Moto GP to go to 800cc in 2007

He's got me thinking about a diesel chainsaw!

 

Yes they are an interim step... but they are a better interim step than
hybrid petrol cars is the point


G-S

 

I reckon you're right too....


G-S

 

Sure, hence I conceded diesels may be an interim step, it was the long
term solution I was quibbling about.

That'll teach you to live in the country

Well, I think it's more designed as a city car than an allrounder, but I
get the point.

Well suspension like an American car is relatively easily resolved, I
guess Toyota made it soft and squidgy cos they didn't expect anyone to
take it very far. Acceleration, yeah well, do you want frugal or do you
want HP ? A 1000cc superbike gets really crap fuel economy for the
capacity and weight, but gee they sure go hard

It's just this once yer honour ! Time off for good behaviour ? (1)

JL
(1) I think that means I'm allowed about 3 nanoseconds leeway but there
ya go

 

Mmm, maybe, the price of petrol isn't high enough to make swapping over
to diesel a pressing need, I think by the time it does become important
(and don't forget Europe are helping to subsidise the development by
forcing petrol and diesel prices high by taxation and hence improving
the value of a frugal car to the consumer, with volume comes economies
of scale and development)

JL

 

Clem would beg to differ I think

JL

 

No, Clem *thought* he was wrong, but he was mistaken.....

Moike

 

Fair enough... but the Prius and similar hybrids aren't long term
solutions either (but then you knew that

Nah... broadband 2 way sat at $80 a month for 256k and 5gb with p2p
blocking already did that ;-)

Yah it is just a city car... but a turbo diesel golf (for examply) isn't
just a city car (but you already got that point

I want frugal and good acceleration (and I can accept some mild NVH
issues if I can get those two). The golf turbo diesel does that (and so
do lots of other cars we don't get here).

Depends upon which legal system we are operating under ;-)


G-S

 

Pressing need? I guess to a large extent it depends upon the yearly
milage that a person does. If it's only 5000 to 15000 a year then just
buy a 2.4 litre Mazda 6 instead of a commodore or falcon and you have
preserved your current running costs for 5 years.

But I did 75000kms in my passenger car last year... that means whatever
fuel choice I make has a significant cost impost!


G-S

 

I'd want an electric start on that.
Try this one
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/154/

Theo

 

Try 3.2 l/100km for the Pug.

Theo

 

Well, that's a bit debatable... we've been building functional
diesel-engined vehicles since the 1880's. We've pretty much got them
figured out; that contributes significantly to the strong showing they
put up when comapred to petrol-engined vehicles.

Conversely, hybrids represent the first tentative step outside the
laboratory gates open-road vehicles powered by electric motors have ever
taken. They're coming into this without the century of consumer feedback
and volume production method scrutiny which designers and builders of
internal combustion-engined vehicles have to call on in order to
fine-tune their product to ensure it performs its intended function
competently and evocatively, all while being quick, easy and economical
to produce in large numbers.

What the present crop of hybrids represent is a parallel stream of
research to the efforts to shrink and otherwise improve fuel cells to a
point at which they become viable sources of energy for a vehicle
powerplant. By the time that goal is achieved sometime in the medium
future, Toyota and Honda will have had a decade and a bit experience in
building large numbers of electrically-powered passenger cars. That
means that those two manufacturers will have market-tested and -tuned
design, manufacturing and marketing approaches to building electric
vehicles into which to drop the newly-available high-performance fuel
cells, while, the brain trusts at manufacturers without hybrid
experience will be forced to plonk a fuel cell into the middle of a lab
bench, gather around it and collectivelly go, "Right, anyone got an idea
what we should do with this?".

 

In which case go LPG ! You have to admit though, taxis aside, not many
cars in Oz do that sort of miles (1%, 2% ?)

JL

 

Actually not true, both electric and steam as well as diesel and petrol
were popular at the turn of the 20th century, the reason we ended up
with Petrol ? Henry Ford and the Model T.

JL
(agree with everything else tho)

 

Heh. Next time you're out for a ride out in the sticks, try to keep
count of the number of servos with LPG you come across, and LPG vehicles
tend to have pretty lousy range; for example, my L300 van sucks its 40L
LPG tank dry in between 220 and 240km.

 

"Well, for a start, lets hook a bunch of tantalum capacitors
across the poles..."

POP!...Whizzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
POP!...Whizzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
POP!...Whizzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
POP!...Whizzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

20 minutes and a hundred bucks worth of tantalum caps later,
R&D manager sticks his head in... "OI!"


GB, yeah, I've worked in electronics R&D, I now how it works!

 

Popular may be an exageration. There were a few electric Town Cars designed
for genteel old ladies to go to the local market. I can't think of a steam
car other than the Stanley, and that was not a practical vehicle. I can't
even think of a diesel passenger car before the forties. Certainly not at
the time of the Model T. (My dad is about to put the engine in his.)

Theo

 

I don't think turbo petrol engines are viable, much like rotaries. Sure
they're an interesting, albeit esoteric, aberation, with little use in the
real world and use ridiculous amounts of fuel for the performance gained.

So let's compare a petrol and diesel Golf, which would meet your parameters
of factory warranty and seviceability.
1.6 petrol Golf
75 Kw, 148 Nm, 7.5 l/100km
1.9 turbo-diesel Golf
77 Kw, 250 Nm, 5.5 l/100km
If we reduce the engine size of the diesel to 1.6 (by 16%) we would get
63 Kw, 210 Nm,
Petrol winds up with 19% more HP and 30% less torque and uses 40% more fuel.

Domestic electricity costs around 18c per Kwh. I would expect efficiency,
with a decent charger, to be around 80%. So a constant use of, say 20Kw,
would cost $4.50 per hour. That should propel a smallish car at 60 km/h and
cost the same as 4.5 litres of petrol. Not much gain, is it. I think that
although electric motors give good performance characteristics, there must
be a really good reason why the dual complexity of a gen-set is only used
commercially where the power output makes use of a clutch a problem as in
trains and Haul-Packs.

Theo

 

It's probably not fair to compare different engine sizes so here are the
figures for the 2.0 petrol and diesel Golfs
2.0 petrol
110 Kw, 200 Nm torque, 0-100 in 8.8, top speed 212, 8.0 l/100km
2.0 turbodiesel
103 Kw, 320 Nm torque, 0-100 in 9.3, top speed 205, 5.7 l/100km
Same weight
Diesel has 6% less power, 60% more torque, petrol uses 40% more fuel,
acelleration is comparable.

I'd sooner the diesel myself. They really aren't the smelly dirty gutless
things they were 40 years ago.

Theo

 

WTF ? ! ?

Why on earth is a turbo petrol engine less viable than anything else
currently available. Hell I got sucked in, I bought the 2.6 normally
aspirated 6 vs the turbo 4 1.8L cos I thought it would be more real
world driveable (doofus didn't drive the 1.8T did he?) - guess what the
smaller turbo petrol motor not only makes more HP and Torque, it's got
better fuel economy...go on, compare the HP torque and fuel economy
numbers of a late 90s audi a4 2.6 v6 with the 1.8T - I was spewing I can
tell ya !

I never thought I'd say this Theo, but you have no effing idea...or more
to the point, I think you're deliberately ignoring it.

Saab have been using turbos for many years with excellent results, as
have a number of others, a well setup turbo petrol will get better fuel
economy for the same HP in general driving than a normally aspirated
petrol motor putting out the same HP. Go look at the HP torque and fuel
economy numbers of the ford and holden turbo 6 and v8s - the blown 6s do
pretty much the same numbers for heaps better fuel economy.

Nice, but there's something smelly about that choice,hmm that'd be the
bit where once again you're comparing a normally aspirated petrol to a
turbo diesel. So, given a 1.8 turbo petrol audi puts out 110 to 140kw
(depending on boost - ie runs on ordinary unleaded or requires premium)
and a shedload more torque than above, you're once again comparing
apples with oranges. IIRC the blown 1.8 puts out low 200s torque (I can
look it up if you like, if not it'll be on the web somewhere) ie around
about the numbers I suggested above for a comparison of a blown petrol
and a blown diesel

Besides I never get anywhere near the claimed fuel economy in a car. You
have to drive like grandma to get it, which you're going to have to in a
diesel cos you ain't got no choice.

Assumption, do you know that to be true ? (I don't either way)

JL