CR-V engine problems

[12,000 RPM]

Nah, turbos are all disasters. Ecoboost, BMW, they've all been train wrecks of one or more flavors. The value lost has been absolutely immense.

Gas (and gas-contaminated oil, even 0 weight oil) will get by piston rings - it will happen in all engines. The ring/cylinder wall interface is designed for a certain viscosity of fluid.

Toyota is mostly staying away from turbos, esp. in their mainline products - Camry, Corolla, Rav4, Highlander, Tacoma, etc. It's proving to be very smart.

Trainwrecks by what measures? Outside of the broken fuel economy promise most issues I see with turbo engines have nothing to do with turbocharging.

[MrH]

I've been surprised with how much I like my 2.0t. It's brutally quick for a family sedan, and I consistently get 28-32 mpg.

[FoMoJo]

But if it's the "only" problem, how is it so many automakers have problems with it?

In that it applies to the ones that have problems.  Most of them are just fine; some a bit better than others.  The crappy software applies to mating the engine to the transmission was well; for those that, seemingly, have transmission problems.

[FoMoJo]

I've been surprised with how much I like my 2.0t. It's brutally quick for a family sedan, and I consistently get 28-32 mpg.

Ditto for the 2.0 DI turbo in my Discovery Sport.  It's a rebadged Ecoboost.

[Morris Minor]

With the exception of this huge issue (and the minor annoyances of the touchscreen interface, & the seat cushions [designed flat: for people with wider arses than mine]) , I love every other aspect of the car.

I bought the highest-optioned gizmo-laden model with the specific intention of keeping it for 10 years. Putting gas in the oil does not do wonders for longevity.

If I'd bought the stripper base model, the vin ordinaire with the 2.4L NA engine, I would have been a happier bunny.

[12,000 RPM]

I can't go back to a car w/no toys if I have a choice

I think Honda will figure this out.

[shp4man]

There are a few unforseen issues with turbocharged direct injection engines, and not just Hondas. I heard the EPA enviros pushed hard on the various manufacturers to develop them. Like the early days of emission controls, there are some growing pains.
I talked to a Ford rep last week that said the future is likely EV's, but autonomous may take a while to make work.

[GoCougs]

The EPA is an unmitigated failure.

Turbos will always be more expensive, will always be less reliable, and will always disappoint on MPG and emissions (and this is best case).

Various tech fads (turbos, EVs, robots, autonomous driving) have been around for decades in industry. Pushing them into retail will continue to be a failure, but WtP are desperate for the Next Big Thing.

[Submariner]

The EPA is an unmitigated failure.

Turbos will always be more expensive, will always be less reliable, and will always disappoint on MPG and emissions (and this is best case).

Various tech fads (turbos, EVs, robots, autonomous driving) have been around for decades in industry. Pushing them into retail will continue to be a failure, but WtP are desperate for the Next Big Thing.

Autonomous vehicles have always been a dream, but the tech really hasn't existed until very recently.  I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, Cadillac's 8-6-4 was a disaster due mostly to the unreliability of sensors and a total lack of computing power.  I'd imagine those issues don't exist today.  The same thing goes for cameras and collision detection algorithms, etc.

I'm not well versed on this, but couldn't automakers just opt for lower gearing to easily and cheaply improve MPG?

[GoCougs]

Even today, variable displacement is dubious - it seems to now function okay but the benefit seems to be about nil. The key to improving MPG is weight and aero but betwix government regulation and culture preference (for trucks, SUVs and crossovers) good luck with that.

Autonomous driving has been used in industry (factories) for years. It works well as the environment is very controlled - consistent lighting and"road" (floor/isle) design, controlled access, controlled environment (no snow or fog or construction zones whatever) and everyone/thing is well versed on the rules of the "road" whether that's pedestrians or other vehicles (this is a modern implementation - older tech, such

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8zDRu72HD0

It's no surprise that the major leaders in autonomous driving have spent many years and many billions$$ and it's still a no-go. One can have the best sensing and vision in the world but doesn't mean much without the algorithms as you note. What's taking so long is the meta data collection of all the goofy scenarios and gotchas that people are excellent at reacting too without having seen it whereas generally for a machine to react it has to have an algorithm for it - fog, snow, standing water, construction zones, pedestrians at night, myriad road and sign designs, toll stations, worn/damaged roads, accident scenes, wrong-way drivers, etc., etc.

[AutobahnSHO]

Turbos add complexity for not that much gain. Well-suited to large applications (trucks) but not so much crazy consumers who barely know how to take care of basic maintenance or follow simple instructions..

I'm surprised Honda has had issues like this, without figuring out a quicker way to make it right.

--- ---
As far as autonomous cars, take people driving out of the equation and the problems will be fixed. The computing power and ingenuity available in software will make things zip faster than ever- until the hacking of course.

[12,000 RPM]

Some turbo engines do deliver on the promises made. Honda 2.0T and BMW 2.0T/3.0T do (I discount BMW's reliability issues because their engines have always been unreliable compared to others).

I think bundling autonomy, EVs and turbocharging is a mistake. These techs are hot buzzwords but don't really have anything to do with each other.

IMO if the goal is to reduce emissions, the most effective way forward is conventional hybrids. Not "mild" hybrids, not plug ins, not BEVs. Say a normal car generates 100 emissions units (EUs) over its life span. You have 80 kWh of battery capacity. What do you get in terms of reduction for each configuration?

BEVs reduce emissions by ~75% compared to normal cars, so for that 80kWh you'd save 75 EUs in 1 car.

Plug in hybrids are weird because they really depend on how they are used. 80kWh could do about 5 cars.... if you don't tap into the ICE they are as efficient as BEVs, but if you do they are no more efficient than regular hybrids which generally save about 35%. So the range would be 175 to 375 EUs saved.

Normal hybrids as I said save like 35% on average... and they generally only need 1-2kWh to do their thing. So let's split the difference and say 1.5kWh/car.... that's nearly 1,900 EUs saved from that 80kWh!!! I think the per kWh payback drops off again with mild hybrids... not sold there. But in the context of the constraints of batteries the way forward seems obvious. The ICE engines attached don't need to be anything fancy either.

[AutobahnSHO]

yeah, generating energy from braking is awesome

[r0tor]

The EPA is an unmitigated failure.

Turbos will always be more expensive, will always be less reliable, and will always disappoint on MPG and emissions (and this is best case).

Various tech fads (turbos, EVs, robots, autonomous driving) have been around for decades in industry. Pushing them into retail will continue to be a failure, but WtP are desperate for the Next Big Thing.

Yea... because there isn't an industry in the world that relies on large turbocharged engines being reliable and returning the best possible mpg...

[BimmerM3]

Some turbo engines do deliver on the promises made. Honda 2.0T and BMW 2.0T/3.0T do (I discount BMW's reliability issues because their engines have always been unreliable compared to others).

I think bundling autonomy, EVs and turbocharging is a mistake. These techs are hot buzzwords but don't really have anything to do with each other.

IMO if the goal is to reduce emissions, the most effective way forward is conventional hybrids. Not "mild" hybrids, not plug ins, not BEVs. Say a normal car generates 100 emissions units (EUs) over its life span. You have 80 kWh of battery capacity. What do you get in terms of reduction for each configuration?

BEVs reduce emissions by ~75% compared to normal cars, so for that 80kWh you'd save 75 EUs in 1 car.

Plug in hybrids are weird because they really depend on how they are used. 80kWh could do about 5 cars.... if you don't tap into the ICE they are as efficient as BEVs, but if you do they are no more efficient than regular hybrids which generally save about 35%. So the range would be 175 to 375 EUs saved.

Normal hybrids as I said save like 35% on average... and they generally only need 1-2kWh to do their thing. So let's split the difference and say 1.5kWh/car.... that's nearly 1,900 EUs saved from that 80kWh!!! I think the per kWh payback drops off again with mild hybrids... not sold there. But in the context of the constraints of batteries the way forward seems obvious. The ICE engines attached don't need to be anything fancy either.

I don't understand this comparison at all. Hybrids are better at reducing emissions because they have smaller batteries?

[12,000 RPM]

I don't understand this comparison at all. Hybrids are better at reducing emissions because they have smaller batteries?

On a per kWh basis, yes. If the goal is to reduce emissions, and we are battery constrained, conventional hybrids yield the most bang for the buck. 1-2kWh in a hybrid reduces emissions by 30-40%, vs using 60-90kWh in a BEV to reduce them by 60-70%.

[BimmerM3]

On a per kWh basis, yes. If the goal is to reduce emissions, and we are battery constrained, conventional hybrids yield the most bang for the buck. 1-2kWh in a hybrid reduces emissions by 30-40%, vs using 60-90kWh in a BEV to reduce them by 60-70%.

I think you're attributing 100% of the emissions of electric propulsion to the manufacturing process of the battery. It's not like a car with an 80kWh battery only uses 80kWh of electricity over the life of the vehicle.

It's like comparing efficiency of gasoline cars based on the size of their fuel tanks.

[12,000 RPM]

I think you're attributing 100% of the emissions of electric propulsion to the manufacturing process of the battery. It's not like a car with an 80kWh battery only uses 80kWh of electricity over the life of the vehicle.

It's like comparing efficiency of gasoline cars based on the size of their fuel tanks.

I'm still not being clear enough, it seems. I said in the original post I was talking about lifetime emissions. Compared to a normal car, a normal hybrid is about 30-40% more efficient over its lifetime, and a PHEV is about 60-80% more efficient. PHEVs are somewhere between. To me it makes more sense to use 1kWh of battery capacity to save 30-40% of carbon emissions than 60-90 to save 60-80%. Again you take that battery capacity and deploy it across multiple conventional hybrids, you will get much more bang for your buck in terms of emissions savings.

[BimmerM3]

I'm still not being clear enough, it seems. I said in the original post I was talking about lifetime emissions. Compared to a normal car, a normal hybrid is about 30-40% more efficient over its lifetime, and a PHEV is about 60-80% more efficient. PHEVs are somewhere between. To me it makes more sense to use 1kWh of battery capacity to save 30-40% of carbon emissions than 60-90 to save 60-80%. Again you take that battery capacity and deploy it across multiple conventional hybrids, you will get much more bang for your buck in terms of emissions savings.

Oh, well that's just because you didn't say anything about "bang for your buck" in your original post.

"If the goal is to reduce emissions" (your words), then money is irrelevant.

[Laconian]

I agree with Sporty, hybrids provide a lot of savings simply by recapturing the kinetic energy that would otherwise be lost to heat. The quantity of storage isn't great, but the frequency in which energy is charged/discharged multiplies out to a pretty significant amount of savings in the end.

I wish they would ZF would install hybrid motors directly into automatic transmissions so that it would be a no-brainer for manufacturers to integrate.

[12,000 RPM]

ZF8 has room for hybrid motors (see BMW iPerformance line). Problem is motor size is limited to like 80HP, which limits the system's effectiveness and calls on the gas motor more. It's kind of the worst of both worlds. Compare that with Toyota/Honda's systems which basically replace the transmissions entirely with bigger motors and smaller, simpler engines, which is way more efficient. Lexus has managed to simulate a 10AT with its hybrid system so there's no downside in character either. I'd love to see ZF offer something like that to the Germans. German hybrids are pretty phoned in right now.

[Soup DeVille]

Hybrid motors take up effectively zero space already. The Honda IMA system for instance replaces the flywheel, and add maybe 2 inches to the overall powerplant length.

[Morris Minor]

God knows what the gasoline VOCs from my Earth Dreams envirocrunchy 1.5T are doing to the environment. A 6.2L 840 hp fuck-you Dodge Demon is probably better for air quality.

[Eye of the Tiger]

God knows what the gasoline VOCs from my Earth Dreams envirocrunchy 1.5T are doing to the environment. A 6.2L 840 hp fuck-you Dodge Demon is probably better for air quality.

The PCV system is pretty well sealed. It's probably just covering the intake with deposits.

[12,000 RPM]

God knows what the gasoline VOCs from my Earth Dreams envirocrunchy 1.5T are doing to the environment. A 6.2L 840 hp fuck-you Dodge Demon is probably better for air quality.

Gas pooling in your sump = no VOCs

[12,000 RPM]

Hybrid motors take up effectively zero space already. The Honda IMA system for instance replaces the flywheel, and add maybe 2 inches to the overall powerplant length.

The shitty ones do (like Honda IMA which is dead and BMW's iPerformance system). The new and effective ones run huge motors and generators that basically replace the transmission, rather than squeezing a cheap motor/generator between the engine + transmission.

[GoCougs]

I'm gonna guess that it will hurt emissions a bit. A lower viscosity gas+oil film outside the bounds of the oil control rings' design intent is bound to linger on the cylinder walls.

My biggest worry would be the deleterious effects on gaskets/seals and decreased lubricating properties.

[Morris Minor]

Gas pooling in your sump = no VOCs

My garage reeks of gasoline - the  Honda's wafting it out somehow.

[Eye of the Tiger]

My garage reeks of gasoline - the  Honda's wafting it out somehow.

Just make sure your exhaust valves are closed when you park. Or stick a banana in the tailpipe.

[shp4man]

Unburned hydrocarbons. A major cause of smog. Earth Dreams indeed...