>>> Here's a non-technical story from _The Economist_ on where diesels are
>>> going, and why electrics are going to have a very high hurdle to jump: >>>
>>>formatting link>>>
>>
>>Kidding's only hurdle is clearing GMs dick, before he swings on it. >>
>>Electrics *already* have a bit of a hurdle. VW Golf et al lightfoots
>>already claim near-60 mpg, and I think I read somewhere of diesels getting >>70.
>>Even tho the 100 mpge's of all electrics sound iimpressive, if you do the >>$$
>>calcs, the savings is perty small over 70 mpg..
>>
>>Sheeit, Ed, you been ig'ing my posts? That closet fagit Kidding ALREADY >>has
>>a 75+++ year ROI over my s***ty li'l 40 mpg Fit... which is ackshooly a
>>great car -- assuming the unwashed asses out there don't require leather
>>seats.... Why assholes prefer to sweat on leather, Idk.... no pun
>>intented.... lol
>>
>>The main pro'leng with these high effic diesels is they are (apparently)
>>expensive to build, expensive to maintain, very expensive to fix. Proly >>not
>>as 'spensive to fix as the Volt, but still.....
>>
>>Now, this article purports that the new diesels, by lowering compression
>>ratio, solve the above costs AND improve efficiency.... I doubt it.
>>If they've dropped the CR to 14 (from a max of 22, iiuc), why not drop it >>to
>>to 10? or 7?
>>They claim better mixing from the lowered CR, for better effic.... OK
>>But what about effic LOSSES from the lowered CR?
>>Increased effic from reduced engine weight?? PLease.... why not just
>>reduce the weight of the frame/body, instead, and keep the high >>compression?.
>>
>>And this:
>>
>>"Unfortunately, the fuel and air at top dead-centre are rarely mixed as
>>thoroughly as necessary for complete combustion. And because ignition >>takes
>>place in the presence of a surplus of oxygen (from the highly compressed
>>air), this incomplete combustion produces soot particles and smog-forming
>>nitrogen oxides-the curse of traditional diesel engines."
>>
>>Incomplete combustion from surplus oxygen??? Dats not what Moi lerntid in
>>chemical school.
>>
>>So, ahm not really disagreeing with the article, just questioning some of
>>the causal connections.
>>I hope these diesels DO deliver.... I just don't think the above are
>>thoroughly cogent explanations.
>>
>>AND, the BIGGIE Q: What will the upfront banging of the consumer be??
>>Will my s***ty li'l Fit hand these diesels a(nother) 50+ year ROI
>>ass-whupping?? LOL
>>
>>Some time ago 2-stroke engines were being bandied about as the New
>>(poh-tential) Green Thing.
>>Long live the Kawasaki H3 750 2-stroke triple. If they put wings on dat
>>thing, it woulda taken off into the air.... lol
>
> As I said, that's a non-technical article that tells you where the car
> manufacturers are going with diesels. They're getting close to 50%
> thermal efficiency. Another 20%, as the article claims is coming,
> would put them up in the range of the very best combined-cycle
> electric powerplant generators -- close to 60%.
What'd you think of the "incomplete combustion from too much oxygen"?? Reporters.... writers.... editors
> As for the technical side, there really is only one place to get your
> answers: the Society of Automotive Engineers. They have hundreds of
> white papers on the subject. They cost a bundle, but the abstracts are
> free, and you can get the bottom lines from them. Trying to figure it
> out from chemistry and elementary physics won't do it. The dynamics of
> those engines are very subtle.
It's good that alternatives are being pursued. Hopefully one technology won't bury the other, but that each will spur the other. Can you say, "Diesel AngstMobile", boyzngerlz?? lol