Brian Smith wrote:
> "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:jason-1404051015100001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>
>>Brian,
>>Great point. Over 30 years ago, my brother had a Chevy that had the
>>smallest 8 cyld. motor made by GM--it may have been a 327 but am not sure.
>>The gas mileage was about 18 MPG. About 2 years later, he traded it in on
>>a new Chevy that had a 350 engine which was about the largest 8 cyld.
>>motor made by GM--at that time. He was able to get about 21 miles per
>>gallon. I asked a professor at the local college about this since no one
>>in our family could figure it out. He explained the same points that you
>>made in your post. A larger engine does not has to work as hard as a
>>really small engine--esp. when it involves going up and down mountains
>>like we had in West Virginia.
>
>
> It's a common misconception that a lot of people have, that a bigger engine
> means more fuel consumed.
>
>
wow, that's an awesomely underinformed pair of statements. the
fundamental fact is that bigger engines have more friction & more
reciprocating mass, therefore they /do/ require more energy to run. 8
cylinders take more energy to run than 4 cylinders for the same reasons.
the "improvement" experienced between those two motors was entirely
due to differences in ignition & fuel/air delivery technology, not some
bizarre local distortion in the fundamental rules of physics.

 

When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:42:17 GMT),
"tomb" <me@privacy.net> confessed:

>
> | The concept of using a 200 hp engine to drag a 5 passenger car
> | around town or to cruise at freeway speeds is ludicrous.
>
> Yeah, especially a 5 passenger car filled with one single person. Look at
> what the car companies are doing in Europe. Honda's Jazz is small, the Smart
> (coming to North America soon. see http://www.smart.com), even BMW's
> 1-series and Mercedes' A class, not to mention Daihatsu that uses the slogan
> "bigger is stupid".

As one of those persons (Honda Accord Hybrid), I have to point out situations
you may not be aware of.

I'm 6'5", 240lbs. I looked at the Prius and was intending to purchase one.
But, I'd need to loose 3" to sit in the front seat and 6" to sit in the back.
Plus, I have three kids I need to shuffle in the mornings, and the Prius will
not take three car seats in the back. I also wouldn't purchase a care without
test driving one. I had to settle to sit in someone else's Prius to determine
it was too small.

Checked out the Civic (hybrid), but again, too small (shoulders in the seat and
headroom), and couldn't hold the three car seats.

I checked out the Escape (hybrid), but again, not enough head room for me (roof
turned down too quickly) and the top of the seat backs hit me in scapula. Gas
millage wasn't good enough anyway...

That left Accord. Walked on the lot and test drove one. Bought it a week
later.

Does it need to be 255hp? No. I didn't purchase it for that. I bought it to
stop driving my pickup at 14mpg (I'm getting 33.5mpg with the Accord) and to
haul around my family. It helps to have the extra hp on the highway at times,
but I would of bought it with 100hp less. I'd love to of gotten into something
that got 50+mpg, but the manufactures didn't want that to happen for someone my
size with a family of 5. So it was the Accord or nothing.

As for driving as a single person, I've not found anyone who works my hours in
my area (that kid thing again). It's just not always possible. I guess I could
of bought a motorcycle, taken the kids to school in the truck, gone back home
and taken the motorcycle (and likely a divorce also ;-)

Cheers,
Rob

 

When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:42:17 GMT),
"tomb" <me@privacy.net> confessed:

>
> | The concept of using a 200 hp engine to drag a 5 passenger car
> | around town or to cruise at freeway speeds is ludicrous.
>
> Yeah, especially a 5 passenger car filled with one single person. Look at
> what the car companies are doing in Europe. Honda's Jazz is small, the Smart
> (coming to North America soon. see http://www.smart.com), even BMW's
> 1-series and Mercedes' A class, not to mention Daihatsu that uses the slogan
> "bigger is stupid".

As one of those persons (Honda Accord Hybrid), I have to point out situations
you may not be aware of.

I'm 6'5", 240lbs. I looked at the Prius and was intending to purchase one.
But, I'd need to loose 3" to sit in the front seat and 6" to sit in the back.
Plus, I have three kids I need to shuffle in the mornings, and the Prius will
not take three car seats in the back. I also wouldn't purchase a care without
test driving one. I had to settle to sit in someone else's Prius to determine
it was too small.

Checked out the Civic (hybrid), but again, too small (shoulders in the seat and
headroom), and couldn't hold the three car seats.

I checked out the Escape (hybrid), but again, not enough head room for me (roof
turned down too quickly) and the top of the seat backs hit me in scapula. Gas
millage wasn't good enough anyway...

That left Accord. Walked on the lot and test drove one. Bought it a week
later.

Does it need to be 255hp? No. I didn't purchase it for that. I bought it to
stop driving my pickup at 14mpg (I'm getting 33.5mpg with the Accord) and to
haul around my family. It helps to have the extra hp on the highway at times,
but I would of bought it with 100hp less. I'd love to of gotten into something
that got 50+mpg, but the manufactures didn't want that to happen for someone my
size with a family of 5. So it was the Accord or nothing.

As for driving as a single person, I've not found anyone who works my hours in
my area (that kid thing again). It's just not always possible. I guess I could
of bought a motorcycle, taken the kids to school in the truck, gone back home
and taken the motorcycle (and likely a divorce also ;-)

Cheers,
Rob

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:1113573749.1f231197caffc4bf617d6a3c649c1755@t eranews...
>
> wow, that's an awesomely underinformed pair of statements. the
> fundamental fact is that bigger engines have more friction & more
> reciprocating mass, therefore they /do/ require more energy to run. 8
> cylinders take more energy to run than 4 cylinders for the same reasons.
> the "improvement" experienced between those two motors was entirely due to
> differences in ignition & fuel/air delivery technology, not some bizarre
> local distortion in the fundamental rules of physics.

If you had read what I stated earlier, what you say above you will see has
nothing to do with what I said.

I mentioned differences in fuel mileage for trucks, regarding increased hp
returns increased mpg.

Brian

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:1113573749.1f231197caffc4bf617d6a3c649c1755@t eranews...
>
> wow, that's an awesomely underinformed pair of statements. the
> fundamental fact is that bigger engines have more friction & more
> reciprocating mass, therefore they /do/ require more energy to run. 8
> cylinders take more energy to run than 4 cylinders for the same reasons.
> the "improvement" experienced between those two motors was entirely due to
> differences in ignition & fuel/air delivery technology, not some bizarre
> local distortion in the fundamental rules of physics.

If you had read what I stated earlier, what you say above you will see has
nothing to do with what I said.

I mentioned differences in fuel mileage for trucks, regarding increased hp
returns increased mpg.

Brian

 

"tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:J7L7e.1924$J12.18@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com. ..
> Michael Pardee wrote:
> | I'm a conservative myself, and a skeptic of the Hubbert curve. (The
> | "superspike" doesn't fit the curve at all.) I also feel it is just
> | as well we haven't been conserving gasoline up to this point,
> | because conserving a resource that is limited by production (as oil
> | is in the contemporary sense) during times of plenty has the same
> | effect as wasting it does during times of shortage. Because of the
> | free-spending usage in our past we have room to conserve now.
>
> I don't quite understand your reasoning here. Yes, it's been the beginning
> of the end ever since the first barrel, but it *is* a limited resource,
> and
> thinking about the developing and threshold countries with their billions
> of
> people all wanting SUVs makes me shiver. The earlier we "get it", the
> better
> for our children and grandchildren and beyond.
>
I have advanced this view a few times before and have never won a convert
(as far as I know), so I'll keep the explanation to this one post.

With all resources there are three possibilities: they can be essentially
boundless, like sunlight; they can be limited by replenishment rate, like
river water; or they can be finite, like oil (or our lives themselves).
Conservation is pointless on the boundless type, a fact of life on the
replenishment type, and inconsequential in the long run on the finite type.
For finite resources, conservation can change the time scale of the resource
depletion but can't affect the shape of things.

But since oil has to be pumped and refined to be useful, and those
facilities are a constructed resource limited by replenishment rate,
conservation in times of plenty results in loss of production margin. When
demand spikes or facilities are out of service a shortage results, and if
usage can't be shifted from areas where it was unimportant it follows that
more critical areas have to be starved to accomodate.

A wag once pointed out "the Stone Age didn't end when we ran out of stones."
Until the market price of auto fuel rises to the point that alternatives can
compete with petroleum, we'll continue to live in the Oil Age. And there are
a lot of alternatives. My expectations are on frozen methane hydrate on the
sea floor. The energy stored in methane hydrate is believed to be greater
than all the drillable oil believed to exist. And we can certainly find ways
to use methane.

Mike

 

"tomb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:J7L7e.1924$J12.18@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com. ..
> Michael Pardee wrote:
> | I'm a conservative myself, and a skeptic of the Hubbert curve. (The
> | "superspike" doesn't fit the curve at all.) I also feel it is just
> | as well we haven't been conserving gasoline up to this point,
> | because conserving a resource that is limited by production (as oil
> | is in the contemporary sense) during times of plenty has the same
> | effect as wasting it does during times of shortage. Because of the
> | free-spending usage in our past we have room to conserve now.
>
> I don't quite understand your reasoning here. Yes, it's been the beginning
> of the end ever since the first barrel, but it *is* a limited resource,
> and
> thinking about the developing and threshold countries with their billions
> of
> people all wanting SUVs makes me shiver. The earlier we "get it", the
> better
> for our children and grandchildren and beyond.
>
I have advanced this view a few times before and have never won a convert
(as far as I know), so I'll keep the explanation to this one post.

With all resources there are three possibilities: they can be essentially
boundless, like sunlight; they can be limited by replenishment rate, like
river water; or they can be finite, like oil (or our lives themselves).
Conservation is pointless on the boundless type, a fact of life on the
replenishment type, and inconsequential in the long run on the finite type.
For finite resources, conservation can change the time scale of the resource
depletion but can't affect the shape of things.

But since oil has to be pumped and refined to be useful, and those
facilities are a constructed resource limited by replenishment rate,
conservation in times of plenty results in loss of production margin. When
demand spikes or facilities are out of service a shortage results, and if
usage can't be shifted from areas where it was unimportant it follows that
more critical areas have to be starved to accomodate.

A wag once pointed out "the Stone Age didn't end when we ran out of stones."
Until the market price of auto fuel rises to the point that alternatives can
compete with petroleum, we'll continue to live in the Oil Age. And there are
a lot of alternatives. My expectations are on frozen methane hydrate on the
sea floor. The energy stored in methane hydrate is believed to be greater
than all the drillable oil believed to exist. And we can certainly find ways
to use methane.

Mike

 

"Rob" <anonlcNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20050415080416.5c83a42e@thunder.logicalchaos. org...
> When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:42:17 GMT),
> "tomb" <me@privacy.net> confessed:
>
>>
>> | The concept of using a 200 hp engine to drag a 5 passenger car
>> | around town or to cruise at freeway speeds is ludicrous.
>>
>> Yeah, especially a 5 passenger car filled with one single person. Look at
>> what the car companies are doing in Europe. Honda's Jazz is small, the
>> Smart
>> (coming to North America soon. see http://www.smart.com), even BMW's
>> 1-series and Mercedes' A class, not to mention Daihatsu that uses the
>> slogan
>> "bigger is stupid".
>
> As one of those persons (Honda Accord Hybrid), I have to point out
> situations
> you may not be aware of.
>
> I'm 6'5", 240lbs. I looked at the Prius and was intending to purchase
> one.
> But, I'd need to loose 3" to sit in the front seat and 6" to sit in the
> back.
> Plus, I have three kids I need to shuffle in the mornings, and the Prius
> will
> not take three car seats in the back. I also wouldn't purchase a care
> without
> test driving one. I had to settle to sit in someone else's Prius to
> determine
> it was too small.
>
> Checked out the Civic (hybrid), but again, too small (shoulders in the
> seat and
> headroom), and couldn't hold the three car seats.
>
> I checked out the Escape (hybrid), but again, not enough head room for me
> (roof
> turned down too quickly) and the top of the seat backs hit me in scapula.
> Gas
> millage wasn't good enough anyway...
>
> That left Accord. Walked on the lot and test drove one. Bought it a week
> later.
>
> Does it need to be 255hp? No. I didn't purchase it for that. I bought
> it to
> stop driving my pickup at 14mpg (I'm getting 33.5mpg with the Accord) and
> to
> haul around my family. It helps to have the extra hp on the highway at
> times,
> but I would of bought it with 100hp less. I'd love to of gotten into
> something
> that got 50+mpg, but the manufactures didn't want that to happen for
> someone my
> size with a family of 5. So it was the Accord or nothing.
>
> As for driving as a single person, I've not found anyone who works my
> hours in
> my area (that kid thing again). It's just not always possible. I guess I
> could
> of bought a motorcycle, taken the kids to school in the truck, gone back
> home
> and taken the motorcycle (and likely a divorce also ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
Definitely a consideration. Limitations in the inverter and battery are
keeping the Toyota system in small cars for now, and Honda has the same sort
of battery limitations in their IMA hybrid system. For now, people who need
larger vehicles for any of those reasons or others have to go with
conventional power trains.

I never look down my nose at people who make their choices, because each of
us has our own life to live. (Sadly, I still catch myself scowling at people
who drive smoky cars... even though I know none of them want their car to
smoke.)

Mike

 

"Rob" <anonlcNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20050415080416.5c83a42e@thunder.logicalchaos. org...
> When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:42:17 GMT),
> "tomb" <me@privacy.net> confessed:
>
>>
>> | The concept of using a 200 hp engine to drag a 5 passenger car
>> | around town or to cruise at freeway speeds is ludicrous.
>>
>> Yeah, especially a 5 passenger car filled with one single person. Look at
>> what the car companies are doing in Europe. Honda's Jazz is small, the
>> Smart
>> (coming to North America soon. see http://www.smart.com), even BMW's
>> 1-series and Mercedes' A class, not to mention Daihatsu that uses the
>> slogan
>> "bigger is stupid".
>
> As one of those persons (Honda Accord Hybrid), I have to point out
> situations
> you may not be aware of.
>
> I'm 6'5", 240lbs. I looked at the Prius and was intending to purchase
> one.
> But, I'd need to loose 3" to sit in the front seat and 6" to sit in the
> back.
> Plus, I have three kids I need to shuffle in the mornings, and the Prius
> will
> not take three car seats in the back. I also wouldn't purchase a care
> without
> test driving one. I had to settle to sit in someone else's Prius to
> determine
> it was too small.
>
> Checked out the Civic (hybrid), but again, too small (shoulders in the
> seat and
> headroom), and couldn't hold the three car seats.
>
> I checked out the Escape (hybrid), but again, not enough head room for me
> (roof
> turned down too quickly) and the top of the seat backs hit me in scapula.
> Gas
> millage wasn't good enough anyway...
>
> That left Accord. Walked on the lot and test drove one. Bought it a week
> later.
>
> Does it need to be 255hp? No. I didn't purchase it for that. I bought
> it to
> stop driving my pickup at 14mpg (I'm getting 33.5mpg with the Accord) and
> to
> haul around my family. It helps to have the extra hp on the highway at
> times,
> but I would of bought it with 100hp less. I'd love to of gotten into
> something
> that got 50+mpg, but the manufactures didn't want that to happen for
> someone my
> size with a family of 5. So it was the Accord or nothing.
>
> As for driving as a single person, I've not found anyone who works my
> hours in
> my area (that kid thing again). It's just not always possible. I guess I
> could
> of bought a motorcycle, taken the kids to school in the truck, gone back
> home
> and taken the motorcycle (and likely a divorce also ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
Definitely a consideration. Limitations in the inverter and battery are
keeping the Toyota system in small cars for now, and Honda has the same sort
of battery limitations in their IMA hybrid system. For now, people who need
larger vehicles for any of those reasons or others have to go with
conventional power trains.

I never look down my nose at people who make their choices, because each of
us has our own life to live. (Sadly, I still catch myself scowling at people
who drive smoky cars... even though I know none of them want their car to
smoke.)

Mike

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:1113573749.1f231197caffc4bf617d6a3c649c1755@t eranews...
> Brian Smith wrote:
>> "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:jason-1404051015100001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>> It's a common misconception that a lot of people have, that a bigger
>> engine means more fuel consumed.
> wow, that's an awesomely underinformed pair of statements. the
> fundamental fact is that bigger engines have more friction & more
> reciprocating mass, therefore they /do/ require more energy to run. 8
> cylinders take more energy to run than 4 cylinders for the same reasons.
> the "improvement" experienced between those two motors was entirely due to
> differences in ignition & fuel/air delivery technology, not some bizarre
> local distortion in the fundamental rules of physics.
>
Still, it is a fact of life. All things being equal, your statement is
certainly true. The problem is that there are a lot of variables -
compression ratio, gearing, throttle losses, etc. If every chassis were
tried with every available engine the most efficient would probably be one
of the smallest, but we would find a lot of bumps in the graph of economy as
a function of power or displacement. For example, the EPA MPG ratings
(http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG20...neVehicles.pdf) for the BMW Z4
roadster 6 speed 3.0L is better than for the 5 speed 2.5L. Probably the
improved gearing doing that, but there we are.

In theory, gasoline engines (otto cycle) have a thermodynamic limit of
efficiency around 65% while diesel engines (diesel cycle) have a limit of
efficiency around 50%. But since those limits are approached as the
compression ratio approaches infinity, the diesel wins almost every time.

Mike

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:1113573749.1f231197caffc4bf617d6a3c649c1755@t eranews...
> Brian Smith wrote:
>> "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:jason-1404051015100001@pm4-broad-28.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>> It's a common misconception that a lot of people have, that a bigger
>> engine means more fuel consumed.
> wow, that's an awesomely underinformed pair of statements. the
> fundamental fact is that bigger engines have more friction & more
> reciprocating mass, therefore they /do/ require more energy to run. 8
> cylinders take more energy to run than 4 cylinders for the same reasons.
> the "improvement" experienced between those two motors was entirely due to
> differences in ignition & fuel/air delivery technology, not some bizarre
> local distortion in the fundamental rules of physics.
>
Still, it is a fact of life. All things being equal, your statement is
certainly true. The problem is that there are a lot of variables -
compression ratio, gearing, throttle losses, etc. If every chassis were
tried with every available engine the most efficient would probably be one
of the smallest, but we would find a lot of bumps in the graph of economy as
a function of power or displacement. For example, the EPA MPG ratings
(http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG20...neVehicles.pdf) for the BMW Z4
roadster 6 speed 3.0L is better than for the 5 speed 2.5L. Probably the
improved gearing doing that, but there we are.

In theory, gasoline engines (otto cycle) have a thermodynamic limit of
efficiency around 65% while diesel engines (diesel cycle) have a limit of
efficiency around 50%. But since those limits are approached as the
compression ratio approaches infinity, the diesel wins almost every time.

Mike

 

When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:27:29 -0700),
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> confessed:

>
> In theory, gasoline engines (otto cycle) have a thermodynamic limit of
> efficiency around 65% while diesel engines (diesel cycle) have a limit of
> efficiency around 50%. But since those limits are approached as the
> compression ratio approaches infinity, the diesel wins almost every time.

Why is it that gasoline engines cannot (will not?) achieve higher compression
like the diesel?

Thanks,
Rob

 

When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:27:29 -0700),
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> confessed:

>
> In theory, gasoline engines (otto cycle) have a thermodynamic limit of
> efficiency around 65% while diesel engines (diesel cycle) have a limit of
> efficiency around 50%. But since those limits are approached as the
> compression ratio approaches infinity, the diesel wins almost every time.

Why is it that gasoline engines cannot (will not?) achieve higher compression
like the diesel?

Thanks,
Rob

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <anonlcNOSPAM@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.honda
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Honda Civic SI Concept Information


> When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:27:29 -0700),
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> confessed:
>
>>
>> In theory, gasoline engines (otto cycle) have a thermodynamic limit of
>> efficiency around 65% while diesel engines (diesel cycle) have a limit of
>> efficiency around 50%. But since those limits are approached as the
>> compression ratio approaches infinity, the diesel wins almost every time.
>
> Why is it that gasoline engines cannot (will not?) achieve higher
> compression
> like the diesel?
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
Detonation (self-ignition) is the problem there. It isn't an issue in the
diesel cycle because the fuel isn't introduced until the compression has
heated the air charge to the ignition point.

That difference also accounts for the difference in theoretical limit of
efficiency. The otto cycle adds heat at constant volume (less true at higher
rpms than lower rpms, naturally), while the diesel cycle is deemed to add
heat at constant pressure.

Mike

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <anonlcNOSPAM@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.honda
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Honda Civic SI Concept Information


> When grilled further on (Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:27:29 -0700),
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> confessed:
>
>>
>> In theory, gasoline engines (otto cycle) have a thermodynamic limit of
>> efficiency around 65% while diesel engines (diesel cycle) have a limit of
>> efficiency around 50%. But since those limits are approached as the
>> compression ratio approaches infinity, the diesel wins almost every time.
>
> Why is it that gasoline engines cannot (will not?) achieve higher
> compression
> like the diesel?
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
Detonation (self-ignition) is the problem there. It isn't an issue in the
diesel cycle because the fuel isn't introduced until the compression has
heated the air charge to the ignition point.

That difference also accounts for the difference in theoretical limit of
efficiency. The otto cycle adds heat at constant volume (less true at higher
rpms than lower rpms, naturally), while the diesel cycle is deemed to add
heat at constant pressure.

Mike