Alternative Gasoline Engines?

all i can say is that was one hell of an answer..

I'm not a North American so I don't totally understand your love of pickup trucks and SUV's but that answer has to be worth a GA

I thought all you "mates" down there drove Land Rovers.

Toyota Land cruisers maybe, Land Rovers break too easily, and we call em "4 wheel drives".

Got to go now, time to "Chuck another dingo on the barbie".

I agree with you.

I have often wondered what cars would be like if all the technology was funnelled into maximizing fuel efficiency for each class or size of vehicle. I live in the US so probably all I would need to do is look at what is offered in other areas of the globe.

I suspect cars of similar class could beat hybrids for fuel mileage at the expense of peak horsepower.

I have a couple personal examples. In 1994 I purchased a new Chrysler full size that was roomy and weighed about 3200 lbs. On the highway it would regularly get mid thirty mpg and around thirty combination driving, based on my checking the mileage several times. The car was plenty peppy and was rated at 164 HP. It was a good car but the advance of technology should have continued making it better but I think the opposite is true.

A new 3/4 ton company truck I regularly drive has just under 400 HP (base engine) and is faster than real performance cars of just a few years ago. This truck gets abysmal mileage. I have owned enough pickups and big trucks to know you do not need 400 HP in a pickup, even for towing.

I wish fuel economy was important enough to consumers (or car companies) so as some trade offs were accepted that really are not needed anyway.

In many applications the engines used today are capable of far greater fuel efficiency than they get.

Detuning engines to meet emissions standards hurts many engines that would be otherwise far more efficient. I hate having a big pickup with what was supposed to be one of Fords most efficient engine designs ever built that instead ended up being far from it in order to meet emissions standards.

A large percentage of American built vehicles have that same problem as well. Its not the engine design that makes them inefficient but the tuning to get them to meet emissions standards that make them inefficient.

Which kinda explains why my 1987 Ford F250 4x4 with the non-turbo 6.9L diesel got 17mpg in town and 22mpg on the highway, where my friend's 2009 with a 6.4L Powerstroke gets about 13mpg at best. And of course it's utterly illegal to re-tune them for real efficiency. Probably pretty close to impossible too.

I'm not mechanically inclined so maybe you can explain this to me. It would seem intuitive that a more efficient engine would burn cleaner - why is this not the case?

Same reason nitrogen is now an additive to gasoline

In some ways your intuition is right. CO2 has only recently been called a pollutant. If you consider it such, then a more efficient engine (and more efficient car) burns much more cleanly: If you get twice the mileage, you put out half the CO2, which is measured in pounds, rather than the small fractions of grams that the other "criterion" pollutants (hydrocarbons, CO and NOx) are measured in.

For hydrocarbon emissions, a more efficient (traditional pre-regulation) engine will run at closer to stoichiometric (exactly the right amount of air for the fuel to be burned) than a less fuel-efficient one. In fact, studies show that in such an engine, leaning the mixture to less than stoichiometric results in better BSFC -- less consumption per hp.

For CO emissions, the same is generally true, with leaner mixtures (which improve BSF) also reducing CO.

The spanner is thrown into the works with NOx. The more fuel efficient an engine is, the higher the peak temperatures, and leaning the mixture causes higher peaks yet (because of less evaporative cooling). (Things that improve fuel efficiency, traditionally, also further increase peak temperature -- high compression being the most obvious.) The higher the peak temperature and pressure, the more NOx is formed.

So, traditionally, the things that reduced two criteria emissions increased the other. The catalytic converter and closed loop fuel injection was the solution, and (aside from the first three or four years in the early eighties), engine efficiency has improved ever since. For this system to work, the mixture has to be kept within 1% of stoichiometric all the time (and in practice, it dithers back and forth on either side). Now engines are nearly twice as efficient on an hp-per-liter basis as they were before emission standards came into play, and are typically at least 20% more fuel efficient (25% has gone to 30%) and in special cases, are better yet (the Prius engine being 38% efficient at peak).

Because peak efficiency occurs at high loads, it is advantageous to use a small engine (this is the reasoning behind the very low relative hp of semi truck engines, and also the reason the every 4 cylinder car gets better mileage than it V6 option alternative). So in the case of the Prius, they've taken this idea to extremes (its engine is only 76 hp or something), so the engine is not just highly efficient, it is being operated under heavier load most of the time. The engine is too small for what people now consider adequate acceleration, so the electric motor is added to provide intermittent additional power (and to keep the engine loaded, refilling the batteries, when it would otherwise be lightly loaded). This small engine consumes less air, and therefore pollutes even less than would otherwise be the case.

So your intuition is basically correct: modern engines consume less fuel per hp and emit far less than pre-regulation engines... about 100 times less. Still, many major cities are so choked with smog (from NOx) that old folks are advised to stay in. Things would be much worse, were it not for catalytic converters and the numerous other advances that came with them.

Chrysler also had an alternative engine in the Turbine, less moving parts higher efficiency, but it had a few problems. Another possibility is the Tesla style engine. ONE moving part, 90% efficiency and when staged well over 300 h.p., and can be retrofit to any vehicle. My son and I have designed one that will produce nearly six hundred h.p.

Regards Dragon

Please tell us more about this engine. With one moving part, one assumes you are talking about an electric motor. If so, one still faces the problem of adequate power storage. Batteries do not have the energy density for anything more than short range commuter work, especially when you are talking about a 446KW motor.

Might be this:

Tesla Turbine

Very good. and GA

Regards Dragon

This is not an electric motor, Dr Moose. AH found a very pertinent reference. Tesla never took the design to the next step even though he had stated every intention of doing so. My design is based on his but the multiple stages increase the power to weight ratio by extracting nearly all of the themal and mechanical energy from the working fluid. Alas, I can not give more information because we are trying to capitalize this system. Since most of the individuals on this site are highly intelligent, someone might beat me to the punch, so to speak.

Not impugning any individuals honor or integrity.

Regards Dragon

My 1982 VW Rabbit diesel got 52 mpg.

It also blew a lot of black smoke and stink which got me a lot of negative comments from various ecology minded folk.

Welcome to clean emissions, via gov't mandate...

Hooker

I believe you may be suprised to learn that something is being done!

Go to: coates engine .com (Coates International Ltd, Wall Township NJ)

The premise (that engines are gas guzzlers) is wrong. The "problem" is not with the engines (which have seen dramatic improvements in efficiency and a near doubling in specific output [hp per liter] in the last few decades) but with buyer behavior. There are, and always have been, numerous alternate engine types under development, but none have delivered the benefits promised, the Wankel being the only alternative type that has made it to widespread production. It is less efficient that the standard piston engine.

The engines of today are not gas guzzlers, by any stretch. The 160 hp engine in my 2004 Accord is more efficient (in brake specific fuel consumption -- ie the fuel burned per hp-hour) than the 76 hp engine in my 1976 Accord. (It is about 28% better in that respect.) The same is true for essentially all similar (same model) comparisons.

My Accord engine is so much more efficient than the old one, that the newer car gets the same mileage as the old one, even though the new one is 63% heavier and much larger than the old one! In the process, it emits 1/100 of most of the measured emissions, accelerates far better, is more than 30 mph faster, and stays in tune for 100,000 miles, instead of 10,000.

25% peak efficiency is typical of non-emission-controlled engines. Brand new small commercial engines, which are almost entirely without any controls at all, are an example -- I have one in my shop that is exactly 25% efficient at peak efficiency. The Prius engine, the most efficient gas engine, is 38% at peak, and its efficiency spread is very wide.

In normal operation, a car engine operates at much lower than peak efficiency, and how much lower is related to the ratio of peak efficiency power to normal usage (cruise) power. Large, powerful engines are therefore less efficient in cruise than small highly-loaded engines. So my newer Accord has a double whammy conspiring against good fuel economy: the car is much bigger and heavier, but the engine nevertheless runs at a lower percentage of full load. You'd expect far worse mileage with the newer model, but it matches the old, because the engine is far more efficient in its basic efficiency measure, BSFC.

The fact that the cars that people buy are big and heavy and powerful is not the engine designers fault; it is the fault of the buying public. The norm for a new Accord (which is even larger than mine) is now the V6, with 260-some hp, and its mileage is, of course, worse than mine, because it runs at less than 10% power at cruise.

Back in the 70's and early 80's, there were no gasoline car engines that had better than 25% peak efficiency. Now virtually all are around 32%, a big improvement, and the Prius engine represents a huge improvement.

I would personally like a honest and scientific explanation as to why a new 3/4 diesel pickups that weigh around 8000 pounds get around 12 - 14 MPG running at 70 MPH and a full loaded semi truck weighing 80,000 pounds gets around 5 MPG at the same speed.

I would also like an explanation as to why those 8000 pound pickups when pulling a 12000 pound trailer will often get the same mileage as the average semi truck in the same driving conditions as well.

So what gives? Both have 300 - 375 HP factory rated engines but the pickup and trailer weigh 1/4 of the semi and have far less frontal area and aerodynamic drag as well. It seems to me one has an engine with far more realistic working efficiency than the other being they both burn the same fuel.

In general, the BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) curve for an engine looks like the torque curve inverted. The torque curve looks like a camels hump, and the BSFC curve looks like a valley. A good diesel engine of today consumes about .4lb/hp/hour at peak efficiency. At substantially below peak, it can consume infinitely more per useful hp produced (engine idling, with only parasitic loads) but it is not unusual for specific consumption to double at 1/4 load. So if you operate at 1/4 load instead of consuming 1/4 of full load fuel, you consume 1/2 of full load fuel.

That's the basic problem. A 375 hp engine in a tractor trailer is very heavily loaded in cruise. A 375 hp pickup truck engine is very lightly loaded in cruise.

At 70, an 8000# pickup truck will have about 96 lb of rolling friction (pickup truck tires having Crr of .012 or so). Its aero drag will be (1/2 rho v² x Cd x area). The Cd of a pickup truck is close enough to 1.0 to use that figure initially (about the same as a brick). Frontal area is about 7' x 6' or 42 ft². 70 mph is 103 fps. So drag is 535 lb. Total drag, then is 631#. Therefore hp consumed is 118, about 1/3 of peak power. If we guess that consumption is .6lb/hp/hr, then we would consume 71 lb per hour, or about 10 gallons. 10 gallons for 70 miles would be about 7 mpg. (Obviously, pickups are a bit smoother than bricks, and their engines are remarkably efficient, if they can get 12 - 14 mpg)

For a tractor trailer, the rolling friction would be about 80,000 x .008 (the tires being high pressure and better-engineered for low rr) = 720 lb. Aero drag would be based on a larger frontal area (lets say 8.5' x 11') of 93.5 ft². So aero drag would be about 1190 lb. Total drag would be about 1910#. Therefore, hp required would be 357, putting the engine at full load. At .4lb/hp/hr we'd consume about 20 gallons to go 70 miles: about 3.5 miles per gallon.

The pickup truck, when not towing anything, is probably lower drag than my estimate, (they can be down around .7) and the engine is probably much less sensitive to load (probably with a very flat torque curve, due to turbocharging). Those two factors would bring mileage up to about 12 mpg, or more if the engine is unusually efficient. The engine in a pickup truck that can get 12-14 mpg is extremely efficient.

Put a trailer behind a pickup, and Cd goes to hell. The effective Cd can get up to close to 2, because the trailer is not close enough or faired in enough for the two vehicles to be considered one: just when most of the flow has closed in around behind the pickup, it hits the trailer. The reaction is hard to generalize, but cutting the mpg in half would be expected, even if the trailer is as low as the pickup. If it is a travel trailer, then there is the additional whammy of greater frontal area.

To fine tune these estimates, you'd subtract some of the area under each truck (I took the frontal area all the way down to the ground) you'd put in closer Cd figures, Crr, etc. Then you'd find that the observed numbers and calulated numbers would be very close.

All this applies to driving in Kansas. Coming back down undulating hills can compensate to some extent for extra energy required to go up hill, but in really hilly terrain, mileage will get worse.

That still doesn't explain why the diesel pickups from 20+ years ago still get better fuel economy than the new stuff when subjected to the same driving conditions. Given your explanation of the pickup Vs the semi then it would highly suggest that a bigger vehicle with even more engine capacity would be better than a smaller lighter one.

Also I have driven a new Prius for a long distance rad trip that I have done many times with my much larger Mercury Grand marquis sedan that has had the emissions systems disabled and the Prius was only marginally better on the miles per gallon for the round trip despite being far smaller and supposedly more efficient. The Prius had worse fuel economy than I got in a 1984 Mercury topaz I drove in high school and college some 15 - 18 years ago.

The Prius got about 32 MPG on the trip and was small and uncomfortable. My Mercury Grand marquis usually averaged around 30 MPG on that same trip many times. My old Topaz averaged mid thirties even when driven like a high school kid owned it and could usually do upper thirties to 40 MPG on road trips like that with four people and a loaded trunk!

It just seems strange to me that the new stuff is getting worse mileage numbers than vehicles get that are 20 -30 years older and in not so great of shape any more.

I would also argue the HP Vs efficiency theory as well. I had a old 1985 Ford F 150 with a new 5.8 L engine 5 years ago that got at best 10 MPG running conservatively and unloaded and was gutless from one end to the other. I sold the engine to my dad who put it in his pickup that was identical to mine except for his being a standard cab and I had a extended cab. The engine I put in my pickup was a 460 ci big block with aftermarket intake ,exhaust headers, a heavy towing cam, a 800 CFM carb, and and E4OD transmission plus the propane kit on top of that. That engine topped 400 Hp and 500 ft/lbs of torque and could get mid teens on propane and upper teens on gas if driven conservatively. Even when pulling a trailer that was twice it own weight at interstate speeds it could still get around 10 MPG on either fuel.

The thing is I just know too many people with similar life experiences to ever swallow the HP Vs efficiency argument. I know people personally who pull the emissions systems and factory cams out of their vehicles and replace them with after market parts plus get different chips and programs for their vehicles and then see substantial gains in power and fuel economy at the same time as well. They are the ones who told me how to rebuild my big Ford engine years ago and I was very pleased with the results. Now I am considering redoing my 1999 Ford F 250's V10 with a similar rework because it to is presently an underpowered fuel pig in comparison to my old pickup and a few guys who have reworked there V10's as well. I don't mind spending $1000 to get a 30 - 50% increase in fuel economy and another 75 -100 HP to boot!

Given your explanation of the pickup Vs the semi then it would highly suggest that a bigger vehicle with even more engine capacity would be better than a smaller lighter one.

The explanation does not suggest that at all. In fact, it suggests the opposite. It has always been the case (and EPA numbers back this up) that smaller-engined cars/trucks get better fuel efficiency than larger-engined cars/trucks, if all else is equal. A 375 hp engine in a pickup truck is far larger than needed most of the time, and therefore the truck gets poorer fuel economy than it otherwise would, because the engine is too-lighly loaded. (A larger BSFC number means lower efficiency.) My 1990 F150 (4wd) with 4.9L six was rated 15 city 19 hwy (then, and would be 14/17 now per the new tests). In my driving, I got the mileage that the original EPA tests predicted. When towing a 6000 boat/trailer, I got much worse mileage, exactly as expected. The engine was rated at a whopping 145 hp. The larger engined version of my old truck was rated, as expected, much lower than my truck was. Look it up.

Your own personal experience re mileage received with a Prius vs other cars may seem valid to you , but does not to me, and has nothing to do with valid science in any realistic sense. I've designed, built and run dynos, (real dynos, not the Mickey Mouse DynoJet type) and even in moderately careful use, they do not lie. The EPA tests are well beyond moderately careful, and are repeatable to within a couple percent, and give exactly the relative numbers that one would expect (in other words, similarly equipped Toyota Camries and Honda Accords and Chevy Malibus get essentially the same MPG figures, because there are no significant differences in the cars). There is no magic here. Again, look up the real world figures for each of these and you will see that the small-engined versions get better fuel economy.

HHO promoters and enthusiasts are convinced that they get 30%, 50%, 75% better mileage with their devices, despite the fact that no legitimate dyno test has shown any improvement at all and there is nothing in the science to suggest that there should be any improvement al all. The only truly, consistently, valid tests for fuel efficiency are the EPA tests and others like them. Another reasonably good yardstick is the EPA user figures, for which there is a large enough sample size for validity. These user figures, when averaged, support the EPA numbers. Perhaps third best are the major magazine tests in which some care is take to endure that conditions are similar from test to test. A single person's subjective experience is useless if, as you say, you want a scientific basis for fuel efficiency numbers.

As you can see, 135 Prius (2006) users have been getting 47.9 mpg on average, which is in line with the EPA figure of 46 mpg.

You can find BSFC charts on the web, which come from real lab tests, and you will find that what I have said is true: that every engine is more efficient (on a BSFC basis) when highly loaded. This translates to real life as well: the big-engined Accords, Camries and Malibus are all less efficient than the small-engined versions -- by real test, not by conjecture. This is the fundamental principal behind hybrid cars and trucks. Read the Bosch Automotive Handbook or any good text on internal combustion engines and you will find the same thing.

The Prius had worse fuel economy than I got in a 1984 Mercury topaz I drove in high school and college some 15 - 18 years ago.

If only. The EPA numbers (adjusted to current test program in both cases: Topaz: 2.3 liter fifty state, automatic: 20/24. New Prius: 51/48 (70 actual users: 49 mpg average)

For many years in the late 60's and early 70's VW Beetles (40 hp - 53 hp) were advertised* at 25 mpg, a figure that many ordinary drivers and road test drivers achieved. Those were the days of no emission controls whatsoever. Now, in the days of strict emission controls, the 268 hp Toyota Camry, a completely ordinary family sedan) is quicker that the 1962 Chevy SS 409 (the one with 409 pretend hp, but almost 300 real SAE net hp, the standard used since 1972) to 60 and through the quarter mile: 6.1/14.6 for the Toyota, 6.3/14.9 for the Chevy. The Chevy got about 10 mpg, the Toyota, 23 combined. Emissions of the Toyota are about 1/100 those of the Chevy.

Big Oil and Detroit/Japan are not in some conspiracy to cheat you out of the efficiency you deserve. Look up the BSFC figures yourself. Then do the math. You will find that to get the 12-14 mpg you quoted, the pickup engine must operate at a BSFC very close to that of the big rig, even though it is operating at lower relative load. That means it has an extraordinarily efficient engine.

You might want to read the March 2010 issue of Motor Trend, which has a long article on the traits of best-selling cars over 6 decades. Nothing in the article supports your contention that non-emission controlled engines are more efficient than emission-controlled.

If you look at this issue of Popular mechanics, you will see that a typical economy car in the early 60's (a Rambler) got 17-20 mpg and a typical full-sized car (the Galaxy 500) got about 10 -16. The Galaxy is about the same weight (3700 lb) as a current Camry/Malibu/Accord, any of which get about double the mileage.

Recently, motorcycles have gone to closed loop fuel injection and catalytic converters, but hp keeps going up, with 180 hp per liter (3 hp per cubic inch) being typical in sport bikes -- figures that flat-out completely unregulated private road racers could not obtain when I was racing, and winning, in the 1970s. Todays regulated 600s produce more power than the unregulated liter bikes of the 70s.

You'll note that aside from my personal experience with my Ford, all the figures I have quoted are available, verifiable, and represent either real dyno testing or large sample sizes. You seem to be contending that all this data is incorrect, and that in your special world, things operate outside of science. Certainly your prerogative, but don't expect me to buy in.

* Obviously, that was considered an excellent figure back then.

The Prius I drove is my aunt and uncles car. They too seem to feel that it falls short of the numbers that they are advertised with. So do apparently a number of others who have them in my part of the country as well. They are great around town cars but few people around here seem to feel that they get anywhere near the claimed 49 MPG number when subjected to realistic highway driving conditions. Most say upper 30's is common and maybe a low 40's level here and there for general driving but at interstate long distance levels they are no better than the mid sized sedans. There are also comments that seem to also be very fussy about cold weather in regards to their fuel mileage as people are claiming now. Midwest winter apparently takes about 10+ MPG right off the top even when they are not left idling for extended periods.

Your reference to the Topaz shows the automatic. My Mom drove the Ford Tempo automatic and those numbers are close to what she got. However the Topaz I had had the manual transmission is listed at 29 highway. That is also what mine had before I went to college and became friends with the auto tech guys who helped me realize how emissions systems affect fuel mileage and power. We gutted the catalytic converter, blocked the EGR system off and removed the smog pump. We also advanced the ignition, put in better ignition parts and re jetted the carburetor a little richer. After that I had noticeable improvements in power and a solid 5+ MPG average gain in all driving conditions. I ran that car for over 100,000 more miles that way and it was still doing well the day I sold it off for a bigger car.

That next car was a 1989 ford Taurus that I did the same emissions system removal and modifications to shortly after I bought it and that went from a 19 -22 MPG car to a 24 -29 Mpg car. I also drove that for nearly 130,000 miles with consistent mileage numbers and a good number of road trips it got into the low to mid thirty MPG range as well. A number of years ago I bought a 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis to replace the old Taurus and I also reworked as much of the emission systems on that and took that from an 18 -23 MPG car to constant 24 - 30 MPG car with also made it into the low 30's MPG range as well. Its engine is going into my next car which is a 1996 Mercury Grand Marques. During the engine swap its likely going to be getting a aftermarket camshaft and a few other parts as well.

In My family since I went to college years ago its has become standard practice to disable as much emissions crap as possible on every vehicle we have ever owned just because it consistently has shown that it improves the fuel mileage and power. Its also a common practice among my friends who work on vehicles to also disable as much emissions systems as possible on their vehicles as well. A number of them are also now reprogram their vehicles computers or use aftermarket "off Road" rated engine control systems to get away from the factory crap Just because its improves power and mileage enough to justify the costs and efforts.

If it wasn't possible there would not be a multi billion dollar aftermarket industry that specializes in reworking stock vehicle engines and computer systems for more power and better fuel mileage. I also am now seeing these same aftermarket companies expanding into the farming and industrial equipment industries and trucking industry as well with systems to boost the power and fuel economy of farm tractors, combines construction machines and semi trucks. Re chipping or reworking a payloader or excavator is apparently becoming more common now. These are not HHO nuts either but solid number crunching businessmen who know what saving fuel and gaining performance on machinery is worth in the long run. For the bigger farmers, construction companies, and truckers knocking off 10% of the fuel bill per running hour while gaining 10% more power more than justifies a $500 - $1500 reprogram and re tune.

I have seen reprogrammed tractors, combines, pay loaders, excavators in action and the owners and operators swear by the bottom line that it works and its worth it. I also had tha opportunity to drive a re chipped Volvo semi last fall for a few days. It had far more power than its stock twin I normally drove and the owners said its one of the more fuel efficient trucks they had has well. It apparently was impressive enough that they where considering having a few more of their primary work trucks redone in a similar fashion.

As far as how much horsepower should a pickup have? I had 400+ Hp in a heavy half ton and I found it to be about right for towing. If I could justify the costs I would consider getting rid of the V10 in my F250 super duty and then put another big block V8 like my old one. I would probibly go with a bored and stroked engine this time and push for around 450 - 500+ HP with roughly 550 - 600 ft/lbs of torque. Built for power and efficency of course!

I also would be curious to see what a Prius would do with the emmisons systems removed and the computer reprogrammed for off road use. Maybe 60 - 70+ MPG?

It just seems strange to me that the new stuff is getting worse mileage numbers than vehicles get that are 20 -30 years older and in not so great of shape any more.

They are not, when adjusted for vehicle weight. The problem is your subjective reality vs objective reality. Individual observations re the fuel economy of vehicles once owned are of little-to-no utility, in an engineering or scientific sense. They are equivalent to the random thoughts of HHO experimenters, many of whom believe in their heart of hearts that they are getting better mileage despite there being no science to support the contention and no legitimate dyno tests to support the contention.

There is an excellent correlation between the EPA fuel economy numbers (from dyno tests) and real world fuel economy numbers. There is no question in logical, scientific minds, that Priuses get better fuel efficiency than 20-year-old Accords or Camries, despite being heavier.

Awelch's post in a recent gas guzzler thread cites the EPA studies that show that fuel efficiency per ton has steadily improved as emission standards have tightened. The improvement has been stunning, going from (in trucks) 26 ton-mpg in 1975 to 43 ton-mpg in 2008. The EPA data correlates very well with the recent Motor Trend article (March 2010) which found the same thing, and which mentions that the best selling car in 1982 was a the 68 hp Ford Escort.

For me to believe your various contentions, you would have to first provide a scientifically plausible reason for low emissions equating to poor efficiency, and then provide real dyno test data to support the contention. Otherwise, you sound just like the HHO/Turbinator/fuel line magnet promoters.

A Honda 50 got circa 200 mpg on gasoline, with its 1960s-technology carburetor. It would be completely ludicrous to claim that the reason it got good mileage is because it has a 60's era carb, and because it spewed more pollutants on a grams per mile basis than a modern SUV.

I live near the railroad that hauls the coal and live down wind from ohio's auto economy which is fired by coal. Electricity is the hidden DANGER. Easy to call green when you can't see the power plant but know the end result. We need nuclear propulsion for cars and trucks. What's wrong.... I love the propositions of alt ICEs, we are just missing out on creating NEW science by continuing down the piston strewn road.