 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Pontiac / Pontiac Cars / November 2005Re: Larger Battery = Easier Starting?
Has it occured to anybody that you should be able to start your car with a dead battery, if you have to? A safe, relatively convenient, non-electric, manual method of starting the engine is possible. Get rid of the battery-dependent computerized fuel injection, computerized ignition and electric fuel pump and it might be possible: Use mechanical fuel injection, an impulse magneto ignition, and mechanical fuel pump booster. Then all you have to do is to crank the engine. There are several possible schemes for manually turning over the engine to start it. One very effective scheme would be to do it with the brake pedal. You would switch into a manual crank mode, then pump the pedal a few times to spin up a flywheel starter, then press the gas pedal to engage the starter to crank the engine. All it takes is one turn of the crankshaft to start an engine, believe it or not, that's how little kinetic energy need be stored by this unique mechanical starter. Using the brake pedal to pump a flywheel would take little effort; your grandma could do it. Sooner or later, your battery will go dead and you won't have help. This option would come in handy when that happens. GM needs some innovations to stay ahead of Toyota, the worlds most fierce competitor. A manual start capability is only one of many such innovations which would set apart GM cars from the rest. I know this is impossible with new school cars but among our fleet which includes a Grand Prix I have a 1986 Citroen 2CV. This is a car whose design dates to the 30s and the jack handle also can be used to remove the lugnuts, the front fenders, and to manually crank start the car! > Has it occured to anybody that you should be able to start your car with a > dead battery, if you have to? A safe, relatively convenient, non-electric, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > capability is only one of many such innovations which would set apart GM > cars from the rest. > Get rid of the battery-dependent computerized fuel injection, computerized > ignition and electric fuel pump and it might be possible: Use mechanical > fuel injection, an impulse magneto ignition, and mechanical fuel pump > booster. But at what price? Sure you would be able to start your car without the use of a battery, but you would also be giving up the increased efficiency and mileage as well as the decreased emissions that such systems provide. If I wanted a car that polluted more and used more fuel I would have bought something from the 1950's. There are reasons why all of the old-fashioned systems are no longer used, and no amount of savings by getting rid of a simple battery is going to make a car any better - only worse. In addition, you're not going to get any regulatory agency to approve the use of the brake pedal for anything else except the brakes. Some things should be sole-purpose, and the brake pedal is one of them. Cheers - Jonathan > Has it occured to anybody that you should be able to start your car with a > dead battery, if you have to? A safe, relatively convenient, non-electric, > manual method of starting the engine is possible. How about a hand crank ? Magneto? Points? Manual transmission? Obsolete technology I am afraid. It is completely impossible to meet modern emissions and fuel economy requirements without electronic engine management. I have bump started many a manual transmission equipped car over the years, but this is pretty much a thing of the past. John > It is completely impossible to meet modern emissions and fuel economy > requirements without electronic engine management. At first sight, I agreed with the above statement, but then began to wonder... is it really impossible? Electronics were there easier way to approach engine management, but the only way?? Greetings, I feel that Yes, electronics are the only way to meet the emissions and mileage requirements of modern engines. While it may be possible to meet some of the requirements from a purely mechanical standpoint, this way is not sensitive enough to make the minute continuous changes that make meeting these standards possible, nor do they react fast enough to stay within these levels under continuously changing conditions. Electronics are able to sense and adjust tens, hundreds, and even thousands of times per second, which is exponentially faster than even the best all-mechanical system. The current and future emissions requirements alone demand an efficiency level of a motor to be over 99%, and the only way to achieve that is with high speed, fast reacting systems that only electronics can provide. Cheers - Jonathan >> It is completely impossible to meet modern emissions and fuel economy >> requirements without electronic engine management. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Electronics were there easier way to approach engine management, but the > only way?? >>It is completely impossible to meet modern emissions and fuel economy >>requirements without electronic engine management. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Electronics were there easier way to approach engine management, but the > only way?? I know of no other way. For one thing, you need a closed loop feedback system which senses the amount of oxygen in the exhaust gases and constantly fine tunes the mixture to hit the thing close to spot on. Easy to do with a sensor and computer, practically impossible to do with any known mechanical or hydraulic method. There are many other issues as well. Get used to it, electronic controls are here to stay and are going to be ever more pervasive in automobiles and every other mechanical system. John > I know of no other way. For one thing, you need a closed loop feedback > system which senses the amount of oxygen in the exhaust gases and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John I suspect that the electronic way of doing things is so entrenched that mechanical systems, including analog computing devices, are out...just as you all suggest. There have been very reliable and sophisticated hydraulic and pneumatic logic devices available in the past, but electronics is king. It would be interesting for those who are alive in 20-50 years to see what paths may be taken. > There have been very reliable and sophisticated hydraulic and pneumatic > logic devices available in the past, but electronics is king. It would be > interesting > for those who are alive in 20-50 years to see what paths may be taken. Those who are alive in 50 years will be back riding horses and bicycles, there won't be enough petrochemical production to keep cars on the road. > > Has it occured to anybody that you should be able to start your car with a > > dead battery, if you have to? A safe, relatively convenient, non-electric, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > many a manual transmission equipped car over the years, but this is > pretty much a thing of the past. I don't know about how you drive, but a manual transmission is all I have have ever driven since I started driving. The few times I've been in an automatic, my left foot tries to to depress a clutch pedal that isn't there. If you don't drive like an idiot (like pretending you are running a dragster) then a manual transmission will outlast any automatic, as well as giving you better gas milage. If you ever drive commercially, then be prepared to drive a manual transmission, perhaps with a 2 or 3 speed axle as well to complicate matters. For 7 years I drove a delivery truck that had 5 gears in the transmission, and a 2 speed axle for a total of 10 possible gear ranges. You didn't really need the clutch to shift the axle setting, you could switch from low range to high and then pop the accelerator pedel and when you let up on the pedel it would shift the axle. Getting a loaded truck that weighed 25000-28000 lbs up to speed with a motor that only put out 300 or so hp you needed most of those 10 gear ranges. >> > Has it occured to anybody that you should be able to start your car with >a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >25000-28000 lbs up to speed with a motor that only put out 300 or so hp you >needed most of those 10 gear ranges. How about a 5&3 (twin stick) with a split axle THIRTY possible gear combinations, and with practice you only needed the clutch to start from a dead stop. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.