Printable View
Its the same thing, reduction of oil consumption in this country which in turn lessens our dependency. Actually higher standards is a more effective approach seeing as how when oil is produced it becomes a global commodity..Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Its not the same thing, but you are right, oil is a global commodity so domestic oil companies need to have some sort of benefit for selling domestically only.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
i love tony man, he comes up with some valid points but he's flopping on this one from the topic. now, it's WE dont wanna drilll elsewhere. no WE in it, i'm all for drilling here now. get your boy back on track, drill here now, and quit telling me what i have to buy!!! :2cents:Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
ehhhQuote:
Originally Posted by tony
I guess what it boils down IMO is choice. I want the choice of going out and buying a 10mpg v10.
The last thing i think we need is government imposing standards that will
a) Cost the auto companies estimated 47 Billion extra to comply with
b) dictate what types of cars they can manufacture
I get the argument that if you have a gas guzzling v8 you need a hybrid to offset it. But my point is wht couldnt the car makers come to this on their own.
Look its no secret they are being beat by the imports because of price and MPG. So IMO let capitalism take its course. Either they find a way to compete with their competition, or they go under.
Obama is passing rules and ultimately dictating the types of cars they can build with a strict federal standard. These guys havent made a product worth a shit in 10 years, some say 20. Let them go, let someone like Carlos Ghosn come in and turn them around ,or let them go under.
Government shouldnt interfere IMO
Drill Here Drill Now is about producing oil locally for consumption. It was not legislating how a company should be run, what it should produce, etc.
By far this is what i have been preaching since the damn bail outs started. The government should have nothing to do with a product ANY company creates unless it is unsafe. If the big three can't keep up with what Honda, Nissan or Mazda are doing than it is time to look for an exit strategy. As far as I can tell all this administration has done is force the economy in to a more socialist state, spend money, raise taxes and lie to cover there ass. Like I said before and I will say again I feel bad for the people who will loose their jobs because of theses companies going belly up, You know what fuck that I don't feel bad for them they cause the problem to begin with ( UAW). All in all this is nothing more than a ploy to bend over for people of the left like Al Gore and the whole god damn green movement, and in the end this will burn the economy to the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
I think I mentioned something about having the proper sized turbo. I'm willing to bet that the turbo on your Supra is probably a large single turbo. The type of turbo I'm talking about involves a turbo that spool s up very early. All of the aforementioned cars I brought up makes their peak tq numbers below 3000 rpm. At cruising speeds, you typically want to be riding within 75% of your peak power band in order to get decent gas mileage. That's why the Vette is getting better because at cruising speeds, it's well within the tq range and will do better. I bet the supra is basicly dumping gas. I make 90% of my peak tq at 2600 rpm. My lil v6 will average around 28mpg with peaks of 32mpg highway on occasion. So please don't think I'm trying to say that any turbo on any vehicle will help it get better. It has to be properly matched to the vehicle to get the best overall results. Not just to win races.Quote:
Originally Posted by NevrNufTorq
it only need to get that mpg when its cruising and normal driving, you can't tell me with our current technology that we can't design a bad ass muscle car or import super car that gets 35mpg cruising to work and then get 10mpg when you beating the shit out of it.
My 600whp civic got 28-30 on the streets when i drove it hard and fast that calculation fell to about 15mpg.
lol *wrong*Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
Turbochargers were developed by the Swiss in 1905. They have always been used to increase power instead of to lessen fuel used. There is a difference between the two.
-jonthan
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMPORTchic
they cant FORCE you to buy a new car, they will just make the new ones abide by the new regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL65AMG
So I can still drive a car that requires leaded fuel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Lead is bad for YOUR Bodily health, bad fuel mileage is only bad for the planet and our available resources.
I believe my mistake is stating that turbocharging started in the 70's rather than development toward fuel efficiency through turbocharging was in the 70s; I appreciate the correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by se7en
So is carbon monoxide that is emmitted from unleaded cars. Leaded fuel burns far better and cleaner than unleaded which leads to the MUCH better mpg numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPOOLIN
To make another point, there is only so far you can take efficiency of design. At that point, the only way you are going to increase gas milage is to reduce rolling mass. These ighter weight cars would be deathtraps on the roads, just like most current high milage vehicles like the Prius and the Smart car. I did a quick look and found that the increasing safty of the prius is directly connected with slightly lower fuel economy. My guess is that they added weight in the form of bracing and safety equipment, causing the very weak motor to lose some of its efficiency.
I know yall have missed me coming into one of these "political" type threads and putting in my big :2cents: , so I'll try not to let you down....:D
I'm actually surprised that only a couple of you are actually getting down to the REAL core here: It's Socialism. That's all it is. It may be masked and mirrored to look like Eco-friendly mumbo jumbo, but at it's core it's Big Brother trying to make more people dependent on the Gov't to fill their needs.
#1. Our Gov't neither has the power nor was it ever designed to be the overseer of 95% of the things they stick their noses into now. The only reason they do? The same reason crack dealers stay in business....addiction and lack of self drive. Keep the crackheads hooked, then you have repeat customers guaranteed. Keep mindless Americans hooked on Gov't as their "savior" to all that ails, then you have guaranteed votes next election. ;)
#2. This is just one more step toward Gov't control of Free Enterprise. How? Well, that's obvious. They already "bail out" companies that should just be let alone to either figure out how to fix itself or go bankrupt. That's how Free Enterprise system works. Supply and Demand ideaology. Look at GM. The Gov't wants to "save" it, only for it to go under in a few years anyway. Why save it? If they didn't make the right choices, let them go down in flames. Someone better will come along to take it's place. Just like the Post Office. Stamps cost more and more and more every year, yet the service and necessity of that service gets worse and worse. Gov't wants to keep it in place, for what? If we now email instead of write a letter, why keep it around? Wait.....wait......let me let the cat out of the bag for all you people that can't think for yourselves.......IT'S BECAUSE OF VOTES......I SAID IT, VOTES. You come in and ACT like the savior and keep people from losing their jobs, then you guarantee their votes next election. See how that works? So even though it totally screws up the fabric of our so called "Free Enterprise" system by continually prolonging the inevitable, they do it TO GET VOTES LATER. Who cares if they put is in debt for millenia to come? Who cares if it accomplishes absolutely nothing? Who cares if we waste more than we gain? Politicians care. It's job security for them.
#3. What's next? The Gov't telling us when we can have sex and with whom? Don't laugh. I'm certain noone ever imagined the Gov't would ever "bail out" a sinking ship 10 yrs ago, yet here it is. So who is to say that since they can now tell us what car we HAVE TO drive, that the control of what we do in the bedroom is far fetched???? Think about it. They're already telling businesses how to do their business and to whom. They're telling us what kind of car we must drive. What's next?
#4. When are people going to ever take responsability for their own lives? When are they going to quit being dependent on big brother to give them what they WON'T provide for themselves? Look at the next big thing, Gov't run, Gov't owned, the next big cluster F.......Centralized Health Care. Go ask Canadians if they like theirs. :rolleyes: It's just another way to keep the masses, who are too lazy to do for themselves let alone THINK for themselves, dependent on Gov't to give them their daily hand out. They give no fore thought to the consequences. All they see is, "hey, I don't have to pay for health insurance any more!!! Hoooray!!!.":rolleyes:
Let the failing company fail. They either find a way to survive or re-invent themselves to adapt or just fail. Small companies fail every day. Why aren't we saving them? After all, they are the ones that employ the majority of the American work force anyway.
I've succeeded and failed at business. I learned far more from the failures than I did from the successes. I adapted and moved on. My arms didn't fall off. I didn't die. It's life. Deal with it. Quit expecting someone else to come and dust you off like your mommy did when you were 3.
Sorry pal, but you've obviously never towed anything in your life or you'd understand how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshine007
Your 2.3 motor makes no power nor torque UNTIL it gets the turbo spooled up, i.e. high rpms. What are you going to do UNTIL then? Sit at the light slipping the clutch until you can pull the weight from a stop? Daily driving is not like a tractor pull competition.
Bigger displacement engines make their torque on the lower end of the rpm range. Some diesels literally have usable torque right off idle. THAT torque is what moves weight, what pulls loads. Your 2.3 bi-turbo setup will NEVER move the weight that a 6.0L diesel does. It's just the facts.
Yes, technology does exist that makes it possible to have high HP numbers from relatively small displacement engines. That's fine. Problem is that just like my buddy nvrnftorq was saying, you can have 500HP and 200 ft/lb of torque in one car just like you can have 400hp and 400 ft/lb of torque in another. Which one do you think is better? Which one do you think will use more gas, everything else held equal?
The best answer to this issue is simply financial. Make it attractive FINANCIALLY for people to drive hybrids and they will drive them. If you FORCE them to, it won't work. Just like any other thing you force people to do. Now, make it atleast SEEM like it's their idea and they do it all day long. Give incentives for people to drive that electric car and they will.
ty bro so i didnt have to go over it one more time :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900
You 2 explained it FAR better than I ever could.
I still want to see this kid in a turbo civic trying to haul a car trailer though. Probably wouldnt even need a car on the trailer to be good for laughs.
Hopefully this will be an incentive to the manufacturers to bust out some engineering. I know that the hybrids are using Atkinson cycle (aka 5 stroke) engines, and Mazda did have a Miller cycle V6 engine for a while which was 13% more efficient than a conventional Otto cycle gas engine.
And Bruce Crower has built a six stroke engine that re-captures heat loss and runs without pumping coolant so theres no parasitic drag from a water pump:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...THISWEEKSISSUE
I think whats holding us back in part is the use of the conventional gasoline fueled/otto cycle/piston engine model. I imagine the car of the future that does get 100mpg will probably have some new kind of engine thats very different from what we have now.
I have an '86 Ford F150 that I usually use to haul all of my trash or other people's cars. It has pulled more cars than I can remember over the last 9 years of ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900
Like I was saying before, it's all on the proper sized turbo. Oviously, you don't want 2.3L with a GT35R or it will take forever to spool. If you match the turbo to the engine, you can get it to spool very early. You'd also have to play with timing as well. And who's gonna be slipping a clutch? Automatic transmissions increase the towing capability over a manual transmission any day of the week due to the ability to multiply torque vs. direct drive gear meshing.Quote:
Your 2.3 motor makes no power nor torque UNTIL it gets the turbo spooled up, i.e. high rpms. What are you going to do UNTIL then? Sit at the light slipping the clutch until you can pull the weight from a stop? Daily driving is not like a tractor pull competition.
You can thank the properly sized turbo for that. Being that it's just large enough for the engine to make it's peak tq down low, as a diesel approaches redline, the turbo is out of breath. But by then, the turbo made all the power it needed for the diesel.Quote:
Some diesels literally have usable torque right off idle. THAT torque is what moves weight, what pulls loads. Your 2.3 bi-turbo setup will NEVER move the weight that a 6.0L diesel does. It's just the facts.
I never said that if I were to drop the 2.3L motor in that it will ever make more than the 6.0L diesel. I said it will definately make more hp & tq than my 5.0L at the same, if not lower rpm's.
The ovious answer to that question is hands down the one with the most available tq at cruising speeds. Less work required to move a vehicle at the same speed means less fuel to be consumed.Quote:
Yes, technology does exist that makes it possible to have high HP numbers from relatively small displacement engines. That's fine. Problem is that just like my buddy nvrnftorq was saying, you can have 500HP and 200 ft/lb of torque in one car just like you can have 400hp and 400 ft/lb of torque in another. Which one do you think is better? Which one do you think will use more gas, everything else held equal?
I couldn't agree with you more :goodjob:Quote:
The best answer to this issue is simply financial. Make it attractive FINANCIALLY for people to drive hybrids and they will drive them. If you FORCE them to, it won't work. Just like any other thing you force people to do. Now, make it atleast SEEM like it's their idea and they do it all day long. Give incentives for people to drive that electric car and they will.
Actually you can thank the oh 5.7L+ Displacement for that lol
I understand what you are saying about TQ and smaller turbos etc. But why do you think the trucks have big DISP ,diesel, turbo motors? I dont know of any truck that really can tow that is less than at least a 4.0l
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
All of this comes back to finances. You can make a 100mpg car, but if you cant get more than 2 normal sized adults in it then it wont sell. It wont sell if it costs 60k when you can buy a 30mpg car for 20k. It wont sell if it oesnt look good. It wont sell if safety ratings are crap.
Engineering is the next step in fuel economy. I dont think you are going to find an option to replace the vehicles we like enjoy to drive with anything that is currently in the pipeline. I also think the next big breakthrough will come based more off of a diesel design than a gas engine.
Yet you think that a 2.3L would be able to replace your power plant in that truck and do the same job. Not gonna happen. Read below why.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshine007
No, you have the torque theory all wrong. Torque is naturally made as a function of several factors put together; piston size, STROKE, crankshaft size, etc. EVERY motor makes torque. How much and more importantly WHEN it comes in is an individual trait of every motor. You can put all the combinations you want on that 2.3L and it will NEVER do the job (torque) that a V8 can with or without a turbo.Quote:
Like I was saying before, it's all on the proper sized turbo. Oviously, you don't want 2.3L with a GT35R or it will take forever to spool. If you match the turbo to the engine, you can get it to spool very early. You'd also have to play with timing as well. And who's gonna be slipping a clutch? Automatic transmissions increase the towing capability over a manual transmission any day of the week due to the ability to multiply torque vs. direct drive gear meshing.
Turbo sizing does affect when the turbo "spools", but it also has effect on efficiency. A tiny turbo spools up quick, but runs out of steam quick too. A big turbo spools up slower, but doesn't run out of steam. The "matching" comes in when you "match" it to the MOTOR you are using in your application. If you have a rev happy motor, then you are not going to put in some tiny turbo on it because by the time the engine makes power, then the turbo has petered out and its now a hot air pump. Look at a lot of the factory turbo cars. They have good bottom end, but sorry top end. Why? Because they were designed to be street cars and not race cars. If they wanted real HP, then they would do what all of us do....upgrade to a different turbo that matches what you want the car to do. A small 2.3L motor is going to make it's power NOT on the low end, but after it REVS up in the upper RPM range. When was the last time you towed something where you took off from a STOP at 4k RPM? So where exactly do you think you're going to go until your little motor makes that magical power and torque that the dyno says it does????? No where. Have you ever watched a tractor pull race? Go watch one. As the weight slides forward on the sled, the multi engined (all V8's and bigger BTW, wonder why?:rolleyes:) tractor has a harder and harder time to drag it. When they can't drag it, what happens??? They stop. Right? Which leads me to my next point.....
What do you think ANY transmission is going to do as you sit there and wait for that 2.3L to make it's "power" at 4-5K RPM???? It's SLIPPING. You step on the gas at that light, the engine doesn't have enough torque yet so it sits there.....so what exactly is happening inside ANY transmission???? Tell you what, let's do an experiment: You bring any Ford Ranger with that 2.3L engine, slap ANY turbo you want onto it. I'll bring a diesel truck w/o ANY turbo. We'll put both of them side-by-side on a boat ramp to pull two identical boats out of the water, up that ramp, and drive home 100 miles. My money says that MY diesel will not only do the job 100x better, but also use LESS diesel than you will IF you ever get up the boat ramp to begin with. Wanna bet? There's torque for ya in a nut shell. It's a necessary part of automotive life. No ball bearing macro engineered turbo available on the market today can make up that gap when it comes to usable street torque.
Wrong.Quote:
You can thank the properly sized turbo for that. Being that it's just large enough for the engine to make it's peak tq down low, as a diesel approaches redline, the turbo is out of breath. But by then, the turbo made all the power it needed for the diesel.
You can thank STROKE and CRANK size and DISPLACEMENT for that.
All the power it needed for what? :thinking:
Then your 5.0 needs a rebuild.....:rolleyes:Quote:
I never said that if I were to drop the 2.3L motor in that it will ever make more than the 6.0L diesel. I said it will definately make more hp & tq than my 5.0L at the same, if not lower rpm's.
uhhh
Not that i disagree with Jaimie, but any diesel USES a turbo because it needs alot of compression to run.
Most deisels are upwards of 17:1 static compression.