interesting story on Tesla's possible fate and the electric car in general.....

Lutz' track record at predicting what will sell and the future of the automotive industry has been hit-and-miss. Tesla may fail due to mismanagement, and based on numerous, very public mis-steps by Elon Musk it may be time for him to hand the reins over to someone else.

However, that's not to say that electric cars aren't viable. At this point in time, I don't believe Lutz would dare make that prediction. As the article points out, Lutz once said that Toyota's hybrid developments were nothing by a PR stunt. That was a poor prediction; look where Toyota is now, considered a leader in hybrid cars. Prius is a popular FAMILY of hybrid cars, with I think 3 models in production of different sizes, plus plug-in variants. Almost every other mainstream automaker also has some form of hybrid cars available and in development. Why? Efficiency of internal combustion engines themselves has just about peaked. Manufacturers need new tech to meet future efficiency and emissions standards.



Prior to Cadillac introducing the electric starter on gas engines in 1912, it looked as though steam power may actually win the war between internal combustion gasoline, battery electric and steam on which would become the dominant automotive powerplant. Each of the 3 propulsion methods had pros and cons.

Companies like Stanley and Doble took steam power as far as they could, using the materials science available at the time. At one time, a Stanley Steamer held the land speed record. However the "writing was on the wall" that steam had peaked while ICE tech was competitive on price, power, efficiency and convenience and would continue improving with further development. Stanley manufacturing ended in 1924. Doble hung in there and took steam development to its pinnacle, but ultimately folded in 1931.

We have now had 100+ years of improving ICE tech, and I think it's just about where steam was in the mid-1920's. Small turbocharged engines with computer-optimized combustion chambers, many-speed or CVT transmissions, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation, stop-start systems, all under computer control. We've come a long way in optimizing the entire system of a drivetrain with an ICE at its heart. The easy improvements are all in the past. Continued gains will be small or increasingly difficult and expensive to achieve.

Automakers were hoping that new combustion cycles like GDI and HCCI would be the next revolution in ICE. But what they have found is that, when you make a gas engine that behaves like a diesel to extract more work from the fuel, it has the same problems as diesel. It's just a matter of time before governments crack down on particulate emissions (soot) from GDI engines. HCCI prototypes existed 10 years ago. So far, I believe Mazda is the only automaker to bring an HCCI-like gas engine to market, which they call Skyactiv-X, designed to run on a combination of spark and compression ignition. Even then, they've incorporated mild hybrid tech to improve the engine's fuel economy further.

Mazda’s New Skyactiv-X Engine Gives New Life to Internal Combustion

Meanwhile, there have been myriad improvements in batteries and compact high-torque motors, but until recently there was little investment in automotive applications because of entrenched interests. At the same time, there are still a lot of new developments to be discovered and commercialized in battery tech in terms of increasing energy density, decreasing recharge times, and bringing costs down. Pure-electric cars have only captured a miniscule percentage of the auto market so far, but there is a lot of pent-up demand, as evidenced by the number of Tesla Model 3 preorders. If manufacturers can get the range up and the initial cost down to where it makes sense for mainstream consumers, they will jump on the electric bandwagon.

As an aside, I see hydrogen fuel cell cars as a dead end. Hydrogen has always been touted as the "fuel of the future", and I predict it will remain so indefinitely. I have followed hydrogen developments for ~30 years because I initially thought hydrogen was promising. Today I think automakers still work on hydrogen prototypes partly to hedge their bets, and partly because governments give them grants and a lot of the developments are also applicable to gas-hybrid and pure-electric cars.

Thank you for your informed discussion of the various technologies - it is refreshing.

Lutz was a principal lead person in the design of the LH cars, the Chrysler Concorde, Dodge Intrepid and the Eagle Vision and some of their derivitives for the 1994-7 period. They were outstanding products in my opinion in terms of overall design and handling and just about everything else but raw power. Lutz is very competent in these areas, no doubt. But as you say, his other opinions are hit and miss, and his sizeable ego tends to get in the way of his clear thinking at times IMO.

The electric vehicle is here to stay just because Global Warming isn't going away no matter what some would have you believe, even in high places. And developing the new technology will also be the driver for new jobs on the cutting edge that has always made America great.

The most cost effective technology for fuel economy is currently the Sky Activ Technology from Mazda. It even beats downsize/turbo.
I have seen the technical studies evaluating a variety of technologies, and these two are at the top of the list. We will have to wait and see how well they do with Sky Activ - X technology, but it will not be the long term solution either but will help us in getting to one.

Hybrids are an interim solution as the fuel efficiency standards ratchet up and are there as interim solutions for cost effectiveness reasons before the planned roll out of new technologies that are ultimately the goal further down the road.

Battery technology is extremely hard to develop due to the time it takes to evaluate the various chemistry options and changes due to the inability to guage long term effects such as lifespan and performance as the cells age and a myriad of other concerns. But like with everything else new, the technology will continually improve and evolve to where we do have good solutions. California, for example, is planning on achieving a fully renewal energy based electrical generation system of power sources by 2040 to completely phase out combustion based generation plants. This is where the technology development will center going forward. So enjoy your combustion engine based vehicles while they are still around. EVs are simply the future for these reasons. EVs will even displace diesels for urban commercial purposes increasingly since they have high torque at low speeds to help motivate heavy duty trucks in high density areas. Diesel will continue in longer line haul applications until quick charging and better energy storage systems are developed for batteries.

Fuel cells are a pipe dream IMO as well, as hydrogen is hard to store or distribute through normal methods. Hydrogen is really a "pipe nightmare" since it embrittles pipes that causes them to ultimately fail, thereby wreaking havoc on the infrastructure.

Investing in reviving coal mining takes us backward in the goal of developing cutting edge technology that is the real source of new jobs, as long as industry doesn't ship the jobs associated with building the new technologies overseas. That is what needs to stop.
 
My brother has a Prius and I always let him know that I'll take all the gas he isn't using. I don't really care what kind of new car anybody drives or owns as long as they leave my old stuff alone.

The gas they save will go to good use.
By us.
 
My brother has a Prius and I always let him know that I'll take all the gas he isn't using. I don't really care what kind of new car anybody drives or owns as long as they leave my old stuff alone.

The gas they save will go to good use.
By us.

The more economical the new cars are means the pressure to double down on the old ones to get them off the road is reduced.

The same is true with vehicle tail pipe emissions relative to smog. California lets the cars older than 1975 avoid going through smog check only because the new cars have become so clean, so they could allow that provision for old cars that benefits our old car segment.

It helps to look at the big picture rather than just adopt the prevailing sentiment towards a Prius. Besides being economical, they are also among the most reliable vehicles on the road today. There is nothing wrong with being economical and smart.

But maybe there is a case to be made against their segment of drivers hogging the fast lane at 60 mph to "teach" everyone a lesson.
 
Last edited:
You are correct, I am not sure what was meant that the railroads have been using hybrids for years. Last year we added two diesel electrics to our little railroad. see picture below:

View attachment 214926

We replaced pure electric locomotives with these GE units. Braking is ccomplished by converting the traction motors into generators and apply the power through a resitance grid. Thus the large ventilated structure at the rear of the unit. Just my two cents on the railroad hybrid thing.

No, the dynamic brake grids are behind the openings just behind the cab. The large openings are for the radiators and intercooler.
 
The crankshaft on the diesel locomotive does not mechanically connect to the wheels. In a hybrid car the crankshaft drives the wheels, the electric motor just assist the gasoline engine. Anyway the battery is the issue, all you do with a hybrid car is store some energy when braking in the battery, to be used later to accelerate. It is still a ICE vehicle.
The locomotive is not a hybrid in the same sense. If the diesel engine is not running the electric side is dead. The diesel engine can run but without the electric traction motors it will not move, that's why I mentioned the traction motors are more or less considered the driveline for the diesel engine.
I have no issue with electric cars. I think for some people a electric car would be easier and work better for them.
A hybrid uses both ICE and electric motors coupled to the drive wheels. A locomotive diesel is not connected to anything but the generator.
 
Last edited:
Besides being economical, they are also among the most reliable vehicles on the road today. There is nothing wrong with being economical and smart
Economical for the driver. Once the subsidies run out and the dead batteries come home to roost the energy savings is gone. It is a good stop gap measure. Looking to rely on these as a permanent solution is not a smart idea. The Chevy volt is a better technology to persue as a more permanent stopgap, while not being completely tethered by a cord. IMHO
 
Why is it so hard to simply have a small diesel generator running at a constant RPM supplying DC to an electric motor?
No, it's too simple, they have to muck it up because it's simple.

Around 1970 or so, the Original Mother Earth News magazine printed a story about a guy who lived off the grid (this "off the grid" **** is not new!) and did this with an Opel Kadette. Used all scrounged up parts, of course, and got a gazillion mpg simple and efficiently.

I never forgot that article and yet almost 50 years! later, not one manufacturer can get it right.
 
The crankshaft on the diesel locomotive does not mechanically connect to the wheels. In a hybrid car the crankshaft drives the wheels, the electric motor just assist the gasoline engine. Anyway the battery is the issue, all you do with a hybrid car is store some energy when braking in the battery, to be used later to accelerate. It is still a ICE vehicle.
The locomotive is not a hybrid in the same sense. If the diesel engine is not running the electric side is dead. The diesel engine can run but without the electric traction motors it will not move, that's why I mentioned the traction motors are more or less considered the driveline for the diesel engine.
I have no issue with electric cars. I think for some people a electric car would be easier and work better for them.
A hybrid uses both ICE and electric motors coupled to the drive wheels. A locomotive diesel is not connected to anything but the generator.
There are two basic types of hybrid, series and parallel. A Prius is a parallel hybrid, in that both the gas engine and electric motor are connected to a gearbox, so that either one or both simultaneously can directly power the wheels. A Chevy Volt is a series hybrid*. The gas engine runs a generator which supplies electricity to charge the battery and power the electric motor.

*The Volt has one highway mode where a clutch can be engaged causing the gas engine's driveshaft can be directly coupled THROUGH the electric motor's driveshaft to the wheels. GM denied this for a long time because of their marketing spin. They wanted to claim that Volt is an electric car, but it's really a hybrid.

A diesel-electric locomotive is a SERIES hybrid. The fact that it doesn't have a battery to store electricity doesn't change that. The design wasn't intended to improve fuel economy, but provide up to maximum torque at zero RPM in a highly controllable fashion, and eliminate the need for a mechanical transmission.
 
Last edited:
Why is it so hard to simply have a small diesel generator running at a constant RPM supplying DC to an electric motor?
No, it's too simple, they have to muck it up because it's simple.

Around 1970 or so, the Original Mother Earth News magazine printed a story about a guy who lived off the grid (this "off the grid" **** is not new!) and did this with an Opel Kadette. Used all scrounged up parts, of course, and got a gazillion mpg simple and efficiently.

I never forgot that article and yet almost 50 years! later, not one manufacturer can get it right.
Because 99% of people would not be willing to put up with the compromises that that guy made in his lifestyle, including his car, in order to live "green".
 
Because 99% of people would not be willing to put up with the compromises that that guy made in his lifestyle, including his car, in order to live "green".
Nobody is giving up anything that they aren't giving up with any modern Hybrid.
Give me a new vehicle with the basics of what that Hippy did 50 yrs ago and I would consider buying it.
 
Nobody is giving up anything that they aren't giving up with any modern Hybrid.
Give me a new vehicle with the basics of what that Hippy did 50 yrs ago and I would consider buying it.
You're an outlier, and even you probably wouldn't have such a car as your only vehicle; 99% of American consumers would not buy that.

The guy's 1979 conversion was an Opel GT, a small, light 2-person car. It would have had a manual transmission, no power steering and no A/C. That would be a deal-breaker for many today. The lead acid batteries would've taken most of the trunk space and, as the guys says in the article, expend most of their energy hauling themselves around because they're heavy. The performance figures he's talking about were mostly at speeds around 45MPH. Not very suitable for interstate driving, this would be labelled a "city car". There's also no way that Opel would meet modern crash standards either.

Lots of people have modern hybrids as their DD and only car, and can go on extended highway trips with no compromises versus a conventional gas-powered car. His electrified Opel is more like my first car, a VW Rabbit diesel, a simple tin box with wheels that could only exceed 70 MPH with a tailwind but returned 60 MPG. At least my Rabbit could seat four in a pinch and had lots of storage space in the back.
 
Last edited:
Economical for the driver. Once the subsidies run out and the dead batteries come home to roost the energy savings is gone. It is a good stop gap measure. Looking to rely on these as a permanent solution is not a smart idea. The Chevy volt is a better technology to persue as a more permanent stopgap, while not being completely tethered by a cord. IMHO
I heard that owners of Prius's would never recoupe the difference in price over the small car during the time they own before trading in the car. Since I heard it shortly after they came out, I'll use the 2000 MY as my example.

2000 Corolla price, $12,xxx-15,900
2000 Camry price, $20,388-24,068

2000 Prius price,$19,995

Gas in 2000, $2.02 average.

In 2000 you could have bought the most expensive Corolla and used the difference in price to buy over 2,000 gallons of gasoline. At 26 mpg, that's over 50,000 miles you could drive. (26mpg based off of driving my dad's car, my more aggressive driving style in getting on the highway and other areas, actually improved his milage by a little over 2mpg.)

Or you could spend $4,000 more and get a bigger, nicer appointed car with better performance and a much better wrapper. I still think it's a mind game with the consumer. Sure some keep their cars til they are dead (the cars), they have to, don't they? But most don't, and don't drive them enough to get back that extra over the smaller gas only car. I'm no industry insider, or any type of expert of any kids and, but they don't make sense to me. Rated at 42/42 in 2000, now up to 51/48, wasn't outstanding. I had a '92 Daytona the got high thirties beating in that 5 speed, I could tickle 50 with some better driving habitels.
 
I heard that owners of Prius's would never recoupe the difference in price over the small car during the time they own before trading in the car. Since I heard it shortly after they came out, I'll use the 2000 MY as my example.

2000 Corolla price, $12,xxx-15,900
2000 Camry price, $20,388-24,068

2000 Prius price,$19,995

Gas in 2000, $2.02 average.

In 2000 you could have bought the most expensive Corolla and used the difference in price to buy over 2,000 gallons of gasoline. At 26 mpg, that's over 50,000 miles you could drive. (26mpg based off of driving my dad's car, my more aggressive driving style in getting on the highway and other areas, actually improved his milage by a little over 2mpg.)

Or you could spend $4,000 more and get a bigger, nicer appointed car with better performance and a much better wrapper. I still think it's a mind game with the consumer. Sure some keep their cars til they are dead (the cars), they have to, don't they? But most don't, and don't drive them enough to get back that extra over the smaller gas only car. I'm no industry insider, or any type of expert of any kids and, but they don't make sense to me. Rated at 42/42 in 2000, now up to 51/48, wasn't outstanding. I had a '92 Daytona the got high thirties beating in that 5 speed, I could tickle 50 with some better driving habitels.
The economics almost certainly work out better than they did almost 20 years ago, but yes there are a lot of variables in determining whether a hybrid car makes economic sense for someone.

Are Hybrid Cars Really More Economical?

There is also a psychological factor. People will pay more up-front for vehicles because having lower recurring costs gives them peace of mind. During any fuel price spike, many people freak out and trade-in their big "gas guzzlers" for something smaller and efficient, but they don't consider total cost of operation. They are trading-in an undesirable vehicle and probably getting a low price for it, and buying a new non-depreciated vehicle and likely taking on debt too. It may have been more cost effective to keep their old vehicle until they would've normally replaced it, and just pay the higher fuel bills in the meantime.

Also don't forget that increasing emissions and fuel economy standards are pushing the limits of what can be achieved with just a gas engine, in a car that consumers will still want to buy. That changes the economics of hybridization. At some point, it will cost so much for the technology added to the engine or in "gas guzzer" surcharges that the cost of the hybrid drivetrain to meet the requirements balances out.
 
Last edited:
Capture.JPG


It may be even sooner than that if they keep losing all the Chiefs....

https://jalopnik.com/yet-another-tesla-executive-leaves-tesla-report-1829221189
 

As far as I am concerned, Tesla has started the EV market to take off finally by aiming at those who can afford their luxury cars and have a strong desire for them. Now that that work is done, other luxury manufacturers that are better positioned to actually manufacture cars will take over. Every one of them has a Tesla Model S or other type of configuration competitor emerging in the next few years.

And like it or not, Elon Musk and his engineering team have some real competence, even if not a lot of manufacturing experience or size. Here is their latest example from a mid size car:

Tesla Model 3 aces NHTSA crash tests

Like I said earlier, the real driver for all of this is Climate Change. That will not change. So combustion engine vehicles are being phased out in Europe, China and probably in the U.S. as well even if our current administration is a blip in the progress. Our auto industry knows that and their future vehicles will be electric and they have to sell worldwide to stay in business. Despite Trump's desire to slow down implementation of the aggressive fuel economy standards that were set in place by the previous administration, the automakers such as Honda are saying his plans will not affect their plans already in place to phase out the combustion engine.

And electric utilities are also planning on renewable fuels to power their grids - fully in the not too distant future. I personally will not have any tears shed for the poor bastard oil companies either that still get tax subsidies for their drilling efforts and their fracking schemes that blight our landscape and our drinking water and much more.
 
So it seems like a number of guys on this site would like to see Tesla fail?

Does that mean you would rather China take the lead in building the electric vehicles of the future rather than us? I thought so many of you guys were MAGA supporters?
 
*The Volt has one highway mode where a clutch can be engaged causing the gas engine's driveshaft can be directly coupled THROUGH the electric motor's driveshaft to the wheels. GM denied this for a long time because of their marketing spin. They wanted to claim that Volt is an electric car, but it's really a hybrid
Did not know this, thanks.
I still like the direction they have gone with this vehicle. If you are not a car person and have a relative short commute, with the occasional weekend getaway this car can do that with no special charge stations (practical with current infrastructure).
I'm not using the term hybrid to describe a locomotive.
It is a steam locomotive, a diesel-electric locomotive or a electric locomotive. Hybrid does not belong in the description of these awesome machines. If you want to call them hybrids then you need to drop hybrids from all the gas-electric shitboxes they make.
 
Did not know this, thanks.
I still like the direction they have gone with this vehicle. If you are not a car person and have a relative short commute, with the occasional weekend getaway this car can do that with no special charge stations (practical with current infrastructure).
...Which is exactly the same as a Prius or any other hybrid vehicle. It is never "necessary" to plug-in a hybrid car to recharge it. That's why it has a gas engine. No range anxiety!
 
Back
Top