Josh S

In article <IcTWj.3149$ah4.1758@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it
> possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier
> if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that
> project?

I doubt it's engine would have enough torque for less revs at 80 mph.
That's not a legal speed anyway.

Josh S

In article <qRhXj.35$GV3.25@newsfe08.phx>,
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:

> Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered
> factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and
> possibly under orders from Hitler.

I had three VW Beetles, two 1.1L and one 1.3L; '55, '56, '61.
I've keep very accurate mileage records.

My '95 3.3L Concorde of twice the weight gets the approx. the same
city/hwy MPG as I got with the VWs and of course at a much more
consistent and higher speed, particularly up hills and against the wind.

The VW Beetle had a top speed of about 65mph, it took some time to get
there, couldn't maintain 60mph into a medium head wind, but with a
strong tail wind it could maintain 75-80mph.

Josh S

In article <DP-dnSUuF6aeDrbVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
AS <donot@spame.com> wrote:

> You are rightly concerned about the batteries.
>
> These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
> They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
> battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,
>
> Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
> generator module.
>
> Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
> prorated prices.
Yes, those batteries are expensive as well as being dangerous in an
accident.
>
> Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
> (disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
> case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
> charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
> system many times more complex...
In spite of the weight hybrids do very well. There are many reasons for
this, and some of the technology can be applied to mild hybrids to get
much of the fuel savings, without having a huge battery.
>
> With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
> to go.
I live 1km from Ballard, a fuel cell developer.
A few years ago a tanker delivering H to their plant developed a leak
and fire at the hose fitting. The area 0.5km around was shut down for
12+ hrs until it burned off.
Fuel cells need much further development and then there is the high
cost, plus a required refueling network for this dangerous fuel.

IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving
hot vehicle. Over 50% of people in Europe are now buying them.
The 2L VW diesel performs very well in the small mid size cars.

Joe

On 2008-05-24, Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote:
> In article <IcTWj.3149$ah4.1758@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it
>> possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier
>> if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that
>> project?
>
> I doubt it's engine would have enough torque for less revs at 80 mph.
> That's not a legal speed anyway.

That depends on where you are. There are a few states with speed
limits of 75, which means 80 would be a pretty normal speed. In some
parts of Texas, the posted limit is 80.

I'd agree, though, that the engine would be able to provide enough
torque to keep the car going 80 @ 2000 RPM. Just not a big enough
engine.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

mjc13

Josh S wrote:
> In article <qRhXj.35$GV3.25@newsfe08.phx>,
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered
>>factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and
>>possibly under orders from Hitler.
>
>
> I had three VW Beetles, two 1.1L and one 1.3L; '55, '56, '61.
> I've keep very accurate mileage records.
>
> My '95 3.3L Concorde of twice the weight gets the approx. the same
> city/hwy MPG as I got with the VWs and of course at a much more
> consistent and higher speed, particularly up hills and against the wind.
>
> The VW Beetle had a top speed of about 65mph, it took some time to get
> there, couldn't maintain 60mph into a medium head wind, but with a
> strong tail wind it could maintain 75-80mph.


The point wasn't that anybody (except VW) claimed that the Beetle
got great gas mileage; it was that VW used fuel economy as a selling
point. As I noted earlier, the Beetle was pretty unimpressive in the
fuel economy department. It was better than the big American cars, but
no better than many faster, larger imports. I'm sure it was worse than
some of them...

Edwin Pawlowski

"Josh S" <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in message
> IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving
> hot vehicle. Over 50% of people in Europe are now buying them.
> The 2L VW diesel performs very well in the small mid size cars.

I would have agreed with you in the past, but diesel is selling for $1 a
gallon more than regular right now. At current prices, a gas engine at 40
mpg costs the same in fuel per mile as a diesel at 50 mpg. I don't know if
it has changed in Europe, but gas and diesel were just pennies apart per
liter last year, diesel was 1.16 Euro gas was 1.22 per liter.

Fuel oil cost was exactly the same as diesel too. In milder climates it is
not uncommon for homeowners to buy 5 or 10 gallons at a time at the filling
station as needed.

Elle

"Josh S" <Josh@clean.spam> wrote
> I had three VW Beetles, two 1.1L and one 1.3L; '55, '56,
> '61.
> I've keep very accurate mileage records.
>
> My '95 3.3L Concorde of twice the weight gets the approx.
> the same
> city/hwy MPG as I got with the VWs and of course at a much
> more
> consistent and higher speed, particularly up hills and
> against the wind.

Thanks for the report. :-)

> The VW Beetle had a top speed of about 65mph, it took
> some time to get
> there, couldn't maintain 60mph into a medium head wind,
> but with a
> strong tail wind it could maintain 75-80mph.

Ha!

Josh S

In article <i%SZj.5301$nW2.2868@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote:

> "Josh S" <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in message
> > IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving
> > hot vehicle. Over 50% of people in Europe are now buying them.
> > The 2L VW diesel performs very well in the small mid size cars.
>
> I would have agreed with you in the past, but diesel is selling for $1 a
> gallon more than regular right now. At current prices, a gas engine at 40
> mpg costs the same in fuel per mile as a diesel at 50 mpg. I don't know if
> it has changed in Europe, but gas and diesel were just pennies apart per
> liter last year, diesel was 1.16 Euro gas was 1.22 per liter.
>
> Fuel oil cost was exactly the same as diesel too. In milder climates it is
> not uncommon for homeowners to buy 5 or 10 gallons at a time at the filling
> station as needed.

I agree with you that if diesel is selling for too high premium, using
diesel doesn't make sense.
Here in Canada diesel has recently crept a bit higher than regular
gasoline, but I believe it's more of a supply situation as diesel use is
increasing. In the USA you seem to be facing more variability in fuel
pricing than here in Canada.

For urban driving a properly sized diesel gets about 30% more MPG than
an equivalent performance gasoline engine.
The Jeep Cherokee 2 wd EPA figures are:
Gas 3.7L- 15/20
Gas 5.7L- 13/19
Diesel 3L- 18/23 Performance is close to the gas 5.7L.