"New Technology Rage/Hate/Praise Thread"

[nickw]

My grandfather owned his own repair shop for decades; several of his sons - my uncles - turned wrenches with him for decades. 60+ years of working on vehicles and his unambiguous opinion was that love for carburetors was nostalgia and rose colored glasses, and that fuel injection was better in virtually every way.

This was for daily drivers, though, and remote travel could conceivably change the equation. But people do tend to overlook the downsides.

This - my dad was a car guy and worked in the industry....he hates carbs and says same thing, your memory outweighs the reality.

 

[nickw]

My personal opinion is cars hit the sweet spot in the early 2000's. Simple EFI systems, no drive by wire, manual trans, manual tcase and no fancy electronics....but held oil, didn't leak, ran great, defrosters worked, didn't need to let them warm up for 10 minutes and got decent mpg.

 

[nickw]

I don't really care one way or another about them so there's no emotional investment here, but I don't think it makes sense to be this ambitious about fully electric vehicles. We already know how the periodic table works and there is absolutely no indication we're on the verge of an order of magnitude improvement in storage technology. Batteries just aren't going to get much better in the near term and even if bulk capacity doesn't improve much the other metrics of improvement are pretty close to their conceptual limits too. How many amps of current are you really going to deliver, or just keep bumping the voltage up? Electric motors and solid state motor controllers are already well over 90% efficient it's not like you can double their efficiency either, you can't double 90%.

Then there's the reality of economics, like we know that if starting January 1 every internal combustion vehicle was made illegal and everyone had to buy an electric, then every little intersection town in America would just drop in diesel powered shipping container charging stations. Then what problem did you solve exactly, outsourcing your pollution? Let's not pretend anything else would happen because that's exactly what would happen.

If we wanted to be practical we could just convert every gasoline powered car in the world over to burn ethanol, effectively and retroactively turning almost every car on the road into a solar powered vehicle without having to make the bonehead mistake of trying to consume our way out of a problem we created with consumption. But we won't do that so I guess see y'all in the post apocalyptic wasteland.

The benefit of outsourcing power production to a central, or in your example satellite sites, is you can optimize for power production. A gen set or power station can optimize for power production only.....could use a turbine combined cycle (HRSG) or fuel efficient diesel, both of which are much easier to maintain centrally and keep emissions equipment in-tact or working properly.

With that said though, I 100% agree with batteries not getting us out of our problem.

It's also frustrating to not see more use of domestic Propane / natural gas. There are some packaging issues, but those seem to be engineering problems of a much smaller scale than engineering new battery tech.

 

[SDDiver5]

I love the old trucks and SUV's. Love owning them, working on them and the smell of old cars. But not as a DD

I thoroughly enjoy driving my technology stuffed truck as my DD and my carb vehicles on the weekend.,

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

View attachment 554961

Some engines cope with alcohol/gas separating better than others.

I have never seen white pudding but I have seen engines (not automotive) not run because all they are getting is straight alcohol that separated out from gas.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Chemistry was never my thing, But I think separation like that can only be due to water in the fuel.

As an aside and fun experiment with the kids.
You can test percentage of alcohol in your gasoline by mixing water to a known volume of fuel.

Open vent fuel system + Iowa humidity/condensation... it happens.

My all-fuel John Deere B rejects the stuff until I drain the alcohol out of the carb.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I've had everything from a 1958 Chevy 1 ton to a 2017 F150.... I'll take technology any day of the week. In 39,000 miles I have yet to touch my truck unless its an oil change... Definitely can't do that with an older vehicle.

With that being said, when my daughter is a few years older, I'll pick up a "daddy daughter" project for her to learn on.

 

[b dkw1]

Some engines cope with alcohol/gas separating better than others.

I have never seen white pudding but I have seen engines (not automotive) not run because all they are getting is straight alcohol that separated out from gas.

Living on the beach in SoCal, my due buggy and bikes would gum up quick. If I had kept the due buggy it would have got EFI. I got good at cleaning a Webber. My new MX bike is a KTM300TPI. Nothing better than a fuel infected two smoker with the magic button.

Funny thing, if the buggy had Pemex in it, it could sit for 6 months and fire right up. All the fuel in northern Baja comes from SoCal but doesn't have all the crap in it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Living on the beach in SoCal, my due buggy and bikes would gum up quick. If I had kept the due buggy it would have got EFI. I got good at cleaning a Webber. My new MX bike is a KTM300TPI. Nothing better than a fuel infected two smoker with the magic button.

Funny thing, if the buggy had Pemex in it, it could sit for 6 months and fire right up. All the fuel in northern Baja comes from SoCal but doesn't have all the crap in it.

My 1946 John Deere B doesn’t quite know what to make of straight alcohol. It had 4.7:1 compression when new... and it ain’t new.

I have never had one gum up, I do have to drain the bowl for the B to start if I accidentally give it ethanol though.

 

[Regcabguy]

I saw this and thought, what a great thread.

I'm on the side of....

the best 4x4s came with carburetors

I had an '86 F-250. Efi came in on the 460 in '89 revolutionizing the dependability,power and fuel economy. My '86 was a gutless,hot running slug. The engine compartment was a myriad of vacuum hoses. I'll take the EFI.

 

[Happy Joe]

Personally having seen, driven, fixed and modified many vehicles;
LIKE:
Electric windshield wipers,
Alternators with solid state regulators,
Electronic ignitions, especially multispark (MSD) ignitions,
Electronic, fuel injection (especially SEFI (sequential injection).
Selectible lockers, (especially air lockers)
Analog, electric gauges,
Rear anti sway bars,
4 wheel disk brakes,
Anti-lock brakes,
Electronic traction control,
Electric anti-sway bar disconnects,
Bluetooth compatible stereos,
5 speed manual transmissions with evenly spaced gears and 4.0:1 first.

HATE & dislike;
Digital dashes, gauges and especially, non-modifiable, digital gauges that do not reflect reality (ford and Jeep oil gauges that show what the manufacturer wants) ; aka; idiot lamps masquerading as gauges...
6 speed and greater transmissions (used to mask the poor horsepower and torque of engines at usable/useful rpm),
electronic controlled automatic transmissions
Electric or vacuum actuated transfer cases.
Smart key anti-theft systems (waiting to strand you, somewhere remote).
Computers that require a service dept. reset after battery change/disconnect.
Remote start systems that enhance the stealability of the vehicle.
Air pressure tire sensors that cannot be eliminated,
Weak OEM axles,
IFS, and IRS on 4WD vehicles.
Unibody equipped 4WD vehicles,
Electronic controlled winches (give me by passable relays),
Carburetors, off road,
Plastic headlight lenses,
Vehicles without rated recovery points...
Excessive unreplaceable/obsolescent/unreliable/unserviceable electronics on vehicles.
Unlabeled fuse boxes...

Enjoy!

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I had an '86 F-250. Efi came in on the 460 in '89 revolutionizing the dependability,power and fuel economy. My '86 was a gutless,hot running slug. The engine compartment was a myriad of vacuum hoses. I'll take the EFI.

Early EFI still wasn't much to look at, it was still a chaotic squirrel nest of vacuum stuff and wiring.

Really it wasn't until fairly recently that an EFI engine physically looked decent.

 

[Wilbah]

The RFS (the subsidy you're talking about) expired in 2011 and presently ethanol fuel trades at market value. There are still ag subsidies which are designed to bolster the industry as a whole but those apply as much to zucchini and almonds and wheat so it would be a stretch to refer to them as a fuel subsidy.

US taxpayers do give the petroleum industry over $4bn in subsidies yearly though...

Corn ethanol is a coproduct of the meat and dairy industry, even if we didn't use it as fuel it would still be necessary to manufacture it because DDG is a staple feedstock and stores, transports, dispenses more easily than whole meal and produces healthier animals than whole meal . So if we didn't use the coproduct as a fuel we would need to find something else to do with all that sugar or just dump it in a pit.

There was a study done in the 1970s on the net energy value of producing corn ethanol and the authors of that study incorrectly assumed that the solids from production were simply discarded, so they declared the process net negative. People to this day keep using that study as an example of why they think corn ethanol is bad, which at this point is about the same as using prehistoric cave drawings of goats to support opinions about brain surgery.

Got any other outdated info to retire?

A requirement that a product be used is a subsidy. Not a direct cash payment (like a tax credit) but it artificially alters supply and demand to benefit someone specific (ethanol producers).

I have read the estimates of the "subsidies" the petroleum industry receives and many of them would also apply to ethanol producers for equipment etc.

The Renewable Fuels Association makes the charge that these "subsidies" for the petroleum industry cost over $4B per year. I dont know if that is the same source as your cited amount, but the two biggest "costs" associated with the industry are the tax deductibility of exploration and manufacturing which all companies and all industries receive as well as the depletion aspect which is merely a recognition in the tax code that the raw materials for any mineral based business have a finite amount and thus do run out. I think the RFA would be better served to focus on the benefits they wish to promote rather than pointing a finger at industries claiming what they do is wrong while their members do exactly the same thing. They aren't trying to claim that large ethanol producers don't deduct their cost of exploration and lab work to refine their manufacturing processes or deduct the cost of equipment used in their business are they? Nonsense.

When one looks at the direct cost of biofuels on consumers through artificial demand, and then adds to that the cost of repairs, downtime of equipment due to the impacts of ethanol in fuel systems there is a very dramatic cost associated with it. As for societal benefits that's for each person to determine IMO.

 

[shade]

Cool let's talk about religion or the president next.

Would it save time to talk about the next President of the Church?

 

[nickw]

I had an '86 F-250. Efi came in on the 460 in '89 revolutionizing the dependability,power and fuel economy. My '86 was a gutless,hot running slug. The engine compartment was a myriad of vacuum hoses. I'll take the EFI.

Amen - my 78 FJ40 was the "Cali" spec and the engine was a maze of hoses and tubes, if something went wrong, I'd have no idea where to start. Compare that with my 2001 Tacoma and the Taco was simple in comparison even with all it's wires and what little electronics it did have.