Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-01-2019, 07:41 PM
 
6,503 posts, read 3,382,786 times
Reputation: 7903

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EckyX View Post
Carburetors can work great if they're tuned right. It's very possible to get phenomenal economy in a carbureted car. But, go up in elevation, or have a major change in outside temperature (it can swing 120 degrees here) and they suddenly don't do as well until retuned. Plus they can just drift out of tune over time on their own.
Carbs just can't adjust for efficiency on-the-fly in the same way that an EFI system can respond. They were the only option for decades, and can still serve a purpose if you want ZERO electronics in your power train.

Nothing beats modern engines for reliability in cold starts, and the tighter tolerances throughout that give an engine more efficiency and it burns less oil.

Technically yes we can probably manufacture an engine with 1980's power and 500k MTBF. But manufacturers are using 200k as the threshold and using the headroom for power and efficiency. But idling blowtorch lean (ahem, Chevy 6.0) and deactivating cylinders is not the way to do efficiency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2019, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,561,453 times
Reputation: 25224
Internal combustion efficiency is mostly governed by compression ratio and efficient combustion. That's why diesel engines are so much more efficient than gasoline engines, though there is a surprising variation in diesel efficiency. Farmers keep close track of how many gallons of fuel a tractor consumes, and efficiency depends on what you use it for. PTO figures are mostly engine, and pretty close together. Ground pull efficiency can vary greatly depending on tractor design.

https://www.farmprogress.com/tractor...cient-tractors

Fuel injection and turbocharging made a big difference, followed by computer controlled ignition and valve timing. 16 valve 4-bangers are also an efficiency measure that works pretty good. Disabling cylinders under light load also gives you a few percent. Better lubricants were a huge step forward, since most friction loss in a vehicle is engine friction, followed by air friction and rolling friction in that order. I watched my mileage go up 10% in the '90s just with advances in motor oil. I made no other changes in driving habits, doing the same commute every day at the same speed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2019, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
2,660 posts, read 1,531,916 times
Reputation: 6359
Quote:
Originally Posted by corolla5speed View Post
The Chevy sprint which was originally a Suzuki in the Japanese market was able to get 44/53 miles per gallon via carburetor back in its day 1984. No smell of un-burned fuel behind it.

Fuel Injection was around on the GM stuff in 1957 and before (Pontiac Bonneville) as an example and had it's own bumpy ride before engineers refined and tamed it. 63 years ago

And so we move forward.
If a manufacturer today was tasked with creating a 1600 lb tin can with manual transmission, no power steering or brakes, no power windows or locks, 15 second 0-60, no air conditioning or any safety features whatsoever other than seat belts like the Sprint - I'm pretty sure they could do way better than avg 47 mpg. But nobody would buy it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 12:08 AM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,041,579 times
Reputation: 2157
In about 20 years, you won't be able to buy a new car for that model year which is propelled by a fossil fuel engine. Everything will be battery or fuel cell (hydrogen) based. The hydrogen will be taken out of water using electricity from a green source, and all power plants will be green (including nuclear and renewables). These cars will get 500 miles per tank/battery pack.

The Big Three will be Ford, GM and Tesla.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 01:17 AM
 
Location: moved
13,565 posts, read 9,570,895 times
Reputation: 23301
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
If a manufacturer today was tasked with creating a 1600 lb tin can with manual transmission, no power steering or brakes, no power windows or locks, 15 second 0-60, no air conditioning or any safety features whatsoever other than seat belts like the Sprint - I'm pretty sure they could do way better than avg 47 mpg. But nobody would buy it.
I would. Provided that it's RWD, has a manual transmission, and sufficiently voluminous engine-bay to swap in a larger engine. In fact I'd pay a premium for such a car - a considerable premium.

My dream car is a 1960s Soviet Moskvitch. My parents had one. I rode around in it. 100 km/h was a feat - a cacaphony of vibration and, presumably, vague steering (I wouldn't know, as I was too young to drive back then). It was heavier than 1600 pounds, but presumably modern materials can take car of that.

Where is such a car? At ANY price???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 06:12 AM
 
1,063 posts, read 761,352 times
Reputation: 898
Default Interesting hope your right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
In about 20 years, you won't be able to buy a new car for that model year which is propelled by a fossil fuel engine. Everything will be battery or fuel cell (hydrogen) based. The hydrogen will be taken out of water using electricity from a green source, and all power plants will be green (including nuclear and renewables). These cars will get 500 miles per tank/battery pack.

The Big Three will be Ford, GM and Tesla.

Interesting I hope you right. However I am interested in what progress has been made with (internal combustion engine efficiency) in the last 40 years.

My interest is with the past 40 years of progress. The fact that we have Dodge Hellcats advertised at a weight 4448 lbs and the tame version develops 717 HP and is signed off as getting 22 MPH on the highway. Truly an engineering marvel. Pretty much develops twice the HP and twice the fuel economy as it's counterparts of 40 years ago. Dodge Hellcat engineers have been very successful in creating a niche product.

I'm looking for the other side of that coin. The same kind of engineering progress in a self aspirated 4 cylinder engine. Have we built anything with even half of the advances in the Hellcat. Could there be room at the other end of the scale or call it an
economy engine niche market.



Thank you for your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 07:27 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,112 posts, read 4,947,887 times
Reputation: 17437
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
In about 20 years, you won't be able to buy a new car for that model year which is propelled by a fossil fuel engine. Everything will be battery or fuel cell (hydrogen) based. The hydrogen will be taken out of water using electricity from a green source, and all power plants will be green (including nuclear and renewables).

\.

It can't be done. Logistics.


Because the sun don't always shine nor the wind blow, those sources of generation only average about 33% efficiency of stated generating capacity. US automotive demand for power roughly equals our present electrical generation capacity: we'd have to install at least 3x more capacity than our stated need, and then double that to ensure a constant supply. We'd also have to completely rebuild the grid to handle that type of load, and we're not even talking about doubling it all to supply our other electrical needs.


Hydrogen: obtained from an H source (obviously) like water-- but to break water down into H + O, you have to add energy-- more than you get back out of it when you put them back together (burn them) in the engine--- the ultimate in inefficiency. If you use "free" alternate energy sources to generate the H, it could be done, but it's still more efficient just to use the electricity generated to directly power the vehicle.


In regards "progress"-- It's still a matter of Diminishing Returns. All the hi tech electronics, new trannies and combustion chamber designs etc give you some slight edge if you're in F1 competition mode where you need a fraction of an extra HP to give you an edge, but for everyday driving to go to the PigglyWiggly for more Frittos, a 1950 Hudson will do just fine. With gas $3/gal, and driving 10,000 mi/yr, an extra 5mpg will save you only $700 a yr. If the electronics cost an extra $7000, you'd have to keep the car 10 yrs just to break even on fuel costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 08:14 AM
 
9,332 posts, read 6,866,407 times
Reputation: 14736
I think a bunch of things are getting lumped together. ICE is just one component then you have, transmission performance, turbos/forced induction, cooling, drivetrain, vehicle weight, and tire compounds/technology. Finally you can measure horsepower/tq, fuel economy, emissions, and speed/times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 08:36 AM
 
1,063 posts, read 761,352 times
Reputation: 898
Default Mayby it's possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
It can't be done. Logistics.


Because the sun don't always shine nor the wind blow, those sources of generation only average about 33% efficiency of stated generating capacity. US automotive demand for power roughly equals our present electrical generation capacity: we'd have to install at least 3x more capacity than our stated need, and then double that to ensure a constant supply. We'd also have to completely rebuild the grid to handle that type of load, and we're not even talking about doubling it all to supply our other electrical needs.


Hydrogen: obtained from an H source (obviously) like water-- but to break water down into H + O, you have to add energy-- more than you get back out of it when you put them back together (burn them) in the engine--- the ultimate in inefficiency. If you use "free" alternate energy sources to generate the H, it could be done, but it's still more efficient just to use the electricity generated to directly power the vehicle.


In regards "progress"-- It's still a matter of Diminishing Returns. All the hi tech electronics, new trannies and combustion chamber designs etc give you some slight edge if you're in F1 competition mode where you need a fraction of an extra HP to give you an edge, but for everyday driving to go to the PigglyWiggly for more Frittos, a 1950 Hudson will do just fine. With gas $3/gal, and driving 10,000 mi/yr, an extra 5mpg will save you only $700 a yr. If the electronics cost an extra $7000, you'd have to keep the car 10 yrs just to break even on fuel costs.

Here's and interesting chart of the worlds countries and the percentage of renewable energy powering their grid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ewable_sources

By clicking on the column (renewable as a percentages of total generation) you can see the countries generating 100% percent by using renewable energy. The percentages of renewable energy being generated across the world are in a hyper-growth phase.


The 40 year list of improvements on the internal combustion engine is actually pretty important. The few extra bucks saved by more efficient engines could make the financial difference for many of the small businesses as to weather they exist or not. It good business to have the most efficient engine.

Thanks for your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 09:45 AM
 
28,867 posts, read 14,232,275 times
Reputation: 14153
No progress in the I/C engine ? Are you for real ?


Real time fuel mapping and ignition curves. Variable vane turbos, multiple cylinder cut off, variable valve timing, with or without pushrods and valve springs, and the use of various types of materials all have advance the ICE.


We can daily drive for thousands of miles 700hp plus vehicles. 400 hp 5500lb vehicles are getting 20mph.
Just because the majority of us don't really want or need 50+mpg vehicles doesn't mean the technology has stagnated. Go luck up the tech on a Formula 1 "power unit" and you will see some advanced tech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top