Who is controlling automotive advancements or lack there of?

In this day and age where my new cell phone is practically obsolete before I get my first bill, how is it that automobiles are still using the same basic engine design from almost 100 years ago? While I know that many improvements have been made to the combustion engine to make it more efficient and reliable, it is still that same engine from a hundred years ago. Piston draws gas and air into the cylinder, compression and spark ignites the mixture, forcing the piston down creating the power then exhausting the gas. My question to you is, How can we be making leaps and bounds in other fields (computers, cell phones, science, astronomy. etc.) while the automobile engine has remained reletively unchanged for sooo long? If the automotive industry advanced at the same rate as cell phones, or computers our cars would be flying by now and producing zero emmisions. This is my first thread, so forgive me if it's generic (no videos or links, haven't figured that out yet) but Just wanted to say hello to everyone and get my first thread out of the way. Would love to hear everyones thoughts on this subject...

This is a difficult question to answer as posed,
because there have been billions spent
conditioning the public to think about
cars in specific ways. That said,
I submit this example of
another industry.




What is the difference between Bill Gates invention of the Software industry and
the dying, if not dead, US steel industry. The answer is simple.

For decades Bill Gates had Microsoft reinvest 90% of all profits back into software.
This is why software went from nothing to everything in one generation.

The steel industry, on the other hand, was run by a bunch of inheirited wealth people who hired managers to squeeze more out of their old machines and techniques so they could spend it.

The Steel industry in the US died, the software industry grew up to conquer the world.



I submit to you that the Automotive industry made similar mistakes.
If not America itself in the treament of its citizens.


David Grouchy

if it isnt broke, dont fix it. the 4 stroke cycle is the most efficient way to make petrol run an engine.
honorable mention to the wankel engine, but the 4 stroke will be here aslong as petrol is.

Yes, yes, perfect example of how difficult it is to speak about engineering when everyone has so many ready made statements like "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

/wake up slap


I'm not sad though.
At least industry is letting engineers talk about the skin of the vehicles.
Maybe 60 years too late, but it's a start.


David Grouchy

Well you have to think of what it is. A combustion engine. 4 stroke, 2 stroke, diesel, rotary, radial. All combustion engines. There have been advancements over time, like the jet engine. We are at the crucial point where the next advancement should be knocking at our door. But as far as I am concerned suck squeeze bang blow will always be the way to go....

EDIT: I wanted to add this video. This NRE nelson racing engines. There is still so much we can do with what we have.


You may want to turn you volume down a little bit for the first part.

Originally posted by neonitus
the 4 stroke cycle is the most efficient way to make petrol run an engine.

And what about the legendary suppresed John Deere two stroke engine.

Because of the two stroke design, the engine provided twice the power
strokes per minute that a four stroke engine would.

petcaretips.net...

The one that would never wear out.
Ever heard of it?


David Grouchy

reply to post by neonitus


Our dependency on oil tells me that the combustion engine is broke. We need to move past the combustion engine, to a new readily available source of energy. More efficient, less or no emmisions, more reliable. More investments need to be made in this field. Why couldn't magnets somehow be used repelling each other in a rotary type engine/ motor of sorts to propel a vehicle? Always wanted to do some tinkering with a magnetic type propulsion, but no time or funds.

Originally posted by imawlinn

Our dependency on oil tells me that the combustion engine is broke. We need to move past the combustion engine, to a new readily available source of energy.

Phyllis Diller remembers driving in an electric car when she was a kid back in 1927.
The automotive industry had to spend millions to convince people to move to gas,
cause internal combustion was noisy, dirty, and smelly.



She remembers that it was quiet, clean, and produced no odor.


David Grouchy

Its not that if it isnt broke dont fix it per say , more so that if it doesn't make corporations money dont implement it...

As long as greed/profits is the controlling factor most if not all advancements will stay at the status quo .

Originally posted by Reevster
As long as greed/profits is the controlling factor most if not all advancements will stay at the status quo.

Bill Gates proved that reinvesting 90% of profits back into an industry
is better for profits and greed.

Are we sure that the quote above
is not just regurgitating corporate talking points?


David Grouchy

Originally posted by imawlinn
reply to post by neonitus

 

Our dependency on oil tells me that the combustion engine is broke. We need to move past the combustion engine, to a new readily available source of energy. More efficient, less or no emmisions, more reliable. More investments need to be made in this field. Why couldn't magnets somehow be used repelling each other in a rotary type engine/ motor of sorts to propel a vehicle? Always wanted to do some tinkering with a magnetic type propulsion, but no time or funds.

Here is someone that has played around with the idea. I am not sure if this has been posted before, but its an electric car that you don't plug in.

Maybe because there is no working alternative yet.

Yes yes, there are electric cars but who would want to pop into a 'gas' station to fill up for eight hours ?

Maybe the GM Ampera (Vauxhall Volt) holds the key.

Originally posted by MoosKept240


Here is someone that has played around with the idea. I am not sure if this has been posted before, but its an electric car that you don't plug in.

Wow, great video.
Reminds me of the story of the guy who invented sliced bread.
It was a [color=gold]complete and total failure.
Only after the large corporate interests could own his patents was the idead
made acceptable to the public.


David Grouchy




Here is Marketing guru Seth Godin
talking about it at a Ted Talk.

Timestop 0:50 - 1:24

reply to post by MoosKept240


Wow that is very cool! Similar to what I was thinking.
Good find.

reply to post by davidgrouchy


That was a great video. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Thanks for posting!

While agree that it's past time for us to find an alternative, combustion engines have indeed made huge strides forward. We've gone from the first cars with relatively weak engines to developing engines to power aircraft to now having cars available with 1000+ horsepower. It's really not too different from the path computer hardware has taken so far because it's mostly just gotten much more powerful with gradual changes over time.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I believe the auto industry is controlled by the big oil companies, which also influences the government. There has been many attempts to make a different internal combustible motor the Myt-6.

GM's been tinkering with an electric behind the wheel motor for a while now. GM electric wheel motor

A British engineering firm has put electric motors behind the wheels of a Mini Cooper, with the gas engine.
Electric motor behind wheels of Mini

There has been many different designs for a different internal combustible motor, but the company's that make them are having a hard time convincing the public and government to make the switch. It would cost billions to have a auto maker to switch it's engines, having to revamp their plants.

there's been no "great advances" in automotive technology for decades now. In fact, we've regressed as far as I see it.

Answer this :
- How could Honda produce a car in the 70's/early-80's that could get over 50mpg but can barely scratch 40mpg now?

- Why are US cars still required to have catalytic-converters installed (which reduce mpg) on fuel-injected engines when they're not necessary (they're used for carbureted engines)?

Less mpg (efficiency) = more money for big-oil.

There's your answer

reply to post by TXRabbit


Early honda's that achieved a mpg of 50+ were much much different vehicles than they are today. Weighing at only 1500 lbs. And a 2011 civic weighing at 2700 lbs. Not to mention the first honda civics had only 50 - 60 hp depending on model. Compared to 140 hp for today's civic.
Also catalytic converters are much different too.

Two-way A two-way catalytic converter has two simultaneous tasks: Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2 Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (unburnt and partially-burnt fuel) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2] O2 → xCO2 + (x+1) H2O (a combustion reaction)

Three-way Since 1981, three-way catalytic converters have been used in vehicle emission control systems in North America and many other countries on road-going vehicles. A three-way catalytic converter has three simultaneous tasks: Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2 Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2 Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is also a link for a list of mpg for civics over the years!

www.mpgomatic.com...

I've seen a nice increase in HP numbers since 20 or even 10 years ago. It seems the two most recent advances that have improved engines a lot are variable valve timing and direct injection on gasoline 4-cycle (Otto) engines. (Diesels have had direct injection for a long time, so one should make a point of it being novel in a spark fired engine. And direct injection is different than throttle-body, port, or manifold injection which has improved cars a lot over carbureted models since the 1980's.)

Combine those two things and you have an engine that's cranking out 50 more HP than a similar model with the same displacement as compared to a naturally aspirated version from the previous generation. Or conversely, you could tune for about the same horsepower and save on gas.

The reason why we don't see much in the way of gains? Cars have been putting on weight. Airbags, extra steel for crash protection, sound deadening materials, changes to the suspension, bigger and better (yet more massive) brakes, etc. All of that pretty much evens out all the gains that have been made on the engine side. So cars put out the same numbers as they have 10 to 20 years ago.

Now if you want to notice how much a modern powertrain (engine + transmission) has improved over previous generations, the trick is to hack one out of wrecked new car and put it into the chassis of a much lighter older car of similar size. Of course it will be less safe (likely no ABS and reduced crash protection), and some things like aerodynamics may still limit the high end of performance, but you should still be able to see faster acceleration times and better fuel economy numbers. I wouldn't say they're huge, but they should be noticeable.