Ah, heck. I made the mistake of turning on my PC and looking at Russ Steele’s blog this morning. At least I slept in.
Poor Rudolph. Now the other reindeer will really laugh and call him names, especially with that new nose.
Lest you think this spoof is off the mark, let me remind you that CARB wanted to outlaw dark colored cars in California:
Now CARB and other groups are pushing for a 60 mpg efficiency standard, perhaps as early as 2017, which is very close (if not over) the the maximum efficiency limit of gasoline in an internal combustion engine.
The 60 mpg standard by 2025 presumes a 6% annual improvement in fuel economy over the 2016 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 34.1 mpg established in April, Hwang said.
“We were very surprised when environmental groups called for 60 mpg because just last year we worked with the Obama administration and the State of California and environmental groups to agree on a new national standard that would reach over 35 mpg by 2016, and before we’ve even achieved those new heights, in fact, before the program has even taken effect, there are already calls for almost double the mileage,” said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and 10 additional auto manufacturers.
Who doesn’t want better fuel efficiency? However, reality can be a real bitch.
From Wikipedia, The MPGe
Description
The miles per gallon gasoline equivalent is based on the energy content of gasoline. The energy obtainable from burning one US gallon is 115,000 BTU. Thus one mile per gallon gasoline equivalent is equal to 115,000 BTU per mile.[1] For alternative fuels, energy required to manufacture the fuel may also be considered. To convert the mile per gallon rating into other units of distance per unit energy used, the mile per gallon value can be multiplied by one of the following factors to obtain other units:
-
1 MPGE = 1/115,000 miles/BTU ≈ 1/33.7032 miles/kW·h ≈ 1/20.9422 km/kW·h ≈ 1/75.3919 km/MJ
Conversion to MPGE
MPGE is determined by converting the vehicle consumption per unit distance, as determined through computer modeling or completion of an actual driving cycle, from its native units into a gasoline energy equivalent. Examples of native units include W·h for electric vehicles, kg-H2 for hydrogen vehicles, gallons for biodiesel vehicles, cubic feet for compressed natural gas, pounds for propane or Liquefied petroleum gas vehicles, and gallons for liquefied natural gas vehicles. Special cases for specific alternative fuels are discussed below, but a general formula for MPGe is:
![MPGe = \frac{total~miles~driven}{\left [ \frac{total~energy~of~all~fuels~consumed}{energy~of~one~gallon~of~gasoline} \right ]}](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/2/0/420e0ea2d93a5bf33a1a53f3e8c6aa1b.png)
Depending on the purpose, overall energy consumption for the vehicle may also need to include the energy used in the production of whatever energy carrier is used for the vehicle and the energy used in filling the “tank”. For example, with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of all energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug.
Basic values for the energy content of various fuels are given by the defaults used in the Department of Energy GREET model, as follows:
| Fuel | Unit | Btu/Unit |
|---|---|---|
| gasoline | gallon | 116,090 |
| electricity | kWh | 3,412 |
| diesel | gallon | 129,488 |
| biodiesel | gallon | 119,550 |
| ethanol | gallon | 76,330 |
| E85 | gallon | 82,000 |
| CNG | SCF | 983 |
| H2-Gas | SCF | 289 |
| H2-Liq | gallon | 30,500 |
| LPG | gallon | 84,950 |
| methanol | gallon | 57,250 |
Note, however, that – except for electricity – the energy content of a particular fuel can vary somewhat given its specific chemistry and production method. For example, in the new efficiency ratings that have been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) – see below – the energy content of a gallon of gasoline is assumed to be 114,984 BTUs
The maximum efficiency of an internal combustion engine running on gasoline is said to be about 30%. This is before drivetrain , road friction, and air friction losses. Tank to wheel efficiency of a standard gasoline car is said to be only around 15%. Most of the energy in gasoline is converted to heat by combustion and friction.
From Wikipedia: The largest internal combustion engines in the world are two-stroke diesels, used in some locomotives and large ships. They use forced induction (similar to super-charging, or turbocharging) to scavenge the cylinders; an example of this type of motor is the Wartsila-Sulzer turbocharged two-stroke diesel as used in large container ships. It is the most efficient and powerful internal combustion engine in the world with over 50% thermal efficiency. For comparison, the most efficient small four-stroke motors are around 43% thermal efficiency (SAE 900648); size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to surface area.
To reach that 50% efficiency standard required to get to 60MPG, maybe CARB is planning to have US automakers outfit the vehicles with advanced technology like this:
CARB might benefit from reading this essay on the folly of magic carburetors to help them design achievable standards.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello all, I knew my expertise would come in handy one day on this blog. I am an auto mechanic,25 years plus. Yes water injection has been used in old radial and jet aircraft engines for years and anybody who had to tear them down to repair them saw the samething i have, water injected into the combustion process no matter the material, be it steel, iron, alum., even ceramic have the same problems! steel and iron pit out small pieces of the material and grow with use almost the same with alum.,and forget ceramic it just self destructs, all of this does happen over time as someone else commented earlier,longjevity is a BIG ISSUE. Not to mention the condensacion issue that happens when you have shut down and the engine sits over night or day, the rust that forms cause even more damage when you start up the next time. As was said before it is good for a power boost in some applications but in an automotive use it is useless except to use for carbon build up and that is only in short burst at highway speeds and driven a few miles to clean it out; please do not try this at home! Carberators is an old specialty of mine of course very few on the road any more, fuel injection is more effcient mileage, emissions and driveability wise. Sorry for all the spelling mistakes me and Jose Quervo are argueing over lazy teenagers duma$$ comments for some reason.
Corky Boyd your comment has a flaw IMO. I used to race drag and circle track and street. Intercoolers are great but to get maxim use you need to use ice and water mix around the induction hose to cool the air down even more. In street drags we used to ice the fuel line to cool the fuel even more, colder fuel is more dense hense more power and also we would wait to do most racing at night because colder air is more dense so more power. Old carb engines really love cooler air.
60 mpg in a gasoline powered vehicle is easy enough. Motorcycles capable of highway speeds get up to twice that. The problem is the government imposes draconian safety standards on 4-wheeled vehicles otherwise you can build a light weight passenger car out of motorcycle components for wheels, frame, transmission, and engine while making the body with components from tents – canvass, clear plastic, and zippers. You’d definitely want to practice defensive driving but it would still be safer than a motorcycle.
100 mpg diy 3-wheel car
Water injection has been done, it does provide a “boost” by converting heat in the cylinder to water vapor thus increasing pressure. But modern engines are designed to run hotter for better efficiency. For example, engine thermostats (which set the minimum operating temperature) used to run around 160°F but nowadays are around 195°F, with a cited efficiency limitation factor being the boiling limits of the traditional water/antifreeze mix. They’ve already boosted temperatures by increasing the operating pressure of the cooling system to suppress the boiling point. Thus water injection is incompatible with modern engines due to its cooling effect.
Also, engine cylinders are not absolutely sealed, piston rings are not perfect and gases do escape the combustion chamber. That’s why there is a PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) valve, to prevent buildup of pressure. With water injection there is too much water vapor getting into the crankcase space, getting mixed into the oil, leading to greatly increased wear and corrosion. That’s a reason why it doesn’t work, and a second reason why it doesn’t work with modern high-temp engines.
This leads to the current incarnation of water injection, the HHO Generator which makes the miraculous “mono-atomic hydrogen” etc, feel free to Google for the hype. Electricity from the vehicle is used for electrolysis, breaking water down into hydrogen and oxygen, which is piped into the engine’s air intake. Inside the engine they recombine into water as vapor. Since it’s a combustion reaction, engine temperature and that part of the efficiency is not noticeably reduced. But it’s gases coming in, water vapor going out, thus nothing like the pressure boost of traditional water injection. What benefits there may be largely come from having an additional puff of steam in the combustion chamber (see preceding paragraph). Note the growing trend, if not absolute by now, to use all stainless steel exhaust systems, due to modern engines being so efficient there is considerable water production in the combustion process and also in the catalytic converter as the few remaining unburnt hydrocarbons are consumed. Traditional water injection had some notable benefits in the older cooler engines, which some thought offset the drawbacks. Promoting HHO Generators for modern vehicle engines is just a scam.
It appears I left out the link to Shell’s mileage competition.
http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/aboutshell/media_center/news_and_press_releases/2009/2009shellecomarathonamericas_finalresults.html
This basically is a an argument about the Laws of Thermodynamics, and Newton’s Laws of Motion. Broken down to its simplest parts it takes a certain amount of energy to propel a vehicle with a particular mass, to overcome rolling friction, and aerodynamic drag. These are related to Newton’s laws of motion. The The Laws of Thermodynamics show your the efficiency of the system, energy in work out. Thus all we can do in manipulate these factors to optimize the system for energy consumption.
Thus, this 100 MPG carburetor is meaningless without knowing all of the factors involved in the system. I can design a very efficient power supply for a very limited application. However, if that system sees any variation from narrow window I have tuned it to, the efficiency will suffer, or the system will fail. This hold true for cars as well. You can design a very efficient system if you are only on level ground, make gentle turns, have a good Reynold’s number (irregardless of the space and safety constraints), keep your air flow velocities with a particular range , and use low friction tires. Who would want to drive this vehicle on the open road? Not me, and there is the problem.
Unsafe, efficient vehicles are death traps. The NTSB has figures for the increase in traffic fatalities, due to the CAFE standards. Every 100 pounds of weight reduction results in a 5.63% increase in the fatality rate for small cars, 4.70% for mid size cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. Thus this causes between 2,000 to 3,900 additional deaths per year. Yes, air bags and other safety restraints can help, but air bags specifically are very dangerous in the amount of energy delivered. As originally designed they were built to stop a large man from impacting the steering wheel and or windshield. As they soon found out this a level of energy was sufficient to kill infants, children, and small adults.
So I have a question, how much energy is required to propel a car down the road during various conditions? I am sure this data exists somewhere. What are the efficiencies in the current ICM and or Electric with Drive Train system, and how can we improve them. These definitions and data would allow for reasoned understanding of the system. Thus the targets should be related to improving those portions of the system that can be changed without violating the laws of physics (neither Congress or the Administration can repeal the laws of physics no matter how hard they try). Then we will work with real data not some pie in the sky, Lawyer/Political Science major generated number pulled out of their distal colon whose sole purpose is to make some English major environmentalist happy.
One of the things I rarely see mentioned is how we HAD 50 MPG cars. They died at the hands of regulators.
The original Honda Civic was 52 or 54 MPG ( I remember drooling over the ads…) and the original VW Diesel Rabbit was 50 (something).
Detuning and added “stuff” to meet smog requirements resulted in a lot of fuel being burned for less “go”. Thus lower MPG. At the same time, more weight was added for more safety equipment. The end game of more detuning to carry more weight was that now folks are often thrilled at a 25 or 30 mpg compact car when it could be much higher.
(No, I’m not avocating for more smog, just pointing out a cost of ‘control’ that is hidden and often ignored.)
FWIW, I have an old 1979 Mercedes FULL SIZED station wagon (near 2 ton, about 3800 lb wt). It goes over 110 mph ( I chickened out…) and I’ve gotten up to about 28 mpg from it (not at the same time 😉 but rather on a long run cross country at slow freeway speeds). Usually I get closer to 24 mpg and can get down to 22 mpg around town in winter if I stomp on it a lot. It accellerates “nicely” 😉
The kicker? It is a 2.3 L in line 4 cylendar engine with a Stromberg side draft carburettor on it. European grey market car. The 230T was not a regular US import.
I also have the newer 1990 ish equivalent. A much lighter weight 300Te wagon that is shorter and narrower with somewhat better aerodynamics. It gets 17 mpg around town. Top speed is about the same (or at least MY top speed is about the same 😉 and on the freeway can SOMETIMES on a good day make 22 mpg. It has an inline 6 cyl 3 L with fuel injection and electronic ignition.
So why do I get less milage with less car? Where does all the gas go? Into the need to meet California smog requirements.
FWIW, my Diesel wagon (yes, I have 3 Mercedes wagons… what can I say… I like them… ) has the 5 cyl 3 L Turbo Diesel and gets about 22 mpg around town (in the larger size frame, it’s a 1984 so the same style as the 230T with carb but heavier suspension) and gets up about 24 mpg on the freeway. I find it fascinating that the carburetted engine gets about the same MPG as the Diesel. They did something very right in that engine…
The most efficient in the fleet is the 240 D, a 2.4 L inline 4 cyl Diesel (no turbo 8-(
It has very poor accelleration and tops out at about 85 ( 90 mph on a good day..)
But I’ve gotten up to 36 mpg in it and typical is 26 just about anywhere. ( I once got a tad over 40 mpg, but that was drafting close to a semi-truck at 60 on the freeway for hours, so doesn’t count 😉
It carries 5 folks in comfort and weighs about 3600 lbs.
Do I care about CARB? Not at all. I’ll be driving these cars for the rest of my driving days. They can keep their green econobox over regulated mandated whatevers. I’ll just keep driving my ‘ol Diesels. That era MB can go over 1,000,000 miles and I’ve owned one at about 500,000 miles. The present ones are about 200,000 and 120,000 miles, so “young ones”… (Which, BTW, do nicely on soybean oil cut with a little kerosene, jet fuel, lamp oil, or paint thinner… so they can do whatever they want with the price and availability of Diesel fuel too. I’ll just keep on keep’n on…)
Care to guess what happens when 2 tons hits 1 ton? Each takes the same share of M*V due to conservation of momentum. I’ll take my share as 2M, they will take their share as 2V. Energy goes as V^2, so they will get 4 times the energy… and I’ll have twice as much mass to absorb my ‘share’… Yeah, that’s worth something to me… I’ll swap 10 mpg for not having (2V)^2.
(I’ve had a lot of years to think about how I’d want to be prepared for The Day when Carb completely breaks things. I’m set. Looks like they are teeing up the shot now…)