Mazda hopes to achieve 56% thermal efficiency with gasoline engine(popularmechanics.com)
popularmechanics.com
Mazda hopes to achieve 56% thermal efficiency with gasoline engine
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/car-technology/a15915023/mazda-skyactiv-3-gas-clean-as-ev/
59 comments
From one explanation I've read [1], they actually maintain two AFR "zones" in the cylinder; one rich zone around the spark plug, with the rest of the cylinder maintained lean enough for compression ignition. Then by igniting the rich mixture via spark, little NOx and less heat is produced, while the remaining lean mixture probably producing negligent NOx as expansion occurs after TDC.
If they can control it tightly enough, they can probably maintain the exact pressures and temperatures to just skirt under EPA/Euro requirements in a wide range of conditions, and switch to regular spark ignition outside of that range.
[1]: http://www.enginelabs.com/news/mazdas-new-spark-controlled-c...
If they can control it tightly enough, they can probably maintain the exact pressures and temperatures to just skirt under EPA/Euro requirements in a wide range of conditions, and switch to regular spark ignition outside of that range.
[1]: http://www.enginelabs.com/news/mazdas-new-spark-controlled-c...
There was a nice explanation in an article from Ars Technica a few days ago: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/01/mazdas-skyactiv-x-shows...
That's the Syactiv X which will not achieve 56%. This article is for the following generation (Skyactiv 3)
Carnot efficiency = 1-Tcold/Thot. Tcold = room temperature ~ 300Kelvin. Thot ~ 1500 Celsius ~ 1800 Kelvin. So the theoretical Carnot efficiency is about 83%.
It’s probably simpler than that; “hopes” really means, “hasn’t yet, may never.”
"Elon Musk hopes to launch Falcon Heavy in late 2012"
Mazda is for me quite an admirable example of traditional car company, esp. compared to the likes of Volkswagen, as the ratio of quality/economics is really good and their new designs are gorgeous given the price range.
> their new designs are gorgeous given the price range.
Definitely. Compare their designs to anything else from Japan and you'll find that they manage to be modern and interesting without being too angular and aggressive (see new Honda Civic, esp. the Type R and the Prius Prime).
Besides that, their driving experiences are tuned for pure joy. The CX-5 is by far the best handling mid-size SUV, and of course the MX-5 is unmatched. Best of all, they still somehow find the time to experiment and create masterpieces like the MX-5 RF.
Now if only they can deliver on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, then they'll really check all the boxes.
Source: a 2017 MX-5 soft-top was first brand new car.
Definitely. Compare their designs to anything else from Japan and you'll find that they manage to be modern and interesting without being too angular and aggressive (see new Honda Civic, esp. the Type R and the Prius Prime).
Besides that, their driving experiences are tuned for pure joy. The CX-5 is by far the best handling mid-size SUV, and of course the MX-5 is unmatched. Best of all, they still somehow find the time to experiment and create masterpieces like the MX-5 RF.
Now if only they can deliver on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, then they'll really check all the boxes.
Source: a 2017 MX-5 soft-top was first brand new car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumptio...
56% is slightly more than the efficiency of very large low-speed two-stroke diesels (one of the most thermally efficient piston engine types), so I remain very skeptical.
56% is slightly more than the efficiency of very large low-speed two-stroke diesels (one of the most thermally efficient piston engine types), so I remain very skeptical.
Good to have stretch goals. EV have stretch goals too, as do battery tech designers and power generation and storage. So.. given this is a 25 year stretch goal, what will EV look like then? I think we can predict they will be better than this 57% heat efficiency or not.
I like phev as an interim, but Mazda have to invest now to have a story in phev. This incredible goal in ice engine efficiency could be part of that.
I like phev as an interim, but Mazda have to invest now to have a story in phev. This incredible goal in ice engine efficiency could be part of that.
what kind of heat efficiency you mean?
The Carnot heat engine efficiency. That's what the 57% is talking about in the proposed improvements Mazda are projecting. Getting a single F1 engine there for a circuit is one thing. Getting a road car under varying driven conditions there, on a production line.. that's another. If the 57% was demonstrated they'd have said a deadline inside 25 years. If they project out more than Five, it's a bet, not a certainty.
I'm glad the article references Formula 1 engines. The current generation is really a technical marvel, and was the first thing to come to mind when I read this headline.
Stick one in a well-made plug-in/hybrid, and I'm sold.
Can this principle be applied to ICE using other fuels, like ethanol?
It works. Even with wet ethanol.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cd5b6vq
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cd5b6vq
They should probably stop investing so much in an engine that requires fossil fuels to operate.
Stopping investing into a technology that is probably going to dominate the industry for the next 25 years might not be too smart. (EVs are coming, but they're quite far from accounting for >50% of the total vehicle sales.)
It's a bit like telling Microsoft in 1990 that focusing on PCs is stupid because mobile computing is coming for sure. :)
It's a bit like telling Microsoft in 1990 that focusing on PCs is stupid because mobile computing is coming for sure. :)
You call it domination, I call it slow decline.
Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines.
They certainly won't be dominating in 22 years.
The question is not "is this business going to be dead" but "when this business will be dead".
So it's more like telling MicroPro to to stop investing in their cash cow DOS-based WordStar and port that app to Windows, because the writing is on the wall.
MicrPro and many other companies were a bit asleep at the wheel during DOS -> Windows transition and that's why there's no MicroPro anymore and there's no WordStar anymore.
Transition to electric motors will take a bit longer but the window to become a significant player in new technology is not infinite.
Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines.
They certainly won't be dominating in 22 years.
The question is not "is this business going to be dead" but "when this business will be dead".
So it's more like telling MicroPro to to stop investing in their cash cow DOS-based WordStar and port that app to Windows, because the writing is on the wall.
MicrPro and many other companies were a bit asleep at the wheel during DOS -> Windows transition and that's why there's no MicroPro anymore and there's no WordStar anymore.
Transition to electric motors will take a bit longer but the window to become a significant player in new technology is not infinite.
> Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines.
That's very much incorrect. What they've all said is that it will be illegal to sell cars with only such engines. In particular, plug-in hybrids will be allowed, and will probably be the biggest success both commercially and for the environment.
I mean, if I can have something like the latest Mercedes C350e or BMW 530e, but with a bit faster charging and a ~50 mile electric range, that's going to beat an electric 300+ mile range car any day of the week once the subsidies start wearing off (which is a lot sooner than 2040).
That's very much incorrect. What they've all said is that it will be illegal to sell cars with only such engines. In particular, plug-in hybrids will be allowed, and will probably be the biggest success both commercially and for the environment.
I mean, if I can have something like the latest Mercedes C350e or BMW 530e, but with a bit faster charging and a ~50 mile electric range, that's going to beat an electric 300+ mile range car any day of the week once the subsidies start wearing off (which is a lot sooner than 2040).
The estimate is that by 2020 battery prices will come down to make the price of electric engine + battery be the same as price of diesel engine.
Even with relatively slow progress on batteries, they double in density / get half as cheap in about 5 to 10 years.
Add to this that Tesla is aggressively doubling their Supercharging network every year.
If cars today have 200-300 miles of range, in 10 years they'll have 400-600 miles for less money, eliminating the one issue that stands in the way of mass adoption of evs (range anxiety).
Most likely 7-12 years from now it'll make no economic sense to put 2 different engines in the same car i.e. a single electric engine will be cheaper than a hybrid.
And this is based on linearly extrapolating the past. If battery production follows the same curve as wind / solar energy production, we're systematically underestimating progress and things will happen faster.
We're really in Day 1 of mass producing batteries, with volumes (and therefore investments in improvements) scaling way faster than linearly.
Even with relatively slow progress on batteries, they double in density / get half as cheap in about 5 to 10 years.
Add to this that Tesla is aggressively doubling their Supercharging network every year.
If cars today have 200-300 miles of range, in 10 years they'll have 400-600 miles for less money, eliminating the one issue that stands in the way of mass adoption of evs (range anxiety).
Most likely 7-12 years from now it'll make no economic sense to put 2 different engines in the same car i.e. a single electric engine will be cheaper than a hybrid.
And this is based on linearly extrapolating the past. If battery production follows the same curve as wind / solar energy production, we're systematically underestimating progress and things will happen faster.
We're really in Day 1 of mass producing batteries, with volumes (and therefore investments in improvements) scaling way faster than linearly.
I'm not buying it. A current Model S, which is super streamlined and thus super impractical (in terms of trunk space, it has just 25 cu ft of trunk space) as compared to the most popular gas/diesel cars in the US and Europe - large SUVs and large station wagons, respectively (having 50+ cu ft of trunk space) - is hauling around 1200 lbs of batteries.
If you imagine an all-electric Ford Explorer (an example popular SUV) with 400-600 miles of range, you're looking at ~3000 lbs of batteries. Add that to a 1500 lbs cargo capacity and 4000 lbs of curb weight without engine, the gross weight of the car is 8500 lbs. That's a Class 2b Heavy Duty vehicle, just for a medium size SUV.
If you imagine an all-electric Ford Explorer (an example popular SUV) with 400-600 miles of range, you're looking at ~3000 lbs of batteries. Add that to a 1500 lbs cargo capacity and 4000 lbs of curb weight without engine, the gross weight of the car is 8500 lbs. That's a Class 2b Heavy Duty vehicle, just for a medium size SUV.
I thought we don't have enough lithium to transition the world's autos to electric?
You thought wrong. Especially with improved (any) recycling processes.
>Many governments have announced that by 2040 it'll be illegal to sell cars with such engines.
Many governments?
Mazda is a small company, they can't afford larger scale innovation and buying up battery factories so they're making due. ICEs are going to be around for a lot longer than the next two decades, and I'm highly doubtful they won't be dominating in 5 decades, let alone 2.
Many governments?
Mazda is a small company, they can't afford larger scale innovation and buying up battery factories so they're making due. ICEs are going to be around for a lot longer than the next two decades, and I'm highly doubtful they won't be dominating in 5 decades, let alone 2.
> Mazda is a small company
Citation needed. 50k employees and 3e12 yen (20 billion dollars) in revenue in 2016.
Citation needed. 50k employees and 3e12 yen (20 billion dollars) in revenue in 2016.
The context is car companies.
Mazda: <9B$ Market Cap and 50k employees
Ford: 40B Market Cap and 200k employees
Volkswagen: 100B Market Cap And 600k employees
Tesla is already at 30k employees...
It’s very well known that on the scale of international car brands Mazda is a “small” company
Mazda: <9B$ Market Cap and 50k employees
Ford: 40B Market Cap and 200k employees
Volkswagen: 100B Market Cap And 600k employees
Tesla is already at 30k employees...
It’s very well known that on the scale of international car brands Mazda is a “small” company
Mazda in owned by Ford.. sooo....
Ford owns a stake in Mazda...
...so what?
Mazda is still very small on the scale of international car brands. The other comment mentions Toyota as well, there are several companies with orders of magnitude more revenue and employees in the field with Mazda.
...so what?
Mazda is still very small on the scale of international car brands. The other comment mentions Toyota as well, there are several companies with orders of magnitude more revenue and employees in the field with Mazda.
Ford sold their stake in Mazda years ago, and lost a controlling stake in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford_Mo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford_Mo...
Mazda is small in comparison to its Japanese counterparts(Nissan, Honda and Toyota).
Toyota has 8 times more revenue, nearly 8 times more employees.
The car industry is focused on selling the 2019 model, not the 2040 model.
Exploring future technologies is cool, and almost certainly a wise move for the long term.
That doesn't alter the fact that they're still going to need to have a new gasoline-powered model for next fall.
Exploring future technologies is cool, and almost certainly a wise move for the long term.
That doesn't alter the fact that they're still going to need to have a new gasoline-powered model for next fall.
Tesla has been selling Model S since 2012, Model X since 2015 and Model 3 since late 2017.
Mazda could have been selling a kick-ass electric model of Mazda in 2019.
And if they did it right, maybe they too would have 500k of pre-orders and the "problem" of not being able to build the cars fast enough.
The question is: why are they investing in technology that is in inevitable decline vs. investing in the technology that will inevitably win?
Now, I know why.
A guy in charge of diesel engine development is at least a VP at Mazda. He doesn't want to fire his engineers. He doesn't want to fire himself.
He has power and he will use every bit of it to downplay and delay inevitable.
That's understandable from human psychology point of view but it's bad business.
Innovator's dilemma is real and many companies failed to make the obvious investments in the future technology on time. See Kodak or BlackBerry.
And when they finally did, it was too late.
5 years ago we could have an argument about diesel vs. electric. Today the future winner is clear.
Mazda could have been selling a kick-ass electric model of Mazda in 2019.
And if they did it right, maybe they too would have 500k of pre-orders and the "problem" of not being able to build the cars fast enough.
The question is: why are they investing in technology that is in inevitable decline vs. investing in the technology that will inevitably win?
Now, I know why.
A guy in charge of diesel engine development is at least a VP at Mazda. He doesn't want to fire his engineers. He doesn't want to fire himself.
He has power and he will use every bit of it to downplay and delay inevitable.
That's understandable from human psychology point of view but it's bad business.
Innovator's dilemma is real and many companies failed to make the obvious investments in the future technology on time. See Kodak or BlackBerry.
And when they finally did, it was too late.
5 years ago we could have an argument about diesel vs. electric. Today the future winner is clear.
"The question is: why are they investing in technology that is in inevitable decline vs. investing in the technology that will inevitably win?"
It can be profitable to invest in declining technology. Mazda almost by definition thinks it's profitable to still invest in ICEs. They can also invest in other drivetrains at the same time. The company can raise more money (assuming they can persuade investors).
It can be profitable to invest in declining technology. Mazda almost by definition thinks it's profitable to still invest in ICEs. They can also invest in other drivetrains at the same time. The company can raise more money (assuming they can persuade investors).
> Mazda could have been selling a kick-ass electric model of Mazda in 2019.
And I would not have purchased one, because no matter how great it was, the practical limitations of EVs make them a non-starter for me.
I would be much more interested in a highly efficient ICE (assuming it is reliable, affordable, etc.)
And I would not have purchased one, because no matter how great it was, the practical limitations of EVs make them a non-starter for me.
I would be much more interested in a highly efficient ICE (assuming it is reliable, affordable, etc.)
If that's a statement of your personal preferences, then there's no disagreement. You do you.
If you claim that Mazda could not sell well made electric car then:
* Tesla has 500 thousand pre-orders for Tesla 3
* Mazda sold 290 thousand cars in US + Mexico in 2017 (https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/december-2017...)
If you claim that Mazda could not sell well made electric car then:
* Tesla has 500 thousand pre-orders for Tesla 3
* Mazda sold 290 thousand cars in US + Mexico in 2017 (https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/december-2017...)
Pre orders are not the same as cars sold. The preorder costs 1k and you can cancel it, while a new model 3 starts at 35k. The Mazda CX5 which accounts for 128k units sold in '17 costs $25 to 28k.
Batteries are too expensive. Every car maker is waiting for them to come down in price.
This limitation applies to every car company that doesn't produce expensive luxury cars.
I can guarantee you that as soon as batteries are affordable enough these companies are going to switch to EVs instantly.
I can guarantee you that as soon as batteries are affordable enough these companies are going to switch to EVs instantly.
Tesla has been selling expensive luxury cars to a niche market.
Well they run a business and you just use your time to generate random comments. Why would I believe a bunch of stinky gasoline-drinking engineers?
Considering that many countries have announced plans to fully eliminate gas and diesel engine production in less than 25 years (e.g. 2030 for China), I think it's quite unlikely that internal combustion engines will continue to dominate the industry for the next 25 years. Also, there is pretty big irony in the analogy that you make. Obviously, Microsoft moved too slowly to focus on mobile computing and they missed the boat. I'm hopeful that car companies which aren't focusing on EVs today will similarly be left behind in a few years.
The huge used car market and the fact that ICE production will continue for as long as it is profitable muddies this timeline significantly. Sure ICEs could be legislated out of existence but that’d take a huge financial injection from the authorities - direct to the consumer and infrastructure. I don’t trust any authority to get this right in any sort of timely manner nor spend a the required money to make it happen.
The ICE has about 10 years of dominance left. Maybe less. EVs aren’t coming, they are here. And they’re just getting better and cheaper.
How many of the cars built today will still be on the road in 10 years? The average age of cars on the road today is 11 years.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/make-...
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/make-...
Number of cars on the road is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is what should Mazda focus on; its dominance of new car sales that is the relevant issue. And that’s where ICE vehicles have about 10 years or less until they are no longer the majority.
Yes it will definitely take longer than 10 years for them to lose a majority on the roads.
Yes it will definitely take longer than 10 years for them to lose a majority on the roads.
You realize that a "combustion engine" could be run with non-fossil fuels? From Ethanol, Buthanol or sun flour oil?
Or even methanol witch could be derived from CO2 via reduction?
Many places in the world (Think anywhere rural in a third world country) won't have the electricity infrastructure to handle electric cars in the near future. High efficiency petrol engines are still a very welcome invention for both the environment and for the many people who depend on petrol/diesel engines to keep the world spinning.
Except for the fact that you actually don't need any sort of energy infrastructure whatsoever with electricity. All you need will be a solar panel in the near future, resulting in more homes with heat and lights, more people with access to inexpensive transportation, and a more equitable share of well being. Third world countries stand to benefit the most from electrification.
Using photovoltaics for electric heat is a lot more costly than solar-thermal water heating, so you'll likely see a mixture of those two.
Engines don't require fossil fuels to run - they are merely the most readily available fuels at this point in time.
The moment fossil fuels get more expensive you'd like a more efficient engine.
Not if your system efficiency is limited by transmission and storage. Chemical energy (fuel) is more efficient and cheaper to store than electric energy, and will almost certainly continue to be an important medium in a post fossil fuel world.
Edit: I think I responded to the wrong post, but I guess I'll just leave this here as a general comment.
Edit: I think I responded to the wrong post, but I guess I'll just leave this here as a general comment.
Really, when fossil fuels get more expensive you'd like a non fossil fuel based engine.
Efficient engines are incentivized by high fuel prices only as compared to less efficient fossil fuel engines.
Some stuff does not work easily with non fossil fuel based engines. What better way than to refine current tech instead of inventing a whole new one?
What does the technology actually look like? The article was frustratingly scant on details.
Ah. You can track down the video explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_No3KSaTrM
Contrary to the appeal to the layperson's mechanical intuition in the video, they give away that they are apparently speeding combustion at the top of the stroke, resulting in a better approximation of "constant volume heat addition." This will result in a higher top temperature in the combustion chamber, and is the real reason for their "pushes longer and harder" explanation. This will come with added NOx production, so they'll have to have better catalytic conversion, with a couple caveats. It may be that the emissions rules are on a per-mile basis, so that the total NOx of the engine is lower per mile because less fuel is burned. They may also just be hitting markets with laxer restrictions.