Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Fuel Economy > Topics	Add to favorite topics Post New Topic

Author	Topic: So where have all the more effient engines been?	Post a Reply Back to Topics

dcarroll Champion Author Texas Posts:6,757 Points:1,136,870 Joined:Nov 2003	Message Posted: Aug 10, 2011 6:17:09 PM Ignore dcarroll Report Abuse for years the Automakers have been holding out on us so they can scratch the backs of the oil companies.

dcarroll

Champion Author
Texas

Posts:6,757
Points:1,136,870
Joined:Nov 2003

Message Posted: Aug 10, 2011 6:17:09 PM

Ignore dcarroll Report Abuse

for years the Automakers have been holding out on us so they can scratch the backs of the oil companies.

REPLIES (newest first)Ignore Short Messages

Lucster1000 Rookie Author Ontario Posts:81 Points:3,550 Joined:May 2011	Message Posted: Aug 16, 2011 11:12:27 AM Ignore Lucster1000 Report Abuse The engines are diesels, which are all in europe and not in north america. In the 80's GM did have diesels in the S10, Chevet and Caprice which gave excellent mileage. Ford also did in the Ranger. Both stopped that sadly and now the government will not let them back!
dontuknowOH Champion Author Ohio Posts:2,099 Points:36,585 Joined:Aug 2009	Message Posted: Aug 16, 2011 8:28:49 AM Ignore dontuknowOH Report Abuse As JimBlake56 mentioned A 4 cycle recipitating engine,reminds me of a DC Lighting bolt,discharging its energy similiar to(power stroke of a 4 cycle E...) then that same L.. Bolt changing into AC Energy while draining its energy off flipping back/forth to other sources as it dissipates (speaking hipothetically). Loosing momentum till the next power stroke,a small bit of energy is recovered (rotory coasting)probably heard that by listening to an old Hit/Miss Engine running un-loaded ( no load "free wheeling") Look Ma.. ! No Hands! again, Look Ma.. ! No Teeth again, Look Ma.. ! for the Bandaids ! "Free Wheeling" (a different version) LOL
Alexi7 All-Star Author Ohio Posts:533 Points:13,890 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Aug 15, 2011 4:11:02 PM Ignore Alexi7 Report Abuse Holding out on us? Not at all. Cheap gas in the late 80s/all of the 90s distracted manufacturers. Trucks and SUVs were the rage and cheap to produce back then. And technology has improved considerably since even 2000. The 2012 Chevy Camaro V-6 puts out about the same hp/cu.in. as the very sophisticated(for its time) and pricey Acura NSX. And I'd guess a V-6 Mustang would give an NSX a run for its money on the track.
JimBlake56 Veteran Author Akron Posts:376 Points:75,060 Joined:Oct 2010	Message Posted: Aug 15, 2011 2:38:31 PM Ignore JimBlake56 Report Abuse Reciprocating motion gives it's momentum up to the crankshaft every 1/2-revolution. Decelerating the piston is how that piston delivers part of it's energy to the crankshaft. Ever watch the wobbly motion of the rotor in a Wankel engine? I certainly wouldn't compare it to the smooth rotation of a turbine. And yet that wobbly motion is how the rotor delivers it's energy to the crankshaft.
gvan Champion Author Chicago Posts:21,526 Points:2,836,065 Joined:Dec 2004	Message Posted: Aug 15, 2011 9:25:19 AM Ignore gvan Report Abuse "for years the Automakers have been holding out on us so they can scratch the backs of the oil companies." I find that difficult to believe but since we had low gas prices, fuel efficiency was not the priority of the auto manufacturers because it was not a priority of the car buying public.
OilerFan Champion Author Tulsa Posts:14,040 Points:2,446,675 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Aug 14, 2011 8:54:01 PM Ignore OilerFan Report Abuse I've heard this thing about the car makers and big oil for years; never seen any proof; just lots of emotion.
Pitbull1 Veteran Author Detroit Posts:395 Points:23,790 Joined:Mar 2011	Message Posted: Aug 14, 2011 2:31:41 PM Ignore Pitbull1 Report Abuse In China, Asian countries. We in America prefer larger, faster, and fun cars. Not golf carts!
oilpan4 Champion Author Virginia Posts:12,047 Points:306,700 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: Aug 14, 2011 6:00:38 AM Ignore oilpan4 Report Abuse "I never understood why the rotary is not a high performance engine". I would say the rotary engine is very high performance engine, you get lots of high rpm horse power for very little weight. "It makes no sense. YOu are right. The piston engine must accelerate/decelerate a huge amount of mass every second. In contrast to a rotary. How is it possible for a piston to be more efficient"? Its all about efficient containment of combustion. Rotary engines do not seal up and contain compression and combustion as well as piston engines. Piston rings and valves are very good at containing compression and combustion. At lower speeds piston engines can compress and contain combustion very well, unlike a rotary engine. With a piston engine the slower you can turn the engine the more you can reduce pumping losses. "Its gotta cost a lot of energy to start/stop all that mass . At a loafing along speed of 2200 rpm thats 36 times a second that the piston's mass must be started/stopped". With that logic gas turbines and rotary engines should be perfect for all applications, but we know they are no good for low speed low power applications.
Hemond Champion Author Providence Posts:8,175 Points:133,425 Joined:Oct 2006	Message Posted: Aug 13, 2011 12:24:05 PM Ignore Hemond Report Abuse <<<I think the rotory engines of past years are the way to go. Less moving parts/bulk weight per hp; that waste motion by start/stop reverse/repeat(cycling back & forth) is somewhat ancient.>>. . . I never understood why the rotary is not a high performance engine. It makes no sense. YOu are right. The piston engine must accelerate/decelerate a huge amount of mass every second. In contrast to a rotary. How is it possible for a piston to be more efficient? Its gotta cost a lot of energy to start/stop all that mass . At a loafing along speed of 2200 rpm thats 36 times a second that the piston's mass must be started/stopped.
oilpan4 Champion Author Virginia Posts:12,047 Points:306,700 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: Aug 12, 2011 3:34:30 PM Ignore oilpan4 Report Abuse Rotary engines don't do great at low speed and low power either.
rick_evans Champion Author Boston Posts:3,725 Points:1,033,730 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Aug 12, 2011 2:28:22 PM Ignore rick_evans Report Abuse "for years the Automakers have been holding out on us so they can scratch the backs of the oil companies." Nonsense. Cars have gotten heavier as they have become safer and much of the efficiency has gone into hauling this extra weight around in the form of more power. My fuel injected Corolla is 1000lb heavier than my '76 Datsun B210 but gets better fuel economy 37 vs 32. Also, advances in computer controls has made possible recent advances. Finally consumers, especially women have embraced gas guzzling SUVs and minivans. Automakers give consumers what they want and efficiency is always low on the list for most. Consumers scratch the backs of oil companies with their dollars until the news media points out to them they should start complaining.
dontuknowOH Champion Author Ohio Posts:2,099 Points:36,585 Joined:Aug 2009	Message Posted: Aug 12, 2011 6:24:11 AM Ignore dontuknowOH Report Abuse My interest in any engine is not about the max hp developed, but the torque under various loads while going up the gear ratios of change till the major cruising speed is obtained,or any travel speed in high gear,for mileage purpose per distance covered.I simply don't know if a modern rotory engine will perform with direct fuel injection unturbo charged not coupled to air propulsion,but a wide rpm range multi speed auto lock-up tranny. One would think if the torque converter load was released at idle speed consumption with a rotory wouldn't even be a concern,(savings). The old rotories/carburated didn't get good mileage,the oil people didn't want that then,but whatever the mileage today,their markets can always raise prices to compensate daily. The buying market dictates what people want but not always what they get.
oilpan4 Champion Author Virginia Posts:12,047 Points:306,700 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: Aug 12, 2011 5:37:38 AM Ignore oilpan4 Report Abuse Rotary engines are power to weight efficient, they are not fuel efficient. A turbo charged piston engine has to burn 0.6 pounds of fuel to produce each horse power for an hour of run time. A turbo charged rotary has to burn 0.7 pounds of fuel per horse power per hour. That is known as Brake Horse Power Specific Consumption.
dontuknowOH Champion Author Ohio Posts:2,099 Points:36,585 Joined:Aug 2009	Message Posted: Aug 12, 2011 4:53:54 AM Ignore dontuknowOH Report Abuse I think the rotory engines of past years are the way to go. Less moving parts/bulk weight per hp; that waste motion by start/stop reverse/repeat(cycling back & forth) is somewhat ancient. The newer personal smaller aircraft sold today have the engines of potential,with technology today used in ground vehicles would have performance and economy because weight/HP.(eliminating the reverse cycling waste of moving parts. Four cycle engines have one power stroke out of four momentum loss strokes.Also all those balance weights to counter vibration.An engine that has moving parts that must reach speeds faster than sound then abruptly stop,change direction,in reverse ,repeat,repeat, constantly to operate with only 1/4 + power derived.....
dsgrey Veteran Author Dallas Posts:316 Points:501,525 Joined:Mar 2005	Message Posted: Aug 11, 2011 8:20:16 PM Ignore dsgrey Report Abuse My car was $15k new and gets 40mpg in my commute. Considering 3/4 of the other cars are large SUVs...it's supply and demand. You will never reach those numbers with a large pickup/SUV. My same car in Europe gets 50mpg but loses 25% of the already low HPs due to that version being a diesel. The US consumer still wants a 150hp+ diesel. So once gas hits $6 a gallon or more then maybe the US consumer will accept the size and HP restrictions needed to reach those numbers.
Need_Batteries Champion Author Vancouver Posts:2,876 Points:643,355 Joined:Jun 2011	Message Posted: Aug 11, 2011 2:53:45 PM Ignore Need_Batteries Report Abuse Coming your way by 2025
oilpan4 Champion Author Virginia Posts:12,047 Points:306,700 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: Aug 11, 2011 12:46:21 PM Ignore oilpan4 Report Abuse We have had the engines all along. Its the corner cutting and lack of options from the auto makers that keep the fuel economy down. I picked up +5mpg from a hand full of modifications and its nothing the auto makers couldn't have offered them selves.
jimmy544 Champion Author Boston Posts:4,104 Points:652,880 Joined:Feb 2011	Message Posted: Aug 11, 2011 12:37:25 PM Ignore jimmy544 Report Abuse The US is focussed now more on fuel ecnonomy because when all is equal less fuel consumed is less emissions especially CO2.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,113 Points:2,184,185 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Aug 11, 2011 11:51:00 AM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse Just wait until you see what you are going to pay for the more efficient engines. Then you will know why you haven't been seeing them around...
Vin63 Champion Author San Bernardino Posts:1,835 Points:454,170 Joined:Oct 2007	Message Posted: Aug 11, 2011 10:13:59 AM Ignore Vin63 Report Abuse The US is focused on emissions rather than fuel mileage. Consumption-based economy.
CodyCat Veteran Author New York Posts:434 Points:106,835 Joined:Oct 2003	Message Posted: Aug 10, 2011 9:14:56 PM Ignore CodyCat Report Abuse Those models are out there, just not sold in the USA. Too many restrictions here that make good engines get poor mileage.