Fixing Americas car industry

SpaceNut · 2022-01-22 20:27:45

GM will invest $154 Million in its Western New York Lockport Components plant

AAT2XRX.img?h=373&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

3 phase design

Specifically, the plant will produce the electric motor stator module for Ultium platform-based electric truck and SUV products.
The stator is one of the two main parts of an electric motor - the one that does not move. It contains winding (usually a three-phase), powered from an inverter. The other part is the rotor (Ultium rotors are equipped with permanent magnets).

This $2 Billion EV Opportunity Is About to Start Paying Off AAT23aT.img?w=700&h=524&m=6

So when one might get stuck in a snow storm or other cold weather one can expect the battery to last How Long Can an EV Keep the Cabin Warm When It's Cold Out? We Found Out

We let our long-term 2019 Tesla Model 3 Long Range and a 2022 Hyundai Sonata N-Line sit in subfreezing temperatures with the climate control set to 65 to see how long they'd last.
The Tesla could theoretically last a max of 45.1 hours while the Hyundai would make it 51.8 hours.
No surprise, but the Tesla is vastly more efficient, burning 1.6 kWh per hour versus the Hyundai sucking gas at the rate of 10.3 kWh per hour.

SpaceNut · 2022-02-05 20:02:46

Shipping of ore is as much as supply issue as the stopping of a mining lease for Accelerating sales of electric vehicles have fueled a scramble for nickel, cobalt and lithium, propelling prices of the battery materials to multi-year highs.

Of course the supply of chips for the newer computerized cars as well as trucks is going to slow Americans recovery.
Ford plans to suspend or cut production at 8 factories due to chip shortage

That is quite a large number of unemployed.

SpaceNut · 2022-02-08 20:02:04

One of the problems coming with the more electronic vehicles is that the company that makes it is wanting you to only be able to have it fixed by the authrorized dealers shop for the maker of the vehicle.

A Fight Over the Right to Repair Cars Turns Ugly

In the wake of a voter-approved law, Subaru and Kia dealers in Massachusetts have disabled systems that allow remote starts and send maintenance alerts.

kbd512 · 2022-02-11 11:55:26

A 12V Lead-acid car battery can still shock the snot out of you, but it's very rare for those batteries to kill anyone. It could be replaced with a 12V Lithium-ion battery at significantly greater cost, which would provide a much greater jolt if you accidentally became part of the circuit, yet the Lead-acid battery remains one of the best long-term stable power supplies for low-power electronics such as the control computer / power door locks / power windows / power mirrors / lights / etc. Lead-acid is less sensitive to low temperatures than Lithium-ion, which is a problem for everyone living in colder climates, to include much of the US, Canada, Europe, Russia, and various other countries situated in high northern or southern latitudes and mountainous terrain.

I have a better set of questions, though:

1. What do all of those additional electric or electronic features add to the operation of a motor vehicle?

2. How much are you willing to pay the manufacturer for those additional features?

Would you rather have an absolutely bulletproof engine or electric motor and drive train that's engineered to the nines, resists corrosion like a champ, is primarily comprised of user-repairable or shop-repairable sub-assemblies for reasonable cost if something ever does break, and is overbuilt to the point that simple routine preventative maintenance assures that your vehicle's major parts last for the better part of a lifetime, or do you absolutely have to have every "latest-and-greatest" gizmo that the dealership can offer to you, accepting that all of that stuff will be non-repairable and absurdly expensive to replace when it does eventually fail?

I like the heated and air-conditioned leather seats in my wife's Escalade, but somehow the non-heated / non-air-conditioned fabric seats in my Charger still function just as well as seats.

I think the electronic self-retracting door handles made for the Teslas are a really neat feature, but they're not worth $1,000 a piece (in my opinion). Would some kind of spring-powered retracting door handle suffice, or is there some greater magic in putting electronics in absolutely every part of the vehicle, as Ford / GM / Chrysler / Tesla / Mercedes-Benz / BMW / Toyota are now so fond of doing?

3. How much are you willing to pay for parts replacements when those features malfunction or cease to work entirely?

I've taken note of the number of cars in junkyards that don't have a mark on them, meaning they were never wrecked in a traffic accident, they're simply not repairable for any reasonable cost so the insurance company writes-off the entire vehicle, hands the owner some cash, and tells them to go buy a new one.

4. Is there something that electric or electronic power mirrors do significantly better than simple pushrods or cables to move the mirrors?

Both of those systems clearly work quite well, but one is considerably more expensive than the other. Both will eventually fail in operation, so how much do you want to pay for repair parts and labor?

5. Is it more important to have a car that will still start after disconnecting the battery, or every electronic gadget imaginable? Why not just go to the arcade when you want to play an arcade game, and then resign yourself to the less entertaining experience of driving to and from the arcade?

I enjoy both driving and flying, but I prefer doing those tasks myself because that was the point of paying for all that training and experience. I don't want or need a computer to do it for me. When the day comes that I can no longer drive or fly myself to where I'm going, I'll pay someone else to perform those tasks for me while I sit back and enjoy the view. I know that I can and will make mistakes, and that in certain situations the computer may prove more adept than I am, but I also note that most of avoiding accidents is simply paying attention to what you see going on in front of you.

You need a computer for precision landing on the moon. Somewhere out there, there's an ace pilot like Neil Armstrong out there who can make it look easy, but we all know it's not. The pure speed involved virtually assures that even the slowest computer will prove more capable than your average human pilot at keeping the vehicle on the correct trajectory. The same applies to "hand-flying" the Concorde at Mach 2. That can be and has been done, but it's not recommended.

Finally, on my part there's a much deeper meaning in this concept of "owning your own technology". I refuse to blame the technology I choose to use for my personal failings, whether lack of understanding or carelessness or judgement error. I alone bear responsibility for the results of my use of technology. I can't assert that some AI-enabled computer program caused my car to crash, because I only drive cars that require my constant input to operate. Since I have full authority over the operation of my aircraft or car, I also bear full responsibility over their prudent operation. I must be mindful of what I'm doing because these "transportation power tools" are potentially dangerous to both myself and others. I can't use a computer program as a kind of "crutch" to compensate for lack of skill and experience, while engaged in the act of doing something that is inherently dangerous.

Steering a car is not a particularly burdensome requirement for driving down the road- hundreds of millions of drivers manage to do it well enough to avoid accidents the overwhelming majority of the time. If people think it is, then it seems to me that they want the benefits that come from driving without the responsibilities. They can have that by paying a qualified driver to drive for them, but abdicating all personal responsibility to a machine that can never be held responsible or accountable is, in my opinion, wrong-headed and likely to result in even less desirable outcomes for humanity.

SpaceNut · 2022-02-11 19:04:38

Which says that car manufacturers are making them for the people that are not low to lower middle class but for those that are richer.

I am finding out that only a few of the electric dash functions are even needed to give visual performance of the Prius operation as I am testing the mileage which I am getting.

SpaceNut · 2022-02-20 19:57:48

Just think of all those fancy cars with a cellphone built in that will be junk soon. Thats not going to help the industry will it...

The 3G shutdown means your car might lose these features this week

SpaceNut · 2022-03-09 19:22:36

from the Recycling plastics 5e20d86f73abc.image.jpg?resize=400%2C534

Mars_B4_Moon wrote:

Scientists Develop Breakthrough Method for Recycling Industrial Plastics at Room Temperature in 20 Minutes
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/upcycli … -uni-bath/

kbd512 wrote:

If we can infinitely recycle engineering plastic without affecting the quality of the material, then we should be able to make car chassis from plastic, drastically reducing the weight and overall complexity of the fabrication process, as compared to using multiple pieces of steel and/or Aluminum sheet metal that's been stamped and welded together to form a chassis. In 1997, Chrysler was able to pop a complete 209 pound PET (2,000 plastic soda bottles) fiber-filled plastic chassis and doors out of a mold in about 3 minutes. The six-piece chassis (chassis and four doors) used recycled plastic. The entire vehicle weighed 1,199 pounds and was powered by a 25hp / 36ft-lbs torque 0.8L Briggs & Stratton air cooled lawn mower engine. 0-60mph in 23.6 seconds, 70mph top speed. Today, we can make that same engine crank out 35hp to 50hp.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-09 19:22:52

1997 Chrysler CCV Concept - American Citroen 2CV youtube video

Twenty years before the FCA-PSA merger, Chrysler tried to build its own Citroen 2CV

When completed atop its front-wheel-drive 101-inch-wheelbase chassis, the CCV weighed in at just under 1,200 pounds, returned 50 miles per gallon, topped out at 70 mph, and would have cost around $6,000. At the time a basic, no-frills Neon weighed about twice the CCV and cost about $11,000.

Looks like the PT cruiser that I had....

SpaceNut · 2022-03-09 19:23:15

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
I would like to tweak Chrysler's CCV concept just a bit, by making the vehicle approximately twice as wide as Chrysler's CCV was, and equipping it with a 57hp opposed two-cylinder Pegasus O-100 engine. While this obviously won't provide the same fuel economy as the Briggs & Stratton engine, it also produces about 4X as much torque at less than half that lawn mower engine's peak power rpm figure. It won't win any drag races, but it will at least accelerate well enough to get out of its own way, unlike the original CCV's anemic 23 second 0-60mph performance. That would likely be slow enough to be dangerous on Houston highways.
The Pegasus O-100 is a custom-built part aviation / part automotive, half Continental O-200 engine. It's not a Continental Motors product, though, and is the work of a Mr. Pete Plumb. He created it for his single-seat "Crackerjack" trainer-type aircraft after the supply of suitable Rotax 2-stroke engines dried up. The O-100 uses a pair of O-200 cylinders / "jugs", CP Carillo forged pistons and connecting rods, custom austentitic ductile iron crankshaft, custom cast Aluminum crankcase, chopped-off O-200 camshaft, and Continental's O-200 / O-300 accessory case that normally mounts dual magnetos, an alternator, and an electric starter. There are no timing belts or chains in these engines, as everything is gear-driven. An opposed or "boxer-type" engine will be smoother in operation than any V-twin without balance shafts. The engine can use a throttle body fuel injector or direct injection into the jugs. An electronic ignition will be provided via a self-powered CDI accessory in lieu of the pair of 1930s vintage Bendix magnetos. We'll also add a catalytic converter to reduce emissions and a proper muffler to reduce noise. The unused pad on the engine's accessory case that was previously home to one of the magnetos, will instead mount an AC compressor for cabin cooling. Cabin heat will be provided via a thermal transfer loop that extracts heat from the engine's oil tank.
The use of dual plugs is primarily to assure reliable ignition after plug fouling from the Lead in AVGAS messes with the spark, as well as counteracting the general reliability issues associated with magnetos. That's something which is not typically a serious problem for engines that use unleaded gasoline and CDI, but we will retain the dual-plug feature to reduce emissions by promoting prompt combustion.
Similar to the O-200 and O-300, the O-100 makes its power at low rpm. All 57hp / 103ft-lbs of torque comes in at only 2900rpm. That's a lot of usable power without revving the engine to the moon. O-100 weighs about 105lbs to 110lbs, all-up weight. We can mount it to a 3-speed Jeep CJ manual transmission, and those weigh about 75lbs. I figure on another 15lbs or so for a good Aluminum bellhousing, although it should be possible to integrate this into the crankcase for less weight. Add another 20lbs for the flywheel and clutch. With engine and transmission mounting hardware, and a full exhaust system, I expect total weight to be 220lbs or so. That does not include the rear diff or axles, which I expect will add another 60lbs or so.
Anyhow...
600lbs for my CCV2 plastic chassis, 280lbs for the drive train, 200lbs for the suspension components and steel chassis stiffeners, 160lbs for the wheels, 100lbs for the automotive glass mandated here in America, 60lbs for 10 gallons of fuel, and we have a fully functional 1,400lbs highway car that comfortably seats 4 American-sized people. With four 200 pound passengers we're still at 2,200lbs. Most of the time we'll be well under that weight figure. The Dodge Neon's curb weight fell somewhere in that range, so its all-steel construction made it considerably heavier than my CCV2 concept.
This is my "commuter car concept", fully capable of taking the kids to school and the parents to work, without spending crazy money on electronic gadgetry that will inevitably require total replacement, being so costly to replace that the vehicle is not economically repairable. When the gadget repairs end up costing more money than the vehicle's Blue Book value, that is precisely how otherwise repairable durable goods end up in junk yards, where much of the embodied energy is subsequently lost to recycling and manufacture of more expensive and energy-intensive "next-generation trash" that never manages to reduce energy consumption. The energy saved in terms of manufacture, operation, and total replacement will enable our working men or women to transport themselves to where they need to go without bankrupting themselves or our nation, which will inevitably lead to the downfall of our technologically advanced civilization. More importantly, with only 1/3 the fuel consumption of our modern behemoths, we can feasibly extend our existing fossil fuel energy supplies and affordably use intermittent solar or wind energy to synthesize the transportation fuels required make our society function as well as it does.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-09 19:24:07

kbd512, Of course the upgrades for performance means that price tag just went over that $20,000 dollar value and then some. Of course before we were talking about those with little or bad credit and low income ability to purchase a vehicle.

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
If the average American was a little smaller then we wouldn't need the upgrades. Even burger flippers are making $15/hr now, so hopefully they have the money for a quality car. It's a 20 year purchase, rather than a 2 to 5 year purchase. We're talking about a $6,000 engine, $250 worth of plastic for the chassis, $250 for glass, $1,500 worth of drivetrain components, plus another $1,500 worth of misc parts (head lights, seats) and labor for assembly. With a 10% profit margin, that's $10,425.
If GM can afford to sell their Chevy Spark for $13,600, a vehicle that's a good 800 pounds heavier, then there's no reason why mass production of a much lighter and lower technology vehicle wouldn't fetch a lower price. We're choosing to put money into the plastic molding machines and a high-quality and durable engine / transmission combo.
This car is so simple that assembly and disassembly can happen in one hour. We can disassemble them for recycling, instead of crushing and then chopping them up into little bits. The engines should last for decades with routine maintenance, even if periodic rebuilds are required.
These are the features NOT present:
* power steering
* power brakes
* power windows
* power door locks
* power mirrors
* power seats
* radio
* electronic transmission
* electronic dash instruments
* electrical fuel pump
What we DO have:
* user-adjustable bucket seats with 5-point harnesses in lieu of air bags
* speedometer with mileage readout
* engine tach
* engine and oil temp
* fuel quantity gauge
* turn signal indicators
* windshield wipers and washer
* cabin air conditioner
* cabin heater
* catalytic converter
* USB ports for charging user-supplied electronic gadgets like a cell phone or iPad
If you've ever seen all the electronic silliness inside a Chevy Spark, there's simply no way this car could ever be as expensive as a Spark.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-09 19:40:50

They chevy spark is being discontinued after the 2022 year production is done but the sonic still seems to be alive.

https://www.bobsteelechevy.com/2021-che … evy-sonic/

https://www.carsdirect.com/compare/chev … olet-sonic

https://www.depaulachevrolet.com/the-sa … and-apart/

kbd512 · 2022-03-09 20:00:16

SpaceNut,

How would a car that's 800 pounds lighter and a whole lot simpler than a Chevy Spark cost more money than the Chevy Spark when it's mass-produced?

The Chevy Spark has a 98hp liquid cooled engine, enough electronics to run a 1980s data center, and a 2,246 to 2,312 pound curb weight.

Something about that logic isn't very sensible at all.

If your logic held water, then the Chevy Spark should cost a lot more than it does, but it doesn't.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-09 21:16:07

Place of manufacturing is one reason for the parts and completion of the assembly.

I did dig and it seems that Spark https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/chevrol … let-spark/

The 2019 Chevy Spark is assembled by GM Korea at the GM Changwon factory in Changwon, Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea (South Korea).

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2020/10/ch … has-ended/

Production of the Chevy Sonic has officially ended at General Motors’ Lake Orion facility in Orion Township, Michigan.

Seems both are dead now....

kbd512 · 2022-03-09 21:46:47

SpaceNut,

There are plenty of places that make molded plastic parts in the US, Canada, and Mexico. I think we'll manage. Continental Motors engine parts are all Made in America, so far as I know. I'm talking about very simple stuff that we already know how to mass produce and have plenty of raw material to make it from. We can make millions of these little guys and the cost will be low enough that average Americans can afford to drive and fly simple machines that are suitably miserly on fuel consumption.

I want to start a new manufacturing plant that makes use of unskilled labor for simple parts assembly. We could reasonably assemble these things at car dealerships, because that's how simple they are. Apart from the electronic ignition and fuel injection, the rest of the engine and transmission are 1930s to 1950s technology. We're talking about 1 microchip for the entire vehicle. I think that's an attainable level of technological sophistication.

Calliban · 2022-03-10 06:58:16

Only 10% of UK drivers intend to buy an electric vehicle in the next 5 years.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpre … tric-cars/

The reasons are simple. They are more expensive (and less affordable), maintenance costs can get huge and they offer inferior performance. Early adopters were idealists prepared to overlook their obvious flaws.

As people get poorer in the years ahead, EVs will become less affordable, not more. And governments are going to lose appetite for subsidising EVs and charging infrastructure as tax receipts fall and deficits grow even wider. There is a definite market for simple and cheap, petrol powered cars that get good mpg. Come 2030, most people will be looking for something like a Ford Fiesta rather than a Tesla. They will want something that can get them around at a price they can afford. Most won't care how good the sound system is, or whether there are heated seats or air conditioning. These are nice to have embellishments, that most people will drop if it makes the difference between having a car that can take them places and not having one at all.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-10 19:43:25

Seems that lots of electric vehicles are being sold at the car dealership but with little regard to how to charge them for most.

we have plenty of idle automobile plants to do production in but they are unionized so the price tag just went up if these were used.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-13 13:41:04

There are choices which can be made Not ready for an electric vehicle, despite the spike in gas prices? Buckle up, here are some of the most fuel-efficient traditional cars

Here are some of the most fuel-efficient gas-powered cars:
1. Mitsubishi Mirage: 36/43/39 mpg (city and highway driving)
2. Hyundai Elantra: 33/43/37 mpg
3. Honda Civic: 33/42/36 mpg
4. Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio: 33/41/36 mpg (tie)
5. Toyota Corolla Hatchback: 32/41/35 mpg
Most fuel-efficient gas/electric hybrid
1. Hyundai Ioniq: 58/60/59 mpg
2. Toyota Prius: 58/53/56 mpg
3. Hyundai Elantra Hybrid: 53/56/54 mpg
4. Honda Insight: 55/49/52 mpg
5. Toyota Corolla Hybrid: 53/52/52 mpg
Most fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid
1. Toyota Prius Prime: 133 mpg-equivalent
2. Hyundai Ioniq Plug-in Hybrid: 119 mpg-e
3. Kia Niro Plug-in Hybrid: 105 mpg-e
4. Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 105 mpg-e
5. Toyota RAV4 Prime: 94 mpg-e
Most efficient electric vehicles (energy use per 100 miles)
1. 2022 Tesla Model 3 RWD: 25 kWh
2. 2022 Lucid Air Grand Touring w/19-inch wheels: 26 kWh
3. 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EV: 28 kWh
4. 2022 Hyundai Kona EV: 28 kWh
5. 2022 Tesla Model S: 28 kWh
6. 2022 Tesla Model Y Long Range: 28 kWh
7. 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUV: 29 kWh
8. 2022 Kia EV6 RWD: 29 kWh
9. 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5 RWD: 30 kWh
10. 2022 Kia Niro EV: 30 kWh

What no years on the others....

SpaceNut · 2022-03-19 20:51:31

These charts show how much it costs to charge an EV vs. refueling a gas vehicle

For gasoline, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that the average new vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2020 had a combined fuel-economy rating of 25.7 miles per gallon. Driving 100 miles in that average vehicle would use 3.9 gallons of gas. (Figures for 2021 haven't been released yet.)
On the electric-vehicle side, the EPA's efficiency rating for EVs — called "MPGe", for miles per gallon equivalent — gives consumers an idea of how far an EV can travel on 33.7 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of charge. Why 33.7 kWh? That's the amount of electricity that is chemically equivalent to the energy in a gallon of regular gasoline.
recently calculated that the total lifetime cost of ownership of an EV is about $4,700 less than that of an internal-combustion vehicle.

kbd512 · 2022-03-20 17:52:00

1 gallon of gasoline weighs 2.72kg. Tesla's 85kWh Model 3 battery weighs 530kg and will permit a range of 310 miles. Therefore, a 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent Tesla Lithium-ion battery weighs 210kg, the same as 77.25 gallons of real motor gasoline. A Honda Civic gets 42 miles per gallon on the highway, so 7.38 gallons of fuel is consumed to go 310 miles, which weighs 20kg, or 26.5 TIMES LESS than the weight of a Tesla battery for equivalent energy storage.

At Europe's 30 cents per kWh prices, which is precisely what Americans will pay using mostly "green energy" and what they're already paying out in Hawaii (because energy costs money, and the more unaffordable you make it, the less there is to go around), a full "fill-up" to go another 310 miles in your Tesla will cost you $25.50 after "green energy" is factored in. London is already paying 48 cents per kWh. That's more than gasoline costs over here for equivalent distance traveled, by a lot. If gasoline is $2/gallon (Trump prices), you pay $14.76, $3/gallon is $22.14, and $4/gallon is $29.52 (Biden prices). That's why President Biden had to kill off domestic energy production ASAP. Unless gasoline was at least $4/gallon, then the combination of expensive "green cars" and "green electricity" was never going to be cheaper than gasoline. The obvious solution was to make gas much more expensive, rather than batteries and solar panels much cheaper. Even with gas prices at $4/gallon, that amounts to a "per-fill up" savings of $129.68 per year. Figure on $100 for the oil and filter changes per year. Honda Civic tires are a lot cheaper than Tesla tires, so that yearly oil change becomes almost meaningless over time. If you drive 10,000 miles per year, then that's $229.68 yearly savings for using electricity vs gasoline. If our green energy zealots force us to pay London prices for electricity under their unworkable scheme, then you pay an additional $264 per year after yearly / 10,000 mile oil changes are factored in. This is exclusively about making you poor and them rich. They don't care about the environment and never did. They sure as hell don't care about whether or not you can afford energy prices.

2022 Honda Civic - $22,350
2021 Tesla Model 3 Extended Range - $50,990
2022 Honda Civic vs 2021 Tesla Model 3 Extended Range Cost differential - $28,640
$28,640 / 229.68 = 124.7 YEARS to reach cost break-even between Honda Civic (gas + oil changes) and Tesla Model 3 (using wind and solar energy)

This totally ignores all the road taxes paid by gasoline purchases. I'm sure they'll repeal that gas tax after everyone drives an electric car... Not!

At 10,000 miles per year and $4/gallon gasoline, to make a Honda Civic's and Tesla Model 3 equal in terms of total cost, you "only" have to drive it for 124 YEARS AND SOME CHANGE. If gasoline was $8/gallon, then you "only" have to drive it for longer than you or I have left to live. I'm 41 now. I can't speak for you, but yours truly ain't gonna live for another 62 years.

1.24 million miles... That's how far you have to drive your Tesla to reach break-even on the cost differential at current prices. You could visit the moon twice, but that battery won't last for 124 years and you won't be driving 1.24 million miles on the original battery, either. There are Honda Civics with more than a million miles on the odometer on the original engine. Diesel engines like the Cummins 6BT get rebuilt every 1 to 1.5 million miles or so. The 1.5 million km Tesla Model S P85 had its battery replaced 3 times and its drive motors replaced 4 times that the reporter knew of. Maybe the newer batteries will last longer, but I'm guessing that the microchips won't last any longer than they already do.

Yes, it's marginally cheaper to operate an electric vehicle when gasoline is AT LEAST $4/gallon, but it's also more than double the purchase price to start with. The interest on the car loan will only make that proposition worse. The government won't be offering any tax breaks for something everyone is buying, either. After they jack up the price of electricity to pay for this "green energy" scheme that costs so much green for so little energy, then what? After the road tax is shared with EV users, you will never catch up to $4/gallon gasoline in terms of total cost. Will you even be able to afford to drive to work after all that nonsense?

A Honda Civic has a 158hp engine. I wanted to use a 57hp engine in my car. You will never achieve economic pay-back on a Tesla as compared to my plastic and/or tubular steel chassis concept car (a modern-day Ford Anglia or Citroen 2CV), because no human will ever live long enough for that to occur. I figure on my car's gas mileage being at least 50mpg, up to 60mpg at 55mph, because the Civic weighs about twice as much, so it requires twice as much power to get it moving (start / stop city driving). You will eventually achieve energy parity with my 1,500 pound car using an all-electric Tesla that weighs 2.8 TIMES as much as my car, but that process will take at least 6.5 years or much longer if we consider all embodied energy (the fact that my car is a 8MWh to 9MWh investment vs the 26MWh investment in the Tesla's 85kWh Lithium-ion battery alone). Oddly enough, that Tesla has about 3X more horsepower and torque than my proposed car, which coincides quite nicely with its near 3X greater weight.

Whenever these people do their economics and energy consumption comparison "magic tricks" with a Tesla, they use the Mercedes-Benz C-class or some equally ridiculous comparison using a top-of-the-line luxury car that weighs almost exactly the same as a Tesla Model 3 and costs almost exactly the same as a Tesla Model 3. Except for all the electronic nonsense, it's little different from a Honda Civic or Mazda Model 3 or Ford Focus or Chevy Cruze in terms of interior room, comfort items like heat / AC / power-everything, and range. Tesla has everybody beat on gadgets, which is great if you want gadgets and immaterial if you only want a functional car. All of the gasoline powered cars go 400 to 500 miles on the highway. Tesla's Model 3 Extended Range goes 310 miles on the highway.

26,562,500 Watt-hours of embodied energy in an 85kWh Lithium-ion battery.
6,740,000 Watt-hours of embodied energy in enough gasoline to drive 10,000 miles per year, at 50mpg.
2,741,935 Watt-hours of energy that must be generated per year to drive 10,000 miles per year, at 85kWh/310 miles.*1
10,693,548 Watt-hours of energy over 3.9 years.
3.9 years worth of driving to reach energy parity, before consideration of the energy to power the electric vehicle.
5.52 years worth of driving to reach energy parity.
So... How many years of driving before energy parity if comparing 5.52 years of driving for both vehicles?
6.19 years.
At about 6.5 years to 7 years, we finally reach energy payback. That sounds great, except that most people keep the car between 6 and 8 years before buying a new one. Tesla has an 8 year / 100,000 mile warranty, which means any repair is not covered by the time energy payback is achieved, and a replacement battery is 30% of the purchase price of a brand new vehicle.*2

Did I mention that if we include the energy cost of the rest of the Tesla, at double the total weight of my proposal, excluding the battery pack, that we're then looking at another 6.08 years or so to achieve energy payback (this presumes that all of the other materials used to manufacture a Tesla only represent 1/3 of the embodied energy in a typical 3,000 pound car; you can see why Sandy Munro is so big on eliminating parts, because he knows that there's an energy and therefore monetary cost tied to every part)?

*Note #1: If we use that Mercedes-Benz system for recovery of waste thermal energy in conjunction with Skyactiv-X, as Mercedes-Benz uses in their system installed in their F1 race cars, then we're sitting at about 70% thermal efficiency. As the US EPA document linked to below explains, Honda's 1.5L turbo already operates at about 35% brake thermal efficiency almost anywhere inside its power band, rather than the typically cited 20% (because the graph shows that 1.5L doesn't utilize energy that poorly at idle). Toyota is at 45% without forced induction, and Mazda is at 50% using Skyactiv-G (a 16-to-1 compression ignition gasoline vs diesel engine). Now we have no hope of ever using less electrical energy to move that much heavier Tesla Model 3, unless their battery becomes drastically lighter.

*Note #2: At least 25% of the power generated never kisses the feeder wire, which is not factored into the above basic math problem, but it still takes the same amount of solar panel / wind turbine / gas turbine / nuclear generating equipment to generate a given number of Watt-hours of electricity. That'd be why the cost keeps going up, despite the L-I-E that "green energy" is getting cheaper. Yeah, right. Purchase prices for the solar panels and wind turbines keep going down, but the consumer prices keep going up. As regulated as utilities are, that is not possible. The only real explanation is that it costs more because more embodied energy was sunk into that equipment and it produces less total output per dollar spent, so naturally it costs more. Duh! When you don't make much power to begin with, and lose 25% of it to electrical resistance inside the solar or wind power plant, then another 5% to 10% on its way to your home or charging station, now you have a serious problem. That infrastructure requires 2X to 3X more frequent replacement as well, so even more embodied energy not included in the total energy cost. It's also much more expensive in terms of dollars per Watt, despite all malarkey to the contrary, which explains why electricity prices keep going up, not down, as more and more of it is installed, because now 3 separate power plants (solar or wind and batteries or solar and wind and gas turbine or nuclear) are required.

This is a fool's errand. Either that battery comes a lot closer to matching gasoline in terms of energy density and the electronics last almost indefinitely, else this doesn't work in terms of total energy consumption. The "gearing ratio" for microchips is 800kg of fuel per 1kg of microchips. All you're doing is shifting where the emissions come from and how much absurd over-consumption of natural resources is required to generate electricity. If most vehicles are electric, then grid stability and total generating capacity are nearly all that matters, and that means more absurd over-consumption masquerading as "increased efficiency". We already have 100% "renewable electricity" here in Houston according to the brainwashed "green energy" religious zealots dictating energy sources because they're mathematically-challenged, yet every gas turbine power plant in the entire city never stops spinning. For a city that supposedly has all of its electricity demands met by "clean renewable energy", at least according to them, we sure do waste an awful lot of natural gas to generate electricity.

Regarding how speed and the associated aerodynamic drag kill fuel economy, that same Honda Civic will achieve over 50mpg at 55mph, so a plain old sheet metal car with the type of fuel economy I proposed already exists, it's merely consuming more energy than it needs to, at double the weight of a 1940s vintage Ford Anglia or my modernized take on Chrysler's CCV.

A Tale of Two Honda Civics: Turbo vs. Non-Turbo Fuel Economy

From the article:

Turbochargers may be synonymous with big power and torque, but automakers have a very different motive for embracing forced induction. Smaller turbo engines fare better than naturally aspirated ones with similar performance on the EPA’s granny-like driving schedule. However, it’s not always clear if the fuel-economy advantage holds up on public roads with quicker acceleration and higher speeds.
To sniff out the real-world differences, we tested two Honda Civic sedans, each with the CVT, but one with the 174-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder and one with the 158-hp naturally aspirated 2.0-liter. By the EPA’s measure, the turbo Civic holds a 1-mpg edge on the highway with its 31/42-mpg ratings.
On a 300-mile loop of mixed highway, rural, and urban driving, the cars proved equally frugal by averaging 40 mpg. Digging deeper, we measured the steady-speed fuel consumption of the two Civics. Some of our results are astounding, such as the 50-plus-mpg both Civics achieve at 55 mph. The turbo wins across speeds ranging from 30 to 90 mph, with a 6-mpg advantage between 40 and 55 mph.
To generate the power required to maintain a particular cruising speed, any engine—small or large—must pump a corresponding amount of air. With equivalent gearing, the smaller engine requires a wider throttle opening to pump the same amount of air as a larger engine. Because pumping losses are lower with wider throttle openings, a smaller engine is more efficient.
Even at 90 mph, with the tach reading 2800 rpm, the turbo plays a minor role in cruise mode. This is precisely why nearly every carmaker will rely heavily on smaller-displacement, boosted engines to satisfy the fuel-economy mandate that requires a fleet-wide average of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
Spending the extra $1160 for the Honda’s turbo engine does have one clear advantage beyond efficiency: The additional power and torque clip 1.4 seconds from the zero-to-60-mph run and a full second off the quarter-mile time compared with the naturally aspirated alternative. But exceed the gentle, twinkle-toe throttle pressure we applied in our steady-speed tests and all efficiency bets are off. As boost rises, more fuel is injected and mileage drops. Precipitously.

Check out this document from US EPA regarding the Honda Civic's 1.5L turbo engine (running on 87 octane gas):

Benchmarking a 2016 Honda Civic 1.5-liter L15B7 Turbocharged Engine and Evaluating the Future Efficiency Potential of Turbocharged Engines

Can a car that weighs half as much as a Honda Civic, be at least as fuel efficient?

Well, I'll put it this way. We'd have to deliberately try to make it less efficient. It takes power to accelerate weight. Get rid of the excess weight and the power required to accelerate that weight acceptably well, also goes away. The 55mph speed limit was / is all about fuel economy. The difference between 55mph and 75mph is 20% to 25% greater fuel consumption, especially for a vehicle optimized to run at 55mph. It's baked-in. It doesn't matter in the slightest how good a vehicle's aerodynamics are, because it still takes that much more power to overcome air resistance. It can always be worse than that with poor aerodynamics, but that's how much the drag force increases from that seemingly minor increase in speed.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-20 18:21:11

Some try to reduce drag, drop weight and even draft behind semi trucks to improve on the gas mileage.

I noticed that the small engine in the Prius sucks up the gas during acceleration and that is the major issue with highway travel is getting out of the way of the fully gas engine until it picks up speed as to be able to start saving on fuel. Its momentum that allows for the gas pedal to be eased up and to achieve the greater than 50 mpg according to the computerized dash that gives the calculation values.

Since I drive mostly highway miles (70 mph'ish) its averaging just 35 mpg at this point. I am sure that if I stop accelerating hard I would be able to improve the fuel economy. The mileage would also go up as the electrical motor is able to stay on longer before the engine turns on and moves the car at greater speed but its set for acceleration and not so much speed as its usually on at just 20 mph for the engine.

I have the first generation version and while there are others that can do better How one driver averages more than 80 miles per gallon as gas prices increase with the third generation plug in hybrid.

The White House has considered stimulus checks, federal rebates, increased ethanol usage, suspension of the federal gas tax, and measures that would put pressure on oil companies as other potential means of helping Americans cope with high gas prices,

SpaceNut · 2022-04-24 13:05:10

There has been a string of vehicle battery issues and the GM problem is just the tip of problems that will continue to echo throughout the industry.
GM reportedly stops providing battery pack replacements for the Chevy Spark EV

The Chevy Spark electric vehicle (EV) was first released in 2013, and GM continued to make new models until 2016. A GM district executive confirmed to EV-Resource that the company is “no longer going to supply that [the Spark EV’s] battery.” GM’s inventory of Spark EV battery packs has reportedly run out as well, and the company doesn’t plan on making any more. With the oldest model of the Spark EV reaching almost 10 years old, vehicle owners may find themselves without a working car if their battery pack fails. GM offers an eight-year / 100,000-mile warranty specifically for the battery pack in its Spark EVs and other electric vehicles, which means the warranty has already run out (or is very close to running out) for Spark EVs released in 2013 and 2014. It’s unclear if GM will continue to honor its warranty and somehow replace the battery pack in broken-down Sparks, or as EV-Resource points out, if GM will offer to buy back the vehicle instead of replacing the battery.

That is not good for the corporations name let alone for the owner of the junk vehicle....

Spark EV owners might not have the best of luck finding an aftermarket battery pack either. EV-Resource notes that there really isn’t a market for Spark EV batteries when compared to other EVs, considering companies might not find value in providing parts for a car that’s on the more inexpensive side (the base 2016 model sold at an MSRP of less than $26,000). Plus, GM only managed to sell around 7,400 Spark EVs — mainly in California, Oregon, and Maryland — before ending its three-year run.
As GM works toward making and replacing battery packs in over 140,000 electric Chevy Bolts that were recalled last year due to fire risks, perhaps GM just doesn’t have the bandwidth to create battery pack replacements for the Spark EV.

So the car is junk if it can not find a replacement that will work....

The big push is to get off oil products but that comes with another issue Is An EV Battery Shortage Coming? Rivian's CEO Thinks So.

kbd512 · 2022-04-25 08:24:56

SpaceNut,

The owner can convert the vehicle back to using gasoline. If we put the word "green" or "renewable" or "eco" in front of the name of the engine, then almost none of the people who purchased the car will be able to tell the difference, except for the fact that their car actually works and probably won't burn their house down while it's "recharging" at the gas station.

SpaceNut · 2022-04-25 20:39:33

Engines require a transmission or differential of sorts that I think is not present in some of the designs.

Sounds like if some one had the engine company could design custom fit equipment to retrofit the vehicles which have dissatisfied customers.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-05-08 16:55:35

Why is Elon Musk at war with Pete Buttigieg?

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu … ieg-2022-4

SpaceNut · 2022-05-12 21:50:30

Ford Hints At LFP Battery Version Of Its Electric Vehicles

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2022-01-22 20:27:45

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#177 2022-02-05 20:02:46

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#178 2022-02-08 20:02:04

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#179 2022-02-11 11:55:26

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#180 2022-02-11 19:04:38

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#181 2022-02-20 19:57:48

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#182 2022-03-09 19:22:36

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#183 2022-03-09 19:22:52

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#184 2022-03-09 19:23:15

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#185 2022-03-09 19:24:07

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#186 2022-03-09 19:40:50

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#187 2022-03-09 20:00:16

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#188 2022-03-09 21:16:07

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#189 2022-03-09 21:46:47

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#190 2022-03-10 06:58:16

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#191 2022-03-10 19:43:25

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#192 2022-03-13 13:41:04

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#193 2022-03-19 20:51:31

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#194 2022-03-20 17:52:00

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#195 2022-03-20 18:21:11

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#196 2022-04-24 13:05:10

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#197 2022-04-25 08:24:56

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#198 2022-04-25 20:39:33

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#199 2022-05-08 16:55:35

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#200 2022-05-12 21:50:30

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

Board footer