Direct Exhaust Injection!! What a revolutionary idea, not!



  • Hey I'm new here but I just had to sign up after reading this idea this guy posted.

    CLICKY TO FORUM POST

    And just for laughs. 

    Why didn't GM think of that.

     



  • This should help clarify the issue: Exhaust gas reburning system



  • Maybe he was watching Discovery Channel's Futurecars, which claimed, among other things, that there were cars coming that could run on water.

     

    And worse yet, cars that ran on pressurized air.  Which used that pressurized air to drive a generator.  ...which was used to pressurize air.

     

    And I kid you not, this was on national TV...
     



  • @SeekerDarksteel said:

    Maybe he was watching Discovery Channel's Futurecars, which claimed, among other things, that there were cars coming that could run on water.

    That'll be a bank of hydrogen fuel cells and a water splitter. It's not technically impossible, but would not be very efficient with today's technology, and would need recharging from an external electricity source on a regular basis. Currently a dumb approach, may change if the technology improves.



  • It's called EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) and it's been around since the 80's. The idea is that by recirculating exhaust gases, you can 1) reduce NO emissions (and therefore cut back on smog) and 2) cool the combustion temperature within the cylinder (which prevents detonation or "pinging").

     

    Why do I know this? The EGR valve in my Taurus has been stuck open for over two years. As a result, my car passes the emissions part of inspection with flying colors but can barely drive up a 10% grade.



  • Haha, somebody should tell that guy to go builder a rebreather out of a plastic bag. He can stay underwater forever as long as he breathes out into the bag, then breathes it back in.

     

    Actually, I really, really want to see pictures of his little DIY project, and how he completely screws up a good Corvette. Should people who don't understand combustion be allowed to own sports cars? 




  • Maybe he was watching Discovery Channel's Futurecars, which claimed,
    among other things, that there were cars coming that could run on water.
     

    Nothing is impossible, there is already an alarm clock running on water, but a car ? 

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/lights/757e/ 



  • @SeekerDarksteel said:

    Maybe he was watching Discovery Channel's Futurecars, which claimed, among other things, that there were cars coming that could run on water.

     

    And worse yet, cars that ran on pressurized air.  Which used that pressurized air to drive a generator.  ...which was used to pressurize air.

     

    And I kid you not, this was on national TV...
     

     

    Also on Discovery channel, on their "10 best sports cars", Chad McQueen (the racing driver son of Steve McQueen) explained how a turbo works by saying that it "re-cycled the exhaust gases". I guess an education doesn't matter much when daddy has money to burn....



  • There was an article fairly recently about an Indian car that runs on compressed air.  It's also glued together instead of welded, but apparently it's pretty cheap.



  • phpBB : Critical Error



    Could not connect to the database

    WTFdotted...
    (as I just coined it)



  • @zedhex said:

    @SeekerDarksteel said:

    Maybe he was watching Discovery Channel's Futurecars, which claimed, among other things, that there were cars coming that could run on water.

     And worse yet, cars that ran on pressurized air.  Which used that pressurized air to drive a generator.  ...which was used to pressurize air.

     And I kid you not, this was on national TV...

     Also on Discovery channel, on their "10 best sports cars", Chad McQueen (the racing driver son of Steve McQueen) explained how a turbo works by saying that it "re-cycled the exhaust gases". I guess an education doesn't matter much when daddy has money to burn....

    That's true to the same extent as it would be to say that the alternator recycles electricity, which is to say, not at all.



  • This made me laugh really loud at work. Oh my God... He even reads the posts where people explain to him why he's retarded, yet comes up with this:

    LOL best post evar. Not to mention there would be little to no oxygen in the exhaust because most of it has already been burnt up.

    I already thought of that.

    That's where I'll need a handheld tuner for CFI so I can lean the mixture out appropriately. Does anyone know where I can get one, how to install it and tune it. I'll buy you beer.



  • Oh my God, he keeps "tweaking" his idea...

    http://www.gmmodernmuscle.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=26720#26720

    (Sorry for double posting but it was too late for an edition.)



  • I suppose it was actually to late for an addition?

     

     

    ...WTF 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I suppose it was actually too late for an addition?

    <snip> 

    ...WTF

    Fixed that for you.

    btw: 

    <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">addition</span>?</p> 

    Is this another WTF in the forum software? 



  • @Mal1024 said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I suppose it was actually too late for an addition?

    <snip> 

    ...WTF

    Fixed that for you.

    btw: 

    <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">addition</span>?</p> 

    Is this another WTF in the forum software? 

    You are commenting on me being a 'grammar nerd', when you are actually looking through the markup generated by my forum post and commenting?

    You sir, take wtfery to a new level.



  • What makes you think I was accusing you? Also, the only reason that I even saw the code is because I had to fiddle around to get bold to work.



  •  this is indeed a funny one. I guess the one who posted on that gm forum doesn't really know that much about exhaust parts and exhaust systems.lol.



  •  The best mileage I ever got out of my last car (that I did a lot of experimentation on) was when I removed all the so-called emissions equipment that I could. Blocked off the EGR, removed the catalytic converter. I could get 34 mpg out of it, and it passed (strict Massachusetts) emissions completely fine. I blame hippies.

    EDIT: the best mileage I got out of my car by simple means (just removing crap). I could get ~37 with this funky lean-burn method I cooked up, but it was difficult to use. 



  • @EJ_ said:

     The best mileage I ever got out of my last car (that I did a lot of experimentation on) was when I removed all the so-called emissions equipment that I could. Blocked off the EGR, removed the catalytic converter. I could get 34 mpg out of it, and it passed (strict Massachusetts) emissions completely fine. I blame hippies.

    EDIT: the best mileage I got out of my car by simple means (just removing crap). I could get ~37 with this funky lean-burn method I cooked up, but it was difficult to use. 

     

     

    what car is that!! mine does 41mpg out of the box.



  • I can get infinite mpg downhill...



  • @raysteve said:

     this is indeed a funny one. I guess the one who posted on that gm forum doesn't really know that much about exhaust parts and exhaust systems.lol.

     

    I bet they don't know much about how exhaust systems have changed in the last three years either.



  • @Helix said:

    what car is that!! mine does 41mpg out of the box.

     

    It was a 92 Plymouth Laser AWD. It was a sports car, and supposedly rated for 22 mpg average, so 34 was a fairly large increase.  A friend of mine from college and I rewrote sections of the ECU code (Motorola HC11 variant CPU) to change a bunch of stuff, add features, and fix bugs. The best quarter mile time I managed to get out of it was 13.2, so it was reasonably fast. Unfortunately my mechanical skills are poor, so it ended up dying of mechanical failure; balance shaft belt broke, and got all in the timing belt. 



  • @upsidedowncreature said:

    Filed under: Where are the rezzing police?

    I was thinking the same thing. Not that I personally care if people resurrect threads. It's just annoying because I didn't read this one the first time around, and all the links are bustimicated.



  • @sys said:

    I can get infinite mpg downhill...

    Only if you can find a hill that's infinitely long.



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    @sys said:

    I can get infinite mpg downhill...

    Only if you can find a hill that's infinitely long.

     

    For the duration of the hill it would be infinity mpg.

    That, or a divide-by-zero error.



  • Wether or not dividing by zero produces an answer depends on the situation, but infinite MPG implies that you can travel an infinite distance if you have a gallon of fuel.



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    infinite MPG implies that you can travel an infinite distance if you have a gallon of fuel.
     

    Yes. That idea is compatible with infinity mpg downhill. MPG is a derived quantity that can be obtained from any Δx.

    displacement / Δgallon = MPG



  • ...which doesn't have a real answer for Δx = 0. Do I really have to spell it out for you?



  • @dhromed said:

    @Faxmachinen said:

    @sys said:

    I can get infinite mpg downhill...

    Only if you can find a hill that's infinitely long.

     

    For the duration of the hill it would be infinity mpg.

    That, or a divide-by-zero error.

     

    Only if the engine wasn't running. (On a similar note, some cars display "litres per 100km" but change the display to "litres per hour" when travelling below a certain speed, since it would be instantaneously infinity fuel per distance if distance is zero)



  • @Zemm said:

    Only if the engine wasn't running.
     

    That's the point. We're going downhill, after all.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Zemm said:

    Only if the engine wasn't running.
     

    That's the point. We're going downhill, after all.

     

    An idling engine still uses fuel, and going downhill the engine is at least idling. In fact engine braking would drive it up compared to just coasting with the clutch in. IIRC the last car I was in with a consumption meter used about 5 litres per hour idling, though that was a while ago now.



  • @Zemm said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Zemm said:

    Only if the engine wasn't running.
     

    That's the point. We're going downhill, after all.

     

    An idling engine still uses fuel, and going downhill the engine is at least idling. In fact engine braking would drive it up compared to just coasting with the clutch in. IIRC the last car I was in with a consumption meter used about 5 litres per hour idling, though that was a while ago now.

    I think any car made in, say, the last twenty years has a vacuum sensor, and cuts fuel to the engine when engine-braking - you actually use slightly less fuel coasting in gear than you do free-wheeling, as long as there's enough incline or miomentum to turn the engine.



  • @Zemm said:

    An idling engine still uses fuel, and going downhill the engine is at least idling.

     

    Unless you've switched it off altogether.  Did that once, back in the 70s, and drove over twenty miles without burning a single drop of fuel.



  • I never said the engine was on, or that the rate of fuel consumption was sustainable.



  • @raysteve said:

      lol.cant stop laughing. this is a really funny one. I guess he should
    change his exhaust parts now before its too late. He needs to study a
    lot more..

     

    If only this thread had been about private injection...

     

     

    mod: removed raysteve's spam link. What a sly stealthy guy! -dh



  • To the H4xmobile

                                          Trojan van
                                             ___ _
                                            |h4x|_\
    ¨-~ SELECT ~¨*- FROM ~¨~¨` users ´^'~~--`o-~-o-'
    
          |
          |  Direct Exhaust Injection
          |
          V
     __________                                       ´_______ ´|
    |   . - .  |`                                    |        | |
    | / `  , \ | ==== ~ ~                     ~ ~ ===| [¨¨¨¨] | |
    || ¨->< - || |         Buffer overflow           | [¨¨¨¨] | |
    | \´, ' `/ |`|         SQL query sent            | [¨¨¨¨] | |
    |__`_--_´__| === ~ ~                     ~ ~ ====|   **   | |
     `-----------'                                   |________|/
    
      Air filter                                       Server
                                                         
                                                  .      |
                                                  '      |
                              .+.                 |      |  Get root
                       i   .´. | .`.             `+´     |  
                - )  ´_|_`._ _`_´_ |__    /       |      V
                _n__'                 '  ( -    `.+.´
               '       [¨]  [¨]  [¨]  | | \      _ñ_   ___   ___   
          ^    |   ___         ^      |__`; _ __|   ^`|    `|    `.   ^
          |    |__|===|_____ _ | _ ______________ _ | _ __________|   |
    
                          Top Secret Research Facility
    


  • @Faxmachinen said:

    Trojan van
     

    Awesome.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.