# Automobile Technology Thread



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 4, 2022)

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 (Mar 4, 2022)

Valantar said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> 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.



tabascosauz said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2022)

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 (Mar 4, 2022)

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 (Mar 4, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> 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).



tabascosauz said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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.



dragontamer5788 said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> 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!!)



tabascosauz said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2022)

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 (Mar 4, 2022)

@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?



dragontamer5788 said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 5, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> @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.



CallandorWoT said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Mar 5, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2022)

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


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 8, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> With an engine rebuild? Perhaps. But at that point, its often cheaper to just buy another vehicle instead.
> 
> In any case, its possible:
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 9, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2022)

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 (Mar 9, 2022)

tabascosauz said:


> 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
> ...


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 9, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 10, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


This is out of date:








						U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds
					

Corn-based ethanol, which for years has been mixed in huge quantities into gasoline sold at U.S. pumps, is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline, according to a study published Monday.




					www.reuters.com
				




Video explanation of the math/process:









TL;DR/W: need to incentivize ethanol from switchgrass and stop subsidizing ethanol from corn.  Corn is too resource intensive for ethanol production.


My point of linking the Cummins thing previously was that there is some logic in making engines that run on 100% ethanol but these are engines that must be designed to burn exclusively ethanol or they get inefficient (Tiny Friendly Giant is one of those engines designed for ethanol).  That article was in 2014 and the Renewable Fuel Standard (the ethanol-from-corn subsidy) is expiring this year.  With the reporting above that ethanol isn't really clean and oil companies asking for RFS exemptions because there's not enough ethanol available for a reasonable price (this was before the Ukraine madness) to justify blending, renewal of the RFS seems unlikely.  With no RFS, market forces will likely drive ethanol to local markets only rather than national.

Everything ethanol is very much in turmoil right now, at least in the United States.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 10, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> TL;DR/W: need to incentivize ethanol from switchgrass and stop subsidizing ethanol from corn. Corn is too resource intensive for ethanol production.



The argument of the Lark 2022 study is that land-use changes were miscalculated, which is actually pretty complicated.

The original study from 2005 has land-use assumptions, but the study you posted has a 2nd set of land-use assumptions. So what do we do? Its pretty simple really, we do a meta-study, we review all of the studies and come to a conclusion.

The 2018 study I posted earlier is a meta-study. It reviewed multiple research papers to come to its conclusion. In contrast, the singular study you posted is just that, a single study.



> The last factor to consider here is evidence suggesting that domestic LUC
> emissions associated with U.S. corn ethanol production may not have been fully
> accounted for to date. This evidence is developed in a set of recent studies that
> utilize USDA’s Cropland Data Layer (CDL) series to examine changes in U.S.
> ...



This is the kind of language you want to see in a meta-studies based policy paper. You want to see the authors considering multiple points of view behind their calculations.



> This is out of date:



The study you posted doesn't seem to talk about the USDA study from 2018 actually. At least, I went through its bibliography and somehow the researchers at Madison didn't account for the 2018 study's arguments? Did I read that right?



			https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2101084119
		


Reading through the 2022 study by Lark, it _seems_ like they're basing their calculations on the 2005 study, rather than the revised 2018 study as well. I'm not sure how much that changes things though.

Lark seems to be one of the researchers who has constantly participated in the debate (with the 2018 big-meta study from ICF/USDA referencing Lark's 2015 paper). Its important to remember that Lark is just one voice out of dozens in the field.

-----------

That's all the time I got for now. But I think you've made a similar error here as the other discussion topic you and I have had. You're trying to disprove a meta-study with just a singular study. Meta-studies have more "power" because meta-studies read many papers / different voices and then accounts for all of their arguments. In contrast, singular studies (like what Lark does here) are just one voice, so to speak, one set of assumptions.

I admit that I haven't read too deeply into any of these studies, they're many many pages. But this isn't a situation where you just take the latest study and assume its correct, you gotta actually read them, evaluate them on their methodologies and make a conclusion. Ultimately, I assign more "power" to meta-studies because that just makes sense.


----------



## erocker (Mar 10, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> 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 a 2.0L 4cyl Ecoboost looking at it with the oil pan off from the bottom. The thing circled is the balance shaft assembly. Shafts and weights and counterweights all packaged into that thing that hangs right below the crankshaft. Pretty cool how it keeps things smooth.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 10, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> The argument of the Lark 2022 study is that land-use changes were miscalculated, which is actually pretty complicated.
> 
> The original study from 2005 has land-use assumptions, but the study you posted has a 2nd set of land-use assumptions. So what do we do? Its pretty simple really, we do a meta-study, we review all of the studies and come to a conclusion.
> 
> ...


The problem with the 2018 paper is that they failed to consider land that was not used for corn production being put into use to produce corn because of the corn subsidy which takes decades (at best) to  recover it's high carbon cost.  Grazing land (which is what the acres were before) is a net negative on carbon emissions replaced with corn which is a net positive for carbon emissions.  Corn is not a net negative because of all the fertilizers (a fossil fuel product) and mechanical effort that goes into production of it.  All of these costs must be added to the cycle.  And remember, the end product is that you're burning the ethanol which goes into the air.  If there was absolutely no costs associated with the cycle than it would be net zero but the inputs are massive.

Nitrates (which corn depletes fast) is a product of natural gas:





						Nitrogen fertilizers – Manufacturing process of Nitrogen fertilizers  :
					

Nitrogen fertilizers – Manufacturing process of Nitrogen fertilizers  :




					guichon-valves.com
				




Which is why UK ran into a problem last year:








						Britain tells its food industry to prepare for CO2 price shock
					

Britain warned its food producers on Wednesday to prepare for a 400% rise in carbon dioxide prices after extending emergency state support to avert a shortage of poultry and meat triggered by soaring costs of wholesale natural gas.




					www.reuters.com
				





> Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a by-product of the fertilizer industry - Britain's main source of CO2 - where natural gas is the biggest input cost.



Already a shortage of fertilizer in the USA:








						Fertilizer shortage may lead to spring scramble on North America's farms
					

A global shortage of nitrogen fertilizer is driving prices to record levels, prompting North America's farmers to delay purchases and raising the risk of a spring scramble to apply the crop nutrient before planting season.




					www.reuters.com
				





> Then, prices of natural gas, a key input in producing nitrogen, soared in Europe due to high demand and low supplies.



So when you're talking about corn production, you're actually talking about fossil fuel production.  The two are inevitably coupled which is why this ethanol system (based on corn anyway) is destructive.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 11, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The problem with the 2018 paper is that they failed to consider land that was not used for corn production being put into use to produce corn because of the corn subsidy which takes decades (at best) to recover it's high carbon cost.



This effect is clearly documented on page 20.







> Nitrates (which corn depletes fast) is a product of natural gas:



Calculated already. Page 8.







> So when you're talking about corn production, you're actually talking about fossil fuel production.



And all of that calculated together is less than gasoline's GHG emissions. The total life-cycle has been completely analyzed in the 2018 meta-study, including papers and discussions from a wide variety of researchers.

I do realize that the 2018 paper is 120-pages long and the details are very dry and boring to read. But please review it if you're actually going to make a discussion point regarding the paper: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/LCA_of_Corn_Ethanol_2018_Report.pdf


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 11, 2022)

From your 2018 paper:


> Lark et al. (2015) present estimates of acreage and emissions impacts but these are only indicative of the link they argue exists between decreases in native prairie and increases in corn ethanol production. For the period 2008 – 2012, they estimate that nationally: 1) 1.6 million acres of long-term (20 + years) unimproved grasslands were converted to cropland; 2) 1.04 million acres of land not cultivated for at least 40 years were converted to cropland; and a range for GHG emissions of 94 to 186 MMTCO2e for recently converted lands used to grown corn or soybeans. For the reasons discussed below, the CDL based approach cannot yet accurately identify ethanol driven conversions of native grasslands to cropland or confidently estimate the associated GHG emissions. For the reasons developed below. *We do not incorporate the results of these analyses into our analysis.*





> While Lark et al. (2015) incorporated additional land use data and other information to increase the probability of isolating conversions of native grasslands within the CDLs, their results are, at best, a first approximation of how much native grassland may have been converted to cropland over the period 2008 to 2012.


They literally ignored Lark's research.  Now, 7 years later, the numbers have roughly doubled from 1.6 million acres to 2.8 of crop land converted to corn and 1.04 million acres to 2.1 million acres have been converted from non-agriculture use into crop land.  This caused fertilizer (natural gas) use to climb by 3-8% and water quality to degrade 3-5%.

Further, Table 2-2 projects natural gas use for agriculture from 2010 to 2022 would fall by 5.6% but it has only increased while demand for ethanol blended fuel has dropped.

Looks to me like USDA wants to change everything to natural gas while completely failing to acknowledge that natural gas is a fossil fuel and only half as clean as coal.  Elimination of natural gas should be the goal; meanwhile they're promoting it with RFS.

They devote very little effort to discussing the fertilizer problem that Lark covers as well.  As already noted, fertilizer production is very carbon intensive.  You cannot do corn on the same acres year over year without spending a fortune on fossil-fuel based fertilizers to replenish nitrates.

Short version is we have 10 more years of data and USDA got it very wrong. Lark was right in 2015 and USDA was wrong to dismiss it.  USDA is incentivized to reject all evidence that suggests RFS is a bad policy because it would lose billions of dollars worth of subsidies from Congress that it controls.


Switchgrass ethanol is great, all others are bad.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 11, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Lark was right in 2015



And to prove this, you are quoting Lark from 2022. Do you not see the problem with the circular nature of your argument? Fundamentally, it comes down to you trusting Lark's argument for some reason.

Its a pretty simple "he said vs she-said" situation.



> USDA is incentivized to reject all evidence that suggests RFS is a bad policy because it would lose billions of dollars worth of subsidies from Congress that it controls.



But the USDA results are confirmed by Department of Energy as well. Do you have a reason why DoE would also be incentivized for the same reason? IMO, Lark just wants to prove himself correct and is doubling down upon his study from 2015. A more human approach, that explains why he's come across the same result after another 7 years. And I bet you that 10 years from now, if Lark is still working, he'll come up with anti-Ethanol research again.

Here's the research from Department of Energy / Argonne National Labs, specifically: https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ethanol-ghg-reduction-with-greet.pdf





Frankly, I don't buy your line of argument at all. Between the argument of "USDA and DOE both made the same mistake" vs "Lark is being hyperbolic in his arguments", the Occam's Razor is that Lark is being hyperbolic.

Notice: Argonne National Labs is quite explicit about also calculating the LUC (land-use changes) that you (and Lark) are discussing.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 11, 2022)

To quote one of the authors of the 2022 study:








						Environmental Outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard
					

In December 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) legislation, essentially mandating that an area the size of Kentucky be used to grow corn to make ethanol for transportation fuel. It is called RFS2 because it followed on the heels of 2005's RFS1.  Under the...




					asmith.ucdavis.edu
				





> Previous studies were projecting into the future, so they relied heavily on modeling. We have the benefit of hindsight, which enables us to see how actual land use has changed. We do need to model what land use would have been like without the RFS2 (business as usual), but our findings are driven by actual land use patterns in the United States.



It is worth noting that GREET painted ethanol as cleaner than CARB and EPA did (lower baseline).  If you assume GREET is right, this study shows ethanol is only a few percent better than gasoline.  The target for RFS was a 20% reduction.  None of the models, including the actual land use changes, comes close to 20% reduction which means it isn't justified as a policy.



dragontamer5788 said:


> And I bet you that 10 years from now, if Lark is still working, he'll come up with anti-Ethanol research again.


The numbers got worse because RFS driving up corn prices encourages farmers to grow more.  On top of that, ethanol producers are trying to build pipelines across thousands of acres of the most fertile farmland in the world in order to pipe carbon dioxide thousands of miles into the ground in an attempt to contain their high emissions.  Farmers are not selling out and the threat of eminent domain is real:








						U.S. Midwest carbon pipeline has secured less than 2% of key Iowa route, filings show
					

Landowners in Iowa have been slow to cede their property rights to a 2,000-mile (3,219 km) proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would cut through the U.S. Midwest, an analysis by Reuters has found.




					www.reuters.com
				




Why would they be rushing to spend millions of dollars on carbon capture and sequestration if GREET were right?  These are businesses; they only do something if it is profitable.  Consider this: their own internal models are showing the same thing Lark et. al. is showing the public and are rushing to reduce emissions to justify keeping the RFS.


For the record, Lark isn't the first to sound the alarm.  Tim Searchinger et. al. did the same back in 2008:








						Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change - PubMed
					

Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




We've also seen the devastation of pushing for ethanol on the Amazon rainforest:








						Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon rainforest hits record January high
					

Brazil recorded the most deforestation ever in the Amazon rainforest for the month of January, according to government data on Friday, as destruction continues to worsen despite the government's recent pledges to bring it under control.




					www.reuters.com
				




Which was set off by this policy:








						Brazil bill seeks to open Amazon to new ethanol mills
					

* Investors say ethanol production in Amazon economically viable




					www.reuters.com
				




RFS has been in effect since 2005 and if it had any impact, it slightly increased the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (as Lark and Searchinger said and predicted it would):




__





						Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
					

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.



					gml.noaa.gov
				





Models are never 100%. Believe what you want.


Edit: Speak of the devil, literally today:








						U.S. ethanol industry banks on carbon capture to solve emissions problem
					

U.S. ethanol producers are betting heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and secure a place for the corn-based fuel in a climate-friendly future, according to industry groups and executives.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 11, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


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





Andy Shiekh said:


> I believe there is an unbalanced rocking.


Laverda* Motercycles** produced both 120 and 180 degree crank firing order crankshaft based moters*​ 120 degree firing order is Balanced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laverda_1000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-three_engine


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 11, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> None of the models, including the actual land use changes, comes close to 20% reduction which means it isn't justified as a policy.



Argonne National Labs GREET model is literally a 42% reduction including land use changes. I've put an arrow on the slide, because somehow you missed this detail.








FordGT90Concept said:


> Tim Searchinger et. al. did the same back in 2008







Models can be wrong. So we look at many models from many different researchers. You're focusing on the singular model that stands far, far higher in GHG than the rest of them.


----------



## Shrek (Mar 11, 2022)

dorsetknob said:


> Laverda* Motercycles** produced both 120 and 180 degree crank firing order crankshaft based moters*​ 120 degree firing order is Balanced
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laverda_1000
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-three_engine



"To give the engine a more even firing cycle and _*better*_ balance, the crankshaft throws were changed to 120° in 1982, giving rise to the _Jota 120_."

"however an end-to-end rocking couple is induced"

That is why I wrote 'unbalanced rocking'


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 11, 2022)

Does anybody have a review of Ford's eCVT?

I'm particularly interested in the Ford Escape specifically, but most Ford Escape reviews seem to be about the 1.5L Ecoboost (3-cylinder) or Turbocharged Escape, not the Hybrid or PHEV versions. The few reviews talking about the Hybrid / PHEV versions mention its eCVT but that's it.

I saw one article discussing the eCVT in the Ford Maverick, but nothing for the Ford Escape 2020+ models yet.

------

Overall, the Ford Escape *looks* like its a cheaper, slower, RAV4 Prime. That's probably a good thing? Ford Escape PHEV 7.7s zero-to-sixty is fast enough for me (Rav4 Prime zero-to-sixty is a speedy 5.5s).

Furthermore, all RAV4 Primes are sold out in my area, so Ford Escape PHEV is a reasonable replacement. (Also, my mom drives a RAV4 so I'd feel really weird buying one)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 12, 2022)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Argonne National Labs GREET model is literally a 42% reduction including land use changes. I've put an arrow on the slide, because somehow you missed this detail.
> 
> View attachment 239446
> 
> ...


Supporting Lark's modeling...








						Relocating farmland could turn back clock twenty years on carbon emissions, say scientists
					

Scientists have produced a map showing where the world's major food crops should be grown to maximize yield and minimize environmental impact. This would capture large amounts of carbon, increase biodiversity, and cut agricultural use of freshwater to zero.




					phys.org
				



...less is more when it comes to the environment.

As much as I hate to admit it, electric vehicles are cleaner than ethanol. Hydrogen is preferable to both.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 12, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As much as I hate to admit it, electric vehicles are cleaner than ethanol. Hydrogen is preferable to both.



I think I can agree to that.

Ethanol is undoubtedly 100% American sources however, which is important in this geopolitical climate (even if we disagree on the greenhouse gas counting)

------

Hybrids seem superior in the short term, as we don't have enough lithium / nickel / cobalt production to mass EVs yet.

10 million hybrids or PHEVs will be better than 2 million EVs.

EDIT: Ford Escape / RAV4 PHEV has 14.4 kw-hrs of Li-Ion battery. Polestar2 has 75 kw-hrs, so yeah, 10-million PHEVs vs 2-million full-EVs is approximately the ratio real life will have.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 21, 2022)

The best way to improve automobiles may actually be to get as many people as possible walking, biking, and riding public transport.  Every person not driving is a car off the road making the driving experience better for those that must drive (e.g. live rural).

This channel covers everything on the topic from traffic slowing to city design/density (e.g. how American/Canadian suburbs are effectively a Ponzi scheme for cities).  I highly recommend watching all of the videos with the orange text on the thumbnail:


			https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2022)

Explanation of brake mean effective pressure which is the best way to compare internal combustion engines:


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 26, 2022)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The best way to improve automobiles may actually be to get as many people as possible walking, biking, and riding public transport. Every person not driving is a car off the road making the driving experience better for those that must drive (e.g. live rural).



I agree on this particular value. But applying it in practice may be a bit difficult. I personally have begun to take the bus once a week to work. Even factoring in car maintenance / depreciation, its barely breaking even (but with the current high gas prices, I might be slightly ahead with the bus).

What I've found useful is taking advantage of "transit hubs", locations that my municipality / state have deemed the center of transit. Malls in particular have 5+ bus lines running through them, meaning I can often drive to a mall -> take a bus to where I need to go.

Because busses only run once-per-hour in my area (or worse: 6 times per *day* for the commuter busses: 3 runs in the morning + 3 runs at night), routes that have 1 transfer skyrocket the time to 1+ hour bus rides, which is impractical. However, my car -> transit hub -> bus -> destination -> bus -> transit hub -> car -> home is a convenient and valid path (I get to my destination within 30 minutes total time, including transfers), and it does cut out many miles of my car driving. Furthermore, malls have plenty of free parking (and no one seems to have complained to me about leaving my car there for a whole day).

Given that the bus schedules are public, and all busses have GPS trackers that work with cell phones these days ("Transit" app on Android store is where all of my local bus GPS signals are), I can very easily time my trip to the mall and catch the bus without much waiting.

---------

AAA estimates ~7-cents per mile gasoline price (lol, assuming $2.36 / gallon @35mpg). This is probably closer to 11-cents to  20-cents/mile for most people. In addition, there's 8 to 10-cents per mile of maintenance: tires, oil, brakes, fluids, battery. Finally, there's depreciation, but depreciation of cars occurs over miles AND time, so its rather difficult to account for (it depends on how much you drive / year... but if you switch to the bus, you'll be driving less per year). https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-YDC-Brochure-Live.pdf

For gasoline + maintenance alone, a $2 bus trip at 15-cents gasoline/mile ($4 /gallon @ 26MPG) + 10-cent maintenance/mile breaks even around 8-miles. A $1.50 bus trip breaks even at 6 miles.

The AAA model seems a bit wrong to me for depreciation: suggesting $3000 to $4000 of depreciation per 15,000 miles (20-cents to 25-cents per mile of depreciation), suggesting depreciation is even more costly than gasoline + maintenance costs combined. I guess AAA assumes people are driving new cars or something? With this model of depreciation, a 4-mile bus trip @ $2 or a 3-mile bus trip @ $1.50 is all you need to break even.

Depreciation costs are clearly the hardest to account for. But they *must* be accounted for, because they're one of the largest costs associated with cars. Even more than fuel costs or maintenance costs apparently. Of course, most cars appreciated over the past year (wtf this economy) so driving a car could have technically made you money over the past year, lol.

--------

I guess the TL/DR is that for a $2 bus ride, the break even point in practice is somewhere between 4 to 8 miles, with depreciation as the largest factor of uncertainty. There's also the added benefit of not driving in stop-and-go traffic, so pretty much all city-driving is superior on a bus / subway IMO (stop-and-go traffic suuuucccks)


----------

