Seems like electric is the end goal
 

Anyone else think that electric is pretty much the end of the struggle? You can try all you want to get more out of gas, but you'll be light years ahead just buying an electric car. They're not all super expensive, and every year more will appear, driving prices lower.

Seems like the end result for most people on this forum, will be to buy an electric car. And then a solar system to charge it off of. At that point you've reached the goal.

The car is a component in a larger system. Once it's optimized there're further opportunities.

The Saving@Home subforum might grow.

I suspect that's where things are headed, but who knows for sure? There could potentially be better technologies, but governments have already decided which specific technology should win.

EVs are better in every regard except the battery, which is worse than a gas tank in almost every regard. When the energy storage device is way worse in most every regard, that's a huge hurdle to overcome for a machine designed specifically to convert energy into motion.

... and "not super expensive" is completely subjective. The Chevy Spark ICE was sold for $14k, and the Spark EV went for $25k. I suppose it's "only" 80% more expensive. What's a lousy $11,000 to someone buying the cheapest vehicle in the US?

After driving a leaf for the last 5 years. I think most people would be off with a hybrid.
I probably won't buy another electric car.
You can make it work but I don't think it's worth the hassle.
The 40,000 mile oil changes are kind of nice.

Buckminster Fuller proved through prototyping that everyone needs a new car, a new house and a new bathroom.

The electric car and the solar panels necessitate a [personal or neighborhood] microgrid. Current battery electrics are incomplete without on-vehicle solar, like the xBus or Aptera.

I just don't see how the ICE can continue for much longer. Batteries are limited today, but what about next year? What about 5, or 10 years from now? The race is on and there will eventually be a battery that's superior to a gas tank.

There's only one way I could see the ic engine remaining relevant long term. If they can manage to convert more of it's heat into electricity. So if you had something that sticks to the exhaust manifold, that converts a lot of that heat into usable power. But wait! If you managed to do that, why not just make a hybrid instead?

What was that volkswagen car that got around 220 mpg? It just had a small 2cyl diesel generator that could charge up the battery. It was an electric car with a diesel generator on board to charge the battery. Or you could plug in of course, but in the event that you couldn't, well no problem just use your little generator. Pretty much kills range anxiety. But it makes the car a hybrid, that got about 220 mpg.

And of course they made something like 200 of them, and then erased them from existence iirc. Instead of making them commonplace. You know, cause it was the right thing to do.

Batteries will probably cost more per kWh next year, just like most things in this inflationary period. The last couple years bucked the trend of batteries getting cheaper to manufacture.

It's not a forgone conclusion that batteries will be "superior" to a gas tank, because the universe imposed constraints on chemistry and physics. A battery is like a $10,000 gas tank, that doesn't hold much fuel, that takes an eternity to fill, that decreases in capacity over time, that must be thermally regulated, that takes up a lot of volume, that weighs a ton... those aren't insignificant problems to overcome.

Well, you answered your own question.

Of course, it's common knowledge that people hate having a market advantage AND making the world a better place simultaneously. We're all motivated by avoiding wealth and making people needlessly miserable. :rolleyes:

Did you hear about the engine that runs on water? Yeah, they threw it away because they hate money and making really awesome things.

The struggle is to make a regular ICE-powered vehicle (not only cars, but also motorcycles and trucks for instance) even better, yet it doesn't mean there won't be room for improvements on EVs too. Just like people do engine swaps on older cars, don't you believe someone would want to overhaul some older EV with improved motors and battery packs once they reach an age rendering them collectible, historical, or anything along these lines?


I'm not so sure about an EV being "the" goal for everyone. Unless some sort of PowerBank comparable in role to a Jerry can becomes available, there will be many folks not willing the risk of becoming stranded with a dead battery in the middle of nowhere, or at an unsafe place to get stranded with a dead EV. Even if all vehicles end up turning into a choice of either PHEV or BEV, the one-size-fits-all concept which has been pointed out by some EV proponents as if it was that wonderful is going too far, and won't be so effective if it ever gets fully implemented.

It's not possible for batteries to exceed the stored energy of a gas tank. Each gallon of gasoline weighs about 6lb. Each gallon is something like 33kwh.
The battery will always have to contain the fuel and the oxidizer, have something to conduct the electricity away from the cell, have structures to contain, separate and support the anode and cathode. Realistically scientists could probably double the energy density of batteries. Rumors or "breakthroughs" that claim to increase the energy density 4, 5 or 10 times the current energy density are BS.
The secret to gasoline, diesel is all the air you need to activate the reaction is all around us.
Low effort efficiency for gasoline is around 25%. For energy density and refuel vs recharge time liquid fuel always wins.

I have seen a car get over 200mpg. A friend towed there toyota car. The cars manual warns against flat towing with the engine off. So they leave the car in neutral with the engine on so the transmission can continue circulating it's transmission oil. It got about 220mpg being towed at 60 to 65mph.
Even the near perfect efficiency of the leaf it only gets the equivalent of 140mpg. Let's say I used gasoline to power a magic fuel cell to charge my leaf, I'd probably get 50 to 70mpg doing that.
Running a car off a "lawn mower carburetor" appears to barely beat electronic fuel injection in an 4cyl car and appears to improve fuel economy of a V8. 50 years ago getting nearly 40mpg in a small v8 would be crazy mpg. Now it's meh mpg that's using 5 and 6 speed transmissions that didn't exist 50 years ago. So the crazy high mpg numbers from antiquity are not reproducible even with modern tech like electronic fuel and spark control, electronic oxygen sensors to "tune lawn mower carb tests", transmissions with 6 or more forward speeds, amazingly efficient tires and much improved aerodynamics.
Putting a "lawn mower engine" in a car appears to only get around 20 to 30mpg.
There's no free ride.

I was able to double the fuel economy of my 7.4L suburban that has 3 speed auto and 4.10 gears, getting equal to or better fuel milage than new suburbans. But nothing I would consider crazy high numbers. Just by turning the carb for lean burn while rolling down the road.

There's a Chinese company making swappable battery econo cars but they aren't selling a lot. Apparently even the Chineee don't like not having their time wasted during the swap however short it is

Could be other issues with this that I am unaware of.