30mpg in the stang, possible?

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by mr.b, Apr 10, 2005.

  1. Alternative fuels - alcohols perhaps, but the infrastructure investment (fueling stations, vehicle changes, production facilities) is absolutely astronomical. Who's gonna pay for it and how? Probably take government action/taxes.....it will likely require term limits so we can simply do the right thing instead of our status quo which is just doing the thing needed to get re-elected.

    Hydrogen - people just don't understand; if you look at the TOTAL energy cost, hydrogen is a BIG LOOSER. It's EXTREMELY expensive and energy intensive to get hydrogen from water or natural gas - the two most common forms for which reasonable technology exists. What kind of energy is required to free up the hydrogen? Why burning hydrocarbons of course. Hydrogen vehicles won't reduce our need for hydrocarbon fuel - they'll just cause us to burn even more of it in different locations (stationary production facilities instead of mobile engines). Add to that the equally huge infrastructure investment (refueling stations, trucks/pipelines to transport it, safety equipment - hydrogen is one of the most volatile fuels there is, not to mention the cars/trucks themselves) -- hydrogen is a total economic looser. Politics is involved in the general public only getting a 'piece' of the story -- '....when it burns, you just get water vapor...' If only it were that simple.

    Hybrids really do allow us to use less fuel to get more work done primarily because they allow recapture of otherwise wasted heat energy -- braking is done by generator and the electricity is stored in batteries for later use. Otherwise, that heat energy would just be lost to the atmosphere in the form of cooling rotors/calipers.

    The next big newsmakers will be low-sulphur fuel diesel hybrids. They'll run well, be as clean as gasoline engines and knock down 60-80 mpg in city cycles in smaller cars like the Prius. If we had the refinery/storage/distribution capacity and could figure out other ways to use the light ends of the crude, diesels would be the way to go. It has a higher specific energy than gasoline, the higher CR's make for more efficiency, and with no throttle the pumping losses are significantly reduced. VW, BMW and Mercedes make some KILLER turbo diesel V8's and V10's in Europe (250-300HP; 400-550 lb-ft torque) that get 50-80% better fuel mileage than gasoline engines with comparable performance.

    If we could plan it from the ground up (that is - no new infrastructure were required) you'd have alcohol fueled - renewable source - facilities to free up hydrogen, and the H2 would be used in fuel cells to run electric vehicles. But - somebody's gotta pay for all that. And for the time being - plain ole oil and it's refined products are way cheaper.
  2. Actually on the hydrogen power, the most i've seen is done through the electrolosis of water, you use pure h2o for fuel and emit steam. Now to worry about the massive increases in humidity. I'll look for an article and see if i can post it.
    edit: found a site. It has an expirament you can do along with it, but it explains it well and includes the environmental problems possible associated. http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis/electrolysis.htm
  3. You know where electricity comes from, right?
  4. z9-87 - think about what you're saying. If you start with water, extract the hydrogen, and then oxidize the hydrogen to re-create the water - you're not adding any more water to the environment. No net increase in humidity due to using hydrogen. But, you've got to consume energy to create the hydrogen - and it takes more to do that than it does to find/process/combust enough gasoline to move the same car. THAT will add to the environmental issues.
  5. Yount is dead on with the poor overall energy efficiency of Hydrogen as a fuel. It does not matter if its in an IC or Fuel Cell. Every time energy is transfered, whether from fuel combustion to a piston, or from electricity to a motor, there will be efficiency losses.
    Now I would like to put on my pro-H hat for one second. Assuming that all vehicles were converted to H and that all e- needed to produce and refine H was generated by burning of fossil fuels, there would still be a reduction in overall harmful combustion emissions. This would come from being able to better control the combustion process in a stationary plant compared to a moving vehicle. Maybe not a huge difference, but a difference not the less.
    The real problem with H fuels though is there is no way to transport it, without losing some amount to the environment. The H atom is the smallest on the periodic table. No matter what kind of tank is used there will always be a leak down of H. Consider that H tanks are usually at high pressure (in efforts to get enough of the low density gas to be meaningful) and you can see that this leak down can be substantial. Currently there is no technology that indicates that this issue can be solved.
    In my opinion the main problem with H technology is that there are too many uneducated hippies pushing H as a viable alternative. God I hate hippies.
    Short term our best solution to fossil fuel issues is to increase our utilization of gasoline and diesel hybrids. Longer term is to phase in alternative fuels such as Propane, CNG, etc. Longest term is to generate e- via hydro plants, and use e- to power our personal vehicles. There are technology advances and infrastructure issues which must be addressed for each of these steps though.
  6. The overall energy usage from the very beginning of the process to the generation of power that moves a vehicle is MUCH higher with hydrogen - that's why it ultimately hurts the environment more. Even with the stationary conversion sources - you use a lot more fuel. There is no Santa Claus - the same high energy that gets released when hydrogen is oxidized exists in molecular bonds which must be BROKEN in order to obtain the hydrogen in the first place; takes beaucoup energy to break the bond in the first place. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

    Too many people on the planet is the ultimate problem. That will ultimately be solved by war and illness (nature always wins). Meantime, the time will come when we'll crank up the nukes again because fossil fuel will become too valuable to use in power plants. Even the hippies will want their power back on eventually. :)

    But Ford and GM will merge in order to eak out a few more years of pitiful existence trying, ultimately unsuccessfully, to fight off the Japanese onslaught long before we start building nukes again . There's ya 2 predictions for the price of one.
  7. LOL. You my friend have WAAAYYY too much time on your hands to think about stuff like this... :rolleyes:
  8. ....and therein lies the problem in a nutshell....not nearly enough people are thinking about this stuff. Hence the rock and a hard place we find ourselves in. My grandkids -- most of you guys kids -- will have to deal with this one. My parent's generation and mine will have put your kids in one heckuva sticky situation.
  9. Actually, I didn't mention oxidizing hydrogen, rather using electricity to break the bonds of water. You get 2H+ and O-2. The 2 e-'s will be used for electricity. No fossil fuels used EXCEPT however you get the original electricity to break the first bonds, that website suggests solar power. Currently the batteries made are made from fossil fuels, if the batteries were changed to solar/wind/hyrdo..etc then no polutants have been made, except we're adding lots of steam into the air(the e- is never used up only ran through the motor and brought back together with the 2H+ and O-2 and in gaseous form). This will eventualy turn back to water but not right away.

    Of course as you pointed out noting is 100% effiecient...it would still work, and hydrogen leaks from everything but a H+ ion will quickly bond with whatever it can, nitrogen or oxygen most likely. This help out?
    All in all you're not realy using only hydrogen just it's e- for a sort time.

    I do agree with you're prediction of nature winning. Do you think we'll ever turn back to a sort of isolationism before we let ourselves get overrun by ever other country in the world(economically, then in every other way)? It's happend more then once before.

    I did a little more research into it and found one really good website and then a very in depth one on one of the possible uses of water a a fuel and (I never knew unitl now) so much more.
  10. It's breaking the bonds that takes all the energy - and that electrical energy has to come from somewhere. Fossil is the way much of it comes now; but if you do a wholesale conversion to H2 power, then more WAY capacity to generate has to be built which costs huge; not to mention (for the 3rd time) that it will consume WAY more fuel creating the hydrogen than would've been consumed producing/refining the hydrocarbons and burning them in the car directly.

    Solar? LOL. You've been smoking what the hippies smoke!! Do you have any idea how much $$$ it would cost to create enough capacity to handle H2 creation via electrolysis powered by solar? Not to mention, there are only certain parts of the country that have enough cloudless days to make it feasible - so all the power has to be produced in the southwest, and distributed elsewhere; that or the hydrogen has to be produced in the southwest, and distributed - either way huge investment in distribution facilitites. But guess which part of the country has the least water (important raw material to H2 production ;) )? Yup - those areas with lots of cloudless days. Kind of works that way. So, you've also got to transport huge quantities of water to the area where you can manage the solar power production. The solar scenario is even more economically unfeasible than simply building more fossil power plants. Which is why I mentioned nukes in the first place. We can't circular reason our way out of this - if you want to reduce use of fossil - hydrogen's not the way; it takes too much fossil to produce the hydrogen. Hence the comment about nukes - to reduce fossil, you have to engage some other form of energy production. Nuclear is the only one we can manage on a large scale right now - and the word 'manage' might be a poor choice. Advances in our understanding of how to make nuclear fusion (as in the hydrogen bomb) possible may hold the key here as it is the link between hydrogen and nuclear power production. But we're a long way away from that....

    You did mention oxidation of H2 - oxidation = burning it in the engine. You use electrolysis to free up the H2 from the H2O molecule; you burn it (oxidation) in the engine to return it to water vapor. Electrolysis is one end of the cycle; oxidation is the other.

    And we won't be adding lots of 'steam' to the air -- think of the whole cycle; you start with water; you end up with water -- there's no net production or loss of water. And there's no 'time delay' - when the air becomes saturated - it rains.
  11. I do agree that the way I mentioned above would still require fossil fuels because the only alternatives to charging are solar and wind with aren't economical. But did you read those 2 links? One on a H2 powered car and one on Brown's Gas? The Brown's Gas idea is geneuous, and has so many uses including engines.
  12. Looked at both - Brown's Gas has been kicking around for a while - while the theory is sound, the problem is controlling the reaction to get the products you want. No solution in sight.

    As for the other link - statements like this have me really searching for any credibility in the rest of the article "...The normal oxygen content of our air is 21 percent. But in some places it is only a fraction of that! In Tokyo, Japan, for example, the oxygen content of the air has dipped to 6 or 7 percent. If it reaches 5 percent, people will begin to die. Tokyo has even put oxygen disbursement centers on its street corners, so that people can get emergency oxygen if they need it." Pu-lease. Tell me - if people are about to drop, how do any of the cars/trucks/motorcycles/powerplants run?
  13. On hydrogen, does it not have much lower energy potential than gasoline anyways? I read somewhere (though I might have fallen into a business interest trap here) that it would take 300 pounds of hydrogen to get the same RANGE that a small 15 gallon tank of gas will produce. I think my number are off but it more hydrogen, much more, to move a vehicle the same distance. Then you need to worry about containing 300 pounds of extremely explosive liquified gas....

    This is still ok until you think of your morning commute and the business woman you saw swerving half in 2 lanes while talking on her cellphone in her 10,000 pound sport while she dodges potholes (why buy an offroad truck then dodge potholes?!? Ram them things!). Do you really want to be surrounded by people like that carrying 300 pound cylinders of explosive gas? Everything has to be engineered for idiots these days cause nobody has common sense anymore and we need "stuff" to keep people from killing themselves. But think of how cool a pileup on the highway would look! Chain reaction baby!! Firecrackers!

    Yeah......ever notice how cars in the 80's could get 25-27 mpg with first gen v6 efi's and nowadays its not much higher and most of the times lower with smaller engines? huh? I think it's a conspiracy. They can build cars that last forever (look at early 80's volvos theyre still around and kicking with very little rust), get 30 mpg and sturdy as heck. They could even mass produce them and they wouldnt cost much. But then you would not buy a new car, your car would survive an accident and you would just fix it and you wouldnt feed the pockets of already rich texans who are feeding middle eastern oil interests. It's the age of disposable commercialism. I just finshed re-building my mustang and the sentiment I got nonstop was "why dont you throw it away and get a new car"? Dont weld that, toss it and buy another one. Dont paint it yourself...it's too hard, pay someone to do it. Dont do this dont do that, just spend money instead. The media has programmed us very very well. I dont watch tv or listen to the radio at all, so I slipped from their net. Makes you think though. My granddad used to take apart his vcr to fix it. I couldnt IMAGINE anyone taking a vcr to a repair shop these days. Look around, they're almost all closed.

    Back on topic!

    As far as milage is concerned, I hit 25 mpg with a carb and t-5 and 3.73's.

    Do these:
    1. Weight reduce. Hundreds upon hundreds of pounds of crap in these cars. Hundreds. And you pay for gas to haul it around. Strip and enjoy better milage, braking, acceleration, handling and ride quality.
    2. Aluminum parts like driveshaft and flywheel and lightweight rims and aluminum heads
    3. Electric fan. What a difference in throttle response
    4. Ignition system with high capacitace for big fat, long burning sparks
    5. Side gap your plugs. Big difference
    6. Run low octane and tune till it works. Low octane gives more power and costs less to boot. She roars with 87 and dogs on 91.
    7. Dont use cruise control!!! It's only purpose is to maintain speed but it does it real clumsy. It's so bad, I took the system out. It would lug around trying to do low rpm high load driving.
    8. Drive by vacuum guage. 16-17 hg highway and you're in business to 25 mpg.
    9. I gotta try the acetone trick see if it does anything. It's cheap enough. I'll list it here for laughs.
    10. Pullies. Hands down. Do it.
    11. Gears. Honestly, 2.73's are not optimal for milage. Maybe on some perfect conditions auto manufacturer circle track but not for turny, hilly, stop and go and highway traffic. You need at least 3.27's to get enough torque multiplication to not have the motor lugging.

    So I have been wondering myself........which stations have the "best gas"?

    Oh.....and as far as how to produce the hydrogen that I campaigned against above:

    The most under-rated renewable power source in the world is...the world. Geothermal. You can do it anywhere: desert, island, downtown. Drill a really really really deep hole. Place a u-pipe down there. Pump down some water in one end. Boiling water comes back out. Feed to steam turbine. The deeper you drill, the hotter it gets. If you think about it: all nuclear reactors do really is heat water and use the steam to drive turbines. Youd be doing the same with less volatile end products. Just some hot water. Heck, the water is already hot so it would be even easier to electrolyze(?).
  14. Here's my take on fuel costs. Gas costs what gas costs.

    There is no sense in complaining about it. If you want to drive your car someplace you have to pay the current market price for fuel. If you don't want to pay it, don't drive as much. If enough people don't want to pay it, demand goes down and the price follows.

    Trying to get better gas milage is admirable, but at some point it becomes too much work to be worth the effort.

    When the needle gets down close the E, I put gas in my car and go do what I want to do. Whether I get 20 mpg or 25 mpg, I don't really care.
  15. Michael, you're right Brown's gas isn't a complete solution yet but should it be a road that someone with lots of money actually goes after and perfects it, it could be the energy solver. Advances in science really don't take that long anymore when you consider what it used to take.
    The other website is close on the overall oxygen content of the air, I think it's 70ish% Nitrogen, 29ish % Oxygen and 1% argon. then a whole bunch of other's at >1%. As far as tokyo, well you're right i don't think people are dropping from lack of O2.

    Crazy pete, yes H2 has much less potential energy than gas. And on the geothermals, you can only go so deep due to pressure. I don't know how deep that is or how deep you need to go get enough heat to transfer to water and heat it to 100C plus under ressure water boils at a higher point so you have that to consider also.
  16. Hmmmm. running 300 pounds of hydrogen in you rcar should actually make it lighter.... That could be an interesting statistic. The dry weight of your car will be heavier than the wet weight. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are already on the road and so far has been cleaner and more efficient than gas vehicles. (so they claim anyway). I do not think they have straight hydrogen gas but rather deionized water which is broken down before the combustion process via electrolosis. The city of Vancouver in Canada uses power cell tech in their busses, with I am sure no adverse effects to date.

    I cannot believe that countries would go to war over something so stupid as fossil fuels.... It is pathetic on the largest scale imaginable. Their are so many alternatives but since some people will do anything including kill on a large scale to make a buck... Well you do the math. What's the difference between that and shooting your neighbor for his wallet?

    Edit* The ballard busses used by vancouver use compressed hydrogen (not water as stated above) and now boast a 400 km range close to the 550 of the diesels. The hydrogen is broken down by a hydro electric plant (0 emmisions from this plant as well) through electrolosis. The ballard design boasts an overal energy savings of greater than 50%.
  17. Well 300lbs is 300lbs no matter what it's made up of. Possibly the fact that H2 would make your gastank float making it lighter?
  18. What's heavier... a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks?
  19. I had to go on a road trip last night so I filled the tank, reset the trip odometer and drove. I got on the interstate and drove 114 miles got off and decided to fill the car again. It took 3.8 gallons to re-fill. 3.8 into 114 is 30.
    I hit the 30 mpg mark with 190,000 miles.