Joined
·
1,994 Posts
Great response! Maybe with people as thoughtful as you, GML, we can make a difference! My only quibble - who cares whether CO2 is an "inherent" pollutant if it's killing us?First of all you read me wrong; I’m not assuming the M274 is unreliable or undersized; I simply consider the data available not good for educated specific speculation. The only data I have is that the vast majority of non-luxury MB power plants (read- less than 8 cylinders) have a well deserved reputation for durability... and an equally well deserved reputation for having annoying issues (e.g. leaking fuel lines).
A further truth is that while both the forced aspiration system in a B29 and a M274 are both called “turbocharging” the differences between the actual systems is night and day. A turbo is an insanely simple device at its core- a windmill driven by fast moving exhaust gasses turning a co-axial impeller which draws air into the intake.
Furthermore it is true that all things being equal a larger engine will be more durable than a smaller engine making the same power. However all things are not equal; metallurgical technologies have changed massively, computers allow for engines that will not overstrain themselves, and our ability to design and build complicated electronics that can withstand heavy use has improved markedly.
I think the aversion to a small turbo four being used to power a large van like this is a dinosaur mentality. Small turbo fours are actually less likely to suffer from certain kinds of wear, and are more powerful than their direct numbers suggest, because they have vastly lower reciprocating mass.
But to move to a more controversial area; the idea of the clean gas engine and the dirty diesel is a great news soundbite. It creates a regulatory mess to distract from more important (but much harder to solve) issues. It is also completely wrong headed.
It doesn’t matter what fossil fuel you burn- gasolene, kerosene, diesel, natural gas, or whatever. They are ALL dirty. Just in different ways- diesel produces far less CO, considerably less CO2, and more of NOx. If we wanted the ideal pollution situation for a world with ICEs only we would mandate smog fed versions of all of the above be produced in a proportion that wouldn’t excessively favor one over the other; fortunately Elon Musl has solved that particular issue going forward.
What is a pollutant? That’s the central question, which is totally misunderstood. CO2 is not an inherent pollutant; without it all the plants would die and so would our planet. All of the emissions of ICE engines exist naturally in our atmosphere... and they SHOULD. Pollutants are, in fact, any molecule or item introduced into the system in a quantity that is outside of what is normally there.
Thus if we figured out a way to extract hydrogen without using water and used it to power a fuel cell, it’s emissions of “pure water” would be pollution. Furthermore, even if we were to assure that only as much water was electrolized as was put out by a hydrogen powered car, i would still be polluting if I generated that hydrogen from a readily available water source and powered a car in the desert.
When the real answer is “too late, no real answer exists that will solve the problem in time” we like to instead confuse motion with accomplishment. The only real solution to solving transportation is to increase as much as possible the efficieny of moving people from A to B. Which generally means moving people closer together and then moving them with mass transportation.
However that’s not going to happen in these United States- or much anywhere else really- and even if it did, it is too late- and probably has been for the better part of a century, and the amount to which our personal choice of vehicle will effect how quickly that will come is too little for anything but apathy about it.