Oil prices reach new record high - $102/bbl

[kapkomet]

That's about as true as the "100 MPG carburetor." The automakers are spending millions upon millions of dollars to research better fuel economy. An entire wing of the Mechanical Engineering Building at the University of Illinois was paid for by Ford. They're making strides with direct injection, smaller forced induction engines, small diesels, etc.

 

A decent-sized car that got 50-60 MPG with 200HP would be the best selling car in the country. Unfortunately, thermodynamics says that it really isn't possible. The chemistry of the fuel limits you to a maximum engine efficiency, and then you have to throw in all the mechanical losses in trying to move around a 3500lb. car. 50-60 MPG just isn't going to happen with gasoline engines. Diesel-electric hybrids, maybe. But not gasoline.

And there's your key, right there. I'm going to say it again. They have the technology... they just do not use it, because they don't have to, at least not yet.

[NorthSideSox72]

No. Ethanol is a really bad idea. It takes more energy to produce it than we get for burning it and it is driving the price of food through the roof across the board. About the only people making out on this are the big farmers who have tons of it planted.

Well, if you read my whole post, you'll see I basically agree with you. Ethanol created from sugarcane, switchgrass or other products would be much more energetic, and I could see that being part of the end game if it was done right. I agree with you though, that corn ethanol isn't such a great idea.

 

[StrangeSox]

And there's your key, right there.

 

Take your pick: $100,000 family sedan made out of carbon fiber, or sub-compact lightweight.

 

If you've got 3 kids to haul around, you need a vehicle larger than a SMART car. You don't need a Yukon Denali, but a car weighing under 3,000 lbs is a pretty small car. Think Honda Civic. Even then, the Civic only gets 30/40 MPG. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...01/pageId=67700

 

A Camry weighs in at 3200lb curb weight. We're not talking about huge cars and SUV's here, just your typical sedan.

 

What's this technology that they have? Who has it? Why wouldn't the automakers want to be the first company with a 50 MPG Camry-sized car? They'd sell faster than they could ever hope to make them.

Edited February 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

Take your pick: $100,000 family sedan made out of carbon fiber, or sub-compact lightweight.

 

If you've got 3 kids to haul around, you need a vehicle larger than a SMART car. You don't need a Yukon Denali, but a car weighing under 3,000 lbs is a pretty small car. Think Honda Civic. Even then, the Civic only gets 30/40 MPG. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...01/pageId=67700

 

A Camry weighs in at 3200lb curb weight. We're not talking about huge cars and SUV's here, just your typical sedan.

 

What's this technology that they have? Who has it? Why wouldn't the automakers want to be the first company with a 50 MPG Camry-sized car? They'd sell faster than they could ever hope to make them.

You're somewhat on the right track, IMO, on the cost, but if they mass produced some thing to lighten the weight of the care even by 15-20%, the MPG gained would be that same 15-20%. In looking at some studies when I did a pretty lengthy strategic plan for Ford as a part of my MBA program, I ran across quite a bit of stuff to suggest that they have some technologies that they're "sitting on"... I don't have the sources with me, and you're partially right, cost was a factor, but then, if they did the right labor moves, you could sell the "new car" at the same cost as what the old ones sell for now, ironically.

[StrangeSox]

You're somewhat on the right track, IMO, on the cost, but if they mass produced some thing to lighten the weight of the care even by 15-20%, the MPG gained would be that same 15-20%. In looking at some studies when I did a pretty lengthy strategic plan for Ford as a part of my MBA program, I ran across quite a bit of stuff to suggest that they have some technologies that they're "sitting on"... I don't have the sources with me, and you're partially right, cost was a factor, but then, if they did the right labor moves, you could sell the "new car" at the same cost as what the old ones sell for now, ironically.

 

A 15-20% weight reduction would be HUGE. Unless some exotic materials, like carbon fiber, plummet in price, its not very realistic. These materials also don't really lend themselves to massive-scale mass production. With all of the safety standards the require more and more airbags, more and more electronic controls (stability control and ABS aren't lightweight components!), and consumers demanding more and more gadgets in their cars (do we really need 6 TV screens and a video game system?), it'd be very hard to get the weight down while still building a safe car that people would buy.

 

And if Ford is sitting on these technologies, its no wonder they're going bankrupt. I wasn't on the inside working directly with Ford, but I did take a ME course on internal combustion engines at U of I. The professor worked in the Ford lab and frequently talked about the work they were doing. It was advancements on stuff that's hitting the market now like direct-injection gasoline engines.

 

BTW, it's usually you business-types that us engineers are b****ing about!

Edited February 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

A 15-20% weight reduction would be HUGE. Unless some exotic materials, like carbon fiber, plummet in price, its not very realistic. These materials also don't really lend themselves to massive-scale mass production. With all of the safety standards the require more and more airbags, more and more electronic controls (stability control and ABS aren't lightweight components!), and consumers demanding more and more gadgets in their cars (do we really need 6 TV screens and a video game system?), it'd be very hard to get the weight down while still building a safe car that people would buy.

 

And if Ford is sitting on these technologies, its no wonder they're going bankrupt. I wasn't on the inside working directly with Ford, but I did take a ME course on internal combustion engines at U of I. The professor worked in the Ford lab and frequently talked about the work they were doing. It was advancements on stuff that's hitting the market now like direct-injection gasoline engines.

 

BTW, it's usually you business-types that us engineers are b****ing about!

Uh huh... nice comeback...

 

You know, I could never solidly 100% say, Ford is sitting on technology... but you could strongly infer it by some of the stuff our team drudged up. They were saying that they could not roll it out because the costs would be too prohibitive UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE at Ford. If they could shed some of the crap (read: labor) then they could almost get there at a cost that wouldn't be so prohibitive. It was quite interesting...

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

A 15-20% weight reduction would be HUGE. Unless some exotic materials, like carbon fiber, plummet in price, its not very realistic. These materials also don't really lend themselves to massive-scale mass production. With all of the safety standards the require more and more airbags, more and more electronic controls (stability control and ABS aren't lightweight components!), and consumers demanding more and more gadgets in their cars (do we really need 6 TV screens and a video game system?), it'd be very hard to get the weight down while still building a safe car that people would buy.

 

And if Ford is sitting on these technologies, its no wonder they're going bankrupt. I wasn't on the inside working directly with Ford, but I did take a ME course on internal combustion engines at U of I. The professor worked in the Ford lab and frequently talked about the work they were doing. It was advancements on stuff that's hitting the market now like direct-injection gasoline engines.

 

BTW, it's usually you business-types that us engineers are b****ing about!

Back in the early 90's, Porsche produced a limited run of cars called the 959. The general idea was to build a sports car that used whatever materials and technology were available at that time, pretty much regardless of cost, to make the car perform (in all facets) better than anything else ever made for the street. It achieved many of those things. It was the first street car to clock a 0-60 time under 3 seconds (which is just mind-boggling), it could stop 60-0 in like 90 feet, it had all kinds of airbags and other safety features, and it actually got pretty good gas mileage by sports car standards. And they did all of that with a Flat 6 engine too.

 

The car cost about $400,000 in 1992 dollars. I'd guess that's over half a million in current money. That's the issue, as you point out - you COULD make a car that is high mileage, near-indesructible, high performance... it would just cost a fortune.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Uh huh... nice comeback...

 

You know, I could never solidly 100% say, Ford is sitting on technology... but you could strongly infer it by some of the stuff our team drudged up. They were saying that they could not roll it out because the costs would be too prohibitive UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE at Ford. If they could shed some of the crap (read: labor) then they could almost get there at a cost that wouldn't be so prohibitive. It was quite interesting...

Regarding Ford, I'll tell you this from personal experience... I bought an Escape Hybrid earlier this year. There is a long waiting list for them, it takes 3 months or more if you order one (as opposed to waiting and hoping the occasional one that shows up is one you want), and they are selling them ABOVE sticker for the most part. The dealers would love to have more of them to sell - they go like hotcakes. Hell, that car is one of the two or three vehicles likely to save Ford as a car company.

 

So... why the hell aren't they producing more of them? I just fail to see the logic in it. They could probably double production and still sell them all and fast.

 

[StrangeSox]

Uh huh... nice comeback...

 

You know, I could never solidly 100% say, Ford is sitting on technology... but you could strongly infer it by some of the stuff our team drudged up. They were saying that they could not roll it out because the costs would be too prohibitive UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE at Ford. If they could shed some of the crap (read: labor) then they could almost get there at a cost that wouldn't be so prohibitive. It was quite interesting...

 

Ford, GM, and Chrysler have some crippling labor structures right now, but to my knowledge, those don't exist at Toyota and Honda. We do see them move to new technologies before the American companies, but even they haven't reached 50-60 MPG in a medium or full-sized car.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it as a possibility on a gasoline engine. That sort of economy will be acheived with diesel-electrics, though:

 

(From wikipedia, take it for what its worth)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicle

Peugeot is expected to produce a diesel-electric hybrid version of its 308 in late 2008 for the European market.

 

PSA Peugeot Citroën has unveiled two demonstrator vehicles featuring a diesel-electric hybrid drivetrain: the Peugeot 307, Citroën C4 Hybride HDi and Citroën C-Cactus.[5] Volkswagen made a prototype diesel-electric hybrid car that achieved 2 L/100 km (140 mpg imp/120 mpg US) fuel economy, but has yet to sell a hybrid vehicle. General Motors has been testing the Opel Astra Diesel Hybrid. There have been no concrete dates suggested for these vehicles, but press statements have suggested production vehicles would not appear before 2009.

 

Robert Bosch GmbH is supplying hybrid diesel-electric technology to diverse automakers and models, including the Peugeot 308.[6]

 

Peugeot's new 307 d-e hybrid prototype gets 80 MPG, but its still a small car.

Edited February 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Back in the early 90's, Porsche produced a limited run of cars called the 959. The general idea was to build a sports car that used whatever materials and technology were available at that time, pretty much regardless of cost, to make the car perform (in all facets) better than anything else ever made for the street. It achieved many of those things. It was the first street car to clock a 0-60 time under 3 seconds (which is just mind-boggling), it could stop 60-0 in like 90 feet, it had all kinds of airbags and other safety features, and it actually got pretty good gas mileage by sports car standards. And they did all of that with a Flat 6 engine too.

 

The car cost about $400,000 in 1992 dollars. I'd guess that's over half a million in current money. That's the issue, as you point out - you COULD make a car that is high mileage, near-indesructible, high performance... it would just cost a fortune.

 

Porsche also sold the 959's at massive losses. Around ~500 were produced. They also were not allowed in the US until Bill Gates got the law changed to allow imports of rare automobiles like the 959. Porsche has been kicking butt with relatively-low displacement turbocharged flat-6's for years. They also went into a bit of financial trouble in the 90's partially because of the 959.

 

Edit: it was the late 80's, not the 90's. From this article:

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/porsche-959-history.htm

Production was limited to 200, and all were spoken for within weeks despite an otherworldly price of around 225,000 U.S. dollars. Still, Porsche lost a bundle on every one, as actual unit cost was estimated at a cool $530,000.

Edited February 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Porsche also sold the 959's at massive losses. Around ~500 were produced. They also were not allowed in the US until Bill Gates got the law changed to allow imports of rare automobiles like the 959. Porsche has been kicking butt with relatively-low displacement turbocharged flat-6's for years.

Yeah, it cost them even more than that price to make them. Furthering the point. Car companies may indeed be sitting on technologies, but they are also constrained heavily by cost. And as you point out, American companies are far more constrained than others due to their labor situations (and other old, inefficient practices as well).

 

Also, I believe the 959's flat 6 was normally aspirated, wasn't it?

 

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, it cost them even more than that price to make them. Furthering the point. Car companies may indeed be sitting on technologies, but they are also constrained heavily by cost. And as you point out, American companies are far more constrained than others due to their labor situations (and other old, inefficient practices as well).

 

Also, I believe the 959's flat 6 was normally aspirated, wasn't it?

 

No, it was a 2.8L twin turbo. Sorry, I'm a car guy and a bit of a Porsche nut.

 

That little 20 year old6 cylinder 2.8L put out more HP than my big two year old 6.0L V8 from GM.

Edited February 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

No, it was a 2.8L twin turbo. Sorry, I'm a car guy and a bit of a Porsche nut.

 

That little 20 year old6 cylinder 2.8L put out more HP than my big two year old 6.0L V8 from GM.

I'll take your word for it then. Porsche really is an amazing company. A 2.8L 6-cylinder engine, 20 years ago, did all that.