Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge Is this what they mean by "Progress?"

Here's a little bit of trivia that resurfaced in my morning paper:

1906 Ford Model-T: 25 mpg
2006 Ford Explorer: 15 mpg

http://www.wanttoknow.info/030604detroitnewsepaaveragempg.htm

I'm sure there's a really good reason why 100 years of automotive progress has lead to a decrease in efficiency.

I look forward to medicine going back to leeches, computers to abacuses, and precision-guided Cruise missiles being replaced by a large club and a guy called Chuck.

Siggy

Or, you could compare the Model T with the Focus, which has a 4 cylinder engine of about the same displacement and claims 34 MPG (EPA highway rating). The Exploder ah.. Explorer is more of a size match to the Model TT Depot wagon that went about 12 - 14 miles on a gallon.

100 years of serious R&D and we get 27% better fuel economy.
We are still using fosil fuels and I bet in 1906 they complained about the cost to run it vs. a horse. At that rate we would still be waiting for the 386 computer to be released sometime around 2037. Pentium would be around the turn of the 22nd century.

We are way behind where we could be if it were not for corporate greed. Why research when they buy anyhow? I know a motorcycle company that has done very well with that motto.

According to the showroom of automotive history, the Model-T was first produced on October 1, 1908 (not 1906), and came with a 4 cyl (177ci/2.9L) engine capable of producing only about 20 H.P. and a top speed of around 45Mph with it's two speed transmission and wooden wheels. Electric starters didn't appear until around 1927, so the early ones had to be hand cranked along with the posibility of breaking your arm if not done right.

Like Ed points out, I'm not sure an Explorer is a proper machine to compare the Model-T to The Ford Focus, as Ed mentioned, has a 2.0L I-4 16 valve engine capable of producing 136HP and gets 26/34 Mpg (city/hwy). The Chevy Cobalt comes standard with a 2.2L I-4 engine capable of 145HP and gets a reported 25/34 Mpg (city/hwy). The Toyota Corollas 1.8L I-4 produces 126HP and gets 32/41 Mpg (city/hwy). Throw in the advances in safety, convinence, comfort and reliability, I don't think anything has gone backwards

Cheers,
Brad

Yeah, but Siggy...I wouldn't mention 1906 to the denizens of "Frisco", if I were you!

For "some reason" they're not too crazy about that particular year.

Cheers,
Dwight

Quote:

---

100 years of serious R&D and we get 27% better fuel economy.

---

There's more to efficiency and fuel economy than just that. For starters, there's only so much energy you can GET out of gas by burning it, period. It's not one of those technologies that will just keep getting better and better like computers, so that's a bad comparison. It's like when people say "They can put a man on the moon but they can't make a car get 80 MPG?!?" What does a moon launch have to do with gas milage?!? Also, we ARE harnessing a LOT more of the energy from gas than we did 100 years ago. Think about it. You're getting like 4 or 5 TIMES the HP, not to mention generating a bunch more electricity to run radios, TVs, HVAC, etc in a car. We HAVE come quite a ways. And yes, a Focus gets great milage, my GF has one.

Engineer rant over

Just think, If we could just sacrifice a bit and buy a reasonably sized car, we would be much less dependant on foreign oil.

I know Benny, I am just surprised we are still burning gas at this time in history. Our love affair with gas has slowed lots of good research into superconductors and hydrogen.

Then again lol, I don't think I would want an electric Triumph.

I am just surprised we are still burning gas at this time in history

It's no love affair, it's money, plain and simple. Big oil spends millions to protect their cash cow in washington. Look at the most recent energy plan on the table. More drilling, more exploration, more production and asking for people to reduce consumption. Little to no incentives for alternative fuels except basically a token gesture for electric producing facilities. What could be better for the oil companies?

Of course, there are alternatives finally being developed even with the absence of incentivies being driven simply by economics. As gas prices rise, alternatives start looking better from an economic standpoint. And it doesn't take big companies to come up with some really clever ideas. Take for example Harold Bates and his 'chicken powered car'. He developed it back in the 1970's.

I agree guys. It's an interesting thing the way the internal combustion engine is so dominant... But with gass prices the way they are, I bet if someone came up with a truly viable alternative, I bet people would pick up on it.

Brazil already has 15% of their autos (transport mainly) running on pure ethanol (from Sugar Cane). There is an abundant supply (farmers are still paid NOT to plant!) of corn for US based ethanol plans as well, plus we could use sugar as well. It isn't new technology. As far as other "low tech" alternatives, there is bio-diesel(farmers are also paid not to plant soybeans!!), which is simply waiting for a few more developments (which ARE being worked out in Europe, where they are a little more open to alternatives to the big boys at Mobil and Exxon) in achieving economy of scale, and bio-diesel will be available from not only plant oils, but also waste oils such as cooking oil that are reclaimed from restaurants. And this without any meaningful modification to diesel engines already being brought into the country by companies like VW (and the first old timer who whines about how smokey, noisey, underpowered, and stinky diesels are gets slapped, cause that shows that they are simply out of touch with modern diesels! Go to VW and try one if you don't believe me!) We don't have to wait for hydrogen folks, or small underhood fusion reactors. Shoot, if the collective brains at some of these companies would get together and mate a small 1.9l turbodiesel to a CVT tranny (Audi now uses them on high output V6 and V8 Engines, and Honda has them too, so save the speech about lack of reliability for CVT's), the ideal alternative to hybrids would be had. Diesels love to be put under a steady load, and a CVT is designed to do just that, maintain an engines speed at its ideal operating speed while allowing acceleration/deceleration. I'm really kind of amazed it hasn't been done yet, am I the only one who sees this (if so, I want a patent!) Or shoot, much as I am not a fan of hybrids, fine, a diesel-electric hybrid. If a gas-hybrid will do 60-80mpg, then add 25-30% more range to a diesel hybrid, and you've got 75-100mpg!! (you might be noticing at this point that I'm a fan of compression-ignition!) I can guarantee that ANY single one of you would feel the same if given a chance to drive one of the turbodiesel sport sedans available in Europe now. Oh, and for those of you who question diesels in sporting applications, just visit the European websites of Audi, BMW, or Mercedes, or better yet, watch the 24 Hours of Sebring, Daytona or LeMans, where Audi will be mopping up with their new R10 TDI Prototype (they already took first at the 12 Hours of Sebring), with over 650HP and 1100Nm of torque.

Ethanol is a great alternative fuel, but is problematic because of the energy required to create it. It is not possible to distill 100% pure ethanol, so additional steps must be taken to filter it, and it takes a lot of biomass to produce ethanol (one study showed that if all of Germany was planted in corn to produce ethanol, it would only produce 50% of the total countries energy requirement).

Hydrogen as a fuel is really an ideal solution environmentally, as it only produces oxygen and water as a byproduct. However, it suffers the same problem with that of ethanol in that it requires a lot of energy to produce. It is also highly flamable and requires special handling in order to use.

Biodiesel is another great alternative. In fact, when Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine, it ran on peanut oil (which technially is a biofuel, not biodiesel).He believed that the utilization of a biomass fuel was the real future of his engine. It wasn't until the late 1920's that diesel engine manufacturers switched to the lower viscosity petrol based diesel fuel used today, primarly due to it's lower cost to produce.

Methane (natural gas) is a great alternative, and my particular favorite. It's produced naturally all over the globe and is easy to make from just about anything. It has two problems though; one is that it produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct, however the amount produced is no where near that of petrol based fuels (98% reduction over gasoline). The other is that it is the lightest of the 'ane' gases, so it requires more volume for storage. The upside is that it is one of the most efficent gases in terms of combustion (produces more heat per gram than any of the other hydrocarbons), is completely non-toxic and there is already a large infrastructure for the distribution of methane (natural gas).

Nuke power is an alternative, but I think that until we can find a way to properly dispose of it's waste products or find a use for them, nuculear power isn't really a valuable alternative.

Of course, the ideal alternative is solar. But current technology can't produce energy from solar power at anything close to being efficent yet. I suspect this will change, but it will take many years of research to attain.

Cheers,
Brad

Yota has a large infrastructure for the distribution of methane gas, albeit a rather noisome one.

Performance diesels? Nothing new about that.

http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060109/FREE/60103003&SearchID=73242229835295

Greg, ever watch "Trucks" or any of those other Spike TV shows? The thing I love is when they trick out a diesel, they always end up with a TON of power, AND better gas milage!! It's a beautiful thing.

I drove a Skoda (the Czech VW company) with their 1.9 TDI I think when I was in Prague last year. That thing moved!!

And Biodiesel, I like it as an alternative to petrol, but the whole "free" part will soon go away once restaurants realize they can charge for it!

Tell me about it, I had one of their TDI's (with the red DI, meaning about 150HP) and a 6 speed from a rental place once, talk about sweet! That would be like my car now (1.8T), but with a 25-30% decrease in fuel consumption!

In the 50's and 60's, Chrysler spent a lot of time and cash developing a practical gas turbine engine. The first one on the road mounted in a '54 Plymouth used a lot of fuel and wasn't very fast. Maybe 10 years later, they had one in a Dodge Senica that would out accelerate a similar chase car with a 318 V8. (The 318 of those days was NOT the economy version of later times!) The turbine car equaled or bettered the V8 in fuel economy and the vanes on the drive turbine had a variable pitch that could be reversed to provide a simulation of compression braking. The rotors on the las version were made of a cast ceramic material that made engine production costs about the same as a V8. They took the car out on an extended test run on public roads without any attempt to hide what it was. At times, they demonstrated the fact that the engine would run on just about anything that burns and pours, including discarded deep fryer oil from a fast food place. Strangely enough, after 50 "beta test" cars were built and passed around several drivers to try out, the turbine faded quietly away. My guess is that the government asked for that to happen when they began to realise just how hard it would be to collect fuel taxes if a car like that ever went into production.

Check out this diesel bike.

I'm glad all you guys are hot for diesel. That leaves more gasoline for me! <chuckle>

I don't know about the diesel part, but I wouldn't mind having my TBA look like that...

Once upon a time, one of the regular contributers for Popular Mechanics (it was before they forgot how to spell and changed it to mechanix) built a flat platform sidecar for his bicycle as a subject for a magazine feature. His idea was to give detailed instructions on how to make the thing, and show it off by taking his dog riding on it.
The dog wanted nothing to do with such contraptions, so he decided to put a boiler on it and do an article on converting a bike to run on steam. He made the boiler with 2 swivling burners, adjustable jets and a firepan so it could burn gasious, liquid or solid fuel. Butane, kerosine, wood, coal, propane, just about anything was usable. You could even grab a few pickets from the neighbors fence and run on them.
He deliberately built it short on power due to the limited stopping ability of a coaster brake and, because it was a single cylinder, it couldn't start off on it's own power if the piston was at the end of the stroke.
I thought it was funny at the time, but it's starting to sound better everytime the price of "motor fuel" (they haven't made any real gasoline or petrol in years) goes up.

Okay, I went to the site and looked at the gallery. I retract my earlier comment.