SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
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.
The new compression ignition engine is 20 percent to 30 percent more fuel efficient than the Japanese automaker's current engines and uses a technology that has eluded the likes of Daimler AG and General Motors Co.
Mazda, with a research and development (R&D) budget a fraction of those of major peers, said it plans to sell cars with the new engine from 2019.
"It's a major breakthrough," said Ryoji Miyashita, chairman of automotive engineering company AEMSS Inc.
[...] A homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) engine ignites petrol through compression, eliminating spark plugs. Its fuel economy potentially matches that of a diesel engine without high emissions of nitrogen oxides or sooty particulates.
[...] AEMSS' Miyashita said a key issue would be how smooth and responsive the engine is.
"Is it jerky? If so, that would pose a big question when it comes to commercializing this technology." he said. "Hopefully Mazda has an answer to that question."
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mazda-strategy-idUSKBN1AO0E7
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:48AM (13 children)
It's too little, too late. The world will be moving to EVs over the next couple of decades.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:55AM (1 child)
*3-4 decades
There's plenty of time for this engine to be sold.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday August 11 2017, @02:20AM
I don't think so. When disruptive technology comes along, you get a few years of being too expensive. Then it approaches the price of the old technology, then it gets adopted very rapidly. Look at flat screen TVs. In the mid 2000s, they were fairly rare because they were expensive. But about 5 years ago, all the CRTs just disappeared from stores because no one was buying them anymore. When's the last time you saw a CRT TV for sale?
Same for VCRs. Try finding one of those for sale now.
And here's the thing. It's the same for cars. Check out the difference between 1900 and 1913.
1900 All horses, one car.
1913 All cars, one horse.
http://www.businessinsider.com/5th-ave-1900-vs-1913-2011-3?IR=T [businessinsider.com]
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by crafoo on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:36PM (10 children)
No, the world will not be moving to EVs. They cost more. Gasoline is going to be around for a very long time yet. It will continue to dominate easily throughout your lifetime. Make your peace with that.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:46PM (2 children)
Wow, this is an incredibly stupid post. If you were around in the early 1900s, you would have said the same thing about horse-drawn carriages. Back around 2005, you were probably saying that smartphones would never become popular with consumers.
EVs are only expensive now because of the cost of batteries, and also the low cost of gasoline. Battery tech is constantly changing, and there's tons of research into different battery chemistries. And governments could raise taxes on fossil fuels at any time. There's no way to reliably predict how long EVs will remain more expensive than comparable gas cars.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:54PM (1 child)
I suppose you would also call Boeing foolish for building the 747 when supersonic flight was obviously right around the corner?
While I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that gasoline is going to dominate for my lifetime, i would be fairly comfortable investing money today into R&D to build new engines and other technologies for gasoline-powered cars with the expectation that I would be able to recoup my costs by selling gasoline cars for another 10-20 years.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @04:18AM
The 747 was an economical mass people-mover. There was no indication at the time that everyone would suddenly be flying supersonic, plus I'm sure even then it was fairly obvious that SST would be expensive because of the amount of fuel it uses compared to subsonic flight. So no, there was nothing foolish about Boeing building the 747, esp. considering the Concorde didn't even exist at the time. No one would have called investing in gas engine tech foolish before we even had any commercially-successful EVs on the road.
And please show me where I ever said that investing into gas engine R&D is a total waste of money.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:00PM (5 children)
No, the world will not be moving to EVs. They cost more.
"No, the world will not be moving to personal computers, they're $4,000 and a typewriter is only a hundred." ALL new tech is more expensive than new twch at first. Plus, the maintenance costs of electric are far lower--no oil or coolant changes, far fewer moving parts. In ten or fifteen years EVs will be cheaper than gasoline vehicles.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:48PM (4 children)
You're absolutely right about his post being incredibly stupid, and I like your PC/typewriter analogy.
However, the maintenance cost thing I don't think is quite true. Teslas have very expensive maintenance, way more than my Mazda, and it does include changing the coolant: EVs use coolant to cool the motor and also to regulate battery temperature. I don't know how often it actually has to be changed though, but on modern gas cars you only have to change it at 100k miles usually. It'd be interesting to see what the maintenance costs on a Bolt are. From a quick Google search, my.chevrolet.com shows that it needs the tires rotated every 7500 miles, and the cabin air filter changed every 22,500 miles (what a strange interval...), and finally the coolant has to be changed at 150k. The Tesla Model S, however, needs service at 12k miles or 1 year, and this costs $600, then a $700 service at 2 years, then a $900 service at 4 years. Of course, Tesla supporters will point out that this is in-line with service costs for high-end brands like Audi, but it sure isn't showing that EVs are "zero maintenance" by any means. They even replace the brake fluid after 2 years; my Mazda doesn't require any such thing.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday August 11 2017, @02:31AM
I'd be more interested in service charges on the Bolt/Leaf/Model 3. They seem like more typical EVs.
All the components I can think of should need either the same of less maintainance on an EV. There's nothing that would need more. There used to be concern about the batteries needing replacement, but time has shown that actually in most cases the batteries last as long as the car with no maintanace needed (beyond perhaps the coolant you mentioned).
Brakes in particular should require much less maintainance as most of the braking is typically regen.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 11 2017, @02:35PM (2 children)
Those are dealer prices, which are always sky high. My last car (I buy them used) the dealer mailed me a note saying it needed $2500 worth of work. My regular mechanic? $150. The "change brake fluid" is a pretty good hint that it's a money grab; brakes on an EV would be no different than on a regular vehicle.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
Yeah, but on a Tesla, it's impossible for anyone but the dealer to do a lot of service or diagnostics because they use proprietary scan tools and they're not available to anyone else (except in Mass., where they're available but at a really exorbitant rate, only because of that state's right-to-repair law). With other brands, independent mechanics can buy the tools. Of course, you might not really need the special tools to do the service, but I'm not sure.
Brakes on an EV are different: they're used less often because of regenerative braking. So while inspection is a good idea as usual, they don't need the pads changed nearly as often. Changing brake fluid shouldn't be necessary any more frequently than any other car, but you never know: the factory does spec it that way, and maybe they have a reason for that (or maybe they're just making up unnecessary service to make $$$). Honestly, if a carmaker says the brake fluid in their car needs to be completely replaced every 2 years, that really makes me suspicious that they did a lousy engineering job, because no other car I'm aware of has such a requirement. Your typical Honda certainly doesn't need brake fluid changed anywhere near that often.
Now, in your particular case I do have to ask what kind of car you have that the dealer would ask $2500 (!!!) for regular service. That's just insane. Yeah, dealerships are frequently callled "stealerships" for good reason, but that's far above and beyond even the inflated dealership prices I've heard of (I do all my own work) for regular maintenance. Is that a BMW or something?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:59PM
It was a five year old chrysler Concorde I bought at a Ford dealer.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday August 11 2017, @02:23AM
Batteries are the only thing making EVs more expensive than ICVs. Everything else is simpler and therefore cheaper. And batteries are currently improving at a rate of about 14% per year. Which means either longer range in the same size/price. Or same range but cheaper each year.
The last chart I saw had EVs getting cheaper than equivalent ICVs in about 2020, if the trends continue. It's really not that far away.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!