What is required to convert the USA to Diesel?

[brewnog]

I'm starting this up in Engineering, but if it starts to go that way then perhaps Russ or Enigma could move it to the Politics forum? Before that happens I'd first like to bottom out technical issues.

The question:
What would it take to convert the US (and Canadian) automobile markets to having anything like the same proportion of Diesel vehicles as Europe?

Diesel cars now account for almost half of all new vehicle sales in Europe. In France, demand for Diesels is almost double that of equivalent petrol powered vehicles. A Diesel Ford Focus will now develop more power and torque than a petrol version of the same displacement. It will also cost far less to run.

What are the constraints on the US market? Are we dealing with tired misconceptions about Diesels being sluggish, crude and noisy? These are definitely preconceptions which created a lag period in Europe between the creation of quiet, torquey, refined Diesels and the massive sales ramp which followed, I'd like to know if these preconceptions are still around in the US?

How about emissions legislation? While Diesels are far better for the environment in many ways, is the Californian legislation precluding the widespread sale of Diesels, and if so, is this because of the lack of availability of low sulphur fuel?

What will come first, a useable infrastructure network of low sulphur fuel, or a surge in demand? Will Diesels ever make it to market in such numbers as have been seen across Europe?


Thoughts please!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

They need to start taxing the crap out of gasoline like they do in Europe. that would do it

 

[Artman]

They did have a bad rep early on in the USA. Early diesel cars such as the VW rabbit, while being extremely high mileage, were noisy, rough running, sluggish and hard to start in cold weather.

Now I think the first cost is the main objection (in a pickup type truck an optional diesel engine can cost $4000.00 more).

 

[Clausius2]

Hey Brew,

You are ABSOLUTELY right. I live in CA, and Diesel is a forbidden word. You will see diesel fuel in a very few gas stations, and it is very expensive, much more than gasoline. I don't truly understand how this people run these SUV and pick ups with gasoline. It would be unthinkable to do so in Europe. A pick up with 4.0L and running with gasoline in europe? can you imagine that?.

I think it is a problem of culture. They don't have culture of saving energy. This is the right place for wasting energy, wasting water and wasting everything included food. And why is it? Because they are plenty of money dude!.

I have a Firebird, it is 3.0L and runs with gasoline, as every muscle car does (yeah, I'm wasting too ). I think these guys want to feel power beneath the accelerator pedal, and they think that fuel engines can develop more power than diesel ones. What they don't realize is that a turbocharged diesel engine can develop a lot of power and can be very dynamic at low regimes. And taking into account the huge number of traffic lights they have here, it would not be a bad idea to have a TD engine for helping in the accelerations.

 

[Danger]

I have a Firebird, it is 3.0L and runs with gasoline, as every muscle car does

I cannot believe that I just saw the terms '3.0L' and 'muscle car' in the same sentance!
Whatever you started smoking after you moved to the States, I want some.
When I mentioned my engine size to some Brit soldiers (they have a training camp near here), they needed a translation before they could envision it. As soon as I explained that it was 7.3L, the first response was "You'd be ostrasized in England."

 

[Clausius2]

I cannot believe that I just saw the terms '3.0L' and 'muscle car' in the same sentance!
Whatever you started smoking after you moved to the States, I want some.
When I mentioned my engine size to some Brit soldiers (they have a training camp near here), they needed a translation before they could enivision it. As soon as I explained that it was 7.3L, the first response was "You'd be ostrasized in England."

Hey man, don't laugh at my Firebird. A 3.0 L with the weight it has makes it to be a ****ing flying bullet. Maybe your truck of 7.3 is so damn slow as a turtle compared with my car.

 

[chroot]

We don't need better cars... we need fewer cars. Just my opinion.

- Warren

 

[Clausius2]

We don't need better cars... we need fewer cars. Just my opinion.

- Warren

That is also true. The americans use the car even for going to shop at the market in the corner of the same street. The curbs here are empty. Nobody walks. Everybody rides. It is crazy!. The malls are in the middle of nowhere, the distances are huge!. So everybody has, in the worst case, one car. There are even races for parking as near as possible of the mall door. The highways have at least 6 lanes, and some so-called streets have 4 in the same direction. But the number of cars is becoming huge!.

 

[chroot]

I'm not trying to totally derail this thread, but you're right Clausius2, America is madness.

I personally know people who are seriously considering paying $100,000 for the next generation of lithium-ion powered electric cars... and who, at the same time think I'm crazy because I ride a bike an "incredible" 15 miles.

Whenever I see people talking about hybrids and diesels -- which are only on the order or 10% or 20% more efficient than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles -- it makes me cringe. I say we'd all be better off if you kept your gas guzzler, bought a bicycle, and just drove the gas guzzler half as often.

- Warren

 

[Danger]

Maybe your truck of 7.3 is so damn slow as a turtle compared with my car.

Possibly, but I can chirp all 4 of those 33" tires going into 2nd gear (with a damned automatic tranny... which has to go). More importantly, I can climb over you to claim your parking spot.
The Roadrunner, on the other hand, is 446 ci (7.14L), pushing 650hp with low 12 second 1/4 mile times. The new motor that I designed for it will be on the order of 2,000hp. That should alter the times a tad.

 

[Clausius2]

Possibly, but I can chirp all 4 of those 33" tires going into 2nd gear (with a damned automatic tranny... which has to go). More importantly, I can climb over you to claim your parking spot.
The Roadrunner, on the other hand, is 446 ci (7.14L), pushing 650hp with low 12 second 1/4 mile times. The new motor that I designed for it will be on the order of 2,000hp. That should alter the times a tad.

If all the americans would use the same engine than you, then if I were iranian I would start to be afraid...

Pray to God for not having a new increase on gas price, if so your 7.14L and 2000hp will be sleeping in your garage for a long long while. BTW do you already have a bike?.

 

[ShawnD]

As soon as I explained that it was 7.3L, the first response was "You'd be ostrasized in England."

Try not to associate size with power. For example, my parents owned some 5L GM vehicles from the 1980s, but they only had 150HP. Yes that's right, 150HP, to run a 4000lb car. Slowest vehicles ever, and the gas mileage sucked. You would be absolutely thrilled if for once you managed to get 15mpg in the city. Cars seemed ghetto before they had computer controlled fuel injection. That's silly that it requires 5L of engine displacement just to make 150HP. My little Honda Civic, through the magic of computers, can generate 140HP with only 1.8L displacement.Back to the topic at hand; we don't have diesels in Canada because they're impossible to start when it's -40C outside. For gasoline engines, gas companies make "winter gas" which has more light ends in it such as butane to help get the engine started when it's really cold. A cold diesel engine requires something heating the engine. I suppose you could have something run off the battery, but that would drain your batteries.
Europe doesn't really get this problem because most parts of Europe are relatively close to the ocean, and there are no mountains blocking the warm air from the ocean. North America has mountains on the west side called the Rocky Mountains and mountains in the east called the Appalachian Mountains. Areas between these mountain regions do not receive warm air from the oceans, so the temperatures drop much lower than in the areas located between mountains and the ocean. Just as an example, winter in British Columbia will never be as cold as winter in Alberta or Saskatchewan.

On a similar note, Canadians drive to the supermarket because nobody in the world can carry 200lbs of food at a time; that's about 8 thick plastic bags full of food, much of it containing water which is damn heavy. The alternative would be to buy food every single day, so you only need to carry 30lbs per day, but you spend about 2 hours per day (8% of your life?) just buying groceries. That's unrealistic at best.

 

[chroot]

My current car has 240 hp from a 2.0L engine, strapped into a 2,700 lb. chassis. It gets about 28-30 mpg on the highway. I still try not to drive it much.

- Warren

 

[Danger]

My little Honda Civic, through the magic of computers, can generate 140HP with only 1.8L displacement.

There's no substitute for cubic inches.
The thing that I don't like about buzz-bombs is that you have to rev the **** out of them to get that power. As a for-instance, my Camino at idle in low range 50/50 split will push a revved-up Honda backwards in a head-to-head contest. And the gas mileage in high range 70/30 split on the highway is better than my 305 Camaro with cruising gears got.

You sure got the winter Diesel scene right. The place that I used to work at took over the local U-Haul outlet, and there was nothing that we could do to get those damned things started. (And while I'm at it, I would never in my life drive a U-Haul. There wasn't one of them came through our place that had decent brakes, steering, or electrical system. Our orders from headquarters were to put them back on the street ASAP. We refused a couple of times and demanded a mechanic to visit, because someone would have died trying to use the truck. HQ was very displeased.)

 

[denni89627]

The major reason is that our diesel fuel is not nearly as refined and clean as the diesel fuels available in europe. Most of those cars would not run too well over here. So the question becomes "Why isn't our diesel fuel better?" Smells like big oil politics to me.

 

[denni89627]

Also diesels run pretty good in the cold, its' the damn fuel again. It "gels" at a certain temp and then you're screwed. You're supposed to mix a special additive into the fuel when you expect really cold weather. For the record my old poland spring truck was like clockwork. 10 deg F it would run fine, 9 degrees, no way.

 

[Danger]

Well, sure... wish we could have a nice balmy 10 degree F. winter day in Alberta. We'd go for a picnic in the park.

 

[ShawnD]

Also diesels run pretty good in the cold, its' the damn fuel again. It "gels" at a certain temp and then you're screwed. You're supposed to mix a special additive into the fuel when you expect really cold weather. For the record my old poland spring truck was like clockwork. 10 deg F it would run fine, 9 degrees, no way.

A normal winter day in Edmonton is about -13F (-25C). A "cold" Edmonton day is maybe -40F (-40C). Drive a few hours north to the booming oil town of Fort McMurray and a cold day -76F (-60C). Alberta winters aren't even that bad; Manitoba has horribly cold weather by comparison.

Danger, not all modern cars need to be reved really high to get that power. For example, a Nissan Sentra has the same engine size and torque as my Civic, about 129 ft-lbs, but it's at 2400rpm whereas my Civic is at 4000rpm. As expected, my Honda gets way better gas mileage, but the Sentra could crush my car in a race.

If you've got a saturday to kill, go test drive a Sentra. I think you would be really impressed.

 

[Danger]

I don't think so, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and maybe try it out... when I can afford to get my license. I can't renew it until a couple of outstanding fines are paid off.
By the same token, I think that you'll change your mind if you can find a nice 440 Challenger, 429 Torino, 455 GTO, or similar.
Oh yeah... leave us not forget the 403 Javelin. They weren't too popular back in the day, but they go like stink.

 

[ShawnD]

Don't worry I won't need to find one of those older muscle cars. When I get a bit older looking and more 'serious business', I'll go down to a Dodge dealer and test drive a new Charger. The SRT8 model has a 6.1L V8 with 425HP and 420ft-lb torque. It's a beautiful car too.

 

[Danger]

Yeah. It's nice to see the factories getting back into the real spirit of things. Personally, since W is agitating for a new vehicle, I'm pushing for the Hemi Magnum.

 

[turbo]

Here is my buddy's car launching off the line. You see, Steve keeps his oil pan real clean and he likes to show it off. And yes, is is a 340 Duster with a stock displacement motor.

http://www.dragracecentral.com/drcphoto.asp?ID=122866

 

[Danger]

Sweet.
There is one little thing about that, though. When the suspension is optimized, the entire car will lift almost uniformly rather than squatting and hoisting the nose. A 'wheelie' actually detracts from acceleration. That doesn't make it any less impressive.

 

[turbo]

Sweet.
There is one little thing about that, though. When the suspension is optimized, the entire car will lift almost uniformly rather than squatting and hoisting the nose. A 'wheelie' actually detracts from acceleration. That doesn't make it any less impressive.

I may be wrong about this, but I think in a high-horsepower application like this, wheelies are a desirable thing, because they transfer the weight of the vehicle to the rear wheels (minimizing tire slip) and the slight retardation in initial acceleration (like winding up a spring) allows the driver to dump the clutch just a bit early without red-lighting. Without the weight transfer, the rear tires would likely slip, resulting in a loss of power, and less consistent ETs. The trick in bracket racing (Steve is in Super Pro) is not raw speed, anyway - it's consistently hitting your dial-in (ET) without going under.

 

[Danger]

Never thought about the 'red-light' aspect. Interesting idea. I'm not sure about this particular class either, but in general your initial spring wind-up and throtte control should be enough to maintain traction. In fact, the height of the pinion snubbers makes a significant difference to acceleratilon through the stoppage of that wind-up. The other aspect is the adverse effect of the 'angle of attack' of the body from an aerodynamic standpoint. You're pushing a lot more air out of the way with the underside than you would with the top. If the wheelie isn't sustained for any appreciable time, though, that won't make too much difference.

 

[turbo]

I hung out with Steve off and on during the development of his drag car, and often accompanied him to the track, since we worked together. I can tell you that by the time he had the engine putting out lots of power, modified his transmission, and beefed up the rear end, he was smoking the slicks pretty bad and that was hurting his consistency. His next step was to go to the big low-pressure slicks (with screws through rims and into the beads of the tires to keep the rims from spinning in the tires). That's when he started pulling these wheelies, and his ETs got really consistent. He had to go to 90/10 shocks on the front end (they extend easy, and resist compression on the way back down) to keep from smashing the deep-sump oil pan when the front end comes down. If he wants something done to his car that requires precision machining or specialty equipment, he farms that out, but anything he can do himself, he does, and he is a perfectionist.

About air resistance, there isn't much velocity off the line - just rapid acceleration, and by the time air resistance could become an issue, the front end is down. The wheelies don't really last that long. It is impressive to see that car leap out of the box as the front end starts to come back down.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

My current car has 240 hp from a 2.0L engine, strapped into a 2,700 lb. chassis.

Honda S2000?

I drive my 4Runner all the time, just because I love it (on and off-road). 330Hp and 4100 lbs equates to about 16 city and 21 hwy though

Still, it's a CHOICE. I could have bought a Honda Civic if I wanted (and I still may, in addition to what I have now that is), but I view my SUV as a functional toy more than anything. I go off-roading, I camp, I don't have to worry about the roads being plowed

I would have bought a Hummer H1 with a Turbo-Diesel , but they're so darn expensive, plus maintinence can be viscious when you break something. It would be awesome to have a HUGE SUV like that and run it off of home-made Bio-Diesel. Maybe someday...

It's interesting to see, it seems like the "new" muscle car movement is occurring in diesel trucks... Smokin' tires, big torque, man it's fun! My friend has a Dodge Ram 2500 with a 24V Cummins, it puts down over 1000ft-lbs of torque! It only gets 17mpg, but it ALSO gets 17mpg towing a 10,000lb trailer.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Also diesels run pretty good in the cold, its' the damn fuel again. It "gels" at a certain temp and then you're screwed. You're supposed to mix a special additive into the fuel when you expect really cold weather. For the record my old poland spring truck was like clockwork. 10 deg F it would run fine, 9 degrees, no way.

The gel isn't really an issue except while going through the filter. Many diesels have heated filter housings so once the thing is warmed up it is a non-issue. If you burn what is known as #1 diesel which is much thinner or a mixture of #1 and #2 cold weather for diesels isn't an issue. Some of the early diesels were started on gasoline and switched over to diesel when running. Where I live it is not at all uncommon for diesels to start at 20 to 30 below zero F without warming the block first.

 

[ShawnD]

it ALSO gets 17mpg towing a 10,000lb trailer.

That's pretty damn good. How does it have so much torque? Is that just because it's a diesel?

 

[cactus429]

There's no substitute for cubic inches.

As every ignorant American once said.

I have a Firebird, it is 3.0L and runs with gasoline, as every muscle car does .

Pontiac NEVER produced a Firebird with a 3.0L. The only engines that come close are a 102hp 2.8L and a 140hp 3.1L. And if equipped with either of those engines, the car weighs 3,300lbs. <---- NOT LIGHT.

That's silly that it requires 5L of engine displacement just to make 150HP. My little Honda Civic, through the magic of computers, can generate 140HP with only 1.8L displacement.

Apples to apples, my friend. Not apples to watermelons. That 150hp V8 also probably had a compression ratio in the neighborhood of 8:1 and has 2 valves per cylinder. Your honda is upwards of 11:1 with 4 valves per cylinder. It's not the computer that determines an engine's HP. It's advancements in quality of fuel in the past 30 years. Higher octanes allowing the widespread use of higher compression engines. Your civic also has NO TORQUE... Look at your torque specs... embarrassing. The first V8's in the 1900's had 30-60hp and 1 barrel carbs. Ferrari makes 500hp from 4.0L... THAT'S the beauty of compression and technology.

The major reason is that our diesel fuel is not nearly as refined and clean as the diesel fuels available in europe. Most of those cars would not run too well over here. So the question becomes "Why isn't our diesel fuel better?" Smells like big oil politics to me.

Diesel fuel in the UK is about 1 pound per liter... That's 3.7 pounds per gallon. 3.7 pounds in USD is about $7.40. We pay $2.50-3.50/gallon for our diesel. It's better fuel, and they pay a lot more for it too.

Back to the topic at hand; we don't have diesels in Canada because they're impossible to start when it's -40C outside. A cold diesel engine requires something heating the engine.

Any modern diesel vehicle (direct injection) with a healthy motor and good glow plugs will fire at any temperature with proper fuel treatment... just like a gasoline engine.

My current car has 240 hp from a 2.0L engine, strapped into a 2,700 lb. chassis. It gets about 28-30 mpg on the highway. I still try not to drive it much.

- Warren

Show me one NON TURBO production car that has a 2.0L engine and 240hp. The honda S2000 makes 240hp from a 2.2L engine. Not a 2.0L engine. That power also comes in at a staggering 7,800rpm. Take one look at the torque on the s2000 and try not to wet yourself.

- Power: 240 HP @ 7,800 rpm; 162 ft lb @ 6,500 rpm

HP is a myth. Japanese cars above all should be rated in torque so we can see how weak they are. By the way, try driving your s2000 to 7,800 rpm all the time and let's see how long your engine lasts.

Here is my buddy's car launching off the line. You see, Steve keeps his oil pan real clean and he likes to show it off. And yes, is is a 340 Duster with a stock displacement motor.

http://www.dragracecentral.com/drcphoto.asp?ID=122866

Very cool car. Stock displacement, but not stock compression. I'll bet you 100 bucks he's running 13:1 compression or higher. I'll also bet he's got over 50 grand into that car too. Anybody can take any car... polish it, caress it, love it, spend 50g on it and turn it into something fast. The wheelie really is not that impressive to me. I can take a 1986 ford ranger, drop a 5.0L engine from a Lincoln into it with a manual transmission and pop wheelies. A wheelie is nothing more than a visual spectacle of not being able to put power down correctly. There's a reason the big boys use 4wd (Lambo and other supercars of the like)

My friend has a Dodge Ram 2500 with a 24V Cummins, it puts down over 1000ft-lbs of torque! It only gets 17mpg, but it ALSO gets 17mpg towing a 10,000lb trailer.

Interesting... I have the same truck. A 2005 24V. To make 1,000 ft lbs out of the Cummins requires a immensely fat wallet... to do it right anyway. My truck makes 800ft lbs, and I get nowhere near 17mpg. In fact, if I drive it "spiritedly" I'll get 9mpg. I only get above 15mpg while NOT towing and babying the pedal ALL the time (not something I'm prepared to do when I have 800ft lbs under the pedal). While towing a 10,000 lb trailer, I'd be surprised if you got any more than 10mpg. Your buddy has been feeding you a little dose of BULL**** it sounds like.

 

[ShawnD]

HP is a myth. Japanese cars above all should be rated in torque so we can see how weak they are. By the way, try driving your s2000 to 7,800 rpm all the time and let's see how long your engine lasts.

Actually torque is the number that means nothing. A 10hp steam engine can easily have 200ftlb of torque, but it's useless because it doesn't have the power to back it up. Japanese cars actually do run at a very high rpm all the time (not quite 7800), but JD Power still says they last a hell of a lot longer than low rpm, high torque American cars. Look at http://www.jdpower.com/util/ratings/results.aspx?study_id=207&vertical=Autos&order=1&orderDir=1. The top 5 brands for quality are:
1). Lexus (Japanese)
2). Porsche (German)
3). Honda (Japanese)
4). Infiniti (Japanese)
5. Jaguar (English?)

My Civic usually cruises at about 3000rpm, while the GMC Sierra I drive at work cruises at about 1500rpm. Ironically enough, the GMC is expected to break down before the Civic.

 

[chroot]

Show me one NON TURBO production car that has a 2.0L engine and 240hp.

The model year 2000 and 2001 Honda S2000's have a 2.0L, naturally aspirated 240 bhp engine that revs to 9,000 rpm. My car happens to be a model year 2001. So, I suppose I can take a picture of my car, if you'd like me to show it to you. It's a little dirty though.

Next time, do your research, kiddo.

The honda S2000 makes 240hp from a 2.2L engine. Not a 2.0L engine. That power also comes in at a staggering 7,800rpm. Take one look at the torque on the s2000 and try not to wet yourself.

Yup, it's a little slow off the line compared to big-block cars. It generally beats them to the finish line anyway, and it gets nearly 30 mpg. I feel that's a very acceptable trade-off.

By the way, try driving your s2000 to 7,800 rpm all the time and let's see how long your engine lasts.

I'd say I hit VTEC at least five times every day, and hit the limiter at least every couple of days. And it's gone 120,000 miles so far with nothing but oil changes. Frankly if it died tomorrow I wouldn't be upset with its longevity, but I don't think that's going to happen.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

One correction: the S2000 was equipped with the 2.0L engine up to MY2003.

- Warren

 

[rcgldr]

The main issue with diesels in the USA is that they are dirty. I'm not aware of the equivalent of a catalytic converter for diesel engine cars. I know that I hate to be following a diesel car, especially an older one that leaves a greasy grey cloud behind it whenever the driver accelerates the car.

Gasoline - with current techonology, energy output / usage versus energy spent to obtain and use that energy is still more efficient with gasoline than with other technologies available for automobiles.

Hydrogen - it's still cheaper to get hydrogen from fossil fuels than it is to get it via other means. Personally, I wouldn't want to be involved in an accident where a hydrogen tank got ruptured.

Ethanol - in the USA, ethanol can be obtained from corn, but corn sucks as a source for ethanol. Sugar cane, is much better and is used as a source for ethanol in Brazil. Sugar cane used to be grown in the south eastern USA, but it's cheaper to import it than to grow it in the USA, so sugar cane farms converted to more revenue generating crops decades ago.

Solar power is good, but what percentage of the land in the USA would be required to be covered with solar panels in order to generate enough energy to power electric cars?

Nuclear power is very efficient, but the waste products are hazardous.

Regarding the off topic thread about engine displacement, it's a preference / comfort / cost issue. For a given power output, there's an optimal size and max rpm for an engine in terms of production costs and weight. As an example, the 505+hp 7.0 liter engine in the 2006 and later Corvette Z06 is cheaper to produce and maintain, lighter, and more powerful, than the 3.6 liter turbocharged engine (480hp) in a 911 turbo Porsche. Ultimately, it's the rate of fuel (and which fuel) and air that is consumed by an engine that determines power, so a smaller engine running at a high rpm can make a lot of power. For example the older 3.0 liter V-10 engines in Formula 1 cars before 2006 were making over 900hp, with a whopping average of about 3.1 miles per gallon during a race. If engine life is measured in hundreds of revolutions, as with fuel dragsters, then using 90+% nitromethane and 10-% methanol in a 500 cubic inch engine can produce 5000+hp for a few seconds at a time, (then the engine is rebuilt).

 

[chroot]

Hydrogen - it's still cheaper to get hydrogen from fossil fuels than it is to get it via other means. Personally, I wouldn't want to be involved in an accident where a hydrogen tank got ruptured.

This is one of the most commonly-cited detracting arguments about hydrogen, and it's silly. The hydrogen tanks used in automotive applications are designed to withstand armor-piercing bullets from only several feet away. Futhermore, hydrogen has a relatively narrow range of explosive concentrations, and it very rapidly diffuses away from where it was released. Gasoline has a much larger range of explosive concentration, and, because it's liquid, is much more likely to flow throughout and underneath an accident. You should also consider that a typical tank of H2 actually contains far less energy than a standard 15-gallon tank of gasoline.

Bottom line: there's no reason to expect H2 tank ruptures with any more frequency than existing cars experience gasoline tank ruptures (read: almost never). Furthermore, any accident bad enough to rupture one of these tanks is honestly not going to have any survivors in the first place.

- Warren

 

[NoTime]

Bottom line: there's no reason to expect H2 tank ruptures with any more frequency than existing cars experience gasoline tank ruptures (read: almost never). Furthermore, any accident bad enough to rupture one of these tanks is honestly not going to have any survivors in the first place.

- Warren

True enough, but I would be more worried about plumbing leaks. H2 is slippery stuff.

 

[ShawnD]

hydrogen has a relatively narrow range of explosive concentrations

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/HY/hydrogen.html. That even puts ether to shame, which burns between http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/diethyl_ether.html

because it's liquid

That's not likely either. Hydrogen has a critical point of 32 degrees Kelvin, meaning it's a gas unless you keep it at -240C. It could be kept in a dewar flask, but that's not safe since cryo containers are required to leak at all times in order to maintain equilibrium. Better not light a cigarette next to your car, or in your car, or in a parking garage.


/derail

 

[rcgldr]

The hydrogen tanks used in automotive applications are designed to withstand armor-piercing bullets from only several feet away. Futhermore, hydrogen has a relatively narrow range of explosive concentrations.

I wasn't worried about the hydrogen igniting, just the sheer pressure used in those tanks is scary. There was a recent indicent in the USA where a hydrogen tank in a truck ruptured during a refill (the truck had experienced a minor accident prior to this), there was no fire, but it did seriously injure the guy refilling the tank, inspite of the cage around the tank.

Then again, I lived 20 miles away from Fort Worth, Texas, back in 1973, where and when a Liquefied Petrolem Gas truck crashed, splitting the tank, and the fuel inside ignited, sending a mushroom of fire several thousand feet into the air (into the clouds according to local residents). This was after dusk, and from my view, it looked like an small atomic bomb had gone off, briefly turning a very large area (hundreds of square miles) back into daylight. The second time I witness an LPG "incident", only the pressure cap popped off, so the truck became a very large Bic lighter that lasted several hours. Fortunately, the conversion of liquid to gas, the speed of the gas and the lack of oxygen in the tank kept the flame base about 8 feet away from the port on the tank, so the tank didn't become super heated. I didn't stick around to see what happened as the fuel almost ran out.

Then yet again, it was gasoline, and not hydrogen, that was used in early fuel-air bombs, but gasoline vapor has a tendency to become too rich to be explosive without being forcibly dispersed (although a mild breeze would be enough).

I'm curious, just how much power versus weight can be obtained from plutonium buttons and thermalcouples as used on satellites and the lunar modules on the Apollo missions (one of which, from Apollo 13, is lying at the bottom of some ocean somewhere, probably still functioning just fine).

 

[chroot]

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/HY/hydrogen.html. That even puts ether to shame, which burns between http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/diethyl_ether.html

Hmm. I'm used to seeing the LEL of 4%, but I've always seen the HEL listed as 50%. I apparently need to do some reading, either way.

That's not likely either. Hydrogen has a critical point of 32 degrees Kelvin, meaning it's a gas unless you keep it at -240C. It could be kept in a dewar flask, but that's not safe since cryo containers are required to leak at all times in order to maintain equilibrium. Better not light a cigarette next to your car, or in your car, or in a parking garage.

Gasoline, I meant, is a liquid.

- Warren

 

[cactus429]

Actually torque is the number that means nothing.

Ohhh please... we all know JDpower's ratings are for sale :D Come on. With that said I am not doubting Japanese car reliability, but the s2000 (and honda) is far from perfect. Most Japanese cars have a critical flaw. CHEAP DESIGN. The s2000 as well as most Japanese cars have what's called an "OPEN DECK" block design. Open deck means the block is aluminum with cast iron sleeves surround each piston and this makes up the combustion chamber. This effectively makes it nearly impossible to rebuild and nearly impossible to modify with reliable results. What's the reason? Light weight and CHEAP. The cars are purpose built... Economical and disposable.

Torque is a useless rating? Are you smoking crack? Torque means EVERYTHING. Horsepower is a rating derived from torque. HP is a rating of how quickly an engine can produce a certain amount of torque. To say a s2000 makes 240hp is 50% of the story. I want to know how much torque that car has at it's peak HP rating (which btw is a meager 135ish ft lbs). Rating that car on on only HP is a marketing technique used by very smart automakers because everybody soaks it right up and thinks HP is the only measure of a cars speed. The only reason the s2000 is fast is because it weighs next to nothing... not because it has 240hp.

To Mr. Warren:

The s2000? My father has been down that route before. For the same price as an S2000 you have have a Mustang GT, Subaru WRX-STI, Mitsubishi Evo, VW Golf R32 and Dodge SRT-4. ALL of which are just as fast or faster by almost 1 second in the 0-60 times compared to an s2000. I'd rather have AWD for the track vs "straight line" power in the s2000. For 35 Grand, the cabin of the s2000 is an aesthetic and ergonomic DISASTER. The s2000 is small in every conceivable direction. Put the top down and prepare to be rattled to death by the folded away roof inches behind your head. The s2000s rotary dials and cheap plastic switches wouldn't seem out of place in a 1978 toyota corolla. The sound system is particularly lame. Those determined to listen to a CD at highway speeds, will note that the s2000s four-speaker stereo has all the fidelity and bass response of a shower radio. Now... where the power really matters between 0rpm and 3000rpm... there's NOTHING. I guess if driving around town in an accelerative dead zone, then fine, it's a wonderful city car. This car lacks a lot of the usual "honda care" and is sub par in many categories. Normally I would buy a honda for build quality and longevity, but the build quality is just not there in this car. The engine is so high strung I can't imagine it making anywhere near it's "out of the factory power" at 100,000 miles. If it's power you want, then get a faster AWD STI or EVO for the same price. If it's economy you want, get a turbodiesel car.

30mpg? Real world fuel economy looks more like 20/26 in the s2000... and that's if your not beating the piss out of it... and you don't buy an s2000 to drive around slowly and economically.

I'd say I hit VTEC at least five times every day, and hit the limiter at least every couple of days. And it's gone 120,000 miles so far with nothing but oil changes. Frankly if it died tomorrow I wouldn't be upset with its longevity, but I don't think that's going to happen.

GO VTEC! :D Your cred just instantly flew out the window. Variable valve timing has been standard on most German cars since the late 80's and was invented by Alpha Romeo on the 70's. I especially love how honda loves to plaster big "VTEC" badges all over their cars. All that shows me is that honda is 20 years behind on the latest technology.

Personally, if I spent between 30 and 35 grand I would want my car to last a lot longer than 120k.

Next time, do your research, kiddo.

Sorry I gave your car too much credit. You have the weaker (higher revving) 2.0L. My bad.

 

[rcgldr]

Torque is a useless rating?

Torque as measured at the crank is useless, except for the ergonomics of less vibration from a lower revving engine. What counts is power and the shape of the torque versus rpm curve, but not the actual peak torque itself. Bascially the key points are peak horsepower and the "width" of the powerband. Gearing will compensate for any differences in engine peak torque, dividing rpms and multiplying torque at the rear wheels. So if you want to measure torque times rpm for power, do it at the rear wheels, not at the engine.

Suzuki's 2008 Hayabusa motorcycle will be making about 198hp at the crank on a 1.34 liter, 4 cylinder engine (although at well over 10,000 rpm). That's more than many much larger engines used in cars.

Part of the reason that the 7 liter V8 used in a Corvette C6 Z06 makes 505+hp, is that it redlines at 7100rpm, much higher than many smaller displacement engines. As far as cruising on the highways, with it's super tall overdrive 6th gear pulling 1500rpm at 70mph there's not a lot of acceleration availaible without downshifting. However, since 2nd gear is good for 90mph, there's plenty of power and some wheel spin available if you downshift. (1st gear runs to 61mph, 2nd to 90mph, 3rd to 125mph, 4th to 162 mph, and 5th is a bigger jump to allow the Z06 reach it's top speed of 198mph, assuming you have 5 or so miles of road to get there, 6th is a true overdrive. The point of the overdrive 6th gear is better gas milage (26mpg).

 

[chroot]

Ohhh please... we all know JDpower's ratings are for sale :D Come on. With that said I am not doubting Japanese car reliability, but the s2000 (and honda) is far from perfect.

When did anyone say it was "perfect?" Is this the moronic style of debate you plan on bringing to this forum? It won't last long here.

Light weight and CHEAP. The cars are purpose built... Economical and disposable.

All cars are disposable. Economy is considered by many to be a selling point.

Torque is a useless rating? Are you smoking crack? Torque means EVERYTHING. Horsepower is a rating derived from torque. HP is a rating of how quickly an engine can produce a certain amount of torque.

Uhh.. say what? Horsepower is torque times rpm. Open a physics book.

The s2000? My father has been down that route before. For the same price as an S2000 you have have a Mustang GT, Subaru WRX-STI, Mitsubishi Evo, VW Golf R32 and Dodge SRT-4.

You know, I've owned the car for over six years now. I'm really well past the point of getting into a pissing match with a stranger on the internet about it. I don't really care about the car much anymore, nor do I really care what some stranger's father thinks about it. I'd really rather be out riding my bicycle anyway (I bet I can beat you on any bike you'd care to ride, too).

ALL of which are just as fast or faster by almost 1 second in the 0-60 times compared to an s2000.

Half the cars you mentioned didn't even exist when I bought the S2000. I don't really care about straight line performance, anyway. I wanted a car that's fun to throw into corners, yet still got good gas mileage. I got exactly that car.

I'd rather have AWD for the track vs "straight line" power in the s2000. For 35 Grand, the cabin of the s2000 is an aesthetic and ergonomic DISASTER. The s2000 is small in every conceivable direction.

I like it being rather small.

Put the top down and prepare to be rattled to death by the folded away roof inches behind your head.

Mine doesn't rattle, nor ever has.

The s2000s rotary dials and cheap plastic switches wouldn't seem out of place in a 1978 toyota corolla.

I didn't really buy it for the A/C knob.

The sound system is particularly lame. Those determined to listen to a CD at highway speeds, will note that the s2000s four-speaker stereo has all the fidelity and bass response of a shower radio.

You have a point there. Of course, I invested a couple of thousand in a sound system before I even drove it off the lot, so it was never much of a concern. I haven't really found a car yet that comes with a decent stock stereo, anyway. Besides, Ferraris don't even come with stereos at all. Ferraris sure do suck, you're right.

Now... where the power really matters between 0rpm and 3000rpm... there's NOTHING.

Well, it idles at 2k rpm, and I've never been too concerned with a car's HP curve at... 0 rpm. In my experience, most cars produce quite little power when turned off.

I guess if driving around town in an accelerative dead zone, then fine, it's a wonderful city car.

That's how it gets good gas mileage. It's a trade-off, and one that I was happy with.

This car lacks a lot of the usual "honda care" and is sub par in many categories. Normally I would buy a honda for build quality and longevity, but the build quality is just not there in this car.

Actually, the car's made by hand, in the same factory and by the same hands, as the Acura NSX. Its build quality is generally considered to be excellent by those in the industry.

The engine is so high strung I can't imagine it making anywhere near it's "out of the factory power" at 100,000 miles. If it's power you want, then get a faster AWD STI or EVO for the same price. If it's economy you want, get a turbodiesel car.

Again, they didn't exist at the time I bought it. And it still runs quite well at 120k miles.

30mpg? Real world fuel economy looks more like 20/26 in the s2000... and that's if your not beating the piss out of it... and you don't buy an s2000 to drive around slowly and economically.

I said nearly 30 mpg, and 26 mpg counts as nearly 30 mpg to me. And 90% of my miles, like everyone else, are highway miles, cruising at 70-75 mph. I don't "beat the piss out of it" much at all on the freeway, since that would be stupid. I bought the S2000 specifically for its dual personality: good economy on the freeway, but very capable on a track or twisty road.

GO VTEC! :D Your cred just instantly flew out the window.

Perhaps this will come as a shock to you, but I wasn't really seeking any credibility. It's just a damn car.

Variable valve timing has been standard on most German cars since the late 80's and was invented by Alpha Romeo on the 70's. I especially love how honda loves to plaster big "VTEC" badges all over their cars. All that shows me is that honda is 20 years behind on the latest technology.

To my knowledge, my car doesn't have a single "VTEC" sticker anywhere on it. Maybe I should turn it upside down and look on the bottom.

Personally, if I spent between 30 and 35 grand I would want my car to last a lot longer than 120k.

It's reached 120k with nothing but routine oil changes. I suspect it will, in fact, last a lot longer.

Sorry I gave your car too much credit. You have the weaker (higher revving) 2.0L. My bad.

Again, while it might surprise you, my sense of self-worth is not tied to my automobile, nor whose automobile it is superior. I suggest you find a more meaningful way to distinguish yourself than attempting to one-up everyone with a silly car. Maybe it's cool when you're in high school, but it's a little pathetic when you're past the age of 18.

- Warren

 

[cactus429]

All cars are disposable. Economy is considered by many to be a selling point.

My cars are definitely not disposable.

Uhh.. say what? Horsepower is torque times rpm. Open a physics book.

DUH. Read my previous post more clearly before responding. Genius above said torque was a useless rating.

You know, I've owned the car for over six years now. I'm really well past the point of getting into a pissing match with a stranger on the internet about it. I don't really care about the car much anymore, nor do I really care what some stranger's father thinks about it. I'd really rather be out riding my bicycle anyway (I bet I can beat you on any bike you'd care to ride, too).

Then don't bring it into an argument as an example if you don't want a critique.

Half the cars you mentioned didn't even exist when I bought the S2000. I don't really care about straight line performance, anyway. I wanted a car that's fun to throw into corners, yet still got good gas mileage. I got exactly that car.

The most important competitors the STI and EVO were. They get very similar fuel mileage, cost the same, have more useful (and higher quality interiors), are much safer, do just as well in the corners if not better and are FASTER.

I like it being rather small.

So small that critical features that make a car comfortable are conveniently "engineered" out of the car.

Mine doesn't rattle, nor ever has.

Funny... I find owner reviews claim quite the contrary. You are the lucky one.

I didn't really buy it for the A/C knob.

Right... who needs quality interior pieces. After all, that the only part of the car we actually come in contact with daily. Horridly uncomfortable seats, crappy turn indicator/wiper stalk, low quality HVAC controls, AMAZINGLY horrendous radio controls, cheaply made vent grilles, hollow sounding plastic dash board... Hell all we really need is a speedo and a fuel gauge... right? If you can't do it right, then why do it at all.

You have a point there. Of course, I invested a couple of thousand in a sound system before I even drove it off the lot, so it was never much of a concern. I haven't really found a car yet that comes with a decent stock stereo, anyway. Besides, Ferraris don't even come with stereos at all. Ferraris sure do suck, you're right.

You don't get out a lot, do you? Any German car and most American cars come with adequate and ok stock stereos. The Ferraris that don't come with stereos are the most insane and impractical supercars of the bunch. All of Ferraris road cars come with stereos, A/C and the whole 9 yards. But nice try at justifying the s2000's lack of nice interior features.

Well, it idles at 2k rpm, and I've never been too concerned with a car's HP curve at... 0 rpm. In my experience, most cars produce quite little power when turned off.

Wow... get that fixed. S2000's idle at 900rpm according to honda's technical data. Power under 3,000 rpm is THE most important power area for a road car.

That's how it gets good gas mileage. It's a trade-off, and one that I was happy with.

Poor choice in a car if that's what you were after.

Actually, the car's made by hand, in the same factory and by the same hands, as the Acura NSX. Its build quality is generally considered to be excellent by those in the industry.

I was referring to overall quality (crappy interior)... not just reliability. And it's a Honda NSX, not Acura. Acura is a name that (largely) exists only in N. America for ignorant, mindless sheep who won't associate speed and quality with a dreadful name like Honda. Doesn't matter anymore anyway, Honda quit making the amazing car.

Again, they didn't exist at the time I bought it. And it still runs quite well at 120k miles.

STI and EVO have been around since 1992, Genius. Even the lowest quality American cars can make it to 120k without issues. High strung engines don't last. You start to see oil consumption, oil burning and loss of performance in the later years of high compression applications.

I said nearly 30 mpg, and 26 mpg counts as nearly 30 mpg to me. And 90% of my miles, like everyone else, are highway miles, cruising at 70-75 mph. I don't "beat the piss out of it" much at all on the freeway, since that would be stupid. I bought the S2000 specifically for its dual personality: good economy on the freeway, but very capable on a track or twisty road.

I hate to break it to you but 26 is not nearly 30. That's a huge gap. At 26mpg you are starting to get into the V6 fuel economy range. 26 is decent but turbo cars achieve far greater than that. A turbo vw GTI for instance... 35-40mpg highway and power like hell (when you want it).

Perhaps this will come as a shock to you, but I wasn't really seeking any credibility. It's just a damn car.

If you needed a response in order to look cool and fill this space, ^^^ That's it.

To my knowledge, my car doesn't have a single "VTEC" sticker anywhere on it. Maybe I should turn it upside down and look on the bottom.

Pop the hood and look on that little box in there some people call the "engine". Besides, I said Honda in general, not s2000. (Civic SI, for instance).

It's reached 120k with nothing but routine oil changes. I suspect it will, in fact, last a lot longer.

If all you do is highway miles, perhaps.

Again, while it might surprise you, my sense of self-worth is not tied to my automobile, nor whose automobile it is superior. I suggest you find a more meaningful way to distinguish yourself than attempting to one-up everyone with a silly car. Maybe it's cool when you're in high school, but it's a little pathetic when you're past the age of 18.

If I had a dime for every time I saw a thread where somebody resorted to some sort of personal bashing like this ^^^ to try to end an argument, I would most certainly have a fat wallet. It has NOTHING to do with self worth. If you want to have a debate about cars on a message board, then do it... but don't try to "one-up" other people who disagree with your logic and actually fight back. If anything you said in your last words ^^^ actually meant anything then you wouldn't be here, debating the situation in the first place. The beauty of the internet is that these posts are FREE, fun and educational as hell. I rather enjoy it. But... I don't fall for (nor apply) to the said bull**** above.

If it's the last word you want, then have it. I'm off to bed.

 

[chroot]

Well, cactus429, you're the genius who resurrected a year-old thread with the express intention of picking an off-topic fight with me about a car I purchased six years ago, largely by comparing it to cars that weren't even available when I bought it or are in entirely different categories (e.g. not convertible). Since I have over 8,000 posts on this forum -- a science forum -- perhaps five of which are about this car, I think it's clear that I have, in fact, found a more meaningful way to distinguish myself from people like you.

Good show. Too bad it's over.

- Warren