This is fred's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following fred's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
fred
Chicago
Recent Activity
"Coasting"??? What a concept! Except the majority of J@ck@$$e$ out there in their over-powered FUmobiles will still race you to every red light or do anything to pass you in heavy traffic. All the technology in the world is worthless with a loose nut behind the wheel.
Love the EGR and the start/stop...but KILL V6s...4 cylinder diesels, even with twin sequential turbos, or if you dare, electric rear-drive are ALL thats needed.
If the transverse 9HP is reducing consumption 12-16% and the rear-drive tranny/driveshafts will lose 8-15% depending on how many ring & pinions its put through...why even build it? Surely electric motor technology can make virtually anything cruise like a golf cart on RWD at 10-20 mph. And start/stop can kill ICEs when unneeded.
WHTC would be a good start. All these different specs, some only "half-metric" (US???) would go a long way to getting EVERYWHERE up to sniff. Its pointless to get on-road diesel engines emissions great, while the off-road locomotive or marine engine is still filthy. Then theres always getting cetane ratings up from where we are now. More alternate fuels, DME, bio, even JetA, CNG, maybe mixed right at the injector for cold start or other hard to control times? More start/stop technology. There are hundreds of ways to get this right.
Im sure Mr Bell wouldnt want to talk to me. Im still driving the apparently ONLY 03 Saab 93 TiD in NA.
Cant believe a bunch of these werent burnt down in testing for three years?? Did UL sign off on this?
A 6.2L engine pushing a 1000kg? car? What "people" exactly cant wait to waste their apparently not hard-earned $ on this? Does this sell in any numbers anywhere but here? Ridiculous. And NOT green by any stretch.
GMs idea of a joke? Give the UofM an obsolete, never certified here diesel from '02. And its a decade later? Shame GCC...you need to follow up on some of these lame "news" flashes. And few people need a 6.4L either. Does that engine sell anywhere but here?
Never have, never will "get" V6s. So much more complication and heat and space, for so little gain.
Right? Wont the Saudis sell you as many tankers of sour crude as you want tomorrow? Why does the US have any need for sandy, sour Canadian crude? Can you imagine what that stuff does to pipelines and compressor seals?
I guess we shouldnt hold much hope that a 1.9L Twin turbodiesel that produces 180hp w/400Nms @1800rpm, does 0-62 in 9secs and gets 4(55)-5.5(46) L/100km will arrive anytime soon?
Why are cops and cabs incapable of using 1.6L TURBODIESELS in this country?
Dont know if y'all get off the island much, but the rest of the world has communication trucks too, that apparently haul less crap around and consequently get by without a "nice V8" that gets 19mpg on the best day ever. "New GM" needs to be a helluva lot better than "old GM". This country, its businesses and governments, can NO longer afford 19mpg V8s, no matter how cheap and available the ALLEGED 100 year supply of NG is.
Thats all well and fine but...do these things really NEED 6L V8s? How many will ever need to go faster than 40mph? Or travel more than 10 miles from base?
Well thats great...except that SUVs are hardly GREEN, huge BOF space-wasters and are powered by the largest V8s and V6s possible with NO/little attempt by the industry to do otherwise.
This needs to be changed. Some kind of bond or tax needs to be levied to ensure oilcos just dont chase after relatively "easy" crude, while "unmarketable" gets flared because the payback isnt quite good enuf. This supply and demand stuff is complicated and producers werent born yesterday.
There will continue to be a "glut" of gasoline here. Consequently there will be price-pressure on the corn-ethanol "industry".
At least. But the BIG hang-up was getting the ULSD out of the refiners...it STILL not EN590, but its gettin there.
@Peter- Theres something to be said for the under 2-liter 5 cylinder. When you compare the torque, NVH, power-to-weight, eliminating balance shafts and chains, using timing chains, making a more robust, longer-lasting, reliable engine...but what manufacturer wants engines that easily go 300Kmiles? Thats a lot of folks NO longer with jobs.
Better thirty years late than never.
Kind of a NO-BRAINER. Now if only they could invent low sulpher bunker fuel.
Reduced complexity V6s is beyond oxymoronic. $4 fuel will require more 4 and 5 cylinders.
Is it sinking in YET that $4/gal is cheap/reasonable and WE can no longer afford vehicles that get 10 & 20mpg when they should be getting 30 & 40? Fuel taxes & license fees need to go up to pay for our militarism and crumbling infrastructure unless of course, the trickle-down guys can find another magic loophole.