Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Ok, first of all, my LandCruiser, is a little unusual, in the fact that it is a Canadian Model. One of the things that makes it unusual, is the fact that Toyota imported diesels LandCruisers into Canada and not into the US.My LandCruiser is one of the Canadian diesels. IIRC, the 3B engine is a 2.4 (?) liter with a normal rating of 95 Hp. Unfortunately it starts having breathing problems over 3000ft, and due to altitude I only have about 85HpI could put a turbo on it, witch would give me around 125 Hp, but, the turbo kit would be $3,500.The 6 cyl 4.1 liter 1HZ engine, has about 155 Hp, and would cost ~$5,000.The cost of the 1HZ engine would be around the same as the cost of another diesel vehicle ( older none American diesels are scarce around here, and the rest are beat up for the price they are being asked ). Having talked to a local LandCruiser parts dealer, I could get $2,000 to $3,000 for my old engine, due to the demand of the classic 3B diesel engine, if I don't turn it into a stationary power generation system fueled by WVO. - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 18:28 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Hi Greg, now we're getting to something specific enough to work with. Just to start debate on something I think about everyday, when I get into my LandCruiser. I wonder how much extra fuel is being used, because of the small engine size, climbing all the hills around here. Still, I'm not knocking the 20 mpg I'm getting now, I just keep thinking it could get better with a bigger / more powerful engine. You also posted: I'm talking about a '85 Toyota LandCruiser BJ60 with a 3B engine. IIRC, the engine is runs around 2700-2800 rpm at 75 mph. At sea level the 3B is about 95 Hp, but, starts to have breathing problems at 3,000 ft, and I'm at 5500 ft and make trips to 10,000 - 12,000 ft. once a month or so. U.S. government figures (EPA at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm) show the city/hwy/combined figure for this vehicle as 11/13/12 mpg, and average user experience at 14.6 (one respondent). If you are getting 20 mpg, I'd say you are doing very well - fully 67% better than EPA rating. Especially good for a vehicle with a curb weight of 4200 pounds, and the aerodynamics of a parachute when you are travelling at speeds up to 75 mph. It would be one of my last choices for fuel economy for highway travel, but I'm sure it fits your needs. It appears the 4-cylinder engine was the only one available - there was nothing larger available from the manufacturer. I don't see that an automatic was available either. So picking another engine or transmission or both will be an adventure with little to go on for guidance. Are you certain that swapping engines will cost less than acquiring another (used) vehicle? I have been involved in a couple of engine swaps. Quality used engines don't come free around here. I was quoted over $3500 for a warranteed rebuilt engine a few years ago. That didn't include any labour or delivery. I bought a used truck here for $4500 two months ago, certified roadworthy. It's a pile of work to swap engines, requiring an engine hoist or equivalent for a couple of days. Do you have alternative wheels during the course of the transplant? You are not talking about a bolt-in, known compatible swap either. That is likely to present some additional research and issues. Is it worth making this investment in a 20-year-old chassis - to you? Finally, it is conventional wisdom that the bigger the engine, the lower the fuel economy. We went through this when looking at my wife's last vehicle purchase (2002 Saturn Vue). 4 cylinder 2.2 litre gets 21 mpg city, 6 cylinder 3.0 litre gets 19 mpg city. About 10% difference. Hwy numbers show a similar spread. We have the 4 cylinder, FWD. We find the performance more than adequate. Darryl McMahon - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:20 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? This is not what I understood as your intent from your original post, which seemed to me could be seeking a justification for using overpowered vehicles, and too generic to provide a substantive response that could reliably guide decisions on engine selection. -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
surprised GE hasn't got in on this, They own most of the patents for diesel electric power switching type technology, not sure if its all public domain yet, But it is the reason they are one of the largest diesel electric train builders. essentially they balance the output of the engine to match the power demand of the train at the engines most economical output. to get the train moving they need to fire high amperage to the wheels, at high speed they power needs to be high voltage lower amperage. http://www.getransportation.com/ there's a number of companies, starting to look at hybrid trucks (mainly diesel electric) for around town stuff, such as ups vans, and 3 ton delivery trucks, mainline trucks are currently better off with the standard system, as they aren't stuck up in built up areas. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be a cool challenge to build such a vehicle. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Weaver Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 12:13 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? I'm in. let's buy a wrecked 1st generation Prius and do it. And they're all gasoline powered! The only way to get a diesel electric hybrid in this country is to build it yourself. I swear, before, I'm dead, I'm going to build a solar-svo-diesel-electric-regenerative hybrid out of some old school bus or airport shuttle! TarynToo wrote: Hi Zeke, On Sep 15, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Zeke Yewdall wrote: ... Even the new hybrids get lousy gas mileage, because the hybrid design is optimized for adding power, not increasing mileage like the insight and prius were. ... Oh man, this just burns my a*s. I was so excited a few years ago when we started hearing the rumblings about hybrids from american automakers and lexus, et al. Then to discover that the electrics were being coupled to gas engines to add acceleration, not to improve overall performance and efficiency. It's disgusting to think that they're strapping a half ton of batteries and electrics to some mondo SUV, betting that the american buyer just wants another second shaved off the 1/4 mile times. Sometimes I just hate the priorities of my countrymen. And they're all gasoline powered! The only way to get a diesel electric hybrid in this country is to build it yourself. I swear, before, I'm dead, I'm going to build a solar-svo-diesel-electric-regenerative hybrid out of some old school bus or airport shuttle! Taryn http://ornae.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Great thread, wonderful read. I can't wait to add to it. But reading has used all my time this morning. I love this group. Cheers, Brian ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
This is my area of expertise... If you want to swap an engine, first be sure that you really want to. The reason is there are "consecuences" to a swap. You will lose in one area and gain in another or you may lose all together. The trick is finding an engine the will "fit" the car. Most cars are designed around the person these days and cars of old were designed around the motor. What you need to know is the weight the chasis can handle, the handling characteristics (suspension designed to handle), and the gearing/rpm ratio. Lets say you want to make your 2002 TDI pull a trailer weighing 2tons. You want to swap your little squirrel for a bear and put a 6.2L cummins diesel in it. First, will it fit? Second, is it too heavy?Third, is it practical? Will this 6.2L be as versitle as the 1.9L? If I want to drive to the grocery store just for groceries later on, will it be worth having the "bear". You will also have to worry about the transmission. Will I need to change the transmission as well? Now you may have extra cost that you really don't need. Plus, the weekend engine swap just turned into a month long project. I learned this the hard way. I wanted to swap my Vanagon engine with a Passat VR6. Love my van but not to fond of the low power engine. It is a good swap but I will sacrifice space, having to raise the deck lid up 3 inches and I will no longer be able to use the foldout bed. The weight changes, meaning I will have to beef up the suspension in the rear. The good part is that I am able to get an adapter plate for the transmission and use the same gearing. If I do this, I will be gaining 110 hp and 10 more mpg in the city. The thing that is stopping me now is the price, over $2000. Hope this helps with your decision. TKMike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a chipped and modified 2002 TDI. It's really two cars. If I shift before about 1800 rpm it gets 44-50 mpg, if I stomp itand race around it's like a VR6. It flies, but the mileage drops to high 30's. It easily goes 100 mph+.Greg and April wrote:I don't think that the transmission was optimized for fast acceleration,that little 4 banger diesel with only about 85 Hp is only capable of somuch. The transmission is geared so low, that it doesn't take any effortto start from a dead stop in 2nd gear if necessary.Greg H.- Original Message - From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <BIOFUEL@SUSTAINABLELISTS.ORG>Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 14:55Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? H. Are you sure you want to get that applied? The academics willbe appalled. :)I am doing that right now with a VW rabbit, and I have settled on aSVO engine, vs an electric motor (with renewable energy to charge thebatteries). The size and design of the engine is more dictacted bywhat is available, rather than what would be ideal. Same with thetransmission. Luckily there are different transmission options thatfit this vehical, so I can choose one which will be more efficientwith the diesel engine than the stock transmission which was optimizedfor fast acceleration. This will not be the ideal solution basedsoley on engineering -- but it the one that is the best I can come upnow with based on the constraints of finances, DOT regulations, fuelavailability and characteristics, and a commute with lots of elevationchangeOn 9/15/05, Greg and April <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhaps the replacing thetransmission as well?The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power.Greg H. Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
I have a chipped and modified 2002 TDI. It's really two cars. If I shift before about 1800 rpm it gets 44-50 mpg, if I stomp it and race around it's like a VR6. It flies, but the mileage drops to high 30's. It easily goes 100 mph+. Greg and April wrote: I don't think that the transmission was optimized for fast acceleration, that little 4 banger diesel with only about 85 Hp is only capable of so much.The transmission is geared so low, that it doesn't take any effort to start from a dead stop in 2nd gear if necessary. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 14:55 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? H. Are you sure you want to get that applied? The academics will be appalled. :) I am doing that right now with a VW rabbit, and I have settled on a SVO engine, vs an electric motor (with renewable energy to charge the batteries). The size and design of the engine is more dictacted by what is available, rather than what would be ideal. Same with the transmission. Luckily there are different transmission options that fit this vehical, so I can choose one which will be more efficient with the diesel engine than the stock transmission which was optimized for fast acceleration. This will not be the ideal solution based soley on engineering -- but it the one that is the best I can come up now with based on the constraints of finances, DOT regulations, fuel availability and characteristics, and a commute with lots of elevation change On 9/15/05, Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhaps the replacing the transmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 13:07 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? I knew it wouldn't take long for these (good) questions to come up. I'm just concerned that we don't get too hung up on cars designed for maximum efficiency vs maximum power. Some of the methods used to get fuel and air to high horsepower engines resemble toilet bowls and a lot of that fuel ends up not getting burned. The biggest question I have is; If you are including the vehicle as a whole, weight has to be part of the discussion unless (perhaps) if you assume regenerative breaking on all cars. It's tough to ignore the transformation of energy into heat at the brakes. Mike Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we comparing exactly the same weight/aerodynamics/rolling resistance car here, with just different powered engines? Or complete different cars like a metro, corolla, and a ferarri. I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. There is also the human factor, that a more powerful car will entice lead footedness and speeding, and thus get worse gas mileage than an underpowered car that you just accept your slowness ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
I'm in. let's buy a wrecked 1st generation Prius and do it. And they're all gasoline powered! The only way to get a diesel electric hybrid in this country is to build it yourself. I swear, before, I'm dead, I'm going to build a solar-svo-diesel-electric-regenerative hybrid out of some old school bus or airport shuttle! TarynToo wrote: Hi Zeke, On Sep 15, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Zeke Yewdall wrote: ... Even the new hybrids get lousy gas mileage, because the hybrid design is optimized for adding power, not increasing mileage like the insight and prius were. ... Oh man, this just burns my a*s. I was so excited a few years ago when we started hearing the rumblings about hybrids from american automakers and lexus, et al. Then to discover that the electrics were being coupled to gas engines to add acceleration, not to improve overall performance and efficiency. It's disgusting to think that they're strapping a half ton of batteries and electrics to some mondo SUV, betting that the american buyer just wants another second shaved off the 1/4 mile times. Sometimes I just hate the priorities of my countrymen. And they're all gasoline powered! The only way to get a diesel electric hybrid in this country is to build it yourself. I swear, before, I'm dead, I'm going to build a solar-svo-diesel-electric-regenerative hybrid out of some old school bus or airport shuttle! Taryn http://ornae.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Just to start debate on something I think about everyday, when I get into my LandCruiser. I wonder how much extra fuel is being used, because of the small engine size, climbing all the hills around here. Still, I'm not knocking the 20 mpg I'm getting now, I just keep thinking it could get better with a bigger / more powerful engine. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:20 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? This is not what I understood as your intent from your original post, which seemed to me could be seeking a justification for using overpowered vehicles, and too generic to provide a substantive response that could reliably guide decisions on engine selection. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Hello David, Zeke. The problem with diesel engines is that it until now has been difficult to mix the fuel and the air into a homogenous mixture. Gasoline (or even ethanol that matter )are much more voilate and mixes more easily with air. The black diesel smoke occurs when there is local oxygen shortage in the cylinder. As for acceleration and increased load conditions, the pump is supplying fuel in order to compensate for the higher demand for extra fuel. The main idea behind the high pressure common rail systems is that the injection time is much more rapid and that smaller drops of the fuel is created, which brings two advantages: The extra time surplus allows the fuel to mix better with the air, The smaller fuel drops also mixes more easily with the air. So, the problem with slow and black smoking diesels is practically gone with the high pressure injection systems Jan Warnqvist AGERATEC AB - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Zeke Yewdall wrote: One major way acceleration hurts is that engines are set to richen the mixture during hard acceleration in order to prevent detonation (knocking, pinging) at high cylinder pressures. Does this apply to diesel engines which almost always operate with excess oxygen? Not if the diesel is setup properly. When the black smoke (soot) starts coming out it's because there's not enough oxygen for all the fuel. Short of that you're all set. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
The stock transmission was a close ratio 5 speed, which ends up doing about 4k rpm at 70mph. The only way I can explain this low gearing is 1) it was designed for towing (not likely in a rabbit) 2) it was designed to reduce the space between gearing, for faster accelleration 3) the gas engine is so torqless that it only has power a very high rpms (I think it is tuned for power between 4 and 5k. I suspect a combination of 2 and 3. When I switch to the diesel engine, it can only rev to about 4.5k, and is most fuel efficient at 2k. The transmission designed to go with the diesel engine has much higher gearing -- more like 2,800rpm at 70mph in 5th gear. Of course this also has wider gaps between the gears, which is not as good with a diesel that has a narrower power band than a gas engine. So I suppose it depends somewhat one whether you are spending alot of time as sustained highway driving, or more around town driving. The VW NA diesel is actually only 55 HP... I don't think that the transmission was optimized for fast acceleration, that little 4 banger diesel with only about 85 Hp is only capable of so much.The transmission is geared so low, that it doesn't take any effort to start from a dead stop in 2nd gear if necessary. Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Apparently not. I was referring to a VW GTI in an earlier post and didn't realize you weren't. Sorry. Zeke On 9/16/05, Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ??? Are we talking about the same type of vehicle? I'm talking about a '85 Toyota LandCruiser BJ60 with a 3B engine. IIRC, the engine is runs around 2700-2800 rpm at 75 mph. At sea level the 3B is about 95 Hp, but, starts to have breathing problems at 3,000 ft, and I'm at 5500 ft and make trips to 10,000 - 12,000 ft. once a month or so. Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
The 4 banger is original equipment. The trannie is a manual 5 sp. Greg H. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 14:51 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? My advice from a practical standpoint is to put one of whatever was in it back in. If you put a 4 cylinder in place of a 6, or a 6 in place of an 8 everything will be different, assuming something made within the last 20 years. The computer hookup and wiring harness will be all different, exhaust will be custome, fuel delivery will be different. If your time is worth anything to you I doubt you'd ever make it back on a $$ basis for the fuel saved. The transmission might be a slighly different proposition. Gearing it so the engine RPM is slower will probably raise your mileage a little, as long as you're not slowing the engine down into a less efficient mode. There's no sure way to tell without looking at the same kind of car with the different options. A manual transmission should give you a little better mileage as well, but if you've got an automatic now it would seem like a nightmare to setup the clutch and shifting linkage so that it works well. My thoughts, worth at least what you paid for them:) ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
If your time is worth anything to you I doubt you'd ever make it back on a $$ basis for the fuel saved. I didn't think that this was about saving money. I thought it was about reducing carbon emissions or something like that.For me the most cost effective thing certainly wasn't parking my already paid for gasoline car that gets 27mpg, and buying a truck that only gets 25mpg and starting to buy biodiesel at $3/gallon. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
??? Are we talking about the same type of vehicle? I'm talking about a '85 Toyota LandCruiser BJ60 with a 3B engine. IIRC, the engine is runs around 2700-2800 rpm at 75 mph. At sea level the 3B is about 95 Hp, but, starts to have breathing problems at 3,000 ft, and I'm at 5500 ft and make trips to 10,000 - 12,000 ft. once a month or so. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:25 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? The stock transmission was a close ratio 5 speed, which ends up doing about 4k rpm at 70mph. The only way I can explain this low gearing is 1) it was designed for towing (not likely in a rabbit) 2) it was designed to reduce the space between gearing, for faster accelleration 3) the gas engine is so torqless that it only has power a very high rpms (I think it is tuned for power between 4 and 5k. I suspect a combination of 2 and 3. When I switch to the diesel engine, it can only rev to about 4.5k, and is most fuel efficient at 2k. The transmission designed to go with the diesel engine has much higher gearing -- more like 2,800rpm at 70mph in 5th gear. Of course this also has wider gaps between the gears, which is not as good with a diesel that has a narrower power band than a gas engine. So I suppose it depends somewhat one whether you are spending alot of time as sustained highway driving, or more around town driving. The VW NA diesel is actually only 55 HP... I don't think that the transmission was optimized for fast acceleration, that little 4 banger diesel with only about 85 Hp is only capable of so much.The transmission is geared so low, that it doesn't take any effort to start from a dead stop in 2nd gear if necessary. Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
I agree with Taryn. I am to the point where I am going to be making my own vehicles. The automotive industry is regressing instead of progressing in the ecological responsibility. However, people want better, more attractive, faster "luxury" cars, so the industry is catering to this just to make more money. Everyone wants money and don't care about the environment. I have been studying electronics, fuels, and aerodynamics just to find a way to make a car "self-sustaining". Never refuel {won't need fuel}. I am trying to get myself to self-sustainablility as well. Grow my own food and produce my own power, etc.
Wish me luck!
TKTarynToo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Zeke,On Sep 15, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Zeke Yewdall wrote: ... Even the new hybrids get lousy gas mileage, because the hybrid design is optimized for adding power, not increasing mileage like the insight and prius were. ...Oh man, this just burns my a*s. I was so excited a few years ago when we started hearing the rumblings about hybrids from american automakers and lexus, et al. Then to discover that the electrics were being coupled to gas engines to add acceleration, not to improve overall performance and efficiency. It's disgusting to think that they're strapping a half ton of batteries and electrics to some mondo SUV, betting that the american buyer just wants another second shaved off the 1/4 mile times. Sometimes I just hate the priorities of my countrymen.And they're all gasoline powered!
The only way to get a diesel electric hybrid in this country is to build it yourself. I swear, before, I'm dead, I'm going to build a solar-svo-diesel-electric-regenerative hybrid out of some old school bus or airport shuttle!Tarynhttp://ornae.com/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
I would be inclined to think that turbocharging, or possibly supercharging the engine would be a better alternative. Of course you will have to fabricate all of the parts, and I would wager that the injector pump won't be able to deliver the extra fuel that significant boost would require for full power. Where I live in SW Montana,USA, my 1994 IDI Diesel Ford truck (not my daily driver) could use a wastgated turbocharger just so that I could reach sea level power. My home is at 6400 feet, and as such, my power is down about 22 percent right from the get go. If I could fund a new turbocharger and exhaust system, and get boost to 20 pounds absolute manifold pressure, performance would increase, and less fuel would leave the tailpipe as black smoke. As an aside, I have noticed that when I run my truck on B-20 commercial fuel, when it smokes, the smoke is gray, rather than black, which I take to be a GOOD THING. Thanks for listening, Chuck ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
No problem. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:49 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Apparently not. I was referring to a VW GTI in an earlier post and didn't realize you weren't. Sorry. Zeke On 9/16/05, Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ??? Are we talking about the same type of vehicle? I'm talking about a '85 Toyota LandCruiser BJ60 with a 3B engine. IIRC, the engine is runs around 2700-2800 rpm at 75 mph. At sea level the 3B is about 95 Hp, but, starts to have breathing problems at 3,000 ft, and I'm at 5500 ft and make trips to 10,000 - 12,000 ft. once a month or so. Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Hi Greg, now we're getting to something specific enough to work with. Just to start debate on something I think about everyday, when I get into my LandCruiser. I wonder how much extra fuel is being used, because of the small engine size, climbing all the hills around here. Still, I'm not knocking the 20 mpg I'm getting now, I just keep thinking it could get better with a bigger / more powerful engine. You also posted: I'm talking about a '85 Toyota LandCruiser BJ60 with a 3B engine. IIRC, the engine is runs around 2700-2800 rpm at 75 mph. At sea level the 3B is about 95 Hp, but, starts to have breathing problems at 3,000 ft, and I'm at 5500 ft and make trips to 10,000 - 12,000 ft. once a month or so. U.S. government figures (EPA at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm) show the city/hwy/combined figure for this vehicle as 11/13/12 mpg, and average user experience at 14.6 (one respondent). If you are getting 20 mpg, I'd say you are doing very well - fully 67% better than EPA rating. Especially good for a vehicle with a curb weight of 4200 pounds, and the aerodynamics of a parachute when you are travelling at speeds up to 75 mph. It would be one of my last choices for fuel economy for highway travel, but I'm sure it fits your needs. It appears the 4-cylinder engine was the only one available - there was nothing larger available from the manufacturer. I don't see that an automatic was available either. So picking another engine or transmission or both will be an adventure with little to go on for guidance. Are you certain that swapping engines will cost less than acquiring another (used) vehicle? I have been involved in a couple of engine swaps. Quality used engines don't come free around here. I was quoted over $3500 for a warranteed rebuilt engine a few years ago. That didn't include any labour or delivery. I bought a used truck here for $4500 two months ago, certified roadworthy. It's a pile of work to swap engines, requiring an engine hoist or equivalent for a couple of days. Do you have alternative wheels during the course of the transplant? You are not talking about a bolt-in, known compatible swap either. That is likely to present some additional research and issues. Is it worth making this investment in a 20-year-old chassis - to you? Finally, it is conventional wisdom that the bigger the engine, the lower the fuel economy. We went through this when looking at my wife's last vehicle purchase (2002 Saturn Vue). 4 cylinder 2.2 litre gets 21 mpg city, 6 cylinder 3.0 litre gets 19 mpg city. About 10% difference. Hwy numbers show a similar spread. We have the 4 cylinder, FWD. We find the performance more than adequate. Darryl McMahon - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:20 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? This is not what I understood as your intent from your original post, which seemed to me could be seeking a justification for using overpowered vehicles, and too generic to provide a substantive response that could reliably guide decisions on engine selection. -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Chuck, FYI, If you look back in the archives on this thread (Hurley, Edward R Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:56:50 -0700)you will see what I did to make my 3/4 ton Dodge 4X4 move from ~17 mpg @ 70 mph to ~23 mpg @ the same speed. It included a gear vendor out-drive and a mild banks kit. We took a trip the past July through northern Arizona / New Mexico, southern Colorado / Utah / Nevada with the camper on the truck (camper has a GVW of about 2200 lbs) and averaged 21 mpg. for the whole trip. This included driving at high altitudes (many Mountains still had snow on them), head winds, wind resistance caused by the camper, etc. What I learned was to match the gearing with the performance that the engine can provide and you will increase both overall mpg's and performance. Ed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Chuck McGuire Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:45 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? I would be inclined to think that turbocharging, or possibly supercharging the engine would be a better alternative. Of course you will have to fabricate all of the parts, and I would wager that the injector pump won't be able to deliver the extra fuel that significant boost would require for full power. Where I live in SW Montana,USA, my 1994 IDI Diesel Ford truck (not my daily driver) could use a wastgated turbocharger just so that I could reach sea level power. My home is at 6400 feet, and as such, my power is down about 22 percent right from the get go. If I could fund a new turbocharger and exhaust system, and get boost to 20 pounds absolute manifold pressure, performance would increase, and less fuel would leave the tailpipe as black smoke. As an aside, I have noticed that when I run my truck on B-20 commercial fuel, when it smokes, the smoke is gray, rather than black, which I take to be a GOOD THING. Thanks for listening, Chuck ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or g Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
One major way acceleration hurts is that engines are set to richen the mixture during hard acceleration in order to prevent detonation (knocking, pinging) at high cylinder pressures. Also, carburated engines richen the mixture to compensate for fuel vapour condensing on the intake manifold walls as manifold pressure increases when the throttle is opened. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Joe Street wrote: Zeke Yewdall wrote: Snip I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. If you accelerate you are doing work. If you accelerate slowly you use less fuel per unit time but for a longer time. If you use high acceleration you use more fuel per time but for a shorter time. However definitely the frictional losses are higher when the engine is asked to produce high torque, thus dropping the efficiency. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. The engine turning at higher rpm is not necessarily using more fuel. It depends on the power the engine is producing and other factors including thermal efficiency, bearing friction etc. There are a family of curves for the engine showing torque vs rpm, power vs rpm and fuel consumption vs rpm at a given load. For instance years ago one of the bikes I used to ride got better fuel economy on the highway by driving in 4th gear at higher rpm than in 5th gear at a lower rpm for the same highway speed. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Charles Lindberg did some of this training for P-38 pilots in the Pacific. For gasoline engines, high BMEP is good as long as you stay below the range where you have to richen the mixture to avoid detonation. Operation at lean mixtures is good as long as combustion is fast enough so that you can exploit nearly all of the expansion ratio. Too lean and you burn the valves, because combustion slows down and you can't extract enough energy from the combustion gases. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, David Miller wrote: [snip] What I found fascinating when studying piston engines is that it all boils down to piston speed and brake mean effective pressure. There would seem to be no logical way to compare a chainsaw engine and a marine diesel, but their piston speeds and BMEP's are generally within a factor of 2 of each other. From an engineering perspective - clean sheet of paper - you increase efficiency by increasing BMEP. That gets more HP per cubic inch displacement, unit weight of engine, whatever measure you want - without increasing friction. Someone - James Dolittle? made this famous during world war II. They had adjustable propellers on long range bombers, and they didn't have enough range to bomb some pacific islands. Jamie? Jimmy? showed them they could change the propeller settings and lug the engines down. Lowering the RPM on the engines (and increasing the BMEP of the engine) increased efficiency enough they could reach the island they wanted to bomb. Apologies to all for mangling the story - I forget the islands name but took the fuel efficiency lesson away. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
One major way acceleration hurts is that engines are set to richen the mixture during hard acceleration in order to prevent detonation (knocking, pinging) at high cylinder pressures. Does this apply to diesel engines which almost always operate with excess oxygen? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhapsthe replacing thetransmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 13:07 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? I knew it wouldn't take long for these (good) questions to come up. I'm just concerned that we don't get too hung up on cars designed for maximum efficiencyvs maximum power. Some of the methods used to get fuel and air to high horsepower engines resemble toilet bowls and a lot of that fuel ends up not getting burned. The biggest question I have is; If you are including the vehicle as a whole, weight has to be part of the discussion unless (perhaps) if you assume regenerative breaking on all cars. It's tough to ignore the transformation of energy into heat at the brakes. MikeZeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we comparing exactly the same weight/aerodynamics/rollingresistance car here, with just different powered engines? Or completedifferent cars like a metro, corolla, and a ferarri.I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (butsmaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get bettermileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fueldumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because oflow part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always tryingfutiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixedratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at ahigher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas ahigher power engine could downshift sooner.There is also the human factor, that a more powerful car will enticelead footedness and speeding, and thus get worse gas mileage than anunderpowered car that you just accept your slowness ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
H. Are you sure you want to get that applied? The academics will be appalled. :) I am doing that right now with a VW rabbit, and I have settled on a SVO engine, vs an electric motor (with renewable energy to charge the batteries). The size and design of the engine is more dictacted by what is available, rather than what would be ideal. Same with the transmission. Luckily there are different transmission options that fit this vehical, so I can choose one which will be more efficient with the diesel engine than the stock transmission which was optimized for fast acceleration. This will not be the ideal solution based soley on engineering -- but it the one that is the best I can come up now with based on the constraints of finances, DOT regulations, fuel availability and characteristics, and a commute with lots of elevation change On 9/15/05, Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhaps the replacing the transmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 13:07 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? I knew it wouldn't take long for these (good) questions to come up. I'm just concerned that we don't get too hung up on cars designed for maximum efficiency vs maximum power. Some of the methods used to get fuel and air to high horsepower engines resemble toilet bowls and a lot of that fuel ends up not getting burned. The biggest question I have is; If you are including the vehicle as a whole, weight has to be part of the discussion unless (perhaps) if you assume regenerative breaking on all cars. It's tough to ignore the transformation of energy into heat at the brakes. Mike Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we comparing exactly the same weight/aerodynamics/rolling resistance car here, with just different powered engines? Or complete different cars like a metro, corolla, and a ferarri. I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. There is also the human factor, that a more powerful car will entice lead footedness and speeding, and thus get worse gas mileage than an underpowered car that you just accept your slowness ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Very interesting discussion here. How many people here are swapping engines? I was giving some thought to removing the 351 ci gasaholic in my Ford f150 and replacing it with a diesel engine. Years ago (before I saw the advantage of diesel) I pulled a engine from my Mercedes 240d and did major mods to convert it to gas fuel injected V6. Looking for more projects. right??? Brian Rodgers ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Too underpowered and the vehicle will be too slow to overtake and pass other vehicles. KirkGreg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhapsthe replacing thetransmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. Greg H. Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Uh. Passing other vehicles? My first car was an old subaru that took several miles to hit 70mph on the highway. I don't think I'll be disapointed by a diesel rabbit. But seriously, if the average automobile engine nowadays has 40% more power than it needs for cruising at the speed limit (my estimate), just for passing and accelerating, how much gas are we wasting just because we are obsessed with the bigger better syndrome. It's pretty amazing what the new diesel cars can do, while still getting 50mpg, compared to the old diesel cars -- double or triple the power. But imagine if they had focussed on increasing the gas mileage instead of just increasing the power for the last 15 years. The Lupo TDI is a possible example of this. Even the new hybrids get lousy gas mileage, because the hybrid design is optimized for adding power, not increasing mileage like the insight and prius were. As a culture, we'd be better off if we'd stop being so impatient with everything anyway and just relax. Not only would we use less gas, but maybe have less hypertension and heart disease too. I admit that there is a legitimate safety arguement that having some reserve power is good. But that arguement can rapidly turn into an arms race to the bottom (e.g. SUV's) if we aren't careful. Plus, it's so tempting to speed if your car has the power to do so. Which probably wipes out the safety advantage of having reserve power, and uses even more gas. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
No, diesels are not susceptible to detonation which is a non-applicable concept in its pure form. You want a diesel to burn the fuel wherever the fuel is, as soon as it is injected. The problem is to get it to burn fast enough. Diesels do generate smoke from incomplete combustion as the air excess grows less. I imagine that a fair amount of smoke can be produced on without affecting efficiency much - but I don't *know*. All other things being equal, the leaner the mixture, the more efficient. The ideal is air standard efficiency, heat with no fuel. In practice a diesel engine has to be designed for reliability at a certain power density/ mixture strength/BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) level, and if you go too much below this BMEP level, the mass of the moving engine components and the areas subject to friction, required by the designed maximum power, will start to impose excessive losses. The friction of the piston rings during compression and expansion even without combustion pressures, is also a source of loss, and there are other motoring (zero combustion operation as in turning over the engine with outside power) losses. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Zeke Yewdall wrote: One major way acceleration hurts is that engines are set to richen the mixture during hard acceleration in order to prevent detonation (knocking, pinging) at high cylinder pressures. Does this apply to diesel engines which almost always operate with excess oxygen? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Hi Zeke, On Sep 15, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Zeke Yewdall wrote: ... Even the new hybrids get lousy gas mileage, because the hybrid design is optimized for adding power, not increasing mileage like the insight and prius were. ... Oh man, this just burns my a*s. I was so excited a few years ago when we started hearing the rumblings about hybrids from american automakers and lexus, et al. Then to discover that the electrics were being coupled to gas engines to add acceleration, not to improve overall performance and efficiency. It's disgusting to think that they're strapping a half ton of batteries and electrics to some mondo SUV, betting that the american buyer just wants another second shaved off the 1/4 mile times. Sometimes I just hate the priorities of my countrymen. And they're all gasoline powered! The only way to get a diesel electric hybrid in this country is to build it yourself. I swear, before, I'm dead, I'm going to build a solar-svo-diesel-electric-regenerative hybrid out of some old school bus or airport shuttle! Taryn http://ornae.com/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
True. OTOH, if the job must be done, then you have to choose the best tool available from the limited selection that is available. Agreed. And that was my point. Pick the (most) right tool for the job. That is why you bother to learn what the best alternative is. If one size of engine is inefficient, replacing it with a more efficient engine is more cost effective than replacing the entire vehicle. This is not what I understood as your intent from your original post, which seemed to me could be seeking a justification for using overpowered vehicles, and too generic to provide a substantive response that could reliably guide decisions on engine selection. True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H. - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:40 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Why bother? The wrong tool for the job is the wrong tool for the job. If you want to split a diamond, neither a sledge hammer nor a feather duster will work. Instead of fostering a debate about which of two wrong answers is less wrong, let's put our energies into finding correct answers, and implementing them. If all goes according to plan today, the pickup truck I acquired at the end of June will get its first tankful of B20. It's been a long road, but even slow progress is still progress. Darryl McMahon ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ rom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 15 16:32:57 2005 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from server6.emwd.com (server6.emwd.com [70.85.95.186]) by mailbox1.igs.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j8FKWtu7063109 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:32:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=server6.emwd.com) by server6.emwd.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EG0NI-0003KX-N1; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:30:29 -0400 Received: from [209.225.28.156] (helo=mxsf32.cluster1.charter.net) by server6.emwd.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EFzy3-0002Db-UE for Biofuel@sustainablelists.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:04:32 -0400 Received: from mxip18a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip18a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.148]) by mxsf32.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8FK4FWl014314 for Biofuel@sustainablelists.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:04:16 -0400 Received: from 66-214-231-79.dhcp.lnbh.ca.charter.com (HELO [192.168.0.33]) (66.214.231.79) by mxip18a.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2005 16:04:16 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i=3.97,114,1125892800; d=scan'208; a=1564574096:sNHT18410424 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:15:00 -0700 From: John Donahue [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org X-EMWD-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details, Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details X-EMWD-MailScanner-SpamCheck: , X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:29:32 -0400 Subject: [Biofuel] Fuel can be made from dead cats X-BeenThere: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org List-Id: biofuel_sustainablelists.org.sustainablelists.org List-Unsubscribe: http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Archive: http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org List-Post: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-EMWD-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-EMWD-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server6.emwd.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - econogics.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - sustainablelists.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Greg and April wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhaps the replacing the transmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. My advice from a practical standpoint is to put one of whatever was in it back in. If you put a 4 cylinder in place of a 6, or a 6 in place of an 8 everything will be different, assuming something made within the last 20 years. The computer hookup and wiring harness will be all different, exhaust will be custome, fuel delivery will be different. If your time is worth anything to you I doubt you'd ever make it back on a $$ basis for the fuel saved. The transmission might be a slighly different proposition. Gearing it so the engine RPM is slower will probably raise your mileage a little, as long as you're not slowing the engine down into a less efficient mode. There's no sure way to tell without looking at the same kind of car with the different options. A manual transmission should give you a little better mileage as well, but if you've got an automatic now it would seem like a nightmare to setup the clutch and shifting linkage so that it works well. My thoughts, worth at least what you paid for them:) --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
With a GVWR of 5360, an 80-85 HP 4 banger, grades of up to 8% and stop signs stop lights that stop you in the middle of the hill, going to a smaller engine is not what I have in mind. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Kirk McLoren To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 15:35 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Too underpowered and the vehicle will be too slow to overtake and pass other vehicles. KirkGreg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhapsthe replacing thetransmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. Greg H. Yahoo! for GoodClick here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Zeke Yewdall wrote: One major way acceleration hurts is that engines are set to richen the mixture during hard acceleration in order to prevent detonation (knocking, pinging) at high cylinder pressures. Does this apply to diesel engines which almost always operate with excess oxygen? Not if the diesel is setup properly. When the black smoke (soot) starts coming out it's because there's not enough oxygen for all the fuel. Short of that you're all set. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Bingo! Greg H. - Original Message - From: Brian Rodgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 15:27 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Very interesting discussion here. How many people here are swapping engines? I was giving some thought to removing the 351 ci gasaholic in my Ford f150 and replacing it with a diesel engine. Years ago (before I saw the advantage of diesel) I pulled a engine from my Mercedes 240d and did major mods to convert it to gas fuel injected V6. Looking for more projects. right??? Brian Rodgers ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
I don't think that the transmission was optimized for fast acceleration, that little 4 banger diesel with only about 85 Hp is only capable of so much.The transmission is geared so low, that it doesn't take any effort to start from a dead stop in 2nd gear if necessary. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 14:55 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? H. Are you sure you want to get that applied? The academics will be appalled. :) I am doing that right now with a VW rabbit, and I have settled on a SVO engine, vs an electric motor (with renewable energy to charge the batteries). The size and design of the engine is more dictacted by what is available, rather than what would be ideal. Same with the transmission. Luckily there are different transmission options that fit this vehical, so I can choose one which will be more efficient with the diesel engine than the stock transmission which was optimized for fast acceleration. This will not be the ideal solution based soley on engineering -- but it the one that is the best I can come up now with based on the constraints of finances, DOT regulations, fuel availability and characteristics, and a commute with lots of elevation change On 9/15/05, Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, given the same vehicle ( and about the same weight ), how does one go about picking a replacement engine and perhaps the replacing the transmission as well? The reason I ask, is that I would like to replace the engine I have with a better engine, but, I don't want to over power. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 13:07 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? I knew it wouldn't take long for these (good) questions to come up. I'm just concerned that we don't get too hung up on cars designed for maximum efficiency vs maximum power. Some of the methods used to get fuel and air to high horsepower engines resemble toilet bowls and a lot of that fuel ends up not getting burned. The biggest question I have is; If you are including the vehicle as a whole, weight has to be part of the discussion unless (perhaps) if you assume regenerative breaking on all cars. It's tough to ignore the transformation of energy into heat at the brakes. Mike Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we comparing exactly the same weight/aerodynamics/rolling resistance car here, with just different powered engines? Or complete different cars like a metro, corolla, and a ferarri. I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. There is also the human factor, that a more powerful car will entice lead footedness and speeding, and thus get worse gas mileage than an underpowered car that you just accept your slowness ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
I know what you are talking about. At 55 mph ( on the flats, no headwind, no cargo other than the spare tire, and 1 passenger ), I have a little reserve.At 65 mph I have almost none. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 15:59 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Uh. Passing other vehicles? My first car was an old subaru that took several miles to hit 70mph on the highway. I don't think I'll be disapointed by a diesel rabbit. SNIP I admit that there is a legitimate safety arguement that having some reserve power is good. But that arguement can rapidly turn into an arms race to the bottom (e.g. SUV's) if we aren't careful. Plus, it's so tempting to speed if your car has the power to do so. Which probably wipes out the safety advantage of having reserve power, and uses even more gas. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
It's not Dolittle, or bombers that I know of, but I do know that Charles A. Lindbergh, taught P-38 pilots how to get the best of the long range capabilities of the P-38's in the pacific during the war. I find it interesting, and to the best of my knowledge, fuel economy is a concern of the list. Greg H. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 14:05 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? Joe Street wrote: SNIP Someone - James Dolittle? made this famous during world war II. They had adjustable propellers on long range bombers, and they didn't have enough range to bomb some pacific islands. Jamie? Jimmy? showed them they could change the propeller settings and lug the engines down. Lowering the RPM on the engines (and increasing the BMEP of the engine) increased efficiency enough they could reach the island they wanted to bomb. Apologies to all for mangling the story - I forget the islands name but took the fuel efficiency lesson away. Hope someone finds it interesting; we've wandered a long ways away from biodiesel. I'll take it offline if anyone wants to talk more about it. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Debatable statement?
True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] posited: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Why bother? The wrong tool for the job is the wrong tool for the job. If you want to split a diamond, neither a sledge hammer nor a feather duster will work. Instead of fostering a debate about which of two wrong answers is less wrong, let's put our energies into finding correct answers, and implementing them. If all goes according to plan today, the pickup truck I acquired at the end of June will get its first tankful of B20. It's been a long road, but even slow progress is still progress. Darryl McMahon -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
The fuel efficiency of an engine is not a constant. At high throttle settings economy is sacrificed for power. ie the grams of fuel used per horsepower hour increases. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. At low loads the fixed burden of the engine becomes significant. Most diesels look best around 70% of design max. Kirk Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H. ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Greg H. wrote:True or FalseUnderpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not?All US models: 2000 Geo/Chevy Metro (1.3L 3cyl gasoline, 5 Spd Manual) EPA MPG: City 39 Highway 46 2000 Ferrari 550 (5.5L V-12 gasoline, 6 Spd Manual) EPA MPG: City 8 Highway 10 2000 Toyota Corolla (1.8L 4cyl gasoline, 5 Spd Manual) EPA MPG: City 31 Highway 38 The Geo is the definition of under-powered, but effecient (just don't run into anything)...you could gun it at every start and still get ~40 MPG. The ferrari is unbelievably over-powered.. IMHO the Toyota is just about right. Am I understanding your question correctly? -- Thanks,PaulHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Kirk McLoren wrote: snip. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. snip And there are such a transmission systems already Check out the http://www.torotrak.com/howitworks.html Dont miss the cool flash demo http://www.torotrak.com/media/virtualdrive.swf -- Tomas Juknevicius ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Here's a discussion thread with links to graphs of the gm/kWh for a few diesel engines. It changes based both on engine RPM and engine throttle position. The VW TDI is one of the best small engines from what I understand, peaking at under 200 grams/kWh. http://www.vwdiesel.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=649start=13 Zeke On 9/13/05, Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fuel efficiency of an engine is not a constant. At high throttle settings economy is sacrificed for power. ie the grams of fuel used per horsepower hour increases. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. At low loads the fixed burden of the engine becomes significant. Most diesels look best around 70% of design max. Kirk Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
(theoretically) True (IMHO) Engine efficiency and engine size are almost mutually exclusive (very few things are perfectly scalable). If your throttle control is nothing more than a request for more or less powerAND there is a correlation between a demand for power and a demand for fuel AND the thermal efficiency of the two engines are the same, why not? The onlynote I would make is repeating Kirk's point, that the characteristics of the engine requires the operator to take full advantage ofthe engines ideal running conditions. Of course, this too is debatable because of the number of variables. However, I think thatsemantics aside, the other factors are negligible. Mike Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fuel efficiency of an engine is not a constant. At high throttle settings economy is sacrificed for power. ie the grams of fuel used per horsepower hour increases. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. At low loads the fixed burden of the engine becomes significant. Most diesels look best around 70% of design max. Kirk Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H.___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Are we comparing exactly the same weight/aerodynamics/rolling resistance car here, with just different powered engines? Or complete different cars like a metro, corolla, and a ferarri. I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. There is also the human factor, that a more powerful car will entice lead footedness and speeding, and thus get worse gas mileage than an underpowered car that you just accept your slowness On 9/13/05, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (theoretically) True (IMHO) Engine efficiency and engine size are almost mutually exclusive (very few things are perfectly scalable). If your throttle control is nothing more than a request for more or less power AND there is a correlation between a demand for power and a demand for fuel AND the thermal efficiency of the two engines are the same, why not? The only note I would make is repeating Kirk's point, that the characteristics of the engine requires the operator to take full advantage of the engines ideal running conditions. Of course, this too is debatable because of the number of variables. However, I think that semantics aside, the other factors are negligible. Mike Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fuel efficiency of an engine is not a constant. At high throttle settings economy is sacrificed for power. ie the grams of fuel used per horsepower hour increases. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. At low loads the fixed burden of the engine becomes significant. Most diesels look best around 70% of design max. Kirk Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Zeke Yewdall wrote: Snip I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. If you accelerate you are doing work. If you accelerate slowly you use less fuel per unit time but for a longer time. If you use high acceleration you use more fuel per time but for a shorter time. However definitely the frictional losses are higher when the engine is asked to produce high torque, thus dropping the efficiency. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. The engine turning at higher rpm is not necessarily using more fuel. It depends on the power the engine is producing and other factors including thermal efficiency, bearing friction etc. There are a family of curves for the engine showing torque vs rpm, power vs rpm and fuel consumption vs rpm at a given load. For instance years ago one of the bikes I used to ride got better fuel economy on the highway by driving in 4th gear at higher rpm than in 5th gear at a lower rpm for the same highway speed. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Wouldn't a variable displacement engine work best. Say a 2+ liter 4 cylinder where 2 cylinders can be turned off at speed. Dodge is doing this in their trucks with v8's. A BMW mechanic behind me told me that BMW makes an engine with variable compression. The head move in/out to change the compression ratio. Zeke Yewdall wrote: Are we comparing exactly the same weight/aerodynamics/rolling resistance car here, with just different powered engines? Or complete different cars like a metro, corolla, and a ferarri. I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. There is also the human factor, that a more powerful car will entice lead footedness and speeding, and thus get worse gas mileage than an underpowered car that you just accept your slowness On 9/13/05, Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (theoretically) True (IMHO) Engine efficiency and engine size are almost mutually exclusive (very few things are perfectly scalable). If your throttle control is nothing more than a request for more or less power AND there is a correlation between a demand for power and a demand for fuel AND the thermal efficiency of the two engines are the same, why not? The only note I would make is repeating Kirk's point, that the characteristics of the engine requires the operator to take full advantage of the engines ideal running conditions. Of course, this too is debatable because of the number of variables. However, I think that semantics aside, the other factors are negligible. Mike Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fuel efficiency of an engine is not a constant. At high throttle settings economy is sacrificed for power. ie the grams of fuel used per horsepower hour increases. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. At low loads the fixed burden of the engine becomes significant. Most diesels look best around 70% of design max. Kirk Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Agreed. As also stated by another list member the right tool for the right job. Case in point: I have a 2000 Dodge 2500 4X4 with the Cummings 24 valve diesel. It has the avg. and real time mpg readout in the overhead console. Going by that, the stock truck would get its best mpg / performance between 1700 and 1900 RPMs. This equated to 17- 18 mpg @ 70 mph while on flat ground in factory OD. Above that I would get more performance (pulling power), but less mpg. I installed a Gear Vendors split out-drive and at 70 mph my RPM was only ~ 1450. I thought that this would be great and I would be getting better mpg. But when I checked the real time mpg gage I was actually getting less (~15 mpg ). I then installed a mild Banks kit (accessory computer, 4 SS exhaust, KN air filter and we changed the fitting from the turbo to the waste gate with one that had a smaller center hole (this increased boost from ~22lbs to 26 lbs before the waste gate would open). What this did was open up the sweet spot that the engine gave its best mpg / performance ratio from the original 1700- 1900 RPMs to 1500 1900 RPMs. The result was that I can now be in the 4th over gear (factory OD + gear vendor OD) doing 70 mph and I get 22- 23 mpg. @ 80 mph I get 20 21 mpg @ 1800 RPMs. Not bad for this size truck. With the extra gears I can also match the gear to engine speed while climbing the mountains around here and get much better mpg while maintaining the highway speeds on the freeway. The example would be with the camper on the truck and towing a trailer, the factory OD is too high a gear to get up the long hills, yet the factory 3rd gear is too low a gear and although I get the power, the engine RPMs are too high to get any mileage. But using the Gear vendor I can select 3rd over which is between the factory 3rd and OD gears and this gear gives the best of both worlds. In other words, less RPM doesnt necessarily mean more mpg. If you are below the engines performance zone you start to lug the engine and get less performance / mpg. The goal is to open up the engines peak performance / mpg zone and to provide the gearing to make the best of it. I now have acquired several gals. of WVO from the cafeteria here at work and I will be learning the process of making my own Biodiesel to run in the truck. Speaking of that, I was told by my neighbor that one of the local cities who is running Biodiesel in their vehicles (busses, heavy trucks, etc.) is having problems with the Biodiesel and the Cummings engines. I did not have time to get the specifics from him, but from by readings of the discussion site, I could see not changing the fuel filter enough (after switching from D#2 to Bio as the Bio will clean the system out) to maybe having a bad supplier of the Biodiesel. Does anyone else know of issues with running Biodiesel in the Dodge Cummings engine? Ed From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirk McLoren Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:22 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement? The fuel efficiency of an engine is not a constant. At high throttle settings economy is sacrificed for power. ie the grams of fuel used per horsepower hour increases. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. At low loads the fixed burden of the engine becomes significant. Most diesels look best around 70% of design max. Kirk Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Joe Street wrote: I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (but smaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get better mileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fuel dumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. If you accelerate you are doing work. If you accelerate slowly you use less fuel per unit time but for a longer time. If you use high acceleration you use more fuel per time but for a shorter time. However definitely the frictional losses are higher when the engine is asked to produce high torque, thus dropping the efficiency. The first half of this is a good observation. The second half, however, is all wrong. Sorry:( Horsepower is proportional to torque times RPM. Engine losses depend on a number of things, but are mostly proportional to RPM. Using maximum torque and minimum RPM is usually the most efficient way to produce power. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because of low part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always trying futiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixed ratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at a higher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas a higher power engine could downshift sooner. The engine turning at higher rpm is not necessarily using more fuel. It depends on the power the engine is producing and other factors including thermal efficiency, bearing friction etc. There are a family of curves for the engine showing torque vs rpm, power vs rpm and fuel consumption vs rpm at a given load. For instance years ago one of the bikes I used to ride got better fuel economy on the highway by driving in 4th gear at higher rpm than in 5th gear at a lower rpm for the same highway speed. This is by far the exception though, and is most likely due to camshaft curves that favored higher RPM. I remember the days when motorcycles could exceed the national speed limit in first gear too:) But they're special cases, as are the 454 cid corvettes that got better mileage at higher speeds because it could produce the incremental horsepower needed for the higher speeds much more efficiently than the base horsepower to idle down the road at 55 MPH. The general answer to this question, from an engineering perspective, is that a car will get better fuel consumption with a smaller engine as long as you don't get into a mode where the engine becomes less efficient at producing the required horsepower. This could be due to excess fuel used in the mixture or excessive RPM. Note that there are many other parameters for the choice of a proper engine than horsepower, however. Pollution, drivability, longevity, reliability, and sufficient power to remove oneself from dangerous situtations come to mind. --- David ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
I knew it wouldn't take long for these (good) questions to come up. I'm just concerned that we don't get too hung up on cars designed for maximum efficiencyvs maximum power. Some of the methods used to get fuel and air to high horsepower engines resemble toilet bowls and a lot of that fuel ends up not getting burned. The biggest question I have is; If you are including the vehicle as a whole, weight has to be part of the discussion unless (perhaps) if you assume regenerative breaking on all cars. It's tough to ignore the transformation of energy into heat at the brakes. MikeZeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we comparing exactly the same weight/aerodynamics/rollingresistance car here, with just different powered engines? Or completedifferent cars like a metro, corolla, and a ferarri.I think for otherwise identical cars, a medium sized engine (butsmaller than what most cars come with nowdays) will get bettermileage, because it can accellerate fast enough to get out of the fueldumping acceleration, and into more fuel efficient cruising faster. But if it's to large, it's less efficient at cruising speed because oflow part load efficiency. And if it's too small, it it always tryingfutiley to accellerate, instead of cruising. Also, due to real fixedratio transmissions, a less powerful engine may spend more time at ahigher RPM, where the fuel efficiency in grams/kWh is less, whereas ahigher power engine could downshift sooner.There is also the human factor, that a more powerful car will enticelead footedness and speeding, and thus get worse gas mileage than anunderpowered car that you just accept your slownessOn 9/13/05, Michael Redler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: (theoretically) True(IMHO) Engine efficiency and engine size are almost mutually exclusive (very few things are perfectly scalable). If your throttle control is nothing more than a request for more or less power AND there is a correlation between a demand for power and a demand for fuel AND the thermal efficiency of the two engines are the same, why not? The only note I would make is repeating Kirk's point, that the characteristics of the engine requires the operator to take full advantage of the engines ideal running conditions. Of course, this too is debatable because of the number of variables. However, I think that semantics aside, the other factors are negligible. Mike Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: The fuel efficiency of an engine is not a constant. At high throttle settings economy is sacrificed for power. ie the grams of fuel used per horsepower hour increases. That is why infinite ratio transmissions would be worthwhile. And ideally - lossless. At low loads the fixed burden of the engine becomes significant. Most diesels look best around 70% of design max. Kirk Greg and April <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: True or False Underpowered vehicles can be just as inefficient as overpowered vehicles. Why or why not? Greg H. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
David Miller wrote: The first half of this is a good observation. The second half, however, is all wrong. Sorry:( Why is that? If the coefficient of friction remains constant (an assumption) then the frictional force should be proportional to the normal force which is directly related to torque. No? (I am thinking of the conrod and crankshaft bearings, or is that not where the majority of losses occur?) Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Debatable statement?
Does anyone else know of issues with running Biodiesel in the Dodge Cummings engine? From the various biodiesel forums I've read, most people have no trouble with these (as long as they change the fuel filters and use good biodiesel of course). But there has been a lot of discussion on whether the newer CRD engines are appropriate for biodiesel or SVO. The SVO apparently tends to polymerize due to the extremely high pressures, and some people think the biodiesel will as well. However, there is still alot of confusion about the difference between SVO and biodiesel, so I don't fully trust everything I read And, other people blithly use SVO in a 2005 TDI with no problems yet. I have no direct experience, so hopefully there are some people out there who have tried it who can give more details. My truck is a 1984 mitsubishi (very similar design to the older 4 cylinder cummins as well as the old VW) and likes biodiesel fine (better than dino-diesel which knocks alot). I just changed the fuel filter after about the first 2000 miles on B100, and noticed a definite increase in power at full throttle. I haven't tried SVO yet. Oddly, everything thinks that biodiesel should dissolve all the fuel lines on my truck, and so far it hasn't... I check them regularly. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
