Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 They run FOREVER no matter what They are not a continuous duty rated engine, trust me an LS1 wouldn't be able to handle the strain. It's a great car motor, but in no way was it ever designed to withstand full throttle maximum load 24 hours a day seven days a week. A continuous duty rated engine is literally made to operate at full throttle/full load all the time without failure. The difference in construction between say an EMD 16-710G3C-T2, and an LS1 is night and day. One of them is a 16 cylinder turbo-supercharged diesel engine with 710 cubic inch displacement cylinders, and makes 4300hp at about 950rpms. The other is a comparatively puny automobile motor that makes peak power at close to 6000rpms. Even if you took 13 LS1's and lashed them all together on a common output shaft to turn the alternator to make the 4300hp needed, I promise you they would melt down in a matter of minutes under that load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 They are not a continuous duty rated engine, trust me an LS1 wouldn't be able to handle the strain. It's a great car motor, but in no way was it ever designed to withstand full throttle maximum load 24 hours a day seven days a week. A continuous duty rated engine is literally made to operate at full throttle/full load all the time without failure. The difference in construction between say an EMD 16-710G3C-T2, and an LS1 is night and day. One of them is a 16 cylinder turbo-supercharged diesel engine with 710 cubic inch displacement cylinders, and makes 4300hp at about 950rpms. The other is a comparatively puny automobile motor that makes peak power at close to 6000rpms. Even if you took 13 LS1's and lashed them all together on a common output shaft to turn the alternator to make the 4300hp needed, I promise you they would melt down in a matter of minutes under that load. Then try the ls7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Then try the ls7 Just a more expensive meltdown. Fuel consumption would also be outrageously bad compared to the diesel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Just a more expensive meltdown. Fuel consumption would also be outrageously bad compared to the diesel. Maybe just Maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Just a more expensive meltdown. Fuel consumption would also be outrageously bad compared to the diesel. Not if you use the right oil Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Not if you use the right oil Silly me, run synthetic 75W-90 oil in them, then they'll work great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Bingo Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Electrical power generation which uses steam turbines is generally powered by coal, heavy fuels or natural gas, all much cheaper than distillate fuels and not practical for personal means of transportation. I know that, but I was referring to is that a turbine is smoother, and tends to capture and use more of the energy, and is an axial engine, rather than a reciprocating engine. If rotaries didn't burn their own lubricants, and wear through their own seals, and all of the throttle response benefits being negated for generator use, I might suggest those be used, but again, the apparent benefits mean less, and the drawbacks become hindrances, when using an engine designed to provide motive force is used to provide electricity instead. It is not optimized, it is merely available. Steam as a means of propulsion is so inefficient it was phased out in the 60's. I said that I WASN'T trying to advocate steam, merely adapting turbine power from one input to another, both to generate electricity. Steam is not feasible, of course. Electrical generation in remote outstations such as Caribbean Islands, use diesels to power the alternators. They are probably inexpensive, and re-used from other purposes. Most of the time remote installations are bare-bones to reduce cost and complexity to the absolute bare minimum, even to the point of using reclaimed equipment, or surplus. I am talking about theoretical designs for something new, that probably isn't even on a drawing board, and in a theoretical sense, what would be the BEST over-all option for the tasks required of the components, and which components, even hypothetical ones, are functionally the best suited to perform very specific tasks. I am not trying to actually build a remote island power station to be cheap, easy, and whatever works... I am asking what is the best way to generate electrical power with new applications of current technology. Oh, and to do it on a mobile platform the size of a car, with similar or better functionality than the current cars. Chevy Volt seems like OLD think being put together any way it can be. Lots of batteries that aren't efficient energy storage anyway, piston engines, because that is what we have on hand, traditional layout because that is the easiest thing to build in our existing factories... I am talking CLEAN SHEET re-think of an electrically driven car, that generates it's own electricity on-board, because battery storage is not the answer, and is nowhere near energy dense enough to perform, not to mention being a known depletion item, and a safety risk, and a big inconvenience in terms of range and charge time. A hydrogen fuel cell is not the answer either, because segregating, storing, and maintaining a hydrogen supply takes FAR more energy than you get back out as electricity from the fuel cell, or combusting the hydrogen. Compressed air, batteries on board, or other transitional storage mediums don't come close to liquid organic fuel in terms of energy density, or even ease of use. Building an electric or pneumatic golf cart to car-size scale is not the answer. And crazy sci-fi things like nuclear ion drive, or some other fictional thing, is of no practical use at all. What do you suggest, since you seem to have all the rebuttals... A heavy, relatively narrow-efficiency gas or diesel piston engine as a generator? Then why not skip the electrical stuff, and just drive the wheels directly, and call it good? I am fine with that. No Hybrid at all. But if you want electric drive's instant torque, regenerative braking, or even an adaptive AWD system... how do you make the most efficient use of a somewhat wide range of fuel, with low to no unburned fuel or particulate output, to smoothly generate a good, non-erratic supply of high-current electricity for that drive system to use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I don't have the answer, if I did I wouldn't be on a Subaru forum, I would be on the Aston Martin forum I do know that every time you convert energy, you lose. Fuel to steam to motion, or fuel to electricity to motion isn't efficient as direct fuel to motion. Double Award Winning Legacy GT Wagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Those pesky laws of thermodynamics again Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fzanetti Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 I don't have the answer, if I did I wouldn't be on a Subaru forum, I would be on the Aston Martin forum Very modest.... ;) Flavio Zanetti Boston, MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I don't have the answer, if I did I wouldn't be on a Subaru forum, I would be on the Aston Martin forum I do know that every time you convert energy, you lose. Fuel to steam to motion, or fuel to electricity to motion isn't efficient as direct fuel to motion. I agree. On the whole, I prefer a good mechanical engine, mechanically driving the wheels, call me a traditionalist... That is why I am resistant to hybrid tech in general, but if we are going to entertain electric drive, postulating that instant torque, and regenerative braking, and AWD without a fifth (or in GT-R's case 5th and 6th) drive shaft... are all desireable things to explore... Then I am exploring what is the best way to supply energy for electric drive. And the energy loss you describe is part of the equation... Converting fuel to torque (rotational force) is a lossy business. Piston engines aren't even that efficient at it... what maybe 20-30%? Rotaries are slightly better, because they aren't as inherently unbalanced, and don't shed momentum as much as reciprocating pistons do. But rotaries have their reliability, lubrication, and sealing issues to take into account. And their wide RPM range is not really applicable to generating electricity, which requires more efficiency at narrower RPM ranges, nor does it truly require instant response. A turbine engine goes further than a rotary, and actually may have fewer drawbacks, if such an engine were developed. Plus have the possibility of being somewhat higher in thermal efficiency, capturing more of the heat and pressure, and turning them into available torque. Heat exhaust, fuel consumption at idle, and expense are drawbacks, but can those drawbacks be minimized through engineering and economies of scale... leaving the benefits for electrical generation intact. Steam, Batteries, compressed air, hydrogen storage for combustion, or highly expensive fuel cell use, and other transient storage mediums don't come close to liquid fuels for ease and energy density. Unfortunately, I am not an engineer, otherwise I might be doing more practical work on the matter, and maybe I would be in an Aston Martin forum, also... BTW, off that topic... damn that Vantage V12 special is hawt... not that the Vantage V8 is a slouch, by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.