Re: Shell's 100-RON fuel - what actually is it?

joe schmoe wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:36:33 +0000, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bernd Felsche wrote:
> >
> >> The only way to progress is to move.
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >For some strange reason the US in particular seems wedded to the idea
of
> >sticking with 'steam powered' technology and wants to criticise any
attempt
> >at technological progress.
> >
> >Does anyone really think that 5 litre V8s will make sense say 20 yrs
from
> >now ( as if they made sense now ! ) ?
> >
> >Graham
>
> I don't believe that "The US" is wedded to the idea.  However I
> believe that a number of people in the administration & their
> compatriots aren't particularly averse to the idea of an oil powered
> future.
>
> Like anything else in the world it will take people with a lot of
> financial backing to push for any change.  (hence the reason that
> cities are so slow to adopt wireless internet coverage for example).
>
> As for the 5 Litre V8, 20 years in the future?  If it's a Bio-Diesel
> with particulate traps that allowes cylinder deactivation and is
> connected to a hybrid drive train, that  might make sense.  VW gets
> 150HP from a 1.9L diesel now, what could a 5L Diesel put out with 20
> years of development????

Part of the problem I see is the idea that *more than 150 bhp* is needed
for an
ordinary everyday road car !

My Saab 9000 only claims 150 bhp  and it's pretty damn quick by my
reckoning. My
previous car had *only* 115 bhp but was still very agile. They are both
cars
with manual transmissions though.

Graham