  >  >>
igor_don
User Rank
Iron
Time line for 54.5 MPG
igor_don   8/1/2011 2:20:11 PM
NO RATINGS
If we can meet the goal of getting to the moon in 10 years - which we knew nothing about at the beginning and was not in our back yard , so to speak- why is the date so far in the future.  Come on 2025 !!!  This is on earth and literally not rocket science!!!!!

 

vandamme
User Rank
Silver
Re: Alternative to gasoline
vandamme   8/1/2011 1:35:16 PM
NO RATINGS
I think it significant that the Rossi E-Cat came out of the University of Baloney.

tinkerg
User Rank
Iron
Re: The fable of nitrogen for tire fill for the masses!
tinkerg   8/1/2011 1:13:45 PM
NO RATINGS
No debate on the fact that it is nearly pointless - if people checked there tires more then twice a year and drove like it mattered it might have a little meaning. But the moisture in the air is the big problem for pressure changes. If you used dry air it would likely be fairly comparable to nitrogen.

It is not a thin benifit for racing - a 1 pound pressure difference on a slick will change the traction a noticable amount, tire temps can get much higher and vary from conditions (bright sun on the track vs overcast). Water vapor pressure at 175 degrees (6.8) to 212 degrees (14.5) is about a doubling of pressure (in psi)Fill your tires when the humidity is low:-)

 

Regulus
User Rank
Iron
Re: mpg in Europe,and only sold there!!!
Regulus   8/1/2011 12:52:43 PM
NO RATINGS
To keep my post small I did not state that I did the conversions to US gallons. I did do this. The vehicle got 61 miles to the US gallon. 

Justajo
User Rank
Gold
55 MPG not on every car
Justajo   8/1/2011 11:57:25 AM
NO RATINGS
I've read all the posts looking for someone who knows what the regulation will actually say and require. Most people think the average talked about is the city/highway average of an individual car. It is not. It is an across the model line average. This is what the "C" stands for in the acronym CAFE: Corporate -- the makers entire fleet of car models. Yet it does not apply to all the cars that a manufacturer makes and never has. What it will be, as always, is a standard AVERAGE for all the models in a maker's lineup. Some models will even be exempt. Example: When the standard was around 27 mpg a maker could get away with selling a car that got, say, 18 mpg IF that maker had just one other car that got 37 mpg. Thus, the across the model line overall average was just over 27 mpg. If the maker also had an SUV, no prob. SUVs were classified as trucks (for a while at least if they were built on a truck chassis) and as such were in a different classification. Should the maker have had a number of models, as long as the average mpg taking ALL of them into consideration fell within the standard, then the maker was in compliance. This is why the auto makers fall into line with this standard so easily and quickly. They already have an out if they have one ultra high-mileage model on the road. Most of them do in the form of a hybrid or have one on the drawing board. If they've also brought their poorer-performing models up just a bit or intend to then et voila! The standard is already met. And it doesn't matter to the regulatory agency(s) if their high-miler is stylish or sells, the important thing is that its available. [My out: This is my understanding of the whole mess. If I'm wrong, then I apologize, but I think I got it right.] 

engineered
User Rank
Silver
Re: LoL....
engineered   8/1/2011 11:29:29 AM
Yes, sadly I am being 110% honest. Numerous people tried to bring the design into production, but were stopped by threats or bought out. It is very real, and extreme measures have been taken to keep it under the radar. It isn't magic my friend, it is science.

PSiegel
User Rank
Iron
Re: LoL....
PSiegel   8/1/2011 11:03:25 AM
NO RATINGS
I hope you are not really serious.  There is no such thing as a "magic" carburator.  If there was, the auto manufacturer's would have introduced it decades ago instead of spending millins to slowly increase fuel mileage.

cookie jar
User Rank
Iron
We've been there - done that.
cookie jar   8/1/2011 10:57:09 AM
NO RATINGS
We've had the technology for achieving 54.5mpg for well over half a century.  I once owned a 1955 GM PDP4104, 36 foot long highway coach that I converted into a mobile home.  It came with its logbook for the 685,000 miles it had logged.  The coach had a GVW of 27,000 pounds.  The log book never showed a mileage of less than 10mpg.  That works out to 135mpg/ton!  Yes over 100mph per ton.
I attribute this mainly to 3 things.  1. It had a
diesel engine - a  6-71 Detroit , 426 cu. in., two cycle, supercharged - these were the most popular bus and coach engines of the day.  2.  The engine had less than 200 hp.  For some reason our cars these days are grossly overpowered.  You don't need 200, 300 or 400 hp for a car.  The European vehicles have much less hp and have no trouble bombing down their autobahns and up their mountain roads.  Today's highway coaches don't have any problem keeping up with traffic and they get better mileage/ton than my old 1955 coach. 3. While a highway coach seems as aerodynamic as a brick, it always has a full belly pan from bumper to bumper.  Maximum drag is between your vehicle's turbulent undercarriage and the road.  This is where maximum shear is.  Above the road there's lots of room for the air to get out of the way.  Underneath there isn't.  How many wind tunnels have you seen that have a rolling conveyor belt?  You cannot design a truly aerodynamic car without one. 
I think the main driving force for America's poor mileage is the cash flow desires of the oil industry.  Why else would they build cars that the average American simply cannot fit into, design their back seats for midgets and force us into SUVs and trucks where everyone can fit comfortably?


mr88cet
User Rank
Silver
Re: Heck, 55 is for Speed Limits!
mr88cet   8/1/2011 10:46:46 AM
NO RATINGS
On my 2009 Prius, mileage depends most upon ambient temperatures (i.e., the weather), and highway speed. 

65MPH on the freeways within town has little detrimental effect, but 70MPH for hours does take a toll on it.  It goes down to about 42MPG or so.  That's only for a short time though, so it doesn't drag down the average much.  In those cases, the clever energy management of the hybrid system can't do much good.  It comes down to nothing more than converting gasoline into forward motion as losslessly as possible, which mostly means minimizing aerodynamic drag.  The 2010 Prius' drag coefficient is 0.25, which, among production cars, I think is second only to the EV1's, which I vaguely recall to have been 0.22.

Seasonally, I get best mileage in Spring and Autumn, since I can often get away with minimal AC and no heat.  Plus it isn't running the engine much just to keep it warm, as it does in the Winter.  Right now, when it's still 95-100 degrees at 9PM (really;  zero exaggeration), the AC brings it down to 46MPG.

Of course, an even bigger factor is keeping up with tire pressure.  Over the first 10 months or so after I bought my Prius, I watched the mileage gradually go down.  I was mystified as to why, until I got a low-tire-pressure warning.  "Oh, like, DUUUH!!"  I can't believe I totally forgot about that!  Needless to say, I've been hawkeyeing tire pressure since then.

Staber Dearth
User Rank
Silver
The fable of nitrogen for tire fill for the masses!
Staber Dearth   8/1/2011 10:42:06 AM
NO RATINGS
The Author sez: "...Low rolling resistance like we've never seen before, and nitrogen-fill mandatory. What else do we need to do here?..."

*******************************************************

You have been SNOOKERED by the nitrogen tire fill fable perpetuated by all industrial gas companies.  This is DEBATABLY a thin benefit for racing or maybe hard driven fleet vehicles.  For the average driver?  NO!

Just check out what the cost is of a four tire (plus fifth tire bonus!  oooow) fill deal.  It is ridiculous!  It comes out to roughly $30-$40 per 100 scf of nitrogen.  Nitrogen, for even the most modest of cylinder gas use costs under $3-$5 per 100 scf!   Free fill?  OK, maybe piece of mind and the placebo effect!

The benefits are dubious (79% of air is nitrogen and 21% is oxygen, ok a minor amount of argon which will act as inert nitrogen anyway!)

Show me how using 100% nitrogen for tire fill effects mileage as opposed to air? Miniscule at the absolute best best best!

Go here, my comments echoed by this more comprehensive response on this issue: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2694/is-it-better-to-fill-your-tires-with-nitrogen-instead-of-air

 The crack me up argument is that the nitrogen in the tire (absence of oxygen) helps with oxidation.  What about the outside surface of the tire?  DUH!

<<  <  Page 9/13  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
From pitchers and forwards to quarterbacks and defensemen, we offer a peek at some of the more memorable engineers in sports history.
IBM announced it is dedicating $3 billion of funding over the next five years to research and development of new processor technologies.
A soundproofing invention called Acoustiblok recently won a television challenge to silence an air horn with only a fraction of an inch of polymer material.
Rethink Robotics has upgraded Baxter the Robot so it can be easily trained by co-workers who simply show the robot how to move.
Robots came into their own in the 1970s. Gone were the low-budget black-and-white B movies. Now robots roamed in full-color feature films with A-list actors.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Jul 21 - 25, Design Products With Bluetooth Low Energy
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: August 12 - 14
Sponsored by igus
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service