Forza Road Racing
Welcome to the Forza Road Racing site, racers Please login.

If you have not yet registered, please do so using your X-Box Live Gamertag and be sure to setup your profile accordingly.

Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Simcik on Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:12 pm

Haha - told ya so...

Not that any of you disagreed with me to begin with, but here's yet another report that discusses the damage done by this stupid program..

avatar
Simcik
Admin

Posts : 1252
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 30
Location : East Texas

View user profile http://forzaroadracing.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Remaggib on Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:12 pm

Never seemed like a good idea to me, where the economy is already hurting and peoples' homes are being foreclosed, let's give them incentive to buy new cars on top of all that. And WAY too many cars at Pick N Pull (junkyard out here) were actually NICER than what I was driving. And that's probably STILL true.
avatar
Remaggib

Posts : 759
Join date : 2012-02-18
Age : 36
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  StalkerStang on Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:54 pm

Just like everything in this country (seems to be anyways), the stated point of any organization or act is far from its actual purpose.

The whole car emissions is a fucking joke. Supposedly its about keeping our environment clean, but its far from that, its all a means for the state and government to make money.

If we were so concerned with the environment and clean air, why would we have any other test other than measuring the emissions out of the tail pipe? My 5.0L ran cleaner out of the pipe with bigger aluminum heads and intake than when it was stock, but because my cylinder head manufacturer didn't jump through the hoops of getting their CARB cert. it won't pass emissions "visually".

And OBDII cars? They don't even measure pipe emissions out here in AZ, they hook up to the DLC connector and check emission monitors status' within the factory PCM, you know how easy it is to trick the computer into thinking all the emissions devices are there? My buddies got no cats and huge cams with a turbo on his 01 GT Mustang, and it passes OBDII emissions, lol

Cash for clunkers was never about cleaning up the environemnt. It made some corporation(s) or somebody a lot of money.

_________________
avatar
StalkerStang

Posts : 717
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 31
Location : Phx, Arizona

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Remaggib on Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:44 pm

Plus, our government sees it fit to be the world police (and not the cool kind like the movie), why would they go after Americans' cars anyways? We have one of the better countries for cars. Look at any 3rd world country. Look at the polluting junks they drive. And there's more of them. Yeah, someone made a LOT of money off that deal, somehow. I'm glad I wasn't in the market for a car, nor was I able to afford one, at the time. I probably still wouldn't have done it, because I don't like making that kind of commitment. How I'm married, remains a mystery.
avatar
Remaggib

Posts : 759
Join date : 2012-02-18
Age : 36
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  TuxTshirt on Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:16 am

Yeah, most definitely another tally against our brilliant president and the government. It's funny to see how it coincided with bailouts too. That's not coincidental if you ask me. And the morons didn't give any thought to other facets of the auto industry that it would hurt, like service and parts sales.

On another note, I disagree about emissions. Totally necessary. The number of cars on the road justifies it. There's a reason you can't see in broad daylight in California. It's called smog and it's not a myth. If you think untreated exhaust gases are no problem, go inhale some. (Disclaimer: don't do that, you may die.) Sure, there are ways around the emissions laws, but the number of people bypassing emissions equipment is very small next to the number who leave their stuff alone. I know in my state, there are counties that are exempt from emissions laws. Those counties have very low population numbers. Major cities and high population areas need limitations.

_________________
Waitress: Hi, can I get you two a drink?
Starsky: You sure can sweetheart. Johnnie Red neat, ok? Do it. Do It.
avatar
TuxTshirt

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2012-02-14
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Remaggib on Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:18 am

It's not smog, it's smug. Don't you watch South Park?

I was at least under the impression that if Hollywood were to disappear with most of the actors and actresses that get divorces like it's in style, the planet could self-heal.

Though I can't say I noticed anything like that when I was there, but from the time I drove in and flew out of San Francisco, including boarding and all that junk, I was there 6 hours. Long enough to realize a few things though.

A) We made great time. This was (with exception of the hour or so that the owner of the car drove) all me. The manual (car was less than a month old) said not to use cruise control and not to go above highway speeds. Since the owner was on the phone or sleeping the whole trip, I had the cruise locked at 105 for a large portion of the drive.

B) Driving at relatively excessive speeds through a windy desert, passing cars like they're standing still, can and WILL destroy a less than month old paint job and windshield. She needed a new windshield and a paint job when we got there if memory serves, either way the thing was chewed up.

C) It's impolite to knock on somebody's door when you're planned to spend the night, at 8am. Especially when you're supposed to get there at 8pm.

Back on topic, I never did understand how the cash for clunkers was supposed to help much. People get new cars, their old ones that were in better shape that the sh*tboxes I was driving were being destroyed, and then there were probably more than a couple people that ended up having them repossessed because of the economy. I just don't get it. I'm insanely fortunate that things break, people move, and apartments need to be repaired and fixed up for the next person. I'm also insanely fortunate that people like to sue their bosses. These factors keep myself and my wife employed, but I'm STILL leery of buying a car. We did in November out of necessity, and it's a heck of a commitment.
avatar
Remaggib

Posts : 759
Join date : 2012-02-18
Age : 36
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Avanti 63r1025 on Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:56 am

From your token CA asshole Very Happy
  • The Los Angeles basin was a shit ton worse in the '60s and '70s than at any time thereafter. None of the state is bad now and no where else has ever been as bad as L.A. in those decades.
  • There are a couple low density counties in the northern central valley where smog is not required. One must have a physical address and not just a P.O. box to reap those benefits.
  • Cars pre-1976 are exempt in all parts of the state.
  • And lastly I'll be an ass: I wish government agencies would keep their nose out of everybody's business.
If somebody prefers to drive their car without smog equipment, it should be their choice. We have enough cars on the road where people who want to drive without that equipment wouldn't be an issue. What was that Ford? I think it was a Taurus concept from a handful of years ago. In testing it was found the car's emissions were lower than the air it would intake; it would clean the air as it drove through. We should advance this technology because I'm sure there would be people willing to drive a car that cleans the air.
avatar
Avanti 63r1025

Posts : 1324
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 39
Location : 60/40 between Sears Point and Laguna Seca, CA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Remaggib on Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:36 am

Wow, pre '76 is exempt? Damn... I used to have to take my '70 in for emissions but it would pass just because there was little to no bar for that exhaust. Even when I had straight pipe dual exhaust it passed. I think it was beginning of 2012 Wisconsin started doing (well, the 5 SE counties of WI at least) something different. Now, rather than have emissions places open, we have to take our cars to a dealership or an eligible shop for testing. But, now it's only '96 and newer. They just hook up to the OBD II system and away you go. Not hard to get around that stuff either, considering my Cavalier thinks we live in a forever 66 degree climate (broken / rigged air intake temp sensor).
avatar
Remaggib

Posts : 759
Join date : 2012-02-18
Age : 36
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  StalkerStang on Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:36 pm

Don't get me wrong Tux, I am not for a non-regulated emissions system on cars, but what we have now is not doing what it should be. A visual fail after a functional pass is bullshit, I mean a legit functional pass, not a bypassed way of skewing the exhaust gas results.

My 01 Mustang has cats, the EGR works, and the evap system is sealed and functioning. Its my main transportation, my 90, has nothing on it, but its not a primary vehicle.

In AZ only Maricopa (Phoenix) and Pinal (Tuscon) require emissions, the rest of the state is considered rural. After 25 years, in the main counties, a car can qualify for historic car status and is exempt from emissions.

_________________
avatar
StalkerStang

Posts : 717
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 31
Location : Phx, Arizona

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Ex US Squid on Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:58 pm

Funny thing about that not being able to see in California Tux........ Back in the 70s it was way worse than it is today in LA. Theres been comparisons made that show the smog level was worse then with less cars than today. So I would say even though we have a shit ton more cars around that all the smog emissions work to the desired effect.

On a separate but somewhat connected note I think its bullshit all the smug aholes that own electric cars think they dont owe shit to DOT for maintenance cause they are "saving the environment". Even though over a 20 year life span because of the harsh elements needed to make the electric cars that they cause just as much harm to the environment. Freakin Richards! Anyway, back to the clunkers....

_________________

Win The Day! I love my Ducks!
avatar
Ex US Squid

Posts : 943
Join date : 2012-02-15
Age : 33
Location : Oregon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  TuxTshirt on Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:21 am

Ex US Squid wrote:Funny thing about that not being able to see in California Tux........ Back in the 70s it was way worse than it is today in LA. Theres been comparisons made that show the smog level was worse then with less cars than today. So I would say even though we have a shit ton more cars around that all the smog emissions work to the desired effect.

On a separate but somewhat connected note I think its bullshit all the smug aholes that own electric cars think they dont owe shit to DOT for maintenance cause they are "saving the environment". Even though over a 20 year life span because of the harsh elements needed to make the electric cars that they cause just as much harm to the environment. Freakin Richards! Anyway, back to the clunkers....

Exactly. The cars had less effective emissions controls, if not none at all. So imagine the issues we'd have without emissions standards. Not to mention every American car was running 5,000 c.i. engines. Laughing

_________________
Waitress: Hi, can I get you two a drink?
Starsky: You sure can sweetheart. Johnnie Red neat, ok? Do it. Do It.
avatar
TuxTshirt

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2012-02-14
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Simcik on Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:32 am

The idea behind the Clunker program was simple. It gave people with older cars artificial trade in value. Let's say you have an older car in disrepair that you drive everyday to work. You have decent income, and could afford a low payment, but you can't afford a new car. Your options are keep what you've got, or buy a used car, that may or may not be any more efficient than what you already have. The Clunkers program gave your older, junked car more value, so that you could actually trade it in.

There were stipulations, though. The combined fuel economy of the new car had to be at least 3 mpg better than the old one. The car you were trading had to be registered (not insured) for a full year prior to the trade in. The car couldn't be more than 25 years old. Your old car had to average below 18 mpg combined. Etc. Lot's of B.S. There was even a wheelbase requirement for trucks, vans, and SUVs.

What made it worse was the way the gov't lumped all the vehicles together. For instance, my father's '85 Ram Van 250 (3/4 Ton full-size van, 8-passengers, with plenty of cargo room.) with a 318 engine DID NOT QUALIFY due to the wheelbase. In 1985, Dodge offered a compact version of this van for deliveries and whatnot. It had only 2 seats, and was about the length of a Chevy Astro, though it was wider and taller. This van had a very short wheelbase - too short to make it eligible for the rebates. The gov't lumped every vehicle together. If one variant didn't qualify, none did. The old Mopar minivans had a similar problem. The 2.4L I-4 models averaged 19mpg, even though the 3.3L and 3.8L V6s got only 18. The V6s should have qualified, but the gov't lumped them all together, and they didn't. It was B.S.

Furthermore, the people that had the true beaters - the cars you really would want off the road - usually had bad credit and little or no disposable income. Even though their cars qualified, they couldn't buy a car. And the rebates were no good for used cars. If they wanted to go look at a used car, they could. But instead of the $3-4000 trade-in value, you were looking at like $500-$1000. Again, more B.S.

So, what ended up happening was the people who were in a position where they might be buying a car within the next 6-12 months were drawn into the dealerships. Most of them bought - though not necessarily the car they wanted. That month in the car business was nice, though we didn't make that much more money than normal, as the cheap economy cars had little to no markup in them, and that is what we got paid on. But the next few months were terrible. No one came in. Those that wanted/needed to buy, pushed up their time frames a few months to take advantage of the rebates. It was terrible. And the cars we took in? There were several Jeep Grand Cherokees we took in. (Two Limiteds, and even an Overland. The Overland had some issues, and higher miles, but it was loaded. Quadratrac Full-Time 4WD, 4.7L V8,, 3-Zone Automatic A/C, leather, Infinity sound, sunroof, it was nice. A little TLC and it would be good to go.) We got lots of early- to mid-2000s cars, and a few 90's cars. I think we had like 3 or 4 that were older than that. Most of the cars could have made nice rides from someone. And none of them were so bad that they needed to be crushed. They had many, many good parts.

Our guys used a little can filled with phosphate (or something like that) to ruin the blocks. A little more compassionate than running sand in them. They'd set the can on fire on top the engine and it would burn through it. We ruined several good 318s and at least one 4.0L I-4... It was/is sad...

The program was a joke.

_________________
Driver of the #5 Shiner Bock SRT Dodge Challenger 392-R, and countless other Mopars.
FMROC / CLASCAR Race Director
avatar
Simcik
Admin

Posts : 1252
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 30
Location : East Texas

View user profile http://forzaroadracing.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Simcik on Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:39 am

Eh, emissions standards are a good thing, but FORCING the automakers to go about attaining them a certain way is B.S.

A well tuned engine that burns all it's fuel in the chamber has no need for a catalytic converter, yet it is still required to have one. All stuff like does is choke the engine down, robbing power, and wasting energy (fuel).

EGR systems are notorious for causing issues inside the engine. You're ingesting oil for God's sake. (At least in some cases.)

Look at what the EPA did to the Cummins engines. No more particulate filtration system - you have to use DEF now. Wonder which EPA big-whig bought that stock???

Anyway - standards are good. Mandatory methods of achievement are bad. Now, let's not get started on CAFE - that's a whole other bag of worms.

avatar
Simcik
Admin

Posts : 1252
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 30
Location : East Texas

View user profile http://forzaroadracing.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  TuxTshirt on Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:35 pm

Simcik wrote:Eh, emissions standards are a good thing, but FORCING the automakers to go about attaining them a certain way is B.S.

A well tuned engine that burns all it's fuel in the chamber has no need for a catalytic converter, yet it is still required to have one. All stuff like does is choke the engine down, robbing power, and wasting energy (fuel).

EGR systems are notorious for causing issues inside the engine. You're ingesting oil for God's sake. (At least in some cases.)

Look at what the EPA did to the Cummins engines. No more particulate filtration system - you have to use DEF now. Wonder which EPA big-whig bought that stock???

Anyway - standards are good. Mandatory methods of achievement are bad. Now, let's not get started on CAFE - that's a whole other bag of worms.


Incorrect, even "well-tuned" engines produce harmful gases. It's impossible to produce an HC burning engine that emits nothing but CO2, H2O, N2, and O2. There's far too many variables. Even if you can use all of the HC, which you can't, you've still got NOX that the cat also cleans up. And at stoichiometry you still have some CO. Modern cats are reduction/oxidation devices. That means they absorb oxygen in harmful molecules like O and NOX, and they oxidize molecules like CO. Fact is, modern cat converters do a nice job and flow very well.

And properly functioning EGR systems coupled with a healthy crankcase should not burn oil.


_________________
Waitress: Hi, can I get you two a drink?
Starsky: You sure can sweetheart. Johnnie Red neat, ok? Do it. Do It.
avatar
TuxTshirt

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2012-02-14
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Simcik on Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:31 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

Read the "Stoichiometric Combustion of a Hydrocarbon in Air" section.

Hydrocarbons, burned completely, produce only pure Nitrogen gas, water, and Carbon Dioxide - none of those are harmful. Incomplete combustion, however, is a whole other deal.

An excess of oxygen could lead to the Nitrogen forming NOx, though that is NOT part of the combustion process - it is a separate oxidation process.. It only occurs at very high heats, as well. Sounds to me like the cats would be counter productive in this regard. Also, this point makes me wonder:

"Nitrogen may also oxidize when there is an excess of oxygen. The reaction is thermodynamically favored only at high temperatures. Diesel engines are run with an excess of oxygen to combust small particles that tend to form with only a stoichiometric amount of oxygen, necessarily producing nitrogen oxide emissions. Both the United States and European Union have limits to nitrogen oxide emissions, which necessitate the use of a special catalytic converter or treatment of the exhaust with urea (see Diesel exhaust fluid)."

So, are they saying that they are pumping excess oxygen into the hot exhaust system to remove some particulates (soot), but in the process creating NOx??? Hahaha - wonderful! More unintended consequences.
avatar
Simcik
Admin

Posts : 1252
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 30
Location : East Texas

View user profile http://forzaroadracing.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Simcik on Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:36 pm

Oh, and the EGR valve on the Sebring is on the side of one of the heads, drawing air from on top of the valves. It then spits the air into the intake after the throttle body. There is no way it can't get oil in it. Granted, it mostly vaporized or very, very small droplets at the time, but it's still there...
avatar
Simcik
Admin

Posts : 1252
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 30
Location : East Texas

View user profile http://forzaroadracing.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  TuxTshirt on Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:20 pm

Simcik wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

Read the "Stoichiometric Combustion of a Hydrocarbon in Air" section.

Hydrocarbons, burned completely, produce only pure Nitrogen gas, water, and Carbon Dioxide - none of those are harmful. Incomplete combustion, however, is a whole other deal.

An excess of oxygen could lead to the Nitrogen forming NOx, though that is NOT part of the combustion process - it is a separate oxidation process.. It only occurs at very high heats, as well. Sounds to me like the cats would be counter productive in this regard. Also, this point makes me wonder:

"Nitrogen may also oxidize when there is an excess of oxygen. The reaction is thermodynamically favored only at high temperatures. Diesel engines are run with an excess of oxygen to combust small particles that tend to form with only a stoichiometric amount of oxygen, necessarily producing nitrogen oxide emissions. Both the United States and European Union have limits to nitrogen oxide emissions, which necessitate the use of a special catalytic converter or treatment of the exhaust with urea (see Diesel exhaust fluid)."

So, are they saying that they are pumping excess oxygen into the hot exhaust system to remove some particulates (soot), but in the process creating NOx??? Hahaha - wonderful! More unintended consequences.

Ok, fair enough. Math explains it all. So where does this "perfect" combustion take place? It doesn't. Great theory. No reality. It is interesting though. See, the training I go through deals with what actually happens in automotive engines. I like the formula in that article because it deals with definites in a "perfect" laboratory setting. Something can be learned. I learned. There's a chart in one of my emissions books that is interesting and it lists the gases under certain conditions. I'll look for it. Good find on the wiki.

In response to your EGR valve. It does live on the side of your cylinder head, but it doesn't route crankcase gases into the intake tract. It recirculates exhaust gas (Exhaust Gas Recirculation). It pulls exhaust from a port in the side of your cylinder head, an exhaust port. The PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) valve reroutes crankcase gases.

_________________
Waitress: Hi, can I get you two a drink?
Starsky: You sure can sweetheart. Johnnie Red neat, ok? Do it. Do It.
avatar
TuxTshirt

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2012-02-14
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  TuxTshirt on Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 pm

Here's one of those charts:


Note that there are no zeros. A few come close, but not at stoichiometry. The charts are created with data compiled from exhaust gas analyzers. These are real-world conditions, not lab conditions.

_________________
Waitress: Hi, can I get you two a drink?
Starsky: You sure can sweetheart. Johnnie Red neat, ok? Do it. Do It.
avatar
TuxTshirt

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2012-02-14
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Ex US Squid on Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:07 pm

Some diesels can come close. There have been several builds on Cummins, Powerstroke and Duramax motors that combine the use of Propane to fully ignite the fuel in the combustion chamber and Water Methanol to help as well as keep exhaust gas temp at a reasonable level. When combined you end up with a huge increase in economy and as little emissions as you are likely to find in a fossil fuel motor. Plus you get a boost in power! So more power, better mpg and the ability to tell hippies to fuck off! Thats what Im talkin about. Reason this is less known is most people assume diesel is the motors class 8 semi trucks and tractors use that produce a shit ton of soot. Once the public perception changes enough I feel that diesel cars will become more popular.

Also with advent of regen I bet in 10 years we will see alot of diesel hybrid vehicles on the road... Especially while the electric range, environmental impact of production, and cost are all so shitty on the plug in cars.

_________________

Win The Day! I love my Ducks!
avatar
Ex US Squid

Posts : 943
Join date : 2012-02-15
Age : 33
Location : Oregon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  TuxTshirt on Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:18 pm

Ex US Squid wrote:Some diesels can come close. There have been several builds on Cummins, Powerstroke and Duramax motors that combine the use of Propane to fully ignite the fuel in the combustion chamber and Water Methanol to help as well as keep exhaust gas temp at a reasonable level. When combined you end up with a huge increase in economy and as little emissions as you are likely to find in a fossil fuel motor. Plus you get a boost in power! So more power, better mpg and the ability to tell hippies to fuck off! Thats what Im talkin about. Reason this is less known is most people assume diesel is the motors class 8 semi trucks and tractors use that produce a shit ton of soot. Once the public perception changes enough I feel that diesel cars will become more popular.

Also with advent of regen I bet in 10 years we will see alot of diesel hybrid vehicles on the road... Especially while the electric range, environmental impact of production, and cost are all so shitty on the plug in cars.

Right on about public perception. I'm definitely a diesel fan and believe in the science of it. More heat energy per unit=more power and MPGs. Look at the diesels in racing, they're dominant. Clean, powerful, and efficient. You still have to deal with emissions though on the passenger vehicles and trucks. No matter how "close" you get, there's still harmful emissions to deal with.

_________________
Waitress: Hi, can I get you two a drink?
Starsky: You sure can sweetheart. Johnnie Red neat, ok? Do it. Do It.
avatar
TuxTshirt

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2012-02-14
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Remaggib on Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:41 pm

I don't know much about diesel engines, other than I've operated one (when I drove semi for Schneider (don't ever work for them )). I do remember hearing that any diesel with a turbo on it (stock) should be a good engine, because the bottom ends are bullet proof because they have more to deal with than a NA engine. Whether or not that's right is beyond me. I would like a diesel car, but honestly the fuel would kill me. Unless it gets much better mileage than what I have (right now, 2002 Chevy Blazer, max about 15mpg) that is. The thing I don't like about diesels, the dickheads with small penis syndrome that have to have the 10" exhaust straight piped so it's insanely loud. Too many of them around here, a lot with the exhaust coming out through the front of the bed, as a pair of stacks. Ridiculous. But other than that, I wouldn't mind a diesel vehicle.
avatar
Remaggib

Posts : 759
Join date : 2012-02-18
Age : 36
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Simcik on Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:14 pm

Actually, completely burning fuel is not impossible. It's just a little harder to attain that most people are willing to take the time to invest in. FURTHERMORE - and this is a biggie - the additives in today's fuels are actually harmful to the combustion process. We could also switch to propane - which burns more easily than gasoline. (It also provides less power, but would improve emissions...)
avatar
Simcik
Admin

Posts : 1252
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 30
Location : East Texas

View user profile http://forzaroadracing.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  TuxTshirt on Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:20 pm

Remaggib wrote:I don't know much about diesel engines, other than I've operated one (when I drove semi for Schneider (don't ever work for them )). I do remember hearing that any diesel with a turbo on it (stock) should be a good engine, because the bottom ends are bullet proof because they have more to deal with than a NA engine. Whether or not that's right is beyond me. I would like a diesel car, but honestly the fuel would kill me. Unless it gets much better mileage than what I have (right now, 2002 Chevy Blazer, max about 15mpg) that is. The thing I don't like about diesels, the dickheads with small penis syndrome that have to have the 10" exhaust straight piped so it's insanely loud. Too many of them around here, a lot with the exhaust coming out through the front of the bed, as a pair of stacks. Ridiculous. But other than that, I wouldn't mind a diesel vehicle.

lol! Yes, Rem, diesels are built more heavy-duty than a gasoline engine would be. The extreme pressures dictate that. You heard right. Not only do they have much higher compression, they also run much leaner on a regular basis.

_________________
Waitress: Hi, can I get you two a drink?
Starsky: You sure can sweetheart. Johnnie Red neat, ok? Do it. Do It.
avatar
TuxTshirt

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2012-02-14
Location : Pennsylvania

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Remaggib on Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:40 pm

Well that's good news for them then, like I say if I could find one with much better fuel economy I'd be all about it.

And propane in an engine... I've been wondering if it were possible with little (or no) modification to run a car on propane. You know, just open the valve to the injectors and away you go... Probably not but would be fun to try on an old carbeureted engine. You know, like the one sitting in the shop on site here. bounce
avatar
Remaggib

Posts : 759
Join date : 2012-02-18
Age : 36
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Simcik on Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:55 pm

Remaggib wrote:Well that's good news for them then, like I say if I could find one with much better fuel economy I'd be all about it.

And propane in an engine... I've been wondering if it were possible with little (or no) modification to run a car on propane. You know, just open the valve to the injectors and away you go... Probably not but would be fun to try on an old carbeureted engine. You know, like the one sitting in the shop on site here. bounce

Umm, yeah, it's basically that easy. Especially with carb'd engines...

http://www.gotpropane.com/
avatar
Simcik
Admin

Posts : 1252
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 30
Location : East Texas

View user profile http://forzaroadracing.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Cash For Clunkers = Bad???

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum