[ChuckMcM]

A reuters story on how it works: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mazda-strategy-idUSKBN1AO...

So this is 'gasoline' diesel. Or diesel without the NOx. Which, in theory, would give better fuel economy and possibly better torque. And it will ship in cars in the 2019 model year (so possibly as early as late next year).

To me, it sounds like a "Don't pass"[1] bet on electric cars. Which they also are working with Toyota on electric cars so perhaps it is a fall back plan. It will be interesting to see how it fares. There are a lot of products that are built as the other side of an industry change bet. Sun created a workstation on the 68040 in case the SPARCStation didn't meet expectations as an example.

[1] In the dice game Craps, the "Don't Pass" bet is against the current player 'winning.'

[oatmealsnap]

Gasoline engines aren't going away for a while; even when every self-driving car is electric, there will be a market for people who want gasoline engines. If it gives a bump in fuel economy to the next (last?) generation of gasoline and hybrid vehicles, great!

I also wonder if the maintainability of these engines will be the same as with diesel. That would be another big benefit.

[ouid]

I visited a Tesla store once in mountain view, and they have a great little demo where you can check the cost of charging your car in various states.

Washington DC, for whatever reason, gets its electricity from a gasoline power plant. In Washington, the Model S gets 28 MPG.

This happened a while ago so I could be misremembering, but regardless I don't believe that the environmental value of electric vehicles has been realized. In a lot of places, your Tesla is still coal powered. Efficient internal combustion engines are still a worthy cause, and this will continue until more electricity is being produced than is normally consumed.

[icc97]

Electric cars are the real world example of loose coupling. Once your car is electric the source of the electricity can change (from Coal -> Gas -> Solar) and you don't have to change your car even slightly.

So it doesn't matter about any of the arguments about whether an electric car is more efficient or not when the electricity comes from coal.

What matters is that having electric cars enables us to move to a future of solar and wind and not notice the difference.

Plus having electric cars that don't pollute in cities where there are lots of people and generating the electricity with coal fired powerstations outside of cities where there are less people has immediate benefits.

[sergiosgc]

> Plus having electric cars that don't pollute in cities where there are lots of people and generating the electricity with coal fired powerstations outside of cities where there are less people has immediate benefits.

While this is true, much as the rest of your comment, this sentence has made me think that pushing pollution away from the eyes of people is a really negative effect of electric cars. If pollution is not in my backyard, I'll certainly be less aware of it, and hence I'll certainly pressure less for reduction.

[icc97]

I kind of hope not. As bgarbiak points out [0], there's other things that we start talking about once the pollution of fossil fuels is out the way.

Also once people have electric cars the incentive to have solar panels on your roof becomes bigger. Then once enough electricity is generated through that the coal power stations just get turned off because they're not needed.

Plus there will still be the issue of CO2 generation, just that drivers won't be responsible any so like ex-smokers (who in my experience seem to be more anti-smoking than most) they'll probably be even more offended by the polluting power stations.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14966321

[bgarbiak]

I'm as big fan of EVs as the next guy, and would love to see cities with clean air and no noise. But, there are few things that we forget about when we talk about zero-emmision cars.

EVs pollute less, but they pollute too, and in cities as well. They emit dust (including the most harmful particles: PM10 and PM2.5) from break discs and tires. Difference between CO2 in power plants and in city centers matters, but not that much. Once it's in the atmosphere the damage is done. As for NOx, the biggest offender in the dieselgate, Mazda's engines should not emit these.

Add a fact that in the current grid setup most of the energy is coming from coal, and that it's very unlikely it is going to change in a near future (mainly due to political reasons). Also, the waste from batteries is really ugly.

Given all that factors a 30% less polluting combustion engine is almost too good to be true. From a macro perspective the gain for environment is on par, if not better, than from electric cars.

My biggest problem is to believe in the numbers Mazda provides. Have to wait and see.

[icc97]

My main point was the loose coupling and getting off the hook from fossil fuels.

I shouldn't have made the point about city pollution as it just diluted the main point.

Nevertheless, the brake discs won't be any worse in electric cars, so it is an absolute reduction in pollution in cities. I've also only heard such things getting raise ever since we started talking about electric cars. When everyone is worring about NOx we forget about all the other polluting steps.

Coal power stations are the worst case scenario for electric cars and even with this things are on a par. But back on my main point with electric cars we can switch to Gas fired power stations and then to our own solar powered roof. With a Mazda ICE you're stuck on petrol.

Plus petrol in the long term can only get more expensive and solar can only get cheaper. Petrol is eventually going to run out and before that happens it's going to get very expensive. Solar panels and batteries will only get more efficient and cheaper to produce.

Battery recycling is definitely an issue and Elon Musk has quoted at the gigafactory opening that they can take all Tesla batteries back an recycle them fairly efficiently as their robots can strip the batteries apart as they have the schemas. Whether other car manufacturers follow suit is open to question.

As far as political reasons go, if everyone is driving electric cars I'm sure there will be much more political pressure to remove the polluting power stations because now CO2 is primarily the fault of the power stations rather than people driving around in their cars.

[bovine3dom]

> From a macro perspective the gain for environment is on par, if not better, than from electric cars.

Citation needed. It seems obvious to me that a huge power plant is going to be less polluting per kWh than a tiny little engine in a car. Otherwise, we'd use tiny little car engines to power everything - which only happens at the moment in places where they cannot get electricity by other means (building sites etc).

[bgarbiak]

You would be right if we could transfer the energy from power plant to cars efficiently. We can't. Batteries are the bottleneck. See: https://www.autovistagroup.com/news-and-insights/swedish-stu...

However, I have to agree that my previous comment _wrongly_ implied that burning coal at the plants to power the electric cars is the main issue we have to deal with.

[_wmd]

Don't forget that electrical grid transmission losses cause massive efficiency problems before centrally generated power ever reaches that car charging point -- on the order of 30% or more, and conversion from AC to DC at the charging port may account for another 10-30%. (Made up numbers, but they're in well within range IIRC)

I don't think it follows that just because we have historically centralized power generation, this was obviously due to efficiency. For example, centralization of management, investment, pollution control, logistical (fuel delivery), safety (nuclear) and reliability concerns seem far more obvious to me, although I don't doubt there could be an efficiency benefit to large-scale generation, I've just never heard of it.

[JshWright]

> Add a fact that in the current grid setup most of the energy is coming from coal

Coal represents less than a third of North American power generation, and less than a quarter of generation in Europe. In Brazil (another major car owning country) coal only represents ~1% of their generation sources.

Really the only place your statement is true is mainland Asia, and even there the market share of coal is falling (and the number of cars there is dwarfed by the number in NA/Europe/Brazil).

[reacweb]

EV should consume less brake discs because small braking recharges the battery.

[icc97]

How does that work? I always assumed that they were still using the disc brakes but harnessing that somehow to recharge the battery

[secmax]

That is/could be true for hybrid cars too.

[pkulak]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe#Criticism

The biggest nail in the coffin of the long tailpipe fallacy is that you can drive an EV farther on the power needed to refine a gallon of gas than you can drive a ICE car on that same gallon. So, even if you built a gasoline engine that had absolutely no emissions, and oil bubbled up into crude lakes right next to every refinery, EVs would still be more efficient.

[calibration263]

Your article states 87.7% efficiency in gasoline refining.

Energy density of gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

This means there was 4.8 MJ of energy spent to create 1L of gasoline. The 70kWh(250MJ) tesla is reported to have 390KM range. 4.8 MJ would be 1.92% of the range, or about 7.5km. The Mazda 3 has a combined fuel economy rating of 33 MPG, which is about 14KPL.

As far s I can tell, your statement that an EV can go further on the power needed to refine a gallon of gas, than an ICE car can drive is off by a factor of almost two.

That said, arguing an electric car can go a certain distance based on inefficiencies of another unrelated process is not a very meaningful argument. You need to look at the efficiencies and CO2 produced for drilling/transporting/refining/burning gas vs producing/transmitting/storing/using electric power, and probably the costs of dealing with peak loads vs non-peak loads, and even then the argument is heavily weighted on where your power comes from.

[pkulak]

Well, the US average for fuel efficiency is 25, not 33. And the Model S is one of the least efficient EVs, for worse than the average. Adjust both those numbers in the right directions and your math lines up with my point nicely.

[ouid]

Refining gasoline seems to be ~88% efficient per your source. While this isn't negligible, it hardly changes the argument.

[pkulak]

Sure. And an EV can drive ~25 miles on the energy in that 12%.

[outworlder]

> This happened a while ago so I could be misremembering, but regardless I don't believe that the environmental value of electric vehicles has been realized

Indeed.

However, look at it this way: which is easier to replace, the entire fleet, or centralized power plants?

Every time a new windmill or solar panel is added, your Tesla gets that much cleaner. And that's something you can do yourself if you want to. Electricity is fungible and your car could not care less where it came from.

Oil changes have a non-negligible impact for the environment as well. And then there are all those components that have to be replaced from time to time and end up in landfills (spark plugs/cables, timing belts, etc).

So I believe electric cars today are already a net gain. And, even if they polluted more, the pollution is centralized in the power plants, which is easier to do something about. There are problem health benefits from moving pollution away from population centers.

I make a point of going to parks with my EV. I know it's a token gesture, but I like to think I'm not blowing dirty fumes next to animal habitats. It helps that California is reasonably clean.

[Lazare]

> However, look at it this way: which is easier to replace, the entire fleet, or centralized power plants?

The entire fleet I'd think. It's certainly much more likely to happen first.

(Cars have a much shorter average lifespan than power plants; the natural gas power plants we're building right now have a designed lifespan of up to 50 years. Very few cars coming of the production line today will be on the road in 50 years.)

[oh_sigh]

That is wrong. Almost all of the energy DC uses comes from its interconnect to the RFC grid. Locally, it does look like 2/3rd of the power DC generates is nat gas, and 1/3rd gas or gas-like, but it doesn't make sense in a grid structure to assume that the energy produced near you is the energy you use.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=DC#tabs-1

[connorcpu]

Given that its neighbors' top two electricity sources seem to be Nat Gas and Nuclear, seems probable that most of the electricity comes from those sources

[oh_sigh]

You should really just take a weighted average of all the things putting energy onto the eastern interconnect grid(including grid-tied home solar installations, but those are probably negligible in the grand scheme of things at this point).

The reality is that anyone in the US, east of the rockies and not in texas will have the same 'mpg equivalent' for their Tesla.

[Shivetya]

What they should be doing is showing changes to range and costs throughout the year. During mild to warm months my EV range on a Volt is much better but come winter. Same goes for pure EVs. Pure EVs are not truly viable even with the Tesla network for long trips, once past a two charge trip you timing has to be truly altered and it gets worse in hilly country or winter.

Now in winter gasoline/diesel cars have the issue of nearly always running rich on very short commutes as they strive to get to an optimal operating temperature. The EV just loses a serious chunk of range. Both of course can be preconditioned but the EV is more efficient there.

As for Mazda. None of the electrification upcoming laws exclude fuel powered vehicles, range extenders and hybrids all seem to meet many requirements.

older article about range/ev/winter http://www.teslarati.com/effects-winter-tesla-battery-range/ I hope they have corrected how regenerative braking works since then

[lps41]

I think the long-trip problem is solved by families owning one gas or hybrid car, and one pure EV car. Or even two pure EVs, and planning to rent a gas powered car for long trips!

[petre]

Agreed, but there is also incentive to install solar panels on your home/garage to charge your car. Too bad most of us are at work (car out of garage) during peak sun hours, so it gets more complicated. Maybe this is the reason Tesla also wants to sell a 10 kWh battery along with a solar roof.

[mywittyname]

Diesels aren't inherently more maintainable than gasoline engines. That impression comes from the fact that diesel engines are used in situations where durability is paramount, thus are designed to be robust. Most passenger car engines have several criteria that are more important than maintainability (emissions, power, fuel economy, size, cost, manufacturing simplicity).

People don't hold up BMW passenger diesels as the hallmark of maintainability. Heck, even the diesel offerings in American trucks are pretty bad from a reliability standpoint. Both Cummins and Navistar faced multiple CALs over reliability and warranty-related issues.

[pkolaczk]

Here where I live, modern turbo-diesels are considered less reliable than NA gasoline engines. They are much more complex and need fragile components like DPF filters and turbocharger to get acceleration on par with low-torque, high-RPM gasoline engines.

[mbreese]

> I also wonder if the maintainability of these engines will be the same as with diesel

They also include traditional spark plugs and the engine automatically switches between modes. So, I fear that maintenance wise, it may be the worst of both worlds -- but with less wear and tear on the spark side, perhaps it will be better.

[mohaine]

I'm pretty sure "wear on the spark side" is an all but solved problem at this point. Most car engines made in the last 15 years have 100k mile lifetime on the entire spark system.

[paulirwin]

I know for more recent vehicles that is probably true, but as an owner of a 2006 F-150 with the 5.4L 3V Triton V8 that had the infamous spark plug issue, I had to lol with a tinge of sadness at your "last 15 years" comment.

Backstory: Ford came out the gate with a new spark plug design for the 2004 F-150 3V Triton 5.4L V8 engine (after their previous spark plug design failure in the 2V Triton where the plugs would shoot out) and told everyone that the spark plugs would last 100k miles. Turns out if you let them go that long, they would get stuck in the cylinder head and break off when you tried to remove them, leaving stuck broken pieces of spark plug behind. Conveniently, 100k miles happens to be when most people's warranty expires, leaving people with a best case a few-hundred-dollars-extra tune-up bill, if not thousands of dollars if the heads had to be removed. Ford faced a class-action lawsuit over this debacle, and there are still companies selling special broken spark plug removal kits designed solely for this engine to this day. Of course the root cause of the problem is faulty design, but it would have been mostly avoided had they not claimed a 100k mile service interval for the plugs. So yes, Ford went from an engine where the spark plugs would shoot out of the cylinder head, to one where they would get stuck so hard they would break.

I know all of this not because I am an engine geek, but because it happened to me. Two spark plugs broke off while being removed and I came this close to needing to have the heads removed and machined. Fortunately those special removal kits I mentioned earlier really do work. Given how relatively cheap spark plugs are, you can bet it will be a while before I trust that 100k mile number :-)

[kw71]

Well, that's sure unfortunate. I care for my father in law's focus, and the iridium plugs really were good for 100k miles. In 35 years of caring for cars I have never been so frightened by the sounds and feel of unscrewing a spark plug though.

This is the one with a "permanent air filter" so they were thinking about eliminating maintenance. Boy this is going to suck when it is clogged.

[mbreese]

I agree that for the most part engines are extremely reliable. The potential downside here is that the compression mode makes the entire system more complicated. This might make the new system less reliable. I have every confidence that Mazda will do this right, and this has great potential to extend the lifetime of the ICE. However, it isn't without risks.

[robin_reala]

Outside of Europe maybe. Inside, well, UK and France have already said no more ICE vehicles to be sold past 2040, and other countries are planning the similar (including India). That’s a big loss of market and consequent economy of scale.

[TomMarius]

Politicians have said things, but no laws have been passed yet - and these laws can be (and have been in the past) changed.

[ajnin]

In the immortal words of former French president Jacques Chirac :

"Promises only bind those who believe them."

[calafrax]

2040 is a long way away. very easy to pass laws that take effect after you retire. and very easy to change them after you retire as well.

[varjag]

In Norway it's 2025. Still too long? :)

[chronic8k]

When your country has only 5 million people and is a top petroleum extractor and exporter, sure, it's easy to subsidize electric vehicles. Realistically it should be 2020.

[varjag]

Those who will look for opportunity; those who don't seek excuses.

[boznz]

they also dont have a car industry so nothing to loose

[tpm]

This only concerns passenger cars, not trucks, possibly not even vans. And the discussion is still ongoing.

[linksnapzz]

In the 1990s, the CA state gov. wanted 10% of the cars on the road to be EVs by 2000.

Wow, was that ever effective.

[CyberDildonics]

That's interesting, do you have a link to the law they passed?

[GordonS]

Will hybrids be permitted though?

[mulmen]

Nothing about a self-driving car requires it to be electric.

[devy]

> To me, it sounds like a "Don't pass"[1] bet on electric cars. Which they also are working with Toyota on electric cars so perhaps it is a fall back plan

The Toyota/Mazda collaboration is a pure compliance play, just like what Honda has done in California for years (read: Honda Fit EV.) The official announcement had a subtle hint:

  From 2019, start introducing electric vehicles and other electric drive
  technologies in regions that use a high ratio of clean energy for power
  generation or restrict certain vehicles to reduce air pollution

as The Verge clarified it in more details here[1], Mazda have to sell EV in regions where regulations are so tough that they can improve the efficiency to pass or in regions where ICE cars are/will be banned altogether.

Also the new Toyota/Mazda auto plant is not going to manufacture only EVs but also other ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) cars.

And yes, without their own EV or the resolve to electrify their model lineups, Mazda might not even survive after 2025 when they plan to use SKYACTIV-X on all of their cars.

For EV, the old saying is true: driving is believing.

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/8/16099536/mazda-compression...

[varjag]

Took my car for service to a mixed Nissan/Mazda dealership here in Norway. All salespeople were busy working on Nissan side selling Leafs and electric vans..

[spitfire]

I believe it's a "luxury/enthusiast" strategy. I believe the auto market will play out something like the watch market did with the introduction of the quartz watch. Most people just want to tell the time, so they buy a quartZ. Similarly most people just want to get from A to B, so will buy an electric (automated) car.

Some people enjoy the mechanics of the thing. So they buy a nice mechanical watch. These watches went from being simple utility pieces to works of art.

Similarly I expect that car companies will continue to sell a set of "enthusiasts" models for a long time. They might revert back to manual gearboxes, and become more and more outrageous works of art - turned polished engine bays (Think Perlée, etc).

When all your actual needs can be met by a self driving electric car, why do you own a physical mechanical car? For the enjoyment of it.

[DennisP]

Probably true, but at the same time, some electric cars are pretty darn fun to drive.

[rootusrootus]

Of currently available models, isn't that essentially ... one of them? And only in a straight line. Electrics have a ways to go before they're suitable candidates for things like track days.

[DennisP]

Arguably the Model 3 isn't "currently available" but Motor Trend is a big fan for more than straight lines:

"The Model 3 is so unexpected scalpel-like, I’m sputtering for adjectives. The steering ratio is quick, the effort is light (for me), but there’s enough light tremble against your fingers to hear the cornering negotiations between Stunt Road and these 235/40R19 tires (Continental ProContact RX m+s’s). And to mention body roll is to have already said too much about it."

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/exclusive-...

[outworlder]

Even a Leaf is fun due to the constant acceleration.

[Viper007Bond]

Modern automatics though provide similar constant acceleration. Even better are dual clutch transmissions. About 8ms between gear shifts.

[petre]

With a lot more engineering and complicated drivetrain mechanics, yes. An EV drivetrain is at least an order of magnitude less complex.

[lagadu]

The i3 is also surprisingly nice to drive around town, at least compared to the Leaf and Zoe.

[NickM]

Perhaps, but I wonder if we won't see more countries go the way of Norway/France/Britain and ban gasoline cars altogether once electric vehicles become more competitive and mainstream....

[petre]

Sweeden and Norway, where battery performance is impaired by the colder climate. The next absurd thing would be Alaska announcing a ban of ICE vehicles after 2030.

[varjag]

I drive an EV in Norway for soon 4 years, there is no performance impact whatsoever. Sure you use salon heater way more, but battery capacity hardly budges.

Winters are pretty mild throughout more populated parts of Norway and Sweden.

[dsfyu404ed]

The less popular ICE vehicles are the less of an environmental problem they are and the less will there is to ban them.

[cromulent]

It's good work, but I suspect Mahle's TJI (as used in current F1 cars) is a better bet.

  - Fuel efficiency gains over 17%
  - over 40% thermal efficiency
  - over 99% reduction in NOx
  - significant reduction in CO2

http://www.f1technical.net/news/20316

http://www.mahle-powertrain.com/en/experience/mahle-jet-igni...

[petre]

I don't quite like the fact that the spark plug is burried deep inside the engine which makes servicing difficult. Reminds me of Porsche boxer spark plug changes for which you need to unmount the rear wheels.

[workmandan]

Looks to me from image 3 at the bottom of the page that the whole unit unthreads: http://www.mahle-powertrain.com/en/experience/mahle-jet-igni...

[randomguy23]

Sounds interesting. I'm very curious, though, to see an ignition profile of the compression ignition concept: it seems to me that compression would be even throughout the ignition chamber, leading to a somewhat (within the bounds of statistical deviation in fuel/air pressure) simultaneous ignition of the fuel/air mix. Meaning that I think Mazda's technology would combust more efficiently.

[fnj]

- over 40% thermal efficiency

- significant reduction in CO2

CO2 production is directly inverse-linearly related to thermal eficiency. It is silly to list both.

[ComputerGuru]

This is far from a universally-realized/appreciated fact; it's good to list both for those that weren't aware.

[cromulent]

Would you mind explaining why (to a layman)? The Wikipedia page on thermal efficiency makes no mention of the CO2 relationship.

[YSFEJ4SWJUVU6]

Thermal efficiency basically refers to just the efficiency of an ICE (or any heat engine for that matter) – i.e. how much of the chemical energy of the fuel you manage to convert into mechanical energy in the drive train. The better the efficiency, the less fuel you need to produce the same power output, obviously producing less CO2 in the process.

(To be more specific, the terms are often used interchangeably. Thermal efficiency has an exact definition in an ideal heat engine and even ways of calculating the theoretical maximum for given conditions – but CO2 or chemical reactions have nothing to do with an ideal heat engine to start with. I'd personally perhaps prefer to talk about just the efficiency in an actual ICE – even if just to be clear none of the losses are conveniently left outside the calculation.)

[fnj]

> So this is ... diesel without the NOx

NOx is not peculiar to diesel engines. Gasoline engines also generate NOx. All internal engines make NOx. As long as you burn fuel + atmospheric air you get NOx. The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen. Some of it gets oxidized.

[teraflop]

This makes me wonder whether it would be theoretically possible to use some of the engine's power output to extract nitrogen from the incoming air. You'd effectively be trading more CO2 pollution (because of the reduced efficiency) for less NOx pollution.

My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that off-the-shelf oxygen concentrators aren't efficient enough to make this practical, but I don't know whether there are fundamental thermodynamic limits that would prevent the efficiency from being improved.

[maxerickson]

A typical NOx reduction is to feed some exhaust gas into the air intake to reduce the amount of oxygen in the chamber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation

[coredog64]

The catalytic converter helps to manage this in a gasoline engine. Cats are more difficult for diesel, which led to the ammonia fluids that current diesels use to minimize NOx emissions.

[londons_explore]

I don't understand why not simply cool the exhaust gasses down with a big heat exchanger enough to condense the water vapour. That water would then react with the NOx to form dilute nitric acid, dilute enough to just drip onto the road with little environmental harm.

The same condensation process would also trap all the carbon particulates.

[Govindae]

Yes, but stratified charge combustion produces significantly more NOx in cylinder because of the excess oxygen.

[skgoa]

Which is exactly what most gasoline engines do, too.

[Govindae]

Most gasoline engines are homegenous charge, and run within a few percent of the stoichiometric air fuel ratio. Diesels will run at 6x the stoichiometric ideal amount of air.

[bsdetector]

Or a bet on hybrids. Hybrids enable new types of engines that for instance operate at constant rate or that are under-powered for acceleration from a stop or going uphill.

[cmrdporcupine]

I bet on plugin hybrids, specifically ones with large batteries. This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I think the Voltec drivetrain shows what's possible here. Pure EV purists dislike PHEVs because they have the complexity of an ICE car + an EV car, but I think there's some serious advantages. Like you say, Atkinson cycle for electricity generation for when the battery drains beyond smaller commute ranges. Something like this new Mazda engine in that context would make quite a bit of sense for overall fuel efficiency.

[mywittyname]

> because they have the complexity of an ICE car + an EV car,

The irony being that most don't. For example, hybrid synergy drive is basically an alternate transmission design that replaces the complex clutch packs used to control Ravigneaux planetary gears with electric motors. The result is a more simple overall design.

Other systems are literally just beefed up starters.

[cmrdporcupine]

I agree. The Volt to me is a beautiful piece of engineering, and the ICE system is actually simpler than a regular ICE car _because_ of the presence of the EV side of the car, which compliments it.

I think it's more of a political thing -- if you've made the argument that "ICE = pollution = bad" then it's hard to turn around and say "but a little bit of ICE to extend range is good."

The battery + electric motor adds so much good -- regenerative braking, electric torque, good city driving experience, it really feels like every car that is now an ICE should be a hybrid, even if just a "soft" hybrid with no plug, like a Prius.

[kbenson]

> Pure EV purists dislike PHEVs because they have the complexity of an ICE car + an EV car, but I think there's some serious advantages.

I would imagine most the complaints are for when the ICE actually powers a drivetrain. If it's essentially a generator to keep the batteries from depleting too far, that's not much extra complexity it all. Have a problem with the generator? Just swap it out with a new or rebuilt one from some vendor (if designed well such that you can do so). I'm seeing that a Tesla uses about 300 Watts a mile @ 55 Mph.[1] Honda seems to have generators much more than capable of supplying that need for under $1000.[2] I'm not familiar enough with electric systems to know how accurate that assessment is (whether the voltage requirements complicate it, for example), but that seems promising. Then again, I imagine if it was really that easy, Tesla would have put a generator charge hookup and exhaust ventilation capabilities in the trunk already.

Edit: Hmm, I'm definitely missing something, since the $1000 generator says it can go 8.1 hours on a gallon of gas, and it doesn't seem likely for that to translate into powering a Tesla for 8 hours of travel.

1: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/average-wattage-for-...

2: https://powerequipment.honda.com/generators/selecting-a-gene...

[fnj]

> a Tesla uses about 300 Watts a mile @ 55 Mph

This is nonsense. The dimensions are wrong. Watts are instantaneous power. To be meaningful, you would have to give either kWh/h or kWh per mile or km.

Besides that 300 W is only 0.4 hp. Sorry, but that is just not credible.

[madengr]

Just for reference, I average about 4.5 mile/kWh in my Leaf.

[aunty_helen]

Not to dispute your claim that it's low, but the physics checks out. The cited link saves me explaining it: >Reports are 300 W/mile at 55 mph. If you do the product of these two numbers (300 * 55) all units but W will cancell eachother out so the answer is 16500 W = 16.5kW

The time component being on the mph allows the conversion.

[sokoloff]

No. 300 Watts / mile * 55 mile / hour leaves you with 16500 Watts / hour, which is a non-sensical unit.

On the other hand, using the correct units (300Wh/mile):

300 Watt * hour / mile * 55 mile / hour = 16500 Watts [a sensible unit] (or about 22 horsepower which is reasonable for a steady 55mph cruise).

Do that for an hour, and you get 16.5kWh of energy consumption and cover 55 miles, for an energy efficiency of 3.33 miles/kWh, which is in the ballpark (albeit low) for what my LEAF delivers (averaging a bit over 4 miles/kWh at average speeds somewhat lower than 55 mph)

[averagewall]

That's not obvious. Why @ means *? And what does W/mile mean?

[timerol]

The units in the linked thread are slightly wrong, which was corrected later in the thread. 300 Wh/mi * 55 mph = 16.5 kW.

The most powerful generator I see on Honda's site is 10 kW for $5400.

[chipsa]

Yeah. I expect the unit being used is 300 Watt-hours. IOW: (300 Wh/mi 55mi/h) =16500 W, or 16.5 kW. Which actually sounds about reasonable, being 22 horsepower.

[usrusr]

From what I read about HCCI engines (the brand-neutral name for the general engine concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneous_charge_compression... ) I suspect that they are not easily operated over a power band as wide as conventional gasoline or diesel engines. If that is the tradeoff, they could be a perfect match for hybrids.

[mtgx]

I don't think hybrids have any future except in the heaviest of vehicles, where batteries won't make sense for another few decades.

We're already seeing companies being interested in making battery-only buses, tractors, semis, and even airplanes. Not all models of those types of vehicles may work with batteries, but it's a sign of what the future could bring.

[komali2]

Total individual perspective here, but my dad took me on his worksite like 15 years ago to see the big super gorram awesome trucks (seriously those things are HUGE). When I asked about the engines, he said the trucks had massive diesel generators that powered motors, that in turn powered the wheels and hydraulics. So in a way, lots of construction equipment has kind of already been "hybrid."

[ClassyJacket]

I believe that's also how diesel trains work.

[pkulak]

And submarines.

[fnj]

An electric power transmission is hardly hybrid. You just have two extra conversions in your transmission, mechanical to electric and electric back to mechanical.

[jhayward]

The diesel-electric system used in Locomotives and heavy off-road mining trucks are literally examples of series hybrids. You may be objecting to ththe lack of battery storage, which isn't useful in those applications.

[bluGill]

battery only buses make sense because the bug needs to run over rush hour and then can sit all do to charge. Battery operated tractors do not make sense without vastly better batteries because a tractor needs to run for 16 hours at max power (500hp). Sustaining 400000 kw for 16 hours is not easy. For semis and airplanes you need to consider your use: for short in town loads/short flights batteries can work, for longer distances we don't have the battery technology today to make it work.

Someone once told me battery technology has 2-3 more doubling left and then we hit chemical limits and cannot get more out of them. If this is correct batteries can never do the longer distances, but I don't know if it is correct.

[petre]

> battery technology has 2-3 more doubling left and then we hit chemical limits and cannot get more out of them

We still have energy cells which are essentially bateries that you charge by pouring in some fluids just like in a regular car. However the tech is not mature enough yet.

[garretraziel]

While I don't believe hybrids will survive in the long run, I think that hybrids (and plug-in hybrids specifically) will play important role in transition period of passenger cars (use EV in cities, use gasoline if you want to go >100 km, refuel whenever you want).

A have Toyota Auris with hybrid synergy drive and even though it has really small battery (so it costs less than $25000 including tax), I am able to ride through small town using EV mode only and then use ICE between towns. My mileage is 4.4 l/100 km which is ~53.5 miles per gallon and I'm driving in city most of the time.

[33W]

They also have an interesting somewhat-hybrid called i-eloop that uses regenerative braking and a capacitor to power auxiliary systems:

http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-eloop/

[SeanLuke]

I considered i-eloop when it came out for its first generation, in the 2014 Mazda 3. It was estimated to bump my city MPG by 1. And was only available in a very expensive package. I passed.

[33W]

I have a '16 Mazda 3 without. I agree that it is non-economical, but interesting.

I'd like to have it with a larger lithium-ion that can remote start only my AC for a few minutes while I walk to the car in the summer.

[richdougherty]

In the linked page they say they're pursuing both internal combustion and electric vehicles and they explain their rationale:

- In line with this policy, continue efforts to perfect the internal combustion engine, which will help power the majority of cars worldwide for many years to come and can therefore make the greatest contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and combine the results with effective electrification technologies

- From 2019, start introducing electric vehicles and other electric drive technologies in regions that use a high ratio of clean energy for power generation or restrict certain vehicles to reduce air pollution

[cmrdporcupine]

Mazda is only working with Toyota on electric because they have to for compliance reasons in CAFE states. The CEO has quite recently panned EVs and said they will die when subsidies go away[1]. I'm sure they will produce a compliance-only vehicle available only in California and probably only for lease, like Honda has done with the clarity.

[1] http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111876_mazda-exec-engin...

[oh_sigh]

I don't necessarily see this as a don't pass. There are some questions to the jerkiness of the power supplied, so perhaps this kind of engine would couple nicely in a hybrid design - it can charge the batteries 30% more efficiently than the closest hybrid, and the user isn't getting power to the drivetrain directly from the engine, eliminating any jerkiness.

[jonsen]

Someday someone might invent an efficient process for making gasoline from renewable energi sources.

[coredog64]

LANL published a paper circa 2007 or 2008 on how to make carbon-neutral hdyrocarbon fuel using carbon in the air and the electricity and waste heat from a nuclear plant. According to the paper, it was competitive with oil-based gasoline at around $5/gallon.

[philipkglass]

You're referring to the Green Freedom concept:

http://bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/greenfreedom...

Its authors badly underestimated how much new American nuclear reactors would cost.

We performed economic analyses on a partially optimized baseline concept based on a single Gen III PWR to provide power for the process. The analyses estimated a capital cost of $5.0 billion for an 18,400 bbl/day synthetic-gasoline plant and $4.6 billion for a 5,000 tonne/day methanol plant. Nuclear power accounts for more than 50% of the total plant capital investment.

If just over 50% of that cost is supposed to be nuclear plant, it would be $2.5 billion for a Gen III pressurized water reactor. ($2.9 billion now, accounting for a decade of inflation.) The just-abandoned VC Summer project was supposed to build two new Gen III PWRs in South Carolina. They pulled the plug because estimated cost of completion had spiraled up to $25 billion ($12.5 billion per reactor).

https://neutronbytes.com/2017/07/31/utilities-pull-the-plug-...

[petre]

You don't need gasoline. The gasoline ICEs can run on ethanol and LPG and diesels can run on DME (dimethyl ether) and vegetable oils. DME can be produced using nuclear process heat and/or hydrogen or using biomass.

[trhway]

it is called battery charging :). Basically it is making the fuel - Li - out of the ash - lithium oxide. The amount of Li and available for "burning" oxygen in the current batteries is very small and where is no principal reasons it can't be increased 10-fold to something like 10% by weight (especially in the metal-air schemes) at which moment it will leave gasoline engines well behind in all respects.