Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

General cars and vehicles thread.


Recommended Posts

On 10/15/2017 at 7:40 PM, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I will look around for a diagnostic tool. I picked up some door pins for my Chevy (to fix the saggy doors), a jack, some jack stands, a belt for the GM, new air filter for the GM, and will be getting oil and gear oil soon. 

 

I pulled the ABS fuse. Doesn't quite fix the issue. 

 

The truck still has some very slight, very fast, consistent "stutter" under acceleration. It's incredibly faint, and really does feel like the brakes grabbing once ever second or so. I'm thinking it might be the ignition. 

 

But I have a leak coming from the oil pan and the radiator that I'll probably fix before that. The plugs are a year and a half old. May have to replace distributor cap. 

 

 

OBDII tools are getting to be very cheap. I bought what was HF's top of the line (heh)  for ~$50.00.

Their current "top of theline" will handle ABS cycling, and can be had for ~$60.00 if you play the coupon game right. 

 

The stutter is likely a plug/plug wire. 

I forget if that year Chevy has the DIS /Coil Block ignition, so it COULD be a coilplack getting weak. 

 

Tin oilpans can sometimes be "fixed" with a length of hardwood and a hammer. Just "tap" the pan near the leak, and it will often go away.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Screw them they're too fucking cheap to buy rubbers, too fucking stupid to stop any of the eleventy twelve places they'll give them to you free (you don't even have to pretend to be a gay teen prostit

Some stuff I took this past weekend.            

Hey guys, look at this...        

13 minutes ago, Meplat said:

 

 

OBDII tools are getting to be very cheap. I bought what was HF's top of the line (heh)  for ~$50.00.

Their current "top of theline" will handle ABS cycling, and can be had for ~$60.00 if you play the coupon game right. 

 

The stutter is likely a plug/plug wire. 

I forget if that year Chevy has the DIS /Coil Block ignition, so it COULD be a coilplack getting weak. 

 

Tin oilpans can sometimes be "fixed" with a length of hardwood and a hammer. Just "tap" the pan near the leak, and it will often go away.

 

I swapped the distributor cap and rotor, and some new plug cables are en route to my house. The actual plugs are apparently just a year old. The coil and ignition control module are 120 dollars so I'm holding off in hopes that the new plug cables fix the issue. 

 

I'll look up that oil pan remedy. Mostly because dropping an oilpan on A 4x4 requires moving the front drive shaft and unhooking heads and shit apparently for my truck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ulric said:

That sucks. Dropping the pan on my Rover just involved lifting the front end to get enough clearance around the front axle.

It would be nice to have a solid front axle like on the rover. Sadly, not the case. I've got IFS up front on torsion bars. 

 

Today's work got started after I ran my dog a bit. Swapped the serpentine belt and changed the engine oil and filter. Then looked around the rear differential to figure out where the fill hole is. I have a gasket on order. There's some surface rust on the frame and bumper near the rear of the truck. I'll eventually sand that out and spray it. 

 

Also, @Meplat, the spare tire mechanism works great. I dropped the tire today without an issue. Rolled it away to save for later. I'm basically completely stripping the truck of anything useful before I make the swap. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel filter replaced.Transmission fluid replaced. 

 

Then I turned the key. 

 

Solenoid clicking nonstop. Try again. Try a third time. 

 

Nothing. Check the power windows and locks. Super weak. 

 

Go to jump the truck, my cable heat up VERY fast. And they aren't cheap. That tells me it's pulling a huge amperage. 

 

Went back to the truck. Power locks are hardly moving. No more solenoid clicking. 

 

Looks like my battery is toast. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a huge moron. 

 

When I took the glovebox out of the cab, I didn't unscrew the glovebox light. 

 

That little light drained the battery over the course of a week and a half. 

 

Oh well. I've got a way better battery in the truck now. Pulled the fuse to the interior lights so that wouldn't happen again. I was going to buy a better battery for the truck anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I'm a huge moron. 

 

When I took the glovebox out of the cab, I didn't unscrew the glovebox light. 

 

That little light drained the battery over the course of a week and a half. 

 

Oh well. I've got a way better battery in the truck now. Pulled the fuse to the interior lights so that wouldn't happen again. I was going to buy a better battery for the truck anyway.

 

You'd be amazed how many times I've dealt with nonsense like glovebox/trunk/underhood lamps killing batteries. 

 

Also- modern batteries for the most part are not at all durable. Unless you buy a very very good one, you're getting junk, that at best will last ~3 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meplat said:

 

You'd be amazed how many times I've dealt with nonsense like glovebox/trunk/underhood lamps killing batteries. 

 

Also- modern batteries for the most part are not at all durable. Unless you buy a very very good one, you're getting junk, that at best will last ~3 years.

Swapped it with a duralast Gold. I'll eventually put an Optima in it. But yeah, I felt dumb. 

 

I swapped the radiator out today. Old one had a leak, so I pulled it out and tracked a new one down locally. Wasn't too bad, except I now know why I had oil on the right hand side of the engine bay. The hot oil line going into the radiator was a bit loose. 

Still waiting on my spark plug cables. Fed ex is being slow today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Deka", and "Interstate" were my go-to's. 

Optimas are quite good, but intolerant of bad charging systems and hop-boxes. You can kill one fast if you install it in something that forces you to hit it with a high amp hop box more than once or twice in it's life. 

 

Radiators are another one of those products that for the most part, have gotten crappy.  Lots of aftermarket junk out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This specific radiator was made by "spectra".

 

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/sgt-cu730/overview/make/gmc

 

Only issue was the original radiator (which went for 280k miles) had reliefs cut in the top for the steel and rubber brackets holding it in place. This one did not. So it doesn't fit perfectly, but I got my fan shroud over it just fine.

 

Next will be cleaning out the throttle body, replacing the throttle body gasket, and replacing the rear differential fluid and gasket. And the plug wires if they ever come in. I'm going from 7mm to 8.5mm diameter wires.

 

I spoke with a shop that is willing to do the body swap for me. I'm anxious to have it done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of plastic header tanks, but that is the  direction things are headed. 

Seen too many of them crumble.

 

At least the one you got seems decent.  Also, good going on putting the shroud back in. You don't know how many vehicles I've seen with serious cooling issues, and the doofus left the shroud off. 

 

Plug wire diameter differences is usually just a thicker outer jacket, unless you're going nuts and fitting shielded leads and plugs.

Silicone grease is your friend here.. Keeps thing from sticking, and shorting when doused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My original radiator had the plastic header tanks. They make them pretty well these days. The plug wires are original on the GM that I bought. Anything is going to be an upgrade, I think.

 

People probably don't realize how much the shroud helps with the airflow. 

 

I'll take the silicone grease idea into consideration when I swap them out. 

 

So far, I've done to the truck...

 

Fuel Filter.

Oil.

Oil filter. 

Transmission fluid. 

Air filter. 

Radiator. 

PCV valve. 

Distributor cap. 

Distributor rotor. 

Battery. 

Radiator. 

Serpentine belt. 

 

Got some more work to do until I drive it to the body shop and make them strip the cab and bed and ready it for my swap. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

22552487_1329698653823738_28852553916824

"Being perpetually in debt to have a new car every few years" seems to be making a major comeback. 

 

I've worked with people who'd buy a new car when the tires were bald on their old one.   

People in increasing number, also have little to no clue as to what really goes on under the hood, beyond parroting figures and ad blurbs. 

 

One of my co-workers has a kid who is basically destroying a nice 2010 Silverado. The less than a year old tires he bought are now down to the wear bars. 

Not because the tires were bad, but because the kid drives like a dipshit.  No sense of power moderation, no sense of energy control. Everything is V/max.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad tends to run vehicles into the ground. Ends up buying a new used truck every 6 or 7 years. Has done that his whole life. I didn't learn maintenance from him, other than changing oil. 

 

One of the last times I was home, I watched him try to change the lower hose for a radiator in my truck. Except he didn't have it sized right. And he was attempting to take the old one off and put the new one on with coolant in the truck. 

 

So he's just getting splashed, cursing, and trying to wrestle with a too-long hose. 

 

He also, for some reason, kept adding coolant every time he got somewhere with the hose. So more would leak out when he tried to reposition. It made very little sense to me. 

 

Regardless, I learned that the GM can do burnouts this weekend while I was on a test drive.  I won't be doing that normally, since the tires are fairly new Yokohama Geolanders. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

My dad tends to run vehicles into the ground. Ends up buying a new truck every 6 or 7 years. Has done that his whole life. I didn't learn maintenance from him, other than changing oil. 

 

One of the last times I was home, I watched him try to change the lower hose for a radiator in my truck. Except he didn't have it sized right. And he was attempting to take the old one off and put the new one on with coolant in the truck. 

 

So he's just getting splashed, cursing, and trying to wrestle with a too-long hose. 

 

He also, for some reason, kept adding coolant every time he got somewhere with the hose. So more would leak out when he tried to reposition. It made very little sense to me. 

 

Regardless, I learned that the GM can do burnouts this weekend while I was on a test drive.  I won't be doing that normally, since the tires are fairly new Yokohama Geolanders. 

Meanwhile I drive a 2003 Dakota I sold to my Father before he got posted to England. Bought it back for what he paid for it, $1900 dollars. 

 

And dear god did those limey fucks dick up the lighting.  Brits for the most part cannot do vehicle wiring. 

 

That aside the salt air rusted it a bit.  I keep it soaked in concrete form release oil. Changing the O2 sensors, fitting a high volume fuelpump, injectors and ECU  gave it a bit more "oomph"   hacking und chopping the  exhaust cat-back to resemble a MGA delivered a wonderful note.  Not obnoxious in the least. 

 

Eventually I will delete the cats, and bypass the quad O2 sensors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, @Meplat, Quick question. At a constant speed (not accelerating) my truck feels a bit stuttery. Not entirely consistent. Like the revs drop a bit at highway speed intermittently. 

 

Would a speed sensor going bad on the transmission cause this issue? I've seen a few threads where that's the case. 

 

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f13/need-figure-out-stutter-while-driving-676766/

 

I may buy one anyway and put it in just to see. It's a cheap part. I am really hoping it's not actually something wrong with my transmission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Seat of the pants, mainly. I haven't focused on the tach during it, I've mainly been listening and feeling it out. 

 

Currently, I have no engine light on so it's not throwing a code through that. 

Check the driveline.  You may have a slip joint getting sloppy, a worn U-joint, or the carriers for the T-case output flanges getting sloppy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Proyas
      Is there any way Sherman tanks could be upgraded at reasonable cost to still have a role on the battlefield? Assume that your military will never fight with a world-class army (U.S., Russia, China, etc.) and instead will only fight with second-rate armies using 1990s technology at best, or with terrorists, or go on peacekeeping missions. 
       
      I'm thinking that the Shermans could have their turrets removed and modern autoloading turrets from other armored vehicles--like the 105mm Stryker gun, or the 40mm autocannon from the CV10, or the 30mm from the BMP-2 (would any of these fit in the Sherman's turret ring?)--could be dropped in, along with their sensors and computers. ATGM launchers could be installed as well. Explosive reactive armor bricks could be attached to the outside, as is common among modern Russian tanks. 
       
      Assume that your Sherman fleet is 1,000 tanks, in various states of (dis)repair, so you have enough spare parts to last for many years. 
       
      What do you guys think? Thanks. 
       
    • 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: 
       


×
×
  • Create New...