On Sep 9, 9:29*am, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:13:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
Final EPA specs for new emission control requirements on boats. * Gasoline
engine requirements take effect on new boats in 2010.
Some diesel requirements take effect this year.

Buy now and avoid the rush.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marinesi.htm

Eisboch

I wonder how this compares to the emission standards they already have
for four strokes. I know my 4 stroke seems a lot cleaner than the
classic 2 strokes if the smell and lack of smoke is any indication.

Really, just like the vehicle standards.. I hear adds for these new
hybreds and "fuel efficient" cars that get 22-24 mpg.. Crap, most of
my old cars and trucks from the 70's and 80's could do thatl

wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 9:29 am, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:13:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
Final EPA specs for new emission control requirements on boats. Gasoline
engine requirements take effect on new boats in 2010.
Some diesel requirements take effect this year.

Buy now and avoid the rush.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marinesi.htm

Eisboch

I wonder how this compares to the emission standards they already have
for four strokes. I know my 4 stroke seems a lot cleaner than the
classic 2 strokes if the smell and lack of smoke is any indication.

Really, just like the vehicle standards.. I hear adds for these new
hybreds and "fuel efficient" cars that get 22-24 mpg.. Crap, most of
my old cars and trucks from the 70's and 80's could do thatl

I believe that is big hybrid suvs that previous got mileage in the teens.
Few vehicles from the 60s and 70s approached the size of someof the trucks
and suvs today. It's funny to see a 30 year old full size truck next to a
Tundra double cab. The Tundra dwarfs it. The smaller hybrids get mileage
that nothing form the 70s or 80s even approached. My wife's department has
hybrid prius that she recently took to DC from Raleigh on a trip. It
averaged way over 40 mpg overall. That's including the highway portion of
the trip where you would expect a hybrid to not do better than conventional
engines.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:14:35 -0400, wrote:

I used to autocross using highly modified Fiat 600's, among other
cars. In stock form, with 27 screaming horsepower, they cruised on the
highway at 55 mph and 60 mpg. Accelerating from zero to 60, however
took about two days.

That's the advantage of the hybrid. When you need extra power for
acceleration, the electric kicks in.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:06:17 -0400, wrote:

I'm not sure the electric in most hybrids kicks in for acceleration at
highway speeds. I think it's used mostly in low speed, stop and go,
city driving.

I know that stop and go is supposed to be hybrid's strong point but I
haven't heard anything about the electric not working at highway
speeds. Short bursts of power is ideal for battery/electric.

It only takes 20 to 30 hp to keep a small to mid-size car rolling at
highway speed so the only reason for paying the overhead of a large
engine is acceleration.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:34:30 -0400, wrote:

In Connecticut, the highways and parkways have lots of hills, so it
takes quite a bit more than 30 hp to maintain speed!

Oh yes, I well remember our days of zooming up and down the hills of
the Merit Parkway with a fully loaded, 40 hp, diesel Rabbit. You had
to drive it like a heavy truck, gaining enough momentum downhill to
carry you up the next one, foot to the floor most of the time.

I tend to agree with the conclusion that hybrids are not cost
effective for highway driving even if you can get an acceleration
boost when you need it. You are toting around the weight and cost of
the technology but only using it for short periods.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:34:30 -0400, wrote:

In Connecticut, the highways and parkways have lots of hills, so it
takes quite a bit more than 30 hp to maintain speed!

Oh yes, I well remember our days of zooming up and down the hills of
the Merit Parkway with a fully loaded, 40 hp, diesel Rabbit. You had
to drive it like a heavy truck, gaining enough momentum downhill to
carry you up the next one, foot to the floor most of the time.

I tend to agree with the conclusion that hybrids are not cost
effective for highway driving even if you can get an acceleration
boost when you need it. You are toting around the weight and cost of
the technology but only using it for short periods.


I am confirming something that I guess I always knew in theory, but rarely
applied in practice.
The goofy toy my son and I bought together .... the Caddy Limo .... has the
32 or 34 valve V8 engine.
I don't know much about the Caddy engines, so I don't know it's displacement
or horsepower.

However, because it's a Limo, you tend to drive it very conservatively. No
fast starts ... mainly because it can't .... and nice, easy acceleration and
deceleration for a comfortable ride for whoever the passengers may be.

After a week or so of driving a mix of around town and highway miles (65-70
mph) I was amazed to find that it gets around 17 mpg overall. That's
better than my little 6 cylinder Ford Ranger.

I suspect the halfway decent mileage (for a big vehicle) is due to the
conservative driving style more than engine design.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:34:30 -0400, wrote:

In Connecticut, the highways and parkways have lots of hills, so it
takes quite a bit more than 30 hp to maintain speed!
Oh yes, I well remember our days of zooming up and down the hills of
the Merit Parkway with a fully loaded, 40 hp, diesel Rabbit. You had
to drive it like a heavy truck, gaining enough momentum downhill to
carry you up the next one, foot to the floor most of the time.

I tend to agree with the conclusion that hybrids are not cost
effective for highway driving even if you can get an acceleration
boost when you need it. You are toting around the weight and cost of
the technology but only using it for short periods.


I am confirming something that I guess I always knew in theory, but rarely
applied in practice.
The goofy toy my son and I bought together .... the Caddy Limo .... has the
32 or 34 valve V8 engine.
I don't know much about the Caddy engines, so I don't know it's displacement
or horsepower.

However, because it's a Limo, you tend to drive it very conservatively. No
fast starts ... mainly because it can't .... and nice, easy acceleration and
deceleration for a comfortable ride for whoever the passengers may be.

After a week or so of driving a mix of around town and highway miles (65-70
mph) I was amazed to find that it gets around 17 mpg overall. That's
better than my little 6 cylinder Ford Ranger.

I suspect the halfway decent mileage (for a big vehicle) is due to the
conservative driving style more than engine design.

Eisboch


There you go. Cut the top off and make a long bed pickup out of it.

On Sep 9, 9:40*am, wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:29*am, wrote:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:13:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
Final EPA specs for new emission control requirements on boats. * Gasoline
engine requirements take effect on new boats in 2010.
Some diesel requirements take effect this year.

Buy now and avoid the rush.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marinesi.htm

Eisboch

I wonder how this compares to the emission standards they already have
for four strokes. I know my 4 stroke seems a lot cleaner than the
classic 2 strokes if the smell and lack of smoke is any indication.

Really, just like the vehicle standards.. I hear adds for these new
hybreds and "fuel efficient" cars that get 22-24 mpg.. Crap, most of
my old cars and trucks from the 70's and 80's could do thatl

Not mine! But then again, I went for horsepower and usually had my
foot trying to push throught the firewall.