Automobile Technology Thread

[FordGT90Concept]

Despite the controversies... the research in this field is surprisingly comprehensive: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/LCA_of_Corn_Ethanol_2018_Report.pdf

This analysis takes into account the carbon footprint of fertilizer (N2O), Land-use, cost of animal feed, transport, fuel production (corn into ethanol), and the final tailpipe emissions from cars. The methodology is comprehensive, though the controversies seem to be the amount of greenhouse gasses used in each of these steps and the underlying assumptions.

View attachment 239210

So we can see that 2005-era Gasoline had a certain amount of tailpipe emissions + the cost of refining gasoline in the first place. This is the baseline.

Corn-Ethanol has higher greenhouse costs in producing the fuel, but all "tailpipe" emissions are net-carbon zero. As such, the calculations are that Ethanol is ~40% fewer greenhouse gasses under the measured 2018 statistics. The BAU (business as usual) assumptions, Ethanol will get slightly more efficient as more green-energy is added to the grid. HEHC was an optimistic assumption about green-energy being added to the grid (more solar panels / wind will reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions of Ethanol production).

The cost of refining gasoline has also dropped of course, but we can seee that the sum of 2018-era production costs of Ethanol is less than the tailpipe emissions of gasoline. So any advances in energy production (solar panels, nuclear, whatever) benefit ethanol more than others, especially because of the high-energy costs needed to make Nitrogen-fertilizers.

This is out of date:

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

Corn-based ethanol, which for years has been mixed in huge quantities into gasoline sold at U.S. pumps, is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline, according to a study published Monday.

www.reuters.com

Video explanation of the math/process:

TL;DR/W: need to incentivize ethanol from switchgrass and stop subsidizing ethanol from corn. Corn is too resource intensive for ethanol production.


My point of linking the Cummins thing previously was that there is some logic in making engines that run on 100% ethanol but these are engines that must be designed to burn exclusively ethanol or they get inefficient (Tiny Friendly Giant is one of those engines designed for ethanol). That article was in 2014 and the Renewable Fuel Standard (the ethanol-from-corn subsidy) is expiring this year. With the reporting above that ethanol isn't really clean and oil companies asking for RFS exemptions because there's not enough ethanol available for a reasonable price (this was before the Ukraine madness) to justify blending, renewal of the RFS seems unlikely. With no RFS, market forces will likely drive ethanol to local markets only rather than national.

Everything ethanol is very much in turmoil right now, at least in the United States.

 

[dragontamer5788]

TL;DR/W: need to incentivize ethanol from switchgrass and stop subsidizing ethanol from corn. Corn is too resource intensive for ethanol production.

The argument of the Lark 2022 study is that land-use changes were miscalculated, which is actually pretty complicated.

The original study from 2005 has land-use assumptions, but the study you posted has a 2nd set of land-use assumptions. So what do we do? Its pretty simple really, we do a meta-study, we review all of the studies and come to a conclusion.

The 2018 study I posted earlier is a meta-study. It reviewed multiple research papers to come to its conclusion. In contrast, the singular study you posted is just that, a single study.

The last factor to consider here is evidence suggesting that domestic LUC
emissions associated with U.S. corn ethanol production may not have been fully
accounted for to date. This evidence is developed in a set of recent studies that
utilize USDA’s Cropland Data Layer (CDL) series to examine changes in U.S.
agricultural land use that accompanied the increase in U.S. corn ethanol
production between 2004 and 2012. Examples include Wright and Wimberley
(2013), Lark et al. (2015), Motamed et al. (2016), Morefield et al. (2016), and
Wright et al. (2017).

This is the kind of language you want to see in a meta-studies based policy paper. You want to see the authors considering multiple points of view behind their calculations.

This is out of date:

The study you posted doesn't seem to talk about the USDA study from 2018 actually. At least, I went through its bibliography and somehow the researchers at Madison didn't account for the 2018 study's arguments? Did I read that right?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2101084119

Reading through the 2022 study by Lark, it _seems_ like they're basing their calculations on the 2005 study, rather than the revised 2018 study as well. I'm not sure how much that changes things though.

Lark seems to be one of the researchers who has constantly participated in the debate (with the 2018 big-meta study from ICF/USDA referencing Lark's 2015 paper). Its important to remember that Lark is just one voice out of dozens in the field.

-----------

That's all the time I got for now. But I think you've made a similar error here as the other discussion topic you and I have had. You're trying to disprove a meta-study with just a singular study. Meta-studies have more "power" because meta-studies read many papers / different voices and then accounts for all of their arguments. In contrast, singular studies (like what Lark does here) are just one voice, so to speak, one set of assumptions.

I admit that I haven't read too deeply into any of these studies, they're many many pages. But this isn't a situation where you just take the latest study and assume its correct, you gotta actually read them, evaluate them on their methodologies and make a conclusion. Ultimately, I assign more "power" to meta-studies because that just makes sense.

 

[erocker]

Ford has their 3-piston engine, a miracle as far as I'm concerned. Its damn near impossible for my brain to figure out how 3-pistons can fire without going off balance.

This is a 2.0L 4cyl Ecoboost looking at it with the oil pan off from the bottom. The thing circled is the balance shaft assembly. Shafts and weights and counterweights all packaged into that thing that hangs right below the crankshaft. Pretty cool how it keeps things smooth.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The argument of the Lark 2022 study is that land-use changes were miscalculated, which is actually pretty complicated.

The original study from 2005 has land-use assumptions, but the study you posted has a 2nd set of land-use assumptions. So what do we do? Its pretty simple really, we do a meta-study, we review all of the studies and come to a conclusion.

The 2018 study I posted earlier is a meta-study. It reviewed multiple research papers to come to its conclusion. In contrast, the singular study you posted is just that, a single study.



This is the kind of language you want to see in a meta-studies based policy paper. You want to see the authors considering multiple points of view behind their calculations.



The study you posted doesn't seem to talk about the USDA study from 2018 actually. At least, I went through its bibliography and somehow the researchers at Madison didn't account for the 2018 study's arguments? Did I read that right?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2101084119

Reading through the 2022 study by Lark, it _seems_ like they're basing their calculations on the 2005 study, rather than the revised 2018 study as well. I'm not sure how much that changes things though.

Lark seems to be one of the researchers who has constantly participated in the debate (with the 2018 big-meta study from ICF/USDA referencing Lark's 2015 paper). Its important to remember that Lark is just one voice out of dozens in the field.

-----------

That's all the time I got for now. But I think you've made a similar error here as the other discussion topic you and I have had. You're trying to disprove a meta-study with just a singular study. Meta-studies have more "power" because meta-studies read many papers / different voices and then accounts for all of their arguments. In contrast, singular studies (like what Lark does here) are just one voice, so to speak, one set of assumptions.

I admit that I haven't read too deeply into any of these studies, they're many many pages. But this isn't a situation where you just take the latest study and assume its correct, you gotta actually read them, evaluate them on their methodologies and make a conclusion. Ultimately, I assign more "power" to meta-studies because that just makes sense.

The problem with the 2018 paper is that they failed to consider land that was not used for corn production being put into use to produce corn because of the corn subsidy which takes decades (at best) to recover it's high carbon cost. Grazing land (which is what the acres were before) is a net negative on carbon emissions replaced with corn which is a net positive for carbon emissions. Corn is not a net negative because of all the fertilizers (a fossil fuel product) and mechanical effort that goes into production of it. All of these costs must be added to the cycle. And remember, the end product is that you're burning the ethanol which goes into the air. If there was absolutely no costs associated with the cycle than it would be net zero but the inputs are massive.

Nitrates (which corn depletes fast) is a product of natural gas:

Nitrogen fertilizers – Manufacturing process of Nitrogen fertilizers :

Nitrogen fertilizers – Manufacturing process of Nitrogen fertilizers :

guichon-valves.com

Which is why UK ran into a problem last year:

Britain tells its food industry to prepare for CO2 price shock

Britain warned its food producers on Wednesday to prepare for a 400% rise in carbon dioxide prices after extending emergency state support to avert a shortage of poultry and meat triggered by soaring costs of wholesale natural gas.

www.reuters.com

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a by-product of the fertilizer industry - Britain's main source of CO2 - where natural gas is the biggest input cost.

Already a shortage of fertilizer in the USA:

Fertilizer shortage may lead to spring scramble on North America's farms

A global shortage of nitrogen fertilizer is driving prices to record levels, prompting North America's farmers to delay purchases and raising the risk of a spring scramble to apply the crop nutrient before planting season.

www.reuters.com

Then, prices of natural gas, a key input in producing nitrogen, soared in Europe due to high demand and low supplies.

So when you're talking about corn production, you're actually talking about fossil fuel production. The two are inevitably coupled which is why this ethanol system (based on corn anyway) is destructive.

 

[dragontamer5788]

The problem with the 2018 paper is that they failed to consider land that was not used for corn production being put into use to produce corn because of the corn subsidy which takes decades (at best) to recover it's high carbon cost.

This effect is clearly documented on page 20.

Nitrates (which corn depletes fast) is a product of natural gas:

Calculated already. Page 8.

So when you're talking about corn production, you're actually talking about fossil fuel production.

And all of that calculated together is less than gasoline's GHG emissions. The total life-cycle has been completely analyzed in the 2018 meta-study, including papers and discussions from a wide variety of researchers.

I do realize that the 2018 paper is 120-pages long and the details are very dry and boring to read. But please review it if you're actually going to make a discussion point regarding the paper: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/LCA_of_Corn_Ethanol_2018_Report.pdf

 

[FordGT90Concept]

From your 2018 paper:

Lark et al. (2015) present estimates of acreage and emissions impacts but these are only indicative of the link they argue exists between decreases in native prairie and increases in corn ethanol production. For the period 2008 – 2012, they estimate that nationally: 1) 1.6 million acres of long-term (20 + years) unimproved grasslands were converted to cropland; 2) 1.04 million acres of land not cultivated for at least 40 years were converted to cropland; and a range for GHG emissions of 94 to 186 MMTCO2e for recently converted lands used to grown corn or soybeans. For the reasons discussed below, the CDL based approach cannot yet accurately identify ethanol driven conversions of native grasslands to cropland or confidently estimate the associated GHG emissions. For the reasons developed below. We do not incorporate the results of these analyses into our analysis.

While Lark et al. (2015) incorporated additional land use data and other information to increase the probability of isolating conversions of native grasslands within the CDLs, their results are, at best, a first approximation of how much native grassland may have been converted to cropland over the period 2008 to 2012.

They literally ignored Lark's research. Now, 7 years later, the numbers have roughly doubled from 1.6 million acres to 2.8 of crop land converted to corn and 1.04 million acres to 2.1 million acres have been converted from non-agriculture use into crop land. This caused fertilizer (natural gas) use to climb by 3-8% and water quality to degrade 3-5%.

Further, Table 2-2 projects natural gas use for agriculture from 2010 to 2022 would fall by 5.6% but it has only increased while demand for ethanol blended fuel has dropped.

Looks to me like USDA wants to change everything to natural gas while completely failing to acknowledge that natural gas is a fossil fuel and only half as clean as coal. Elimination of natural gas should be the goal; meanwhile they're promoting it with RFS.

They devote very little effort to discussing the fertilizer problem that Lark covers as well. As already noted, fertilizer production is very carbon intensive. You cannot do corn on the same acres year over year without spending a fortune on fossil-fuel based fertilizers to replenish nitrates.

Short version is we have 10 more years of data and USDA got it very wrong. Lark was right in 2015 and USDA was wrong to dismiss it. USDA is incentivized to reject all evidence that suggests RFS is a bad policy because it would lose billions of dollars worth of subsidies from Congress that it controls.


Switchgrass ethanol is great, all others are bad.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Lark was right in 2015

And to prove this, you are quoting Lark from 2022. Do you not see the problem with the circular nature of your argument? Fundamentally, it comes down to you trusting Lark's argument for some reason.

Its a pretty simple "he said vs she-said" situation.

USDA is incentivized to reject all evidence that suggests RFS is a bad policy because it would lose billions of dollars worth of subsidies from Congress that it controls.

But the USDA results are confirmed by Department of Energy as well. Do you have a reason why DoE would also be incentivized for the same reason? IMO, Lark just wants to prove himself correct and is doubling down upon his study from 2015. A more human approach, that explains why he's come across the same result after another 7 years. And I bet you that 10 years from now, if Lark is still working, he'll come up with anti-Ethanol research again.

Here's the research from Department of Energy / Argonne National Labs, specifically: https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ethanol-ghg-reduction-with-greet.pdf

Frankly, I don't buy your line of argument at all. Between the argument of "USDA and DOE both made the same mistake" vs "Lark is being hyperbolic in his arguments", the Occam's Razor is that Lark is being hyperbolic.

Notice: Argonne National Labs is quite explicit about also calculating the LUC (land-use changes) that you (and Lark) are discussing.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

To quote one of the authors of the 2022 study:

Environmental Outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard

In December 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) legislation, essentially mandating that an area the size of Kentucky be used to grow corn to make ethanol for transportation fuel. It is called RFS2 because it followed on the heels of 2005's RFS1. Under the...

asmith.ucdavis.edu

Previous studies were projecting into the future, so they relied heavily on modeling. We have the benefit of hindsight, which enables us to see how actual land use has changed. We do need to model what land use would have been like without the RFS2 (business as usual), but our findings are driven by actual land use patterns in the United States.

It is worth noting that GREET painted ethanol as cleaner than CARB and EPA did (lower baseline). If you assume GREET is right, this study shows ethanol is only a few percent better than gasoline. The target for RFS was a 20% reduction. None of the models, including the actual land use changes, comes close to 20% reduction which means it isn't justified as a policy.

And I bet you that 10 years from now, if Lark is still working, he'll come up with anti-Ethanol research again.

The numbers got worse because RFS driving up corn prices encourages farmers to grow more. On top of that, ethanol producers are trying to build pipelines across thousands of acres of the most fertile farmland in the world in order to pipe carbon dioxide thousands of miles into the ground in an attempt to contain their high emissions. Farmers are not selling out and the threat of eminent domain is real:

U.S. Midwest carbon pipeline has secured less than 2% of key Iowa route, filings show

Landowners in Iowa have been slow to cede their property rights to a 2,000-mile (3,219 km) proposed carbon dioxide pipeline that would cut through the U.S. Midwest, an analysis by Reuters has found.

www.reuters.com

Why would they be rushing to spend millions of dollars on carbon capture and sequestration if GREET were right? These are businesses; they only do something if it is profitable. Consider this: their own internal models are showing the same thing Lark et. al. is showing the public and are rushing to reduce emissions to justify keeping the RFS.


For the record, Lark isn't the first to sound the alarm. Tim Searchinger et. al. did the same back in 2008:

Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change - PubMed

Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We've also seen the devastation of pushing for ethanol on the Amazon rainforest:

Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon rainforest hits record January high

Brazil recorded the most deforestation ever in the Amazon rainforest for the month of January, according to government data on Friday, as destruction continues to worsen despite the government's recent pledges to bring it under control.

www.reuters.com

Which was set off by this policy:

Brazil bill seeks to open Amazon to new ethanol mills

viable

www.reuters.com

RFS has been in effect since 2005 and if it had any impact, it slightly increased the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (as Lark and Searchinger said and predicted it would):

Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

Models are never 100%. Believe what you want.


Edit: Speak of the devil, literally today:

U.S. ethanol industry banks on carbon capture to solve emissions problem

U.S. ethanol producers are betting heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and secure a place for the corn-based fuel in a climate-friendly future, according to industry groups and executives.

www.reuters.com

 

[dorsetknob]

Its damn near impossible for my brain to figure out how 3-pistons can fire without going off balance.

I believe there is an unbalanced rocking.

Laverda Motercycles produced both 120 and 180 degree crank firing order crankshaft based moters​

120 degree firing order is Balanced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laverda_1000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-three_engine

 

[dragontamer5788]

None of the models, including the actual land use changes, comes close to 20% reduction which means it isn't justified as a policy.

Argonne National Labs GREET model is literally a 42% reduction including land use changes. I've put an arrow on the slide, because somehow you missed this detail.

Tim Searchinger et. al. did the same back in 2008

Models can be wrong. So we look at many models from many different researchers. You're focusing on the singular model that stands far, far higher in GHG than the rest of them.

 

[Shrek]

Laverda Motercycles produced both 120 and 180 degree crank firing order crankshaft based moters​

120 degree firing order is Balanced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laverda_1000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-three_engine

"To give the engine a more even firing cycle and better balance, the crankshaft throws were changed to 120° in 1982, giving rise to the Jota 120."

"however an end-to-end rocking couple is induced"

That is why I wrote 'unbalanced rocking'

 

[dragontamer5788]

Does anybody have a review of Ford's eCVT?

I'm particularly interested in the Ford Escape specifically, but most Ford Escape reviews seem to be about the 1.5L Ecoboost (3-cylinder) or Turbocharged Escape, not the Hybrid or PHEV versions. The few reviews talking about the Hybrid / PHEV versions mention its eCVT but that's it.

I saw one article discussing the eCVT in the Ford Maverick, but nothing for the Ford Escape 2020+ models yet.

------

Overall, the Ford Escape looks like its a cheaper, slower, RAV4 Prime. That's probably a good thing? Ford Escape PHEV 7.7s zero-to-sixty is fast enough for me (Rav4 Prime zero-to-sixty is a speedy 5.5s).

Furthermore, all RAV4 Primes are sold out in my area, so Ford Escape PHEV is a reasonable replacement. (Also, my mom drives a RAV4 so I'd feel really weird buying one)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Argonne National Labs GREET model is literally a 42% reduction including land use changes. I've put an arrow on the slide, because somehow you missed this detail.

View attachment 239446




View attachment 239455

Models can be wrong. So we look at many models from many different researchers. You're focusing on the singular model that stands far, far higher in GHG than the rest of them.

Supporting Lark's modeling...

Relocating farmland could turn back clock twenty years on carbon emissions, say scientists

Scientists have produced a map showing where the world's major food crops should be grown to maximize yield and minimize environmental impact. This would capture large amounts of carbon, increase biodiversity, and cut agricultural use of freshwater to zero.

phys.org

...less is more when it comes to the environment.

As much as I hate to admit it, electric vehicles are cleaner than ethanol. Hydrogen is preferable to both.

 

[dragontamer5788]

As much as I hate to admit it, electric vehicles are cleaner than ethanol. Hydrogen is preferable to both.

I think I can agree to that.

Ethanol is undoubtedly 100% American sources however, which is important in this geopolitical climate (even if we disagree on the greenhouse gas counting)

------

Hybrids seem superior in the short term, as we don't have enough lithium / nickel / cobalt production to mass EVs yet.

10 million hybrids or PHEVs will be better than 2 million EVs.

EDIT: Ford Escape / RAV4 PHEV has 14.4 kw-hrs of Li-Ion battery. Polestar2 has 75 kw-hrs, so yeah, 10-million PHEVs vs 2-million full-EVs is approximately the ratio real life will have.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The best way to improve automobiles may actually be to get as many people as possible walking, biking, and riding public transport. Every person not driving is a car off the road making the driving experience better for those that must drive (e.g. live rural).

This channel covers everything on the topic from traffic slowing to city design/density (e.g. how American/Canadian suburbs are effectively a Ponzi scheme for cities). I highly recommend watching all of the videos with the orange text on the thumbnail:

https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Explanation of brake mean effective pressure which is the best way to compare internal combustion engines:

 

[dragontamer5788]

The best way to improve automobiles may actually be to get as many people as possible walking, biking, and riding public transport. Every person not driving is a car off the road making the driving experience better for those that must drive (e.g. live rural).

I agree on this particular value. But applying it in practice may be a bit difficult. I personally have begun to take the bus once a week to work. Even factoring in car maintenance / depreciation, its barely breaking even (but with the current high gas prices, I might be slightly ahead with the bus).

What I've found useful is taking advantage of "transit hubs", locations that my municipality / state have deemed the center of transit. Malls in particular have 5+ bus lines running through them, meaning I can often drive to a mall -> take a bus to where I need to go.

Because busses only run once-per-hour in my area (or worse: 6 times per day for the commuter busses: 3 runs in the morning + 3 runs at night), routes that have 1 transfer skyrocket the time to 1+ hour bus rides, which is impractical. However, my car -> transit hub -> bus -> destination -> bus -> transit hub -> car -> home is a convenient and valid path (I get to my destination within 30 minutes total time, including transfers), and it does cut out many miles of my car driving. Furthermore, malls have plenty of free parking (and no one seems to have complained to me about leaving my car there for a whole day).

Given that the bus schedules are public, and all busses have GPS trackers that work with cell phones these days ("Transit" app on Android store is where all of my local bus GPS signals are), I can very easily time my trip to the mall and catch the bus without much waiting.

---------

AAA estimates ~7-cents per mile gasoline price (lol, assuming $2.36 / gallon @35mpg). This is probably closer to 11-cents to 20-cents/mile for most people. In addition, there's 8 to 10-cents per mile of maintenance: tires, oil, brakes, fluids, battery. Finally, there's depreciation, but depreciation of cars occurs over miles AND time, so its rather difficult to account for (it depends on how much you drive / year... but if you switch to the bus, you'll be driving less per year). https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-YDC-Brochure-Live.pdf

For gasoline + maintenance alone, a $2 bus trip at 15-cents gasoline/mile ($4 /gallon @ 26MPG) + 10-cent maintenance/mile breaks even around 8-miles. A $1.50 bus trip breaks even at 6 miles.

The AAA model seems a bit wrong to me for depreciation: suggesting $3000 to $4000 of depreciation per 15,000 miles (20-cents to 25-cents per mile of depreciation), suggesting depreciation is even more costly than gasoline + maintenance costs combined. I guess AAA assumes people are driving new cars or something? With this model of depreciation, a 4-mile bus trip @ $2 or a 3-mile bus trip @ $1.50 is all you need to break even.

Depreciation costs are clearly the hardest to account for. But they must be accounted for, because they're one of the largest costs associated with cars. Even more than fuel costs or maintenance costs apparently. Of course, most cars appreciated over the past year (wtf this economy) so driving a car could have technically made you money over the past year, lol.

--------

I guess the TL/DR is that for a $2 bus ride, the break even point in practice is somewhere between 4 to 8 miles, with depreciation as the largest factor of uncertainty. There's also the added benefit of not driving in stop-and-go traffic, so pretty much all city-driving is superior on a bus / subway IMO (stop-and-go traffic suuuucccks)

 

[dragontamer5788]

A few years later, I've decided its time to bump the topic.

My car is ticking up to 10-years-old. While its still working, a lot of these new technologies (backup camera, PHEV, Android Auto) are tempting me. I've noticed that the car market is finally declining in price... and I've been saving up some money. So now is the time to kickstart my research again, and think of seriously car shopping!!

My opinions on PHEVs / Hybrids have remained the same. I still think they're the best. The main difference today is that the 2024 Prius Prime came out of nowhere and looks way better than before. Additionally, the Ford Escape is being discontinued in 2025, discouraging me from thinking about it. There are new PHEV / EV tax-credit rules as well, though I don't quite understand them yet.

It seems like Hybrid / PHEVs have many different flavors. The most common "Prius-style" is 2x electric motors + 1x ICE hooked up to a differential-like planetary gear system, as demonstrated by this above video. Ford Escape, Prius / Prius Prime, RAV4, Chrysler Pacifica have all chosen this design. It looks like there were demos nearly 17 years ago (http://eahart.com/prius/psd/) that also helped you understand this set of gears on the Prius.

----------

There is also the Honda Accord system:

Despite the "eCVT" branding from Honda, I'd describe the system as... transmission-free. The ICE-engine is hooked up to a 1x gear ratio system, while the Electric-engine is hooked up to 1x gear system as well. The EV engine handles low speeds, while the ICE-engine handles high speeds.

----------

By the theories of operation, I like the Prius/Ford/Chrysler common system the most. It means that the EV-engine could drive the car itself... albeit with much worse performance especially at highway speeds... but possible nonetheless. Meanwhile, the ICE-engine can collaborate with the Generator+EV engines to create many different gear ratios, formulating a CVT-like experience (without any of the belts or pullies of a traditional CVT system).

More importantly, Prius / RAV4 / Ford Escape all have good reliability as per Consumer Reports surveys. (Lol Pacifica: they have tons of problems apparently...)

--------

I've looked at a few "Luxury" models, like Volvo, Lexus. Just to see if anything on the higher price ranges look nice. Volvo has integrated child-booster seats on their XC60 SUV. Lincoln has massage chairs (lol). Heads Up Displays seem to only exist on luxury vehicles like these, and I'm not quite sure if the $15,000+ extra bucks is really worth it. But I'll be looking around if there's a cheap HUD somewhere for me to buy. But... I'll probably not get that feature.

 

[Hyderz]

A few years later, I've decided its time to bump the topic.

My car is ticking up to 10-years-old. While its still working, a lot of these new technologies (backup camera, PHEV, Android Auto) are tempting me. I've noticed that the car market is finally declining in price... and I've been saving up some money. So now is the time to kickstart my research again, and think of seriously car shopping!!

My opinions on PHEVs / Hybrids have remained the same. I still think they're the best. The main difference today is that the 2024 Prius Prime came out of nowhere and looks way better than before. Additionally, the Ford Escape is being discontinued in 2025, discouraging me from thinking about it. There are new PHEV / EV tax-credit rules as well, though I don't quite understand them yet.

It seems like Hybrid / PHEVs have many different flavors. The most common "Prius-style" is 2x electric motors + 1x ICE hooked up to a differential-like planetary gear system, as demonstrated by this above video. Ford Escape, Prius / Prius Prime, RAV4, Chrysler Pacifica have all chosen this design. It looks like there were demos nearly 17 years ago (http://eahart.com/prius/psd/) that also helped you understand this set of gears on the Prius.

----------

There is also the Honda Accord system:

Despite the "eCVT" branding from Honda, I'd describe the system as... transmission-free. The ICE-engine is hooked up to a 1x gear ratio system, while the Electric-engine is hooked up to 1x gear system as well. The EV engine handles low speeds, while the ICE-engine handles high speeds.

----------

By the theories of operation, I like the Prius/Ford/Chrysler common system the most. It means that the EV-engine could drive the car itself... albeit with much worse performance especially at highway speeds... but possible nonetheless. Meanwhile, the ICE-engine can collaborate with the Generator+EV engines to create many different gear ratios, formulating a CVT-like experience (without any of the belts or pullies of a traditional CVT system).

More importantly, Prius / RAV4 / Ford Escape all have good reliability as per Consumer Reports surveys. (Lol Pacifica: they have tons of problems apparently...)

--------

I've looked at a few "Luxury" models, like Volvo, Lexus. Just to see if anything on the higher price ranges look nice. Volvo has integrated child-booster seats on their XC60 SUV. Lincoln has massage chairs (lol). Heads Up Displays seem to only exist on luxury vehicles like these, and I'm not quite sure if the $15,000+ extra bucks is really worth it. But I'll be looking around if there's a cheap HUD somewhere for me to buy. But... I'll probably not get that feature.

I will be looking at a new card next year… I’m not a fan of touch screen settings…. I prefer certain functions to be analogue…. Volvo xc60 is a nice car and i have been in a few times. I’m also checking out the new Mercedes Benz glc, I’m still researching into what is the benefit of a plug in hybrid…

 

[dragontamer5788]

I’m still researching into what is the benefit of a plug in hybrid…

Do you want to run a majority of your miles off of electricity while still using gasoline for long road-trips? Are you willing to pay a few $thousand extra for this feature?

That's it in a nutshell. Electricity is far cheaper than gasoline after all and has environmental benefits.

------------------

The devil is in the details however. In the general case, all hybrids / PHEVs use 100% electrical power at 0rpm / 0mph, because electric is more efficient and higher torque at 0rpm.

The implementations differ at 65mph highway driving. Honda would be mostly ICE by then, while Prius Prime / Ford Escape are EV while cruising, but ICE while accelerating. At highway speeds, ICE becomes far more efficient and therefore worthwhile to use. Both Prius Prime + Ford Escape PHEV have a button to disable the ICE, but it hampers performance significantly.

Like 0-60 times are ~6.5 seconds for Prius Prime/Ford Escape PHEV when in ICE+EV mode (both sides can push the car forward and participate in acceleration). But when you disable the ICE, then it takes 11+ seconds or slower for 0-60 times.

----------

Because I like the Prius Prime / Ford Escape implementation the most, I'll post another short video describing how the PSD works and how all of these forces are pushed into the "Power Split Device" / set of planetary gears that allows the EV + ICE to work together so smoothly.

This is why Ford Escape PHEV has a button to switch into low-performance EV-only mode. Because you can run (even at highway speeds, albeit with poor acceleration) on pure EV battery. So you have the capability to switch to 100% electric within the ~40 miles. Then the gasoline ICE engine takes over when you run out of juice.

Or, you can have a peppy / higher performance car as ICE+EV combine for superior performance. Which is how I'd plan to use the vehicle.

----------

Honda PHEV is closer to a 2-gear implementation, where the EV is hooked up to one gear and the ICE is hooked up to another gear. Both can push the car together, but only at the specific gear ratio they've been designed at. That's why the ICE mostly takes over by highway speeds, because the ICE is more efficient in this implementation.

Volvo's PHEV is closer to a "mega-starter". If you imagine, the purpose of a starter is to spin the ICE engine to the speed where it can start up (pistons cannot accept gasoline until the engine is spinning). Volvo just replaces the starter with a big, beefy EV motor, and turns the entire system, engine transmission and all. This leads to the most tradtional-feeling car experience, while delivering a significant amount of electrification to your daily routine. (less than Ford Escape/Prius Prime however. It sounds like due to this arrangement, Volvo's ICE is always using a bit of gasoline, but less so when assisted by the mega-starter / EV motor). Volvo's engine is also traditional Otto cycle IIRC, meaning it has far higher performance and vroom-vroom.

Case in point: Volvo XC60 has 0-60 times in 4.2 seconds, but this beefier engine only has 28mpg. In contrast, Atkinson cycle Ford Escape PHEV is 40mph, while Prius Prime hits 50mpg. This mpg describes is "pure gasoline" mode after the "EV half" runs out of charge.

I will be looking at a new card next year… I’m not a fan of touch screen settings…. I prefer certain functions to be analogue…. Volvo xc60 is a nice car and i have been in a few times.

I'm not "against" touchscreens per se.

Its more like... I've never seen a good touchscreen in any car yet. Every touchscreen is a laggy, "flat" mess. Without any feel on the panel, I don't know where the buttons are and worse, the buttons move while I'm driving / doing things, so I can't "blindly" push a button anymore.

There have been newer touchscreen interfaces that fix some problems. Ford Sync4 leaves many buttons in the same place constantly. But it still sucks because I can't "feel" the buttons.

I hope UI programmers eventually figure out what is needed to make touchscreens / capacitive useful. But for now, the traditional buttons are just better.