English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

this engine was developed at the same time as the catalyst exhaust, it gave out far less omissions, in fact ,less than government requirements for some years to come, but the politicians opted for the catalyst which has been a dismal failure.

2007-10-28 02:37:46 · 5 answers · asked by solosailor 3 in Cars & Transportation Other - Cars & Transportation

5 answers

The Rover co developed the Gas Turbine engine in the 60's i know this as where i used to work at Hull College actually had one on a test rig (it hadnt been used for years) what the asker is talking about is an extremely lean burn engine that used closed loop technology and was very effiecient due to fuel charge control and combustion chamber design, unfortunatley as per a lot of good british ideas it was not adopted, im not sure where the patents lie with it as it was a lot cleaner than the present engines

2007-10-29 07:10:54 · answer #1 · answered by gav552001 5 · 0 0

I think not motors with fuel injection converters and electronic engine management systems make more power than ever and emit less pollutants. Because British Leyland fell on hard times in the 90's it sold to BMW now I thought Proton, Malaysia company bought Lotus Rover and others. Next thing Volkswagon Will own Bugatti (oh they do) Manufactures are needing the next step by 2013 probably stratified charge internal combustion engine might get 10 to 13% better CO AND CO2 Emissions. Were about to the end of cars as we grew up with.

2007-10-28 02:52:43 · answer #2 · answered by John Paul 7 · 0 0

That is because the Yanks went for the, so called, catalyst and of course all the world has to do what the Yanks do whether it is good or bad. Like TSR2 which was superior to the Yankee plane of the 70's it will have been destroyed to placate the Yanks.

2007-10-28 03:18:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It was a gas turbine engine and it never was practical because it lacked the torque of a conventional engine... the governments had NOTHING to do with it's demise... it just wasn't practical from a commercial standpoint.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you are not welcome to your facts... and the FACTS are... it wasn't commercially viable.

2007-10-28 02:46:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Ask the oil producing lobbing companies

2007-10-28 02:58:43 · answer #5 · answered by The Rugby Player 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers