View Single Post
Old 05-03-2008, 04:15 PM   #110 (permalink)
LostCause
Liberti
 
LostCause's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 504

Thunderbird - '96 Ford Thunderbird
90 day: 27.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Re: supercapacitors

Has this ever been done?
On electric cars, yes. There is no reason the technology could not transfer over.

Quote:
Re: VW trans oil

How does it compare to ATF?
It's been awhile since I've researched this stuff so I've forgotten quite a bit, but I believe ATF is slightly less viscous. People have run ATF as an MTF, but I don't believe it offers the protection of an approved MTF. The VW MTF is approved for use in standard VW's and conforms to industry protection ratings.

Quote:
Re: Skirts AND belly pan

...at any rate, the lowest drag vehicles tested, such at the Probes, EV1, etc., only have pans, no skirts. Skirts basically work in conjunction with air dams. Air dams and skirts function to wall off the underside from air flow, rendering pans moot.
I am talking about skirts and a belly pan. I've only seen skirts applied to race cars for use in creating a venturi. Lowering the lift on a vehicle will decrease induced drag. The race car field refers to side skirts and belly pans as "catamarans." An air dam + side skirts + belly plan is referred to as a "vacuum cleaner." They operate on two different principles to generate downforce. An air dam + side skirt is something of its own.

Quote:
Re: HID lights

Firstly, I don't even know what the operating wattage of HID systems is, but assuming it's 45 or 55 vs. 65 for incandescent, I don't even need to work out the equations to know that that $300-$500 technology won't pay off re: fe increases in this lifetime.

And, I never said anything about 10 watt headlights.
The cost will depend on your thrift. You can probably score HID's (lights, ballast, igniter, etc.) on ebay for $150 or less. HID's pull 35W, producing more lumens at that rating then a 65W halogen. Theoretically, you could derate the HID's without losing performance. While their own energy savings make them worthless, if it allows you to run alternator-less then you can save big.

Also, I'm not sure what the original poster's motivation focused on: fuel economy or thriftness. If it is solely fuel economy, HID's are the way to go.

Quote:
Re: Double-clutching

I think most manual trannys are stout enough to last the life of most cars (I know that Metro synchros are kinda puny though). All that double-clutching might wear out clutch components earlier though! LOL

Who here has double-clutched? I have, and it's annoying to do especially if you don't HAVE to do it. If you think it's main value is on decel, the simple solution is to not use engine braking- for most of us engine braking is not in the hypermiling repertoire anyway.

I know you didn't hold out the "T" as THE example, but they have planetary transmissions- no clutching or hand shifting.
It's your choice how involved you want to get into the sport. If double-clutching is a PIA, don't do it.

While down-shifting is looked poorly upon, on the blue moon that it is done, double-clutching can lower clutch wear. Double-clutching shouldn't wear out the transmission. If your worried about linkages wearing out, apply some grease. By matching input and output speeds, clutch and synchro wear will be reduced: less slippage = less wear.

The lifetime of the transmission is completely arbitrary. If you baby it constantly, you could probably see 1,000,000 miles. It's your choice as to the "lifetime" of your transmission, but realize it isn't capped at 150,000 miles.

Quote:
I'm trying to imagine the situation where using the starter to turn over an engine that isn't intended to run AND propel the car at the same time 1: saves energy; 2: makes sense. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to crank engines. Also starter gears and drives are not made for that kind of loading.
Lets say you have to move 30 feet, as I see it you have three options: start the engine for a 3 second use, blip the starter, or get out and push.

I can't imagine turning on the engine for three seconds will save you any gas over the idle times you are likely to see in the real world. This will also require the tremendous amounts of energy of using the starter anyways.

You can get out and push...

You can blip the starter momentarily to give the car enough momentum to roll 30 feet. I can't imagine this putting much more load on the starter, especially if the car is already modified to heavily reduce its RR. In any case, starters can be rebuilt or had cheap by going to the junkyard. You're screwed about the energy loss anyways, so that isn't an issue.

This may not be the best option for thriftness, but it would help ultimate fuel economy. Suit the methods to your application.

In any case, my goal was to think outside of the box. If anyone really wants to save money, buy an econobox, change your driving habits, and use your car as little as possible. As far as a mental design exercise goes, I don't think contemplating the extreme is pointless...

- LostCause

Last edited by LostCause; 05-03-2008 at 04:26 PM..
  Reply With Quote