My internal combustion engine conspirasy theory

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Over the last 30 years we've had major advances in technology.

Computers, cell phones, aircraft engines just to name a few. The one thing that has had very little advancement in efficency is the internal combustion engine.

My therory is advancment in fuel efficency is being held back. Why doesn't the average size new car already get 35-40 mph without adding a bank of batteries that will cost $5000-7000 to replace in 4-6 years?

I found a stat the convinces me this is true. Here is the 2008 Corvettte Z06.

V-8 7 litre engine
505 hp

This engine is rated at 15 mph city 24 hwy.

Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

Because the 15/24 mpg numbers are not measured using all 505hp. It takes a certan amount of power to maintain highway speed and that power is not going to drop to 50% just because you reduce the engine performance by 50%.

You might get numbers in the 20/30 range with the engine you suggest. My car has a 205hp 3.8L V6 and gets 19/27.

Trying to compare apples to apples. Assuming mileage to HP are measured the same in every car. I'm not expecting corvtte performance but in a small sedan would not this engine at least use close to half the amount of gas since it is half the size?

Don't know the physics just trying to use a bit of logic. If not twice the mileage I would expect far better then what we currently get.

well, thats why they have the saying, "a "little" knowledge is a dangerous thing".

there is no conspiracy. you really think the soviets or chinese would sit on such a bombshell?

as for lagging. look at battery technology if you want lag.
comparing apples to apples ice are very efficient these days. cars are now filled with safety features and emissions controls.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's because there's only so much efficiency that can be extracted. 30 years ago we were already fairly close to that maximum. We've gotten better since then but the gains are still measured in small increments, comparitively.

If we want any sort of massive efficiency gains it's going to require moving away from the ICE.

While I agree that external combustion is better due to the higher temperatures that can be reached, we're still nowhere near the Carnot efficiency, so there's still plenty of work left to be done on ICEs.

Even Carnot realized that his own calculations could not be attained and that in the real world ICEs are doomed to be less efficient.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's because there's only so much efficiency that can be extracted. 30 years ago we were already fairly close to that maximum. We've gotten better since then but the gains are still measured in small increments, comparitively.

If we want any sort of massive efficiency gains it's going to require moving away from the ICE.

While I agree that external combustion is better due to the higher temperatures that can be reached, we're still nowhere near the Carnot efficiency, so there's still plenty of work left to be done on ICEs.

Even Carnot realized that his own calculations could not be attained and that in the real world ICEs are doomed to be less efficient.

Well duh.

The point is that we only ever get close in large-scale installations. There are many tricks would could be deployed to get small, portable engines closer to this mark, and to extend this efficiency across the RPM scale instead of being very inefficient at most RPMs, then decently efficient across a narrow range.

Eliminating the throttle butterfly as with the diesel would be a great step.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Over the last 30 years we've had major advances in technology.

Computers, cell phones, aircraft engines just to name a few. The one thing that has had very little advancement in efficency is the internal combustion engine.

My therory is advancment in fuel efficency is being held back. Why doesn't the average size new car already get 35-40 mph without adding a bank of batteries that will cost $5000-7000 to replace in 4-6 years?

I found a stat the convinces me this is true. Here is the 2008 Corvettte Z06.

V-8 7 litre engine
505 hp

This engine is rated at 15 mph city 24 hwy.

Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

But there HAVE been improvements in engine technology, digital controlled fuel injection
does an outstanding job of getting the right amount of fuel to the engine and no more.
Today's cars routinely go 100K before the plugs need to be serviced, try that in a '70's model car!.
DOD technology (displacement on demand) deactivates unneeded cylinders during hwy. cruising,
saving fuel. Bottom line is, even with the advancement in engine management systems to make
505HP your gonna burn some gas!

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: Sluggo

Originally posted by: HomerJS


Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

Nobody wants a sucktacular V-4 Corvette with 250HP

except for the california special in the late 1970's that had, what, 120 hp out of a 2 liter V8? hahaha, major fail for GM.

 

[Eeezee]

Engine fuel efficiency has been improving across the board. Cars keep getting heavier and Americans love their powerful motors.

If everyone were truly concerned with fuel efficiency, we'd buy more hybrids and electric cars. We want our soccer moms to drive SUVs, efficiency be damned. That and hybrids aren't cost effective last I checked (decrease in fuel efficiency supposedly doesn't make up for higher up front cost, although $3+/gallon may have changed that since I last saw the figures). Here, let's run one real fast. At toyota.com, a Prius hybrid is estimated at $21,100 and gets estimated 48/45/46 mpg (city/freeway/combined. If it's driven 100,000 miles in its lifetime at $3/gallon, that's $6521.74 in gas (not counting tax) for a total of $27621.74 to drive the Prius '08

Meanwhile, you can buy a Camry '08 for $18570 with 21/31 mpg. At $3/gallon, that's $30108.46 assuming an average mpg of 26... damn it, looks like the non-hybrid lost. Maybe it costs more to maintain? I guess we also assumed that we were paying cash up front instead of taking a loan, which will drive up the cost of the Prius due to a higher principal.

Well, I know for sure that I'll shell out the few thousand extra the next time I buy a car so I can save on the gas money. Gas prices are only going up, and it will feel good to reduce environmental impact a little.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Don't know the physics just trying to use a bit of logic. If not twice the mileage I would expect far better then what we currently get.

If you don't know the physics you can't apply logic to the equation in the first place.

Maybe not but what I do know if 50lbs of force applied to a 12 lb bowling ball caused it to roll 10 mph, applying 100lbs of force will not result in 11 mph.


My point is why has the ICE lagged so far behind almost all other technologoes over the last 30 years?

What if the bowling ball is in a wind tunnel? What now smarty pants?

Better yet, what if we're considering a relativistic bowling ball?

 

[gingerstewart55]

Originally posted by: jagec


The only reason that you think you need as big of a car as you own is that culture tells you so. People in Europe get along just fine with smaller cars, as "impractical" as Americans consider them. We've just learned to set our standards around what's on the market, and then those same standards drive what will come out on the market in the future. If either of those things were to shift, suddenly we would find ourselves driving much smaller cars, thinking that they were perfectly practical for what we were doing, and having trouble imagining wasting all that money on a bigger car--while at the same time not being able to imagine having to tolerate anything smaller. Deja vu?

The main reasons small cars proliferate in Europe are not simply cultural choices, although some cultural influences do come into play. Large cars do sell in Europe, just not in the numbers that sell in the U.S.

Why is that?

European countries are typically the size of mid-sized U.S. states....hence most driving distances are much shorter in Europe than the U.S. The countries evolved long before the U.S. did, and many of the cities grew up around the tracks left by horse-drawn wagons and foot traffic. (Look at the very narrow streets in most older sections of any European city....) So, to fit a car on those narrow streets, a typical large U.S. car won't do.....and the bulk of the U.S. vehicle isn't needed for the vast travel distances Americans drive....doing a 600 mile round trip over a weekend from one town to another is not unusual at all in the U.S.

Consider...France is just a little smaller than Texas....and thw whole of western Europe fits easily within the central U.S., and when western Euro's map is overlaid on the U.S. map, Euro fits nicely within the central U.S. leaving the entire eastern seaboard states untouched and every state west of Texas untouched. The U.S. is just so much larger in land mass than Euro, not to mention a lot of our cities developed around the car and truck, whereas Euro cities developed centuries before around foot and animal traffic.

(The journeys we Americans partake in for business or pleasure with our autos is in large part dependent upon the presence of the interstate system that crisscrosses the U.S......thanks ge to Eisenhower for something!!! Very little of Europe is covered with anything resembling our interstate system. True, Germany has some, but one country out of many does not an efficient highway system make. That'd be like Texas having the interstate system and no other state having anything but two-lane highways.)

Second, the governments long ago in Europe faced facts that they'd have to import almost all of their oil, outside England. Being 100% dependent on an energy source for powering your vehicles makes for a very nervous government......hate being held hostage to the whims of the suppliers, either politically or economically. So, they tax the crap out of petrol. Europeans pay the same that Americans pay for oil, yet at the pump Euro gas is typically 4X higher in price as compared to American's gas prices. Ultra high prices = lower consumption through economic means.

Third, most Euro. countries tax the crap out of cars over certain engine sizes. Italy starts the "engine size tax" at one (1) liter. England does the same, as do most all other Euro countries. Why? Again, forced conservation of an energy source they have no control over at all.....since they are importing ALL of their oil. Much the same exact problem Japan has.....

So, engine sizes are taxed and on a sliding scale.....bigger the engine, more tax paid. So, do you fulfill your desires and buy a 5L biturbo scramer or that 1L econobox? Easy answer unless you are filthy rich.

While Europenas may have their cars and car sizes influenced by "cultural choices" as you put it, much of the cultural choices are dictated by governmental influences.....and who can blame the Euro governments? They're faced with having to buy a resource that does not exist within their own borders and have to buy every drop from outside. I'd make small cars the de facto standard, too. The Euro countries just missed out on having all the oil and coal deposits that exist in N. America and the oil deposits in the Middle East.

 

[lyssword]

I love conspiracy theories and all, but this is just stupid (among with most of other conspiracy theories). Instead of making conspiracy theory, people should really start researching on the subject instead of using logic slightly more advanced than a 12 yr old kid would have. Go ahead, make an engine that's 2-4 times more efficient with same power as it is now, and you'll be worshipped, and not assassinated by "them" as some nutjobs seem to think..

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: IGBT

..if your really all that worried about it never drive and take the bus. mabe a magic bus.

Take teh short bus... and don't forget your hockey helmet!

 

[Turfzilla]

Do you listen to yourself talk?

 

[Billb2]

Double post

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Don't know the physics just trying to use a bit of logic. If not twice the mileage I would expect far better then what we currently get.

If you don't know the physics you can't apply logic to the equation in the first place.

Maybe not but what I do know if 50lbs of force applied to a 12 lb bowling ball caused it to roll 10 mph, applying 100lbs of force will not result in 11 mph.


My point is why has the ICE lagged so far behind almost all other technologoes over the last 30 years?

Why didn't the P4 hit 10Ghz by now?

A certain technology can only go so far. Once that limit is reached, it's time for it to be superseded by other technologies

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: Sluggo

Originally posted by: HomerJS


Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

Nobody wants a sucktacular V-4 Corvette with 250HP

except for the california special in the late 1970's that had, what, 120 hp out of a 2 liter V8? hahaha, major fail for GM.

WTF are you talking about?

The lowest output Corvettes (excluding the I6 models of the 50's) were the 1980 models in CA. 305 rated at 180 hp.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Trying to compare apples to apples. Assuming mileage to HP are measured the same in every car. I'm not expecting corvtte performance but in a small sedan would not this engine at least use close to half the amount of gas since it is half the size?

Don't know the physics just trying to use a bit of logic. If not twice the mileage I would expect far better then what we currently get.

no. physics says that it takes 35 horsepower to keep a corvette going 70 mph. so when vette is just cruising at 70 mph, the engine is making 35 horsepower + whatever is lost through the drive train. it is burning gas at a rate equivalent to 35 hp + drivetrain losses + internal losses. by cutting the engine in half all you reduce is those internal losses, so you're saving a very small amount of fuel. the car still requires 35 horsepower to stay at 70 mph, and still loses power through the drivetrain.

 

[Billb2]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
I found a stat the convinces me this is true. Here is the 2008 Corvettte Z06.

V-8 7 litre engine
505 hp

This engine is rated at 15 mph city 24 hwy.

Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

The "half size" engine would have to work twice as hard.

The converse is also untrue... You couldn't take two engines that get 48 MPG, connect them together and get one engine that produces 505 horse power.

And a 30 old corvette (1978) had 185 horse power and got 15 city/20 Hwy MPG.
So, 505 Hp, 15/24 is a BIG improvement.

And do you think that automakers that can't even deal with their own unions and shareholders could "conspire" with each other? No way! Conspiracy theories are just that..theories.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist... but it's definitely possible to get better gas mileage out of cars. It's controlled to keep the oil companies going and the economy running strong. A person that can afford a 2008 Corvette can afford to keep filling it up yes? So why design its engine to be incredibly efficient when you can move more money through the system?

See, this is the argument I can never understand. Why in the hell would the ailing domestic auto companies give a rat's ass about keeping the giant oil companies going? Answer me that, pleeeeeaasssseeeee.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that Ford, GM and Chrsyler are willing to lay off thousands of employees, see their market share and stock price plunge and get all kinds of bad press because Americans are no longer buying their gas guzzlers, and they won't change because they want to help out the oil companies? Are you friggen kidding me?

 

[bonkers325]

mpg is largely a function of the driver. you can take a 20mpg rated car and get 30-35 out of it if you never overtake or slowly accelerate and keep it under 1500rpm. and likewise, you can take a 50mpg rated hybrid and get 30mpg out of it if u drive like a maniac with all the a/c, heated seats, sat nav, dvd players, and whatnot turned on

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist... but it's definitely possible to get better gas mileage out of cars. It's controlled to keep the oil companies going and the economy running strong. A person that can afford a 2008 Corvette can afford to keep filling it up yes? So why design its engine to be incredibly efficient when you can move more money through the system?

See, this is the argument I can never understand. Why in the hell would the ailing domestic auto companies give a rat's ass about keeping the giant oil companies going? Answer me that, pleeeeeaasssseeeee.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that Ford, GM and Chrsyler are willing to lay off thousands of employees, see their market share and stock price plunge and get all kinds of bad press because Americans are no longer buying their gas guzzlers, and they won't change because they want to help out the oil companies? Are you friggen kidding me?

If there was "help" going on, it wouldn't be out of a sense of altruism. Kickbacks, payoffs, that sort of thing, would be a reason - assuming anything like that even does go on within the industry.
Other industries get involved in price setting schemes, all to help out a very select group of a few wealthy individuals, by screwing over millions of consumers. It worked (for awhile anyway) for chocolate companies in the US, and for memory manufacturers.

 

[jjones]

The only conspiracy is automakers want your money. To get it, they have to produce something you'll buy. That's why cars are not super fuel efficient econoboxes, because no one wants them.

 

[rezinn]

Yeah, that's the ONE THING.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Trying to compare apples to apples. Assuming mileage to HP are measured the same in every car. I'm not expecting corvtte performance but in a small sedan would not this engine at least use close to half the amount of gas since it is half the size?

Don't know the physics just trying to use a bit of logic. If not twice the mileage I would expect far better then what we currently get.

no. physics says that it takes 35 horsepower to keep a corvette going 70 mph. so when vette is just cruising at 70 mph, the engine is making 35 horsepower + whatever is lost through the drive train. it is burning gas at a rate equivalent to 35 hp + drivetrain losses + internal losses. by cutting the engine in half all you reduce is those internal losses, so you're saving a very small amount of fuel. the car still requires 35 horsepower to stay at 70 mph, and still loses power through the drivetrain.

Yea the 35 hp sounds accurate but the "drivetrain losses" ie:, unneeded displacement are
going to much higher in a bigger CID engine, if you put a 250hp engine in the 'vette it's
hwy mileage would likley be 33-36mpg. Ofcourse, who would want a 4 banger 'vette.

 

[manowar821]

It's not so much a conspiracy, as it is the fact that the companies that build the technologies are idiots and would rather make money off of shitty technology than "waste time" making it better.

Though I guess it's possible that some companies are actually hold back technologies due to grants or having oil companies hands in their pockets, we all know how respectable they are! /tinfoilhatzlulz

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Most families have multiple cars now anyway. Make one of those cars a dedicated "cargo" vehicle, with enough space to go grocery shopping for a family of 10, or to bring home a few air conditioners from Lowes. To get to work though, bring your small car.

Really, what's the primary objective of a car used to get you to work? It's to transport your body from home to the place of employment, that's it. That aside, the car you're in is just tagging along for fun, sucking up fuel and your money. Why not slim it down?

In that situation, a family would need three cars, not two. If there are only two cars, then one of the adults is going to end up commuting in the "cargo" vehicle every day. Unless you're assuming that one of the adults doesn't work, which is atypical.

The reality is that when insurance, maintenance, and licensing costs are factored in, it is almost always cheaper to have one car that can do many things than it is to have two specialized vehicles. This really only breaks down if the "cargo" vehicle is very old and essentially worthless (for example, having a mid-70's beater pickup) at which point insurance costs become negligible, but maintenance costs (unless the owner can do his own maintenance) creep upwards. That would also result in the "cargo" vehicle being something that most people will not want to drive.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: BUTCH1

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Trying to compare apples to apples. Assuming mileage to HP are measured the same in every car. I'm not expecting corvtte performance but in a small sedan would not this engine at least use close to half the amount of gas since it is half the size?

Don't know the physics just trying to use a bit of logic. If not twice the mileage I would expect far better then what we currently get.

no. physics says that it takes 35 horsepower to keep a corvette going 70 mph. so when vette is just cruising at 70 mph, the engine is making 35 horsepower + whatever is lost through the drive train. it is burning gas at a rate equivalent to 35 hp + drivetrain losses + internal losses. by cutting the engine in half all you reduce is those internal losses, so you're saving a very small amount of fuel. the car still requires 35 horsepower to stay at 70 mph, and still loses power through the drivetrain.

Yea the 35 hp sounds accurate but the "drivetrain losses" ie:, unneeded displacement are
going to much higher in a bigger CID engine, if you put a 250hp engine in the 'vette it's
hwy mileage would likley be 33-36mpg. Ofcourse, who would want a 4 banger 'vette.

The drivetrain losses aren't going to be any higher. Those are losses from the transmission, driveshaft, and differential. Frictional losses within the engine will be very slightly higher, but not as much as you would think since the smaller engine would need to operate at a higher RPM (and higher engine speed always means more internal frictional losses) than the large engine and most of the smaller engine's advantage will be sacrificed because of this. Remember that the Corvette's big V8 is only turning at 1,500 RPM at 60, a smaller engine will be turning at least 2,000 RPM, probably closer to 2,500 RPM. That's going to eat up a large chunk of any efficiency gain.

A 250 hp Corvette would be looking at an improvement of only 2-3 mpg, certainly not an improvement of 9-12 mpg as you suggest.

ZV