Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LoooSeR

General cars and vehicles thread.

Recommended Posts

   We have thread about old Soviet cars and Americal cars (that also tend to be about older and top models). This thread is general thread about any cars - new and old, racing or for work. Car news also can be posted here.

 

I begin this topic with this -

 

0_147624_94e652b0_XL.jpg

 

Studebaker Sceptre, created by italian Sibona-Bassano company. Never produced, it is a hell of a looker.

 

0_147623_dbcc79b1_XL.jpg

 

0_147627_21ea7cce_XL.jpg

 

0_147628_24d343b_XL.jpg

 

0_14762a_cce9b97a_XL.jpg

 

0_14762b_f21a926e_XL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lada Vesta - first "Russian" car that looks like it was made in same century as what we live now! It should be out soon, so i can see it on the streets and complain about it looking like new Renault Logan.

 

vesta_dark_bordo.jpg

 

lada-vesta-zanizhennaya.jpg

 

preview_34129.f983825a207453e45574bf3b2b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concept car Ford Fiesta GTK, that also was designed by Italian company "Ghia".

 0_1471a5_37e3efae_XL.jpg

 

0_1471a6_52039d35_XL.jpg

 

0_1471a7_1ce40ef_XL.jpg

 

Marussia B2, maybe the only "Russian" car than actually looks and drives good enough to be a car with a high price.  

marussia-b2-6473.jpg

 

2009_09_16_Marussia_20.jpg

 

marussia-b2_06.jpg

 

1378617450_Eksklyuzivnyiy-test-draiyv-pe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yandex Taxi (Yandex is Russian Google, basically) launched 2 Tesla taxis as part of their fuel costs-reduction experiment. They managed to recude cost for fuel by 132 000 rubles in ~2 months, which is maybe by today exchange ratees is like 10.99$.   :D

 

http://www.kolesa.ru/news/jeksperty-podschitali-jekonomiju-ot-ispolzovanija-jelektromobilej-v-taksi-2015-09-24

 

c4a8cf704de3546f4777cce0978c1409-995x550

 

82201d2ab214bacdc4113c064fb93105-995x550

 

#firsttimeintesla

65828c67efc2e2e1990df9dd7e3433b7-995x550

 

a6b8e806405bdbee3e094d66495a7894-995x550

 

Yandex [Taxi]

f62dc6f7c2a8a34bf98f1dcd2acced62-995x550

 

edfc50e8ca177a8fd5e9eeaf0f966a5d-995x550

 

Each Tesla done around 11 000 km during those 2 months, saving over 65 000 rubles on fuel for each car.

 

   In the end of July one Tesla was hit by a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado.

e266c7bad91901ad9ef79d9a8cec8767-995x550

 

0e6fb41d60ee20065552ad18e603645e-995x550

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a photoshoot a while back in my shop:

 

 

24c5eh0.jpg

 

26062di.jpg

 

 

The GT's shortblock can withstand well into 4 digits, and Ford engineers overbuilt the hell out of it. The 4v heads flow an incredible amount of air as well, and a stock longblock with more boost than the factory twin screw delivers will put down really earth-shattering horsepower. Of course, being a Ford mod-motor, they are easy to squeeze power out of (as opposed to a Lambo that needs a shop like Hennessey).

However, to be quite honest the car is somewhat boring to drive. It accelerates so smoothly that it does not throw you back into the seat like most high performance cars do. You simply see the speedometer rushing to the peg while you try and keep up rowing gears.

 

Also, did I mention you can squeeze a lot of power out of them?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, a little project I have been working on:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QEhPwVd2AE

 

 

 

657 at the wheels (750 of so HP at the fly) on pump gas for a little 4.6 liter aint too bad. Of course the little bastard camming and the giant "HOOSIER" logos have stifled any potential money races.

I took Miles Vining from TFB/Small Arms Review for a ride when he was in town and scared the hell out of him. However it wasn't my fault: A little slammed Evo with cheater slicks, a giant FMIC, and a BOV that could be heard in the next county saw it fit to challenge me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Nathaniel is well aware of my passion for automobiles. Believe it or not it surpasses my deep-running appreciation for firearms!

 

But lets throw in some factoids for anyone who doesn't think much of the humble old internal combustion engine... by referencing what 500 C.I. is capable of:

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/columns/0403_top_fuel_dragsters/

 

* One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic-inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500.

* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.

* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to merely drive the dragster’s supercharger.

* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.

* At the stoichiometric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F.

* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases.

* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.

* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way, the engine is dieseling from compression plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow.

* If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half.

* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH before you have completed reading this sentence.

* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds, dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4 G’s. In order to reach 200 MPH well before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8 G’s.

* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!

* Including the burnout, the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.

* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM.

* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, & for once, NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimated $1,000 per second.

The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for the quarter-mile (10/05/03, Tony Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 MPH (533 km/h) as measured over the last 66′ of the run (09/28/03, Doug Kalitta).

Putting this all into perspective:

Lets say the you are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z06.

Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged & ready to launch down a quarter-mile strip as you pass by it. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the ‘Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line & pass the dragster at an honest 200 MPH. Just as you pass the Top Fuel Dragster the ‘tree’ goes green for both of you.

The dragster launches & starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums & within 3 seconds the dragster catches & passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it – from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 MPH & not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race!

 

Or by the numbers:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/112_0502_top_fuel_numbers/

 

7500 - Approximate peak output, in horsepower, of a competitive 2005 Top Fuel engine. That's almost 1000 horsepower per cylinder.

500 - Engine capacity, in cubic inches. The block and heads are CNC-milled from solid billets of aluminum, and the oil pan is titanium.

45.5 - Maximum boost, in psi, produced by the supercharger at wide-open throttle. That's more than 3.0 bar, twice the boost achieved by a Mitsubishi Evo VIII.

12,654 - Rpm the supercharger spins at maximum engine speed. With the engine at 8500 rpm, just turning the supercharger soaks up 900 horsepower.

165 - Temperature in Fahrenheit of the 14-71-type supercharger after just 4.5 seconds of maximum boost.

569 - Number of times the engine's crankshaft turns during the entire quarter mile. Each intake valve opens 284 times.

16 - Spark plugs per engine. The twin MSD magnetos produce 88 amps. You need just 12 more to power your MIG welder.

77 - Gallons per minute the fuel system can pump at wide-open throttle. The engine will consume 22.75 gallons of fuel during warmup, burnout, staging, and the quarter-mile run.

900 - Cost, in dollars, of a 55-gallon drum of nitromethane fuel. Current regulations allow a maximum of 85 percent nitromethane in the fuel mix. The rest is alcohol.

58,700 - About what you'll pay, in dollars, for a new, ready-to-run Top Fuel engine.

29 - Minutes it takes to tear down and rebuild a Top Fuel engine between rounds. Each engine is rebuilt 184 times a year (if the driver goes to the final round at every race).

28 - Quarts of oil used during warm-up and quarter-mile run. The oil pan holds 70-weight oil mixed with special thickener.

6 - The maximum number of clutch discs in a Top Fuel car. The multistage clutch is timed to progressively lock up during the run. Each $115 disc lasts a maximum of three runs.

2225 - Minimum weight, in pounds, of a Top Fuel dragster. That's a power-to-weight ratio of 3.37 horsepower per pound, about 20 times better than the new Z06 Corvette's.

300 - Wheelbase, in inches, of a Top Fuel dragster. About 3000 inches of chrome-moly tubing is needed to build the frame, which is left unpainted because of the need to constantly weld cracks.

1082 - Greenbacks you'll need to buy a pair of new Goodyear R36x17.5 rear slicks. If you're lucky, they'll last you a bit over a mile--four runs.

58 - Bead Lock bolts used to retain each rear tire to the wheel. Tire pressures are set between 6.5 and 7.5 psi. ...And Here's What It Does

0.84 - Seconds it takes for a Top Fueler to accelerate to 100 mph from standstill. At launch, drivers are subjected to up to 4.75 g--more than a space-shuttle astronaut.

333.08 - Top speed, in mph, of the 2004 NHRA Top Fuel Championship-winning U.S. Army dragster. When he pops the parachute at the end of his run, driver Tony Schumacher experiences peak deceleration of 6 g.

12,000 - Downforce, in pounds, generated by the rear wing at 325 mph. The downward thrust made by the exhaust gases escaping the headers alone generates 800 pounds of downforce.

85 - Distance, in inches, you'll need to be above the header pipes to avoid getting toasted by the nitro flames exiting those pipes.

8.5 - Number of inches the rolling diameter of the rear tires grows during a 325-mph run, reaching a maximum of 44.5 inches.

 

 

o-RON-CAPPS-facebook.jpg

 

Ron-Capps-NAPA-Dodge-Funny-Car-Gatornati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing says luxury like a Cadillac.

 

i551609.jpg

Those were pretty terrible cars overall. If you had a customer who liked it you had to be careful with the billing and parts, as it was basically a Cavalier/Skyhawk and they'd complain if they thought you were putting "the wrong parts" on their Cruddylax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the Russian equivalent of a trailer-dwelling man in an incestuous relationship with a cousin who also has has poor, dated taste in music?

 

Because THAT is that dude's ride... and hopefully third-gen f body stereotypes are trans-atlantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the Russian equivalent of a trailer-dwelling man in an incestuous relationship with a cousin who also has has poor, dated taste in music?

 

Because THAT is that dude's ride... and hopefully third-gen f body stereotypes are trans-atlantic.

 

 

I think you just turned on the Tied signal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were pretty terrible cars overall. If you had a customer who liked it you had to be careful with the billing and parts, as it was basically a Cavalier/Skyhawk and they'd complain if they thought you were putting "the wrong parts" on their Cruddylax.

I know, I was posting it as a joke.  One of GM's many missteps in the 80's.  It's too bad they didn't offer a version of the Cimarron with one of their early 80's diesel car engines.  That would have been the terrible car to beat all terrible cars.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I was posting it as a joke.  One of GM's many missteps in the 80's.  It's too bad they didn't offer a version of the Cimarron with one of their early 80's diesel car engines.  That would have been the terrible car to beat all terrible cars.   

Yeah, I figured, it just keyed up some lingering memories of that turd.

 

As to GM automotive Diesels, I don't remember seeing them in any of the FWD platforms. They seemed to lurk only in the RWD full size and midsize sedans.

Not sure why you could not have dropped one of the 6.2's into a Toronado, but never saw one.

 

Not really doable in the Cimmaron/Cavalier platform because of size, unless GM imported one of the small VW Diesels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly suspect that it's Alex's love for cars (and Russia's relatively poor showing in that field) that has led him to believe Russia produces nothing of value but the AK. :P

I am not a car person, the closest I get is wanting to own a couple armored vehicles some day, or maybe a Toyota Hilux for the lulz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   BMW Nazca M12

0_147e4e_6a6322f7_XL.jpg

   

   This concept car was developed in 1991 by the Italian automobile designer Giorgetto Giugiaro commissioned by the German car manufacturer BMW. Just 3 cars were made.

 

0_147e4d_6120a115_XL.jpg

 

0_147e4f_f5a8634b_XL.jpg

 

0_147e50_8c1bbdc8_XL.jpg

 

0_147e51_a9d9612f_XL.jpg

 

0_147e52_70975563_XL.jpg

 

0_147e53_1c1551ad_XL.jpg

 

0_147e54_c2270040_XL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Khand-e
      So, basic introduction, to start off, we'll go with the latest backbone of the PLA Ground forces' Armored divisions, the ZTZ-96 G/A
       
      Basic specs.
       
      Crew: 3
       
      Weight: 42-45 tonnes depending on equipment and addon armor/era.
       
      Power plant: 1,000 hp liquid cooled Diesel engine
       
      Speed: 65 km/h on roads 45 km/h off road
       
      Range: 400km without external tanks
       
      Armament: 125mm L/48 main gun with autoloader similar to the Soviet 2A46 (8 rounds per minute rof), ATGM capable, based on Russian Refleks-M missile, also has HEI-FRAG, HEAT, and APFSDS ammunition choices, W-85 12.7mm cupola machine gun (not pictured in this photo), 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.
       

       
      Wow, such sharp looking, very armor.
       
      Capability wise, this tank was recently pitted against some modern T-72B variants in a Russian tank Biathalon, and while it was deemed better in Armor, Armament, and Electronics, it lost out in mobility due to the underpowered engine, this killed all 730 and 780 hp engines in other ZTZ-96 G/As for the 1,000 hp engine.
       
      One interesting note: the boxes on the side actually contain equipment that interferes with the targetting systems of SACLOS missiles, aswell as laser designators, rangefinders and guidance systems, these can be seen when the tank is viewed from above.
       
      -----
       
      The heavier, far stronger pride of the ground forces.
       
      ZTZ-99 (A2 variant pictured.)
       
      Crew: 3
       
      Weight: 54-60 tonnes depending on variant
       
      Powerplant: 1,500 hp turbo charged liquid cooled diesel engine
       
      Speed: 80 km/h on roads, 60 km/h off road
       
      Range: 600km without external tanks.
       
      Armament: ZPT98 125mm L/52 autloaded gun with 8 rounds/minute rate of fire (some sources quote later variants at 11 rounds per minute), higher pressure tolerances, redesigned autoloader and other improvements, this allows it to fire improved ammunition such as far more deadly APFSDS then other 125mm autoloaded gun platforms in the PLA's inventory, it can still fire all other types of rounds aswell, W-85 12.7mm cupola machine gun, 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.
       
      Armor: While the exact thickness and composition isn't known, It's known from cutaway photos and some are pubically released information to have a hard spall liner as many other tanks these days, the actual armor composition itself are plates of high strength/toughness maraging steel sandwiching materials such as high hardness Aluminum oxides, aswell as layers of Graphene and unknown materials from there (likely something very dense), the boxes on the side of the turret and on the pike nose on the front are likely addon ceramic armor as opposed to ERA as originally believed and may be hollow to act as spaced armed, aside from the physical armor package, the tank also features ERA, NERA, and active defense systems that jam or alter the trajectory of various types of guided projectiles.
       

       
      So, this is the actual "elite" tank of the PLA to supplement the cheaper 96's, Originally it started out with a modest $2,500.000 production cost, however, as time grew on and they kept advancing it to the lastest standards of a top tier MBT, that sort of spiraled out of control a bit, coupled with the fact that the PLA ground forces don't get the same funding as the PLAAF and the PLAN, and the result was that, while the 99A2 has turned out to be a beast in it's own right, it simply isn't feasible price wise to give every tank crew a Type 99A2, however this is probably one of the most underrated 3rd generation MBTs as it's rarely talked about and theres a fuck ton of misinformation about it (mainly that it's a clone of the T-72/T-80 which is completely wrong) and well, it's goddamn pretty, and that counts for alot.
       
      Be sure to check my other topics covering other branches of the PLA
       
      http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/80-the-plan-present-and-future-or-the-rapid-modernization-of-the-chinese-navy-and-marines/- Regarding the Navy, Marines, and Weapons used by them and also land based anti ship defense systems.
       
      http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/71-the-future-of-pla-bullit-spitting-devices-powerful-chinese-weapons-and-units-thread/ - Regarding Infantry, small arms, and infantry support weapons.
       
      http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/87-the-plaaf-and-airborne-a-look-at-the-past-present-and-the-future/- Regarding the PLAAF Aircraft and weapon systems, helicopters, and the Airborne.
       
      A special thank you.
      I'd like to personally honor a few posters who have aided me and provided very solid data and posting in this thread, without them this thread and the other PLA related threads would be far less interesting. These should be the first people in here to ask about something.
      In no particular order.
      JimZhangZhang, Lightning, Akula_941, and U-47.
      And of course LoooSeR for keeping content in this thread when I wasn't able to.
    • By Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect
      Wherein I tackle the idea of hydrogen fuel cell technology in private vehicles.
       
      Buckle up.
       
      For the past few years, Hydrogen Fuelcell technology has been making the news in regards to personal transportation. Regardless of how long fuel cell technology has been used in the space industry, the media treated it like a futuristic Godsend for personal vehicles. I recall there being plans drawn up for refueling stations in California, even. But the Bear State is fond of making whatever promise they can to skim as much money from its people.
       
      See the High Speed rail fiasco.
       
      http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-28/california-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco
       
      When I first heard of hydrogen fuel cells being used in vehicles, I was too young and immature to have much of an opinion. Back then, I was still cruising around downtown and hanging out with Sturgeon to care about motor vehicle trends. Those nights were spent talking trash about HK products, doing blow through rolled up Benjamins, and dozens of questionably legal Polynesian women.
       
      I'll be approaching this issue regards to efficiency, safety, production, and storage of many elements. We'll first discuss what hydrogen is.
       

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
       
       
      The Wiki gives a ton of great information. Most of you will know the basics. It's a gas at STP, contains a single valence electron in it's 1s shell (“shell” or cloud of probability derived by shrodinger's blah blah blah Physical Chemistry nonsense, don't make me do that derivation again). It was first artificially made by a guy named Cavendish, and is found naturally as a diatomic molecule.
       
      This diatomic molecule also really likes to explode if it gets near an energy source. H2 combustion is well documented, and releases 286 kJ/Mol.
       
      In fact, it can undergo combustion at as low as 4% concentration with air. That's low.
       
      Hydrogen's low molecular weight makes it the lightest gas around. This was capitalized during the second to last turn of the century, where mighty Zeppelins pushed through the sky like herds of giant sky manatees.
       

      http://smhttp.41037.nexcesscdn.net/80153AD/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/750x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/m/i/misc156_2.jpg
      Large enough to fit Colli-man's collection of miss-matched socks
       
      Germany loved these guys, and for a while they were all the rage in luxurious travel. Indeed, it was certainly the 20th century now! We had Airships, the Haber Process that was fueling an industrial revolution, and all of physics was completely solved! Thanks, Maxwell!
       
      (And then came the ultraviolet catastrophe, but that's another topic.)
       
      However, I mentioned above that hydrogen is extremely flammable at even very low concentrations within air. This fact really sunk the airship industry with a certain spectacular disaster.
       

      http://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/hindinburg-crashing-burning-640x420.jpg
      German Engineering, or Masonic Zion plot?
       
      It's easy to skip over this picture entirely. We've all seen it so many times (Unless you're one of my tutoring students, who look at me like I've got two heads when I mention it. “The hinda-what?”).
       
      But, this was the end of an era. Static charges ignited the hydrogen sacks that kept the big rigid frame afloat. And though we could have used Helium, a much more stable gas, the damage was done. No one would step foot near a rigid airship again.
       
      (Also our world's supply of Helium is finite and diminishing very very quickly. It would be wasted in airships. But again, another topic another time)
       
      Let's get back to the Hydrogen Fuelcell. What exactly is it, and how does it work?
       
      The basic model is shown below.
       

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Proton_Exchange_Fuel_Cell_Diagram.svg/2000px-Proton_Exchange_Fuel_Cell_Diagram.svg.png
       
      This diagram is for a Proton Exchange Fuel Cell. The proton here is simply a hydrogen that's been stripped of its single electron. A fuel cell works by having very special membranes carefully constructed to permit the passage of a positively charged ion, but not the negatively charged electron. This travels through another path, leading to a voltage across the cell. This voltage can be used to power any electrical device.
       
      This is an oversimplification of how the device works, but it's a start.
       
      The benefits of such a device include the shear efficiency that it can have. When properly insulated and owing to proper low-resistance connections, these devices are pushing out efficiencies twice that of internal combustion engines. Which, despite what many places attempt to sell you, are actually quite thermodynamically efficient. These proton based fuel cells have great cold-start characteristics and energy density. Their outputs can actually be very high.
       
      Indeed, these fuel cells are efficient at all power outputs as well. Their efficiency does not vary with flow of fuel source either.
       
      Their temperatures can be as low as 80 degrees C. However, usually they are kept above 100 degrees C because steam is far more manageable than liquid water byproduct.
       
      So with all of this information, you're probably wondering why haven't we started putting these into all sorts of places. This post is about personal vehicles, however, and I'll get right back to that.
       
      No. I disagree completely with them being used in personal vehicles.
       
      While I love fuel cells as a power device, their use in personal vehicles is greatly limited. One of the biggest engineering hurdles is the flammability and storage of pure hydrogen. Since hydrogen has such a low molecular weight, to obtain a large enough amount to power a personal vehicle would require a very high pressure container. If you remember back to your Chemistry classes in high school, you may remember the Ideal Gas Equation. Hydrogen is pretty close to an Ideal Gas. As close as you'll get, really. The Ideal Gas Law, in actual use, is only about 84% accurate when used to guess thermodynamic systems. For hydrogen it's much higher.
       
      PV=nRT, where n is the number of moles. Keeping everything but Pressure and number of moles the same, to increase the number of moles directly increases the pressure. And H2, having a molecular weight of 2 Grams per Mole, would require a ton of moles to get a decent amount of the gas.
       
      A very high pressure container of pure hydrogen gas in a vehicle that routinely travels at 70 mph. Which is statistically guaranteed to be in an accident in its lifespan.
       
      The Germans are watching this and going “Nein Nein Nein!”
       
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+car+crashes+per+day+in+the+US
       
      According to this nifty search, over 3,000 people die per day in the US due to vehicular collisions. Ouch. 
       
      However, this issue is the first to be solved. The introduction of Metal Hydrides have solved the storage issues. Metal Hydrides act as chemical sponges for Hydrogen gas (H2), binding the molecules inside their chemical structure. These metal hydrides are usually used as powders, where the hydrogen is then pushed through to store. To release the hydrogen, the metal hydride must be heated. The rate of diffusion is directly related to the temperature at which the metal hydride is heated, and thus the fuel rate into the fuel cell can be varied by varying the temperature of the metal hydride.
       
      Metal hydrides can absorb 2 to 10% H2 usually, but better compounds are being produced to increase the number.
       
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_hydride_fuel_cell
       
      This is good, because it gives us a safe way to store hydrogen gas for fuel cells.
       
      This is bad, because the fuel delivery rate is much lower, and metal hydride fuel cells are, at their very best, 1/4th as powerful as their PEM brothers. At worst, they are 1/50th.
       
      But this is the best we can do in a vehicle. No one wants pressurized hydrogen canisters on the highways. Hell, most of the time you need special clearance and big signs to transport the stuff. And imagine the safety concerns for the EMTs and Paramedics during a car crash. Even if the tank isn't ruptured, no EMT or Paramedic would risk their lives until the wreckage was cleared.
       
      When I was going through my EMT training, they made it very clear that it doesn't matter if people are bleeding out in front of you. If you go in while it's still dangerous, you're only being a liability to your fellow EMTs, Firefighters, and police.
       
      But let's ignore the low power outputs of these MH Fuel Cells. What other issues do we have?
       
      Well, the fuel cell itself must be created using some very interesting techniques and materials. The biggest expense would be the platinum. Other catalysts are needed as well. As well as a very special proton-permeable membrane.
       
      To function, the membrane must conduct hydrogen ions (protons) but not electrons as this would in effect "short circuit" the fuel cell. The membrane must also not allow either gas to pass to the other side of the cell, a problem known as gas crossover. Finally, the membrane must be resistant to the reducing environment at the cathode as well as the harsh oxidative environment at the anode.
       
      This system includes electrodes, electrolyte, catalyst, and a porous gas diffusion layer. The rate of reaction will be dependent also on how quickly the water vapor product can diffuse through the porous material and out of the system. A system can have a lowered efficiency if the fuel cell is too dry or too wet. A balance must be met.
       
      And while yes, all of these situations can be worked around, it all comes at a heavy price. Currently we are using 30 grams of platinum in vehicle sized PEM fuel cells. This number will be going down once different catalysts are created, but the cost of these vehicles still pushes up to $50,000. The cost will go down, like any technology.
       
      I've yet to speak about where we obtain this hydrogen gas from. The easiest way to obtain hydrogen gas is via the electrolysis of water. H20 + An Electric Current → H2 + O2, essentially (it's not balanced, I know this.)
       
      But that electric current must be created as well. This usually comes from the electric grid, which is still, depending on the state, a majority coal-burning.
       
      Natural Gas reformation is another way to obtain Hydrogen gas, and is the most common way we currently use. It's the cheapest as well. Synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a small amount of carbon dioxide, is created by reacting natural gas with high-temperature steam. The carbon monoxide is reacted with water to produce additional hydrogen.
       
      The other common ways are via fermentation of biofuel stocks (which is a long process without a great yield) or liquid reforming, which is really unfeasible in large quantities.
       
      The only way to obtain large amounts of hydrogen is via natural gas reformation, and that's still technically a fossil fuel source. So why were we going with hydrogen fuel cells again? To rid ourselves of dirty, dirty fossil fuel? Well shit.
       
      So to sum this up, the only way to safely use hydrogen as a fuel source in a moving vehicle would be by using metal hydrides, which require energy to access the stored hydrogen. This stored hydrogen flow rate is lower than standard PEMs, and results in a lower voltage, which in turn leads to a lower power output for the vehicle. More research and development must be done to find proper catalysts that can be made at a low cost, and production methods must be worked out to create the membranes more cheaply. All of this is held up by our hydrogen production systems.
       
      PEM fuel cell technology is awesome and I love it to death in many many situations. But vehicles isn't one of them.
       
      I may read about more advances in the near future that would change my opinion completely, but I would be surprised.
       
      Below I've added a problem out of my heat and mass transfer book (Incropera, 7th edition).
       




    • By StrelaCarbon
      Even though I'm relatively new to this forum, it did not take long at all for me to notice that here, I am in the company of many fellow petrolheads.
       
      Documenting the mildly interesting machines I encounter in my everyday life is something I like very much, and since I didn't see anyone here posting much about car spotting, I thought I'd make my own thread. So, if you have any pictures of interesting automotive finds, feel free to share them all right here. 
       
      To get the ball rolling, here's an imperfect (that racing seat looked really out of place, and there were some visible paint scratches) but still exquisite first-generation Mercury Cougar which I encountered this summer: 
       

    • By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
      I thought it was disgraceful we had a thread on Russian race cars, and other cars, but not one on American muscle cars and race cars, IE the best cars. 
       
      Over the weekend I'll put a little write up on the GTO and why it kicked off the musclecar, and why the Mustang was an overrated econo box for girls until the 67 model, more akin to a nova then a truly great car like a Pontiac GTO. 
       
      UPDATE:
      My thoughts on why the muscle car era was teh awesome.
       
      The reason 64 to 73 was one of the most interesting era for American cars, is they went a little nuts on how much power they started putting into cars, and all the GM brands for the most part still had their own engine types.
       
      The birth of the muscle car era started in 1964 when John Delorean, Jim Wangers and Pete Estes snuck the GTO option on the 64 mid-size Pontiac Tempest/Lemans platform that was based on GM A-Body platform. There were a few reasons it had to be snuck in, all mainly the fault of GM head executives being stodge old fogies. They had come up with two policies that caused boring cars. The first was their decision to pull out of any GM sponsored racing and the ban on developing performance parts. They also had a ban on putting motors bigger than 330 cubic inches in mid-size cars.
      The sad thing is GM had a thriving race scene and a set of dealers and race teams using their products. Pontiac and Chevrolet in particular had really bumped up their market share through their winning race teams. They were doing crazy stuff like Swiss cheesing frames, producing aluminum front ends (hoods, fenders, bumpers), and producing multi carb manifolds and there’s more I’m sure I’m forgetting. Then BAM, in the span of weeks GM killed it all off in 63.
        
      The heart of GTO option on the Lemans was the 389 cubic inch V8 used in Pontiac full size cars. The V8 was rated a 325 horsepower. The biggest V8 the car came with normally was the 326. The GTO option also included the choice of a close ratio four speed Muncie transmission, and heavy duty suspension and brakes. It could also include Pontiacs Safe-T-track limited slip differential with gear ratio choices of 3.23, 3.55, 3.90, 4.10, and if I recall right, 4.56.  The name was strait up ripped off from Ferrari, by Delorean. You could also order the package with triple carburetors, also known as tri-power, and it upped the engines horsepower to 335.
       
       
      GM and Pontiac found out about it, but Wangers had gone out and showed the car to some big dealers in the Detroit area and they already had big orders so GM corporate, and Pontiac let it be produced, the general manager told Delorean he would have the last laugh because there was no way they could even sell the 5000 that had been authorized, and Pontiac would have to eat the loss on inventory they couldn't sell, and it would be his ass. It sold more than 32,000 units, as a really un advertised option, so Delorean and Estes won the day, and the ban on big engines in mid size cars was lifted, and the GTO became its own model, still based on the Lemans/tempest platform,  but with no small engine choices.
       
      The other GM brands caught up with their own special models in 1965, Chevrolet with the SS 396 Chevelle, Oldsmobile with the 442, and Buick with the GS. GM still put a size restriction on motors and their A-Body mid-size models, but it was now 400 cubic inches, and all the brands had motors that could be grown well past this and already had been and were used in the full-size car lines.  Even this restriction would be pulled in 1970 because other major brands were stuffing huge motors in mid and even the newer smaller cars and GM was losing out.
       
      Ford and Chrysler and even AMC didn't just sit back and watch GM reap the reward, Ford had come out with their ‘Pony’ car the Mustang, in 1964, and it was also a huge success, but it was no performance car, even with the top of the line V8 option, a GTO would eat it alive, handing and acceleration wise.  Ford also had mid-size cars with large V8 options, but none that had been packaged like the GTO and they were light on good large V8s in the early 60s, plus their mid-size cars were ugly as hell.  The Mustang would grow into its own later in the 60s, in particular, when Carol Shelby started playing with them. They never had a great mid-size muscle car that wasn't ugly though.
       
      Chrysler had cars that could be considered muscle cars, but before 68 they were all so ugly, no one but weirdos drove them. They did have some very powerful engine combos, and they really hit the scene hard with the introduction of the cheap as hell but big engine powered Plymouth Road-Runner in 1968, you could buy a very fast Road-Runner for a lot less than you could even a base model GTO.  For a classier Chrysler they had their Plymouth GTX line, and Dodge had their beautiful Charger. The Cuda got an update in 1970, so it wasn’t really really ugly anymore, and the same platform was used to give Dodge the Challenger.  These cars fit more into the pony car scheme though. The main point is Chrysler produced ugly cars until 1968.
       
      GM would jump into the pony car scene in 1967 with the introduction of the first gen F-body. Chevrolet got the Camaro, and Pontiac got the Firebird. These cars were introduced with engine options up to 400 cubic inches, though, when they got a 396, or 400, they were slightly detuned so the mid-size cars still had an ‘advantage’, there was just a little tab that restricted the secondaries on the quadrajet carb.
       
      The whole thing came crashing down and by 1973, the muscle car was all but dead, and the US car industry was in a slump it would not recover from until the late 80s, also when the muscle car returned in a weird way with the Buick Gran National. While it lasted the muscle-car era produced some iconic cars, and some very rare but interesting ones. Most of them looked pretty damn cool though, and by now, they are very rare to see as daily driven cars. They exist; I pass a 68 SS Camaro all the time. Now even a base model muscle car or pony car that's rusted all to hell can be more then 8 to 10 grand, and you will spend triple that making it into a nice car.
       
      1970 was probably the peak year, and some very powerful cars came out that year and that year only. Chevrolet offered the SS Chevelle with the LS6 454, pumping out 450 HP. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac all had very high horsepower 455 cubic inch V8s in the GSX, 442, and GTO models. Government safety restrictions, smog restrictions that required a lot of crap to be added to the engines, and high insurance prices all worked to kill these cars, and the final straw was the gas crisis.  The US Auto industry was a barren waste land unless you liked trucks, until about 1986.
       
      The cars never lost popularity though, but their worth has fluctuated a lot. You could buy just about anything in the late 70s and early 80s, and you could gate rare stuff a low prices, but by the late 80s the collectors had started getting into muscle cars and the prices went crazy. No, unless you want to spend a lot of money, you’re not going to be driving around a classic car from that era. On the upside, the aftermarket parts scene has gotten so extensive, you can build a 1968 Camaro, or 1970 Chevelle almost from scratch, since the body shell and just about all the body panels are being produced. You’re looking at about 14 grand just for the body shell of a 1970 Chevelle, from there you looking at a huge chunk of change to build it all the way, but it could be done. I suspect they are used to put a very rare, but totaled cars back into shape.
       
      It’s nice to be helping with the restoration of one of these cars, without being tied to the cost. I can have fun taking it apart, and putting it back together without worrying about how I was going to fund it. I also have more tools for working on cars than my father in law, and know more about GM cars, so I’m appreciated, and that’s nice. I just with the owner was willing to upgrade the thing a little, you can really go a long way to making an old muscle car handle and stop well, and be more reliable and safe with upgrades not much more than rebuilding everything dead stock, and putting upgraded suspension on a otherwise numbers matching car really doesn't hurt the value, especially if you put all the stock shit in boxes and save it. I’m not paying for it though so it is of course his call, and putting it back together stock is easier in most cases. I really wish it was a 68 GTO because, man I still know those cars, and every time we run into some stupid Chevy thing, I’m like, man, Pontiacs are so  much better, and I get dirty looks.  BUT THEY ARE!!!
       
      Anyway, I said I would write something up, and there it is. 
       
       
       
      Hopefully we have a few guys in here who dig on American Iron and will post about the cars they loved, and yes, I mean in that way,

×