Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by DAKA, Oct 20, 2019.
Electric cars don't do well during winter weather.
I’ll believe it when I see it on the lots. The ol Prius has saved me a boatload of money over the past six years and 98k miles. The internet is full of bs misinformation about it as well.
Yes, but I'm sure some folks believed it.
With English automotive electrical engineers on the job, what could go wrong?
These magic carburetors and miracle batteries are right up there with the Corvette, Maserati, Ferrari, and whatever else the "Guy died in it and the smell is so bad you puke and so they're selling it for $100.00"
The “battery” is an aluminum air fuel cell and the energy densities are real.
The problem is it really isn’t a rechargeable battery per se, when spent, you put a new cell in the car to “recharge”.
The breakthrough he is purporting is in the cost of the anode and the ease of recycling the electrolyte (the two bugaboos of the AL air cell).
The whole “they are trying to bar me because I will gore somebodies Ox” nonsense, is just that.
I've heard those BS stories since the fifties. To get an explosion in an internal combustion engine, you've got to have the correct ratio of air to gasoline. There's no way some magic carburetor is going to achieve 200 MPG.
But some improvement is possible. Some combinations do give better MPG.
I had a Buick Century 1993 that got 33 mpg on a couple thousand mile trip with 4 adults, luggage, seldom under 65mph. Yes gas had more ommph. But it also had HARD compound tires. At @83k I put new tires on. Because I hated factory ones. Lousy traction, nasty on wet roads. (Not hydroplaning even). It was my parents car. They were offered little in trade so I bought it. New tires and what a changed car. But only 28mpg
Parents bought same brand, tape car. 25mpg driving it gentle. IIRC a 2001 (but better tires from the factory)
DSL pickups. A tuner can improve mpg setting 1 (slight boost in power)
My understanding with the VW emissions cheat. After fix mpg,,power dropped. But tailpipe emissions reached target area. (So are total emissions higher?)
Why does my 99 Taurus with 16V Vulcan get better mpg then 2010? Both have acceptable acceleration from rolling start. I would guess the body.
your 99 Taurus didn't have to meet the same emissions requirements. In both gasoline and diesel engines you end up burning more fuel than is actually necessary to produce power in order for the gasses in the emissions stream to come out as "clean" as possible. Catalytic converters, EGR systems, and a bunch of other systems all use power from burning fuel to change bad exhaust gasses (like carbon monoxide) into their least hazardous forms (like carbon dioxide).
The body should actually be better designed for aerodynamics for the 2010 model as better computer power and airflow modeling have made most vehicles more efficient at cutting through the air as they drive.
The older engine is probably tuned and running closer to where it's actual power output is, where today's engines have so much crap on them and it's so important to sell the amount of available power, that you're not running it where it's designed to be most efficient.
In the mid 80's you could get a VW rabbit TDI that could easily get mid 40's for mileage. The current generation of VW TDI engine in the Golf (same as the Rabbit) gets in the mid 40s. The difference is there is a huge amount of emissions crap on the newer engines, that when removed and retuned you can get in the mid 50s (with comparable driving habits)
The VW emissions cheat fix reduced engine performance and changed the transmission shift points. it meets the emissions where it's supposed to, but it's no longer as nice to drive, and in some situations downright obnoxious. I lost 5-8% mileage after they did the "fix" to my car, meaning I went from about 45-46mpg down to 42 or so for the same driving type. When towing my trailer (5x8 enclosed, 2k lbs) I had the exact same mileage as before the fix, as the engine is actually doing work (diesel engines aren't happy if you aren't putting a moderate to heavy load on them).
I've considered getting the engine and trans retuned, but the company I was looking at, when I asked for a comparison between how the transmission shifted before compared to what it will do with their tune told me "it's not the same as the old shifting, IT'S BETTER". since their customer service guy is obviously an idiot who doesn't know how to talk to customers, I never talked to them again. The new tune would have increased my power a little and my mileage as well, by tuning the engine for actual power output, rather than tuning it for emissions.
And the cars that run on H2O.
It is not a battery, it says IN the article it is a fuel cell which is NOT a battery so titling it battery is bad writing. The fuel cell may be able to power a car that far but then it has to be recycled. So how much power does that take? What pollution does it generate? There are many ways to power a car, the hard part is to make a NET improvement over petroleum.
Fuel Cells do exactly that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not here in California. California gets about 35% of its electricity from renewables, plus a lot from natural gas. Here, at least, electric cars are a lot more “greener” than gas powered cars. Of course they are not “zero emissions”
When you take into account how many of these electric car owners also have solar at home, their emissions, while not zero, fall even farther.
heck, there are many examples of businesses here in Southern California that have covered their parking lots with solar panels. Their employees can now charge at work via solar.
I was just reading the other day how aluminum-based battery will some day replace lithium. More power and lower cost (aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth).
Right, but the manufacture of those panels are energy intensive. You just are paying for it up front.
I read the article. Yes, it is an aluminum fuel cell, not a battery.
Here's the kicker: the article states that it only costs 3,000 pounds to change the "battery". But... you have to change it every 1,500 miles! That's crazy-expensive!
How many people will be running out of power and tying up traffic because they are trying to squeeze the last few miles out of an EXPENSIVE battery! Only the government could afford those things... with OUR money, of course!
I can see great military applications for quiet electric motor operation by Special Ops, etc.
It would be like exchanging a propane tank at the drugstore.
Well there are a lot of places in the world that don't have winter weather. And this isn't a battery anyway, it's a fuel cell.