Reliable vehicles are the most important thing we can own next to firearms.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
42 comments:
they used to say ~60% of people NEVER in their entire lives leave their hometown where they are born. birth zip is the #1 indicator of future life outcomes. currently in the 'states' you can vote with your feet and move where the laws align with your beliefs and find a community of like-minded individuals to live harmoniously with. This ability has only been eroded over time, and they want to make it so that 100% of US never leave a 15 minute 'zone' around our residence, leaving travel only to the ultra elite.
I think most people are under the illusions of the past and don't realize like you and me how fast we have moved towards total lock down. We are trapped, yet they flood our borders with migrants & telling everyone they are 'free' to go wherever they want, knowing full well that people don't have the means to do so, while ignoring the cartels and human trafficking costs on the migrants being used and abused for political reasons.
I know for a fact the gas mileage of our cars in the US is higher than that of other countries. We are doing something to our cars to make them use more gas than needed to get from point A to B.
Aside from the other comment:
* the primary reason for the addition of Cat converters was originally 'unburned hydrocarbons', basically burning unburned fuel in your exhaust that made the exhaust stink. Modern cars actually adjust the fuel mix to be rich-then-lean-then-rich to keep the cat converters from loading up. The Cat converter adds backpressure which reduces engine output for the same fuel by 5-10% (which is why the first thing ricers do is delete it).
* cars used to run lean, which produces, in most cases, the same engine output for a huge savings in fuel. This is the real cost of emissions requirements, as lean-burning causes NOx production, which the EPA classes as a pollutant. Thus, cars were required to run rich (as the extra fuel actually cooled the engine cylinder through evaporation below the point that NOx is produced), which then made the unburned fuel itself a pollutant, and thus the Catalytic converter was also required.
There is more here, but basically older cars (2000-2015) that are fuel injected but used a hackable ECU (e.g. the Trionic systems, older ford ECUs etc) can be modified to literally produce more power while using less fuel.
And then there is the constant suppression of new engine technologies. For example:
* water injection, which allows EXTREME leaning of the engine without knocking while also preventing NOx
* Plasma ignition, which some automakers briefly experimented with. Basically, ignition science is weird, and using large corona wires to ignite engines actually produces a faster burn with less knocking as compared to spark ignition. Faster burn means max pressure is reached faster, which means more work done on the crank and not wasted in the exhaust.
* and then you can actually combine the above to remove the butterfly valve on the engine, which only exists to allow the engine to run rich while at low power levels (where normally it should just be running lean). Pulling a vacuum against the back of the butterfly valve requires work, and is usually considered to waste between 6-15% of the potential output of the engine. This is the primary contributor to so-called 'pumping losses'.
As a fun fact, adding a butterfly valve to diesel engines is the primary reason modern diesels get fuel economy only slightly better than gas cars, vs the lean-burn diesels of old that could get 40-60 mpg while hauling people, cargo, and a lead-footed driver.
* the primary reason for the addition of Cat converters was originally 'unburned hydrocarbons', basically burning unburned fuel in your exhaust that made the exhaust stink. Modern cars actually adjust the fuel mix to be rich-then-lean-then-rich to keep the cat converters from loading up. The Cat converter adds backpressure which reduces engine output for the same fuel by 5-10% (which is why the first thing ricers do is delete it).
* cars used to run lean, which produces, in most cases, the same engine output for a huge savings in fuel. This is the real cost of emissions requirements, as lean-burning causes NOx production, which the EPA classes as a pollutant. Thus, cars were required to run rich (as the extra fuel actually cooled the engine cylinder through evaporation below the point that NOx is produced), which then made the unburned fuel itself a pollutant, and thus the Catalytic converter was also required.
There is more here, but basically older cars (2000-2015) that are fuel injected but used a hackable ECU (e.g. the Trionic systems, older ford ECUs etc) can be modified to literally produce more power while using less fuel.
And then there is the constant suppression of new engine technologies. For example:
* water injection, which allows EXTREME leaning of the engine without knocking while also preventing NOx
* Plasma ignition, which some automakers briefly experimented with. Basically, ignition science is weird, and using large corona wires to ignite engines actually produces a faster burn with less knocking as compared to spark ignition. Faster burn means max pressure is reached faster, which means more work done on the crank and not wasted in the exhaust.
* and then you can actually combine the above to remove the butterfly valve on the engine, which only exists to allow the engine to run rich while at low power levels (where normally it should just be running lean). Pulling a vacuum against the back of the butterfly valve requires work, and is usually considered to waste between 6-15% of the potential output of the engine. This is the primary contributor to so-called 'pumping losses'.
As a fun fact, adding a butterfly valve to diesel engines is the primary reason modern diesels get fuel economy only slightly better than gas cars, vs the lean-burn diesels of old that could get 40-60 mpg while hauling people, cargo, and a lead-footed driver.
Is there anything a consumer can do to hack out some of these imposes inefficiencies? Okay, the dealership can't sell me car that doesn't meet certain emissions standards, if I made the changes myself, who would ever know? Obviously there are some things that can't be done aftermarket, but is something like "take out the catalytic converter" actually viable for a performance increase? (And keeping it in the garage to put back in for smog checks, or whatever you have to do).
Cat converter delete, which is what it is called, is known to add around 8-10% right off the bat to engine hp for the same fuel consumption. Usually the way it is done is to install 'race exhausts' or exhausts with 'racing cats', which usually are empty but appear to have a cat in it to fool any visual inspection.
Seriously, the reason most ricers start with exhausts is because it is easy as heck and adds essentially free power that never should have been removed from our engines in the first place.
There is a new caveat - modern ECUs will detect this and try to penalize you. Generally, if the ECU can't vary the fuel richness and see a corresponding variation in the O2 sensor (called 'closed loop operation'), it throws a check engine light. In older cars, the error was the only thing you got, and you could get around it by changing the engine tune to stay in 'open loop operation', which is the default mode when the car coolant isn't up to temp, and in yesteryear also when the check-engine light was lit.
Ever since 2008 or so, cars started punishing you by running extremely rich if this detected, called 'limp home' mode. It is a completely unnecessary mode that can foul up your O2 sensors and exhaust valves, cause backfires, etc, but fortunately you can tune the car's fuel maps (which most tunes are set to disable the penalty mode altogether).
So, basically yes, through an exhaust install and a quick tune (which you can either do yourself or buy offline), but anything beyond that requires some pretty heavy mods.
Seriously, the reason most ricers start with exhausts is because it is easy as heck and adds essentially free power that never should have been removed from our engines in the first place.
There is a new caveat - modern ECUs will detect this and try to penalize you. Generally, if the ECU can't vary the fuel richness and see a corresponding variation in the O2 sensor (called 'closed loop operation'), it throws a check engine light. In older cars, the error was the only thing you got, and you could get around it by changing the engine tune to stay in 'open loop operation', which is the default mode when the car coolant isn't up to temp, and in yesteryear also when the check-engine light was lit.
Ever since 2008 or so, cars started punishing you by running extremely rich if this detected, called 'limp home' mode. It is a completely unnecessary mode that can foul up your O2 sensors and exhaust valves, cause backfires, etc, but fortunately you can tune the car's fuel maps (which most tunes are set to disable the penalty mode altogether).
So, basically yes, through an exhaust install and a quick tune (which you can either do yourself or buy offline), but anything beyond that requires some pretty heavy mods.
Sir, what you are discussing is a very serious federal crime, and a MAJOR violation of the law in the state of california. If a mechanic was ever found to do such a job they would be in serious trouble, as well as the owner of the vehicle when it gets tested or inspected based on local laws which vary from region to region.
Catalytic deletions, and ECU flashing / reprograming can end up costing you a ton of money, if you get caught.
Catalytic deletions, and ECU flashing / reprograming can end up costing you a ton of money, if you get caught.
Emissions equipment kills mileage along with all of the required safety equipment weighs vehicles down reducing mileage. For example, modern diesel emissions systems have a particulate filter that will clog with soot by design, as part of the "regeneration" process diesel is sprayed into the exhaust and ignited before the particulate filter to burn away all of the soot in the filter.
Fuck using gasoline
It's not hard to separate ethanol from gasoline.
You put the gas into a container, and add about 1 cup of water per gallon of gas.
If you shake it vigorously and let it settle, the gas will be on top and the water-ethanol on the bottom. You can pour the gas off the top or whatever.
If you want to extract the ethanol from the water-ethanol mixture, a good and easy way is to do the same as above but use salt instead of water. If you put epsom salt on a baking sheet and heat it up in the oven, you can use that instead of salt as it is more effective. When you decant the alcohol layer on top, it will be extremely pure.
You could also put the water-ethanol mixture in a distillery, if you have one.
You put the gas into a container, and add about 1 cup of water per gallon of gas.
If you shake it vigorously and let it settle, the gas will be on top and the water-ethanol on the bottom. You can pour the gas off the top or whatever.
If you want to extract the ethanol from the water-ethanol mixture, a good and easy way is to do the same as above but use salt instead of water. If you put epsom salt on a baking sheet and heat it up in the oven, you can use that instead of salt as it is more effective. When you decant the alcohol layer on top, it will be extremely pure.
You could also put the water-ethanol mixture in a distillery, if you have one.
I have a five gallon Jerry can of pure white gas naptha which is about the purest refinement of a gasoline like mix (pentane, heptane, octane) possible. It's been in my garage for six years and every year I test a bit and it's still pure and burns clean. My dad had a naptha camp stove he hasn't used in twenty years and it was still good.
Ethanol-diluted gasoline has a shelf life os six months before it begins to go stagnant and ruins whatever it's in, which is why your lawnmower doesn't start in the spring. It's the corn shit that goes rancid and spoils and then your gasoline doesn't burn.
Ethanol-diluted gasoline has a shelf life os six months before it begins to go stagnant and ruins whatever it's in, which is why your lawnmower doesn't start in the spring. It's the corn shit that goes rancid and spoils and then your gasoline doesn't burn.
If I hypermile with this one, the fuel economy I get is usually a little over 60 mpg (from my own deductions).
I usually fail to hypermile properly unless I know I actually *have* to though, because the temptation to go vroom is too powerful.
I usually fail to hypermile properly unless I know I actually *have* to though, because the temptation to go vroom is too powerful.
I have a hard time believing pure gasoline is actually more expensive than e10. Corn whiskey has to be brewed/shipped to the refinery in what has to be a logistics headache. Why not just make cars that run on pure ethanol? Wouldn't that be cheaper if corn ethanol is actually cheaper?
The real scam is the soap that's mixed into gasoline, it makes gasoline absorb water from the air. That's why you can't store gasoline for long periods without it going bad.
The real scam is the soap that's mixed into gasoline, it makes gasoline absorb water from the air. That's why you can't store gasoline for long periods without it going bad.
Toast message
The original grift was using lead as an anti-knocking agent. Now it's ethanol. Personally, I've never driven a car from the leaded gasoline era. But everything I've heard says that older cars in particular run better on clear gas. Great. It was probably a scam and the anti-knocking thing was a load of shit to poison as many people as possible.
Now it's ethanol. Modern cars run on ethanol fine. Anything older than that will run superior on clear fuel at a ratio roughly proportionate to the amount of ethanol in standard fuel. I've noticed 10% better fuel economy than 10% ethanol and etc.
Another issue is gasoline-centric *cars* in particular. This has always been an American thing, but fewer and fewer car manufacturers in Europe are building vehicles with diesel engines either now. Diesel is actually more efficient than gasoline. Remember dieselgate? When volkswagen just randomly made the most efficient cars in the world for a few years? It's because they had diesel engines with no emissions control. The *shit* that gets clogged in your engine by emissions controls also has to go somewhere at some point, and usually after a while it just gets sprayed out into the groundwater by a mechanic after your vehicle starts running like fuck.
I drive a 5-speed manual 2004 diesel Ford focus mk1. It gets over 50 MPG when converted to MPG. The fuel reservoir holds 14.something gallons (I can't remember precisely). It's also a small car. You don't need to have a big ass truck for a diesel engine.
There's absolutely no advantage gasoline has over diesel in anything that isn't a city car like a fiat 500 or a renault clio, but they push towards ethanol gas for *everything* anyways, and increase the price of diesel (it used to be cheaper than gasoline). They also started adding sensors that brick diesel engines, and then made them mandatory, so now diesel engines have problems they did not used to have. Ethanol gasoline reduces the mobility of the goyim and fucks the inside of old gasoline car engines. It's all part of the latest bid to sell the EV grift and to get people to buy cars that collect data.
First one for me was a 2003 VW jetta diesel 6 speed.
I could 'hypermile' (remember those days?) and get around 70-75 as reported by the car over a 30 mile trip. If I was in enough of a hurry to get a speeding ticket, I got around 40.
Tetra ethyl lead (TEL) was a good way to increase the octane of gasoline and is still used in AV gas for piston-engined aircraft. The reason it was banned for automobiles was not because of public health but rather to prevent lead from coating the inside of catalytic converters in car exhausts. Today, octane numbers are achieved at the refinery through different cracking processes and no lead is used. One of the supposed benefits of TEL was it extended the life of the valve seats in cylinder heads but I don't think it made that much of a difference in an era where rebuilding an engine every 100k miles was pretty common.
Apart from the lower efficiency and convoluted political motivations for adding it to gasoline, ethanol will run fine in just about anything. The two downsides of ethanol are 1) it is hydrophilic and will hold water which can lead to corrosion 2) it doesn't always get along with "soft" components in the fuel system like fuel lines and gaskets.
Diesel cars in the NA market never took off for a few reasons, 1) tax is not based off of engine size or fuel type so there's no incentive to get a diesel. 2) [the Oldsmobile diesel engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Diesel_engine) 3) diesel costs more than gasoline in the US so any increase in fuel economy is largely negated by increased fuel costs. 4) availability of diesel at passenger car fuel pumps (this isn't an issue anymore, but when I was growing up we had a Volvo 240 with a VW d24 diesel engine and we could only get fuel at certain gas stations because not all of them carried diesel. 5) if you live in a cold climate, gasoline engines are much nicer. I know diesel technology has improved, but between gelling and general cold start issues, gasoline is hard to beat for winter starting.