Stampie (FS) said:
DirtyBird222 said:
Teh E36 M3 said:
DirtyBird222 said:
Stampie (FS) said:
Makes you wonder how long the ICE can hold off the electric revolution. I was just looking at some cars yesterday with Lil Stampie and told him that in 20 years people will look at our collection of ICE vehicles like I used to look at people that owned a horse to get around.
It seems as if ICE is fighting with their hands behind their back from regulations, emissions, and other mandatory BS that big gov't feels the need to enforce.
You obviously hadn't experienced LA in the 80's and 90's. I'll gladly take all the emissions "BS" to be able to breathe. My buddy only puts 100LL in his motorcycles and I hate riding behind him (in a full-face helmet).
Flounder/Counterflounder off.
I have experienced LA. Crazy how even during COVID where there were significantly less cars on the road on a daily basis, the black soot kept accumulating on my patio. It probably had nothing to do with the industrial pollution in LA county though.
I'll leave the politics out of the argument but the electric motor is why more powerful, reliable, makes less noise, and is clean not in emissions but simple things like oil leaking from a valve cover gasket. The only thing holding it back is infrastructure and range. Both of those are being worked on right now. I'm looking at properties right now and thought longer about one near 95 because soon it'll be a lot quieter without all the ICE vehicles.
Is buying a new car that required a literal ton of raw materials really that much better for the environment or is keeping an older car operating the better take away for mother earth? I would love to see some real science behind lets say keeping a 1999 Honda Civic running (in proper running order) vs. buying a new EV when you consider the mining for raw metals, mining for batteries, plastic production, electricity used to produce all the parts, logistics to get all parts to final assembly, etc.
Also back on topic and sorry to derail --- but does this PSA affect the 2020+ Hyundai Velosterd N?
I totally agree with you on replacement impact. I'm not advocating a cold turkey switch to electric. But when they get down to where my cheap SOB will consider I'm sure I'll have one for a daily.
Depending on what study you believe is most accurate, it takes somewhere between 260 & 500 gallons of fuel to produce a 3,000 Lb. car; let's split the difference and go with 380 gallons. In terms of recycling the car that's being replaced, let's assume the 380 gallons includes processing of the scrap material into new cars so we just need to add enough fuel to separate the various elements from the old car and get them to the processing site. I'll guess 15% of what it takes to make the new car so 57 additional gallons for a total of 437 gallons. 15,000 miles per year at 27.5 mpg = 545 gallons per year.
If the new car consumes 10% less fuel, it'll take 8.02 years to break even. But, eight years from now, we'll be able to do much better than a 10% reduction. Do we then crush the 10% better car for a 19% better car (0.9 X 0.9 = 0.81)?
It's the same problem as launching a probe to Proxima Centauri (nearest star which is 4.22 light years away). It'd be a complete waste as we'd spend a fortune to achieve whatever, 0.05 light speed and then a few years later, we'd be able to do 0.10 light speed resulting in our new probe just blasting past our first probe when it was only a tiny percent of the way to P.C. followed by our third generation probe that can do 0.15 light speed...
DirtyBird222 said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to DirtyBird222 :
No. The N is not a smart stream engine.
I remember LA basin in the mid 80's and then again around 99(?). Definitely cleaner. But the fact that they built a city in a bowl sure didn't help. There were miners accounts of the smoke from campfires when there was a small fraction of the people there are now and how it clogged the afternoon sun. Gotta have ventilation!
Thanks for that info - any issues with the N one should know about?
The amount of "soot" build up even on the coast always blew my mind. I love leaving my windows open there but it comes at a price of everything being covered in soot. All that industrial pollution in LA county doesn't help either. Such a wonderful yet terrible place to live.
The N has a Theta II. The NA version of these engines is pretty bad, particularly the 2.4. The turbo stuff has some of the same oiling problems but much, much less than the NA stuff. I wouldn't worry too much in your case so long as you are keeping up on oil changes.
In reply to RX Reven' :
You're ignoring the cumulative effects of overall fleet consumption.
A large percentage of cars on the road get scrapped every year. Some are newer cars but most are older, and they're generally taken out by collisions or simply not being worth repairing(*) If newer cars use less fuel, the overall fleet uses less fuel as attrition takes out the old ones.
* - With the rising used car market, a lot of older cars are getting repaired instead of scrapped. It makes more sense to dump $2-3k into the old beater when you can't touch a new beater for $2k anymore. Yes yes GRM finds a way, I'm speaking of the 95% of people who are not "car people" and just want to go to a used car lot and drive home with something. I've been seeing a lot of this lately. Car comes in with some expensive malady, owner says nah, looks like it's time for a different car. They schedule repairs a month later, saying "WOW used cars are expensive now..." Hopefully this turns into people being more diligent with maintenance because cars can't be treated as disposables like they have been. Which, will keep older cars in better running condition, which I agree makes more sense on an environmental-cost-of-replacement basis than disposing and buying new.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
I doubt you'll be surprised to hear that I completely appreciate your point.
Add to that the huge opportunity cost...for many (most) people, being forced to buy a new car eliminates their ability to do anything else to help the environment for many, many year (new cars are expensive Um-Kay).
Anyway, this thread is about Hyundai / Kia engines so I want to tread lightly with this spin-off discussion. Additionally, the Santa Cruz appeals to me a lot so I'm very interested in knowing if it may have engine problems.
In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
Sort of. The first theta 2 were mpfi in the sonata and first gen fortes. They were reliable, good torquey engines. In 2011 they made the switch to gdi on them and raised compression. These were less good but were making 200hp/195tq and getting 37mpg. The turbo 2.0 at 270hp has been the biggest problem with engines stateside.
that said, the early mpfi cars I've seen so many over 200k miles I'd not think twice about them. Keep in mind this engine has been in use since 2005 in everything from fortes to sonatas, Tucson, sante fe, sportage, sorento, rondo etc. the short block is shared with the mitsu 4b11 and the chryco 2.4 neon engine. There's a crap ton of these engines out there.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
This is an excellent point.
In reply to bobzilla :
I completely agree that the MPI stuff has been overall pretty reliable. The GDI, significantly less so. However, I'm interested to hear you say the 2.0 turbo was having problems. As far as Genesis Coupes go, the 2.0T has been pretty stout (at least until people get excited with the boost controllers). Everything I'd been hearing and reading seemed to point to the 2.4 NA being the really big problem child.
In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
It's the fwd 2.0t in the optima/sonata that has had the issues. Gdi turbo car where the gen coupe was still mpfi
RX Reven' said:
Stampie (FS) said:
DirtyBird222 said:
Teh E36 M3 said:
DirtyBird222 said:
Stampie (FS) said:
Makes you wonder how long the ICE can hold off the electric revolution. I was just looking at some cars yesterday with Lil Stampie and told him that in 20 years people will look at our collection of ICE vehicles like I used to look at people that owned a horse to get around.
It seems as if ICE is fighting with their hands behind their back from regulations, emissions, and other mandatory BS that big gov't feels the need to enforce.
You obviously hadn't experienced LA in the 80's and 90's. I'll gladly take all the emissions "BS" to be able to breathe. My buddy only puts 100LL in his motorcycles and I hate riding behind him (in a full-face helmet).
Flounder/Counterflounder off.
I have experienced LA. Crazy how even during COVID where there were significantly less cars on the road on a daily basis, the black soot kept accumulating on my patio. It probably had nothing to do with the industrial pollution in LA county though.
I'll leave the politics out of the argument but the electric motor is why more powerful, reliable, makes less noise, and is clean not in emissions but simple things like oil leaking from a valve cover gasket. The only thing holding it back is infrastructure and range. Both of those are being worked on right now. I'm looking at properties right now and thought longer about one near 95 because soon it'll be a lot quieter without all the ICE vehicles.
Is buying a new car that required a literal ton of raw materials really that much better for the environment or is keeping an older car operating the better take away for mother earth? I would love to see some real science behind lets say keeping a 1999 Honda Civic running (in proper running order) vs. buying a new EV when you consider the mining for raw metals, mining for batteries, plastic production, electricity used to produce all the parts, logistics to get all parts to final assembly, etc.
Also back on topic and sorry to derail --- but does this PSA affect the 2020+ Hyundai Velosterd N?
I totally agree with you on replacement impact. I'm not advocating a cold turkey switch to electric. But when they get down to where my cheap SOB will consider I'm sure I'll have one for a daily.
Depending on what study you believe is most accurate, it takes somewhere between 260 & 500 gallons of fuel to produce a 3,000 Lb. car; let's split the difference and go with 380 gallons. In terms of recycling the car that's being replaced, let's assume the 380 gallons includes processing of the scrap material into new cars so we just need to add enough fuel to separate the various elements from the old car and get them to the processing site. I'll guess 15% of what it takes to make the new car so 57 additional gallons for a total of 437 gallons. 15,000 miles per year at 27.5 mpg = 545 gallons per year.
If the new car consumes 10% less fuel, it'll take 8.02 years to break even. But, eight years from now, we'll be able to do much better than a 10% reduction. Do we then crush the 10% better car for a 19% better car (0.9 X 0.9 = 0.81)?
It's the same problem as launching a probe to Proxima Centauri (nearest star which is 4.22 light years away). It'd be a complete waste as we'd spend a fortune to achieve whatever, 0.05 light speed and then a few years later, we'd be able to do 0.10 light speed resulting in our new probe just blasting past our first probe when it was only a tiny percent of the way to P.C. followed by our third generation probe that can do 0.15 light speed...
So the solution is to never launch it, right? :D
