Over the past few years, there has been some writing on the wall that the internal combustion engine, or ICE, is living on borrowed time. Regulations in Europe and California intend to limit and/or prohibit the sale of fossil fuel powered vehicles, even non-plug-in hybrids, within the decade. Formula 1 race cars, which have used a form of hybrid power plant for some time now, will go to 100% carbon-free fuel for their main ICE engine in 2026 and the power of the electric motor will be tripled to 350 kW.
And despite some ups and downs, not to mention the negative press, existing EV models and new or heavily revised EV models from many manufacturers are selling like hotcakes globally. The Tesla Model Y is on track to be the best-selling car worldwide and in many parts of the US, Tesla’s, Chevy Bolts, electric Kias and Hyundais, VW ID4’s and Audi eTron and Rivian pickups and SUV’s are common sights and no longer attract much attention. In my town, at least three residential construction companies are using Ford Lightning electric pickups and a couple of local small businesses have deployed the Ford eTransit electric van. And of course, EV’s are booming in China.
But there’s still some exciting stuff going on with gasoline ICE’s. For now, I’ll leave diesels out of the discussion. And, I’ll focus on US market cars. The first that comes to mind is the Toyota Corolla GR. Yes, a Corolla. Its G16 3 cylinder 1600cc engine puts out 300 horsepower, and a peak of 273 lb-ft of torque over a range of 3000 to 5500 rpm. And it’s offered with a manual transmission only, by the way. EPA combined fuel economy is 24 US mpg.
OK, but that’s a limited production performance engine. Well, how about the new Stellantis Hurricane engine? An all-new straight six in 3.0 and 3.6 liter versions, it is replacing the Hemi V8 and Pentastar V6 in many new Jeep and Ram vehicles … ironically, the Chrysler brand itself is now down to just the Pacifica minivan which, not surprisingly, won’t get this engine, and 2024 (or later) versions of the Charger and Challenger are still TBD. The limited production 392 Wrangler and the heavy duty 2500/3500 pickups still offer the Hemi V8, for now. But the power and efficiency of the all-new Hurricane six are impressive, with configurations at over 500 bhp.
Do these engines suggest that we‘ve about reached peak internal combustion, and these will be the last hurrah before the world goes 100% EV? Or do they indicate that the technology isn’t dead yet, and there is even better still to come, though perhaps it will be applied to range extenders for plug-in hybrids, like Mazda’s new small rotary engine?
Or is there more to “Peak ICE” than just raw power or horsepower/liter? Have we already passed the real-world peak, as these newer engines gain cost and complexity and perhaps lose reliability, with extreme boost, electronic controls, variable valve timing and compression, and more? Perhaps the real-world peak was an older design like the Chevy LS/LT V8, with its pushrods and in some versions, iron block. Not as sexy as the smaller displacement engines, but very refined, and providing durability, horsepower and efficiency that Ed Cole could never have dreamed of in 1955. So what do you think: is peak ICE with us today, yet to come, or already in the past? And what is your nomination of a single engine that best deserves the title? For our global readers, it can be something not sold here in the states but it should be a mainstream motor from a global company.
Any technology can be further improved with more R&D and experience, but it appears that many major automakers are abandoning any further efforts to develop new and better ICV drivetrains as governments force them to go electric. The problem is that governments can’t force reluctant car buyers to go electric, and they can’t force EVs to be profitable for automakers, and even attempts to subsidize EVs are proving problematic for governments that are broke and paying higher interest rates on their debt (see Germany’s recent cancellation of EV subsidies due to budget problems caused by massive subsidies to renewables and the import of millions of “refugees” without the means to support themselves). Thus everyone except for Tesla is losing money on EVs that are piling up on dealer lots, and EVs including Tesla are experiencing terrible resale value as used vehicles, because most buyers don’t trust the batteries or the grid, or can’t afford their high prices (and bad depreciation makes leasing expensive). China’s control of increasingly expensive minerals and battery production, have also dampened hopes that batteries would continue to drop in price to make EVs more price competitive without subsidies, while renewable mandates are making electricity increasingly expensive and reducing EV operating cost benefits versus ICVs (“untaxed” electricity is already more expensive than heavily taxed gasoline at public charging stations in many parts of the world).
Thus the question of peak ICV is dependent on who will blink first. Do automakers bleeding red ink from the EVs restart development efforts on ICVs? Do broke governments unable to continue generous subsidies, and fearful of job losses should ICV makers go bankrupt loosen up on EV mandates? Does some “magic” battery technology emerge that make cost-competitive and profitable EV production possible? Do most customers continue to resist the purchase of EVs in favor of ICVs? The answers to these questions will determine the fate of further ICV development.
You summed it up nicely
I’d say that like so many of mans’ endeavors, the idea that we are immenently about to be forced into driving EV’s is going to run aground ( if I may mix metaphors) on the shoals of reality.
Your summation of the challenges facing EV’s is spot on.
Here in California the jackass bureaucrats who live in some sort of airy fairy unicorn land have declared that batteries will run garden tools from weed whackers to blowers, NOW. Underpowered crap.
This will just make the price of ICV powered garden equipment..used…go up.
EV’s sit on dealers lots here while people ( who I might add I think are out of their minds) buy 60 grand PLUS gasoline and diesel pickup trucks. Neither the absurd and unjustifiable price of fuel in Cali nor the astromonomical price for over complicated ICV’s seems to deter people..
2034 or whenever the bureaucrats have declared the end to the sales of gasoline powered vehicles to be, is rushing towrds us.
While China and all underdeveloped African and Asian countries rush to industrialize with coal etc,the fat happy clueless American government pushes ahead with obviously damaging environmental and energy policy.
As if battery waste, mineral depletion etc won’t affect us concomittant with our misguided attempst to “save the planet.” by drilling less oil and reducing the carbon footprint of modern life.
Makes no sense unless you are a state employee following the mandates of the idiots that we send to the statehouses and the interest groups who get rich pushing these policies.
While techology may solve many of the problems associated with EV’s it creates new ones and we cannot possibly grasp the implications of a wholesale forced march to electrification of vehicles. They cant even keep the lights on in some parts of Cali 24/7. Never mind the price per kwh at present in SoCal.
And this is coming from a Democrat who grew up in the Sixties.
Thus everyone except for Tesla is losing money on EVs
Not according to Hyundai/Kia and a number of other manufacturers. Stellantis claims to be profitable with their European EVs. Same for Volvo. Most likely MBZ and BMW too. And others.
EVs including Tesla are experiencing terrible resale value as used vehicles,
This was almost totally due to the massive price drops by Tesla in 2023, which of course hit the resale values of used ones hard.
China’s control of increasingly expensive minerals and battery production, have also dampened hopes that batteries would continue to drop in price to make EVs more price competitive
Battery prices have continued to drop, to record low levels in 2023. Lithium prices plummeted, among other things, Supply of lithium is growing quickly all over the world.
Do automakers bleeding red ink from the EVs restart development efforts on ICVs?
Some automakers may be bleeding ink on their EV programs, but overall they are gushing with profits. Ford, GM and Stellantis all have very healthy black ink, as do other global manufacturers. The industry overall is very healthy.
Manufacturers will continue IC development programs depending on their location and market realities. In China, almost certainly not. BYD killed their last IC cars this year and is now 100% EV. Others there will likely move that way too. In Europe, where EV adoption is much higher than in the US, there will likely be little or no further IC development. In the US, where EV adoption is significantly lower, we can see that there’s still IC development, like with the new Stellantis Hurricane six. Same goes for Japan, but the IC development there will likely be associated with hybrids, as that’s what is selling well there.
Oops; I forgot the battery price chart:
According to my sources, EVs are money losers for most makers except Tesla.
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2023/12/06/stellantis-ceo-carlos-tavares-golman-sachs-companies-losing-money-evs-darwinian/71822453007/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/01/05/why-rivian-stock-slumped-this-week/
https://insideevs.com/news/693626/ford-cuts-ev-investment-after-losing-36000-usd-every-ev-sold-q3/
I guess you didn’t actually read the Detroit News article. Tavares said: “In the United States and in Europe, Stellantis’ electrified vehicles are in the black.”
I am not referring to new/recent startup EV companies like Rivian and Lucid. I specifically mentioned certain manufacturers that have said or indicated that their EVs are profitable, or very close to it.
Anyway, it’s all too obvious that the transition to EVs was going to be very difficult, expensive and involve losses along the way. Which is exactly why there are incentives from the various governments, for better or for worse.
“before the world goes 100% EV?” IMO, it will be years, if ever before the “WORLD” is 100% EV. The lack of infrastructure, the costs of EV’s (although slowly coming down) are still beyond the range of most struggling gen X,Y,Zer’s. Some important ingredients needed for battery production are in countries not necessarily friendly to us, AND utilize child labor.
It’s hard to visualize underdeveloped countries in India and Africa wholeheartedly embracing total electric vehicles. It would seem to me, that the best compromise for the foreseeable future would be a gas/electric hybrid. Of course, I could be totally wrong ?! Just my $0.02 worth! YMMV! 🙂
China, India, and Africa do not have the grids to support massive EV use, and furthermore, the grid power they do have and are building is mostly coal based. EVs powered by coal generated electricity are far dirtier than a modern ICV.
China’s grid does have the ability to support massive EV use, which is of course why their government is pushing for EV adoption. China’s grid is adding renewable energy at massive levels.
India and Africa are also adding renewable energy sources. Solar panels generate electricity at 2-3 cents per kWh. The biggest opportunity in India and Africa is EV micro-mobility, and scooter and tuck-tucks and such are being converted to EVs at a substantial rate.
Actually, an EV running on 100% coal-generated electricity (which of course is theoretical, as coal is in decline almost everywhere) still generates less CO than an IC car.
China is a massive oil importer and is not a naval power. China would be stupid to perpetuate an oil based transportation system.
Depending on your definition, I would think the best ICE years were the 00’s thru 10’s.
Emissions controls were not as stringent then and the auto companies were getting the upper hand on tail pipe management via faster control module chips; dual overhead cam four valves per cylinder heads; variable value timing; and fuel injection versus carburetors of the past. The above lead to a renaissance in horse power numbers while maintaining very good quality.
Some recent issues which give me pause:
– shift to direct injection which can lead to clogging of intake values. VW has had this issue of late.
– hearing horror stories of stretched timing belts on recent GM and Mopar V6 engines
– have seen a You Tube video or two throwing rocks at the 3 cylinder Ford Ecoboost. Also, GM 1.4 also has a very bad rep which I happen to experience via a Chevy Trax rental. Was afraid the engine would jump out from under the hood.
– some folks swear by turbos, but I’m not sold. Today, most 4 cylinder and V6 models have turbos. Will have to shop around to avoid the spool.
– some recent transmissions (dual clutch and 10+ speed automatics) have driven some folks crazy
– I feel the manufactures are distracted by EV development and production. Not seeing the same level of quality and detail in a flock of recent rentals as experienced in the past.
– this is highly subjective, but very annoyed by all the nanny distractions (driver aids). Again, all based on recent rentals, but took me two days and several You Tube videos to figure out how to turn off prescient chime concerning the speed limit. Same thing with the shaking steering wheel. Some of this money could have been applied to engine reliability.
Based on the above, I think I’ll hang on to my naturally aspired eleven year old V6 with a corresponding easy to use CD player in the dash for a little while longer!!
Expensive EVs don’t make sense for people driving long distances in remote places, people who tow or haul heavy loads, and people who live in apartments or otherwise don’t have access to home recharging. Others are concerned about EV fires burning down their homes, or the high costs of insurance as a minor fender bender that “dents” the battery can total an EV (or cause a fire that burns down the owner’s home or the repair shop fixing the “dented” battery), or the inability to charge their EV because of grid unreliability (which is increasing due to renewable mandates). And given the reluctance of governments to back off on “net-zero”, “green new deal” type programs despite voter disinterest and the resulting high cost of energy, automakers may be forced to make EVs most of their customers don’t want.
In other words, many drivers may be faced with a Cuba situation where the supply of desired (ICV) cars is cut off, and they are forced to keep their old ICVs going for decades. I predict a large supply of curbside classics during the coming years.
Dude, I think you need to get off the misinformation train at the next stop..
“Expensive EVs don’t make sense for people driving long distances in remote places, people who tow or haul heavy loads”
Yet. The same could be said when everyone still rode horses and had their oxen pull loads and the internal combustion engine became available without a gas station at every corner. The vast majority of people don’t do either of your scenarios. And it’s getting better every year. Many new gas stations are finally realizing reality and installing chargers, it’s a revenue source, they aren’t stupid, their biggest problem is people that fuel their EV up at home exclusively. Rome and the fossil fuel industry wasn’t built in a day, why does everything EV have to happen on Day One?
“Others are concerned about EV fires burning down their homes” Yet others again are concerned about a Ford ICE or Hyundai ICE burning down their home. Both manufacturers (amongst many others) have had massive issues/recalls in that regard, you know, manufacturers with decades of experience “perfecting” the building of cars. The Bolt was the poster child for “burning down the house”, over 200k Bolts have been sold to date. Guess how many burned? Less than two dozen. Yes that’s called media hysteria. Ford just last year recalled over half a million cars due to their internal combustion engines catching fire (Bronco Sport, Escape, Corsair), over 20 (gee, about two dozen!) did so. There is a similar recall for ICE vehicles almost every year going back decades. Google is your friend.
“high costs of insurance” Call your agent and get a quote. Our $50k when new EV costs about the same as an equivalent non-EV to insure. Our other, far cheaper, EV costs similar to what a similar ICE would cost. The vast majority of insurance is for liability, and most of that medical, not damage to your own or the other vehicle, in the US the cost to fix or replace a human being is orders of magnitude higher than to fix or replace a vehicle. The last accident I got into in a Subaru ICE, I pushed HARD for the car to be totalled, which it was without much discussion, and then apparently shipped to a different part of the world to be fixed and resold there. It didn’t affect my rates and wasn’t necessarily the largest part of the claim. A damaged battery has loads of value and can be recycled, it’s not landfilled. An insurance company will sell it, there are avenues to do that and an industry that deals with accident damaged EVs and their batteries. Just like with ICEs.
“inability to charge their EV because of grid unreliability (which is increasing due to renewable mandates)” Not really, since many are embracing at-home renewables, EVs generally charge at night for most of their refueling, some municipalities GIVE AWAY the power for free at certain hours to take it off the grid. In over 3 years of EV usage have never had a problem charging at home or away. Think of all the power that will be saved by not running pumps at gas stations during peak hours! Renewable “mandates” mean that a greater proportion of power comes from renewable sources, great! EVs will run even cleaner!
No automaker is “forced” to make EVs, I do recall though that every major automaker said it would be “so easy” and every new EV would be a “Tesla killer”. Yeah that didn’t age well. If someone wants to make ICEs only, go ahead, you seem to think there is an enormous market for them in India, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa, so sell them there. Yeah, okay (you are wrong by the way). Plenty of people want and are buying EVs. The current biggest issue in the US at least is A) price – being worked on, multiple less expensive models in the near-term pipeline which will explode when BYD or someone sets up shop in Mexico and uses NAFTA or whatever it’s now called to build and import “US-made, wink, wink” cars just like Ford does with its Mustang Mach-E from south of the border. The vast majority of Tesla vehicles (ooh, expensive luxury car! Not really) sell for less than the Average transaction Price of all motor vehicles which do include all of those empty pickups everyone says they see running around. Plenty of money to buy new cars around, apparently. Europe has plenty of inexpensive EVs, as does China, Japan’s top EV seller is a sub $20k Nissan which is perfect for almost everyone that lives in cities such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Yokohama, etc, i.e. the multiple millions of people that don’t have to or choose to tow heavy loads for thousands of miles every week. Pro-Tip: Look into outsourcing that labor, it’s probably cheaper and you could make more money doing what you actually do instead of driving a pickup truck and trailer full of pigs to the slaughterhouse…That’s how it seems to work in other countries.
Wow – such anger – you should calm down – nobody is going to take your EV away. Yes, EV fire danger has probably been overstated, but that doesn’t mean people don’t believe EVs are a fire danger when they see the fires hyped by the news and social media. You might also Google search to see that many fire departments are worried about the difficulty of containing EV battery fires.
Yes, many people do buy big expensive pickups they don’t need, but some people actually do regularly tow boats or campers (or haul pigs) and don’t want to stop every 100 miles for a 50 minute recharge.
Yes, recharging is often done at home, but many people – especially in large cities – live in apartments that don’t support home recharging which makes EVs less convenient, while others may live in older homes/neighborhoods that will require major rewiring jobs and neighborhood grid updates to support level 2 home charging.
As for insurance, you might look at markets such as the UK where insurers are starting to balk as insuring EVs due to their high repair/replacement costs, which doesn’t impact liability but does impact collision and theft insurance. Consumer Reports did a story less than a year ago indicating the insurance is more expensive for EVs than comparable ICVs in the US, so just because you don’t like the news doesn’t make it false.
As for grid reliability – you might do some Google searches regarding the many stories by experts suggesting that green mandates are leading to the shutdown of coal, nuclear, and gas plants at far faster rates than they are being replaced by renewables capacity even as grid needs increase due to increasing EV use. Incidentally, rooftop solar panels typically can’t recharge your EV at home during the night, and you might not believe it, but many people do not have roofs or other property to hang solar panels for home use. You might also remember last summer when EV promoting California told EV owners not to recharge their vehicles because of the danger of grid blackouts during the hot summer months (which incidentally is also when wind power tends to drop off).
I’m not against EVs, and there can be good use cases for them as city vehicles, but to assume that the many problems noted above will be quickly solved by the time already in place government mandates ban new ICVs before 2035 in much of Europe and in several US states is dreaming.
There’s no anger, only a desire to more accurately paint the picture you are depicting.
Fire danger – you include yourself in the “hype train” when you say people are afraid of fires yet don’t include any relevant context whatsoever that you then acknowledge when prodded. It’s notable that we used to see sensational EV fire stories all the time when there were just a couple of makers building EV’s, now that some big names are doing so as well with mixed success, it’s far rarer. One wonders why that might be.
Some do tow or haul, nobody is going to take their pickup away. And over time EVs may well improve on that aspect as they do with other aspects with every generation. EV charging times may well improve as well as they have been doing. Note that Tesla is on its third generation of charger speed in what, a decade? Why assume this improvement will stop?
Most people that live in apartments also don’t have gas stations on the premises. However unlike gas stations EV charging solutions can be installed anywhere there is a will to do so. Most new complexes and many residences are being wired with EV charging in mind. As tenants start to ask for it, savvy landlords will start to offer it, otherwise they may be left behind. It’s an amenity, like laundry or a pool. People will pay for it. Old house? Upgrading the electric is something many do anyway to get rid of knob and tube or increase the supplied power for other modern conveniences such as indoor dryers or whatever. Old house sometimes need expensive fixes to all of their systems (plumbing, sewer, etc., it’s part of the joy. Will it all be fixed in one day? Of course not. In the meantime many can charge while shopping or recreating (or at work), or whatever else, it’s not like the average apartment is a hundred miles from a charging station, even now.
I don’t live in the UK, insurers will insure anything as long as a premium is paid. It’s all a tradeoff, if there’s a demand someone will fill it. If all insurers pull out of the market, the government will likely step in just like they do with normal cars in some other locations even in the US and the UK does with other aspects of daily life. I assume UK residents may well get better value on some other things than those in other places. It all balances out. Saving the $10 or whatever per gallon of gas probably goes a long way toward paying those supposedly higher rates. I have not seen the Consumer Reports story, however in my case insurance does not seem to be more expensive and it seems reasonable comparatively. Other people’s cases may vary as with most things, one thing I’ve learned over the years is not to assume that a news story or magazine article is 100% accurate in every case or in my particular case. It’s pretty easy to doublecheck something like insurance and learn if it is in fact more (or not) and how it compares to a “normal” car of equivalent value and purpose and then determine how that works as a whole. Even if it did cost more which it may well for some people or in some locations or with some insurers, there are other aspects that cost far less. It’s part of doing the homework before purchase.
Rooftop solar can offset daytime power use, i.e. pump power INTO the grid during the day when there is greater overall need for it, and then at night power can be taken from the grid when there is far less use for it. That is the reason why many municipalities have different rate structures depending on the time of day, it isn’t a great leap in logic that the cheaper rates (night time) are because there is more supply available.
One needn’t necessarily have their own roof to hang solar on or use renewable power. Plenty of communities are (and have been) building land based solar arrays that individual end users can “buy or rent” panels in. There are also other renewables besides solar and wind.
I don’t know about CA today, however when I lived there there were some issues during some days in some locations, never at night. I can see how people would be asked no not charge in the saw way they were asked to not run their AC or other things during some peak hours of the day. I do know that many EVs have or are starting to have included tech that allows bidectional charging, i.e. using power stored in EV batteries in cars to be pumped back INTO the grid or just into a given house. I’d expect that to be mainstreamed in the next generation or two of EVs which would likely alleviate a lot of that particular concern.
Your last point seems to perhaps conflate banning the sale of NEW cars with banning the use of ALL EXISTING cars that are internal combustion. You may also want to read or re-read the rules, I’m not sure which exact one you are referencing, they aren’t all the same, not every “mandate” says that all new cars have to be 100% EV, many include plug-in hybrids. Improvements will be incremental, not every car on the road will be an EV on the first day of the new rule, and nobody is outlawing the existing cars from being used either that I am aware of. You and whoever else will currently be able to keep their old car on the road, this naturally makes it more realistic to be able to improve existing issues in step with greater demand. The problems don’t have to be eliminated, just improved on, and then see continued improvement as has been occurring already.
Don’t forget all the people who simply can’t afford a brand new anything, regardless of what it runs on….. what’s our other option? Walk everywhere from now on?
This is why I will always prefer the 2AR-FE 2.5 Toyota engine to the A25A-FKS 2.5 D-4S even if the latter has a remarkable thermal efficiency of 40%. The new “Dynamic Force” engine family has an even more complex design compared to the 2AR engine series. Too many electronic components, sensors that can cause issues. Not to mention the 8-sp gearbox which often seeks.
To conclude for NA , all Camry and Rav4 before 2018 but after 2013 are preferable. *Some old 2.4L to avoid. Also more problems to come on future bigger Toyotas since they replace their V6 with 4-cylinder turbos.
I think about the broader issue (gas-vs-electric) often, and wish I could see into the future. I don’t know about “peak,” but it seems as though we’re in “diminishing returns” balancing horsepower and efficiency (mpg) with durability, maintenance time and cost, manufacture cost, etc. My older Ford Escape has a peppy non-turbo engine; the recent Escape has a smaller, turbo-ed engine that does indeed get even better fuel mileage. I wonder which one will last longer and be cheaper to maintain over its lifetime?
Of course, both of these “base” engines have more hp/torque than I “need” 99% of the time, but that’s another matter…
Change is hard. No transportation tech is perfect, but it is really tough to beat the sweet instant torque of an electric motor. Add in the smoothness and quiet, and the ease of home charging from an handy garage outlet and it’s no wonder the U.S. auto market sold more than 1M EVs at ~8% of the market last year.
It’s great others have brought up subsidies, the consequence of mining, cost, etc. We as a country need to have grownup conversations about many topics, including those. Very few things in life are free, unsubsidized, or without consequence. The oil industry gets plenty of subsidies (thanks, Google). And there is no magic oil fairy who consequence-free gets oil out of the ground from some faraway place, magically transforms it into gasoline, and whisks it to underground storage tanks at our friendly neighborhood gas station. And why more of us aren’t stoked to wean ourselves off foreign sources of “fuel” is a mystery. Makes sense to me.
Regardless of how we feel today, change is coming. Each OEM will decide for its of what it will offer to its customers and when. It’s easy to sit here in the U.S. and say “oh that won’t happen here.” Some car companies seem to be dragging their feet. Others aren’t. And EVs in places like India are hot sellers as one tuk-tuk driver after another learns how much better and cheaper electric ones are.
More and more EVs are entering the market each day. Coming from logging and dairy country, I am looking forward to EVs like RAM’s upcoming plug-in hybrid pickup. It supposed to have around 140 miles of electric range plus another 400+ of gasoline. Perfect to do most daily jobs on electric with the ability to refuel with gas for those long days of towing. Great for someone who wants to upgrade from a 3/4 ton diesel truck.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the carbureted Willys Jeep in our garage, but electric vehicles – whether fully electric or plug-in hybrid – are simply so much better to drive than the gas and diesel ones we all grew up with.
Last, it’s important to remember we are in the early part of this transition. If you don’t like EVs or the OEMs haven’t offered an EV yet in a flavor that you like, that’s okay. For the former, you can keep driving gas, and for the latter, there are and will be a variety of awesome EVs available to pick from..
Yes, an honest conversation would be nice to have, but unfortunately the tree-huggers and billionaire subsidy hogs don’t want that conversation because it might not go the direction they desire. Yes, electric torque, quietness, smoothness, and convenient home “refueling” (if you live in a place with an secure and high capacity wiring based plug) can be very compelling. Yet EVs had the same advantages over ICVs in the early 1900s, but governments back then didn’t put their thumb on the scale to favor one technology over the other with subsidies as ICV technology improved at a much faster rate than battery technology to put EVs out of business.
Today, the only reason EVs exist is because of subsidies and mandates. Yes, fossil fuels get some subsidies, but most are normal depreciation and operating expense type deductions that all businesses get, plus some tax-breaks to exempt farmers and military from the road-taxes put on the fuels they use in their operations, and some subsidies to low-income people so they can afford to heat their homes in winter. On a per kWh basis, such subsidies pale in comparison to the operating and development subsidies received by renewables, plus the fossil fuel industry pays huge taxes to government that more than offset any “subsidies” they receive while the renewable industry pays zero in taxes. The oil industry also financed their own “recharging” infrastructure in the form of gasoline stations on every block and backroad in America that reliably provide fuel for ICVs, while the EV industry (including Tesla) has relied on subsidies to provide “refueling” stations only on heavily travelled routes, which are often not very reliable due to grid problems or because operating profits are too low to generate the income for repairs and upgrades (unless subsidized). The economics of recharging are not very good, because fast charging requires huge and expensive grid improvements, and because EVs that need 20 to 45 minutes to recharge require much more expensive real estate than gas pumps that can refuel a vehicle in 5 minutes.
Throw in the irrationality of the green crowd pushing EVs, who make it impossible to build new low emission nuclear or gas plants, or who block new wind or powerline construction because it blocks their view, and who don’t want any of the “dirty” mining or processing required to get the minerals necessary to make EV batteries and motors (unless it is done out-of-sight by slaves in China or child labor in Africa), and EV prospects dim by the minute. Add the increasingly broke governments running out of subsidy money and looking to tax rich EV owners running on “tax-free” electricity, and the likelihood of a massive cost-effective and reliable shift towards EVs looks even dimmer. But you are correct – most EVs do drive real nice.
“Yes, fossil fuels get some subsidies,”
Yes, oil, gas, and coal get some subsidies, to the tune of $9B to $20B a year in the U.S. Globally it’s far more.
The way I look at it, the more oil we can save by switching to EVs, the longer we’ll be all able to drive around our classic cars and trucks. Who cares what powers our car if we have to run errands. A Sunday drive is something else.
Your subsidy figures are not based on standardized units of power – put them on a btu or kWh basis on fossil fuels receive far smaller subsidies than renewables – and as I noted above most of these “subsidies” are not development and operating subsidies that renewables receive – i.e. tax credits for installation, favorable feed-in tariff rates, exemptions from environmental regulations (i.e. wind power doesn’t pay for their bird/bat kills), etc., but instead normal depreciation and operating expense deductions on the still sizeable tax liability that fossil fuel producers and sellers pay.
And if renewables are so cheap, why was the “inflation reduction act” mostly a renewable subsidy act? Furthermore, why are India and China building huge new coal plants if solar and wind are cheaper?
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
Yes, an honest conversation would be nice to have
But unfortunately not possible, as you’ve spouted numerous untruths here today which I and others have rebutted with facts.
This is why I am not a fan of these kind of posts and discussions: there’s extremely few people who are able to discuss EVs without resorting to lies and distortions.
I would like to have an honest conversation, as the issue is not as simple as many/most make out to be. There’s been mistakes made by political entities in how subsidies have been structured, among other things.
As to manufacturers jumping in on EVs, it has not been all/primarily due to governmental regulations and demands. The biggest single factor in the US is that GM and Ford were desperate to look like “Tesla Killer” or viable competitors in order to juice their stock after seeing how insanely high Tesla’s stock went. Both of them have claimed a few years back that they would be fully competitive with Tesla. Ford’s Farley was constantly trying to position Ford as the next Tesla. As if…
Now Ford is having to eat its words and reduce EV production and shift back to hybrids.
Ford and GM chased Tesla in order to juice their stock. Stellantis has taken a much more nuanced and sophisticated approach, which is not surprising, since Tevares is smarter than either Farley or Barra.
Tesla benefits by selling CAFE credits to the Detroit Three, which helps their profitability.
Tesla appears to have a decent product. In terms of marketing, Tesla today is what Mercedes and BMW were in the 1980s–a luxury vehicle.
GM and Ford are. That extra $10k or $20k they cannot charge makes all the difference.
You don’t think there’s been a “thumb on the scale” for the petroleum industry? There has been for decades. And the communities living near refineries have been paying a health price as well.
Has the government had a “thumb on the scale” for the petroleum industry? Answer: probably – after all the industry and the cheap and reliable energy is is responsible for is the source of US power, US standard of living, a great provider of high paying jobs and tax revenues directly, and indirectly the source of almost the entire economy, so it would kind of make sense to have government policies that help keep the industry healthy.
On the other hand, I don’t think there is any other industry that has suffered from more heavy handed regulations, taxation, and fines/punishments for misdeeds than the oil industry, and Leftists appear to be doing their best to shut it down in the name of “saving the planet”. I could wish that the idiots gluing themselves to roads or runways, or vandalizing art to “stop oil now” could get their way, because I truly would love to see them suffer with no heat, no A/C, no cell phone service, no jet powered vacations, and no government welfare that oil largely powers, makes, or funds, but there is no easy way to make them suffer for their delusions without making all the rest of us also suffer since 81% of world energy is fossil fuel derived.
Exactly, and those communities tend to be predominately black and poor.
https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-about-to-get-worse
I think peak ICE happened decades ago, in that all the technology that allows for today’s sexy horsepower numbers was figured out or existed to some degree, even if in exotic and expensive automobiles. We’re at the phase where production capability now allows for usage in mainstream cars but like mentioned there are potential pitfalls of that observable in some engines. A worn out engine of old generally could run badly just about forever, and then be passed down and rebuilt by a garage mechanic better than factory. I don’t see that happening to today’s sexy small displacement high horsepower turbo VVT DI mills, they’re great until they break and when they break they’re disposable.
I think it comes down to perspective, really many modern engines are truly great and troublesome ones up to this point are mostly the exception rather than the rule overall, but are often wasted in chassis that are overly complex, large and heavy. Imagine if the malaise era didn’t neuter engines like the 340, Ford Clevelands or Small block Chevy’s from their own peaks circa 1970, but were only available in heavyweight Collonades, Gran Torino Elites and Cordobas, it’s a weird funhouse mirror scenario that reflects today’s cars. A 300 horsepower Corolla is amazing on paper but people who’d want that engine in a Corolla wand it in an old RWD AE86 generation Corolla, not a larger heavier FWD sedan with storm trooper styling. People buying commuters don’t need or really care, EVs and especially Teslas are case in point, they have more impressive 0-60 times than pretty much any ICE car ever, but other than using it as a sales pitch to woo people into the cult, how often do you actually see Teslas engaged in casual stoplight racing? Mostly they’re just regular cars for regular folk, not inspiring surface street hoonage with their quiet isolated interiors and massive LCD displays to offer more mainstream(and legal) forms of entertainment to pass time on the drive.
I don’t know how old you are, but I don’t believe you have a very accurate viewpoint regarding the reliability and rebuildability of old ICVs. My childhood memories of the 1960s and 70s are of many tired cars emitting blue oil smoke as their rings and/or valves were tired by 30K miles in high stress small engines or high performance engines, and in less than 100K miles by even the laziest and most well maintained big V-8s. Ring jobs, valve grinds, or engine replacement (from a junkyard car) were common repairs if the car with the tired engine wasn’t rusted to an unsafe state, or also facing expensive other repairs such as a new clutch or gearbox.
True enough that if something breaks on today’s high tech ICVs, it is often going to be painfully expensive to repair and may be more likely to immobilize the vehicle, but the mileage point that such things happen is now closer to 200K miles rather than 100K miles even for indifferently maintained vehicles, and the state of today’s galvanized bodies and computer controlled other components may make it a worthwhile expense to undertake. One example is exhaust systems, which used to need to be replaced every 2-5 years due to rust-out from overly rich fuel mixtures, but today the only people that tend to need exhaust replacement are those that have had their catalytic converters stolen. Of course with social media, we now are much more likely to hear about the BMW owner who needs a $10K turbo or transmission the day after his warranty expired, just like we have all heard about EV owners needing a new $25K or $60K battery on a still new looking Tesla or Hyundai EV (or the EV fire that burned down the owner’s home). Thus I think we are living at peak ICV, the only question is how much further ICV progress will be allowed to happen by governments, automakers, financial markets, and consumers.
No, I acknowledged that, however badly they run they still run. When they’re refreshed with the ring jobs, valve grinds or if necessary overbore and other machining they are refreshed. Short of race cars with aftermarket engine blocks nearly the entire classic car and grass roots project runs on an engine block that was probably at one time a “worn out” engine. Plus a lot of wear back then was the result of the combinations of carburators(especially badly tuned ones) and oils of the day. Many of these engines that made it into the fuel injection era like the Ford 302 or GM 3800 proved to be very long life engines.
Depends on what you call peak. For me it’s about the driving experience. A US built iron-block, iron-head ohv V8 before really significant emissions controls: simple, durable, reliable, not at all efficient, dirty, yes, but carbs set up right can give immediate response FI can’t quite duplicate, and work just fine for most purposes. Small block for less front end weight, stir in long development, add valve rotators, ala Olds V8, and now you know why peak ICE for ME is a ’69 Cutlass 350. No, maybe not peak for daily driving, but peak for a fun nostalgic driving experience, what vintage cars, not appliances, are all about, YMMV.
BTW: this post was about what is “peak” ICE, not whether the transition to EVs is feasible, desirable or inevitable… just sayin’.
Thanks for naming a specific ICE motor! And your ‘69 350 is an interesting choice, related to my mention of the newer Chevy LS/LT but (not having owned either) I can see how the simplicity of the 1969 version, and maybe the Olds version, weighs heavily on the pro column. I hate carbs, so I put them in the con column, and I think the combination of modern fuel metering, combustion chamber design, electronic spark timing management has really helped efficiency which to me is another strong pro. But I’m glad to see another vote for the domestic pushrod V8.
Carbs could indeed a pain at times, and surely not as efficient and clean, but some of the ’60s ones were simple, worked well and are easy to rebuild, I rebuilt dozens of 2 bbl and 4 bbl Rochesters on GM marine I/Os working in a marina in the summertime. I prefer 2 bbls as torque is excellent at low rpms for cruising and they are very reliable, hence that’s what’s on my ’69 Olds. Its a pragmatic choice, they’ll be fixable if/when FI electronics are NLA, and the acceleration response time is as good or better than FI. Plus I like the originality factor. A few ’60s carbs and many of the ’70s and ’80s carbs were flat out awful. I haven’t tried any of the new Edelbrocks but I’m tempted.
As long as jobs are requiring technicians to cross the states and prairies in short time EVs will not be a 100% replacement. Draconian governments are not our friends. Strong reliance on China is not a long term solution either. There are many situations where EV is a great answer and I support their use. But eliminating fossil fuel entirely is not a good answer. Besides, how are we going to keep building all out plastic crap without oil..
“…building plastic crap without oil…”
This is another element that green crowd doesn’t understand. Lots of useful things are made from fossil fuels – plastics, asphalt, medicines, jet fuel, steel, synthetic rubber, fertilizers, pesticides, detergents, wax, paints, etc., but without motor-fuel use much of a barrel of oil could not be used, making it uneconomic to recover and refine. One ironic part of “green” Teslas is their hyping of “vegan leather” which is made from oil, which just illustrates the point that nobody knows how to make a Tesla, solar panel, wind generator, or pave a road without oil, and global agriculture would likely be able to support no more than 2 billion people without fossil fuel derived fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides – not to mention fossil fueled tractors and combines, meaning about 6 billion of us would starve.
This is another element that green crowd doesn’t understand.
They’re not quite as dumb as you make them out to be. The only real issue with fossil fuels is burning them, due to the greenhouse emissions produced. That’s what this is all about, right?
Using oil to make materials that are not going to be burned does not create CO emissions, except to the extent that the process uses non-renewable energy.
You’re sounding increasingly hysterical.
I also happen to know a few things about energy production – a barrel of oil can’t be just used for anything – different types of oil (heavy-sweet) and different types of refineries are required to make different types of petroleum based products. In other words, most of the part of a barrel used to make motor fuels can’t just be shifted over to plastics or asphalt or jet fuel. Its very much like a meat animal – the slaughterhouse might wish the whole pig could be hams or bacon because those are the most profitable types of cuts, but the pig’s anatomy only allows so much, and the rest of the animal must be turned into other products such as sausage or fats used in lubricants, cooking oils, or explosives. Take away motor fuels and a barrel of oil becomes much less valuable and useful.
You are the one who can’t seem to handle any information that runs contrary to your beliefs about a bright EV future – but any rational look at the situation reveals they aren’t nearly as clean or cheap as promised by politicians and environmentalists, which is why they continue to need subsidies and mandates. I personally like many EVs, and know many happy EV owners, and will very possibly buy one myself next time I need a vehicle, but I also know much of their savings comes from not having to pay fuel taxes, or getting various purchase and operating subsidies that are bankrupting governments – see Germany as a prime current example – and how EV sales dry up when subsidies disappear. The Stellantis article I linked above points to this problem, because EV profitability continues to be dependent on generous subsidies that are under threat due to changes in government policies resulting from elections or financial pressures, which wouldn’t be bothering Tevaras if EVs could stand on their own without subsidies.
Just because I point out some problem areas for EVs – whether you agree with them or not, shouldn’t be seen as hysterical unless you have a 100% track record of always being correct in predicting the future. Back and forth discussion is something rational and thinking people should desire – because that is how good decisions and policies get made – and also interesting, educational, and entertaining discussions – things students used to get at universities before they were taken over by Leftist zealots. I’ll be happy to admit I’m wrong about EV battery prices or EV popularity/profitability in the coming years, will you?
You are the one who can’t seem to handle any information that runs contrary to your beliefs about a bright EV future
Unlike the seeming majority of folks who feel they have to be either an EV hater or EV lover, I am neither; I am an EV realist. I fully appreciate the many issues and negative consequences of how the EV transition has unfolded so far, and the huge challenges that it faces in the future.
These are essentially inevitable in the process of such a massive transition. There’s no easy way to make such large changes; it’s just how it is. The transition to EVs and renewable energy is still in its infancy; there’s a long way to go and there will undoubtedly be technological advancements that will make it somewhat easier. Sodium ion batteries have just gone into production in China; they are significantly cheaper than lithium batteries, and offer huge possibilities. It’s a work in progress.
EVs will not be for everyone, at least in the shorter time frame. That’s ok. If they don’t work for everyone, then I rather suspect some of the more stringent mandates will have to be modified.
My overarching concern is AGW; it is a real threat to our way of life, on many levels. Even the huge issue of global migration is being (and will be more so) exacerbated by AGW. There is simply no question in my mind that the only solution is of course to reduce CO emissions. One of the key elements is in the transport sector; EVs are of course massively more efficient with energy, and the energy they use can of course be renewable energy. Those are the blatantly obvious factors driving the transition to EVs.
Obviously it’s easier said than done, and skeptics like you play a useful role in pointing them out, as long as the issues are accurate and truthful. Unfortunately that’s all-too often not the case.
I am 100% convinced that the global transition to renewable energy can be affected, but certainly not easily and without great cost and even some collateral damage. And certainly some inconvenience. But these are just the price to pay, which in my opinion is less than the price we will all pay if global warming is not stopped as soon as reasonably possible.
So yes, there’s all kinds of details to debate, and it’s very easy to point out the shortcomings of human politicians and bureaucrats, and so many other negative aspects. But is that truly productive, in terms of the really big picture?
There will likely be setbacks, but ultimately the possibility to run our transport on renewable energy is simply too compelling for it not to happen, sooner or later. That’s the only question: will it be sooner, or later? Everyone plays a role in that outcome, and needs to take responsibility for their role, no matter how small.
Yes, it’s all very messy and inconvenient, but let’s see how messy and inconvenient life will be on a significantly hotter planet. Well, many/most of us probably won’t be here to find out, but our future generations will. Let’s ask them how they feel about the inconveniences of transitioning to renewable energy.
There is no “good” answer.
MOST Americans who were adults during the golden era of 1947-73, who did not lose their lives, brains, or limbs in wars in Asia, enjoyed living in a unique era when many stars aligned, suburbia and cars took off in a big away in an America with room to grow, abundant reliable oil, a growing economy that made stuff Americans AND the world wanted, leading to good jobs, and the cycle repeated.
That world ended in 1973 with the Energy “Crisis”.
We can all second guess what the US federal government could and should have done since, or should do now, and what industry could and should have done. It is moot.
Technology (starting in the 1980s) and globalization (Mexico and China starting in the 1990s) helped cushion and conceal the slow, but big, tectonic shifts that were and are pushing against cars and trucks in particular and suburbia in general.
But technology and globalization have run out of gas. Pun intended, lol.
Are we at Peak ICE?
YES, I think so.
At this time, since about 2010, ICE innovations have been yielding relatively minor gains for relatively high costs terms of cost to customer and long-term reliability/durability.
I’m talking about direct fuel injection; variable cylinder displacement; turbocharging; CVTs, 8/9/10-speed automatics, stop start. They are all a step backward in reliability/durability and cost more to make and buy.
The EPIC innovation was harnessing computers–microprocessors and sensors to “manage” the combustion process in conjunction with fuel injection. That started in the 1980s and was universal by the mid-90s.
IMO, that dwarfs every other innovation in my lifetime (all cars had overhead valves, and some had overhead camshafts, in the 1970s, when my car journey starts).
My favorite example of electronic engine controls is how GM’s rather forgettable 1970s 231 V6 (with roots in the early 1960s), which ran rough and delivered all of 105 hp (NET) at 3,xxx rpm in the late 1970s had by 1995 morphed into the “Gen II 3800 V6” which made 200-210 hp net.
DOUBLE the horses using 30-40% less fuel. Engine starts and idles and runs properly every time–from -10 to 110. Who can argue with that?
The electronics and FI largely compensated for the 3.8 V6 older combustion chamber design and pushrods, and made it a viable alternative to much newer-designed Japanese V6 engines in Camrys and Accords.
The other big innovation was the mass adoption of 4-speed automatics vs 3-speeds, and eventually 5 and 6-speed automatics.
These two innovations, electronics and 4-6 speed automatics, were worth their weight in gold. They didn’t compromise reliability and durability, led to more power, lower fuel consumption, and lower emissions.
Of course, other innovations, like overhead cams, 4-valves per cylinder, adjustable cam timing played a major role. Better aerodynamics. I’d say these were worth their weight in silver.
More components sourced from Mexio and Korea and China kept prices down, or even lowered component costs.
All of that enabled US customers to get bigger, heavier vehicles, with relatively smaller engines.
But that has run its course.
Finally, regarding global warming, the world underwent a mini ice-age that coincides with the “dark ages” before the “Renaissance”.
Human activity did not cause this, or the subsequent warming that started around the 1700s.
Is all this human activity affecting the environment? I believe it is, yes.
BUT, if there were no humans, we might still have global warming–or cooling.
What percent of the global climate change is driven by humans?
Personally, I like the attitude pushed by the Boy Scouts when I was a kid, which was taken from Native Americans. DON’T WASTE. Avoid excess, and use everything.
America is the land of excess. Not necessarily because Americans are innately wasteful–but because in America, it’s easier, and consumerism is encouraged. Middle class people can collect CARS. Plural. That’s very hard outside the US if one is not wealthy.
If Europeans and Saudi could live in big detached homes and drive SUVs, I’m sure they would. Their environmental constraints are lack of developable (is that a word?) land, and/or a border, natural or otherwise, with some other group or country.
Anyway, we are at peak ICE.
Most people here live in the US. Only in (much of) the US, even today, can “middle class” people indulge their car habit to extent we Americans can. Not Germans (with their autobahns), and not even Canadians. The Car Habit is holdover from 1948-73, an era gone with the wind.
But that’s why we have CC!!! So we can revisit the cars from that era, and the newer CCs up thru present day.
Mercedes has a history that includes a lot of well respected inline sixes. They ended these around 1997 or so in E-class but since 2017 they have a new straight six that is a DOHC four valve and is supercharged. That gives me hope.
It feels as if we are at a cusp. BEVs don’t work for way too many drivers but hybrids can be made to do so as they can always be fueled somewhere out here in the west. I hope the BEVs remain a niche for metro use and that governments can be persuaded to accept that hybrid is as good as they can expect for mass use. I have a new ICE turbo four Maverick, not the hybrid. But if I had to do so I could probably accept a hybrid if no ICE could be purchased.
We’ve in good shape. The regs encourage 20% strong plug-in hybrids. What’s a strong plug-in hybrid? It’s an EV with a 40+ mile range, gas when you need more, and a big burly electric motor such that the electric motor moves the rig in nearly any “punch it” type situation.
In other words, we aren’t mandating 100% fully battery electric vehicles.
Seems like one of the big gamechangers for ICE development and efficiency was EFI, championed by none other than Ford way back in the early eighties. Things really haven’t been the same since, and I’m not sure how ICE would have survived if fuel induction was still relying on ancient carburetion. But, all other factors aside, the basic fact is that EV motivation is way simpler with fewer moving parts than ICE.
Today, the production and supply constraints limit wholesale EV development and adoption but it would seem there’s no doubt that, at some point, EV’s will definitely overtake ICE as the preferred mode of personal transportation (probably commercial, as well).
EFI–you nailed it!!!!
Like many astute readers I separate two trends here:
One is the politics of it all. The tax rebates, the mandates, the purposefully unobtainable regulations. I don’t like it: It’s manipulating, dishonest, and distorting. It’s representative of the immature “leaders” and lifelong bureaucrats in our government. “Grownup conversations” need to be had as Dan B. said. But we don’t have grownups in charge.
I think the biggest sin and how this manifests itself on the surface is our national charging network. Electrify America, created by Volkswagen from their Dieselgate scandal, is an absolute embarrassment. An unreliable service with zero accountability.
The second and brighter trend is the awesome technological progress that has made both gasoline and electric cars so much more powerful and efficient. My Jeep Wrangler has a 2.0L turbocharged engine that goes like stink but gets a real-world 23 MPG. And electric cars are much more livable and commodious.
I think DMan’s last paragraph poses an interesting question: “…is there more to “Peak ICE” than just raw power or horsepower/liter?”. In my opinion the answer is most certainly yes, but the government incentives and mandates will not allow it.
The Jeep example is interesting. Indeed, that modern 4 cylinder turbo is faster, more economical, and refined than say the 4.0 six in a 20 year old TJ. Not to mention the old 2.5 litre Jeep 4 cylinder. But adding in cost, durability, ease of repair – is it really an advance? That was the core of my question. By the way, all three of our cars are 2015 or newer, two are turbo charged, and only one has a manual transmission. No pushrods either.
But adding in cost, durability, ease of repair – is it really an advance? That was the core of my question.
Given the reality of AGW, how can you not consider a 32% improvement in fuel economy (’23 vs ’03 Wrangler) not an advance? Never mind the improved performance, larger size and comfort, safety, etc.?
And that’s not counting the PHV version of the Wrangler, which is rated at 49 combined gas and electric mpg. That’s a 300% improvement. Is that not an “advance”?
Sure, there’s a price to be paid (literally) in terms of cost and quite likely in cost of repairs, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping folks from buying them. There’s no going back, for better or for worse. Folks said the same things about the growing cost and complexity of cars 20, 40 and 60 years ago.
While I love the last of the Jeep straight sixes (the fuel-injected 4.0 liter) coupled with a five speed, the newer powertrains offer a lot advantages. Jeep also offers everything from a turbo four to a V6 to a plug-in hybrid four to a 392 V8. Talk about customer choice. And the Jeep Wrangler 4xe PHEV is U.S.’s best-selling plug-in hybrid. For rock crawlers (and many others), you can’t beat that sweet instant electric torque. And for those who want the V8, there’s the 392.
The thing that the 4.0 had on its side was time. Could the same perceived advantages inherent to it from today’s perspective been cited when it was a fresh new mill when AMC introduced it in its first form in 1964? Obviously it was technically better than it’s predecessor in the same way the new turbo 4 is technically better than it, but the long life of the Jeep nee AMC straight 6 was its decades of service gives it an advantage that isn’t quantifiable with statistics. It’s an engine that’s proven through decades and has decades of support. There’s an unlimited supply of parts availability for the foreseeable future despite being long out of production so if you have a Jeep with one you can rest assured that you can probably have that same Jeep for many years to come. If it ended production in say 1970 however, would it be looked back on as fondly, if looked back on at all for being remarkable? Probably not.
Newer ICE powerplants may be just as good if not better in that non quantifiable metric if you let them, but the unrelenting quest for better economy, more power and now the presumed ban of them in a mere 11 years doesn’t give them much chance the Jeep 4.0 had to mature into the great engine it’s known to be. For example Ford’s had 3 generations of 5.0 Coyotes already since 2011 to date, the latest having the most troubles (the opposite of most long lived engines as they get mature) and while they’ve gained horsepower, things like plasma transfer cylinder liners rather than sleeves, or wet belt driven oil pumps used in the latest gives me major pause, is 485 horsepower really better than 445 the most powerful Gen 1 version had without those questionable changes?. That’s not to say something like the 4.0 in it’s final form would have been viable today because it wouldn’t. Though modern 8 speed powertrain backing it may well close the efficiency gap some. But between it with its established reputation and the brand new unproven Stallentis inline 6? I’d keep my faith in the old dog. Until I see how much those who live on the bleeding edge bleed from it.
It all comes down to what kind of car owner you are, and that’s applicable to the core question, if you’re someone who buys a new one every 2-4 years this is of little concern, and we’re at peak ICE right now, but if you keep cars longterm where the power and MPG advantages may get overshadowed if a complete engine replacement is a likely prospect down the road, or a what should be a simple repair is instead complex and labor intensive due to extremely tight packaging, it’s a truly make or break proposition, favoring the old iron.
Interesting points, because I take your question in a different direction. For the direction you just outlined, I think in their current iteration ICE is at the best it’s ever been. I’m an optimist and I think there will always be room to improve. But I agree with most that the “easy wins” have been had.
A touch of irony might be that we’re talking about a Jeep which has changed relatively little over the course of 40 years. But it makes for a good technological comparison when we’re talking about engines, right?
IMHO the 2.0L is a massive improvement over the 3.8L. I save about 15% on fuel costs, the purchase price when accounting for inflation was only a few thousand more (they are both optioned nearly the same), and it’s a lot more fun to drive. I don’t have many miles on the 2.0L so I can’t speak to durability, except to say that the 3.8L was an oil drinker.
However, where I take your question in a different direction is that ICE does not always have to be petrol powered and the requirements we have of cars does not have to remain static. I could see myself rockin’ a hydrogen powered pushrod Jeep.
I don’t know if it will ever happen however, and part of that is because of regulations and politics. Instead you are more likely to get into a hybrid Wrangler which from most accounts gets a little better economy but at a much higher price.
If we only take into account the hp delivered for the displacement ,naturally aspirated motorcycle engines which rev at nearly 20,000 rpm have won the “Peak ICE” prize for a long time . Tiny multi cylinders four stroke RC motorcycle honda engine from early ’60 or a 1967 Suzuki RK67 50cc with 350hp per liter were ahead .
Of course, we’re not talking about horrible mpg or emissions here that require fog lights to keep up following these machines.
Today variable compression ratio engine like on modern 3-cylinder Nissans seems to me a good recipe for problems…a cvt with this. Maybe more relaxing than a 14-speed gearbox with a hand clutch.
As a motorcyclist, I thought about this and decided to stick to cars/light duty trucks. And hp/cc was only one metric of “peak” in my thinking, and not the most important one. But since you brought up bikes, and distilling it down to basics, I think the new Ducati 659 cc single, rated at almost 80 hp and with a 13.1 :1 compression ratio and bore/stroke ratio of almost 2:1 (116 mm and 62 mm) is pretty amazing. All while complying with Euro 5 emissions standards.
Okay – back to the peak ICE question. IMO, driving and living with the latest V8s – whether from GM, Ford, or Stellantis – seems like peak ICE in terms of power, torque, reliability, starting, smoothness, etc.
How easy are they to rebuild compared to a V8 of the 1960s… well that’s something else.
It’s all in the definition of “Peak IC”. If the analogy is “Peak Oil” (amount extracted) then we’re at or very close to peak IC. But that still leaves a lot of IC engines to be built in the coming decades, as is the case with oil pumped.
These high-output engines like the Corolla GR are outliers. It’s just putting racing technology from years ago into regular production cars as has been happening since forever. It’s a marginal market.
The IC engine’s biggest future is in hybrid technology, which still has a lot to offer where an EV is impractical or undesirable for one reason or another. There’s great potential to reduce total fleet CO output by hybridizing the IC market. Toyota is making very serious hay thanks to its deep commitment to hybrids. Companies like GM, which decided to never take hybrids seriously and currently has no viable hybrid technology, may live to regret it if the US EV adoption rate continues to be much slower than in China and Europe.
Hopefully, GM hasn’t sold the rights and tooling to their previous unsuccessful hybrids, but they’ve probably lost the corporate engineering knowledge by now. Voltec was a good idea put in the wrong packages.
What a Supermono! could be a lot more entertaining than my old srx600.
It’s right now and the peak is the proliferation of plug-in hybrids. Which will also be what ends up spelling the death-knell for ICE in general.
As people start to buy (or can’t find an option otherwise) plug-in hybrids by convincing themselves that it offers the “best of both worlds”, some 90+% of them will soon realize that on a daily basis they don’t drive further than their battery allows anyway. Then they realize they are paying to maintain and exercise the internal combustion engine (i.e. fluids, filters, and whatever else their friendly dealer recommends them doing for ever higher costs as more EVs spell less trips to the service department) for something they rarely have a need for and notice that their increase in the utility bill is far smaller than the amount they no longer spend at the gas station. And they may realze they like the rest of the EV part of the deal, especially the long warranty and low failure rate on the EV components, never mind the smooth power, quiet operation, and not dealing with gas stations or supporting those that would just as soon kill us or our countrymen, or have already done so. Their next vehicle may be a full EV since they like the pluses of the deal with the plug-in kept as well for those “long drives cross-country”, as we all know that American prefer to have more cars than members of a household or it’ll just be another driver’s primary. Then sooner or later the full EV will be pressed into service for a trip longer than its range and, oh, no, the horror! will require a recharging stop somewhere enroute. As people either just use a Tesla and don’t have issues or the rest of the infrastructure improves they realize it’s not that big of a deal and start to use the EV more and more, thus eliminating the need for the Plug-In Hybrid and all of its downsides, i.e. those having to do with exactly what its upside was purported to be, the ICE part of the equation.
It may well take a generation or two though to get there fully, or at least until people figure out that their “Uncle Bobby” with the primered Monte Carlo at the Thanksgiving table is really full of s*&^ with all of his automotive knowledge.
Not to be patronizing, Jim, but I’ve missed your humorous, thoughtful comments and posts the last couple of months. Welcome back!
Thank you. Some people apparently find my commentary to be angry. I believe that’s called projection…
I’m sorry Jim, but when you start your reply to my thoughtful and non-mean spirited comment above about EV problem areas with “Dude, I think you need to get off the misinformation train at the next stop..” and then proceeds to provide a very one-sided, undocumented, and very mean-spirited put-down of every EV problem area I raised – I don’t believe I’m the one with an anger problem. If you want some education, I suggest you spend an hour to look at the following video presentation and short news story of the environmental problems associated with the “net-zero” transition, and then get back to me about whether you are still so optimistic about “clean” EVs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVmnKuBocc
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/green-energy-waste-overlooked-climate-agenda
I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings.
You are adding more misinformation with every post of yours, please just stop. I am capable of seeing both sides to an argument and am historically one of the (relatively few in my opinion) people around here perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong when actually presented with (non-alternative) facts. You take comments out of context, answer with tangents that don’t address what you purport to be addressing, and generally just parrot the politicized talking points of misinformed sources who usually have an agenda that almost assuredly doesn’t even benefit yourself in the long run in the same manner as others on some other websites do that has become quite recognizable. And, amazingly enough, that’s all fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (As opposed to facts.)
When someone comes on here and within a few comments starts talking repeatedly about “leftist zealots” and then proceeds to link to over the top biased and hyper-partisan conspiracy-theorist sources such as zerohedge while considering that “news” I and others fully understand there is no talking sense to them and it’s best to just bid adieu to them. So, “adieu”.
LOL!
Jim, I hereby declare you Saint Jim of CC. You have the patience which justifies your new title.
Use it well, St Jim.
…but for now know that simple holes in your batteries due to road hazards could total your entire Ioniq5 is not a sign of efficiency . As an electric vehicle owner in Metro Vancouver is questioning the sustainability of EVs, after his basically new car was written off due to the cost of repairs.Kyle Hsu is hoping his story serves as a warning to prospective EV buyers.
I’m trying to parse what you are saying but I wonder if you actually read the article you quoted? This cherry-picking of “facts” and “news” as gospel (never mind fear-mongering masquerading as “journalism”) is precisely the kind of thing that aggravates me and pushes me away from being online and/or commenting on anything anymore. None of my own cars have “simple holes” in the bottom of the floor or battery or whatever. And never have, not from anything.
I read the article I think you are referring to (I Googled the guy’s name, Hyundai, and Vancouver, it was the first result). I shall summarize what I read:
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/12/11/hyundai-ev-battery-icbc-cost/
A. The guy had an issue with the performance of his EV while on vacation and had it towed to his dealer. Once there he told them to service it (what needs to be serviced on a year old Hyundai EV?) and perform a recall that he apparently remembered while on vacation.
B. After putting the car on a hoist the dealer found damage to the battery and the article included a picture of scrapes and gravel actually embedded into the edge of the case, it stayed embedded there while at least travelling the 400km (!) back from Kelowna to Vancouver via tow truck. The guy didn’t just hit something on the road, it looks more like he went off the road and did something to the underside of the car even though he claims no knowledge of anything. The other picture’s caption seems to infer that the protective casing had separated from the battery due to an impact of some sort since there is now a gap that presumably should not be there, at least that’s how I read it.
C. That same dealer quotes $30,000 Canadian dollars to fix it, i.e. replace the pack, which converts to like 5 real dollars, maybe USD$5.50. (I’m kidding, no it’s not cheap but we know the battery is currently the most expensive single part of an EV). The dealer says to call his insurance company (I’m assuming instead of hoping that Hyundai would cover it under warranty since there is actual damage that doesn’t look like it happened from running over “a road hazard” that the owner has no recollection of)
D. The owner calls his insurer ICBC. They look at it and get a second quote from a second dealer whose price is somehow DOUBLE that of the first dealer. Same part, right? Why not use the first dealer’s quote?
E. The insurer decides that’s final and good enough and just decides to pay out the owner for whatever his car is deemed to be worth on the spot, the guy apparently accepts it (!), and the insurer now says they have already sold the car to a salvage company at this time when Hyundai Canada wants to look at it.
F. Hyundai Canada gets involved once they are asked for comment and says they would love to inspect the car themselves (oh, ICBC already got rid of it, they appear to be a very efficient insurer), and has now put in place new procedures that require any battery quote to a consumer to be run through Hyundai Canada HQ for approval before sending it to a consumer or insurance company.
In conclusion: I don’t think we really have the full story here. Do you? I don’t necessarily trust every car manufacturer but I know I certainly don’t trust random dealers and their service departments which seems to be what Hyundai Canada corporate is saying as well. I also don’t believe the guy has no idea what happened to his car to embed gravel in the bottom of it unless he loaned it to someone else who did something stupid and didn’t fess up. Some EVs are VERY fast and can get away from a user in a hurry, especially if one is not used to the performance that many of them have.
Jim,
Thanks for taking the time to post this (and your other replies).
Cheers!
Thank you for enlightening me , I only watched the following video from Motormouth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXieo06ta8&ab_channel=Motormouth
Here’s another case, with the same outcome, and Hyundai corporate being involved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXieo06ta8
And the article from Reuters regarding battery damage in unrelated case, unless you don’t consider it a reputable news source: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/scratched-ev-battery-your-insurer-may-have-junk-whole-car-2023-03-20/
This is an interesting question to consider. Is “peak” in terms of development and power output in relation to displacement? If so, then we may be there now.
Or is “peak” about wide variety of sizes, outputs and configurations? If we think of peak in this way, I think we are a ways past it. When I look back a decade or more (to my last new car purchase) almost anyone who could afford a new car had a choice that ranged from small, economical 4s to big, bruising V8s. I am again starting to look into new cars, and unless I am willing to sign onto something in excess of $40k (which is not likely), almost nothing is available with more than 4 cylinders.
I know, everyone is going to tell me that that modern turbo 4s are as good as or better than the 3.5L V6 in my Sedona. But my own experience is that effortless torque from a naturally aspirated engine of relatively large displacement is a far more pleasant long-term experience both from the driver’s seat and from a maintenance perspective. That is the kind of engine that has been regulated out of existence in the mid-priced and lower-priced areas of the market.
The newest ICE engines are very impressive when it comes to power output, but I’d like to see more emphasis on increasing fuel mileage. Many turbo four engines produce 300 hp. that’s more than enough for most purposes. I’ve got a ’07 V6 F150 rated at 210 hp, and it provides satisfactory performance when unladen, and I’ve towed trailers at my max load. My ’07 Mustang also has a 200 hp. V6.
I know that cars have gotten heavier and heavier, but with modern multi speed transmissions they could make the most of their available power. I do know that cars like the new small Chevys and Buicks use turbo three engines and have pretty good economy. I still prefer a naturally aspirated V6 engine with less complexity, but even when buying used, these types of vehicles are getting harder to find.
I am certainly not an early adopter, and I haven’t ruled out EVs in my future.
I have been thinking about this, and I think the next real milestone, at least for “car guys”, will be when a true “crate-motor” drop-in EV conversion exists for classic cars, e.g. rear-engine, rwd American cars. Last I checked there were some options, but they were still very expensive and not terribly practical, yet. But It’s not too far away right now, and it will probably be only a few more years. Suddenly all those guys doing crate LS swaps will instead be doing crate EV swaps. t will be even more difficult to find a mechanic willing to work on a classic car – and that will be the death knell for most of them, and perhaps rightly so. It might also put a lot more of those classic cars back on the road, if in electrified form. I have been thinking about it for mine. Still thinking.
On a lighter note, I know you discounted diesels, but really, peak IC is something from Wartsila:
https://www.wartsila.com/marine/products/engines-and-generating-sets/dual-fuel-engines/wartsila-31
Or this:
https://www.wartsila.com/marine/products/engines-and-generating-sets/wartsila-32-methanol-engine
Or this:
https://www.wingd.com/en/engines/world-record-12x92df/
I’m doubting that, take away the carb for EFI like many classic car owners converted their cars to, or LS swaps, Coyote, Gen III Hemi swaps with the doner EFI retained, they’re no different than maintain a modern car with them, only they’re easier to work on in their less constricting engine compartments and lack of plastic covers over everything. Besides losing the carb and distributor or even engine still leaves the rest of the car to deal with, if the death kneel are those, how about working on drum brakes, or aligning the suspensions, doing extensive rust repair? Old cars are simpler of course but still have aspects that plausably could confound a young mechanic whose only experience is modern cars. Many of those into classic cars, especially those who undertake something like an engine swap or EV swap have some modicum of knowledge even if they outsource the work to professionals, it’s not rocket science to simply maintain a classic car, it’s just a matter of picking up the basics, it’s part of the tradeoff in owning one.
I don’t know what realm is “rightly so” classic cars go extinct. I can think of quite a few other contributors to people’s carbon footprint than the minuscule fleet of classic cars that exist let alone are driven regularly
Suddenly all those guys doing crate LS swaps will instead be doing crate EV swaps
I doubt that very much. More importantly, I hope they don’t, because what most folks don’t seem to understand is that the embedded CO in a battery pack is quite substantial. EVs need to be driven for some 50k or so miles before they start to recoup that excess embedded CO. How many miles per year does the typical classic car get driven?
I see these EV swaps into classic cars as greenwashing(virtue signaling) for those that can afford it. And what’s the point? Isn’t the point about classic cars to appreciate the technology that was current when they were built? To hear and feel the vintage IC engine and transmission? In a future when EVs are more common, these classic IC cars will be desirable precisely because of their unique and historic technology. Why do folks still run steam engines? Shall we convert them to electric too?
I’d much rather see the money and effort put to more genuinely meaningful CO-reducing undertakings.
You folks make some excellent points.
Turning a resurrected XKE into an EV is fine for some prince or someone else with a couple hundred thou to have a cool toy, but will never be a big thing. Besides there aren’t that many oldies around and they usually aren’t driven that much.
Not many do it unless turning some classic into a usually awful restomod, but just replacing the drivetrain of a 1961 Lincoln or a 1957 Imperial with a modern equivalent (might have to look into current pickup trucks for the latest tech) would about double the fuel economy and cut emissions by a million percent, which should be enough to qualify for a Champions of the Earth award. Is there some way to also get adaptive cruise control and auto braking into mine?
Paul, what do mean by the embedded CO in the battery pack? Are you talking about the CO that was used/produced when the vehicle /battery was originally produced? Are you saying that the car needs to be driven for 50,000 miles before it reaches a “break even” point in CO emissions, and then it has cleared it’s CO debt? That’s the first time that I’ve ever heard of this, though of course the manufacture of anything requires the expenditure of energy.
Yes; the mining, processing of battery minerals and the production of cells is quite carbon intensive. A typical EV requires almost a third more energy (CO) to build than an IC car, the difference being in the battery.
Depending on the source of the electricity to fuel the EV, it will take some time to offset that deficit. 50k miles is probably on the high side; but the point is it will take some time to offset the higher embedded CO in an EV. This is why I don’t really encourage folks that drive very little to sell their still-good IC car to buy an EV for environmental reasons. They might not ever recoup the embedded CO, despite their good intentions.
The higher the annual mileage, the quicker an EV will offset its embedded CO, especially if it’s being charged with electricity that has a high renewables content.
I was thrown off by your term “CO” which on its face stands for carbon monoxide. Obviously you meant carbon dioxide (CO2), which of course is the gas responsible for global warming, along with methane and others that contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Yes, CO2, in case it wasn’t obvious.
Thanks for explaining that. While I don’t have high economy vehicles, ( most are mid 20’s) I’m retired and don’t drive much except on weekend road trips.
Wow, were there rails on this story. Reminds me of the car off to the side of the road with the guard rail in between. CHP probably trying to figure out how he got there with no obvious damage.
Well I will say that the first EV car pictured above looks as ugly as sin. Won’t catch me dead in it but then that would be the only way. As to peak ICE I’m not sold on getting more and more power out of less and less cubic inches. So I would have to say some years ago for me. I thought and still think the Ford 4.6 modular and the GM 3800 were great reliable engines with good economy.
I might be driving maybe 20 years more and it won’t be in an EV. Three engines are getting rebuilt this year for a 67, 91, and 98 and they will last those 20 years. Three have already been rebuilt. The Mazda 2.2L may have only 95 HP but it is reliable and gets 34 mpg on the highway. Mazda gearing helps those 95 seem bigger. Of course if worse comes to worse I can always get my fix on aircraft ICE engines.
Pragmatically, I’d have to agree that the best versions of the Buick/GM 3800 V6 have the attributes of an ideal all-around ICE for a family car, before complexity, cost, and unreliability became a significant mitigating factor.
Electric is moving rapidly though I think an awful lot of it is due to Tesla and people wanting a Tesla, not just an electric car. But to say ICE is at peak I think is overrated too, mid 50s to 90s were relatively static. 90’s to 2010 were another era, universal fuel injection and beyond. 2010+ they’ve just exploded. Massive HP increased and good MPG gains Might there not be room in the market for a variety?
I believe the Post Office recently just solicited bids for a new mail truck. Many took them to task for not spec’ing electric. But jeez, that’s so simplistic. In the little burg I live in I think there’s 7 mail trucks. But sometimes extras. There isn’t room, they have to park 4 or 5 of them on the street. To have enough room, infrastructure and charging stations would require a new, much larger building and facility. To me this screams for Hybrid. Move 20 feet, put on the brakes, engine stops, move 50 feet, put on brakes, engine stops, etc. Those are just the situations hybrids are perfect for. Or city apartment dwellers, they don’t have a dedicated parking space, need to drive, but not necessarily 300 miles a day.
Driving across Nevada and Utah. That screams for a relatively traditional ICE. Especially if you’re towing a trailer. Yeah, you could do it on electric and recharge every so often, but how often? And how long will it take? And what do you do if the charging station is down? Oops.
Suburbs, single family house, modest commute, say 5-30 miles. Now that’s perfect for electric. Park it in the garage or driveway every night, charge it up and go the next day.
Why does it have to be either or, not which?
I think ICE engine development is at or near peak and it’s interesting to me that 4 bolt main bearing caps and cross bolted main bearing caps were exotic race technology in the 60s and the norm today. Similarly overhead cams, variable valve timing and 4 valve per cylinder is the norm. I think we’ve also backslid a bit, direct fuel injection creates carbon buildup issues in a lot o gasoline engines and low tension piston rings reduce friction but at the cost of high oil consumption.
As far as sales volume, regulations forcing electric cars will see a reduction in ICE vehicles. I think the BEV monomania is a dead end and far more effort should be put into hybrids, fuel cells and alternative fuels rather than fixating on a technology that just as ecologically and socially destructive but in an approved way.
In so far as horsepower per liter or cubic inch, we are probably at a “new” peak. Peaks go down after peaking then reset and are often higher. Newer ICE in cars have a lot of horsepower and torque now but are becoming overly complicated. Turbos, direct inject, and the packaging of engines in cars make them more complicated and expensive to fix. Also CVTs and 10 speed transmissions have made cars more fuel efficient but also more efficient. The last peak I feel is in the 1990s and 00s is when fuel injection became standard in cars and they were still relatively uncomplicated compared to today’s cars. I would define peak including the factors of horsepower, torque, and the car being easy to service. New cars are becoming unaffordable for many. The prices have risen a lot over the past 4 years since Covid. Cars are also getting more technology installed. Cheap and simple cars like the Chevettes, Omnis, Escorts, and other subcompacts and compacts are gone. SUVs are more profitable for automakers. ICE cars will be around for a while. Electric cars also have their problems. Battery packs are expensive and sometimes impossible to replace. Batteries for original 10 year old Nissan Leafs are nearly impossible to come by. One person junked a Tesla because a battery pack replacement was 30,000 dollars. In Maine, before Christmas we had a bad windstorm with rain with hundreds of thousands of people without power. It makes it hard to recharge your electric car. In rural Maine where I live, charging stations are virtually nonexistent. The electric car will I feel become a bigger part of the market over time and bugs will be worked out. People may also have to change their definition of a “trip” so it is within the range of their electric car. Hybrids I feel are a good compromise. You get the range of an ICE car and also superior fuel economy. I agree with previous commenter about ICE cars maybe becoming valuable and restored if electrics become mandated. Time to start stocking “spares” of an easily fixable model! ;)!
I don’t think we are at peak ICE, in technology anyway. We still have heat barrier coatings as well as more infinite valve timing (solenoid activated) awaiting for even more improvements in efficiency and power. Even power recovery turbines haven’t been used on cars yet. I also feel that improved two stroke technology needs to be revisited.
As ev’s are impractical for the vast majority of car buyers I tend to think all the government forcing towards ev’s will eventually come under a forced review and ICE’s will be around for a long time to come.
Well, I’ve been an EV/Hybrid skeptical spectator since this all started, but so far I’ve been quite willing to be surprised:
Will a Prius work in Canadian cold temperatures? Yes it will!
Will my neighbour’s battery powered lawnmower do a god job and last more than one year? Yes it will!
Can urban people live with just an electric car? Yes they can!
The power grid and battery materials remain points of concern, but my own employer (long history of mining and mineral processing equipment) is making massive investments into technology for processing battery minerals, and getting work out of it.
So I’m not well read enough to make definite predictions, or stamp my feet over others predictions, but it remains interesting to see where this all is going.
I had no intention for this to be a discussion about the pro’s and con’s of EV’s. Sorry if my post and question even implied that. I realize I didn’t do a good job of defining what I meant by peak ICE. I wasn’t trying to suggest that production would decline, merely that if one balanced the attributes of an engine, both objective and subjective (after all, we’re enthusiasts here, it’s not just about the numbers), were things still getting better, or worse, or are we in as period where things will level out. As some folks thoughtfully commented, there’s a strong argument for preferring (for example) the clean, reliable 2.0 – 2.5 liter fours of ten years ago, to the smaller turbo fours or even triples fitted to the same class of car today. But there are equally good arguments for older and newer engines as well. Now, I gotta go check the state of charge in my battery; it’s a sunny day and that renewable energy is doing its thing through my rooftop solar. I’m talking about the house battery bank in my camper van. The van with the twin-turbo V6 and direct injection.
Yes, this did go partway off the rails with several Luddites emerging to denounce the brave new world of BEVs with the usual bromides and conspiracy theories. Fortunately, Paul is always quick to set the record straight, as is Jim Klein in his humorous if somewhat meandering manner (plus many others have chimed in with insightful comments).
I’m wondering if we won’t be able to pinpoint the time of peak ICE until well after its heyday. Seems that people have been lamenting that the best days of the IC engine were always in the past. For example, in 1975, it had to be before the strangulation by emissions controls, and then in 1985, people didn’t trust that newfangled fuel injection; you’d have to pry the trusty carburetor from their cold, dead hands!
Looks like I happen to own 2 vehicles from the (current) consensus sweet spot, my 2015 Camry Hybrid with its the 2.5-liter port injected DOHC 4 and my 1998 Nissan Frontier, also with a port injected DOHC 4, this one at 2.4 liters. Both vehicles continue to be super reliable, and I have no plans to replace either at this point. [Camry Hybrid at 90K miles: 42 mpg lifetime, with 600-mile plus range between most fill-ups.]
dman, please don’t think it necessary to apologize. Your very apposite QOTD was also very clear.
The rest is Pavlov’s dog.
Judging by the sheer amount of anti-EV FUD out there, SOMEONE really wants to keep us chained to that gasoline pump.
Wow, this topic certainly veered off into another direction…
Getting back on topic, I like to think that we’re at or near peak ICE engine efficiency. I can only imagine incremental improvements going forward, but I may be wrong.
Regarding further improvements in emissions, were Porsche’s eFuel were to be widely distributed, how that might change peak efficiency. I think back to the widespread adoption of higher octane fuels in the 1950’s which was a great leap forward for power and fuel efficiency.
With the availability of the higher octane fuels, mechanical and materials technology changed, so much so that by the end of the decade of the 1950’s, cars were making much more power than they were at the beginning of the decade.
Could we see something similar with eFuel or other synthetic fuel? I’d like to think so.
were Porsche’s eFuel were to be widely distributed, how that might change peak efficiency.
eFuel is hardly a panacea, and it doesn’t directly affect efficiency. Currently it takes a large amount of energy to produce; the result is that an EV could go four times as far on the electricity/energy required to produce eFuel.
Yes, it’s a way to potentially allow IC engines to run on mostly CO-free fuel, but until there’s enough surplus solar/renewable energy to produce it, it’s not really CO-free. And it still results in a waste of renewable electricity.
It’s essentially the same issue with hydrogen, which can also be burned in modified IC engines. But it’s mostly made from natural gas; it can be made with solar/renewable energy, but then again, that same energy can be used much more efficiently in an EV.
Efuels and such have their greatest potential in airplanes, as it is not foreseeable that battery powered electric airplanes have much potential other than quite short hops.
I found this quote from a Porsche exec: “”If there is not enough renewable energy available [to make eFuels], it makes much more sense that you use this energy directly in electric cars,” Frenkel said. “Our strategy [is to] push fully on electromobility, and we have eFuels in addition.”
“Getting back on topic, I like to think that we’re at or near peak ICE engine efficiency. I can only imagine incremental improvements going forward, but I may be wrong.”
If “peak” means the best we can do in power, efficiency, and emissions then we are probably there or almost. However, the word “reliability” has been left out and I have always felt that as one pushes certain technology to the ultimate fragile edge we sacrifice reliability which is something I would never sacrifice.
tbm3fan
There a lot of thoughtful comments on this CC. But I agree with you. Direct Fuel Injection is inherenty more difficult and costly to make, not as robust, AND you’re likely to get carbon buildup on your intake valves. And cleaning it is a four-figure job…
Turbos are a huge jump in complexity.
I could go on…
Reliability plateaued from 1990-2015, depending on the brand. Toyota and Honda were there first, other mainstream brands joined them, including many GM and Ford products.
Of course we’re at (or near-enough) to peak ICE. When you think about it, all that 120 years have added is 1) electronic controls and 2) vastly better manufacturing tech and metallurgy to concepts that existed from the very beginning (or near-enough). The current latest takes those basics to their edge, and are brilliant in doing so. And, contrary to much nonsense about “high-stressed engines”, they don’t break.
ICE itself will be around for years yet: the economic conditions of the larger world demand it. But it’s hard to forsee any big money being spent on the advance of a 120 y.o. tech from now. Remember the Betamax VCR, that (I understand to be) better tech of the late ’70’s? VHS won, and this is much how ICE won the day way back when. But this never meant ICE was a BETTER tech, and on the most basic metrics – sheer simplicity, instant torque, etc – it just isn’t.
Can I just offer a quiet handclap to the folk here, like Jim and Paul, who’ve tried their best to maintain reason in these comments? Windmill-tilting, no doubt, but thanks to you all for trying to keep the stables clean.
“nonsense about “high stressed engines”, they don’t break.
Disagree, just ask any dealer mechanic with 30 years of experience.
Speaking objectively:
Valve control that is not mechanically connected to the crankshaft (like Freevalve, but working) will be the last hurrah of the gasoline engine.
Diesels might reach their peak if we ever make an adiabatic engine.
For me personally:
Peak ICE coincides with the time when every car company came to the conclusion that they are in fact selling drag coefficients, not cars. I am sure that I will enjoy my ’91 NA V12 (in a decidedly rectangular monocoque) for decades to come. Suffice to say that the 2035 ban you mentioned does not include limited production vehicles – at least here in Europe.