Alternative fuel for future performance cars?

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by porschemania, May 16, 2006.

  1. Due to current political climate I've become aware of current environmental problems of petrol consumption. It's always been a dilemma for me as a speed freak and I am sure alot of you guys hit the same problem. Of course it is probably a good thing to see these new breed of green cars, notably hybrids, to gain a good chunk of attention from the public, but it'll never satisfy my heart when it comes to performance driving. For instance, I really don't think I will ever tolerate an electric sports car with a flat torque curve and a lack of engine noise no matter how superior it is to a proper sports car economically. Clearly, a proper sportscar has to have an internal combustion engine, a solution developed over the years, but use an alternative to petrol. This is strictly my personal view and I'd love to see this forum's view to this issue.


    Here is the low down of the technologies availible or in the brink of production and a short description of their characterisitcs in terms of performance driving. Which do you believe has a future for cars, but most importantly for us, performance cars?

    Hybrid
    Pro: Currently in production. Works like a part-time turbo
    Con: Expensive, overly complex, economic gain is marginal

    Fuel cell
    Pro: A proper all electric solution, very close to production, high torque, flat power curve
    Con: flat power curve, should sound like an electric motor (RC car, washing machine, blender etc)

    Hydrogen
    Pro: Highly flammable= more power, low weight of fuel, BMW has had the technology for a decade (hence all the hydrogen prototypes), doesn't require a catalyst converter, water comes out from the tail pipe
    Con: Characteristic of hydrogen molecules means it leaks fuel as gas, very difficult to store as liquid, safety performance is unknown, BMW couldn't put the technology into production because hydrogen is hard/expensive/dangerous to transport via oil trucks or store it at a petrol station as well as being dangerous to refuel

    Ethanol
    Pro: Can be blended with petrol into "gashol" (10% or 85%), already in production, existing engines can be converted cheaply, ethanol has to be derived through plants which extract CO2 from the air so more ethanol means more plants, has a higher octane rating than petrol so there is a credible performance gain over the same engine (1140bhp from a Veyron)
    Con: Limited availibility in most major markets, it requires a strong engine to handle the power (an availible technology), inefficient in cold weather under 13 °C (55 °F), altho clean in terms of carbon emission, not so clean in terms of organic emission, reacts to rubber or plastic requiring a fully metallic engine in case of safety(heavier drivetrain)

    Butanol
    Pro: may be used as a direct fuel in any standard internal combustion engine engineered for gasoline usage without modification, as butanol's octane rating is 25% higher than petrol's, increasing the compression accordingly could make 25% more power and >10% more mileage than petrol (1250bhp and 1.25 minutes more at 400kph/240mph from a Veyron!!)
    Con: availibility as fuel for a car

    Methnol
    Pro: Race proven in motorsports through American indy racing,
    Con: Can be poisonous, invisible, most toxic, not economically viable at the moment

    Petrol/Gasoline
    Pro: Its been around for two centuries, all current cars use petrol, easily availible
    Con: accused to produce greenhouse gases at a large scale, large political problems, mass transportation occasionally causes disastrous accidents at sea
     
  2. Credit to Wikipedia for alot of the information above
     
  3. Ethanol will be the future
     
  4. #4 Inimbrium, May 16, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Actaully there is another type of fuel. Metal.

    Highly reactive powdered metal in speacial contaier rods. These are quite heavy but could be installed under the car by some machine. Very recyclable and quite efficient.

    Chunks of metal such as iron, aluminium or boron, in ascending order of reactiveness and efficiency. Boron would be the most expensive, but once the rods are bought, they can be fully recycled so no need to buy new ones, just replace them at a Metal Station. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> Supercars would probably use three of these rods connected to the engine at the same time, giving more fuel at the same time of mich higher octane than Gasoline. The problem is that it doesn't last quite as long as Petrol, it lasts only a little less tho. the rods are heavy, and would weigh about 30kg each. Aother thing is that the used (oxidised) metal is put back into the rod, on the other end (like a piston), so you never lose weight as the fuel is used. You actually gain a little weight from the extra oxygen in the fuel, but this isn't that much, probably a few Kg per rod.

    No emissions whatsoever, but like with any 'clean' fuel including fuel cell (charge) and hydrogen (purification), electricity is needed. In this case it is to recycle the fuel (remove the oxygen).

    What do you think huh?

    See part of the article here:
    http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg18825221.100.html
     
  5. which ever yields the most power, so i guess butanol is what i would choose <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  6. Biodiesel.
     
  7. You do realise that buring hydrogen produces less power than gasolin right?
     
  8. Correct answer.
     
  9. hydrogen
     

Share This Page