smkettner wrote:
Lessmore wrote:
The 4.3 Chevy didn't do the heavy work of moving 80,000 lbs of load....the electric motor did that. The Chevy engine charged the batteries that powered the electric motor.
I am thinking that 4.3 was running close to flat out during most practical use. Sure they could turn it off as a demonstration in a proof of concept. Moving 60,000+ pounds across country that 4.3 is not going to get a rest.
If I recall...and it was a long time ago I read the article...the industrial Chevy 4.3 was tuned and governed to run at 2000 rpm.
I understand your point though, that if it (4.3) had to run constantly to charge the batteries, when the truck was moving...it might be lucky to get around 22-25 mpg at a constant 2000 rpm . Maybe.
But even at 20-25 MPG and being the sole liquid fuel engine on the truck, that would be better than the 7-8 MPG (my guess) that the large 12-15 liter truck diesel would get, that the 4.3liter Chevy would replace.
However, if the small gas engine would have to continue to run to charge the batteries, when the highway tractor was stationary of course that would eat into the overall MPG. However perhaps an electrical plug in charger, could substitute as the charging system's power source at that point.
As with any newer system there would be 'bugs' to work out. But I do think emulating a railway diesel-electrical system for highway use, could potentially realize savings.
