NYT columnist calls for return to 55 mph speed limit
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp
(snip)
It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia
twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break
than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-
efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might
actually help free us from what he called our “addiction to oil.”
-----------------
If the american people had any brains they'd be demanding the 55. But
the auto industry (which makes a fortune off car crashes) has
brainwashed the idiots into thinking speed is cool
lora...@cs.com
If Americans had a choice.. they would buy flex-fuel vehicles, fill
them with emmission neutral american made biofuel (at $1 dollar a
gallon), and drive at the maximum speed limits deemed safe by expert
opinion.
All of these options already exist.
ChrisCoaster
>
>
> All of these options already exist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
_____________________
And are being kept hidden by politics.
-CC
lora...@cs.com
And a big 'YEP' to that..
Demon-KKKrats are Hate-Filled Marxists
Prove it.
Steven L.
Not where I live. Even if I owned a flex-fuel vehicle *today*, I
couldn't fill it with ethanol because none of the filling stations in my
locale carry ethanol.
The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
gasoline. Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
distribution system to handle ethanol.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
tankfixer
1634b4...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, bet...@earthlink.net
says...
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp
>
> (snip)
>
> It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia
> twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break
> than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-
> efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might
>
> -----------------
>
> If the american people had any brains they'd be demanding the 55. But
> the auto industry (which makes a fortune off car crashes) has
> brainwashed the idiots into thinking speed is cool
It baffles me that you can't figure out how to drive 55 mph if you want
to.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> It baffles me that you can't figure out how to drive 55 mph if you want
> to.
>
Hey stupid. I can drive 55 just fine. But me doing it by myself
won't lower gas prices, you moron!!!
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> If Americans had a choice.. they would buy flex-fuel vehicles, fill
> them with emmission neutral american made biofuel (at $1 dollar a
> gallon), and drive at the maximum speed limits deemed safe by expert
> opinion.
>
> All of these options already exist.
You idiot. There is no maximum safe speed limit. No matter what the
limit is, we'll always have some highway crashes.
Eeyore
lora...@cs.com wrote:
> fill them with emmission neutral american made biofuel (at $1 dollar a
> gallon)
You're barking mad if you think you can make bio-fuels for $1 a gallon !
Graham
Eeyore
"Steven L." wrote:
> The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
> gasoline.
Correct.
> Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
> distribution system to handle ethanol.
This is all moot if instead the feedstock is used to make butanol which is as
near as dammit a direct gasoline replacement. Du Pont and Shell have been
working on this and have a trial plant now in the UK.
Graham
Eeyore
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> You idiot. There is no maximum safe speed limit. No matter what the
> limit is, we'll always have some highway crashes.
As you also will at LOW speeds. People stop concentrating on their driving
when they think they're safe (they're not) by driving slowly. It's a
classic example of a sense of false security. You can be killed in a 30
mph crash too.
Graham
Eeyore
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
Whatever speed you drive won't lower gas prices you moron !!!
Graham
tankfixer
@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, bet...@earthlink.net says...
And legislating it won't either
Bret Cahill
With the dual fuel engines.
With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
A little smoggier, of course . . .
Bret Cahill
necromancer
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Not where I live. Even if I owned a flex-fuel vehicle *today*, I
>couldn't fill it with ethanol because none of the filling stations in my
>locale carry ethanol.
>
>The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
>gasoline. Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
>It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
>distribution system to handle ethanol.
And just exactly *where* will the raw material for this ethanol come
from?
Hint: alot of the land previously devoted to other food crops is now
being used to grow the food crop that is used to make ethanol. Think
about that next time yo go to the grocery store.
--
President (sic) George W Bush says something intelligent:
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> In article <9123f097-4c34-4e1d-be68-ec394ac54f89
>
> > On May 22, 7:02 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > > It baffles me that you can't figure out how to drive 55 mph if you want
> > > to.
>
> > Hey stupid. I can drive 55 just fine. But me doing it by myself
> > won't lower gas prices, you moron!!!
>
> And legislating it won't either
It worked in the 70s and it would work again esp if it was combined
with stiff penalties and a PR campaign that emphasized all the
innocent people speeders murder. THINK
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
wrote:
Hey stupid. So speed doesn't matter huh?? Would you rather be hit by
a car doing 70 or one doing 30?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
wrote:
Butanol?? That causes engines to explode, you jackass.
Demon-KKKrats are Hate-Filled Marxists
But a fascist gov't will help. Good to know what your side is, speed;
the fascist left.
Rob
are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> This is all moot if instead the feedstock is used to make butanol which is as
>> near as dammit a direct gasoline replacement. Du Pont and Shell have been
>> working on this and have a trial plant now in the UK.
>>
>> Graham
>
>Butanol?? That causes engines to explode, you jackass.
From the Dupont site.
Q. Will biobutanol work in my car?
A. One of the advantages of biobutanol is that it can be used in
higher blends of gasoline without requiring any changes in automobile
or engine design. Biobutanol will meet industry standards and will not
harm cars.
http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/FAQ.html
Eeyore
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Steven L." wrote:
> > > The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
> > > gasoline.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> > > It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
> > > distribution system to handle ethanol.
> >
> > This is all moot if instead the feedstock is used to make butanol which is as
> > near as dammit a direct gasoline replacement. Du Pont and Shell have been
> > working on this and have a trial plant now in the UK.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Butanol?? That causes engines to explode, you jackass.
You have just ploughed new depths of stupidity (even for you).
Have you heard of this thing called Google ? It might pay to use it before making
totally incoherent statements like the above.
Graham
Eeyore
Bret Cahill wrote:
> > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
>
> With the dual fuel engines.
>
> With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
> EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
Or better still. See the Saab 'bio-power' models. They're faster on
ethanol than on gasoline.
Graham
Eeyore
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >
> > > You idiot. There is no maximum safe speed limit. No matter what the
> > > limit is, we'll always have some highway crashes.
> >
> > As you also will at LOW speeds. People stop concentrating on their driving
> > when they think they're safe (they're not) by driving slowly. It's a
> > classic example of a sense of false security. You can be killed in a 30
> > mph crash too.
> >
>
> Hey stupid. So speed doesn't matter huh?? Would you rather be hit by
> a car doing 70 or one doing 30?
I'd rather be driving in 70 mph traffic than 30. Better still I'd be driving at
90-100.
Accidents are caused by BAD DRIVING, NOT SPEED. Speed never killed anyone,
today's jetliners regularly achieve 630 mph ground speed, yet are the safest
form of travel in existence.
Graham
Eeyore
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> It worked in the 70s
No it didn't.
gpsman
wrote:>
> Have you heard of this thing called Google ? It might pay to use it before making
> totally incoherent statements like the above.
Sure, if your goal is to exchange ideas of reasonable accuracy.
If your goal is merely to generate responses (hook some fish), perhaps
as an effort to reduce a void of loneliness approaching a complete
vacuum, few things appear to work as well as totally incoherent and/or
inaccurate statements and/or unsupported assertions.
Whatever it's faults, it seems to be among the most successful trolls
ever to set keyboard to Usenet.
-----
- gpsman
N8N
Depends on how fast I'm going, and in which direction relative to the
other vehicle.
If I'm sitting still, sure, I'd rather be hit by the 30 MPH car. If
I'm traveling 68 MPH in the same direction, the 70 MPH car.
nate
tankfixer
584638...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, BretC...@aol.com says...
All well and good
Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine
now ?
tankfixer
357791...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, bet...@earthlink.net
says...
No one drove 55 in the 70's
Eeyore
tankfixer wrote:
> BretC...@aol.com says...
>
> > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> >
> > With the dual fuel engines.
> >
> > With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
> > EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
> >
> > A little smoggier, of course . . .
>
>
> All well and good
> Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine
> now ?
Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
Graham
N8N
> > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
>
> With the dual fuel engines.
>
> With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
> EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
False. The energy density is different enough that even with an
incremental increase in efficiency the overall MPG will be lower with
ethanol.
>
> A little smoggier, of course . . .
Probably not. Probably cleaner; just less efficient.
nate
gpsman
<maniacal crossposts adjusted>
>
> No one drove 55 in the 70's
I assure you, many did for a while. We didn't know if or when more
gas might be available, and we had to sit in a long-ass line to get a
rationed $5 worth.
People were lined up in the streets and pushing their vehicles along
the line to conserve. A lot of us had '60s and early '70s large-
engined vehicles.
Generally, it's best not to describe times you did not experience, or
speak in absolute terms... unless appearing stupid is of no concern.
-----
- gpsman
N8N
I was alive in the 70's and my mom was one of those people who always
drove the speed limit in the right lane. I remember that she was
*ALWAYS* the slowest driver on the road; passing another car was a
rare, noteworthy event. Granted, I wasn't old enough to really be
aware until after the gas crisis had passed and the 55 MPH NMSL was
being spun by Claybrook et. al. as a "safety" measure.
nate
Eeyore
N8N wrote:
> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> >
> > With the dual fuel engines.
> >
> > With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
> > EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
>
> False. The energy density is different enough that even with an
> incremental increase in efficiency the overall MPG will be lower with
> ethanol.
With some very clever turbo'ing Saab have managed to get it damn close.
Graham
Steven L.
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:11:09 -0400, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Not where I live. Even if I owned a flex-fuel vehicle *today*, I
>> couldn't fill it with ethanol because none of the filling stations in my
>> locale carry ethanol.
>>
>> The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
>> gasoline. Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
>> It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
>> distribution system to handle ethanol.
>
> And just exactly *where* will the raw material for this ethanol come
> from?
There's plenty of grassland out West that grows switchgrass and other
"junk" flora that nobody harvests for food.
We could also remove import quotas and tariffs on imported sugar, and
allow all that cheap imported sugar to be turned into ethanol. The
world has a surplus of sugar--sugar cane grows like a weed in tropical
climates. That's why the Government has those tariffs--to protect
domestic sugar producers from all that foreign competition.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Eeyore
"Steven L." wrote:
> necromancer wrote:
> > "Steven L." wrote:
> >
> >> Not where I live. Even if I owned a flex-fuel vehicle *today*, I
> >> couldn't fill it with ethanol because none of the filling stations in my
> >> locale carry ethanol.
> >>
> >> The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
> >> gasoline. Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> >> It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
> >> distribution system to handle ethanol.
> >
> > And just exactly *where* will the raw material for this ethanol come
> > from?
>
> There's plenty of grassland out West that grows switchgrass and other
> "junk" flora that nobody harvests for food.
I wonder if jatropha would grow well out there too ?
> We could also remove import quotas and tariffs on imported sugar, and
> allow all that cheap imported sugar to be turned into ethanol. The
> world has a surplus of sugar--sugar cane grows like a weed in tropical
> climates. That's why the Government has those tariffs--to protect
> domestic sugar producers from all that foreign competition.
ADM has friends in high places.
Of course you could also stop drinking so much non-diet cola and put that sugar
to better use plus lose some weight into the bargain !
And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
hurt anyone.
Graham
N8N
The problem with "junk" flora is that it takes energy to turn it into
ethanol. More, in fact, that you get by burning ALL of the resulting
ethanol. Sugar cane is a notable exception, but we don't have a whole
lot of that here.
Best estimates currently don't really show one way or another as to
whether the current corn-based programs are actually yielding as much
energy as we put into the process - in other words, we may be actually
making things worse, not better, but it's too close to call at the
moment. Certainly there is no clear "win" from moving to corn-based
ethanol.
nate
N8N
wrote:
> "Steven L." wrote:
> > necromancer wrote:
> > > "Steven L." wrote:
>
> > >> Not where I live. Even if I owned a flex-fuel vehicle *today*, I
> > >> couldn't fill it with ethanol because none of the filling stations in my
> > >> locale carry ethanol.
>
> > >> The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
> > >> gasoline. Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> > >> It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
> > >> distribution system to handle ethanol.
>
> > > And just exactly *where* will the raw material for this ethanol come
> > > from?
>
> > There's plenty of grassland out West that grows switchgrass and other
> > "junk" flora that nobody harvests for food.
>
> I wonder if jatropha would grow well out there too ?
>
> > We could also remove import quotas and tariffs on imported sugar, and
> > allow all that cheap imported sugar to be turned into ethanol. The
> > world has a surplus of sugar--sugar cane grows like a weed in tropical
> > climates. That's why the Government has those tariffs--to protect
> > domestic sugar producers from all that foreign competition.
>
> ADM has friends in high places.
obviously.
>
> Of course you could also stop drinking so much non-diet cola and put that sugar
> to better use plus lose some weight into the bargain !
Cheap shot noted. Fuck you and your mother too. I thought you were
being almost civil today, what happened, you're back to your usual
xenophobic douchebag self?
That said, most soda is *not* sweetened with real sugar, unless it's
the "kosher for passover" variety, as "high fructose corn syrup" is
apparently less expensive.
>
> And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
> inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
> hurt anyone.
Yup, douchilarity back in full effect. Don't you *ever* get tired of
bashing the US? It's not like being English you have a whole lot of
lofty height from which to look down on other countries. Jeez, give
it a rest already.
nate
Grendel
> On May 22, 12:57 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
>
>
>
>
> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp
>
> > (snip)
>
> > It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia
> > twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break
> > than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-
> > efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might
> > actually help free us from what he called our “addiction to oil.”
>
> > -----------------
>
> > If the american people had any brains they'd be demanding the 55. But
> > the auto industry (which makes a fortune off car crashes) has
> > brainwashed the idiots into thinking speed is cool
>
> If Americans had a choice.. they would buy flex-fuel vehicles,
If Americans had a choice (which they do), they would buy whatever
they want. Currently, the Internal Combustion Engine is the best all
around engine.
> fill
> them with emmission neutral american made biofuel (at $1 dollar a
> gallon), and drive at the maximum speed limits deemed safe by expert
> opinion.
If Americans had a chioce (which they do), they would (and do) drive
whatever speed they like. When was the last time you were doing the
maximum speed Limit, and got passed? (probably this morning, by a lot
of drivers).
Americans don't care for 'expert opinion'. They will not listen to
'expert opinion'. The only way you could even ATTEMPT to limit them
to a maximum speed limit is to install governors on all cars (and
enough people are mechanically savy enough to be able to take them
right back off).
> All of these options already exist.
And Americans choose not to use them.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynical, just experienced."
Eeyore
Grendel wrote:
> lorad...@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > If Americans had a choice.. they would buy flex-fuel vehicles,
>
> If Americans had a choice (which they do), they would buy whatever
> they want. Currently, the Internal Combustion Engine is the best all
> around engine.
And it's no trouble to make one that's flex-fuel. Of course it needs some R&D
to do it well and that's exactly what Saab have done.
Graham
Eeyore
N8N wrote:
> The problem with "junk" flora is that it takes energy to turn it into
> ethanol. More, in fact, that you get by burning ALL of the resulting
> ethanol.
A classic MYTH.
Graham
N8N
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
wrote:
>
> Accidents are caused by BAD DRIVING, NOT SPEED. Speed never killed anyone,
> today's jetliners regularly achieve 630 mph ground speed, yet are the safest
> form of travel in existence.
>
> Graham
HAHAHA. Now that is really stupid. Comparing planes to cars. HAHA
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> In article <29b52528-763c-4df3-9cbc-
> 35779125f...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, beta...@earthlink.net
> says...
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 9:35 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > > In article <9123f097-4c34-4e1d-be68-ec394ac54f89
> > > @t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, beta...@earthlink.net says...
>
> > > > On May 22, 7:02 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > > > > It baffles me that you can't figure out how to drive 55 mph if you want
> > > > > to.
>
> > > > Hey stupid. I can drive 55 just fine. But me doing it by myself
> > > > won't lower gas prices, you moron!!!
>
> > > And legislating it won't either
>
> > It worked in the 70s and it would work again esp if it was combined
> > with stiff penalties and a PR campaign that emphasized all the
> > innocent people speeders murder. THINK
>
> No one drove 55 in the 70's
>
They drove slower and they would have done 55 if penalties had been
severe.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
HAHAHA. You libertarian loons are something else. So now a 55mph
speed limit is the same as fascism?? HAHAHA
Eeyore
N8N wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > N8N wrote:
> > > The problem with "junk" flora is that it takes energy to turn it into
> > > ethanol. More, in fact, that you get by burning ALL of the resulting
> > > ethanol.
> >
> > A classic MYTH.
>
> Prove me wrong, then.
How about you proving your case ?
A lot of this ant-biofuel propaganda assumes the use of high grade energy
like oil to power the necessasry processes. This isn't even remotely
sensible. In Brazil for example the heat for producing their bio-ethanol
comes from burning the bagasse waste.
Graham
Eeyore
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Accidents are caused by BAD DRIVING, NOT SPEED. Speed never killed anyone,
> > today's jetliners regularly achieve 630 mph ground speed, yet are the safest
> > form of travel in existence.
> >
> > Graham
>
> HAHAHA. Now that is really stupid. Comparing planes to cars. HAHA
What's REALLY stupid is suggesting speed causes accidents.
Graham
Eeyore
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> They drove slower and they would have done 55 if penalties had been
> severe.
NAZI !
N8N
wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > N8N wrote:
> > > > The problem with "junk" flora is that it takes energy to turn it into
> > > > ethanol. More, in fact, that you get by burning ALL of the resulting
> > > > ethanol.
>
> > > A classic MYTH.
>
> > Prove me wrong, then.
>
> How about you proving your case ?
I'm not the one going against common knowledge here... but since you
insist check this out:
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
that's merely the first link that pops up when you DAGS for "corn
ethanol energy." best estimates for corn-to-ethanol production, and
that link is definitely positive biased, estimate the energy balance
at about 1.2. that means that about 83% of ethanol produced would go
right back into the machinery required to produce it, ASSuming that
all the tractors, trucks, etc. were converted to run on ethanol rather
than Diesel fuel or gasoline. And that's an *optimistic* estimate.
Many estimates put the energy balance lower than 1 which means that we
shouldn't even be going through the exercise to begin with, unless
it's proven that we will be able to substantially increase the energy
balance in the near future. For other sources the energy balance may
be higher or lower; quite likely lower. Why don't you post the energy
balance numbers for the biostocks that you propose that we use?
>
> A lot of this ant-biofuel propaganda assumes the use of high grade energy
> like oil to power the necessasry processes. This isn't even remotely
> sensible. In Brazil for example the heat for producing their bio-ethanol
> comes from burning the bagasse waste.
Sure, that's in Brazil, where they mostly use sugar cane. Sugar cane
is a MUCH better biostock to use for ethanol production than anything
that's currently grown on a large scale in the US.
nate
Eeyore
N8N wrote:
> Best estimates
You mean loaded / ancient estimates.
> currently don't really show one way or another as to
> whether the current corn-based programs are actually yielding as much
> energy as we put into the process - in other words, we may be actually
> making things worse, not better, but it's too close to call at the
> moment. Certainly there is no clear "win" from moving to corn-based
> ethanol.
Best practice with modern plant now shows an EROEI of just slightly better than
2:1. Not stunning but very definitely energy positive.
Of course old plant doesn't do as well. This is where the misleading data has
come from. Some of these studies are DECADES old !
However whichever way you look at it, corn is not a particularly great feedstock
in the first place, especially where it is competing with demand as food.
In the UK, the DuPont / Shell bio-butanol plant is using sugar beet as feedstock.
There is a surplus of this here now as liberalisation of trade now means we're
importaing sugar from cane again instead of producing it all domestically. It was
to have been a bio-ethanol plant originally but then DuPont came up with this
idea for butanol which is a far better gasoline substitute.
Graham
Brent P
> A lot of this ant-biofuel propaganda assumes the use of high grade energy
> like oil to power the necessasry processes. This isn't even remotely
> sensible. In Brazil for example the heat for producing their bio-ethanol
> comes from burning the bagasse waste.
In the US, government subsidizes skew the market. Thusly ethanol is made
from CORN using OIL based fuels. This doesn't work from an energy
balance. It doesn't even work economically without the money flowing
from the government. The US exception is Hawaii, which uses sugar cane.
Brazil also uses sugar cane. The sugar cane plant fuels the ethanol
manufacturing process, it is energy positive.
It is very important to make bio-fuels carefully otherwise making them
is pointless and damaging to the environment and sectors of the economy.
Fuel needs to be entirely free market. Ethanol of more than 10% does
have a chicken and egg problem. The only place here for a government
nudge is to get more flex fuel vehicles on the market. Maybe a sales tax
credit for the additional cost of the stainless steel tank,lines, etc
and wider range O2 sensors.
The free market will find a way on its own to get ethanol to market to
undercut gasoline. This would avoid the nonsense we are seeing with corn
made ethanol right now.
Eeyore
N8N wrote:
There's nothing xenophobic about it. Much of the western world is now suffering
increasing levels of obesity due to a combination of poor nutritional habits and lack
of exercise.. However, my understanding is that Americans have a particularly
prodigious appetite for cola way beyond what I'd expect here.
> That said, most soda is *not* sweetened with real sugar, unless it's
> the "kosher for passover" variety, as "high fructose corn syrup" is
> apparently less expensive.
But equally suitable for fermenting.
> > And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
> > inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
> > hurt anyone.
>
> Yup, douchilarity back in full effect. Don't you *ever* get tired of
> bashing the US? It's not like being English you have a whole lot of
> lofty height from which to look down on other countries. Jeez, give
> it a rest already.
The same criticism could be just as easily applied here. I've recently taken to
walking more and I do feel better for it btw. I used to walk a heck of a lot at one
time actually, just for pleasure but I know all the country footpaths round here now
like the back of my hand.
Graham
N8N
wrote:
Actually there already are quite attractive incentives for flex-fuel
vehicles; I believe their economy is weighted as if they're
"alternative fuel vehicles" for CAFE purposes which means that their
production significantly increases the mfgrs. CAFE ratings (even if
real-world MPG is unchanged.) For example, from chevy.com it appears
that all new 4x4 Tahoes, 4x4 Suburbans, and 4x4 Avalanches are flex-
fuel, for example, with flex-fuel engines optional on other models. I
didn't even see the Impala listed on the flex-fuel page on their site
but all of the new ones I've seen are flex-fuel.
nate
N8N
wrote:
Sure, we're *all* fat, pasty geeks who guzzle Mountain Dew by the case
and could probably power our cars for a week on the byproducts of a
good liposuction session. Careful with that brush, it's awful broad.
>
> > That said, most soda is *not* sweetened with real sugar, unless it's
> > the "kosher for passover" variety, as "high fructose corn syrup" is
> > apparently less expensive.
>
> But equally suitable for fermenting.
Not so much. If it were, don't you think it'd be done, esp. since
corn is Big Business here?
>
> > > And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
> > > inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
> > > hurt anyone.
>
> > Yup, douchilarity back in full effect. Don't you *ever* get tired of
> > bashing the US? It's not like being English you have a whole lot of
> > lofty height from which to look down on other countries. Jeez, give
> > it a rest already.
>
> The same criticism could be just as easily applied here. I've recently taken to
> walking more and I do feel better for it btw. I used to walk a heck of a lot at one
> time actually, just for pleasure but I know all the country footpaths round here now
> like the back of my hand.
That's great, but at least in the US that's a separate issue from
fossil fuel use. Most people's daily commute is long enough that
walking is not an option, and cycling may or may not be practical
(usually "not" due to unsuitability of the roads.) So we *have* to
drive, whether we really want to or not.
Keep in mind that we have states that are significantly larger than
your whole country and plenty more that are of the same order of
magnitude in size, which may have only a handful of cities in them -
my home state of Pennsylvania being a good example.
nate
tankfixer
rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
Same energy content as gasoline ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
N8N
> In article <4836E1CF.2DF54...@hotmail.com>,
> rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > tankfixer wrote:
>
> > > BretCah...@aol.com says...
>
> > > > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
>
> > > > With the dual fuel engines.
>
> > > > With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
> > > > EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
>
> > > > A little smoggier, of course . . .
>
> > > All well and good
> > > Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine
> > > now ?
>
> > Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
>
> Same energy content as gasoline ?
Doesn't appear to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
although that's better than other *thanols. Probably couldn't be used
in a carbureted vehicle without retuning; so in a vehicle that doesn't
use a common, easily tuneable carb (Holley, Edelbrock/Carter, Weber,
etc.) it would be difficult to make the switch.
nate
lora...@cs.com
> > <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >> It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia
> >> twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break
> >> than ask the American people to drive 55 miles an hour, buy more fuel-
> >> efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might
> >> actually help free us from what he called our “addiction to oil.”
>
> >> -----------------
>
> >> If the american people had any brains they'd be demanding the 55. But
> >> the auto industry (which makes a fortune off car crashes) has
> >> brainwashed the idiots into thinking speed is cool
>
> > them with emmission neutral american made biofuel (at $1 dollar a
> > gallon), and drive at the maximum speed limits deemed safe by expert
> > opinion.
>
>
> couldn't fill it with ethanol because none of the filling stations in my
> locale carry ethanol.
>
> The major problem with ethanol is that it's just not as energy-rich as
Big whoop.. burn 20% more ethanol to make up the power difference..
That would make it $1.20 ethanol versus $1.00
> It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
> distribution system to handle ethanol.
Not if you buy a flex-fuel vehicle.. of which 6% of all US sold cars
already are.
N8N
First of all, it's closer to 40% than 20%. Secondly, where can you
buy fuel-grade ethanol for $1 a gallon?
nate
>
> > It would also require major modifications to the existing oil
> > distribution system to handle ethanol.
>
> Not if you buy a flex-fuel vehicle.. of which 6% of all US sold cars
> already are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tankfixer
6d3773...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bet...@earthlink.net says...
I don't recall driving slower.
Matthew T. Russotto
<lora...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>If Americans had a choice.. they would buy flex-fuel vehicles, fill
>them with emmission neutral american made biofuel (at $1 dollar a
>gallon), and drive at the maximum speed limits deemed safe by expert
>opinion.
No, if Americans had a choice they'd use Mr. Fusion powered flying
cars which run on garbage. Because that's as likely as emission
neutral biofuel at $1/gallon.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew T. Russotto
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>tankfixer wrote:
>
>> BretC...@aol.com says...
>>
>> > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
>> >
>> >
>> > With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
>> > EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
>> >
>> > A little smoggier, of course . . .
>>
>>
>> All well and good
>> Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine
>> now ?
>
>Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
Given that butanol is a 4-carbon hydrocarbon and canonical "gasoline"
is mostly 7 and 8 carbons (though of course the real stuff contains a
wide mix), that would be a bit of a surprise.
Hmm. A quick check reveals that n-butanol has a miserable motor octane
number (78), and is slightly less energy-dense than gasoline while
requiring a significantly different air-fuel ratio. Definitely not
"just like gasoline". And t-butanol is a solid at room temperature.
Matthew T. Russotto
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
>inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
>hurt anyone.
Walking takes forever, and buying a replacement bicycle every time I
go into a store and someone steals or vandalizes mine gets expensive
really quickly.
Eeyore
tankfixer wrote:
> rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
> > tankfixer wrote:
> > > BretC...@aol.com says...
> > >
> > > > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> > > >
> > > > With the dual fuel engines.
> > > >
> > > > With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
> > > > EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
> > > >
> > > > A little smoggier, of course . . .
> > >
> > >
> > > All well and good
> > > Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine
> > > now ?
> >
> > Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
>
> Same energy content as gasoline ?
As near as dammit. Doesn't require special fuel lines and seals either IIRC. I
don't think even 're-tuning' is needed.
Graham
Eeyore
N8N wrote:
> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > Eeyore says...
> >
> > > Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
> >
> > Same energy content as gasoline ?
>
> Doesn't appear to be
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
>
> although that's better than other *thanols. Probably couldn't be used
> in a carbureted vehicle without retuning; so in a vehicle that doesn't
> use a common, easily tuneable carb (Holley, Edelbrock/Carter, Weber,
> etc.) it would be difficult to make the switch.
Precious few cars have carburettors these days. Hardly a problem.
Graham
Eeyore
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >tankfixer wrote:
> >> BretC...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >> > > Expect about a 20% decrease in fuel economy over gasoline.
> >> >
> >> > With the dual fuel engines.
> >> >
> >> > With the higher compression ratio engines designed specifically for
> >> > EtOH the efficiency increase would make ethanol compare to gasoline.
> >> >
> >> > A little smoggier, of course . . .
> >>
> >>
> >> All well and good
> >> Who pays for the replacement of my current vehicle that works just fine
> >> now ?
> >
> >Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
>
> Given that butanol is a 4-carbon hydrocarbon and canonical "gasoline"
> is mostly 7 and 8 carbons (though of course the real stuff contains a
> wide mix), that would be a bit of a surprise.
>
> Hmm. A quick check reveals that n-butanol has a miserable motor octane
> number (78),
RON (used most places worldwide) is 96 which makes it the same as 'premium
unleaded' over here.
> and is slightly less energy-dense than gasoline while
> requiring a significantly different air-fuel ratio. Definitely not
> "just like gasoline". And t-butanol is a solid at room temperature.
Du Pont and Shell would seem to disagree with your assesment.
Graham
Eeyore
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
> >inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
> >hurt anyone.
>
> Walking takes forever,
Hardly forever ! Most people can manage around 4 mph.
> and buying a replacement bicycle every time I
> go into a store and someone steals or vandalizes mine gets expensive
> really quickly.
Get yourself an old bike that no-one would want to vandalise or steal.
Graham
Nate Nagel
Some of us still have older cars. I do, my dad does, SWMBO's dad does,
there's three "immediate family" right there. After all, it's still
more ecologically correct to reuse rather than replace. Plus, they
really don't make 'em like they used to... none of us could comfortably
afford to replace any of these cars with a new one that would provide
the same utility and more importantly performance and driving enjoyment.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Nate Nagel
>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
>>>inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
>>>hurt anyone.
>>
>>Walking takes forever,
>
>
> Hardly forever ! Most people can manage around 4 mph.
So it does take forever to get somewhere useful.
>
>
>>and buying a replacement bicycle every time I
>>go into a store and someone steals or vandalizes mine gets expensive
>>really quickly.
>
>
> Get yourself an old bike that no-one would want to vandalise or steal.
People vandalize and steal crap just out of plain meanness.
You also need to keep in mind that the YooEss is not the YooKay, and
there's significant regional variability in population density,
including lots of areas that are less densely populated than the most
sparsely populated backwaters of the YooKay, so solutions that work
there don't always work here except in the more urban areas (where the
"theft" issue is usually greater.)
tankfixer
rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
Precious few "new" cars have carburettors.
Many of us still drive cars that have them.
Actually a big problem.
Jim Yanik
news:g17f6...@news2.newsguy.com:
those older cars CAN be converted to EFI.
With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better.
People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
DRILL ANWR NOW
NYT writers, to real jobs!!
Oh wait: that's already happening...
http://gawker.com/5003106/nyt-to-cut-100-newsroom-jobs-this-year-says-exec-editor
> 'NYT' Cutting 100 Newsroom Jobs This Year
>
> "At the end of the year, the newsroom will be smaller than it is now,"
> Keller told the group, warning that staffers should prepare for layoffs...
Putting profits before people. What a greedy, sleazy scum!!!
Did I mention, he's a raving liberal...
(oh, the irony)
Nate Nagel
Sure, but unless someone makes a "kit" for your vehicle, you're stuck
with trying to find an aluminum intake to weld injector bungs to and
figuring out the intricacies of Megasquirt. And, for an occasional-use
vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. A well set up carburetor actually
runs very well.
Brent P
> Eeyore wrote:
>>>and buying a replacement bicycle every time I
>>>go into a store and someone steals or vandalizes mine gets expensive
>>>really quickly.
>> Get yourself an old bike that no-one would want to vandalise or steal.
> People vandalize and steal crap just out of plain meanness.
I've seen beater bikes that were locked up where someone bent the
wheels to make it unridable. I could easily bike to some stores where I
could carry what I want back easily but I don't because I don't want
bike trashed. My bike being damaged is a likely possibility if a bike to
a store like walmart for instance. So I either suck it and walk, wait
until I am buying a minimum of stuff to justify the car, or wait until I
am going to be driving by the place anyway.
I've seen (and been the victim of) vandalism to cars, but with a car one
blends in with the masses. The odds of it happening to you are low in
any particular instance. On a bicycle, you're the odd one out and the
bicycle is more vunerable. Comformity is pushed so hard that many of the
dumber people feel it's their duty to harrass and harm those who don't.
Couple that with an ever increasing disrespect for property rights (and
I think the government's disrespect of property rights has a lot to do
with it) and it's not a pretty picture.
Now, a store like home depot, I've just brought my bike inside with me.
1) No place to tie up. 2) the store is constructed for people to be
pushing around carts and such much bigger than my bicycle.
It might be different if I lived in small town USA, but I don't.
Brent P
> those older cars CAN be converted to EFI.
> With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better.
EFI kits are rather expensive and limited in plug-and-play applications.
If you don't have a largely popular engine in your car get ready to do
your own engineering work.
Now it may have changed since I last looked into it, but for something
as simple as 1982 oldsmobile 307 V8, it meant doing one's own
engineering to get it going. That's just for a quadrajet carb'd common
GM V8 that's just a little off the small block chevy beaten path. I came
to the conclusion the route of least resistance to EFI in that car was
to replace the engine entirely with a newer small block chevy with fuel
injection. Kind of ruins the whole thing, but when you don't have a
machine shop of your own and trial and error with someone else's is too
expensive, well it's just easier to get the appropiate engine mounts
from a salvage yard.
> People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos.
People have been putting non-original motors in 1930s autos since well
like the 1940s. If you want to build a decent street-rod or such today
you're going to use a modern EFI motor in most cases. Even if you have
an older build or start with a carb and change your mind, odds are the
engine is a small block chevy or ford V8 and those are plug-and-play kit
applications.
I would think that the people putting EFI on old ford flat V8s and other
1930s motors would be few and far between, plus they are doing a fair
amount of their own engineering work.
*us*
>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>>
>>>tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eeyore says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
>>>>
>>>>Same energy content as gasoline ?
>>>
>>>Doesn't appear to be
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
>>>
>>>although that's better than other *thanols. Probably couldn't be used
>>>in a carbureted vehicle without retuning; so in a vehicle that doesn't
>>>use a common, easily tuneable carb (Holley, Edelbrock/Carter, Weber,
>>>etc.) it would be difficult to make the switch.
>>
>>
>> Precious few cars have carburettors these days. Hardly a problem.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
>Some of us still have older cars ...
Not many, though. That's the point.
Nate Nagel
There's *lots* of cars with carburetors still on the road. Perhaps not
so much in overly style-conscious urban areas, but they're out there.
Carbs were the norm through the 80's, and some of those era cars are
still in use as primary transportation.
Matthew T. Russotto
>> number (78),
>
>RON (used most places worldwide) is 96 which makes it the same as 'premium
>unleaded' over here.
RON and MON are both important. A fuel with a high RON but low MON
will work fine when the engine is lightly loaded but knock badly under
load.
>> and is slightly less energy-dense than gasoline while
>> requiring a significantly different air-fuel ratio. Definitely not
>> "just like gasoline". And t-butanol is a solid at room temperature.
>
>Du Pont and Shell would seem to disagree with your assesment.
I doubt it. These are simple physical facts. The result being that
if you use n-butanol in a modern non-flex-fuel car, it will run too
lean, and may knock under load.
Matthew T. Russotto
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
>> >inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
>> >hurt anyone.
>>
>> Walking takes forever,
>
>Hardly forever ! Most people can manage around 4 mph.
4mph is miserably slow.
>> and buying a replacement bicycle every time I
>> go into a store and someone steals or vandalizes mine gets expensive
>> really quickly.
>
>Get yourself an old bike that no-one would want to vandalise or steal.
Doesn't help. I've found that if you turn your back on a bicycle,
even a piece of crap, it's gone or wrecked.
Matthew T. Russotto
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I've seen beater bikes that were locked up where someone bent the
>wheels to make it unridable.
Yep, and a bike rack makes a dandy lever to bend a wheel.
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > N8N wrote:
> >>tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >>>Eeyore says...
> >>>
> >>>>Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
> >>>
> >>>Same energy content as gasoline ?
> >>
> >>Doesn't appear to be
> >>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
> >>
> >>although that's better than other *thanols. Probably couldn't be used
> >>in a carbureted vehicle without retuning; so in a vehicle that doesn't
> >>use a common, easily tuneable carb (Holley, Edelbrock/Carter, Weber,
> >>etc.) it would be difficult to make the switch.
> >
> > Precious few cars have carburettors these days. Hardly a problem.
>
> Some of us still have older cars. I do, my dad does, SWMBO's dad does,
> there's three "immediate family" right there.
Stick to gasoline for them then. There's NO WAY butanol (or anything else)
will REPLACE gasoline for decades yet.
> After all, it's still more ecologically correct to reuse rather than
> replace.
I agree 100%.
> Plus, they really don't make 'em like they used to... none of us could
> comfortably
> afford to replace any of these cars with a new one that would provide
> the same utility and more importantly performance and driving enjoyment.
I have a few fond memories of some of the older cars I owned but seriously
the recent Saabs I've owned piss all over them. By a country mile in fact.
Nostalgia's fun though. I wouldn't ever knock that. Those memories can be a
great source of entertainment.
Graham
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
> >>>inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
> >>>hurt anyone.
> >>
> >>Walking takes forever,
> >
> >
> > Hardly forever ! Most people can manage around 4 mph.
>
> So it does take forever to get somewhere useful.
To the local shops ? Even my local supermarket is less than a mile away for me. I
can walk there and back in 20 mins or less. There's a newsagent and general stores
at the end of the road only 200 m away ! Not to mention a launderete, off-licence
(liquor store), cafe, insurace agent and video rental shop. Slightly further way
are a pharmacist, bakers, pet shop, office supplies shop, furniture shop and all
manner of other facilities.
Now, if your own local stores are further than that, then one ought really to be
looking at planning issues.
Graham
Eeyore
tankfixer wrote:
> rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
> > N8N wrote:
> > > tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > > > Eeyore says...
> > > >
> > > > > Butanol works just like gasoline. No replacement needed.
> > > >
> > > > Same energy content as gasoline ?
> > >
> > > Doesn't appear to be
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel
> > >
> > > although that's better than other *thanols. Probably couldn't be used
> > > in a carbureted vehicle without retuning; so in a vehicle that doesn't
> > > use a common, easily tuneable carb (Holley, Edelbrock/Carter, Weber,
> > > etc.) it would be difficult to make the switch.
> >
> > Precious few cars have carburettors these days. Hardly a problem.
>
> Precious few "new" cars have carburettors.
Almost NONE I think.
> Many of us still drive cars that have them.
>
> Actually a big problem.
Butanol won't replace gasoline overnight.Not by a LONG way. Heck, it's not
even available in the USA yet AFAIK. I doubt there would ever be a shortage of
the right fuel for you. Even so, a simple re-tune would fix it.
Don't fret over non-existent problems. And don't be afraid of modest change.
Graham
Eeyore
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote in
> >
> > Some of us still have older cars. I do, my dad does, SWMBO's dad does,
> > there's three "immediate family" right there. After all, it's still
> > more ecologically correct to reuse rather than replace. Plus, they
> > really don't make 'em like they used to... none of us could comfortably
> > afford to replace any of these cars with a new one that would provide
> > the same utility and more importantly performance and driving enjoyment.
>
> those older cars CAN be converted to EFI.
> With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better.
>
> People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos.
EFI pisses on carburettors.
Graham
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos.
>
> Sure, but unless someone makes a "kit" for your vehicle, you're stuck
> with trying to find an aluminum intake to weld injector bungs to and
> figuring out the intricacies of Megasquirt. And, for an occasional-use
> vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. A well set up carburetor actually
> runs very well.
Even the best set-up carburetor wastes fuel on the over-run.
A bit of intelligence by the after-market sector would quickly provide what's
needed.
Single point injection (simple to install) , whilst not the best route to high
performance can deliver most of the benefits of EFI.
Graham
Eeyore
Brent P wrote:
> Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
> > those older cars CAN be converted to EFI.
> > With better emissions and fuel mileage,and they run better.
>
> EFI kits are rather expensive
Boo-Hoo !
> and limited in plug-and-play applications.
That must be bad design.
> If you don't have a largely popular engine in your car get ready to do
> your own engineering work.
Sorry but this is no reason to hold back the relentless advance of modern
advanced technology that offers vastly improved mpg AND performance. Yes
BOTH !
The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the
bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~)
Trust me - it's a SCREAM ! Buy a damn Turbo Saab and see for yourself.
They're quite crazily fun to drive. I love them to bits. Good mpg too !
Graham
Eeyore
*, US, * wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >> Precious few cars have carburettors these days. Hardly a problem.
> >
> >Some of us still have older cars ...
>
> Not many, though. That's the point.
The last car I bought that had a carburettor was a 1985 model.
That's TWENTY THREE years ago.
Since than ALL have had EFI and every one was also MULTI-POINT EFI too. And
every one of them has had cracking performance.
Graham
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> There's *lots* of cars with carburetors still on the road.
Not in the UK and Europe generally for sure.
> Perhaps not so much in overly style-conscious urban areas, but they're out
> there.
> Carbs were the norm through the 80's, and some of those era cars are
> still in use as primary transportation.
And your point is ?
Graham
Eeyore
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmm. A quick check reveals that n-butanol has a miserable motor octane
> >> number (78),
> >
> >RON (used most places worldwide) is 96 which makes it the same as 'premium
> >unleaded' over here.
>
> RON and MON are both important. A fuel with a high RON but low MON
> will work fine when the engine is lightly loaded but knock badly under
> load.
I'm prepared to take your word for that if you genuinely know more about the
subject and I gather you're moderately expert.
However a simple re-map of the ECU will fix that. That's the joy of modern engine
technology.
> >> and is slightly less energy-dense than gasoline while
> >> requiring a significantly different air-fuel ratio. Definitely not
> >> "just like gasoline". And t-butanol is a solid at room temperature.
> >
> >Du Pont and Shell would seem to disagree with your assesment.
>
> I doubt it. These are simple physical facts. The result being that
> if you use n-butanol in a modern non-flex-fuel car, it will run too
> lean, and may knock under load.
Come on. Du Pont and Shell are MAJOR GLOBAL COMPNIES. They won't piss about with
half-assed ideas.
Graham
Eeyore
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >
> >> >And then again, a bit more WALKING would help too. Cars are especially fuel
> >> >inefficient on short runs. Walking the occasional mile (or cycling) wouldn't
> >> >hurt anyone.
> >>
> >> Walking takes forever,
> >
> >Hardly forever ! Most people can manage around 4 mph.
>
> 4mph is miserably slow.
It's what we call 'walking pace'.
If the shops are within say a half mile or so, you'll not take long to get there,
you'll also get some nice fresh air in your lungs and in some instances I've even
picked up some nice flowers growing wild that I took home and put in a vase next to
my bath. It cheers the place up very nicely. Not to mention the scent can be
wonderful too.
Do this regularly and you'll also find you may lose a bit of weight. Seeing as most
westerners are over-weight, this is not a bad thing.
Plus getting out in the fresh air is good for the soul.
Graham
Eeyore
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Du Pont and Shell would seem to disagree with your assesment.
>
> I doubt it. These are simple physical facts. The result being that
> if you use n-butanol in a modern non-flex-fuel car, it will run too
> lean, and may knock under load.
And just how hard is it to give it a new ignition map given the ability of modern
ECUs ? All it needs is poking a lead into the 'diagnostic port' and pressing a
button. I thought you Americans were all into this 'high tech' stuff.
It seems to me you're making silly excuses.
Modern thinking is that the ECU will be able to detect fuel type and octane
rating and adjust ignition parameters 'on the fly'. What's wrong with that ? Saab
have already done it. Several years ago in fact. Why does the US auto industry
instead drag its heels so ?
Graham
Nate Nagel
Not really. One of the largest advantages to good multi-point EFI is
the elimination of mixture distribution issues due to poor intake
manifold design. TBI is just like a carburetor in this situation, and
TBI kits still sell for near $1K or so.
Nate Nagel
Ah, I see where this thread is going. "Graham is right and if you don't
understand Graham's way thats because you haven't been enlightened yet."
We've been down this road before and I think now is about the time
that I'll stop reading. Your particular brand of arrogance gets old
real fast.
Nate Nagel
>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Du Pont and Shell would seem to disagree with your assesment.
>>
>>I doubt it. These are simple physical facts. The result being that
>>if you use n-butanol in a modern non-flex-fuel car, it will run too
>>lean, and may knock under load.
>
>
> And just how hard is it to give it a new ignition map given the ability of modern
> ECUs ? All it needs is poking a lead into the 'diagnostic port' and pressing a
> button.
Oh, sure, that's all. So get on it.
> I thought you Americans were all into this 'high tech' stuff.
I have better things to do with my time than to re-engineer a
hypothetical car with a diagnostic port that I don't own to use a fuel
that isn't available.
> It seems to me you're making silly excuses.
Why are we making excuses? We're telling you reasons why your pie in
the sky magic bullet doesn't work. It's great that people are looking
at alternatives to gasoline, but don't get all pissy when people point
out why they aren't drop ins.
> Modern thinking is that the ECU will be able to detect fuel type and octane
> rating and adjust ignition parameters 'on the fly'. What's wrong with that ? Saab
> have already done it. Several years ago in fact. Why does the US auto industry
> instead drag its heels so ?
They already do exactly what you suggest, just for ethanol/gasoline not
butanol/gasoline. No heel-dragging in that respect.
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>Jim Yanik wrote:
> >>
> >>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos.
> >>
> >>Sure, but unless someone makes a "kit" for your vehicle, you're stuck
> >>with trying to find an aluminum intake to weld injector bungs to and
> >>figuring out the intricacies of Megasquirt. And, for an occasional-use
> >>vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. A well set up carburetor actually
> >>runs very well.
> >
> >
> > Even the best set-up carburetor wastes fuel on the over-run.
> >
> > A bit of intelligence by the after-market sector would quickly provide what's
> > needed.
> >
> > Single point injection (simple to install) , whilst not the best route to high
> > performance can deliver most of the benefits of EFI.
>
> Not really. One of the largest advantages to good multi-point EFI is
> the elimination of mixture distribution issues due to poor intake
> manifold design. TBI is just like a carburetor in this situation, and
> TBI kits still sell for near $1K or so.
Maybe the US aftermarket business isn't as well set up as in Europe.
In any event, whist standard gasoline continues to be available and I'm sure that'll
be for in excess of 20 - 30 years, what's the problem ?
Graham
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the
> > bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~)
> >
> > Trust me - it's a SCREAM ! Buy a damn Turbo Saab and see for yourself.
> > They're quite crazily fun to drive. I love them to bits. Good mpg too !
>
> Ah, I see where this thread is going. "Graham is right and if you don't
> understand Graham's way thats because you haven't been enlightened yet."
> We've been down this road before and I think now is about the time
> that I'll stop reading. Your particular brand of arrogance gets old
> real fast.
Have you EVER driven a Saab Turbo ?
By the sound of it NO. For heaven's sake try out an Aero.
You won't stop grinning for several DAYS. And it's only on I4 2.3 L with
wonderful mpg !
Graham
Nate Nagel
OK, great. Have you ever had a car that was fun to drive and didn't
require financing? then stop looking down your nose at those of us who
choose to drive pre-OBD2 or even pre-EFI cars.
Nate Nagel
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, but unless someone makes a "kit" for your vehicle, you're stuck
>>>>with trying to find an aluminum intake to weld injector bungs to and
>>>>figuring out the intricacies of Megasquirt. And, for an occasional-use
>>>>vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. A well set up carburetor actually
>>>>runs very well.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even the best set-up carburetor wastes fuel on the over-run.
>>>
>>>A bit of intelligence by the after-market sector would quickly provide what's
>>>needed.
>>>
>>>Single point injection (simple to install) , whilst not the best route to high
>>>performance can deliver most of the benefits of EFI.
>>
>>Not really. One of the largest advantages to good multi-point EFI is
>>the elimination of mixture distribution issues due to poor intake
>>manifold design. TBI is just like a carburetor in this situation, and
>>TBI kits still sell for near $1K or so.
>
>
> Maybe the US aftermarket business isn't as well set up as in Europe.
yes, as usual we just suck. *sigh.*
Keep in mind that the market for these conversions is very limited, as
most people that have carburetors are quite happy with them, and don't
have any real incentive to switch.
>
> In any event, whist standard gasoline continues to be available and I'm sure that'll
> be for in excess of 20 - 30 years, what's the problem ?
That's what I'm trying to figure out. You seem to think that there is
one and that we should all retrofit our cars to use some fuel that I've
never heard of before this thread, and I'm not sure a) how I could do
that and b) why I should bother.
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>The sooner the US auto makers get to understand turboing engines too, the
> >>>bigger the smile on your face will be ! ;~)
> >>>
> >>>Trust me - it's a SCREAM ! Buy a damn Turbo Saab and see for yourself.
> >>>They're quite crazily fun to drive. I love them to bits. Good mpg too !
> >>
> >>Ah, I see where this thread is going. "Graham is right and if you don't
> >>understand Graham's way thats because you haven't been enlightened yet."
> >> We've been down this road before and I think now is about the time
> >>that I'll stop reading. Your particular brand of arrogance gets old
> >>real fast.
> >
> >
> > Have you EVER driven a Saab Turbo ?
> >
> > By the sound of it NO. For heaven's sake try out an Aero.
> >
> > You won't stop grinning for several DAYS. And it's only on I4 2.3 L with
> > wonderful mpg !
>
> OK, great. Have you ever had a car that was fun to drive and didn't
> require financing? then stop looking down your nose at those of us who
> choose to drive pre-OBD2 or even pre-EFI cars.
The depreciation on Saabs (like many 'alternative' executive cars) is high
enough that you can afford to buy one in decent condition as a 'toy' near
enough.
Trust me, you WILL NOT be disappointed as long as you chose a good model. The
Aero is blistering and is notable for being able to out-accelerate some Ferraris
in certain speed regimes. It's the ultimate 'Q-car' Where Q = quiet ).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-car
" A more affordable and even less visually remarkable "Q-car" car is the classic
Saab 9000 2.3 turbo. "
What's the problem ? Are you 'chicken' ?
Graham
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>>>Jim Yanik wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>People are installing EFI motors in 1930's autos.
> >>>>
> >>>>Sure, but unless someone makes a "kit" for your vehicle, you're stuck
> >>>>with trying to find an aluminum intake to weld injector bungs to and
> >>>>figuring out the intricacies of Megasquirt. And, for an occasional-use
> >>>>vehicle, the gains aren't worth it. A well set up carburetor actually
> >>>>runs very well.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Even the best set-up carburetor wastes fuel on the over-run.
> >>>
> >>>A bit of intelligence by the after-market sector would quickly provide what's
> >>>needed.
> >>>
> >>>Single point injection (simple to install) , whilst not the best route to high
> >>>performance can deliver most of the benefits of EFI.
> >>
> >>Not really. One of the largest advantages to good multi-point EFI is
> >>the elimination of mixture distribution issues due to poor intake
> >>manifold design. TBI is just like a carburetor in this situation, and
> >>TBI kits still sell for near $1K or so.
> >
> >
> > Maybe the US aftermarket business isn't as well set up as in Europe.
>
> yes, as usual we just suck. *sigh.*
You have different aspirations and priorities in the USA.
> Keep in mind that the market for these conversions is very limited, as
> most people that have carburetors are quite happy with them, and don't
> have any real incentive to switch.
I don't know anyone with a carburetted car any more. Emissions regs have essentially
mandated their extinction. Sure, a few classic cars will still have them but these are a
MINISCULE percentage of cars on the road.
In any case our own UK regs give concessions to such vehicles such that even a small
supply of leaded fuel is still available for them.
> > In any event, whist standard gasoline continues to be available and I'm sure that'll
> > be for in excess of 20 - 30 years, what's the problem ?
>
> That's what I'm trying to figure out. You seem to think that there is
> one and that we should all retrofit our cars to use some fuel that I've
> never heard of before this thread, and I'm not sure a) how I could do
> that and b) why I should bother.
No, butanol will take some time to make significant market penetration, by which time the
auto makers will be fully tooled up to make best use of it.
Why are you so afraid of scientific advances ?
Graham
Eeyore
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>Du Pont and Shell would seem to disagree with your assesment.
> >>
> >>I doubt it. These are simple physical facts. The result being that
> >>if you use n-butanol in a modern non-flex-fuel car, it will run too
> >>lean, and may knock under load.
> >
> >
> > And just how hard is it to give it a new ignition map given the ability of modern
> > ECUs ? All it needs is poking a lead into the 'diagnostic port' and pressing a
> > button.
>
> Oh, sure, that's all. So get on it.
Many independents already offer such ECU mods.
Graham