The URL redirects twice to something called "carlustblog", which doesn't
even have an A record. Copious amounts of "random thought" text, with
Might actually be legit, but I'm not gonna let any browser of mine render
it. I used a utility that displays the code, but doesn't render anything.
The Honda Fit described in the article gets 35 mpg highway, not 40. Even
my Ford Focus gets 35 mpg highway. Makes one wonder about the accuracy
of the rest of the article.
But, overall, I liked the article and agree with it. Cars with internal
combustion engines have some great advantages over other fuel-type
vehicle - good for both short distance daily commutes and cross-country
drives, quickly filled up, safe and reliable. Electric vehicles don't
have the ability to be filled up rapidly (unless you change batteries
which is technically possible to do in a few minutes but not often done
Cars are clearly a major advance. So is sanitation (image what it would
be like getting rid of all the body waste in an apartment building with
1000 occupants - not mention the waste of all the people in Philly, NYC
or San Francisco), clean water, elevators (hard to get past 5 or so
floors without elevators, made high rises possible), telephones and
internet, and public transportation.
"rough edges".... Would it interest your narrow vision to learn that this
"miracle" has been around for over 100 years... and the "rough edges" get
knocked off it quite regularly. Take a look at the EcoBoost engine - see
where it is in terms of advancement and imagine what the future may bring.
So.... is the infernal (sic) combustion engine a boon? or is it a bust. The
answer is a resounding "YES". It has given the world a mobility that the
horse and buggy never could... and it has been the cause of much grief.
Welcome to real life... this is where we experience trade offs...
As far as internal combustion technology is concerned, I am reasonably sure
that the engineers favour the diesel engine over spark ignition engines -
the advent of direct gasoline injection may change that - even though the
diesel engine requires special, expensive after treatments to meet todays
stringent clean air requirements.
Some suggested research. Procure a copy of "The High Speed Internal
Combustion Engine" - this was written by Sir Harry Ricardo in 1923 and
revised in 1930. If nothing else, you will come to see that physics is
physics and not much can change that.
For a little wow factor, Google "Jumo 205"... this was a WW2 two stroke
diesel engine used to power some German bombers... For some extra wow check
out the Napier Deltic.
Now... comparing the gasoline that a Honda might use to the fuel that a
train might use is going to serve what? Let's take the cargo that the train
was hauling and put it in the Honda... Just the cargo..... The Honda can't
carry that much fuel let alone the fare paying cargo that the train has...
talk about a useless comparison.
If we could just get people to refrain from defeating emissions
He cdnuolt blveiee taht he cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht he was rdanieg.
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at
Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the
ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the
first and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
taotl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This
is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? LOL
You must be a liberal-democrat. While being technically correct, your
mind isn't sophisticated enough to overlook the error and move on
without a jab instead of a reasonable retort. You feel the need to piss
people off, because you are an Obama sheeples.
Gore to hypocritical POS. Like they said, it was all about the money.
Not abbout the cause, even Obama is proving the righties on this. Obama
the talk and spend a lot promises to buy America out of debt.
LMAO. Liberals are scum.
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), edspyhill01
That's your opinion.
However TODAY'S internal combustion engine is 20th century technology,
with a bit of 21st century technology coaxing it along. Or you could
say it is 21st century technology moving some 20th century
What differnetiates the 21st century internal combustion engine from
the 19th century technology it is "loosely" based on is the 21st
century controls that allow it to produce more power out of less fuel
with lower exhaust emissions than you could have drempt of, on all 3
levels, 25 to 50 years ago.
As for metal rubbing on metal????
Today's lubrication technology combined with the quality of mechanical
finish almost totally eliminates metal to metal friction at the
Is the internal combustion engine the engine of the future???
Long term, most likely not, but within our lifespan???
I'd say, for most of us, an almost unqualified YES.
Petroleum powered? Most likely, and very hopefiully - - NOT.
Cellulose based Ethanol and bio-sourced oils are most likely to be the
mid-term fuel of choice for transportation.
I envision high temperature thermally efficient ceramic engines
running on fuel derived from fast-growing algae using direct
injection, spark ignition with a combination of variable compression,
variable displacement and variable valve timing, running unthrottled
like most current deisels and pushing 70% thermal efficiency within 10
years. Mabee not totally of the "tit" of petroleum that soon - but the
basic technological advances WILL be there.
Death of the Electric Car: Li-ion Batteries Too Valuable for Plug-In
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.