frenchie
Well-known member
jkwilson":53ab3yt1 said:
Really I need one. Can you deliver :lol:
Stop Paying $3 per gallon for Gas & Diesel
- Thread starter collde
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Really I need one. Can you deliver :lol:
k bar b ranch
Member
his name is alex kettler and is now a retired taper/painter. he bought the car (not a ford but in the same familly) it was a lincoln and he purchased it just after getting out of the service after the korean war. alex lived in the washington/dutzdow , missouri area and drove to st.louis every morning (like many do) every day for work.although 100 mpg is the fable. alex told me that he was getting around 82 mpg not 100 mpg. not bad for the types of heavy cars made in the 50's.he took it back to the dealer where they replaced the test carb with a stock one and gave him no free cars for life.
greenwillowherefords
Well-known member
It seems to me that since GM and Ford are losing ground to the imports, and have been for some time, that they would have resurrected this phenom by now to save the day if it were real. The world would beat a path to the Ford dealership door if they introduced a car that got eighty miles per gallon.
If you want a true story, I used to own a 1991 Ford Festiva 5-speed. It was made in Korea by Kia. It averaged about 42-43 mpg, and would get as high as 48 mpg on the highway. It was also 4 passenger and a bit noisy, but had decent legroom and seats in the front. These little cars were known for lasting 200,000 miles and above, and mine had about 160,000 when I sold it several years ago. I still see it from time to time. The worst gas milaege we ever got with it was in the low 30's, on the tank that we drove through the nine mile Exotic Animal Paradise near Springfield, MO. Those nine miles took about two hours if I recall correctly.
Efficiency is not always in the smaller motor, however. We had a 4 cylinder Mitsubishi Galant that we purchased new. It averaged about 2 miles per gallon better than our Mercury Grand Marquis V8, and on a highway trip did no better at all. In my experience, the 3.0 V6 Rangers do as well as the four cylinders.
If you want a true story, I used to own a 1991 Ford Festiva 5-speed. It was made in Korea by Kia. It averaged about 42-43 mpg, and would get as high as 48 mpg on the highway. It was also 4 passenger and a bit noisy, but had decent legroom and seats in the front. These little cars were known for lasting 200,000 miles and above, and mine had about 160,000 when I sold it several years ago. I still see it from time to time. The worst gas milaege we ever got with it was in the low 30's, on the tank that we drove through the nine mile Exotic Animal Paradise near Springfield, MO. Those nine miles took about two hours if I recall correctly.
Efficiency is not always in the smaller motor, however. We had a 4 cylinder Mitsubishi Galant that we purchased new. It averaged about 2 miles per gallon better than our Mercury Grand Marquis V8, and on a highway trip did no better at all. In my experience, the 3.0 V6 Rangers do as well as the four cylinders.
Mahoney Pursley Ranch
Well-known member
When the big three auto makers get out of the beds they been sleepin in with the oil companies you MIGHT see some higher mileage autos produced. But I doubt it. The next fuel for the internal combustion engine will be hydrogen.
The internal combustion engine is really not very efficient to begin with-too much of the energy produced is waste heat that you just have to get rid of. Then with an automobile you have all kinds of compromises to increase driveability. More efficiency could be had, but most of us would not like the resulting increase in the cost of an automobile. MPR, in my opinion hydrogen is an interesting alternative to petroleum fuel. The problems of transportation, handling and safety will have to be overcome first and I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon. I don't really want to be fueling up my hydrogen roadster next to some fool at the Quik Stop who decides to light a Lucky Strike. We'll have to see what happens. I've had to eat crow before this.
frenchie
Well-known member
greenwillowherefords":1nyvsxpa said:
We had a 92 Festiva 5 speed... unfortunately burnt at 36,000 miles.Good on gas though.
Campground Cattle
Well-known member
Hydrogen as a Fuel for Automobiles
On first glance, hydrogen seems to be the ideal fuel for automobiles and other vehicles. It doesn't seem like one could get any cleaner burning, since hydrogen burns (oxidizes) to form simply water vapor. No pollution! What a seeming advancement over our current internal combustion engines that put thousands of tons of pollutants into the Earth's atmosphere, as well as giving off massive amounts of heat that contribute to global warming, and many other environmental problems.
Hydrogen (H2) plus Oxygen (O) makes H2O, water, or actually, water vapor, at higher temperatures. And Hydrogen is actually capable of nearly meeting those high expectations.
Environmental Impact
There are a couple minor environmental issues. Our Earth's atmosphere is not pure Oxygen, but it is a mixture of gases, with around 4/5 of it being Nitrogen and around 1/5 being Oxygen, and a lot of other gases in small amounts. When Hydrogen (or any other fuel) burns in our atmosphere, a lot of heat is generated (which is sort of the whole point!) When the Nitrogen in the air, it also can oxidize. It can combine with the nearby Oxygen atoms in a variety of ways, such as NO2, NO3, N2O5, and many others. These new compounds are collectively referred to as NOx, and they generally are considered to cause an assortment of health problems in people and other living things.
In addition to NOx production, if the device in which the burning occurs has any lubricants, like oil, there are also oxidation products of the Carbon in them, which can contain CO, carbon monoxide. When Hydrogen is burned in a decently designed device, these environmental problems are fairly minor and they are rarely considered to be any great danger.
Logistics
Hydrogen does have some more significant drawbacks. One of the most difficult to deal with is that it is such a light gas! A pound of Hydrogen contains around 61,000 Btus of latent energy in it, which seems like a lot! For comparison, a pound of regular gasoline only contains around 20,500 Btus in it! Sounds good!
However, a pound of Hydrogen is HUGE! At standard atmospheric pressure and temperature, it takes up around 190 cubic feet of space. In contrast, that pound of gasoline only takes up about 1/50 of a cubic foot.
We can say this same thing in terms of "gallons". A gallon of gasoline contains around 6 pounds, or 125,000 Btus of energy in it. A gallon of hydrogen (gas) only contains around 40 Btus in it. Quite a difference! Instead of a two cubic foot gasoline tank (15 gallons) in your car, you would need a tank more than 3,000 times bigger, over 6,000 cubic feet, for the equivalent Hydrogen! That's a little more than TWO standard semi trailers (8'wide x 8'high x 45' long or 2900 cubic feet each). Pretty big gas tank!
Well, that is obviously not going to happen! So, the many ongoing explorations into using Hydrogen as a fuel always involve carrying COMPRESSED Hydrogen in very thick, heavy tanks. If you have ever seen the kinds of tanks used for the Oxygen for a worker's oxyacetylene cutting torch, that's the kind. Such tanks can hold Hydrogen at around 100 times atmospheric pressure, or 1500 PSI, an extremely high pressure.
Well, at 100 times atmospheric pressure, the Ideal Gas Law tells us that the Hydrogen would now only take up 2900/100 or 29 cubic feet. That works out to around 60 of those high pressure storage tanks (to match the effective capacity of the 15 gallon gasoline tank.). Each tank is very massive to withstand the very high pressure, and each weighs nearly 100 pounds empty. (And around 1/4 pound more when filled with Hydrogen!) So the normal American car which presently weighs around 2800 pounds would have around an extra 6,000 pounds added, so the vehicle would now weigh more than three times as much as current cars! (This tremendously affects acceleration and other performance, and it would be like that car pulling a huge 6,000 pound trailer behind it.
Safety Considerations
There are obvious safety considerations in trying to drive a 9,000 pound vehicle down the road. Handling and stopping would be very seriously affected. But there is a bigger concern.
Those 60 very high pressure tanks present another complication. If industrial workers ignore proper safety rules when working with a high pressure Oxygen tank, it could fall over. As the hundred pound tank falls over, it quickly develops a lot of momentum. If there should happen to be something in the way on the floor, where the neck and valve of the tank hit it, the neck and/or valve tends to just snap off. Suddenly, 1500 PSI of compressed gas has an easy way out, and it all goes out almost immediately. Isaac Newton told us about the Law of Action and equal Reaction. The hundred pound body of the tank then zooms off at extremely high speed in the other direction. There have been many industrial accidents where such Oxygen tanks flew many hundreds of feet through the air and passed completely through many concrete walls.
Most suppliers of industrial Oxygen display photographs of vehicles where ONE such Oxygen tank had not been strapped down properly and the neck wound up snapping off. Usually, the vehicles shown in those pictures are hard to tell as being vehicles, except for maybe a tire somewhere in the picture.
Get the point? Imagine having 60 such tanks in a car. Either one vibrates loose from its clamps, or the guy who last replaced them didn't strap them all down properly, or an accident occurs where you hit another vehicle or a tree. If even one of those tanks ruptures, bad things would result. And have you ever even seen what happens to any car when a semi hits it?
Notice that this issue is not actually related to any hazard of Hydrogen itself, but rather the fact that it would have to be stored at extremely high pressures due to its very low density. Whether it was a high-pressure Oxygen tank or a high-pressure Hydrogen tank, this danger is virtually the same, and is entirely due to the pressure that the gas is compressed to.
Because of this extraordinary safety hazard, which is only due to the very high pressures involved and really has nothing to do with the Hydrogen itself, there is no imaginable way that the US Government would ever allow such vehicles to be licensed. It would conceivably be safer to drive a dynamite truck!
Cost Considerations
It would be wonderful if massive amounts of compressed Hydrogen were easily available. In that case, except for the safety and size considerations just discussed, Hydrogen would be a nearly ideal fuel for vehicles. However, no compressed gas of any kind exists naturally and so mechanical compression is required. An air compressor that can commonly be bought for $300 can compress air to around 100 PSI, around seven times natural atmospheric pressure. However, compressors that are capable of 1500 psi or 100 times atmospheric pressure are very large, very complex, and VERY expensive. In addition, every pipe and every fitting used must also be able to safely withstand such pressures. (Normal pipes would just burst.) In addition, whoever operated such a compressor would have to be very extensively trained, to keep all of its parts from bursting from the pressure and killing someone. The point: People are not ever likely to have their own Hydrogen compressors, and so they would certainly always have to buy the Hydrogen from some large corporation. Logically, it figures that that corporation will be the very same ones that now own all the oil and gasoline companies!
However, even if there was some way to do all that compression, it takes a good amount of electricity for the compressor motor to drive the compressor. A significant cost would be involved for that compression, even if you somehow had your own compressor.
In addition, free Hydrogen does not exist. All of the Hydrogen that might be collected is now in various compounds. The simplest to deal with is water. If you had Chemistry in High School, then you hooked up some electricity to an apparatus that contained water, and you saw little bubbles of Hydrogen form in one upside down test tube and Oxygen form in the other. That is called Electrolysis, or the Dissociation of water. It is obviously pretty easy to do.
But those are just little bubbles of Hydrogen that you collect. Remember that you are going to need an amount of Hydrogen that would more than fill two semi trailers, to just equal one tank of gasoline! It is possible to calculate the amount of electricity needed for that, but you must get the idea that it is a LOT of electricity! So, you get to pay your electric company for that, too.
So, you would wind up paying for the electricity to Dissociate the water in the first place, plus the cost of the electricity needed for the extreme compression. Of course, all of this would be after you bought the necessary equipment!
An alternative, of course, would be to buy (rent actually) tanks of industrial Hydrogen that is already compressed. Current prices for Industrial Hydrogen (the lowest purity available) are around $42 for a large, very high pressure tank which contains 197 standard cubic feet of Hydrogen, plus a monthly rental fee for the tank. The 2900 cubic feet that we had earlier determined were equal to one 15 gallon tank of gasoline, would therefore be around 15 of these tanks, which would cost around $630 for the compressed Hydrogen plus the monthly rental of around $150 for the tanks themselves.
We complain today at paying $2 per gallon for gasoline, which would be $30 for our 15 gallon tank. How many people would be willing to pay $630 and more for the same trip?
Flame Speed
Even if all the other hurdles are overcome regarding using Hydrogen as a fuel, it seems to have yet another disadvantage, one that it shares with most other gaseous fuels: the speed at which a flame front travels is rather slow for the purposes of conventional engines. With an ideal Hydrogen-air mixture, a flame front can travel at around 8 feet/second. For comparison, a gasoline-air mixture creates a flame front speed that ranges from around 70 feet/second up to around 170 feet/second in normal engines.
Consider the inside of an engine cylinder in a normal car engine traveling down the highway. The engine may be rotating at 2,000 rpm, or 33 revolutions per second. The piston must therefore move upward and downward 33 times every second, and its speed in the middle of its stroke is around 45 feet/second. If a fuel burning in the cylinder is to actually push down on the piston, in order to do actual work in propelling the vehicle, the fuel-air mixture needs to burn at a speed faster than the piston is moving! Otherwise, the slow-burning mixture would actually act to SLOW DOWN the piston! It would not only not do productive work, but it would require work FROM the piston.
The fact that a Hydrogen-air mixture has a flame-front speed of around 1/10 that of a gasoline-air mixture seems to indicate that only a very slowly moving mechanism could be used. That might be possible, but it suggests that yet another hurdle might lie in front of Hydrogen ever becoming a common motor fuel.
Conclusion
Yes, fuel cells, which are effective mechanisms for converting Hydrogen and Oxygen into water vapor and releasing a lot of energy, certainly seem to be fascinating potential sources of energy for vehicles. However, it certainly seems that sufficient Hydrogen cannot be stored in a car for any length of trip without compressing it to extremely high pressures. THAT fact causes both cost and safety considerations which seem to make practical use of Hydrogen remain a fascinating dream which will probably never become reality.
Yes, Hydrogen can be demonstrated in experimental vehicles, and they can have impressive acceleration and speed. But that's with a rather small Hydrogen tank aboard. If you ever see an impressive demonstration like that of a Hydrogen powered vehicle, make sure to ask how long that vehicle could continue to perform like that. The answer is certain to be no more than a few minutes at most. So, as a demonstration, Hydrogen can seem quite impressive, because it is! But in actual practical applications, the details probably make it never to be usable in our vehicles.
On first glance, hydrogen seems to be the ideal fuel for automobiles and other vehicles. It doesn't seem like one could get any cleaner burning, since hydrogen burns (oxidizes) to form simply water vapor. No pollution! What a seeming advancement over our current internal combustion engines that put thousands of tons of pollutants into the Earth's atmosphere, as well as giving off massive amounts of heat that contribute to global warming, and many other environmental problems.
Hydrogen (H2) plus Oxygen (O) makes H2O, water, or actually, water vapor, at higher temperatures. And Hydrogen is actually capable of nearly meeting those high expectations.
Environmental Impact
There are a couple minor environmental issues. Our Earth's atmosphere is not pure Oxygen, but it is a mixture of gases, with around 4/5 of it being Nitrogen and around 1/5 being Oxygen, and a lot of other gases in small amounts. When Hydrogen (or any other fuel) burns in our atmosphere, a lot of heat is generated (which is sort of the whole point!) When the Nitrogen in the air, it also can oxidize. It can combine with the nearby Oxygen atoms in a variety of ways, such as NO2, NO3, N2O5, and many others. These new compounds are collectively referred to as NOx, and they generally are considered to cause an assortment of health problems in people and other living things.
In addition to NOx production, if the device in which the burning occurs has any lubricants, like oil, there are also oxidation products of the Carbon in them, which can contain CO, carbon monoxide. When Hydrogen is burned in a decently designed device, these environmental problems are fairly minor and they are rarely considered to be any great danger.
Logistics
Hydrogen does have some more significant drawbacks. One of the most difficult to deal with is that it is such a light gas! A pound of Hydrogen contains around 61,000 Btus of latent energy in it, which seems like a lot! For comparison, a pound of regular gasoline only contains around 20,500 Btus in it! Sounds good!
However, a pound of Hydrogen is HUGE! At standard atmospheric pressure and temperature, it takes up around 190 cubic feet of space. In contrast, that pound of gasoline only takes up about 1/50 of a cubic foot.
We can say this same thing in terms of "gallons". A gallon of gasoline contains around 6 pounds, or 125,000 Btus of energy in it. A gallon of hydrogen (gas) only contains around 40 Btus in it. Quite a difference! Instead of a two cubic foot gasoline tank (15 gallons) in your car, you would need a tank more than 3,000 times bigger, over 6,000 cubic feet, for the equivalent Hydrogen! That's a little more than TWO standard semi trailers (8'wide x 8'high x 45' long or 2900 cubic feet each). Pretty big gas tank!
Well, that is obviously not going to happen! So, the many ongoing explorations into using Hydrogen as a fuel always involve carrying COMPRESSED Hydrogen in very thick, heavy tanks. If you have ever seen the kinds of tanks used for the Oxygen for a worker's oxyacetylene cutting torch, that's the kind. Such tanks can hold Hydrogen at around 100 times atmospheric pressure, or 1500 PSI, an extremely high pressure.
Well, at 100 times atmospheric pressure, the Ideal Gas Law tells us that the Hydrogen would now only take up 2900/100 or 29 cubic feet. That works out to around 60 of those high pressure storage tanks (to match the effective capacity of the 15 gallon gasoline tank.). Each tank is very massive to withstand the very high pressure, and each weighs nearly 100 pounds empty. (And around 1/4 pound more when filled with Hydrogen!) So the normal American car which presently weighs around 2800 pounds would have around an extra 6,000 pounds added, so the vehicle would now weigh more than three times as much as current cars! (This tremendously affects acceleration and other performance, and it would be like that car pulling a huge 6,000 pound trailer behind it.
Safety Considerations
There are obvious safety considerations in trying to drive a 9,000 pound vehicle down the road. Handling and stopping would be very seriously affected. But there is a bigger concern.
Those 60 very high pressure tanks present another complication. If industrial workers ignore proper safety rules when working with a high pressure Oxygen tank, it could fall over. As the hundred pound tank falls over, it quickly develops a lot of momentum. If there should happen to be something in the way on the floor, where the neck and valve of the tank hit it, the neck and/or valve tends to just snap off. Suddenly, 1500 PSI of compressed gas has an easy way out, and it all goes out almost immediately. Isaac Newton told us about the Law of Action and equal Reaction. The hundred pound body of the tank then zooms off at extremely high speed in the other direction. There have been many industrial accidents where such Oxygen tanks flew many hundreds of feet through the air and passed completely through many concrete walls.
Most suppliers of industrial Oxygen display photographs of vehicles where ONE such Oxygen tank had not been strapped down properly and the neck wound up snapping off. Usually, the vehicles shown in those pictures are hard to tell as being vehicles, except for maybe a tire somewhere in the picture.
Get the point? Imagine having 60 such tanks in a car. Either one vibrates loose from its clamps, or the guy who last replaced them didn't strap them all down properly, or an accident occurs where you hit another vehicle or a tree. If even one of those tanks ruptures, bad things would result. And have you ever even seen what happens to any car when a semi hits it?
Notice that this issue is not actually related to any hazard of Hydrogen itself, but rather the fact that it would have to be stored at extremely high pressures due to its very low density. Whether it was a high-pressure Oxygen tank or a high-pressure Hydrogen tank, this danger is virtually the same, and is entirely due to the pressure that the gas is compressed to.
Because of this extraordinary safety hazard, which is only due to the very high pressures involved and really has nothing to do with the Hydrogen itself, there is no imaginable way that the US Government would ever allow such vehicles to be licensed. It would conceivably be safer to drive a dynamite truck!
Cost Considerations
It would be wonderful if massive amounts of compressed Hydrogen were easily available. In that case, except for the safety and size considerations just discussed, Hydrogen would be a nearly ideal fuel for vehicles. However, no compressed gas of any kind exists naturally and so mechanical compression is required. An air compressor that can commonly be bought for $300 can compress air to around 100 PSI, around seven times natural atmospheric pressure. However, compressors that are capable of 1500 psi or 100 times atmospheric pressure are very large, very complex, and VERY expensive. In addition, every pipe and every fitting used must also be able to safely withstand such pressures. (Normal pipes would just burst.) In addition, whoever operated such a compressor would have to be very extensively trained, to keep all of its parts from bursting from the pressure and killing someone. The point: People are not ever likely to have their own Hydrogen compressors, and so they would certainly always have to buy the Hydrogen from some large corporation. Logically, it figures that that corporation will be the very same ones that now own all the oil and gasoline companies!
However, even if there was some way to do all that compression, it takes a good amount of electricity for the compressor motor to drive the compressor. A significant cost would be involved for that compression, even if you somehow had your own compressor.
In addition, free Hydrogen does not exist. All of the Hydrogen that might be collected is now in various compounds. The simplest to deal with is water. If you had Chemistry in High School, then you hooked up some electricity to an apparatus that contained water, and you saw little bubbles of Hydrogen form in one upside down test tube and Oxygen form in the other. That is called Electrolysis, or the Dissociation of water. It is obviously pretty easy to do.
But those are just little bubbles of Hydrogen that you collect. Remember that you are going to need an amount of Hydrogen that would more than fill two semi trailers, to just equal one tank of gasoline! It is possible to calculate the amount of electricity needed for that, but you must get the idea that it is a LOT of electricity! So, you get to pay your electric company for that, too.
So, you would wind up paying for the electricity to Dissociate the water in the first place, plus the cost of the electricity needed for the extreme compression. Of course, all of this would be after you bought the necessary equipment!
An alternative, of course, would be to buy (rent actually) tanks of industrial Hydrogen that is already compressed. Current prices for Industrial Hydrogen (the lowest purity available) are around $42 for a large, very high pressure tank which contains 197 standard cubic feet of Hydrogen, plus a monthly rental fee for the tank. The 2900 cubic feet that we had earlier determined were equal to one 15 gallon tank of gasoline, would therefore be around 15 of these tanks, which would cost around $630 for the compressed Hydrogen plus the monthly rental of around $150 for the tanks themselves.
We complain today at paying $2 per gallon for gasoline, which would be $30 for our 15 gallon tank. How many people would be willing to pay $630 and more for the same trip?
Flame Speed
Even if all the other hurdles are overcome regarding using Hydrogen as a fuel, it seems to have yet another disadvantage, one that it shares with most other gaseous fuels: the speed at which a flame front travels is rather slow for the purposes of conventional engines. With an ideal Hydrogen-air mixture, a flame front can travel at around 8 feet/second. For comparison, a gasoline-air mixture creates a flame front speed that ranges from around 70 feet/second up to around 170 feet/second in normal engines.
Consider the inside of an engine cylinder in a normal car engine traveling down the highway. The engine may be rotating at 2,000 rpm, or 33 revolutions per second. The piston must therefore move upward and downward 33 times every second, and its speed in the middle of its stroke is around 45 feet/second. If a fuel burning in the cylinder is to actually push down on the piston, in order to do actual work in propelling the vehicle, the fuel-air mixture needs to burn at a speed faster than the piston is moving! Otherwise, the slow-burning mixture would actually act to SLOW DOWN the piston! It would not only not do productive work, but it would require work FROM the piston.
The fact that a Hydrogen-air mixture has a flame-front speed of around 1/10 that of a gasoline-air mixture seems to indicate that only a very slowly moving mechanism could be used. That might be possible, but it suggests that yet another hurdle might lie in front of Hydrogen ever becoming a common motor fuel.
Conclusion
Yes, fuel cells, which are effective mechanisms for converting Hydrogen and Oxygen into water vapor and releasing a lot of energy, certainly seem to be fascinating potential sources of energy for vehicles. However, it certainly seems that sufficient Hydrogen cannot be stored in a car for any length of trip without compressing it to extremely high pressures. THAT fact causes both cost and safety considerations which seem to make practical use of Hydrogen remain a fascinating dream which will probably never become reality.
Yes, Hydrogen can be demonstrated in experimental vehicles, and they can have impressive acceleration and speed. But that's with a rather small Hydrogen tank aboard. If you ever see an impressive demonstration like that of a Hydrogen powered vehicle, make sure to ask how long that vehicle could continue to perform like that. The answer is certain to be no more than a few minutes at most. So, as a demonstration, Hydrogen can seem quite impressive, because it is! But in actual practical applications, the details probably make it never to be usable in our vehicles.
buckaroo_bif
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,291
- Reaction score
- 1
This is no b-s everbody I know this ol guy that bought a 65 Ford Galaxie brand new when I was a keid. The car got phenomenal gas mileage in excess of 100 mpg. Seems it had some weird kind of carburetor on it. I was pretty young at the time so I didn't know much about cars but I remember him bragging about it. One day these guys in suits showed up at his house and took the carburetor and never siad a word to him. Seems the car was not supposed to have been sold at all.
There is no doubt in my mind we could save billions of dollars a year if there wasn't such a big factor involved in our country... GREED!
and the second big factor...CAPITALISM!!!
bif
There is no doubt in my mind we could save billions of dollars a year if there wasn't such a big factor involved in our country... GREED!
and the second big factor...CAPITALISM!!! bif
Campground Cattle
Well-known member
buckaroo_bif":l97e2sq3 said:This is no b-s everbody I know this ol guy that bought a 65 Ford Galaxie brand new when I was a keid. The car got phenomenal gas mileage in excess of 100 mpg. Seems it had some weird kind of carburetor on it. I was pretty young at the time so I didn't know much about cars but I remember him bragging about it. One day these guys in suits showed up at his house and took the carburetor and never siad a word to him. Seems the car was not supposed to have been sold at all.
There is no doubt in my mind we could save billions of dollars a year if there wasn't such a big factor involved in our country... GREED!
bif
It is BS there is no way an old Galaxie lead sled could achieve the type mileage you claim. Why can Americans understand supply in demand in selling widgets and can't in fuel. Its simple supply and demand on gas prices.
Again I will try to explain. Efficiency is the relationship between energy input and energy output. Efficiency is expressed as a percentage. The more efficient a system, the less energy that is lost within that system.
No automobile can be built or will be built that resembles anything of today or the past can accomplish what you claim. Until an internal combustion engine can be designed that is more than 35% efficient ,and here you are fighting the laws of Physics which do not bend. The only way to improve mileage is reduce weight, size, to require less energy output.
ollie
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2004
- Messages
- 984
- Reaction score
- 0
If you think that capitalism has a stagnating effect on the economy , you should investigate the other types of economies such as communism. In reallity what is having a negative impact here in America at least is consumer debt and the interest there by paid . The interest is huge and contributes nothing. It doesn't provide a good, manufacture anything , etc. The second is actually probably worse than the first and it is taxes.buckaroo_bif":2fuwjm1h said:
bif
Medic24
Well-known member
So many moons ago, when I was so much younger I bought a Galaxie, lead sled is right, never got past a gas station it didn't like so much to turn in for a bit of a drink.
In my opinion, we need to develop faster horsies....giddy-up. think we can breed one that has a trunk and gets 10 miles to the pound of grain? Where would we put the boom boxes though? :cboy:
In my opinion, we need to develop faster horsies....giddy-up. think we can breed one that has a trunk and gets 10 miles to the pound of grain? Where would we put the boom boxes though? :cboy:
