Why are we regressing on gas mileage?

reply to post by felonius

if you are considering running on cooking oil bear in mind some types of injection pump just die because of lack of pre-heating to the oil before it enters the pump. quite a few in the uk tried it, some with success some without.
the oil needs to be the viscosity of piss for a sure fire drive.
f

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by felonius

 

if you are considering running on cooking oil bear in mind some types of injection pump just die because of lack of pre-heating to the oil before it enters the pump. quite a few in the uk tried it, some with success some without.
the oil needs to be the viscosity of piss for a sure fire drive.
f

Keeping the oil warm as piss as you so eloquently write...LOL...Can be done with a diesel fuel tank warmer.

reply to post by Fox Molder

running the pipework close to the block/cyliner head can assist if seperate tanks are fitted. being in the uk i have not heard of tank warmers. may i enquire as to the cost of these?
at the mo here in the uk the authorities i believe frown on the use of cooking oil as they insist they are losing revenue. i have heard of customs dipping tanks and giving warning and/or advice. be great to have the room and go ahead (approval from the government!) to power my tractor.
regards f

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by Fox Molder

 

running the pipework close to the block/cyliner head can assist if seperate tanks are fitted. being in the uk i have not heard of tank warmers. may i enquire as to the cost of these?
at the mo here in the uk the authorities i believe frown on the use of cooking oil as they insist they are losing revenue. i have heard of customs dipping tanks and giving warning and/or advice. be great to have the room and go ahead (approval from the government!) to power my tractor.
regards f

There you go my friend
www.arctic-fox.com...

www.maesco.com...

www.padheaters.com...

reply to post by Fox Molder


many thanks for the links.
the prices are beyond my pile of peanuts i'm afraid. suppose i could go rusky if it gets too nippy and set fire to the sump!
regards f

reply to post by fakedirt


Here's one on eBay.....

cgi.ebay.ca...

reply to post by network dude


I had a 1960 Plymouth Valiant, slant six engine. That little car would ride 6 people and got over 50 miles to the gallon. Lots of cars back then got good mpg, it was the high energy ignition systems and high octane gasoline that did it.

reply to post by Fox Molder


now thats more like it. i was beginning to lose faith there for a while!
if the temperature starts dropping rapid over here i now know where to go for warm juice.
cheerz

reply to post by EyesWideShut


See what happens when you use logic and sense? You get ignored. Your post was filled with logic and sense with no comments or even a star (until now).

As a fellow car guy myself (though really an amateur at it), I see exactly what you are saying. In addition, one might need to include things such as all wheel drive or if it is turbo/super charged. I have two AWD cars and understand they will get slightly less MPG than a TWD counterpart. However, I prefer the AWD capabilities much more than a TWD and I am not as concerned about the slight difference in MPG.

The same goes for the turbo/super charged issue. Again, both cars are 4 cyl. engines. However only one of those is a turbo engine. The turbo engine is a 2.0 l while the N/A is a 2.2 l, yet the 2.2 (a slightly larger displacement) gets better MPG. For me each car is meant for a different use. One (the 2.2 l) is my everyday beater car; the other is my fun car. Of course I am sure that if I look into it there is a weight difference as well.

People can make their cars more powerful or they can make them more efficient.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


The car in question. A Honda CRX HF. It was a two wheel drive 4 cylinder. Front wheel drive. I grew up in Cleveland so I needed a car with traction. This car had it. It had enough power to drive. How much faster than 85 do you need to go? My whole question about this is why did this direction get nixed. What made our automakers decide that 24 was an acceptable number for fuel mileage in 2010 when 25 years earlier 50 was a good number? did emission requirements change that much? If so, to what end? Are we that much better off? Ask Al Gore.

Originally posted by ANNED
The problem is the smog laws.

New cars don't get better gas mileage because government regulations traded cleaner air for less mileage.

Then you have alcohol, The fuel mileage years ago was based on pure gasoline fuel with maybe MTBE in it.

Now the fuel has alcohol in it in growing amounts.sometimes up to 25%.
Cars get less MPG on this fuel and the government has mandated that cars now have the fuel mileage numbers bases on the worst fuel not like 10 years ago when the mileage numbers where based on the best fuel.

Now hybrids were never about higher gas mileage.
They were only about cleaner running.(less pollution) due to a smaller RPM range.
If hybrids were about fuel mileage we would have a lot of diesel hybrids as they would get about 25% better mileage.

Example (Numbers used to show a pattern only)
100 % gas= 40 miles per gallon
95% gas (5% ethanol)= 35 miles per gallon
90% gas (10% ethanol)= 30 miles per gallon.

If you check the net you will see that you can lose from 2% to 10% of your gas mileage depending on the car and how it is driven when you switch from 100% gas (ethanol free) to E-10 (90% gas & 10% ethanol)

dont forget about catalytic converters,from what i am told fuel systems have to be set to burn rich in order for converter to work at all

reply to post by network dude


You are absolutely right, it just isn't a regression. Any European/Japanese 4 cylinder car, whether it's a sport hatchback, a four-door saloon, or a station wagon, will get better MPG then any of the current, ridiculous hybrids. I have lost count of the bets I've won against Prius idiot....errrrr owners. And, I am mostly using, in those bets, my Mazda RX8, that is known for it's thirst, if I used my daughter's MX5, or a Ford Focus, or a VW Golf, Honda Civic, and so on it would be ridiculous.

There is, in this matter, a failure of perception. Almost any car, you can think of, will get better MPG then a Prius, if you just follow it around, and do with your car what the Prius is capable of doing. The failure of perception comes because you can do so much more with your car, thus decreasing your MPG. As you said, the CRX, a car I owned ~10 years ago, is capable of 40/50 MPG. But, If you drive it properly, like a bat-out-of-hell, you will only get about 15/20 MPG (the choice is yours).
Since most sane human beings will never drive their cars like they have to drive a Prius, this reciculous thing, doesn't permit much more, the perception arises that a Prius has a better MPG then most cars. But, if you just chase a Prius, and only do what it does, in most cars, you will get a far better MPG then the Prius.

Example: Both my daughter, and my partner have Mazda MX5 (both 2008, 170 bhp 5 speed manual 2.0L). Driven with economy in mind, they get around 30/35 MPG's, in an urban environment, and ~45/50 MPG on the Highway, of freeway.
Driven like the sports car, that it is, and that the Prius, or other hybrids can't, fuel efficiency goes out the doors: 15/20 MPG (Urban), ~20 (highway/freeway).
The difference is that with a normal car you can choose, with an hybrid you are stuck with a piece o crap.

P.S. » In real-world situations the Prius averages ~45MPG.

the vehicles you are allowed to chose from, are limited by the Lobbysts and the paid off Congress.



inquire about a $2500. Nano from Indias' TaTa Motors... they wont allow you to buy one over there
and ship it to the USA. There is some kind of arrangement that is in the offing,
where TaTa can build an expensive , tricked up version of the Nano for the Americans inner city
commuters... at more than twice the price over in India...the worlds most populous Democracy


i smell rats nests wafting from DC
the USA want to direct your consummerism to electric & hybrids made domestically,
ergo the deliberate spanner wrench into the fuel mileage costs... they will decrease
the ammounts of imported oil one way or another is my CT view

reply to post by St Udio


news on the bbc uk reports at the mo shows the government have released details regarding subsidies for the electric car market with grants up to £5000.. £43million is ringfenced for this starting 1st jan 2011. they are also installing more charging points around the country.
the thing that irks me about this is the fact that they are connecting to an already overloaded electrical grid. we have around 13 nuke power stations offline for maintenance at the mo so this is going to stretch the boundaries some what.
i can also see people in gridlock with all mod cons on suddenly realising they are sitting inside 2 tons of questionable transport when the charge light comes on. at least with fuel, one could carry a petrol can to a garage and fill it up.
i have a feeling as these are rolled out, fuel prices will begin to increase and they will justify this with the green agenda.
regards f

reply to post by network dude


I know the car, but thanks for reminding me.

The point of the post I responded to is that they increased the power of the engine. They did that by increasing its displacement.
en.wikipedia.org...


Only the highest end CR-X in 1985 had the size of engine that they have now. Granted they only increased the engine size by .3 liters, but that will increase your fuel intake as well. They also have a completely different engine than those that were built in 1985. Again that might not seem like a big deal, but you can be sure some things have changed to cause an increase in fuel intake. They certainly increased in curb weight from that time. About 300 LBS increase in weight add that with the other factors and you are going to have MPG loss.

It is not about how much faster than 85 one needs to go, if that were the case no car in the U.S. (aside from race cars) would exceed that speed. It is the demand for a car to have more power over the years. The general public before the economy troubles cared not about saving a few pennies on gasoline when they could move down the road faster. It is about customer demand and a business listening to their customers.

Raist

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by Fox Molder

 

many thanks for the links.
the prices are beyond my pile of peanuts i'm afraid. suppose i could go rusky if it gets too nippy and set fire to the sump!
regards f

You could use the two tank system. Tank 1=Diesel fuel. Tank 2="cooking oil"
You start the engine on diesel fuel and let it warm up. The cooking oil is then heated by the engine and once up to temp the tanks are switched over. On a note about using this set up you have to shut the engine down on diesel fuel burning all the cooking out of the lines or you will have problems getting it restarted. For that reason it is best to have the switch over valve as close to the injector pump as you can so you do not have to run it all day to clear the lines.

I was wondering if its not the technology in the car but the gas quality? Or could it both. If someone brought this up already in this thread i am sorry only have a few minutes...but great question OP!

reply to post by fixer1967

the valve nearer the injector pump is a good idea. i could probably cut out and install a hinged flap on my bonnet to save me lifting the whole thing up!
a few years ago in the uk there was a petrol contamination incident and thousands of cars were damaged. the cause was a silicon additive in the petrol supply. up until then i had never heard of such an additive.
btw diesel over here has gone up to £1.23 per litre.
regards f

reply to post by fakedirt


Green agenda or not. Once this baby hits the market I’ll be driving one.