High MPG

Gary Derian gderian at cyberdrive.net
Tue May 5 12:02:00 GMT 1998


>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>
Richard Cowan wrote:
>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.


Turbines are not that efficient, gas or steam, because high expansion
temperatures will melt down the turbine blades.  ICE's are better because
their expansion is intermittent and can occur at high temperatures.
Unfortunately the lose out when throttled back.

Electric is not very efficient if you consider the total scheme.  The
electric generators are no more efficient than the good old ICE (40%).  Then
you add the power loss in transmission, converting to chemical energy for
the battery, then reconverting to electric, then finally getting mechanical
energy from the motor.  Add this up and the electric car is only 5%
efficient.  A GM EV1 with a gasoline engine would get 80+ mpg.

Gary Derian <gderian at cybergate.net>





More information about the Diy_efi mailing list