Lancia Motor Club Forum Banner
12 December, 2019, 06:48:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Emissions  (Read 4856 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
peterbaker
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1685


www.retro-speed.co.uk


WWW
« Reply #15 on: 06 October, 2007, 08:27:25 PM »

And surely a sense of humour is worth, ten miles to a gallon. Add to this a a touch of optimism and the eyes (I's) have it. Seriously, how come the French understand the need for low friction materials on their autoroute surfacing while in the UK its always 'accept the cheapest quote'. Drive from Calais to anywhere and note the improvement. Oh and I almost forgot, these savings are combined with higher average speeds. You know it makes sense.
« Last Edit: 06 October, 2007, 08:53:43 PM by peterbaker » Logged

1961 Lancia Flavia 1.5 Berlina. 2005 Lancia Ypsilon. 1954 Daimler Conquest. 2003 MG ZT-T 135. 1998 SAAB 9-3 Conv.
ColinMarr
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



« Reply #16 on: 07 October, 2007, 12:02:28 AM »

Geoff, my dear friend and new found colleague in the pursuit of honesty and light,

I think perhaps you are victim of some sort of misunderstanding about a number of things. What I posted is to do with the average/ normal driving experience – not what you and other fellow-minded hooligans will get up to.

I am well aware that my Fulvia 1600 HF, with 42 mm Solex carbs can achieve 32 MPG on a docile run, yet on a track-day will do only 12 – 14 MPG. The difference is to do with how heavy you push it. This is nothing to do with the headmaster’s claim about normal motoring.

Yes, just a bit pissed,

Colin
Logged
ColinMarr
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



« Reply #17 on: 07 October, 2007, 12:14:38 AM »

Peter,

I have read your stuff and tried to interpret it in a positive light, but I have to tell you that in my considered opinion, it has no humour and is simply ill-informed and misleading. Sadly, what “makes sense” is for members to ignore what you have posted.

Colin
 
Logged
peterbaker
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1685


www.retro-speed.co.uk


WWW
« Reply #18 on: 07 October, 2007, 07:23:09 AM »

Thanks Colin.

If FIAT want to make a success of Lancia maybe they should send a spy into the Lotus factory. 635bhp. 155mph. No emissions. 10 minute battery charge.
I have recently waded through the Climate Change Bill as it very relevent to all manufacturers wishing to compete in the world market. A 60% reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2050 is not funny. Nor is a reduction of 30% by 2020. Nearer home 2008 brings a 140gms/km while by 2012 this will be nearer to 110.
In other words, any car signed off for launch next year is unlikely to incorporate the radical features required to survive the frenzy.
And, in my view, the only way Lancia can be made a stand alone brand is to introduce a level of technology so leading edge that engineers of the world will look back with awe and respect at the foresight and courage. In other words doing what Lancia used to do.

ill-informed comment? Let the members decide. 
« Last Edit: 07 October, 2007, 07:25:05 AM by peterbaker » Logged

1961 Lancia Flavia 1.5 Berlina. 2005 Lancia Ypsilon. 1954 Daimler Conquest. 2003 MG ZT-T 135. 1998 SAAB 9-3 Conv.
ColinMarr
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



« Reply #19 on: 07 October, 2007, 09:58:13 AM »

Hi Geoff,

It was absolutely wrong of me to suggest that it was hooligan driving that leads to high fuel consumption in town, compared to out of town – sorry!

The proper and boring reply to your question is that urban motoring usually involves lots of stops and starts – and it’s the alternate accelerating and braking the whacks up the fuel consumption. Whereas, on a run most of the time will be spent running at an almost constant speed and hence with higher efficiency.

Colin (hangover receding fast…)
Logged
Scarpia
Lapsed
Rebel Poster
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 723



« Reply #20 on: 07 October, 2007, 12:20:58 PM »

Quote
And surely a sense of humour is worth, ten miles to a gallon. Add to this a a touch of optimism and the eyes (I's) have it. Seriously, how come the French understand the need for low friction materials on their autoroute surfacing while in the UK its always 'accept the cheapest quote'. Drive from Calais to anywhere and note the improvement. Oh and I almost forgot, these savings are combined with higher average speeds. You know it makes sense.
Peter,
I think your absolutely spot on to maintain an element of humour in your debate.
I presume that's why you include a reference to the french providing "low friction" road surfaces for their public. If that's the case we can expect an international court case for genocide against the french authorities before much longer!!  Wink


« Last Edit: 07 October, 2007, 12:27:52 PM by Scarpia » Logged
inthedark
Guest
« Reply #21 on: 07 October, 2007, 12:43:09 PM »

Colin, sorry I was just trying to lighten a somewhat serious debate,
I admit to being a "hooligan" on occasion, but also have had complaints from drivers
that follow me that I do not brake enough, I tend to have the car prepared for roundabouts/
traffic lights etc. and as such do not tend to accelerate or brake hard rather just drive within
the conditions which does save fuel, it is a big engine however and my attempts have
a minimal effect on the overall amount. I do get better than manufacturers figures for the car
so I am almost an angel.

Geoff 'the colonel'
Logged
peterbaker
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1685


www.retro-speed.co.uk


WWW
« Reply #22 on: 08 October, 2007, 09:25:15 PM »

A friend of mine has suggested that a heating of fuel could effect consumption efficency. Any answers?
Logged

1961 Lancia Flavia 1.5 Berlina. 2005 Lancia Ypsilon. 1954 Daimler Conquest. 2003 MG ZT-T 135. 1998 SAAB 9-3 Conv.
peterbaker
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1685


www.retro-speed.co.uk


WWW
« Reply #23 on: 09 October, 2007, 03:04:42 PM »

Okay. Not giving up yet. This friend of mine is convinced that the density of fuel is affected by temperature, this in turn will give more or less calorific value. Put thirty litres in a sealed tank. Subject it to a temperature drop of perhaps twenty degrees and the fuel will contract. This will have an overall adverse result on mpg. Therefore the opposite will also be true, providing I suppose you don't blow yourself up meantime (thats my attempt at being funny). Its all to do with why airplanes cruise at certain heights.
     
Logged

1961 Lancia Flavia 1.5 Berlina. 2005 Lancia Ypsilon. 1954 Daimler Conquest. 2003 MG ZT-T 135. 1998 SAAB 9-3 Conv.
ncundy
Lapsed
Rebel Poster
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 980



« Reply #24 on: 09 October, 2007, 05:20:51 PM »

That is called Boyles Law. PV = constant.
Warmer fuel atomises more effectively and induces a better ignition and burn cycle. It doesn't just alter the calorific value of the fuel, it alters how effectively and efficiently it can be used, and of course it alters the calorific value of the air charge. The whole process becomes an energy balance, where the operator is looking for the intersection of the increasing calorific value of the fuel vs the decreasing value for the air charge (as a volume). They all vary with temperature and pressure (and mechanical state of the injection equipment, electrical state of the ignition system, state of exhaust etc), and of course that is just the engine. This is put in a vehicle which has it's own energy burning characteristics (static resistance, momentum losses and aerodynamic drag). At typical city speeds aerodynamic drag is irrelevant, it is all about rolling resistance and perhaps momentum losses) - at motorway speeds the drag dominates. Then there are the extras (air-con, radios, all the other paraphernalia).
People looking for simple explanations and solutions either way will forever be disappointed.
« Last Edit: 09 October, 2007, 05:44:08 PM by ncundy » Logged

1969 Fanalone, Mazda RX-8, Fiat Multipla
DavidLaver
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 3912



« Reply #25 on: 09 October, 2007, 06:42:21 PM »

Okay. Not giving up yet. This friend of mine is convinced that the density of fuel is affected by temperature, this in turn will give more or less calorific value. Put thirty litres in a sealed tank. Subject it to a temperature drop of perhaps twenty degrees and the fuel will contract. This will have an overall adverse result on mpg. Therefore the opposite will also be true, providing I suppose you don't blow yourself up meantime (thats my attempt at being funny). Its all to do with why airplanes cruise at certain heights.
     

There's some, and a simple, truth in this one - fuel is sold by volume not by weight.  In the cool of the night you get more weight of fuel per litre than in the heat of the day.  You get more energy for your money.   

Saying you get more miles per gallon on fuel you yourself have cooled would also be true, but its not going to save you any money.

"Cool fuel" can be a help in the same way as an intercooler or water injection, but as Neil said "it depends".

David
Logged

David Laver, Lewisham.
Scarpia
Lapsed
Rebel Poster
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 723



« Reply #26 on: 09 October, 2007, 07:13:13 PM »

Not sure about the feasability of pre warmed or cooled fuel but I suspect it is academic compared with the temperature and volume of the inducted air.An petrol engine is basically an air pump and the efficiency with which it can pump air is a pretty good indication of the power it will be able to generate and its potential for efficient (economical) running.Dense (cold) air has a significant impact on combustion, hence cold starting chokes.An "ideal" theoretical mix for complete combustion is 15:1 of air to petrol but this will not suit all conditions of course.For economical driving a weaker mixture is desired and for power a richer mixture.Perhaps its interesting to note that reducing the ratio of petrol by 12 % costs 7% power whilst increasing by 25 % petrol only increases output by 4%!! So putting your foot down is relatively expensive for relatively low gain.(or you have to increase the capacity of the engine to pump air quite significantly which is why we all like turbos...)

Logged
peterbaker
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 1685


www.retro-speed.co.uk


WWW
« Reply #27 on: 09 October, 2007, 10:13:38 PM »

Congratulations everyone, from now on, our friends over at Viva Lancia Ltd will have to show more respect. By the way, I thought the one thing that always remained constant regardless of other variants was weight.
« Last Edit: 09 October, 2007, 10:18:24 PM by peterbaker » Logged

1961 Lancia Flavia 1.5 Berlina. 2005 Lancia Ypsilon. 1954 Daimler Conquest. 2003 MG ZT-T 135. 1998 SAAB 9-3 Conv.
Scarpia
Lapsed
Rebel Poster
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 723



« Reply #28 on: 10 October, 2007, 05:55:12 AM »

it's mass my friend, weight and age are only universal constants as far as women are concerned.
Logged
DavidLaver
Permanent resident
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 3912



« Reply #29 on: 10 October, 2007, 08:28:57 AM »


...and mass CAN become energy...but we're into Einstein's stuff and I think we're all a way off trying to coax a few more mpg on the Costwold economy run through that sort of trick.

Off on a bit of a tangent (back to the ancient Greeks with tangents) on older cars 'cool fuel' is also a good way to prevent vapour locks.  People go to considerable lengths to re-route and insulate the fuel lines.

David
Logged

David Laver, Lewisham.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Contact the Forum Administrator

LMC Forum copyright © 2007 - 2018 Lancia Motor Club Ltd

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines