| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
1003s.com
3346 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:01:59 AM
|
Obama, won the debate, and I was very impressed, that he mentioned
bio-diesel cars twice. I have been wanting to purchase an American made
diesel car, for many years, and there has never been a good diesel car,
built in America.
I have a Land Rover, and I get about 14 miles per gallon,
the folks on the side of the pond, get about 28 miles per gallon,
on their Land Rover diesels. And that really burns me up!
If my PETRO engine ever wears out, I may convert the Landy, to diesel power.
Although I won't vote for Obama, if he does become our next president,
I hope he does push for strong bio-diesel use, tax incentives.
|
|
Jonas
496 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 10:53:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 1003s.com
Obama, won the debate, and I was very impressed, that he mentioned
bio-diesel cars twice. I have been wanting to purchase an American made
diesel car, for many years, and there has never been a good diesel car,
built in America.
I have a Land Rover, and I get about 14 miles per gallon,
the folks on the side of the pond, get about 28 miles per gallon,
on their Land Rover diesels. And that really burns me up!
If my PETRO engine ever wears out, I may convert the Landy, to diesel power.
Although I won't vote for Obama, if he does become our next president,
I hope he does push for strong bio-diesel use, tax incentives.
I am excited to no end about this prospect as well! There's a bio-diesel VW Golf TDI near my buddy's house in Santa Monica, I want one so bad. |
|
|
Scrooge McDuck
8753 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 11:05:43 AM
|
bimmer is just hitting the market with a 6 cylinder diesel. top gear liked it in the 5 series.
i have been excited about biodiesel for a long long time. i want to go to my friends sub shop and take his old fry oil off his hands and pour it into my tank. he has like 50 gallons a week at least. |
|
|
Jonas
496 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 11:10:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scrooge McDuck
bimmer is just hitting the market with a 6 cylinder diesel. top gear liked it in the 5 series.
i have been excited about biodiesel for a long long time. i want to go to my friends sub shop and take his old fry oil off his hands and pour it into my tank. he has like 50 gallons a week at least.
Dude, I absolutely adore Top Gear. That 3 series diesel was a beast. |
|
|
mykal5
2764 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 11:12:17 AM
|
No need to wait for Washington.
http://www.greasecar.com/products.cfm
I just met a guy who paid $4,000 for a 2002 Ford F-150 that was converted to run on CNG. He bought a conversion kit that allows him to tap into the natural gas line at home, fills up there and goes about his day. At $.89/Gallon he is doing well. |
|
|
Scrooge McDuck
8753 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 11:27:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
No need to wait for Washington.
http://www.greasecar.com/products.cfm
I just met a guy who paid $4,000 for a 2002 Ford F-150 that was converted to run on CNG. He bought a conversion kit that allows him to tap into the natural gas line at home, fills up there and goes about his day. At $.89/Gallon he is doing well.
cng turned his truck into a put put mobile. at least biodiesel provides real world capabilities. cng just doesnt have enough pop to it. |
|
|
dkendall1979
10147 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 11:34:40 AM
|
I'm thinking long and hard about getting the grease car kit. Making 50 gal's of biodiesel a day and selling it for $2 dollars a gallon to the local diesel drivers.
Cost is about 90 cents a gallon to make. |
|
|
mykal5
2764 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 11:35:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scrooge McDuck
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
No need to wait for Washington.
http://www.greasecar.com/products.cfm
I just met a guy who paid $4,000 for a 2002 Ford F-150 that was converted to run on CNG. He bought a conversion kit that allows him to tap into the natural gas line at home, fills up there and goes about his day. At $.89/Gallon he is doing well.
cng turned his truck into a put put mobile. at least biodiesel provides real world capabilities. cng just doesnt have enough pop to it.
It was a truck, I highly doubt he needs to hit 60 mph in 7 seconds.
I don't know much about thermodynamics so please help me here, does a gallon of CNG really produce that much less energy than a gallon of gas? |
|
|
dkendall1979
10147 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 11:43:11 AM
|
The molecular weight of CNG is rediculously lower than that of petrol. so directly, yes, it really does.
However, we're talking about COMPRESSED natural gas. The only real-life application would be to keep it in its compressed form. Can you say TURBOCHARGER?
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by Scrooge McDuck
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
No need to wait for Washington.
http://www.greasecar.com/products.cfm
I just met a guy who paid $4,000 for a 2002 Ford F-150 that was converted to run on CNG. He bought a conversion kit that allows him to tap into the natural gas line at home, fills up there and goes about his day. At $.89/Gallon he is doing well.
cng turned his truck into a put put mobile. at least biodiesel provides real world capabilities. cng just doesnt have enough pop to it.
It was a truck, I highly doubt he needs to hit 60 mph in 7 seconds.
I don't know much about thermodynamics so please help me here, does a gallon of CNG really produce that much less energy than a gallon of gas?
|
|
|
mykal5
2764 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:03:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dkendall1979
The molecular weight of CNG is rediculously lower than that of petrol. so directly, yes, it really does.
However, we're talking about COMPRESSED natural gas. The only real-life application would be to keep it in its compressed form. Can you say TURBOCHARGER?
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by Scrooge McDuck
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
No need to wait for Washington.
http://www.greasecar.com/products.cfm
I just met a guy who paid $4,000 for a 2002 Ford F-150 that was converted to run on CNG. He bought a conversion kit that allows him to tap into the natural gas line at home, fills up there and goes about his day. At $.89/Gallon he is doing well.
cng turned his truck into a put put mobile. at least biodiesel provides real world capabilities. cng just doesnt have enough pop to it.
It was a truck, I highly doubt he needs to hit 60 mph in 7 seconds.
I don't know much about thermodynamics so please help me here, does a gallon of CNG really produce that much less energy than a gallon of gas?
See that is what I thought. I have always heard that CNG has a higher octane level, so in theory if the guy who drives the Ford was about to raise his compression ration, he would make a lot more power. Even if he lost some efficiency at $.89/g who cares?
I am sure I'm missing something though. |
|
|
Scrooge McDuck
8753 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:18:20 PM
|
it may have been a truck, but you are talking about knocking that thing down by about 50% in horsepower, but still hauling around all that weight.
im curious how your friend compresses the natural gas that comes out of the lines in his house in gas form. from what i know of most CNG cars, they deliver the fuel to the intake in liquid form and particulate it at the injector just like normal gas cars.
also, octane has nothing to do with actual amount of energy in the gas. it has to do with the precision of the burn. highly tuned motors need higher octane to prevent pinging and knocking. pinging and knocking comes when the gas charge ignites too soon, or too late. sometime the ignition chamber can be so hot that upon partial compression, the gas will ignite. 91 would limit this vs 87. on a turbo, where you are artificially upping the compression and air to gas ratio, pinging and knock become more and more common.
in theory because the ignition is more controlled, and therefore delivered in (lets say) 1 millionth of a second vs over 2 millionths of a second, it would give more explosive power. but in fact the amount of power contained in a gallon of 87 vs 91, is the same.
|
|
|
mykal5
2764 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:47:25 PM
|
50% loss in power? That is huge. I know that there is less energy available in a gallon of CNG when compared to a gallon of gasonline, but 50% that can't be right, can it?
LNG is compressed at home by a compressor, the units are actually pretty small and can be stored in a garage.
I know octane has nothing to do with the amount of energy, rather it is the level of resistance of fuels to detonate. The additional power is obtained by raising the compression ratio capturing the additional energy that can't be gained from a lower compression ration (all things being equal of course). If CNG has a higher octane rating it becomes a preferred fuel choice as it will have a higher resistance to detonation.
Gasoline has an octane rating of 87–90
CNG has an octane rating of 130
Where am I wrong? |
|
|
Scrooge McDuck
8753 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 12:54:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
50% loss in power? That is huge. I know that there is less energy available in a gallon of CNG when compared to a gallon of gasonline, but 50% that can't be right, can it?
LNG is compressed at home by a compressor, the units are actually pretty small and can be stored in a garage.
I know octane has nothing to do with the amount of energy, rather it is the level of resistance of fuels to detonate. The additional power is obtained by raising the compression ratio capturing the additional energy that can't be gained from a lower compression ration (all things being equal of course). If CNG has a higher octane rating it becomes a preferred fuel choice as it will have a higher resistance to detonation.
Gasoline has an octane rating of 87–90
CNG has an octane rating of 130
Where am I wrong?
in the sense that you could cram more in the chamber and counteract the loss of power, you are not wrong. but i think you would need to probably need to get the compression up to 17-20:1 (if im remembering correctly most gas cars run at about 8.5-9, turbos 10-14 and im thinking you would have to double the volume to get the same pop) which is a fast way to burn out every moving part in your top end. and that also means you are using much much more CNG to make it happen.
now, as for losing 50% of the power in a conversion, that applies to gas to CNG conversions. if designed from blue print to key to run on CNG, you could probably do much better, but still in the range of 75% or so. |
|
|
mykal5
2764 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 1:04:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scrooge McDuck
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
50% loss in power? That is huge. I know that there is less energy available in a gallon of CNG when compared to a gallon of gasonline, but 50% that can't be right, can it?
LNG is compressed at home by a compressor, the units are actually pretty small and can be stored in a garage.
I know octane has nothing to do with the amount of energy, rather it is the level of resistance of fuels to detonate. The additional power is obtained by raising the compression ratio capturing the additional energy that can't be gained from a lower compression ration (all things being equal of course). If CNG has a higher octane rating it becomes a preferred fuel choice as it will have a higher resistance to detonation.
Gasoline has an octane rating of 87–90
CNG has an octane rating of 130
Where am I wrong?
in the sense that you could cram more in the chamber and counteract the loss of power, you are not wrong. but i think you would need to probably need to get the compression up to 17-20:1 (if im remembering correctly most gas cars run at about 8.5-9, turbos 10-14 and im thinking you would have to double the volume to get the same pop) which is a fast way to burn out every moving part in your top end. and that also means you are using much much more CNG to make it happen.
now, as for losing 50% of the power in a conversion, that applies to gas to CNG conversions. if designed from blue print to key to run on CNG, you could probably do much better, but still in the range of 75% or so.
Makes sense. One small correction, turbo charged cars usually run a lower compression ratio that naturally aspirated cars. |
|
|
dkendall1979
10147 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 1:06:42 PM
|
I think CNG would be better used in a fan-motor application where there is a turbine of sorts turning in place of pistons popping.
Anyway, it's a mental picture I have and hard to put on a screen in words. |
|
|
mykal5
2764 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 1:13:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dkendall1979
I think CNG would be better used in a fan-motor application where there is a turbine of sorts turning in place of pistons popping.
Anyway, it's a mental picture I have and hard to put on a screen in words.
Turbine? I like you idea of converting and selling bio-diesel. I suggest you make that move quick. Here in Utah I have heard there is a law prohibiting you from collection oil from restaurants. |
|
|
Scrooge McDuck
8753 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 1:15:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
quote:
Originally posted by Scrooge McDuck
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
50% loss in power? That is huge. I know that there is less energy available in a gallon of CNG when compared to a gallon of gasonline, but 50% that can't be right, can it?
LNG is compressed at home by a compressor, the units are actually pretty small and can be stored in a garage.
I know octane has nothing to do with the amount of energy, rather it is the level of resistance of fuels to detonate. The additional power is obtained by raising the compression ratio capturing the additional energy that can't be gained from a lower compression ration (all things being equal of course). If CNG has a higher octane rating it becomes a preferred fuel choice as it will have a higher resistance to detonation.
Gasoline has an octane rating of 87–90
CNG has an octane rating of 130
Where am I wrong?
in the sense that you could cram more in the chamber and counteract the loss of power, you are not wrong. but i think you would need to probably need to get the compression up to 17-20:1 (if im remembering correctly most gas cars run at about 8.5-9, turbos 10-14 and im thinking you would have to double the volume to get the same pop) which is a fast way to burn out every moving part in your top end. and that also means you are using much much more CNG to make it happen.
now, as for losing 50% of the power in a conversion, that applies to gas to CNG conversions. if designed from blue print to key to run on CNG, you could probably do much better, but still in the range of 75% or so.
Makes sense. One small correction, turbo charged cars usually run a lower compression ratio that naturally aspirated cars.
they start lower at idle, but once the turbo is fully spoiled up, they are significantly higher. |
|
|
Scrooge McDuck
8753 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2008 : 1:17:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dkendall1979
I think CNG would be better used in a fan-motor application where there is a turbine of sorts turning in place of pistons popping.
Anyway, it's a mental picture I have and hard to put on a screen in words.
from what i have read, turbines are great for turning generators which make electricity to then power an electric motor. electric motors are far more awesome then gas motors, but a system like that is very complicated. going direct from turbine to the wheels is not something i have heard too much about. |
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
|
|
Search for: 
