Any updates on supply chain

Status
Not open for further replies.

Robkar

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
118
Location
San Diego
Mazda dropped the start/stop from their line last year, which I was glad for as it was a deal breaker for me.

I feel the same about turbos. Fantastic if primarily doing longer drives, but they don't do well with longevity with typical on/off city driving. Love the power a turbo gives though.
Love the 9 with the turbo. The reliability of that engine combo just makes me smile.
 

elantra04

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
646
Reaction score
917
Love the 9 with the turbo. The reliability of that engine combo just makes me smile.
Is it really reliable or are you joking? I don’t know much about this engine combo but I like Mazdas especially after hearing the new 6 will be RWD.
 

atc250r

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
203
Reaction score
231
They just need to get rid of pure ICE propulsion and at least get all cars on a hybrid drivetrain. Once you go to at least a mild hybrid design, there aren't any more voltage sags associated with the start/stop system operating because the main drive battery and motors are propelling the car from a stop and then the motor starts the ICE once the vehicle gets up to speed. It also means that you don't have a starter motor that constantly has to start the engine; the motors that drive the car do that and since they're much more powerful than a starter, they won't fail from being put through too many start cycles.
I hope they do NOT drop ICE engines. Battery electric vehicles are just to make one “think” they’re doing something good for the environment. The carbon footprint of a BEV from its conception to its end of life is arguably bigger than that of an ICE vehicle.

Now for the start/stop feature. Im still the original owner of a 1997 Dodge Ram 1500 with a 5.9 (360 cid) gas engine. My old job required it to idle a lot, and there was a few days it idled all day in 0°F weather. Fuelled it up at 7:00am, idled all day, and went back to the gas station at 5:30pm and put in 30 litres. So 3L/hr. So how much fuel does start/stop save on a modern engine? The answer would be teaspoons. Engineering time would be better spent on other things, IMO
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,132
Reaction score
13,623
Location
Saratoga, CA
I hope they do NOT drop ICE engines.
Never said they should drop all ICE. I said they should at least hybridize the drivetrains of all vehicles. The biggest efficiency gain is from the ability to shut down the engine when it would be inefficient to use it, mainly at very low speeds and when stopped, as well as from regenerative braking. But that doesn't mean every vehicle needs to have a plug or run on batteries only. It means at least having the same technology as the first generation of hybrids, where all of the energy comes from gasoline and the drive batteries are used for running accessories, storing energy from braking, and getting the vehicle going from a stop. The savings from start/stop are extremely small compared to the savings from hybridized drivetrains, and the voltage sags from the way start/stop systems are implemented cause a lot more trouble than it's worth. Hybridized drivetrains however do not have these issues because the 12V accessory voltage comes from a DC-DC converter that runs off the main drive battery.
Now for the start/stop feature. Im still the original owner of a 1997 Dodge Ram 1500 with a 5.9 (360 cid) gas engine. My old job required it to idle a lot, and there was a few days it idled all day in 0°F weather. Fuelled it up at 7:00am, idled all day, and went back to the gas station at 5:30pm and put in 30 litres. So 3L/hr. So how much fuel does start/stop save on a modern engine? The answer would be teaspoons. Engineering time would be better spent on other things, IMO
With that usage pattern, you are a perfect candidate for a hybridized vehicle. Would have only used as much fuel as it needed to charge the batteries, and it would have done the charging at a pretty efficient spot on the brake specific fuel consumption map and then shut off the engine instead of just producing heat all day long.
 
Last edited:

elantra04

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
646
Reaction score
917

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
546
They just need to get rid of pure ICE propulsion and at least get all cars on a hybrid drivetrain. Once you go to at least a mild hybrid design, there aren't any more voltage sags associated with the start/stop system operating because the main drive battery and motors are propelling the car from a stop and then the motor starts the ICE once the vehicle gets up to speed. It also means that you don't have a starter motor that constantly has to start the engine; the motors that drive the car do that and since they're much more powerful than a starter, they won't fail from being put through too many start cycles.
I've wished they would convert to a serial hybrid setup for years, where the ICE only runs a generator and the drive is only electric motors. If they'd have done this 10-15 years ago they could have been perfecting the drive motor while saving tons of fuel, since they could still have had the battery packs and done X number of electric only miles before the genset was needed. They could also have been perfecting computer control over the motors for the best performance, best efficiency, best control over multiple motors for an AWD system, ect. And, since the engine isn't driving the wheels, it can be built to operate at its most efficient RPM and geared to run a generator at its most efficient RPM. Wouldn't even have to be a large engine, a smaller turbocharged engine to drive the generator at the most efficient RPMs would save even more fuel.
 
Last edited:

WildOne

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
840
Reaction score
2,608
Location
MD
I've wished they would convert to a serial hybrid setup for years, where the ICE only runs a generator and the drive is only electric motors. If they'd have done this 10-15 years ago they could have been perfecting the drive motor while saving tons of fuel, since they could still have had the battery packs and done X number of electric only miles before the genset was needed. They could also have been perfecting computer control over the motors for the best performance, best efficiency, best control over multiple motors for an AWD system, ect. And, since the engine isn't driving the wheels, it can be built to operate at its most efficient RPM and geared to run a generator at its most efficient RPM. Wouldn't even have to be a large engine, a smaller turbocharged engine to drive the generator at the most efficient RPMs would save even more fuel.
Yes! I've been saying the same thing for years!
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,132
Reaction score
13,623
Location
Saratoga, CA
I've wished they would convert to a serial hybrid setup for years, where the ICE only runs a generator and the drive is only electric motors.
So basically, you're asking for something like the BMW i3 REx. It happens to be a plug-in vehicle but has a range extending ICE (the REx portion of the name) which basically is optimized to run at a single speed to charge the battery.
If they'd have done this 10-15 years ago they could have been perfecting the drive motor while saving tons of fuel, since they could still have had the battery packs and done X number of electric only miles before the genset was needed. They could also have been perfecting computer control over the motors for the best performance, best efficiency, best control over multiple motors for an AWD system, ect. And, since the engine isn't driving the wheels, it can be built to operate at its most efficient RPM and geared to run a generator at its most efficient RPM. Wouldn't even have to be a large engine, a smaller turbocharged engine to drive the generator at the most efficient RPMs would save even more fuel.
But there's a bit of a problem here: I suspect that the engine won't be able to be as small as you think it can be in such a setup. If the battery is large, you can size for the average load, but if the battery is small, you must size for the peak load. The i3 REx isn't actually classified as a PHEV, it's classified as a BEVx (battery electric vehicle with extender). The key distinction here is that while PHEVs can use their ICE to charge their batteries for use in future parts of the trip, BEVx vehicles aren't permitted to turn on their engines unless the usable charge level of the battery is below about 7-10% (around 30% actual SoC, given the lower end buffer to protect the battery). So once the ICE starts operating to extend range, it behaves like a small battery vehicle. And that causes a big problem: insufficient power to climb mountains once the battery hits its lower limit and the computer is forced to cut the current from the battery to a level no greater than that the ICE can produce.

I did a similar test on my PHEV (which DOES allow me to charge the batteries) by intentionally starting the climb of the Tehachapi Mountains at the Grapevine exit along I-5 with a nearly empty battery, 1 bar on the gauge, at around 27% SoC. This route goes from an elevation of 1,499 feet to 4,144 feet in 11 miles. The user manual says to charge the batteries before climbing hills, but in the name of running an experiment, I deliberately disobeyed the manual and decided to see what would happen. So I started at 27%, and 25% SoC is when the gauge shows 0 bars. To protect the battery, the computer cuts propulsion power to around 60 kW once the charge level drops below 20% SoC. If it goes below about 16-18% SoC, it will also cut power to some accessory circuits, so anything plugged into the car's inverter through the built-in 120V outlets gets its power cut. You can hear the constant chimes as the car keeps telling me "Nope! You aren't getting any more power than this." (And I would have run into the scenario of having the computer cut propulsion power even sooner if my climb hadn't been interrupted by some 34.7 I picked up from CHP!)

This is essentially the same thing that would happen in the i3 REx, except in the REx it would be even worse, since that ICE isn't sized to propel the car at all, is intended to be most efficient for cruising on flat terrain, and is grotesquely undersized for climbing mountains. My PHEV's engine maxes out at around 60-70 kW; the i3 REx engine produces just 25 kW. However, the i3 REx weighs about 2/3 of what my PHEV does.

 
Last edited:

fishing66

Lord of the Pies
Premium Plus
Advanced User
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
8,540
I ate 9 tacos yesterday.
 

Robkar

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
118
Location
San Diego
Is it really reliable or are you joking? I don’t know much about this engine combo but I like Mazdas especially after hearing the new 6 will be RWD.
Not Joking, do your research .. I was set on NA but after checking how this unit was made and the reliability, I went with it.
 

fishing66

Lord of the Pies
Premium Plus
Advanced User
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
8,540
What....no pie?
Set to "Oh Susannah"

I was on the bowl for a long long time
My doo doo it was vile
I pooped and pooped and pooped and pooped
You should have seen my pile

Perhaps that will be enough to get this thread closed as it has run its course.
 

fishing66

Lord of the Pies
Premium Plus
Advanced User
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
4,389
Reaction score
8,540
I peed all night and pooped all day
There was no reason why
Taco Bell made toilet hell
The pain did make me cry

Oh Taco Bell
Don't you cook for me
I have to see a doctor who
Can do proctology
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
546
So basically, you're asking for something like the BMW i3 REx. It happens to be a plug-in vehicle but has a range extending ICE (the REx portion of the name) which basically is optimized to run at a single speed to charge the battery.

But there's a bit of a problem here: I suspect that the engine won't be able to be as small as you think it can be in such a setup. If the battery is large, you can size for the average load, but if the battery is small, you must size for the peak load. The i3 REx isn't actually classified as a PHEV, it's classified as a BEVx (battery electric vehicle with extender). The key distinction here is that while PHEVs can use their ICE to charge their batteries for use in future parts of the trip, BEVx vehicles aren't permitted to turn on their engines unless the usable charge level of the battery is below about 7-10% (around 30% actual SoC, given the lower end buffer to protect the battery). So once the ICE starts operating to extend range, it behaves like a small battery vehicle. And that causes a big problem: insufficient power to climb mountains once the battery hits its lower limit and the computer is forced to cut the current from the battery to a level no greater than that the ICE can produce.

I did a similar test on my PHEV (which DOES allow me to charge the batteries) by intentionally starting the climb of the Tehachapi Mountains at the Grapevine exit along I-5 with a nearly empty battery, 1 bar on the gauge, at around 27% SoC. This route goes from an elevation of 1,499 feet to 4,144 feet in 11 miles. The user manual says to charge the batteries before climbing hills, but in the name of running an experiment, I deliberately disobeyed the manual and decided to see what would happen. So I started at 27%, and 25% SoC is when the gauge shows 0 bars. To protect the battery, the computer cuts propulsion power to around 60 kW once the charge level drops below 20% SoC. If it goes below about 16-18% SoC, it will also cut power to some accessory circuits, so anything plugged into the car's inverter through the built-in 120V outlets gets its power cut. You can hear the constant chimes as the car keeps telling me "Nope! You aren't getting any more power than this." (And I would have run into the scenario of having the computer cut propulsion power even sooner if my climb hadn't been interrupted by some 34.7 I picked up from CHP!)

This is essentially the same thing that would happen in the i3 REx, except in the REx it would be even worse, since that ICE isn't sized to propel the car at all, is intended to be most efficient for cruising on flat terrain, and is grotesquely undersized for climbing mountains. My PHEV's engine maxes out at around 60-70 kW; the i3 REx engine produces just 25 kW. However, the i3 REx weighs about 2/3 of what my PHEV does.

Never said what size though, did I? I said an optimized engine would be smaller than the engine for an ICE car, and an optimized turbocharged engine could be even smaller. If the design isn't allowing the generator to maintain a useful amount of charge, then it was designed wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to drain to the point that the car isn't drivable, requiring that the car stop and recharge itself. Correctly sized, the generator should be able to maintain highway speeds on flat terrain for around 700 miles before requiring a stop to recharge. Plus, the generator wouldn't have to shut off for gas, bathroom and food stops, which would extend the range. But, let the engineers determine the correct battery and generator sizing for the intended use of the car.

It occurs to me that we're derailing this thread though. If you wish to discuss this further, the aluminum graphene battery post I put in the Cars section would be a better place to respond.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
VIP
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
14,766
Reaction score
21,119
Location
Hill Country, TX
I said an optimized engine would be smaller than the engine for an ICE car, and an optimized turbocharged engine could be even smaller.
Optimized for efficient charging doesn’t mean it will be optimized for propulsion and in fact probably the opposite.

If the design isn't allowing the generator to maintain a useful amount of charge, then it was designed wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to drain to the point that the car isn't drivable, requiring that the car stop and recharge itself.
Nobody said the car would have to stop and charge itself but rather that an onboard ICE generator optimized for efficient charging isn’t going to be the kind of house-sized generator required to provide the kind of super charger rates that would be needed to drive under extreme conditions such as continually up a steep grade.

Correctly sized, the generator should be able to maintain highway speeds on flat terrain for around 700 miles before requiring a stop to recharge.
Where did you come up with that range number? And flat terrain is a very different scenario than steep grades. And what if you want to pass that RV on the way up the mountain?

You’d really need to figure out the energy demand (in kilowatts ideally) to perform up to your standards before you could then decide what kind of ICE generator could keep up with it. Whatever it is, it would be bigger, heavier, and less efficient than anything optimized for efficient charging. Otherwise you’re just better off with a hybrid of PHEV.
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,132
Reaction score
13,623
Location
Saratoga, CA
Never said what size though, did I? I said an optimized engine would be smaller than the engine for an ICE car, and an optimized turbocharged engine could be even smaller.
But isn't that the problem here? An ICE has a "sweet spot" in terms of efficiency on its consumption map. The goal should be to run it at that sweet spot at all times (or shut it down entirely) and use the battery as a buffer.
If the design isn't allowing the generator to maintain a useful amount of charge, then it was designed wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to drain to the point that the car isn't drivable, requiring that the car stop and recharge itself. Correctly sized, the generator should be able to maintain highway speeds on flat terrain for around 700 miles before requiring a stop to recharge.
But the power required to maintain highway speeds varies dramatically depending on whether you're on flat terrain or ascending a mountain. In my older car (8th generation Corolla), I've had the accelerator almost floored before from the start of the climb all the way to the Lebec Rd. exit and I barely got over 80 mph. That's about 6 minutes of almost 100 kW propulsion power requirement. If you assume that it takes about 30 kW to cruise at highway speeds on a level surface (which is a reasonable approximation), then that's 70 kW that the battery needs to supply for 6 minutes. Meaning that it needs to have a capacity of at least 7 kWh. That's WAY above the typical capacity of a hybrid vehicle and is getting into plug-in hybrid territory. And I-5 between Grapevine and Tejon Pass isn't even the biggest mountain a vehicle would have to climb.
Plus, the generator wouldn't have to shut off for gas, bathroom and food stops, which would extend the range. But, let the engineers determine the correct battery and generator sizing for the intended use of the car.
Here's the issue:
- Internal combustion engines only operate efficiently at one spot on (RPM & power output) on the consumption map
- Size the engine for the average use on the highway on level found and it will be very efficient at that speed
- But, climbing mountains will require a much bigger battery (probably at least 10-12 kWh)
- However, a bigger battery adds weight, and it isn't efficient to lug it around if you're not going to use its capacity very much
- You can upsize the engine in lieu of making the battery bigger. But this means that the engine would have to cycle on and off frequently instead of operating nearly continuously at highway speeds, when you are driving on level ground. Even worse, the generator has to push more energy into the battery faster (because the most efficient operating region of a bigger engine produces more power).
- But wait! We upsized the engine so we didn't have to carry around a big battery, right? Except a big engine and a small battery means that the battery gets charged fast relative to its capacity (the so-called C rate is a measure of how many times the battery could be charged every hour, i.e. 0.5C means charging it in 2 hours, 1C is charging it in an hour, 2C is charging it in 30 minutes). But it turns out that's very bad for the life of the battery.
discharge1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Discord Server

Latest threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
96,508
Messages
1,468,775
Members
24,748
Latest member
20DuramaxDenaliL5P
Top