Hacker News Reader

I have a hobby car that is similar; I can get right around 40MPG on the highway and it makes more power than a stock modern version of itself. The real reason the newer cars don't get better mileage is a few factors:

Old cars do well steady state, but are far less efficient in transient states; modern engines are far better at that.

Old cars have absolutely toxic emissions. I mean literal 100's of times worse than modern engines (especially diesels), which are already terrible.

Couple these two major factors and you'll see where most of the advances have gone. That said, I don't think you are completely incorrect either; incentives have to be put into the right places to drive these innovations forward.

If you want to see state of the art efficiency for fossil fuel engines look at trains. They are more heavily regulated for emissions than bunker fuel ships, and the amount of fuel per ton-mile used is tiny compared to a personal vehicle due to a few factors (load vs vehicle weight, efficiency of acceleration/deceleration, engines operating only at peak power/efficiency and the traction motors being electric, etc.).

On a side note, the lack of parts to keep an old car in compliance with emissions is driving me insane. My hobby car is a HUGELY popular car from 20-30 years ago and the supply of parts to keep it on the road is drying up already. Due to it's factory state of tune (naturally aspirated, ~100hp/liter) aftermarket discount parts are not suitable and fail quickly, sometimes damaging other parts. OEM parts are so rare now that they are getting painfully expensive to continue procuring them, and for emissions related systems the only quality parts left are the high end aftermarket (which aren't legal). It's becoming almost impossible to keep these vehicles legal, which I'm sure is intended. I'm at the point where I'll likely run the "illegal" (though perfectly identical if used properly) parts for 23 out of the 24 months it's on the road, and only use the almost impossible to obtain OEM parts for the 1 month needed to get it sorted for emissions testing.

Do you have a Suzuki swift GTI?

Integra GS-R

Naïve question: would 3D scanning and metal/other 3D printing help you manufacture such parts by yourself?

"Manufacture such parts yourself" is not OEM (original equipment manufacturer).

Yes, even if they're physically indistinguishable. (And they would be physically distinguishable because 3d printed parts can be distinguished, even if they perform identically.)

It's a legal thing.

Not naive at all. It would, but as another response mentioned that's no different, for instance, than buying an adjustable Fuel Pressure Regulator and setting it to stock settings. In any reasonable world that's fine; in the emissions world that's absolutely illegal.

There's not much point to a 750,000 mile engine, as the rest of the car is worn out and rusted out at 200,000 miles.

> if we can have 80, 100, 150, perhaps even 200 mile-per-gallon combustion engines

Well, we can't.

Internal combustion engines have steadily gotten better, not stagnated.

In the 1970s, I heard all about oil companies buying 200 mpg carburetors to keep them off the market. My dad laughed at that, saying the military would never let patent law keep them from making 200 mpg tanks and stuff. Gas is a gigantic logistical problem for a mechanized military.

>> There's not much point to a 750,000 mile engine, as the rest of the car is worn out and rusted out at 200,000 miles.

I've seen plenty cars get 300,000 miles here in Texas without a spot of rust on them. Do you live in Michigan or something? The salty states have only known rust and salt lol

300,000 is a long way from 750,000. Rust is only one of the decays that set in. I grew up in Arizona, where the sun would destroy interiors and paint. Cars also simply accumulate damage that is uneconomic to repair.

It takes a lot of work to keep an older car running. My truck is 35 years old, and the window rollup mechanism has disintegrated. The seals around the doors and windows have rotted away. Knobs are missing. The door latch bushings disintegrated and I can't find new ones. The trim, which was glued on at the factory, simply fell off. The paint is about as shiny as an asphalt shingle.

The engine runs fine, though :-)

Minor aside to that; the US army just awarded a contract to Cummins to complete development of their new 2 stroke opposed piston engines.

https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2021/07/30/us-army-awa...

Cummins and Achates Power was supposed to have delivered two working prototype engines to the US Army's TARDEC to be installed into a Bradley for evaluations in 2019. I'm assuming that they testing went well enough to prove that the engines are viable enough for further development.

Uncertain if the technology will ever meander it's way to regular car market, but interesting to see ICE development continue on.

Old 2 stroke diesels can start running backwards eg. If you nearly stall it. Blows the air filter off and starts sucking in air thru the exhaust.

> In the 1970s, I heard all about oil companies buying 200 mpg carburetors to keep them off the market. My dad laughed at that, saying the military would never let patent law keep them from making 200 mpg tanks and stuff.

I know nothing about that story, but the military is budgeted by Congress and commanded by the President, and thus subject to political influence. Plenty of the what the military does is inefficient economically and militarily.

Battles are won and lost based on gasoline. In the Battle of the Bulge, the German offensive failed when they ran out of gas. The Allied offensive in Europe was also limited by gas supplies.

Do you think any military is going to allow itself to be crippled by patents?

In WW1, the American aviation industry was crippled by patent lawsuits. The government put a stop to that nonsense and forced them to form a patent pool, so advanced military airplanes could be built.

During a war amongst peers? No.

Outside of that? Sure. Particularly if the crippling allows for an element of surprise and keeps that tech out of other peoples hands. Even without that though every country that isn’t spending the most it can on its military is choosing to ‘cripple’ it in favour of other things.

Do you think your enemy could possibly care less about respecting your patent?

Why is the US military sending them the designs and saying please don’t copy these?

We're talking about the US military and US patents.

Patents require the invention to be disclosed. Now the Atomic Energy Commission had some special classified patents that were exempt from that rule, but that is very much an exception. The whole societal bargain behind patents is limited time monopoly in exchange for disclosure.

> Do you think any military is going to allow itself to be crippled by patents?

That might make sense in theory, but the history of war profiteering, etc. is otherwise. Militaries are 'crippled' by poor materials (though 'crippled' is an extreme case) - especially at the beginnings of wars.

For example, many think most US airplanes are ineffective against serious foes, including the A-10, F-35 (not my opinion, but many think it), and all the older planes (including the new-old planes they recently signed to buy). That also applies to aircraft carriers. However, there are many vested interests in those weapons programs and they resist tooth and nail. Change requires aligning people within the national security community, the easy part, and then Congress and the President. Uniformed and civilian officials in the Department of Defense can be just as political and corrupt; many of both sorts go through revolving doors to industry and have careers invested in one thing or another, or simply, like many incumbents in many fields (such as IT), bury their heads in sand about change.

> allow itself

They have limited power to make these decisions, at least in democracies.

You being seriously injured or dying in an offset ~30mph collision, versus getting out of the car dazed and confused is the difference. And yes, passenger safety didn't change much for American cars between the 50's and early 80's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

You causing more pollution (particulate, NOx, etc) than a hundred luxury SUVs or more, is the difference.

Driving down the highway at 75mph able to hear the back seat passenger whisper versus having to talk loudly so the person in the front seat next to you can understand you.

A climate control system that keeps the car comfortable whether it is -20 degrees or 100 degrees.

Handling, brakes, and acceleration that is astronomically better than whatever your Chevette has.

There's no such thing as a "200mpg engine" - most modern car engines are very efficient, with the Prius's Atkinson cycle engine being the most efficient among worldwide-available, mass-production, affordable cars. It's a function of aerodynamics, parasitic electrical and mechanical losses, and weight.

> It's not all one thing or the other, and it never should be, but we've been milking the old internal combustion cash cow for so long we've virtually guaranteed her death, even though evolution of the internal combustion engine would be a net benefit.

Making an engine that would last 750,000 miles is certainly possible - just look at engines in big rigs - but people don't care about that in a personal vehicle, and the capex and opex for such an engine is incredible compared to the cost of making it significantly cheaper but slightly less reliable.

They want a low price tag and low maintenance during the period they own the car. That's why most engines have a 10k oil change interval (though part of that is due to much improved quality of oil, and better filters.)

Modern cars have improved drastically since 1981 by all metrics. Power, efficiency, safety, reliability, cost, and emissions have all improved. An amazing example of iterative refinement combined with economies of scale. If there is some cabal trying to keep cars inefficient and unreliable, they are losing.

My father drove a chevette. You neglect to mention the nearly 20 second 0-60 time, which on modern roadways is a safety hazard in itself. How much fuel did you burn just to get to that highway speed?

My Prius can easily do 60 mpg when driven on a flat road at highway speeds, and while it’s no speed demon in the quarter mile, it’s at least safe to operate. Plus it has more cargo carrying capacity and its vastly more pleasant to drive than a chevette.

Even my cheap dad got rid of that car as soon as possible.

People have been trying to find a better engine design for a long time. Pretty much all of them have tradeoffs of some kind, especially when you consider the wide variety of environmental factors that can affect a combustion engine.

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/unusualICeng/unusua...

We'll have to see if this one does anything different.

Emissions is one thing, but performance is another big deal. Just look at a Volkswagen bug vs a modern car. Modern cars have 2-3 times the power and that comes at a cost. Another factor is safety.

If we agreed (not suggesting this for obvious reasons) that everyone would just build ultra lightweight and fairly low power vehicles, I think 80 mpg is feasible, but probably a lot less safe.

I work for General Motors and I occasionally do tours for employees. One of the cars I show is a 1950's era Pontiac Chieftain with an 4.4L inline 8 cylinder engine. It made about 120 horsepower. A modern, small-ish 1.4L inline 4 cylinder makes more horsepower.

A Beetle from the 50's might have 30-40 horsepower. You can pretty easily get cars with 10 times as much power now.

It's been awhile since I've looked at the stats of a beetle, so thanks for pointing out I was being overly conservative. It's all crazy isn't it? I'm curious what MPG we could get on a modern 40 HP engine?

Well, about the only place you'd see 40 HP these days is in a light motorbike, so just about infinite.

My honda cb500x (a low end adventure style motorcycle) had 42 horsepower and got about 60 MPG

A modern car wouldn't be safe to operate with a 40 hp engine. Even those tiny little Japanese kei cars typically have a 63 hp engine (maximum legally allowed). Fuel economy is typically rated for about 54 mpg, but real world fuel consumption is usually worse.

https://jalopnik.com/i-lived-with-a-japanese-kei-car-for-a-w...

It would be fine if everyone around me didn't drive a F-350 or something equivalent.

People are getting 80+MPG with hybrids. The standard EPA tests involve reasonably aggressive driving which is why the 1981 Chevrolet Chevette is only listed at 33 MPG highway.

Exactly this. Especially when you consider stop and go traffic which a lot of us get stuck in

I am not sure about Petrol Engines. However diesels at least they are typically tuned to run anywhere and on differing grades of fuel. However if you get your diesel car remapped you get better power and mileage out of car. I had mine remapped an extra 20hp (on a 95HP car) and the fuel economy improved quite a bit.

As for engines that last 40 years and 750,000. If you look after Diesel engines they can get to 500,000 or more. However people don't once the car gets over like 100,000 miles. Servicing costs typically more than the car is worth.

> don't want to make engines that can last forty years and 750,000 miles

Forty years is no problem already and a typical Honda/Toyota 4-cylinder engine is already a favorite to make 250K miles. Our CR-V just passed 225K miles and rust will kill that car long before mechanical problems do.

750K miles will cost you over $100K in direct operating costs (fuel and wear items). I don’t know that making an engine last 3x as many miles is that big a benefit to a new car buyer.

> Our CR-V just passed 225K miles and rust will kill that car

Modern cars are a marvel of cheapest manufacturing and materials. What would we accomplish if we optimized for corrosion resistance? It's not like we don't have the materials or processes. But they're nowhere as cheap as stamped sheet steel.

The "primer" step for car bodies after they've been welded is (typically) already a dunk tank. Hot dip galvanizing would only be a marginal increase in cost over that. You can't easily paint over that and people want cars in all sorts of colors and they last "long enough" as-is. Some smaller under-body assemblies are galvanized or zinc plated before paint.

Porsches have been galvanized since the 1970s

Everything about modern cars, except for touchscreens, is superior to past cars including corrosion resistance. A five year old car from the 80's in an area that used salt and sand would have rust holes. A car from 2012 doesn't have anywhere near as much rust now.

My first car was a 13 year old Toyota Tercel. It had literal 8"+ rust holes in every door, the frame had rust holes, and the fenders were falling apart from rust. My second car was a 10 year old Cutlass Supreme. It had a 6" rust hole one door, a rust hole in one fender, and plenty of other rust underneath. This does not happen anymore, except maybe trucks used for salt.

The problem is big oil and other huge corporations are paying off the politicans, and looking to exhaust the resources before moving on. The companies that destroy the enviroment want be the same companie's that own the next innovation. We know this from our own history. They know that if they make the best perduct today, one that there is no need to upgrade, they lose out on the revenue the constant upgrades produce. They live on the top of the hill looking down on the mess they make not having to deal with the pain and clean up. That is relagated to the poor. I say it's time for a corporate revolution. Break up all these companies, send the owners, (Stock holders) to a penal colony and let them fight for the same scraps they thought was enough for the rest of us. Time to take back our lives, if not all we will have to look foward to is death.

I don't know what kind of an idealist you are but you cannot break those companies. They are literaly the state. Look at the activities of CIA (for example) in the last century and see which companies profited from it. Google, Facebook, Microsoft are a threat _only_ if they threat the hegemony of the other (oil) companies.

Certainly you can't do anything if you quit, and you do negative if you encourage others to quit.

    I say it's time for a corporate revolution.

Well, without any personal attack at all, I ask honestly, 'Who cares what you say?' Would-be agitators throughout history have tried to egg the masses on to societal nirvana. All we get in the end is jailed/murdered visionaries and a handful of kooks who think that destroying a few lives and a little property will spark the dawning of the new age.

And yet, here we still are.

There will probably continue to be a future for liquid fuels (especially for aviation) for quite some time, but ICE vehicles are only cheap because we can get fuel out of the ground and don't have to pay the energy or climate impact costs up front.

Battery-electric vehicles have such a huge efficiency advantage that I don't think ICE vehicles will ever be remotely competitive if you had to synthesize the fuel directly using renewable energy. A more efficient ICE engine (if it can live up to that claim) would be better than using old less-efficient engines, but I think we're at the point where the best option is not to use engines at all unless it's absolutely necessary for that application.

people have designed alternative combustion engines all the time, they just never end up overall better, this probably won’t either.

This one is designed to be compact and scalable, for use in military generators, not for automotive applications.

> I have a 1981 Diesel Chevette which can get 50 miles to the gallon when driven at a steady highway speed.

In a similar vein, my 2007 diesel Toyota Yaris regularly passed 60MPG and occasionally reached 70MPG before it was written off in an incident about 3 years ago.

This is the way. You are thinking like an engineer, and that will create solutions. Extracting carbon from the air, if done in a net-neutral manner (impossible with today's tech AFAICT), will provide us with sustainable hydrocarbons, nature's battery.

Part of it is weight. Safety standards and other things have really ballooned the the curb weight of cars. A Chevette weighed at most 2000lbs. A new Chevrolet Sonic (which is also a subcompact)? 2800lbs.+.

>I have a 1981 Diesel Chevette which can get 50 miles to the gallon when driven at a steady highway speed. If that forty year old fully iron engine can get 50 miles to the gallon in a car that's as aerodynamic as a brick, then why aren't new cars getting 80 miles to the gallon?

Because those modern cars have airbags, and thick pillars, etc, etc, etc and it's for your own good, peasant.

(also emissions, but modern tech to control emissions makes that a wash in the fuel economy department because said tech enables the engine to operate more efficiently on a per fuel basis)

Actually there is a direct conflict between fuel economy and emissions.

https://theicct.org/nox-and-co2-emissions-from-trucks-what-t...

How much did it weigh? A lot of older cars with high mpg were built like tin cans compared to modern safe vehicles.

The minimum viable car has gotten much safer, and much bigger. Reversing this trend and enabling right-sized vehicles will be one of the many benefits of autonomous vehicle technology and other active safety technology. Except for getting crushed like an insect, I don't need more than a vehicle weighing a few hundred pounds -- less than the weight of a Tesla battery -- for commuting. It would be less expensive and require less of everything, especially battery.

Wikipedia says ~2,000 pounds.

A 2022 Corolla is ~3,000 pounds.

The Corolla has ~3x the horsepower.