Will ICE engines remain in mainstream use in the next 100-300 years or even longer?

Will ICE engines remain in mainstream use in the next 100-300 years or even longer?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In use for 100-300 yes. In mainstream use for road cars probably 100.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Steam engines are still sort of used if you count stationary power generation. And of course people keeping the Antiques running for fun. I could see internal combustion following the same fate.

    >2105
    >boat show in Charleston
    >tfw an old guy putts up with a 1900s Carolina Skiff
    >engine is a goddamn Mercury 2 stroke, only ever heard about those before
    >did they all smoke like that?
    >it's slow af and horrendously complicated compared to even 80s oxyfusion jets
    >he shifts it into neutral and gives it a big hit of throttle
    >that sound
    >I now understand why he has that old thing

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you're willing to count nuclear powered then there are still steam powered ships out there running around.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We need nuclear power to make red/pink hydrogen energy

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn't count. The drive system is ultimately electric.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Posts like this make it painfully obvious that most of the tards on here have no actual reason to like cars, they just have nothing else going for them and are in too deep to find an actual hobby
      >dude I love LE CAR SOUNDS
      >so cool dude
      its just cargo culting stuff they saw in movies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Black person what the frick are you saying. Posts like this show me you're a chronically online homosexual who never goes to car meets, has never street raced, has never seen shreds of tire trailing through the smoke illuminated by brake lights as a mustang does a burnout, has never done 100mph with the windows down, has never felt the anger, tiredness, and elation of doing a bigger repair job or modification yourself, has never felt the oh shit moment of getting stuck off road by yourself, and has never been complimented on anything you drive or ride. You're the type of buckbroken b***h that only partakes in this hobby vicariously and doesn't know what it's like to have a car make you actually happy or feel alive. I own a bike from the 70s and daily a car from the 80s. I've bought and dailied a 2016 JKU and a 2023 Camaro, both new, ordered with a stick. I've fried an engine in a fiero. I've LS swapped a 72 el camino. But yeah I'm cargo culting hollywood lmao

        they use steam turbines in power plants
        literally nothing uses steam engine at this point besides museum artefacts

        A steam turbine is a type of steam engine, Poindexter.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they use steam turbines in power plants
      literally nothing uses steam engine at this point besides museum artefacts

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    engines cant run on ice moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Touché

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    and it will be kino

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Until battery and charging tech can yield 400ish miles of range in a normal sized sedan/suv within 5 minutes, yes

    OR our benevolent WEF adjacent overlords ban ICE engines through (moronic) legislative fiat.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's the automakers' fault their engines are not carbon neutral

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        All the asphalts and concrete contribute to warming more than carbon and EV's have no effect on that, time to call the real elephant in the room

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          dont forget these pieces of shit

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What about oil tankers?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What’s funny is that solar panels have the same thermal footprint as asphalt.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Look up the cost for so called CO2 compensation. You can do it for cents on on a liter of fuel.
        Ergo, Either CO2 isn't a problem since the cost of compensation is so low, or, the entire system is a scam.
        At 25 Euros for 1000 Kg of co2, even a uneconomic car could run 7000 Km on petrol with that "co2 budget.
        Or 700.000km for 2500. The real question is, does a tesla battery last 700.000 km and is it cheaper than 2500 to replace.
        If not, ICE is still the superior choice if you are concerned with CO2.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Being Carbon neutral is a nonissue

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They'll ban driving instead and only way to get around will be self driving EVs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      99% of people dont need 400 miles range and 5 minute charges

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I would bet every single American takes a trip at least every year where that type of range is needed. There is not an EV made right now that could get my wife to her biweekly meeting at corporate hq 2 hours a way and back

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What are you talking about? There are multiple EVs on sale that can make that kind of trip non-stop. There are cars with over 500 miles of range on sale now.
          Even with my older affordable EV I'm making a 7 hour drive today and fast charging will add maybe two 7 minute stops.

          Plus any corporate HQ is going to have free L2 charging. That means even a Volt would only need to burn two gallons of gas for that trip.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well anon?

            [...]

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Face it DA, EV goes firework show.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well you're just outright wrong on that first point, a ton of Americans literally never leave a 100 mile radius of their home for years at a time.

          As to the second part, you don't know what the frick you're talking about. I am currently sitting in a hotel 6 hours from my home that I drove to with my EV and the drive took me the exact same amount of time it has taken me in the past when I had a combustion car. I stopped once to charge while I had lunch and a piss and the car is sitting at 50% charge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We're all real happy that an EV works great for your anal lube sales job. But the rest of us need real cars, not homosexual mobiles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >99% of people dont need 400 miles range and 5 minute charges

        Hahahahahahahaha

        Yeah moron, those interstates in the middle of fricking nowhere are 99% empty

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        100 percent of customers do not need new cars and when they do buy them they reasonably expect that vehicle to be functionally superior in every way to what it replaced.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Until battery and charging tech can yield 400ish miles of range in a normal sized sedan/suv within 5 minutes, yes
      imho the only way forward right now for 100% EV is universal battery packs that can be quickly swapped by a technician at a "gas station" to avoid charge times. Maybe something cool like a car wash chain that pulls your car through the line and a robot arm swaps stuff out. Redesigning gas stations into charging warehouses to keep a rotating stock of batteries and getting all manufacturers to agree to common designs is a pretty tall order, but honestly probably easier than making the scientific breakthroughs necessary for the ability to charge large capacity batteries that quickly.
      Modern hybrids are really good and should be what policy pivots towards, imho.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A highly technical job, performed by a highly paid technician.
        >To service a use case of less than 1% of trips > 400 miles in a day.
        Ever since the 250kW stations started popping up, the time it takes for a Model 3 to ping you that it is time to stop charging and go has already become inconveniently quick.
        Other electric vehicles may not be able to add miles as fast as a Model 3, but 350kW or the upcoming 500kW charging stations will move more vehicles up to that speed.

        At the same time, once the higher density batteries NIO is using filter out to the rest of the industry fast charging will go from something needed in about 5% of trips, to something needed in about 2% or less.
        Like Hydrogen Fuel Cell range-extenders, I'm sure there will be a niche market for them where the expense is worth it, but I don't think they'll be mainstream. Just not worth the premium cost most of the time.
        The longer range EVs get, and the more common standard EV chargers are, the less likely you are to need a charge somewhere on the road.

        Unless we get a standardized port for a solid-state cell format to allow for fast swapping 20kg 10kWh batteries for motorcycles or a bit of emergency power in a car I just don't see them happening.
        At least not outside of specialized use cases like Taxi companies where they can just drop a containerized swap station in a airport parking lot to support a fleet of cheap short-range EVs.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A highly technical job, performed by a highly paid technician.
          It needs to explicitly be designed to not require technical competence. Literally should be the equivalent of a pump attendant, if left to humans at all.

          >inconveniently quick.
          I read your other posts, but I had my first EV experience a few months ago in a rental, and in the part of Colorado Springs I was at, the charging situation was abysmal and vastly different than yours. No chargers at my hotel, and fewer than 10 (slow) chargers within a 5 mile radius, so I hunted every night for one for an hour each and they were all taken. There was one exception, but the app was literally broken and I couldn't start charging, and the place was sketchy as hell. The one night I was able to steal a spot I had to park AND THEN carpool to where we were having dinner and only gained around 6% charge for the 1.5-2hrs I was there. The rental company wanted me to bring it back at 70%, but over 5 days I literally couldn't without spending an absolutely unreasonable amount of time/effort so they got it back at <30%.

          I believe that it works great for you wherever you are geographically, but my first hand experience fricking sucked and I think you underestimate how important it is to get people out of a station as fast as possible and the infrastructure is just not as ubiquitous as it needs to be for the whole country everywhere. Maybe when every single parking space has a way to charge an EV we won't need centralized stations, but that sounds like an equally daunting challenge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >had my first EV experience a few months ago in a rental
            It sounds like most of your problem was because of the lack of L2 chargers at the hotel you booked. Although if you'd tried a L1 charge there it might have worked better than you might think, and most hotels have a 14-50 outlet or another higher power plug you can usually negotiate to use. But that is the sort of thing a EV owner with a trunk full of adapters thinks of, that might not have occurred to someone just renting one.
            From the rest of your description, I'm going to guess you had a CCS car that is functionally short-range?
            Did they even give you the charging adapter for it to plug into standard outlets?

            What was it? A Ford Mach E? VW ID.3? Another car that barely does 3 miles a kWh?

            >I believe that it works great for you wherever you are geographically
            LOL, I'm in a rural part of the Midwest. Literally one of the worst case scenarios. Except for the fact I can charge at home.
            I just own a Model 3 which is probably the best EV around right now for efficiency which means it adds miles the fastest from any source.

            If I was in your situation, and I have been at least once, I would have found a place with a 50kW or 100kW charger that does breakfast, and get up early to charge there.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It sounds like most of your problem was because of the lack of L2 chargers at the hotel you booked.
            That would have solved my issue, absolutely, but that's kind of my point, if hotels in a fairly nice and growing part of Colorado can't even spare a single charger, it seems to follow that the country is not ready for to adopt EVs as the majority, default, form of personal consumer transportation. And FWIW I didn't choose the EV and simply fail to make arrangements, but the rental company didn't have my reservation and that's all they could offer when I got there. It's not exactly unreasonable to ask me to make sure I have adapters and have to make special arrangements to fuel my vehicle, but it is pretty crazy to think the country is ready for wholesale adoption of EVs and move away from the ease and ubiquity of gas stations when that's the reality.
            I was given a Hyundai Ioniq 5. I actually didn't know a lick about EVs before that (including that there were even different level chargers) and found it to be an interesting experiment and put me in a unique position to be able to experience "adoption" without having any prior knowledge bias to begin with. I think I was quoted something like 300 miles, but I got a lot less because I floored it everywhere as it was just too damn fun not to. There was some fashion of an adapter in the trunk, but couldn't tell you what it was.

            >rural part of the Midwest...Except for the fact I can charge at home.
            IMHO that makes it probably a lot better for wide adoption. If you don't own your home/parking space for your car then you're at the mercy of whatever is around. Despite my terrible experience I'd still consider an all-electric because I know I'd be able to keep it topped off in my garage. But ONLY as a secondary, I make fairly routine roadtrips 300mi+ for work. Never renting again.

            >I would have found a place
            Not a strong selling point when the alternative is a gas station 5 minutes away from anywhere.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it seems to follow that the country is not ready for to adopt EVs as the majority,
            Oh absolutely not. But you realize that even if all cars new cars sold are BEVs, PHEVs, or other types of range-extended EVs starting in 2035, most cars on the road in the US won't be EVs until the mid 2050s.

            >I was given a Hyundai Ioniq 5
            That is a CCS car. One of the better ones, since it is 800v and can do 350kW charging (same as Porsche LOL). But it still suffers from not being as efficient as a Model 3 due to how much bigger it is which makes it add miles slower.

            >There was some fashion of an adapter in the trunk
            Probably the default one Hyundai gives you. It wouldn't surprise me if it could do a few different plugs, but a lot of then only include L1 charging.

            >when the alternative is a gas station 5 minutes away from anywhere.
            Sure, but there are more fast chargers than you'd think around these days if you're in a slightly populated area.
            Colorado is way ahead of my area.
            https://fastcharger.info/map

            Although as you found CCS charging is a mess of different apps and has a lot of pitfalls you can run into. Things will be better in a few years when NACS has more fully taken over.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Things will be better in a few years when NACS has more fully taken over.
            Yeah, it definitely won't fix things overnight but unifying the charging infrastructure is a huge step toward forcing companies like EA to stop being so fricking moronic. Hyundais are supposed to be getting supercharger network access by end of year, here's hoping they've seen enough data by then to lift some of the speed throttling they've got going on for the CCS vehicles they've opened it to so far.

            I will say though that even with all the dumb shit you deal with at current charging stations, my first road trip in my Ioniq 5 recently went really smoothly. It was surprisingly easy to find 350 kW chargers along the route I was taking, and even the one time I ran into a station where all the 350s were showing errors, the 150 did just fine for me (ended up pulling close to 180 for most of the session).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta, but
            >huyndai
            yea, that was the biggest problem here.
            if you had a tesla, you'd be able to use the supercharger network, which is INFINITELY better than having to deal with the mess that is all the other networks.

            but yes, i definitely agree the country is not ready for a full EV switch yet
            and also that if you can't charge at home, you absolutely shouldn't get an EV.

            i do disagree about the viability of having only an EV tho. assuming you can charge at home (which makes it ultra convenient and cheap) and its a tesla (because supercharger network), then you're set. there's very, VERY few trips left where you'd be in trouble, and in those ultra rare occasions, shit, just rent an ICE.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Other electric vehicles may not be able to add miles as fast as a Model 3
          Teslas aren't even the fastest charging models out there. Anything on 800V architecture already gets crazy fast charging on anything above 150 kW.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            miles != kwhr.
            per a recent test that carwow did, the model 3 was doing 4.8mi/kwhr. the various other vehicles in the test were generally around 4. that's a 20% miles bonus for every kwhr of charge that you add.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not disputing that Tesla drive efficiency is one of its greatest strengths, just pointing out that they're not even using the best available charging tech at the moment, which means the ability to combine that kind of efficiency with the charging speed you see in cars like what Hyundai is putting out can improve things even more and that's entirely with tech that's already available today, then you consider that batteries are still improving and higher speed chargers are continuing to roll out, and all the complaints that EVs simply aren't viable because they charge too slow quickly become just fricking stupid.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's the thing, tesla KNOWS the complaints re:charging speed are dumb

            if you're doing a trip, current ranges and current charging speed area already good enough, you'll WANT to stop for enough time after that many miles anyway

            simultaneously, we're nowhere close to the point where charging speeds are good enough to allow people who can't charge at home to comfortably own EVs.
            having to go to a charging station once a week is a no-go, regardless of whether it takes 60 or 40 or 30 minutes to do the weekly charge. anything beyong the ICE-like 2-3minutes at the pump is too much.

            tesla understands this, and they also understand they don't need to compete on bigger number idiocy, so they are very correctly not making charging speed a priority.

            im guessing that current tesla strategy is to offer X miles of range and Y sec of 0-60 for way, WAY cheaper than anyone else can dream to (except chinks, but they'll get tarriffed out of the market). that, plus the supercharger network is enough for them to remain kings of the market.
            also, by focusing on efficiency even more, they get to use fewer batteries and hence save money on every car they sell.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is moronic, why would I want a super complicated robot battery swapping contraption that just introduces more points of failure when my car already charges fast enough to not be an inconvenience, and battery/charging tech is only getting better?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >would I want a super complicated robot battery swapping contraption
          You wouldn't, the "gas station" would. Charging is not fast enough for the entire country to swap to EVs today is the point, and that could be mitigated by battery swapping.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're still suggesting that a much more complicated system that would definitely be slower for at least the first several years of adoption and would still require infrastructure to charge the batteries being swapped is somehow a better solution for anyone than just "make the charging infrastructure better" which is pants on head moronic.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >will ice engines remain in mainstream use for the next 100-300 years
    ice engines barely came into existence 150 years ago. And they didn't become mainstream for a while either. We went from riding horses to flying planes in this country in under 30 years. The real question is will cars survive. Chemically fueled engines have their place in generating energy, but as a power source, I doubt infrastructure will allow things like cars to still exist, and if they do, they'll most likely be electric by then. Oil production going on at an accelerated rate would do tons of damage to the world with how much population growth will occur and how much resources will need to be consumed. Imo ice will be around only for off road stuff and heavy equipment. But for that it'll be around for a loooong time

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reasonable take. Sort of like stick welding.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unless they discover a way of storing the same energy value in electricity that a kilo of gasoline has, I can hardly imagine non combustion engines going away anytime soon.
      If you literally need like 3 ton cars to literally have like 400 real kilometers of range when a 220 kilo bike with 40 litres of gasoline can do 1000 kilometers with a refuel time of 10 minutes, then it's dead on arrival, not a real substitute.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Oil needs to be drilled anyway to get plastic and fuel would be a byproduct but I see even in the distant future that stuff like chainsaws will use ice's, even if they ban cars I think they will still make offroad only motorbikes as those 2 smoke engines are pretty easy to make even for poor people. Maybe they will have ice cars but they will only be allowed to be sold in vietnam and the like. Hard to say, not everybody is rich enough to have solar panels or even a garage to charge it so many people can't get one even if they want one.

        Stuff like construction and mining I don't think they will do it for many decades. They are often exempt from pollution laws.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah Africa doesn't have a functional grid even South Africa which was built by whites has constant black outs

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >300 years

    I'm trying to imagine the world in 300 years. Is everyone gay and having test tube babies?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Play Fallout and you’ll get a good idea.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The world has transformed so insanely fast in the past two centuries, but it's impossible to predict if we will continue to accelerate technologically or remain at a certain level. At some point there will start to be crop failures and/or water wars which will bring society back from "what gender am I" to "do we have enough food for the winter", and if microplastics are as bad as some fear, we may face extinction or serious population decline if saturation becomes bad enough that the average man is infertile. In vitro "solves" this, but that's a horrifying scenario in itself, and any country too poor to do in vitro is going to suffer. Even without that, we can watch what happens with Japan's population crisis as a window into America/Europe's future.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > if microplastics are as bad as some fear, we may face extinction or serious population decline if saturation becomes bad enough that the average man is infertile
        I wouldn't be surprised at all if many issues like fertility, cancer and hormonal disturbances turned out to be partially caused by the weird plastics and other chemicals they're putting into everything. Well, that and the fact that over 50% of the population is mostly made of inflamed fat tissue and eating barely edible trash, but anyways.
        They used to put all kinds of weird chemicals into basic shit like sunblock, just assuming that it was harmless and the human skin & membranes would keep it out of the person's system anyways.
        We know now that that is not the case, but the burden of proof is still largely on the victim's side. As long as you don't claim it's a medical product, you can subtly poison the users with countless things that absolutely do not belong in the human body.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's going to be like Mad Max except no cars, people use horses and carriages and curse our generation for being so fricking stupid and arrogant.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no unfortunately EVs are objectively better they just need more time to catch up to the nearly 100 years ICE have been used
    I doubt they will ever disappear in racing though A high performance ICE car sounds fricking beyond sexy while EVs sound extremely gay

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >According to recent developments, Honda's stance on hydrogen combustion engines has seen a significant shift. Honda is now actively engaged in a collaborative project dubbed HySE (Hydrogen Small mobility & Engine technology). This joint effort is exploring the potential of hydrogen internal combustion for small vehicles.
    Pretty soon and later

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Toyota also announced a hydrogen engine that also burns gas, propane, diesel. The Jap automakers are going big into it, I hope they win because frick EV's

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can’t wait toward hypengine.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Kino machine

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cool…

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/honda-hydrogen-fuel-cells-recycle/8564634/

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    50% EV new cars produced probably by 2050
    But in terms of all the registered vehicles on the road that people actually drive? will take much longer for the transition.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      50% x 50% = 2,500 battery waste

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine the amount of money you would make if you were to patent some new type of reliable lightweight battery that is also cheap to produce and has 50x capacity compared to other current car batteries.
    Unless some oil company israelite killed you off for it, that is.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, you do know that EVs also use oil, right?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ICE engine
    >Internal Combustion Engine engine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He obviously meant actual ice. Don't tell me you still use internal combustion engine?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I see article pronounce error

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Funny…

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't she like 20 now?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Up roll in cuny college.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How if she 16?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Will ICE engines remain in mainstream use in the next 100-300 years or even longer?
    Ask yourself this, how many EV's do you see used by the military?
    No government worth its salt would remove their civilian supported infrastructure until their military can subsist without it.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    at best 3-4 years
    ev tech is rappidly out pacing them and they are already obsolete

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      cool story, bro. See you in five years

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you there?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He doesn’t receive McDonald’s order

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Electric the future in two week! Yeah science!

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Will ICE engines remain in mainstream use in the next 100-300 years or even longer?

    They will until they invent a much better battery. Right now EV isn't as good of a product as ICE except in a few scenarios like city commuting. If EV can reliably get you 500+ miles or charge as fast as it takes to fill a gas tank and we don't run the risk of battery fires that the fire department can't put out then EV will be the superior product until then ICE is generally better.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >city commuting
      Battery fire beneath ticking water tnt

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah I mentioned the risk of battery fires. I think EVs are better suited to tiny little city commuter cars like the smart car since they can get more range on a smaller battery and a smaller battery is safer since those things are a ridiculous fire hazard.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Will ICE engines remain in mainstream use in the next 100-300 years or even longer?
    Automotive engines are easily over 100 years. Industrial engines are easily over 200 years. For energy generation, it's going to hit about 300 years.

    Our most recent hope of breaking this cycle was actually nuclear power and the same gays who glorify EVs got rid of nuclear power. They're like reverse luddites that use older modern technology to hamper the development of potentially better, newer technologies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Our most recent hope of breaking this cycle was actually nuclear power and the same gays who glorify EVs got rid of nuclear power. They're like reverse luddites that use older modern technology to hamper the development of potentially better, newer technologies.
      Please don't remind me, I'm still not over it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We need nuclear power to make red/pink hydrogen energy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Frick hydrogen. I have more faith in the Japanese magnesium cycle research.

          Nuclear power plants provide essentially free energy. Any excess can be used to synthesize fuel for transportation.
          The only tricky thing is to select the right synthetic fuel, taking into account pollution, engine durability, safety, etc etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nuclear could also arguably solve part of the future fresh water problem. Boiling water is already free, and boiling is the hardest part of the desalination process. We just live in such a damned greedy world that nobody in power can sign off on a decades-long construction project when solar panels can be slapped down in a couple months.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If only anti-Nuclear plant in EU etc know

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            German science must rise again. Green Party/three arrow will not win.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I would give my vote to NSDAP. Science isn't the only problem we have right now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Redpilled nationalistic bro

            https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020C32/

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            new axis pact:

            https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/production/japan-plans-hydrogen-production-with-next-generation-nuclear-reactor-using-heat-and-only-minimal-electricity/2-1-1621135
            https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fortum,-OKG-announce-hydrogen-plans

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's going to be specialist uses for ICE for a long time like construction and remote locations. Consumers I imagine will slowly make the switch in the next 10-20 years whether they like it or not.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    for the next thousand jahre

  20. 1 month ago
    Greased Geese

    there will be a collapse within 300 years that causes everyone to go back to killing eachother with stones and spears

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ICE engines will remain around even if libshits hate them because they're easy to work with, reasonably efficient, and you can manufacture fuel for them even in the apocalypse. It's like asking if firearms will remain around.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're not going anywhere. The reality is thatthe majority of cargo movement globally is done with the use of aircraft and ships. Neither one have a viable alternative fuel source. You cannot move the enormous cargo quantities they do with anything short of nuclear power and that's not an option for civilian use. As long as that reality stays, petroleum refining continues. As long as petroleum refining continues, ICE cars will continue to exist.

    The narrative has been pushed too hard and people are beginning to question the false scarcity. When the reality becomes wildly understood, we will return to ICE as the standard over alternative power. The efficiency of gasoline powered cars is so much greater than EV technology that it's not a viable replacement and that's actively being challenged right now.

    In five to ten years, the EV fad will become a rich man's toy and we will return to business as usual. Maybe, MAYBE we can reevaluate Hydrogen power or HFC tech, but that's still decades from viability. Hell, we're more likely to see Propane or Natural Gas return than anything but gasoline or diesel.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The efficiency of gasoline powered cars is so much greater than EV technology
      LOL, what? The best pure ICE cars struggle to achieve under 800Wh/mi even under ideal conditions. Common EVs can achieve under 200 in ideal conditions, and still do 300 in poor conditions.

      >MAYBE we can reevaluate Hydrogen power
      Hydrogen takes 3x the electricity to put the same kWh in a hydrogen tank compared to charging a battery, and the best fuel cell powertrain to use with hydrogen operates at half the efficiency of a battery electric powertrain.
      If a kWh of electricity costs $.13, driving a typical BEV 62 miles costs $2, driving a HFCEV that distance costs $12, and HICE would be $30.
      Talk about a toy for rich people.

      Hydrogen fuel cell costs could hypothetically be competitive against EV fast charging if you can put 40kWh or 60kWh of battery into a car with a 5kg hydrogen tank, but the packaging problems of that still makes just using a 60kWh or 80kWh battery, or a PHEV powertrain better.

      >You cannot move the enormous cargo quantities they do with anything short of nuclear power and that's not an option for civilian use
      Of course it is! Why wouldn't it be? The coal industry misinformation about how everything nuclear is dangerous?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >dipshit numbers spew
        Efficiency in this context doesn't refer to your autistically parroted numbers. It takes a gasoline car less time to complete a 2000 mile drive than an EV, taxes the grid less, and has an overall lesser cost per mile. Energy efficiency is a fricking meme response that is utterly meaningless in a world where we don't have a surplus of energy. You are a fricking moron for even spouting off with this bullshit.

        Hydrogen fuel cells answer this to a degree by have a faster, more efficient refuel period, but you are correct that the packaging and cost associate aren't currently feasible. However, it is the only remotely reasonable answer to this question beyond using an ICE generator engine to power an electric powertrain which is a needless complication of a system that already exists.

        >misinformation
        No, you absolute fricking moron. No government is going to sign off on private ownership and operation of a nuclear powered ship or plane. America sure as frick isn't. We don't live in Cyberpunk, you fricking moron. McDonald's isn't going to ship their Big Mac sauce on a McNuclear Cargo Ship to China any time soon.

        Literally, unironically, actually have a nice day.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It takes a gasoline car less time to complete a 2000 mile drive than an EV
          How often is a 2000 mile cannonball time relevant? You're talking about a potential advantage in a fraction of a percent of trips, and most people driving that distance will do it over several days with multiple breaks that easily fit with driving an EV.

          >taxes the grid less
          Fossil fuel refineries are a major user of electricity, and the energy use of the distribution network is often left out completely is its own large contribution to the long tailpipe.

          >Hydrogen fuel cells answer this to a degree
          That taxes the grid far more!

          >has an overall lesser cost per mile
          Absolutely false. Even paying Government fees 5 times higher than gas cars, EVs cost about one third as much per mile compared to gasoline dependent vehicles.
          If you wonder why Governments are pushing EVs, those higher fees are the answer.

          >Energy efficiency is a fricking meme response that is utterly meaningless in a world where we don't have a surplus of energy.
          How is using 5 times as much energy not wasting a potential surplus of energy?

          Gasoline could be that surplus used as a last resort when needed. Instead of something we burn at 20% efficiency without even thinking about how wasteful that is. Large scale generators are more efficient, and centralized generation eliminates the energy costs of distribution of liquid fuel.

          >No government is going to sign off on private ownership and operation of a nuclear powered ship
          Why not? It has happened in the past. Nuclear power stations are already privately owned and operated!

          >nuclear powered aircraft
          Most flights are short hops within the ability of current electric aircraft. Long flights are a job for synthetic fuel with electric assist to operating altitude.

          You are ignoring a major way cargo is moved, rail. Which can easily be electrified and powered by nuclear power stations.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How often is a 2000 mile cannonball time relevant?
            How do you think goods are brought into your shithole city?
            >You're talking about a potential advantage in a fraction of a percent of trips
            The average commute in America is 41 miles. Out of the 2.35 million daily drivers, that means a significant outlier are pushing WAY more than that.
            >and most people driving that distance will do it over several days with multiple breaks that easily fit with driving an EV.
            Black person, I'm going to drive 400 miles tomorrow to visit family for Father's Day after commuting to work a full shift. Most EVs can't do that.
            >Fossil fuel refineries
            Create the power that charge most EVs, yes.
            >That taxes the grid far more!
            No shit, moron. I said it was a tech decades from viability. Read, Black person. READ!
            >EVs cost about one third as much
            Show me the EV that costs less to keep on the road for 20 years and 250,000 miles, homosexual. Show your math.
            >How is using 5 times as much energy not wasting a potential surplus of energy?
            Because EVs charge off a predominately fossil fuel powered grid, you fricking idiot.
            >Large scale generators are more efficient, and centralized generation eliminates the energy costs of distribution of liquid fuel.
            So burn fuel in massive refineries to charge your cuckmobile instead of cutting the middleman and just driving an established technology that has a definitive shelf life because Lithium is a moronic battery material.
            >Why not?
            Because homosexuals like you created the fear of nuclear power after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disaster. Because the US government wants a monopoly on nuclear and will violently ensure it. Stop living in a fantasy world.
            >current electric aircraft
            Fricking irrelevent. Current electric aircraft can barely carry a person. You listen to me, you fricking moron. I work in aviation and this shit is not feasible. It's literally fricking impossible. You cannot move heavy cargo with electric aircraft.
            >rail
            Didn't bring it up for a reason.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you think goods are brought into your shithole city?
            I don't live in a city, but it is mostly rail, and last-mile trucking. Both of which can be electrified

            >that means a significant outlier are pushing WAY more than that.
            More than 40 miles sure, but 2000?
            Even the longest daily commutes are in the daily range of affordable BEVs.
            Which is one of the reasons to prefer a longer range BEV over a PHEV.

            >I'm going to drive 400 miles tomorrow
            I am as well, and doing it in my Model 3 will add maybe 15 minutes total.
            Maybe I'm old, but I will probably stop more than that regardless.

            >Fossil fuel refineries
            >Create the power that charge most EVs,
            Sorry that is incorrect. Refineries consume power, they do not produce it.
            Power to run EVs in the Midwest comes from nuclear power, wind, and solar.

            >EVs charge off a predominately fossil fuel powered grid,
            Again not true in the US. Most fossil fuel here is peak power generation from gas, and EVs do not charge from peak power for simple economic reasons. Base load in the US is now majority nuclear and hydro electric. Many EV owners like myself do not rely on the grid much and run primarily on home solar.

            >Show me the EV that costs less to keep on the road for 20 years and 250,000 miles,
            Any LFP BEV with a 60kWh battery pack will easily do more than that.

            >Lithium is a moronic battery material.
            Which is why Sodium Ion is becoming popular.

            >homosexuals like you created the fear of nuclear power
            Sorry no. You are 100% wrong about me. I am an advocate for nuclear power and always have been.
            Don't confuse coal backed astroturf groups for anything I am associated with.

            >Current electric aircraft can barely carry a person
            Again, no you are just wrong. The aircraft for the 500 mile range market are already in development.
            Those even use the older generation cells, not the new 360Wh/kg cells. 300Wh/kg was generally considered the point where electric aviation would start to take off.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >EVs charge off a predominately fossil fuel powered grid,
            >Again not true in the US. Most fossil fuel here is peak power generation from gas, and EVs do not charge from peak power for simple economic reasons. Base load in the US is now majority nuclear and hydro electric. Many EV owners like myself do not rely on the grid much and run primarily on home solar.
            Sorry to burst that bubble:
            https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/total_energy_2023.pdf
            I'm afraid a lot of your beliefs may be from data manipulation. The electrical power sector (which for the sake of this argument includes EV's) is crippled by conversion losses. Current there is no practical way to overcome this and the 'push' for everyone to go green is not synonymous with using EV's.

            If, hypothetically, every vehicle (including aircraft and ships - I'm trying to keep this simple) were to become an EV it would be impossible to generate the necessary energy to supply them and keep them running with our current technology. We would have to double the amount of energy generated to supply them. Picture that, twice as many EVERYTHING (coal plants, nuclear plants, solar/wind farms). The environmental devastation to support the expansion of energy generation would be catastrophic in its own right.

            And that's not even factoring the conversion losses of EVs themselves, which is going to drive the energy requirements even higher. But at this point the system is already broken so there's no point going there.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well the fun thing about reality is that every vehicle doesn't magically convert to electric overnight, it happens as a shift over time that is observable and can be prepared for.

            That's actually one more benefit to the adoption of EVs, it's forcing utilities to finally improve their outdated bullshit infrastructure. And as much as they really don't want to, they are. My wife literally works for an engineering firm that designs projects for electrical utilities to upgrade and improve their service for projected demand.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It should be illegal to have overhead power lines. They look like shit and go down Everytime there's enough wind to move some branches. Horrible tech.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Overhead has advantages in many situations where it doesn't make sense to underground the lines actually. In areas with unfavorable ground conditions like really shallow water tables for example or densely developed older areas it's extremely difficult and expensive to move the lines underground, and makes it way more inconvenient to service them. And in a lot of areas there's really no reason to go underground due to the high cost compared to the benefits. The issue usually isn't that the lines are overhead, it's that the utility company isn't properly maintaining the lines, and going underground doesn't solve that, it usually makes the issue worse.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well the fun thing about reality is that every vehicle doesn't magically convert to electric overnight, it happens as a shift over time that is observable and can be prepared for.
            And the problem is people are being pushed towards EV's before we're prepared for it. There isn't enough infrastructure to support the demand as is and demand is increasing at a faster rate than the infrastructure is expanding.

            Think about it like this? What powers the vehicles creating the supporting infrastructure...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What powers the vehicles creating the supporting infrastructure
            Simply thanks to living in a more rural part of the country and the work happening during the day the power tools that installed my solar panels were probably charged by wind power.
            The solar panels have now generated far more energy than the energy that was used to produce, transport, and install them.

            If you want to build a better future, you have to work with what you have. Just like making an investment, it pays off in the future.
            How do you think they did the math that let them make the first computers work?
            They didn't sit around saying "I wish we had computers so we could build computers".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The rate of adoption is not fast enough to be a real problem and anyone who unironically believes this is a real issue is moronic. The infrastructure will not be improved until they absolutely have to, this is the way public utilities operate and they always have.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it would be impossible to generate the necessary energy to supply them and keep them running with our current technology.
            It takes on average 6 to 12 kWh of electricity to get a gallon of gas into a fuel tank for it to be burned. That is enough to drive a typical EV as far as the resulting gallon of gasoline would take you.

            If you want to talk energy conversions, and transport losses, there is nothing worse than extracting a fuel from the ground, transporting it to tanker ships, having those oil talkers sail around the world to refineries, spending more energy to refine the fuel, and then putting that fuel into trucks to drive them to your local gas station, before the fuel is pumped into your fuel tank to burn at 20% efficiency.
            If we were to cut oil demand enough to only run on local supply, like through converting a large chunk of the fleet to PHEVs then that improves the equation because no more need for tanker ships.

            So there is absolutely nothing "impossible" about making the conversion to full electric for ground transport even with existing technology, we've had the technology to power everything we need to from clean electricity for about 75 years. Even with that starting in 2035 the switch to a full EV fleet is going to take into the 2060s and that will include a large number of PHEVs barring some revolutionary new technology.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you want to talk energy conversions, and transport losses, there is nothing worse than extracting a fuel from the ground, transporting it to tanker ships, having those oil talkers sail around the world to refineries, spending more energy to refine the fuel, and then putting that fuel into trucks to drive them to your local gas station, before the fuel is pumped into your fuel tank to burn at 20% efficiency.
            You do realize by the the time you've gone through the equivalent chain to charge an EV you're down to 12%. And that's before you've actually driven anywhere.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >by the the time you've gone through the equivalent chain to charge an EV you're down to 12%
            So if the electrical generation chain is only 12% efficient, that loss gets baked into everything that uses electricity.

            Electric pumps extracting oil from the ground, electric pumps moving the oil through pipelines to fill holding tanks, more pumps putting the oil into tanker ships, the tanker ships moving the oil to refineries, more electricity at the refinery through all the steps required to make the oil into useful products, trucks moving the gasoline to the local gas station, and then the gas station using electricity to put that into your car.

            If an EV running from the grid is only 12%, that 12% would still be the gold standard for efficient road transport.
            Except of course we don't need a massive grid to charge EVs, they can run off of solar panels, and the efficiency there isn't that important since a 20% efficient solar panel captures energy that would otherwise be a 100% loss.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >EVs charge off a predominately fossil fuel powered grid
            Not true, it’s arbitrary and there isn’t one “grid”. Most cars will charge at home and simple software can charge them at times with low marginal cost clean power.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The same way people still own horses.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No lol. Horses are the default. Cars correspond to a blip in the human record. In 1,000 years, Western civilization will be all but gone and so too will our little gadgets and machines and that includes cars. If you think anybody is going to know even how to make these things in 500 years, you really are misinformed on the absolute state.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    depends on the industry
    as for ice cars.
    when i was visiting MTEE with uni(around 3 or 4 years ago) they told us that they estimate that the amound of ice engines will double before starting to drop off. this will happen because of the developing regions like SEA and africa.
    inb4 what is mtee
    mitsubishi turbo and engine europe
    one of the main developer and manufacturer of turbos for tons of OEMs.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends modern circumstances and population view

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sexy oil machine

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why would they not

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don’t care, gonna keep driving ICE

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hope that last, EU ban petrol & diesel cars by 2035/40

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        EU won't be around by 2040. Also the current "ban" is only for new production/new sales after that date.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >without Russia pipeline
          Yea

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      B-but what about the penguins and the dolphins and the baby jesus?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus…

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m starting to think efuels are the future. Basically you use wind or nuclear to pull the carbon from C02 and build some gas and then ship it from the plant to the customer.

    Audi and Porsche and F1 are interested. F1 may even return to an NA V8. In 2030 becuase of you are sucking in C02 to make the gas then you actually just have a net zero fuel. It solves the problem but requires a lot of energy to crack the C02.

    So some green dumb ass CEOs are ignoring bc they’d rather just put the energy into a battery. However, they already invested billions in battery tech, and ignore the fact that nobody wants batteries

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      E-fuel and hydrogen is probably necessary for some applications, but there is so way around the increased energy use of production, and the increased energy consumption driving up the costs at both ends.

      >However, they already invested billions in battery tech, and ignore the fact that nobody wants batteries
      So you think people would rather pay $.50 a mile instead of $.03 a mile?
      Every car in the future is going to use HV batteries, just like the industry as a whole moved to include 12v batteries 100 years ago. Sodium Ion will make it a no-brainer.

      E-fuel only really makes economic sense once you are talking about a PHEV that is only dependent on fuel for 20% of its miles driven or less.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Right now there are 3 companies making and selling e-fuel.

        Right now the market is ice cold on EVs. Lithium has dropped about half of its value in the last 2 years. Demand is not there and companies that went all in on EVs are starting to consider hybrids.
        I’m thinking Porsche will move to make high end luxury vehicles upmarket that are an all in one shop. You get your 911 you get your gas shipped to you from Porsche who owns a chunk of an efuel company in chile/texas.

        That’s a very likely scenario imo and we see the peasant class stuck with battery commuters. And who cares? A ford fusion and a Corolla are not hobby cars. Battery EVs make sense in this application.
        I’m thinking I’ll be investing into e-fuel. I already am. Not to mention as Dinoco is phased out military and airliners will phase in e-fuel. It has a built in market that makes it very safe imo. One of these 3 companies could end up being a $500-$1000 stock in 15 years. Or I could be stagnant with slight growth.

        It big oil starts putting money into competing in this sector and you have nuclear powered e-fuel on the scale of current gas? Pretty great.

        And the EU has carved out an exemption to the ICe ban for efuel powered cars.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Right now the market is ice cold on EVs.
          Sales are still increasing, just not as quickly as they had been. Owning an EV myself, I'd say the charging and the preference for SUVs among legacy manufacturers is still the limitation with mainstream adoption.
          People think about buying an EV, and then see an SUV that does under 300 miles and charges at just 150kW. Nobody wants that.
          Model 3 can do over 300 miles and charge at 250kW, but the trunk opening and price tag makes it a non-starter for many people.
          Which is why Model Y is so popular.

          For early adopters, everybody is just waiting on the next-gen tech to arrive. Tesla's new stuff still hasn't delivered what was promised, and NIO's new tech is still China-only.

          >Lithium has dropped about half of its value
          Because new extraction methods decreased the costs of extraction and increased supply. Battery production in GWh annually has been increasing regardless of EVs, there are too many applications for batteries now that they're getting cheap.
          Probably also helps that Sodium Ion has hit the market and newer cell chemistry reduce the amount of lithium.
          The bump back up to $130 a kWh was always going to be temporary. LFP is under $100, and Sodium ion could be half that in under a year.

          >companies that went all in on EVs are starting to consider hybrids.
          PHEVs are EVs. Once legacy manufacturers got serious about EVs seeing PHEVs in the market again was inevitable. The only reason they went pure BEV was to try to segment the market to keep making money on old pure ICE platforms longer.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ignore the fact that nobody wants batteries
      i honestly don't thing that's the case.
      speaking for myself, i have no problem with EV drivetrains, its the rest of the EV car stuff that i don't like. you know, huge tablet in the center, no physical controls, DRM, etc etc
      oh, also the price. EV is fine, but not if it costs 30% more than an equivalent gas car. and no, having a 5sec 0-60 does not mean its a luxury product. that's just a fringe benefit of the EV tech. a model 3 is a corolla competitor, not a bmw m3 competitor.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its the rest of the EV car stuff that i don't like
        >huge tablet in the center, no physical controls, DRM,
        None of those are EV specific. Just new cars in general.

        >not if it costs 30% more than an equivalent gas car
        >model 3 is a corolla competitor
        Good luck with that then. My local Toyota dealer wants $55k for a Corolla.
        Model 3 is 40k from Tesla, and you can actually get it for that much.

        The Model 3 Performance is the BMW M3 competitor, and it is similarly less expensive.
        The American car is more focused on the powertrain for the money than the luxury features?
        What else is new?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >None of those are EV specific. Just new cars in general.
          true, but they are more prevalent in EVs

          >My local Toyota dealer wants $55k for a Corolla
          the frick? here in yuroland, corollas start at like 30k.

          >Model 3 is 40k from Tesla
          for me its like 50k, but that's just tarrifs.
          still, even 40k is too much, it needs to be 30k. i mean, its about as basic as can be, literally empty inside.

          >The Model 3 Performance is the BMW M3 competitor
          it really isn't. you can't just look at the 0-60/quarter mile numbers here.

          for one thing, its HARD to make an ICE engine that makes 500+hp. you need more cylinders, turbos, cooling, forged crankshafts/pistons, whatever. its hard, and its expensive.
          whereas with an ev, you just stick a bigger motor in it. not nearly as hard, or as expensive.

          and another thing is, making a sports car is about more than just acceleration. there's also handling and durability. sure, the model 3 perf can keep up (or even surpass? didn't check) the bimmer on a 0-60 run, but how will it fare in an actual track? and how will it fare on lap 2, or 3, or 10? and how good does it feel to drive?

          so, no, tesla m3 != bmw m3. not even close.

          given how easy and cheap it is to make an EV go fast in a straight line, im not prepared to pay for it. or, at least, not nearly as much as they want me 2.
          i'd pay at most 3k or so to go from base spec model 3 to the performance. maybe up to 5k if the performance also had much better suspension and brakes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't just look at the 0-60/quarter mile numbers here.
            Look at Pike's Peak. Last I checked that has a lot of corners, and EVs do quite well.

            >its HARD to make an ICE engine that makes 500+hp
            True. Which along with the inefficiency, and inability to recapture energy are the 3 major disadvantages of pure internal combustion powertrains.

            >with an ev, you just stick a bigger motor in it.
            It is not quite that simple. Although most American performance EVs are built that way, because that is the way a lot of American performance cars have always been made.
            Other performance EVs often use very small and light axial flux motors.

            >how will it fare on lap 2, or 3, or 10?
            Depends on the length of the track, and most stock production vehicles run out of energy and have to fill up again after about 15 minutes of serious track time.
            BEVs like the Model 3 currently lack the equivalent of an endurance fuel tank. Hyundai is probably closest to a solution to that problem.

            Compared to ICE which has a number of disadvantages, stored energy is the disadvantage of EVs. FCEVs and BEVs can only get about 1/3 to 1/2 a fuel tank of stored energy currently.
            FCEVs can get more, but only with packaging concessions, although that is true for many bolt-in endurance fuel tanks as well.

            >how good does it feel to drive?
            Model 3 feels really good because it is primarily a MR RWD car (front motor for regen or disabled) with 50/50 weight distribution, and a very low center of gravity.
            I'd compare it to other MR RWD cars I've driven like a Porsche, although for the Model 3 there is no direct comparison in Porsche's lineup.

            >if the performance also had much better suspension and brakes
            It does, and it used to be $5k after some recent increases it is now $7500 still not that bad. There is also an official track package now, as well as multiple independent tuning companies offering similar upgrades.
            With those it still costs less than a similarly equipped BMW M3.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Look at Pike's Peak. Last I checked that has a lot of corners, and EVs do quite well.
            pike's peak is a best case scenario for EVs. high altitude which kills NA engines, lots of corners and short straights that benefit fast accelerating cars, and short duration.

            >Which along with the inefficiency, and inability to recapture energy are the 3 major disadvantages of pure internal combustion powertrains.
            also the pollution, but yes

            >Depends on the length of the track, and most stock production vehicles run out of energy and have to fill up again after about 15 minutes of serious track time.
            naah
            most ices will manage at least 30-45 minutes of hard driving. brake fade will come soon tho.
            EVs however will manage 1-2 laps at most before various "holy shit, stop now" messages start popping up, and even without those you'd get far less range

            >stored energy is the disadvantage of EVs
            also charging time. also weight.

            >Model 3 feels really good
            most people disagree. even if we ignore the lack of manual trans (or any sort of trans, lol), the general consensus seems to be that its boring af. drives like a train, which is good for appliance use, but not good for a sport car.

            >it still costs less than a similarly equipped BMW M3.
            well, considering that an bmw m3 is close to 100k nowadays, the tesla m3 perf at 50-60k iirc definitely wins here.
            the bmw is still definitely FAR superior as a sports car, but at nearly double the price its a much harder sell.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >most ices will manage at least 30-45 minutes of hard driving
            Depends entirely on the capacity of the fuel tank, and the power output. Most ICE cars don't really have very big fuel tanks from the factory.
            Plus keep in mind that if a gas car has a 400 or 500kWh fuel tank from the factory, a Model 3 Performance currently only has about 75kWh.
            The extra efficiency can only make for part of that difference.

            >EVs however will manage 1-2 laps at most
            Hasn't been my experience, although I will admit EVs from the factory often ship with cooling systems designed for typical road use, and not a track. Its another thing you have to think about with them.
            This is of course a factor of them needing to be super-aero cars because of their lack of stored energy. Put a 150 or 200kWh battery like some of the new Chinese semi-solid state packs in a Model 3 and it could afford some extra drag for cooling in longer events.

            >charging time
            Only really a disadvantage for BEVs at a track, which is why the FIA keeps saying they're going to start approving FCEV classes.

            >also weight
            Another thing that is really just true of new cars in general. Older RWD Model 3s at 1600kg are already starting to look lightweight compared to some new cars.
            AWD Model 3s are a roughly 1850kg car, with about 300kg of battery and another 180kg of packaging. The powertrain is more of the mass in it than the typical powertrain in a similar internal combustion car, but the total weight isn't that different.

            >the general consensus seems to be that its boring af. drives like a train
            This really just boils down to 'it would be better if it was worse', but it is another reason to disable the front motor, or tune up the cooling and motor controller on a RWD Model 3.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This really just boils down to 'it would be better if it was worse'
            pretty much, yes.
            similarly, a miata is more fun than a 911 turbo, even tho the latter is obviously FAR more capable.

            >disable the front motor, or tune up the cooling and motor controller on a RWD Model 3.
            those are good places to start
            and, on the non-sporty, appliance side of the lineup, to make a cheaper version of it that competes favorably vs a corolla.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >make a cheaper version of it that competes favorably vs a corolla
            That would be the current base version with the LFP battery. Like I said you can order one of those online for less than what a Toyota dealer will charge you for a similarly equipped car on their lot.

            >a miata is more fun than a 911 turbo
            Have you heard the good news about the Carice TC2?
            Only problems are it costs the same as a Model 3, and it really needs a motorcycle engine as a range-extender.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hopefully bmw diesel model outselling it

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Will ICE engines remain in mainstream use in the next 100-300 years or even longer?
    Unlikely, since the world will officially completely run out of oil in two weeks.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Forget ICEs dude. Basically nobody will drive cars in 100 years. The issue is not the tech but the logistics and economics. The large majority of people will not be able to afford cars, not even heavily used old cars.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably
    You’re still a homosexual if you use one

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >hate IC Engine
      Mostly trans

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >transport evolved

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          hahaha it really a thing

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    as piston and crankshsft engines?
    absolutely not, except small engines or gensets that operate in areas without charging capability.
    they are getting obsolete in the developed parts of the world already as people see they dont really need 500miles range and quick charging takes no more time than a piss, hotdog and coffe, things you would do anyway while refueling anyway.
    and its truly liberating knowing you are free to drive anywhere that has power to it not being israeliteed by the gas-tards. in this part of the world this means something, electricity is everywhere and cheap, fuel isnt.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly it is annoying. I stop at a 250kW fast charger, I go to take care of what i need to during a stop, and the car starts pinging me that its ready to go.
      I want more L2, 50kW, and 150kW chargers places they make sense. 250kW or faster chargers only make sense places where all you want to do is use the rest room or get a drink. Even then they can be too fast.

      Only other real issue is they're still spaced too far apart. The network really needs to double again.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did my first road trip in mine recently and realized it charges too fast for me to reliably grab a bite to eat while it charges, might start intentionally using the slower chargers to avoid that.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not everyone wants to eat slop made by minorities every time they stop. In fact not refueling and dealing with poor people is a luxury. That's why I've got a big diesel pickup that'll do 800 between fill ups.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I literally said it charges too fast for it, if I don't want to stop and eat I just plug into the 350, take a piss, then leave.

            moron.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    2060

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      3060 Ti run graphic car well

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      330i 2020s

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We all drive nuclear powered & hydrogen refueling IC engine next 100 year beyond.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vroom* Vroom

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unless they are hybrid or diesel. Pure combustion will never have the starting torque over a diesel or electric motor.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Uhh no? You know they're getting banned in 2030 right?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      European commission has say petrol&diesel stop production around 2040s

      • 3 weeks ago
        S/ö/viet

        >European
        nobody cares about eurocucks

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even Canadian and American too

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Burger slop…

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://files.catbox.moe/ygh5i1.jpg

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How our respond, icebros?

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Op here, is it worth it to get into automotive repair? I'm talking like more in depth trade stuff like engine rebuilds and full service. HVAC/R sucks wiener. Pic semi related

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Gonna love honda bike

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      From what I understand the pay is dogshit, the work is stressful, and your boss and your customers are all moronic buttholes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      From what I understand the pay is dogshit, the work is stressful, and your boss and your customers are all moronic buttholes

      everyone seems to say that aviation/aeronautical mechanicing is the best. heavy diesel/industrial/forklift mechanicing seems to have some more priority on PPE and not fricking your body over
      basically working at a dealership or local garage is shit. but dealerships can sometimes give you funny stories/incidents

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Auto repair sucks at retail level and at most dealers. Working in a motorcycle shop (my mentor's, for fun and to help him out) convinced me not to want that as a business. I have nice personal shop for my own use.

      Auto repair is much harder work than aviation for typically shit money. I've done industrial maintenance, auto/truck/motorcycle repair, auto salvage and scrapping etc and would not want any of those as a career which is why I chose aviation. They're OK brief jobs but the sooner you begin a career the sooner you can end that fricker and retire. The objective of work is eventually not having to work so when, not if, your old body turns to shit and ashes you can still somewhat enjoy the last third of your life.

      Measure everything by money and only choose careers which reliably vest retirements (which is why I went USAF and would gleefully do so again). LEO and other government gigs (obscure ones like wastewater treatment are necessary unless you're a jeet) are The Way. If you want to enjoy wrenching keep it for fun, DIY, and a job now and then for more toy money. Life is war so plan wisely.

      The minority who do well wrenching motorcycles often start their shops after locking down reliable income like retirement. That's the case for all the dealers and indies in my area. Bike sales are weak so you'd be working lots of ATVs which are much more like small cars. Motorcycles are toys so the business is cyclic. Most of running a business is drudgery and compliance.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For as long as we boil water to generate electricity we'll use ICE cars.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IN 100-300 years the cattle will all be speaking Chinese in their labor camps and nobody will be driving anything.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    barras will be making 3000hp soon so idgaf

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Part mechanic, part spray injector
    Last forever

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I sure hope not, I'd like more external combustion engines.
    >1 stroke
    >it's the power stroke

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not external combustion, that's glowing hot exhaust gas. The "power stroke" takes place in the exhaust duct. Reheat (the bongs have the best term for "afterburner") merely increases gas expansion by burning more fuel which uses tons of bypass air for combustion (and exhaust duct cooling by air blanket).

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One word: hydrogen

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hydrogen combustion engines will overtake gasoline in about 20 years

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much.
      (platinum massive use)

      (carbon capture of solidification) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRoT-fjQDSo
      (Engine classic sound)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Requires a revolution in hydrogen storage and distribution, right now to get even the equivalent of half a tank of gas with hydrogen requires sacrificing a big chunk of the inside of the car to hydrogen tanks, and hydrogen in the US is still basically California-only.

      Plus with how much electricity it takes to make a kg of hydrogen, you're looking at a fuel that at the cheapest will cost $13 a gallon equivalent.
      Doesn't seem like a practical solution for a daily use car, and charging an EV costs a lot less even at a fast charger.
      Nobody is going to drive a hydrogen internal combustion car with 150 miles of range, that costs $80 to fill up once a week.

      Even if the price of hydrogen comes down as much as it is likely to, 70 mile a kg FCEVs becomes competitive against BEV fast charging, but not against charging at home.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >basically California-only
        Built more infrastructure around northeast USA (New England) and major city, which extended deals project with Mexico at baja california, though the pacific state into Canada facility, and straight to deep south started with Texas border, Louisiana river system, Florida pipeline etc
        >half a tank of gas with hydrogen requires sacrificing a big chunk of the inside of the car to hydrogen tanks
        Use ammonia reduce time constraint and cost pure kg. One example is H TEC’s technology help achieve 30 bar pressure efficiency.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Use ammonia
          Not a silver bullet. It is 1/3 the energy density of gasoline which means you need to buy and store 3 times as much.
          I'm not sure what that looks like in terms of cost, but I'm going to guess than an ammonia internal combustion car is still not something you would want to drive as your daily.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Once arriving at the destination, the hydrogen carrier is converted to allow H2 release and distribution. Among these H2 carriers, ammonia is one of the most promising candidates. NH3 has a high hydrogen content (17.8% by weight) and can be liquefied at a reasonable temperature (−33.34 °C) at atmospheric pressure.
            An quick method wisely

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But then you're back to the problem that you're putting hydrogen into the car. Where the biggest hydrogen tank you can put into a practical road car with a lot of packaging compromises for hydrogen storage is less than 6kg, about 185kWh, and the largest hydrogen tank you can fit into something the size of a fuel tank is around 2kg or 70kWh.
            Neither of those is very practical especially not in a road car being driven daily if you're using a 1350Wh/mi internal combustion engine. 6 gallon equivalent or 2 gallon equivalent isn't going to take you very far.

            If you're saying you could store the hydrogen as ammonia in the car, then you need a 30 gallon fuel tank, to store the same energy content as a 10 gallon gas tank.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Use ammonia
          Not a silver bullet. It is 1/3 the energy density of gasoline which means you need to buy and store 3 times as much.
          I'm not sure what that looks like in terms of cost, but I'm going to guess than an ammonia internal combustion car is still not something you would want to drive as your daily.

          New engine powered by cat gamer girl juice?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty much.
        (platinum massive use)

        (carbon capture of solidification) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRoT-fjQDSo
        (Engine classic sound)

        But then you're back to the problem that you're putting hydrogen into the car. Where the biggest hydrogen tank you can put into a practical road car with a lot of packaging compromises for hydrogen storage is less than 6kg, about 185kWh, and the largest hydrogen tank you can fit into something the size of a fuel tank is around 2kg or 70kWh.
        Neither of those is very practical especially not in a road car being driven daily if you're using a 1350Wh/mi internal combustion engine. 6 gallon equivalent or 2 gallon equivalent isn't going to take you very far.

        If you're saying you could store the hydrogen as ammonia in the car, then you need a 30 gallon fuel tank, to store the same energy content as a 10 gallon gas tank.

        Stored in powder viable option

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let hope succeed.
      https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/alloy-hydrogen-combustion-engines/8565381/

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cheap oil

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Diesel will continue other way or another

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *