Slashdot Mirror
Wrong Fuel Chokes Presidential Limo
An anonymous reader writes "Fueling your car with the wrong type of fuel happens even to POTUS. This happens when you put gasoline instead of diesel in the tank. ...." And Yes, the presidential limo really is a diesel. What about clean, renewable solar?
The link is to a story which says the correct fuel was used.
Ran into this a couple of times in the Army before we eliminated all gasoline vehicles. Not fun.
Why aren't diesel spouts square?
Mostly random stuff.
The presidential limo is much heavier than a standard limo due to the extra protection it offers. There isn't enough room on the thing to get enough solar power to move it anywhere, let alone a detail like wanting to move it at night. Adding enough batteries to provide reasonable drive time would mean making it even bigger.
There are some problems that solar can't solve. You'd think an editor here would know that.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Diesel is still better than gas as far as fuel efficiency and power, so I wouldn't complain too much.
Now, if it was a diesel-electric hybrid, then there'd be something to talk about.
An official limousine awaiting President Barack Obama's arrival in Israel malfunctioned Wednesday but the Secret Service now says the reason for the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used, as first reported.
And whats up with the trolling about solar?
E pluribus unum
I know I'm breaking the convention of reading before posting, however to quote TFA "the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used, as first reported."
That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
I hope it was.... the limos' primary function is getting the President out of harm's way and into a safe place.... fast. Driven by what are effectively Secret Service stunt drivers.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Perhaps diesel was selected for this particular car with a reason, e.g. better resilience against EMP attacks, or maybe the extended mileage and less danger of explosions? Or is it just a coincidence?
Okay, the article has probably changed, but the linked story now refutes everything said in the summary, including the limo being diesel.
The first link says it wasn't the wrong fuel. The second link says they speculate it's diesel. WTF people, can't you read?
Because we cannot put the range into an electric armored limosine. Diesel is far more efficient at moving heavier vehicles than gasoline. Natural gas is good, but you still have range and refueling issues.
In a national crisis when the President may have be relocated across several states via said limosine. Do you really want POTUS stranded on a highway?
TROLL (and a lame one at that)
I wonder if they realize that can cause a pretty serious explosion?
Cue presidential assassination conspiracy theorists in 3.....2.....
"... the Secret Service now says the reason for the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used, as first reported. "
Clean renewable solar won't push that tank around.
is less polluting and more efficient than typical gas. Although 30 years ago that wasn't the case, modern chemistry has changed stuff. So step off the hate on diesel. Per mile traveled, it's better for the environment.
Given that that's possibly the shortest Slashdot story ever, it manages to make only two assertions, both of which are confirmed as false (by the linked articles themselves, no less).
And I heard about this story about 6 hours ago on my way in to work and, honestly, didn't care then.
No longer "News for Nerds"
Now "Inaccurate insights for imbeciles".
Math is why the presidents limo isn't run by solar power. The idea that you power something like that by solar is absurd. Solar power cars tend to way as little as possible. While I don't specifics any more than any other lay person the presidents limo is built on a heavy duty truck chassis, is armored and it weighs quite a bit. These are mutually exclusive things that probably won't be resolvable for a few centuries at best.
Better for the environment but not better for people. Diesel exhaust causes asthma.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The funny thing is, the Hebrew word for Diesel transliterates as "solar".
So maybe it actually WAS solar all along.
It will choke on it too! :-D
Even the submitters don't read the articles on Slashdot anymore, it seems.
Summary: Fueling your car with the wrong type of fuel happens even to POTUS.
Story: the Secret Service now says the reason for the mechanical problem had nothing to do with the type of fuel used
Summary: presidential limo really is a diesel.
Story: Donovan [spokesman for the Secret Service,] said the vehicle actually doesn't have a diesel engine and runs on unleaded gasoline
also: Because the vehicle was built on a Chevrolet Kodiak chassis, whose engine runs on diesel fuel, it was believed that the limo also ran on diesel.
Summary: What about clean, renewable solar?
Story: What the hell is this even doing in your summary? It has nothing to do with the story and doesn't even make sense for what is essentially a multi-ton armored personnel carrier to use solar, a technology - at least in regards to automotive propulsion - that is still in its infancy.
... Obama's had car trouble.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/05/president-barack-obama-presidential-limousine-limo-stuck-dublin-ireland/1
He should get a harley.
I thought this was Slashdot - news for nerds and all that.
A simple back of the envelope calculation will tell you why the presidential limo (or any practical car) is not solar powered.
It *could* be battery powered, charged by a solar power station, but I'd rather not put yet another $100K - $200K of taxpayer money into the presidential limo (which already costs $300K) to add enough batteries to give that heavy car a reasonable range. Plus the presidential limo is not a good use-case for current electric power technology. It's not like the President uses it only to commute from the Whitehouse to the Capital building every day -- it's role includes the possibility of long-distance travel and every stop is a potential security risk.
After all, the swine in D.C. have rammed it down everyone
else's throat, despite the fact that it screws up fuel systems
in older cars ( of which there are many still in service ) and
reduces fuel economy.
Archer Daniels Midland : I hope you all die horribly of incurable cancer.
Because armored cars like that weigh 10-20 times as much as regular cars.
Why oh why is this a story on Slashdot?
"We're gonna need a bigger boat"
The presidential limo is a super-heavy rolling ten ton bomb-proof fortress, intended to defend against RPGs, and it also has to anticipate the performance needed for high-speed car chases.
Puny solar power cannot stand up to such requirements.
Modern diesels have particulate filters for the soot and exhaust treatment (or EGR strategies) for the NOx emissions.
but not as amusing as when this happened...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BvABn7L_So
Next story is going to be about the failure of the military branch of government to get with the program and modify all military vehicles to run on solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells.
The environmentalist crowd won't be happy until American tanks and aircraft carriers are as environmentally friendly as possible (of-course discounting the whole "blown people up with depleted uranium shells" thing...)
You can't handle the truth.
I'm sure the fact that Pres Obama has deliberately snubbed Israel several times, as well as offering perhaps the most-obviously-lukewarm support of any US president for our sole worthwhile ally in the region...has nothing at all to do with this "oops".
-Styopa
He should have gone with Hertz as the Presidential Rental Car company; a bro in the business so to speak...
CAPTCHA = manager
Diesel is as close to renewable as a liquid fuel can get. We can effectively grow it in a field, which we cannot do with standard fuel. But of course as most American consumers are still stuck in the 1970's mindset of Diesel being unreliable, unclean, and loud, this statement will draw eyeballs with minimal risk. However as slashdot is allegedly in the 21st century people who work for it should be aware of the reality of today's Diesel fuel.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
Yessss... no other president has behaved similarly. OBAMA the DEBIL!! HE THE DEBIL I TELL YOU!!
Any particulate exhaust can trigger asthma attacks.
That said, modern US consumer vehicles do not emit what is typically thought of as "diesel exhaust". Emissions standards in the States have necessitated a much cleaner and more refined, low-sulfur diesel fuel, and a complex system of exhaust scrubbers. Cars using these technologies typically emit cleaner air than their gasoline-powered cousins, though the exhaust systems do require more frequent maintenance.
Commercial vehicles are sometimes governed by these same restrictions, but it varies much more widely State-by-State than does the restriction on consumer vehicles. You will still see black smoke rolling out of the stacks on log- and dump-trucks, for example.
Perhaps the car that the President is transported in has more important requirements such as keeping the occupants safe, rather than making political statements. Talk about leading by rhetoric and simple-mindedness...
Nope.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3568825&cid=43234439
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Better for the environment but not better for people. Diesel exhaust causes asthma.
As it turns out, gasoline vehicles emit plenty of soot, and the soot they release is more dangerous because it is finer. The finer soot is more difficult to expel from the lungs. If you can blame asthma on transportation fuel, it's gasoline exhaust causing it. We burn more of it (on the roads, that is) and more of it is burned in poorly regulated vehicles, and finally the soot that is produced is more hazardous. Further, since gasoline is more volatile than diesel fuel, when it is sprayed into the atmosphere unburned (as all vehicles tend to do shortly after start) it is more hazardous then as well.
Signed,
Asthmatic owner of two indirectly-injected diesels, whose asthma is readily activated by gasoline vehicles, but not by diesels, as repeatedly demonstrated when I have to move my lady's Astro and one of my diesels around on the same morning.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
Yessss... no other president has behaved similarly. OBAMA the DEBIL!! HE THE DEBIL I TELL YOU!!
Did I say that? No. I said how I think the action of a President can trickle down through the economy when it comes to goods. Did you FINISH reading what I typed or just react to the first statement?
Yes there is markup code for that. ;)
This was on the news last night on TV... And in that story they said the same thing which is that the secret service claimed it was not a fuel issue and the Israelis stuck by the story that it was. So all we really know is that the president's limo broke down of unconfirmed causes sometime in the middle of the day... yesterday.
Common Sense (+1)
Perhaps the car that the President is transported in has more important requirements such as keeping the occupants safe, rather than making political statements. Talk about leading by rhetoric and simple-mindedness...
Since when does diesel fuel make a vehicle more safe? Explain, please, how with armor on the vehicle already, conversion to battery-powered motors supplemented (not completely 100% power by) solar panels make a Presidential vehicle unsafe? Please explain.
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
Yessss... no other president has behaved similarly. OBAMA the DEBIL!! HE THE DEBIL I TELL YOU!!
Not to interrupt but there are presidents who have implemented changes in the office and out of it as well in the past that have been adopted by the people. Hoover is one right off the top of my head.
When Obama was elected he wanted a hybrid or alt fuel limo (from what i read) and the Secret Service said... NOPE... MISTER PRESIDENT SIR!!!
apparently for range / reliability reasons (lol???)
That pic of the Presidential limo on a tow truck is pretty hilarious (on the CNN link) nearly as funny as the limo getting high centered trying to leave the U.S. Embassy in Dublin Ireland a couple years ago.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
At least it saved it getting stuck on the kerb/curb later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5zH0Il8B0
#exclude <ms/windows.h>
I'm guessing the links aren't even checked to verify the summary? Very first paragraph states it wasn't a fuel problem with only one sentence in the middle of the story that says someone is sticking to the "it's the fuels fault!!! reasoning.
diesal is better for this application. same reason why tractors and the like still use diesal. the limo ways a shit load and you put less strain on the engine using diesal. also, i bet they have to idle that fucking thing all the time, do that with gasoline and you won't have an engine for very long.
What about clean, renewable solar?
For those who don't remember, $535 million was given to the Obama endorsed solar panel manufacturer - Solyndra, which went bankrupt.
"Lame" - Galaxar
And as pointed out in a followup, your data is bunk. Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.
Is somebody paying you?
I don't know about Israel, but, between the UK and the USA, the usual colors of the gasolene and diesel filler nozzles are reversed. In the USA, diesel is usally green and gasolene black. In the UK, diesel is black and gasolene green.
This might help to explain the confusion.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
...is because diesel is less volatile, thus safer, should the vehicle come under fire.
Would it be unbelievable that our Israeli friends in Mossad sabotaged the car to get a look at the tech?
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
If a solar vehicle were actually to be used by the P-rez, it's hard to say what effect it would have on the public, but my gut feeling is it would encourage heavy-pocketed individuals to try and 'catch up' to what the top dogs (gov't) are doing.
Trickle-down behavior ensues. Just a theory.
I think the effect it would have on the public is to wonder why he is putting the country at risk by eschewing his expensive protective limo and is instead riding around in a glorified bicycle that provides no protection at all from gunfire or explosives, while being surrounded by a half dozen 8 MPG SUV's.
Or if you're suggesting that he should suspend the laws of physics to allow his current limo to be solar powered (even at night), then yeah, I think he should do that.
An armoured car is incredibly heavy.
And heavy vehicles really should be powered by a Diesel engine, not a gasoline one.
There's a good reason why big transport runs on Diesel.
More efficient and more torque to haul those heavy loads.
But then again, also small vehicles (VW jetta) benefit from Diesel, that enable them to do 100km on 3L of Diesel.
That 78MPG from a VW Jetta, people!
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
If a solar vehicle were actually to be used by the P-rez, it's hard to say what effect it would have on the public, but my gut feeling is it would encourage heavy-pocketed individuals to try and 'catch up' to what the top dogs (gov't) are doing.
Trickle-down behavior ensues. Just a theory.
I think the effect it would have on the public is to wonder why he is putting the country at risk by eschewing his expensive protective limo and is instead riding around in a glorified bicycle that provides no protection at all from gunfire or explosives, while being surrounded by a half dozen 8 MPG SUV's.
Or if you're suggesting that he should suspend the laws of physics to allow his current limo to be solar powered (even at night), then yeah, I think he should do that.
Well, solar the SUVs, as well!
Solar is a SUPPLEMENT, not a 100% powering source. The freakin' vehicle doesn't drive around for more than a few miles or for more than a short amount of time. Hell, that's perfect for solar and battery! Beats the people that have to drive 50+ miles to and from work everyday in sticky highway traffic "going green".
My point is to LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
And you know what, while I'm at it... You're saying that the guzzling SUVs and diesel Presidential limo serve a purpose for protection. If that's the case, everyone can say that their fuel-wasting vehicles serve a purpose of some kind for their protection and make up reasons why.
Are you suggesting that some purposes can be justified but the ones of the citizens can't?
If you're not saying that, then what in the hell is the problem with going ENERGY EFFICIENT to set an example?
I just don't get why people have to argue with me on this one. The point wasn't that I'm the begin-all, end-all of decisions. I'm saying that leaders lead and people follow. It's basic logic. I don't understand why mods and comments have to argue with me on this.
It runs on unleaded gasoline.
Gasoline formulations have to be adjusted for the ambient temperature they are expected to run in. Fill your limo's tank with winter gas (more volatile mix) in Washington DC and fly it to the Middle East and its certain to vapor lock. Fill it up in Israel and fly it back to cold weather and it won't start either.
The only thing that would have been funnier would be seeing the tow truck drop the limo off at a stereotypical back alley garage run by Palestinians.
Have gnu, will travel.
Modern diesels work with high pressure direct injection and electronically operated nozzles. These require a rather precise fuel mixture to be used, since they use the fuel itself for lubrication and will damage if over pressure occurs. Too thick a fuel and you'll get over pressure and not enough fuel injected through the nozzles. Too thin a fuel and the high pressure pump will seize. Too much particles inside the fuel and the pump and nozzles will wear down extremely fast. The old mechanical pump/nozzle combo's were able to inject practically everything semi-liquid that would burn hard enough to make the engine turn by itself. Modern diesels require refined and filtered fuel to keep running for longer than a few hours. No more used frying pan oil in your fuel tank, you'll kill the engine in days.
You are clearly not a mechanic and have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
I defy you to come up with a practical way to make a heavy wheeled armored vehicle solar-powered.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Have you used diesel?
Have you used manual shift?
I kind of think its experience. First diesel awakening for me was a TDi Golf on the M25 (Motorway around London). Meanwhile I have an auto now, and it's not a patch on manual shift.
So surely these are the same thing? Someone who has tried the best diesels knows diesels offer better mileage for a little less poke, and a manual driver can drive an auto, but an auto driver cannot drive a manual.
The MORE experienced drivers know more than the LESS experienced.
In both cases that's exactly as expected, and it's not limited to a Euro vs USA thing. It's worldwide.
We've had the tech for multi-fuel diesels around decades (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_2%C2%BD_ton_cargo_truck) which can burn virtually any fuel: diesel, gasoline, av gas, waste motor oil, waste veg oil (makes you smell like a fryer driving down the road, may lead to munchies), soured bourbon, etc. To burn gasoline just add a quart of oil for every 10 gallons. The Europeans had them in many models of cars including Mercedes.
Too bad the EPA was on an anti-diesel kick and got production of the engines stopped.
.... president's car(s) is transported with the President where-ever he goes. After thinking about it, it makes sense, but it caught me by surprise.
Of course, my next thoughts that came to mind were the following: ... and I have so many more questions running through my cute blonde head now.
* does the car have a license plate for every country?
* do the taxpayers pay property tax for it in every country?
* do the taxpayers pay an import / export tax for every country he visits?
* how many cars has the taxpayer bought for this president?
* does every new president get a new car(s) or do is/are they reused for the next president?
* is it water resistant up to 100ft?
* how heavy is this car, and does it meet the maximum weight allowance on our roads or that of any other country's roads?
* what is done with past presidential vehicles, where do they go after they are pulled from service?
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Since when does diesel fuel make a vehicle more safe?
When a very heavy vehicle needs to move, it provides propulsion when combined with an appropriate engine. Solar power would have a hard time moving a one ton vehicle, even if it was only supplamental. The idea of a solar powered tank is equally laughable, and POTUS is basically a tank that looks like a limo.
Diesel is taxed differently and states want as many dimes and dollars from you as they can get. So they'd rather not have diesel at all. Similarly my state wants to criminalize BIOdiesel and tax the hell out of hybrids because in the thinking of the state, they are, and I quote "Cheating us out of OUR money!" unquote.
All Hail North Carolina.
You are clearly not a mechanic and have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
I defy you to come up with a practical way to make a heavy wheeled armored vehicle solar-powered.
Apparently you don't read other comments before you judge. I said it's "supplemented (not completely 100% power by) solar panels".
I guess I'm a real moron when it comes to mechanics because I clarified something. My bad. So sorry.
Since when does diesel fuel make a vehicle more safe?
When a very heavy vehicle needs to move, it provides propulsion when combined with an appropriate engine. Solar power would have a hard time moving a one ton vehicle, even if it was only supplamental. The idea of a solar powered tank is equally laughable, and POTUS is basically a tank that looks like a limo.
Battery powered (pre-charged), SUPPLEMENTED by solar AS AN EXAMPLE to get people motivated. Apparently I'm not at all clear with my statement.
I think the effect it would have on the public is to wonder why he is putting the country at risk by eschewing his expensive protective limo and is instead riding around in a glorified bicycle that provides no protection at all from gunfire or explosives, while being surrounded by a half dozen 8 MPG SUV's.
Or if you're suggesting that he should suspend the laws of physics to allow his current limo to be solar powered (even at night), then yeah, I think he should do that.
Well, solar the SUVs, as well!
Solar is a SUPPLEMENT, not a 100% powering source. The freakin' vehicle doesn't drive around for more than a few miles or for more than a short amount of time. Hell, that's perfect for solar and battery!
Really? What fraction of an escort SUV's power would be provided by a solar panel on the vehicle? Would it ever repay the energy that went into building the panel?
Beats the people that have to drive 50+ miles to and from work everyday in sticky highway traffic "going green".
Except that the commuter that has a 50 mile commute knows that his 50 mile commute will be 50 miles every day. He doesn't have to be prepared to make an unscheduled 150 mile trip from a public speaking event to Camp David because an airplane is flying toward the Whitehouse, and his life isn't in jeopardy every time he stops to refuel.
Of course, you needn't go Solar (or even electric) to be "green", there are lots of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and high mileage diesels out there to choose from.
My point is to LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
And you know what, while I'm at it... You're saying that the guzzling SUVs and diesel Presidential limo serve a purpose for protection. If that's the case, everyone can say that their fuel-wasting vehicles serve a purpose of some kind for their protection and make up reasons why.
People already come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their choice of vehicle -- you just did it by bringing up a 50+ mile commute when most Americans have a 32 mile or less commute, well within the range of current electric vehicles.
Are you suggesting that some purposes can be justified but the ones of the citizens can't?
Yes, I'm suggesting that some use cases are better suited for electric vehicles than others. Like long-haul trucks. And commuters that have 100 mile daily commutes -- but that doesn't mean that I don't think the guy with a long commute shouldn't drive a fuel efficient vehicle.
If you're not saying that, then what in the hell is the problem with going ENERGY EFFICIENT to set an example?
Because pretending to be "green" is worse than actually being green? Spending $50,000 to put some solar panels on the roof of an SUV to supply 5% of its energy is just a hollow gesture. Fighting the strong oil lobby by increasing CAFE standards by just 1mph across 10M cars sold annually is a real gesture, not just window dressing.
I just don't get why people have to argue with me on this one. The point wasn't that I'm the begin-all, end-all of decisions. I'm saying that leaders lead and people follow. It's basic logic. I don't understand why mods and comments have to argue with me on this.
Because you're asking me to pay for some expensive "green theater" that accomplishes nothing in reality and is less "green" than the way it is now.
Diesel is less explosive than gasoline and provides range that neither solar\electric nor gasoline could provide. Not to mention the added weight of said batteries required for an electric vehicle. We are talking about a VERY heavy vehicle here, not a Prius. But sure, go ahead and advocate spending a zillion dollars of our tax money on research to try and make an electric Beast - then whine about the mispent dollars...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Oh, that's why I like reddit better.
Seems strange that regular car has that "DIESEL ONLY" label next to the filling tank outlet - but not on a limo for the President?
I smell a double standard here. Where is the TT/FTC regulation for vehicle for the President?
Too bad it's not set up to use biodiesel.
But diesel's reasonable... given the probable weight of the vehicle, assuming that it's armored almost as much as a Hummer in Afghanistan.
Some said something about not being able to buy diesel in the US? Clueless, are we? Ford F-350 are diesels.
But they don't *want* to sell diesels - I'd assume that the oil companies had something to do with that, as well, since diesels get better milage - since, as a friend who used to be a diesel mechanic tells me, you don't need to pull the engine to do a rebuild, and you only need that every 300,000-500,000 mi.
Now what pisses *me* off is that you cannot buy a hybrid minvan in the US. Period. There ain't none.
mark "maybe because they'd be *too* popular for the oil companies?"
I doubt you're really an American if you use the word "petrol."
Who knows; the word "petrol" might be hipster-slang for gas... Anyway, he might have used the word if he thought he was addressing a european audience...
I'm European. I spent 11 years driving Diesels. Now I'm back in a petrol / gasoline vehicle and intending to convert it to run on LPG autogas. My reasons? Modern diesel engines.
the 3 diesel cars I ran all had one thing in common - the same 90-horsepower 1753cc Ford 8-valve diesel turbo engine. It was ludicrously simple, noisy, rough-running, but produced LOTS of torque at fairly low revs and in a fairly narrow band when the turbocharger was online and in full boost had a fairly impressive ability to sprint.. it required lots of gear changes but could keep up with fast-accelerating traffic. Oil changes were at 10,000 mile intervals and only required 5w30 semi-synthetic, which is cheap. Engine life was 200,000 miles.
When my last one died of extreme old age I started looking around and found that all the replacement vehicles available at my price point and feature requirements had dual-mass flywheels, high-pressure / commonrail fuel injection, variable geometry turbochargers - and seriously reduced life expectancy. The 1990s cars I owned were designed for simplicity, reliability and economy (45 miles per UK gallon average efficiency, 55+mpg on longer runs). Their replaements were designed as drop-in replacements for petrol drivers with comparable performance, and the compromises and complexity required to give that extra urgency had a bad effect on the long term reliability and costs. My 2-litre 2001-model Volvo V40 is screamingly insane in performance comparisons, and probably far more reliable. Unlike the new diesels it will probably also last 180,000 miles. And with the LPG conversion will be cheaper to run than a diesel.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Anyone who has seen the presidential motorcade knows that he has almost a hundred other cars to choose from. It is impressive, but not in a good way. Tax dollars at work boys. Keep sweating so the rich man can get more riches and the government can eat at that trough.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Usually the gas fill nozzle is smaller than the diesel, so gas in a diesel tank will go but won't stay in on its own (you have to hold it), giving some idea that you are doing something wrong. Diesel in a gas tank means you can't get the big diesel nozzle in the small gas filler neck. I laughed a bit when someone mentioned something about solar. ...Ok, for those kids who don't know anything about physics or math or anything, solar is very silly to suggest for cars: most cars typically need at least 100 horsepower (74.6 kilowatts) of energy to move the car --with people-- around, although most cars come with more. Solar energy provides (depends on where you live but averages) 8 watts per square metre (depends too on sunny/cloudy, nothing at night, etc.). This 8 watts is the total energy per square meter from the sun. There are several ways to increase the 8 watts per square meter: 1) Install a second sun 2) move earth closer to the sun. Solar panels aren't 100% efficient, the best are only about 45% efficient, so a 1 square meter panel can generate almost 4 watts of power. 74.6 kilowatts, is 74600 watts. 74600 watts (needed) / 4 watts per square meter, means you need 18650 square meters of solar panels to power the car, which is (approximately) the area of 3.73 football fields.
Not only that, but diesel vehicles don't emit any of soot at all. In countries mandating proper filters, that is. Emission from such diesel cars is so clean that smells like burned methane; it is basically nothing but steam and CO2. On top of that, diesel emits less CO2 than gasoline.
0x or or snor perron?!
Well, it's been mentioned elsewhere that diesel is better than gasoline from a explosion standpoint - diesel is harder to make explode in response to the first one.
The biggest problem with converting the President's vehicle to electric would be weight. The thing is already heavy enough to 'technically' not be allowed on some roads. While energy density has increased in the last decade, EVs are still substantially heavier than their fossil fuel cousins. As the primary concern about the president's safety isn't actually an accident, but actual attack or even a kidnapping attempt, mobility is a critical concern - while needing to suddenly drive 300 miles non-stop is extremely unlikely, I'm sure the secret service likes the option. As such, making the vehicle weigh even more(making it more likely to be stopped), while reducing the range is not considered a good choice.
I don't read AC A human right
Is with the towing trailer set. Or the pickup truck set. Try backing up a grade with a loaded pickup or with a trailer with a stick vs an automatic. The torque converter is a beautiful piece of engineering.
With a stick, you'll burn the clutch trying to creep with it. With an auto, you get inching capability.
In my automobile, I prefer a stick for reliability and control. I think autos have become more reliable than sticks today however.
This is why there is a 1/2/3 position on the automatic. my 4x4 truck is automatic, and I put that thing into 4-low and 1st and it crawls over pretty much anything. (I've been a stick shift driver for 19 years)
Yea, I don't get how people burn out the clutch. The main issue I have with a stick is my clutch foot gets tired if I've been in bumper-to-bumper traffic. And stop lights in hilly San Francisco take a bit more coordination.
But these days I view a stick are unnecessary for anything with a medium sized engine (compact car to SUV). If you have a big high torque transmissionin your dump truck, then yea, maybe automatic won't scale up to that size. But sunroof is unnecessary too, but I like having one. (actually I'd like to buy a dump truck, and use it to commute to work. but I'm eccentric)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I assume you have not driven your Jetta purely in the city. Your figure would be what they call "combined" mileage, and your value sits right in between the city and highway ratings (30/42). I simply flagged the city number because, based on "official" mileage numbers it put the TDI engine in the absolute best terms (I ran both sets of numbers).
See, this is how I know you've never even test driven a car with a 2.5 liter engine. The power provided is plenty (especially with the 5 cylinder design VW has, which bridges the torque gap nicely between I4 and V6).
In the 0-60 test the TDI is actually almost a second SLOWER than the standard Golf 2.5l (manual transmission), which shows you don't need a turbocharger to get plenty of off-the-line performance. Can you justify spending a $4,000 premium for LESS performance?
Further, the 2.5l I5 is designed for cheap cars, and is thus DESIGNED FOR REGULAR GASOLINE. Using Premium in an engine designed for regular is just a waste of your money. trust MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: I drive a 2.4l Scion xB, I can get to 60 in under 9 seconds with a 4-speed slushbox and regular unleaded.
Fuelly results for 2010-2013 VW Golf 2.5l: about 27mpg combined!
Fuelly results for 2010-2013 VW Golf 2.0 TDI: roughly 40mpg
This puts the numbers more in favor of the TDI, but you still have to drive it beyond 100,000 miles to break even:
Golf TDI: 40 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$4.00 = 10 miles/$
Golf 2.5: 27 miles/gallon * 1gallon/$3.60 = 7.5 miles/$
At 100,000 miles,
gas costs you a total of $9,333 ($13333 subtracting $4k starting cash)
diesel costs you a total of $10,000
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
The example being stupidity, narcissism, and vindictiveness. If you're after a GOOD example, it isn't Obama.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The M1A2 Abrams tank can run on either. Some of the military helicopters can run on either.
The key factor here: a turbine engine
My diesel car is from 1982, you insensitive clod! It predates all that filter and trap stuff. My emission is not so clean that it smells like burned methane, but I also don't have to pour piss in my car. My truck predates the installation of that stuff on trucks, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If truckers were paying 1/2 of what is at the price, they wouldn't be even covering the cost of the crude oil used to make it. Even if it was 75% of the cost of gasoline, it wouldn't cover the cost of the petroleum and the refining cost.
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/
First, I screwed up my post a bit: I didn't mean a series EV, I meant series HYBRID, though that should be obvious from the 'diesel' comment.
Anyways, let's first consider usage: You seem to be assuming more highway tractor-trailer usage than what I was picturing - which was the 'standard' family with a truck to haul their camper/boat trailer/toy hauler on the weekends. While start/stop amounts depend on the driving patterns of the vehicle, I think we can both admit that lots of trucks are used more as cars than actual towing. Though I wouldn't be surprised if somebody could scale down a locomotive system today and keep it efficient enough to beat existing engine systems, though inertia in the industry would slow adoption.
On towing: The hardest, most difficult part on the engine/transmission today is STARTING a load. Most engines in trucks intended for towing are relatively massively oversize for HAULING a load at highway speeds in order to be able to get the load started and up to highway speeds at an acceptable pace. Once at highway speeds, a loaded trailer that causes the engine to groan at startup presents the same wind profile as an empty one, you just have more friction drag to worry about. 100% torque at 0 rpm in order to overcome static friction is ideal for this. The fact that, unlike with internal combustion engines, you can 'overload' a properly designed electric motor to over 400% it's rated capacity for a few seconds is just cake(electric motors normally have 100% load set for a continuous duty cycle).
This is why I specified 'electric motors', I'm fully aware that batteries are relative crud compared to hydrocarbon fuels today. Electric = great motor;lousy energy storage. IC = lousy motor, incredibly dense energy storage.
Diesels 'like' to operate within a very specific RPM and power load for highest efficiency. By removing the physical transmission and providing 'just enough' battery to act as an evening agent, you allow this to happen, which means that a series hybrid, properly constructed and used, should allow you to operate the diesel powerplant in it's most efficient band essentially continuously, making it even more efficient and offsetting any additional losses through the generation system. The battery pack should contain enough power to start, stop, and preferably get over any expected hills/mountains, though if you have enough of those you might just end up going with a bigger battery. Somebody buying a dedicated tow vehicle should be able to work out the proper sizing, and perhaps even have slots you can put additional batteries in if it makes sense, sort of like how Tesla has 3 different sized battery packs for their model S.
In the end I figure it'd be considered a 'weak' hybrid, only capable of a few miles without the diesel engine providing power. But if it allows you to go down a size or two on the engine, eliminate the transmission, etc...?
I don't read AC A human right
My google search shows that they're still in the prototype stages, but they're coming.
Given that locomotives are listed as having 30 year lifespans, I'm not surprised that development is lagging on them compared to cars.
I don't read AC A human right
Most modern battle tanks use "eat-all" type diesel engines, which withstand being run on, for moderate periods of time, Otto fuel, Diesel fuel, jet fuel, ethanol, methanol, used cooking oil mixed with powdered coal, or whatever else that can be found on the battlefield. Don't look at their exhaust pipes, however, or you will cry. Should probably fall under the WMD category of weapons.
how this discussion is staying on point
I went to watch the video but there was a 40 seconds ad first so I closed it. 40 seconds is probably longer than the actual video.
On the page about the presidential diesel an ad blocked the article.
Some people can't get enough.
Folks. Please use a little common sense.
The "Beast" does not stop at "gas stations" in foreign countries.
It is filled with fuel before embarking on any trip, and if necessary, refueled by a vehicle that travels with them.
Common sense would alert you to the fact, that any fuel used from foreign sources, would be analyzed down to the molecule.
PS: Those who fuel presidential limos, don't mistake gas for diesel oil.
Diesel cars have more toxic emissions than gasoline cars. Why doesn't the obamanator ride in a natural gas powered car? For once he could take a leadership position on something that would actually benefit Americans, as natural gas is in abundant supply in the USA.