High MPG

[Richard W. Cowan]

At 02:24 AM 5/5/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Yes, I agree. In fact, I think that if as much time, effort, and money was
>put into the development of a turbine engine (like the Chrysler one) as has
>been put into the engines we currently run, the "200 MPG carb" type idea
>would be a case of "so what!" In the case of the Chrysler turbine, it had a
>very ingeneous heat transfer drvice that recycled otherwise wasted heat from
<snip>

<delurk>
Yes, ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and probably no amount of tweaking
will ever make it as good as electric.  Turbines are excellent compared to
ICEs but they suck for stop-n-go.  That's why they make great airplane
engines and lousy auto engines. 

This is probably [nc], but IMO the words "automobile" and "efficient" are
never going to go together until they are all switched to electric sometime
(before you can say dead oil lobby).  Then we'll have to change the list
from DYIEFI to DYI(more amperage!).  (Of course the electricity to charge
the batteries will still be generated by coal-burning plants until we
switch to nuclear).  Hopefully by then we will be beyond the days of the
electric-golf-cart-with-a-sloop-rig-for-windy-days.

I had the opportunity to drive the GM EV1 and a Rav4 EV.  The batteries are
still friggin huge, range sucked, its still expensive, but the power output
at the wheels was far beyond what I expected.  The future doesn't look
quite so dim anymore.

Sorry for the rambling

Richard BME '96, GA Tech.  Go Jackets!
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~vap1rc