OBII Smarter than us?

[racprops]

"Yes I wasn't saying it wasn't banned becuse it out run them all, I'm saying after it was banned the pottential reward to recoupe money on turbines was low since you couldn't prove it with racing"

The facts are: Until it dropped out of the race due to a small part failure it was out running and out driving all the other cars. The next year they ruled that the air intake had to be restricted to more or less kill it as a competing car.

IF they, other car owners and engine makers had not done this THEN THE TURBINE would have started wining race after race and as you say win on Sunday and sell on Monday…


"and if you tried to sell a car with a turbine people would remember that it broke down twice at indy. Those who do not follow indy rules may assume that they don't race it because it was unreliable and thus not want to put money down and buy one them selves."

Again if they were allowed to race and improve the motor and car like all the rest of the cars that would be a different story.


And your last point proves how environmental laws and regulations can be good to give you something you want, better parts that last long. However you bit** and complain that the same environmental rules and regulations don't let you have pollotion causing diesel.....

Funny but I don’t love Diesels..they are costly to maintain…I have just been trying to say better MPG is being withheld.

That other systems could give fantastic MPG, but for the powers that be.



1967 INDY Gas Turbine Car — Turbine Cowboy

"1967 INDY Gas Turbine Car
Document Actions

Send this page to somebody
Print this page

This 1967 Studebaker STP Special was built by Andy Granatelli. The side engine racer was driven by Parnelli Jones. In the 200 mile race (500 miles) at The Brickyard, Car #40 lead 171 laps. On the 197th lap, it suffered a gear box failure ($6.00 part) and eventually finished sixth. What might have been the impact on automobiles had the gas turbine-driven car actually won the race? You can see the racer in the museum in Indianapolis. The next year, "the powers that be" changed the rules to make the use of the gas turbine untenable in INDY car racing. "

Rich

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by racprops

[B]Come on everyone know Natural Gas has less power that Gasoline, I believe it is something like 60% of the bang of gasoline…

Pound for pound, the only way you can compare both, CNG has MORE power than gasoline.

[racprops]

Here we go with EPA and Global Warming...smog and pollution warnings...

OK Here is a little forgotten bit of History, the Summer(s) that didn't happen:

Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A small Volcano puts out more gasses and junk than we have our total time on this planet.

I remember one like this cased by a Volcano in Alaska causing a summer that did not happen around 1900 and that there were lots of deaths due to the ash from it here in the north western part of the country... this was on the Science or History channel a couple of years ago.

Global Warming, good news: WE are not causing it...

BAD news: WE are not causing it.

Bad news? Well if we are not causing it, then we cannot fix it either.

Rich

Originally Posted by euromodder

Not that common.
Definitely not in passenger cars.
Diesel was for trucks - the real kind, not pick-ups.
At least in Belgium, diesel was less taxed than petrol as it was for "work" trucks. It's still taxed less than petrol.

The Golf GTD changed everything for diesel cars.
VW had put out a diesel that actually drove OK, rather than it being a lethargic, moving roadblock.



One day you might thank your politicians for it.
They may well have made the best decision, even if it was for all the wrong reasons.

The effects of diesel particulate matter on people's health is being investigated more thoroughly these days, and the outcome isn't exactly good.
It's downright bad, and alarming.
Those so-called clean diesels, are actually the very worst of the flock.
Their small particulate matter goes straight into the deepest crevasses of your lungs, then into your blood, and narrows your veins raising blood pressure.
Even in young, healthy people.

These aren't even long-term effects, it's happening almost instantly.
To the point that the time spent in traffic when going to the test location had an effect on the test values ...


You're still seeing 50+ mpg
On the other end of the Atlantic, we're seeing severe health issues ...

[minispeed]

Originally Posted by racprops

"Yes I wasn't saying it wasn't banned becuse it out run them all, I'm saying after it was banned the pottential reward to recoupe money on turbines was low since you couldn't prove it with racing"

The facts are: Until it dropped out of the race due to a small part failure it was out running and out driving all the other cars. The next year they ruled that the air intake had to be restricted to more or less kill it as a competing car.

IF they, other car owners and engine makers had not done this THEN THE TURBINE would have started wining race after race and as you say win on Sunday and sell on Monday…


"and if you tried to sell a car with a turbine people would remember that it broke down twice at indy. Those who do not follow indy rules may assume that they don't race it because it was unreliable and thus not want to put money down and buy one them selves."

Again if they were allowed to race and improve the motor and car like all the rest of the cars that would be a different story.


And your last point proves how environmental laws and regulations can be good to give you something you want, better parts that last long. However you bit** and complain that the same environmental rules and regulations don't let you have pollotion causing diesel.....

Funny but I don’t love Diesels..they are costly to maintain…I have just been trying to say better MPG is being withheld.

That other systems could give fantastic MPG, but for the powers that be.



1967 INDY Gas Turbine Car — Turbine Cowboy

"1967 INDY Gas Turbine Car
Document Actions

Send this page to somebody
Print this page

This 1967 Studebaker STP Special was built by Andy Granatelli. The side engine racer was driven by Parnelli Jones. In the 200 mile race (500 miles) at The Brickyard, Car #40 lead 171 laps. On the 197th lap, it suffered a gear box failure ($6.00 part) and eventually finished sixth. What might have been the impact on automobiles had the gas turbine-driven car actually won the race? You can see the racer in the museum in Indianapolis. The next year, "the powers that be" changed the rules to make the use of the gas turbine untenable in INDY car racing. "

Rich

Thank you! Your arguments to my point prove my point!!!

[racprops]

Silly wrong is right right is wrong...

I proved MY POINTS.

Rich

[minispeed]

Originally Posted by racprops

Look back at history, like the Chrysler Turbine Car, noted was how it would run on any burnable fuel BUT it main problem was it lack of service needed and its projected million miles life.

This was your point, "main problem it lack of service needed and its projected million miles life". Then you switched to agreeing that they never developed it commercially in cars because of it being banned in racing, which is my point.

Your other point is better MPG is being withheld, and I said it is because of EPA rules which are a good thing. That's my point. Then you proved my point by saying it was a good thing because the EPA forced things like no points or distributers requiring regular expensive tune ups and 100,000mile spark plugs.

[racprops]

I have better things to do than fuss with you.

The Turbine was better and longer lasting..so it was killed off.

Pressure was brought to bear on Chrysler to kill it.

When Andy tried proving it by racing it again they kill it off.

Done.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by minispeed

So you want someone to step up and sell new cars, with new car engineering costs, to your specification, to new car buyers who don't want that product and then they can drive it and depreciate the value to the point that you are willing to pay them less for what you want and they never wanted in the first place?

They developed our tastes to suite what was most profitable for them to make, our government over the years has done many things to promote poor vehicle choices as well, including misstated and erroneous information on crash worthiness and tax and emissions exceptions on large trucks to single occupant drivers along with gas tax, supply & price manipulation being a few examples.

Originally Posted by minispeed

If you are identifying yourself as being excluded from the car buying public then don't complain that the car makers don't listen to what you want. You haven't had your "choice" removed because your "choice" has been to choose to take the left overs for cheap prices instead of being listened to.

I bought a 50mpg 2010 cobalt XFE off the lot new and am considering a volt depending on whether or not I can upgrade one of my existing EVs appropriately and of coarse the status of the "used" market or in this case the $22.5k new 2013 volt.

Currently I would like to unload my cobalt, keep the G1 insight and unload one of my antiques.

I can certainly afford to be in the car buying public but view new car purchases as rather wastefull. I usually only make those purchases on a utility VRS cost to own, the leaf/volt are one of the few situations where I might break from that attitude.

But alas, neither the volt or the leaf are really what I want, they are good cars but an EV1 like vehicle or XL1 like vehicle would be something I would be much more likely to buy on emotion and thus ignore the cost/benefit.

(realistically the volt would need to be able to carry extra cargo and payload to justify their extra size over other equally cheap to run vehicles I have. It also needs better FE and a different powerplant. Though I would guess the volts hatch and seat arrangement could be modded by me to be used for many purposes, I am sad my cobalt isn't setup like the volt with an open layout)

Originally Posted by minispeed

And they have listend to us, go buy a leaf or a tesla. They are way more efficient than any gas burning car. If you still need gas you have the volt or ford energi. They provide the product we want that will blow any of our cars, my insight included, out of the water for efficency, you just have to be willing to pay the cost it took them to develp the car.

They are slowly coming along, but much progress is still there to be made.

Also they are not necessarily cheaper to own than my 70-80mpg insight considering the up front cost. I also doubt they are more efficient than my c-car or my fathers Miles Zx40.

I always want more, only natural, sadly my only outlet would be non-production vehicles.

Originally Posted by minispeed

Your other point is better MPG is being withheld, and I said it is because of EPA rules which are a good thing. That's my point. Then you proved my point by saying it was a good thing because the EPA forced things like no points or distributers requiring regular expensive tune ups and 100,000mile spark plugs.

EPA rules are good and bad, if the rules disallow a car that gets 100mpg and forces you to get 65mpg because of NOx an exception should be made. Common sense needs to be injected into the emissions rules, right now many are just silly. The best way of reducing pollution is to burn less fuel, the volume of pollution emitted is most affected by how much you burn, not how clean it is.

That is why I would support weight based emissions requirements on cars that get beyond the normal 50mpg or whatever is reasonable. So if I make 25gr of Nox Per mile, that is my emissions, not this ridiculous percentage crap.

[racprops]

Just when I am giving up on this thread and site along comes a good guy.

I would add that the year long testing of the Chrysler Turbine Car proved it was ready for prime time.

The Turbine racing car also proved them ready for the big time.

The ONLY way the powers that be could win was cheating.

Rich

Originally Posted by rmay635703

They developed our tastes to suite what was most profitable for them to make, our government over the years has done many things to promote poor vehicle choices as well, including misstated and erroneous information on crash worthiness and tax and emissions exceptions on large trucks to single occupant drivers along with gas tax, supply & price manipulation being a few examples.



I bought a 50mpg 2010 cobalt XFE off the lot new and am considering a volt depending on whether or not I can upgrade one of my existing EVs appropriately and of coarse the status of the "used" market or in this case the $22.5k new 2013 volt.

Currently I would like to unload my cobalt, keep the G1 insight and unload one of my antiques.

I can certainly afford to be in the car buying public but view new car purchases as rather wastefull. I usually only make those purchases on a utility VRS cost to own, the leaf/volt are one of the few situations where I might break from that attitude.

But alas, neither the volt or the leaf are really what I want, they are good cars but an EV1 like vehicle or XL1 like vehicle would be something I would be much more likely to buy on emotion and thus ignore the cost/benefit.

(realistically the volt would need to be able to carry extra cargo and payload to justify their extra size over other equally cheap to run vehicles I have. It also needs better FE and a different powerplant. Though I would guess the volts hatch and seat arrangement could be modded by me to be used for many purposes, I am sad my cobalt isn't setup like the volt with an open layout)



They are slowly coming along, but much progress is still there to be made.

Also they are not necessarily cheaper to own than my 70-80mpg insight considering the up front cost. I also doubt they are more efficient than my c-car or my fathers Miles Zx40.

I always want more, only natural, sadly my only outlet would be non-production vehicles.



EPA rules are good and bad, if the rules disallow a car that gets 100mpg and forces you to get 65mpg because of NOx an exception should be made. Common sense needs to be injected into the emissions rules, right now many are just silly. The best way of reducing pollution is to burn less fuel, the volume of pollution emitted is most affected by how much you burn, not how clean it is.

That is why I would support weight based emissions requirements on cars that get beyond the normal 50mpg or whatever is reasonable. So if I make 25gr of Nox Per mile, that is my emissions, not this ridiculous percentage crap.

[ChazInMT]

Racprops....if the engine is 98% efficient at burning gasoline, pray tell, how does converting it to vapor and burning it just the same improve things?

Burned is burned, same amount of oxygen, same amount of carbon, same amount of hydrogen, same engine wasting 70% of the heat energy.

Where does vaporizing the gas early help? How do you inject that? Or do we go back to carburation as a means of fuel introduction? How do you not blow yerself up?

You come across as trying to be a learned fellow, yet, somehow basic concepts in chemistry and thermodynamics seem to be no reason in your mind to spoil a crazy idea.