Mazda 6 Forums banner

21 - 40 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
It sounds like something that if it did exist it would already be available for more cars.
It does exist. Car companies have been tinkering with this for over two decades. There exists a military diesel that will run on gasoline. Not well, but it will run.

The problems are with combustion stability and that means, in the modern world, emissions. It's not an easy problem to solve or it would have been done a long time ago. But physics says it's not impossible -- just hard.

Hybrid tax credits make that path "easier" and less risky -- until they expire. They have expired for some models already -- the main Prius line being one of them. Those tax credits make the consumer think he's getting a good deal, but in fact he's not -- he's buying a pig in a poke, because the long-term operating cost is quite high. If he gets rid of the car before that hits him, so much to the good for him, but not for the next guy.

My '03 Jetta Diesel wagon can return an honest 50mpg on the highway at reasonable speed. It has posted a lifetime average fuel economy of ~43mpg (!) over more than 200,000 miles. I can count on my fingers the number of tanks that it has consumed and returned under 40mpg. However, it can't meet current emissions. The additional crap required to do so is (1) expensive to install, (2) expensive to maintain and (3) introduces additional high-cost failure possibilities that, out-of-warranty, can destroy the economic value of the vehicle. In addition all that crap harms fuel economy enough that the balance no longer makes sense. Thus I refused to buy a "more modern" diesel. But my '03 will out-haul, out-mileage, radically out-perform and outlast a Prius -- it's got over 200k on the clock now with zero failures, requiring only routine maintenance, and STILL gets 50mpg on the highway at reasonable speeds. It lacks (by a lot!) the "6"'s consideration to aerodynamics.

An HCCI-engined "6" will hit that number. It's not THAT far from where I am now; ~37mpg @ 70mph on flat highway; actual full-tank numbers have hit 41mpg @ 63ish mph. 20% efficiency improvement gets me into the mid-40s @70mph. Back off the throttle a bit or get another 5-10% and you're there.

Find me a hybrid 4-door sedan in the same size class that can return 50mpg on the highway. You can't but Mazda is within spitting distance of doing it if HCCI works. The "3", a smaller car, should be able to hit the mid 50s.

Yeah.

Oh, and like all compression-ignition engines there's no mileage penalty from forced induction for additional power (up to the point the engine physically fails due to overstress) unless you use it. This means that Mazda can produce 300hp+ versions of that engine that STILL return 50mpg on the EPA cycle. No, they won't get that kind of economy with a leaded right foot, but you sure as hell will get a big GRIN in exchange for the loss of fuel economy. How do I know? My '03 has materially more power than it did when originally delivered and yet if you don't use it the penalty exacted for that in fuel economy is a literal ZERO, and I didn't go very far because I didn't want to replace the final drive and clutch. Nonetheless the difference from stock in that car when the boost comes on is NOT subtle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
The problem is that none of these engines will enjoy a major R&D opportunity at this point - especially for stock cars.

Everything transitions to a an engine system that provides more power with less components: Electric.

Everyone is following the one that showed that you can shape consumer perception and make it actual working.

I am not talking about the 30 miles range disasters but the 200-300 miles range cars like the Chevy Bolt that follow suit to Tesla.

Hybrids are basically dead - any car maker still doing research in hybrid technology didn't get the message: Electric car work even when scaled and most modern gas engine can easily compete with the hybrid technologies considering tech VS cost VS energy.

I bet in 3 generations from now you won't even see major gasoline engines in stock cars anymore - those become the rarity. In 5-6 generations they might completely disappear as technology in electric cars evolve and reach the next barriers.

Tesla probably already works on the 1000 miles range car.

Wait until the electric corvette goes into production - the darn thing already broke records with end speeds of 186mph and 700HP with a distance of 140 miles during normal drive.

You always have to consider these factors:

1) less parts -> better for business
2) less maintenance -> better for business
3) less cost -> better for business
4) less complicated technology -> better for business
5) Charge more because it's the new cool thing -> better for business

Remember that initial Tesla's cost 120k+ - after 2years they are at base price of $57k and the Model 3 is introduced with a 35k price tag...

Price is going down .. cost is going down .. that's the only facts u need to consider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
The problem is that none of these engines will enjoy a major R&D opportunity at this point - especially for stock cars.

Everything transitions to a an engine system that provides more power with less components: Electric.

Everyone is following the one that showed that you can shape consumer perception and make it actual working.

I am not talking about the 30 miles range disasters but the 200-300 miles range cars like the Chevy Bolt that follow suit to Tesla.

Hybrids are basically dead - any car maker still doing research in hybrid technology didn't get the message: Electric car work even when scaled and most modern gas engine can easily compete with the hybrid technologies considering tech VS cost VS energy.

I bet in 3 generations from now you won't even see major gasoline engines in stock cars anymore - those become the rarity. In 5-6 generations they might completely disappear as technology in electric cars evolve and reach the next barriers.

Tesla probably already works on the 1000 miles range car.

Wait until the electric corvette goes into production - the darn thing already broke records with end speeds of 186mph and 700HP with a distance of 140 miles during normal drive.

You always have to consider these factors:

1) less parts -> better for business
2) less maintenance -> better for business
3) less cost -> better for business
4) less complicated technology -> better for business
5) Charge more because it's the new cool thing -> better for business

Remember that initial Tesla's cost 120k+ - after 2years they are at base price of $57k and the Model 3 is introduced with a 35k price tag...

Price is going down .. cost is going down .. that's the only facts u need to consider.
Except that basically none of that is actually true.

Remove the subsidies and come talk to me about Tesla, cost and everything else related.

HIDING complicated technology from the user doesn't make something less-complex. Drinking promoter's Kool-Aid is a bad idea, all-in.

Tesla is, economically analyzed, a tax farm -- not a car company. Remove the tax farm aspect and the firm would have been bankrupt long ago. That Musk delivers a few cars (compared against scale) doesn't mean he can deliver MILLIONS of cars annually.

Believing that trees grow to the sky doesn't make it true.

The problems are not solvable in the end because they're physics-related.

We don't use liquid hydrocarbons because we're pigs. We use them because nobody has found a way to get 110,000 BTUs in 6lbs of mass and 1 gallon of volume that can be filled in seconds via any other means, and nothing on the horizon threatens to change that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,084 Posts
When it comes to the Electric Vehicle argument, people seem to forget one thing: Multi-Family Dwellings. I don't see property managers providing charging stations to each and every tenant in an apartment complex... or to anyone at all for that matter. That would require trenching and increased electrical service (which may end up with them having to re-pull utility wires if the demand is too much). Forget about running an extension cord, as that is prohibited in just about any lease agreement. So where would apartment and townhouse dwellers go to recharge?

Speaking of, as of 2020 all new home construction in California must be ZNE (Zero Net Energy), meaning they have to be sustainable off-the-grid. It makes me wonder if California factored in EV recharging as part of the ZNE equation. As much as people love to point out that EVs need no fuel, you still need an electrical source (hydroelectric, solar, windpower, etc) to charge the car. There is still a carbon footprint involved.

I'm holding high hopes for HCCI and I still think that Hydrogen is a viable solution once the infrastructure begins to unfold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
Hydrogen is not a viable alternative because of its energy density. It is a great fuel however it's a bitch to compress to usable size for BTU content and because it is a very small molecule it leaks like crazy both during compression and while in storage -- thus the costs to seal against that are extremely high.

Let me further point out that liquid hydrocarbons are infinitely renewable. You can make them from any carbon source -- including CO2 in the air. The Germans perfected this process during WWII. The reason we don't do it today is economic -- it is cheaper to drill and extract than to Fischer-Tropsch out of CO2 and water vapor (for the hydrogen), but nothing prohibits doing the latter other than cost. In fact this process is in commercial use right now in places where they have a lot of coal but no liquids (e.g. parts of South Africa.) There are hybrid models for this process involving nuclear as the energy source (thorium from coal, using process heat to drive conversion and the remaining heat to make electricity) that would provide us with a stable hydrocarbon fuel source along with electrical generation for roughly the next 500 years on known and proved reserves inside the US alone, and that allows for our current organic and immigration population growth.

There is no free lunch. All energy conversions involve loss. The more conversions, the more loss because they are multiplicative. Thermodynamics is not a series of suggestions, it is a body of physical law; those who claim to have violated the laws of thermodynamics are either charlatans or they have re-written everything we know about the physical world. Those who claim it's the latter have the (very heavy) burden of proof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
What do you do for a living tickerguy? If that's not too personal of a question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
Sounds like Mazda was closer to applying this technology to their cars than we had anticipated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
I'm guessing nothing based on the length of every one of his/her posts.


If that's just a bad joke, whatever......but I consider him one of the more knowledgeable posters on the forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
Type "ban gasoline and diesel engines" into Google and look at the wave of countries getting ready to ban the sale of new petrol engines. The world is going electric whether we want to or not. This is something that will happen in less than 50 years, more likely 20 years. I doubt they are going to turn off the pumps, but they will likely punish you with crazy gas prices and they will likely incentivise heavily turning in your petrol car for a shiny new electric.

We have passed the peak of what will actually be done with petrol engines in my opinion. Manufacturers are getting ready, some like Volvo are doing it NOW, to switch to all electrics. There is no fighting this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Type "ban gasoline and diesel engines" into Google and look at the wave of countries getting ready to ban the sale of new petrol engines. The world is going electric whether we want to or not. This is something that will happen in less than 50 years, more likely 20 years. I doubt they are going to turn off the pumps, but they will likely punish you with crazy gas prices and they will likely incentivise heavily turning in your petrol car for a shiny new electric.

We have passed the peak of what will actually be done with petrol engines in my opinion. Manufacturers are getting ready, some like Volvo are doing it NOW, to switch to all electrics. There is no fighting this.
But are they just playing a shell game? There is increased pollution with battery manufacturing and disposal, and creating the electricity to charge the batteries. For a country heavy into nuclear power, or one in the future that's heavy into wind or solar, PLUS a robust recycling program, it probably does make a significant improvement. But for countries still burning coal to generate electricity and without a robust recycling program, Mazda's HCCI technology might actually be better for the environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
There is more money for the government if they get electric cars passed than to keep regulating a dying technology.

I also believe that at the start it will be pollution neutral as in the change in pollution. It should be easier to reduce overall emissions with electric cars, but we ARE talking about the government, they can screw up anything, even if you give it to them in plain simple terms.

The main reason we should be "worried" about the gas engine is that a major company, Volvo, is already going to phase out petrol engines in passenger cars by 2020. They have publicly committed to this. Add in that the EU wants it and it is inevitable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,084 Posts
We have passed the peak of what will actually be done with petrol engines in my opinion. Manufacturers are getting ready, some like Volvo are doing it NOW, to switch to all electrics. There is no fighting this.
Except Volvo isn't really going full electric in 2019. They will still have a hybrid, so I think there's some subversion in their claim. Electrification still has carbon footprint. After all, where does the electricity come from? Hydroelectric? Nuclear? COAL? Sure, the EV itself might not have emissions, but what about the facilities that transmit the electricity to be used by the chargers? I also think people are so hyped up by all this 'Chicken Little' talk regarding 'climate change' or 'global warming' (or whatever buzzword they want to use now) that they grasp straws without really thinking about the wide scale feasibility. How do you install chargers at apartment complexes? Do they think the property management companies are going to do it voluntarily?

While humans do have some effect on the atmospheric condition of Earth, I also think what we're experiencing is more cyclical in relation to the Earth's history. We as humans have been around maybe 10,000yrs at most and at best have 3000yrs of documented history that's reliable. The Earth supposedly has been around for billions of years. It's already been proven that the magnetic poles reverse on a rhythmic basis (and may be starting a reversal now, hence some of the weather patterns of late). I always revert to George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine" diatribe to show just how little we really know.

Anyhow, I'll step off my ecology soapbox.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
There is more money for the government if they get electric cars passed than to keep regulating a dying technology.
Is there? I thought state governments were fretting about the reductions in gas taxes due to cars burning less gasoline. Taxes that funded road maintenance.

The main reason we should be "worried" about the gas engine is that a major company, Volvo, is already going to phase out petrol engines in passenger cars by 2020. They have publicly committed to this. Add in that the EU wants it and it is inevitable.
This Volvo thing seems to be routinely misrepresented. My mother-in-law said the same thing you're saying. But this is the quote I'm seeing: "Depending on demand, Volvo will completely phase out cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel by around 2024."

That means hybrid cars WITH gasoline engines will probably still be in their lineup well after 2024.

I think Volvo is doing this because they don't have the R&D funds to develop BOTH electrics and next-gen IC engines. Same reason Mazda is focusing only on IC engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
941 Posts
I'm no environmentalist nor do I agree with the forced electrification of cars. I don't believe that electrics are better to the environment.

What I do believe that once the governments of the world make up their minds, we have little to do but follow what they say. This will be a forced change, just a matter of when. This is going to happen much sooner than later, the EU is posturing very heavily towards pushing this and no one can deny that the EU believes in world governance. The US/North American market can survive on it's own to some extent and is not tied to the EU so it's another variable that many people are not considering.

I don't believe we are killing the planet, but we are, by definition. parasites and we are abusing the resources we have available.

States and governments will get their tax money back with subsidies and the massive rise in electric bills, these cars do have to be charged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
A wholesale banning of gasoline engines would have extraordinary economic repercussions that the United States won't be able to recover from. The value of the US dollar and its role as the world's de facto reserve currency is inextricably tied to it being used as the primary settlement currency for oil transactions. When the petrodollar dies, demand for dollars collapses, along with the value of the currency with it. With so many foreign central banks, sovereign wealth funds, corporations, pension funds, etc. holding US dollars and US Treasuries in reserve, a lot of the world's wealth will evaporate.

Additionally, I doubt electricity prices can rise enough for governments to recover all of the lost tax revenue that comes from gasoline sales - there's too much of a gap to be bridged, and if prices rise significantly from where they are today, local (non-taxable) power generation via residential solar, wind, etc. will become more viable (...reducing purchased demand from utilities and reducing tax collection). Not to mention that raising electricity rates to match gas revenues means that the primary economic incentive for consumers to switch to electric cars goes away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Additionally, raising electricity rates to match gas revenues means the economic incentive for consumers to switch to electric goes away.
I read at least one expert's opinion that a reduction in demand for gasoline of even 10-20% due to increased acceptance of electric vehicles will cause oil prices to crater and consequently gas prices to fall to $1 a gallon or less. When that happens, along with increased electricity rates or taxes, we'll see how many people hang on to their electric cars. Assuming I.C. cars are still legal to buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
Mazda, I'd sure bite for an electric Mazda6 anytime (someday), granted, that it can be had..with a manual transmission..Hahah.
 
21 - 40 of 77 Posts
About this Discussion
76 Replies
19 Participants
Scoobyrx
Mazda 6 Forums
Mazda6club.com is a forum dedicated to the Mazda6 / Atenza. Come and discuss reliability, performance, modifications, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top