As some of u may no, the earths fossil fuel OIL well be totally exausted by the year 2030. That meens no gas. So about 5-10 years b4 that time gas prices will skyrocket to about 10 bucks a gallon. So my challenge is for some1 to come up with a design for an engine (illustrate if possible) that is a clean burner or just clean that will produce the same power as a gasoline and without any negative impackes on the engine itself.

and just a shbort lil tidbit for those who can remeber in 1973 there was a women who was driving an "experimental carborator" that got 200 miles to the gallon but i forget how the carb was "mysteriously" stolen. Many thought this was a way for the government to bail out the oil companies... because they would go broke.. ur thoughts....?

Originally posted by PoLaK
As some of u may no, the earths fossil fuel OIL well be totally exausted by the year 2030. That meens no gas. So about 5-10 years b4 that time gas prices will skyrocket to about 10 bucks a gallon. So my challenge is for some1 to come up with a design for an engine (illustrate if possible) that is a clean burner or just clean that will produce the same power as a gasoline and without any negative impackes on the engine itself.

and just a shbort lil tidbit for those who can remeber in 1973 there was a women who was driving an "experimental carborator" that got 200 miles to the gallon but i forget how the carb was "mysteriously" stolen. Many thought this was a way for the government to bail out the oil companies... because they would go broke.. ur thoughts....?


that was some x-files type shiet right there...

but aren't the hybrids hitting the market already?! that's one step closer in the right direction..


don't worry by that time we'll be in flying cars. Jetsons-style :D

Next big thing should be hydrogen.

Electric motors are great for power but terrible on weight and that won't change. Electronics have come a long way.

Hydrogen is clean (only exhaust is steam hehe), in near unlimited supply, and as a result WOULD be cheap. It's gotten near NO engineering time aside from BMW and some others, so if we took a good 5 or 10 years, with the current geniouses in automotive works as well as the technology available to us now... we could have a hydrogen engine just as powerful as a gasoline powered one, in my opinion.

We just need the gov't to start subsidizing hydrogen research programs, but that won't happen... GWB is an oil man and all such things have been pushed in that direction.

Anyhoo... it's a matter of time. When the resources go... we will work hard to get the next technology available. However until we get close to that limit we won't, at least not until our representation realizes that it's better to plan early, instead of waiting to run out.

2030, I doubt that.

I do agree it seems pretty silly we are using oil to burn, instead of using it all for things like plastics and medication and such.

The only problem with hydrogen is that it takes more energy to get it out of water than you get when you burn it. So, the only feasible way to do it would really to be giant "sun refineries" where they would be able to take sea water and convert it to hydrogen using solar power. The added benefit is you could also desalnize the water too.

This may be the future of the rotary. Its burn characteristics are ideal for hydrogen conbustion, and Mazda has been playing around with this stuff for at least the last 7-8 years. BMW is also the one looking at burning hydrogen like a conventional fuel. Everyone else is looking at fuel cells where they burn hydrogen and turn it into electricity to drive the wheels. Personally, I think BMW and Mazda have the better idea. Works in more regular cars without all that extraneous equipment.

I sure hope we can get this stuff running. I really would like to see the day when we only use oil for more useful materials, not just to burn most of it up.

Originally posted by Jerome81
2030, I doubt that...
I don't. Only reason being is because we use a lot more oil per year... by 2030 we will probably be using many fold over what we are now per year.. so I don't see why we won't run out in another 20 or 30 years at an increasing rate of consumption.

With technological advance in any country, oil is always required. And the more energy that is required for evolving nations, the more we will use. It's an endless cycle and we need to take steps to correct it now.

a car that run is fueled by water....

In 1973 the prediction was that world oil reserves would be totally exhausted by 1997. (I remember those dates from a high school assignment...boy, am I getting old...)

Couple of points:

1. Hydrogen. There is a big problem with hydrogen extraction from water.....not very efficient. The other big problem that gets little press is infrastructure. Right now the US has a lot of money in gas type infrastructure(pumps, trucks etc). In order to convince the money holders to invest in switching to hydrogen, they would have to be convinced that it was necessary and/or there was a market. There won't be a market until it's available in every town. It won't be available in every town.....you get the idea. Either the government will have to "help" *sneeze*subsidize*/sneeze* or there will have to be a gas shortage.

2. Oil. The fact is, no one knows how long it will last. When someone makes a prediction, more oil is found. There are even new theories as to how oil is formed in the first place. It might not be just decayed animal remains (dinosaurs) but actually be a byproduct of subterranean bacterial life (no I am not making this up). That raising and intriguing thought.......are oil reserves renewable?


I agree that hydrogen is probably in the future.....we will just have to see how soon the technology matures.....

Originally posted by Aesculapius
2. Oil. The fact is, no one knows how long it will last. When someone makes a prediction, more oil is found.
We are discovering more oil all the time. More importantly new technologies make 'played out fields' viable again. I reckon we have over 100 years of oil left easily.

Apparently recent discoveries of oil in Alberta (some is hard to retrieve today) is greater than all known reserves in Saudi Arabia - see http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/topten/questn3.html
We should invade Canada instead of being the biggest customer of the middle-east! :)

FROM THE FEBRUARY 2002 ISSUE OF NORTHERN FOCUS:

Several large companies are developing huge multi-billion-dollar projects in the Fort McMurray area to mine the oil sands reserves and turn them into petroleum products. More than $50 billion could be spent over the next decade by Suncor Energy, Syncrude Canada, and other companies.

The Alberta oil sands hold more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. In fact, Alberta's reserves are estimated at 350 billion barrels of recoverable oil, the largest known reserve in the world, and the total resources are believed to be a staggering 2.5 trillion.

The region around Fort McMurray has enough heavy oil to supply Canada's energy needs for the next 400 years, or all of North America's needs for the next 50 years. The oil sands also extend into Saskatchewan's northwest, further below the surface.

Fuel Cell technology is coming along nicely. I'm not too worried.


btw, pelusidor, I want your Opel. Can you ship it here!? :)

In 1973 the prediction was that world oil reserves would be totally exhausted by 1997. (I remember those dates from a high school assignment...boy, am I getting old...)

That perdiction was made when oil was hidden by the exporters in order to inflate gas prices which it did.... and as u can c they haven't come down yet....

I've wrote a few papers and a 200+ page thesis on 63 alternative fuels and vehicle technologies that could take us into the future. Long story short:
-There is a wide variety of expert opinions on how long crude oil supplies will last. Most fall within the 50-200 year range. In other words, we will damage the environment to catastrophic levels faster than we will be able to burn the oil up. Therefore, eliminating fossil fuels for environmental reasons is more important than eliminating them for fear of running out.
-Hydrogen is clean when burned in cars, but is not clean to make. Yet. That goes for any source: dissociation from water, reforming from other fuels, etc. In the short term, it is possible to produce hydrogen for fleet services, for example, but the infrastructure is a radical departure from gasoline's, and for the US to go all hydrogen, the cost would astronomical. However, if we are really looking towards the future, nuclear power plants dedicated to producing hydrogen from water could be the way to go. In 50 years. Plus, we'll be able to keep our rotaries. :D They are very well suited to burning hydrogen, strangely enough.
-Biofuels (ethanols from corn and other biomass, diesel from soy, etc. etc.) show some promise, but without major land allocation specifically for growing these feedstocks (like the state of Pennsylvania and a bit just for US consumption rates of 5 years ago) they will never be viable as a vehicle fuel that can replace fossil fuels. Never mind replacing other things that burn fossil fuels other than cars... Despite that, they could be used as a niche fuel.
-Natural gas is a relatively untapped resource, but methane from natural gas is many times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. There are ways this can be improved though (pipeline upgrades, more research into methane gas capturing systems, etc.)
-there are a TON of fuels that can be synthesized from natural gas (dimethyl ether, Fischer Tropsh diesel, etc.) but so far, on a widespread scale, these aren't feasible. Yet.
That may not seem like the short story, and I could go on for days, so if anyone has any specific questions (or wants my paper(s) emailed to them) let me know. Its very heading reading though, and some background in thermodynamics helps.
Bottom line is, right now, NOTHING can replace gasoline and diesel fuels. I foresee many different types of fuels entering the market within the next 20 years for use in hybrids and eventually fuel cell vehicles. Different fuels are better suited to different applications, and that will be one trend we will be seeing much more of.
(Enthusiasts don't worry. BMW has been testing hydrogen-powered 7-series. Rotaries run well on hydrogen. And methanol fuel has an octane rating of over 110. Turbocharging anyone? :D )

Originally posted by pelucidor
We should invade Canada instead of being the biggest customer of the middle-east! :)
Hey! Keep out of our country! :D

Originally posted by Quick_lude

Hey! Keep out of our country! :D The US does 65%+ of its 'international' trade with Canada.. so I don't think that would be a great idea :)

Well we can trade.. just don't invade. :D

Being an earth freak i hate to break the hopes of all you other earth freaks. In the early 1970's it was predicted that there was only 20 years worth of oil left in the earth. now that it is roughly 30 years later, you are telling us that there is only 27 years of petro left (this year is almost over). Keep yelling. Mabey you will scare someone.

Originally posted by trekkerz-06
Being an earth freak i hate to break the hopes of all you other earth freaks. In the early 1970's it was predicted that there was only 20 years worth of oil left in the earth. now that it is roughly 30 years later, you are telling us that there is only 27 years of petro left (this year is almost over). Keep yelling. Mabey you will scare someone.
It's not that I'm 'green', I just think it's always important to look towards the future of automobiles and their combustion engines, and gasoline, regardless of the ACTUAL timelimit, WILL expire... better to research now than scramble later.

hmmmm..... invade canada eh? hmmm....

Im not a greeny if thats wat u think but the current predition is 2030 and the reason the 1973 perdiction was fairly off WAS BECAUSE THE OIL WAS HIDDEN FROM US TO INFLATE GAS PRICES as forementioned.

Hey I am a 'greeny' in my off time i wander around the woods like Henery Davi Thoreau. Who hid this oil from us? Did they throw a big tarp over it? The truth is we don't know how much there is. Do you know how innefficent compustion engines are? Take a thermodynamic course its been a while since i took one but as effiecent as they get from a thermo perspective is not much better than half. I would like nothing better than a water powered car that cleanded the streats and baby's bottoms but thats not the world we live in.

Damn if that stuff doesn't like to blow up like a bomb! Remember the Zepplin? Well, coincidentally, despite our hindsight on that incident, hydrogen in vehicles is still pretty dangerous. The ability to refuel and store hydrogen safely still needs alot of research and development. My mom works at a city transit station that uses hydrogen powered buses and they are always running into problems with the "hydrogen alarms" detecting leaking hydrogen from the refueling point.

There have been collision tests in which the high pressure hydrogen canisters were dented, crushed, even forced to leak, but none of them exploded. Unless there is a flame present right at the leak (and these cars are designed not to have anything flamable there) and the conditions are right, it won't go kablooey. I don't want to go into the conditions that are necessary to cause an explosion, but there are numerous online journals about it.
I was even talking to a guy in alternative fuel development for a company that will remain unnamed, and he was saying that driving a hydrogen-powered car was like "sitting on a H-bomb". Sure buddy... How much are they paying you to make stupid statements like that?
Anyway, with a little careful planning and engineering, hydrogen would be as safe as gasoline in refueling and crashes.

wow i was a dick last night sorry everyone. I like the concept of hydrogen power. Let us not foreget that gasoline is not exactly inert either. Part of the reason hydrogen has such a stigma to is that it is actuall a gas. The more the fule mixes with air the more violent an explosion. Thats why gasoline is more volitile than desil because gasoline evaporates more redily than desil. Thats why gasoline feels cool on your hand if you spill it a little. Thats also why if you are burning brush and use desil or kero on the brush and then light it the result is a large flame, whereas gasoline will give off more of a fireball and be gone. Hydogen being a gas to begin with will simply obey the laws of enthropy and dissapate. Hydrogen gas will natualy combinde to make inert gasses in the atmosphere so that is good. It is the short peroid of time when the gas is first released that there is an explosive situation, and in a car accident that is the time there is most likely be an open flame or apark. That is why hydrogen is so scary to some people and i agree some what that hydrogen power must have fail safes. With failsafes there are more obsticles to overcome. First hydrogen is supposevly a clean fule. I will argue that it is not any cleaner than gasoline more to the point it is less clean. The actual combustion of hydrogen yes is a clean process, but we must all understand that to generate hydrogen gas is like all processes a energy intensive process. The power to generage hydrogen gas will cost more energy to generate than an equivalent quantity of petrolium. So instead of reducing polution you are just moving it to off the roads and quite possibly increasing the polution. Second creating hydrogen gas is cost prohivitive, for small amounts it can be done with a metal and an acid, however on a large scale let alone generating enough to power an automotive fleet would be hugely expensive. Lastly and the most challanging to overcome is the catch 22 of fueling stations. Car company W will not create car X until customer Y will want to buy it. customer Y will not buy car X until gas station Z will sell hydrogen. Gas station Z will not spend the money to install a hydrogen station or the hydrogen gas in general untill there are enough cars X to make it profitable. Sine none of the infrasturcute is in place there is no customer demand and thus no hydrogen powerd cars. The three obsticles to overcome are the dangers of hydrogen gas, the inhibiting cost of producing hydrogen, and building the infrastructure to support the cars. If and when these questions are answered then we will see the emergance of hydrogen powerd car, I am afraid that day is not as near as we think.

Originally posted by Grimace
... we will damage the environment to catastrophic levels faster than we will be able to burn the oil up. Therefore, eliminating fossil fuels for environmental reasons is more important than eliminating them for fear of running out.

This is also one oy my worries too!

:confused:

I'd be very happy if Mazda offers a rotory hybrid!

:D

Some of you may remember the words of the economist Malthus from high school or college. In 1798, he wrote an article about how the world's population would surpass the food supply in a short period of time. He argued that the population was growing exponentially while the food supply grows linearly.

Fortunately, his prediction never came true because humans will focus their energy where it is needed. New advances kept increasing the food supply while population growth did not increase exponentially. When the world's population was growing at a rapid rate from 1960 - 1990, further advances doubled the global cereal production during that period.

Look at what has happened with our use of gas. Governments now mandate and give incentives on fuel economy and emissions levels. Developments in technology will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels further and the pure economics of supply and demand will push us into alternative choices as the supply of fossile fuels gets smaller.

Brian

Originally posted by rxtreme
Damn if that stuff doesn't like to blow up like a bomb! Remember the Zepplin?
well it's believed that it was really the aluminum oxide( i may have the wrong chemical there) coating in the paint on the skin of the hindenberg that caused the fire to get out of control so quickly not the hydrogen.

This won't solve any problems but I have always wondered if it is possible for rotary engines to run on diesel?

Originally posted by Buger
Some of you may remember the words of the economist Malthus from high school or college. In 1798, he wrote an article about how the world's population would surpass the food supply in a short period of time. He argued that the population was growing exponentially while the food supply grows linearly.

Fortunately, his prediction never came true because humans will focus their energy where it is needed. New advances kept increasing the food supply while population growth did not increase exponentially. When the world's population was growing at a rapid rate from 1960 - 1990, further advances doubled the global cereal production during that period.

Look at what has happened with our use of gas. Governments now mandate and give incentives on fuel economy and emissions levels. Developments in technology will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels further and the pure economics of supply and demand will push us into alternative choices as the supply of fossile fuels gets smaller.

Brian


There is truth to your argument, but you also have to consider the difference between market and economic efficiency. Market efficiency deals strictly with profit maximization of the individual. So for example, if i owned a power plant i would generate electricity until my marginal unit cost was zero. My operating costs would be salaries, fuel, etc.

However economic efficiency would take into account ALL costs to society, which in this case we can assume would be pollution (i.e. externality in economic terms). Thus, if economic efficiency were to be obtained the power plant would also bear that cost (and ultimately the customers). Thus, a tax or some kind of emmission standard (which would end up being an additional cost) would theoretically reduce the amount produced.

Determing what amount of regulation (or imposition of additional costs) is needed to reach economic efficiency is not easy. However, given the US political system, companies with big $$ are not going to push for greater economic efficiency (i.e. more regulation)..unless they are the few that have a comparitive advantage against their competition. That's ONE of the reasons you don't see higher fuel economy standards....detroit could not compete with toyota/honda.

Thus, the market will affect desired changes, unless the costs are external to the market participants. So in your case, yes food was produced, but the exponential growth in population still caused other problems (i.e. habitat loss for wildlife resulting in extinction). In the fuel efficiency arena...the external costs are huge..pollution..global warming...funding of extemist islam/terrorism.

That's ONE of the reasons you don't see higher fuel economy standards....detroit could not compete with toyota/honda.
if "detroit" put the money they spent on lobbying against more stringent standards into r&d maybe they could. all it takes is for someone at the top to decide that they want their company to be known as the leader/ innovator.


(i.e. habitat loss for wildlife resulting in extinction).
this is considered a problem?:confused: ;)

Thus, the market will affect desired changes, unless the costs are external to the market participants.

All that would need to happen is raise the fuel price per gallon equivalent to, lets say, Europe. That would be a good incentive for American auto manufacturers to build more efficient cars. It would be devestating at first, but I bet there would be a big rush to come out with a alternate fuel Lincoln Navigator or Chevy Suburban.

well it's believed that it was really the aluminum oxide( i may have the wrong chemical there) coating in the paint on the skin of the hindenberg that caused the fire to get out of control so quickly not the hydrogen.

Hmmmm. I remember seeing the footage of that thing burning to ashes and it looked like more than just paint coating causing that fire. All I know is hydrogen is pretty volatile. There is no doubt in my mind that it could be made safe. Like I said before, I wasn't emphasizing the tanks that hydrogen would be stored in in the vehicles where they were being used, it was the refueling and transporting hydrogen to fuel points (gas stations) that is dangerous and (right now) poses risks way more than gasoline. If this country could embrace the new proposed plant designs for nuclear power, we could make hydrogen more plausible for production. Nuclear power is just seen as so negative, images of Chernoble and Nine Mile in PA come to many peoples mind. The designs of newer plants just don't allow things like that to happen. Anyway, veering off subject....

Hmmmm. I remember seeing the footage of that thing burning to ashes and it looked like more than just paint coating causing that fire. All I know is hydrogen is pretty volatile. There is no doubt in my mind that it could be made safe. Like I said before, I wasn't emphasizing the tanks that hydrogen would be stored in in the vehicles where they were being used, it was the refueling and transporting hydrogen to fuel points (gas stations) that is dangerous and (right now) poses risks way more than gasoline.

nope, seriously, it wasn't the hydrogen. just as a question, have you ever seen it burn?? it kinda just goes *pop*, and done, that's it... even hydrogen filled balloons, they just go *bam!!*, and done... stuff like, uh, propane (IIRC, first year chem was a year and a half ago) sort of flame up, and the more complex the hydrocarbon, the slower the combustion is when oxygen is limited like that... anyhoo, that was the point of the demonstration. why i'm saying this is that steel in and of itself doesn't burn all that well, and considering the aluminum blah-blahide is called THERMITE (no kiddin!! this is all i remember from first year chem, btw ;)), it mostly wasn't the hydrogen...

just as another few supporting points (which i think Grimace brought up in another thread one time), hydrogen leakage would pose almost no threat in the real world, just as gasoline vapour poses almost no threat at a gas station: hydrogen would disperse even faster too. aaaaaaawwwww, shaboogamoo, i forgot the other points i had, because it's late and that sort of day (bad day to have an econ exam on, huh?? tell me about it... :p)
Grims?? i'm sure you remember...

Originally posted by revhappy
There is truth to your argument, but you also have to consider the difference between market and economic efficiency. Market efficiency deals strictly with profit maximization of the individual. So for example, if i owned a power plant i would generate electricity until my marginal unit cost was zero. My operating costs would be salaries, fuel, etc.

However economic efficiency would take into account ALL costs to society, which in this case we can assume would be pollution (i.e. externality in economic terms). Thus, if economic efficiency were to be obtained the power plant would also bear that cost (and ultimately the customers). Thus, a tax or some kind of emmission standard (which would end up being an additional cost) would theoretically reduce the amount produced.

Determing what amount of regulation (or imposition of additional costs) is needed to reach economic efficiency is not easy. However, given the US political system, companies with big $$ are not going to push for greater economic efficiency (i.e. more regulation)..unless they are the few that have a comparitive advantage against their competition. That's ONE of the reasons you don't see higher fuel economy standards....detroit could not compete with toyota/honda.

Thus, the market will affect desired changes, unless the costs are external to the market participants. So in your case, yes food was produced, but the exponential growth in population still caused other problems (i.e. habitat loss for wildlife resulting in extinction). In the fuel efficiency arena...the external costs are huge..pollution..global warming...funding of extemist islam/terrorism.

Hi Revhappy,

You speak much truth my friend. The auto companies have been fighting economy and emissions regs for over 30 years now. In the early 70's the Clean Air Act mandated certain emissions standards within a few years. Most companies complained that the standards were too strict and took many years before coming into compliance. I believe 2 Japanese companies led the way in compliance. Honda with thier CVCC and Mazda with their little rotary. :)

The political process does involve a lot of input from the automakers. The government has done a lot to push the automakers in the right direction though.

Part of the reason why the US automakers generally have worse emissions than their Japanese counterparts is that SUVs were previously exempt (!) from many of the emissions requirements. I believe I read that this is changing starting the 2004 model year along with the tier 2 (averaging) standards.

Brian

Originally posted by Buger


Hi Revhappy,

You speak much truth my friend. The auto companies have been fighting economy and emissions regs for over 30 years now. In the early 70's the Clean Air Act mandated certain emissions standards within a few years. Most companies complained that the standards were too strict and took many years before coming into compliance. I believe 2 Japanese companies led the way in compliance. Honda with thier CVCC and Mazda with their little rotary. :)

The political process does involve a lot of input from the automakers. The government has done a lot to push the automakers in the right direction though.

Part of the reason why the US automakers generally have worse emissions than their Japanese counterparts is that SUVs were previously exempt (!) from many of the emissions requirements. I believe I read that this is changing starting the 2004 model year along with the tier 2 (averaging) standards.

Brian


Actually, the story just was out today. Bush is raising the CAFE standards a whopping 1.5 MPG to be phased in over a 3 year period starting in model year 2005.

SUVs are considered light trucks under these standards (the current standard is 20.7 and 27.5 for light truck fleets and passenger vehicle fleets respectively).

The ironic thing is that SUVs really function as "passenger vehicles", but did not exist (or at least weren't popular) when the standards were originally written.

Somehow, I'm not surprised that this administration isn't pushing the auto industry very hard!

Yep Wakeech, I remember. :) (Good luck on your exam). I posted that in another earlier thread, then again on this thread page 2.

There is definately a lot of stigma surrounding hydrogen. It will take a lot of consumer education to get people comfortable with it. That darn zepplin won't help either. :D I think we need some in-car footage of BMW's hydrogen 7-series doing some high-speed runs on the autobahn as a starter for a pro-H2 campaign. :)

An interesting fact:
If the same research and development effort since 1990 went into making cars more fuel efficient rather than going towards the current horsepower wars, the US CAFE (corp. ave. fuel economy) would be 9 MPG higher.
Another fact:
CAFE has been on the decline since 1991, mostly due to SUV's, and the HP wars as mentioned above.

Mazdaman: I don't think a rotary could run on diesel. Diesel is compressed to very high pressures during the compression stroke, then autoignites (doesn't need a spark) due to the pressure. I'm just guessing, but I don't think a rotary's apex seals would stand up to those kind of pressures very long. But one thing diesel has going for it is its natural lubricants in the fuel itself (at least until the US cleans up the sulphur content of its diesel fuel :p ). Perhaps you could further reduce the oil consumption (lubing the seals) of the rotary because the fuel itself is lubing the seals? Hmmmm.... Anyway, anyone with an RX-7: Don't try this at home! :D :D

Originally posted by Grimace
I don't think a rotary could run on diesel. Diesel is compressed to very high pressures during the compression stroke, then autoignites (doesn't need a spark) due to the pressure. I'm just guessing, but I don't think a rotary's apex seals would stand up to those kind of pressures very long. But one thing diesel has going for it is its natural lubricants in the fuel itself (at least until the US cleans up the sulphur content of its diesel fuel :p ). Perhaps you could further reduce the oil consumption (lubing the seals) of the rotary because the fuel itself is lubing the seals? Hmmmm.... Anyway, anyone with an RX-7: Don't try this at home! :D :D

While it may seem that diesel rotaries would not have high enough compression ratios...

RotaryPowerInternational has supposedly come out with one. I don't know any specifics on it and I don't even know if they are Wankels but the links are below:

http://www.rotarypowerinternational.com/PR020714.htm
Rotary Power International, Inc. and SAFE Boats International, LLC Announce Successful Demonstration of the First Rotary Diesel Marine Engine (July 15, 2002)

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2002/10/prweb47847.php
Rotary Power International, Inc. to Develop a Revolutionary Diesel Outboard Engine (Oct 12, 2002)

Brian

no fucking way!!!!!!!!! that sucks, the hybrid electric cars are gonna suck ass!!!! fuck

Obviously you haven't read up on the Honda DualNote...
http://www.edmunds.com/news/conceptcarspotlight/articles/48694/article.html

This four-door, four-passenger vehicle produces 400 horsepower. The kicker? It also gets more than 40 miles to the gallon.