Gas is over $2 a gallon

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-05-06 01:59, 351ciofgrunt wrote:
Hey quit complaining... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] In Sydney the petrol is over $1 a litre... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img][img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif[/img]
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

1 US dollar = $1.37 in Aussie dollars.
1 gal = 3.78 litres! I'm starting to feel better!![img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


Just curious if fuel prices are climbing weekly in Sydney??

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: bluestreek on 5/6/04 6:37pm ]</font>

Here in Sweden it's about $5 US per gallon. The rest of Europe is pretty much the same. So, we don't feel sorry for you guys yet [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Just filled the Sunliner last night with $1.78 regular. Cheapest in town and had a line to get in. Otherwise it's 1.89-1.94 here in L-ville. We'll see $2 a gallon in no time for 87 octane.
And yes I know what the prices are in Europe, but most of that is tax imposed by bureaucratic idiots looking for ways to keep a lid on growth and protect their jobs.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_bicker.gif[/img]
[addsig]

I just purchased oil company stock. That's my way of recouping my expenditures for gasoline. Each time I get a dividend back( as small as it is ) it's kind of a rebate of sorts.

Some may say I'm only lining the pockets of the oil company,but at this point if anybody has a better suggestion, please share it with the rest of us.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>Just curious if fuel prices are climbing weekly in Sydney??</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> Not sure about sydney, but in Toronto the prices have gone to .89/litre. Getting quite pricey, as they predict 1.00/litre by the summer.


[addsig]

I am surprised that a rotary piston engine has not been successful into a production car. Back in the fifties there was a German inventor who came up with a rotary piston engine that produced 213 horse power at 4000 RPM, however the engine was just shy of 62 cubic inches. (Torque comes out to 279.6, if I did my math correctly) If I remembered correctly it was around 12 to 18 inches cubed in size. Not very big. It would be the perfect size to fit into a compact car.

Does this mean that we can build an engine maybe twice to three time that size to get twice the power? So to get four hundred horsepower, we could do it in 186 cubic inches, and torque would be just under 560. (Torque figures are based at 4000 RPM's.)

So if my reasoning is correct, if the rotary piston engine is so much more efficient and we can get the same amount of power as a bigger engine. That would make them more fuel efficient.

If you feel I am full of it, feel free to let me know. I will be happy to discuss it. I am not saying everything that I said was 100% fact, but I thought I should throw this idea out. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]

_________________
1968 Mustang
351 Cleveland
C-5 automatic

I am in the middle of a rewire. Wish me luck.

Due Date: 8/01/04

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 68 stang on 5/7/04 4:12pm ]</font>

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-05-06 00:22, erlong wrote:
$1.65/gal for diesel. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I enjoy 700+ miles per tank (44 gallon tank) and can typically avoid the day-to-day swings in prices. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

It's $1.71 here and my tanks are only 12 gallons a piece. Last week I got 71 miles on an entire freaking tank. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] That's not quite 6 miles a gallon. If I'm lucky and not hauling anything and if I drive very easily I can ease the mileage up around 9 or 10 occasionally. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_tdown.gif[/img]
[addsig]

68 Stang
mazda just came out with one again the Rx-8 its a 1.3 rotary with milage at 18/24 and has 238hp at 8500 and 159tq at 5500, yeah it redlines at 9000. It was given the engine of the year award or something like that.
i want to say that they originally stopped making them in the rx7 because they had bad emmisions or something like that. not positive though

I agree with you someone should double or triple the size of and and add a supercharger to it. one hell of a fast light motor.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2004-05-07 04:10, 68 stang wrote:
I am surprised that a rotary piston engine has not been successful into a production car.

So if my reasoning is correct, if the rotary piston engine is so much more efficient and we can get the same amount of power as a bigger engine. That would make them more fuel efficient.

If you feel I am full of it, feel free to let me know. I will be happy to discuss it. I am not saying everything that I said was 100% fact, but I thought I should throw this idea out. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

My opinion is there probably have been more fuel efficient alternatives since way back but the oil companies paid whoever off as that would cut into thier share from oil sales.
I don't know how true this is but was told by someone that their grandfather had seen someone when he was in his 20s, pull up to a gas station, fill his tank with water and put something out of a small bottle in the tank and drove off. I would guess it is possible but who knows how that story went by the time it was passed aroun.[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] But I do believe that other fuel saving alternatives have been around for years.

Deb

I am sorry what I mean is the toroidal rotary engine. More info check out http://www.invention.com/barrera.htm The problem that I see with the Wankel Rotary engine, is to my knowledge is that it produces no torque. The technology to use less fuel is there, but nothing is happening with it. What really gets me is that six years ago the lowest I ever paid was $0.929, now it is over twice that here.