11-09-2007, 02:44 PM | #15 |
Moderator.ca
|
Umm, what do the automakers care about oil changes and gas milage? Those are in the domain of big oil, not detroit.
One thing that people always ignore is that you can never have it all. There are 3 basic laws to engineering 1) If something can go wrong, eventually it will (aka Murphy's Law) 2) Of low cost, reliability, and quality (ie performance, refinement, comfort, etc), pick two! 3) Its not possible to over-estimate the power of complete idiots What does all that mean? Well if you ever want something that lasts forever and provides amazing performance it will cost a fortune. However, it will eventually break, and that will happen a lot sooner if an idiot gets a hold of it. For example, to the engine you mentioned, the oil issues require very tight tollerences (expensive) with materials that don't wear away (also expensive) that don't transmit much heat (expensive). Next you want these engines to have three times as much power as most engines on the market today. Guess what, the more power you produce, the more heat you make. And oil doesn't like heat. So you need to develop a way to keep the engine cool while running (expensive). And it needs to be fuel efficient? That will require very precise mechanisms for fuel delivery and near perfect burning of the fuel within the engine. I'm not even sure if its possible to get 35 mpg with a 350 hp car in real driving conditions. Anyway, all of the advanced little bits of technology are things that can break. So you need to make them indestructable (expensive). So unless you are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, its not going to happen. Or you could change the oil and buy a bit more gasoline. We have came a long way in 40 years but there just isn't that much more that can be done. The internal combustion engine isn't all that efficient, and its over 100 years old. It's potential is nearly maxed out, not quite, but almost. Sure we could make smaller cars with carbon fibre weighing 1500 lbs and get away with having 25 hp engines and get 60 mpg. But I don't want a car like that. I want a 3500 lb 400 hp V8 camaro that gets 25-30 mpg.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!__________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum |
11-09-2007, 03:18 PM | #16 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
If I were multiple persons, you'd get a standing ovation. |
11-09-2007, 04:01 PM | #17 |
Drives: 2006 Cobalt, 2004 Taurus wagon Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Posts: 3,812
|
I will join you then.
|
11-09-2007, 08:51 PM | #18 | ||
Truth Enforcer
Drives: anything I can get my hands on Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,797
|
you forgot safety devices! but other than that, standing ovation.
the one thing I want to know is why GM detunes the Corvette engine for the Camaro? oh, and I dont care if gas gets to $10.00 a gallon, id still have a full tank. I might only drive once a month, but id still drive!!!
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
A group as a whole tends to be smarter than the smartest person in that group until one jackass convinces everyone otherwise. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-09-2007, 10:21 PM | #19 | |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
NOT something corvette owners would be too happy about. :eek: And did you notice, that in every LS1 vehicle, Goat, Corvette...and that's about it, except the Camaro/Firebird had an advertised 350hp? whereas the fbodys were 320-ish (forgot the exact number) (I'm sure I crapped on some of those numbers, but you get the idea) |
|
11-10-2007, 01:15 AM | #20 | |
MOD SQUAD
|
Quote:
__________________
Who cares about the Blue Oval crowd and their little Ponys? We're getting our Camaro back-and it'll be Supercharged!-MDAII Team LS3 |
|
11-10-2007, 03:47 AM | #21 |
Drives: 2006 Cobalt, 2004 Taurus wagon Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Posts: 3,812
|
GM is notorious for underrating their engines. Makes things easier on the insurance front. I appreciate it.
And yes, the Big 3 buying out some miracle technology and then killing it stories are dime a dozen. Check Snopes.com; they're there. |
11-11-2007, 02:44 AM | #22 | ||
the nerd king
Drives: 2005 scion xb... Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: phoenix, az
Posts: 426
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-11-2007, 06:25 AM | #23 | ||
Truth Enforcer
Drives: anything I can get my hands on Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,797
|
lets all get jet turbine engines!!!! the ones on my plane run at around 98.799999999999% efficiency. then again, they are 4 times the size of my car and create 45,000lbs of thrust. should get you from a to b pretty quick.
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
A group as a whole tends to be smarter than the smartest person in that group until one jackass convinces everyone otherwise. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-11-2007, 09:33 AM | #24 |
Moderator.ca
|
I believe chrysler experimented with turbine engines 50 years ago. And GM and Toyota have colaborated on fuel cell research (yes they co-operate on several things). But turbines didn't catch on and fuel cells require billions of investment for the infrastructure needed to fuel them. So while the infernal combustion engine isn't the greatest we don't really have a better alternative right now
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!__________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum |
11-13-2007, 11:11 AM | #25 | |
the nerd king
Drives: 2005 scion xb... Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: phoenix, az
Posts: 426
|
Quote:
this link tells about the car http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSn2igZtuPA this one you can see it go http://youtube.com/watch?v=m90BhJXZAXc might be fun to try |
|
11-13-2007, 05:42 PM | #26 |
Drives: MINI Cooper S Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 284
|
This is now the second or third discovery of a LOT of oil in Ultra-Deep water... look it up. There are a dozen or more rigs in the Gulf of Mexico alone that are drilling over 20,000 feet below the surface of the water.
From what I read (in Popular Mechanics I think) is that below 40,000 ft the temperatures are too high to support oil (it just breaks down completely) so this is the area of last resort... once these reserves are gone (which WILL take a while) we are all done with oil. I don't think oil prices are going to come down much though, all these new sources of oil will only really meet the increasing demand from other parts of the world. Once China and India come online, we are going to be screwed anyway... It's amazing technology though! ~LSx
__________________
"When you turn your car on, does it return the favor?"
|
11-13-2007, 07:20 PM | #27 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
oh, I wish this administration would get aout of office already. Then SOMEBODY, I don't care who, can push for alternative fuel sources.
GM alone with the Volt and E85 isn't gonna be enough. it's a great start, but they need money, and funds, and government sponsorship/marketing, so the public can realize this is the real deal. |
11-13-2007, 08:16 PM | #28 | |
Moderator.ca
|
Quote:
Half of your electicity comes from coal. And while electic seems better when looking purely at emissions, over 20% electicity generated is wasted in transmission from the plant to the city. Electic cars powered by coal power plants will reduce dependance on foriegn oil, but it won't do much to reduce total emissions. so for actual energy sources that can create electricity then be converted to other forms lets see: solar energy just isn't efficient enough. Wind has some promise but massive wind farms are noisy, ugly, and unreliable. Hydro-electric has been nearly tapped out in the developed world. However there is development being done by placing turbines in rivers, like a cross between wind and hydro-electric damms. Coal, fuel oil, and natural gas all pollute. It should be noted that these sources can be used directly or be coverted to burn in an internal combustion engine. People fear nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion has tremendous potential but is 20 years away, and it has been that way for the last 30 years. This isn't a question about getting someone who will put forth the effort to make a new technology availible. Its about people making a choice, what is the lesser of all the evils? Buying expensive oil? Using coal? Building dozens or hundreds of nuclear power plants? covering the lanscape with wind mills? Of course the answer is to use a mix of all the above to minimize all the negative effects. But it won't solve the problems, just cause new ones to be solved later. Wow. I guess I kinda kept on going there . . . I do that when I get technical. I had one half as long but it was political, I avoid politics on this forum. I have another one that I go to for that stuff
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!__________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum |
|
Post Reply
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Major U.S. oil source is tapped | KILLER74Z28 | Off-topic Discussions | 32 | 10-30-2007 09:47 AM |