What is required to convert the USA to Diesel?

[NoTime]

Bottom line: there's no reason to expect H2 tank ruptures with any more frequency than existing cars experience gasoline tank ruptures (read: almost never). Furthermore, any accident bad enough to rupture one of these tanks is honestly not going to have any survivors in the first place.

- Warren

True enough, but I would be more worried about plumbing leaks. H2 is slippery stuff.

 

[ShawnD]

hydrogen has a relatively narrow range of explosive concentrations

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/HY/hydrogen.html. That even puts ether to shame, which burns between http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/diethyl_ether.html

because it's liquid

That's not likely either. Hydrogen has a critical point of 32 degrees Kelvin, meaning it's a gas unless you keep it at -240C. It could be kept in a dewar flask, but that's not safe since cryo containers are required to leak at all times in order to maintain equilibrium. Better not light a cigarette next to your car, or in your car, or in a parking garage.


/derail

 

[rcgldr]

The hydrogen tanks used in automotive applications are designed to withstand armor-piercing bullets from only several feet away. Futhermore, hydrogen has a relatively narrow range of explosive concentrations.

I wasn't worried about the hydrogen igniting, just the sheer pressure used in those tanks is scary. There was a recent indicent in the USA where a hydrogen tank in a truck ruptured during a refill (the truck had experienced a minor accident prior to this), there was no fire, but it did seriously injure the guy refilling the tank, inspite of the cage around the tank.

Then again, I lived 20 miles away from Fort Worth, Texas, back in 1973, where and when a Liquefied Petrolem Gas truck crashed, splitting the tank, and the fuel inside ignited, sending a mushroom of fire several thousand feet into the air (into the clouds according to local residents). This was after dusk, and from my view, it looked like an small atomic bomb had gone off, briefly turning a very large area (hundreds of square miles) back into daylight. The second time I witness an LPG "incident", only the pressure cap popped off, so the truck became a very large Bic lighter that lasted several hours. Fortunately, the conversion of liquid to gas, the speed of the gas and the lack of oxygen in the tank kept the flame base about 8 feet away from the port on the tank, so the tank didn't become super heated. I didn't stick around to see what happened as the fuel almost ran out.

Then yet again, it was gasoline, and not hydrogen, that was used in early fuel-air bombs, but gasoline vapor has a tendency to become too rich to be explosive without being forcibly dispersed (although a mild breeze would be enough).

I'm curious, just how much power versus weight can be obtained from plutonium buttons and thermalcouples as used on satellites and the lunar modules on the Apollo missions (one of which, from Apollo 13, is lying at the bottom of some ocean somewhere, probably still functioning just fine).

 

[chroot]

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/HY/hydrogen.html. That even puts ether to shame, which burns between http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/diethyl_ether.html

Hmm. I'm used to seeing the LEL of 4%, but I've always seen the HEL listed as 50%. I apparently need to do some reading, either way.

That's not likely either. Hydrogen has a critical point of 32 degrees Kelvin, meaning it's a gas unless you keep it at -240C. It could be kept in a dewar flask, but that's not safe since cryo containers are required to leak at all times in order to maintain equilibrium. Better not light a cigarette next to your car, or in your car, or in a parking garage.

Gasoline, I meant, is a liquid.

- Warren

 

[cactus429]

Actually torque is the number that means nothing.

Ohhh please... we all know JDpower's ratings are for sale :D Come on. With that said I am not doubting Japanese car reliability, but the s2000 (and honda) is far from perfect. Most Japanese cars have a critical flaw. CHEAP DESIGN. The s2000 as well as most Japanese cars have what's called an "OPEN DECK" block design. Open deck means the block is aluminum with cast iron sleeves surround each piston and this makes up the combustion chamber. This effectively makes it nearly impossible to rebuild and nearly impossible to modify with reliable results. What's the reason? Light weight and CHEAP. The cars are purpose built... Economical and disposable.

Torque is a useless rating? Are you smoking crack? Torque means EVERYTHING. Horsepower is a rating derived from torque. HP is a rating of how quickly an engine can produce a certain amount of torque. To say a s2000 makes 240hp is 50% of the story. I want to know how much torque that car has at it's peak HP rating (which btw is a meager 135ish ft lbs). Rating that car on on only HP is a marketing technique used by very smart automakers because everybody soaks it right up and thinks HP is the only measure of a cars speed. The only reason the s2000 is fast is because it weighs next to nothing... not because it has 240hp.

To Mr. Warren:

The s2000? My father has been down that route before. For the same price as an S2000 you have have a Mustang GT, Subaru WRX-STI, Mitsubishi Evo, VW Golf R32 and Dodge SRT-4. ALL of which are just as fast or faster by almost 1 second in the 0-60 times compared to an s2000. I'd rather have AWD for the track vs "straight line" power in the s2000. For 35 Grand, the cabin of the s2000 is an aesthetic and ergonomic DISASTER. The s2000 is small in every conceivable direction. Put the top down and prepare to be rattled to death by the folded away roof inches behind your head. The s2000s rotary dials and cheap plastic switches wouldn't seem out of place in a 1978 toyota corolla. The sound system is particularly lame. Those determined to listen to a CD at highway speeds, will note that the s2000s four-speaker stereo has all the fidelity and bass response of a shower radio. Now... where the power really matters between 0rpm and 3000rpm... there's NOTHING. I guess if driving around town in an accelerative dead zone, then fine, it's a wonderful city car. This car lacks a lot of the usual "honda care" and is sub par in many categories. Normally I would buy a honda for build quality and longevity, but the build quality is just not there in this car. The engine is so high strung I can't imagine it making anywhere near it's "out of the factory power" at 100,000 miles. If it's power you want, then get a faster AWD STI or EVO for the same price. If it's economy you want, get a turbodiesel car.

30mpg? Real world fuel economy looks more like 20/26 in the s2000... and that's if your not beating the piss out of it... and you don't buy an s2000 to drive around slowly and economically.

I'd say I hit VTEC at least five times every day, and hit the limiter at least every couple of days. And it's gone 120,000 miles so far with nothing but oil changes. Frankly if it died tomorrow I wouldn't be upset with its longevity, but I don't think that's going to happen.

GO VTEC! :D Your cred just instantly flew out the window. Variable valve timing has been standard on most German cars since the late 80's and was invented by Alpha Romeo on the 70's. I especially love how honda loves to plaster big "VTEC" badges all over their cars. All that shows me is that honda is 20 years behind on the latest technology.

Personally, if I spent between 30 and 35 grand I would want my car to last a lot longer than 120k.

Next time, do your research, kiddo.

Sorry I gave your car too much credit. You have the weaker (higher revving) 2.0L. My bad.

 

[rcgldr]

Torque is a useless rating?

Torque as measured at the crank is useless, except for the ergonomics of less vibration from a lower revving engine. What counts is power and the shape of the torque versus rpm curve, but not the actual peak torque itself. Bascially the key points are peak horsepower and the "width" of the powerband. Gearing will compensate for any differences in engine peak torque, dividing rpms and multiplying torque at the rear wheels. So if you want to measure torque times rpm for power, do it at the rear wheels, not at the engine.

Suzuki's 2008 Hayabusa motorcycle will be making about 198hp at the crank on a 1.34 liter, 4 cylinder engine (although at well over 10,000 rpm). That's more than many much larger engines used in cars.

Part of the reason that the 7 liter V8 used in a Corvette C6 Z06 makes 505+hp, is that it redlines at 7100rpm, much higher than many smaller displacement engines. As far as cruising on the highways, with it's super tall overdrive 6th gear pulling 1500rpm at 70mph there's not a lot of acceleration availaible without downshifting. However, since 2nd gear is good for 90mph, there's plenty of power and some wheel spin available if you downshift. (1st gear runs to 61mph, 2nd to 90mph, 3rd to 125mph, 4th to 162 mph, and 5th is a bigger jump to allow the Z06 reach it's top speed of 198mph, assuming you have 5 or so miles of road to get there, 6th is a true overdrive. The point of the overdrive 6th gear is better gas milage (26mpg).

 

[chroot]

Ohhh please... we all know JDpower's ratings are for sale :D Come on. With that said I am not doubting Japanese car reliability, but the s2000 (and honda) is far from perfect.

When did anyone say it was "perfect?" Is this the moronic style of debate you plan on bringing to this forum? It won't last long here.

Light weight and CHEAP. The cars are purpose built... Economical and disposable.

All cars are disposable. Economy is considered by many to be a selling point.

Torque is a useless rating? Are you smoking crack? Torque means EVERYTHING. Horsepower is a rating derived from torque. HP is a rating of how quickly an engine can produce a certain amount of torque.

Uhh.. say what? Horsepower is torque times rpm. Open a physics book.

The s2000? My father has been down that route before. For the same price as an S2000 you have have a Mustang GT, Subaru WRX-STI, Mitsubishi Evo, VW Golf R32 and Dodge SRT-4.

You know, I've owned the car for over six years now. I'm really well past the point of getting into a pissing match with a stranger on the internet about it. I don't really care about the car much anymore, nor do I really care what some stranger's father thinks about it. I'd really rather be out riding my bicycle anyway (I bet I can beat you on any bike you'd care to ride, too).

ALL of which are just as fast or faster by almost 1 second in the 0-60 times compared to an s2000.

Half the cars you mentioned didn't even exist when I bought the S2000. I don't really care about straight line performance, anyway. I wanted a car that's fun to throw into corners, yet still got good gas mileage. I got exactly that car.

I'd rather have AWD for the track vs "straight line" power in the s2000. For 35 Grand, the cabin of the s2000 is an aesthetic and ergonomic DISASTER. The s2000 is small in every conceivable direction.

I like it being rather small.

Put the top down and prepare to be rattled to death by the folded away roof inches behind your head.

Mine doesn't rattle, nor ever has.

The s2000s rotary dials and cheap plastic switches wouldn't seem out of place in a 1978 toyota corolla.

I didn't really buy it for the A/C knob.

The sound system is particularly lame. Those determined to listen to a CD at highway speeds, will note that the s2000s four-speaker stereo has all the fidelity and bass response of a shower radio.

You have a point there. Of course, I invested a couple of thousand in a sound system before I even drove it off the lot, so it was never much of a concern. I haven't really found a car yet that comes with a decent stock stereo, anyway. Besides, Ferraris don't even come with stereos at all. Ferraris sure do suck, you're right.

Now... where the power really matters between 0rpm and 3000rpm... there's NOTHING.

Well, it idles at 2k rpm, and I've never been too concerned with a car's HP curve at... 0 rpm. In my experience, most cars produce quite little power when turned off.

I guess if driving around town in an accelerative dead zone, then fine, it's a wonderful city car.

That's how it gets good gas mileage. It's a trade-off, and one that I was happy with.

This car lacks a lot of the usual "honda care" and is sub par in many categories. Normally I would buy a honda for build quality and longevity, but the build quality is just not there in this car.

Actually, the car's made by hand, in the same factory and by the same hands, as the Acura NSX. Its build quality is generally considered to be excellent by those in the industry.

The engine is so high strung I can't imagine it making anywhere near it's "out of the factory power" at 100,000 miles. If it's power you want, then get a faster AWD STI or EVO for the same price. If it's economy you want, get a turbodiesel car.

Again, they didn't exist at the time I bought it. And it still runs quite well at 120k miles.

30mpg? Real world fuel economy looks more like 20/26 in the s2000... and that's if your not beating the piss out of it... and you don't buy an s2000 to drive around slowly and economically.

I said nearly 30 mpg, and 26 mpg counts as nearly 30 mpg to me. And 90% of my miles, like everyone else, are highway miles, cruising at 70-75 mph. I don't "beat the piss out of it" much at all on the freeway, since that would be stupid. I bought the S2000 specifically for its dual personality: good economy on the freeway, but very capable on a track or twisty road.

GO VTEC! :D Your cred just instantly flew out the window.

Perhaps this will come as a shock to you, but I wasn't really seeking any credibility. It's just a damn car.

Variable valve timing has been standard on most German cars since the late 80's and was invented by Alpha Romeo on the 70's. I especially love how honda loves to plaster big "VTEC" badges all over their cars. All that shows me is that honda is 20 years behind on the latest technology.

To my knowledge, my car doesn't have a single "VTEC" sticker anywhere on it. Maybe I should turn it upside down and look on the bottom.

Personally, if I spent between 30 and 35 grand I would want my car to last a lot longer than 120k.

It's reached 120k with nothing but routine oil changes. I suspect it will, in fact, last a lot longer.

Sorry I gave your car too much credit. You have the weaker (higher revving) 2.0L. My bad.

Again, while it might surprise you, my sense of self-worth is not tied to my automobile, nor whose automobile it is superior. I suggest you find a more meaningful way to distinguish yourself than attempting to one-up everyone with a silly car. Maybe it's cool when you're in high school, but it's a little pathetic when you're past the age of 18.

- Warren

 

[cactus429]

All cars are disposable. Economy is considered by many to be a selling point.

My cars are definitely not disposable.

Uhh.. say what? Horsepower is torque times rpm. Open a physics book.

DUH. Read my previous post more clearly before responding. Genius above said torque was a useless rating.

You know, I've owned the car for over six years now. I'm really well past the point of getting into a pissing match with a stranger on the internet about it. I don't really care about the car much anymore, nor do I really care what some stranger's father thinks about it. I'd really rather be out riding my bicycle anyway (I bet I can beat you on any bike you'd care to ride, too).

Then don't bring it into an argument as an example if you don't want a critique.

Half the cars you mentioned didn't even exist when I bought the S2000. I don't really care about straight line performance, anyway. I wanted a car that's fun to throw into corners, yet still got good gas mileage. I got exactly that car.

The most important competitors the STI and EVO were. They get very similar fuel mileage, cost the same, have more useful (and higher quality interiors), are much safer, do just as well in the corners if not better and are FASTER.

I like it being rather small.

So small that critical features that make a car comfortable are conveniently "engineered" out of the car.

Mine doesn't rattle, nor ever has.

Funny... I find owner reviews claim quite the contrary. You are the lucky one.

I didn't really buy it for the A/C knob.

Right... who needs quality interior pieces. After all, that the only part of the car we actually come in contact with daily. Horridly uncomfortable seats, crappy turn indicator/wiper stalk, low quality HVAC controls, AMAZINGLY horrendous radio controls, cheaply made vent grilles, hollow sounding plastic dash board... Hell all we really need is a speedo and a fuel gauge... right? If you can't do it right, then why do it at all.

You have a point there. Of course, I invested a couple of thousand in a sound system before I even drove it off the lot, so it was never much of a concern. I haven't really found a car yet that comes with a decent stock stereo, anyway. Besides, Ferraris don't even come with stereos at all. Ferraris sure do suck, you're right.

You don't get out a lot, do you? Any German car and most American cars come with adequate and ok stock stereos. The Ferraris that don't come with stereos are the most insane and impractical supercars of the bunch. All of Ferraris road cars come with stereos, A/C and the whole 9 yards. But nice try at justifying the s2000's lack of nice interior features.

Well, it idles at 2k rpm, and I've never been too concerned with a car's HP curve at... 0 rpm. In my experience, most cars produce quite little power when turned off.

Wow... get that fixed. S2000's idle at 900rpm according to honda's technical data. Power under 3,000 rpm is THE most important power area for a road car.

That's how it gets good gas mileage. It's a trade-off, and one that I was happy with.

Poor choice in a car if that's what you were after.

Actually, the car's made by hand, in the same factory and by the same hands, as the Acura NSX. Its build quality is generally considered to be excellent by those in the industry.

I was referring to overall quality (crappy interior)... not just reliability. And it's a Honda NSX, not Acura. Acura is a name that (largely) exists only in N. America for ignorant, mindless sheep who won't associate speed and quality with a dreadful name like Honda. Doesn't matter anymore anyway, Honda quit making the amazing car.

Again, they didn't exist at the time I bought it. And it still runs quite well at 120k miles.

STI and EVO have been around since 1992, Genius. Even the lowest quality American cars can make it to 120k without issues. High strung engines don't last. You start to see oil consumption, oil burning and loss of performance in the later years of high compression applications.

I said nearly 30 mpg, and 26 mpg counts as nearly 30 mpg to me. And 90% of my miles, like everyone else, are highway miles, cruising at 70-75 mph. I don't "beat the piss out of it" much at all on the freeway, since that would be stupid. I bought the S2000 specifically for its dual personality: good economy on the freeway, but very capable on a track or twisty road.

I hate to break it to you but 26 is not nearly 30. That's a huge gap. At 26mpg you are starting to get into the V6 fuel economy range. 26 is decent but turbo cars achieve far greater than that. A turbo vw GTI for instance... 35-40mpg highway and power like hell (when you want it).

Perhaps this will come as a shock to you, but I wasn't really seeking any credibility. It's just a damn car.

If you needed a response in order to look cool and fill this space, ^^^ That's it.

To my knowledge, my car doesn't have a single "VTEC" sticker anywhere on it. Maybe I should turn it upside down and look on the bottom.

Pop the hood and look on that little box in there some people call the "engine". Besides, I said Honda in general, not s2000. (Civic SI, for instance).

It's reached 120k with nothing but routine oil changes. I suspect it will, in fact, last a lot longer.

If all you do is highway miles, perhaps.

Again, while it might surprise you, my sense of self-worth is not tied to my automobile, nor whose automobile it is superior. I suggest you find a more meaningful way to distinguish yourself than attempting to one-up everyone with a silly car. Maybe it's cool when you're in high school, but it's a little pathetic when you're past the age of 18.

If I had a dime for every time I saw a thread where somebody resorted to some sort of personal bashing like this ^^^ to try to end an argument, I would most certainly have a fat wallet. It has NOTHING to do with self worth. If you want to have a debate about cars on a message board, then do it... but don't try to "one-up" other people who disagree with your logic and actually fight back. If anything you said in your last words ^^^ actually meant anything then you wouldn't be here, debating the situation in the first place. The beauty of the internet is that these posts are FREE, fun and educational as hell. I rather enjoy it. But... I don't fall for (nor apply) to the said bull**** above.

If it's the last word you want, then have it. I'm off to bed.

 

[chroot]

Well, cactus429, you're the genius who resurrected a year-old thread with the express intention of picking an off-topic fight with me about a car I purchased six years ago, largely by comparing it to cars that weren't even available when I bought it or are in entirely different categories (e.g. not convertible). Since I have over 8,000 posts on this forum -- a science forum -- perhaps five of which are about this car, I think it's clear that I have, in fact, found a more meaningful way to distinguish myself from people like you.

Good show. Too bad it's over.

- Warren