The External Combustion Engine for Automobiles

[Broomstick]

While wandering about the internet I somehow found myself in Jay Leno's garage* in the steam-powered section. Aside from this guy having such a huge car collection that he owns multiple steamers, to the point his garage has a "steam section", the video on how to start the Stanley Steamer is quite interesting. Remember that at the time both steam and electric power were better-selling options for automobile engines than the internal combustion engine.

* It actually started with a thread on another message board where someone asked about inbreeding, lead to the Habsburg Chin, then to Mr. Leno who sports a pretty good sized lower jaw himself, the factoid that Mr. Leno has the distinction of being the culprit in the oldest car on record that received a speeding ticket, and said car being one of his steam-powered collection of automobiles. This is why I love wandering the internet - you find yourself in the oddest and most interesting places!

here is the video embedded in a short article.

Well, after viewing that a few historical facts and customs start to make more sense. For example, rich people employing a professional driver - it wasn't because driving was all that hard (although prior to power steering some cars did require more effort to steer) but because starting the car could be a problem. Not to mention a lack of paved roads being rather hard on autos, the need for repairs without a repair shop on every corner, and the awkwardness of having to prep the vehicle in advance of driving away. Also, it becomes rather obvious why, once they solved that nasty ICE problem with the handcrank starter breaking one's forearm by using a more modern starter, at a certain point the ICE started to become more popular than the steam solution. Not to mention the possibility of exploding into flames either during the starting process or while driving added a certain daring excitement to the whole motoring experience that just isn't common these days outside of the NASCAR circuit and the Indianapolis 500.

But, after watching all that, and considering both the state of the art for internal combustion engine autos of the time as well as modern advances in various technologies if steam might be a viable motive force again. One obvious improvement would be the installation of an electrical system that could ignite the pilot light and do all that branch fork heating without the need for blow torches or open flames, providing a more consistent temperature control as well reducing the chances of great balls of fire rolling through one's garage or, worse yet, into one's face. Computer controlled temperature, pressure, fuel, and steam control would likely be much more efficient as well. A 21st Century steam car would have to have a body constructed much differently with many more safety features than the 1909 Steamer, like seat belts, air bags, and so forth which would add weight, but use of materials other than wood, as well as potentially increased engine efficiency, might negate any drawbacks from that. And enclosed cabin and some streamlining would also help efficiency considerably.

One thing I think is really neat about Jay Leno's car collection is that his cars work, they aren't just static museum pieces.

So what do you think? Could steampunk cars become viable once again?

Some more of Jay's steam cars: The 1906 Stanley referenced in the above video; 1907 White; 1925 Doble

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It completely depends on what we're using to fire the boiler. There is however a serious issue with steam powered cars--they're as dangerous as hydrogen cars or compressed natural gas cars because there's something under pressure on them which can explode with relative ease, the boiler. And jets of superheated steam can be invisible when they're the "burn your arm right off" intensity.

[frogcurry]

No, because they are inherently much less efficient than ICE's. Answered.

[Broomstick]

There is however a serious issue with steam powered cars--they're as dangerous as hydrogen cars or compressed natural gas cars because there's something under pressure on them which can explode with relative ease, the boiler. And jets of superheated steam can be invisible when they're the "burn your arm right off" intensity.

Well, supposedly the Stanley cars avoided that by the simple measure of not superheating the steam. They also used a lot of pressure-relief values and their boilers were constructed in such a manner that the seams would give way before an explosive pressure built up. This greatly increased their safety in the event of an accident, but the downside was less efficiency

No, because they are inherently much less efficient than ICE's. Answered.

Poo. You're no fun! Efficiency is not always the final determinant. The Dvorak typing keyboard, for example, is more efficient than the Qwerty keyboard, but it's the Qwerty that's standard.

It completely depends on what we're using to fire the boiler.

Ah, but if the petroleum runs out (or becomes prohibitively expensive)....

The steam cars owned by Jay Leno run their burners on kerosene, gasoline, and heating oil, all of which are petroleum based. What could take the place of those? Is it possible to, for example, use alcohol to fuel the burners if petroleum fuels are not available? Are there fuels impractical for ICE that would be usable with an ECE engine? What about biodiesel? Could a steam car outperform an electric or a gas/electric hybrid?

I'm also thinking about niche applications. Trucks that haul stuff, for example - as Leno points out in one video, in a sense these are train engines with no tracks, and they run best at a steady speed over long distances. Would these have an application for long-haul trucking? What about heavy farm machinery?

[Stark]

Poo. You're no fun! Efficiency is not always the final determinant. The Dvorak typing keyboard, for example, is more efficient than the Qwerty keyboard, but it's the Qwerty that's standard.

How is this comparable? The Dvorak isn't popular because of changeover costs and training, just like we COULD make a far better system to represent Chinese words in the English alphabet but we'd never retrain everyone to use it so we live with the misleading systems we have now.

I believe you can build ICEs to run on a wide variety of fuels; an external combustion engine's only real advantage is it can literally be fed by anything that burns. So long as there are cheap, portable fuels, it's not competitive.

[Broomstick]

Poo. You're no fun! Efficiency is not always the final determinant. The Dvorak typing keyboard, for example, is more efficient than the Qwerty keyboard, but it's the Qwerty that's standard.

How is this comparable? The Dvorak isn't popular because of changeover costs and training, just like we COULD make a far better system to represent Chinese words in the English alphabet but we'd never retrain everyone to use it so we live with the misleading systems we have now.

They are both examples where more efficient systems are not adopted - changeover costs being a factor. Likewise, in the US diesel cars never seem to make market headway despite being at least as efficient and despite possible advantages, and I suspect it's because gasoline cars are so entrenched in US society, as well as fuel supply infrastructure for cars being so overwhelming geared to supplying gasoline as a fuel. Changeover costs for one or the other example might be greater or lesser than another example, but it is certainly a factor in why some technologies don't change for a long while.

I believe you can build ICEs to run on a wide variety of fuels; an external combustion engine's only real advantage is it can literally be fed by anything that burns. So long as there are cheap, portable fuels, it's not competitive.

But "anything that burns" isn't necessarily efficient, some burnables work better than others. I have trouble envisioning a steam engine running on straw and old newspaper. They have, however, run on wood, coal, and various oils. It's not just what fuel is most efficient, it's also what fuel is available and the cost of various fuels.

IF the petroleum runs out, would ECE engines, particularly those able to use a variety of fuels (as opposed to the more specialized burners on the cars in the OP) make sense? Or would we move to ICE's that run on natural gas (assume it's biologically produced) or biodiesel or vegetable oils or various alcohols?

Can you imagine a situation where steam engines might make a come back? Not that they entirely disappeared - steam turbines are still used to generate electricity in some applications, after all. Nuclear reactors, for instance.

C'mon, play along, use your imagination. No, I don't think we'll really see steam cars return in our lifetimes, but exercise your brain a little bit. What would have to occur for steam cars (or long-haul trucks, or whatever) to make a comeback, or to be practical?

[Stark]

Even in countries where diesel is relatively popular, people still buy new 'turbodiesels' with 'diesel only' written ON THE GAS CAP and they still fill it with gas and have to call the automotive assistance... so... people are just dumb there.

ECEs don't have to have open, brazier-like flames and you can use crappy fuels to create high steam temperatures using the right sort of oven (or whatever they call the fire-containing part ). However, most of the 'good' fuels for an ECE can be converted into liquid fuels which are more portable.

And I believe ECEs never stopped being used in some places - like remote Russia - where infrastructure is very poor and natural fuel sources are available.

[Broomstick]

Even in countries where diesel is relatively popular, people still buy new 'turbodiesels' with 'diesel only' written ON THE GAS CAP and they still fill it with gas and have to call the automotive assistance... so... people are just dumb there.

What I meant was that in your typical fueling station in the US there is simply no diesel available. At all. Period. Truck stops have diesel, but their pumps and equipment are sized to 18-wheeler sized machines, not the family car. You can certainly take your family car their as they will sell you the fuel, but a lot of people don't like waiting in line between long-haul rigs that are of a size to regard a standard sedan as a minor speed bump, not to mention that truck stops are frequently located in (relatively) shady areas in some regions, further discouraging them as family fueling stops. It's not a matter of people putting the wrong fuel in the tank, it's that the infrastructure is not friendly towards diesel cars whereas gasoline infrastructure is.

That said, in the past decade diesel that accommodates cars HAS become more common in the US. More truck stops have made an effort to cater to cars and families than they did 20 or 30 years ago (they discovered the money making potential, I presume). When I've visited Michigan over the past few years I was surprised to find diesel commonly available at standard filling stations for cars (which makes me think that at least in Detroit diesel cars are making inroads) although I haven't seen that in Indiana or Illinois. On the other hand, I see E85 fuel for sale a lot more often in Indiana farm country than I do in urban Chicago. Clearly, the US is starting to diversify how it fuels its cars.

Beyond that - one possible fix for the wrong-fuel-in-the-tank problem is to make the dispensing nozzles different and incompatible shapes. It is much harder to misfuel the vehicle if you can't physically put the nozzle in the tank. Of course, idiots being what they are, some jackass is going to try it anyway and fuel his shoes and the pavement instead of his car, but perhaps there could be some sort of safety system to prevent that.

[Stark]

Oh I see. I dimly remember that here and in NZ; the diesel pump would stand off by itself round the back of the apron where only commercial vehicles would use it. When diesel was 50% the cost of petrol it became more popular back in the 90s, but it's still rare for it to be on the same pump as unleaded/e10/premium.

Frankly, the 'wrong fuel problem' isn't a problem. If you're stupid enough to buy a $80,000 4x4 with 'DIESEL' written on it in five places (including the gas cap) and then just stupidly use the same damn hose you always have, you get to pay for assistance to pump it out again and if you drive on it you might even get to pay for an engine repair. Diesel is a primary, always-mentioned selling point (to the point where it's almost always a part of the fucking model number) so it's just pure stupidity and laziness. When I worked at a gas station I seriously 100% saw people try to pump petrol into LPG cars. I'm not making that up.

LPG CARS DON'T HAVE A FUCKING HOLE TO PUT THE NOZZLE IN. People just pumped gas over the side of their car, because 'thats how you fill up a car'.

[aerius]

C'mon, play along, use your imagination. No, I don't think we'll really see steam cars return in our lifetimes, but exercise your brain a little bit. What would have to occur for steam cars (or long-haul trucks, or whatever) to make a comeback, or to be practical?

Mad Max or something along those lines that wipes out modern infrastructure.

Even if every drop of oil was magic'd away we still wouldn't go to wood or coal fired steam cars since it's an inefficient, nasty, and unreliable way to run a small vehicle. Even on a large vehicle like a steam locomotive, there's a lot more maintenance & checks required than on a diesel locomotive, and with the miniaturization & weight issues of a car it'll likely become even more of a headache. We would start making biofuels & running large coal to oil conversion projects along with making fuel cell & electric cars long before we go back to making steamers, the only reason I see for making steamers is if our technology base gets destroyed to the point where we can't make a modern replacement for ICE vehicles.

[Simplicius]

I can only see steam powered personal vehicles in the absence of anything better. Imagine having to schedule your trips to include getting a head of steam up before you go anywhere, or tending the car until it was so prepared in the middle of winter - gives a whole new meaning to 'cold start.' Really the only totally awesome part of steam cars that I wouldn't mind seeing revived are the steam whistles that they use instead of horns. Nothing says 'Get out of the way' like a nice brass whistle going BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, and the sound is vastly less irritating than the dissonance of a car horn.

What is more interesting than the Stanley and its kin is the surprisingly large market share held by pure battery powered cars, before gasoline came to dominate. It it not at all hard to imagine that in the absence of cheap and readily-obtainable gasoline the electric car will remain as a viable and effective alternative.

[Singular Intellect]

Beyond that - one possible fix for the wrong-fuel-in-the-tank problem is to make the dispensing nozzles different and incompatible shapes. It is much harder to misfuel the vehicle if you can't physically put the nozzle in the tank.

Dear me, and Americans have the audacity to think Canada is behind the times compared to them?

Seriously, we already have that system in place. A diesel nozzle doesn't fit in a gas car's receptacle.

[TheLostVikings]

C'mon, play along, use your imagination. No, I don't think we'll really see steam cars return in our lifetimes, but exercise your brain a little bit. What would have to occur for steam cars (or long-haul trucks, or whatever) to make a comeback, or to be practical?

If you mean steam cars as in "big boiler" steam locomotive style the answer is never. Regular ICE cars can run on anything that burns too with the addition of an gasifier. And this was used during WW2 because of the gas shortages, so it's well proven (and much improved) tech by now.

[Broomstick]

I can only see steam powered personal vehicles in the absence of anything better. Imagine having to schedule your trips to include getting a head of steam up before you go anywhere, or tending the car until it was so prepared in the middle of winter - gives a whole new meaning to 'cold start.'

Actually, they had solved that problem by 1925 - the Doble car was started with a key and was ready to drive off in under a minute. If you click on the link and watch the video Leno goes over some of that.

[Drooling Iguana]

Seeing as how even trains are run on ICEs these days I don't see how a steam-powered car could be made practical.

Still, that '07 Stanley looks awesome. I've got to get me one of those.

[Sea Skimmer]

Steam powered cars suck. Steam powered delivery trucks however had certain advantages that allowed them to persist in widespread use all the way up until the Second World War. Among them was the ability to actually burn cleaner and run quitter then 1930s gasoline trucks, which had bad mufflers and no emissions controls whatsoever.

Had the Second World War not halted production of the handful of models still being built, and flooded the market with surplus war vehicles, its possible steam would have persisted into the 1950s. I can’t see how it could have ever lasted past then though, ICEs improved too rapidly in power to weight ratio.

Seeing as how even trains are run on ICEs these days I don't see how a steam-powered car could be made practical.

Some specialist steam locomotives are still used even in the highly developed world, mainly fireless boiler locomotives (boiling water is recharged from a static boiler) which are used in chemical plants to avoid any risk of sparks that might trigger explosions. Diesels are awful in this respect, as burning carbon buildup can be blown out the exhaust at any time. Such locomotives are also sometimes used in steel plants which make very high quality products, the exhaust of the locomotive cannot be allowed to contaminate the product as it would add carbon. Having a shunting locomotive that spews out nothing but steam solves that problem.

Steam locomotives could have persisted much longer in mainline service, several prototypes built in Argentina and South Africa in the 1970s proved that by applying modern design methods and temperature controls to steam most of the disadvantages of the locomotives compared to diesels (like very high manpower intensive cleaning requirements) could be eliminated. Coal prices have risen less then 1/15th as much as oil prices have risen since dieselization occurred full scale in the 1960s too. But no one was ever interested, steam sounded too backwards to even get considered and western railways were getting creamed by trucks at the time.

Its amazing that China, which kept producing new steam locomotives until I think 1998, not only didn’t adapt the improvements developed by South Africa but also basically didn’t change its locomotive designs at all. They just kept making clones of 1940s designs. Figures that a communist locomotive plant would be conservative but still.