Excuse me if I miss interpret your point, but if it is to predict what the future will be in 60 years for cars, I would like to expand on your thoughts. Technology increases exponentially. In the past twenty years, the computer has taken over car management in ways we would have never drempt. Computers could have the capablities of the human brain in 30 years, this is at least according to those who believe Dr. Ray Kurzweil which is a list of who’s who in todays computer technology. We are now on the verge of completely eliminating the IC for commuting purposes, in I believe, 20 years.
There are now companies that have jumped over the limitations of chemical batteries in favor of solid state that feel cheap, 300 mile storage with recharge in less then an hour and cost approaching that of the transmission they eliminate…within ten years. That is a very conservative time frame… Now, if that comes to pass, , we have 50 more years to extrapolate on this technology. ICs are destined to go the way of the horse for public transportation. Parades and hobbies are their only projected use.
“What model year is it? Do you know? The newer ones don’t have as good as styling, the newer ones, they seem like they look like something from the 1980’s to me, but that one in the photo looks very modern, more like the newer Mercedes styling.”
Yeah, I like those older Accords too…
Joe’s is a 1990.
Over 20 years old and it looks and runs like that… pretty impressive…But then again, he is a master Honda tech
dagosa, I have to respectfully disagree with two things you’ve said.
"ICs are destined to go the way of the horse for public transportation."
I really doubt this–the energy-density advantages of HC fuels are just too obvious, even allowing for pretty massive improvements in battery tech. And I’m not all that sold on huge gains there anyways, considering. I predict natural gas will be adopted by the U.S. simply for balance-of-trade issues and become the dominant fuel. I predict this will happen once the cost of a gallon-equivalent of CNG drops ~40% more relative to the cost of a gallon of gas.
"Technology increases exponentially."
This is only true during the time such technology is “immature” or “emerging.” Consider that, over the course of 44 years, we went from the Wright Flyer to supersonic flight–but as a mature technology, improvements have been far more marginal–a 60’s era 707 or DC-8 is roughly equal in performance to a modern Boeing/Airbus, with the main improvements being operating cost.
Given that electromotive transport is as old as the streetcar, it seems unreasonable to expect quantum leaps in such n established technology.
[To butcher Occam’s Razor, “the simplest change to infrastructure is the one most likely to be implemented,” which is why I see CNG winning out over e-].
dagosa is correct…IC will eventually have to go away. Not sure of the time line. But within the next few hundred years we’ll have exhausted all our oil and other resources to produce fuel for the IC engines.
“Same…“there’s no doubt in my mind that IC engines will still be around 60 years from now.” I respectfully feel differently.
There is no doubt in my mind that IC engines will not be powering cars and trucks on the highways 60 years from now. If so, they will be as antiques. There will be no need for ICs even as generator motors. The electric motor needs only an economical Storage device. IMO, that’s less then 25 years away. Within twenty years of that…by, by IC.”
I’m a bit tardy in responding to this one Daq. Sorry.
I’d like to believe that storage technology will emerge that will allow ultrahigh energy density and quick recovery, and that a recharging infrastructure will develop within the next 25 years, but I’m not optimistic. Even the simple task of infrastructure development doesn;t seem to be moving along very rapidly at all. My guess is that 25 years from now we’ll still be using ICEs but very differently than we do now, perhaps to run generators. The vehicle power will likely come from four motors, one at each wheel, eliminating the need for (and the weight of) a drivetrain, as well as being regenerative when braking (technology already developed).
It’ll be interesting to see the outcome. I hope I’m still around then.
Meanjoe73fan…my comments on the IC and it’s use, as I probably did not Make clear, was for private transportation. At this time, I see no substitute for jet fuel, marine fuel and heavy haul. Would like to think natural gas would be the diesel fuel of the future, but the bottom line is this. 60 years from now is so far away, cars will be absolutely different. My conjectures are not based upon the advancement of cars only, but the computer and what impact that will have on transportation.
The more things change, the more remian the same. In 1953 Motor Trend had an article on gas turbines for cars and trucks. They were so gung ho that they closed by saying that the title of their magazine would soon be called “Turbine Trend”.
Now, 59 years later we ares still driving piston powered cars with a lot of development behind them. A high compresssion, turbocharged, direct injected piston engine can get an astonishing number of miles per gallon, about 3 times that of a similar power rated engine from 1953.
For fork lift trucks, delivery vehicles, golf cart and other special pupose vehicles,pure electric drives make sense.
Hybrid vehicles have their place as well. Sixty years from now a car of today will not look out of place as long as humans stay the same size and shape.
D… SD … I’ve heard that diesel engines last longer, but is there really any evidence of this? They are built tougher, sure, but that’s because they must endure tougher operating conditions. Isn’t that a wash?
Around a million miles, I’d expect both a gasoline engine and a diesel engine to need major retooling before heading back onto the road. At least a valve job and new rings. I wouldn’t expect the diesel engine itself to be in any better shape in terms of the amount of work needed to get it back to nominal condition. Or is this just me?
Diesel’s reputation is largely from semis, which run forever, but are little like a car diesel. I doubt modern car diesels (with all their high tech pollution controls, computer high pressure fuel injection, and high power out put) are any longer-lived than gassers. But that’s fine, few cars wear out their engines, regardless.
In the 70s and 80s Volkswagen offered a gas or diesel engine in their Rabbits at the same price. The engines were the same basic design and BOTH WERE VERY DURABLE.
Today’s gas engines, especially those with turbochargers have to be very rugged, and should have about the same life as similar diesels.
Doc…you mentioned the turbine car and it’s advantages…as stated from article http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html
"Maintenance is considerably reduced
Engine life-expectancy is much longer
Development potential is remarkable
The number of parts is reduced 80%
Tuning-up is almost eliminated
Low-temperature starting difficulties are eliminated
No warm-up period is necessary
Antifreeze is not needed
Instant heat is available in the winter
The engine will not stall with sudden overloading
Engine operation is vibration-free
Operates on wide variety of fuels
Oil consumption is negligible
Engine weight is reduced
Exhaust gases are cool and clean"
A lot of potential and quite a motor. But, it’s still an IC motor which requires expensive alloys and is LOUD.
OK for race ways, military and marine use with tax payer dollars, but prohibitive for mass production…
Still, an interesting automotive dalliance.
dagosa; the 50 people who Chrysler chose to test drive them for an extended time all loved them. However, in the fities, a V8 could be built for next to nothing, and the turbine was very expensive with all its exotic alloys. The reason they never caught on in commercial trucks was the poor fuel economy; a turbine cannot attain the efficiency of a diesel without elaborate heat recovery. That part is easy in industry, but takes up too much space in a car or truck. Caterpillar builds both gas turbines (Solar) and diesels, but after all these years they still have not put them in highway trucks.
It was and is a good tank engine because of its light weight, reliability, although the military had to put up with the poor fuel mileage. Uncle Sam swallowed that one.
They’re great tank engines for a much better reason…they’re comparatively extremely quiet. The ability to sneak up on the enemy undetected is worth its weight in gold.
They also operate on almost anything. When one is invading a foreign country, one cannot rely on good quality fuels.
Barring accident or misuse durability is entirely a matter of design. Building a car that would last 60 years or 600,000 miles wouldn’t be that difficult. Use the best possible materials, stainless steel for the body as an example, and over-design its components. The real question is whether or not anyone would want to buy one. It would be expensive and heavy. It wouldn’t perform well and probably not be much fun to drive. In short its only virtue would be longevity. As soon as you start talking about performance, safety or economy compromises must be made in the design. And, that’s the problem. Every manufacturer, shade tree engineer and buyer must grapple with the problem of getting the most of what they want for a price they are willing to pay.
The air cooled VW designed solely to be durable and cheap remains a remarkable piece of engineering.
When it comes to powering a car electricity is not inherently better than an ICE. At the basic level some form of energy is converted to mechanical energy. Choosing the best strategy requires considering the advantages and disadvantages at each step of the process. First there is the source; domestic or foreign, gasoline or coal, nuclear or NG or something else. Then there is transportation and distribution, power grid or pipeline and truck. There are inefficiencies in conversion; gasoline to heat to mechanical or fuel to heat, to mechanical, to electrical, to mechanical, plus, the pros and cons to be considered for the type and control of pollution. And, there are taxes. The price of petroleum is kept artificially high through taxation and the cost of electricity kept artificially low through aggressive public utility control. If electricity ever becomes the norm you can be sure a way will be found to replace shrinking petroleum revenue with a tax on something else. If the U.S. had large reserves of quality crude oil I doubt there would even be a discussion about the electric car.
The US is a coal superpower, with hundreds of years of supplies. If environmental issues did not drive the governent’s agenda, coal generated elctricity would power plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles in most areas of the US.
The overall thermal efficiency of an electric car powered by coal fired electricity is no better than a good direct injection gasoline or diesel, but the cost per mile would be about one half.
The US has the cheapest gasoline in the developed world, about half of most European countries. With the unrest in the Middle East and still growing worldwide needs, we may be back to $147 oil again, which would drive US gas prices up to what they are in Europe now! Neither Obama or Congress will be able to do anything about this. It will, however be a real boost to fuel-efficient cars and electric vehicles. Since the public has a very short attention span, a gas guzzler and horsepower tax is needed NOW to get buyers to switch to more economical vehicles now, before there is another gas crunch.
I bought some gas yesterday at the self-serve ($4.25/gallon) for my econobox, and the fellow gassing up in the next aisle, he yells over to me, and I wasn’t even talking to him, but he’s standing next to his SUV, and pointing at the gas prices on the sign, he yells to me – “These gas prices are crazy. I’m taking my wife and going car shopping this weekend to see if we can find a good electric or a hybrid to replace this one.”