Fixing Americas car industry

SpaceNut · 2022-12-05 22:16:34

I cannot see myself having one of these at $262,100 for this very rich persons toy even if it's what we want to do. Lightyear’s ‘solar car’ with 300-mile range has entered production

At just shy of 3,500 pounds, the Lightyear 0 solar car features in-wheel motors and a 60-kWh battery pack. This pack is connected to 53 square feet of solar panels which line the hood and roof, allowing room for the vehicle to recharge in the sunlight efficiently.
Lightyear says that its solar car can recharge at 1.05 kW, enough to add 6.2 miles of range per hour.

claimed range is 300 miles

kbd512 · 2022-12-06 10:49:48

SpaceNut,

These Lightyear vehicles cost more than the first house we owned. Almost nobody will own a car that costs as much as a house. A $100,000 car is beyond the reach of most potential customers. If someone thinks Lightyear has a solution to a problem, then they're not being very realistic.

Once again, money is a proxy for energy plus labor in the real economy, because money is a proxy concept representing the transformation of labor and energy into products that other people find useful. Governments can and do spend more money than they have (run labor and energy deficits, which can only ever be deferment of energy plus labor generating future value to other people, aka "lenders") because they can print more money (regulate energy and labor allocation to prevent systemic failure associated with shortages). However, they cannot increase the supply of labor and energy merely by printing more money (because the piper, which is "nature" / "real physical world", must be paid at some point, or there is no "real value" tied to energy / labor / money, which can never be true). Hence, the market itself matches arbitrary increases in the money supply, injected by the government, via the inflationary process (labor and energy, therefore money, cannot actually be "created out of thin air").

You or I or our neighbors cannot even do that much (because labor and assets are our real "store of value", which cannot arbitrarily increase by arbitrarily adding more 1s and 0s to our bank accounts). We simply have our purchasing power reduced through inflation (adjustment of real value to match what we actually own or can make, relative to total energy / labor supply), because our salaries (market-assigned evaluation of worth) seldom, if ever, match inflation rates. In other words, we did not magically add more value without an associated increase in energy supply. Simply "declaring" that everyone's labor immediately became far more valuable than any other form of labor did not "make it so". The only way that could actually be true is if productivity per worker increased.

Inflation is merely a mechanism by which everyone is made poorer, relative to the "new market conditions" (imposed by the government) that even rich people (they simply start with so much more money that they're effectively cushioned from full weight of the economic blow, unlike the poor and middle class), to reflect the dearth of labor and energy, relative to the money supply (new market conditions). This ultimately stifles economic growth by halting the inflationary spiral, but also fails to deliver any true organic economic growth (increased worker productivity or energy supply).

Free market is the mechanism by which the market itself tells people they're nuts if, for example, all they want to do is produce bananas and iPhones, or break all the windows in an entire city to "stimulate economic growth". Free market puts the brakes on ridiculous propositions (ridiculous expenditure of labor and energy to produce things of questionable value) by saying, "Hey y'all, you need more than just bananas and iPhones to survive, so I'm going to create some inflation to reign in the excess energy devoted to banana and iPhone production, and all of you will suffer the consequences as a result of your poor decision making skills. One iPhone and one clump of bananas per person is enough, so prices will continue to increase until you stop doing silly things with your money." This same mechanism limits the number of washers and bolts people will buy or keep on-hand, as an individual, versus a business that sells washers and bolts.

Back in the real world, the reason Lightyear cars costs so much is directly related to the labor and energy transformation process required to make their cars. There may be some cases where they're trying to make a very high per-vehicle profit (this is questionable, though, even for a Rolls Royce, because it takes a team of people a week or more to make one of their cars), but the market itself says, "Lightyear, I know you're proud of your car, but there are lots of other very good cars available for that price, so whatever you did to make your vehicle a standout, enough people have to be both willing to buy and able to part with that much money (energy and labor), or you need to figure out how to keep the best features that make that car a Lightyear while also reducing fabrication and assembly costs to something more customers can pay for."

Only in a world where labor and energy were irrelevant would everyone drive around in a Rolls Royce (a car that can literally last for a century). If nothing else mattered, then that would be perfectly doable, but lots of other aspects to modern life are of equal or greater importance to most people. People, therefore market and "real economy", says manufacturing (implies factories and farms or other places that make things of tangible value), home / real estate is where most money and labor gets expended, followed by education and health care, next food and drink, and then transportation. That makes perfect sense if you figure out where most people spend most of their time.

tahanson43206 · 2022-12-06 12:19:47

For SpaceNut re quote in recent post...

Lightyear says that its solar car can recharge at 1.05 kW, enough to add 6.2 miles of range per hour.

This forum often generates skeptical commentary.

I tend to focus on the positive aspect of an investment such as this one...

6 miles per hour of charge would mean many folks could operate their vehicle without spending a (monetary unit) on fuel.

An adventurous person with a relaxed schedule could drive around the world using nothing but solar power.

A resident of a part of the world where solar flux is abundant could justify the cost of one of these cars by eliminating all concerns about having to scrabble for hydrocarbon based fuel.

SpaceNut ... in previous posts you've left hints that your one-way drive to work may be (about) thirty miles. The 6 miles per hour charge rate would cover your commute, and leave you 60 miles on Saturday and Sunday for shopping.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-12-06 12:56:19

tahanson43206,

After spending a quarter million dollars on a car, the total amount of money you've spent is equal to a lifetime supply of fuel for many people who drive economy cars.

14,263 (avg # of miles driven by avg American per year) / 40mpg = 356.575 gallons of fuel per year

356.575 gallons * $3.50/gallon of gas = $1,248.0125 per year

$1,248.01 per year * 50 years of driving = $62,400.50

It's amazing to me that nobody here has figured out why Americans aren't flocking to Lightyear to buy a new car that "charges itself".

Nobody who operates within objective reality could justify the cost of this car, regardless of where they live. They could purchase an entire tanker truck loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, for less money.

kbd512 · 2022-12-06 16:11:06

It occurred to me that owning your own tanker truck is not truly necessary to get the fuel to your house. If you have a quarter million dollars to spend, then you could easily afford to bury a gasoline or diesel tank on your property, and then refuel your car from the comfort of your own garage. Beyond that, if your car gets nearer to 80 miles per gallon, as the car built by that engineer on YouTube does using an existing VW diesel engine, then your lifetime supply of fuel is only 5,000 gallons. However, a yearly supply of fuel is only 178 gallons, which means a semi-truck's 150 gallon fuel tank can store most of your yearly supply.

A fuel tank brand named "BESTFit" will sell a Volvo 150 gallon semi-truck fuel tank to you for $335.40, and the tank is 24.5 inches in diameter by 74 inches in length. Since you're rich and have money to burn, you could spend $1,179.99 on a Peterbuilt (polished Aluminum) 150 gallon tank that's 26"D by 72"L.

A company named "LeeAgra" sells a 200 gallon fuel tank for $1,775 (hand pump) or $1,950 (13gpm electric pump) and trailer for $675. If you have a burning need (pun intended) for stored onsite energy, then the fuel tank plus trailer will give you that. If your car gets 80mpg, then you spend $44,571.88 for a 50 year supply of diesel fuel, at $5/gallon. If diesel is $3.50/gallon (pre-brain-dead-moron / President Biden prices), then you spend $31,200.31 for a 50 year supply of diesel fuel.

If you buy 4 diesel powered economy cars at $20,000 per copy, plus a 50 year diesel supply for each car, then you spend $204,801.24 (at pre-brain-dead-moron prices, obviously)- for an overall savings of $57,298.76. With all the money saved over buying a Lightyear car, you can still afford to buy the liberal in your family a Tesla. They won't appreciate the gift because they have no concept of money whenever they're playing with someone else's money, but that's life.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-07 21:11:39

That average driving would not even get me home as I use a car every day of the year and that will be just 39 miles and my journey one way is 33 miles to work.

I can hear a grinding in the engine that was down to maybe just a quart of oil, and I got a feeling that its toast. All the electronics and dash lights and it could not even give a low oil indicator. I put in 3 quarts but even with babying it its most likely not going to last.

Until the engine is replaced or rebuilt the cars value is that of junk at about $400 give or take for salvage. Of course, it's a parts car with a greater value of 10 times that but if you do not want the hassle then it's going to take a backstage until I have $3,000 to get it replaced.

This hybrid was a dumb design as the functions of the EV is coupled directly to the engine and it's not functional makes the car junk as there is no way to remove the gas engine and still be able to make use of it the electrical motor battery that still functions with a proper charging system.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-09 19:27:26

Had to walk during the yesterday about 10 miles in search of a different vehicle to be able to drive to work and so on. The gas savings from the Prius was used that allowed for another car to be purchased.

A 2005 Subaru Forester was found, and I get all of the plates transferred to be able to go to work today. The car emissions test for a valid state inspection was needing a couple of engine computer monitors to be updated so I still have the registrations 10 days to get it done. It will be good until my birth month but then I will need to get it re-registered and inspected at that time.

update

282,628 miles on it.

When the emission was checked a recall did come up but there is not much of a problem for the moment. Tires pass for now but by birthday it will need a set of 4, front disk pads so long as nothing else gives out.

Maybe needing a bit more body checking along the runner under the plastic dress molding which almost always hides rot...

update 12-15-22

No state inspection sticker as its setting engine emission codes of P-457 & P-2097
Evaporation / EGR system leak / gas cap and bank 1 rich oxygen sensor

It will pass for a 60 day to give time to fix these but what a pain.

tahanson43206 · 2022-12-09 20:40:54

For SpaceNut re 2005 Subaru Forester ....

Consumer Reports shows quite a bit about the car, but the details require unlocking.

Your previous Subaru gave you an exercise in gasket replacement as I recall, so if you have to do it again your're now an "expert" !!!

Hopefully you'll have better luck this time...

How many miles are on the car? It might have been owned by the proverbial grandma who only drove 50 miles a year.

I asked FluxBB about Subaru and SpaceNut posts and it found over a page full...

Here's one entry:

Keeping fingers crossed as trading 2001 & 2005 plus cash for a 2008 Subaru outback wagon that should be ready today....

A 2005 with low mileage might be a better bet than the 2008.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-12-09 22:27:51

I began the video searches for the Prius engine swap, and it can be done in a day. Pricing for engine is all over the place depending on what used engine you end up getting and from where.

tahanson43206 · 2022-12-10 07:18:18

For SpaceNut re #259

Thanks for the update ... you still ** have ** the Prius! The 2005 is a (welcome) backup!

If you decide to swap the engine, a related investigation would (I presume) to be to see what component failed to report the low oil condition.

My understanding (admittedly limited) is that the engine in the Prius was identical to the one in the Echo, so there should be thousands of them in junk yards around the country.

In any case, I am looking forward to your reports on the Prius repair.

Update next day:

I asked Bing to look up information about the Prius ... A lot of people report being happy with the car, but a few reported excessive use of oil, and in particular, I noted that when the oil low indicator comes on, it means the oil is ** gone **.

Plus, I saw at least one report that the oil pressure sender may not be working at all. That would be a serious problem (in my book).

The only way I can think of to check the oil pressure sensor is at oil change time, and there would be risk involved in running the engine (briefly) without oil, to be sure the sensor is working. The sensor may be producing signal levels that vary with the pressure, and the readings may be interpreted by the computer, and all you get to see is a light. It would be useful to know if the light works, and you'd find ** that ** by doing the no-oil test.

Or, perhaps the Toyota dealership has a way of testing the equipment without running the engine.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-12-14 11:02:11

This is interesting. Could a spring provide low cost braking energy recovery?
https://www.ijsrd.com/articles/IJSRDV7I21224.pdf

This example is for a bycycle. Steel springs made from piano wire have a potential energy of 1-2KJ/kg. This is only about 1% of the energy density of a lead acid battery. But for braking energy recovery, a 100kg spring, carrying 150KJ of energy, will carry enough energy to accelerate a 1000kg car to 38mph.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-12-14 11:16:20)

kbd512 · 2022-12-14 12:28:29

Calliban,

200kg added to a 2t car is a LOT of weight. That's equal to an LS series all-Aluminum V8 engine, with accessories. Maybe it's doable, but it's also not very practical. Are we so desperate for energy that we're going to add that much weight to accelerate a car to 38mph? What about using Aluminum or Titanium springs?

Calliban · 2022-12-14 13:25:42

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
200kg added to a 2t car is a LOT of weight. That's equal to an LS series all-Aluminum V8 engine, with accessories. Maybe it's doable, but it's also not very practical. Are we so desperate for energy that we're going to add that much weight to accelerate a car to 38mph? What about using Aluminum or Titanium springs?

Braking energy recovery would add weight, which increases frictional energy losses. But energy is recovered during braking. Like all design improvements, it is a trade off between several factors. It could well be that the added weight, design complexity, capital cost, complication to transmission, etc, will make this a bad idea.

tahanson43206 · 2022-12-14 14:46:46

For Calliban re #263...

I regret that what I am about to say may cause discord and unpleasantness. There's too much of that in the air these days.

However, as I read your recent posts, I reflected upon the fact of physics involved ...

The energy stored in a spring is stored as electrostatic force.

The electrons involved contribute very little to the mass of the storage system. It is the protons that keep the electrons in orbit, and their associated neutrons, that keep the mass up.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-12-14 16:36:56

Calliban,

After reviewing this stuff and evaluating technology development, all low energy density systems are incredibly material-intensive, which then becomes its own form of inefficiency and associated emissions, as it always takes more constant power to move more weight, and the only three technologies that look particularly promising are fuel synthesis, much better batteries than what we presently have, and nuclear power. Everything else is a solution in search of a problem to solve.

The fuel synthesis and much better batteries deals with intermittent energy by using it as the input for on-demand use, rather than trying to feed it into an electric grid that really needs on-demand power output, which is what technologically advanced societies require to continue functioning as they presently do. Nuclear power deals with the problem on account of being so wildly more energy dense than anything else, but most cars / trucks / aircraft will never be nuclear powered. Ships are a grey area where nuclear power is technically feasible, but the reactors would need to be operated by the military of most countries, which makes them legitimate military targets, and likely undesirable as a result. Overall, fuel synthesis makes the most sense, unless and until much better batteries become commercially available in very large quantities.

The silly thing is that fuel synthesis can be done with today's technology. If better batteries truly are at-hand, then someone needs to tell our greens to stop yapping about them and start making them. Yapping doesn't solve energy problems, nor does playing shell games with emissions the way California and Europe do. All wind turbines and photovoltaics are generating emissions in someone else's country, then blathering about how "green" you are, while totally ignoring all the burning of fuels to make power when the Sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

I'd like to see more widespread adoption of nuclear power, but those same greens shut it down every time because it completely invalidates their photovoltaics and wind turbine religion that they're so pointlessly obsessed with (burning coal somewhere else and calling it "green energy"). That's painfully dumb, but also very predictable. Fundamentally stupid people are easily fooled.

Calliban · 2022-12-15 01:55:42

kbd512 wrote:

Calliban,
After reviewing this stuff and evaluating technology development, all low energy density systems are incredibly material-intensive, which then becomes its own form of inefficiency and associated emissions, as it always takes more constant power to move more weight, and the only three technologies that look particularly promising are fuel synthesis, much better batteries than what we presently have, and nuclear power. Everything else is a solution in search of a problem to solve.

There are lots of hybrid vehicle designs. Most of them use electrochemical batteries. But the energy store is relatively small, making the economics of the vehicle less sensitive to the impact of reduced energy density. This allows other energy storage options, with lower energy per unit mass, but improved braking energy recovery efficiency and lower capital cost, to be viable contenders. Hence the consideration of options like the hydraulic hybrid, the compressed air hybrid, flywheels, etc.

However it is done, they are a much more affordable and resource efficient solution than pure battery electric vehicles, because they are using an energy store that is much smaller, to capture energy that would otherwise be wasted in braking or idling. We only need to store a small amount of energy, because the store is really there to help us ootimise the efficiency of the engine. Engine power can be reduced, because braking energy recovery allows launch assist. And engine power is driven by the need for acceleration. The added weight of the energy store may be compensated, in part or full, by the reduced weight of a smaller engine and fuel needed. But a hybrid drive is inevitably more complex and therefore has increased capital cost. It will only ever be advantageous if fuel prices are high enough to justify the increased purchase cost. If we are talking about relying on synthetic fuels in the future, then I think that is a sure bet.

Exactly which combination of technologies best fit the requirements of a hybrid is a complicated assessment. I don't have an answer. Electrochemical batteries are lighter. But to use them in this way, requires that braking energy drives a generator, with a motor either integrated into mechanical drive or by using the engine to drive a generator, which powers an electrically driven traction system. Estimates of energy recovery from braking that I have seen are only about 40%. Hydraulic hybrids could recover about 80% of braking energy. But the power transmission must be hydraulic. This is standard for things like diggers, but is a new concept for a car. Hydraulic accumulators have a roughly 10 year service life. So there is concern that they would might need replacing within the lifetime of the car. How flywheels or springs would work, I do not know. One thing that these concepts have going for them is that steels, hydraulic oil, glass and carbon fibre, are not things that we are likely to run out of. Steel can be recycled indefinitely. Ultimately, if an extra 100kg of steel components can reduce lifetime fuel consumption by 30-50%, then I would think it is a bargain. But it may or may not be the cost optimum solution for a hybrid.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-12-15 02:07:39)

Calliban · 2022-12-15 10:54:43

Musk 'quietly' dumps $3.6bn in Tesla stock.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News … Stock.html

Tesla semi and megapack analysis.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/12/b … lysis.html

Last edited by Calliban (2022-12-15 12:10:10)

kbd512 · 2022-12-15 20:49:00

Calliban,

No word yet on what a Tesla Semi actually costs, because Tesla stopped taking orders for them.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I foresee a price hike in the near future.

tahanson43206 · 2022-12-16 13:19:30

For SpaceNut re adventures with Prius and "new" Subaru 2005...

As the weekend arrives, I'm hoping you'll have time for an update on your adventures with "America's car industry".

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-12-16 18:20:34

A set of codes are coming up some after monitors have timed out sets the check engine.

update for subaru engine codes

I have seen p2097 and tonight there was the P1153 both are related to the o2 sensors

These codes generally mean that the sensor heater inside the sensor has failed and will need replacement to resolve the problem. Bank 1 is the passenger side and will be the O2 sensor located in the exhaust pipe on that side of the car before the catalytic converter.

The evaporation emission and EGR are also related to sensors seeing the air pressure or vacuum sent into the fuel systems return which covers the earlier gas cap no replaced along with the canister for purge of vapors and many rubber or plastic tubes that connect fuel from tank up to the engine as well as the filler tube that can have small holes that are causing the pressure sensor issue.

here is the basic evap system

Here is a video on Prius engine swap
https://youtu.be/8ueHV50OyJ4

Will be searching for more

update prius

a junk yard local does have a 2008 in it that had front end damage, but it may be fine for what needs to be taken.

tahanson43206 · 2022-12-16 18:34:46

For SpaceNut re link .... I read a number of the comments .... a number of posters seemed encouraging about swapping out the motor.

I noticed a number of tips that look worth taking the time to read if you get serious about this!

Also noticed a tip from a gent who says he worked in Japan on this vehicle ... said that if the battery ever needs attention, to be sure to look at the sets of cells independently. He said that a single bank gone bad can cause computer to think the entire battery is bad.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-12-16 19:08:37

SpaceNut,

The O2 sensors are always a PITA. Make sure those sensors are not some "special kind", as I found out with my Charger, or they may still give faulty readings because they won't heat up fast enough for the computer's liking. The EGR valve is obnoxious, but should be a relatively easy fix. When you're all done, you'll discover you have a head gasket sealing issue with coolant leaking into the combustion chambers, and then the heads need to be resurfaced and possibly the engine block as well.

I was watching a machinist's YouTube channel recently and he said there's not a week that goes by that he doesn't see at least one set, or three or five, Subaru cylinder heads. It might be a design issue, or it might be that seals get old and leak over time, and then things warp after the coolant escapes.

Anyway, good luck and I hope you're able to fix it without contributing an arm and a leg to the process.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-16 20:19:46

The sensors are the 4-wire type that has the preheat element as part of the unit at about $100 each and there is an upper and lower for each side for each catalytic convertor bank.

Yes, the 2.5-liter engine is known for the weak head and gasket design in the years 2004 - 2008. The 2.0 did not have these issues. Not to mention the assembly uses Stretch bolts to make up for its design.

Mileage sucks as I am back up to the $80 a week for fuel where the Prius was just $30.

Winter has finally started as we are getting snow for the next few days but so far nothing major for amounts. So that puts any chance to work on it in the yard out....

SpaceNut · 2022-12-17 18:07:03

Have dug out this morning to about 4" of wet snow that was heavy. Done so I could start my household chores or bringing rubbish to the dump, and many other tasks in the 2005 Subaru Forester that is getting quite a few other codes being captured due to being wet. Of course, we are seeing rain for the remainder of the day.

The not real detections are for neutral switch, P01153 which is a catchall code for o2 sensors.
I have also seen others while trying to solve the check engine coming on.

I searched around bank 1 today and found a used o2 sensor still in the engine compartment but it was just caught in the side of the engine but in no way could cause the issue, but it just tells me that this was an existing problem.

Void · 2022-12-17 21:15:15

I thought I would give a "Heads Up" for this. Hopefully you can use it to navigate car finances over the next year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKwocgWVh5Q

Done.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2022-12-05 22:16:34

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#252 2022-12-06 10:49:48

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#253 2022-12-06 12:19:47

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#254 2022-12-06 12:56:19

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#255 2022-12-06 16:11:06

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#256 2022-12-07 21:11:39

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#257 2022-12-09 19:27:26

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#258 2022-12-09 20:40:54

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#259 2022-12-09 22:27:51

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#260 2022-12-10 07:18:18

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#261 2022-12-14 11:02:11

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#262 2022-12-14 12:28:29

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#263 2022-12-14 13:25:42

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#264 2022-12-14 14:46:46

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#265 2022-12-14 16:36:56

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#266 2022-12-15 01:55:42

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#267 2022-12-15 10:54:43

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#268 2022-12-15 20:49:00

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#269 2022-12-16 13:19:30

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#270 2022-12-16 18:20:34

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#271 2022-12-16 18:34:46

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#272 2022-12-16 19:08:37

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#273 2022-12-16 20:19:46

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#274 2022-12-17 18:07:03

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

#275 2022-12-17 21:15:15

Re: Fixing Americas car industry

Board footer