I've seen it stated several times that our J24B is a good motor but a bit behind in technology. It's missing things that would make it better like direct injection. After watching this video on direct injection, it seems that sometimes the latest ain't the greatest. Comments welcome as this is just one guy's opinion. (although it seems pretty well researched)
Direct Injection
Yep, that about sums it up. Newer doesn't mean better and the gov is continually causing more problems than they're eliminating by mandatory BS involving that which they're convinced they understand but don't. Can't get blood from a stone. A gasser is a gasser. Whatever is done to increase economy comes at the expense of something else. As this guy points out, it's the consumer once again. Don't be fooled by the BS claims EVs are any better. You have no idea regarding the pollution and problems caused by battery manufacturing and disposal. Chemical soup...has to go somewhere. Not in my backyard. ANd how is the electric generated to charge those things Up? Oh that's right...NG, coal, nukes...all 'bad' stuff. Can't get blood from a stone.
So my new Mazda, running 0-20 oil, is DI so there's the catch-can bandaid, incomplete at best. Change to a heavier full syn oil to help w/ the evaporative build-up issues, and now that counters the fuel economy gains of the DI....round and round it goes. Need to spend money on injector cleaner (not a huge deal, do it for the Kiz and SX4 now) that doesn't do the entire intake system in the DI as it used to. DI seems like an over-all loser, from the consumer's perspective. Tree huggers get happy for awhile because the gov did them a perceived solid by over regulating and forcing blood from a stone.
So my new Mazda, running 0-20 oil, is DI so there's the catch-can bandaid, incomplete at best. Change to a heavier full syn oil to help w/ the evaporative build-up issues, and now that counters the fuel economy gains of the DI....round and round it goes. Need to spend money on injector cleaner (not a huge deal, do it for the Kiz and SX4 now) that doesn't do the entire intake system in the DI as it used to. DI seems like an over-all loser, from the consumer's perspective. Tree huggers get happy for awhile because the gov did them a perceived solid by over regulating and forcing blood from a stone.
Ron
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded
)
1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top (
sold)
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded
) 1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top (
sold)
I didn't watch the video but I've read about DI enough to get a sense of the pros and cons. Indeed the J24B is a dated engine but its origins are from over a decade ago. It's really only fair to compare the Kizashi's engine to that of cars from the late 2000's which is when the Kizashi originated. As a multiport injection engine, it's not as efficient as newer engines of the same displacement with direction injection. In fact, our Kizashi's average the same fuel efficiency as direct injection V6 engines that make 100 more horsepower, often mated to AWD. That being said, DIs have issues with valve fouling. Some are so bad, the valves need to be removed periodically and blasted with walnut powder for cleaning. Apparently, some companies like Toyota have implemented engines with both multiport and direct injection to avoid this problem, but it might be too early to tell if it's a real solution and one that delivers long term reliability.
If anything, it shows me that compromises are being made to further stretch the efficiency of internal combustion. While I don't necessarily think DI, high compression ratios, and other technologies are bad, they seem like desperate attempts to delay the inevitable electrification of powertrains. I personally rather have a hybrid or PHEV for maximizing efficiency than an engine with compromised features to squeeze out the most efficiency from fossil fuel combustion. From valve fouling to burning up thin oil, some measures don't seem conducive to long term reliability meanwhile electric motors and batteries have a shown a far better track record. I also believe that engines will soon be more suited to operate as generators to create electricity to power electric motors than directly power axles themselves. Vehicles like the Nissan e-Note and the new Honda Insight have taken this direction as Series Hybrids.
If anything, it shows me that compromises are being made to further stretch the efficiency of internal combustion. While I don't necessarily think DI, high compression ratios, and other technologies are bad, they seem like desperate attempts to delay the inevitable electrification of powertrains. I personally rather have a hybrid or PHEV for maximizing efficiency than an engine with compromised features to squeeze out the most efficiency from fossil fuel combustion. From valve fouling to burning up thin oil, some measures don't seem conducive to long term reliability meanwhile electric motors and batteries have a shown a far better track record. I also believe that engines will soon be more suited to operate as generators to create electricity to power electric motors than directly power axles themselves. Vehicles like the Nissan e-Note and the new Honda Insight have taken this direction as Series Hybrids.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
While battery production may not be a "clean" production process, I often find this argument seriously lacking in a comparative analysis. While proponents often talk about the cons of lithium and cobalt mining and issues with spent batteries, they seem to treat fossil fuels like some magic substance that appears at gas stations with only cons after it is combusted. I've read many arguments on this position, even by "experts" in publications, and they have all seriously lacked a thorough "well to wheels" comparative analysis. The reality is that fossil fuels are some of the worst products for the environment even prior to combustion. The process of drilling, extraction, refinement, and transportation all take a huge environmental toll. Everything from pipeline leaks, oil rig fires, tanker spills, and fracking pollution are also examples of when things go wrong which is quite often. Furthermore, a bulk of fossil fuels is controlled by extremely hostile nations that fund extremist terrorism. Where do you think ISIS, the Taliban, etc. get their funding? In this light, batteries are a much better alternative given they can be powered by electricity sourced from a number of ways (including clean energy), often don't require replacement for over 200,000 miles, and can be actually recycled and re-purposed to some extent. Furthermore, there is little evidence to show that used Li-ion batteries are toxic. In fact, used motor oil is far more dangerous to one's health and the environment than a discharged Li-ion battery. I find it odd that people have an issue with batteries that last for many years being produced yet negate the realities of fossil fuel production that require a constant production process to even power just one measly car. While I don't think EVs and batteries are the best solution for everybody now, a comparably-sized EV or plug-in hybrid is considerably better for the environment than a conventional ICE vehicle, all factors considered. I'm not sure how one can effectively argue that a Nissan Leaf or Tesla Model S in Seattle, Washington, getting powered by predominantly hydroelectrically-produced energy, is worse or just as bad for the environment as a comparable gasoline vehicle of similar specs. While most of the US is indeed powered by fossil fuels, most of it is natural gas which is better environmentally than coal. Coal, as a main energy source, only powers certain inland states with lower populations and is diminishing in its electricity supply role. It is a myth to think that any EV anywhere is getting powered by coal-generated electricity. In fact, California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois all do not source the majority of their electricity from coal and those are the five most populated states in the United States. Those five together contain over 1/3 of the total US population.Ronzuki wrote:Don't be fooled by the BS claims EVs are any better. You have no idea regarding the pollution and problems caused by battery manufacturing and disposal. Chemical soup...has to go somewhere.
Everyday, there are more and more EVs and PHEVs getting powered by solar energy from one's own home which is incontrovertibly better for the environment than a gasoline-powered car for similar uses. With batteries and electricity, there are options and alternatives to the energy supply which is not possible for internal combustion engines. We are beginning to tap the potential of batteries and electric powertrains while we have long stretched the well-known limitations of fossil fuels and tried to ignore and even foolishly deny their environmental consequences.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
Not saying any one method of 'power generation' is any better, or worse, environmentally than the other...as the proponents of alternative anything are always spewing. All I'm saying is mankind has to deal with motive power that we can't live w/o, or any other kind of power for that matter, and the consequences associated with production, generation and use. There is nothing free in this world or w/o consequences. Can't get blood from a stone.
We partially design and fully build hydrogen fueling dispensers for buses, cars and fork trucks. All that is ever said, proclaimed, marketed and applauded regarding hydrogen power is that it's only byproduct is pure H2O. True. However, what the proponents fail to inform the tree hugging population of is that hydrogen production requires ENORMOUS amounts of electrical energy to produce the hydrogen that gets pumped in to the vehicles. And again...how is that electrical power generated to produce said water spewing fuel?? How is all of that hydrogen delivered to point of use stations? Lying by omission...it's the way of the world.
Kuro, you now live in Commifornia...check out the PCH next time you have a chance to drive it and observe. There is now an infrastructure in place of hydrogen fueling stations along that stretch of highway containing dispensers produced by us, right here in Lancaster PA.
20 years ago, that infrastructure was nothing more than mobile fuelers parked along the route. Tractor trailers comprised of long hydrogen cylinders (hauled around by diesel spewing tractors btw). We built the controls for those back in the day as well.
We've just shipped (2) dispensers to China this week (so they can promptly reverse engineer them I'm certain) for our customer. Our customer was here with their Hydrogen powered Toyota Mirai to perform the factory acceptance test before we shipped them. The car was trucked all the way here from CA (only place their sold AFAIK) so they could run around locally here in it.
We partially design and fully build hydrogen fueling dispensers for buses, cars and fork trucks. All that is ever said, proclaimed, marketed and applauded regarding hydrogen power is that it's only byproduct is pure H2O. True. However, what the proponents fail to inform the tree hugging population of is that hydrogen production requires ENORMOUS amounts of electrical energy to produce the hydrogen that gets pumped in to the vehicles. And again...how is that electrical power generated to produce said water spewing fuel?? How is all of that hydrogen delivered to point of use stations? Lying by omission...it's the way of the world.
Kuro, you now live in Commifornia...check out the PCH next time you have a chance to drive it and observe. There is now an infrastructure in place of hydrogen fueling stations along that stretch of highway containing dispensers produced by us, right here in Lancaster PA.
20 years ago, that infrastructure was nothing more than mobile fuelers parked along the route. Tractor trailers comprised of long hydrogen cylinders (hauled around by diesel spewing tractors btw). We built the controls for those back in the day as well.
We've just shipped (2) dispensers to China this week (so they can promptly reverse engineer them I'm certain) for our customer. Our customer was here with their Hydrogen powered Toyota Mirai to perform the factory acceptance test before we shipped them. The car was trucked all the way here from CA (only place their sold AFAIK) so they could run around locally here in it.
- 53400546 (Large).jpeg (205.6 KiB) Viewed 8430 times
- 53400545 (Large).jpeg (190.98 KiB) Viewed 8430 times
- 53400542 (Large).jpeg (264.51 KiB) Viewed 8430 times
- 53400540 (Large).jpeg (175.1 KiB) Viewed 8430 times
Ron
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded )
1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top ( sold)
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded
) 1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top (
sold)Sorry, but this is a statement I can't agree with. It's analogous to one not being able to differentiate a paper cut from a gunshot wound. Both are injuries but one is undeniably worse than the other. Those who claim that EVs and batteries are not good for the environment are somewhat correct but they fail to compare it to the status quo of fossil fuels which are utterly disastrous in everything ranging from global warming, destruction of natural lands, and human health. While EV and battery production do present their own evils, it's quite evident it's far less of an environmental impact than producing and consuming fossil fuels to power a similar vehicle.Ronzuki wrote:Not saying any one method of 'power generation' is any better, or worse, environmentally than the other...as the proponents of alternative anything are always spewing.
You're correct that hydrogen production requires a lot of energy. However, you failed to mention that the majority of hydrogen fuel is actually produced as a byproduct of natural gas production. In essence, it's produced alongside natural gas hence the amount of energy being used for production isn't only for the sake of hydrogen production. Then consider that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles only emit H20 in operation. Thus, the end result is a much cleaner form of propulsion than a comparable vehicle running on diesel or gasoline. While I agree with you that hydrogen isn't an ideal fuel source, my reasons are more for practicality than emissions. The Toyota Mirai is sold largely as a 5 year lease vehicle here in California because of the hydrogen fuel station network. In fact, Toyota will only sell the vehicle in areas in proximity to a number of hydrogen stations. However, the lease plan includes hydrogen fuel as complimentary. Yup, it's like getting a free gas card for as long as you lease. While there are serious range limitations due to the lacking infrastructure of hydrogen fuel stations, you can imagine how this deal can entice those who only use a vehicle locally for commuting and don't need to exceed the 300 mile range of the Mirai in a trip. In my opinion, FCVs like the Mirai and Honda's Clarity FCV are production models for the companies to show off that their time and money into fuel cells amounted to something whether consumers wanted it or not. It's the obvious loser to battery EVs in the market, but for fleet vehicles and localized lease vehicles for particular people, it can prove beneficial. I see a Mirai rather often here but at a ratio of maybe 1 to 50 Teslas. It's no wonder why Honda and Toyota are now scrambling on EV R&D.Ronzuki wrote: We partially design and fully build hydrogen fueling dispensers for buses, cars and fork trucks. All that is ever said, proclaimed, marketed and applauded regarding hydrogen power is that it's only byproduct is pure H2O. True. However, what the proponents fail to inform the tree hugging population of is that hydrogen production requires ENORMOUS amounts of electrical energy to produce the hydrogen that gets pumped in to the vehicles. And again...how is that electrical power generated to produce said water spewing fuel?? How is all of that hydrogen delivered to point of use stations? Lying by omission...it's the way of the world.
I'm originally from "Commifornia" and lived here for a decade before I moved to the East Coast. I've essentially returned and for the better as I like it here better. While I occasionally hear criticisms of California, it's actually a Top 5 global economy alone. Hence, by being in the union, it's keeping afloat a lot of the "flyover/welfare" states. In that regard, it is socialistic, I guess.Ronzuki wrote: Kuro, you now live in Commifornia...check out the PCH next time you have a chance to drive it and observe. There is now an infrastructure in place of hydrogen fueling stations along that stretch of highway containing dispensers produced by us, right here in Lancaster PA.
As for the PCH, I live 15 minutes away from it and take it occasionally to get to the beaches. I've traveled extensively on it in the past and been on the majority of it north of Los Angeles all the way up to Oregon. It's considered one of the best roads in the world and rightfully so as it hugs the spectacularly scenic California coastline. It's nice to hear your company produced hydrogen dispensers along it but I'd have to say EV charging stations would have been a better investment. It's clear hydrogen FCVs will only amount to fleet vehicles and localized lease-mobiles until EVs make them completely obsolete.
Another thing I should mention about "Commifornia" and politics of environmental policies is that it's more convoluted than one probably thinks at surface level. Let's take the success of the Toyota Prius here in CA for example. That had less to do with "tree huggers" and liberal environmentalists than it had to do with Republican politics and a multinational corporation. How? When Arnold Schwarzenegger was running as "Governator" as the Republican candidate, Toyota contributed to his campaign significantly; as in a top 5 corporate contributor, if I remember correctly. When he was elected, he stated that he cared for the environment (despite personally owning a tank and driving Hummers) and passed a law that hybrids like the Toyota Prius can run on HOV lanes without an extra occupant. Given the traffic conditions in major cities in California, this was like a golden ticket for many commuters. Consequently, countless Californians went out and got themselves a Prius to take advantage of this. In fact, it helped the Toyota Prius become the best selling vehicle in California at times and helped to make hybrids very profitable for Toyota after years of taking a loss on the technology. In fact, there are so many Priuses (Prii?) here now running on HOV lanes that the state has since repealed the hybrid privilege to an extent. Now only certain types of PHEVs and EVs can run on HOV lanes and older Prius models no longer qualify.
So was the rise of the Prius here really the effect of liberal tree huggers looking for environmentally-friendly vehicles while "ignoring the evils" of batteries or more a GOP politician rewarding a major campaign contributor? There are always interesting things to discover when you follow the money trail with politicians, eh?
Lastly, here's an article I read last night about old EV batteries and what happens to them. Hardly something people should bite their nails about in anxiety for being "in their backyards". They are mostly going to be used as energy storage worldwide and will even keep beers cool in Japan. Now that I could use that in my backyard!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... hey-retire
So getting back to the original topic of direct injection gasoline engines, I think there are pros and cons. However, it's no surprise why everyone is using them now given it greatly boosts fuel efficiency compared to a multiport injection engine. However, it's not like the Kizashi really missed out given the vehicle comes from a generation just before DI was implemented in many comparable models. I hate to say it but the Kizashi is a discontinued model with origins from a decade ago. It really can't compete with today's modern cars in powertrain technology and efficiency. While I'm jealous that my buddy's 2016 Subaru Legacy gets city MPGs that match my Kizashi's hwy MPGs, I don't envy the oil burning and floaty ride.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
If you look at the video, it is quite clear DI produces a very negative effect that requires drastic measures to correct after only a fraction of the engine's life span. If not corrected, the perceived fuel efficiency gains would likely drop off to that of the Kiz or even less. Worse, when a chunk of that build-up eventually dislodges, and it will, it'll end up causing valve breakage or worse. Whereas the 'old' school Kiz can be maintained with simple fuel system cleaner or actual top tier fuel. I've just completed a course of 4 tanks with Techron fuel system cleaner, and my mileage is back up to nearly 30mpg as opposed to the nearly 26mpg prior. It's running snappier (like it used to). Throttle response is a lot better and idle is silky smooth again. I don't pass by any top tier fuel stations in my daily travels, except one that most in the area believe there's 'whatever' in their tanks. I know for a fact there's regular grade routinely dumped into their mid-grade and premium tanks.
BTW not a fan of CA's politicos (or any other for that matter) setting precedence over how I end up living and what it costs me to exist. Hence Commi. Not a fan of the Communistic Republic of New Jersikstan either. Interesting....both coastal states... The incremental 'gotta squeeze more mpgs' campaigns usually originate from the politicos in question. Car makers respond w/ what makes the numbers and is cheap to produce. Voilla we get DI. So how does one prevent the costly back-side of the valve intake build-up? You think the politicians Care? They won their victory forcing their ill-informed will upon the masses once again. Looks good on the bench and in the reports. Mission accomplished. Too bad it's not going to pan out for the consumer, or the environment, long term. Can't get blood out of a stone.
CA's regulations for just about anything can choke the life out of an ant. The BS red tape we have to run through to do any type of work for that state is enough to make me want to quit anytime we obtain a project that's slated to end up out there. And trust me, as a result of the stifling BS mandate/imposed by the endless laws and regulations, you people pay way more for your 'stuff' than any sane person would want to. I personally don't believe in Hydrogen powered vehicles and you are correct, fleet operations is about as far as it'll go. Far too costly. However, fork trucks that run around in closed warehouses, especially food distribution and the like, now that's a useful implementation of the fuel that has benefits beyond the carbon footprint issue. We build 20 or more indoor dispensers for every 1 vehicle dispenser. And most of those vehicle dispensers end up at auto makers facilities that are playing w/ the fuel. When the fuel produces only water 'exhaust' in a closed space that reduces the need for excessive ventilation. Now is the carbon footprint lessened, made equal or increased by the use of it over LP in fork trucks? Who knows. Battery powered fork trucks are, and have always been crap. Maintenance headaches. And that's the biggest reason they get ditched. Costs, money, not because of the feel-good carbon footprint. We did a lot of work many, many years ago for a large fork truck battery manufacturer in their attempt to increase the life of those costly, beastly batteries. They're all but out of business now.
Again, energy is energy and no matter how it's produced or consumed, it causes problems.
Solar is another one. The chemicals required and waste byproducts to make the chemicals used to make the silicon panels is nearly as bad as nuclear waste. Guess where it ends up? Yep the local landfill where it promptly finds a way to leach into the water table and/or aquifers.
BTW not a fan of CA's politicos (or any other for that matter) setting precedence over how I end up living and what it costs me to exist. Hence Commi. Not a fan of the Communistic Republic of New Jersikstan either. Interesting....both coastal states... The incremental 'gotta squeeze more mpgs' campaigns usually originate from the politicos in question. Car makers respond w/ what makes the numbers and is cheap to produce. Voilla we get DI. So how does one prevent the costly back-side of the valve intake build-up? You think the politicians Care? They won their victory forcing their ill-informed will upon the masses once again. Looks good on the bench and in the reports. Mission accomplished. Too bad it's not going to pan out for the consumer, or the environment, long term. Can't get blood out of a stone.
CA's regulations for just about anything can choke the life out of an ant. The BS red tape we have to run through to do any type of work for that state is enough to make me want to quit anytime we obtain a project that's slated to end up out there. And trust me, as a result of the stifling BS mandate/imposed by the endless laws and regulations, you people pay way more for your 'stuff' than any sane person would want to. I personally don't believe in Hydrogen powered vehicles and you are correct, fleet operations is about as far as it'll go. Far too costly. However, fork trucks that run around in closed warehouses, especially food distribution and the like, now that's a useful implementation of the fuel that has benefits beyond the carbon footprint issue. We build 20 or more indoor dispensers for every 1 vehicle dispenser. And most of those vehicle dispensers end up at auto makers facilities that are playing w/ the fuel. When the fuel produces only water 'exhaust' in a closed space that reduces the need for excessive ventilation. Now is the carbon footprint lessened, made equal or increased by the use of it over LP in fork trucks? Who knows. Battery powered fork trucks are, and have always been crap. Maintenance headaches. And that's the biggest reason they get ditched. Costs, money, not because of the feel-good carbon footprint. We did a lot of work many, many years ago for a large fork truck battery manufacturer in their attempt to increase the life of those costly, beastly batteries. They're all but out of business now.
Again, energy is energy and no matter how it's produced or consumed, it causes problems.
Solar is another one. The chemicals required and waste byproducts to make the chemicals used to make the silicon panels is nearly as bad as nuclear waste. Guess where it ends up? Yep the local landfill where it promptly finds a way to leach into the water table and/or aquifers.
Ron
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded )
1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top ( sold)
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded
) 1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top (
sold)In the arguments against government environmental regulations, it always seems like proponents either forget or negate why they exist in the first place. Do you really think it's all just about control? I find it often ironic as we Americans live in one of the most liberal (as in regarding government control and oversight) countries. Just about every other country on Earth has stricter regulations, taxes, and rules than the US on many things. For example, in Japan, people get taxed depending on the kind of vehicle they get. This is why tiny kei-cars (yellow plate) cars exist in Japan as they are in the cheapest classification for taxes and fees, but are regulated in every way from size, weight, displacement, and power. While some Americans cry about the automotive trade deficit between Japan and the US, they likely aren't aware these 660cc max vehicles amount to about 30% of total vehicle sales in Japan. Does the US, or anybody else for the matter, make 660cc micro cars for sale? No. But guess what Suzuki is a specialist in over there? It's part of why they left the US and Canada to focus on these and other small global cars.
In comparison, it was only in the last decade or so that American brands even bothered making RHD models for sale in Japan. Hence, the lack of success among many foreign car sales in Japan is not protectionism or favoritism for Japanese brands but more that the Japanese brands specialized in making vehicles around Japan's unique regulations. Until recently, Japan gave a tax break for hybrids, trying to reduce emissions in Japan. Japanese consumers then bought up hybrids in record numbers. Guess which country invented mass market hybrids and has more hybrid models than anywhere?
Japan's huge appetite for Apple and Samsung smartphones over domestic brands is also proof the Japanese consumer market isn't protectionist and just more interested in consuming products that actually suit their needs.
Also in Japan, you can't even throw away trash there legally without buying the proper kind of trash bags sanctioned by the prefecture. Furthermore, you have to separate your trash even among recyclables like cardboard, plastics, and Styrofoam. Why? It's because Japan is a nation with very limited land space hence, there isn't much room for dumping in land fills. Recycling or incineration is how much of the trash is disposed there. However, the process requires citizens to comply with the regulations set forth for this system to work. In essence, there is a social responsibility among all citizens to properly address matters that would otherwise create problems for the society and nation as a whole. People are always in wonder and amazement when the Japanese line-up and buy supplies in an orderly fashion after one of their many natural disasters as if they got something special about them in their country like pride, patriotism, or homogeneity. Having lived there and experienced a devastating earthquake there myself, I'll tell you what it is: social responsibility; the idea that you and your conduct is responsible for more than yourself and is essential in the proper functioning of society as a whole. It doesn't take a break there when disasters hit.
So this goes into our discussion about California and their regulations: Why does California have strict emissions? Hmm.. ever heard of smog? Smog regulations from decades ago have significantly cut down on air pollution and it was so effective, it's among the best examples anywhere of a legislative impact on the environment. Keep in mind it's not only about environmental protection, but also one's health. You claim you don't like the precedence CA's regulations have on the rest of the nation but did you ever stop to think why there is that effect? Maybe because they were actually extremely effective?
Here's a National Geographic article on it:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... vironment/
Could it possibly be a social responsibility to conform to these regulations so we are better off in the state we live in? CA has some of the best evidence of how effective these policies were. If CA's politics and regulations have a trickle-down effect, fight for your state's rights but consider that CA should have its own state's rights to best address its unique issues. As the flagship of America's economy, it sure deserves it.
Also consider that CA is by far the most populated state and some of our counties alone have more people than small states in the United States. Population density affects everything from pollution to resource supply. Hence, one can't expect the realities of life to be the same from rural Pennsylvania to Southern California. They are nothing alike. I've realized this in our many discussions about auto technology and our different driving environments. I recall reading a complaint by you regarding the automated braking on your Mazda when it detected an Amish buggy. Try to find an Amish buggy in Los Angeles. Meanwhile can you relate to this: It took me two and a half hours to drive about 80 miles through most of Los Angeles county with an on-the-way drop-off at LAX. The traffic on the freeway was the sort in which one would really want automated braking and adaptive cruise control.
While we talk about differences, I should also comment on something you remarked on: prices. Yes, Californians generally pay more. However, it's because of inflation more than anything. While our prices may be higher, so are CA salaries. Houses cost more because they are also more valuable in equity. Hence, the average salary in a rural PA town will be less than downtown LA, NYC, Miami, San Francisco, etc. It's not at all unique to the state of California and applies to really any place where people desire to live and work.
Regarding the faults of direction injection, I find it amusing that you want to blame politicians for what is really just shitty engineering by automakers. While automakers may cry that regulations have made their jobs so much more difficult, it's actually been a boon to the consumer; people like you and me. We have cleaner-running cars that are more efficient than ever. Saves us money in the wallet and keeps our lungs cleaner. While DI has its issues, it looks like automakers with better reputations for engineering have devised ways to address problems given they've done much more R&D. However, again, it's my position that these technologies are desperate attempts to delay the inevitable shift to electrified powertrains. DI, small displacement turbos, 7+ speed autos, etc. are all rather incremental steps in reducing fuel consumption. After all, even today's small vehicles with these newer technologies barely get the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Prius from two decades ago. There is no better way to save fuel than to not actually burn it in the first place.
Lastly, yes, just about anything we humans do will have an impact on the environment. Even solar cells and wind mills have their negative impact as you stated. However, it's all about scale as they are not all comparable. A paper cut and a gunshot wound are both injuries that cause one to bleed. However, it's obvious which one is a lot worse. Much like one can't bleed out from a paper cut compared to a gunshot wound, landfill waste by solar energy isn't going to have an impact on global warming which is by far the greatest environmental threat.
In comparison, it was only in the last decade or so that American brands even bothered making RHD models for sale in Japan. Hence, the lack of success among many foreign car sales in Japan is not protectionism or favoritism for Japanese brands but more that the Japanese brands specialized in making vehicles around Japan's unique regulations. Until recently, Japan gave a tax break for hybrids, trying to reduce emissions in Japan. Japanese consumers then bought up hybrids in record numbers. Guess which country invented mass market hybrids and has more hybrid models than anywhere?
Japan's huge appetite for Apple and Samsung smartphones over domestic brands is also proof the Japanese consumer market isn't protectionist and just more interested in consuming products that actually suit their needs.
Also in Japan, you can't even throw away trash there legally without buying the proper kind of trash bags sanctioned by the prefecture. Furthermore, you have to separate your trash even among recyclables like cardboard, plastics, and Styrofoam. Why? It's because Japan is a nation with very limited land space hence, there isn't much room for dumping in land fills. Recycling or incineration is how much of the trash is disposed there. However, the process requires citizens to comply with the regulations set forth for this system to work. In essence, there is a social responsibility among all citizens to properly address matters that would otherwise create problems for the society and nation as a whole. People are always in wonder and amazement when the Japanese line-up and buy supplies in an orderly fashion after one of their many natural disasters as if they got something special about them in their country like pride, patriotism, or homogeneity. Having lived there and experienced a devastating earthquake there myself, I'll tell you what it is: social responsibility; the idea that you and your conduct is responsible for more than yourself and is essential in the proper functioning of society as a whole. It doesn't take a break there when disasters hit.
So this goes into our discussion about California and their regulations: Why does California have strict emissions? Hmm.. ever heard of smog? Smog regulations from decades ago have significantly cut down on air pollution and it was so effective, it's among the best examples anywhere of a legislative impact on the environment. Keep in mind it's not only about environmental protection, but also one's health. You claim you don't like the precedence CA's regulations have on the rest of the nation but did you ever stop to think why there is that effect? Maybe because they were actually extremely effective?
Here's a National Geographic article on it:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... vironment/
Could it possibly be a social responsibility to conform to these regulations so we are better off in the state we live in? CA has some of the best evidence of how effective these policies were. If CA's politics and regulations have a trickle-down effect, fight for your state's rights but consider that CA should have its own state's rights to best address its unique issues. As the flagship of America's economy, it sure deserves it.
Also consider that CA is by far the most populated state and some of our counties alone have more people than small states in the United States. Population density affects everything from pollution to resource supply. Hence, one can't expect the realities of life to be the same from rural Pennsylvania to Southern California. They are nothing alike. I've realized this in our many discussions about auto technology and our different driving environments. I recall reading a complaint by you regarding the automated braking on your Mazda when it detected an Amish buggy. Try to find an Amish buggy in Los Angeles. Meanwhile can you relate to this: It took me two and a half hours to drive about 80 miles through most of Los Angeles county with an on-the-way drop-off at LAX. The traffic on the freeway was the sort in which one would really want automated braking and adaptive cruise control.
While we talk about differences, I should also comment on something you remarked on: prices. Yes, Californians generally pay more. However, it's because of inflation more than anything. While our prices may be higher, so are CA salaries. Houses cost more because they are also more valuable in equity. Hence, the average salary in a rural PA town will be less than downtown LA, NYC, Miami, San Francisco, etc. It's not at all unique to the state of California and applies to really any place where people desire to live and work.
Regarding the faults of direction injection, I find it amusing that you want to blame politicians for what is really just shitty engineering by automakers. While automakers may cry that regulations have made their jobs so much more difficult, it's actually been a boon to the consumer; people like you and me. We have cleaner-running cars that are more efficient than ever. Saves us money in the wallet and keeps our lungs cleaner. While DI has its issues, it looks like automakers with better reputations for engineering have devised ways to address problems given they've done much more R&D. However, again, it's my position that these technologies are desperate attempts to delay the inevitable shift to electrified powertrains. DI, small displacement turbos, 7+ speed autos, etc. are all rather incremental steps in reducing fuel consumption. After all, even today's small vehicles with these newer technologies barely get the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Prius from two decades ago. There is no better way to save fuel than to not actually burn it in the first place.
Lastly, yes, just about anything we humans do will have an impact on the environment. Even solar cells and wind mills have their negative impact as you stated. However, it's all about scale as they are not all comparable. A paper cut and a gunshot wound are both injuries that cause one to bleed. However, it's obvious which one is a lot worse. Much like one can't bleed out from a paper cut compared to a gunshot wound, landfill waste by solar energy isn't going to have an impact on global warming which is by far the greatest environmental threat.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
Damn nice response Kuro...I truly mean that... and not in a sarcastic fashion either. You're responses are always well thought out and very articulate.
I will say one thing in response, shitty engineering 9.75 times out of 10 is driven by pure cost. Yes, I know and live this fact every single day. The pressures placed upon costs are vast and unending. Again, can't get blood from a stone. I place very little blame for this phenom on the car makers. I place it squarely on the shoulders of the consumer and the regulatory bodies. Manufacturers know dual injection systems are the way to go. However, the fact is only one system is required to make the cylinders go boom and which method are they going to chose to meet the EPA's standards? Question is, what do you Mr. Consumer want to give up in 'features' so that the money can be spent on the dual injection system w/o increasing the vehicle's price tag? The back-up camera in the dash? The air bags? Oh wait, we can't delete those things, that's right, gov says they have to be there. How about all the infotainment non-sense that doesn't need to be in a car? Oh my god! never!
You cite Japan and the Kei cars (wish we could get many of them here...Jimny). Why ya suppose Suzuki said fluck it...we're outta here? They have no interest in attempting to satisfy the ridiculous needs/wants/regulations of countries like America. And they weren't interested in spending millions of dollars on TV commercials to sway the numb minds of the consumers here. They're smart enough to realize you simply can't pack all of the non-sense required here into a Kei car and price it where a Kei car should be. The big 3 have all but abandoned cars, let alone small cars. The juice was simply not worth the squeeze for Suzuki. Business/Engineering decision. It all boils down to dollars and cents. I no-bid 3 jobs this week alone for the exact same reasons. There is no money to be made with far too much risk and even more associated aggravation.
I will say one thing in response, shitty engineering 9.75 times out of 10 is driven by pure cost. Yes, I know and live this fact every single day. The pressures placed upon costs are vast and unending. Again, can't get blood from a stone. I place very little blame for this phenom on the car makers. I place it squarely on the shoulders of the consumer and the regulatory bodies. Manufacturers know dual injection systems are the way to go. However, the fact is only one system is required to make the cylinders go boom and which method are they going to chose to meet the EPA's standards? Question is, what do you Mr. Consumer want to give up in 'features' so that the money can be spent on the dual injection system w/o increasing the vehicle's price tag? The back-up camera in the dash? The air bags? Oh wait, we can't delete those things, that's right, gov says they have to be there. How about all the infotainment non-sense that doesn't need to be in a car? Oh my god! never!
You cite Japan and the Kei cars (wish we could get many of them here...Jimny). Why ya suppose Suzuki said fluck it...we're outta here? They have no interest in attempting to satisfy the ridiculous needs/wants/regulations of countries like America. And they weren't interested in spending millions of dollars on TV commercials to sway the numb minds of the consumers here. They're smart enough to realize you simply can't pack all of the non-sense required here into a Kei car and price it where a Kei car should be. The big 3 have all but abandoned cars, let alone small cars. The juice was simply not worth the squeeze for Suzuki. Business/Engineering decision. It all boils down to dollars and cents. I no-bid 3 jobs this week alone for the exact same reasons. There is no money to be made with far too much risk and even more associated aggravation.
Ron
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded )
1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top ( sold)
2010 Kizashi GTS, CVT, iAWD (3/10 build date)
2011 SX4 Premium Hatch, CVT, iAWD (12/10 build date)
2018 Mazda CX-5 iAWD Touring
2014 Wrangler JKUW (GONE, traded
) 1991 Samurai, 5-Speed, EFI, Soft-Top (
sold)Ron and Kuro, thank you both for a very civil and enlightening conversation. Both of you gave me a lot to think about. These are very difficult problems to solve technically and when you throw in the corruption politics, it becomes impossible. My son just bought a CRV with DI. Now he's scratching his head wondering if he made a big mistake. It's all fun and games until you realize that your Honda engine that used to go 300K miles if you followed simple maintenance will now start to come apart at 100K if you don't have some major work done on it.
2011 Kizashi SLS CVT (silver)
2005 Honda Odyssey
Priors:
2009 Suzuki SX4 Cross AWD 5-speed Tech package (vapor metallic blue)
2005 Honda Odyssey
Priors:
2009 Suzuki SX4 Cross AWD 5-speed Tech package (vapor metallic blue)