General / Off-Topic The Combustion Engine is NOT dead

[lysan]

I love the sound of a good tuned Engine, that be R4,6 or the mighty V8-10, 12 engines, there is just something about it that EV's just can't give you, imagine watching a F1 race with
electrical engines, it's going to be boring. Luckily the combustion engine is not dead, and we now see some of the big automakers dumb the EV's and go back to what really matters.

The Combustion Engines!!

https://www.motortrend.com/news/v-8-not-dead-gm-confirms-new-sixth-gen-small-block/

https://www.autonews.com/technology/toyota-unveils-hydrogen-burning-engine-plan-fight-ev-mania

I'm not going to touch the highly politicized climate discussions, so here it's more a what is more doable from a transportation point of view. The combustion engine is not going anywhere any day soon, Russia is pumping oil out like crazy and new oil fields are discovered all the time, maybe Europe will force its population into EV's and 15 min cities but the majority of the worlds population will still be driving around in cars and trucks powered by some sort of combustion material, I find the new "water" engine very interesting, the problem is that how will the industry make any money out of it if you just need saline water to run it?

Water-injected 2.0-liter turbo-four hydrogen engine spits out 410 hp

Austrian mobility technology company AVL had a pretty good day for itself earlier this month, when it confirmed simulations that showed its prototype 2.0-liter turbo hydrogen race engine developing over 200 hp-per-liter. AVL uses a water-injection system alongside its turbocharger to moderate…

newatlas.com

 

[amigacooke]

I suspect that the combustion engine will end up like the steam engine, an interesting historical curiousity.

 

[lysan]

I suspect that the combustion engine will end up like the steam engine, an interesting historical curiousity.

Maybe, however that depends what will replace it, i don't believed it will be an all electrical engine.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

F1 is boring. Driving in circles is as shyte as watching athletes run x times a circle around the stadium. And electrical engine may be far superior in racing, too.

 

[Morbad]

Purely electric vehicles replacing ICE vehicles is virtually a given, but the timescale is highly uncertain. Infrastructure is the main issue, with battery technology being a close second. Progress is progress though and even oil lobbies won't be able to stall things forever.

As for water injection, that isn't a replacement for fuel in an internal combustion engine, it's a way to extract more power from it. It's been used in aviation since the 1920s and in racing probably as long. Hydrogen fueled vehicles have the similar issues as pure electric ones--lack of infrastructure and poor energy density--though even worse.

 

[metatheurgist]

The combustion F1 car sounds like a dying dinosaur, which is probably appropriate.

 

[lysan]

The combustion F1 car sounds like a dying dinosaur, which is probably appropriate.

however the dinos was around for 65 million years before they died out

Hydrogen fueled vehicles

is the future, I don't believe EV's has a future, they are only reliable in cities, and they simply fail in being just as good as the combustion engine if you take everything into consideration, also so many products is made from oil, you can't replace it, extracting the minerals from the ground is also a very logistical challenge, maybe in 50 years but the combustion engine is not going away, if it was so wonderful the military would have made electrical tanks by now.

 

[amigacooke]

I wonder if it was possible a hundred and ten years ago, people would have made similar posts about the horse?

Been using horses for hundreds of years, fuel is readily available, horses are reliable and easy to breed. If the combustion engine is so good, why are the military still using cavalry?

 

[tolm]

I find the new "water" engine very interesting, the problem is that how will the industry make any money out of it if you just need saline water to run it?

Water-injected 2.0-liter turbo-four hydrogen engine spits out 410 hp

Austrian mobility technology company AVL had a pretty good day for itself earlier this month, when it confirmed simulations that showed its prototype 2.0-liter turbo hydrogen race engine developing over 200 hp-per-liter. AVL uses a water-injection system alongside its turbocharger to moderate…

newatlas.com

From the article, it seems like it’s a hydrogen powered engine that additionally uses water-injection to control the combustion so there would still be the hydrogen fuel and infrastructure for the industry to charge for and governments to tax …

 

[lysan]

From the article, it seems like it’s a hydrogen powered engine that additionally uses water-injection to control the combustion so there would still be the hydrogen fuel and infrastructure for the industry to charge for and governments to tax …

Yes, but they can't control it as much as if it was a pure EV, so it will be the same as gasoline or diesel, and that's good.

 

[Morbad]

I don't believe EV's has a future, they are only reliable in cities, and they simply fail in being just as good as the combustion engine if you take everything into consideration

This is all part of infrastructure and battery tech.

And even if they were only reliable in cities, more than 80% of the population of the developed world (and more than half the total global population) lives in cities, a figure that is only going to increase.

extracting the minerals from the ground is also a very logistical challenge

Again, same problem, same solution. Higher-performance battery technologies that rely less upon rare earth elements are a prerequisite to all of this.

My rechargeable AA and AAA batteries are already all nickel-zinc ones that are made from recycled common metals. Energy density on these still sucks (though it's way better than older nickel cadmium stuff), but there are technologies on the horizon that will combine address both resource scarcity and power density in the not-so-distant future. We are maybe ~20 years--barring any unforeseeable paradigm shift in energy storage that leads to more rapid changes--from the time when a purely electric drive train will match the effective energy density of a gasoline one. Once that happens, the advantages of hydrocarbon fuel mostly evaporate, because both generating and transporting electricity will be easier than refining or transporting hydrocarbon fuels and economies of scale will quickly eliminate the cost disadvantages of the electric options.

if it was so wonderful the military would have made electrical tanks by now.

The first hybrid/turboelectric drive trains in tanks were protoyped and tested back in WWII. Many future armored vechicles (including the AbramsX and XM30 MICV), though still ultimately powered by reciprocating or turbine ICEs, will be hybrid electric designs for improved overall efficiency and power (it's actually a mandatory part of the design criteria). At some point--again, once battery technology improves and their effective energy density can rival hydrocarbon fuels--the ICEs will be omitted. If I had to guess when such technology will be ready, I'd say probably around the same time they stop putting crew compartments in MBTs and transition from optionally manned vehciles (which are ~10 years off) to fully autonomous ones.

ICEs will probably linger in cheap automobiles for certain emerging markets longer than they do in combat vechicles, but predicting the ICE to never be supplanted today is probably going to age about as well as predicting dirgibles never being surpassed as strategic bombing aircraft in 1914.

Yes, but they can't control it as much as if it was a pure EV, so it will be the same as gasoline or diesel, and that's good.

Gasoline and diesel are subject to all sorts of emissions controls and supply taxes, and every street legal vehicle in most of the developed world has to pass various inspections to be registered to drive on public roads. I'm not sure what makes you think pure EVs are more controlled, or more easily controlled.

Hydrogen is throughly impractical because there isn't even a basic infrastructure for it. You can electrolize water or run hydrocarbons through a catalyst, but that still requires electricity and/or hydrocarbons, not to mention a lot of equipment.

 

[lysan]

Gasoline and diesel are subject to all sorts of emissions controls

The first thing any serious tuner does is to get rid of the dead cat, remover the restriction from the EMS and get max power output of the engine, there are already laws in the works to build in kill switches the police can activate remotely on EV cars, the problem with that is if they can so can criminals, moreover EV's are not sold in the numbers they all expected, so they rot in massive parking lots around the world, I honestly don't see EV's as the future the next 20 - 40 years, and as long as countries like the members of BRICS is not slowing down on oil production the US is not going to get on the EV hype train any day soon, well maybe CA will because reasons.

When you can recharge a vehicle in 5 min to 100% and get the same range as with a combustion engine, then I see it will be easy to replace, however until now we don't see that happening.

 

[Morbad]

The first thing any serious tuner does is to get rid of the dead cat, remover the restriction from the EMS and get max power output of the engine, there are already laws in the works to build in kill switches the police can activate remotely on EV cars, the problem with that is if they can so can criminals

That's not an EV thing, that's a 'car with a computer' thing. If it's new enough to have fuel injection it's almost certainly got all sorts of limiters built into it for all kinds of reasons (safety, fuel economy, emissions standards, market segmentation, etc) and could easily accept an electronic kill-switch. Proposals for laws to include kill-switches in automobiles do not distinguish between EVs or ICEs and it's not any easier to kill-switch an EV than it is most ICE autos made since the mid-1980s. Anything with a computer that can accept over-the-air updates could probably be kill-switched without any hardware modifications.

The workarounds to this--flashing new firmware that disables 'features' one doesn't want--are also the same.

When you can recharge a vehicle in 5 min to 100% and get the same range as with a combustion engine, then I see it will be easy to replace, however until now we don't see that happening.

Fast charging and battery swaps are definitely infrastructure problems that could take a while to resolve.

 

[marx]

maybe Europe will force its population into EV's and 15 min cities

...Force?
Leaving electric cars aside, "15 minute cities" is a concept that has been around in many places for a long time, and is just now being brought out again under this new name. For example, the city I currently live in had a large population increase about ten years after WW2, and in the almost seventy years since then, most new residential districts were planned under such a strategy. About thirty years ago, it was abandoned, with the reasoning that people need cheap houses and will just commute to the city center via public transportation or private cars anyway. This experiment lasted about ten years, and it didn't work out. Mostly because these new districts were significantly less livable than the "old" ones, and thus less attractive to people, and extra traffic to a downtown not designed for cars (it's not like there were any of those a thousand years ago) caused a number of problems as well.

At the end of the day though, designing cities to be better to live in will make them worse for driving cars in. The other way around as well. So, there's a decision to make: cars or people? Pick one.
"15 minute cities" is a new phrase for an old strategy, one that prioritizes people over cars. It's a fancy name though, because hey, it has a number in it!

Well anyway, this was just an aside, and not all that relevant to the topic of what technologies make cars go forward.

 

[lysan]

...Force?
Leaving electric cars aside, "15 minute cities" is a concept that has been around in many places for a long time, and is just now being brought out again under this new name. For example, the city I currently live in had a large population increase about ten years after WW2, and in the almost seventy years since then, most new residential districts were planned under such a strategy. About thirty years ago, it was abandoned, with the reasoning that people need cheap houses and will just commute to the city center via public transportation or private cars anyway. This experiment lasted about ten years, and it didn't work out. Mostly because these new districts were significantly less livable than the "old" ones, and thus less attractive to people, and extra traffic to a downtown not designed for cars (it's not like there were any of those a thousand years ago) caused a number of problems as well.

At the end of the day though, designing cities to be better to live in will make them worse for driving cars in. The other way around as well. So, there's a decision to make: cars or people? Pick one.
"15 minute cities" is a new phrase for an old strategy, one that prioritizes people over cars. It's a fancy name though, because hey, it has a number in it!

Well anyway, this was just an aside, and not all that relevant to the topic of what technologies make cars go forward.

for me it's ok to design cities without cars, what is not ok is to restrict peoples movement, and that's what the 15 min cites is about, if you want to live in a big city without a car, fine I got no problem with that as I hate big cities and would never live in one, but that's just me, however if I need to take a train or a bus to visit you, I would probably not do that, as I prefer my freedom to go where ever I want when ever i want, but I digress

 

[Morbad]

for me it's ok to design cities without cars, what is not ok is to restrict peoples movement, and that's what the 15 min cites is about, if you want to live in a big city without a car, fine I got no problem with that as I hate big cities and would never live in one, but that's just me, however if I need to take a train or a bus to visit you, I would probably not do that, as I prefer my freedom to go where ever I want when ever i want, but I digress

The whole '15-minute city' thing is all about maximizing freedom of movement and a good way to do that is to minimize vehicular traffic as many of the considerations that make cars convenient significantly restrict freedom of movement on foot. In any contest between freedom of movement on foot vs. vehicular traffic, I'm strongly inclined to side with the former. Being able to walk is a much more fundamental liberty and as well as a more practical thing in a system where driving has not been anyone's right (if you need a license to do it, it's a privilege) in a very long time.

Personally, if I can't reach a destination on foot at all, or without extreme detours, I consider that a much bigger problem than any vaguely able bodied individual having to park a car fifteen minutes from their ultimate destination.

Not that any of this has much of anything to do with EVs vs. ICEs.

 

[marx]

Hm, so I guess you two use different definitions of this 15-minute urban planning strategy than I do. But it doesn't really matter.

An interesting part of EVs vs ICEs though is that while the former does have an advantage in far less pollution and noise, it's not a magical solution to everything, as cars still cause a lot of problems regardless of what propels them. Their infrastructure takes up a lot of public space, for example. You could have a park instead of a parking lot, and it would be much more useful to the people who live around there.

Or another example: accidents. More traffic means more accidents, and for the people who get hit by a car, it doesn't matter that much whether that was ICE or EV. Although yes, the latter are heavier - but we are talking about something that's best to be avoided entirely. At the end of the day, it's more likely that whatever zones are around will be "cars not allowed" or "cars allowed", not "diesel / petrol cars not allowed".
(Doesn't necessarily have to be big cities, mind you. Smaller cities, towns etc can have good reasons to forbid cars as well. Take Piran, for example: a lovely town by the Adriatic sea, where cars are forbidden almost everywhere, parking costs a lot in the few places where they are allowed, and you need a permit for commercial traffic. Why, you might ask? Simple: the streets are too narrow for cars.)

 

[lysan]

More traffic means more accidents

yes, and as you said it doesn't matter if you get hit by a EV or ICE, however the ICE is not going away and that was my point, the development will most likely get to a point where the emission will be none pollutant due to the fact that whatever is used to make the combustion will be more friendly to the environment.

New internal combustion engine design produces zero harmful emissions

Researchers from Valencia’s Polytechnic University (UPV) have designed a new internal combustion engine (ICE) that does not generate carbon dioxide and other gases that are harmful to people’s health.

eandt.theiet.org

BMW Is Developing A New Generation Of Internal Combustion Engines | Carscoops

BMW isn't yet ready to commit to the end of the internal combustion engine

www.carscoops.com

Combining that with new oil reserve discoveries in the artic Russia claimed the will start to develop i don't see how or when the ICE will be phased out?

Personally, if I can't reach a destination on foot at all

either can I, we use trucks, bikes, cars or a horse to get around, horses are actually the best way to get around if you need to quickly go somewhere around here.

 

[Riverside]

I have both an electric car and a petrol one atm. First time I drove an electric car I was totally sold on the idea; they have that instant power that's great for pulling away from traffic lights, junctions and onto islands/roundabouts. there's no hesitation while a turbo spools up, no opportunity for the electric car to stutter or stall, no gearchanges & minimal noise.

But it's heavy. Mine is an SUV so it's not like I drive it expecting it to change direction like a lightweight sportscar but you can feel the momentum.

For what I use it for (less than 50 miles daily) range isn't an issue and not having to ever visit a gas station or really service it at all is a significant bonus, it's a really easy vehicle to own & just get in & use. It's fun in it's own way, certainly way more fun than a regular IC SUV if only because of the power & smoothness.

But for long trips charging the thing is a pain. I have to find one, preferably one that's a fast charger and the more cars using the facilities the slower my car fills up. It's like running an IC on premium fuel or something, the infrastructure just isn't as good as for a petrol or diesel car. Fortunately I don't do many long trips and in every other respect it's the ideal obedient runabout car. 400bhp, 0-60 in 5 secs, top speed is limited to 112mph, range is something over 200 miles the way I drive it and the quiet drivetrain suits the car.

My other car is a little old sportscar. 150bhp, 0-60 in 8 secs, top speed is about 130mph & it has a range of a little over 200 miles on premium petrol. It's light, sonorous & great fun on the local country roads (I live in the Peak District), and it's about as fast as I need it to be for what I use it for (fooling around on narrow country roads).

Now I love the noise of it's revvy little four-pot and the close ratio six-speed manual box is rifle-bolt precise, I love the mechanical connection on the right road (and I have plenty to choose from) but most of the time, for mundane commuting or shopping it's definitely easier to just get in the modern electric SUV - horses for courses.

The IC engine is far from dead, if nothing else it'll be a long time before IC goes away from air transport but for me electric drive is clearly the way to go, and how the energy to make it go is transferred to and stored in the vehicle is the only major issue.

 

[tolm]

I have both an electric car and a petrol one atm. First time I drove an electric car I was totally sold on the idea; they have that instant power that's great for pulling away from traffic lights, junctions and onto islands/roundabouts. there's no hesitation while a turbo spools up, no opportunity for the electric car to stutter or stall, no gearchanges & minimal noise.

But it's heavy. Mine is an SUV so it's not like I drive it expecting it to change direction like a lightweight sportscar but you can feel the momentum.

For what I use it for (less than 50 miles daily) range isn't an issue and not having to ever visit a gas station or really service it at all is a significant bonus, it's a really easy vehicle to own & just get in & use. It's fun in it's own way, certainly way more fun than a regular IC SUV if only because of the power & smoothness.

But for long trips charging the thing is a pain. I have to find one, preferably one that's a fast charger and the more cars using the facilities the slower my car fills up. It's like running an IC on premium fuel or something, the infrastructure just isn't as good as for a petrol or diesel car. Fortunately I don't do many long trips and in every other respect it's the ideal obedient runabout car. 400bhp, 0-60 in 5 secs, top speed is limited to 112mph, range is something over 200 miles the way I drive it and the quiet drivetrain suits the car.

My other car is a little old sportscar. 150bhp, 0-60 in 8 secs, top speed is about 130mph & it has a range of a little over 200 miles on premium petrol. It's light, sonorous & great fun on the local country roads (I live in the Peak District), and it's about as fast as I need it to be for what I use it for (fooling around on narrow country roads).

Now I love the noise of it's revvy little four-pot and the close ratio six-speed manual box is rifle-bolt precise, I love the mechanical connection on the right road (and I have plenty to choose from) but most of the time, for mundane commuting or shopping it's definitely easier to just get in the modern electric SUV - horses for courses.

The IC engine is far from dead, if nothing else it'll be a long time before IC goes away from air transport but for me electric drive is clearly the way to go, and how the energy to make it go is transferred to and stored in the vehicle is the only major issue.

Ford Mustang Mach-E and MGB?