You all want HIM for president?

[justme]

Very close! I tinker with cars a bit...

[justme]

This little 3.8 liter dynoed out at 1082hp with no carburetors involved.  Might even tow 100 lbs. if you eased into it....

[justme]

With its' clothes on...

[Bob Riebe]

I am extremely well versed on carburetors. No jetting scenario in a carb can match the fuel control of modern closed loop fuel injection, period. Just the simple fuel cut on decel of fuel injection would give it the edge, all other things being equal(which I can assure you they are not!). Can you name one car that ever approached 40 mpg with a carb during the era when the mysterious "50 mpg carb" appeared?  ----------You may have worked on a carburettor or two but well versed you are not.
As the 50 mpg carb. is way over your head, best look it up. The item was around before I was even born.

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1978-1981/

Above are the cars that were capable of 40 mpg, when you were probalbly a dream in your parents eyes.
No one here said a carb. can equal the instant adjusting features of electronic fuel injection, but then nothing can equal their need for a tow truck, or major expense, when something goes wrong.


The advantage to fuel injection is to meet emissions regulations, which has a handy by product of better fuel economy. Later model carbs also had altitude compensation features, like in aircraft carbs.
If you are an auto mechanic then you know full well that it is easy to get better mileage, or adjust for emissions but the laws of physic makes either the anti-thesis of the other.

If you are speaking of eighties carbs. that responded from feedback from the oxygen sensor, they were NOT like an aircraft carburettor and it was more of a pain in the buttocks than anything.

Bendix which was the most common aircraft carburettor from WWII on, had four chambers to adjust for altitude. Unlike cars where the throttle is moved up and down continually, in an aircraft one cannot do that as propeller speed must be maintained with parameters for optimum efficiency, and too much auto style throttle would, to make this real simple, send the propeller tip supersonic, which destroys efficiency.
Aircraft carbs. in abstract have four --  Idle; Auto-Lean; Auto-Rich; and in war aircraft, War Emergency (which could only be used with ADI) settings to control fuel.  Pressure across the four chambers determines how it functions.

To make it real simply, the Bendix is usually called a pressure carb. (it was often considered an early type of fuel injection) and there ain't no such thing ever used on production automobiles, that I ever heard of. (I am not speaking of pressurized carbs. as used with the Paxton type blower)

500 batteries a month? Do you have any idea how many prius's are on the road? Care to find out and do the math and report back what percent failure rate that is?
If I had to tow something I would probably use a truck instead of a Pinto, your mileage may vary...------So you are saying if you own a Prius you had better be wealthy enough to have zero trouble affording,  storing and insuring at least two vehicles- BRILLIANT!
 Although that makes the Prius kind of a worthless turn as an all around vehicle.
Does not matter how many are on the road, YOU SAID--  Very few have had batteries replaced.

[two-blocked]

No hybrid pics- your arguments are invalid!
PS- The Gallardo is nice but with more horsepower and a retractable top I went with the Spider 

[Cuts Crooked]

Nah, he just thinks that repeating things over and over, along with C&P pic will make him look smarter.
 
It's ok though, I'll let him have the last word so he can declare himself "winner".

[justme]

I am extremely well versed on carburetors. No jetting scenario in a carb can match the fuel control of modern closed loop fuel injection, period. Just the simple fuel cut on decel of fuel injection would give it the edge, all other things being equal(which I can assure you they are not!). Can you name one car that ever approached 40 mpg with a carb during the era when the mysterious "50 mpg carb" appeared?  ----------You may have worked on a carburettor or two but well versed you are not.
As the 50 mpg carb. is way over your head, best look it up. The item was around before I was even born.

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1978-1981/

Above are the cars that were capable of 40 mpg, when you were probalbly a dream in your parents eyes.
No one here said a carb. can equal the instant adjusting features of electronic fuel injection, but then nothing can equal their need for a tow truck, or major expense, when something goes wrong.


The advantage to fuel injection is to meet emissions regulations, which has a handy by product of better fuel economy. Later model carbs also had altitude compensation features, like in aircraft carbs.
If you are an auto mechanic then you know full well that it is easy to get better mileage, or adjust for emissions but the laws of physic makes either the anti-thesis of the other.

If you are speaking of eighties carbs. that responded from feedback from the oxygen sensor, they were NOT like an aircraft carburettor and it was more of a pain in the buttocks than anything.

Bendix which was the most common aircraft carburettor from WWII on, had four chambers to adjust for altitude. Unlike cars where the throttle is moved up and down continually, in an aircraft one cannot do that as propeller speed must be maintained with parameters for optimum efficiency, and too much auto style throttle would, to make this real simple, send the propeller tip supersonic, which destroys efficiency.
Aircraft carbs. in abstract have four --  Idle; Auto-Lean; Auto-Rich; and in war aircraft, War Emergency (which could only be used with ADI) settings to control fuel.  Pressure across the four chambers determines how it functions.

To make it real simply, the Bendix is usually called a pressure carb. (it was often considered an early type of fuel injection) and there ain't no such thing ever used on production automobiles, that I ever heard of. (I am not speaking of pressurized carbs. as used with the Paxton type blower)

500 batteries a month? Do you have any idea how many prius's are on the road? Care to find out and do the math and report back what percent failure rate that is?
If I had to tow something I would probably use a truck instead of a Pinto, your mileage may vary...------So you are saying if you own a Prius you had better be wealthy enough to have zero trouble affording,  storing and insuring at least two vehicles- BRILLIANT!
 Although that makes the Prius kind of a worthless turn as an all around vehicle.
Does not matter how many are on the road, YOU SAID--  Very few have had batteries replaced.

I not sure I quite understand your logic; as you say:  I am not old enough to know much. The 50 mpg carb was around before you were born. You provided a sweet list of economy cars from 1978-1981. Didn't the 50mpg carb come out in the 50s? Read above my question to you more carefully.

I do have a question that really intrigues me: Can you explain how economy and emissions are the antithesis of each other??? Never heard that one before.

I also completely understand how a Bendix pressure carb works. Again, you may not have taken in what I stated correctly. Some later model automotive carbs had an aneroid installed to act as an altitude compensator. The aneroid operated with the same principles as the aircraft pressure carb circuit.

The replacement cost for a Prius battery is less than most automatic transmission replacement costs. The frequency is less than many transmission replacements.  Do automatic transmissions scare you? Do you keep 2 cars with automatic transmissions in case one breaks?  As for battery failures, I will let Google or your tutor bring you up to speed on the definition of "failure RATE".

It's amazing what some people ASSUME......

[justme]

No hybrid pics- your arguments are invalid!
PS- The Gallardo is nice but with more horsepower and a retractable top I went with the Spider 

More horsepower? Are you SURE? 552 vs 1320?

[justme]

Nah, he just thinks that repeating things over and over, along with C&P pic will make him look smarter.
 
It's ok though, I'll let him have the last word so he can declare himself "winner".

Feel free to word it up any way you like! Your responses indicated you had no earthly idea what you were talking about, I merely pointed that out. How would YOU rate your overall knowledge of hybrid technology? I may not know much, but I do know a bit about cars and engines and a couple other things...

[ironglow]

  If you guys were as old as I am, you would recall the 100 mile carb.    Yes; it was called the "Fish" carburetor, apparently named after it's inventor.
  There were rumors of how the oil companies "bought it out" or otherwise suppressed it.  It was fertile ground for all kinds of conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories are apparently as old as civilization...probably the Sumerians had their share of theories also. 
     I can hear it now, how some of those people in ancient Ur, accused Abram of conspiring with another power to destroy his Dad, Azar's.. idol making business.  Then how the tongues wagged when he up and left for parts unknown, and the tongues fairly flew when they found he had changed his name to.. Abraham....

[yellowtail3]

I remember Tom Ogle and his 100mpg car/vapor doohickey from 1978 or so. I was excited by it then, but he sort of... disappeared.

The list of high mpg car is a little deceptive, or incomplete, or something. I had a 1975 B210 - first car I bought with my own money - it didn't get 40mpg, I don't think. And Dodge Omni? certainly not with the 2.2
there's a reason small cars back then got lofty numbers: weight. Cars are a LOT heavier now than then, subtracting away from benefit of processors & FI (that and they make a LOT more power now)

[45-70.gov]

the  CHINESE  ignore  our  patten laws


so  why aren't they useing the  100 mpg carberator.....[or useing stem cells]


i had a porsche  914.....got  40 miles per gallon...
.[best   mileage  seemed to be with  sustained 85mph.....top speet was 110]


performance was nothing  like my 911  but was still quite respectable....

[Bob Riebe]

I not sure I quite understand your logic; as you say:  I am not old enough to know much. The 50 mpg carb was around before you were born. You provided a sweet list of economy cars from 1978-1981. Didn't the 50mpg carb come out in the 50s? Read above my question to you more carefully.

I do have a question that really intrigues me: Can you explain how economy and emissions are the antithesis of each other? ?? Never heard that one before.

The replacement cost for a Prius battery is less than most automatic transmission replacement costs. The frequency is less than many transmission replacements.  Do automatic transmissions scare you? Do you keep 2 cars with automatic transmissions in case one breaks?  As for battery failures, I will let Google or your tutor bring you up to speed on the definition of "failure RATE".

I did not say the mythical 50 mpg carb. existed, I said that item, has been around for a looong time.
In today's vernacular, it may be called an "urban legend," though there are numerous types of patented carburettors out there that were supposed to be capable of incredible things, or just better.

Mineck, Kingsley, Pogue I believe are a few, though my spelling may be wrong.
There was one, the name of which I do not remember, which worked with gasoline vapour but the possibility of an explosion over-rode any gains it may have had, and this is going from old memory, it had a few.

Two years ago, I put a rebuilt warranted transmission in a rwd 1992 Buick Roadmaster with well over two hundred thousand miles on an engine that runs extremely well--- for twelve hundred dollars.
I had it done, I did not bust my own knuckles,--------A battery pack for a 2001 Prius, from what the net says, starts at three grand, plus or minus a few hundred--- IF you are lucky.
(I have the old tranny sitting in in the corner of my garage. When I get the urge to clean the garage out, I will rebuild it.)

Now if you have a fwd crap-wagon, it will cost you more-- but then anyone who drives a fwd crap-wagon deserves that misery (Just my opinion)

Your statement about having two cars in case of a tranny failure is just plain silly, but as I wrote, unless the Prius owner is male panti-waist who never gets his nails dirty, if he ever wants to haul anything, Toyota says he will need another vehicle.
Failure rate, unlike a transmission, or engine, or any part of a internal combustion only vehicle, it is not a matter of ---IF--- BUT WHEN.

[justme]

No argument whatsoever on the manliness(or lack thereof) of the average male(?) Prius drivers! My point is that the technology is here and has been for some time now. There is no need to fear something you don't understand. I can state with certainty that the failure rate of automatic transmissions in 1992 Buick Roadmasters(700R4/4L60, a very poor design) was well above that of first generation Prius battery packs, and yet, you still bought one. I don't care how old you are ( and I might be a little older than you think), todays cars are certainly not "crapwagons"! Auto engineering and quality and total cost of ownership of todays cars is the best it has ever been. This is definitely not 1978! Or 1969! Cars today are leaps and bounds ahead of all predecessors in terms of quality, performance, safety, mileage, longer warranties, and emissions. Price is another topic...If not, people don't buy them and they go away.
The reason carburetors CANNOT be used today is simply because there is no way to pass emissions regulations with a carb. A modern 3 way catalytic converter must have a source of O2 to function to reduce HC and NOX and stay at a relatively high temp to do so. Old designs sometimes used an air pump to supply the O2 (New ones do also, but only on warmup enrichment). The simple solution is to vary the mixture from slightly rich to slightly lean continuously so that some unused O2 goes through the combustion cycle and is stored in the converter to allow more complete combustion in the converter. This fuel trim is monitored by an A/F ratio sensor(wideband and fast) before the converter and an O2 sensor after the converter. A carb simply cannot provide this kind of fuel control.

[Empty Quiver]

I can't help myself.
 
 Is there not a fuel to air mix that must be met if combustion is to occur? I would hold that you can lean out a fire only so much before the fire ceases. Any carb at best can provide the bare minimum amount of fuel for a given amout of air correct? The same thing goes for a fuel injection system correct? So once displacement is determined, and RPM is determined minimum  fuel use can be calculated.
 
So the best carb is no better than the best injection system at starving an engine for fuel under the exact same environmental conditions, correct? All these air fuel ratios can be calculated and arrive at the optimum amount of fuel that must be burned to maintain that fire, correct?
 
What cannot be so easily calculated however is how that fire is turned into work by the engine. The efficiency of that engine is what makes the difference in the end, not the fuel air mix and the style chosen by the manufacturer. Thermal efficiency is what you need to be worried about. The ability of the engine to turn the heat of the burned fuel into work. Exhaust gasses that leave the tailpipe are wasted energy if they are higher than ambient temperature, so to is the heat removed by the radiator, as well as the heat you feel coming from the engine block. turning all that heat into crank revolutions is what leads to fuel efficiency, not carburation.
 
This relates to the utter uselessness of Dear Leader how?

[mcwoodduck]

what righty policy failed us ? it as democrats that screwed up loans , savings and loans , forcing loans that could never be paid back etc .

+1.  So far the left are the ones that want to redistribute wealth.  And doing that they are screwing up the economy by making people do what they would not normally do.  Also do you realize the transfer of wealth mean you too.  You have or had equity in your house and now what?  you were getting 5% or more on a CD and now it is less than 1%  while costs are going up 5 to 12% due to the tax increases.
The higher prices equal less you have for a disposable income ( what is left once you meet all of your needs {food, shelter, fuel, clothing}) and the less you have to grow your wealth by investing, saving, or buying assets.

40 years of corporatism and deregulation, pushed by the right, has crippled the middle class. Bush's tax cuts for the rich pushed it over the edge. That agenda is completely right-wing, the party of corporatist protection that's all about individual profits and public risk. The Right also steadfastly refuses to admit that GW messed things up as much as he did, and that they have messed things up so badly that it will be at least 16 more years to fix the economy, and the blame is mainly theirs. That is why, in the time I have left on this world, I will never support a conservative. Period.

Actually I can show you economically where Government regulations hurt compitition by, raise prices, Limiting products, and that these regulations help the existing corperations by limiting new entries into the market.  Creating the opertunity for market monopoly. 
What you are saying makes NO economic sense.  The asme as taxing the rich will help the poor.  Taxing the rich as the opposite effect hurts the poor and actually creates a greater gap between the Rich and the poor.  Higer taxes reduce wages and lower the prices of goods and the Rich will be the only one that can afford things.
 

[mcwoodduck]

Well, Duh, yeah..!!  Sheeezzz...That's what they mean when they say "we need to make America more competive in the Global economy"...and Mitt will..the 99% makes less...the 1% makes alot more and the 0.1% cleans up and runs off with the picnic basket.  Isn't that crystal clear by now...?
.
.
..TM7

Economically inaccurate.  As JFK said a Rising tide lifts all boats.  If the wealth have more Disposable income, they invest it, save it, spend it, or ues it to create new business that make jobs and more money.  More money in in the market raises wages, decreases UNemployment, and actually increases the total amount of $ headed to government to decrease the deficit.

[powderman]

[two-blocked]

Worse than a foreign student, he's a Somali pirate!

 

[nw_hunter]

I agree with EQ. What in the world does Carburetors have to do with wanting him for Prez?
Keep it on topic. 

[ChungDoQuan]

what righty policy failed us ? it as democrats that screwed up loans , savings and loans , forcing loans that could never be paid back etc .

+1.  So far the left are the ones that want to redistribute wealth.  And doing that they are screwing up the economy by making people do what they would not normally do.  Also do you realize the transfer of wealth mean you too.  You have or had equity in your house and now what?  you were getting 5% or more on a CD and now it is less than 1%  while costs are going up 5 to 12% due to the tax increases.
The higher prices equal less you have for a disposable income ( what is left once you meet all of your needs {food, shelter, fuel, clothing}) and the less you have to grow your wealth by investing, saving, or buying assets.

40 years of corporatism and deregulation, pushed by the right, has crippled the middle class. Bush's tax cuts for the rich pushed it over the edge. That agenda is completely right-wing, the party of corporatist protection that's all about individual profits and public risk. The Right also steadfastly refuses to admit that GW messed things up as much as he did, and that they have messed things up so badly that it will be at least 16 more years to fix the economy, and the blame is mainly theirs. That is why, in the time I have left on this world, I will never support a conservative. Period.

Actually I can show you economically where Government regulations hurt compitition by, raise prices, Limiting products, and that these regulations help the existing corperations by limiting new entries into the market.  Creating the opertunity for market monopoly. 
What you are saying makes NO economic sense.  The asme as taxing the rich will help the poor.  Taxing the rich as the opposite effect hurts the poor and actually creates a greater gap between the Rich and the poor.  Higer taxes reduce wages and lower the prices of goods and the Rich will be the only one that can afford things.

So, show me. Let's see the numbers, with sources, please. History shows the greatest economic growth happens when taxes are high on the top 2%, which is what Obama wants to do--- Rmoney wants to tax YOU and ME, and give the top 2%  (including himself) even MORE of a cut in taxes.

[Dee]

what righty policy failed us ? it as democrats that screwed up loans , savings and loans , forcing loans that could never be paid back etc .

+1.  So far the left are the ones that want to redistribute wealth.  And doing that they are screwing up the economy by making people do what they would not normally do.  Also do you realize the transfer of wealth mean you too.  You have or had equity in your house and now what?  you were getting 5% or more on a CD and now it is less than 1%  while costs are going up 5 to 12% due to the tax increases.
The higher prices equal less you have for a disposable income ( what is left once you meet all of your needs {food, shelter, fuel, clothing}) and the less you have to grow your wealth by investing, saving, or buying assets.

40 years of corporatism and deregulation, pushed by the right, has crippled the middle class. Bush's tax cuts for the rich pushed it over the edge. That agenda is completely right-wing, the party of corporatist protection that's all about individual profits and public risk. The Right also steadfastly refuses to admit that GW messed things up as much as he did, and that they have messed things up so badly that it will be at least 16 more years to fix the economy, and the blame is mainly theirs. That is why, in the time I have left on this world, I will never support a conservative. Period.

Actually I can show you economically where Government regulations hurt compitition by, raise prices, Limiting products, and that these regulations help the existing corperations by limiting new entries into the market.  Creating the opertunity for market monopoly. 
What you are saying makes NO economic sense.  The asme as taxing the rich will help the poor.  Taxing the rich as the opposite effect hurts the poor and actually creates a greater gap between the Rich and the poor.  Higer taxes reduce wages and lower the prices of goods and the Rich will be the only one that can afford things.

So, show me. Let's see the numbers, with sources, please. History shows the greatest economic growth happens when taxes are high on the top 2%, which is what Obama wants to do--- Rmoney wants to tax YOU and ME, and give the top 2%  (including himself) even MORE of a cut in taxes.

So, SHOW ME! Let's see the numbers, the years, WITH SOURCES! PLEASE!

[ChungDoQuan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/60-years-of-american-economic-history-told-in-1-graph/261503/

[ChungDoQuan]

http://www.epi.org/publication/a_long_and_persistent_middle-class_squeeze/

[ChungDoQuan]

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/13/a-shrinking-middle-class-means-a-shrinking-economy/

[ChungDoQuan]

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/productivity-and-real-median-family-income-growth-1947-2009/

Working and middle class held its own until the tax cuts for the rich started. Now, where are YOUR numbers?

[ChungDoQuan]

So,I've shown you (some of) mine. Is there anything to substantiate the claim that lowering taxes on the richest people in the country actually benefits the middle and/or working class?

No?

Thought so.

Follow the evidence. Belief does not count.

[Dee]

Where are your numbers and sources? Anything to substantiate your claims that cutting taxes for the top 2% benefits the middle class?

No?

Thought so.

At what point did I advocate cutting taxes for the "top 2%"?

No?

Thought so.

[ChungDoQuan]

 

[ironglow]

  From Chung;
   " So, show me. Let's see the numbers, with sources, please. History shows the greatest economic growth happens when taxes are high on the top 2%, which is what Obama wants to do--- Rmoney wants to tax YOU and ME, and give the top 2%  (including himself) even MORE of a cut in taxes."
*********************************************************************************************
 
  Obama has done nothing but raise taxes..outright and in fees.  Fees for drilling , opening a business, operationg costs, crippling regulations by EPA and other govt organs.  I have posted in another thread, asking how his robbery of $760 billion form Medicare have affected our seniors (who pay for thgeir coverage)..most have seen perscription co-pays rise, dr visit co-pays rise etc. but our policy rates for Medicare have not only remained but gone up.  We have to pay for a policy for those who don't pay.
  He has caused our energy costs to rise by kicking oil production away from our Atlantic shores while financing (with our money) George Soros' oil venture in the Atlantic by way of his Brazilian drilling operations. He has refused the Keystone pipeline, which would help greatly to relieve us of dependence on foreign energy, produce thousands of jobs and keep capital in North America, instead of giving it to people who want to destroy us..
  Is the effort to "bankrupt the coal industry" a form of tax?  I guess so, since it will cost every one of us! He makes it more expensive to even start up a business, by his myriad regulations.  Every thing he does it seems, is a hidden tax upon the American people..  He has promised to raise taxes as soon as he can, tying up trillions of dollars in capital and venture capital..and if he is re-elected, likely much of this money will be forced overseas.
  We don't need written references...all we have to do is observe the damage he has (intentionally?) done to our economy..
Worth watching:.. 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3AJAbWufc4&feature=autoplay&list=PL80EB17983EE01DBC&playnext=2