Will this new Mazda engine be a game-changer for the petrol engine ?

[phillm]

Apparently this is going to change the world and destroy Tesla. Sounds like Mazda hyping their patent. I wouldn't know but wiser souls might.

"Mazda has announced that it has mastered and will produce HCCI gasoline engines, dubbed SkyActiv-X, for their 2019 vehicles.
This has been attempted by car manufacturers for some 30 years, yet tiny Mazda, not Honda, not Chevy, not Ford -- has apparently finally done it.
The value of this breakthrough cannot be overstated.
If it works to anywhere near its promise this breakthrough will utterly destroy the EV industry -- including Tesla -- for light passenger vehicles."

The Way Is Led By.... MAZDA?

Mazda knows what it has as well -- it has announced that it has no intention of selling these engines to any other vehicle makers.

Mazda's clever engine is great news for petrol. Erm... yay?

 

[High Voltage]

It'll work right up to 2040 when it won't be allowed to be sold

Bottom line: there ain't no more oil in the ground and this is just "fiddling whilst Rome is burning"

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Indeed. If it works it's very clever, but it's still more of the same. Petrol engines have been getting more efficient for years, but the price of fuel will keep rising as it gets harder to extract.

Electric on the other hand is in its infancy. Maybe we'll see technology like in Hybrids for a while to come, but we really need a big break through in battery tech and charging to be a real game changer.

 

[Supine]

Looks like bollox to me! I needed to read a link in the article to find out how it works. It offers a 15% efficiency improvement but still uses petrol as the fuel. So not exactly a game changer.

 

[Supine]

Making roads from solar panels would be a better idea (I'll get my coat)

 

[mauvais]

If Mazda's track record is anything to go by - cf. the Wankel engine - it'll do what it says, but after a few years become intolerable to maintain and then operate, thus being dropped before its time. Eh, who knows.

However Mazda are in no position to keep it to themselves as the OP claims. They aren't big or broad enough to make a full return on it, so if it really is worthwhile, expect to see it licensed.

More generally, ICE advancements should be welcome, as they've otherwise been put on hold. Electric is still a long way from mass relevancy and there are applications where it may never be workable.

On the other hand, the public obsession with fuel bills has always struck me as a bit odd. Unless you do travelling salesman mileage, the cost of fuel is only a component in the grand scheme of motoring expenses.

 

[Chz]

It'll work right up to 2040 when it won't be allowed to be sold

Bottom line: there ain't no more oil in the ground and this is just "fiddling whilst Rome is burning"

Nonsense. If battery technology manages to solve their weight and energy density issues, then yes - petrol is dead. But that's by no means guaranteed. Workable petrol can be synthesised from plenty of other things, it just so happens that cracking crude oil is the cheapest way to get a very energy-dense fuel that (in the case of petrol, at least) isn't too awful on the emissions side of things. You can expect it to hang around for a while yet.

2040 is irrelevant - it does not exclude hybrids, which are the most obvious course of action in the near future for most cars.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Nonsense. If battery technology manages to solve their weight and energy density issues, then yes - petrol is dead. But that's by no means guaranteed. Workable petrol can be synthesised from plenty of other things, it just so happens that cracking crude oil is the cheapest way to get a very energy-dense fuel that (in the case of petrol, at least) isn't too awful on the emissions side of things. You can expect it to hang around for a while yet.

2040 is irrelevant - it does not exclude hybrids, which are the most obvious course of action in the near future for most cars.

Bio fuel is stupidly expensive without subsidies. It also has the quite concerning effect if removing farmland from useful things like growing food.

If we could train yeast to it though from waste that would be quite something.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

On the other hand, the public obsession with fuel bills has always struck me as a bit odd. Unless you do travelling salesman mileage, the cost of fuel is only a component in the grand scheme of motoring expenses.

I'm with the Top Gear boors on that, £1.20(ish) for a litre of petrol is really remarkably cheap.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I'm with the Top Gear boors on that, £1.20(ish) for a litre of petrol is really remarkably cheap.

Well cheaper then it was, but for many people fuel is a significantly part of their out goings.

 

[Ted Striker]

I'm with the Top Gear boors on that, £1.20(ish) for a litre of petrol is really remarkably cheap.

...Or that other long distance travel is too expensive. If only our public transport network got its arse in gear (so to speak) /digression

 

[kabbes]

"Mazda has announced that it has mastered and will produce HCCI gasoline engines, dubbed SkyActiv-X, for their 2019 vehicles.
This has been attempted by car manufacturers for some 30 years, yet tiny Mazda, not Honda, not Chevy, not Ford -- has apparently finally done it.
The value of this breakthrough cannot be overstated.
If it works to anywhere near its promise this breakthrough will utterly destroy the EV industry -- including Tesla -- for light passenger vehicles."

The Way Is Led By.... MAZDA?

Whoever writes that blog is properly of the green ink brigade.

 

[planetgeli]

I'm with the Top Gear boors on that, £1.20(ish) for a litre of petrol is really remarkably cheap.

Well...except most of that is tax and, compared to the rest of Western Europe, you won't fight any more expensive (80p equivalent when I was in Austria and Slovenia last year, before the current reduction in the price of a barrel).

 

[1%er]

Bio fuel is stupidly expensive without subsidies. It also has the quite concerning effect if removing farmland from useful things like growing food.

I'm not sure where you got the information that Bio fuel is "stupidly expensive without subsidies". It isn't in Brazil, in fact the price is kept artificially high as the cost is linked to petrol (politicos and other have been paid off for years to keep the price high by Brazil's oil companies, that is what the current corruption investigations into petrobras is all about) . Producers used to get a subsidy in some parts of the country to help offset the cost of production but that was stopped a few years ago, the reason for it was because in least developed areas of the country they couldn't afford to modernize and pay for the machinery to harvest the crop and the government didn't want the loss of jobs in poor rural areas of the country.

Brazil leads the world in Bio fuel and all cars sold in the last 20 years have had to be "flex fuel" so capable of running on ethanol or gas as well as petrol.

It is petrobras an oil company (which was the largest company in the southern-hemisphere) is responsible for keeping the price of Bio fuel high and also stopped Brazil making billions of dollars from exports of cheap bio fuel.

 

[Spymaster]

Well...except most of that is tax and, compared to the rest of Western Europe, you won't fight any more expensive (80p equivalent when I was in Austria and Slovenia last year, before the current reduction in the price of a barrel).

Are you sure? I was in Slovenia earlier this year and it was only a few pence per litre less than here. Traditionally, fuel in the UK is about mid-table price-wise, when compared to the rest of Europe.

 

[mauvais]

Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands (£1.47/ltr), Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland are all more expensive for petrol than the UK.

For diesel the UK is closer. Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland more expensive.

Petrol diesel fuel prices in Europe July 5th 2017

Oh and Belgium and Switzerland are the only places where diesel is more expensive than petrol, as was traditionally true here.

 

[planetgeli]

Are you sure? I was in Slovenia earlier this year and it was only a few pence per litre less than here. Traditionally fuel in the UK is about mid-table price-wise, when compared to the rest of Europe.

Actually it was summer 2015 (how time flies ) but I'm positive about the price as I get quite anal about checking fuel prices driving around. I guess pre-Brexit (and consequent fall in the pound to the euro) is the only other factor. Ah, bollocks, you've got me doubting myself now. I may just mean Austria. But I don't think so. I'll check me notes, brb.

Edit. Ok, I've got Austria fuel (diesel) at 77p a litre. And in Slovenia I've got...Macedonian wine at £1.40 a litre. That was foul.

Yeah, I probably only meant Austria at that cheap but really don't remember any great jump (certainly not to within a few pence of U.K.) going to Slovenia.

 

[mauvais]

Anyway, and this is obviously no consolation if you're in poverty and need to drive to work, to go from any random location in John O'Groats to the same at Lands End in your own private conveyance costs you about £90 in fuel, which in terms of utility is a bargain IMO.

 

[weltweit]

So far it is only France and Britain that are going to electric by law so there is plenty of potential around the world for the Mazda engine.

Not a company to underestimate, the only Japanese car maker to have ever won Le Mans and they did that with a rotary engine.

 

[urbanspaceman]

The Mazda design is indeed an interesting refinement. And, impressively for a mature 120-year-old technology, traditional car manufacturers still generate a continuous stream of improvements, both incremental and significant - everything from low-friction piston rings to electrically driven superchargers to 10-speed automatic gearboxes. Perhaps we are seeing an instance of the (contested) "Sailing Ship Effect"

www.wikiwand.com/en/Sailing_Ship_Effect

But electric vehicles are an emerging technology, with huge potential for improvement, while traditional cars can only squeeze out incremental advances. Electric vehicles will win out, and it won't be due to government fiat, but to technical, operational and cost superiority.

There exist a group of Tesla-haters in the USA, driven variously by a) ideologically-driven hatred of "green" ideas, b) personal envy/resentment of Musk's achievements, c) love of traditional cars, and d) desire to protect their short positions in Tesla stock. So these commentators can get a bit unhinged. But consider that there are perhaps 700,000 reservations for the new Tesla Model 3, which could make it the best-selling middle-level sedan when production is fully ramped up. People also say that the existing big, luxury Teslas (the model X and S) sell in small volumes. That is true, as they are expensive. But it's interesting to note that in the USA the luxury Tesla models are already comfortably outselling (and taking share from) their direct prestige brand competitors, see the table below:

The electric car is already here, and it seems to be winning in the segments in which it competes.

 

[mauvais]

The Mazda design is indeed an interesting refinement. And, impressively for a mature 120-year-old technology, traditional car manufacturers still generate a continuous stream of improvements, both incremental and significant - everything from low-friction piston rings to electrically driven superchargers to 10-speed automatic gearboxes. Perhaps we are seeing an instance of the (contested) "Sailing Ship Effect"

www.wikiwand.com/en/Sailing_Ship_Effect

But electric vehicles are an emerging technology, with huge potential for improvement, while traditional cars can only squeeze out incremental advances. Electric vehicles will win out, and it won't be due to government fiat, but to technical, operational and cost superiority.

There exist a group of Tesla-haters in the USA, driven variously by a) ideologically-driven hatred of "green" ideas, b) personal envy/resentment of Musk's achievements, c) love of traditional cars, and d) desire to protect their short positions in Tesla stock. So these commentators can get a bit unhinged. But consider that there are perhaps 700,000 reservations for the new Tesla Model 3, which could make it the best-selling middle-level sedan when production is fully ramped up. People also say that the existing big, luxury Teslas (the model X and S) sell in small volumes. That is true, as they are expensive. But it's interesting to note that in the USA the luxury Tesla models are already comfortably outselling (and taking share from) their direct prestige brand competitors, see the table below:

The electric car is already here, and it seems to be winning in the segments in which it competes.

For a start, the Model S doesn't compete with any of those cars listed, which are much larger and inherently niche players. It competes with e.g. the BMW 5 Series or the Mercedes E Class (46k US sales a year).

The whole Tesla story is well dodgy and largely speculation-taken-as-material and I think a lot of people are in for a very unpleasant surprise, but I wouldn't like to bet when and certainly wouldn't like to short the stock. There's a post of mine on here somewhere saying much the same when it was $90 a share.

 

[urbanspaceman]

For a start, the Model S doesn't compete with any of those cars listed, which are much larger and inherently niche players. It competes with e.g. the BMW 5 Series or the Mercedes E Class (46k US sales a year).

The whole Tesla story is well dodgy and largely speculation-taken-as-material and I think a lot of people are in for a very unpleasant surprise, but I wouldn't like to bet when and certainly wouldn't like to short the stock. There's a post of mine on here somewhere saying much the same when it was $90 a share.

I took my data from the sources below.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/0...arge-luxury-car-competition-h1-2017-us-sales/
Tesla’s Model S outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US

You claim that the Tesla S is not a large car. Electrek says it is:

"It means that Tesla’s Model S so far outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US in 2017. There has been some controversy over whether or not the Model S should be considered a ‘large sedan’, but the EPA defines the segment as vehicles with 120 ft³ or more of combined passenger andcargo interior volume, which is exactly Tesla’s interior volume." Therefore, it should technically fit the description – though barely admittedly. Some other vehicles inthe segment, like the Mercedes-Benz S-Class or Porsche Panamera, only have 4 more ft³."

Can you explain "well dodgy" ? Tesla last traded at $90 per share in May 2013, so presumably that's when you claimed so. More than four years later, the Model X and 3 have been launched, and the Gigafactory is operating. The price now stands at $338, almost four times higher than when you warned us all what a bad bet Tesla would be. Is it possible that your stock picking skills are not as superior as you think they are ?

 

[mauvais]

I took my data from the sources below.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/0...arge-luxury-car-competition-h1-2017-us-sales/
Tesla’s Model S outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US

You claim that the Tesla S is not a large car. Electrek says it is:

"It means that Tesla’s Model S so far outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US in 2017. There has been some controversy over whether or not the Model S should be considered a ‘large sedan’, but the EPA defines the segment as vehicles with 120 ft³ or more of combined passenger andcargo interior volume, which is exactly Tesla’s interior volume." Therefore, it should technically fit the description – though barely admittedly. Some other vehicles inthe segment, like the Mercedes-Benz S-Class or Porsche Panamera, only have 4 more ft³."

Never mind cubic centimetres of volume, look at the damned thing. It's the size, utility and point in the market of a 5 Series. No matter what the S is and can do, if you've ever sat in a 7 Series, you'll know immediately why the comparison is invalid. But, the comparison is valid in one way - there is a strictly finite market and utility for a BMW 7 Series. There is currently a similarly finite market and utility for a £60k+ electric car. 'But the Model 3', I hear you say, the affordable version for the masses, the Chevrolet Bolt of, err, our time. Well, let's see whether that can be proven up first.

Can you explain "well dodgy" ? Tesla last traded at $90 per share in May 2013, so presumably that's when you claimed so. More than four years later, the Model X and 3 have been launched, and the Gigafactory is operating. The price now stands at $338, almost four times higher than when you warned us all what a bad bet Tesla would be. Is it possible that your stock picking skills are not as superior as you think they are ?

Good dig, but actually - for my sins - I made about 3-4x return since 2012 putting money on a strictly dinosaur-fuelled old school car maker, so I'm not too troubled by my ineptitude.

Tesla are well dodgy because, as someone put it recently, it's operating on a Silicon Valley valuation rather than a Wall Street one, a valuation on what it might be rather than what it is. The market cap is $59bn. Honda is $51bn. There are myriad major barriers to its scaling up and limited barriers to competitor entry.

There was plenty of money to be made on TSLA at many points. But the same was, and is, true of Bitcoin. It's if and when the bubble bursts that should be the concern. The electric car is pretty much a given but the continued success of Tesla is not.

 

[discokermit]

Can you explain "well dodgy" ?

they cost more to make than they sell for.

 

[Brainaddict]

Whenever someone goes on about the 'efficiency' of capitalist markets I think of how much has been expended over decades, in energy, time and resources, in refining and perfecting - often multiple times in parallel - a technology that should soon be obsolete.

 

[DownwardDog]

There was plenty of money to be made on TSLA at many points. But the same was, and is, true of Bitcoin. It's if and when the bubble bursts that should be the concern. The electric car is pretty much a given but the continued success of Tesla is not.

I have been in and out of Tesla for years and made a ton of money on it (Elon bought me my boat) but even I think it's starting to look a bit toppy.

I think the biggest problem they have is how long it takes them to get a product to market. At first this was an advantage as it built hype but, in a few years, when there are other options (eg Merc's new EQ brand) then it's going to cost them sales. The Model S is now 6 years old with no sign of a replacement in sight...

 

[bemused]

I'm not sure I'd write the combustion engine off yet. For a number of reasons:

1. I don't belive the 2040 target will be hit.
2. Outside industrialised countries fuel is much easier to distribute than electricity.
3. HCCI doesn't need petrol to run - you could run in on synthetic fuel which has been around since the 1920s. At some point, it'll be commercially viable to make, or some lobby group will get a comedy subsidy from government
4. Electric powered commercial ships, trucks and planes seem a while off.

Personal I loathe driving, the idea of a robot car I plug in and use my phone to drive is something I'd jump on in a second. But, I think people will be sticking petrol in cars for quite some time to come.

 

[Chz]

. I don't belive the 2040 target will be hit.

As mentioned above, hybrids are allowed (at least in the UK declaration, dunno about France) so it seems quite achievable and still requires a vast number of internal combustion engines.

 

[bemused]

As mentioned above, hybrids are allowed (at least in the UK declaration, dunno about France) so it seems quite achievable and still requires a vast number of internal combustion engines.

Home charging is really not a mass adoption solution, so hybrid is probably the only why they'll get close to it.

 

[Brainaddict]

Home charging is really not a mass adoption solution, so hybrid is probably the only why they'll get close to it.

I've wondered why manufacturers have gone so strongly for this idea of home charging. It always seemed more sensible to me to develop a standard battery that could be swapped in and out at a garage (would need some little lifting boom so customers don't actually have to lift them but that's easy). Then garages become responsible for charging and battery quality control, and the swapping fee covers the cost of replacement of batteries as necessary. This would get rid of the whole limitation of not being able to drive more than x number of miles before charging. It also means that garages don't have to go bust as fossil fuels fade, but that's just a side bonus.