Comments by "" (@Wingnut353) on "Engineering Explained" channel.

This is all fine... but the problem remains that a very large number of cars on the road today, cannot detect ethanol in the fuel, so do not adjust the AFR ratios... so run like crap on ethanol. For the most part this isn't a problem for most cars unless your vehicle has a lean burn mode, and then it will also screw that up and cause it to fail to stay in lean burn mode by loss of power / missing etc... because its running too lean for the ethanol mix. My honda insight definitely runs differently on E0 vs E10... if the EFI were adjusting the AFR to compensate there would be very little loss in power and it might even run better but it doesn't. Also in the USA we use one of the worst possible sources for ethanol... corn that takes about a gallon of fossil fuel to product each gallon of ethanol.
1
@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος It's still ahead because it isn't an EV... its a mild hybrid it only has 30kw of battery which means they can make lots of them without running out of battery supply. That said it probably isnt' fun to drive and is generally worse than the plain gasoline car in every aspect except efficiency.
1
Because Germans don't know how to do a cost benefit analysis...
1
Unfortunately yes... LiquidPiston has some good ideas (such as abandoning the triangular rotor that requires apex seals, and a diesel like cycle) They have military backing and not much else though... Ideally Mazda should just license their tech and combine it with Mazda's for the best rotary possible.
1
A potential problem with BSFC is that it does not consider the volume or weight of the engine... as such a big giant engine that is very efficient would appear to perform better than a small engine. While in practice the small engine may perform better in practice due to being lighter.
1
@CleverCheetah Definitely not... turbos are an entirely different problem, and it depends on if the engine was designed with a turbo in mind or not, if not, it definitely won't last. I mean maybe if it has barely any boost (5psi or so enough to counteract altitude issues).
1
Cost difference of driving the cars should include things like Tires... in which case it can swing back in favor of a more lightweight gas car, which the tires will last as much as 4-5x longer on... as well has have cheaper tires. So $1200-1600 of tires vs $600 of tires 4x less often.... there went all of your fuel savings and then some. Also if you redo those numbers with the averages from my 2017 Accord Sport SE... then you get $100 per month in fuel (this is with my driving if I drive like a grandma I get 33-34mpg instead of 30) and $1200 per year in fuel over 12000 miles you'll replace a tesla's tires 1.5 times approximately if I'm generous going by what I see about this online while I will have used only about 1/4th of my tires. So, you end up with $1200*1.5=1800 worth of tires while I have spent only $200-250 worth of my $800-1000 worth of tires. Very curious to see how long the tires on your model 3 last! In my case I actually drive about 80 miles a day... so 20-25k miles per year so a huge deal for me. Oil changes cost a bit, and would swing it a little back toward the Tesla if you did it at the dealer but low cost 3rd party oil changes (to retain warranty I must have a reciept etc...) are clearly a good option.
1
@EldonJohansen That is what I was talking about there is currently a project to convert ford Lithium batteries to a very large pack to fit in the insight... it results in about 110MPGe with a mod to apply constant assist.... so you can do things like have 3kw of electric power constantly applied to keep you in lean burn mode all the time up and down hills on the highway.
1
@EfficientRVer The max range on an insight is already 1500mi as the record on a single tank... and I already get about 600mi on a 9.5 gal with the original battery...
1
I bought a M1009 (80's military specced blazer) ... sitting at church abuot an hour with the door open as I have no AC, cop pulls in and askes me me what I am doing there. For real man? I am here to unlock the church and am an hour early... :D some vehicles just catch people's eyes.
1
Mazda has a stigma for high replacement part cost and low quality during thier Mazda-Ford days... people have long memories about cars. It takes > 10 years to rebuild a car brand.
1
Wouldn't an intercooler integrated into the manifold after the turbo be better than cooled EGR in just about every way? Cooled EGR works against what you are trying to achieve with the turbo... I can see how it could help a little but it definitely takes some power and efficiency off of the peak of what you could do disregarding cooling. If you're going to spend the money to put in a liquid cooled radiator for engine gases ... why not just cool the intake directly.
1
@dougdanzeisen9608 Even the original 00 insight does that... its also so the Catalytic converter works correctly. The engine in mine is showing some age (sensors going bad mostly and some rattle) but... its got over 300k on it.
1
The killer for this engine is a 3 cylinder would be as long as an inline 6 or 8 at least.
1
In this case you get more torque and horsepower at the given RPM because it's a 2 stroke and a power stroke happens every stroke instead of every other one. A 270Hp 2.7L is very competitive with any other production engine out there.
1
Konigsegg claims direct injection doesn't have many benfits over port injection with freevalve since the whole point there is to control the air better
1
@cmitchell17a1 Mazda has also stated they are targeting even higher efficiency post Skyactiv-X
1
When I get a rental for work... I always hope it is a Mazda.
1
It could vary more than that just based on differences in air temp and humidity on a given day...
1