Turbo Charged Cars Increasing in Popularity
When oil hit $150 in the summer of 2008 the consumers started demanding more fuel-efficient cars. The hybrid became the most demanded product of the year and demand reached new heights. Other fuel efficient ideas including electric, hydrogen, clean diesel, compressed air and more became instant stars overnight. All of those ideas are great but are still years away in terms of their developments and common use. Some of the environmental improvements are suspect. There are certain reports which suggest that making the hybrid battery is actually more damaging to the planet than the fuel savings they provide to the consumer. The question is what can be done now to improve vehicles. One of the ways is turbocharging vehicles.
Turbo charged vehicles involve forcing air into the compression chamber to increase performance. In a turbo system that air is from the exhaust that would normally be going nowhere. So this is a win win situation. The problem is that you don’t experience the boost in performance until the vehicle reaches 2-3K RPM when the exhaust air is big enough to make a difference. Most drivers love that power from dead stop (the worst for fuel efficiency) and so car makers obliged with bigger engines.
Turbo charged vehicles have been popular outside of the US for years. It’s only now that drivers are appreciating the fuel savings to accept a 1.8L engine instead of the big V6 or V8. Mercedes has been selling Diesel Turbo cars since the 1970′s and they have only gotten better. Audi’s 1.8L turbo engine has been popular around the world and even in the US.
The future is now. Audi, VW, Volvo, Mercedes, Mini, Land Rover and many more have 2009 models on the lots that are turbocharged. Many more will be bringing them in for 2010 and beyond. That means lots of options in car buying.
Turbos are surprisingly easy to maintain. They often work off engine oil, so servicing you engine oil every 3K miles usually does most of the work. . If they do fail, replacements can be found through places like www.turbochargerpros.com and other sites. Replacing a turbo can be less than a thousand dollars. Most vehicles come with 3 or 5 year warranties on the turbo anyway and you’ll probably be good for over 100k miles.
The lesson learned from this article is that there are other ways to gas performance outside of hybrids and electric vehicles. Simply going from a V6 engine to getting a less desirable 1.8L turbo engine could easily increase your gas mileage from 20mpg to 30mpg. The improvement in gas mileage is a huge cost savings and environmentally friendly.
Turbo chargers is an easy way to increasing the fuel efficiency of your car. Also, feel free to check out Volvo turbo chargers here.
Home improvements Ne Home Improvements Save People Money: When individuals opt to be environmental friendly seve…
y is there? sparks and stuff?
I have to beg to differ I think the Chevy Trailblazer SS is the ultimate stocke sleeper. On the outside of this soccer mom race car it looks like a dressed up trailblazer nothing real speacial but the monster that lives underneath the hood a LS2 V8 391 hp motor the same motor put in stock corvettes. With alittle tweaking like exhaust or air intake this truck could be a corvette.
Charlie Miller signed me off for my check ride on 3/12/76. On 3/20/76 he sent me on a solo 3-leg cross country in N98048 ….. he scheduled my check ride that same day in the Cessna 150 (6487 Tango)….. What a day in my life for a 17 year old kid !! I have some photos you may be interest in …… airplane engine oil in Old Heaven Hill whisky bottles ….. flying in formation with Col. C.W. Miller the lead bird over Sebring Race Track…. and others.
Yes, in the fuse panel there will be a red rest button, you hold it in and turn the ignition on and hold the button for like 3 seconds, then turn the ignition off, then start the car, the tire light should go off.
We could consider the thermodynamic efficiency of components of the refinery, such as pumps.This would be defined as work done by component divided by energy input to that component. I don't think that is a very useful number.
What you want for a well to wheels comparison is something that I would call the net refinery energy efficiency, defined as the net energy content of everything useful that comes out divided by the energy content of everything that goes in. The net energy content would be the total energy content of everything useful that comes out, minus the amount of energy brought in from external sources, including (as you suggest) any energy cost that arises from disposal of waste. The article you refer to seems to give a rather more restricted definition with some strange conventions, but I do not really know enough to comment further
Either way, the reported efficiency will depend on local refinery practice. For example, gases that are flared do not count towards the output, but gases that are used presumably would (but see the detailed comments at the end of the article). On my definition, heat that is used for raising domestic hot water would be considered a useful outputs, but I do not know if it is included in the figures quoted in the article.
What you really need to do is, with the help of an expert, a proper examination of the GREET model referred to in the article. But I suspect that give or take a few percent, the reported "refinery efficiencies" are good enough for your purpose.
In a well to wheels comparison, you would need to include as factors the energy cost of bringing crude oil to the refinery, some realistic measure of refinery efficiency (I have done my best to suggest one) and distribution energy efficiency (charging as appropriate for the cost of getting the fuel from the refinery to the pump) for gasoline or diesel, just as you would need to include, for (say) an electric vehicle recharge from coal-burning power plant, an allowance for the energy charge of bringing coal to the power station, the thermodynamic efficiency (and here I really do mean thermodynamic efficiency) of the power plant (plus a little extra if the "waste" heat is put to some good use), and the efficiencies of electrical distribution and of re-charging the vehicle.
All this before considering the efficiency with which the vehicle itself uses the supplied energy, which is of course far greater for an electrical vehicle than for one using internal combustion.
"Every question in science should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler" (Einstein, attributed).
Technologies that will get automakers to 54.5 mpg: Rather than a dramatic shift to electric ve… * #engine #oil #RT
Hello there Graham. Nice to see you.
I can wholeheartedly recommend deinstalling the linoleum application from your main compression chamber in the fart room. I'm no expert, but I'm led to believe that home-lino app=house.