Restaurant damaged by car.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Do escape lanes work?
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 10:38 On 19 May 2010 14:29:47 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >saying: > >>>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague" >>>> measure of efficiency. > >>>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss. > >> A dead technology for cars. > >Why? Why ask me? Ask the car manufacturers. B2003
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 10:45 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague" >>>>> measure of efficiency. >>>>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss. >>> A dead technology for cars. >>Why? > Why ask me? Because it's rather relevant to my point. > Ask the car manufacturers. No, I'm asking you, since you're the one who's claiming MPG and CO2 are the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear? (Oh, and btw - it's not a "dead technology" - it's making a bit of a comeback at the mo, but in a much reduced and significantly more complex form. Why?)
From: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 10:50 On 19 May 2010 14:45:03 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> A dead technology for cars. > >>>Why? > >> Why ask me? > >Because it's rather relevant to my point. Its still not efficient as a diesel engine. >> Ask the car manufacturers. > >No, I'm asking you, since you're the one who's claiming MPG and CO2 are Fine , it didn't play nicely with catalytic converters. >the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique So what other factors are there in efficiency? Do tell... >which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have >instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear? 50%? Rubbish. Maybe if you left the engine idling all day it might use 50% less than a normal petrol engine would but in normal running it wouldn't get close to that. B2003
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 10:53 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Ask the car manufacturers. >>No, I'm asking you, since you're the one who's claiming MPG and CO2 are > Fine , it didn't play nicely with catalytic converters. Is the wrong answer. >>the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique > So what other factors are there in efficiency? Do tell... Again? >>which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have >>instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear? > 50%? Rubbish. Maybe if you left the engine idling all day it might use > 50% less than a normal petrol engine would but in normal running it > wouldn't get close to that. You don't even understand the basic concept behind lean burn, do you?
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 10:54
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>which was ready for production nearly 20 years ago, and would have >>>instantly resulted in damn near 50% fuel savings, suddenly disappear? >> 50%? Rubbish. Maybe if you left the engine idling all day it might use >> 50% less than a normal petrol engine would but in normal running it >> wouldn't get close to that. > You don't even understand the basic concept behind lean burn, do you? (Yeh, yeh - my bad) Clue: Stochiometry. |