Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and transmissions?
F. George McDuffee
transmissions?????????
(1) How does introducing a new engine improve fuel
economy/emissions?
(2) What new principals of physics have been discovered that
required new engine design?
(3) What new production techniques such as ultra thin wall
casting or new materials have been developed that justify new
engine designs?
(4) How much of this cost is the taxpayer going to pick up
through corporate R&D deductions? As a follow-on, how many new
jobs will be generated in the US to manufacture these new engines
and transmissions?
http://www.freep.com/article/20100108/BUSINESS01/100108026/1204/business01/Ford-plans-9-new-engines-electric-vehicle-project-
As Ford enters 2010, it plans to aggressively pursue its goal to
become the nation�s fuel-economy leader by introducing nine new
or upgraded engines and six new transmissions on its cars and
trucks.
<snip>
Samardzich said the engines and transmissions are part of a
five-year plan aimed at introducing 60 new engines and
transmissions between 2008 and 2013.
<snip>
=========
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Wes
>A continuation of the engine thread -- 60 new engines and
>transmissions?????????
>
>(1) How does introducing a new engine improve fuel
>economy/emissions?
I think Ed pointed out some interesting engine designs recently.
Soon heavy truck will be using engines with urea injection systems. That little, cough,
change will drive up the price of heavy trucks a sizable bit more.
I'm pretty coy about who for and where I work. I need to keep working. But let me tell
you, regulations on diesel emissons have a greater effect on our business than our
currently crashing economy. Having your business go up and down depending on regulation
changes, engine prebuys, and all that crap really puts a strain on everyone in the
manufacturing sector.
>
>(2) What new principals of physics have been discovered that
>required new engine design?
This is driven by regulation. The makers are trying to eek out as much as they can.
>
>(3) What new production techniques such as ultra thin wall
>casting or new materials have been developed that justify new
>engine designs?
This is driven by regulation. See above.
>
>(4) How much of this cost is the taxpayer going to pick up
>through corporate R&D deductions? As a follow-on, how many new
>jobs will be generated in the US to manufacture these new engines
>and transmissions?
GM likely too much. Ford, likely on their dime. I sure hope Ford has a econo box that
gets good gas mileage that can tow 1000# by the time my Saturn SL1 dies. 192,000 and
rusting. I'd really hate buying a Toyota or Kia. I'm only interested in transportation
that gets me there relibily at low cost. Living in Michigan, that means it has to last 10
years before it rusts away. I envy those California and Arizona types. I could keep a
car going for the rest of my life if the body didn't waste away.
Now let me pose a question. Considering the continously lowering of our standard of
living, how much more regulation and additional cost, can we afford to support in our
vehicle purchases?
Wes
--
Regulation, just another form of taxation.
Wes
dca...@krl.org
associates.us> wrote:
> A continuation of the engine thread -- 60 new engines and
> transmissions?????????
>
> (1) How does introducing a new engine improve fuel
> economy/emissions?
>
spend more on the engine to increase economy. In this case Ford is
going to direct injection and turbocharging. Both of these cost more
money, but allow a smaller engine to be as powerful as a larger engine
and use less fuel.
> (2) What new principals of physics have been discovered that
> required new engine design?
I suspect direct injection requires better microprocessors for the
control. But the main driver is higher fuel costs, mean it is
worthwhile to increase engine costs if it improves economy. Having a
smaller engine will also mean less weight and that will also increase
fuel economy.
> (3) What new production techniques such as ultra thin wall
> casting or new materials have been developed that justify new
> engine designs?
There are some new materials as ceramics that allow higher operating
temperatures. And that justifies new engine designs. However I did
not see any mention of this in connection with the new Ford engines.
>
> (4) How much of this cost is the taxpayer going to pick up
> through corporate R&D deductions? As a follow-on, how many new
> jobs will be generated in the US to manufacture these new engines
> and transmissions?
Congress has passed huge stimulas packages to encourage energy
savings.
Think of this as part of the stimulas package. It generates jobs for
those that design engines and engine production lines.
The new engines are more complex, so will have more labor costs
associated with them. But probably will not generate a lot of new
jobs for the production.
But the big follow on will be better fuel economy. Congress is trying
to promote energy savings to lessen the dependence on imported oil.
Increasing the fuel economy of cars and trucks will have as large an
effect as increasing the number of solar panels to generate electric
power.
>
> http://www.freep.com/article/20100108/BUSINESS01/100108026/1204/busin...
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
>Now let me pose a question. Considering the continously lowering of our standard of
>living, how much more regulation and additional cost, can we afford to support in our
>vehicle purchases?
There appear to be two parallel questions:
(1) The one you asked "how much more regulation and additional
cost, can we afford to support..."
The problem here is that we can't tell because the cost:benefit
data is unavailable, incomplete or hidden. I have significant
suspicion that we have gone far beyond the point of diminishing
returns in many areas and that many of the programs have taken on
a life of their own, and/or the programs are acting as band-aids
for more systemic problems such as the over concentration of
people/industry in a few [very] small areas such as the LA basin
and the isle of Manhattan that would be more logically addressed
by other regulations.
and
(2) "how much more regulation and additional cost, will we
tolerate."
FWIW -- it appears that many of the changes are due to some MBAs
"wild hair" and have little to do with actual governmental
regulation. One example is the proliferation of air and oil
filters. In this particular case, a governmental regulation
banning the introduction of new automotive oil and air filters
and requiring the use of an existing filter [that could be
upgraded to meet new requirements but must remain backward
compatible, e.g. anti drainback valve] would result in a cost
savings to the end user and a stabilization if not reduction in
inventories.
Rick
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:3agjk5t7q9jf6t9sc...@4ax.com...
Official press release
Cliff
wrote:
> engine production lines.
IIRC Those cost about a billion dollars each.
--
Cliff
Buerste
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:3agjk5t7q9jf6t9sc...@4ax.com...
What a waste! Sure, new IC technology is cool but there are diminishing
returns. The future is Electric! Imagine hundreds or thousands of nuke
plants supplying cheap power. If the environmentalists and those telling
them what to think and do had not destroyed the will of the US to forge
ahead in all those related technologies, imagine where we would be.
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:3agjk5t7q9jf6t9sc...@4ax.com...
> transmissions?????????
>
> (1) How does introducing a new engine improve fuel
> economy/emissions?
By cutting fuel use and emissions. 8-)
>
> (2) What new principals of physics have been discovered that
> required new engine design?
Not new physics; new mechanics. Go to the SAE website and search on "direct
injection," "stratified charge," and, for the medium-term, "HCCI"
(homogeneous-charge, compression ignition"). Remember those model airplane
"diesel" engines, which actually were carbureted, rather than injected, but
which used compression ignition? Yep. They're the future.
It's a revolution that's making big improvements in fuel economy --
actually, about three of them in a row, if you include the new generation of
turbo diesels, which combine several new ideas.
>
> (3) What new production techniques such as ultra thin wall
> casting or new materials have been developed that justify new
> engine designs?
Those aren't the justifications. See above.
>
> (4) How much of this cost is the taxpayer going to pick up
> through corporate R&D deductions? As a follow-on, how many new
> jobs will be generated in the US to manufacture these new engines
> and transmissions?
Probably more than a few.
Wes
>What a waste! Sure, new IC technology is cool but there are diminishing
>returns. The future is Electric! Imagine hundreds or thousands of nuke
>plants supplying cheap power. If the environmentalists and those telling
>them what to think and do had not destroyed the will of the US to forge
>ahead in all those related technologies, imagine where we would be.
I don't think the the enviromentalists, cough, understand cost vs benefit. The
enviromentalists are the real party of no.
Wes
Anthony
news:TJednYBEHpmubtTW...@giganews.com:
>
> "F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
> message news:3agjk5t7q9jf6t9sc...@4ax.com...
>>A continuation of the engine thread -- 60 new engines and
>> transmissions?????????
>>
(1) How does introducing a new engine improve fuel economy/emissions?
The new Gasoline Direct Injected and Turbo Gasoline Direct Injected
engines are a large leap in technology over current engines. Up to 20%
more efficient with the power of a much larger more cylindered
contemporary engine. In order to implement GDI or TGDI, a redesign of
pretty much the entire engine is required.
This answers question #3, it's not new casting techniques (although some
are required for the GDI/TGDI engines) or new materials.
With GDI/TGDI the cylinder loads are an order of magnitude larger than
previous engines.
These engines are running 12:1 or higher compresssion ratios on 87 octane
pump gas. This is possible because of the cooling effect of the charge as
it enters the cylinder from the injector. As the (relatively) cool fuel
enters the cylinder, it absorbs gobs of calories in order to vaporize.
This prevents predenotation. This also creates several issues with
internal components of the engine.
You also have an entirely different flow path required for the air
entering the cylinder and a different path needed during the compression
stroke. This requires a redesign of the combustion chamber and intake /
exhaust tracts.
The key technology that allowed this revolution is the injectors. Until
now, there was no injector capable of withstanding the environment and
operating conditions inside of the cylinder of a gasoline engine. Now
there are two companies (Bosch and Siemens) with proven, reliable
injectors for direct placement inside the combustion cylinder. (Answer to
question #2)
Your talking about stresses in the engine very akin to a diesel engine,
but with much higher RPM's.
(2) What new principals of physics have been discovered that required new
engine design?
(3) What new production techniques such as ultra thin wall casting or new
materials have been developed that justify new engine designs?
(4) How much of this cost is the taxpayer going to pick up through
corporate R&D deductions? As a follow-on, how many new jobs will be
generated in the US to manufacture these new engines and transmissions?
Research has been ongoing on this for years, this is just the first mass
introduction of the technology. These injectors and what not were
developed in the motorsports (F1 for one) arenas over the last several
years.
In the near future, you'll see 2.0L 4 cylinder engines with 225-300 hp
with good low end torque and perfect driveability. They will include
newer technlogies such as variable displacement turbochargers, variable
cams on both intake and exhaust, very lightweight valves, internal
cooling gallery pistons, servo controlled, extremely quick acting EGR and
other technologies that will allow much improved economy and emissions
from current tech.
--
Anthony
You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.
Remove sp to reply via email
azotic
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:d9f3e184-5294-4370...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 10, 12:17 pm, F. George McDuffee <gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us> wrote:
> A continuation of the engine thread -- 60 new engines and
> transmissions?????????
>
> (1) How does introducing a new engine improve fuel
> economy/emissions?
>
Engineers design for the lowest cost. When fuel is expensive, one can
spend more on the engine to increase economy. In this case Ford is
going to direct injection and turbocharging. Both of these cost more
money, but allow a smaller engine to be as powerful as a larger engine
and use less fuel.
> (2) What new principals of physics have been discovered that
> required new engine design?
I suspect direct injection requires better microprocessors for the
control. But the main driver is higher fuel costs, mean it is
worthwhile to increase engine costs if it improves economy. Having a
smaller engine will also mean less weight and that will also increase
fuel economy.
Electronic engine control is going to replace mechanical control and improve
over all performance, even in the small engine market. Freescale has a free
video course on thier engine controllers :
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=WBNR_SMALLENGINE_CONTROL_WP
Kinda neat to see whats coming down the pipe.
Best Regards
Tom.
Jim Wilkins
> ..
> What a waste! Sure, new IC technology is cool but there are diminishing
> returns. The future is Electric! Imagine hundreds or thousands of nuke
> plants supplying cheap power. If the environmentalists and those telling
> them what to think and do had not destroyed the will of the US to forge
We'd be in France:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
Jim Wilkins
> ...
>
> In the near future, you'll see 2.0L 4 cylinder engines with 225-300 hp
> with good low end torque and perfect driveability. They will include
> newer technlogies such as variable displacement turbochargers, variable
> cams on both intake and exhaust, very lightweight valves, internal
> cooling gallery pistons, servo controlled, extremely quick acting EGR and
> other technologies that will allow much improved economy and emissions
> from current tech.
>
> --
> Anthony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine
2L, 240HP
Wes
>In the near future, you'll see 2.0L 4 cylinder engines with 225-300 hp
>with good low end torque and perfect driveability. They will include
>newer technlogies such as variable displacement turbochargers, variable
>cams on both intake and exhaust, very lightweight valves, internal
>cooling gallery pistons, servo controlled, extremely quick acting EGR and
>other technologies that will allow much improved economy and emissions
>from current tech.
Thanks for the update. My burning question is, however, will this engine and the rest of
the car make 250,000 miles if I take care of it?
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Jon Anderson
> Thanks for the update. My burning question is, however, will this engine and the rest of
> the car make 250,000 miles if I take care of it?
That's a good question. In the dirt bike world, I've always been a
thumper fan, so was thrilled when not too many years ago, everyone got
deadly serious about competitive 4 stroke race bikes. Well, they've
largely gotten there, but only with loads of high tech and complexity.
I've been out of the dirt bike game for years, but some friends have
said that rebuilding a racing thumper is not for the ham fisted. Not to
mention requiring many more, more expensive parts, than a 2 stroke.
250k miles? Only time will tell...
btw, I've been very impressed with my wife's Ford Sapphire over in Oz.
While not a hot rod, it has oodles of torque. It takes a fair bit of
concentration on my part to keep it under 110km/hr on the highway. Even
on a decent grade, a few moments distraction and I've found myself up to
120-130. I took a peek under the hood, it's a monster straight 6 with
fuel injection. I'd long wondered how a big straight 6 would work with
FI, now I know. And I'll bet taken care of, that engine is good for
several hundred thousand miles, easy.
Jon
oldjag
>
>
>
> >A continuation of the engine thread -- 60 new engines and
> > transmissions?????????
>
> > (1) How does introducing a new engine improve fuel
> > economy/emissions?
>
> > (2) What new principals of physics have been discovered that
> > required new engine design?
>
> > (3) What new production techniques such as ultra thin wall
> > casting or new materials have been developed that justify new
> > engine designs?
>
> > (4) How much of this cost is the taxpayer going to pick up
> > through corporate R&D deductions? As a follow-on, how many new
> > jobs will be generated in the US to manufacture these new engines
> > and transmissions?
>
> > As Ford enters 2010, it plans to aggressively pursue its goal to
> > become the nation's fuel-economy leader by introducing nine new
> > or upgraded engines and six new transmissions on its cars and
> > trucks.
> > <snip>
> > Samardzich said the engines and transmissions are part of a
> > five-year plan aimed at introducing 60 new engines and
> > transmissions between 2008 and 2013.
> > <snip>
> > =========
>
> > Unka George (George McDuffee)
> > ..............................
> > The past is a foreign country;
> > they do things differently there.
> > L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
> > The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
>
> What a waste! Sure, new IC technology is cool but there are diminishing
> returns. The future is Electric! Imagine hundreds or thousands of nuke
> plants supplying cheap power. If the environmentalists and those telling
> them what to think and do had not destroyed the will of the US to forge
> ahead in all those related technologies, imagine where we would be.
Are we all going to stop driving while we wait for the new nukes to be
designed, approved and built and waste disposal for said nukes to be
designed, built and approved? Are we going to wait for Solar, wind
and wave energy to get to maybe 20% of our energy requirements? I
don't see a headlong rush into the massive spending needed for all of
the above plus smart power grids. I think we will still be using
Diesel power for trucks and gasoline for cars for a few more years
yet. May as well make them a efficient as possible. Might still need
a few diesels trucks for a while...at least to pick up the stranded
electric vehicles on the side of the road with dead batterys:)
cl...@snyder.on.ca
>Anthony <tonyt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the near future, you'll see 2.0L 4 cylinder engines with 225-300 hp
>>with good low end torque and perfect driveability. They will include
>>newer technlogies such as variable displacement turbochargers, variable
>>cams on both intake and exhaust, very lightweight valves, internal
>>cooling gallery pistons, servo controlled, extremely quick acting EGR and
>>other technologies that will allow much improved economy and emissions
>>from current tech.
>
>Thanks for the update. My burning question is, however, will this engine and the rest of
>the car make 250,000 miles if I take care of it?
>
>Wes
Quite possibly 300,000.
Every year the darn things get better - in many ways anyway.
GM? Lets hope we START to see improvements, as they've been building
the 3.8 for how many decades and STILL have not solved their most
glaring defects.
Buerste
"oldjag" <msmit...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ba5f1968-21e3-4814...@g18g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
*******************************************************
And, for on-board IC generator for charging. But my point is that we should
already HAVE these nuke plants! Look at how the French do nuke, they
produce almost no waste.
Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
>What a waste! Sure, new IC technology is cool but there are diminishing
>returns. The future is Electric! Imagine hundreds or thousands of nuke
>plants supplying cheap power. If the environmentalists and those telling
>them what to think and do had not destroyed the will of the US to forge
>ahead in all those related technologies, imagine where we would be.
Electric will only be the future for cars if we do several expensive
things simultaneously. First, we have to seriously beef up the whole
national electric grid, by a factor of 10 or more.
There are wide swaths of the Midwest where wind turbines would be
very productive, and many rivers that could easily be harnessed for
hydroelectric power - but there is no way to ship the energy to the
east and west coasts where most of the demand is.
Then once we have the electricity supply available everywhere, we
can electrify two or three lanes of the highways - the one big bugaboo
with electric cars is range to empty. But if the car has an inductive
pickup system to get power (and lane-tracking guidance) from the
highway lane, you only need to run on the batteries for the local
jaunts at each end of your trip.
Next step to freeing ourselves from foreign oil is to electrify all
the freight railroads across the country, and they need the beefed up
national power grid for that, too.
Heliostat solar power generation, but that has to be built in remote
unpopulated valleys where people aren't staring at the big glowing
boiler on top of the tower...
Then we find several suitable spots like a canyon off Lake Mead to
build into a huge pumped-storage system, to store all that wind and
solar energy when there is a surplus, and release it at night...
--<< Bruce >>--
Buerste
"Bruce L. Bergman" <bruceNOSP...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvilk5918ad5f9dtp...@4ax.com...
How about <50 MW small reactors distributed all over the grid. Less
infrastructure would be needed than for a centralized system.
Wes
>250k miles? Only time will tell...
>
>btw, I've been very impressed with my wife's Ford Sapphire over in Oz.
>While not a hot rod, it has oodles of torque. It takes a fair bit of
>concentration on my part to keep it under 110km/hr on the highway. Even
>on a decent grade, a few moments distraction and I've found myself up to
>120-130. I took a peek under the hood, it's a monster straight 6 with
>fuel injection. I'd long wondered how a big straight 6 would work with
>FI, now I know. And I'll bet taken care of, that engine is good for
>several hundred thousand miles, easy.
>
Dad had a Ford falcon with a 170? and later a Plymouth Duster with a slant six. Those
cars both made the quarter million point.
Have you moved to OZ already?
Jon Anderson
> Have you moved to OZ already?
No, and right now I'm hoping not to for a good while. I'm supposed to be
getting a call this month to chat about a killer job. It's a back door
deal brokered by a friend that works there. Would be the job of my
dreams and would allow me to bring my wife here when her daughter
graduates, and put her through a culinary school. My buddy's been there
6 years and is the junior, most have been there 15-26 years. It's the
sort of place I could work until ready to retire. Yeah, there's still a
few places like that in this country. I consider myself fortunate to
live within commuting distance to one and have a friend on the inside.
Wish I was there now though, my stepson is bowling in the Bradman Letter
cricket match as I'm writing this. He's the most outstanding bowler in
the region, but Coota is a small town and hard pressed to put a good
team together in 16 and under. This match is played between Cootamundra
where Don Bradman was born, and Bowral where he grew up.
In 30 years, Coota's only won 4 times. David's a wicked fast bowler.
I've faced him bowling just tennis balls and have zero chance of hitting
one. (well, doesn't help that I swing the cricket bat like a Louisville
Slugger, lol...) I'll have to wait a few hours for them to ring me back
with the results...
Jon
Jon Anderson
> Wish I was there now though, my stepson is bowling in the Bradman Letter
> cricket match as I'm writing this.
Just got a not-quite-live update. Bowral's batting first, 40 runs with
26 over and only one wicket. Usually they're at 100 or so runs at this
point. Nobody has a hit off David yet.
Temp is 45 degrees. That's centigrade. 113F....
Jon
Cliff
Cliff
<bruceNOSP...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Electric will only be the future for cars if we do several expensive
>things simultaneously. First, we have to seriously beef up the whole
>national electric grid, by a factor of 10 or more.
Perhaps not so much.
Charge most at night .... whan peak loads are way down anyway.
System & generation is aimed at peak loads.
--
Cliff
Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
>How about <50 MW small reactors distributed all over the grid. Less
>infrastructure would be needed than for a centralized system.
That would be fine, but for the roving bands of NIMBYs protesting each
and every one...
Several to dozens would be fine, but hundreds isn't going to happen.
And they need to be sited in out of the way areas, to avoid the
problem above. Which will work fine, if the grid is robust enough to
ship the power to the large towns.
Getting back to the subject - Any of those 9 new engines alternative
fuels? CNG and LNG are practical, Hydrogen.... not so much.
--<< Bruce >>--