This thread has been way too quiet. Updates, man, Updates!

yeah whatever happend to those pistons?

------------------
'86 Fiero GT

www.KylesFiero.tk www.XoticRydz.tk

Hehe, I was just reading through this thread and saw where you mentioned a future Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell Fiero kit... write me down for one!

You Fiero people should all check out http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net - the world's running outta oil, for real! I've been tracking it for a while and National Geographic just did a big article on it. I think it was their July magazine that that was in...

------------------
'86 5-Spd 2M4 Sport Coupe
Aiwa CDC-X437 Head Unit
Audiobahn 4x10s in Dash (I know they suck; ideas?)
Borla 2" Exhaust (Straight Pipe)

Upcoming:
www.PontiacSound.com Custom Subwoofer Box
JBL 600.1 Amp Feeding a 600wrms Resonant Engineering 10" Sub

Also:

'84 Auto 2M4 SE Parts Car

quote Originally posted by timwdegner: Hehe, I was just reading through this thread and saw where you mentioned a future Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell Fiero kit... write me down for one! You Fiero people should all check out http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net - the world's running outta oil, for real! I've been tracking it for a while and National Geographic just did a big article on it. I think it was their July magazine that that was in...

Might as well have fun with whatever we got left

Hiya!

Sorry about the silence. Been busy. Trying to build up a new PC, trying to take care of what the state of PA says was a "Tax mistake," and trying to go on leave this month too.

Anywho, the guys at JE pistons are being real idiots. They threw in the wrong rings with the pistons.

On a higher note, I'm going to take my crank out this week, have it inspected for cracks, etc., and also try to get it balanced, as long as it's cheaper than gettting a forged one. (If anyone is willing to donate $900+ towards a forged crank, lemme know )

I'm holding off on the headwork, cause I'm not sure if I want to go the extra route of 1mm larger stainless steel valves or not. The more NA power I have coming from the motor, the better my volumetric effeciency (VE) will be.

See, the stock VE is 80%, or 150lb/ft of torque from 2.2L. 100% VE is 85 lbs/ft per liter, so if I hit 187lbs/ft of torque, Naturally aspirated, then that's 100%, which would give me the best turbo performance.

I figure with head porting, custom cams, and larger valves, that could be up to an extra 20HP, plus the fact that the Ecotec is under rated. Rumor is, stock torque is actually 160, not 150.
-------------------------
And with the fuel cells, with the economy picking up speed, and gas prices on the rise, fuel cells with drop in price.

The Fiero is perfect for fuel cells. People are afraid of hydrogen (which they shouldn't be), but with the Fiero's center mounted gas tank, the hydrogen bottles (which would go in place of the old fuel tank) would be nice and safe.

Honestly, we don't even need fuel cells just yet. I say we do some minor conversions to our vehicles and gas stations, and use hydrogen on the engines we already have.

That's right, hydrogen will work on internal combustion engines, just like propane. The fuel we use is a HYDROcarbon. Hydrogen and carbon. Hydrogen, by itself, burns MUCH cleaner though, even more so that propane. The output is water and CO2... that's it.

So it's not that we need fuel cells just yet, we need better fuel... hydrogen.

------------------
Petty Officer Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L ECOTEC TURBO (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. K.I.A. by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

Actually, burning hydrogen doesn't give off any CO2, just H2O. Gotta burn a lot of hydrogen to get the same energy as a sane amount of gasoline, though.

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you guys are both half right:

When used in a fuel cell, hydrogen's only by-product is H20. When burned, it's H20 and CO2.

quote Originally posted by timwdegner: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you guys are both half right: When used in a fuel cell, hydrogen's only by-product is H20. When burned, it's H20 and CO2.

CO2 is carbon dioxide and can only be a by product of combustion of CARBON. There's no carbon in hydrogen. The only by product of combustion of hydrogen is H2O (water).

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

Bump.... what's new?

Where's my hydrogen fuel cell kit?

Yeah, water vapor I think is the outcome, just like regular exhaust actually. Hydro-carbon. If you put your hand by your exhaust pipe, you should feel some moisture.

But I thought any form of combustion, or flame (heck, even liquid oxygen rockets) produced CO2??? I dunno. I'm not a science major.
----------------------
Anywho, the pistons are holding me back with this project. I can't progress any further without them.

I finally found more than one place that sells non-gm pistons, and they sell 3 different companies, so rather than get weisco 8.8:1, I'm getting JE 8.9:1. Slightly higher compression than what I want, but JE is the best there is. Plus, their pistons are a bit lighter than Weisco's, so overall, better performance.

Oh, and your hydrogen fuel cell kit is 5 years into the future, lol

later!

------------------
Petty Officer Michael C Casaceli
Patrol Squadron Ten, United States Navy
1988 Pontiac Fiero 2.5L, soon to be 2.2L ECOTEC TURBO (THE PROJECT HAS STARTED!!!)
1988 Oldsmobile Firenza 2.0L non-turbo (R.I.P.my beloved J-body. K.I.A. by a Ford)
1994 Chevy S-10 4.3, it's finally here, and it is gorgeous!

Hyrdogen buring= 2 H2 + O2 ---> 2 H2O

Hydrocarbon burning=
(Let's keep it simple and use methane...)
CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O

In reality, the hydrocarbons that are burnt regularly aren't pure, so CO + SOx + NOx + others, are also emmitted.
Scott

Edited because I can't spell.

[This message has been edited by AnimalGT (edited 08-18-2004).]

hey what about them JE 8.9:1 pistons??? you think its gonna get you closer to 100%VE??? whens this thing go go VRoooommm.... Psssshhhht?

------------------
'86 Fiero GT

www.KylesFiero.tk www.XoticRydz.tk

I absolutely love the build. I cant wait to hear/ see / hump this thing. I decided a while ago to do an ecotec swap, but have not the time, nor the money...yet. You should write for us the "bible of ecotec-fiero performace."

you are my idol

If I remember correctly, it is not good to run a fuel cell at max power or at low power. There is an efficient and non-harmful (for the fuel cell) power output. What I am trying to get at is this, the most viable way to have a fuel cell on board an automobile is in hybrid trim. Hmmm a nice little 3 cyl diesel with a fuel cell in a fiero....

Andrew

I've never heard of fuel cells being used for internal combustion. Only for producing electricity. To burn hydrogen in a motor, better have a stack of pistons laying around, they will melt in a jiffy.

quote Originally posted by crzyone: To burn hydrogen in a motor, better have a stack of pistons laying around, they will melt in a jiffy.

Better tell that to the US Postal jeep (test mule) that was running around with water coming out it's tail pipe a lotta years back, and the numerous BMW's that were also being used as testers in Germany a number of years ago.

Also... the thing about by-products... Remember that you are dumping Hydrogen, plus AIR into the engine, not O2. Air is 78% nitrogen, and lesser parts-no-i-cant-remember-the-percentages oxygen, co2, etc.

So you will get MOSTLY water, AND various other things coming out the tail pipe.

you would need a pile of pistons if you just started to burn hydrogen in a modern engine... you have to use a specially designed engine to burn hydrogen... BMW ran a fleet of 7 series cars that only had 3 refueling stations in germany and they seemed to not have a problem w/ it. i think one even logged like 130k km

------------------
'86 Fiero GT

www.KylesFiero.tk www.XoticRydz.tk

Screw fuel cells. Everyone should be using turbines. Any liquid or gas that burns can be burned in a turbine.

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

quote Originally posted by crzyone: I've never heard of fuel cells being used for internal combustion. Only for producing electricity. To burn hydrogen in a motor, better have a stack of pistons laying around, they will melt in a jiffy.

It isn't the fuel cells that are used for the motor. Hydrogen is used in place of gasoline. And I believe the pistons would NOT melt. They don't in propane motors, why would hydrogen be different? I think propane burns hotter anyway.

The way a fuel cell works, is oxygen and hydrogen molecules are joined together (kinda like a non-nuclear fusion reacton) in a membrane (the fuel cell) a PEM membrane, to be exact, is the best out there, and from this chemical reaction comes water, electricity, and like anything that generates electricity, heat is also generated. The typical effeciency of a current day hydrogen fuel cell is about 30%, similar to a gasoline motor, but obviously it has a much better byproduct.

A benefit of the heat made from a fuel cell, is that for stationary fuel cell units, much like how a nuclear fission plant works, the heat boils water, and uses the steam pressure to rotate a turbine, which when combined with the output from the fuel cell membrane, results in 90% effeciency, ie, 90% of what was put in, comes back out, and in this case, it's in the form of electricity.

A "90%" unit would be a bit much for a car, but I think for a big rig/18-wheeler, it would work quite well because of the larger engine compartment. The typical fuel cells would likely replace gasoline, while the steam fuel cells would replace diesel.
----------
I can't recall if I mentioned it or not in this topic, but a big question is, how do we produce large amounts of hydrogen? Well, right here in america, we could use solar, wind, hydroelectric, and on the west coast, geothermal. But in farm areas, like my home in PA, crops generate hydrogen too. But of course, this would all take up quite a bit of land, which we would like to avoid here in america.

So what's the alternative?...... ICELAND!

I've been to Iceland, somewhat recent actually. I got back about 6 months ago. Though the US Government's stake there, is most likely closing (Naval Air Station, Keflavik), it could easily be converted into a much better use, and a major point I would like to add, the jobs that will be cut off because of its closing, would be recreated, and possibly be multiplied. A hydrogen generation plant would be perfect there, and there are already geothermal tanks there on base, so it is a good starting point.

See, Iceland is an energy goldmine... plus it's a nice country too (just keep the natives sober ) And the hydrogen generated there could easily be transported by modified oil tankers, and should those ever leak while at sea, there are NO OIL SPILLS. The hydrogen just dissipates into the air.

Iceland has ENORMOUS wind and geothermal power, and as I experienced first hand, the wind power alone is plenty but it also has hydroelectric power from its numerous waterfalls and rivers, and during the summer, "The land of the midnight sun" provides solar power for about 20 hours each day, though in winter, it's only about 4 hours of sunlight.

To make a long story short, the best way to make hydrogen, is by using electricity and water (no, don't throw your hair dryer in the bathtub ). Iceland has abundant electricty sources, and lots of water.

To make hydrogen, you can take a soda bottle, fill it with distilled water, drill a small hole in the end of the cap, and insert a small metal tube, poke a hole on opposide sides of the "waist" section of the bottle, and insert two carbon rods, and put them so their ends are somewhat close, BUT not touching. Seal the area around the rods and the bottle, so water doesn't leak. Now, put electricity across the rods, I believe a 9V battery will work, and a beautiful light will show, along with lots of bubbles. Light a match and put it near the metal tube, and you should have a small orange flame coming out of the metal tube. That flame is being fueled by the hydrogen and oxygen being created by the "electrolizer" device that you just made.

Neat, huh? A note, carbon rods make carbon-monoxide along with the hydrogen and oxygen, so BE CAREFUL. Try the experiment AT YOUR OWN RISK.

A better route is magnesium rods, as the result is milk of magnesia (mylanta, LOL!!!), not carbon-monoxide, but the mag rods need more power I think (??).

I haven't read into it much, let alone tried it, but I think aluminum rods and, get this.... Salt Water, will work as well, which in the future, would be great for us Navy guys at sea, but I have no clue what the output would be, nor the power required. Theoretically, the salt and aluminum dust would just sit at the bottom of the bottle.

Whew, that's my science lesson for today. I'm beat. Nighty, night.

(Note: According to the firefighting traning that I received during boot camp, magnesium alloy fires are VERY DANGEROUS, should you ever have one. Do not use water to extinguish them, as the hydrogen and oxygen separates from the intense heat, and causes several tiny explosions. A non-water fire extinguisher is a much better way, and a foam one is the best.)

Using electricity to separate hydrogen from water is VERY inefficient. It would be easier and cheaper to just neutralize acids with metals such as zinc and hydrochloric acid. BUT it does provide hydrogen without consuming anything (if electricity is provided by solar/geothermal/wind sources)

The way that large volumes of hydrogen are made industrially is to heat up a hydrocarbon mixed with an appropriate amount of steam and pass it over a catalyst. The result is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. This then goes through an adsorbtion separation process to produce nearly pure hydrogen and a purge stream consisting of the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and a small amount of hydrogen. The purge stream is burned in the furnace that heats the initial mixture up to about 1500 'F.

The hydrocarbon most typically used as feed is natural gas but higher molecular weight hydrocarbons up to gasoline can be used as feed.

As I understand a lot of the fuel cell research that is going on is trying to come up with a way to make the hydrogen on board the vehicle starting with a hydrcarbon like gasoline. That way no hydrogen storage cylinders or refueling facitlities are required. Making electriciity with a fuel cell is easy. The problem is the cost and logistics of the hydrogen.

The attraction of fuel cells is NOT efficiency... it's emissions. Pure and Simple. The overall energy efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle (when the production of hydrogen is factored in) is absolutely abysmal.

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

Enough talk about hydrogen...on with the ECOTEC!!!

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: Oops, ya posted b4 I finished my post. Turbines are loud, expensive, and more dangerous, BUT they are more effecient than piston engines, as the mighty GE J-85 Turbojet engine has proven quite well. The F-5E Tiger II and the T-45 Goshawk work wonderfully with that motor, and have a great thrust-to-fuel consumption ratio, and is conveniently small enough to fit in a car (HINT, HINT). *edit: And they have poor throttle response

Turbojets are not efficient. In return for their very high operating ceiling, high maximum speed and compact size, they guzzle fuel. Turbofans are much more efficient, and turboprops even more so, with accompanying restrictions of speed and operating ceiling and larger size.

Unless you go with a jet large enough to have to build the car around it (like the batmobile), a jet car would have lackluster acceleration at low speeds, compared to piston powered car. Remember the MR2 with the three jets on the back? Do the math and you'll find that the 4AGE powered car with all 110 ftlbs or so will smoke it below 60.

Now a turbo shaft or turbo prop engine provides the right kind of power for a car. The T-34C engine (PT6A variant) produces 550 HP and 1315 ftlbs at a constant 2200 shaft RPM. The T6 engine (another PT6A variant) produces 1100 HP at approximately the same RPM.

Yeah, throttle response on a turbine makes turbo lag seem instantaneous...

------------------
'87 Fiero GT: Low, Sleek, Fast, and Loud
'90 Pontiac 6000 SE AWD: None of the Above

Luck, Fate and Destiny are words used by those who lack the courage to define their own future

Gm. made a limited number 2l turbo ecotoc engine equiped 88 fieros. How many? I think about 500 to 750 cars.

quote Originally posted by alienfiero: Gm. made a limited number 2l turbo ecotoc engine equiped 88 fieros. How many? I think about 500 to 750 cars.

The Ecotec was released in 2000 in the Saturn L-series. I think you might be thinking of the Quad4.

[This message has been edited by Street&Strip Performance (edited 08-26-2004).]

freakin airdales

what about the turbo ecotec??? is it done??? and i seriously doubt they made something in the range of 500 quadfour fieros... maybe 1-5 of them as prototypes.

------------------
'86 Fiero GT

www.KylesFiero.tk www.XoticRydz.tk

Was not called that then, but it was the same turbo engine that came in the sunbird gt turbo. Very rere if you can find one.

Having a friend with a 2.0 Turbo Sunbird (Lt-3) they are NOT an ecotec, and were never put in production in any fiero. The LT-3 is a destroked version of the venerable 2.2 4 cylinder that GM has had in production forever. It comes coupled with a reinforced Getrag build Five speed manual tranny, or a bullet proof automatic. GM was experimenting with one, and were also hypothesizing about an aluminum framed car. The frame on this car weighed less than 900 lbs and was stronger that the steel one. but it never got put into production. Some sources say that this was one of the reasons for the demise of the Fiero. This experimental car was (god forbid) out performing a Corvette in everything. 0-60 times, 1/4mile, slalom, skidpad, gas miliage. Basically you could buy a fiero that outperformed a corvette stock, got better gas miliage, AND had a trunk for half the price of a 'Vette. It was slated for the 89 year. They were also hypothesizing about a four door fiero. After that in 90 they were experimenting with the W41-Q4 and the 3.4 TDC, and were also hypothesizing about an aluminum framed car. The frame on this car weighed less than 900 lbs and was stronger that the steel one.

sorry , made by Allied Automotive, sold through Pontiac dealers only. and only in 1988, This was a factoy new 0 miles Fiero GT. with a 2.0l turbo. installed. 0 to 60 in 15.1 sec. at 93mph.
Kind like shelby mustangs. Built by shelby and sold buy ford dealers.
ref. Pontiac magzine june 1988.

quote Originally posted by alienfiero: sorry , made by Allied Automotive, sold through Pontiac dealers only. and only in 1988, This was a factoy new 0 miles Fiero GT. with a 2.0l turbo. installed. 0 to 60 in 15.1 sec. at 93mph. Kind like shelby mustangs. Built by shelby and sold buy ford dealers. ref. Pontiac magzine june 1988.

wow 0-60 in 15.1 seconds....that's pretty bad

quote Originally posted by fieroturbo: It isn't the fuel cells... ...better way, and a foam one is the best.)

Fieroturbo, thanks a ton for taking the time to educate us! Fascinating stuff. I'm dead serious about wanting a fuel cell-powered Fiero (one day) and think hydrogen is the most promising fuel. The info about Iceland was new to me and also very interesting. So how 'bout you and I buy the base in a joint venture and make trillions exploiting its potential? =P

How's the Ecotec coming?

quote Originally posted by sthtxfiero: freakin airdales

freakin black shoe

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 08-29-2004).]

Very good for 1988 , bolt a intercooler on. would be in the 14 , up the boost more and away you go. On early sunbirds turbos if you double klick the igintion key you'll double the boost. You can keep doing this untell something brakes.