Don't count out the internal combustion

[cairns]

....engine yet. This is from Forbes yesterday. Given that Musk has taken more than 4.9 billion from US taxpayers (with no signs of stopping) it's nice to see that private industry hasn't stopped innovating.

Just What Tesla Doesn't Need - Mazda's New Internal Combustion Engine Technology

Tim Worstall , CONTRIBUTOR
I have opinions about economics, finance and public policy.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Tesla might not be all that happy about this and the various governments that are insisting upon electric only vehicles for the future might also regret that decision--Mazda has just announced a breakthrough in internal combustion engine technology. This is great for consumers of course as more choice is good as we get to pick and choose from among the various offerings to find something that more closely meets our needs and desires. But there's also a larger economic point here which is that we just don't know what is technological possible over time. Therefore government should not be picking winners, or, as they more normally do, pick losers. It's fine for us to set a target, we should indeed try to influence decisions away from harm to others through externalities, but the way to do this is to use the free market experimentation machine to explore the various ways of hitting that target. Humans are, after all, pretty inventive beings, it's worth sitting back and seeing what they can come up with:

Mazda Motor Corp said it would become the world's first automaker to commercialize a much more efficient petrol engine using technology that deep-pocketed rivals have been trying to engineer for decades, a twist in an industry increasingly going electric.

Mazda has form with this of course, they were rather the only major player to try to get the rotary, or Wankel, engine going mainstream. That was a fascinating rather than perfect technology of course:

Mazda has made the announcement car manufacturers have been working towards for years: it's releasing the first commercial compression-ignition gasoline engine. Dubbed SkyActiv-X, the engine will be available in 2019 and promises up to 20-30% more engine efficiency than the current SkyActiv-G, and up to 45% more than Mazda's 2008 petrol engine.



The underlying idea is that why not make petrol engines work like diesel ones? Instead of using spark plugs why not use compression to fire the cylinders? Yes, of course, it's more complicated than that and this isn't an engineering site:

"We think it is an imperative and fundamental job for us to pursue the ideal internal combustion engine," said Mazda's head of R&D Kiyoshi Fujiwara.

There's a value to that given the investment in current infrastructure. Worth continuing to use that if we can.

As to the why of the government decisions to go for all electric this isn't an environmental part of this site either, so leave the reason out of it. This is however about economics. And these sorts of advances in ICE technology are exactly why we want to insist upon general targets, not tight plans for how to reach them. Simply because we are uncertain about what it is possible to do, what it will be possible to do. So, we don't in fact know the precise technology that we wish to use to reach whatever target it is. Simply, as before, because we don't know what is technologically possible.

All of which is why free markets of course. A reasonable guess is that right now there are 1 billion things for sale in Manhattan. No, not 1 billion pieces of all things, but 1 billion different things. There will be additions of new things to those, new combinations of them found in the future as well. Some obviously aren't going to be all that useful, the addition of chocolate ice cream to left hand thread brass screws isn't going to solve transportation problems anytime soon. But if we set some goal, or even if people spot a way of making money by solving some problem, then they will indeed sort through the various combinations possible to see if there's something that can be done. In this case--and I emphasise that I'm not an engineer although I know a bit about weird metals and that's relevant--my guess would be that increased knowledge about metal alloys and tolerances has made this sort of engine only recently possible. Certainly couldn't be done with what we knew about metals 50 years ago, possibly only really just right now. Another possible reason is that we can only recently machine to the finer tolerances that are needed. But the exact why doesn't change the underlying idea. There is no planning system which can, in a central manner, sort through all of the possible routes to a problem solution. That's why we've got to go out there to the free market to search for one. There are simply so many different possible combinations, a combination being a useful method, that we need not a centralised bureaucracy doing to experimenting but every profit hungry grouping of engineers out there.

That the internal combustion engine just got more efficient isn't good news for Tesla even as it's great for consumers. But that there is yet another 20% efficiency improvement in the ICE shows that we don't want to be picking winners, instead wait and see which wins.

[dewolf]

Mazda's HCCI.....Homogeneous charge compression ignition. Apparently 18/19:1 Compression ratio.

Wifes 2014 Mazda6 has 14:1 compression ratio and gets 6.8L /100 around town.

[red-beard]

Efficiency on the engine is great. If the compression ratio is raised to 18:1, then there will be a 15-20% increase in thermal efficiency, but I'll need to review the actual fired temperature and the exhaust temperature.

That does not directly ratio to fuel efficiency, but it will decrease fuel consumption.

One way to reduce fuel consumption is make lighter cars with smaller engines and run them closer to their max efficiency point. This was the point of the hybrid cars. What most people don't understand about hybrid cars is they use different tires, are smaller, weigh less, along with running the tiny engine near its maximum efficiency point, along with regenerative breaking.

Put a 70 hp engine into a 1000 kg car with tires pressured to 4 bar (instead of 2), and you'll be close to the fuel efficiency of a Prius, with a lot lower cost system. I had one of these in college, it was called a Datsun B210, except for the tires.

My 1977 Datsun B210, unmodified, but with a college dorm worth of junk in it, would do 39 mpg (6.0L /100)@70mph (112.6 kph). Add high pressure tires (4 bar) I expect I could get at least 5 mpg more out of it. Switch the engine from a 1.7L 70 hp to a 1.0 with FI, I bet it could do 50 mpg (4.7L / 100).

[tcar]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Wifes 2014 Mazda6 has 14:1 compression ratio and gets 6.8L /100 around town.

Mazda has been using an Atkinson Cycle gas engine for a number of years as opposed to the almost universal Otto Cylcle gas engine that everyone else uses.. more efficient.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by red-beard

One way to reduce fuel consumption is make lighter cars with smaller engines and run them closer to their max efficiency point. This was the point of the hybrid cars. What most people don't understand about hybrid cars is they use different tires, are smaller, weigh less, along with running the tiny engine near its maximum efficiency point, along with regenerative breaking.

My 1977 Datsun B210, unmodified, but with a college dorm worth of junk in it, would do 39 mpg (6.0L /100)@70mph (112.6 kph). Add high pressure tires (4 bar) I expect I could get at least 5 mpg more out of it. Switch the engine from a 1.7L 70 hp to a 1.0 with FI, I bet it could do 50 mpg (4.7L / 100).

Automobiles in the past have experienced excellent gas mileage. So what has changed? Fat bloated autos with safety features that raise the weigh and price. Backup cameras are a safety item, and IMO, not a required standard requirement but are now. But, I fear it is too late to stop the safety onslaught.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/179635-car-backup-cameras-are-now-mandatory-okay-for-saving-lives-even-better-for-music-and-navigations

The promise of safety, which is a strawman BTW, because we still have automobile deaths and you can now add injuries from defective or malfunctioning airbags. I am not against having seat-belts but I am against laws that target anyone who refuses to wear one. I am against govt intrusions, it's for the children don't ya know, and insane court penalties, mostly payed to lawyers, raising the rates for anyone wanting to purchase or insure a new vehicle.

[MRM]

Now pair the hotter SkyActive-X engine with a steam engine that can capture all that excess heat that would be otherwise lost and you have an internal combustion engine that will have incredible efficiency.

The reason it's so hard to get away from fossil fuels is basic physics. There is so much energy packed into a gallon of gas, it is so transportable, and it's so easy to convert, that it's hard for other fuels to compete. Fossil fuel technology continues to improve even as alternative energy technologies develop. Alternatives are going to have to experience a quantum leap in technology to truly replace fossil fuels.

[sammyg2]

Can you imagine what mazda could come up with if the US gubmint was paying all their friggin bills for them?

[john70t]

My understanding is high compression engines run very hot and need to be built beefy.
They also create a lot of NOX.

Still waiting for Mazda to add the water injection of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine, the long-stroke reduction of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle, and a variable combustion chamber of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_compression_ratio.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Automobiles in the past have experienced excellent gas mileage. So what has changed? Fat bloated autos with safety features that raise the weigh and price. Backup cameras are a safety item, and IMO, not a required standard requirement but are now. But, I fear it is too late to stop the safety onslaught.

When I lived in San Diego, my 1970 914/6 with a tired engine (140 hp?) was able to easily keep up with a 1990's Camaro (250 hp?). Weight.

914/6 - ~2000 lbs
1990's Camaro - 5000 lbs

I was astounded! I thought the car would weigh 3000-3500 lbs. But 5000? Insane!

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by john70t

My understanding is high compression engines run very hot and need to be built beefy.
They also create a lot of NOX.

Still waiting for Mazda to add the water injection of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine, the long-stroke reduction of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle, and a variable combustion chamber of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_compression_ratio.

Yes. High compression means a higher flame front temp, which means higher levels of NOx. Diesels deal with this by using DEF (Urea). You could more easily do this for gasoline engines, since they do not need a soot filter (DPF).

[Adrian Thompson]

Originally Posted by red-beard

When I lived in San Diego, my 1970 914/6 with a tired engine (140 hp?) was able to easily keep up with a 1990's Camaro (250 hp?). Weight.

914/6 - ~2000 lbs
1990's Camaro - 5000 lbs

I was astounded! I thought the car would weigh 3000-3500 lbs. But 5000? Insane!

I call BS. There just isn't the room in the back of a 4th Gen Camaro to put enough dead hookers to get to 5,000lb's

1994 z28 road test C&D - WEight 3,460 lb's
1999 z28 road test C&D - WEight 3,443 lb's
2002 Z28 Road test Motor Trend - weight 3,411lb's (Note 2002 was still the 4th Gen)

[RANDY P]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Can you imagine what mazda could come up with if the US gubmint was paying all their friggin bills for them?

The idea is Tesla is supposed to come up with innoative ways to bring electric car costs down- you know, come up with stuff to help make it practical. They ain't done boo about that- unless you count creating fads, styling and marketing gimmicks as innovation.

They are just cleverly marketed and stylish. Once it's known they really haven't done much for making them practical, it's over. No more tax dollars for you Musk.

rip

[RANDY P]

this makes sense of Tesla:

https://hbr.org/2015/05/teslas-not-as-disruptive-as-you-might-think

"To investigate, Bartman’s team posed five questions it uses to evaluate disruptive innovations. First, does the product either target overserved customers (by offering lower performance at a lower price) or create a new market (by targeting customers who couldn’t use or afford the existing product)? Second, does it create “asymmetric motivation,” meaning that while the disrupter is motivated to enter higher performance segments over time, existing players aren’t motivated to fight it? Third, can it improve performance fast enough to keep pace with customers’ expectations while retaining its low cost structure? Fourth, does it create new value networks, including sales channels? Fifth, does it disrupt all incumbents, or can an existing player exploit the opportunity?

As Bartman worked through the questions, it became clear that Tesla is not a disrupter. It’s a classic “sustaining innovation”—a product that, according to Christensen’s definition, offers incrementally better performance at a higher price. There’s nothing rudimentary about Teslas, which compete on price against cars by BMW and Mercedes."]]

...snip

"Our analysis concludes that a competitive response won’t happen until Tesla expands outside its current niche of people who prefer electric vehicles to gas-powered cars—but if it expands by creating more variety (such as SUVs) and more-affordable vehicles, competition will be fierce.”

In other words, Tesla appeals to the fad crowd that likes the novelty of owning an electric car that cost as much as a BMW- there is no other "innovation" around Tesla. Once that goes away (due to the fact they are impractical and that crowd moves on to the next big thing, and buys new cars-)

- adios, Tesla.

Rip

[pmax]

The improvement in ICE efficiency leads to an interesting question whether it can meet or even exceed those of the power plants (40%?) given the electric cars can't all be charged using solar or wind (?!) power. ICE technology in the highly competitive auto market in contrast to the latter advances rapidly so it is not out of the question IMO.

As long as there's enough economic value to support an ICE industry, it will remain viable. Even if internal combustion tech is banned for everyday driving, sport usage will live on. As Ferdinand said, the last car built will be a sports car.

When dependence on fossil fuels for power reaches nil, that's when the ICE bows out for common usage.

[wdfifteen]

“Sky-Active X will be available in 2019...”

[manbridge 74]

As I recall, a 1970 914/6 was 110hp DIN....

[javadog]

Originally Posted by manbridge 74

As I recall, a 1970 914/6 was 110hp DIN....

Yep. Not a rocketship, by any stretch.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by pmax

The improvement in ICE efficiency leads to an interesting question whether it can meet or even exceed those of the power plants (40%?) given the electric cars can't all be charged using solar or wind (?!) power. ICE technology in the highly competitive auto market in contrast to the latter advances rapidly so it is not out of the question IMO.

As long as there's enough economic value to support an ICE industry, it will remain viable. Even if internal combustion tech is banned for everyday driving, sport usage will live on. As Ferdinand said, the last car built will be a sports car.

When dependence on fossil fuels for power reaches nil, that's when the ICE bows out for common usage.

Our single speed power generation ICE generators (2250 hp/1.6MW) are a bit over 40% efficient. If you optimize an ICE, it can be over 40%. This is why hybrids are so efficient.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by manbridge 74

As I recall, a 1970 914/6 was 110hp DIN....

Originally Posted by javadog

Yep. Not a rocketship, by any stretch.

When I bought my 914/6, it had already been bumped up to a 2.2. When I rebuilt it, it became a 2.7l with the longer crank and rods, S cams and ported heads, basically built to RS spec.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by red-beard

When I bought my 914/6, it had already been bumped up to a 2.2. When I rebuilt it, it became a 2.7l with the longer crank and rods, S cams and ported heads, basically built to RS spec.

That would help.

The usual 2.2 S pistons, E cams bolt-on rebuilds that were so common weren't enough.