Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114725]The power certainly gets delivered to the wheels more efficiently. As yes twice the power, I have had both on the dynometer 300 vs 425 hp at the flywheel (ok maybe not twice the power) but certainly twice the torque. I also would like to disagree with your blanket statement of 70s-90s the power skyrocketed. The power was actually hindered until the mid 80s or a little later due to emissions controls and de-tuned engines..power dropped off. It wasn’t until the late 80s or the 90s that the power returned due to more efficient fuel and ignition systems+computer controls. As long as I live I will never drive an electric car my friend B) . I would rather convert to diesel or natural gas before that happens.[/quote]
Re-read what I wrote. I never said “power skyrocketed”.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114725]The power certainly gets delivered to the wheels more efficiently. As yes twice the power, I have had both on the dynometer 300 vs 425 hp at the flywheel (ok maybe not twice the power) but certainly twice the torque. I also would like to disagree with your blanket statement of 70s-90s the power skyrocketed. The power was actually hindered until the mid 80s or a little later due to emissions controls and de-tuned engines..power dropped off. It wasn’t until the late 80s or the 90s that the power returned due to more efficient fuel and ignition systems+computer controls. As long as I live I will never drive an electric car my friend B) . I would rather convert to diesel or natural gas before that happens.[/quote]
Re-read what I wrote. I never said “power skyrocketed”.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114719]The 454 provides twice the power at only a 33% fuel economy loss as you’ve calculated.[/quote]
Twice the power? Really?
Anyway fuel economy has improved greatly in the last 40 years, just not in a very linear fashion. From the early 70s to the early 90s fuel efficiency really skyrocketed. Then due to ever stricter safety standards (and the birth of the SUV) vehicle curb weights started to rise again. This left fuel economy rates fairly stagnate from the mid-90’s through the early 2000’s.Most gains in fuel efficiency came in part from more efficient engines, but mostly from making cars smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic. There’s not that much room for engine efficiency improvements with current materials. But in the long run, it’s all a null issue… since we’ll all be driving electric cars.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114719]The 454 provides twice the power at only a 33% fuel economy loss as you’ve calculated.[/quote]
Twice the power? Really?
Anyway fuel economy has improved greatly in the last 40 years, just not in a very linear fashion. From the early 70s to the early 90s fuel efficiency really skyrocketed. Then due to ever stricter safety standards (and the birth of the SUV) vehicle curb weights started to rise again. This left fuel economy rates fairly stagnate from the mid-90’s through the early 2000’s.Most gains in fuel efficiency came in part from more efficient engines, but mostly from making cars smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic. There’s not that much room for engine efficiency improvements with current materials. But in the long run, it’s all a null issue… since we’ll all be driving electric cars.
I guess I’m a little confused at what the point of this thread is. Basically what you’re saying is that your relatively new gas guzzling brick, “only” gets 33% further on a tank of gas than your old gas guzzling brick. At least that’s what I’m reading.
I guess I’m a little confused at what the point of this thread is. Basically what you’re saying is that your relatively new gas guzzling brick, “only” gets 33% further on a tank of gas than your old gas guzzling brick. At least that’s what I’m reading.
[quote=”Hinoki” post=114666]Yeah, but it was still pretty funny. 🙂
-Hinoki[/quote]
No. No it’s not. :angry:
😛
[quote=”Hinoki” post=114666]Yeah, but it was still pretty funny. 🙂
-Hinoki[/quote]
No. No it’s not. :angry:
😛
[quote=”Hanneman” post=114509]A friend in the Air Force said the aircraft tires are filled with N2, but I do not remember the reasons behind it.[/quote]
Yep, and commercial airlines as well. The main reason is that aircraft tires are inflated to very high pressures (around 200PSI for a jetliner and 340PSI for the Space Shuttle) and they experience a great deal of thermal cycling. Freezing at high altitude and boiling when they touch the runway. Not to mention, that oxygen (when compressed to that level) becomes a credible explosive hazard.[quote=”Hanneman” post=114509]
Also, most compressed nitrogen is mostly dry and does not contain a significant amount water vapor. The water vapor can promote corrosion on steel. It might also create a problem condenses and freezes. A dryer can be used with the compressor to remove the water vapor.
[/quote]DING! We have a winner! The dryness of GN2 is what provides the greatest performance benefit over regular air. Dirty compressor air is typically saturated in water, and can contain a fair amount of pump oil. If you inflate your tires from a CDA (clean dry air) source, then the difference becomes negligible.
Outstanding answer Hanneman!
[quote=”Hanneman” post=114509]A friend in the Air Force said the aircraft tires are filled with N2, but I do not remember the reasons behind it.[/quote]
Yep, and commercial airlines as well. The main reason is that aircraft tires are inflated to very high pressures (around 200PSI for a jetliner and 340PSI for the Space Shuttle) and they experience a great deal of thermal cycling. Freezing at high altitude and boiling when they touch the runway. Not to mention, that oxygen (when compressed to that level) becomes a credible explosive hazard.[quote=”Hanneman” post=114509]
Also, most compressed nitrogen is mostly dry and does not contain a significant amount water vapor. The water vapor can promote corrosion on steel. It might also create a problem condenses and freezes. A dryer can be used with the compressor to remove the water vapor.
[/quote]DING! We have a winner! The dryness of GN2 is what provides the greatest performance benefit over regular air. Dirty compressor air is typically saturated in water, and can contain a fair amount of pump oil. If you inflate your tires from a CDA (clean dry air) source, then the difference becomes negligible.
Outstanding answer Hanneman!
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114398]“- but carbon buildup with certain grades of fuel necessitated an unusual water-injection system (actually, a water/alcohol mix).”
[/quote]Yeah… I don’t buy it. I think what the article meant to say was “… but severe detonation on most grades of pump fuel necessitated…“
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114398]“- but carbon buildup with certain grades of fuel necessitated an unusual water-injection system (actually, a water/alcohol mix).”
[/quote]Yeah… I don’t buy it. I think what the article meant to say was “… but severe detonation on most grades of pump fuel necessitated…“
You ever seen those YouTube channels where a guy produces a handful of videos, then is never heard from again? Well that’s what the typical free, non-sponsored, non-promotional channel looks like. If the occasional product plug is what it takes for Eric to keep the lights on and shoes on his kids’ feet… then so be it.
It would be awesome if the countless multitudes of people Eric has helped sent in a “thank you” donation, but that’s simply not going to happen. The average person is going to do a search for a repair, stumble on one of Eric’s videos, follow his advice, and never think about ETCG again.
So for now, I have no issue with Eric helping folks while putting a little green into his pocket. But if the day comes where Eric pauses every 30 seconds, mugs at the camera, and goes “Boy, these Wrench-O-Matic sockets make short work of any job! Available at AutoShack for only $49 with your ETCG coupon code! And speaking of codes… if you have a check engine light, you’re best bet is to use the CodeGrabber 5000 also available at…” At that point, I would have to rethink my position.