| Author |
Message |
    
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 12:40 pm: | 
|
Thanks for the heads up on the EcoBoost. A quick read makes it sound pretty good, claiming a 20% increase in efficiency, on par with diesels and hybrids. Sadly consumers will be told by the EPA sticker on each window that an electric configuration will be worlds better in efficiency. Unfortunately this false claim will be virtually impossible for the consumer to check on because the cost will get lost in the household utility bills.
I really despise this sort of dishonesty from government agencies. Nothing but junk science! |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 01:00 pm: |
|
>>> The 3.5 can get the fuel economy of a medium v6 but can tow just as much as the 6.2.
While the engine certainly plays a part in the fuel economy of a vehicle, most engines are similarly efficient these days. The major factors affecting fuel efficiency are the vehicles weight (city driving), ability to return/store braking energy for motive use, aka hybrid technology (city driving), and total aerodynamic drag (highway driving).
A big huge V8 engine in a small aerodynamic car can achieve amazing fuel efficiency on the highway. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 01:40 pm: |
|
The Ecoboost direct injection turbocharged engines do look to improve fuel efficiency. I wonder why it took so long for direct injection to be realized in commercial gasoline engines. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 08:56 pm: |
|
Direct injection costs more. Higher pressure pumps etc.
I worked for a great little company, Precision Grinding, In Rochester, NY. We made some prototype fuel injector bits for GM, a sorta copy of the Daimler ones. Turned out there were only a handful of companies on the planet that could make these, and we were one. The company turned down the huge production contract for them, since the number needed was way beyond our capacity, and Rochester companies ( that still exist ) learned the hard way that a mega corp. will order a million widgets, then change their minds after your entire company is now 100% dedicated to making them. Ooops! no more customers, since the bigs ( locally it WAS Kodak, Xerox, B&L, GM, etc. ) get stupid companies to drop all the rest of the work to get the job done for the big.
2 months later GM ( actually a small company doing contract work, like we did ) figured out how to make the injectors with a ball bearing instead of the delicate & uber precision part we made for them. We had layoffs, other companies died.
One of our Neighbors had a display. They had sent "the worlds smallest drill bit" to a competitor in Germany... to show off. The German company returned it. With a hole drilled cross ways through it. |
Swordsman
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 10:55 am: |
|
One of our Neighbors had a display. They had sent "the worlds smallest drill bit" to a competitor in Germany... to show off. The German company returned it. With a hole drilled cross ways through it.
F'n PRICELESS! 
~SM |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 11:12 am: |
|
Cost is a factor, but I still don't understand why it took so long for direct injection to make it into the commercial market. Must have been some serious technical challenges. Just curious what they were.
Direct injection allows very lean mixture, yes?
How nice would it be if an engine could burn gasoline, alcohol or diesel.
I know diesel injectors and fuel pumps won't tolerate gasoline, but surely some scheme can be devised to accommodate them all. Add liquid propane to the mix too.
I like the idea of replacing diesel with liquid propane. T. Boone was pushing that for a while. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 11:16 am: |
|
Yamaha has been using direct injection on their 2 stroke jet skis for at least a decade. Like you Blake, I have no idea why this hasn't been more widely adopted. |
Xodot
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 01:05 pm: |
|
Green is the new Christianity. The new thing to convert to and the new thing being conned to other nations by our politicians. Lots of money to be made and flocks to herd.
Almost correct - scary thing to look at www.gci.ch and realize our common communist foe for decades founded this.
Green movement = enslavement = communism
Same ideals, different methods
just my opinion - you might have one too |
Darth_villar
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 01:27 pm: |
|
I can't recall exactly what is required in terms of PSI for direct injection, but I believe it is well over 100PSI.
The way I understand it, Direct Injection does not have have a return pump. Thus in order to make sure the gas you just pumped will be completely used, negating the need to return the fuel, you would need to quickly adjust the pressure of the fuel system.
Not only that, but the injector timing would has to change to accommodate the different fuel pressures.
While it isn't impossible, it is certainly more difficult to program than previous fuel supply systems. But it does make for a very efficient engine.
Also, I don't believe the AFR actually is any different, as 14.7 : 1 is ideal for the combustion process from an EPA standpoint. Higher fuel economy can be safely achieved running much leaner, but it would create more pollutants.
This is from memory... so it may not be completely accurate, my apologies.
Phil |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 01:54 pm: |
|
Once again, please don't insult my personal faith by equating it to greed, fraud, and graft.  |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 02:14 pm: |
|
Yamaha has been using direct injection on their 2 stroke jet skis for at least a decade. Like you Blake, I have no idea why this hasn't been more widely adopted.
When I worked at Kawi we did quite a bit of testing of DI two-strokes in watercraft.
Watercraft don't "hook-up" with a direct mechanical connection(s) from the crank to the pavement. There is some "slush" with the impeller in water, so you won't feel a minor hickup in fueling the same way you will accelerating or transitioning throttle on pavement. It also helps to operate in a tighter RPM band under load, as transitions are the tough thing to get right.
Bimota used a similar system on the V-due and never got it dialed in. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 02:56 pm: |
|
Well, I only ran it at two speeds, idle and redline, so I would not have any direct knowledge of this "transition" you speak of. 
1200 CCs of two stroke get-up-and-go turned me into a demon with no regard for my own well being. Ah, good times. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 07:58 pm: |
|
Smokey Yunick had a car that could run on gas, diesel, alcohol, perfume, didn't care.
Mechanical fuel injection goes back before WW2. My 2001 Buell still had a carb. It's all in the cost/benefit ratio. Pollution and mileage rules are a mixed bag, cars cost far more, but the tech gets better. Is there a Car sold new in the U.S. with a carb? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 10:33 pm: |
|
There is something beautiful about a good carburetor. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Blake no offense intended. I couldn't think of something the left feels was pushed on everyone. They bitch about Christianity the most. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 11:23 pm: |
|
I should have known you were being sarcastic. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 06:53 am: |
|
I like the idea of replacing diesel with liquid propane.
Back in 1978 I got a kit to convert my '72 Mercury Comet to run on either gas or LP. It was a very simple kit that basically had a regulator that sat on top of the gas carb. Simple solenoids to control which fuel was allowed to flow. Zero modifications to the engine were required.
The biggest benefit was that most places you get a refill never charged you the road use tax. Pays for itself quickly that way. |
Tom_b
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 09:21 am: |
|
Back in the 1950's the US military started using multi fuel technology on the 2 1/2 ton military trucks. More commonly known as the duece and a half. I think the official designation was the M35. Could burn anything from from kerosene to high grade gasoline. I remember driving them. Tough as hell trucks, not fast, not fuel effecient, but could carry about twice what it was rated for. |
Greatnorthrider
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 05:14 pm: |
|
Court said, "By the way . . . anyone know where you can buy one of those Honda Super Cubs?"
Apparently Honda in it's infinite wisdom decided not to import the Cub to the US. (You can get a DN-1 however..)
Your best bet is to get a Taiwanese built SYMBA from SYM scooters. Yup, it is a direct knock off of the Honda Cub. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2010 - 08:12 pm: |
|
Same ideals, different methods
I disagree, the methods are the same, the paint job and slogans are a little different. In England they call them "watermelons". Green on the outside, red on the inside.
I loath the enviro-movement, but want clean air and water.
What are you willing to give up for clean air?
Gas powered lawn tools?
A major fraction of your income in higher energy costs? ( with the stated purpose of making "alternative" ie:, unprofitable sources more common )
Dictatorial control of the planet by an unelected group of bureaucrats with no hope of change?
All are the current goals of various groups, some have been made law, others await the vote in Congress and the Pen of the President. ( the high energy prices are current, deliberate, and will continue to increase, unless we have a revolution in coal to liquid car fuel production, biomass, and oh, yeah, political )
Any vehicle that gets me to work cheaper, hopefully safely ( no Honda Helix for me in winter, sorry, I'm a wuss ) and with a bit of fun is a plus.
I admit paying some of my money for a Volt without getting to drive one is a bit of a rip..... But. I'm still thanking people who pay taxes for buying my old minivan in the "cash for clunkers" deal.  |
|
