ALFAGTV6.COM

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:54 pm

How about a MAN B&W K98MC marine diesel engine...

http://www.daros.se/technical/image17.htm

It's 4 stories tall, can be custom-built with 6 to 14 cylinders and in 11 cylinder-trim it makes 106,000 horsepower!!!

Pistons are 3 feet in diameter and the top rpm is a blistering 94 rpm!

The crank weights 2200 tons and the entire motor weighs something like 10,000 tons! The connecting rods are some 20 feet long and it consumes 320,000 gallons of fuel per day! (It can push the biggest container ships over the Atlantic in 6 days at 35 knots!

It takes 6 months to build one! (Oh yeah, it's a two stroke and it runs 3 turbo chargers...)

MD · Post by MD » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:15 pm

it consumes 320,000 gallons of fuel per day

..add to that the rest of the internal combustion processes on the planet on a daily basis and do you ever wonder how long before we all gonna fry in climate change?

Reminds me of a song by Country Joe and the Fish " I feel like I'm fixin to die".

Chorous
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

http://www.well.com/~cjfish/game.htm#cheer

As much as I Love my V6 engine, I'd be willing to swap it for new green power if it was available. We are stuck with old technology in our cars and that is their charm but why aren't the manufacturers moving on ?

John in Denver · Post by **John in Denver** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:05 pm

Yeah.... didn't we (as a species) use sails at one stage with zero emissions and no fuel cost? Not that sails would work on an Alfa.

zambon · Post by **zambon** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:42 pm

What I dont understand is why my Verde Milano cant get 32mpg and outperform almost any new car sold in the US with 20-30 year old technology...
I read that the 75ts can manage 47mpg if it is driven 55mph! That is similar to the best new green cars available in USA. Hybrids and diesels included.
New cars tend to always run too many rpm in top gear at highway speed and of course they are bigger and heavier every year lately.
In the USA we tend not to have any so called "world cars" that get better economy than the expensive hybrids.
These auto companies dont want to let us have green transport! Here in the USA all they talk about is stupid hydrogen cars that may never be produced. Meanwhile, we had the technology to make fuel efficient cars over 100 years ago (diesel engines, tall gearing, light wieght).
All the working stiffs here in Wisconsin complain about fuel prices every day (even though US fuel prices are the lowest in the world, I would guess). But they love to drive their 11mpg Ford v10 truck...

What MD said...

matt · Post by **matt** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:48 pm

I don't think its all doom and gloom, there are some strong points of view on global warming and interesting alternatives too. "they" would have us all believe that in 50-100 years time the worlds oceans have risen, we'd all be battling extremes of weather and hardship because of global warming. Others have evidence of the polar ice cap and glaciers melting at such a rate that the oceans currents (weather generating) are slowing down beacuse of the flood of fresh water reducing salinity and therefore current flow leading to an early ICE AGE! Others studies (geological) going back 400,000 years show a temp' cycle of low and high and we just happen to be on the 'up' at the moment in this cycle. And others that show in countries that have cleaned up their emisions have had even higher increases in temperature because of the lack of 'polution particles' in the air to reflect sunlight/heat away

I think an awareness of the possibilties is good but until they all agree i'm not going get caught up in the fear doom gloom push
I think BMW has a 300km/hr Hydrogen powered test car, all it produces out the exhaust is water! The technology is there when we need it...........in the mean time

junglejustice · Post by **junglejustice** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:36 pm

I want to put a GoTech on it!

SamW · Post by **SamW** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:12 am

Hey look! Someone lightened the flywheel, this must be the hi-po model! Think our transaxles could handle that engine?

http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

A good article for all you dooms day'rs!

I do agree with Zambon, it is amazing that our older Alfas get such good gas mileage, my GTV6 used to get 30-31 mpg on every tank with fast driving. I think the biggest problem is the added weight of all the crap they put in cars now days, and to make the cars handle with the weight they add wider tires and all this just takes away from fuel mileage. That's why I will keep my GTV6 and once I get my Verde tuned right, I imagine it will get even better mileage!

Hippo58 · Post by **Hippo58** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:24 pm

WOW!

The flywheel seems to be made from alloy also!! But I think the intergrated windage plate is all the money!

P.S. Happy new year 2 all the transaxleisti!

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:32 am

zambon wrote:What I dont understand is why my Verde Milano cant get 32mpg and outperform almost any new car sold in the US with 20-30 year old technology...

Yes, but you sure as hell don't wanna crash in it or get hit by it when you're walking (anybody want a 6C dent in their forhead?).

Anyhow, forget about the cars and worry about the old plants still using coal, there are old plants that pollute more in a day then most european countires total cars do in a year...

Mezevenf · Post by **Mezevenf** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:00 am

Mats wrote:(anybody want a 6C dent in their forhead?)

MD · Post by MD » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:44 pm

Don't get me wrong. I do respect the skill of the people who made this engine and others like it. My comment is more about LONG term survival on this planet. Even if you are right matt, collectively we are still wasting energy resources at a phenominal rate.

To slow down the rate of fossil fuel use, we don't have to go super high tech to do it either. It's all been done before but we seem not to learn from history.

Let's look at steam. You might laugh but you won't laugh when I am finished.

Here are some rough reasons.

An internal combustion (IC) engine is around 24%efficient whilst steam is around 40%. The torque characteristics of a steam engine are a lot more flat and less peaky like an IC engine and therefor more usefull. The design of the combustion chamber for a specific fuel is much more easy such as generating steam than it is for an IC engine.

The IC engine combustion rate varies with load and rpm and therefore must cope from idle to flat out and all in between. The steam engine on the other hand has constant combustion at an optimum rate and no matter what the load because what is being used to deal with the loads is steam. (A by product of combustion).

So by designing an ideal fuel specific combustion chamber, you can use a huge variety of fuels to raise steam such as oils, coals, kerosene, diesel, gas and as it has been demonstrated before, you can even run a steam engine on chicken shit after it ferments and makes methane gas!!

A steam application in motor cars would obviously need to be practical and simple so current technologies could be employed to make it happen like superheated steam, multistage latent heat recovery, and recycling of the condensed stream.

I beleive the SAAB motor company made a steam car somewhere around the 70's ? and could raise steam in a few minutes from cold. Not bad in ice bound Sweden. There was also an Australian vehicle converted in the same decade.

My point is, even with these simple and proven technologies the world could reduce emissions and prolong the available resources for future generations so why are we not doing it?

Ask the oil companies.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:05 pm

The ice age was over in Sweden by the -70ies you know...

BMW is actually implementing steam tech now on their latest engines, very cool stuff.

matt · Post by **matt** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:08 pm

My point is, even with these simple and proven technologies the world could reduce emissions and prolong the available resources for future generations so why are we not doing it?

Ask the oil companies

and governments! They way business and "society" is at the moment we have to rely on fossil fuels to earn $$$ to survive. Sure there is older less polluting technology but its not used because its not economicly compeditive. If anyone could use any sort of less polluting engine and make money with it we'd all be using it. Thats why at the moment hybrid cars are relatively expensive, until fuel prices are so high the purchase & running costs of a normal car are higher than a hybrid we won't see that many hybrid cars on the road

Even if we all used the most efficeint engines for our applications with the worlds population steadily increasing we're only delaying the eventual exhaustion of fossil fuels. In the future they will probably refer to "us" as the fossil fuel age, as they'll all be running on something else........

i just hope "they" are around, the number of unacounted for / lost soviet nukes is more of a concern to me......

Mats didn't ABBA get you guy's out of the ice age in the '70s

Heres a very fast ineffcient way from a to b

zambon · Post by **zambon** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:52 pm

If the US government didnt subsidize the price of gas, thereby undermining the comparative advantage of fuel efficiency to automotive consumers, then it would be economically advantageous for manufacurers to put as much money into developing efficient vehicles as they currently spend designing ways to add a twentieth cup holder to the interior of the latest 12mpg SUV.
Then again, the development has already been done. Fuel efficient models are around, they just tend not to come to US shores and even when they do, the dont bring many. (You have to pay above the retail to get a tdi VW in many cities because they are so rare).
It is true that the biggest contributors of greenhouse gasses are factories and coal fire power plants and such (Mt St Helens explosion released more greenhouse gasses than all cars ever built, I think. Then there is that space shuttle...ect), but the problem goes beyond environmental ideals.

Increased demand for fossil fuels increases heating costs and electricity costs, many people who dont even drive pay hundreds per month for heat and the price will keep going up because demand is not going down. This creates big problems for low income old folks who spend fortunes each month for their perscription drugs

and have very little to spare.
Sounds like I am running for office.

That is getting away from cars, sorry.
To reiterate my beef with the manufacturers:
Sure new cars are safer than 1987 Alfas. They could be just as safe with some of the fat trimmed off. They would then get better fuel economy and be more fun to drive. Also, lighter vehicles have lower driver and passenger injury rates due to their superior abilities at avoiding danger. Chev Suburban has one of the highest driver death rates, while the Jetta is among the lowest (In USA according to Harper's magazine). My also have to do with the way truck drivers feel invinsible on the road due to the size of their vehicles, causing them to be more reckless.
"There is no more effective tuning than weight reduction," (Initial D)

MALDI · Post by **MALDI** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:14 am

MD: So why did diesel replace steam in the 1940s and 50s for locomotive engines? Certainly railroads have every incentive to save on fuel costs. Are modern steam engines built and used in any capacity anywhere in the world? Seems as if the technology is all but been forgotten. Just wondering...

Need More Power!?