1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

A cool boost to turbocharger performance

Since the advent of the forced-induction engine, we have been looking for ways to get every drop of performance we can. There are many approaches to getting additional power using better intercooling, water injection, or even adding nitrous oxide. One take on a short instant burst of power is being researched by Mahle and involves providing supercooled air to an engine, which allows it to burn a leaner fuel mixture and produce more power. The supercooling idea is not new and was examined by Ford in 1993 on the Mustang Mach III concept car, then brought up again in 2003 with the SVT F-150 Lightning concept. Ford called its system the SuperCooler; it was designed to work with any turbocharged or supercharged engine equipped with a water-to-air intercooler. The system on the Lightning concept used a small tank of antifreeze that was hooked up to the truck air conditioning compressor. The air conditioning compressor cooled the antifreeze down to about 30 degrees. The other side of the tank was hooked up to the air-to-water intercooler, which usually had a temperature over 100 degrees. Once the antifreeze was circulated from the tank into the intercooler, it would lower the intercooler temperature and provide for a cooler, denser air charge into the engine; the result was around 50 extra horsepower for a burst of about 30 seconds to a minute, depending on the size of the tank. The system for the Lightning was to be offered as a $750 option and would have been targeted towards drag racers and the like, as it could be used for a run down the drag strip and then re-cooled by the time the truck was back in line. The system was fairly non-intrusive – it only weighed about 25 pounds and did not require a new compressor or intercooler. But as with many concepts, it was ultimately scrapped. The technology was always stuck in the back of my mind, but with larger and more powerful engines being produced it could not find its place. With the advent of new fuel economy standards, we have seen small-displacement turbocharged engines pop up and they seem like the perfect candidate for this type of technology. Ford's EcoBoost 1.0-liter three-cylinder turbocharged engine, as used in the Fiesta and Focus, is one such candidate for this technology. It would add a negligent amount of weight but could provide a boost of 10 to 20 horsepower when needed, like merging onto the highway or catching up to traffic.

DoJ fines Japanese parts firms $740M in massive automotive price-fixing scandal

Nine Japanese suppliers have pleaded guilty in US court over charges of price fixing in the automotive parts industry, resulting in the Department of Justice doling out a total of $740 million of fines, according to a report from Bloomberg. The scandal, which has resulted in General Motors, Ford, Toyota and Chrysler spending up to $5 billion on inflated parts and driving up prices on 25 million vehicles has sent the DoJ hustling into investigations. "The conduct this investigation uncovered involved more than a dozen separate conspiracies aimed at the U.S. economy," Attorney General Eric Holder (pictured above) said during yesterday's press conference.
As the investigation stands, the DoJ has issued $1.6 billion in fines against 20 companies and 21 individual executives, with 17 of the execs headed to prison. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Scott Hammond said, "The breadth of the conspiracies brought to light today are as egregious as they are pervasive. They involve more than a dozen separate conspiracies operating independently but all sharing in common that they targeted US automotive manufacturers."
Big-name suppliers indicted in the investigation include Mitsubishi Electric, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Hitachi Automotive and Mitsuba Corporation. A list of fines and other corporations named in the investigation is available at Bloomberg.

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.