PDA

View Full Version : Rigging and mileage



John Stevenson
06-27-2012, 07:11 PM
Went to do an install today about 110 mile away up the motorway.
Won't show any pictures of the rigging as not to upset anyone's sensibilities :rolleyes: but it went without a hitch.

However on the way up there tootling along at a steady 65 to 70 so as not to spill my drink or upset my listing of my audio book I glanced down at the trip mileage.

Often seen just over 40 mpg and once I saw 42.1 but looked down and was getting a consistent 43.5 mpg.

By the time i fished my cell phone out the speed had dropped a bit but still getting the same reading. http://www.stevenson-engineers.co.uk/files/milage.jpg

Not bad for a 3 tonne gross van running half loaded ?

Finished the trip at 234 miles and average of 41.8

I reckon the old Donald was only good for about 32 mpg.

MrSleepy
06-27-2012, 07:23 PM
No Officer...honestly...I was just taking a photo with it..:)


Dont they run up and down the M1 in your area using a truck so they can see into cabs.

Rob

flylo
06-27-2012, 08:01 PM
Did the deal with Cuemaker. Hauled 1 large Enco mill 3300#+, Plus 1 Large Bridgeport with riser about the same weight & 1 J head Bridgeport, a 3 headed drill press & large band saw + rigging pulling a 15000# GVW (not net) tandem dump trailer 500 mile+ round trip & averaged 20.28 with the Cummins Dodge Diesel with the overdrive off the whole trip. I think the trailer & load without the the truck netted about 15,000#. We dropped off 1 mill but almost replaced it's weight out of the scrap bin. I really like my Cummins/Dodge 4x4 Diesel. At 1600rpm I'm doing 60 & at 2000rpm I'm doing 75mph with OD on. In 2000 I boght the same body style in 2WD V6 gas lightest duty made & never beat 15MPG.

customcutter
06-27-2012, 08:38 PM
Yep, and CSX rail wants you to beleive they can move a ton of freight 400+ miles on a gallon of diesel.:eek:

Fuel mileage calculators in vehicles are notorious for being wrong. Even when they do get reset.:D

Ken

Paul Alciatore
06-27-2012, 08:44 PM
Did you have a tail wind?

A.K. Boomer
06-27-2012, 09:25 PM
How many straps were you using? I hope to god you were getting pulled from the front....:D

Please tell us you didn't run the strap under the truck and get pulled from the hitch yet forward --- kinda unstable wouldn't you think -- anything sinking in yet?;)

lakeside53
06-27-2012, 09:59 PM
Damn, those Imperial gallons sure are getting big!

Maybe the [insert Govt. agency] hacked your vehicle and fudged the mileage calculator.:cool:

Willy
06-27-2012, 10:18 PM
Is that an imperial gallon?
Did the mpg reading at the pump substantiate the trip computer's figures?
Ultimately that's the only reading that counts.
If it did, even if they were imperial gallons you've got a keeper.

The CSX figure of 400 ton/miles per gallon seems a little conservative.
Next to ships rail is definitely the most cost effective and efficient mode of transport.

flylo
06-27-2012, 10:35 PM
You can choose to believe me or not, but all this hype on good milage/hybrids are not new. I had several diesel Rabbits getting 55mpg & a Geo Metro(Susuki Swift) that got 50mpg & they sold new for $5995. I believe John got that milage & ask Cuemaker about our load. "Just the facts, Mam" And yes I fiqure it manually at the pump.

Dr Stan
06-27-2012, 10:57 PM
One significant difference is that European air quality standards are much lower than those in the US. This in turn has a dramatic effect on the fuel mileage, especially diesels.

Case in point Ford sells a diesel hybrid Transit van in "the old country" that gets superb fuel mileage, but is too dirty to meet our emission standards.

danlb
06-27-2012, 10:58 PM
No matter how you look at it, that is good mileage for a large vehicle.

No doubt it was the combination of constant speed, some tailwind or incline to help out. It sounds like John was also picking the speed that was best for him, not necessarily needing to flow with traffic.

Most trucks have a COD that is huge by comparison to the economy cars, but the mpg per pound of payload is pretty good on the open road.

The CSX figure is probably quite accurate at 400 ton/miles per gallon. Just start measuring after you get up to speed and all the way till you coast to a stop. I imagine that rolling resistance is minimal with steel wheels, and the wind resistance is less than a truck of equal size since all 100 train cars are in the wake of the one ahead of it.

I got 150 ton/miles to the gallon once. Well, roughly. My car is just about 1.5 tons and I got 100 mpg for over a hundred miles. That's the same math.

Dan

RancherBill
06-27-2012, 11:03 PM
Often seen just over 40 mpg and once I saw 42.1 but looked down and was getting a consistent 43.5 mpg.

That's great!

By my calc you saved 1.71 gallons (7.77 liters) which at British prices is a bunch of dough.

Like everybody around here I like to drive my truck. When gas prices zoomed 5 years ago I was having 'pump shock' when it was costing $140+ to fill my truck. I bought a Mazda Impreza - zero down, which is a beautiful car, and I paid for the payments with gas savings alone.

J Tiers
06-28-2012, 12:05 AM
Hmph....

I used to get 40+ mpg in an old leaded-gas carburetor-type gas car.... then later 35 mpg in a type and brand vehicle that by 15+ years ago was chopped down to 20 mpg presumably by anti-pollution gear.

If you get bad enough mileage, it can pay to step up.....

but once you start with decent mileage, the total even if you bought ZERO gas gets to be too small to pay for much... unless you drive a lot of miles.

if you drive 10,000 miles per year (a round number that is close to what I do), then

10 mpg 1000 gallons
15 mpg 667 gallons
20 mpg 500 gallons
25 mpg 400 gallons
50 mpg 200 gallons

I get about 25 in the truck on highway, averaging many fills.

To save enough to buy another vehicle..... if it got 50 mpg, it would take me 10 years to pay for a $10,000 vehicle with gas at $5, and I doubt I could buy that mileage for that money. That is taking NO account of the "time value of money".... which would cut the profit down a decent amount.

But if I drove a 10 mpg gas hog, I could pay for that same mythical $10,000 50 mpg car in 2.5 years using the same rules.

Faster payback with more miles per year, naturally. Or with crazy-high gas prices.

And of course, that is regarding it only as a passenger vehicle.... if the truck has a use AS a truck, a $10,000 50 mpg "egg car" is absolutely not going to be a substitute, and the discussion is of no value.

jkilroy
06-28-2012, 12:47 AM
I'll buy one, no make that two, tomorrow please!

A.K. Boomer
06-28-2012, 01:34 AM
Hmph....

I used to get 40+ mpg in an old leaded-gas carburetor-type gas car.... then later 35 mpg in a type and brand vehicle that by 15+ years ago was chopped down to 20 mpg presumably by anti-pollution gear.

If you get bad enough mileage, it can pay to step up.....

but once you start with decent mileage, the total even if you bought ZERO gas gets to be too small to pay for much... unless you drive a lot of miles.

if you drive 10,000 miles per year (a round number that is close to what I do), then

10 mpg 1000 gallons
15 mpg 667 gallons
20 mpg 500 gallons
25 mpg 400 gallons
50 mpg 200 gallons

I get about 25 in the truck on highway, averaging many fills.

To save enough to buy another vehicle..... if it got 50 mpg, it would take me 10 years to pay for a $10,000 vehicle with gas at $5, and I doubt I could buy that mileage for that money. That is taking NO account of the "time value of money".... which would cut the profit down a decent amount.



What you don't get is even if you "break even" your not breaking even -- there's far more to consider than just pocket book expenses --- like fossil fuels don't come back -- once u burn it it's gone baby, then there's the cold truth of supporting people that are trying to kill you with the money u give them.......

Arcane
06-28-2012, 03:26 AM
A very large percentage of oil that the USA imports comes from either friendly countries or countries that are simply doing business with the USA with no agenda either way. From ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html


September 2011 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2011
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in September 2011 has been released and it shows that three countries exported more than 1,000 thousand barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports in September while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for September were Canada (2,324 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,465 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,099 thousand barrels per day), Venezuela (759 thousand barrels per day) and Nigeria (529 thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Colombia (510 thousand barrels per day), Iraq (403 thousand barrels per day), Ecuador (299 thousand barrels per day), Angola (283 thousand barrels per day) and Russia (275 thousand barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9,006 thousand barrels per day in September, which is a decrease of (16) thousand barrels per day from August 2011.

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in September, exporting 2,829 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,637 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,479 thousand barrels per day.

John Stevenson
06-28-2012, 04:05 AM
One significant difference is that European air quality standards are much lower than those in the US. This in turn has a dramatic effect on the fuel mileage, especially diesels.

Case in point Ford sells a diesel hybrid Transit van in "the old country" that gets superb fuel mileage, but is too dirty to meet our emission standards.
That doesn't apply any more as over the last few years they have brought in Euro standards, the new Donald is Euro 4 and the next model will be Euro 5.
That was part of the decision to get the new Donald as the old one [ Euro -101 ] could not go into inner London without getting a daily fine of 100 I think it is.

Quite hard to get a truck of this size in non diesel mode, petrols are made but hardly any difference in price and with the worse mileage and poor resale value they are not worth it.

We used to have a basic Citroen ZX, no air con etc and they used to get a genuine 72 mpg on motorway work but it was only a small car.
Gerts new car, Fiat Doblo gets an average of 52 mpg

Apparently Chrysler are going to bring it into the US from a Mexico plant and redesign it :D

This is what it looks like at the moment in Europe and the UK.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0jeznD7CixY/TtgfPbhGVFI/AAAAAAAAAH4/1hhVmbsICF0/s1600/httpmoldservices.blogspot.com+Fiat+Ducato.jpg


This is what the US version looks like :eek:


http://www.allpar.com/photos/fiat/vans/ducato-ram.jpg

MrSleepy
06-28-2012, 06:03 AM
Hi JS


all I get is this...

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac180/MrSleepy123/allpar-3.jpg

The Artful Bodger
06-28-2012, 06:24 AM
I love those Boadicea front hubs with ten (count 'em) lug nuts!:D

Mark McGrath
06-28-2012, 06:29 AM
I love those Boadicea front hubs with ten (count 'em) lug nuts!:D

I only see five nuts and ten holes around the wheel.

J Tiers
06-28-2012, 08:07 AM
once u burn it it's gone baby, then there's the cold truth of supporting people that are trying to kill you with the money u give them.......

I was not aware that the Canadians felt like that about us.....

As for the others, burn theirs first..... sell ours later :rolleyes:

We have more oil here than you can possibly think of. But we'll never go get it, because it is underneath half the country, and isn't just stuff you can pump out.

That said.....

Ther really is nothing that substitutes. The energy density is SO high in typical liquid fuels that virtually nothing else can do what they do.

Electric car, maybe, with huge restrictions and costs, and very limited utility.

When there is serious consideration of an electric AIRPLANE.... that takes even 25 passengers plus cargo and flies even so short a distance as NY to Chicago..... THEN we'll talk about electric..... (No I am NOT talking about a glorified sailplane for one... that's an electric bicycle)

At the present rate, if we can't burn oil we pump, we'll have to MAKE oil to burn. Seriously.

Oh.... and don't make assumptions about what I or others "don't get"....... besides being silly and false, it is also offensive and insulting.

vpt
06-28-2012, 09:35 AM
My 7.3 excursion got 14.1mpg weighing in at 17,500# with trailer and everything loaded up. Pulling some nice grades over by the WV-OH boarder.

A.K. Boomer
06-28-2012, 09:38 AM
Good -- was just a long winded post and all about emphasis on the pocket book.

Like I stated - doesn't matter where you get it or where you think you get it - the stuff don't come back - and there's consequences for burning it, so there's something more to consider besides a silly ass cost effectiveness chart - that's all...

There's all kinds of costs for burning more - so like I stated even if you think your "breaking even" your not breaking even.

vpt
06-28-2012, 09:58 AM
I believe 100% water is the fuel of the future.

kendall
06-28-2012, 02:33 PM
Like I stated - doesn't matter where you get it or where you think you get it - the stuff don't come back - and there's consequences for burning it, so there's something more to consider besides a silly ass cost effectiveness chart - that's all...

There's all kinds of costs for burning more - so like I stated even if you think your "breaking even" your not breaking even.

Do a search for the Abiotic theory of oil production, it's a pretty fascinating subject.

sansbury
06-28-2012, 03:22 PM
Do a search for the Abiotic theory of oil production, it's a pretty fascinating subject.

The abiotic theory looks pretty discredited to me, but does it really matter either way? Here's what we know: we're still finding new sources of oil, but few of them are easy. The tar sands in some cases don't turn a profit until ~$100/bbl. That's why we weren't building huge projects there a decade or two ago.

I was a fan of the algae biofuel concept for a while but some analyses I saw made that look like a pipe dream. These were looking at things like the amount of energy/sq ft of sunlight and the area needed to capture energy equivalent to a gallon of gas.

Ultimately we won't see much serious change until prices double or triple. Then people will start asking about coal and nuclear, for better or worse.

Ries
06-28-2012, 04:08 PM
Euro 5 specification diesel engines do NOT meet USA emissions standards, so they are not legal to sell here.

So we cannot buy the van that John gets 43 IMPG in.

The US has different standards than europe- some are higher, some lower- we have lower C02 standards, I think, but higher Nox standards- but dont quote me on that- I just know that the tailpipe emissions of Euro diesels will not pass US tests without using Urea injection, or redesigning the whole engine.

Add to that the classic US bias against small vehicle and against low horsepower- for instance, the Mercedes/Dodge Sprinter van that was sold here in the States was only available with much bigger, more powerful, and more thirsty engines than the exact same vehicle was available with in Europe.

So, even if it looks the same on the outside, the US versions almost always have bigger engines and get worse mileage.

I believe currently, we can only get the Mercedes van with a 3 liter 6 cylinder, only with a 5 speed auto tranny, which get around 20mpg.
NO other choices of engine or transmission allowed.

In europe, you can get the same van with a 2 liter 4 cylinder, and a 5 speed manual. Both of which would improve mileage quite a bit.

Same thing with the little Ford Transit Connect-
Here we are offered the 2 liter Gas engine with 4 speed automatic- ONLY.
In europe, you can get a 1.6 liter Diesel, and a manual.
Again, we get the higher powered, lower mileage version, with no choice.

justanengineer
06-28-2012, 05:39 PM
I just know that the tailpipe emissions of Euro diesels will not pass US tests without using Urea injection, or redesigning the whole engine.


What 2012 light duty US diesel does not require DEF? Most do with one glaring exception I can think of. AFAIK, the baby Cummins in the small Dodges doesnt have a DEF currently, but only due to creative emission "banking" in years past. For 2013 I believe they are being forced to as the larger Dodge trucks were this year. Maybe there are more, but its been a long day and my brain is d-u-n.....dun.

Euro vs US emissions are different, but they are pretty darn close. IME, the differences on light duty engine regulations vary by locale here, while the Euro regs remain fairly consistent across the EU. Regardless, a discussion of generalizations of what types of vehicle, with what engines are or arent available in an area isnt really relevant. The types of vehicles and the specific options sold in an area by a manufacturer have little to do with emissions regulations and everything to do with marketing.

Now had anyone compared ours or the EU's regs to Asia, that would be another story...

Dr Stan
06-28-2012, 05:58 PM
Euro 5 specification diesel engines do NOT meet USA emissions standards, so they are not legal to sell here.

So we cannot buy the van that John gets 43 IMPG in.

The US has different standards than europe- some are higher, some lower- we have lower C02 standards, I think, but higher Nox standards- but dont quote me on that- I just know that the tailpipe emissions of Euro diesels will not pass US tests without using Urea injection, or redesigning the whole engine.


"Now had anyone compared ours or the EU's regs to Asia, that would be another story..."

Ries,

That too is my understanding. I have not been in Europe for 6 or 7 years, but the difference in air quality was quite noticeable, especially the heavy diesel fumes in the cities.

Justasnengineer,

As to the air quality in Asia, you're preaching to the choir. It has been much longer since I was in Asia, but I remember Manila and Yokosuka being especially bad even with the daily sea breezes. However, a friend of mine just returned from China last year and commented on the amount of pollution he experienced.

BTW, I own one of those "under powered" diesels, a Jetta turbo. Goes like a scalded cat and gets excellent fuel mileage.

rohart
06-28-2012, 06:00 PM
If Ries is right about US customers only being offered larger engines with auto transmission, then what's the point of the US setting the emissions standards as NOX ppm, or CO2 percentage ?

If they put a tax on the total emissions of NOX or CO2 per mile, that would result in some real changes - more efficient engines and transmissions, and smaller engines. If they put a tax on total emissions that you produce in a year, by using the mileage reading, it would be completely fair.

The UK has started to tax vehicles according to engine size. If they just put the tax on fuel, and cancelled all the other road taxes, they'd achieve some of what they wanted quite easily. Drive more miles - pay more tax. Have a bigger engine - pay more tax. All that's missing is an emissions tax, and I'm sure they could organise that.

The worst thing about what we call the Vehicle Excise Duty is that you're taxed the same amount whether you drive your car/truck once a month or yoiu pound the motorways every day.

I really don't think they guys that set the taxing schemes have any sensible ideas in their heads.

John Stevenson
06-28-2012, 06:12 PM
Ries, an interesting post and something I had not considered, just assuming they just had marketing changes and not whole engine driveline alterations.

Because of problems with the earlier pictures being hosted on other sites i have saved them to my files and reposted hem here.
for some reason i can't edit my original post, throws an error message up.

European van.

http://www.stevenson-engineers.co.uk/files/Fiat%20Ducato.jpg

This is what Chrysler aim on introducing ? :eek: ?

http://www.stevenson-engineers.co.uk/files/ducato-ram.jpg


Just like a boxer dog is the same as an Alsation but with no brakes :D

John Stevenson
06-28-2012, 06:15 PM
"Now had anyone compared ours or the EU's regs to Asia, that would be another story..."

Ries,

That too is my understanding. I have not been in Europe for 6 or 7 years, but the difference in air quality was quite noticeable, especially the heavy diesel fumes in the cities.



Flown into LA lately ? :rolleyes:

Ries
06-28-2012, 06:59 PM
What 2012 light duty US diesel does not require DEF?


As I understand it, some, but not all, of the Volkswagen passenger cars in the US have diesel engines without the DEF (urea injection).
the Mercedes and BMW and Audi diesels, which are the only other passenger car diesels sold in the USA, all have the DEF as far as I know.


It is absolutely true that we do not get the smaller diesel engines in any european imported delivery vehicles, like the Benz Sprinter or Ford Transit Connect.

We do get diesel engines in many of the japanese small delivery trucks, but mostly in 3 liter and larger sizes.

And over 95% of all cars, and a very large percentage of trucks, especially small and medium sized ones, have automatic transmissions here. However, many of the modern autos get better mileage than manual transmissions.
Especially the new 5,6,7, and even 8 speed automatics in cars.
But I know that many dump trucks, and other large trucks sold here these days have automatics as well, as current large truck automatics are lasting much longer and more reliable.
For instance, Volvo has been selling 12 speed automatics in large trucks here since 2006, in large numbers. Kenworth has been putting slushboxes in full size semis since 2008.

So the automatic thing is a separate issue from diesel availability, and not always directly tied to fuel economy.

When comparing the USA to the UK, though, you have to remember that americans expect to drive much longer distances, at higher average speeds, and therefore demand bigger engines. A long haul truck driver here will often drive the equivalent distance as from London to Istanbul, every week, at 70mph, and over mountain passes as high as 5000 feet. They want, and demand, much more horsepower than the UK equivalents. Even local delivery trucks here are usually 1 1/2 to 2 times the horsepower as in the UK.

Now part of this, definitely, is our taxation system- our truck registration taxes are much less, and most of the tax load on a truck is thru fuel taxes, which are also a very small amount of what you pay in the UK. The government here doesnt use taxation on trucks much as a method to either lower pollution or lower fuel usage, or as a revenue source. At least, hardly at all compared to all the european countries.

Ries
06-28-2012, 07:04 PM
Flown into LA lately ? :rolleyes:


I flew into LA in march. It was pretty clear. Of course, I lived there for ten years, from 84 to 94, so I have seen it when it was worse- but even then, LA was a LOT clearer than it was in the sixties and seventies.

LA has very strict laws about all kinds of emissions, from barbecues to commercial paint shops, and it definitely has had a very large effect on the air quality and the smog.
There still is smog in LA, but its much much better than it used to be.
You cant cram 4 million people into a natural bowl, with a natural inversion layer, without some smog. I hear that when the white man first arrived, there was a layer of smog from native fires.
But the weather and the economy makes up for it- people go to LA to make money with their shirtsleeves rolled up, not to breathe. They hold their breath til they get rich, then retire elsewhere...

J Tiers
06-28-2012, 08:12 PM
China stank the last time I was there..... which was now quite some time ago..... stank of crap, solvents, and cleaners. At least EVERY river I got near to did. So did much of Taiwan.

Nearly every diesel is a dirty stinking mess.... or has been, and in europe they stank just as bad when I was there last, which was a while back.

Most gas vehicles in the US are now quite clean, with a faint strange slightly "clorox" bleach smell to the exhaust. Much like a high efficiency furnace. Being behind an older one is extremely noticeable.... you smell gas, and other old-time exhaust products.



There's all kinds of costs for burning more - so like I stated even if you think your "breaking even" your not breaking even.

In a perfect world, the "pocketbook" would be a very GOOD argument...... because the cost would be accounted into the prices, and people could make decisions based on them, instead of listening to treehuggers wanting most people to die, and the rest to live in tents, or the 'drill baby drill" folks.

However, YOU have forgotten a HUGE cost...... The energy content of the vehicle itself. The TOTALITY of all the energy used to make it.... transport of materials, energy to smelt, refine, and process the ton or so of steel and other materials used in it. Transport of fuels, mining, transport and conversion of the materials used to MAKE the transport means and the factories used to produce the new car.

There is a serious question whether more energy is consumed BY the vehicle, or whether more is consumed by MAKING the vehicle, when all is considered.

If I HAVE a vehicle, that is sunk cost..... driving it now costs ONLY the fuels cost (with your "fuzzy cloud of extra costs"). Can making a whole new vehicle, one which won't last as long as the old one, possibly be better in savings than driving the old one longer?

That depends on, you guessed it, COSTS........... which in a perfect world would truly represent........ blah...blah..... Costs you don't know and in many cases cannot quantify anyhow.

While you obviously have a point, besides the one between your furry ears :eek: ;) the problem is that there IS no way to figure those costs.

We know they are there, and people with various agendas have come up with more-or-less biased accountings purporting to (but obviously failing to) take everything into consideration. But there has been a notable failure to do a "real" , supportable, fair accounting that everyone would be forced by reasoning (not by law, or teabag style "agree or we kill you" pressure) to accept.

Probably there IS no way to do it.... because it requires putting price tags on things that people don't like to price, like your freedom to live and work more-or-less as you please, or even your freedom to live at all.

I suggest YOU do a full accounting, with reasoning, footnotes, data to back it up, and without an "agenda" that the results must fit into. You might find it hard to do.

Whining about "unaccounted for costs" is just that unless and until you can quantify them.

Suggesting dire consequences is no help unless and until you can prove a couple things..... first that they are truly and actually going to happen, AND second, that you can suggest alternatives with results which are PROVEN to be less bad, not bad, or actually good.

Failing that, you are just speculating with no proof, no matter how informed you may think your speculations are.

The fact that the proof is not available until the events have happened, if they do, is not part of the discussion.... That point can be argued equally well either way, by either "side" in the argument.

danlb
06-28-2012, 08:26 PM
Drove through LA last week. It was so much better than it was when I was young. On one trip when my kids were young you could barely see the highway signs 1/2 mile away. On most visits, the coastal mountain ranges were all but invisible. Last week the visibility was many miles. Come to think of it, most trips in the last 10 years had decent visibility.

I've spent the last 5 years commuting to Silicon Valley. It's also much better than it used to be. I only recall a few days in recent years when I could not see the mountains on both sides of the valley at noon on a sunny day.

Subjectively, I'd say that the pollution controls are working.

Dan

Dr Stan
06-28-2012, 08:38 PM
Flown into LA lately ? :rolleyes:

The last time I was in California was 16 August 1977, my EOS (end of obligated service) date, AKA discharge date. A year and a half before that I was onboard the USS Coral Sea CVA-43 while it was in dry dock in Long Beach, CA. One morning during quarters we were assembled on the flight deck and it started to "rain" except it was not wet. Turned out to be cinders from a forest fire just outside the city. :(

I grew up in northern Ohio which also had a lot of pollution problems. I remember going to Lorain and Youngstown OH and seeing an orange hemisphere on the horizon as we approached. In both cases it was pollution from the steel mills. One also did not buy a white/light car if you lived or worked in either city nor did you hang out the laundry to dry.

I also remember when the Cuyahoga River, which runs through downtown Cleveland, caught on fire and set a RR bridge on fire. It was polluted from all the refineries and petrochemical plants that lined the river.

Doozer
06-28-2012, 09:07 PM
When is someone going to build an engine that reclaims the heat that is wasted out the exhaust and out the radiator to make the engine more efficient?
Anyone want to turn the exhaust manifold into a water boiler?
Use the cooling system water as a pre-heater, and configure a steam engine in a couple cylinders to put the heat/steam energy to the crankshaft.
Any one use an exhaust turbine to power a gear reduction box, and then return power back to the driveline? I know some airplanes use compounding.

--Doozer

J Tiers
06-28-2012, 09:18 PM
Anyone want to turn the exhaust manifold into a water boiler?


You CAN"T do it, it is essentially illegal.

if you cool the combustion products too much, which a boiler on the manifold would do, the catalytic converter cannot work, and you will allow the NOx etc to go up. You will then produce an illegal amount of pollution.

I'm telling you, the solution to pollution is NOT to burn ever more gas to burn the pollution up....

Adding the 'cat" to diesels is expected to reduce mileage at least 10%. :rolleyes:

Dr Stan
06-28-2012, 09:41 PM
When is someone going to build an engine that reclaims the heat that is wasted out the exhaust and out the radiator to make the engine more efficient?

It is my understanding efforts have been made to produce a ceramic engine that would run hotter than h#ll and not require water cooling, thus reducing waste heat The fuel mileage should be quite high, but I do not know how it would do in regard to pollution reduction. I did read quite some time ago that prototypes have been produced and tested. I'm certain production costs would be much higher than traditional cast iron or aluminum engines, at least in the beginning as with all new technologies.

J Tiers
06-28-2012, 10:20 PM
It is my understanding efforts have been made to produce a ceramic engine that would run hotter than h#ll and not require water cooling, thus reducing waste heat The fuel mileage should be quite high, but I do not know how it would do in regard to pollution reduction. I did read quite some time ago that prototypes have been produced and tested. I'm certain production costs would be much higher than traditional cast iron or aluminum engines, at least in the beginning as with all new technologies.

Higher combustion temps can be FAR more efficient..... They also produce much more NOx..... which means they TOO are illegal.

To a large extent, efficiency comes with more pollution, and the cures seem always to dramatically cut efficiency. Mileage improvements which are actually made are a testament to the rooting out of "excess" weight, as well as basic creativity in engineering, and the fact that ther were other inefficiencies which could be improved.

Doozer
06-28-2012, 10:20 PM
Jerry-
Put the ceramic catylist INSIDE the boiler.
The catolytic converter runs hotter than the actual exhaust gas from the reaction that takes place.
Sound good?


--Doozer

Dr Stan
06-28-2012, 11:40 PM
Higher combustion temps can be FAR more efficient..... They also produce much more NOx..... which means they TOO are illegal.

To a large extent, efficiency comes with more pollution, and the cures seem always to dramatically cut efficiency. Mileage improvements which are actually made are a testament to the rooting out of "excess" weight, as well as basic creativity in engineering, and the fact that ther were other inefficiencies which could be improved.

Thanks for the explanation. I had wondered what happened to the ceramic ICE. Yes removing a lot of excess weight such as using lost foam casting for the engine block, head, intake & exhaust manifolds, and tranny case has helped a lot. Remember pulling a big old 4 speed tranny out of a 70's pick up? :eek:

J Tiers
06-29-2012, 12:02 AM
Jerry-
Put the ceramic catylist INSIDE the boiler.
The catolytic converter runs hotter than the actual exhaust gas from the reaction that takes place.
Sound good?


--Doozer

needs the hot gas to start.... needs to be hot to work. But I believe there needs to be "some" distance, as the hot gases are "too hot"..... for the cat AND the boiler The problems of trying to keep it all optimized by extracting "just enough" heat to provide optimal cat input AND trying to produce power with the steam, etc may be ridiculous.....

Put the boiler AFTER the cat....

mike4
06-29-2012, 07:12 AM
I often wonder about all of the people who proudly boast about how little fuel their vehicles use for a short trip , eg 100 kilometres or so .

Some of us are just happy to get to the job and back without having to buy fuel , average round trip 1000 kilmetres in a day at any where from 11.9 to 14.0 litres per 100 kilometres.

While the heavy rigs use about a litre per kilometre empty.

Until fuel is too expensive to buy I will keep working and driving .Thats around 100,000 kilometres a year.

Fuel costs are part of doing business , I like to save it where possible but not always practical.

Michael

Willy
06-29-2012, 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by Ries
But I know that many dump trucks, and other large trucks sold here these days have automatics as well, as current large truck automatics are lasting much longer and more reliable.
For instance, Volvo has been selling 12 speed automatics in large trucks here since 2006, in large numbers. Kenworth has been putting slushboxes in full size semis since 2008.




These transmissions are not actually automatics as most people perceive automatic transmissions, and certainly not slushboxes by any stretch of the imagination.
They are usually referred to as AMTs, or automated manual transmissions.
These transmissions are microprocessor controlled manual transmissions that use a conventional clutch system and do not employ the use of a torque converter.
In addition to Volvo, Mercedes Benz and Mack, Eaton also has been producing AMTs since the early 2000s. They have all become very sophisticated lately with much better communication between vehicle and engine ECMs.
The only exception in this market is the Allison automatic transmission, which being a conventional automatic transmission, does not enjoy the fuel saving feature of the manual transmissions or AMTs.




Originally Posted by Doozer
Any one use an exhaust turbine to power a gear reduction box, and then return power back to the driveline? I know some airplanes use compounding.



The new Detroit Diesel 15 ad 16 liter engines both use a compound turbo generating up to 50 HP that is directly linked to the engine's flywheel.
A nice bonus for a 500 HP engine.

Ries
06-29-2012, 05:55 PM
I was just using "slushbox" as slang for an automatic, as opposed to manual, transmission.
So if there is some precise definition, I am sorry if I abused the word.

But what you are describing in trucks- hybrids between traditional automatics, and traditional manual transmissions- are more and more common in passenger cars as well.

The new Mazda 6 speed automatic, for example, only uses the torque converter at speeds under 5mph- above that, it is using multiplate wet clutches.

The later model Mercedes passenger cars also have 7 speed automatics, and the performance models come without torque converters, instead having computer controlled multiple wet clutches, which even double clutch automatically.

Automatics have come a long way from my old 50's plymouth, which had a 2 speed automatic, shiftable by a minature chrome stick shift on the dash board.

John Stevenson
06-29-2012, 06:02 PM
The later model Mercedes passenger cars also have 7 speed automatics, and the performance models come without torque converters, instead having computer controlled multiple wet clutches, which even double clutch automatically.

Automatics have come a long way from my old 50's plymouth, which had a 2 speed automatic, shiftable by a minature chrome stick shift on the dash board.

That truck Iposted with the Hiab on doing the dangerous { TM } lift was a Merc.

As the driver set up I noticed it was auto and asked him if he liked it.
He reckons it great especially in traffic but the box is also linked to the load sensing valves and in our case only having these two machines on it set off in third and wouldn't go any lower.

That also makes a big different to fuel consumption and he reckons running part loaded it will do 13 to the gallon, full 28 tonnes and he's back down to 9 - 10