Automobile Technology Thread

[dragontamer5788]

The other "car" topics around these forums are too specific for my tastes. I'd like a general "car" topic.

I've got my own set of (very strong) opinions of course. I'm generally against large Li-ion batteries, but like the idea of electric. I think PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrids) are the best "green" technology in existence given today's tradeoffs and am hyped for Hydrogen Fuel Cells on the high-end (trucks). But these common "flamewar" topics barely scratch the surface... we could be talking about many other cool things in the car world.

Ford has their 3-piston engine, a miracle as far as I'm concerned. Its damn near impossible for my brain to figure out how 3-pistons can fire without going off balance. This is ~10 years old at this point (

), but still exciting to me. Its low-end technology (only really available on base-models), but just as we techies are often interested in "Intel Atoms" or "AMD Bobcat" cores, I do think that advances on the low-cost market are still interesting to talk about! Maybe 120 HP engines aren't the most interesting or "wow" thing to discuss, but its still technology.

"Heads Up Displays", usually a projector onto the windshield (but other versions exist), allowing for GPS Navigation + Speed instructions beamed directly to the viewing area, allowing the driver to keep their eyes on the road. Though the screen is low-fidelity, it still contains useful information and seems like it'd be helpful.

I don't know when this happened... but Heads-up display technology seems to have suddenly become a universal upgrade. I've seen models from BMW, Volvo, GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan... almost everybody seems to have it, albeit at pretty high prices (usually only the highest trims have it, and only if you pay another $1500 USD for it to boot, or maybe +$7000 USD above the base model)

------

Apple Car Play? Android Auto? I have seen my friends use these technologies to integrate their phone into their cars better, but my car is too old so I've never got to play with them myself. Does anyone have experiences or opinions on their implementation?

Of course: there's Transmissions. CVT, Manual, traditional Automatic, torque converters. Hybrids, PHEVs, and Mild-Hybrids are removing the torque converter these days (!!!), because electric engines are very powerful at 0 RPMs. It seems like mild-hybrid technology is more reliable, and even the most "pragmatic" of cars will be using "electric engine torque converters" instead of traditional ones soon. These mild-hybrids can completely turn the engine off at idle and auto stop/start technology. Apparently their gear shifting is a bit slower, but its an interesting set of tradeoffs for sure (one less thing in the drivetrain, meaning better efficiency under normal circumstances). I'm sure people out there have opinions on this tech!

----

Just a few topics that I felt like bringing up in general, to get the discussion started. The car technology world is incredibly big, it seems like a shame to just only be having flamewars over EVs vs Hydrogen or whatever. We should be having flamewars over all sorts of different subjects instead!

 

[tabascosauz]

Apple Car Play? Android Auto? I have seen my friends use these technologies to integrate their phone into their cars better, but my car is too old so I've never got to play with them myself. Does anyone have experiences or opinions on their implementation?

I like this idea; I hope this can be a decent discussion without devolving into another flame war.

I've had both Carplay and AA in a couple of different vehicles, all wired implementations but I was there for the big AA redesign. Both are okay, only real thing I felt was missing was the wireless part, which isn't much a problem anymore.

It's more a question of the specific hardware it's running on / manufacturer's base infotainment firmware / screen quality / quality of software integration between base firmware and Carplay/AA. Ford was okay on perf and had good hand-off between Carplay and base software in Sync 3. Didn't get a chance at Sync 4/4A (sounds laggy). GM's was a mixed bag - the 7" (IOB?) had really poor base software but clearly strong hardware, the old 8" was just poor all around, the new 7" and 8" (2019+) are both decent. Not sure about the big screens nowadays. VW was okay. From what I can see the JP automakers seem to be okay.

But I've been in a Model 3 for a while now so all that kinda feels like a past life. Infotainment is still Atom E3950-based, works fine, don't miss Carplay or AA at all. Will be interesting to see Zen and RDNA replace it in the near future.

From an American perspective the 2.7/3.0 Ecoboost represents the future of ICE in a lot of ways. It's had its ups and downs but it's been around for a while now and glad to see it make it into other vehicles as it rightly deserves. Both the motor and 10R80 seem easy to hook up to hybrid systems too. Toyota seems to be having some problems with the turbos at the moment on the new V35A, but it's a good step in the same direction as 2.7EB.

I had the unfortunate opportunity to be there for both Ford and GM's transmission troubles where they couldn't quite figure out how to program their 10R80/8L45/8L90 properly. Sounds like the former eventually worked things out, and the latter ditched and moved on to the 10L90.

I still want to get back into a midsize truck. But maybe not, it's easy to walk away from ICE but very hard to walk away from EV. Certainly not with regular gas at $1.95/L and climbing right now.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I still want to get back into a midsize truck. But maybe not, it's easy to walk away from ICE but very hard to walk away from EV. Certainly not with regular gas at $1.95/L and climbing right now.

What's midsize in your opinion? I've noticed that anyone using "Liters" is non-American and therefore your "midsize" is completely different from the "American" midsize.

I think here in USA, midsize truck is Ford F150 / Toyota Tundra, and a "small" truck would be Ford Maverick/Ranger or Toyota Tacoma. As such, the "midsize" EV truck in the USA is the Ford F150 lightning (fully EV), and the "small" truck (maybe your guy's midsize?) is a Ford Maverick (Traditional Hybrid. I wish a PHEV model were made, but I think Ford is pushing people towards the Lightning)

I'm just joshing a bit. Honestly, I'm not a truck guy so I'm kinda talking out of my ass.

I had the unfortunate opportunity to be there for both Ford and GM's transmission troubles where they couldn't quite figure out how to program their 10R80/8L45/8L90 properly. Sounds like the former eventually worked things out, and the latter ditched and moved on to the 10L90.

I happened to avoid all those transmission woes by simply getting a manual transmission. But yeah, apparently I dodged a bullet. Lots of complaints about the automatic transmission of Ford circa mid 2010s.

 

[tabascosauz]

What's midsize in your opinion? I've noticed that anyone using "Liters" is non-American and therefore your "midsize" is completely different from the "American" midsize.

I think here in USA, midsize truck is Ford F150 / Toyota Tundra, and a "small" truck would be Ford Maverick/Ranger or Toyota Tacoma. As such, the "midsize" EV truck in the USA is the Ford F150 lightning (fully EV), and the "small" truck (maybe your guy's midsize?) is a Ford Maverick (Traditional Hybrid. I wish a PHEV model were made, but I think Ford is pushing people towards the Lightning)

We are not so different up here lol, except liters. I only measure in MPG, L/100 is a pain. When gas was $1.50 it was something like $5.10/gal equivalent or something. So you can probably imagine what it's like to drive gas here at $2.00 ($7.00? not considering what our dollar is really worth)

I'm pretty lucky that I can save money replacing gas with electricity and not feel bad since 91% of it comes from hydro (remainder from LNG and biomass I think)

Correct I meant like Ranger or Taco. Will probably waiting a while, the current full size EV trucks are all just quick conversions not ground up EVs. Only after that I think will they turn to midsize, but new Ranger platform is coming so maybe some hope. The quick conversion trucks have abysmal aerodynamics so they only get that much range out of a honking battery, won't change until next generation. Rivian looks nice but it's too big to be midsize and too small for full.

F150 is just way too big unless never ever going into town. One of mine was the shortest truck possible, regular cab short bed; I can live with that or a midsizer, but no bigger. I don't think they will make a RCSB EV either, not enough space for batteries.

Deep down I would love to daily a 7.3 regular cab F-250 but it's so far down on the practicality scale it's not funny anymore

 

[Hyderz]

Apple car play is an amazing feature, but my experience is not as smooth as i hope it would be.
So i finish setting up my phone with the car, works flawlessly the first time.
So other times when i hop into my car and i expect it to connect automatically, but it takes a good 5 minutes before i can actually use it.
Also sometimes it wouldn't connect so i had to manually turn off bluetooth and wifi in order for it to work.
I feel car infotainment system still have a long way to go, but when it works it works well.

 

[erocker]

Trucks are generally designated by towing/weight capacity. F150's are "full size" but then you have F250's/350's which are considered heavy duty.

 

[dragontamer5788]

From an American perspective the 2.7/3.0 Ecoboost represents the future of ICE in a lot of ways. It's had its ups and downs but it's been around for a while now and glad to see it make it into other vehicles as it rightly deserves. Both the motor and 10R80 seem easy to hook up to hybrid systems too. Toyota seems to be having some problems with the turbos at the moment on the new V35A, but it's a good step in the same direction as 2.7EB.

Onto this point, it seems like the traditional ICE cars are adapting a variety of "mild-hybrid" techs.

The way Volvo does it is that the "starter" is seen as an electric engine... after all... that's exactly what the "starter" to any ICE engine is. The "mild hybrid" ups the voltage to 48V, and seems to use regenerative braking as the primary means of charging (maybe still having an alternator as well? Hard to tell for sure). So in some respects, ICE cars always were partially electric (as far as the starter goes), and beefing up the starter so that it can be powerful enough for "torque-converter" like tasks (and regenerative braking) seems natural to me.

The future for all car types seems to be the advancement of these "mild-hybrid" concepts. Since the hybrid engine has very small battery packs, its still not enough to really act like a Prius. But its enough energy (and power) to truly improve fuel economy and performance in an otherwise traditional ICE vehicle.

We're no longer in the era where people are just "thinking green". Don't get me wrong, "green" is good. I like using less fuel and helping the environment. But... this hybrid (and mild-hybrid) tech is now about "making the car better" at a fundamental level, more efficient, more torque when the driver needs it, less maintenance, etc. etc. That's truly exciting to me that we can have the best of both worlds moving forward (when previous Hybrid tech was a little bit "too green" focused IMO, and often came at the detriment of practical / pragmatic car concerns).

F150 is just way too big unless never ever going into town. One of mine was the shortest truck possible, regular cab short bed; I can live with that or a midsizer, but no bigger. I don't think they will make a RCSB EV either, not enough space for batteries.

I will say that Ford's Youtube demos of their "FlexBed" 4.5-foot design (137 cm) makes me intrigued. It looks like they really spent a lot of time thinking about how to maximize the use of such a small bed.

I'd probably never buy this, lol. But its really good marketing and speaks to me. 110V outlet in the bed, multiple 12V wires aimed for DIY users.

It really is an inspiring set of videos.

 

[tabascosauz]

Onto this point, it seems like the traditional ICE cars are adapting a variety of "mild-hybrid" techs.

The way Volvo does it is that the "starter" is seen as an electric engine... after all... that's exactly what the "starter" to any ICE engine is. The "mild hybrid" ups the voltage to 48V, and seems to use regenerative braking as the primary means of charging (maybe still having an alternator as well? Hard to tell for sure). So in some respects, ICE cars always were partially electric (as far as the starter goes), and beefing up the starter so that it can be powerful enough for "torque-converter" like tasks (and regenerative braking) seems natural to me.

We're no longer in the era where people are just "thinking green". Don't get me wrong, "green" is good. I like using less fuel and helping the environment. But... this hybrid (and mild-hybrid) tech is now about "making the car better" at a fundamental level, more efficient, more torque when the driver needs it, less maintenance, etc. etc. That's truly exciting to me that we can have the best of both worlds moving forward (when previous Hybrid tech was a little bit "too green" focused IMO, and often came at the detriment of practical / pragmatic car concerns).

I'm not too sure about what to think of mild hybrid stuff. eTorque for Dodge didn't really seem to take off, I don't know if they ever advertised mileage but it only improved off-the-line pep a little bit and that was about it iirc. I know Mercedes all of a sudden started with its roided-up version last year (EQBoost?), I guess the concept has a bit more oomph left in it.

Lot more regular hybrids of all sizes now though. Where I am it's a good place (dunno if still true in 2022) to go plug-in, since you still get the OK HOV sticker and incentives as full EVs......on the other hand the plug-ins are also priced like EVs so I guess there's plenty of room for both.

I didn't like hybrids before because it felt like they just combine the inconveniences and complexity of ICE and EV, since EVs are physically (not software-wise, and treating battery as a whole) rather simple cars. But honestly, no ICE car or truck is simple nowadays, so it's a stupid point.

I will say that Ford's Youtube demos of their "FlexBed" 4.5-foot design (137 cm) makes me intrigued. It looks like they really spent a lot of time thinking about how to maximize the use of such a small bed.

I'd probably never buy this, lol. But its really good marketing and speaks to me. 110V outlet in the bed, multiple 12V wires aimed for DIY users.

It really is an inspiring set of videos.

You're not alone, the Maverick is quite the surprise crowdpleaser between the DIY bed, the size, the price and the mileage (on the hybrid). A lot of the bed "innovations" these days are so ridiculously proprietary/complex/expensive/fragile. To be honest Ford wasn't the worst of the bunch with Boxlink cleats, but this has a lot more potential.

I don't know how it is with cars now, but since I got out of the truck market all the new ones are priced out of their minds by scalping dealers. So putting a DIY friendly bed on the lower priced Maverick is a good way to get the idea out there. I much prefer the Ranger looks, but the Maverick is very practical.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I'm pretty lucky that I can save money replacing gas with electricity and not feel bad since 91% of it comes from hydro (remainder from LNG and biomass I think)

I'm a supporter of Community Solar. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/community-solar-basics

A bit off topic, but for EV (or PHEV) users, its an option to support the solar industry. The TL;DR is that you can rent "net metering" credits from a solar plant. Whether or not the scheme is legal depends on your state (in the USA), I don't know if the legal design / loopholes exist in Canada. But basically I'm soon going to be directly renting solar panels that exist approximately 50-miles away from my house.

All the energy from those solar panels are tagged as "net-metering" credits, and will be emailed to me and my utility company. I only pay for the "additional electricity" I use at my house that my subscribed solar panels (50 miles away) didn't make. (Perhaps "my solar panels" is a misnomer. I don't own the solar panels, I'm simply renting them).

This scheme was sold in my state as a way to get apartment dwellers into the Solar business. But even for homeowners, it means you don't have to deal with contractors. And IMO, its "more efficient" to use the plentiful land here in the USA rather than our roofs (which cause countless accidents / injuries). A 10MW plant 50-miles away absolutely can power my house, and I will support it by directly subscribing to that solar plant.

But yes, the electric grid is fungible and very flexible. That's why I think electric and PHEV are a good idea to explore (though I have plenty to start a flamewar about when it comes to specific electric vehicles!!)

I didn't like hybrids before because it felt like they just combine the inconveniences and complexity of ICE and EV, since EVs are physically (not software-wise, and treating battery as a whole) rather simple cars. But honestly, no ICE car or truck is simple nowadays, so it's a stupid point.

One of the lowest total-cost-of-ownership vehicles is the Toyota Prius. So when it comes to "maintenance" issues over the long term, its clear that "hybrids" can win with a good enough design.

The "mild-hybrids" are all simpler than a traditional ICE. They really seem like a superior design overall. All traditional ICE cars require a starter, you literally can't run an ICE at 0-RPM, so you need an electric motor on the engine to turn it initially. (Gas only flows if the engine is moving, so when you turn the key, you start the engine with that electric motor.... When the engine is spinning, there's a "minimum idle" to ensure that there's at least some power in traditional ICE)

Traditional ICE vehicles have a 12V lead-acid battery on the starter / electric motor. But why not upgrade the 12V battery to a 48V NiMH or Li-Ion battery instead? And then upgrade the starter so that its "big" enough to perform not only "engine starting" duties, but also mildly accelerate the car and even torque-converter duties (smoothing the acceleration between gears) ?

Finally, instead of a traditional alternator (ie: electrical system to "sap" energy from your wheels as you drive the ICE car around), why not use your "big starter" electric motor to perform regenerative braking instead? Now you're not running an alternator anymore. Meaning you've cut out both the alternator and torque converter, and all you had to do was upgrade the 12V battery to 48V instead. Regenerative braking is really simple, the electric-motor (aka: the "starter") is run in reverse, turning rotational-energy into electrical energy. The electric motor functions as a generator simultaneously.

Its so obvious in hindsight, after these vehicles were made, that this "mild-hybrid" design is simpler than a traditional ICE.

------

The biggest point of "complexity" is shear weight of the pure electric vehicles. Yes, there's fewer parts, but 500lbs to 1000lbs of additional weight means a grossly more complicated suspension. A PHEV like the GM Volt or Hyundai Ioniq is just ~3500lbs, a bit heavier than traditional ICE but still within the ballpark.

A full electric equivalent like the Polestar 2 is 4500lbs, and that +1000lbs will require a grossly more complex suspension system, as well as lead to faster tire wear (or more expensive tires). Then more wear/tear on your braking system, and also require a bigger motor/engine to compensate for all that weight. 350-horsepower at 3500lbs will accelerate at the same speed as 450-horsepower at 4500lbs after all.

------

The biggest point of "simplicity" for EVs is the lack of transmissions at all because of the huge RPM/Torque band of electric motors. (Except for the Porche Taycan, which uses a 2-speed gear system).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Koenigsegg Gamera (concept car) / Mega-GT (production car)
3 cylinder 2L twin-turbo internal combustion engine producing 440 kw / 600 hp from 70 kg / 154 lbs
800v 10kWh battery
together they have a range of 1000 km / 600+ miles or short bursts of 1400 hp combined power
This is what a hybrid should be. Similarly, new efficient cargo/tanker ships are using ridiculously long stroke diesel engines connected directly to the propeller shaft for propulsion because they burn clean and are super-efficient (no parasitic losses in a gears and the long stroke extracts as much energy as possible from the fuel). Cummins actually used a similar theory in building an ethonol burning prototype engine:

Cummins ETHOS 2.8L E-85 engine demonstrates 50 to 80% emissions reduction

The Cummins ETHOS 2.8L engine running on E-85 demonstrated a 50 to 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions during testing over the past two-and-a-half years.

www.oemoffhighway.com

They haven't put it into production as far as I know.

 

[Space Lynx]

@tabascosauz @FordGT90Concept

If you needed a budget commuter car that would last you 400k miles with as little maintenance as possible outside the standard fluid changes and 100k belt change, what car and make would you recommend?

Scotty Kilmer famous mechanic youtuber says all the time, Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic, does this hold true today still or is he referencing a bygone era?

I'd probably never buy this, lol. But its really good marketing and speaks to me. 110V outlet in the bed, multiple 12V wires aimed for DIY users.

It really is an inspiring set of videos.

I almost put $100 to pre-order this for 20k even in spring 2021. Always regretted not doing it, on same hand Scotty Kilmer says it uses the Atkinson engine, and no one really knows how to work on this engine, you will have to take it to a specialist if it starts acting up, and it will cost you out the ass. That's what Scotty was saying about it. Not to mention the hybrid model (only model worth buying imo) will need new batteries in ten years, and those will cost a pretty penny.

 

[tabascosauz]

@tabascosauz @FordGT90Concept

If you needed a budget commuter car that would last you 400k miles with as little maintenance as possible outside the standard fluid changes and 100k belt change, what car and make would you recommend?

No motor goes in with "as little maintenance as possible" and comes out in good condition on the other end. Regardless of what car you choose, you follow all recommended maintenance intervals and spend the extra $ for OEM parts and fluids, unless owner consensus says you should be even stricter.

400K is a big ask, new or used. Even with excellent maintenance, there's just not a lot of gas powertrains that last for that many miles. Most gas engines, even legends like the 5VZ and 1GR start getting into rebuild territory at 300K miles. They'll keep going after that of course. Older diesels can maybe get you past 500K with care, but pre-emissions or deleted is a must (obvious ethical and environmental concerns), and diesel is automatically double the maintenance of gas.

Pick something that's a good combination of what you like to see in a car. Take care of it and don't think about 400K miles later. Toyota seems to still deserve their reliability reputation for the most part.

I almost put $100 to pre-order this for 20k even in spring 2021. Always regretted not doing it, on same hand Scotty Kilmer says it uses the Atkinson engine, and no one really knows how to work on this engine, you will have to take it to a specialist if it starts acting up, and it will cost you out the ass. That's what Scotty was saying about it. Not to mention the hybrid model (only model worth buying imo) will need new batteries in ten years, and those will cost a pretty penny.

He's not necessarily wrong, but most of what he says consists of generalizations without any proper research into the details (exactly why is it reliable? exactly what makes it problematic? no clue, "I heard from Toyota owners that Ford is cursed"), sensationalized and hyperbole for the views/outrage. The "Atkinson cycle" doesn't mean much. Toyota emulates the Atkinson cycle in a lot of its engines for efficiency, to mixed results. As far as the driver is concerned it usually just means better mileage (maybe) and less power.

The hybrid Mav uses a Duratec 2.5, these days the "Duratecs" and the l4 Ecoboosts are all variations of the Mazda four-bangers. Average compression ratio, naturally aspirated, looks like port injection, undersquare, and very conservative ratings for its size (GM's 2.5 LCV in the Colorado is 200/191 while the Mav is 162/155). Overall looks like about as simple and conservative a design as you can expect these days, nothing immediately screams big problem. The 2.0 Ecoboost that you can upgrade to for extra $ is a different story.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want to squeeze power out of an engine, you use premium gas, maintain/replace things more often and expect less life out of it before rebuild. You want more life, you go for an overengineered conservatively-rated motor, you leave it stock and take care of it like it's your child.

 

[Shrek]

Its damn near impossible for my brain to figure out how 3-pistons can fire without going off balance.

I believe there is an unbalanced rocking.

 

[Space Lynx]

No motor goes in with "as little maintenance as possible" and comes out in good condition on the other end. Regardless of what car you choose, you follow all recommended maintenance intervals and spend the extra $ for OEM parts and fluids, unless owner consensus says you should be even stricter.

400K is a big ask, new or used. Even with excellent maintenance, there's just not a lot of gas powertrains that last for that many miles. Most gas engines, even legends like the 5VZ and 1GR start getting into rebuild territory at 300K miles. They'll keep going after that of course. Older diesels can maybe get you past 500K with care, but pre-emissions or deleted is a must (obvious ethical and environmental concerns), and diesel is automatically double the maintenance of gas.

Pick something that's a good combination of what you like to see in a car. Take care of it and don't think about 400K miles later. Toyota seems to still deserve their reliability reputation for the most part.



He's not necessarily wrong, but most of what he says consists of generalizations without any proper research into the details (exactly why is it reliable? exactly what makes it problematic? no clue, "I heard from Toyota owners that Ford is cursed"), sensationalized and hyperbole for the views/outrage. The "Atkinson cycle" doesn't mean much. Toyota emulates the Atkinson cycle in a lot of its engines for efficiency, to mixed results. As far as the driver is concerned it usually just means better mileage (maybe) and less power.

The hybrid Mav uses a Duratec 2.5, these days the "Duratecs" and the l4 Ecoboosts are all variations of the Mazda four-bangers. Average compression ratio, naturally aspirated, looks like port injection, undersquare, and very conservative ratings for its size (GM's 2.5 LCV in the Colorado is 200/191 while the Mav is 162/155). Overall looks like about as simple and conservative a design as you can expect these days, nothing immediately screams big problem. The 2.0 Ecoboost that you can upgrade to for extra $ is a different story.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want to squeeze power out of an engine, you use premium gas, maintain/replace things more often and expect less life out of it before rebuild. You want more life, you go for an overengineered conservatively-rated motor, you leave it stock and take care of it like it's your child.

That all sounds good, and I agree with all of it, I do think Scotty is right about Corolla's especially lasting longer than other cars though, it does have a good track record.

Only thing I disagree with you on is the usage of premium gas, Scotty says use the octane that the car manual says to use, otherwise you could be messing up the timings of the pistons, even if minor, can mess up the longevity.

and yeah I think the Mav is going to be a great long term vehicle. I really kicked my ass a few months ago when the big shortages started up, cause I seriously almost did the $100 preorder on the Mav. 40 mpg city and 33 highway, hot damn. this chip shortage is a damn shame.

 

[tabascosauz]

Only thing I disagree with you on is the usage of premium gas, Scotty says use the octane that the car manual says to use, otherwise you could be messing up the timings of the pistons, even if minor, can mess up the longevity.

To be sure, I meant premium gas only in the context of squeezing power out of an engine. As in, the tricks that manufacturers use to try and eke out more power/tq out of a given displacement engine (turbos and superchargers, direct injection, misleading "ratings" where the fine print requires premium gas, aggressive ECU timing not really designed for heavy work with 87 gas, etc.).

Corolla is a safe bet but I'm not 100% sure about the new 2.0L Dynamic Force M20A in the upper trims. The lower end 1.8L 2ZR is fine, it's a geezer. But the new 2.0 has a really high compression ratio for a naturally aspirated engine intended for 87 gas (13:1 ratio). Toyota is smart so they probably accounted for it somewhere, I know that Mazda's SPCCI does something similar. Engineering Explained did say that Dynamic Force is designed for 14:1 ratio, something to do with thermal efficiency.

The hybrid uses the same old 1.8L so no problems there.

 

[Space Lynx]

To be sure, I meant premium gas only in the context of squeezing power out of an engine. As in, the tricks that manufacturers use to try and eke out more power/tq out of a given displacement engine (turbos and superchargers, direct injection, misleading "ratings" where the fine print requires premium gas, aggressive ECU timing not really designed for heavy work with 87 gas, etc.).

Corolla is a safe bet but I'm not 100% sure about the new 2.0L Dynamic Force M20A in the upper trims. The lower end 1.8L 2ZR is fine, it's a geezer. But the new 2.0 has a really high compression ratio for a naturally aspirated engine intended for 87 gas (13:1 ratio). Toyota is smart so they probably accounted for it somewhere, I know that Mazda's SPCCI does something similar. Engineering Explained did say that Dynamic Force is designed for 14:1 ratio, something to do with thermal efficiency.

The hybrid uses the same old 1.8L so no problems there.

Corolla is getting a brand new engine re-design in 2023, I'm really curious about this one. Hope it is good.

 

[erocker]

Koenigsegg is nuts. How Koenigsegg's 3-cylinder engine makes 600 horsepower (motorauthority.com)

 

[dragontamer5788]

If you needed a budget commuter car that would last you 400k miles with as little maintenance as possible outside the standard fluid changes and 100k belt change, what car and make would you recommend?

400k is a lot, I dare say impossible in typical cases. But the Prius is one of the cars with the best longetivity and lowest maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, zero-to-sixty in 10+ seconds is pretty bad. Prius is uninspired... and I find myself willing to pay for a car that lasts "only" 150k reliably and relatively low maintenance costs over 10 years if I get get zero-to-sixty in 8seconds, 7seconds or faster. It seems like most cars reach this benchmark these days, as modern manufacturing has gotten very good.

 

[Space Lynx]

400k is a lot, I dare say impossible in typical cases. But the Prius is one of the cars with the best longetivity and lowest maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, zero-to-sixty in 10+ seconds is pretty bad. Prius is uninspired... and I find myself willing to pay for a car that lasts "only" 150k reliably and relatively low maintenance costs over 10 years if I get get zero-to-sixty in 8seconds, 7seconds or faster. It seems like most cars reach this benchmark these days, as modern manufacturing has gotten very good.

huh? loads of toyotas and hondas hit over 500k miles, historically speaking. I was simply inquiring if that still holds true.

 

[dragontamer5788]

huh? loads of toyotas and hondas hit over 500k miles, historically speaking. I was simply inquiring if that still holds true.

With an engine rebuild? Perhaps. But at that point, its often cheaper to just buy another vehicle instead.

In any case, its possible: https://www.reddit.com/r/prius/comments/nby7u2
GM Volt @ 470k miles here: https://www.voltstats.net/stats/details/1579

Etc. Etc. These are not "typical" cars however. These are cars that have been babied by their owners, and are likely far, far past their "expiration date" (ie: maintenance costs are above the cost of a used, or possibly even a new car), while also doing those 500k miles within 10 years or so.

------------

EDIT: 3/8/2022

I've begun to fill up using Flexfuel (Aka: E85 Ethanol / 85% Ethanol blend), which is 100% USA made, albeit from the corn lobby but I figure reducing my gasoline consumption from E15 (15% Ethanol, standard gasoline in USA) to E85 (aka: a 70% reduction in gasoline consumption) is good for the current political situation.

E85 is cheaper per gallon, but has roughly 25% less energy. So you get 25% fewer miles-per-gallon. That being said, Ethanol is 100% renewable, but the corn industry uses a fair amount of fertilizer (aka: Nitrogen), which requires a fair amount of energy. As such, Ethanol itself may be carbon-neutral (the carbon atoms from the Ethanol came from CO2 in the air, and return once burned), but the production of fertilizer / farming equipment / etc. etc. means that a fair amount of energy / carbon-energy went into the production of corn in the first place. So the win on Corn-Ethanol isn't quite as big as you'd first imagine.

Still, it seems like various studies have added it all up and have concluded that E85 is "greener" than gasoline, and 100% American to boot, so plenty of benefits for sure.

Only "FlexFuel" vehicles can safely fill up with E85. There aren't too many of those any more (most "green" vehicles today are hybrid, PHEV, or electric), but many vehicles from 2015 and earlier are E85 / Flexfuel compatible. So consider using E85 to reduce gasoline consumption.

 

[Space Lynx]

With an engine rebuild? Perhaps. But at that point, its often cheaper to just buy another vehicle instead.

In any case, its possible: https://www.reddit.com/r/prius/comments/nby7u2
GM Volt @ 470k miles here: https://www.voltstats.net/stats/details/1579

Etc. Etc. These are not "typical" cars however. These are cars that have been babied by their owners, and are likely far, far past their "expiration date" (ie: maintenance costs are above the cost of a used, or possibly even a new car), while also doing those 500k miles within 10 years or so.

------------

EDIT: 3/8/2022

I've begun to fill up using Flexfuel (Aka: E85 Ethanol / 85% Ethanol blend), which is 100% USA made, albeit from the corn lobby but I figure reducing my gasoline consumption from E15 (15% Ethanol, standard gasoline in USA) to E85 (aka: a 70% reduction in gasoline consumption) is good for the current political situation.

E85 is cheaper per gallon, but has roughly 25% less energy. So you get 25% fewer miles-per-gallon. That being said, Ethanol is 100% renewable, but the corn industry uses a fair amount of fertilizer (aka: Nitrogen), which requires a fair amount of energy. As such, Ethanol itself may be carbon-neutral (the carbon atoms from the Ethanol came from CO2 in the air, and return once burned), but the production of fertilizer / farming equipment / etc. etc. means that a fair amount of energy / carbon-energy went into the production of corn in the first place. So the win on Corn-Ethanol isn't quite as big as you'd first imagine.

Still, it seems like various studies have added it all up and have concluded that E85 is "greener" than gasoline, and 100% American to boot, so plenty of benefits for sure.

Only "FlexFuel" vehicles can safely fill up with E85. There aren't too many of those any more (most "green" vehicles today are hybrid, PHEV, or electric), but many vehicles from 2015 and earlier are E85 / Flexfuel compatible. So consider using E85 to reduce gasoline consumption.

Just a pro tip, a little Lucas Oil Fuel Injector Cleaner can help balance some of that loss in energy efficiency. I use it on all of my families cars, buy a large jug off of it for like 27 bucks, then just do about 5 ounces or so before i fill up the gas tank. seems to work pretty good for us.

I'm not sure it will work on all cars, so ask your local mechanic first before using it imo

 

[looniam]

Ford has their 3-piston engine, a miracle as far as I'm concerned. Its damn near impossible for my brain to figure out how 3-pistons can fire without going off balance.

they're inline:

and the block fits in a suitcase.

 

[tabascosauz]

The Fox EB is not an inherently balanced design, but neither are a lot of other engines (V6). It's just an exercise in balance, which for the Fox is just a more creative challenge; it's not designed to pursue harmonic balance to cancel out NVH.

From Ford's own press release and widely reported elsewhere:

The 1.0-litre’s NVH engineering team, led by Delicata at Ford Technical Centres in Dunton and Dagenham, England, attacked the problem by focusing on two areas – the engine’s front pulley and rear flywheel, and the mounting system that connects the powertrain with the car’s body.

The pulley and flywheel are unbalanced with weights that are placed precisely to counteract the natural shaking forces of the engine and drive the energy in a less sensitive direction. The engine mounts are designed to decouple as well as absorb the engine’s shaking forces, Delicata explained.

Of course, motor mounts aren't made of vibranium either, so it stands to reason that a possible tradeoff is quicker wear and tear on those parts. But it's also a small engine with relatively low output.

As to the E85 point, its advertised environmental benefits have never really been definitively proven after all these years. But if you live near an E85 station and your car is prepared for it (Flexfuel is mostly fuel system hardening iirc, a little harder on the lines than gas), it's a great thing for some extra performance on tap. The main problem with E85 is still availability, it really depends on where you live.

 

[dragontamer5788]

As to the E85 point, its advertised environmental benefits have never really been definitively proven after all these years.

Despite the controversies... the research in this field is surprisingly comprehensive: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/LCA_of_Corn_Ethanol_2018_Report.pdf

This analysis takes into account the carbon footprint of fertilizer (N2O), Land-use, cost of animal feed, transport, fuel production (corn into ethanol), and the final tailpipe emissions from cars. The methodology is comprehensive, though the controversies seem to be the amount of greenhouse gasses used in each of these steps and the underlying assumptions.

So we can see that 2005-era Gasoline had a certain amount of tailpipe emissions + the cost of refining gasoline in the first place. This is the baseline.

Corn-Ethanol has higher greenhouse costs in producing the fuel, but all "tailpipe" emissions are net-carbon zero. As such, the calculations are that Ethanol is ~40% fewer greenhouse gasses under the measured 2018 statistics. The BAU (business as usual) assumptions, Ethanol will get slightly more efficient as more green-energy is added to the grid. HEHC was an optimistic assumption about green-energy being added to the grid (more solar panels / wind will reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions of Ethanol production).

The cost of refining gasoline has also dropped of course, but we can seee that the sum of 2018-era production costs of Ethanol is less than the tailpipe emissions of gasoline. So any advances in energy production (solar panels, nuclear, whatever) benefit ethanol more than others, especially because of the high-energy costs needed to make Nitrogen-fertilizers.

Our Current Conditions scenario assesses the life-cycle emissions of corn ethanol
at 59,766 g CO 2e/MMBtu. This is a 39 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative
to gasoline; almost twice the reduction developed in the RIA. This scenario
assumes ethanol plants use a composite process fuel that reflects today’s mix of
natural gas and coal used by refineries. Hence, the 39 percent reduction is the
industry-wide average GHG reduction for the corn ethanol relative to gasoline.
Most refineries today use natural gas as a process fuel. Replacing the Fuel
Production emissions in the Current Conditions scenario with the Fuel Productions
emissions in the BAU scenario, indicates the GHG profile of corn ethanol
produced in today’s dry mill refineries that use natural gas as a process fuel is
42.6 percent lower than gasoline

 

[P4-630]

3-piston engine

Nothing wrong with a 3 cilinder engine.

Also I love this guy's videos , making his own little engines.

https://www.youtube.com/c/johnnyq90