New Emissions Plan

PolicySp

New Emissions Plan

by PolicySp » Wed, 20 May 2009 15:50:52

President BO is out with specific miles-per-gallon requirements that relate
to the CAFE legislation. So by the year 2016 manufacturer's fleet must
average 35 MPG. That's four years sooner and the MPG goes in steps through
the years. But there are confusing and conflicting numbers all over the
place. And the MPG requirements combine with tailpipe greenhouse emissions
requirements...

In other words there is not just required improvement in fuel mileage but
required improvement in emissions. And these will be Federal standards and
thus one standard and so the car makers are approving even as the 13 states
that wanted separate and more stringent standards also approve of the plan.

Well...my plan is a little different. I wouldn't worry about additional
testing of emissions out the tailpipe...I would just have smaller engines
and thus a smaller volume of pollution. See...we have pollution
standards...and we have efficient engines...those with
four-valve-per-cylinder-heads...those with mechanical
variable-valve-timing...and those with electronic fuel-injection.

Now going to electronic direct-fuel-injection...rather than electronic
port-fuel-injection...increases power by 10% and increases fuel mileage by
10%. So immediately...and based on current fundamentals...we can have
engines that are 10% smaller while maintaining performance standards. And
those 10% smaller engines with direct-fuel-injection can get 20% better fuel
mileage. That's 10% better mileage because of direct-fuel-injection and 10%
better fuel mileage because of smaller engines. And that's now...right now.

Now consider current engine sizes of those engines that do have
four-valve-per-cylinder-heads. The four-cylinder engines go up to 2.4 in
size, the six-cylinder engines go up to 3.7 in size, and the eight-cylinder
engines go up to 4.6 in size. Now reduce those sizes by 10% and set that as
maximum engine sizes...

So the maximum engine size of a four-cylinder engine would be 2.16, the
maximum engine size of a six-cylinder engine would be 3.33, and the maximum
engine size of an eight-cylinder engine would be 4.14. Of course these
engines would also be required to have four-valve-per-cylinder-heads,
mechanical variable-valve-timing, and electronic direct-fuel-injection. And
those engines would be required to meet current emission standards...

In other words I would limit engine sizes and hold current emission
requirements...

Then further increases in fuel mileage and reductions in pollution volume
would relate to reducing allowed engine size according to the percentage of
vehicle weight reduction that was expected of vehicle manufacturers...

Orval Fairbair

New Emissions Plan

by Orval Fairbair » Thu, 21 May 2009 01:21:47



> President BO is out with specific miles-per-gallon requirements that relate
> to the CAFE legislation. So by the year 2016 manufacturer's fleet must
> average 35 MPG. That's four years sooner and the MPG goes in steps through
> the years. But there are confusing and conflicting numbers all over the
> place. And the MPG requirements combine with tailpipe greenhouse emissions
> requirements...

> In other words there is not just required improvement in fuel mileage but
> required improvement in emissions. And these will be Federal standards and
> thus one standard and so the car makers are approving even as the 13 states
> that wanted separate and more stringent standards also approve of the plan.

> Well...my plan is a little different. I wouldn't worry about additional
> testing of emissions out the tailpipe...I would just have smaller engines
> and thus a smaller volume of pollution. See...we have pollution
> standards...and we have efficient engines...those with
> four-valve-per-cylinder-heads...those with mechanical
> variable-valve-timing...and those with electronic fuel-injection.

> Now going to electronic direct-fuel-injection...rather than electronic
> port-fuel-injection...increases power by 10% and increases fuel mileage by
> 10%. So immediately...and based on current fundamentals...we can have
> engines that are 10% smaller while maintaining performance standards. And
> those 10% smaller engines with direct-fuel-injection can get 20% better fuel
> mileage. That's 10% better mileage because of direct-fuel-injection and 10%
> better fuel mileage because of smaller engines. And that's now...right now.

> Now consider current engine sizes of those engines that do have
> four-valve-per-cylinder-heads. The four-cylinder engines go up to 2.4 in
> size, the six-cylinder engines go up to 3.7 in size, and the eight-cylinder
> engines go up to 4.6 in size. Now reduce those sizes by 10% and set that as
> maximum engine sizes...

> So the maximum engine size of a four-cylinder engine would be 2.16, the
> maximum engine size of a six-cylinder engine would be 3.33, and the maximum
> engine size of an eight-cylinder engine would be 4.14. Of course these
> engines would also be required to have four-valve-per-cylinder-heads,
> mechanical variable-valve-timing, and electronic direct-fuel-injection. And
> those engines would be required to meet current emission standards...

> In other words I would limit engine sizes and hold current emission
> requirements...

> Then further increases in fuel mileage and reductions in pollution volume
> would relate to reducing allowed engine size according to the percentage of
> vehicle weight reduction that was expected of vehicle manufacturers...

Your ideas are too logical to satisfy the anti-car folks -- and
ESPECIALLY environmentalists!

--
Remove _'s  from email address to talk to me.

PolicySp

New Emissions Plan

by PolicySp » Thu, 21 May 2009 07:22:26

We-as-a-society...already have efficient engines and rigorous emission
standards.

We just need to go to smaller engines. With electronic
direct-fuel-injection...rather than electronic port-fuel-injection...we can
immediately go to engines that are 10% smaller.

And so four-cylinder engines could be limited to 2.16 size, six-cylinder
engines could be limited to 3.33 size, and eight-cylinder engines could be
limited to 4.14 size.

Then further reductions in engine size could be based on reducing vehicle
weight with the use of thick fiberglass bodywork over girder frames...or
thinner fiberglass bodywork over birdcage (or trellis) frames.

Fuel milege is improved, pollution volume is reduced, and performance
standards are maintained.

Nate Nage

New Emissions Plan

by Nate Nage » Thu, 21 May 2009 07:29:52


>> President BO is out with specific miles-per-gallon requirements that
>> relate to the CAFE legislation. So by the year 2016 manufacturer's fleet
>> must average 35.5 MPG. That's four years sooner and the MPG goes in steps
>> through the years. But there are confusing and conflicting numbers all
>> over the place. And the MPG requirements combine with tailpipe greenhouse
>> emissions requirements...

> We-as-a-society...already have efficient engines and rigorous emission
> standards.

> We just need to go to smaller engines. With electronic
> direct-fuel-injection...rather than electronic port-fuel-injection...we can
> immediately go to engines that are 10% smaller.

> And so four-cylinder engines could be limited to 2.16 size, six-cylinder
> engines could be limited to 3.33 size, and eight-cylinder engines could be
> limited to 4.14 size.

> Then further reductions in engine size could be based on reducing vehicle
> weight with the use of thick fiberglass bodywork over girder frames...or
> thinner fiberglass bodywork over birdcage (or trellis) frames.

> Fuel milege is improved, pollution volume is reduced, and performance
> standards are maintained.

If you think that 'glass bodywork over a steel frame would be
significantly lighter than current construction...  well... you're
wrong.  (there have been cars made like this in the past.  Corvette and
Avanti come to mind.  Neither was significantly lighter than it would
have been made more conventionally.)

There's advantages to 'glass construction, but weight isn't one of them.
  Stuff is actually quite heavy.  If you want ultra-lightness, look to
aluminum or CFRP.  (both are more expensive than steel or 'glass,
obviously.)  There's disadvantages, too, like more paint prep required,
cracking, etc.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Frog B ritche

New Emissions Plan

by Frog B ritche » Thu, 21 May 2009 10:54:48



>>> President BO is out with specific miles-per-gallon requirements that
>>> relate to the CAFE legislation. So by the year 2016 manufacturer's
>>> fleet must average 35.5 MPG. That's four years sooner and the MPG
>>> goes in steps through the years. But there are confusing and
>>> conflicting numbers all over the place. And the MPG requirements
>>> combine with tailpipe greenhouse emissions requirements...

>> We-as-a-society...already have efficient engines and rigorous emission
>> standards.

>> We just need to go to smaller engines. With electronic
>> direct-fuel-injection...rather than electronic
>> port-fuel-injection...we can immediately go to engines that are 10%
>> smaller.

>> And so four-cylinder engines could be limited to 2.16 size,
>> six-cylinder engines could be limited to 3.33 size, and eight-cylinder
>> engines could be limited to 4.14 size.

>> Then further reductions in engine size could be based on reducing
>> vehicle weight with the use of thick fiberglass bodywork over girder
>> frames...or thinner fiberglass bodywork over birdcage (or trellis)
>> frames.

>> Fuel milege is improved, pollution volume is reduced, and performance
>> standards are maintained.

> If you think that 'glass bodywork over a steel frame would be
> significantly lighter than current construction...  well... you're
> wrong.  (there have been cars made like this in the past.  Corvette and
> Avanti come to mind.  Neither was significantly lighter than it would
> have been made more conventionally.)

> There's advantages to 'glass construction, but weight isn't one of them.
>  Stuff is actually quite heavy.  If you want ultra-lightness, look to
> aluminum or CFRP.  (both are more expensive than steel or 'glass,
> obviously.)  There's disadvantages, too, like more paint prep required,
> cracking, etc.

> nate

You could engineer cars to the equivalent of F16s or whatever and get
ultra light weight.
The problem is that no one could afford it.
As far as mandating unrealistic or engineering impossibilities won't
save anything.
Gasoline not 10% Ethanol has 125,000 btu or there abouts per gallon.
You can't push a 3200 lb+ plus car to 42 mpg except by ludicrous
unacceptable parameters. Why are some people wanting to force people
into cramped uncomfortable non performing fragile vehicles that cost
much more money?
The only thing they have to do to take 10 to 15% of the pressure off our
economy and pollution and energy demand is send home the huge Illegal
Alien presence and Alien work visa holders and their extended families.
This stuff of we must sacrifice, pay more, pay more in taxes, and accept
less as we bring in more Illegal Aliens and Immigrants is especially
foolish during our economic crisis.
Who runs this Country? Americans or Foreigners and Globalist Business?
PolicySp

New Emissions Plan

by PolicySp » Thu, 21 May 2009 15:02:03


>> We-as-a-society...already have efficient engines and rigorous emission
>> standards.

>> We just need to go to smaller engines. With electronic
>> direct-fuel-injection...rather than electronic port-fuel-injection...we
>> can immediately go to engines that are 10% smaller.

>> And so four-cylinder engines could be limited to 2.16 size, six-cylinder
>> engines could be limited to 3.33 size, and eight-cylinder engines could
>> be limited to 4.14 size.

>> Then further reductions in engine size could be based on reducing vehicle
>> weight with the use of thick fiberglass bodywork over girder frames...or
>> thinner fiberglass bodywork over birdcage (or trellis) frames.

>> Fuel milege is improved, pollution volume is reduced, and performance
>> standards are maintained.

> If you think that 'glass bodywork over a steel frame would be
> significantly lighter than current construction...  well... you're wrong.
> (there have been cars made like this in the past.  Corvette and Avanti
> come to mind.  Neither was significantly lighter than it would have been
> made more conventionally.)

> There's advantages to 'glass construction, but weight isn't one of them.
> Stuff is actually quite heavy.  If you want ultra-lightness, look to
> aluminum or CFRP.  (both are more expensive than steel or 'glass,
> obviously.)  There's disadvantages, too, like more paint prep required,
> cracking, etc.



Well...the fiberglass-bodied Corvette weighs 3217 pounds but the Corvette is
in a category of "over 400 horsepower". In fact the Corvette weighs less
than many high-performance V-6 cars...that have about 80 less horsepower.

But the fiberglass-bodied Corvette weighs 3217 pounds. The Dodge Viper
weighs 3450 pounds. And the Jaguar XK weighs 3770 pounds. (Well...what would
you do to get the Corvette up to the Jaguar weight ?)

Then the fiberglass-bodied Lotus Elise weighs 1984 pounds while the Mazda
MX-5 weighs 2480 pounds.

It just happens that there are no economy cars or mid-size sedans with
fiberglass bodywork. When looking at current examples of fiberglass bodywork
there are only high-performance cars to look at.

In fact there is no economy car or mid-size sedan that uses lightweight
technology for the purpose of economy...and that's the void.

And fiberglass along with other plastics...is lightweight, is self
insulating, and is ding-resistant. But the fiberglass or plastic must be
laid over a frame...well...go look up the structure of the Lotus Elise.

Actually...there is a lot of use of molding compound or polycarbonate...for
accessory body parts...along with use of fiberglass. And there is Kelvar
bodywork...

Matthew Russot

New Emissions Plan

by Matthew Russot » Fri, 22 May 2009 04:56:01



CFRP?  Carbon fiber rigid polymer, maybe?  Expensive and has some ugly
failure modes (at least in bicycles).

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress