Pantone in the land of the rising sun?

[Alain G]

The engine manufacturers did their job, but:

when I compare for example, my 1600 BMW 1969 (960 kg empty, 99.005 Belgian francs)
and a BMW 316 (does it still exist?)

(essence)

The consumption has gone from 12 liters easy to 8-9 liters?

The seats have become more comfortable
There are air bags, retractable belts
Body reinforcements have been increased
It no longer starts to vibrate like a fool at 120 km / h
It went from 85 CV to 125-130 CV
She has power steering
she has air conditioning


we no longer come out of a traffic jam with an inflammation of the left knee
it makes much less noise (25 to 50 kg of insulation)
it went in 12 volts
and at 200.000 km it is still worth something.

and I hope for everyone who has one that it gets out of the way less easily


But all that, it's easy 2 to 300 kg more.
and CO and NOx pollution has decreased.

For 250 HP 6 cylinders and a base of Merdeces 500, my Charger is very economical with 1700 Kg, more I managed to make 9 liters at 100Km in the city, but must say that it runs on synthetic oil and antifriction / metallizing and I made him a high performance double air intake filter.

Not bad for a very bass drum eh!

40% savings compared to my 1/2 ton truck with V8 engine and more powerful for pulling my tent trailer.

[pb2487]

So I summarize:

On the engine side, I am not going too far if I say that we agree that there has been, say, 30 years, an improvement in diesel engines in terms of performance and consumption.
In France, given the price of diesel at the pump, with the same model and performance, I would always buy the vehicle that consumes the least:
30 years ago, it would have been only for the "economic" side.
http://www.prixcarburant.com/post/2007/05/11/Valeur-reelle-des-prix-du-carburant-en-France-depuis-1970
Today, I add without hesitation the "climate" factor in addition to the "economic" factor for a car purchase (even if diesel is not non-polluting).
I think that many people would do the same and all this forms a general demand.
It is up to our manufacturers to adapt their offers to this demand but since they want to make money and that in addition they are in competition, there is no problem on this side. So, They did not make the strategic choice to invest in research to have fun, but to meet market demand and therefore by extension to make us happy. That explains why, the engines have improved for 30 years.

So my question is always:

Why, since the principle of pantone or those same kind exist, never an industrialist has invested in it and has resulted in anything conclusive and this despite the significant performance apparently noted by their designers and the low cost / medium necessary for manufacturing?

So, I also come back to the link with China (land of the rising sun as everyone knows ..... I'm too ashamed ....):
In China, the oil company (petrochina, 2nd company in the world I believe) belongs to the state outside the Chinese state is currently subsidizing oil to boost their growth because purchasing power is still too low. They could put the money elsewhere, in something quickly exploitable.
http://www.aujourdhuilachine.com/informations-chine-washington-applaudit-la-baisse-des-subventions-chinoises-sur-les-carburants-7742.asp?1=1
http://www.mediaterre.org/amerique-nord/actu,20080820143452.html

So why is PetroChina / the Chinese state / Chinese manufacturers not investing in the apparently promising and simple pantone system either?
(Engineers' design offices still running at full speed and technology watch is not a way of resting a technology lol)

Voila, I think my questions are respectable and clear.
If you see a hypothesis there, I invite you to argue.
Please try to be simple, clear and courteous, the debate has not always been, even if it tends to become so ...
Looking forward ...
PS: Please notify me if I have entered incorrect information.

[Alain G]

pb2487

I think I can answer you quite easily, having had a service company on the road with several vehicles that have traveled 350 km and knowing the mechanics well enough to have made the acceleration race in snowmobile with very capricious 000-stroke engine in mixture air gasoline and to have modified a lot of automobile with gasoline injection.

The current technology of oxygen sensors very poorly digests the addition of water because it distorts the data of the engine control module, the addition of water or depletion of the mixture causes problems of premature wear on the top cylinder which no longer lubricates causing irreversible problems and overconsumption of oil, moreover the exhaust cylinder heads crack more quickly, a richer mixture without being too much is beneficial in terms of engine reliability.

I have almost always depleted my cars and been reduced to wear by an anti-friction / metallizing additive, except that the cylinder heads are affected, but the economy justifies replacing the cylinder heads.

Now in a diesel engine, I can't really say, but I imagine the problem is the same and maybe less due to the reduced fouling and the fact that oil as fuel lubricates the cylinder.

Another problem, and a big one, how to store water during freezing, adding antifreeze is tantamount to losing the economy made with water and if error bang! the pipes are cracking.


I think you have some answers that will convince you of why there is no water in our vehicles.





As for Pantone, if you had covered the whole subject from the start, well you would see that we are unanimous or almost to think that it is the addition of water vapor which improves the performance and not the Pantone system as presented, the idea is only to find a way to carry water in very very fine vapor, which is not at all easy without major modifications.

The American electric car was the best in the world and in the early 80s, even the Japanese were not there but Papa Buch and his petrodollar friends simply did not want it and pushed back towards the car that consumes, banishing all that did not consume.

We have to wonder what they can do with us in the next generations when the EV was capable of 300km on a battery charge only, almost 30 years ago.

Only the future and the will will bring us back these winners from the past. The future is promising here in North America with the new EVs promised in less than 5 years and the will of Obama who is unlocking colossal budgets for the achievements.

[elephant]

Storage of pure water: OK, but how do our friends do when it freezes?

Longevity of the engines: I have several testimonials relating to the Transporter VW 2,5 diesel.
I have a friend who specializes in airport shuttles: his "standard" is 700.000 km with very expensive synthetic lubricants. Of course there are traffic jams in the east ring of Brussels, but otherwise its engines can often do 40 km without changing gears between Gosselies and Waterloo.
On the other hand, I was told about ambulance motors of the same type: from 100, 150.000 km breakage begins: in winter, they do not have time to let the engine warm up before driving fully.

[pb2487]

These improvements only concerning the diesel engine apparently, I allow myself to bring back to the main subject:

To summarize:
On the engine side, I am not going too far if I say that we agree that there has been, say, 30 years, an improvement in diesel engines in terms of performance and consumption.
In France, given the price of diesel at the pump, with the same model and performance, I would always buy the vehicle that consumes the least:
30 years ago, it would have been only for the "economic" side.
http://www.prixcarburant.com/post/2007/05/11/Valeur-reelle-des-prix-du-carburant-en-France-depuis-1970
Today, I add without hesitation the "climate" factor in addition to the "economic" factor for a car purchase (even if diesel is not non-polluting).
I think that many people would do the same and all this forms a general demand.
It is up to our manufacturers to adapt their offers to this demand but since they want to make money and that in addition they are in competition, there is no problem on this side. So, They did not make the strategic choice to invest in research to have fun, but to meet market demand and therefore by extension to make us happy. That explains why, the engines have improved for 30 years.

So my question is always:

Why, since the principle of pantone or those same kind exist, never an industrialist has invested in it and has resulted in anything conclusive and this despite the significant performance apparently noted by their designers and the low cost / medium necessary for manufacturing?

So, I also come back to the link with China (land of the rising sun as everyone knows ..... I'm too ashamed ....):
In China, the oil company (petrochina, 2nd company in the world I believe) belongs to the state outside the Chinese state is currently subsidizing oil to boost their growth because purchasing power is still too low. They could put the money elsewhere, in something quickly exploitable.
http://www.aujourdhuilachine.com/informations-chine-washington-applaudit-la-baisse-des-subventions-chinoises-sur-les-carburants-7742.asp?1=1
http://www.mediaterre.org/amerique-nord/actu,20080820143452.html

So why is PetroChina / the Chinese state / Chinese manufacturers not investing in the apparently promising and simple pantone system either?
(Engineers' design offices still running at full speed and technology watch is not a way of resting a technology lol)

Voila, I think my questions are respectable and clear.
If you see a hypothesis there, I invite you to argue.
Please try to be simple, clear and courteous, the debate has not always been, even if it tends to become so ...
Looking forward ...
PS: Please notify me if I have entered incorrect information.

[Christophe]

The arguments you have above. You just have to learn to read.

I lock.