There are several people here with facts, but I think nobody has everything exactly right. I hope I can add some clarity. As for oil, I believe its primary cooling ability would be from reducing friction. Since it doesn't vaporize until actual combustion (at least the best oils do), then it can't cool the engine by absorbing heat in a vaporization process. Gasoline in liquid form will reach ambient temperature. IOW, like any substance that remains liquid at ambient temps it will reach equilibrium with the outside air. So you can put a thermometer in a gallon of gas but it won't be any cooler than the outside air in which it's been stored. The reason it feels cool on your skin sometimes, I'm sure, is because it is evaporating (probably parts of it, while some components of it get left behind). That's a vaporization process, and just like water that's drying off of you it will cool your skin. So that brings us to gasoline and vaporization. Yes, gasoline does have a cooling effect as it vaporizes in the carburetor. Since it's not the most complete vaporization in the venturi of the carb, I _think_ it probably keeps vaporizing as it enters the hot crankcase and chamber and keeps absorbing heat until it is really well vaporized. I can't put a number on it, but it is going to correlate to gasoline's specific gravity (and different blends have different SGs, to the point that one way they test racing gas to see if a driver cheater is to test the SG of whatever is in his tank) and the amount of fuel being vaporized. It is significant, and you can see this by looking at the new direct-fuel-injection cars coming out from Audi/VW and soon Cadillac and others. They are suddenly getting away with much higher compression ratios in those cars: 12:1 for a naturally aspirated VW and 10.3:1 for my _turbocharged_ VW, for instance. That is almost entirely due to charge cooling from the injected gasoline's fast vaporization. I find it hard to believe that varying the oil ratio would significantly affect the cooling from vaporization unless we are talking about some ridiculously high ratio of oil (like below 10:1), but I'd be open to data showing otherwise. Likewise, I'd be surprised to see a big decrease in cooling from a reduction of friction unless we are talking about really high oil ratios. And I think at that point you would have real wear to worry about from high friction - i.e., the heat and friction will be taking their toll on the engine together. I'd think the cheaper engines with plain bearings would be more susceptible than good engines with full ball bearings. Again, I'm open to being proven wrong (i.e., learning). But one thing that isn't true is that carb icing in a plane is mainly due to cooling from gasoline's vaporization. I'm sure it contributes a little, but the main reason for it is the rapid acceleration of intake air through the venturi of the carb. That also causes cooling and concurrantly lowers the air pressure such that humidity in the air condenses. Normally it's no big deal, but if the conditions are cold enough and wet enough that condensation will freeze. This could happen on a car or any carbureted engine, but it's more likely in a plane due to the conditions in which they fly. As for combustion temps and air:fuel ratios, it is true that leaner is hotter up to a point. If the total exhaust temp goes up as you lean out an engine, then you must be making more power. So up to a point leaning an engine out isn't bad. I _think_ the damage comes from incomplete combustion that creates hot spots with overly lean settings. At that point, only part of the exhaust is hotter, and the total exhaust probably come down but certain parts of the chamber and piston get too hot. This would also correspond to less power output and erratic running (surge, anyone?). Going back to piston aviation engines, most have manual mixture controls that a pilot can adjust in flight. It is routine and spelled out in most operating manuals that for best economy (but not best power) the pilot should actually lean out the mixture 50* lean of peak exhaust temperature. This is considered safe, but if the pilot wants full power (which is only achievable at lower altitudes, btw) then he would need a richer mixture for safety and power. I think I hit all the highlights, and I hope this is helpful.

It is said that as the last century was that of oil, this century will be that of natural gas. And the prophecy might indeed come true what with the latest discoveries of shale gas in many regions in the world, especially North America. For instance, let's look at this post on the shale gas race from the EAI Blog: "There is currently a shale gas mania, with analysts predicting that shale gas based natural gas could become the leading energy component in the US and perhaps in countries like India too, in a decade from now. Reliance obviously is not the first to make major acquisitions in this area. Dec 2009 � ExxonMobil bought shale gas assets of XTO Energy for $30 billion Jan 2010 � French oil company Total SA shale assets from Chesapeake Energy for $2.6 billion Apr 2010 � Reliance bought 40% stake in Atlas Energy�s shale gas field for $1.7 billion May 2010 � Royal Dutch Shell bought a majority stake in East Resources for $4.7 billion What are the Next Steps if I am Interested in the Solar PV Industry? Know more from the Solar PV Advisor June 2010 � Reliance buys a stake in Pioneer Natural Resources for $1.35 billion " That's a lot of acquisitions within just a year, for such a new area. It just points once again to the tremendous amount of excitement in the market regarding the potential of shale gas. At the same time, there are a few analysts and industry professionals who feel that the optimism for shale gas is exaggerated. They feel that all is not rosy for shale gas, and that it is quite likely that the costs of shale gas will be much than what are being projected. While that may well be the case, right now, there is no denying that shale gas (and natural gas in general) is having its finest moment and more acquisitions and investments can be expected for the next one year or so in this domain. Here is a link that might be useful: Shale Gas

We've lived in our 1997 single wide (16x80) for 7 years. For the first couple we were in a mobile home park and then moved it to our own property. Within the last couple of years we have done some remodeling work. We had to replace the walk-in shower in the master bath and had to go to a Mobile Home Supply store for that (fortunately my nephew is the owner and we were able to get his pricing). The rest of the items we've replaced have been standard from Lowe's or Home Depot: -replaced the plastic sink and faucet in master bath with ceramic sink and stainless faucet -replaced plastic sink in kitchen with single bowl stainless, replaced the faucet & added an under counter water filter (just a week ago!) -replaced all light fixtures and ceiling fans with standard fixtures/fans -replaced some of the light switches with standard ones -replaced almost all of the door knobs (inside doors and outside doors) with standard brushed nickel one We have added beadboard in both baths, the back door hallway and as a backsplash in the kitchen. We've textured and painted. Changed all cabinet hinges and pulls in kitchen and both baths. So far in two years, we haven't had any problems with cracking walls. We are working now on the living room and hall - texturing and painting. We've replaced bathroom flooring with vinyl and just a few weeks ago, put Allure Trafficmaster wood look vinyl in the kitchen. Everyone who walks in (we use the back door mostly) comments on how it doesn't even look like a mobile home (I call it my cottage - my really long, shotgun cottage - lol) We plan on being here a very long time and are very pleased with the quality of our home. I've added a link to see some of the pictures of what we've done. I don't have pictures of my new kitchen sink yet. I hope you enjoy your home.

Our MH is in an over-55 snowbird cooperative on water in Florida, so they're the only MH population I'm familiar with. Just a short time ago, almost no one was there year-round, now more seem to be. Our neighbors to the left are making extensive changes of the sort you imagine, new everything inside and out, house-grade finishes, new kitchen, etc. The ones across the road are just doing a cosmetic fixup for their own pleasure, but they won't be there full time. And, let's face it, MHs will not give the best return for investment, which is best kept quite modest if that's a consideration. For most, I'm guessing it's a big one. The most common significant upgrade here seems to be to house-grade insulated windows -- for comfort. Other than that, only speculation, but, as already suggested elsewhere, our over-55ers are people who've fussed over homes elsewhere already or still are, putting lots of money, and energy and caring into those. As in been there/done that? A lot of our retired people probably just aren't interested in having to worry about things so much. And if you put money in them, you start caring, right? There is the checkbook issue, of course. Many of our snowbirds have means and could invest, while others are likely on pretty fixed budgets. It'll be interesting to see what those who actually do downsize to a MH in Florida will do in future; I'm guessing some genuine gussying up for some. For us, and this doesn't apply to a lot of people, of course, but, although we're considering someday moving down there full time, we won't invest much in a MH that could be carried off in a bad storm. If the whole park were badly affected, owners might just choose to sell the land to a hotel developer, and the MH value would be virtually nil. The average value of the old MHs in our park is probably about $2k. :) Very tidily maintained, beautiful views, but most haven't been to code for a long time, and no one's trying to impress anyone. Since we're in a SPLOSH 1 zone (baby hurricane would swamp us) on a coast, this is more real to us than to many, but I sort of suspect MHs' particular vulnerability to serious damage might at least be a factor in the back of some minds. Our best furniture would go to our kids, not with us. Our park might strike you as far from the sort of situation you're asking about, but it is a population with at least some money who are investing very little of it in the MHs they live in several months a year, even though buying in required a larger investment for the land initially.