Really? Never took a physics class?

[Ducatiloo]

Because making a smaller engine requires new machines, new designs. $ to make new casts, engine needs to be tested again to pass emissions, thats why many cars share the same engine.

Example of some widely used american platforms...V6 3.8L,  V8 4.6L for all v8 lines (Ford Crown Victoria, Ford Mustang, Linclon Town Car, Mercury Maurader) V8 5.4Liter for the larger trucks.

A lot of lexus and toyota shares the same engine, as well as nissan/infinitis and honda/acura.

Smaller engines are getting more and more powerfull too, they just arent popular in larger cars. I think the 2.4L 4cylinder engine is a popular compact engine, but they only have enough power to move a small car. Yea you can shove a ford focus engine into a Ford explorer, but youll be stomping the gas pedal at everylight just to keep up with grandma. At that point the engine is running at such a high RPM, its burning a huge amount of fuel.

Dont forget, a lot of the fuel that gets injected into your engine does not fully combust. the slower the engine moves, the more time each combustion has to complete. As your engine RPM rises, you need to dump more and more gas into it each combustion just to keep up with your demand of the engine, meanwhile, less combustion is taking place.

now picture a 2.4L 4cyl at 7,000rpms and a v8 4.6L at 3500rpms. which one do you think is burning more gas if they were both in the same car?

Ever try to drive a 2.4L 4cyl wrangler? That thing is not aerodynamic, it isnt really heavy, or very light and has heavy wheels. It only gets about 16/21mpg. Same engine in a small subcompact could probably do 25/35.

So it is just a cost issue then?  I don't see the issue using a smaller engine in a larger car when  the engine produces more HP  that a older engine.  Unless I misunderstood you are saying that a 2008 2.0 4 cyl making 170 hp can not power a car any larger than an 1997 2.0 4 cyl making 87 hp.  The Jeep 2.4 was super low tec.  If the jeep has the same size engine in it, and it made more hp/torque wouldn't it get better MPG because it's using more gas to move the car and not wasting it by not burning?

[OwnyTony]

I understand water is needed, but our planet is a closed loop system, the water that is converted to steam eventually returns as water.  I am worried about the pollutants and warming of the water, especially in fresh waters like our great lakes, but besides the Western US, water is abundant (especially this year    ).

mitt

I do realize that the water cycle is a closed loop system. The thing is, some places get more water than others.  Or rather, some places get more water than they use while others use more water than they get.  Who is to say that the hydrogen making plant in Las vegas will get the exact same amount of water that it uses up from rain?  May be in 50 years or so the water levels of the hoover damn may go back up to previous levels.  You do have to give nature some time to work things out but now your adding to the equation where you are quite possibly using exponentially more water than previous consumption levels.

That is my concern.  If one city uses up X amount of water, it is not guaranteed that they will get the same X amount of water through rain. 

[acalles]

The most effective thing that could be done would be:

A: Getting off our collective fear of oil power and bringing in some decent European spec diesel powertrains (4.0L twin turbo V8 in an Audi A8? That gets almost 40mpg?! AND YOU WON'T SELL IT HERE?!?!)

B: Once again modifying the IC motor for greater efficiency. The most promising possibility is homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) which uses diesel-style self-ignition to increase fuel economy AND power by burning the fuel mixture completely and efficiently. There are other (more crackpot) designs in the works, but that one is the easiest to build and theoretically the most effective in improving efficiency without sacrificing any power.

diesels are know as oil burners for a reason 

A: the reason they won't sell that vehicle here is emissions standards in the US. They tend to be more strict then euro standards on diesel, pertaining to a specific gas called NOx. its what turns the sky brown (despite all the CO2, were all going to die BS, there can be some nasty gases, NOx probably not the worst but still gross, I'll leave those to HC and CO for being really bad).

NOx, and its cause is heat, during a very hot combustion process, nitrogen from the air bonds with oxygen and other random things floating around (hence the x) this stuff generally reacts with sunlight in a strange manner, it turns brown and the air looks like ass.

B: HCCI.. uses heat to auto combust the a/f mixture of gasoline.. seeing how its very difficult to get a steady octane rating on fuels, this would not be the most efficient way of burning fuel, slightly higher octane, charge doesn't go off. if its too low, it goes BOOM which isn't good either. Who in there right mind would set a system up without positive ignition?

Diesels tend to be more efficient, not because they burn better (they don't, in fact its worse, hence the smoke) but because it contains WAY more energy then gasoline.

The issue is with squeezing out more efficency is NOT with a/f ratios, or burning all the fuel, the loss in engines is threw HEAT, and some threw mechanical forces. thats it nothing magic about it, and its not like its easy to get around.

Vehicles making more power, is simply due to more efficiently designs in head flow, new materials that allow rings to move further up the piston, lighter materials, direct injection, turbo charging. all these things have a positive impact on fuel efficiency too, but really, these gains show more in the power area, and if you drive your vehicle rather hard, its gonna get less mileage.

my 90 jetta, got 24/30mpg, and made 140hp I thought it was fast at the time .. my 03 GTI gets 24/32, actually gets out of its own damn way, makes 210hp, and weighs 1000lbs more and is vastly safer.. I'd say its a good trade off.

[sno_duc]

I've worked enough refinery / chemical plant turn-arounds to have some first experance with hydrogen.
One of the common ways to make it is to react natural gas with steam......CH4 + (2)H2O >> CO2 + (4)H2

On the good side it burns clean the only by-product is water.

On the bad side when it burns the flame is invisible except in a really dark room.
The stuff is really hard to seal, you pressure test with N2 and every thing is good, put H2 in and the damn thing leaks
H2 is very reactive and forms some interesting unstable compounds, when you take a H2 compressor apart, some of these metal-hydrides spontaneous combust when the air hits them others wait until they're physically disturbed ( like cleaning gasket surfaces, wear FRC's and gloves ).

[ducatiz]

diesels are know as oil burners for a reason 

A: the reason they won't sell that vehicle here is emissions standards in the US. They tend to be more strict then euro standards on diesel, pertaining to a specific gas called NOx. its what turns the sky brown (despite all the CO2, were all going to die BS, there can be some nasty gases, NOx probably not the worst but still gross, I'll leave those to HC and CO for being really bad).

exactly, which is the reason for the Bluetec diesel technology in use by BMW and VW (and soon, others) which is clean-burning diesel.

NOx, and its cause is heat, during a very hot combustion process, nitrogen from the air bonds with oxygen and other random things floating around (hence the x) this stuff generally reacts with sunlight in a strange manner, it turns brown and the air looks like ass.

yep, one component of smog as well as SO2 and a few other things,  but the new diesels eliminate these almost entirely. 

B: HCCI.. uses heat to auto combust the a/f mixture of gasoline.. seeing how its very difficult to get a steady octane rating on fuels, this would not be the most efficient way of burning fuel, slightly higher octane, charge doesn't go off. if its too low, it goes BOOM which isn't good either. Who in there right mind would set a system up without positive ignition?

Diesels tend to be more efficient, not because they burn better (they don't, in fact its worse, hence the smoke) but because it contains WAY more energy then gasoline.

PD type diesels burn very well and with proper emissions controls, they are clean burners and you end up with better mileage and a longer lasting engine.

My '05 Golf TDI gets about 45 mpg on the highway, about 33-34 in the city.

[mitt]

Or rather, some places get more water than they use while others use more water than they get.  Who is to say that the hydrogen making plant in Las vegas will get the exact same amount of water that it uses up from rain?   

That is a pre-existing problem today w/o hydrogen plants, so I guess I don't see why that is a deterrent for future technology?  The west is using more water than they receive, but there is nothing being done about it.  I see just as many car washes and lush golf courses in CA as IA.  If today's problem is addressed, which seems like it needs to be now, than it won't be an issue for future technology.

mitt

[acalles]

exactly, which is the reason for the Bluetec diesel technology in use by BMW and VW (and soon, others) which is clean-burning diesel.

yep, one component of smog as well as SO2 and a few other things,  but the new diesels eliminate these almost entirely. 

PD type diesels burn very well and with proper emissions controls, they are clean burners and you end up with better mileage and a longer lasting engine.

My '05 Golf TDI gets about 45 mpg on the highway, about 33-34 in the city.

yep, NOx scrubbers, and VERY, VERY hight injection pressures have made this MUCH better..

I'm some what a vw nut (actually, was expert certified vw specialist before I opened my own shop if you ever have any questions about your golf, shoot me a PM and I'll do my best to answer)

the PD was a great engine, but it wasn't allowed to continue here because of its NOx levels. the Tuareg V10 TDI was still allowed because it's considered a light truck and has to meet different standards.

I'm pretty excited about the new engines, almost as much as the 2.0T. I have about 10 customers on waiting lists for jetta sportwagon TDI's.

[ducatiz]

yep, NOx scrubbers, and VERY, VERY hight injection pressures have made this MUCH better..

I'm some what a vw nut (actually, was expert certified vw specialist before I opened my own shop if you ever have any questions about your golf, shoot me a PM and I'll do my best to answer)

the PD was a great engine, but it wasn't allowed to continue here because of its NOx levels. the Tuareg V10 TDI was still allowed because it's considered a light truck and has to meet different standards.

I'm pretty excited about the new engines, almost as much as the 2.0T. I have about 10 customers on waiting lists for jetta sportwagon TDI's.

I was led to believe the NOx levels of the PD were pretty modest in comparison to most.  I love my car, it runs beautifully.

we test drove the '09 "Loyal Edition" Jetta TDI.  Very nice, probably get one to replace the Volvo since they won't bring the D5 to the US.  Which sucks since I love Volvos (4th, all 850/S70s) and we liked the D5 that we rented in Italy...

[sno_duc]

Diesels tend to be more efficient, not because they burn better (they don't, in fact its worse, hence the smoke) but because it contains WAY more energy then gasoline.

I looked it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency
RUG 125,000 btu's / gallon......Diesel 138,700 btu's / gallon............Ethanol 84,600 btu's / gallon
Diesel has about 15% more energy per gallon. But diesel cars tend to get 30 - 40% better mileage.
As injection pressures climb and get more refined the smoke and clatter will go away. The worst offenders that I see are grossly overfueled pick-ups ( trying to get the last Hp / ft lb, who cares about a little smoke)

A couple of things that everyone in general and the CARB in specific forget.
VOC's gasoline is very volatile, diesel isn't. By their own rules VOCs are really bad hence all the restrictions on paint, solvents, etc
Gasoline is flamable, diesel is combustable. If you're ever in a wreck which fuel do you want onboard, one the readly burns or one that is almost impossible to ignite.

[ducatiz]

Gasoline is flamable, diesel is combustable. If you're ever in a wreck which fuel do you want onboard, one the readly burns or one that is almost impossible to ignite.

the one that requires a HAZMAT team and high voltage protection!!! (jab at hybrids)

[sno_duc]

the one that requires a HAZMAT team and high voltage protection!!! (jab at hybrids)

I've always liked Uncle Fester.

[ducatiz]

I've always liked Uncle Fester.

yeah, ole Fester the Molester..

[sno_duc]

Cousin It was the one I worried about. What was he really saying??

[ducatiz]

Cousin It was the one I worried about. What was he really saying??

he was speaking perfect Urdu, what do you mean?

[OwnyTony]

That is a pre-existing problem today w/o hydrogen plants, so I guess I don't see why that is a deterrent for future technology?  The west is using more water than they receive, but there is nothing being done about it.  I see just as many car washes and lush golf courses in CA as IA.  If today's problem is addressed, which seems like it needs to be now, than it won't be an issue for future technology.

mitt

my critique was not so much to stress individual usage.  That you can control.  You have no control over how much rain water a certain geographical area receives. 

Also, the west gets more water than they should.  What I mean by that is that the mountain ranges just east of cali gets all the rain/ sucks the clouds of rain dry. When the clouds go past the mountain range, there is no rain left for those areas.   

So for people of the west, not only do they get more water than they should, they use more water than they get.....Which means if you let this play out, other parts of the US just east of the mountains will suffer even leaner water shortages.

The situation that you mention would be under worse conditions if you add to the already over usage of water. 

I am not saying that this is a reason to halt technological development for hydrogen.  Developing the technology will not have an environmental effect.  It is implementing that technology and overcoming the logistics that will put a strain on the resource of water.