Getting Plastic Engines Ready for Prime Time

Um. Isn't plastic made from petroleum?

Plastics can be made from other raw materials besides petroleum. During the cracking process, it is the lower grade (not suitable for fuels) that is used for plastics.

I once heard that hemp was the most economically viable plant to produce everything from fabric, to paper to fuel in the world. Supposedly it even performs better then corn to make fuel. It's a native American plant that grows easily in most of the country with no special equipment or fertilizers. I think it was the lumber and cotton industries that lobbied to ban hemp to save their own industries. But who knows.... maybe we should all just pass the piece pipe.

Um ... I think that should be "peace pipe."

VM

LOL... yes, you would be correct...

I have serious doubts on the plastic engine concept. At this point we have too many vehicles with plastic intakes, valve covers, throttle bodies, and other key components that are well known in the service industry for being less than reliable or cheap to repair or replace.

If I remember my automotive history some what correctly they where experimenting with all plastic engines at least 20 years ago and what they learned from that was by gosh plastic does not work well at the high temps and stress loads that are part of an engines working mechanism! (Plus that ability to readily burn when it got hot enough really didn't help things either.)

If better fuel economy is what they are after there are better ways to do it other than making things even smaller lighter and crappier than they are now. 36 MPG was not a difficult number to reach 30 years ago with all metal cars and cast iron engines that weighed considerably more than what many of todays vehicles do so why is it now? Oh yea, emissions regulations made by dumb ass politics and thats why.

how about smaller motors and smarter transmission? A car usually needs only 30-40 hp to cruise at 100-120 km/h.

I tried selling wood stoves that I guaranteed to burn 24 hours.

A plastic engine most likely will burn for at least 18 hrs.

The wood stoves were made of solid oak!

Oh that kind of wood stove.

Way back in the 1980s, Ford built a 90% plastic internal combustion engine, this was supposed to be the answer to all our fuel problems, and it was placed in a lightweight racing car, this worked very well then, but I have not heard about it since, does anyone have any info on this experiment?

Xanasax

The research into plastic engines is largely considered a failure.

This Wikipedia article has a little bit about it.

Is there anything Wiki does not know at least a little bit about?

I have a buddy out in Santa Cruz that attempted to solder a radiator leak on the plastic radiator in his wife's Volvo, (I have to admit, it was the color of metal), it didn't work out so well.

I think he was under the influence of hemp's cousin.

Wiki is gives the power of knowledge world wide with just a click on the computer.

No longer do you have to make a day special just to go to a library to research one simple topic.

thanks for the link

Wiki is instantly alterable by anyone with access and is just as untrustworthy as any other internet forum. All Wiki articles must be subjected to a fully functional Male Bovine Bowel Waste detector before use for any critical purpose.

Have FUN!
TT3

"Industry estimates say that replacing metal for plastic can reduce weight by as high as 50%. If the weight is reduced by 220 lbs (100 kg) would save an estimated one-tenth of a gallon per 62 miles driven."

So doesn't anyone else see massive flaw in this formula?

If not then let me explain while as I use my vehicles as an example.

My 1994 Mercury Grand marquis has a curb weight of 4000 pounds and typically got around 25 MPG overall average which means that in 62 miles it used 2.48 gallons of fuel. So using their formula that would mean that if I reduced the weight of it to zero it would only see a, (4000 / 220) * .1 = 1.82 gallon decrease in fuel consumption over a 62 mile run which then works out to only a .74 MPG average increase in long term driving.

To take it one step further and go the other way and if I doubled the weight of the car to 8000 pounds I should only see a .74 MPG average decrease in fuel consumption if driven in the same average conditions. If so then why does my 9000 pound Ford F250 Super duty get 9 MPG instead of around 22+ as this industry formula would indicate?

And they wonder why people have less and less confidence in our auto manufactures abilities to actually make honest measurable improvements in their designs?