Gasoline direct injection, etc., makes electric cars irrelevant

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.whGreenAutoMain0129/BNStory/specialGlobeAuto

by gravitycop • 17 years ago

3 43 17 years ago

bdfh423• 17 years ago

Virtually all diesel engines use direct fuel injection so a large percentage of European cars are already taking advantage of this technology (which, by the way, was invented in the 1950s).

gravitycop17• 17 years ago

Virtually all diesel engines use direct fuel injection so a large percentage of European cars are already taking advantage of this technology

Diesel engines do not directly compete with gasoline engines in the United States. The reasons are:

  Poor performance.
  High cost.
  High mass.
  High bulk.
  High smog pollution.
  High noise pollution.

Gasoline direct injection is a new (not invented in the 1950s) and important technology that substantially improves the competitiveness of gasoline engines against diesels, electrics, air-cars, etc.

AndrewDucker2• 17 years ago

None of these things are true any more, nor have they been for some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Advantages_and_di...

hedgehog• 17 years ago

I don't know the particulars of direct injection for gasoline but I'm pretty sure some of the above reasons aren't valid (at least on modern cars). A friend of mine has an E320 diesel from 2003 or so and performance and noise seem the same as the gasoline version.

bdfh423• 17 years ago

Sorry to take issue here but one point at a time.

1. The whole world does not live in the USA so the problems of Diesel fuel distribution in the US is not a world wide issue.

2. Diesel fuel has a high energy content and diesel engines are more efficient than petrol engines - thus bulk and distribution costs issues do not apply.

3. Modern diesel engines produce way less smog and noise than the average US car or pickup engine.

4. Gasoline direct injection was invented in 1952 by Bosch.

jcl• 17 years ago

The first automotive direct injection system was developed by Bosch, and was introduced by Goliath and Gutbrod in 1952.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_Direct_Injection#Histo...

Apparently a number of cars since 2000 already use it. Likewise, turbochargers are old technology. And many of the other innovations in the article apply equally well to hybrid or electric vehicles. With that in mind, the article appears a little desperate.

RiderOfGiraffes4• 17 years ago

Color me skeptical, but the only reason the auto-manufacturers are doing this is because if they don't, they will lose out to the hybrid and electric markets. Without the hybrid and electric markets, they wouldn't bother.

So there's your dilemma. Support the hybrid/electric market, even though you pay more and get less, or don't. If no one does, then the hybrid/electric option will implode, and the petroleum-only option will stop innovating.

Can anyone here suggest an alternative view? (I suspect yes)

(edited for typos)

gravitycop17• 17 years ago

Color me skeptical, but the only reason the auto-manufacturers are doing this is because if they don't, they will loos out to the hybrid and electric markets.

You are skeptical of GDI's effectiveness (to help competitiveness), based on your perception that it is in fact effective?

Without the hybrid and electric markets, they wouldn't bother.

There are no other market pressures to improve gasoline engine efficiency and performance? What about:

  Direct competition from other gasoline-engine makers.
  Fuel cost.
  Market-distorting legislation (CAFE, etc.).

RiderOfGiraffes4• 17 years ago

Upon re-reading before submission, this is too long. I remind you of Pascal's lament. My apologies. It's also slightly rambly, and shows that it's been edited lots of times. Again, sorry. I don't have time now to take it out and write it more coherently.

I wrote: Color me skeptical, but the only reason the auto-manufacturers are doing this is because if they don't, they will lose out to the hybrid and electric markets.

gravitycop wrote: You are skeptical of GDI's effectiveness (to help competitiveness), based on your perception that it is in fact effective?

No - you appear to have misunderstood my point. GDI is certainly effective at reducing fuel consumption. I don't exactly know all of the technological ins and outs, but I have seen reports that engines in Europe have had very similar technology for a long time. Certainly I get over 40mpg in my petrol car, and my wife gets over 60mpg in her diesel. I'm pretty sure it does work.

My point is that manufacturers haven't bothered seriously investigating things like this, because the market forces have not previously been sufficiently strong.

I wrote: Without the hybrid and electric markets, they wouldn't bother.

gravitycop asked: There are no other market pressures to improve gasoline engine efficiency and performance? What about:

  Direct competition from other gasoline-engine makers.
  Fuel cost.
  Market-distorting legislation (CAFE, etc.).

I'm not claiming there are no other market forces. I do, however, believe that it is only since the wider availability of hybrid/electric vehicles that the petroleum-based engines in the USA have started to improve significantly. I do not have scientific evidence, but I do not believe this to be a coincidence. It is my opinion. It may be wrong.

I'm not particularly an advocate of either petrol of diesel, and my comment was not intended to indicate a preference. I simply believe that fuel efficiency has not been of primary concern to manufacturers. Secondary, yes. Primary, no.

This is probably not the place to have an extended onversation about the topic, but, in short, I believe that the petroleum-based engine manufacturers in the USA are only now starting to take seriously the problem of producing efficient engines. I believe that engines in Europe are generally more efficient, and the USA manufacturers are starting to use similar technology and trumpet it as "all new and improved!!"

Whether my opinions on this are relevant to HN is doubtful. For completeness, I also believe their change of heart is primarily driven by the advent of affordable alternatives. Without the hybrid/electric alternative I believe they won't bother too much about fuel efficiency. I don't think the market forces even now would be strong enough. With the hybrid/electric alternative, they are. Hence the dilemma I tried to raise, probably badly.

I hope that makes my position clearer. It's also probably entirely irrelevant, and adds little value. I shan't reply again unless I think it will.

asmosoinio• 17 years ago

The article mentions "40 miles a gallon (U.S.) or about 5.9 litres/100 km" for a medium sized car (think Toyota Corolla). Doesn't strike me as "super-efficient" at all, this is what cars have been doing for years already! Or am I missing something?

gravitycop17• 17 years ago

40 miles a gallon (U.S.) [...] Doesn't strike me as "super-efficient" at all, this is what cars have been doing for years already!

The EPA fuel-economy test protocols have changed (to be more stringent) recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE#Calculations_of_MPG_overes...

The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) laboratory measurements of MPG have consistently overestimated fuel economy.[ This results in a shortfall of about 15 percent in actual vs. measured CAFE goals. Starting with 2008-model vehicles, the EPA has adopted a new protocol for estimating the MPG figures presented to consumers. The new protocol includes driving cycles more closely representative of today's traffic and road conditions, as well as increased air conditioner usage.

The new (second generation) Honda Insight only achieves an EPA rating of 41 MPG combined. http://news.google.com/news?q=honda+insight+mpg

Gasoline direct injection, etc., makes electric cars irrelevant

Related Stories