One of the requirements of the current "cash for clunkers" program in the U.S. is that the cars traded in be scrapped. The news media has further reported that sodium silicate is dumped into the engine to render it inoperable. Anyone know how this would disable an engine? I am thinking that since sodium silicate has been used to impregnate casting porosity, it may be sealing up the small oil holes in the crank and rods. But, anyone know for sure?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Silicate for Clunkers
- Thread starter swall
- Start date
BrianPetersen
Mechanical
It dries up and turns solid when the water is boiled out of it, from the heat of the engine running. This will cause all sorts of mayhem: solid particles grinding off the bearing journals and the oil pump internals and the camshaft, and taking up the clearance between pistons and cylinders and scoring the heck out of the pistons and cylinders.
Some engines seem to conk out within seconds, others keep going for 5 - 10 minutes and only seem to stop running due to overheating and/or lack of lubrication.
Some engines seem to conk out within seconds, others keep going for 5 - 10 minutes and only seem to stop running due to overheating and/or lack of lubrication.
MikeHalloran
Mechanical
It's not just dumped into the engine. A water solution of the stuff replaces the lube oil, and then the engine is run to destruction. There's at least one video on YouTube. It's heartbreaking.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
thruthefence
Aerospace
I would think that this is something the oem's got added to the package. Don't want to dilute the still profitable used vehicle market.
patprimmer
New member
Deliberately shortening the life of the car and deliberately destroying still good components from an otherwise good car is good for the environment and the taxpayer how?
Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
for site rules
Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
for site rules
GregLocock
Automotive
Robert Heinlein wrote a story "The door into summer"
in which cars were built and scrapped without being sold, in order to provide employment.
Life is getting perilously close to satire.
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG
lease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
in which cars were built and scrapped without being sold, in order to provide employment.
Life is getting perilously close to satire.
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG
lease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
ornerynorsk
Industrial
As we diffuse into communism, more and more actions by our politburo are going to make less and less sense, at least to those of us who are not reaping the rewards. Former congressman Crockett was roundly lectured by a gentleman constituent on the use of public money, a lecture that all of our present public servants could benefit from.
Whether one agrees with it or not, the way this was sold as a social (rather than purely economic) program was to improve the fuel economy of the fleet (however marginally). Any effect is diluted by half if the trade-ins aren't removed from service.
From a moral standpoint, another way to criticize it is that the folks who were owning/operating gas guzzlers get the bail out in preference to owners of say 15 year-old Corollas, as I don't think the FE spread on those is enough to qualify? Sort of like subprime mortgage bailouts, or even the UAW winding up with significant ownership of GM. Like a bad parent the US guvment (-we) seems to be rewarding a lot of bad behaviour lately . . .
From a moral standpoint, another way to criticize it is that the folks who were owning/operating gas guzzlers get the bail out in preference to owners of say 15 year-old Corollas, as I don't think the FE spread on those is enough to qualify? Sort of like subprime mortgage bailouts, or even the UAW winding up with significant ownership of GM. Like a bad parent the US guvment (-we) seems to be rewarding a lot of bad behaviour lately . . .
That's what happens when you confuse your objectives.
The primary goal was what? To help the auto industry sell more cars? Or save the environment?
Once you put the two together you can't help compromising both objectives.
I have no doubt there would be a lot more old cars scrapped if they had a simple date range in mind.
Once you start scraping cars for environmental reasons you'd better be sure your objectives and calculations are sound.
First off maybe they should only subsidise hybrids, oh, wait, there are already subsidies for hybrids somewhere....
But, is it good scrapping old cars simply because they are old gas guzzlers? chances are that some of them would actually have run for a good deal longer with a much better ashes to ashes figure.
Maybe this would have been better if it took off the road vehicles that were inefficient due to their maintenance and current actual emissions and not their book guide emissions. Not to difficult to measure, they should be measured for their annual tags anyway.
Maybe the best bet would have been to target cars with very poor ashes to ashes figures.
The reports on this all seem to focus on current models but it shouldn't be oo hard to work back to older models.
If it were me, I'd be very concerned to see perfectly good engines being destroyed in the name of the environment. I mean, the engine already exists and might have another good few years in it.
Shortening the life expectancy really means seriously affecting the ashes to ashes energy content.
The reality ought to be that we should be looking to encourage vehicles that last pretty much forever and re-engining them or upgrading their environmental controls as and when.
Someone must have, if this is responsible legislation, worked out the optimum break-even for net-energy benefit.
Two interesting weblinks:
Ashes to ashes:
And a comment on how energy efficiency will be met in the future:
And then there is the Jevons Principle....
JMW
The primary goal was what? To help the auto industry sell more cars? Or save the environment?
Once you put the two together you can't help compromising both objectives.
I have no doubt there would be a lot more old cars scrapped if they had a simple date range in mind.
Once you start scraping cars for environmental reasons you'd better be sure your objectives and calculations are sound.
First off maybe they should only subsidise hybrids, oh, wait, there are already subsidies for hybrids somewhere....
But, is it good scrapping old cars simply because they are old gas guzzlers? chances are that some of them would actually have run for a good deal longer with a much better ashes to ashes figure.
Maybe this would have been better if it took off the road vehicles that were inefficient due to their maintenance and current actual emissions and not their book guide emissions. Not to difficult to measure, they should be measured for their annual tags anyway.
Maybe the best bet would have been to target cars with very poor ashes to ashes figures.
The reports on this all seem to focus on current models but it shouldn't be oo hard to work back to older models.
If it were me, I'd be very concerned to see perfectly good engines being destroyed in the name of the environment. I mean, the engine already exists and might have another good few years in it.
Shortening the life expectancy really means seriously affecting the ashes to ashes energy content.
The reality ought to be that we should be looking to encourage vehicles that last pretty much forever and re-engining them or upgrading their environmental controls as and when.
Someone must have, if this is responsible legislation, worked out the optimum break-even for net-energy benefit.
Two interesting weblinks:
Ashes to ashes:
And a comment on how energy efficiency will be met in the future:
And then there is the Jevons Principle....
JMW
oldfieldguy
Electrical
JMW--
"Someone must have, if this is responsible legislation, worked out the optimum break-even for net-energy benefit."
You're kidding, right?
old field guy
"Someone must have, if this is responsible legislation, worked out the optimum break-even for net-energy benefit."
You're kidding, right?
old field guy
SomptingGuy
Automotive
This sounds a bit like the ritual killing of an old bike at some bike shows I've been to. A bike would have its throttle cable-tied open in neutral, while the crowd watched to see what broke first.
- Steve
- Steve
OFG, a bit tongue in cheek maybe.
No, I really don't think they did any in depth thinking. That is not the nature of political decisions and as a consequence they always seem to either miss the target or fall foul of the law of unintended consequences.
In the UK they are reporting a surge in new car sales.
but note the comment at the end:
JMW
No, I really don't think they did any in depth thinking. That is not the nature of political decisions and as a consequence they always seem to either miss the target or fall foul of the law of unintended consequences.
In the UK they are reporting a surge in new car sales.
but note the comment at the end:
I don't know how the UK scheme compares to the US scheme, I got as far as discovering my car didn't qualify against the US scheme qualifications, I haven't checked the UK yet.
JMW
Note that (as I understand from several sources) ONLY the engines are being destroyed; the rest of the vehicle is OK to part out. So the transmissions and running gear, as well as bodywork, will all be used to keep other vehicles of the same or similar type on the road??
I find the 15-yr cut-off interesting; that almost guarantees that all the older cars with V8's will still be available to donate their engines to the hot rod crowd.
What I find the most inequitable is the credit given for trading in a > 6000 lb GVW truck for a similar one; these are largely owned by people depreciating the cost of the truck already, now they're getting a bonus? And the newer trucks are in many cases less fuel efficient (but cleaner).
I find the 15-yr cut-off interesting; that almost guarantees that all the older cars with V8's will still be available to donate their engines to the hot rod crowd.
What I find the most inequitable is the credit given for trading in a > 6000 lb GVW truck for a similar one; these are largely owned by people depreciating the cost of the truck already, now they're getting a bonus? And the newer trucks are in many cases less fuel efficient (but cleaner).
report i got of the top ten clunkers trade in where
94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 ford explorers
97 ford winstar vans
jeep cherokee and grand cherokee
99 dodge caravan
and they are buying;
ford focus
honda civic
toyota carolla
toyota prius
ford escape
toyota camry
dodge caliber
hyundai elantra
honda fit
chevy cobalt
94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 ford explorers
97 ford winstar vans
jeep cherokee and grand cherokee
99 dodge caravan
and they are buying;
ford focus
honda civic
toyota carolla
toyota prius
ford escape
toyota camry
dodge caliber
hyundai elantra
honda fit
chevy cobalt
Mechanical tragic story on CNN other day about an (apparently) mid-80's Maserati BiTurbo being led off to quaff the Hemlock Tea. Beutiful black car- good condition and low miles but had an issue that would make it unexpectedly quit. (Well, now it will reliably quit!) Owner reportedly tried to sell it for awhile but gave up when C4C became a more profitable option.
drwebb, I saw that story bemoaned on a couple of auto forums. It was apparently one of those Biturbos with a blow-thru carb, you can imagine how well that worked... Consensus was the owner did the smart thing!
What I don't get is that he didn't strip any of the good stuff off the car?! All it needs to qualify is be drivable. They don't care if the radio, the instruments, etc are there.
What I don't get is that he didn't strip any of the good stuff off the car?! All it needs to qualify is be drivable. They don't care if the radio, the instruments, etc are there.
BrianPetersen
Mechanical
Probably there isn't a whole lot of a market for Maserati Biturbo OEM parts. Probably less than the market for a Maserati Biturbo itself. I saw that video ... it's a shame that someone could obviously care for a car like that for 20+ years, all to have it go straight to the squasher.
I would think the ricer boys would kill to have a Maserati trident on their trunk!
You're right tho, I was looking at these cars about 10 yrs ago, and they were shunned by the Maserati crowd as not "real" Masers, and their reliability problems were well known. Personally, I'd have swapped in a different engine before giving up on that black one.
You're right tho, I was looking at these cars about 10 yrs ago, and they were shunned by the Maserati crowd as not "real" Masers, and their reliability problems were well known. Personally, I'd have swapped in a different engine before giving up on that black one.
Hmmm so its not so much the destruction of the car thats important then, its the engine. I have a question for these brains that thought this one up. How much pollution is emitted from these hundreds of engines running to death? When if nothing was done to the traded car other than junk it, there would be no pollution from engine death runs. I don't see how that protects any environment. Nor does the extra mess that would make for a foundy in slag be helping either, I'm sure they like metal to be clean before dumping it into the pot, all this will do is make the job of keeping inclusions out of the steel harder to do.
- Thread starter
- #20
Dicer--depends on the melt process. Cupola melting can handle any variety of dirty scrap and the slagging process is continuous,with no operator intervention. Induction furnace melting, on the other hand, requires clean scrap, as slagging is a tedius process. Arc furnace melting can tolerate a variety of scrap.
- Status
