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.
After watching Richard Hammond wreck an electric super car and finding out that it continued to catch fire for 5 days after the accident... I think electric cars still have some developing to do before they're truly road safe.
really? an electric car that goes from 0-60 in under 4 seconds, has a top speed of around 130 miles an hour, and a 250 mile range? you dont think that is cool? heck there is a racing series for pure electric vehicles now, and those things ARE cool. same with hybrids, they run the top classes at lemans, and again are quite cool.
What I don't find cool is how insanely dangerous they are if you wreck them.
Look up Richard Hammond's wreck in a Rimac Concept One. The thing exploded (due to the batteries) and continued to randomly catch on fire for days after the wreck. The batteries become insanely dangerous once they become compromised.
Most hardcore racing fanatics are not sold on electric or even hybrid. I loathe the fact that they have turned F1 into hybrids.
As an option? A novelty? Sure.
From that respect, yeah a little cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisan23
What I don't find cool is how insanely dangerous they are if you wreck them.
Look up Richard Hammond's wreck in a Rimac Concept One. The thing exploded (due to the batteries) and continued to randomly catch on fire for days after the wreck. The batteries become insanely dangerous once they become compromised.
Most hardcore racing fanatics are not sold on electric or even hybrid. I loathe the fact that they have turned F1 into hybrids.
the thing is, our current foray into electric cars is just a baby step. kind of like launching sputnick into space. they are crude, and have many issues that need to be solved, but we can and will move on from what we have now. these things dont happen overnight, they take time. and yes it would be lovely if we could create a magic vehicle that would do everything we humans want it to do with out any teething problems, without any development problems, just a perfect machine the first time.
the thing is, our current foray into electric cars is just a baby step. kind of like launching sputnick into space. they are crude, and have many issues that need to be solved, but we can and will move on from what we have now. these things dont happen overnight, they take time. and yes it would be lovely if we could create a magic vehicle that would do everything we humans want it to do with out any teething problems, without any development problems, just a perfect machine the first time.
Agreed, but putting a timeline on something that’s not developed to a point of safety seems poorly thought out. Ensuring that the vehicles and the volatile nature of the batteries is addressed should happen before setting a date for when things must be switched over by. They’re putting the cart before the horse.
Agreed, but putting a timeline on something that’s not developed to a point of safety seems poorly thought out. Ensuring that the vehicles and the volatile nature of the batteries is addressed should happen before setting a date for when things must be switched over by. They’re putting the cart before the horse.
i do agree with you on that. california is trying to speed up the process. the problem is that the government never has to take responsibility for their actions, the private industry has to.
the thing is, our current foray into electric cars is just a baby step. kind of like launching sputnick into space. they are crude, and have many issues that need to be solved, but we can and will move on from what we have now. these things dont happen overnight, they take time. and yes it would be lovely if we could create a magic vehicle that would do everything we humans want it to do with out any teething problems, without any development problems, just a perfect machine the first time.
That is why I buy Chevy.
LS V8s are virtually indestructible, hotrod magazine put 2 huge turbos on what they thought was a 5.3 vortec, turned out to be a 4.8
Changed the cam and lifters honed a rust spot out of a cylinder. Ported the heads, stuck 2 turbos on it and boosted it to the hilt.
Say whatever about their V6 and 4 pots. Don't care.
V8 rear wheel drive interests me.
Quote:
What Is the Real Boost and Horsepower Limit of a Stock GM LS Engine? We Try To Find Out, and There’s a Whopping Surprise Ending
When we got it, the engine was a grimy core from a junkyard. We took it apart and found a pretty significant rust spot in the No. 8 bore that a ball hone wouldn’t remove, but it was halfway down the bore so we thought, What the hell, we’re trying to kill this thing anyway. It won’t matter. The motor was reassembled using the original crank, rods, flat-top pistons, rings (a little rusty but they cleaned up OK), and bearings. The sole modification to the short-block (at the advice of Jerry Stetler from Ace Machine) was to increase the gap of the top rings from 0.015 inch to 0.028-0.030 inch (we reused the original rings). The second (factory gapped at 0.028 inch) and oil rings were left untouched
The pair of 76mm turbos was combined with a twin-core, air-to-water intercooler, a pair of 45mm Hyper-Gates, and a single RacePort blow-off valve, all from Turbo- smart. A pair of JBA shorty truck headers with short tubing sections feed the turbos. Run with the wastegate springs set to provide just 7 psi of boost, the engine easily produced more than 600 hp. With proper tuning, we safely worked our way past 10 psi up to nearly 15 psi, where we ran into our first issue. The combination of 7-psi springs and the manual boost controller would only allow us to reach 15 psi. While this may seem like a lot of boost on the stock short-block, the 900hp mark had come and gone, and the motor was just laughing at us.
We stuck in a pair of 14-psi springs that, when combined with the manual controller, allowed us to reach nearly two bar-just over 26 psi. Surely that would be enough to break something. It bears mentioning that we performed all the testing on 118-octane Rockett Brand race gas, as we wanted our big bang to come from lack of component strength and not detonation. Our respect for the designers of the LS engine family grew with each successive pound of boost. Stock internals be damned, the 5.3 had come to party. The 1,000hp mark was eclipsed, followed soon by 1,100 hp and then, finally, the peak power of the night, an amazing 1,203 hp at 26.8 psi! Remember that this was on a well-worn, stock 5.3 short-block with nothing more exotic than increased ring gap. Think about that next time you hear of someone complaining about exploding an LS with only 8 psi of boost.
After eclipsing 1,200 hp, we kept going. Raising the boost beyond 27 psi resulted in what we suspect was an ignition failure. The motor was still in perfect shape internally and worked well up to 26 psi, but unfortunately we were out of available dyno time. The motor survived more than 60 runs, the majority of them more than 1,000 hp. We hammered this motor like we stole it, with repeated back-to-back pulls, but the little LS never missed a beat and was ready for more.
Then something dawned on us after pulling it off the dyno: 5.3s don’t come with flat-top pistons (we know the few exceptions). Combine this with the fact that this combination produced peak power at 7,000 rpm, and we started to suspect that it might not be a 5.3 after all. Off came the oil pan and sure enough, connected to those flat-tops was set of 121 connecting rods and a crank that featured a casting number of 12553482. That’s right, this 1,203hp 5.3 was actually a 4.8L. That’s just 294 ci for a stunning 4.09 hp/ci.
In their junkyard dog shoot out, they ran the Ford 4.6 until it started knocking around 700 horse, a 5.7 Mopar hemi they cut at 900 scared it too was going to scatter.
The little 4.8 truck/van chevy...
Stock rotating assembly. Stock block. No block or cam tunnel girdle.
I think (hope!) this is NOT going to happen -- it's just the ol' political "LOOK BUSY" thing.
CA can't even figure out the Road Charge Program yet (like they should have BEFORE they incented BAT cars), and CA politicians may get their new Gas Tax (SB1) handed back to them (less the silver platter) later this year, by the voters...... oh, I mean taxpayers.
I think CA should figure out its water (and fires would be a close second) before CA disses something like gas vehicles.
Speaking of fire...... Remember all the car fires when CA changed the fuel mixture (to 'save' something?) - there were so many car fires they were called car-BQ's on traffic reports!!!
Loons run the place. (It's a good thing we have 'looks', cuz there's not much else. )
California seems unable to quit shooting itself in the foot.
This article appears in a performance engine and engine building publication, which doesn't seem to be concerned that the future of the internal combustion engine is being threatened or that the engine is facing extinction. Rather, its focus is on advanced technology that makes the internal combustion engine perform better, more efficiently, with more power. ICE lovers are likely scoffing at this ridiculous proposal.
The ICE has continually undergone improvement in recent decades. Computer controlled, for better efficiency, and many improvements that mean many more miles between service (100 K miles between "tune-ups"), and reduction of emissions to levels never thought possible in decades past. It's no longer the "bad guy" it was once considered to be.
These are the kinds of issues I'm trying to raise, here. Another poster pointed out that recharging stations could be solar, so a power outage wouldn't affect that. But all the recharging done on-grid, like at parking garages at people's workplaces or homes, would certainly be affected.
The cost and longevity of the equipment will play a big role in the success or failure of a plan like this one. Are these new fuel cells going to be all lead free? If they are to be lead free; is the US going to mine or manufacture the metals, minerals, or fuel cells - are we trading one bad habit for another?
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.
(It's a good thing we have 'looks', cuz there's not much else. 
)
