Robby Davenport wrote:
> what diesel engines(small pref.) were high compression 20+:1 seems
> they would make higher eff. and would burn must any fuel
>
High compression makes for better economy to a point. However, static
compression ratio is not the best measure to predict overall engine
efficiency. The ill-reputed GM 5.7 liter diesel utilized a compression ratio
of 22:1 (and it was an economical engine), but once those factory head bolts
stretched (from even a single overheating experience), the engine never
seemed to work properly again. (Never re-use head bolts on the 5.7 liter GM
diesel--aftermarket ones pretty well solve the overheating problem!)
Most turbo diesels use lower compression--some as low as 18:1. The turbo
allows for greater cylinder filling, effectively raising compression
pressure, which is more significant than the static ratio. From an
efficiency perspective, no other heat engine beats a turbo diesel. Even most
fuel cells have a long way to go before they catch up!
robert luis rabello
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
