What do you think about the future car

[silverv6]

about two weeks ago I was seein this car show in the tv of new model cars well then they showed this car that will run on propane well its like the little gas tank forklifts have ... well Ford is planing to built this car in about 10 years or so because they say that theirs isnt that much oil so they wana start making a car that doestn run on gas. Well what do all of you think of this idea do you think is good? and do you think if they actually built a car like that would it be a ble to give out a performance like gas cars do or would the performance be better??

[cyberstang5.0]

I could be wrong on this... but isn't propane a by product of oil???

If that is the case... if we are running out of oil then wouldn't we be running out of propane?

(correct me if I'm wrong guys....)

[mustangman65_79]

I could be wrong on this... but isn't propane a by product of oil???

As far as I know it is.

[Mr 5 0]

Propane (LPG) is basically a by-product of natural gas and crude oil refining.

Not exactly over-abundant as it relies on crude oil refining as well as transportation logistics to make it available. About 10% of our propane supply is imported from foreign countries.

It's environmentally safer than gasoline but prices can and are vulnerable to fluctuations, just like gasoline. Currently, propane is noticably more expensive than gasoline so I don't see it replaceing the gasoline engine any time soon, much less in ten years.

There are vast supplies of crude oil still in the earth but getting them out of the ground is hideously expensive. That's where a lot of 'gloom and doom' predictions about 'running out of oil' in X number of years comes from but that's a flawed premise. I've been hearing this 'running out of oil' prediction forever, and it's no more true now than it was twenty years ago.

[silver_pilate]

Why don't we just improve the technology that we have now instead of spending tons of money researching "new" methods.

For instance, the most efficient traditional gasoline powered motors available today only approaches 25% efficiency. Most, in fact, hover between 13-20%. In other words, 75+% of the energy produced in the fuel combustion is lost in the exhaust gases or used in cooling the motor.

Check out this website:

http://www.coatesengine.com

I heard about this technology several years ago. He replaces the traditional poppet valve technology with rotary spherical valves.



It took him a while, but he's got the sealing mechanism down and the results are quite impressive. It does away with camshaft, pushrods, lifters, rocker arms, valve springs, and the poppet valves. It also eliminates the need for oil on the top of the head as the rotating valves have sealed bearing systems. You get much better air flow, decreased detonation with higher compression ratios and lower octane fuels, better gas milage, more power, and an increased rpm capability. They've had a 5.0L 302 to 14,750 rpm in their labs! The only limiting factor of course being the rotating assembly. Here's some more info on the Lincoln engine they tested:

"Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L engine from a Lincoln, the stock Ford casting (when tested at 28 inches of H2O) flowed approximately 180 cfm on the intake port at static. The rotary valve for the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. "

The cherry thing about it is it can use existing assembly plants and parts. I believe he still offers retrofit kits for cars today, and they've got test vehicles on the road with more than 100,000 miles on them.

This kind of technology deserves more thought. Some of the major manufacturers have contacted him, but I haven't heard anything on production. The sad thing is that it is likely that foreign manufacturers will jump on this band wagon before the US companies do. I guess it's like Samuel Colt when he developed the revolver. It took a while to catch on because it was considered too "radical."

--nathan

[cyberstang5.0]

That is SWEET!!! Forget stroking, blowing, or spraying, where can I get one of those?

[srv1]

i wonder what would happen if you put a 150 shot on it? now that would be interesting!!

[MTU 50]

Silver Pilate: That is very interesting. I haven't heard of that technology yet.

On the propane issue. The main disadvantages are as follows:

- It is a gaseous fuel and delivery is not as efficient, because it is not in liquid form.
- Propane tends to wash oil from the interior engine surface. This is more evident in 2-Strokes, but to a much lesser degree it still occurs in 4-strokes.

The advantages are:

- It has a high octane number which allows a higher compression ratio, hence it is more efficient. RON = 112 MON = 97
- Heating value is 46 MJ/kg, which is higher than gasoline's 40 MJ/kg
- It is stored as a liquid at ambient temperatures and relatively low pressures (100's of psi, not thousands)



However, Hydrogen is probably the fuel of the future, b/c:

- Low emission of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
- Readily available (as long as clean electric power is available)
- High energy content (120 MJ/kg)

The disadvantages of Hydrogen are as follows:

- It is a heavy fuel to store.
- Storage as a liquid requires very high pressure and very low temperatures
- Need a sealed fuel system
- Right now b/c of the infrastructure the cost would be high
- It uses a very high flame temperature, so NOx formation is greater
- It is very easily ignited, which can obviously be dangerous

It will be interesting to see what happens. As long as Mustangs stay Fast, RWD, and have a boat load of Torque, I'll probably be happy.

[MTU 50]

If you want to know the Advantages/Disadvantages of the other alternative fuels (methanol, ethanol, natural gas, or reformulated gasoline), let me know.

BTW, reformulated gasoline is crap, and basically just makes the wacky californians feel good.

[Tony Frank]

*stands behind MTU*

YEA WHAT HE SAID

[MTU 50]

YEAH, What I Said!!!!

[cyberstang5.0]

ok, hydrogen would be cool, except for the fact that it's too valitol (sp?) It is very unstable... Do we remember the blimp that went down in Germeny back when Hitler was alive? It was powered by Hydrogen... and look what happened to that one.... Do you want your stang to do that??????

[MTU 50]

Originally posted by cyberstang5.0
ok, hydrogen would be cool, except for the fact that it's too valitol (sp?) It is very unstable... Do we remember the blimp that went down in Germeny back when Hitler was alive? It was powered by Hydrogen... and look what happened to that one.... Do you want your stang to do that??????

I believe it was filled with Nitrogen, not powered by it, but I understand what your saying.

Engineers(possibly me ) are going to have to come up with a safe way to store hydrogen on board a car so that it can survive the various impacts that happen in autocrashes. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to ride in a bomb with wheels either.

[Godslayer]

Not to be anal but just worth knowing:


The Hindenburg was POWERED by 4 1200HP V-16 Mercedes-Benz Diesel motors, FILLED with hydrogen, and WENT DOWN over Lakehurst, NJ. Yes that's in the US Only 2 people died as a result of burns while 33 died from jumping from the craft. Also it's worth mentioning that the fire started on the highly flammable aluminum powder coated skin NOT because of the Hydrogen.

Someday you might be on Jeopardy

[Dark_5.0]

80% of the worlds oil is untapped!