Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

[WTH_Progs?]

bad bad news for all authoritarian gas-stations like KSA, Muscovy, Venezuela , what will happened to them once oil (so no crazy jets full of cash landing on the roof of the Putin´s dacha) becomes what is coal today ?

"
....
We are in the middle of the biggest revolution in motoring since Henry Ford's first production line started turning back in 1913.
And it is likely to happen much more quickly than you imagine.
Many industry observers believe we have already passed the tipping point where sales of electric vehicles (EVs) will very rapidly overwhelm petrol and diesel cars....

Jaguar plans to sell only electric cars from 2025, Volvo from 2030 and last week the British sportscar company Lotus said it would follow suit, selling only electric models from 2028.

General Motors says it will make only electric vehicles by 2035, Ford says all vehicles sold in Europe will be electric by 2030 and VW says 70% of its sales will be electric by 2030."

Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

The BBC's Justin Rowlatt explains why we are accelerating towards an electric car future.

www.bbc.com

Electric cars aren't eco-friendly contrary to they'd have you believe.

FACT

Another get rich scheme. All I can say is stay the fuck off my combustible engines.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

If you are trying to understand why much larger engines do not last vastly longer, it is because the man weight any engine has to pull is it own weight. So when you put in a much larger engine, then the engine has to automatically haul all that much more weight from the engine. That is why the trend is to smaller 4 cylinder engines with a turbo charger.

Yes. the heavier a car is, the more power it needs. I figured that out back in the 60s.

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

They dont. Or at least not as much as ICEs. Taking into account the lifespan of the average car, while EVs start out at a deficit they make up for the materials used in batteries. Ive already posted a link to this.

EV batteries last less than 10 years and cost close to $10,000.
EVs have nothing on ICE.
There are ICE engines getting 70 mpg, and you can run ICE on bio fuel that removes more carbon from the air than it creates.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Remember the gas crisis? Well, we're know building a GRID crisis and wholly fuck the mother Earth they'll destroy to make this happen.

 

[Rigby5]

We are at least 50 years from getting even close to getting off fossil fuels. Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve as FUCK.

You could be right, but I doubt it will be that long. There are millions of gas and diesel vehicles on the roads, and all manufacturers aren't converting to electric. The transition will take several years, but I doubt it will be 50.

There are still several MAJOR hurdles to overcome

1) As people have pointed out, 2% of the market is electric. That means that fossil fuel plants will massively grow to charge the 98% and Democrats oppose actual solutions like fracking for natural gas and nuclear

2) Battery technology just isn't there to create enough batteries that last long enough and can be processed at end of life (dispose or recycle)

3) The cheapest electric cars are $50K. Again, 2% of the cars are now electric. Think of the cost of the other 98%.

We're a ways off, those are three MAJOR hurdles to clear

I'm sure there are more hurdles than that. Conversion to electric power won't happen until we have technology to meet the demands. Only a hysteronic idiot would think that will happen. All those major auto companies would never convert to electric vehicles if they thought fhey would lose market share to all the other companies that aren't converting yet.

Those are the same idiotic car companies that keep claiming they will next week have Autonomous Vehicles, when clearly is it NEVER going to happen. These car makers are notorious for false hype and pretending. They are likely checking out the market potential response to their own hype, than they are actually trying to create EVs.
EVs have a commuter niche, but there are lots of things they are bad at and will likely never do.
Like travel.

Again, like with diesel/electric, you fail to address the point.
EV does not have a power source.
We are running out of all fossil fuel, not just gasoline.
So then when someone suggest switching to batteries, that is saying nothing useful.
It does not at all explain how the batteries are supposed to be recharged.
So there is going to be no fuel to recharge the batteries with.
So switching to batters and EVs, is just a waste of time and money.
Stitch to the point, which is what are we going to do for energy?
At this point, bio fuel like ethanol or palm diesel oil makes more sense than fusion, solar, or wind.

Interesting that you think you are smarter than the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers. Where did you get all your engineering degrees?

Car makers have fine engineers, but you only see the marketing numbskulls, not the engineers.
No engineer would ever suggest an EV.

 

[Rigby5]

bad bad news for all authoritarian gas-stations like KSA, Muscovy, Venezuela , what will happened to them once oil (so no crazy jets full of cash landing on the roof of the Putin´s dacha) becomes what is coal today ?

"
....
We are in the middle of the biggest revolution in motoring since Henry Ford's first production line started turning back in 1913.
And it is likely to happen much more quickly than you imagine.
Many industry observers believe we have already passed the tipping point where sales of electric vehicles (EVs) will very rapidly overwhelm petrol and diesel cars....

Jaguar plans to sell only electric cars from 2025, Volvo from 2030 and last week the British sportscar company Lotus said it would follow suit, selling only electric models from 2028.

General Motors says it will make only electric vehicles by 2035, Ford says all vehicles sold in Europe will be electric by 2030 and VW says 70% of its sales will be electric by 2030."

Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

The BBC's Justin Rowlatt explains why we are accelerating towards an electric car future.

www.bbc.com

Electric cars aren't eco-friendly contrary to they'd have you believe.

still they will bring oil prices back to normality, which means death of moscow empire, KSA (wahhabism) etc

Even now electric cars are clearner than the ICE. It may take a couple of years during the EVs life cycle to catch up but in the end they are better for the environment. And that of course will change as our power grid is filled with even more diverse green energy.

Benefits of electric cars on the environment

All you need to know about electric cars, also known as EVs, and their effect on our environment. Find out if electric or petrol cars are a better choice for our planet.

www.edfenergy.com

No electric cars are not cleaner.
The main source of electricity is still coal, and will become even more of the main source in 50 years, when the gas and oil runs out.
The power grid is not green energy.

Coal burning power plants are cleaner than individual ICEs which are extremely inefficient. Didn't you know this? Most of the power they create never sees the pavement.

Here is an article about electric buses and even though they are not charged on clean power grids they are cleaner than their gas and diesel counterparts.

Study: Electric Buses Already Emit Less Carbon Than Diesel Buses, in Any State

And their climate impact will decrease as the grid gets cleaner.

www.greentechmedia.com

Wrong.
We have only temporarily shifted to natural gas to produce electricity.
When that runs out in 50 years, then we will have to go back to coal, because we have 10 times more coal than natural gas.
And then the emissions of electricity doubles again, becoming greater than diesel.
And it is easy for diesel to beat EV if they use bio fuel because bio fuel absorbs more carbon than produced.
Nothing can ever beat bio fuel.
That is impossible.

When that runs out when? It's like you're saying in a half century nothing will change with our energy make up. When has that ever happened in our country's history?

I'm cool with bio fuels too when/if they come on board.

Half a century is not at all far away and would have to be started now.
There is no way to so it with solar or wind, so bio fuel is the only way, and we are going to have to find sources of water now, if we want bio fuel, because without fossil fuel for fertilizer, human starvation could be come a problem.
So coal is the only easy answer, so far.
Bio fuel is possible, but the EV thing is just detracting from real alternatives like bio fuel.
EVs solve nothing.
Its just a shell game where you don't see the pollution because you move it out of state.
EVs are incredibly inefficient.
Total efficiency of EVs is about 7%, compared to 45% for ICEs.

Do everyone a favor, don't accept money for fortune telling, you're not good at it.

Nothing to do with fortune telling.
I just have a degree in physics, and have done engineering all my life.

Doubtful, but I don't really care anyway.

Believe me, you are being conned by a shell game.
EVs are vastly less efficient and dirty then ICEs.
In fact, the best ICEs are the VW TDIs, which they prosecuted because they were getting 56 mpg, when they were supposed to only be betting 34 mpg.
The VW TDI were putting out less than a forth the carbon of other cars, so then claimed it was NOx they were violating.
But the reality is that unlike CO2 that can last forever, NOx breaks down naturally in hours.
NOx is just heated air.
You turn on an electric stove, you get NOx if you get the coil element hot enough.

How much power from the engine(s) of an EV reach the wheels as compared to an ICE? If you have a degree in physics this should be easy.

Essentially all the power from the engine get to the wheels equally with ICE or EV.
That is because things like UJoints have very little friction, and EVs have an equal amount of UJoints in order to reduce unsprung weight. If you put the electric motor out at the wheel, as some do, the ride is terrible. Too much weight hitting bumps causes the whole car to jolt. Both also should have transmission, and that has little friction either. The one thing ICE has that EV does not is differential. But that is very slow and consumes very little energy. The main difference where an EV would start to shine is if you need All Wheel Drive. Then EV could save about 400 lbs.

Yeah, long story short an average EV will smoke almost all ICEs on the road and nobody is complaing about the ride.

Where did you get your physics degree?

Pointless.
If you waste energy on acceleration, you will need to recharge even sooner.
I have never had any vehicle that needed more acceleration, and I used to buy Fiats with little 850 cc engines.
But I usually put on over 400 miles a day, so batteries won't cut it unless there are recharging stations everywhere.
And even then, people with EVs have to rent generator trailers if they want to go for a long trip.

Little Generator Trailer Lets Electric Cars Go the Distance | Gadgets, Science & Technology

When someone decides to make the leap from a gas-powered car to an electric one, they know that they are giving up some of the conveniences of their previous vehicle. With EV charging stations still not available everywhere, trips have to be planned carefully and the EV owner has to calculate...

gajitz.com

Wow, for a physicist you sure fell back hard from your original argument. Talk about moving goal posts.

EVs now do well over 250 miles on a single charge which is more than most people drive in a day and those EVs will still blow the doors off most of their ICE counterparts and its not even close.

Wrong.
You brought up acceleration, and that was never part of the discussion.

EVs do not do well at a 250 mile range is the headlights, wipers, and heater has to be on.
You won't even get half that.

 

[Rigby5]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

There is no way the engineers are not rolling their eyes at the nonsense the marketing people are forcing on them.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration.
It is more like 30% less at most.

Mercedes and Volvos were tough, and many had replacable cylindar liners. The average American made car from that era was mostly trash at 100,000.

I rarely have US vehicles. They are overly heavy, crude, low mileage, etc.
The few I have had were for durability, like International, Jeep, Ford Explorer, etc.
The advantage of the Mercedes cylinder liners is they allowed the rest of the block to be light aluminum alloy.
But I always buy a vehicle over 15 years old, and get 20 years out of it unless I swap it for something I like better.
I prefer smaller foreign cars for the mileage and ease of labor, since I do it all myself.

 

[Rigby5]

No. There is axel gear ratio, transmission ratio, and transaxle ratio. Often called the final drive ratio when combined. Then, on top of that, there is tire size.

Surprisingly, most of that does not matter much.
The differential ratio is what differs most based on the vehicle.
Like trucks will have a 4.7:1 ratio for more power, but limited top speed.
Average cars are around 3.5:1, off the top of my head.
And light cars trying to get good mpg will drop down to 3.2:1.

Traditionally all transmissions just split it up in increments, until you get into the top gear, which was then 1:1.
The exceptions are overdrives.
That can be a hydraulic planetary extra gear between the tranny and drive line like with Leycock de Normanville overdrive, or something internal to the tranny.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration.
It is more like 30% less at most.

Mercedes and Volvos were tough, and many had replacable cylindar liners. The average American made car from that era was mostly trash at 100,000.

I rarely have US vehicles. They are overly heavy, crude, low mileage, etc.
The few I have had were for durability, like International, Jeep, Ford Explorer, etc.
The advantage of the Mercedes cylinder liners is they allowed the rest of the block to be light aluminum alloy.
But I always buy a vehicle over 15 years old, and get 20 years out of it unless I swap it for something I like better.
I prefer smaller foreign cars for the mileage and ease of labor, since I do it all myself.

Ease of labor? You never worked on a Mercedes. Great cars when they are running, but you can't afford to fix them when they break. Price of $700 to change the ignition switch on a 96 500 SL. I figured I would do it myself. I ordered the $150 switch. Cost me $1200 more to have it put it back together after I pulled out the dash and console, and broke damn near every little plastic part that I got close to.

 

[Rigby5]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

 

[Rigby5]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No they don't. The 2.4L L4 gives 190 HP. The 3.3L V6 gives 290.

If you agree with the Car Talk quote, I am not sure why you called me a liar in my prior post. You're not making much sense.

>With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No. There is axel gear ratio, transmission ratio, and transaxle ratio. Often called the final drive ratio when combined. Then, on top of that, there is tire size.

You said the 6 cylinder and the turbo 4 had near the same power. It would make sence for them to be geared similarly.

I called you a liar, because your numbers were so far off. I gave you credit for knowing how engines and gear ratios work. Obviously that was a mistake.

Unless you specifically note you are talking about transmission ratios, or rear end ratio, the total ratio of engine rpm to wheel rpm is considered. You're nit picking to try not to look so dumb. Let it go.

The problem is the extra weight of the 6 often needs a lower final ratio.
But a turbo 4 won't last nearly as long as a 6.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration.
It is more like 30% less at most.

Mercedes and Volvos were tough, and many had replacable cylindar liners. The average American made car from that era was mostly trash at 100,000.

I rarely have US vehicles. They are overly heavy, crude, low mileage, etc.
The few I have had were for durability, like International, Jeep, Ford Explorer, etc.
The advantage of the Mercedes cylinder liners is they allowed the rest of the block to be light aluminum alloy.
But I always buy a vehicle over 15 years old, and get 20 years out of it unless I swap it for something I like better.
I prefer smaller foreign cars for the mileage and ease of labor, since I do it all myself.

Ease of labor? You never worked on a Mercedes. Great cars when they are running, but you can't afford to fix them when they break. Price of $700 to change the ignition switch on a 96 500 SL. I figured I would do it myself. I ordered the $150 switch. Cost me $1200 more to have it put it back together after I pulled out the dash and console, and broke damn near every little plastic part that I got close to.

I haven't had a Mercedes or Volvo in a long time.
But they were great in the 60s and 70s,
Very durable, simple, easy to work on, etc.
Straight 6.

On a newer one, I likely would splice into the harness and add a boat ignition switch that had no foolish steering lock.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration.
It is more like 30% less at most.

Mercedes and Volvos were tough, and many had replacable cylindar liners. The average American made car from that era was mostly trash at 100,000.

I rarely have US vehicles. They are overly heavy, crude, low mileage, etc.
The few I have had were for durability, like International, Jeep, Ford Explorer, etc.
The advantage of the Mercedes cylinder liners is they allowed the rest of the block to be light aluminum alloy.
But I always buy a vehicle over 15 years old, and get 20 years out of it unless I swap it for something I like better.
I prefer smaller foreign cars for the mileage and ease of labor, since I do it all myself.

Ease of labor? You never worked on a Mercedes. Great cars when they are running, but you can't afford to fix them when they break. Price of $700 to change the ignition switch on a 96 500 SL. I figured I would do it myself. I ordered the $150 switch. Cost me $1200 more to have it put it back together after I pulled out the dash and console, and broke damn near every little plastic part that I got close to.

No shit working on a Mercedes sucks donkey balls

 

[toobfreak]

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

I'll respond to Bulldog only because she knows so little of what she's talking about as usual. A classic V8 reasonably cared for could be expected to last between 200,000 and 300,000 miles cheaply with low technology because of the soft ratio of work being pushed through it for the amount of metal there was. Small high performance engines now, the one's that commercially last do so because of high tech materials and complexity that comes at a high cost. In effect, you are paying for two or more of the older, cheaper engines all at once.

Some of the vehicles we purchased had the choice of a 4cyl turbo, or V6. We choose the V6, as the turbo 4-cyl with nearly the same power will not last as long since you are pushing more power out of an underpowered engine.

The only advantage I see in the turbo 4 cylinders was that they had some weight reduction in the front end which probably better balanced the car. But that is a high price to pay for a car you just drive to work.

Engine lifetime is strongly proportional to total revolutions. A four-cylinder has 50% more revolutions per mile than a V6. Engine rpm for a given vehicle speed is also 50% higher. That results in higher operating temperatures, stresses, and wear.

Isn't that the point? To get the same work out of a small engine, the only way you can go is higher revolutions to equal a similar mechanical advantage. If anything, it doesn't even equate out to a linear outcome, the stress on moving parts moving at a very high rpm will always suffer greater fatigue (exponentially) than a larger, slower moving part doing the same work.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

 

[Rigby5]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration.
It is more like 30% less at most.

Mercedes and Volvos were tough, and many had replacable cylindar liners. The average American made car from that era was mostly trash at 100,000.

I rarely have US vehicles. They are overly heavy, crude, low mileage, etc.
The few I have had were for durability, like International, Jeep, Ford Explorer, etc.
The advantage of the Mercedes cylinder liners is they allowed the rest of the block to be light aluminum alloy.
But I always buy a vehicle over 15 years old, and get 20 years out of it unless I swap it for something I like better.
I prefer smaller foreign cars for the mileage and ease of labor, since I do it all myself.

Ease of labor? You never worked on a Mercedes. Great cars when they are running, but you can't afford to fix them when they break. Price of $700 to change the ignition switch on a 96 500 SL. I figured I would do it myself. I ordered the $150 switch. Cost me $1200 more to have it put it back together after I pulled out the dash and console, and broke damn near every little plastic part that I got close to.

No shit working on a Mercedes sucks donkey balls

The junk they add onto crap these days can't be coming from engineers.
Marketing has to have taken over.
Things they do no are just so stupid.
Like I have had 3 cars now where I had to leave some window not working because the huge power window loom went into the door and back.
Makes no sense because the door flexing is bound to break wires eventually.
I finally fixed it with wires right on the floor.
But any REAL engineer would insist that electric window switches be put on the central console where everyone can reach them, not on the driver's door.
I had the AC switch break on a 96 Dodge van, cost me $15.
I had the AC switch break on a 2006 VW Jetta, and the microprocessor control cost $400 mail order.
Engineers are not the problem.
It has to be all marketing at fault.

 

[Rigby5]

Isn't that the point? To get the same work out of a small engine, the only way you can go is higher revolutions to equal a similar mechanical advantage. If anything, it doesn't even equate out to a linear outcome, the stress on moving parts moving at a very high rpm will always suffer greater fatigue (exponentially) than a larger, slower moving part doing the same work.

Higher revs is not the only way to more power.
Just pushing more on the pedal gives more power.
You don't have to let it rev high.
With a turbo charger, the volume of air/fuel is increased, as if a larger engine displacement, without revving higher.
But I think everyone agrees a smaller engine with the same load with wear out sooner.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

They dont. Or at least not as much as ICEs. Taking into account the lifespan of the average car, while EVs start out at a deficit they make up for the materials used in batteries. Ive already posted a link to this.

EV batteries last less than 10 years and cost close to $10,000.
EVs have nothing on ICE.
There are ICE engines getting 70 mpg, and you can run ICE on bio fuel that removes more carbon from the air than it creates.

Name a car that is not a hybrid and therefore doesn't contains some of those evil batteries that is mass produced that gets 70mpg.

 

[toobfreak]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Again, well of course. This is basic mechanical engineering. A smaller 4 cyl. engine has smaller displacement, so how else can it produce the same amount work without either resulting in higher RPMs to make up for the smaller bore and moment of inertia, or in fantastically overworking a high tech uber expensive engine to death. A happy medium can only be to try to do a little balancing of both: increase RPMs somewhat, maybe 10% as needed while building the highest tech engine possible using premium, expensive materials and technology at a higher cost.