Their is that stupid word. Who care about such a stupid thing as efficiency. Unless you are a Grand Prix driver.
I still think that LPG-G3 is a really nice addition to patrol engines.
Which is pretty envoirement friendly.
But it isnt really that popular in manny countries for some reason.
As I thought. Biodiesel is still a terrible polluting fuel. A small petrol powered car is better.
Aw a human driving a car in an economy where you have to pay for shit a lot of people care, it would turn out. A lot of people buy cars and take their gas millage into account heavily.
Also wrong there/their/they're. It should be there.
Finally bare in mind that if you did not care about efficiency at all this thread wouldn't exist.
And now how it should be:
turn the ignition key, hear the roar, shifting into first to get out of the chicane, wait for wheel to come straight, pummel the acceleration, feel the sideways torque of the revving up engine, hear the roar, the air that's sucked up and pummeled through the turbo and the manifold, watching the rev counter, waiting for the ideal moment, step on the clutch, jerk the stick into second, let the clutch come up, pummel the accelerator again, hear the turbo kick in, ever more air gets sucked and compressed and used for life improving explosions, keeping the car straight, thinking of the shift point into third, not too early because the road rise a bit further on, stomp on the clutch, jerk the stick into third, pop the clutch up, pedal to the metal, the turbo is really displacing some air now, full load going up, shift into fourth on full load, turbo keeping maximum pressure, butterfly valve completely open, engine breathing liter upon liters of air per second, and into fifth, still going up towards the top of the Höhe at full load, calculating braking point in the middle of the curve to the left on the top, over the safety line to gain a few extra meters, pummel the brakes, keeping the car straight, shifting down rapidly, fourth, third, turning to the right, building up gas through the turn, braking hard, shifting down to second, sailing through the left turn, hugging the concrete wall, cutting through the corner to the right, gas, everything there is, turbos spinning up, tyres yelling help, here it goes down steeply, scary, third, looking for the orange mark on the side rails to the right, brake hard, heel and toe shifting into second, feeling weightless starts just before the hard turn to the left, keep the tyres on the road, gas!, flinging hard out of the turn, using the entire road, third!, gas! watch out for the bumps, keep the car straight, shift early enough, fourth, maximum load, breathe here because the next segment requires sailing through without gas, without brakes, precise steering, no fear, 180+ kmh/h through the right turn, well within the boundaries of the narrow road, good job, kept it together, on to the next turn... etc
Or you could push something on the touchscreen of your Tesla of course while sitting immobile in the parking lot...
1 Like
Was this study done on engines that have never had diesel in them? Because putting bio diesel in a engine that had regular diesel in it will flush out all of the carbon deposits. This would really make sense if it were a three part study. Gas engine. An engine that had diesel in it compared to an engine that never had diesel in it.
It's the length of diesel molecule thats most likely the problem. You can't flush out the N0x. It's a by product of the combustion process not some kind of residue coating left in the chamber.
Diesel engines are just dirty little things because of low flash point nature of the fuel.
I meant to say carbon deposits. And bio-diesel is just a given name because diesel engines can run on it. If gasoline cars could run on it then it would be called bio-gasoline. But diesel engines are able to take advantage of this because they run on compression rather than explosion like the gas engines.
1 Like
Gasoline cars can run on LPG-G3, which is pretty envoirement friendly.
But for some reason, not really popular in manny countries.
1 Like
I understand the chemical process involved to some extent. Diesel fuel is too close too an oil to burn as cleanly as lighter products with higher flash points. More solvent like fuel will always burn cleaner because the combustion will happen at lower temperatures and more of the fuel will burn.
The type of fuel a diesel engine needs will always be dirty. If you care about the environment don't burn oil. It's that simple. If you burn stuff you get nasty by products and some of the pro biodiesel sites are full of shit when it comes to the environmental claims.
Ethanol in a turbo charged petrol engine would probably be one of the cleanest cars and it should fall into the doable category in regards to tuning the combustion. But again it's a non starter when it comes to large scale use.
Enjoyed the reading guys.
Don't like information in an informational and scientific thread?
Thanks @catsay, this is how you do it.
While more direct academic sources would be good 
this is an argument that explains the point and shows the sources of your findings.
I think you're the only one in this thread to say more than just unreasoned conjecture.
There's a very good reason I've not said much about my thoughts, and that's because there unresearched conjecture.
On what i know so far it would seem electrical vehicles are better potentially. But i lack complete understanding on the environmental impact end to end from raw resources to end of life of the vehicle to make any sort of definitive statement like many here have who i could bet with out a doubt also do not have enough understanding to make such difinitive statements.
Your the only person who's really given me things to read. Thanks.
1 Like
What about algae diesel? those have interesting results and don't necessarily need to occupy land to be farmed. And seeing as they consume CO2, the overall output would be neutral
Anywho, most people here are ignoring the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of CO2 emission comes from the production of electrical energy and NOT from emissions by cars....
Source? search https://www.iea.org/ (they are present in a vast number of research papers)
I think your scope is too narrow. Because energy is everywhere you look. Choosing the one that works for you this most is your decision. I honestly do not care what the most popular form of fuel is. Some people prefer to bike some prefer to to take the bus. Some prefer to walk. And some prefer to storm the beaches of Normandy.
Large cargo ships use direct drive crude engines for a reason. They have the surface for electrovoltaic cells, the cargo capacity for large battery arrays, all the coolant in the world, all the wind in the world, and every cent counts... and what do they do, they attach a ramkite to the bow for extra efficiency, because that's the only thing they found after 150 years of thorough research that boosted the efficiency of direct drive crude (diesel) engines.
If the top engineers of the top industries come up with something that's more efficient than internal combustion engines, they will not try to sell it to consumers at all cost, they will use it themselves for their own gain.
As long as there are no electric cargo ships, it's pretty safe to say that whatever studies you post, the real numbers are still in favor of internal combustion engines lol... that's science for you, the science of the money.
1 Like
Well it depends what way you come at the situation. Burning stuff is bad, but it makes up the majority of the world energy needs and thats the key word. We will always need to burn some stuff but not for land transportation or electrical generation and those two factors make electric cars the best choice at least in terms of the amount of garbage the world is pumping into the atmosphere.
All you're arguing is your car pumps a little less stuff than most. Great but some cars probably produce almost nothing.
Completely different set of problems. Electric planes and large ships will probably never happen. But an electric catamaran might be perfectly possible.
1 Like
Except that most of the burning being done right now is to produce electrical energy and not transportation. Increase the amount of electrical vehicles and the necessity to burn more will arise. The horse needs to come before the cart, efficient means of producing electrical energy at a large scale are not present right now!
Edit:
Also according to some numbers I've found, in theory the 368 million galons of fuel consumed in the USA could be produced in about 55 square miles of algae. That's a lot beter and actually feasible compared to other sources.