Recent Comments:
Asinine Engineering: Direct Exhaust Injection {Autoblog}
Nov 16th 2007 2:54PM "gases don't expand as they cool, they contract."
People get confused by switching cause with effect. Expansion causes cooling, not the other way around. Don't believe it? Here is an easy and cheap experiment that proves it: Go to any computer or electronics store and pick up some "canned air." As most people who are reading this blog no doubt know, this is just air that is compressed into a can, for the purpose of cleaning crumbs from keyboards, etc. Just spray some of that air for a few seconds. By opening the check valve and releasing the confined air, you are allowing the air in the can to expand. As it is expanding, the can is getting cooler and cooler to the touch. Indeed, do this for long enough and the water vapor in the air will condense on the can. If you hold the valve open even longer, this condensation will actually freeze into a coating of frost.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Asinine Engineering: Direct Exhaust Injection {Autoblog}
Nov 16th 2007 2:43PM Yes, they DO have plenty in common. They both operate on the exchange of heat by means of compressed gases through the use of a compressor. In a turbo-charged engine, heat from the exhaust side is transferred to the intake side, causing a pressure increase due to expansion of the heated air in the intake manifold. As the intake air is heated, the exhaust is COOLED.
Turbos are especially efficient in diesel applications, because the hotter the intake air, the more complete the diesel combustion. In gasoline motors, this extra heat has to be carefully managed because too much heat in the intake air can cause detonation, which in extreme cases can literally blow holes in the piston crowns. This is not a concern in diesels because detonation is how diesels work; gasoline needs spark and slow burn, diesel is ignited through compression followed by a very fast burn (in other words, detonation), the faster the better.
In air conditioning, the same principle is used. Through expansion on the intake side and compression on the exhaust side, heat is transferred from one place (one's house or car interior) to another (the outside). The only real difference is that air conditioning compressors are driven by electric motors (or engines' crankshafts) and turbochargers are driven by expanding gases from the burning of fuel, usually (but not always) in an internal combustion engine.
Turbocharging is, in essence, a method of recovering and recycling heat that would otherwise be thrown away with the exhaust. Thermodynamicists call internal combustion engines "heat engines" for a reason. All "heat engines" are essentially heat pumps that are driven by the burning of fuel in a closed space. An engine just converts the potential energy in fuel into the kinetic energy needed to do work, in most cases, moving a vehicle. A turbo is just a means of achieving this more efficiently, with less heat wasted.
Asinine Engineering: Direct Exhaust Injection {Autoblog}
Nov 16th 2007 2:09PM Is he really "obviously" joking? I don't think so. I've heard moronic ideas like this (and worse) from people who are dead serious and have gotten seriously pissed off when they see my face turning purple from hypoxia as I'm laughing my ass off.
Ford Taurus goes abroad, on sale in Korea later this month {Autoblog}
Aug 26th 2007 9:16PM Yeah... Koreans are "smart." That's why they have purchased so many utterly craptacular Hyundais, Kias and Daewoos over the years. True, these core Korean brands are recently - and finally - approaching world standards of performance and quality, but for decades they were utter junk - no better than Soviet or Chinese cars - and they purchased them by the millions just the same.
There are lots of reasons for this - too many to discuss in the limited time I have, but the Taurus' success or failure in Korea will have little to do with Koreans' sophistication as automotive consumers. The Taurus MAY succeed in Korea as a niche product for wealthy Koreans who can afford the gasoline and the taxes, and want something exotic - something beyond the typical Asian transpod.
Bye, bye Auburn Hills? VW may be moving to the East Coast {Autoblog}
Aug 19th 2007 2:17AM "...isn't all that bad these days."?? If your yardstick of comparison is Lagos, Nigeria or Baghdad, Iraq, I suppose.
True... It isn't as bad as it used to be in the days of former (Thank God!) mayor Marion Berry. As the capital city of any Third World country, I would be very favorably impressed with Washington, D.C. But as the capital of MY country, supposedly the richest and most powerful country on earth, it remains an embarrassment.
If the logic behind moving VW's US hq to the coast is to put it in friendlier territory, the best place for VW to relocate would be on the West Coast, not the East, and I suggest Portland, OR. The Portland area is a major distribution hub for VW parts for the Western U.S., so VW already has a corporate presence there. Plus, the West Coast is where VW sells the most cars. Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Portland, Seattle - all these metro areas are CRAWLING with VWs, Audis and Porsches. Seattle in particular has one of the highest market penetrations of European brands in the country.
Portland would be best because compared to the other major west coast metro areas, crime and taxes are low, and real estate is affordable. Public infrastructure - including transportation - is well-developed and efficient and the general quality of life is high, with decent schools, relatively clean air, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, great skiing in the Cascades, boating and fishing, beautiful scenery, active, varied and sophisticated arts scene, a state university, and best of all, the Portland area, including the nearby Willamette Valley, is home to many of the finest microbreweries in the nation as well as an up and coming wine industry. It would be a pretty easy sell for VW to get key people to transfer there and to attract more good people; as big cities go, Portland is a great place to live.
Ford inserting Sony stereos into future vehicles {Autoblog}
Jun 6th 2007 3:45AM "Audio performance" means different things to different people. If by performance, you mean, neighborhood awakening, spleen-rupturing bass output, it's true that no factory stereo will satisfy that market. I listen primarily to jazz and classical and find that the POS factory Sony/Audiophile package in my Focus reproduces a very satisfying kick drum and the subwoofer does a more than adequate job with either concert bass drums or 32-foot organ pedals. What's more, brass, strings and vocals sound quite natural at any volume my poor 50-year-old ears can stand.
I'm not telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. I just think that different tastes in music call for perhaps different requirements in sound equipment.
Ford inserting Sony stereos into future vehicles {Autoblog}
Jun 6th 2007 3:30AM I think that is great news. But Sony already has a foothold in the Ford camp. I own a 2006 Focus with the Sony/Audiophile system. The head is the usual Delphi unit but the rest, including the amps and speakers, are Sony. I think it is the best factory sound I've heard in a low-end (under 20 grand) car. You can get Bose audio in a Mazda 3-series, but you have to pony up for the top-of-the-line trim level to get it, which will cost north of 25 thou.
LaNeve says that Chevy ads must change {Autoblog}
Jun 6th 2007 3:03AM I don't think a "battle of the recalls" is the best way to measure quality. Toyotas and Hondas have had their share of recalls in recent years. So what! Recalls are measures of problems found. The operative word is "FOUND"! Yes, in a perfect world, problems would never be found because they would never happen.
I do care about reliability. But to me, that means: Am I getting Christmas cards from my dealership service manager? Will this car nickel and dime me to death? If something does break, does the dealership fix it right? The first time? Has this car ever left me stranded? If the transmission goes south one day after the warranty expires, will the company do anything for me? Or will somebody just read the warranty to me?
Toyotas aren't perfect but Toyota has established a long track record of taking care of its customers. To compare, GM is trying to overcome a long track record of screwing people. I think GM has done a lot to close the gap in build quality, but I remain yet to be convinced they have changed their fundamental attitudes towards doing business.
I still think GM has a bit of work to do before it can show Toyotas and Hondas in the same showroom for customers to compare with Chevys. I think Chevys compare well enough in terms of body fits and finishes, but they still lag significantly in two areas: INTERIOR fit an finish, and powertrain refinement.
Toyota, Honda and Chevy interiors all contain lots of plastic. But Toyota and Honda plastic FEELS better, LOOKS better and FITS better. Chevy is still too much Rubbermaid to be truly competitive with Toyota or Honda, to say nothing of the interior quality class leaders Volkswagen and Hyundai (Yes, Hyundai!).
With a Chevy, I get the feeling that some inspired design work went in, but that the bean counters came in and cheaped it out, nickel and dime at a time. They need to figure out that the interior is where the owner interfaces with the machine. The interior, at whatever level of car it is, HAS to make the occupants feel good about being there. ANYONE can make an expensive car interior feel good. It takes genius to make an inexpensive car interior a wonderful place to be. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Volkswagen have that nailed. GM still hasn't.
The other thing is, powertrain refinement. Toyota and Honda both offer silky-smooth engines, both fours and sixes. GM has the EcoTec four. It is plenty powerful and economical enough, but by comparison to a Toyota or Honda, it is an agricultural-sounding thrasher. Honda and Toyota also offer powerful, silent and flexible, silky V-6's. GM offers underpowered, antiquated, push-rod groaners. Yes, GM is starting to offer some up-to-date, "high-feature" (overhead cams, variable valve timing, etc.) V-6's, but you can't get them in most Chevys and you have to pay extra for them even in the so-called near-luxury Buick line! People DO CARE about what's under the hood! Toyota and Honda offer modern power plants across the board. GM still tries to fob off 60's technology in its lower and middle-priced lines.
The same is true in transmissions. You can get a bleeding -edge twin-clutch direct-shift automatic in a Volkswagen Jetta that sells in the low 20's. Even Ford now offers a decent modern 6-speed automatic AND a continuously variable automatic. What's more, Ford's relatively aged Focus comes with a really slick 5-speed MANUAL. GM's manuals don't even come close (except for the Corvette) and they still offer inefficient 70's-tech automatics on most Chevys and even many Buicks and Cadillacs!
I recently drove a Chevy Cobalt and was elated by the solid body structure, the quick predictable handling, the firm but supple ride. But I was HORRIFIED by the thrashing motor, the notchy shifter and the cheesy plastic in the interior. I think that kind of sums it up. Honda and Toyota good reliability and build quality, and GM cars pretty much match up on that level. But they don't offer ONLY good reliability and build quality. They also offer up-to-date engine and drivetrain technology, a more pleasing interior environment and an overall higher level of polish, balance and refinement that GM just can't seem to match. Or isn't willing to match. It is this extra "something" that makes people willing to spend more for a Honda or Toyota, NOT just their reputations for reliability. If Chevy offered the same level of build quality, high technology AND refinement in their Cobalt as Honda does in their Civic, maybe GM wouldn't have to give them away. They could even raise the price and people would PAY IT!
Celebrate 40 years of rotary power with Mazda {Autoblog}
May 31st 2007 3:12AM Over the years I've almost always bought European and so far, I've never owned a Japanese car, but I've long sworn that if and when I ever do buy Asian, it would be Mazda, because of their dedication to building technically imaginative, stylish, fun-to-drive cars that are reliable and value for money. (At 6'4' and 275 lbs, my head is too tall, my arms and legs are too long and my ass too fat for any of the Japanese cars I've liked well enough to consider buying.)
As for rotary engines though, there are still a couple of things about them that bother me. One, they are still very fuel inefficient for the power they produce. A recent issue of Car and Driver said that the RX-8 goes through fuel "like a private jet." OUCH! Hyperbole aside, in this age of spiraling fuel prices, this is a problem - especially when one can buy engines capable of equal or better performance but with far better fuel efficiency.
My other complaint is its lack of torque. The current RX-8 model is good for 212 hp but only a pitiful 159 lb/ft of torque. The fuel consumption says V-8, the horsepower says V-6, but the torque says inline 4, and only a modest four at that. One can go very fast in an RX-8 if you're willing to keep the loud pedal nailed to the floor and the revs near redline all day. This is OK on the track perhaps, but this lack of flexibility is intolerable in a daily driver in my opinion. I just don't like hearing an engine screaming at me all the time. This is probably why it gulps so much fuel; you always have to be flogging the poor dear to get any work done.
Just for grins, compare VW GTI with the RX-8.
VW GTI: 200 hp at 5,100 rpm, 207 lb/ft at only (get this!) 1,800 rpm.
Mazda RX-8: 232 hp (or 212 hp with the automatic) at a buzzing 7,500 rpm and a pissant 159 lb/ft of torque.
And for all the sound and fury, RX-8 fuel economy is 18 mpg city, 25 mpg highway (24 mpg with the manual). You can do that well in a Corvette! By comparison, the VW with DSG automatic gets 25 mpg city, 32 mpg highway. In real world driving (as opposed to the EPA cycle) I can tell you that it is practically impossible to get worse than 22 mpg in the VW, no matter how hard you drive it. But in the RX-8, Car and Driver got real-world fuel economy on its 600-mile cycle of mixed driving, of 15 mpg!! That is acceptable in an SUV or maybe a 4,000 lb anvil like the V-8 Mustang GT, but a 3,000 lb sports car? Not at today's prices!
Back to the torque issue:
With all of its torque available barely off idle and with a torque band as wide and flat as Kansas, the GTI pulls with "Hand of God" authority in just about any gear, from any speed. But according to Car and Driver, the RX-8, while offering competitive 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds, at a 50-70 mph passing time of over 10 seconds, puts on pretty damned poor showing. With comparable torque and 300 pounds lighter weight, a stove-stock Ford Focus can do better, and deliver 30 mpg besides!
The curb weights, handling limits and ultimate speed potentials of the Mazda RX-8 and VW GTI are really quite close, but in the RX-8 you have to keep the revs up - WAY up - and choose your gears with care. The bottom line is that the VW is just so much LESS WORK to drive fast, so much less fatiguing. And the fuel bill is much much less painful. I may yet someday buy a Mazda, but I doubt very much that I will look seriously at an RX-anything.
Seriously, gas isn't THAT expensive {Autoblog}
May 30th 2007 7:44PM I agree! I spent about 6 months living in Germany (both East and West) back in the 80's, when the U.S. dollar was flying at its still record high relative to the Deutsch mark (and all other European currencies for that matter), and I remember that gasoline went for the equivalent of about $3.50 - TWENTY YEARS AGO! If the dollar had been at today's value vis-a-vis the rest of the world's money, it would have been much higher. It was a shock at first to be sure, but I got used to it. I drove a VW Golf GTI which could sustain over 200 kph (125 mph) on the autobahn and I was happy.
Roll the clock forward up to 2007 and according to autospies.com, the price of gasoline in Germany this past weekend averaged €1.41 per liter (US$7.10 per gallon). Factoring in inflation since 1985 (when I lived in Germany) and then taking the precipitous drop of the dollar since then relative to other world currencies, and the price of gasoline hasn't risen as fast as the rate of inflation in Germany either.
The biggest reason for the huge difference between U.S. and Europe is taxes. Their gas taxes are truly sky-high. So I just have to grin when I hear my fellow Amurrikins kvetching about gas taxes. Where do the high European gas taxes go? They go toward maintaining their glass-smooth motorways. You don't see in western Europe the cracked, heaved and potholed embarrassments that pass for roads in the U.S. And they subsidize an extensive, clean, comfortable and fast network of commuter and intercity trains, which is the only reason, with the population density in Europe, that anyone can get anywhere by car.
As population densities in the U.S. continue to increase, we will need to look to Europe and Asia for leadership in how to fund more and better alternatives to automobiles in big cities or our traffic will become virtually gridlocked in every sizable metro area, not just the mega-cities like L.A., Chicago, etc. And those alternatives will cost money that has to come from somewhere.
As an automobile driver, I would be GLAD to pay more money at the pump, if my roads were kept in good shape and trains and buses were good enough so that people actually rode them, giving ME more room on the road to get where I am going in reasonable time.
Our current transportation infrastructure sucks, but since we still have the lowest fuel prices in the so-called "developed" world, it looks to me that we are getting what we are paying for. It's time to quit complaining and BUCK UP, people!!
