[SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn

[Joshua D. Boyd]

I was searching the net to find info on building alternatively powered
cars.  I found lots of info on gutting my car and making it an electric,
but what I wanted to find was info on making my car hydrogen powered.
Anyone know anything on that topic?

--
Joshua Boyd

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 wa2egp at att.net wrote:

>     Actually you would be polluting less walking or 
> riding a bicycle..so there!  Removing some the anti-
> pollution crap on the car will increase gas mileage 
> without increasing pollution if you keep the engine 
> tuned.  I had a 73 Corolla with 1.6 l engine and a two 
> speed automatic (yep, no typo).  It got 29.5 mpg on the 
> highway and 26-27 average.  It also passed the 85 CA 
> standards before I got rid of it after 185,000 miles.  
> When it went through inspection they always had to test 
> the exhaust system because "your car doesn't pollute 
> enough".  My present car is not as good in mpg as that 
> car, but far better than SUVs....and it has been off-
> road more.  If we were really serious, a external 
> combustion Stirling engine would be better if you want 
> it fossil fueled.  BTW, I think the record for mileage 
> is 358 mpg but you wouldn't want to drive that vehicle 
> or they way it was driven.
> > It seems to me that there is no one in the U.S. who
> > is REALLY concerned about mileage, the environment,
> > gas prices, energy, tree hugging, any of that stuff, if you
> > drive ANY vehicle back & forth to work with only one
> > person in the vehicle.(except MAYBE a fuel efficient cycle)
> > 4 people in a car getting 10 mpg is lots better than 1 in a
> > vehicle getting 25 mpg.
> > AND I am not playing hole-e-yer-than-thou cause I drive a
> > Mark VIII and it only gets about 20 if I keep the foot light.
> > We all know that higher prices force economy, but we just
> > don't want to see those prices.
> > Les
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cyrus M. Reed" <reedc at cc.wwu.edu>
> > To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 6:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Reagen Ward wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 07:17:54PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm lucky when the '58 gets 10-12mpg. If I hit the hammer a lot that
> > number
> > > > drops to 7-8. But I do my part, too... the 2000 gets around 30 when
> > driven
> > > > right. Should those of us who preserve history (drive classic cars) get
> > a
> > > > price break on gas?
> > >
> > > I've heard an interesting theory:  Old gas guzzling classic cars burn
> > > less total energy than it would take to make a new car, so you're better
> > > off with an old car if you're wanting to conserve energy.
> > >
> > > Dunno if it's true, but it sounds good.
> > 
> > Don't forget that energy is not the same as pollution.  10kW/hr of power
> > from a hydroelectric plant is not the same as 10kW/hr of power from a coal
> > or natural gas powerplant, IMHO.
> > 
> > Also consider that leaded gas also puts out a lower amount of harmful
> > emissions than unleaded gas for short trips.  The catalytic converter
> > doesn't heat up as much as for longer trips, and unleaded gas actually
> > burns less clean on it's own than leaded.  Now think about a short trip to
> > the grocery store in an SUV... I'll bet that at 7mpg, there aren't many
> > long trips made in those monster SUV's.  Ick.
> > 
> > -Cyrus
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> > http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> > http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>