Mazda President on Rotary Future
09-27-2006, 03:32 PM
#51
Purveyor of fine bass
Originally Posted by ASH8
He says it is more likely the car may be fitted with a slightly larger engine, probably a 2.3-litre four-cylinder with direct injection technology to give the car a mid-life boost."
09-27-2006, 04:09 PM
#52
Registered User
Originally Posted by saturn
The emissions laws in Europe for CO2 are more strict, but not for NOx. This is why (or because) diesel is so prominent there.
I still bet the US (certainly Cali) is more stringent on everything, but I would love to look at a source if you have one.
-Mr. Wigggles
09-27-2006, 04:21 PM
#53
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://blog.wired.com/cars/#1563396
here's a pretty good site, there are a few articles related to fuel cell and hydrogen, but here's the best (also on the same link is an article about an all electric SUV):
Topic: Fuel Cells
The advances in fuel cell vehicle technology indicate that we may have cars that run on hydrogen within a decade, thus kicking efforts into hydrogen research into high gear. .
GM is road testing 100 of its new Equinox fuel cell vehicles in New York, California, and D.C., and has also given the military a vehicle to test (but not in a field operation). GM says this is the largest fuel cell fleet of an individual vehicle prototype anywhere. If we conservatively say the vehicles cost $100K each to make, that's a $10 million investment from GM, which has gambled its future (to a certain extent) on FCVs.
Honda says that in 2008 it will start limited production of its FCX vehicle that has been in development for a decade. The vehicle has a range of greater than 340 mile range, which is comparable to some sedans.
While there is considerable research being done on hydrogen production technologies, the investment needed to start building an infrastructure won't really happen until we get commercially viable FCVs. If the slow roll out of biofuels is any indication, it will take at least a decade for there to be hydrogen fueling stations in the largest metropolitan areas. I may be collecting social security by the time that happens.
here's a pretty good site, there are a few articles related to fuel cell and hydrogen, but here's the best (also on the same link is an article about an all electric SUV):
Topic: Fuel Cells
The advances in fuel cell vehicle technology indicate that we may have cars that run on hydrogen within a decade, thus kicking efforts into hydrogen research into high gear. .
GM is road testing 100 of its new Equinox fuel cell vehicles in New York, California, and D.C., and has also given the military a vehicle to test (but not in a field operation). GM says this is the largest fuel cell fleet of an individual vehicle prototype anywhere. If we conservatively say the vehicles cost $100K each to make, that's a $10 million investment from GM, which has gambled its future (to a certain extent) on FCVs.
Honda says that in 2008 it will start limited production of its FCX vehicle that has been in development for a decade. The vehicle has a range of greater than 340 mile range, which is comparable to some sedans.
While there is considerable research being done on hydrogen production technologies, the investment needed to start building an infrastructure won't really happen until we get commercially viable FCVs. If the slow roll out of biofuels is any indication, it will take at least a decade for there to be hydrogen fueling stations in the largest metropolitan areas. I may be collecting social security by the time that happens.
09-27-2006, 04:38 PM
#54
Registered User
When it comes to alternative fuels, we have been spoiled by gasoline and super fast refueling time.
If you have every complained about how long it takes to fuel your car consider this. When you pump at a gas station you typically get 1 gallon every 10 seconds. This means you are transfering 170 million joules every 10 seconds from the pump to your car. You are "charging" your car at a rate of 17 Megawatts or a good!!!
If you wanted to charge an electric vehicle that fast from lets say your 240 Volt mains at your house. You would need pull current at 70,000 Amps! If you kicked on a load like that you might take down the grid. 17 Megawatts is about 5% of the capacity from a good sized power plant.
There are more innefficiencies in burning gasoline than charging batteries, but you get my point.
Hydrocarbons of some form will long be in our future.
-Mr. Wigggles
If you have every complained about how long it takes to fuel your car consider this. When you pump at a gas station you typically get 1 gallon every 10 seconds. This means you are transfering 170 million joules every 10 seconds from the pump to your car. You are "charging" your car at a rate of 17 Megawatts or a good!!!
If you wanted to charge an electric vehicle that fast from lets say your 240 Volt mains at your house. You would need pull current at 70,000 Amps! If you kicked on a load like that you might take down the grid. 17 Megawatts is about 5% of the capacity from a good sized power plant.
There are more innefficiencies in burning gasoline than charging batteries, but you get my point.
Hydrocarbons of some form will long be in our future.
-Mr. Wigggles
09-28-2006, 12:36 AM
#55
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Astral
The only direct-injected 2.3L I4 is the turbo DISI engine in the Mazdaspeed3, Mazdaspeed6 and CX-7. So this really means a Mazdaspeed CX-5 in the future, IMO.
I think you mean a Mazdaspeed MX-5
A CX-5 is coming as a hybrid SUV...your Tribute replacement...
09-28-2006, 09:04 AM
#56
Purveyor of fine bass
Originally Posted by ASH8
I think you mean a Mazdaspeed MX-5
A CX-5 is coming as a hybrid SUV...your Tribute replacement...
A CX-5 is coming as a hybrid SUV...your Tribute replacement...
09-28-2006, 06:07 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the moment
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Our engines do not have direct injection. Their fuel injectors are in the intake and mix with the incoming air before it enters the engine. As the rotor turns it compresses both the air and the fuel together. some of this fuel can stick to the sides of the housings of the rotor face.
In direct injection, the fuel is injected into the engine right before the ignition point. It is injected after the rotor compresses the incoming air. No fuel is introduced in the intake manifold and only air is compressed as the rotor turns.
The advantages to this are that the combustion of the fuel can be more precisely controlled. Fuel is far less likely to stick to housings or rotors and more of it is likely to combust. It is more efficient which makes it cleaner burning, more fuel efficient, and more powerful.
The disadvantage is that it is very complicated to pull off successfully. Mazda has been playing with rotor dish shapes and injector locations and spray patterns for years to determine the proper setup. Timing of the fuel injection event is also very critical as you have a very short amount of time to inject sucessfully. It is much more critical than in conventional fuel injection. It also takes special fuel injectors that can withstand combustion chamber temperatures. Aftermarket ecu's can not at this time control the specialized timing events of direct injected engines so don't expect a piggyback capable of controlling it any time soon. It will happen one day though.
Diesel engines are direct injected. Due to the shorter amount of time necessary to inject the proper amount of fuel and the need for a finer mist, diesel fuel pressures have gone sky high with some approaching 23,000 psi!!! Even the old mechanical diesel injectors were high in comparison to standard gasoline fuel injection and they still ran at over 200 psi. The average for a fuel injected gasoline engine is between 38-42 psi.
What we will see in the future as more gasoline engines move towards direct injection is that fuel pressures will also rise. They will probably always stay below what diesel pressures are but they will go higher than they are now standard. Slowly gasoline engines are going to become closer and closer in the way they work to diesel engines.
There are many great things left to come and there is always the rotary equivalent! We still have much hope.
In direct injection, the fuel is injected into the engine right before the ignition point. It is injected after the rotor compresses the incoming air. No fuel is introduced in the intake manifold and only air is compressed as the rotor turns.
The advantages to this are that the combustion of the fuel can be more precisely controlled. Fuel is far less likely to stick to housings or rotors and more of it is likely to combust. It is more efficient which makes it cleaner burning, more fuel efficient, and more powerful.
The disadvantage is that it is very complicated to pull off successfully. Mazda has been playing with rotor dish shapes and injector locations and spray patterns for years to determine the proper setup. Timing of the fuel injection event is also very critical as you have a very short amount of time to inject sucessfully. It is much more critical than in conventional fuel injection. It also takes special fuel injectors that can withstand combustion chamber temperatures. Aftermarket ecu's can not at this time control the specialized timing events of direct injected engines so don't expect a piggyback capable of controlling it any time soon. It will happen one day though.
Diesel engines are direct injected. Due to the shorter amount of time necessary to inject the proper amount of fuel and the need for a finer mist, diesel fuel pressures have gone sky high with some approaching 23,000 psi!!! Even the old mechanical diesel injectors were high in comparison to standard gasoline fuel injection and they still ran at over 200 psi. The average for a fuel injected gasoline engine is between 38-42 psi.
What we will see in the future as more gasoline engines move towards direct injection is that fuel pressures will also rise. They will probably always stay below what diesel pressures are but they will go higher than they are now standard. Slowly gasoline engines are going to become closer and closer in the way they work to diesel engines.
There are many great things left to come and there is always the rotary equivalent! We still have much hope.
RG, thank you for this and your continued patience with some of us non-detailed oriented members. Good stuff.
09-28-2006, 07:00 PM
#58
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrWigggles
When it comes to alternative fuels, we have been spoiled by gasoline and super fast refueling time.
If you have every complained about how long it takes to fuel your car consider this. When you pump at a gas station you typically get 1 gallon every 10 seconds. This means you are transfering 170 million joules every 10 seconds from the pump to your car. You are "charging" your car at a rate of 17 Megawatts or a good!!!
If you wanted to charge an electric vehicle that fast from lets say your 240 Volt mains at your house. You would need pull current at 70,000 Amps! If you kicked on a load like that you might take down the grid. 17 Megawatts is about 5% of the capacity from a good sized power plant.
There are more innefficiencies in burning gasoline than charging batteries, but you get my point.
Hydrocarbons of some form will long be in our future.
-Mr. Wigggles
If you have every complained about how long it takes to fuel your car consider this. When you pump at a gas station you typically get 1 gallon every 10 seconds. This means you are transfering 170 million joules every 10 seconds from the pump to your car. You are "charging" your car at a rate of 17 Megawatts or a good!!!
If you wanted to charge an electric vehicle that fast from lets say your 240 Volt mains at your house. You would need pull current at 70,000 Amps! If you kicked on a load like that you might take down the grid. 17 Megawatts is about 5% of the capacity from a good sized power plant.
There are more innefficiencies in burning gasoline than charging batteries, but you get my point.
Hydrocarbons of some form will long be in our future.
-Mr. Wigggles
If you have more money you buy the hydrogen car, for the luxury of 5-minute fillups.
========
Here's some more of what I was talking about earlier, in a more readable format:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...guments_f.html
They are looking at using H2 for idling and cruising, since it can keep the engine running with a ridiculously lean mixture that would stall your engine if you tried it with gasoline. Then you'd increasingly switch to a bigger percentage of gasoline as you need more power. I imagine that H2 would be ideal for easier cold starts since it burns easier, and you could use it to keep the engine clean until the cats warm up.
These charts also show why I am sceptial that a converted RX-8 would have anything more than a token range on H2 alone, unless you're talking about taking out the back seats and making the car a 2-seater, heh. (Maybe a purpose-built car could do it, but not a converted gasoline car) H2 displaces too much air (read: lower power) and the storage tanks are massive. But it does have some advantages...if they can add all this crap affordably.
Last edited by BaronVonBigmeat; 09-28-2006 at 07:07 PM.
09-28-2006, 07:26 PM
#59
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I'm looking at how much it costs to store hydrogen and so forth, and how much you'd need. According to this, Quantum Technologies is working on an integrated compressed H2 storage system, using a gigantic (and no doubt expensive) carbon-fiber bottle that can hold 10,000 PSI and stores 160 liters of hydrogen.
Then on fuelcellstore.com, we have a big array of metal hydride storage tanks which store much more than that, for pretty reasonable prices and sizes, and they are available right now:
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/product...n_storage.html
Maybe they are talking liters as in "tank dimensions", but even so, metal hydride's storage capacity far exceeds compressed H2. Plus it's safer to boot, even safer than a tank of gasoline for that matter. Or so I've heard.
Then you've got this system, with 4 metal hydride tanks. It gives a range equivalent to the original gasoline tank. Yeah, the tanks are projected to sell at around $2k each (if they ever go on sale, thanks to government regulations). But they have cars running already, and mass production might bring the price down.
So why the insistence on compressed H2 storage? What gives?
Then on fuelcellstore.com, we have a big array of metal hydride storage tanks which store much more than that, for pretty reasonable prices and sizes, and they are available right now:
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/product...n_storage.html
Maybe they are talking liters as in "tank dimensions", but even so, metal hydride's storage capacity far exceeds compressed H2. Plus it's safer to boot, even safer than a tank of gasoline for that matter. Or so I've heard.
Then you've got this system, with 4 metal hydride tanks. It gives a range equivalent to the original gasoline tank. Yeah, the tanks are projected to sell at around $2k each (if they ever go on sale, thanks to government regulations). But they have cars running already, and mass production might bring the price down.
So why the insistence on compressed H2 storage? What gives?
Last edited by BaronVonBigmeat; 09-28-2006 at 07:32 PM.
09-29-2006, 12:44 PM
#61
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think a standard gas/electric hybrid would make more sense. Increases fuel ecomomy, would elliminate flooding (electric power woud kick in to spin excess fuel out of the engine) and increase power. There would be additional weight but I think that would be offset. Some low end torque and a little more HP would be great.
10-03-2006, 02:46 AM
#62
I think Hydrogen power is a con game of the big oil companies and some silly car manufactures that get suckered in support them. Its much better to spend the R&D time on electric powered hybrids and develop better batteries. Electricity is everywhere and its easier to set up stations that can power electric cars then hydrogen cars. The electric/gas hybrid car technology is already here, just needs to be improved. This hydrogen stuff is like "pie in the sky". I think the gas companies only support hydrogen to disrupt the success of electric/gasoline hybrids and solar powered hybrid cars.
Mazda coming out with a hydrogen powered RX-8 is near madness. How do you fill it up? Why is is so under powered? Why is it so expensive? etc.... Its a potential disaster.
Why not focus more time on the MazdaSpeed RX-8 or DI RX-8s? Seems like they can do other things.
Mazda coming out with a hydrogen powered RX-8 is near madness. How do you fill it up? Why is is so under powered? Why is it so expensive? etc.... Its a potential disaster.
Why not focus more time on the MazdaSpeed RX-8 or DI RX-8s? Seems like they can do other things.
10-03-2006, 10:23 AM
#63
Administrator
because they have to think in short term and long term. they are doing the things you say - Direct Injection is already being shown in Rotaries for ex.-PLUS working on things that are furthur out- pushing the envelope. you have to try things in order to figure if they work or not. thats part of the process.
10-03-2006, 10:35 AM
#64
Registered
Originally Posted by sosonic
I think Hydrogen power is a con game of the big oil companies and some silly car manufactures that get suckered in support them. Its much better to spend the R&D time on electric powered hybrids and develop better batteries. Electricity is everywhere and its easier to set up stations that can power electric cars then hydrogen cars.
Ken
10-03-2006, 12:03 PM
#65
Registered
Our electricity infrastructure can't support electric cars anyways. Can you imagine what would happen in California if everyone went home at night and all pluggd in their electric cars? They've already got rolling blackouts. It would be terrible.
The only current solution is to keep using oil but to use it MUCH more efficiently. Not hard to do.
The only current solution is to keep using oil but to use it MUCH more efficiently. Not hard to do.
10-03-2006, 12:28 PM
#66
Registered
Nuclear power would fix that problem. But the anti-nuclear crowd has crushed that, and in places like California it's probably too late to catch up even if the antis went away.
Still leaves the battery disposal problem. Also the "We want electicity but don't want power lines" crowd.
Ken
Still leaves the battery disposal problem. Also the "We want electicity but don't want power lines" crowd.
Ken
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
UHATEIT
Series I Trouble Shooting
11
03-31-2019 05:31 PM