Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

[Rigby5]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

 

[BULLDOG]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Diesel/electric is nothing at all like EV.
With Diesel/electric, the diesel if the source of energy, and the electric part is just to help transfer the power to different locations near the diesel generator.
Electric power is just an empty front.
It does not say where you get the energy from, so is not a solution at all.
It solves nothing as far as our looming energy crisis.

It is meaningless to say something like "convert to battery powered electric".
Batteries are NOT a source of power.
They are not a source of energy.
They solve nothing, and likely are a false dead end that are just a waste of time.

To do things in transportation, we need something lite, powerful, concentrated, and quickly refilled.
Bio fuel, hydrogen, methane, ethanol, or lots of things can do that, but batteries can not.
They are a dead end that can not and never will satisfy our needs.

You're right. Batteries don't generate power. They are just a way to transfer already generated power to an electric moter, much the same as you pointed out about the generator on a Diesel/electric train. Like so many other things, I am not qualified to make wide ranging determinations on many subjects that effect the entire country. I do, however trust the experts in the field who have the training and experience to make those determinations. I find that training and specialized knowledge is always more reliable than some idiot on the internet who claims to know more than the experts in a wide range of fields. We all know you think you are more knowledgable than doctors, engineers, molecular biologists, and who knows how many other areas of study. I just don't have as much faith in your genious as you seem to have.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

They dont. Or at least not as much as ICEs. Taking into account the lifespan of the average car, while EVs start out at a deficit they make up for the materials used in batteries. Ive already posted a link to this.

 

[BULLDOG]

We are at least 50 years from getting even close to getting off fossil fuels. Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve as FUCK.

You could be right, but I doubt it will be that long. There are millions of gas and diesel vehicles on the roads, and all manufacturers aren't converting to electric. The transition will take several years, but I doubt it will be 50.

There are still several MAJOR hurdles to overcome

1) As people have pointed out, 2% of the market is electric. That means that fossil fuel plants will massively grow to charge the 98% and Democrats oppose actual solutions like fracking for natural gas and nuclear

2) Battery technology just isn't there to create enough batteries that last long enough and can be processed at end of life (dispose or recycle)

3) The cheapest electric cars are $50K. Again, 2% of the cars are now electric. Think of the cost of the other 98%.

We're a ways off, those are three MAJOR hurdles to clear

I'm sure there are more hurdles than that. Conversion to electric power won't happen until we have technology to meet the demands. Only a hysteronic idiot would think that will happen. All those major auto companies would never convert to electric vehicles if they thought fhey would lose market share to all the other companies that aren't converting yet.

Those are the same idiotic car companies that keep claiming they will next week have Autonomous Vehicles, when clearly is it NEVER going to happen. These car makers are notorious for false hype and pretending. They are likely checking out the market potential response to their own hype, than they are actually trying to create EVs.
EVs have a commuter niche, but there are lots of things they are bad at and will likely never do.
Like travel.

Again, like with diesel/electric, you fail to address the point.
EV does not have a power source.
We are running out of all fossil fuel, not just gasoline.
So then when someone suggest switching to batteries, that is saying nothing useful.
It does not at all explain how the batteries are supposed to be recharged.
So there is going to be no fuel to recharge the batteries with.
So switching to batters and EVs, is just a waste of time and money.
Stitch to the point, which is what are we going to do for energy?
At this point, bio fuel like ethanol or palm diesel oil makes more sense than fusion, solar, or wind.

Interesting that you think you are smarter than the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers. Where did you get all your engineering degrees?

 

[HappyJoy]

bad bad news for all authoritarian gas-stations like KSA, Muscovy, Venezuela , what will happened to them once oil (so no crazy jets full of cash landing on the roof of the Putin´s dacha) becomes what is coal today ?

"
....
We are in the middle of the biggest revolution in motoring since Henry Ford's first production line started turning back in 1913.
And it is likely to happen much more quickly than you imagine.
Many industry observers believe we have already passed the tipping point where sales of electric vehicles (EVs) will very rapidly overwhelm petrol and diesel cars....

Jaguar plans to sell only electric cars from 2025, Volvo from 2030 and last week the British sportscar company Lotus said it would follow suit, selling only electric models from 2028.

General Motors says it will make only electric vehicles by 2035, Ford says all vehicles sold in Europe will be electric by 2030 and VW says 70% of its sales will be electric by 2030."

Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

The BBC's Justin Rowlatt explains why we are accelerating towards an electric car future.

www.bbc.com

Electric cars aren't eco-friendly contrary to they'd have you believe.

still they will bring oil prices back to normality, which means death of moscow empire, KSA (wahhabism) etc

Even now electric cars are clearner than the ICE. It may take a couple of years during the EVs life cycle to catch up but in the end they are better for the environment. And that of course will change as our power grid is filled with even more diverse green energy.

Benefits of electric cars on the environment

All you need to know about electric cars, also known as EVs, and their effect on our environment. Find out if electric or petrol cars are a better choice for our planet.

www.edfenergy.com

No electric cars are not cleaner.
The main source of electricity is still coal, and will become even more of the main source in 50 years, when the gas and oil runs out.
The power grid is not green energy.

Coal burning power plants are cleaner than individual ICEs which are extremely inefficient. Didn't you know this? Most of the power they create never sees the pavement.

Here is an article about electric buses and even though they are not charged on clean power grids they are cleaner than their gas and diesel counterparts.

Study: Electric Buses Already Emit Less Carbon Than Diesel Buses, in Any State

And their climate impact will decrease as the grid gets cleaner.

www.greentechmedia.com

Wrong.
We have only temporarily shifted to natural gas to produce electricity.
When that runs out in 50 years, then we will have to go back to coal, because we have 10 times more coal than natural gas.
And then the emissions of electricity doubles again, becoming greater than diesel.
And it is easy for diesel to beat EV if they use bio fuel because bio fuel absorbs more carbon than produced.
Nothing can ever beat bio fuel.
That is impossible.

When that runs out when? It's like you're saying in a half century nothing will change with our energy make up. When has that ever happened in our country's history?

I'm cool with bio fuels too when/if they come on board.

Half a century is not at all far away and would have to be started now.
There is no way to so it with solar or wind, so bio fuel is the only way, and we are going to have to find sources of water now, if we want bio fuel, because without fossil fuel for fertilizer, human starvation could be come a problem.
So coal is the only easy answer, so far.
Bio fuel is possible, but the EV thing is just detracting from real alternatives like bio fuel.
EVs solve nothing.
Its just a shell game where you don't see the pollution because you move it out of state.
EVs are incredibly inefficient.
Total efficiency of EVs is about 7%, compared to 45% for ICEs.

Do everyone a favor, don't accept money for fortune telling, you're not good at it.

Nothing to do with fortune telling.
I just have a degree in physics, and have done engineering all my life.

Doubtful, but I don't really care anyway.

Believe me, you are being conned by a shell game.
EVs are vastly less efficient and dirty then ICEs.
In fact, the best ICEs are the VW TDIs, which they prosecuted because they were getting 56 mpg, when they were supposed to only be betting 34 mpg.
The VW TDI were putting out less than a forth the carbon of other cars, so then claimed it was NOx they were violating.
But the reality is that unlike CO2 that can last forever, NOx breaks down naturally in hours.
NOx is just heated air.
You turn on an electric stove, you get NOx if you get the coil element hot enough.

How much power from the engine(s) of an EV reach the wheels as compared to an ICE? If you have a degree in physics this should be easy.

Essentially all the power from the engine get to the wheels equally with ICE or EV.
That is because things like UJoints have very little friction, and EVs have an equal amount of UJoints in order to reduce unsprung weight. If you put the electric motor out at the wheel, as some do, the ride is terrible. Too much weight hitting bumps causes the whole car to jolt. Both also should have transmission, and that has little friction either. The one thing ICE has that EV does not is differential. But that is very slow and consumes very little energy. The main difference where an EV would start to shine is if you need All Wheel Drive. Then EV could save about 400 lbs.

Yeah, long story short an average EV will smoke almost all ICEs on the road and nobody is complaing about the ride.

Where did you get your physics degree?

Pointless.
If you waste energy on acceleration, you will need to recharge even sooner.
I have never had any vehicle that needed more acceleration, and I used to buy Fiats with little 850 cc engines.
But I usually put on over 400 miles a day, so batteries won't cut it unless there are recharging stations everywhere.
And even then, people with EVs have to rent generator trailers if they want to go for a long trip.

Little Generator Trailer Lets Electric Cars Go the Distance | Gadgets, Science & Technology

When someone decides to make the leap from a gas-powered car to an electric one, they know that they are giving up some of the conveniences of their previous vehicle. With EV charging stations still not available everywhere, trips have to be planned carefully and the EV owner has to calculate...

gajitz.com

Wow, for a physicist you sure fell back hard from your original argument. Talk about moving goal posts.

EVs now do well over 250 miles on a single charge which is more than most people drive in a day and those EVs will still blow the doors off most of their ICE counterparts and its not even close.

 

[BULLDOG]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yep, when you only get 250 miles on a good day from an electric fill up, that took 1 hour, sure, the electric car is the way to go. But if you have to go from Florida to Arizona, and it takes you 10 fill ups and it is cold outside and the days are short, you have to fill up a few more times and longer because battteries dont do well in cold weather.

The inception of the idea about a battery charged-electric vehicle is indeed ... compact, light and far more efficient nickel/metal (NiMH) accumulators. ... A brave new world is upon us, with many pioneers leading the way of developments. ...​

Hey, get your jollies off on electric cars all you want, but a few facts are in order:

1. GM isn't phasing out gas cars until 15 years from now, so they say today.
2. A great many people rely on the USED market buying used gasoline cars up to ten years old. That means there will still be a steady demand for used gas cars at least until 2045.
3. In a bad economy, a $4,000 used gas car will be easier to sell than a $60,000 new electric car.
4. As time goes on and more people see the liabilities of an electric car, they will be sticking with or going back to gasoline.
5. As gas cars become scarcer on the market, their value will soar.
6. The electric car is a CONSUMER item and will never replace all forms of transportation.
7. The environmental/climatic benefits of electric cars is being greatly overstated.
8. The minute they develop a practical hydrogen fuel cell, they will drop electric battery cars like hot cakes making them valueless.
9. Electric cars will be chock full of computer restrictions and government regulations limiting the driver and telling on him; as people realize that, they will flock back to gasoline.
10. The electric car will never fully supplant the gas car until they literally outlaw gas cars, close all gas stations and FORCE everyone to electric.

8. There are many more infrastructure hurdles for hydrogen than there are for electric.

9. You seem to think today's gas powered cars aren't chock full of computers already, and any imagined restrictions you fear could be easily implemented with the technology we currently have.

Hydrogen certainly will be very different to refuel and will require very different fueling stations.

But as for computers and restrictions, I think he is referring to things like keeping a log of all the traffic infractions like speeding, what strip club you went to, etc.

If he thinks that is all computers do in cars, he has no idea of what their main purpose is. They regulate all the aspects of combustion to get more power and less harmful exhaust. It used to be hard to find a factory V8 with 300 horsepower. Now it's common to get that from a four cylinder. Computers made that possible.

Not really.
Computers just made it cheaper.
The main way you increase power is by increasing compression ratio, like with a turbo charger, and then the problem becomes avoiding the deadly pre-ignition.
Pre-ignition can easily be prevented by mechanical fuel injection directly into the cylinders, like diesels used to have, and the only problem with that is it is expensive.

But some people are under the false impression computers can actually see and recognize things in real time speeds, and that is false.
Computers are about 100 million times slower at recognizing images than humans.

One small fact worth adding to the equation is that all these methods of increasing the (volumetric) efficiency of the engine also tends to shorten their lives by increasing operational stress. Forcing 300 HP out of a 4 cylinder will roughly cut the life expectancy of that engine down to about maybe a quarter that of a 8 cylinder.

Older engines were worn out at 100,000 miles just a few years ago. Now it's not unusual to go two or three times that range. Your "don't last as long" claim doesn't match reality.

That is not true.
I have had 1960s era Mercedes, Volvos, etc., with over half a million miles.
That is also true of 1970s VW even, once water cooled.
I see lots more new cars in the junk yard now because the electronic are too delicate and too expensive to begin to diagnose.
I even had over half a million miles on my old 69 International pickup before I sold it, and it is still running strong for the buyer.

But the previous estimate of a 4 cylinder getting a forth of the life of a V8 is also an exaggeration.
It is more like 30% less at most.

Mercedes and Volvos were tough, and many had replacable cylindar liners. The average American made car from that era was mostly trash at 100,000.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

>The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels.

No they don't. The 2.4L L4 gives 190 HP. The 3.3L V6 gives 290.

If you agree with the Car Talk quote, I am not sure why you called me a liar in my prior post. You're not making much sense.

>With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No. There is axle gear ratio, transmission ratio, and transaxle ratio. Often called the final drive ratio when combined. Then, on top of that, there is tire size.

 

[westwall]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

 

[westwall]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No they don't. The 2.4L L4 gives 190 HP. The 3.3L V6 gives 290.

If you agree with the Car Talk quote, I am not sure why you called me a liar in my prior post. You're not making much sense.

>With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No. There is axel gear ratio, transmission ratio, and transaxle ratio. Often called the final drive ratio when combined. Then, on top of that, there is tire size.

These people have no idea what they are talking about. They think reading a sales blurb makes them an expert.

 

[HappyJoy]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No they don't. The 2.4L L4 gives 190 HP. The 3.3L V6 gives 290.

If you agree with the Car Talk quote, I am not sure why you called me a liar in my prior post. You're not making much sense.

>With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No. There is axel gear ratio, transmission ratio, and transaxle ratio. Often called the final drive ratio when combined. Then, on top of that, there is tire size.

You said the 6 cylinder and the turbo 4 had near the same power. It would make sence for them to be geared similarly.

I called you a liar, because your numbers were so far off. I gave you credit for knowing how engines and gear ratios work. Obviously that was a mistake.

Unless you specifically note you are talking about transmission ratios, or rear end ratio, the total ratio of engine rpm to wheel rpm is considered. You're nit picking to try not to look so dumb. Let it go.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

Seat belts?

 

[HappyJoy]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

Seat belts?

Yes, from the post I quoted replace "EV's" with "seat belts". Ah, you still won't get it, don't worry about it.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No they don't. The 2.4L L4 gives 190 HP. The 3.3L V6 gives 290.

If you agree with the Car Talk quote, I am not sure why you called me a liar in my prior post. You're not making much sense.

>With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No. There is axel gear ratio, transmission ratio, and transaxle ratio. Often called the final drive ratio when combined. Then, on top of that, there is tire size.

These people have no idea what they are talking about. They think reading a sales blurb makes them an expert.

That's interesting, coming from you, our resident expert on climate change, the internal combustion engine, medicine, with a specialty in virology, geology, religion, race, and a host of other subjects. I have yet to find an area where you don't claim to know more than the experts. Do you have extra wide doors in your house so your super big brain can fit through?

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No they don't. The 2.4L L4 gives 190 HP. The 3.3L V6 gives 290.

If you agree with the Car Talk quote, I am not sure why you called me a liar in my prior post. You're not making much sense.

>With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

No. There is axel gear ratio, transmission ratio, and transaxle ratio. Often called the final drive ratio when combined. Then, on top of that, there is tire size.

These people have no idea what they are talking about. They think reading a sales blurb makes them an expert.

That's interesting, coming from you, our resident expert on climate change, the internal combustion engine, medicine, with a specialty in virology, geology, religion, race, and a host of other subjects. I have yet to find an area where you don't claim to know more than the experts. Do you have extra wide doors in your house so your super big brain can fit through?

You should see his house in Tennessee, it's huge

 

[DJT for Life]

bad bad news for all authoritarian gas-stations like KSA, Muscovy, Venezuela , what will happened to them once oil (so no crazy jets full of cash landing on the roof of the Putin´s dacha) becomes what is coal today ?

"
....
We are in the middle of the biggest revolution in motoring since Henry Ford's first production line started turning back in 1913.
And it is likely to happen much more quickly than you imagine.
Many industry observers believe we have already passed the tipping point where sales of electric vehicles (EVs) will very rapidly overwhelm petrol and diesel cars....

Jaguar plans to sell only electric cars from 2025, Volvo from 2030 and last week the British sportscar company Lotus said it would follow suit, selling only electric models from 2028.

General Motors says it will make only electric vehicles by 2035, Ford says all vehicles sold in Europe will be electric by 2030 and VW says 70% of its sales will be electric by 2030."

Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

The BBC's Justin Rowlatt explains why we are accelerating towards an electric car future.

www.bbc.com

If someone else has already replied, in the same manner that I will, I apologize, but I'm not reading 350 posts.

I don't see the US moving that quickly. The US drives a great deal. We have places to vacation to. I can fill up my
vehicle from Empty to Full in 9 minutes and be back
on my way. You can't do that with Electric Vehicles, where the biggest and best chargers take 30 to 40 minutes to
charge it all the way. Folks that take to the Highways for business and vacation are not going to like wasting time
waiting for a battery to charge. A home unit may take 10 to 12 hours to fully charge a vehicle. Plus can the US grid handle
that type of electric use. The chart you posted shows very little advancement in the US and UK over the past 10 years.
That's because people are creatures of habit and they are not going to like how their habits are going
to have to change.

 

[Rigby5]

You're right. Batteries don't generate power. They are just a way to transfer already generated power to an electric moter, much the same as you pointed out about the generator on a Diesel/electric train. Like so many other things, I am not qualified to make wide ranging determinations on many subjects that effect the entire country. I do, however trust the experts in the field who have the training and experience to make those determinations. I find that training and specialized knowledge is always more reliable than some idiot on the internet who claims to know more than the experts in a wide range of fields. We all know you think you are more knowledgable than doctors, engineers, molecular biologists, and who knows how many other areas of study. I just don't have as much faith in your genious as you seem to have.

The car people have to have some people who know what they are doing, but they are almost never going to be able to say anything.
You have to know what those companies are like.
Marketing is everything, and it is marketing that is pushing foolish things like EVs and AVs.

Getting back to the point, the EVs don't solve anything.
It is just slight of hand.
You show them a car that just plugs in and people think its clean because they don't see the coal yards being dumped into the electrical generators to run those plug in cars.
If we run out of gasoline, then EVs will be running on coal.
And that is awful.
And it is NOT up to the car makers to find a solution, it is up to us.
So we have to choose now, as to whether we want a synthetic from electricity, like hydrogen or methane, or a bio fuel like ethanol or palm oil.
Batteries don't solve anything and are pointless.
Can you imagine batteries in planes, ships, trains, or even trucks?
Makes no sense.
We need to go right to the real solution and none of this marketing hand waving.

 

[Rigby5]

If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

>If the power was near the same, the gear ratios would be near the same. Your numbers are an exaggerated lie. Of course, you could identify the brand and engine sizes so the actual numbers could be checked, and prove me wrong. I'll bet a dollar you won't.

My bad.

I was assuming that each time a cylinder fires, it will propel you so far. A V6 will propel you 50% further than a four-cylinder for every revolution, all else being equal.

Gear and transmission ratios, as well as tire size matter more, and my number is exaggerated and not really based upon modern tech.

I own both four- and six-cyclinder vehicles, and the RPM is certainly higher in the fours for a given speed.

Hyundai Santa Fe 2013 came in both four- and six-cylinder versions.

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/355026/

https://www.cars.com/research/hyundai-santa_fe-2013/specs/358172/

Final drive ratio is 3.648 for the four, and 3.393 for the six. Both have 0.772 6th gear ratios, so that's only about 7.5% different.

The four has 17" wheels, but they are 235/65 whereas the six has 18 wheels with 235 60 tires, so they have diameters of 29.0 and 29.1" respectively.

So overall revs are only about 8% higher in the four at 60 mph.

I stand corrected. Thanks. To whom should I donate your dollar?

PS: There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Not sure why you went there. I was certain I heard this tale from the experts at Car Talk. I did....

"Larger engines will generate more torque. That allows the use of a transmission that lets the engine run slower for the same given car speed. So while a four-cylinder engine might turn at 2,500 rpm at 65 mph, an eight-cylinder engine might turn at 1,800. That could contribute to longer life."

Do More Cylinders Mean Longer Engine Life?

Ray discusses cylinders, longevity, and dodo birds.

www.cartalk.com

The car talk quote is accurate. It doesn't apply to the example you gave because the two engines you mentioned produced similar power levels. With the same gear ratio, a car will travel the same distance per revolution, no matter how many cylindars it has.

If you are trying to understand why much larger engines do not last vastly longer, it is because the man weight any engine has to pull is it own weight. So when you put in a much larger engine, then the engine has to automatically haul all that much more weight from the engine. That is why the trend is to smaller 4 cylinder engines with a turbo charger.