Who would like to see a boxer diesel in the FT-86?

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by Dixie Normous

I sure hope your not talking about diesels.

I am talking about diesels? The aftermarket of diesel vs gasoline is not even an argument, its just fact.

[Siriusly.Andrew]

and I would say your fact sheet is incorrect. I'd even almost dare say there is more aftermarket support for diesels and their big trucks than there is for us sports car types.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by Siriusly.Andrew

and I would say your fact sheet is incorrect. I'd even almost dare say there is more aftermarket support for diesels and their big trucks than there is for us sports car types.

So if my facts are incorrect as you claim, you are implying Diesels have a larger aftermarket. That sounds ridiculous, no reason to argue for the sake of arguing. It's gasoline and thats that.

[bigbcraig]

1. Diesel small sportscar? Hell Yes!

2. Oh Boy do i have some things about fuels, biofuels, and fuel cells.

Don't worry, I have to go to sleep now but I'll be back tomorrow.

[Midship Runabout]

I wouldnt go far enough to say diesel has a bigger aftermarket than gas. But to say diesel has no aftermarket support at all is hogwash. Banks Power is a huge huge huge company setting numerous records using diesel power. 1/4 mile, top speed and they even have a roar race gmc out now.


bigbraig enlighten us please.

[bigbcraig]

CN: a slightly off-topic rant about Hydrogen as a fuel. Just as a reply to some people talking / asking about it on first page. Basically, batteries > hydrogen. Soon to come will be why diesels are the best evar (and yes they have a huge aftermarket and modification potential); and why biodiesel is excellent, viable, and without ethanol's flaws.


Hokay. Well first off, Hydrogen (both combustion and fuel cells) are interesting, but I really can't see where they'll be useful. Fuel Cells are nifty, for sure, but basically just a big battery: they take in hydrogen which goes in a fuel tank, but the only way to make hydrogen on a large enough scale to use as a fuel is electrolysis - putting a LOT of electricity into water so that the H's and O's separate. It's a pretty inefficient process, but you can get hydrigen gas quickly enough.

So then this hydrogen, which you should think of as a lot of electricity in gaseous form, goes into the fuel cell which is quite efficient, but not perfectly so, at reacting with atmospheric oxygen to make back most of the energy we just pumped into the water to get hydrogen in the first place.

Now right now, a fuel cell (once we have the hydrogen) is somewhat more efficient than a battery; but battery performance and price per performance are getting better and better at rates that are really astonishing. There are not really cost-effective, high-enough-discharge, and reliable enough batteries for cars right now (OK, so things like the Tesla work, but not an affordable commuter car).
But fuel cells are also a while off also - materials science is still working on lowering cost, finding production capability, and reliability / efficiency while not making the fuel cell a million dollar enterprise.

So neither are really ready right now, but IMO batteries are accelerating much faster than 'cells.


But if you look outside of just the battery / cell in the car, fuel cells get worse. We have no good way to make the hydrogen: as I said, most of it comes from electrolysis; and most of our electricity for hydrogen production is made by coal power plants. (Cars burn MUCH cleaner - Green image now ruined, huh?)
Furthermore, we don't have a hydrogen infrastructure. Hydrogen can't go in a regular gas station, it's a compressed gas rather than liquid and as such needs completely different tanks, pumping, and sealing systems.

Many people won't like having a tank of compressed H2 gas in their car, either. It probably won't but in the very few scenarios that a hydrogen car might get hit REALLY hard and the tank cracks, there is now quite a bit of hydrogen gas floating about. It'll spread faster than liquid gasoline; and hydrogen mixed with oxygen can explode pretty violently:

So, back to batteries. Clearly, as a hydrogen car did, the theoretical electric (battery) car will use electricity. But it uses electricity without the added inefficiency of electrolysis. Then, the electricity goes into the power grid, charging the car at a person's home or workplace via the grid.
What I'm saying here is, instead of transporting hydrogen (probably through trucks a la gas) into a new gas station with new pumps, electricity has an infrastructure already.

Now the problem everyone cites with electric cars is that you can't refill instantly. BUT, 90% of the time, do you need to? I mean yes, sometimes people take road trips or long drives. But I don't see that this one catch should mean we abandon an otherwise great (and imminently accessible) transportation possibility.
SO, instead of periodically reflling your car in 5 minutes, you would plug it in at night every few nights so it's charged. For daily commuting it'd work perfectly, and if you are someone who often takes long trips etc, still drive an ICE (gas or diesel) vehicle.

Sure, they're not prefect, and wouldn't replace everything (namely, I don't see long-haul or performance rides being pure-electric, for different reasons), but are a great choice.

Hope i didn't forget a bullet point but I think I'm done.


I'll be writing my other thoughts eventually (as i have time), but it's the end of the academic year at college and I have to write a big essay and study fir finals inbetween dreaming about cars Hope someone reads, and maybe even enjoys this. If there are typos / bad spelling, sorry, I wrote it at nearly 3am.

[Frost]

To add the post above, I believe ... scratch that, KNOW, hydrogen & electricity are ineffiecient forms of electricity.

To make electricity in today's world, you need to create heat, boil water, turn generators, create electricity, fire it across a grid and into the point of use. Each major step above contains losses and inefficiencies of its own let alone that involved in the creation of the fuel required to create the heating process.

Hydrogen ADDS to the above by taking the electricity to water and creating hydrogen. The cycle is HIGHLY INEFFICIENT.

The point is to cut DOWN the steps between raw fuel and point of use. Kinda like the Toyota Production System, cut down waste. If you could find something that is constantly being created in mass droves naturally, find a way to take it and convert it in a few steps to physical movement in a minimal amount of steps, THAT is the future.

As for the FT86 diesel variant, that would rock IF and ONLY IF the engine was as fun as the NA equivalent or better in some areas in an equivalent trade off. Diesels can be fun on torque so that's a given.

[Midship Runabout]

great read guys. thanks

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by NESW20

all we need is a sustainable energy source (cold fusion anyone?) to produce the hydrogen. problem solved.

right, that's why i put this in my post. my main point was IF we could find a good, clean, renewable energy source that we could use to produce the hydrogen, that would be the way to go. we'll never, ever run out of hydrogen, and the only emission is water.

-Mike

[bigbcraig]

I simply don't see, how it'll ever happen.

Cost-effectiveness, volume, environmental friendliness.
Current struggles to get one of these, and even when we find ways to do it, it'll be decades before we wouldn't have to pick 2/3.

Even if "we'll never run out", because were just converting back and forth between water and electricity, we will need to be paying for the energy and equipment to make it. And no matter what source you use, energy is far from free.

Before most people will even consider switching to a completely different fuel, there will have to be enough production capability and a thorough infrastructure.


They aren't very close at all to being ready, and when they are, I truly expect batteries to be a better alternative.

[mrtodd]

Originally Posted by NESW20

right, that's why i put this in my post. my main point was IF we could find a good, clean, renewable energy source that we could use to produce the hydrogen, that would be the way to go. we'll never, ever run out of hydrogen, and the only emission is water.

-Mike

I really think we can, and i personally believe the answer is bacteria. There are already very fundamental species of said kingdom at work converting atmospheric nitrogen, amonia, and urea to usable nitrogen for plants. I am sure that with some genetic engineering or artificial selection we could get a breed that pulls out straight hydrogen as a byproduct from pretty much any abundant source.

Of course, it's obvious i'd say such a thing, being a biology major and all.. Hah.

Even so, like bigbcraig mentioned, there still is the issue of safety. If the mass news media ever gets ahold of a hydrogen fuel cell explosion, everybody would freak out. But that still doesn't rule this concept out, i don't know much about how they're building the fuel cells right now, but i think it's safe to say that they're pretty tough..

Bio diesel, on the other hand, or even ethanol, is not a very efficient alternative when it comes to production, IMO. I was listening to a BBC news cast that weighed out the benefits and drawbacks - one major thing is the extreme amount of surface area required to grow enough vegetation to produce is too great. I personally think that diesel, biodiesel, or any bio fuel is NOT the answer. I personally think we'll be seeing both Hydrogen powered cars and straight electric cars in the near future, but i don't think one will be dominant over the other..

In light of this, what do you guys think about the Nissan Leaf?

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Lexicon101

Biodiesel? You don't even have to dig the corn plants up. Just pluck the cobs right off.

There are some things fundamentally wrong with using a FOOD SOURCE as a fuel. I still wish I could slap the scientist & politicians that came up with that idea. Now I'm all for biodiesel made form woodchips, organic waste matter, cultured algae etc, but using corn and wheat (you know the stuff we use to eat, make bread, feed livestock etc etc etc) is just plain retarded.

I long to see a nuclear powered world. Nuclear plants providing all the grids power, nuclear powered trains, nuclear powered cargo ships/oil tankers (some container ships can use as much as 1,660 gallons per hour while an aircraft carrier refuels what? Once in 25 years w/ a 50 yr service life).

I dunno what fuel we will be using in the future, but what is certain is that automakers, energy and fuel companies, scientists and politicians need to sit down and work it out so there is some sort of standard and direction to head in.... which probably won't even happen in our kid's lifetime because there is just way too much money in fuel to give up.

[RegisBou]

Originally Posted by Lexicon101

Biodiesel? You don't even have to dig the corn plants up. Just pluck the cobs right off.



I don't think people are talking about combustion engines when they talk about hydrogen engines. It's essentially an electric motor with a hydrogen power pack. The fusion of hydrogen and oxygen produces only electricity and H2O, or water.. if I'm remembering how this works right.
So it won't be something that goes Vroom, it'll be something that goes Wzzzzz.

I heard somewhere (not sure at all...prolly 60% credibility on this LOL) but I heard that the wankel engine (rotary duhhh) can combust hydrogen quite efficiently!

I've always wondered about that...

[RegisBou]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

There are some things fundamentally wrong with using a FOOD SOURCE as a fuel. I still wish I could slap the scientist & politicians that came up with that idea. Now I'm all for biodiesel made form woodchips, organic waste matter, cultured algae etc, but using corn and wheat (you know the stuff we use to eat, make bread, feed livestock etc etc etc) is just plain retarded.

I long to see a nuclear powered world. Nuclear plants providing all the grids power, nuclear powered trains, nuclear powered cargo ships/oil tankers (some container ships can use as much as 1,660 gallons per hour while an aircraft carrier refuels what? Once in 25 years w/ a 50 yr service life).

I dunno what fuel we will be using in the future, but what is certain is that automakers, energy and fuel companies, scientists and politicians need to sit down and work it out so there is some sort of standard and direction to head in.... which probably won't even happen in our kid's lifetime because there is just way too much money in fuel to give up.

Up in the Norway/Sweden area they are working on a cold fusion power source contained by gama shields...its actually a working project and it should be done by 2050. Powering the world with an earth made sun contained in a shield powered by the sun! LOL but yes, I am excited for this!

Another renewable diesel source would be HEMP. Sure bash all you want but the first diesel engine used hemp seed derived diesel fuel. Go figure :p

Hemp can also replace clear cutting for paper since it grows (lets say one acre) in 6 months the same amount of fiber required for paper as an acre of tree's would in 20 years O_o and it does not require near the same amount of nutrients from the soil and can grow pretty much anywhere other than the north and south poles LOL.

So yea I agree 100% with what you say, but the government needs to stick to what it did when George Washington was president...mandate every farmer to grow hemp on the side or get fined! The model T used hemp based bumpers, since they are 10 times more absorbant than steel in terms of impact...

Man the things I learn in college...as a bio major haha

sorry for the off topic post, but it is somewhat relative!

And yes, I would love to see a diesel in the ft-86! McDonald's would sponsor all the diesel drift cars :p