Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-26-2014, 03:59 AM   #9871
Moderator
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,837
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
In what reality is that not the case?
Toothpaste?

08-26-2014, 05:17 AM   #9872
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,109
We allways pay for r&d. The difference is that, unlike diesel emissions controls, the stuff we pay to research usually:
a. Works
b. Has some benefit to it

The DPF systems are the only technology that I know of that has been mandated, and applied during my lifetime that REDUCES fuel economy by 20%.
08-26-2014, 06:49 AM   #9873
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
The DPF systems are the only technology that I know of that has been mandated, and applied during my lifetime that REDUCES fuel economy by 20%.
I didn't know you were that young! Back in the 70s, I remember the first generation emission controls for passenger cars that carried a double whammy of decreased horsepower and poor fuel economy. Fortunately, things are much, much better now for gas engines. With any luck things will improve for the systems on the big rigs.


Steve
08-26-2014, 07:02 AM   #9874
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,109
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I didn't know you were that young!


Yes, yes, that's it! I'm too young to remember. Or maybe too old to remember.

08-26-2014, 12:44 PM   #9875
Veteran Member
Joel B's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Or maybe too old to remember.
What were we talking about??
08-26-2014, 01:34 PM   #9876
Pentaxian
RoxnDox's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington, USA, Terra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,098
QuoteOriginally posted by Joel B Quote
What were we talking about??
I think it was about getting a bacon sandwich from Mabel at the Old Home Fill 'er Up and Keep on Truckin' Cafe... Or maybe not. But it shoulda been!

another Jim
08-26-2014, 01:57 PM   #9877
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,109
QuoteOriginally posted by Joel B Quote
What were we talking about??
Exactly.
QuoteOriginally posted by RoxnDox Quote
Old Home Fill 'er Up and Keep on Truckin' Cafe.
I haven't hear that one in a very long time.
08-26-2014, 07:10 PM   #9878
Moderator
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,837
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
We allways pay for r&d. The difference is that, unlike diesel emissions controls, the stuff we pay to research usually:
a. Works
b. Has some benefit to it

The DPF systems are the only technology that I know of that has been mandated, and applied during my lifetime that REDUCES fuel economy by 20%.
The first heavy trucks I drove got 1 to 2 mpg. They were the ones that belched black smoke and gave us the misconception that they were slow, noisy and stinky.

The 2013 spec heavy trucks get 6 to 10 mpg. They are quiet, powerful, and the air coming out of them is cleaner than the air going into them.

But the systems are far from fully developed, or without major problems. Monstro had me sitting in a truck shop in Des Moines, IA earlier this year for an entire day because the DPF had become plugged with soot, and the system that is supposed to keep it clean (regen) was not functioning correctly.

Also, Monstro and his big brother (the blue Volvo I drove 5 years ago) both have Cummins ISX engines, and both have cooled EGR. That is an exhaust gas recirculation system that is "cooled" by engine coolant, and is supposed to reduce engine emissions by recirculating a portion of the exhaust gasses back though the engine combustion chamber.

Even though they were two different models of the ISX, and the one in Monstro was 5 years newer, they both had problems with the EGR. What happens is the heat exchanger that the coolant passes through fails and coolant winds up in the intake stream.

The one in Monstro's big brother gave up at about 500,000 miles. The one in Monstro was giving signs it was about to fail and he only had just under 400,000 miles on the clock.

The ISX in the older truck was a twin cam engine that was rated for 550 horsepower. I routinely say 6 mpg even running at 75 to 80 with flatbed loads (much more wind resistance than vans or reefers).

The ISX in Monstro is a newer single cam engine rated at 480 hp. Although I could get 6 or even 7 mpg with it, I found that I needed to keep the speed down at or below 65.

08-26-2014, 07:20 PM - 1 Like   #9879
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,819
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I didn't know you were that young! Back in the 70s, I remember the first generation emission controls for passenger cars that carried a double whammy of decreased horsepower and poor fuel economy. Fortunately, things are much, much better now for gas engines. With any luck things will improve for the systems on the big rigs.


Steve
I ran a service station in 1973 when the worst cars ever made by Detroit first came out, Compression ratio was reduced which cost a lot of horsepower. Then there was this air pump attached ot the engine tha pumped clean air directly into the exhaust system. It drained another 15 HP or so from the engine. It's purpose was to pump clean air into the exhaust system so the cars could meet the new parts per million standards. In order to restore some semblance of pickup, the gear ratios were played with too. As a result of all of this gas mileage was reduced about 50%. Full size pickup trucks today with the big V8 engines get better gas mileage that these cars did. .

I remember driving a 1973 Chevelle with a 350 cubic inch engine on the interstate to deliver it to another station. That engine used to be able to get similar size cars up to 130 mph. This care topped out a 92mph and that was all she wrote. So in the name of protecting the environment we made a bunch of gas guzzling cars that performed as bad as they looked.. But they did meet emission standards. They just used twice as much gas.

I am really glad that those days are long behind me.
08-26-2014, 07:27 PM - 1 Like   #9880
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,771
But funny how, despite all the whining and crying and gnashing of teeth, the auto industry manages to create clean cars that get good mileage. It's just really unfortunate that instead of waiting for the right thing to be legislated, they couldn't just get on with it.
08-26-2014, 07:38 PM - 1 Like   #9881
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,494
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But funny how, despite all the whining and crying and gnashing of teeth, the auto industry manages to create clean cars that get good mileage. It's just really unfortunate that instead of waiting for the right thing to be legislated, they couldn't just get on with it.
Assume a company is like a living being. It wants to be optimally efficient (I know, that assumption seems unlikely, but in reality it is correct).

'Getting on with it' was a sub-optimal use of capital until taxes and penalties were added into the mix, just as much of the new mandated safety equipment, which is required as a result of mileage mandates that led to smaller, lighter, less safe designs. Since we can't see over the front of the pedestrian-safe 8" crumple zone hoods now, and can't see out the side windows of the high-waisted doors, soon we'll be required to pay for electronics that allow vehicles to monitor each other and brake themselves to avoid collisions with each other. Such self-contolling cars will present new unanticipated negative consequences that will lead to some Class Action lawsuit, and another protective mandate will be applied.

It is a wonder any auto company can ever make a profit and any consumer can ever afford to buy a car.
08-26-2014, 09:34 PM   #9882
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,129
QuoteOriginally posted by Racer X 69 Quote
The first heavy trucks I drove got 1 to 2 mpg. They were the ones that belched black smoke and gave us the misconception that they were slow, noisy and stinky.

The 2013 spec heavy trucks get 6 to 10 mpg. They are quiet, powerful, and the air coming out of them is cleaner than the air going into them.

But the systems are far from fully developed, or without major problems. Monstro had me sitting in a truck shop in Des Moines, IA earlier this year for an entire day because the DPF had become plugged with soot, and the system that is supposed to keep it clean (regen) was not functioning correctly.

Also, Monstro and his big brother (the blue Volvo I drove 5 years ago) both have Cummins ISX engines, and both have cooled EGR. That is an exhaust gas recirculation system that is "cooled" by engine coolant, and is supposed to reduce engine emissions by recirculating a portion of the exhaust gasses back though the engine combustion chamber.

Even though they were two different models of the ISX, and the one in Monstro was 5 years newer, they both had problems with the EGR. What happens is the heat exchanger that the coolant passes through fails and coolant winds up in the intake stream.

The one in Monstro's big brother gave up at about 500,000 miles. The one in Monstro was giving signs it was about to fail and he only had just under 400,000 miles on the clock.

The ISX in the older truck was a twin cam engine that was rated for 550 horsepower. I routinely say 6 mpg even running at 75 to 80 with flatbed loads (much more wind resistance than vans or reefers).

The ISX in Monstro is a newer single cam engine rated at 480 hp. Although I could get 6 or even 7 mpg with it, I found that I needed to keep the speed down at or below 65.
I know the ISX well considering I did tech support on them for years. I still work for Cummins, but in a different role.

The EGR cooler is prone to cavitation damage, so the right coolant and making sure there is no air in the system is a huge deal on them, but unfortunately service departments don't always follow those recommendations. I've even seen them shipped from the OEM with problems.

I can tell you that those problems and the aftertreatment system (DPF and SCR systems) are definitely being improved, same with efficiency, but it takes time.
08-26-2014, 09:55 PM   #9883
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
Part of their willingness to make smaller cars now is the effin price of gas. There are some people still driving huge gas guzzlers out there but not many. Even the SUV's and trucks people want better gas mileage or they won't buy. In America at least people do like their big cars, trucks. If they could afford it a lot of people would still be driving a behemoth that gets close to no mileage. It's an ego thing with some people I think, particularly down here.

I know it's nothing compared to elsewhere but for most of us here anything over $2 a gallon for gas and we start to hyperventilate and think about driving something smaller. $3 plus for regular gas is all too common now and we're still not used to that. My Focus takes $31 to fill up and that lasts me anywhere from a couple of weeks to a month depending upon how much I have to drive. Our last car took nearly TWICE that in terms of gallons and would probably take $65-70 easy if we still had it to fill er up...

Dad still mourns that big car but I don't. I like the Focus just fine, particularly since it's now going to be officially mine, and I didn't even have to pay for it, laugh. It was Dad's car but Dad can't drive anymore. He hasn't been able to for a while now. No way he'll pass the vision test now so I drive him all over the place and in return he pays for the insurance on the car, most maintenance, and gas. Car is paid off, finally, and he just helped me buy new tires and a tune up so we're good.

This car gets killer mileage for the gas. No way I'd ever trade it. But I still remember when gas was under $1 a gallon and it wasn't that long ago either. I know we have it far better than most, but still it irks me paying $3 plus a gallon....
08-26-2014, 10:52 PM   #9884
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wangaratta, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,940
$3 per gallon? I'd go for that!!!!!
In Australia @ $1.50 per litre x 3.79 litres to US gallon + $5.68.
and prices are generally above $1.50, especially in rural areas.
08-27-2014, 12:01 AM   #9885
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 144
This morning 1.639 €/l and end sum was 87 € to get nice 700+ kilometers travel for Volvo V50. It is about the one day pay after taxes. Welcome to Finland.
Reply
« False colour | - »

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
arctic cold, aussie shepherds, bacon, basque paella, beer, caffeine, camera, canada, catch 22, cheddar, cheese, dachsunds, dew, drink, dslr, gin, hair, igunaq, k-mount, k3, kids, lutefisk, maine, marital relations, mother, mountain, norm, patent, pentax k-3, pentax lens, possums, research, ricoh, rupert, sandwich, scotch, shirley, snoring, spam, study, toilet, tokyo, veggies, vermont, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why I will buy a K3 chicagojohn Pentax K-3 80 09-18-2016 08:42 AM
Suggestion Neutralize the 'why I won't buy a k-3' thread crewl1 Site Suggestions and Help 61 10-04-2014 05:08 PM
Why I Won't Be Buying A K5IIs Racer X 69 Pentax K-5 40 02-03-2014 08:12 PM
Why I don't buy Pentax lenses keyser Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 44 12-20-2012 01:58 AM
I feel so old: 8 things the facebook gen won't buy Nesster General Talk 27 04-22-2012 11:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top