• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

True, nor did I say that. However, to scientifically verify a result of a particular process, it must be isolated from other process/data which could generate the same results. Otherwise, you cannot prove that that process or item is a causal factor. A researcher looking at whether a particular particle cause a particular disease, then the study must be set up to isolate any other factor that would cause the same disease. They wouldn't have to isolate it from, say, the herpes, but anything that can cause a "false positive" has to be removed or the data is corrupted.

You sound like a tobacco industry lobbyist in the 1980s and early 90s. We know that all things being equal, auto emissions result in poorer air quality and higher pollution levels, in particular higher ozone and particulate pollution levels. We know that high ozone and particulate pollution levels increase the likelihood of a whole host of lung diseases. What do you think those ozone alert days are for? We also know that as populations increase and thus population densities increase, environmental protections have to strengthen proportionately to achieve the same results.
 
"I alter my vehicle, and it gets different mileage than what the claim is for the base model!"

Holy **** you just can't make this stuff up. :lamo

What kind of vehicle do you drive?

He obviously lives in an alternate universe with different laws of physics.
 
No two vehicles of the same make and model will ever get the exact same mileage at any time during their life cycles. The reason is that two drivers will never have the exact same driving habits and patterns, one vehicle may be made for light duty while another might get ragged out. One vehicle may be properly maintained and the other might be getting the **** kicked out of it from it's owner on the maintenance end. The air conditions of a place will determine part of that as well, the density of air, humidity, temperature of it, elevation of landscape, etc.

That's why the EPA can only issue estimates, and as has been pointed out the "average" that they put in is not consistent as a set.

Well per his location he lives in Texas. Thus he is running his A/C, most likely lives in an area with fairly high average wind speeds, and is not living at elevation so air densities would be higher (my car gets much better mpg in Colorado or Wyoming than it does in KC for example). Moreover, if he lives around Houston, then all that smog and filth in the air there has got to add additional drag to his vehicles. :)

That all said, warmer climates typically give you better mpg in winter than colder climates since when its really cold out your vehicle idles at a high rpm for a long time until it warms.
 
Well per his location he lives in Texas. Thus he is running his A/C, most likely lives in an area with fairly high average wind speeds, and is not living at elevation so air densities would be higher (my car gets much better mpg in Colorado or Wyoming than it does in KC for example). Moreover, if he lives around Houston, then all that smog and filth in the air there has got to add additional drag to his vehicles. :)

That all said, warmer climates typically give you better mpg in winter than colder climates since when its really cold out your vehicle idles at a high rpm for a long time until it warms.
There are a ton of factors, in the "sweet spot" when the air is just cold enough to be heavy you get better combustion so there is a slight pickup in power and the engine works less contributing to a positive MPG, but like you said when it's so cold the engine struggles you get into the negative. Then there are the lead foots like me or the people who drive extremely slow which skews the MPG between the "exact" same two vehicles. Even something as small as having a dirty car will affect drag as you've stated. Even something like having a sensor go out or a plug wire that is just degraded enough to fire "properly" but not as hotly as the perfectly functional wires can hurt your mileage.
 
There are a ton of factors, in the "sweet spot" when the air is just cold enough to be heavy you get better combustion so there is a slight pickup in power and the engine works less contributing to a positive MPG, but like you said when it's so cold the engine struggles you get into the negative. Then there are the lead foots like me or the people who drive extremely slow which skews the MPG between the "exact" same two vehicles. Even something as small as having a dirty car will affect drag as you've stated. Even something like having a sensor go out or a plug wire that is just degraded enough to fire "properly" but not as hotly as the perfectly functional wires can hurt your mileage.

One of the biggest differences can be what kind of tires you are running. This is particularly true on a truck where there is a lot of difference in rolling resistance between highway tread and all terrains. Seasonal gasoline blends make a difference too. I do better on the summer blend up here in the midwest than on the winter blend. Two vehicles will get different mpg in different areas as well. The truck I used to drive drank the gas at altitude when I would drive it out to Colorado. However, my Kia Soul gets 3 to 4 mpg better at altitude than it does around here. Even road surface makes a difference. You get better mpg on asphalt than you do on chip and seal.

You notice all this stuff acutely if you ride road bike much. My heart rate on chip and seal averages close to 10% higher maintaing a given speed than it does on level terrain on asphalt. I can't imagine how a vehicle would be any different.

That all said, the whole "I put a chip in it" is a load of crap. If all it took was a different chip to significantly increase the mpg in a vehicle, then you can bet automakers would be using them in the first place.
 
One of the biggest differences can be what kind of tires you are running. This is particularly true on a truck where there is a lot of difference in rolling resistance between highway tread and all terrains. Seasonal gasoline blends make a difference too. I do better on the summer blend up here in the midwest than on the winter blend. Two vehicles will get different mpg in different areas as well. The truck I used to drive drank the gas at altitude when I would drive it out to Colorado. However, my Kia Soul gets 3 to 4 mpg better at altitude than it does around here. Even road surface makes a difference. You get better mpg on asphalt than you do on chip and seal.

You notice all this stuff acutely if you ride road bike much. My heart rate on chip and seal averages close to 10% higher maintaing a given speed than it does on level terrain on asphalt. I can't imagine how a vehicle would be any different.

That all said, the whole "I put a chip in it" is a load of crap. If all it took was a different chip to significantly increase the mpg in a vehicle, then you can bet automakers would be using them in the first place.
If someone wants to "chip" a vehicle they need to do their research, some kits are really good and others aren't but a lot of modification depends on what you want to trade off. Engineers actually tune down engines for multiple reasons(insurance costs, safety, MPG) and sometimes in their theoretical work they may miss something that a tuner might catch, but really it's such a miniscule difference in an unmodified car that chipping won't do much for MPG unless a person knows how to do the formulations like weight to power ratios. Most laymen could not get that right to save big on mileage.
 
Tell you what, answer a simple question for me, and I'll believe what you say. How can the EPA accurately measure the g/mi of emissions without knowing the fuel mileage of the vehicle?

As to other things, funny you should bring up smoking, since second hand smoke is blamed for the same diseases the EPA is blaming on sulfur emissions. So who is right, the EPA or the FDA?

Have you ever heard of fleet averages? That is what they use for MPG. Both the EPA AND the FDA are correct, and you are wrong.
 
Well per his location he lives in Texas. Thus he is running his A/C, most likely lives in an area with fairly high average wind speeds, and is not living at elevation so air densities would be higher (my car gets much better mpg in Colorado or Wyoming than it does in KC for example). Moreover, if he lives around Houston, then all that smog and filth in the air there has got to add additional drag to his vehicles. :)

That all said, warmer climates typically give you better mpg in winter than colder climates since when its really cold out your vehicle idles at a high rpm for a long time until it warms.

The fuel mileage difference you see is because the fuel/air ratio is set to around 14-14.5/1, optimum is between 12-12.5/1. When you go up in altitude, the air is thiner, so the computer tries to adjust, but in doing so, you actually get a more optimum ratio. The manufactures set them rich like that so that there is a better ratio at the exhaust under the old standards. Further, timing is not set to optimal either. You see, if you set timing and richness to optimal, you get better fuel mileage but you also get a higher CO2 reading, since the better the burn, the greater amount of CO2 and water will be produced during the emissions tests. Higher CO2 is actually an indication of a more efficient burn. High octane fuels, which allowed compression ratios of 11-13/1 produced more CO2 because it was a more efficient burn. A low compression burn, such as in the catalytic converter produces much less CO2.

And no, I don't live in a different universe where physics is different. However, when able, I do adjust fuel/air ratio and timing. Also, I add multi-spark ignition for a more complete burn below 3,000 rpm as well as a higher voltage coil system and lower resistance/larger spark plug wires which gives a much hotter spark.

You apparently think that the EPA allows auto makers to produce the highest efficiency engines. However, short of direct injection, Pre-1996 automobiles with a few adjustments can get significantly better fuel mileage than todays cars.

Other things can affect fuel mileage also. Open up your exhaust system more, headers, high-flow catalytic converter and high-flow muffler with large pipes will give you better fuel mileage because it allows the engine to build better torque on the low end, where your car most often runs.

Colder air is denser air, same as lower altitudes. Your Mass Air Flow sensor, and on GMs at least, coupled with the Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor determine the air volume/mass and the computer adjust your fuel injectors for it.

By adding a gear splitter or under/overdrive system (not available on front wheel drives) you can also change the gear ratio to lower the rpm range for on the highway. Of course, your engine actually has to produce enough torque to run it.

And yes, I run my a/c. Contrary to popular myth, you actually get better fuel mileage with the a/c on during the summer because opening the windows causes a disturbance in the air flow causing more wind resistance and drag.

No, I don't have to deal with the smog of a city. I live in the country. Lots of trees around to soak up all that bad **** your car puts out. Want cleaner air, plant more plants.

If the EPA thinks my car is getting 24 mpg and it's getting 30, that is a huge difference in grams/mile calculations. Luckily, we don't have to do EPA checks other than visual inspections in my county.
 
Well per his location he lives in Texas. Thus he is running his A/C, most likely lives in an area with fairly high average wind speeds, and is not living at elevation so air densities would be higher (my car gets much better mpg in Colorado or Wyoming than it does in KC for example). Moreover, if he lives around Houston, then all that smog and filth in the air there has got to add additional drag to his vehicles. :)

That all said, warmer climates typically give you better mpg in winter than colder climates since when its really cold out your vehicle idles at a high rpm for a long time until it warms.

BTW, your car only idles at higher rpm, same rpms per mph as any other time. Try a route the minimizes idle time.
 
Have you ever heard of providing an argument that is meaningful and accurate instead of just saying "your wrong"? Oh, nm, your a liberal.

Like I need to prove that inhaling poisons into your lungs is harmful? NM you are a Conservative. Breath deep.
 
If someone wants to "chip" a vehicle they need to do their research, some kits are really good and others aren't but a lot of modification depends on what you want to trade off. Engineers actually tune down engines for multiple reasons(insurance costs, safety, MPG) and sometimes in their theoretical work they may miss something that a tuner might catch, but really it's such a miniscule difference in an unmodified car that chipping won't do much for MPG unless a person knows how to do the formulations like weight to power ratios. Most laymen could not get that right to save big on mileage.

The only reason to "detune" an engine is EPA requirements. You never get better MPG by "detuning" an engine.

OBD II made "chipping" a car more problematic. Best bet is to eliminate the entire factory computer controls and put in an after-market engine management system. There is hidden code in the OBD II factory systems. If they notice a vehicle is out of "range" of "normal", the system tries to bring it back into "normal" range. The other problem with programmers is that they attempt to get CARB approval, thus killing anything useful in them.
 
Like I need to prove that inhaling poisons into your lungs is harmful? NM you are a Conservative. Breath deep.

Were not talking about that only. It's about how they determine how much pollution your car is putting out. They apparently don't know crap about cars and they are full of ****. Primarily because one of the stated goals of the environmentalist movement is to eliminate internal combustion engines.

As far as I'm concerned, they can suck the barrel of my AR.
 
The only reason to "detune" an engine is EPA requirements. You never get better MPG by "detuning" an engine.

OBD II made "chipping" a car more problematic. Best bet is to eliminate the entire factory computer controls and put in an after-market engine management system. There is hidden code in the OBD II factory systems. If they notice a vehicle is out of "range" of "normal", the system tries to bring it back into "normal" range. The other problem with programmers is that they attempt to get CARB approval, thus killing anything useful in them.
I understand that, detuning means less combustion which kills mileage, I forgot the formula but there actually is a range where more horsepower than factory can buy you a couple of miles to the gallon, but engineers are hamstrung from doing it because of other politician created issues.
 
The fuel mileage difference you see is because the fuel/air ratio is set to around 14-14.5/1, optimum is between 12-12.5/1. When you go up in altitude, the air is thiner, so the computer tries to adjust, but in doing so, you actually get a more optimum ratio.

Actually, thinner air is much less wind resistance. The vast majority of your fuel usage at cruising speed is in fighting wind resistance. At level ground at 7000 feet most vehicles will get better mpg cruising at 70 mph than they would at the same speed at sea level because of the lower wind resistance. Start going uphill and the mpg at altitude will decline precipitously because it takes more fuel to generate the same power.

The same is true on a road bike. Riding in Colorado I burn slightly less calories on level ground due to less wind resistance, but considerably more calories when climbing due to lower oxygen levels. Internal combustion engines are no different, especially normally aspirated ones.

No, I don't have to deal with the smog of a city. I live in the country. Lots of trees around to soak up all that bad **** your car puts out. Want cleaner air, plant more plants.

Its not the trees soaking up the smog, its just you have far lower vehicle densities in rural areas. If trees cleaned up smog then Houston and Atlanta would have some of the cleanest air in the USA, they don't of course. Houston has the air quality of a third world country despite all those east Texas pines.
 
I understand that, detuning means less combustion which kills mileage, I forgot the formula but there actually is a range where more horsepower than factory can buy you a couple of miles to the gallon, but engineers are hamstrung from doing it because of other politician created issues.

The real problem is their stance on CO2. As I've said, you simply cannot improve the efficiency of the burn without increasing CO2. Sulfur and other things add to complexity of engineering, true. However, if we didn't have laws protecting certain labor markets, we could use different materials. Both Lamborghini and Porsche have all ceramic engines in Europe, illegal in the States. Guess the steel lobby is too strong.
 
Actually, thinner air is much less wind resistance. The vast majority of your fuel usage at cruising speed is in fighting wind resistance. At level ground at 7000 feet most vehicles will get better mpg cruising at 70 mph than they would at the same speed at sea level because of the lower wind resistance. Start going uphill and the mpg at altitude will decline precipitously because it takes more fuel to generate the same power.

The same is true on a road bike. Riding in Colorado I burn slightly less calories on level ground due to less wind resistance, but considerably more calories when climbing due to lower oxygen levels. Internal combustion engines are no different, especially normally aspirated ones.



Its not the trees soaking up the smog, its just you have far lower vehicle densities in rural areas. If trees cleaned up smog then Houston and Atlanta would have some of the cleanest air in the USA, they don't of course. Houston has the air quality of a third world country despite all those east Texas pines.

Drag is the greater force, not wind resistance. Two vehicles with the same front end design (wind resistance) but different rear end designs (drag), the lower drag coefficient will always be the better.
 
Yes, oh the horrors of an energy policy that does not require that we blow up entire mountains and destroy thousands of miles of rivers and streams. :roll:

This is how we get coal. We turn places like this:

wv1.jpg


Into this:

View attachment 67163037

Is that what you want?

Better than stone_ages.jpg

Which is what the environazi's want.
 
I understand that, detuning means less combustion which kills mileage, I forgot the formula but there actually is a range where more horsepower than factory can buy you a couple of miles to the gallon, but engineers are hamstrung from doing it because of other politician created issues.

The other thing that manufactures do is market HP. Horsepower doesn't mean crap until top end, if then. But saying an engine has XXX HP is a marketing ploy. If they set the cam profile and valves to get the best low-mid torque and gear them right, they would get much better gas mileage.

I have a 2010 HHR (for sale if anyone wants one), the power band is ridiculously high on it. Even though it is rated at 155 HP, it's not until 6100 rpms, hardly daily driving range. That is one of the reasons why my 1985 fiero actually got better gas mileage and could beat it 0-60, even though it was rated at 95 HP.

The virtual dyno on the 454 I'm building for my Chevelle rates the hp with my selected cam at between 500-600, but torque is almost 700 and down in the range I will need it except racing. Of course, until completed and dynoed for real, I won't know for sure. Especially since I am putting in multi-point sequential fuel injection with a plenum design similar to the TPI system. Which was the best system GM ever built for low-mid range torque on a small block.
 
The other thing that manufactures do is market HP. Horsepower doesn't mean crap until top end, if then. But saying an engine has XXX HP is a marketing ploy. If they set the cam profile and valves to get the best low-mid torque and gear them right, they would get much better gas mileage.

I have a 2010 HHR (for sale if anyone wants one), the power band is ridiculously high on it. Even though it is rated at 155 HP, it's not until 6100 rpms, hardly daily driving range. That is one of the reasons why my 1985 fiero actually got better gas mileage and could beat it 0-60, even though it was rated at 95 HP.

The virtual dyno on the 454 I'm building for my Chevelle rates the hp with my selected cam at between 500-600, but torque is almost 700 and down in the range I will need it except racing. Of course, until completed and dynoed for real, I won't know for sure. Especially since I am putting in multi-point sequential fuel injection with a plenum design similar to the TPI system. Which was the best system GM ever built for low-mid range torque on a small block.
Torque is the most important aspect, I mainly focus on HP because if the drivetrain is done right the torque numbers tend to be close, and even then the HP is a reflection of the kind of build of the engine, it's going to put better numbers out with proper compression and fire. I like big displacement because it can facilitate lower compressions for torque and power which saves on wear during it's life, I always get a laugh at the kids who go with double digit ratios and put a ton of pressure and strain on their smaller four and six banger engines, the durability is gone at that point.
 
The real problem is their stance on CO2. As I've said, you simply cannot improve the efficiency of the burn without increasing CO2. Sulfur and other things add to complexity of engineering, true. However, if we didn't have laws protecting certain labor markets, we could use different materials. Both Lamborghini and Porsche have all ceramic engines in Europe, illegal in the States. Guess the steel lobby is too strong.

LOL There is no limit on CO2 in auto exhaust. And increased efficiency reduce CO2/mile which is what we want. CO is another story and is a product of incomplete combustion. The Ceramic engines you mentioned are experimental "adipic" engines that run at ultra high temps and have no engine cooling. The radiator is the #1 waster of energy in a conventional car. But engine temps > 500 degrees present other problems.
 
Last edited:
Torque is the most important aspect, I mainly focus on HP because if the drivetrain is done right the torque numbers tend to be close, and even then the HP is a reflection of the kind of build of the engine, it's going to put better numbers out with proper compression and fire. I like big displacement because it can facilitate lower compressions for torque and power which saves on wear during it's life, I always get a laugh at the kids who go with double digit ratios and put a ton of pressure and strain on their smaller four and six banger engines, the durability is gone at that point.

The biggest problem is going to be tuning it. I need to write some custom software and build a load generator before I do it. Otherwise, doing the tune manually on the load generator will take up to 2 months to get the fuel and spark tables set to optimum. Lot of work without the right software and I don't think anyone has ever approached tunning in the manor I plan to.

I'm going to use a digital flow meter from marine use to measure actual fuel flow/usage instead of using injector timing. So, setting the tables manually would take a very longtime. At each rpm (100 rpm increments), optimize the fuel/air and timing for minimal fuel consumption for each increment at each load range. So, lets see, about 5000 rpm operating range, which gives me 50 different increments spread out over say 20+ load ranges plus partial and wide-open-throttle curves. Yep, better get back to my C++ books tomorrow.

And then do it all over again after I add supplemental hydrogen to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom