Built like a Mercedes (?)

I've no idea how they do those figures wrt number of persons on board but the latest diesel
Panda can indeed do 70 mpg ( British gallons )

http://www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-panda-31-01-05.asp?switched=on&echo=805349641

" the Panda 1.3 16v MultiJet also manages to cover more than 75 mpg outside town, and even
in the urban environment returns 52 mpg "

Graham

 

But not fully loaded.

 

May be, but it's on the internet, so it's every bit as credible as the
figures given by Huw.
I'm not saying they are accurate, but they are no less accurate than
those Huw is spewing.

 

Which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that

Rubbish. It is an attempt to get people such as the diehard conservatives
(who wish to be free of foreign oil) to realize that accomplishing that goal
will only be done if we move commuters to a more efficient method of
transport.

Ok, cut it in half for two streets, and again by half for each direction. We
are now at 75,000 per day. Suddenly the number passing per hour average is
3125.

Um, no its not, since what they said was "8000 passing one point". Clearly
your much travelled intersection is well within the figure they mention.

Um, maybe, but I doubt it. But lets assume for a moment it is. Thats a 12
car train every five minutes. Go to 15 cars and the train kicks your
intersection's ass handily.

Well, thats why the "fucking liberals" are suggesting that we develop more
rail routes and save people time, fuel and hassle.

So you'd prefer that people drove ALL the way instead of just part of the
way, and that the cities should be filled with parking garages? And that
isn't a waste?

So its not a waste after all.

The point of those of us who are "so focussed on showing the efficiency of"
trains is because we feel the long term benefits at all levels, not just to
the country, but the individuals as well as the cities and suburban areas,
will far exceed the initial cost of making the location of these rail lines
more accessable.

At some point, the country will wake up. Probably right after the wave of
inflation that is sure to come with the fuel prices where they are. Then
people will demand that the government come up with a solution... and it'll
be light rail routes.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Exactly, something I wanted to see if he'd admit to doing. Since he hasn't,
it goes towards my assertion that his figures are a bit twisted, and he
doesn't care, or likes it that way. 52 MPG is much more in line with a small
diesel car, but I doubt it gets the same MPG with four adults aboard, which
he also claims.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Funny, my finance charges each year are zero.

Until you buy another car when this one fails.

Rubbish. Its a machine, so it wants maintenance. Unless you don't change the
oil, and never put tires or brakes on it, you put money into maintenance.

Over what period of time or mileage? Your figures have no basis if you don't
quantify the duration over which you spend that money.

More rubbish, since you are claiming the costs are altered by corruption,
taxes and fees that are not only unspecified in cost, but are unproven
assumptions.

More crap. You haven't proven the expense, and worse, you haven't figured
out the problem.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

They use undisputed figures of actual energy use provided by the railways.
No one but you disputes this.

You miss much. Here it is again and a cursory search for 'panda multijet'
will get you reams of confirmitory information. You may not believe it but
medium saloons regularly exceed 50mpg here.

http://www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-panda-31-01-05.asp?switched=on&echo=805390436

The fuel use figures you will find repeated for the car in most sites
because they are the official EU figures, albeit in Imperial.

Not all figures come from a web site. From what you have said previously
that should make them more credible LOL
The suppliers of the figures are the individual networks that are plainly
listed on the fact sheet which make up british rail.

I work with reality. You prefer an utopian fantasy.

It is the reality. Trains and all public transport on medium hauls [out of
city] must run to strict timetables in order to satisfy the customer [who do
not all enter at the first or launch point] and in order to link up with
other vehicles to distribute or gather passengers to various destinations.

I have addressed all sensible points. As illustrated above I do not believe
that you would admit to red being actually red if it didn't suit you.

Huw

 

On a relatively clear road and with just my 300lbs on board but with a
difficult undulating and twisty route I have managed to exceed 90mpg when
driving with economy in mind. I have never come below 65mpg with two on
board and driving fairly quickly if not hammering it in rural Wales. Next
time I travel three up over a fair distance I'll get some more real life
figures.
75mpg with two on board is not just realistic it is an easy reality.

Why do you have difficulty with this?
http://www.whatcar.com/car-review-equipment.aspx?RT=622&ED=44339

http://www.whatcar.com/car-review-costs.aspx?RT=622&ED=44339&U=0


RUNNING COSTS
Urban mpg 52.3
Extra urban mpg 76.3
Combined mpg 65.7
Tank capacity (gallons) 7.7
CO2 rating (g/km) 114
Insurance group 2
Typical insurance quote £244
% value retained
(3yrs/36,000mls) 46%
Typical contract hire rate (pcm) £200
Pence per mile 26
Servicing cost over 3yrs £570
Service intervals 12,000
Manufacturer's warranty 3yr/60k + 3yr Paint + 8yr Perforation

 

Oh yeah you knew that all along! Everyone believes you LOL

In fact I had mentioned this in this very conversation so you couldn't
possibly have missed it?
Here it is.

"Oh yes please! The UK has a bigger gallon and a bigger price per gallon. "

You missed it.

Our 76mpg extra urban figure for the Panda which is easily achievable is
US63.28. not 52.
72mpg imperial is 59.95US
Let us not mix units however because all the figures I have provided to you
for coach and train and car are in Imperial and are therefore valid
comparisons with each other.

Huw

 

It is very easy to insult your intellect. See below

I have provided plenty of links to such a car. That you choose to ignore it
is your intellectual choice
LOL

You are a laugh. You really are.

Huw

 

Sorry for the break in thread but OE says line 3 too long

To convert a kilowatt-hour into a BTU is simple. 1kW/h=3412.142BTU so it is
odd that you shout "ONLY". Odd but not unexpected.

Parameters for conversion of GW-h to litres and gallons are as follows:

For your information a GW-h is a Gigawatt/hour. I thought I might explain
this because everything obviously needs to be spelled out for you.

1. Power stations are 37% efficient (up from 35 in 1990) [Source is
Table 5.5 of the digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics”].

These are fossil fuel powered stations just to spell it out.

2. Transmission losses amounted to 4%

A fair assumption but it could be more.


3. The net calorific value of diesel is 42.9 Giga-joules per Tonne and
the specific gravity is 0.84.

Do you dispute this? Just in case you think that your statement and
shout of "ONLY" above
has the slightest validity I should point out at this juncture that
1gigajoule is 947817.1 BTU


4. One gallon equates to 4.546 litres

Do you even dispute this? Remember now, we are talking Imperial
gallons here just in case you missed this previously or forget it again

5. Hence one GW-h is equivalent to (3600 x 1000)/(0.37 x 0.96 x 42.9 x
0.84) = 0.281 million litres of diesel burnt or to 0.06187 million
(imperial) gallons

A relitively straightforward math for most of us I would guess.

Huw

 

<< I have the Cummins ISB, which is one generation back. Having noted the
better efficiency of diesel fuel over gasoline, I made the decision to buy a
higher cost vehicle in order to increase my efficency long term>>

I, too, drive a diesel as one of my rides, although it is a Mercedes 300SD,
1983. I have over 338,000 miles on it and it still runs, and looks, good.
However, a disappointing thing has happened as of late--diesel fuel tends to
be amongst the priciest fuels, sometimes even aceing out premium at the
pump. For a fuel that is just a cut or so above lubricating oil, I find
this hard to believe.

 

A relitively straightforward math for most of us I would guess.

Since you've failed to address my numbers concerning fuel use and passenger
miles using proven baselines, it appears you don't want to deal with reaity,
but would instead prefer to continue personal insults. Let me know when
you've proven my numbers wrong.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

For my use, even at the higher price, my MPG vs. a gasoline powered truck of
the same model makes diesel a more economical choice.

Diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining, such as the
removal of sulfer. However, I'll agree that it makes little sense that fuel
that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did, now costs up to
25% more than a gallon of gasoline.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

This is what you said above

"Terrific, now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power.
Hint: Clare's BTU's are the ONLY method by which it can be done, and his
I have addressed and debunked that. You were obviously unaware of the
relationships between the figures. I am glad to have been of service to you.
I shall consider a new career teaching basic mathematics to under elevens.

Huw

 

While on the subject I should just mention the
figures for electricity production, trade,
and final consumption can be calculated using
the energy content of the electricity
(i.e. at a rate of 1 TWh = 0.086 Mtoe).

Hydro-electricity production (excluding
pumped storage) and electricity produced
by other non-thermal means
(wind, tide, photovoltaic, etc.) are
accounted for similarly using 1 TWh =
0.086 Mtoe.

However, the primary
energy equivalent of nuclear electricity is
calculated from the gross generation by
assuming a 33% conversion efficiency, i.e.
1 TWh = (0.0860.33) Mtoe.

In the case of electricity produced from geothermal
heat, if the actual geothermal efficiency is
not known, then the primary equivalent
is calculated assuming an efficiency of
10%, so 1 TWh = (0.0860.1) Mtoe.

From all this information you can only conclude that your "ONLY" is complete
bullshit.
That addresses your point very well does it not.

Huw

 

max, you naughty boy! i do believe that in the mist of the early
morning, i hear the voice of max, yelling gleefully, "fish on".

 

Pricing today is based on the number of BTUs you are buying - whether
propane, coal, gasoline or diesel oil you will find the pricing very
close. And Diesel contains some 20?% more energy than gasoline per
unit of volume.

 

Which, with the abovementioned inflation, will cost over twice as much
to build THEN as it would NOW - assuming the lands required for the
rail have not been "redeveloped" making land aquasition impossibly
expensive.

The time to plan for urban and inter-urban mass transit is NOW, if not
yesterday.
At this point in time, our urban transportation system is in-efficient
because they use the same sized bus on all routes. The route closest
to my home could, at today's usage, be operated with a 20 passenger
bus and still be under-utilized, except when kids are going to or from
school, where doubling the frequency (for that time period) would give
adequate capacity.

 

Specific net calorific values are as below.
There is nothing like a 20% difference between petrol and diesel. Fuel is
priced according to supply and demand as well as value in comparison with
other fuels so diesel and kero should be cheaper in Summer when domestic and
industrial non transport use is lowest. The rise in price in relation to
gasoline during recent years is a reflection of its increasing market share
in relation to refining capacity as well as an element of opportunism by the
oil companies.

toe/tonne


Refinery gas 1.150
LPG 1.130
Ethane 1.130
Motor Gasoline 1.070
Jet Fuel 1.065
Kerosene 1.045
Naphtha 1.075
Gas/Diesel Oil 1.035


As you can see there is less than 5% difference in energy density between
them by weight.
Gas [natural] and crude oil also vary in energy value according to region.
If you really want the relationships I can provide them to you with a click.

Huw