What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
100 Comments
- captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34It's the number of diggs divided by the square of the bitching.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11 Octane is related to the compression ratio of an engine. Using a higher octane gasoline fuel doesn't mean it has more power or you get more power out of it, all it means is an engine with high compression needs it so the fuel won't explode, it has to be ignited by a spark plug and burn not explode (pre-ignition). Putting high octane fuel into an engine that doesn't need it just means you'll get worse fuel economy.
- chatwithaninja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So, basically some researchers found out what drag racers have known for decades - higher octane fuels let you get more power out of smaller forced induction engines - Good job guys. Next please figure out how to make an oven that heats with waves... micro-waves...
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7My next car will run on dilithium crystals.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7 I don't understand why they don't build diesel-electric hybrid cars! Is it because diesel is so rare or despised in the US?
A diesel is, roughly, twice as efficient as a gasoline engine and has more torque. They're far cleaner than they used to be, you can't even see the exhaust on a modern high efficient diesel vehicle. You also have the option of using biodiesel. - bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah I'm kinda weirded out by the complete lack of diesel in the states. "Lets just build bigger engines for straight roads, and make cars that corner like a straightrule." Sorry I'm not flaming, It just seems odd to me that there is such a wide variety of engine setups in Europe and Asia. Particularly when their are Jap cars out there with 2 litre engines outperforming 6 litre muscle cars. Cars that are glued to the road instead of screeching around corners.
I'm so getting a turbo-diesel engine. The VW 1.9TDI costs about as much to run as a 1 litre, 8v 4 cyl petrol with a hell of a lot more torque and better acceleration. - jasoneisen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yay! Another buzzword!
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why does this have to be "better than hybrids"? Why can't this be "A new engine for Hybrids"? It would make absolute sense to pair this more effecient engine with a hybrid system to extract absolutely as much power from the gasoline/ethanol blend as possible, and this engine paired with regenerative braking and light car manufacturing technology and you have a very fuel effecient car.
- milkfilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+62.0 buzzword. No digg.
- Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's an urban myth about hybrid car batteries.. Taxi's made out of hybrids have had more than 250,000 miles on them with no problems.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@dhughes:
You're absolutely right. I have two cars, a 2003 Accord v6 Coupe and a 1992 Toyota Camry. The Camry, when fueled with normal, cheap unleaded, gets about 30mpg. When filled with 93 or higher octane gas, it gets about 25-28mpg (combined city and highway mileage daily).
The Accord, otoh, requires higher octane gas and will run better with it. It can tolerate lower octane gas but seems reluctant to kick in Vtec.
The safest thing for anyone to do when wondering about octane ratings for fuel is to look in their owner's handbook that came with the car. The manufacturer will tell you what octane of gas your car runs best with. - leviat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Actually you're the dumbass that didn't read the article:
"Compared with gasoline, _ethanol_ has higher octane, a rating of how much a fuel can be compressed before it combusts spontaneously, that is, before it causes knocking. The injected ethanol also cools the mixture, so it effectively increases the octane rating of the fuel mix to about 130 -- as good as high-performance racing fuels" - Frost9999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why wrong article? If you read it, the article says that gasoline combustion engine power has been increased by 250% by injecting ethanol into the mix and using a really powerful turbo. Ethanol is very relevant to this article.
- nkzamboni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hmmm, an engine that uses special fuel, has more than double the compression ratio of gasoline, and can often be paired with a turbocharger for greater efficiency. This sounds familiar...oh yeah, diesels already use this. I'm all for new technology and such, but it sounds to me like this has already been done. And it doesn't need to be done again using a complicated dual-fuel (gas and ethanol) system (one fuel of which isn't available readily).
The hybrid I want to see is one that has no powertrain; a small, efficient diesel drives a generator, and has electric motors at all four wheels. This could be simple (no transmission, diffs, driveshafts) provide great features (4wd without the weight of a transfer case) and cheap. Hybrids need to stop catering to a few snobby holier-than-thou tree huggers and start giving genuine performance at a lower cost than simple, small econo-cars. Some of us don't use our cars to show off; we're called commuters and we just want a small car that lasts, is affordable to buy AND TO REPAIR, and gets decent mileage. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Big deal, they discovered that you can use turbos to increase fuel economy, and alcohol to prevent predetonation.
Welcome to 20 years ago?
Seriously, I just came up with this great idea for a new engine. I'm going to call it the "Internal Combustion Engine". Anyone interested in investing? - chazcross, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Valleye
I think you dont understand how turbos work and there effect on an engine.
"Every time you start the gas engine you would have to spool up the turbo and that pulls efficiency until the turbo actually kicks in."
BTW the design they were talking about is not electric.
A turbo that is not producing any boost only has a slightly negative effect on the engine, nothing that is gonna matter. Based on the design, im gonna assume this would have a small turbo and generate its max pressure at a low 2,500 RPMS and then become a bottle neack at around 5,000 to 5,500 rpms.
Even cruising on a road that turbo is still spooled, although its not producing any boost, but the second you accelarate its instanly producing boost again.
For some reason your comment reminds me of something the ricer crowd would say. - thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3what's the curb weight of a VW Golf?
And btw - if you had a TDI you would be pushing 50mpg - kowgod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The curb weight is something real low, like 2800lbs or something. I don't know it off the top of my head and can't run out to my car right now.
As for the TDI, yep, I tried and tried to get one. At the time I was buying (2001-2002), there was a waiting list for them. I got on the list, but my current car at the time started to die, so I wound up going with the 1.8 as a good alternative.
Assuming low sulfur diesel actually makes it down the pipe when I'm looking in years to come, I will consider a TDI even more, as the VW engines which can utilize low sulfur diesel will get will get 50+ mpg! - jgstew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A hybrid drive train would benefit from having a more efficient engine, making the whole system even more efficient. As for the turbo lag, the electric engine would provide immediate boost in the lower rpms, with the turbo helping more at the higher rpms. A supercharger could be another alternative/addition. The biggest problem is the cost/benefit of adding efficiency through technologies.
- JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, why is there no diesel hybrid ?!?
The diesel Yaris in Europe gets better mileage than the Prius, at half the cost.
I'm sure there are reasons why this doesn't exist yet. Cost is probably the big one.
I don't want a car, but I'd get a diesel hybrid Yaris.... Maybe 1-2L/100km? - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There isn't an electric assist in this engine. It's a regular (while small) old gas engine with a turbo attched. It also has an injector system to add small amounts of ethanol to the chamber to up the octane of the fuel mix when needed. This prevents knock at high pressure levels, which lets you make more HP without sending the connecting rods through your cars hood.
I feel like Bill Lumberg... did you get that article? Yaaaaa... you see it's just that we're reading the articles before we comment now, so if you could do that, it'd be great, OK? Thaaanks.
In your defense the summary was rubbish. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Glad I'm not the only one that hates that ***** :)
- MixedSpleens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Though the formula is not public, I think It has a lot to do with the rate which the diggs come in if It got 31 digs in one hour it would be a lot more likely to be here then 31 diggs over 2 days
- ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Umm....so this guy is basically proposing a smaller, turbocharged engine with some alcohol injection for better fuel economy? What's the big deal?
The reason they don't run alky injection in current cars is because you gotta find a place to refill the alky and you also have to find a way to store it. - vatechtigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mmm, french fries. Oh wait, thats just the jone's audi.......
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The original poster deleted his comment, but this comment still applies to the topic at hand.
---
First of all, it is 2/3 the energy in gasoline, not 1/2. Second of all, it has a higher octane rating, meaning that more can be compressed at once to combust, negating point one. And third of all, it doesn't pollute the environment, the carbon dioxide that is given off is equal to the amount that went into growing the fuel, therefore the "cycle" completes itself and the co2 will be reabsorbed when new fuel is grown. Ethanol can be made at theoretically whatever rate humanity winds up needing it (if we need more, we scale up production, no big deal as long as the demand is there), gasoline on the other hand is in limited supply and we cannot just make it at our whim, instead we must find it. We are quickly using up our gasoline resources, and ethanol currently solves all our problems that we have with gasoline. It also happens to help us no longer be dependent on Saudi Arabia, etc.. for very important parts of our economy. I'd much rather be dependent on Iowa, than Saudi Arabia.
-Steve ( http://krenzel.info ) - knightcrawler75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You forgot the added cost of hearing protection and the loss of potential sex.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Really pathetic summary. Immensely short-sighted to link this with hybrids. Would make wicked motorbike engines though.
I read the article. It's an incremental change in internal combustion engines. Nothing more. - Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I do not think that you could add a turbo to a hybrid because the gas engine is not always on. Every time you start the gas engine you would have to spool up the turbo and that pulls efficiency until the turbo actually kicks in. Back pressure is evil.
Gas only engines keep the turbo mostly spooled and therefore have a short lag. I think the lag on a hybrid/turbo gas engine would be way to long and repeated too often. - LiquidRAM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In a turbo car the turbo is NOT spooled even when the engine is running or cruising. It only spools when there is sufficient exhaust to power it, which is when you step on the gas.
It sounds like they are talking about inventing the turbo charged engine. How innovative.
Turbo deisl is a much better technology for fuel economy for many reasons. - 9mmCensor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This X 2.0 ***** is retarded.
- Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Chaz explain to me how the turbo would be spooled up if the gas engine is not producing exhaust? You are not suggesting that the batteries keep the turbo primed?
I am talking about the loss going from electric to gas? While running on electric the turbo would not be turning. Every bit of efficiency counts and if you waste power to spool you are still wasting power.
I do agree, that I would expect it to be a small turbo with very low mass to overcome. Without experimenting with design I cannot rule the combo of turbo/electric working. - bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think people are more willing to accept a new technology than turn around and say "Hey! I only need a 1.6L engine instead of a 4.6!". The fact is I have a 1.2L saloon (sedan) that does 46mpg and does 0-60 in about 13 seconds. That's at least as good as a Prius, so why all the extra technology and battery hassle?
- kowgod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Based on the article summary alone, this sounds a lot like my car, a VW Golf with a small (relative to most American market engines) 1.8L engine which can produce additional power using it's turbocharger. I get about 30-31 overall mpg. May not be approaching hybrid numbers, but still I'd say above average.
Of course, that's based off of the anemic description. Reading the article shows this has little to do with hybrids and more to do with improving combustion engine technologies. And my question is, why would this surprise anyone? Environmental groups have been saying for years that we can dramatically increase the CAFE standards if there was just the political will to do so. It's not like we don't know how to increase efficiency in gas engines. Automakers just don't want to do it because they are happy with the fat profits they can get out of the current lineups. So, they scare Americans into submission by talking about choice and power and safety, when in reality if we as consumers would just pull our heads out of our asses we could force a change in the market and get higher mileage engines without giving up our obese SUVs or sporty coupes.
The technological ability has been there, we're only finally getting around to realizing it because gas prices are pinching our pocketbooks. - bubbagump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm glad to see people reducing fuel usage...mostly becuase I don't want to see more money going to countries that are hostile towards the U.S. -- It still, it amazes me that in the 90's I had a Geo Metro that got darned near 50 MPG highway, and 35 in the city, and retailed at less than $10K.
There was also the Honda CRX -- another 50MPG car.
I don't want batteries, electic motors, and complex systems. I want a car that is affordable, inexpensive to repair, and doesn't rely on unproven technology.
A Corolla is ~14K, a Prius is ~21K -- 7 grand is a huge difference in cash to pay for few more miles per gallon, and that is without figuring in the cost of maintaining a specialized car.
I know, some are saying that its better for the ecology -- Just how is the hundreds of batteries that are going to fill the landfill in a few years after prius' just wear out? - DamonLouis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My stock 93 Geo metro gets 47mpg!
- MihaiM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look here:
http://www.tpca-cz.com/en/index.php
Does better than 50MPG. - chazcross, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"In a turbo car the turbo is NOT spooled even when the engine is running or cruising"
Bah
In my 88 Shelby Z Turbo, even after letting the car idle for 10 minutes after driving it, and turning it off you can hear the turbo spooling down.
Yeah true, they are not spinning at anywhere near their operational 80,000 to 150,000 RPM range depending on the turbo or even fast enough bring the air pressure out of a vacuum, but that turbo is still spinning. There is more than enough heat energy to keep that thing spooling at idle or cruising, just not enough to give you boost. - Sixcolors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Digg article title is misleading, this article is not about new hybrids but about more efficient gas engines.
- jmccorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for explaining what a turbo is. Like I'm an idiot.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The first is to decrease the size of the engine, which reduces friction, thus saving fuel at light engine loads, such as during city driving."
Decreasing the size of the engine has no effect in reducing friction since friction occurs between two or more surfaces between or among components. What Kevin means to say is that the engine is scaled down because referring to the "size" of an engine refers to it's displacement.
"When more power is needed, a turbocharger kicks in. It uses exhaust flow to compress air, making it possible to combust more air and fuel in a smaller space."
Does Kevin Bullis realize the engine does NOT change shape while running? Here he speculates the engine is able to change it's displacement.
"Compared with gasoline, ethanol has higher octane, a rating of how much a fuel can be compressed before it combusts spontaneously, that is, before it causes knocking."
Octane Number, n. - A numerical representation of the antiknock properties of motor fuel, compared with a standard reference fuel, such as isooctane, which has an octane number of 100. Also called octane rating.
The term "octane" has nothing to do with the compression of motor fuel.
"The system would use relatively little ethanol, about 1 gallon per 20 gallons of gasoline, so Cohn estimates the separate ethanol tank would have to be refilled about as often as an oil change."
Great, that means I can get a wonderful 3,000-5,000 miles per gallon of ethanol and an awesome 150-250 miles per gallon - wonderful, but not likely.
"The new engine should be 30 percent more efficient than conventional engines, based on a computer model the researchers say accurately reproduces the behavior of internal-combustion gasoline engines."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Thirty percent? 150-250 miles per gallon, less the 30% gain, translates to 105 miles per gallon (bottom-end). If that were true of today's cars, we wouldn't be in this ***** to begin with.
"Rodney Tabaczynski, former director of powertrain research at Ford (who is not involved with EBS), says the ethanol "will definitely help the octane problem" and existing electronic controls and feedback systems should make the controlled injection feasible."
A) "...not involved with EBS..."
B) "...systems should make..."
C) "...feasible."
A, B, and C all indicate this is purely hypothetical, but gives NO credibility to the story. However, the next paragraph beginning with "The challenges EBS is likely to encounter..." is completely right-on!
"Tabaczynski also cautions that real fuel savings will depend on an individual's driving habits. As with hybrids, cars with these engines will get their best mileage when driven in a city, not at 70-75 miles per hour on the highway with the throttle wide open."
If the throttle is wide open, I would hope it goes faster than 70-75 miles per hour. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I drive a Jetta TDI, and I've been loving it.
- chazcross, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2jgstew
"A supercharger could be another alternative/addition"
No, a supercharger would not be an alternative. A super charger requires power from the engine in order to make any boost, while a turbo is a free ride powered by the wasted heat energy of the exhaust. A small engine would kill it self trying to power a small supercharger, if its lucky it may make more power off the supercharger than it took to power it. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Err, well, I think we've got different standards then. No problem with that.
- carve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are so many errors in RaptorGTs post, I had to sign up to correct them. The spread of misunderstandings and errors is a big pet peeve of mine.
1) When you decrease the size (displacement of an engine), the surfaces are smaller, so I suppose there would be a little less friction. The real gain from small engines, however, is from reduced pumping losses.
2) The "smaller space" referred to on the turbocharged engine is replacing a big engine with a small one. With a turbo, that smaller volume can hold just as much air as a larger normally aspirated engine. I think most people who read that didn't interpret it as the engine changing shape.
3) Higher octane fuels don't detonate as easily as low octane fuels. That is what the octane rating is useful for. In your own definition, the first sentence pretty much repeats what the author of the article said. Octane rating is not a measure of the actual amount of the octane molecules in the fuel. Otherwise, over 100 octane would be impossible.
4) Where do you come up with 150 to 250 mpg from. The author specified neither the size of the oil tank, the size of the gas tank, or the oil change interval. I'm willing to bet it holds more than one gallon of ethanol though.
5) A 30% efficiency gain is reasonable. That would be a rise from, say, 21% to 27% overall thermal efficiency, for example. See #4 for where you went wrong.
OK- now that that is cleared up, lets talk about the subject at hand. As mentioned before, this is not a new idea. A guy I knew in school, who was majoring in electrical engineering but was handy with cars as well, made his own fuel injection system that worked just like this. It was an old Datsun 240Z inline 6 that he turbocharged. It ran pump gas in daily driving, but as it began to sense knocking (or maybe it was at a certain boost pressure- I don't remember) it would turn on a secondary fuel injector would begin to meter in Ethanol on top of the gas.
However, just because this idea is old doesn't make it bad. This would be great on a production car. It is also a good use of ethanol. (We'll never make enough ethanol to replace gas, but using it like this would leverage it's best attribute to substantially reduce gas use.). The original intent of turbocharged street cars in the 80's was to have a fuel sipping tiny motor that would become a tiger on demand. The problem was, if you wanted to run a decent amount of boost, cylinder pressures would be too high and the fuel would detonate (knocking). To fix this, automakers run a reduced compression ratio on their turbocharged models. Unfortunately, this also reduces fuel economy, which is one of the main goals to begin with. (e.g.- look at Subaru's. All of the turbo models get about 5mpg less than the normally aspirated model with the same sized engine). It be nice to have the best of both worlds, and this motor achieves that goal. You have an efficient, high-compression motor that runs on regular pump gas, and it can still run high boost by switching to a high-octane fuel for that 2% of the time you actually need it. The biggest shortcoming is having to watch two fuel gages, and occasionally filling up the 2nd tank. Ethanol is pretty easy to handle though, so if the benefits are great enough it'll be worth doing. This thing won't use a ton of ethanol, so an above ground tank (like a propane tank) at the gas station should be all you need. Hell- you could even sell it in one-gallon jugs like windshield washer fluid.
This can also start a chain reaction. The motor will be smaller, so you can run a smaller chassis to carry it, and both of those will mean you can run a slightly smaller body to cover it all. The smaller chassis/body mean you can get by with a slightly smaller suspension system, and have smaller wheels and tires. All of this reduced weight means you don't need quite as much power, so you can run an even smaller motor, and so on and so on. Good stuff.
Oh yeah- the reason this was referred to as "better than a Hybrid" is because it achieved similar performance for a fraction of the price- not because it achieved better performance.
A motor that will achieve similar goals as this motor, and maybe even greater, but require no special fuels, is the Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition motor. Honda has one in the works right now. It is essentially a diesel-style compression ignition motor, but it runs on regular gas! Diesel efficiency, gasoline convenience, power, and emissions! I can't wait! - bubbagump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Metro a piece of junk? I put 100000 miles on mine...never broke down, never left me stranded. If they were being made today, I'd buy one. Now, if you want to talk Junk lets talk Yugo!
- planckscale, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For you who are thinking of buying a hybrid:
"This modest premium compares favorably to that of hybrid cars. According to a review in Consumer Reports (April 2006), some hybrid vehicles failed to pay for themselves over the course of five years, even when factoring in federal tax credits and gas prices that rise to $4 a gallon."
And don't forget about all the SMUG you will produce. ;-) - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11) It's old technology. Probably older than you, if you seriously think it was just invented.
2) Engines don't need to be changed much at all to run on multi fuels. Most GM vehicles already will run on E85 without a problem. All other engines can be converted; it's just a matter of replacing certain fuel system parts with parts that won't corrode.
3) It removes at least 85% of the transportation demand for gas, and only needs gas for the cold start. This is a MASSIVE savings.
4) There is not supply because there is no demand yet. As the demand increases, we have soooo much land that we pay our farmers to idle.... they could be growing corn and such to create ethanol instead. We have so much land, let's use it. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Batteries can be recycled, but I do agree with you.
Keep in mind what a collossal piece of junk a Geo Metro was, though. :) - leilers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12011?!?!?!?!? We'll all be broke by then. DO IT NOW!!!!!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is