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.
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???
For one, it would be illegal to sell because it wouldn't meet any safety requirements. But there are still plenty of cheaply made tin can death traps from the 70s-90s out there, so find one off CL and be happy!
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.
I think the reason that turbos are so ubiquitous now is because they ran out of ideas on how to make a normally aspirated engine better. 40 years ago 8 cyl engines were putting out less hp and torque than today's 6 cyl engines, same goes comparing today's 4 cyl engines with old 6 cyl engines. That right there tells you that giant strides have been made in power output, but also mpg, reliability and longevity. There's no comparison, cars in general and engines in particular were junk 40 years ago compared to today.
Are you doing a term paper for school on the subject or something? there is more info than you could read in a week doing a google search, asking opinions here isn't going to result in the sort of specifics you are probably looking for.
Thank you for your questions. Engine have certainly moved forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
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.
Thank you for your questions. Engine have certainly moved forward.
Overhead cams are actually older technology as is variable valve timing, going back to steam engines.
Bendix was doing fuel mapping in the 1950's working with injection.
Cadillac was shutting down cylinders in 1981 on their cars.
Aluminium go's back a very long time too. Light weight and heat dissipation.
Never said there was no progress I'm asking for a specific progress time line of the last 40 years.
For one, it would be illegal to sell because it wouldn't meet any safety requirements. But there are still plenty of cheaply made tin can death traps from the 70s-90s out there, so find one off CL and be happy!
You're quite right, about the regulatory overhead. And - though you didn't mention it - the realities of the market. Consumer choice matters, and those freaks who choose other than what most consumers choose, will have their choices constrained.
To your point, few of those "tin can death traps from the 70s-90s" are 1600 pounds... The one accessible exception that comes to mind is the Lotus Europa... which is rare, and sells today at enormous premium.
Returning to this thread's theme, imagine said Lotus Europa powered by a modern 2.0L variable valve timing, all-aluminum 4-cylinder, perhaps even with a small, quickly-spooling modern turbo. It would likely get 35+ mpg (especially with a touch of aerodynamic clean-up) and attain 0-60 times comparable to today's ZL1's and Hellcats. It would please both automotive enthusiasts and the "green" crowd. But... such a vehicle isn't out there, unless enthusiasts build it themselves.
Yes, it definitely is. If you can find ethanol free gas, try it, you will see a noticeable improvement in MPG. Generally it costs enough more than E10 gas that your actual cost per mile goes up, but I run E-0 gas anyway.
Early catalytic converters had bad flow characteristics - by early I mean 1970's. Modern ones don't impede exhaust flow to any noticeable extent.
No way I can buy non-ethanol gas. It's not for sale in a non-attainment zone like Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
It can't be done. Logistics.
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.
.
Water is not a good source for large quantities of hydrogen. Natural gas can be reformed into hydrogen pretty easily, with solid carbon as a byproduct, but there's not a car sized reformer available yet.
OP, the following is a personal experience. My previous car was a 2003 Chevrolet Malibu with 3.1L V6, 170 hp, and my fuel economy average was 22mpg in town commute driving. The Malibu weighed about 3,100 lbs. I replaced it with a 2015 Hyundai Elantra with 1.8L 4 cylinder engine, 145 hp, and on the same commute I average 32mpg. The Elantra weighs about 2,800 lbs. the trunk and interior volume is almost the same as the Malibu.
Lot if Euro cars are diesel. We are more ethanol focused than they are. Their diesels are turbos and burn pretty clean. Both of these choices we made lower our mpg results vs Europe. They are science driven we are much less unless you count political science! I don't.
All the answers of people who have responded to this thread have been correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM
OP, the following is a personal experience. My previous car was a 2003 Chevrolet Malibu with 3.1L V6, 170 hp, and my fuel economy average was 22mpg in town commute driving. The Malibu weighed about 3,100 lbs. I replaced it with a 2015 Hyundai Elantra with 1.8L 4 cylinder engine, 145 hp, and on the same commute I average 32mpg. The Elantra weighs about 2,800 lbs. the trunk and interior volume is almost the same as the Malibu.
All the answers of people who have responded to this thread have been correct. All the engines of the last 40 years have made great progress in increasing both HP and efficiency. The innovations have numerous and outstanding. It has been mentioned by a number of people that it is the market place in which controls the development of products. That said it is plain the car market has delivered a wide variety of products which have reached the full spectrum of both economy and power. From Hellcats to Pius's from Tesla's to Chevy Cruz diesels.
What more could I want? The engineers have delivered world class products which have gotten better with each passing year. I have two cars that deliver as much as I have ever hoped for, via reliability and economy. A very knowledgeable forum have led me to the conclusion that the car buyers have the best selection ever. I am appreciative. Thanks for your comments.
Corolla, the answers to your question are addressed in the linked video. The answer to "whether internal combustion engine efficiency has increased significantly in the past forty years", is 'not that much". Great strides have been made in emissions, drivability, and specific power, but when efficiency is defined as "how much work is produced for a given heat content of fuel consumed", physics limit what is possible, (spoiler alert) until we can figure out how to capture energy loss due to waste heat (out both the tailpipe and radiator). Note that overall vehicle efficiency (mpg) is a different subject - related and important, but not the original question.
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.
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.
Thank you for your questions. Engine have certainly moved forward.
