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 11:06 On 19 May 2010 14:53:43 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. No it isn't. >>>the only really important factors to "efficiency". Why did a technique > >> So what other factors are there in efficiency? Do tell... > >Again? Yeah , again. Because so far I haven't noticed you mention anything else that I'd say related to it. >> 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? For a given power output they have to use the same amount of fuel as a normal petrol engine. The laws of physics don't change inside their combustion chambers. B2003
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 11:11 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>You don't even understand the basic concept behind lean burn, do you? > For a given power output they have to use the same amount of fuel as a > normal petrol engine. The laws of physics don't change inside their > combustion chambers. Like I said... <sigh> Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1. For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1. Pro: Superb fuel economy, no loss of drivability. Con: NOx way, way higher.
From: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 11:32 On 19 May 2010 15:11:09 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Like I said... > ><sigh> >Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1. >For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1. >Pro: Superb fuel economy, no loss of drivability. >Con: NOx way, way higher. Its still not as efficient as a diesel of the same size because a diesel is essentially a lean burn engine anyway in the sence that its throttled by the amount of fuel injected , not by a throttle valve. B2003
From: Bod on 19 May 2010 11:40 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On 19 May 2010 15:11:09 GMT > Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Like I said... >> >> <sigh> >> Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1. >> For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1. >> Pro: Superb fuel economy, no loss of drivability. >> Con: NOx way, way higher. > > Its still not as efficient as a diesel of the same size because a diesel > is essentially a lean burn engine anyway in the sence that its throttled > by the amount of fuel injected , not by a throttle valve. > > B2003 > Aren't most petrol engines 'fuel injected'? Bod
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 11:51
Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Like I said... >>> >>> <sigh> >>> Stochiometry is normally 14.7:1. >>> For the Ricardo lean-burn, it was up around 21:1. Pro: Superb fuel >>> economy, no loss of drivability. Con: NOx way, way higher. >> Its still not as efficient as a diesel of the same size because a >> diesel is essentially a lean burn engine anyway in the sence that its >> throttled by the amount of fuel injected , not by a throttle valve. > Aren't most petrol engines 'fuel injected'? Yes. However, on a petrol engine, both fuel and air are controlled. A diesel is controlled only by varying the fuel - the air is unthrottled. Bloater seems to think this is somehow relevant to lean burn petrols. God knows why. He also seems to have redefined "efficient" again, since a Ricardo lean burn would have been way ahead of both contemporary diesels and modern common rails, if mpg is the only metric required. |