200 to 300 Miles Per Gallon for a car is to good to import to America ? Mileage tax ?

JimTSpock
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

If that's true then I'm sure you'd have a decent idea about how a 5 tonne truck with only 20hp would perform. No one builds a 5t truck with 20hp.

I assume your talking about a 454 big block V8 and 355 V8. How much hp do you get out of them and what is your 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times, if you have that info? Nice engines and a bit more than 20hp!!

edit on 9-4-2014 by JimTSpock because: typo

a 454 bored .030 over is a 468 cu in dyno'd back then at 512hp and 546ft/lb @93 octane
a 350 bored .030 over is a 355 cu in guessing 380hp/400tq

i prefer not to go .060 as there block stability at higher rpm is a concern.

an old friend of mine runs a shop in socal that specializes in superchargers. NFL and MLB players send their vehicles to his shop for some upgrades.

i still stand by my comment, a 5ton truck could run with a 20hp motor, it wouldnt be fast but it could move. i was using as an example, you clung to it for some reason, and have not denied it would not move. in low range, and with 5:83 gearing it would roll, go about 30mph max.

benrl


It supposedly uses the exact right amount of gas to create combustion, as opposed to the over abundance that current methods use.

edit on 8-4-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)

When was current in those "current methods"? 1972?

Today, modern metered (and especially direct injection) fuel injection gives highly precise metered fuel bursts which continually adjust for load, speed, pressure and incoming air temperature. It's far beyond a carburetor and there's no magic "Free" efficiency gains to be had.

The engineers all know what you need: higher compression and higher temperatures. Simple thermodynamics. Higher compression however can create predetonation, and higher temperatures create nitrous oxide pollution. Combustion engineering has been banging on these for 25 years, there's no quick fix or hack.

HanzHenry
i still stand by my comment, a 5ton truck could run with a 20hp motor, it wouldnt be fast but it could move. i was using as an example, you clung to it for some reason, and have not denied it would not move. in low range, and with 5:83 gearing it would roll, go about 30mph max.

And, without knowing the torque of this motor, you have derived the ability to move 5 tons how?

20 hp from a screaming 250 cc go kart motor will never move a 5 ton truck...9 ft lbs just doesn't provide the power you need. The losses from the transmission will consume all of the available power long before it moves...now, if you pushed the truck to get it started, you might be able to get it to hit 1 kph until you hit a bump.

If you are using a 20hp, 835cc diesel engine, getting around 30 ft lbs...well, now you can at least get the truck moving...granted, extremely slowly.

But, just saying that a 20 hp engine will get a truck going with the right transmission...that's just silly.

As I posted previously...hp is a meaningless number.

reply to post by HanzHenry


I still don't agree. 30mph? I think 10. And you'd need a shorter gear ratio than that. But anyway who cares really. No one would be dumb enough to try it in real life anyway. I thought you meant with very short gear ratios it would go like a normal truck. I wasn't going to even bother saying anything but there you go.

reply to post by peck420


I agree with that completely and I thought of the torque but figured with only 20hp it would be equally weak so didn't bother. The silly things we end up talking about...lol.

HP and kW and kilowatts at the wheels I certainly don't find boring statistics.

peck420

HanzHenry
i still stand by my comment, a 5ton truck could run with a 20hp motor, it wouldnt be fast but it could move. i was using as an example, you clung to it for some reason, and have not denied it would not move. in low range, and with 5:83 gearing it would roll, go about 30mph max.

And, without knowing the torque of this motor, you have derived the ability to move 5 tons how?

20 hp from a screaming 250 cc go kart motor will never move a 5 ton truck..

If you are using a 20hp, 835cc diesel engine, getting around 30 ft lbs...well, now you can at least get the truck moving...granted, extremely slowly.

hp is a meaningless number.

edit on 9-4-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)

I was never picturing a go-kart motor lol, farm tractor motor. this is how i know it would move, I have used a 20hp tractor to pull 5 tons of hay! all in the gearing. which was my whole premise. Auto's could , via R&D, use some type of drive train similar to a semi-tractor with a Hi/Lo xfer case along with something like a 10 speed auto trans (there are 8 speeds now). and also incorporate a 2 speed axle. when you can manipulate the final drive ratio, i am sure much can be obtained in efficiency.

HP is a calculation, but is not a meaningless number, or else EVERY farm tractor manufacturer would not use it.

Btw, the 20 hp Kubota would do about 23mph pulling 5 tons of hay on a trailer. If it had more speeds in the tranny, i am certain it could have gone perhaps 40mph.

reply to post by HanzHenry


Interesting points there. But with car and truck design you don't want to increase the weight of the drivetrain too much or use too many moving parts as it causes more friction and power loss. So having a 10 speed box with 2 or more speed transfer case or axle will just end up being too heavy with too much power loss. I wouldn't think of using such a setup for a high performance application.

reply to post by JimTSpock


I drove a Honda Civic back in the late 1970's - got about 80 miles to the gallon, routinely budgeted $50 to drive from San Diego to Winnipeg. And took the back roads.

reply to post by soficrow


Who cares you could've had a 426 Hemi Challenger. '77 Honda sucks. I had a '72 Charger awesome car, which I bought in '93.

JimTSpock
HP and kW and kilowatts at the wheels I certainly don't find boring statistics.

edit on 9-4-2014 by JimTSpock because: add

Lol, I didn't say they were boring, just meaningless.

Barring any other description, I would much rather have a 100 ft lb engine then a 100 hp engine. At least with the 100 ft lb engine, I know what actual power I can get, and I can design around that. With the 100 hp engine...it's a crap shoot.

Now, back to the topic...for maximum efficiency, we would really want a fixed RPM motor coupled with a CVT.

We want the motor at a fixed RPM so that we are always running at optimum BSFC (that's why we designed it at the fixed RPM), and we want the CVT to convert that power into usable motion. Although, a fixed ratio transmission would probably get us a better return, it just lacks the ability to get a fixed RPM powered vehicle to every speed that we would require in day to day driving...granted, I imagine that a fixed RPM motor would provide a fairly consistent power output, thereby allowing us to make a significantly lighter and more efficient transmission...but, I digress.

That being said, if it consumed zero fuel at stop...like an electric motor, then it would be almost perfect.

reply to post by peck420


As a person who cares about 0-100km/h and 1/4 mile times I care about flywheel kW/HP and kW/HP at the wheels.
Put the car on a dyno and you can get kW/HP at the wheels and torque. They both matter for performance and economy.

I think you may have stumbled upon the most boring car possible! Surely it must be diesel?

reply to post by JimTSpock


My Honda was a 1980 model, 5 speed. Was speeding on a mountain road in Mexico during a thunderstorm once, low visibility, suddenly saw the road washed out in front about 20 feet ahead - no time to brake - down shifted, drove up the mountain-side using centrifugal force, sustained it long enough, lived. Loved that car. So don't diss my Honda.

reply to post by soficrow


1,000 apologies. Sounds like an incredible machine.

reply to post by 727Sky


It's still cheaper just to walk, and healthy for you at the same time.

reply to post by JimTSpock


You've been planted. Easy as day to see. Lame.

bigfatfurrytexan

JimTSpock
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

In the 60's and 70's we had leaded gasoline, and no emissions worries whatsoever.

I agree...it is possible it would shorten the lifespan of the engine. I don't know. I am not a very good mechanic (although I can tool around just fine if needed). What I DO know is that Huck had a car that got in the 90+ mpg range, then when that car was no longer around he had a new shop built. With dad being somewhat friendly with him, he told dad that Chevron sent folks in with a check and some words.

NO WORRIES WHATS SO EVER ABOUT LEADED GASOLINE,

Ignorance is bliss. Fuel companies went to self service due to the high rate of cancer deaths to full time workers at gas stations!
This is also why they went to an unleaded version. Also why breast cancer rates shot up as it is often the wife that fills up the family car...

Gas is a defense issue. No gas, no threat. Cant have the general public driving around once marshal law is triggered.

JimTSpock
I'm a rev head and have been working on high performance cars for many years and to tell you the truth I found most of what you said to be complete nonsense which has no bearing in the real world. What is faster a 4x4 or a Corvette? And why? And who has the highest top speed and why?

Any tool can swap engines, clutches, transmissions, and bolt on aftermarket parts. You sound like a simple modder, nothing more. When you can design an engine and transmission from the ground up, then come back and talk.

FYI







You know why these trucks won right?

reply to post by WeAre0ne


Any tool can pick a few utube videos. I can design an engine and transmission do I have your permission to talk now your highness? Would they be any good I doubt it.

The trucks won because you obviously picked highly modded trucks vs stock cars just to try to be a smart alec. lol. Try stock vs stock. I didn't say highly modded truck vs stock car did I? I meant average 4x4 vs average Vette. And the Vette will win easy, very basic. You are just being arrogant.

FYI Look how slow the Corvette is going in the last video. He does a 15.14 1/4 wasn't even trying. Pretty fast truck and it does a 12.025 1/4. With a lot of modding. Guess what 2011 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 0-60 mph 3.3 quarter Mile 11.1 so your modded truck is slower than a stock Vette. Nice try. But fail. lol.

By the way in the second video it says 13.89 vs 13.53 I can't see it very clearly but it looks like the car on the left, the Corvette, won. So you've picked a vid where the Vette wins well done! Again. Fail.

This is cool.




If people stop talking to me I will stop responding.

The Avion was built in 1984 and averaged 103.7 mpg from Mexico to British Columbia.

www.100mpgplus.com...

www.king5.com...

Instead of going electric maybe Tesla should of made a 100 mpg car.

reply to post by 727Sky


The idea that oil companies are keeping the fuel efficient cars off the road is total nonsense. The fact is very few people focus on mileage when they buy a car. Americans focus on style and being able to crush other cars on the road in an accident by having a big size, which is the exact opposite of what achieves low mileage. Aerodynamic designs that increase efficiency take away style, and a murderous weight to crush other cars also reduces efficiency. Its obnoxious Americans at fault for lack of efficiency, not the oil companies. That's the pathetic truth of the matter. Human kind is not on a pretty path.

People expect politicians to keep their environment safe and have no intention of doing that them self despite the fact it is the exact opposite of a democracy when you pass away all your power to politicians who "solve" your problems for you so you "don't have to do anything because they'll do it for you". People are taking less and less responsibility as socialism takes over, so the problem will only get worse in the future. As for the failure of capitalism, it doesn't even exist any more so it has no opportunity to fail.