Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always read that most diesels are not allowed in the USA because of their emissions not passing. People... look at the number of 18 wheelers and dumptrucks on the road that spew out black smoke.
Why is the diesel market so slow in USA and so much better in Europe?
Don't you think Europe's air is going to flow to the USA one day? We are all sharing the same earth here, and it's air.
Most people are misinformed in regards to diesel. They think back to the 70's or think about the big trucks. Diesels can be made to pass our emission standards. The emission standards themselves are questionable at best.
Same as gas standards which are anything but standard thats another reason gas cost so much.
1. Diesel is cheaper to refine.
2. Diesels are more efficent than gas engines
3. Diesels last longer than gas engines.
They can be made is true but converting the large numbers of gas engines will take a huge investment by the auto makers and will put US auto makers at a huge disadvantage since they will have to invest what they don't have. As it is they are starting join ventures with froreign makers to get small diesels that will pass. The of course the ibfrastructure to provide pumps at every sateion will cost alot.By tehtime you invest billons and accomplish this alternative will start cutting in on the returns.We would be much better off investing that money on things like natural gas vehicles and toher fuel infrastructure. Infrastructure is the reason methnol based fuel have never reached most of the country.
1. older cars like buick and caddy's (i had 1987 buick) burn too much. i have a toy cam now.
2. I say 400 mpg because I heard there is this big contest $10,000,000 for teams to build a 400 mpg or something car. I cant rememer the site though. sorry. but its true it was on yahoo news couple weeks ago
They can be made is true but converting the large numbers of gas engines will take a huge investment by the auto makers and will put US auto makers at a huge disadvantage since they will have to invest what they don't have. As it is they are starting join ventures with froreign makers to get small diesels that will pass. The of course the ibfrastructure to provide pumps at every sateion will cost alot.By tehtime you invest billons and accomplish this alternative will start cutting in on the returns.We would be much better off investing that money on things like natural gas vehicles and toher fuel infrastructure. Infrastructure is the reason methnol based fuel have never reached most of the country.
Methanol will not become popular as a fuel until it is as economical as gasoline. A gallon of methanol produces more than 25% fewer BTU's than gas. Since an IC engine converts heat to power it would need to burn 25% more methanol than gas. Yes it is true methanol burning engines can produce more power. That is because it burns slower and requires less oxygen to burn. That means you can start the burn process earlier in the combustion cycle and use more of it. Think about heating your house. If you turn the thermostat up earlier and made the burner bigger your house would get hotter but you would use more fuel. Until they sell methanol, with road taxes, (I was buying fuel for my racecar for $1.75 gal) for 25-30% less than gas people won't bother. I won't get into fire safety yet.
- Owners of the Cadillac DTS have reported 25+ highway mpg when driven at the speed limit. My '95 Lincoln Town car (4.6 L/281-cu-in V-8, 4-speed auto trans, 4,200 lbs) has given me up to 23.4 mpg with about 60% highway driving. Other Town Car owners have reported up to 28 mpg under ideal conditions. The Lincoln from the '70s would have a hard time topping 13 mpg!
I hope you're right. I do like seeing progress. And, maybe the EPA has revised its estimates for fuel economy... I should look in something like Consumer Reports or Car & Driver for real observed fuel economy... I just don't get those magazines. Anyway, like I said, I do like seeing progress.
I just don't like progress coming in the form of cars that are more complicated and more expensive to fix. For example... cars did not need computer systems for 90 years. Why do they suddenly need computer systems now? My old cars have given me trouble, but I never had an incident where the engine just flat-out DIED on me. Even when my Caddy's carburetor pooped out, and the engine started sputtering and backfiring, I was able to limp it over to my mechanic's place. This past summer, as my wife and I were driving through North Dakota in my 1994 Mercury Sable station wagon (which had only about 120,000 miles), the engine just shut off. It didn't have a stick shift, so I couldn't try to restart it without using the starter. Well, the starter would turn and turn, but the engine wouldn't even think about catching. It took the mechanics THREE DAYS to determine the cause of the problem... it was a module in the computer system that was flaking out.
I read, not long ago, that being an automotive technician is a very lucrative job these days, with top techs getting 6-figure salaries. It's more like being a computer technician than an auto mechanic. How do you suppose these guys get those huge salaries? Yes, that's right, they get paid huge bucks by owners of new cars that Tony the garage mechanic won't touch because they're too complex. In all honesty, do we really save money by buying a new car even if it does get 50% better gas mileage? You have a car payment, and you will have more expensive repairs down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
- I don't understand the claim that the new Cadillac's engine makes only 76.6% of the power that the old engine makes.
The truest measure of engine power is torque output. Horsepower is, in simple terms, calculated using basically the torque output multiplied by the engine speed at which that torque output is achieved.
My 1972 Cadillac's engine was rated at 385 ft-lbs of torque. (This was using EPA net measurements, which became standard in 1971 or 1972. Engines appeared to have much more power before that because their power was measured using EPA gross measurements.) The 2008 DTS has two engine options, with the more powerful engine putting out 295 ft-lbs of torque.
295/385 = 0.766. That's how I got this number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
- What is with the "slushbox" term? That may have been true in the '50s (although the Mopar torqueflite, introduced in late '56 was no slushbox), but not today. The 1963 Winternationals (N.H.R.A. drag racing) was won by a Mopar Max Wedge with an automatic transmission. So much for "slushboxes!" In several 1960s and early 1970s magazine road tests, an automatic-equipped car was just as fast and in some instances, faster than a manual-equipped car.
I added a shift kit in my '69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (9-13 mpg, btw). It was shifting okay, not slipping or anything, but I like firm shifts. With the shift kit, it now shifts very quick and firm. About as far from a "slushbox" as you can get.
I say "slushbox" to mean an automatic transmission which does not have a lockup torque converter. Such transmissions will have some internal slippage in every gear, at any speed. Most automatic transmissions produced within the last 25 years or so have lockup torque converters, which provide direct power transfer without slippage... like a manual transmission.
1979 Dodge Omni 024 - 2.2 engine - 40 mpg on highway; drove her from Wis to Fla and back many times. Traded her off in 1987. New owner driving on icy highway lost control, got T-boned by larger vehicle and 2 people in back seat of Omni got killed. Larger vehicle, they would probably have survived.
1. older cars like buick and caddy's (i had 1987 buick) burn too much. i have a toy cam now.
2. I say 400 mpg because I heard there is this big contest $10,000,000 for teams to build a 400 mpg or something car. I cant rememer the site though. sorry. but its true it was on yahoo news couple weeks ago
This might be the car you're thinking of. It's initially only available in CA, Aptera, 300/400 mpg, 90mph, testing is done, $29,900. There's a cheaper all electric model available. It only has a range of 120 miles on a 3 hour charge. It's safer than cars on the road today although it doesn't look like it:
Contact Aptera (http://www.aptera.com/contact.php - broken link) https://aptera.com/reserve.php
---
My 1988 Caddy gets the same or better gas mileage than the ones today (18/28) that are 20 years newer and Cadillac has had problems over the years making a half-decent engine (1981-87 and Northstars). My 1970 Caddy only got 9-13 mpg. I had a 1974 Vega that probably got over 30 mpg. I hated that car but would like it a lot better now.
100 - 400 MPG gasoline powered cars are simply not scientifically possible.
If you stop and think for a second, think about a gallon of milk. Now, realize that some cars (Honda Civic, Ford Escape Hybrid, Toyota Yaris, etc.) can travel 35 or more miles on that one gallon of gas, the same amount as one gallon of milk. That is truly amazing (at least to me) that one gallon of liquid fuel can move 3,000 lbs of weight that distance, especially at 70 MPH.
How much food and water would a horse have to consume to travel 35 miles consistently? How much does a horse weigh? 700 lbs? How long would it take a horse to travel 35 miles? Half a day?
Let’s go further, a Turbo Diesel SuperDuty Ford truck can tow a 10,000 lb trailer approx. 15 miles on 1 gallon of Diesel!! That is completely incredible. Combined weight of the truck and trailer are WELL over 15,000 lbs.
Point is this. Can you lift 100 lbs and throw it 100 yards? No, why not? You’re not strong enough. 1 gallon of gas is not strong enough to push a conventional (standard shaped car that is not shaped like a teardrop) 3,000 lb car much further than 40-45 miles. The idea of a 100 MPG gasoline car is impossible because one gallon of gasoline is simply not strong enough either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
