

Gasoline direct injection, etc., makes electric cars irrelevant - gravitycop
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.whGreenAutoMain0129/BNStory/specialGlobeAuto

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

~~~
gravitycop
_40 miles a gallon (U.S.) [...] Doesn't strike me as "super-efficient" at all,
this is what cars have been doing for years already!_

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edited for typos)

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

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

 _Without the hybrid and electric markets, they wouldn't bother._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wrote: _Without the hybrid and electric markets, they wouldn't bother._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
gravitycop
_I have seen reports that engines in Europe have had very similar technology
for a long time. Certainly I get over 40mpg in my petrol car_

[http://www.google.com/search?q=imperial+gallons+to+us+gallon...](http://www.google.com/search?q=imperial+gallons+to+us+gallons)

 _1 Imperial gallon = 1.20095042 US gallons_

[http://www.google.com/search?q=40+us+gallons+to+imperial+gal...](http://www.google.com/search?q=40+us+gallons+to+imperial+gallons)

 _40 US gallons = 33.3069536 Imperial gallons_

If you haven't corrected, you are achieving over 33.3 miles per U.S. gallon
when driving your high-smog-pollution (i.e. European liberal smog-emission
standard, which allows ceteris paribus for higher fuel economy) gasoline-
powered car. [EDIT] If you _have_ corrected, your results are still not
comparable, since they were achieve in a high-smog, and therefore illegal for
the U.S. market, car.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Sorry for not specifying, but I've already corrected for that. I don't deny
that the diesel car probably wouldn't meet the emission standards in the USA
(which bit? Hmm) but that's not my point.

And I don't really care. I wish I hadn't bothered to comment. What happens to
your replies if I delete my submissions/comments?

~~~
gravitycop
_I don't deny that the diesel car probably wouldn't meet the emission
standards in the USA_

Both the diesel and gasoline (petrol) cars, if made for the European market,
do not meet U.S. smog-emission standards and therefore are not directly
comparable in terms of fuel-economy.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Somehow this has turned into a Europe vs USA "discussion". That was not my
intention. I have no particular axe to grind, being neither European, not
American.

Further, it seems clear that the point I was trying to make is not going to be
heard, and other points - no doubt valid, but nonetheless tangential - are
going to dominate. Perhaps it's wrong, perhaps no one wants to hear it.

Perhaps I just can't express myself clearly enough.

So I'm simply going to walk away from this thread. You have made many valid
points which I will remember. Thank you.

------
bdfh42
Virtually all diesel engines use direct fuel injection so a large percentage
of European cars are already taking advantage of this technology (which, by
the way, was invented in the 1950s).

~~~
gravitycop
_Virtually all diesel engines use direct fuel injection so a large percentage
of European cars are already taking advantage of this technology_

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

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

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

~~~
AndrewDucker
None of these things are true any more, nor have they been for some time:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Advantages_and_di...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Advantages_and_disadvantages_versus_spark-
ignition_engines)

~~~
gravitycop
_None of these [alleged drawbacks of diesels] are true any more_

Then why do diesels not dominate the auto market in the United States?

~~~
pingswept
That's a real mystery to me. Seriously, it's baffling.

I live in the US and drive a diesel Passat, and I regularly get 40+ mpg
without paying attention to how I drive or particularly close attention to
whether my tires are fully inflated.

To address the comparisons you brought up above, some are clearly wrong:

    
    
      High mass-- irrelevant; gas mileage is higher.
      High bulk-- irrelevant; the car is normal sized. 
      High smog pollution-- not since the introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel in the US in 2007.
    

The particulates are still worse, but diesel wins on the rest, mostly through
efficiency.

That leaves the causes of the poor market acceptance as

    
    
      Poor performance.
      High cost.
      High noise pollution.
      Something else we haven't thought of
    

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but the performance is great; the
acceleration is particularly good above 30 or 40 mph. From a maintenance
perspective, I have done literally zero maintenance on the car in the 3 years
I've owned it other than to fix a leak from a clogged roof drain.

On cost, I've been saving money on gas on a per-mile basis since I bought it.
So far, I think I've saved around $1000 on gas. I don't know about the market
price for diesels vs. equivalent gas cars across the market, but I'd be
surprised if I lost on this.

The difference in engine noise is not noticeable inside the car; I don't know
whether my neighbors hate it or not. I am quite certain that engine noise was
not a factor in my purchasing decision at all.

So, I don't know, gravitycop. I'm as mystified as you are. If diesels are this
great, why doesn't everyone in the US buy them?

My best guess is that people don't think of it as an option. They remember the
loud, smelly diesels of the 70's and think, "Hell, no, I want a nice shiny
Honda Accord!"

~~~
gravitycop
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=424877>

_12 points by demallien 20 days ago | link

Hey! Put some carriage returns in there! You're screwing up the page
rendering..._

~~~
pingswept
Fixed.

I was briefly irritated with whoever was screwing up the rendering. Then I
realized it was me. Damn!

Thanks, gcop.

