Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
by John McElroy on May 8th 2009 at 3:59PM 
PLENTY OF LIFE LEFT IN THE PISTON ENGINE
There are all kinds of ways to boost the fuel efficiency of a vehicle. Hybrids are becoming more and more popular. Clean diesels seemed poised to make major inroads in the market. And even though they're a ways down the road, hydrogen fuel cells sure look promising.
But the problem with these technologies is that they add considerable cost to a car. Toyota has probably got the cost of its hybrid system down to about $2,500, but that's still a lot of money to add to the cost of the powertrain. At their present level of development, clean diesels probably carry $4,000-$5,000 worth of extra emissions control equipment. And hydrogen fuel cells aren't quite ready for prime time no matter what they cost.
Engine engineers complain to me all the time about these alternative technologies. They say it's unfair to compare what they are doing with gasoline-fueled piston engines to these alternatives. And it all comes down to money. They claim they can achieve comparable performance, emissions, and fuel efficiency at a lot lower cost.
Specifically, they say "Let me add just $1,000 worth of equipment and technology to my engine and let me show you what I can do."
____________________________________________________________________________________
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
They make a great point. A couple years back I was able to interview Hans List, the head of AVL, the Austrian engine design company. He told me he expected to see a 70% improvement in fuel economy from gasoline-fueled piston engines by the middle of next decade. He said very small displacement engines with aggressive turbo-charging strategies would be the key.
Then there is HCCI technology, which makes a gasoline piston engine behaves much like a diesel. It promises to offer diesel-like fuel efficiency at a fraction of the cost. We may be only three to four years away from seeing a production ready HCCI engine.
But I think there could be another breakthrough on the way. Cam-less engines have been the dream of engine designers for over half a century. Using solenoids to operate the valves could eliminate a lot of mass and parasitic losses on an engine. And solenoid technology keeps getting better all the time.
There is some very exciting development work going on now involving sliding valves. This could provide a very simple approach to variable valve control.
The point is, the industry seems willing to invest in sexy new technology like hybrids but is reluctant to add more cost to its existing powertrains. There seems to be a bias against the tried and true in favor of the technology "de jour."
But with virtually every automaker now losing massive amounts of money, I think low-cost solutions could get a second look. So even though some of the technologies I mentioned here could add quite a bit cost to an engine, they could prove to be far more cost-effective than the glitzy bits that are getting all the attention. And that's why I keep saying that the internal combustion piston engine could be around for a lot longer than most people imagine.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
There are all kinds of ways to boost the fuel efficiency of a vehicle. Hybrids are becoming more and more popular. Clean diesels seemed poised to make major inroads in the market. And even though they're a ways down the road, hydrogen fuel cells sure look promising.But the problem with these technologies is that they add considerable cost to a car. Toyota has probably got the cost of its hybrid system down to about $2,500, but that's still a lot of money to add to the cost of the powertrain. At their present level of development, clean diesels probably carry $4,000-$5,000 worth of extra emissions control equipment. And hydrogen fuel cells aren't quite ready for prime time no matter what they cost.
Engine engineers complain to me all the time about these alternative technologies. They say it's unfair to compare what they are doing with gasoline-fueled piston engines to these alternatives. And it all comes down to money. They claim they can achieve comparable performance, emissions, and fuel efficiency at a lot lower cost.
Specifically, they say "Let me add just $1,000 worth of equipment and technology to my engine and let me show you what I can do."
____________________________________________________________________________________
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
They make a great point. A couple years back I was able to interview Hans List, the head of AVL, the Austrian engine design company. He told me he expected to see a 70% improvement in fuel economy from gasoline-fueled piston engines by the middle of next decade. He said very small displacement engines with aggressive turbo-charging strategies would be the key.
Then there is HCCI technology, which makes a gasoline piston engine behaves much like a diesel. It promises to offer diesel-like fuel efficiency at a fraction of the cost. We may be only three to four years away from seeing a production ready HCCI engine.
But I think there could be another breakthrough on the way. Cam-less engines have been the dream of engine designers for over half a century. Using solenoids to operate the valves could eliminate a lot of mass and parasitic losses on an engine. And solenoid technology keeps getting better all the time.
There seems to be a bias against the tried and true in favor of the technology "de jour."
Even more exciting would be getting rid of poppet valves like we use in today's engines. There was some very exciting development work that took place during the Second World War using rotating valves. They looked like cylinders rotating inside of the cylinder head, in the same place an overhead cam would be, with slots cut into the cylinder to function as the intake and exhaust valves. This got rid of the reciprocating mass in the cylinder head, allowing the engine to rev much higher. But back in the 1940s they always had problems trying to seal these rotating valves.There is some very exciting development work going on now involving sliding valves. This could provide a very simple approach to variable valve control.
The point is, the industry seems willing to invest in sexy new technology like hybrids but is reluctant to add more cost to its existing powertrains. There seems to be a bias against the tried and true in favor of the technology "de jour."
But with virtually every automaker now losing massive amounts of money, I think low-cost solutions could get a second look. So even though some of the technologies I mentioned here could add quite a bit cost to an engine, they could prove to be far more cost-effective than the glitzy bits that are getting all the attention. And that's why I keep saying that the internal combustion piston engine could be around for a lot longer than most people imagine.
###
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jim 4:13PM (5/08/2009)
The thing is, we *have* gained quite a bit of efficiency with conventional gasoline engines. The "problem," as it is, is that those increases in efficiency have been used to pump up the power output. Think of this: in 1987, a 5.9 liter V8 might have wheezed out a whopping 140 hp. Now, the same displacement gets you 390 hp, yet is still drivable on the street, clean as a whistle in terms of emissions, and all else equal returns similar fuel economy.
My first car had a 2.2 liter 4-banger rated at 84 hp. Now you can't even find a 2.2 liter engine with less than twice that. I think it's safe to say that a modern 84 hp engine in a similar car would get markedly better fuel economy than a 1986 84 hp engine.
Reply
Tool 4:23PM (5/08/2009)
There is still a lot automakers can do to make the internal combustion engine more efficient and cleaner. In the long run -- 20 years out -- they may be gone entirely or combined in a hybrid. But for now, we should keep our focus on improvement as the new technology takes shape and the costs come down (which they will).
P.S. I love the phrase "clean diesels" . . . just like "clean coal". There is no such thing at this present time.
Jim 4:30PM (5/08/2009)
Oh, for sure. I think the tone of my post didn't match my intent; I was agreeing with John's article. I do think the improvements left are going to be smaller incrementally, though.
VWBajaBugGuy 4:38PM (5/08/2009)
I fully concur with you on this Jim. I really wish there were more engine choices for people that like fuel economy in regular cars. Why does a hatchback have to get 110 bhp? It's like all cars are built for racing enthusiasts these days. I'm proud to say my daily driver is a 98 Metro 1.0 3 banger, and it's 55 bhp/58 ft lbs of torque does all that I need it to do for commuting. I understand cars need more power for all the accessories these days but most seem to take it to far. I'm pretty far left of center on this, I know, but there is a proven market here for this. On the west coast of Canada lots of people are importing Japanese Kei cars (660cc). Unfortunately they have to be at least 15 years old to import by Canadian law.
notYou 4:42PM (5/08/2009)
McElroy: "Specifically, [internal combustion engineers] say "Let me add just $1,000 worth of equipment and technology to my engine and let me show you what I can do.""
But what you see from Tool above is the problem:
"I love the phrase "clean diesels" . . . just like "clean coal". There is no such thing at this present time."
And there never will be; it won't t matter how efficient the internal combustion engine is made (even with $10k worth of tech) - because it will never be green enough to pass political muster.
John, you're still fighting the engineering argument when the political argument has already moved beyond it and couldn't care less (facts be d@mned!). While I agree with you on the merits, we've already lost the war.
Brandon 5:23PM (5/08/2009)
The problem is you assume a car from that era is the same as today, but its not. Cars weigh a huge amount more than they used to. 84hp will not go as far anymore.
yoderizer 7:05PM (5/08/2009)
Those numbers seem a little off. My '89 pontiac put out 160 bhp with a 3.8 L V-6. 140 hp for a 5.9 L engine sound more like 1967 than 1987. Similarly, the 2.2 L ecotec is rated at 148 bhp - over twice 84 bhp for a naturally aspirated 2.2 L is actually pretty darn impressive. And I don't buy the idea that improving power and fuel efficiency are mutually exclusive. Variable valve timing can accomplish both, for example.
Matt 11:05PM (5/08/2009)
You're exactly right Jim. Improvements in efficiency have been used to crank out more power instead of decreasing the consumption. I guess in the past it has been a selling point of having more power than the other guy, but that could be changing nowadays. Plenty of people would take a drop in power if it meant say a 20% improvement in fuel economy... after all, how fast does Mum's runabout really need to be?
Stéphane Dumas 8:10AM (5/09/2009)
Good point Jim, also add the additions of variants of the piston engines like the 5-cycle Atkinson, the Miller cycle (5-cycle with a supercharger) or the 6-cycle Crower engine, Autoblog even mentionned it in 2006 http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/16/camshaft-legend-adds-another-two-strokes-to-internal-combustion/
jamie 4:19PM (5/08/2009)
Wankel???
I think you missed the boat on this one.
One moving part and all you have to do is make it more fuel efficient. What's so hard about that?
Reply
MikeofLA 4:30PM (5/08/2009)
The Wankel, like communism, works great on paper. Once you start pushing the limits of it, and even after a few years of regular use, you start getting leaks and loss of compression.
I love the design and the idea, however they are just not reliable or efficient enough to be mainstream... yet.
Jim 4:33PM (5/08/2009)
"One moving part and all you have to do is make it more fuel efficient. What's so hard about that?"
if it was just that easy, then Mazda wouldn't be the only company wasting time on them. Wankels are at an inherent efficiency disadvantage, partly due to the surface area of the combustion chambers (greater heat loss to the coolant.) Renesis showed some interesting improvements, but still lagging behind piston engines.
Shamdiddly 4:28PM (5/08/2009)
If the government wishes its unreasonable CAFE numbers to be met, we're not going to get there on powertrain technology by itself. A large detractor from the bottom line is vehicle mass, and with options of the past becoming standard (A/C, power windows), it isn't traveling in the right direction. Add the IIHS and their aggressive safety lobbying into the fray and cars are now behemoths.
Many cars have been made that get close to 50 mpg, and the one of the main reasons was that they were about 2000 lb and were not expected to reach 60 mph in under 7 seconds.
Ugh, don't get me started on "clean diesels". Al Gore has everybody concerned the sky is falling because of CO2 and global warming - a clean diesel can achieve excellent fuel economy, however, the required diesel particulate filter takes C + O2 -> CO2. How long before environmentalists are calling drivers of diesel vehicle "Baby Killers".
/facepalm
Reply
Lad 4:42PM (5/08/2009)
No matter what you do to improve the ICE, it has been and will remain an inefficient device that burns toxic chemicals in the atmosphere. It is especially ineffecient when powering automobiles because of the weight it has to move and the heat and friction loses in the drive lines. Direct drive electric motors appear to be the best solution to drive automobiles and will supersede the ICEs. Yes!, there are lots of problems yet to be solved using BEVs. However, the main problem of providing a practical battery is now within reach and will speed up the demise of ICEs...good riddance!
Reply
Jim 4:47PM (5/08/2009)
Uh-huh. So your solution is electric vehicles, which rely on power generated by plants which "burn toxic chemicals in the atmosphere" - or- react radioactive materials and leave behind dangerous waste for thousands of years.
Got it.
"However, the main problem of providing a practical battery is now within reach"
[citation needed]
Todd 4:42PM (5/08/2009)
Mr. McElroy it is time to let go. This latest post in your nearly year long "Detroit has still got ___________ to make it great again" is getting embarrassing.
If I recall you have written how the big three will never go bankrupt, they have quality products ( Camaro already being recalled for a defect ), the CEOs are all perfectly legit and competent, on and on.
GM is no more. Chrysler gone. Ford will not survive the collapse of all the part suppliers after GM folds in June. I wax nostalgic just like everyone else, I owned some really fun muscle cars in high school...
But Op-Ed posts that are the journalistic equivalent of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic do not make for good reading.
2010 will be a new begging, an opportunity for Toyota, Honda, Fiat and VW to expand and sell lots of quality cars to people here in the U.S., but GM, Chrysler and Ford won't be part of the equation.
Reply
Jim 4:44PM (5/08/2009)
"Mr. McElroy it is time to let go. This latest post in your nearly year long "Detroit has still got ___________ to make it great again" is getting embarrassing."
he didn't mention "Detroit" even *once* in this post. Take your vendetta somewhere else.
Dude 4:50PM (5/08/2009)
Dude. Lame posts do not make for good reading.
Ford gone because (if, and that's a big if) GM goes out of business? Wow. There's a leap. I'm sure all of the dots are connected in your head, but none of it makes sense.
McElroy loves Detroit. It's his job. He has to write about stuff we all know could possibly make Detroit better. In the long run, this is _the_ wake up call. GM is trying to make better cars (and I think they are) and Ford is rolling along and doing well enough to stay alive without going BK or asking for govt money.
Remember when 3 of the 4 biggest airlines went BK? Guess what? People kept on flying on those carriers and they're still in business. Flying on a bankrupt airline seems a lot scarier than driving a car from someone who might, might, go BK.
Yaroukh 5:30PM (5/08/2009)
@Todd:
> Ford will not survive
WANNA BET!? PLZ PLZ!!! 8))
mate seriously, you need to wake up first before you post here next time
d4rez 4:45PM (5/08/2009)
I think that this guy is missing the point, no matter what efficiencies can be achieved with the piston engine, they still run on petrol. Switching away from oil alternatives now, simply because of cost and the impact of recession, could cripple alternative fuel research and development spend for years. His major folly here is not recognising that global warming and dwindling oil stocks are not a far-off possibility, they are real and they are happening. On the day that oil runs out, where do we really want to be? Do we want to be thoroughly underprepared, though with the "benefit" of a full cast of automaker's who were able to survive because of the the decreased costs of the low tech solution. Or, ready with the technologies and systems in place and a leaner, trimmer automotive industry. He is too short term by a long way.
Reply