backtop


Print 147 comment(s) - last by BarkHumbug.. on Nov 13 at 8:45 AM


Party like its 1982: a Popular Science cover from the eighties introduces Polimotor's plastic engine for the Ford Pinto.  (Source: New York Times)

Now Polimotor's founder, Matti Holtzberg, left, has paired with James Huntsman, right, the owner of a major automotive chemicals supplier, to bring the plastic engine to mass market at last.  (Source: New York Times)
Could your next car have a plastic engine?

New engine ideas are gaining traction thanks to a combination of technical breakthroughs and demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.  Such diverse technologies as cam-less (solenoid driven) engine valves, gasoline direct injection, and advanced turbocharging are being explored.

However, one fundamental problem is that when you reduce the engine to the smallest possible size with these technologies, it's still a block of metal -- and a heavy one at that.  Some creative thinkers are looking to implement a dream they've had for over 25 years -- creating a mostly plastic engine.

Car engines are still typically made by pouring melted metal into molds -- a tweaked version of a 6,000 year old process.  Engineers like Matti Holtzberg, a New Jersey engineer who's been designing plastic engines since the 1980s, envision a very different production process -- one that uses molded plastics.

Mr. Holtzberg has paired with Huntsman Corporation of Houston, a global chemical company which employs 12,000 employees and rakes in $10B USD per year, to market plastic engines.  Currently, the average car has approximately 300 lbs of plastic -- typically including plastic interior paneling and exterior plastic bumpers.  However, the leading material, by weight, remains metal. Steel in the frame and iron or aluminum castings for the engine blocks and cylinder heads, transmission cases and axle housings are prevalent in modern cars.

It is the goal of Mr. Holtzberg to replace these metal engine and drive components with composite plastics, with metal protective metal casings in the areas exposed to the greatest heat.

Mr. Holtzberg's company is named Polimotor and it was first founded in 1979, a year in which it produced its first engine -- a Ford Pinto clone.  The engine used a plastic block, piston skirts, connecting rods, oil pan and most of the cylinder head.  The bore surfaces, piston crowns and combustion-chamber liners were iron or aluminum, and crankshaft and camshaft were metal.  Two years later the company was producing a 300 hp, 152 lb engine, which compared very favorably to a 88 hp, 415 lb standard engine.

During the 1980s the company continued to develop its idea and sold engines to racing firms.  However, it received little attention from the consumer market.  Undeterred, Mr. Holtzberg continued to work towards a mass-market plastic engine, experimenting with different types of plastic, such as phenolic resin.

Now they're trying to push the results onto the broader market.  They estimate that plastic components could reduce engine weight by 30 to 35 percent, save development time, and manufacturing costs.

Still, despite the backing of a major automotive chemical firm, many obstacles remain to the plastic engine.  Describes Richard A. Schultz, a consultant at Ducker Worldwide, "While half of the aluminum car wheels now come from China, the foundries supplying major aluminum powertrain castings are captive.  Energy consumption is not an issue, their aluminum scrap is readily recycled, and the cycle time with plastic would surely be longer."

Even if Mr. Holtzberg can sell the industry on plastic engines, there's still other challenges.  Plastics are generally produced from petroleum -- a fossil fuel.  Thus as fossil fuels become more scarce, plastics also are likely to become more expensive.  Plant-based plastics are being developed, but it may be difficult to tweak them to the same strength or stability as oil-based plastics.

Despite these major obstacles, Polimotor keeps chugging along.  So while it's no sure bet, don't be overly surprised if you see a plastic engine in your car, sometime in the future.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Plastic?
By ImSpartacus on 11/3/2009 7:56:58 AM , Rating: 1
My parents refused to purchase a cheap laptop because they could not find one that didn't have any plastic. They had to drop a small fortune on a unibody macbook (/facepalm).

This plastic engine technology might be technically sound and economical, but I'm not seeing this one be a winner in the marketing realm for at least a few years.




RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Plastic?
By Aloonatic on 11/3/2009 9:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and I'll never drive my car faster than 20mph, everyone knows that over that speed you're travelling too fast to be able to breath.

I'm sure that they would not be suggesting this as an idea without thinking about the problems you state and having some sort of plan to counter them.

As for suggesting ceramics. They may be great for resisting/dealing with high temps, and they might be hard, but they are also tend to be quite brittle and not really tough enough to cope with the stresses and strains of an that occur inside an engine too well I think.


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/3/2009 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yeah, and I'll never drive my car faster than 20mph, everyone knows that over that speed you're travelling too fast to be able to breath. I'm sure that they would not be suggesting this as an idea without thinking about the problems you state and having some sort of plan to counter them.


As a counterpoint to that, I'm sure that the engineers at all the car companies are staying away from this idea for a reason. Most companies use the conventional design for a reason, and if a good idea (like fuel injection) does come along that is viewed as an improvement over the status quo, they go with it. It's not like they've never heard of plastic engines if they're in that profession. They looked at it and decided that it wasn't feasible.


RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 11:33:25 AM , Rating: 4
Fuel injection only really replaced carburetion when passing emission controls with carburetors became difficult/costly.


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/3/2009 11:50:39 AM , Rating: 3
It's all about necessity. Carbs were cheap and effective.


RE: Plastic?
By Souka on 11/3/2009 6:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
soleniod valves... can't wait for that being common either.

Oh...if any of ya watch the TV show mythbusters...they made a standard car get %13 better MPG (cruzing) by giving the car a golf-ball texture... kinda surpised a car maker hasn't at least proto-typed/showcased such a skin on a car.... probably could make it look a lot better to.

Anyow ...my $.02


RE: Plastic?
By twhittet on 11/3/2009 9:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
I remember reading about that years ago - I think it was actually popular science too. It would be a radical change, but with enough testing and tweaking for asthetic appeal, it might actually look cool. Gotta be easier than carbon fiber addons.


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/4/2009 9:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
Can you imagine trying to wax or polish a car like that? All the high spots would be worn away while the low spots would be untouched.


RE: Plastic?
By Souka on 11/4/2009 11:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid to tell you, but most people don't wax/polish their cars. just wash.

Average car's life is about 10 years, trucks perhaps 8, in the USA.

But yeah... not only polishing/waxing would be an "issue" but how about just the paint durability? In all likehood, if the parts are painted they'll end up looking like a lot of american cars do after 10 years... you know, paint peeling off..


RE: Plastic?
By SublimeSimplicity on 11/3/2009 11:58:31 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly. Fuel injection had even been track tested for many years before it started showing up in street cars. Even then, manufacturers needed their hands forced with emission requirements to take the leap.

So if plastic engines were feasible, why haven't we seen them in F1? Those guys will spend a million in R&D to shave off a couple pounds. I'd feel much better about the technology if it had been used at say 24hr @ LeMans.

Then again I still believe those silicone baking sheets will melt in an oven, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask.


RE: Plastic?
By Hare on 11/3/2009 1:17:21 PM , Rating: 3
F1 cars are made with strict weight regulations. There's no point making the engine weigh 30kg less if you only have to add that same 30kg somewhere else not to be disqualified... And I also feel that the environment might just be a bit different in cars that produce >700hp out of a 2.4L compared to your average Ford Focus... Btw. I'm sure there are better materials than plastic if money is no issue.

So why haven't we seen them in F1? Because it wouldn't make sense...


RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
F1 cars are deliberately built under the minimum weight, as it gives scope to tune the handling of the car.

Just look at the problems that KERS caused this year...

quote:
The lightest of the current cars pre-ballast and without driver is believed to be around 410kg*.

http://formula-one-racing-guide.blogspot.com/2008/...
* Refers to 2008 car.

Remember that the current minimum is 605 kg including the driver and HANS device.


RE: Plastic?
By mcq01 on 11/3/2009 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
F1 cars are made with strict weight regulations. There's no point making the engine weigh 30kg less if you only have to add that same 30kg somewhere else not to be disqualified...


There is a point in making the engine lighter, or any other part of the car, as it allows the weight to be distributed elsewhere to make the car better.


RE: Plastic?
By Hare on 11/3/2009 3:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, maybe they can use magnesium, titanium, aluminum etc alloys that weigh less than plastic and are more durable in 18 000rpm engines that produce ridiculous amounts of power. Money is no object in that sport...


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/3/2009 3:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
Car designers have known about plastic engines for the last 27 years, as shown by that popular mechanics magazine. The idea never caught on, probably for good reason.


RE: Plastic?
By Souka on 11/3/2009 6:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
making engine from plastic isn't very green... they should focus on soybean or corn based engine blocks...

and if they use vegetable oil for lubrication, after a race your engine would be ready to eat! :)


RE: Plastic?
By AstroGuardian on 11/3/2009 10:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
The crazy Chinese made a plastic scooter engine. It was air cooled and would melt right after the scooter stopped. That one failed.


RE: Plastic?
By BarkHumbug on 11/4/2009 2:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, let's make decisions today based on technology available 27 years ago...


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/4/2009 9:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really think that the engineers who design engines haven't been keeping up with the technology that's now available? They've all seen what else is available and universally stay away from it.

They know a hell of a lot more than you do. They think it's best not to use it while you think they should. Who is the clueless one?


RE: Plastic?
By BarkHumbug on 11/4/2009 10:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
I do now, do I? I guess you're the clueless one...


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/4/2009 4:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
You really are clueless. You sound like the typical lame poster who knows nothing about the subject you're talking about. Do the site a favor and stop posting.


RE: Plastic?
By BarkHumbug on 11/5/2009 8:26:56 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL! How old are you anyway?

quote:
You sound like the typical lame poster who knows nothing about the subject you're talking about.


You managed to tell all that from my two comments? I read through all your posts on this subject and since your only argument on this topic is "it hasn't been done yet therefore it can't be done" I think you just managed to describe yourself.

For your information the car industry isn't known to be the most innovative around you know?

quote:
Do the site a favor and stop posting.


If you review the ratings on your own comments I'd say you're in no position to speak for the entire site but you should probably consider taking your own advice.

Bye!


RE: Plastic?
By Silver2k7 on 11/9/2009 1:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
you don't think we have different plastics to play with today compared to 27 years ago lol.

perhaps carbon nanotubes would be a better choise
for an engine.. but maybe its still costly to make..


RE: Plastic?
By BarkHumbug on 11/13/2009 8:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you don't think we have different plastics to play with today compared to 27 years ago lol.


It's called irony dude, please re-read the post...


RE: Plastic?
By Aloonatic on 11/4/2009 2:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
The person who I responded to was not talking about feasability/cost effectiveness, he was questioning that it was possible at all as everyone knows plastics could not ever cope.

We all know that car manufacturers often need to have their arms twisted in order to accept change and move on. How long were cassette tape players standard in cars? Even when it was virtually impossible to but them in the shops. How long will analogue radios be standard in cars, even though the digital switch over is on it's way? They are just simple ot solve, third party "bought in" updates and still they can't be bothered. So why would they been keen to change engines? M first car (ford KA) had an engine in it that was pretty much 30 or 40 years old in design. Tho to be fair, I believe they had designed a new engine by then for it, it just took them a couple more years to get it to fit.

The main reason why it wont be adopted will probably have more to do with moving over to other methods of propulsion. How long will the internal combustion engine be the way that you are powered around your nations streets? Maybe a while longer than hippies would like, but probably not long enough to justify expensive R&D and changing from what they know etc.


RE: Plastic?
By callmeroy on 11/5/2009 8:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
Cermics can be extremely durable, but it depends what form/type of ceramics you are talking about. People generalize materials too much and forget their are different forms -- like wood you can have wood that's very easy to break like white pine for example (which is why they use it as the preferred "breaking board" material in martial arts classes) or you can get solid oak which has a greater chance of breaking every bone in your fist before you break it :).

Ceramics like boron carbide are actually used in body armor to stop large caliber rifle rounds. The military also uses ceramics in composite armor -- like what the Abrams tank has protecting it. Lastly, the high resistance in ceramics is undeniable -- a major reason (coupled with its relatively low weight) why NASA uses them on the space shuttle to protect the skin of the shuttle from burning up.

so I don't think ceramics are too brittle for engine use (not mention the thought of ceramic engines isn't new to begin with - its been done before)....cost? Well I don't know about costs perhaps thats more of a barrier to ceramic use more than anything else.


RE: Plastic?
By FredEx on 11/8/2009 12:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to be a naysayer in this. When people hear "plastic" and "ceramic" they can't grok that these are not the typical materials in these products that they are familiar with.

Ceramic engines have been made and work extremely well. The problem is the mass market. Honda, Toyota, and Ford to name a few could never come up with a way to manufacture them fast enough and at even a slightly reasonable cost. If one would be willing to pay, say $200,000 for a Honda Civic, then you could get a ceramic engine. That ain't going to happen. They gave up on the technology, not because it was a failure in operation.


RE: Plastic?
By Lord 666 on 11/3/2009 9:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
Guess you don't own a Glock. People doubted the durability back in 1982, but now has proven itself over the generations.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 10:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
The barrel on a glock kind of floats they are very reliable but not very accurate, kind of like a ak47.


RE: Plastic?
By JediJeb on 11/3/2009 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 4
These engines would not have a plastic cylinder either. They use steel cylinder sleves incased in a plastic block. It even says the original had aluminum piston tops and lower heads, with steel sleves, crank and cam. Today's plastics are nothing like what they had in the 1980s. Probably looking at a mixture of carbon fiber, kevlar and thermoplastic resins which now rival steel in strength and durability. These would probably also have a better coeficient of expansion to help keep everything in line causing less wear overall.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Plastic?
By Motoman on 11/3/2009 11:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
...something else that occurs to me...

If you make the rods, crank, etc. out of plastic...your rotating and reciprocating mass is way less.

Now, that's a good thing from a reciprocating standpoint...but from a rotating standpoint?

Seems to me, off the cuff, that you'd have a motor that revved like crazy and put up stupid BHP numbers, but that had no torque and would be totally impractical for regular use. I guess unless you go and hang a 20 pound flywheel off the end of your plastic crank or something...


RE: Plastic?
By bhieb on 11/3/2009 11:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Two years later the company was producing a 300 hp, 152 lb engine, which compared very favorably to a 88 hp, 415 lb standard engine.


Think your on to something, since according to this line it took 300hp to be comparable to a standard 88hp. Tells me that the torque is most likely very low.


RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 11:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
/facepalm

Read it again bhieb... and if you still don't get it read it again.


RE: Plastic?
By Motoman on 11/3/2009 12:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it looks like I need to read it again. I guess it's not clear about whether or not their current designs are using plastic cranks, but the old one that put out 300 HP had a metal crank.


RE: Plastic?
By teldar on 11/3/2009 3:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
Do you not have more than a 20 lb flywheel on your car? Most likely you already do. Why is this such a detriment if part of the block is made of plastic?
And I believe the crank was steel, not plastic.


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 11:35:34 AM , Rating: 4
The plastic engine won't have a plastic bore either...

Look at the picture if you didn't pick up on it in the article -
yellow = plastic
grey = metal


RE: Plastic?
By SavagePotato on 11/3/2009 10:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. I know a guy that was a die hard glock fan who got a job working at this gun range where anyone can shoot with or without a liscence. The guns they owned and used on the range got a ton of use.

The glocks didn't stand up to the massive use like the all metal guns did.

Now he is a die hard 1911 fan and sold his glock to get a springfield.

He also told me that the desert eagles, with the exception of the .50 AE were complete abortions that jam like crazy.


RE: Plastic?
By Lord 666 on 11/3/2009 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Thats very interesting... wonder if it is from not cleaning afterwards, durability of the material, or just the "rental" metality. Like bowling shoes or cars; they usually receive more wear and tear than privately owned goods.


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 2:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
I had a smith n wesson copy of a glock. The slide runs on metal tracks so I don't see why they should wear out faster. But again the floating barrel kills accuracy.


RE: Plastic?
By SavagePotato on 11/3/2009 8:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
They received more wear and tear than any gun a private gun owner would ever be likely to put it through. Though they are of course maintained.

Still the polymer guns couldn't compare. The 1911 was by far the most long lasting.

This is what I would expect out of a plastic engine. You may be able to get 300hp out of it but I wouldn't expect anyone will be restoring it in a classic in 30 years.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 1:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
You need a license to shoot at a gun range where you live?


RE: Plastic?
By SavagePotato on 11/3/2009 8:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
No idea really, but handguns are extremely clamped down on in Canada, so a range where the public can walk in and shoot always seemed like a novelty to me.

When you own a restricted weapon, IE all handguns, you have to have permission from the rcmp to transport it to and from your official gun range that you are a member of. You cannot have a handgun or any other restricted gun without being a range member.

You can apply for a permit to transport to any range in your province, but if you are found anywhere with your handgun that is not traveling from your place of residence, to a range, or to a gun shop you are committing an offense and charged.


RE: Plastic?
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2009 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
My Steyr AUG is partially plastic and it is awesome. The stock, trigger, and hammer pack in particular are all plastic. The trigger rods, receiver group, bolt group and barrel are metal as well as the guiding rods for the bolt that also are propelled by the gas piston.

The thing that always amazes me is how the bolt group moves completely back and forth to chamber, fire and eject a round and does that wear at the stock housing.

Oh, and if the plastic _was_ an issue, the Australian, Austrian and Irish armies would not be using the weapon as their first line rifle. The weapon was ahead of its time when it was first produced and still is a work of art.


RE: Plastic?
By Zingam on 11/3/2009 2:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
How many wars has it won? :) From my history lessons I can remember that the Austrians lost their last two wars badly and that at the cost of loosing two Reichs.
I would not trust Austrian weapons!


RE: Plastic?
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2009 3:08:48 PM , Rating: 3
Shoot it first before you knock it. ;)

The guys in a carbine course I took were drooling over it. It has several advantages over a M-16/AR-15:

1. Gas Piston driven
2. Removable, swappable barrel without any tools
3. Clear, polymer magazines
4. Very easy to break down without any tools
5. Reduced cleaning of the bolt group/chamber due to design
6. Bullpup design to enable better CQB capabilities (Close Quarter Battle)

#6 alone is why I ended up getting one. It has as long a barrel as a standard AR but is 10 inches shorter. That helps quite a bit in a confined space.


RE: Plastic?
By Lord 666 on 11/3/2009 4:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad I live in NJ :(


RE: Plastic?
By knutjb on 11/3/2009 11:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
The M-16 was designed in the 50s and was the first plasticized gun. I hope a new gun would perform a bit better.


RE: Plastic?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2009 10:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
#6 alone is why I ended up getting one. It has as long a barrel as a standard AR but is 10 inches shorter. That helps quite a bit in a confined space.


As a gun owner myself, I ask you to please stop enforcing the stereotype that non gun owners place on us. Seriously, look how this sounds. You bought an assault rifle JUST because you can use it better in close quarters battles ? lol come on man. Exactly what kind of CQB will you and your Styre Aug be fighting ??


RE: Plastic?
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2009 10:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
A. I could give a rat's behind about what non-gun owners think.

B. I could give a rat's behind about being politically correct.

C. I could give a crap about pretending to look one way or another.

I'm about as up-front and "this is me" as you can get. What you see is what you get. I will not change how I post, thank you.

I you really must know why... The Zombie Apocalypse is coming and generally they run really fast. They tend to spit blood in your face and within seconds you can have a swarm all over you. Once they are that close you better either have a trusty revolver, a sawed-off or, a 42-round magazine in a bullpup rifle ready to bust some zombie brains all over the pavement. ;)

5 out of 5 Zombies agree, he with the weapon that works best at both LONG and SHORT range poses the greatest threat to their swarm.

So, don't thank me, thank the Zombies. They are helping make America safer each and every day, one gun nut at a time. ;)

Why buy an AR when you can have the best of both worlds? I like the AR, but, in reality I'd rather have something a little more versatile with delivery.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2009 8:48:36 AM , Rating: 2
Lol. Pretty dumb argument. Germany lost because they tried to take on the world. You can't win vs. the world. Sure they rolled over Europe because Europe was a bunch of pussies who tried to talk instead of clamping down before Germany was prepared.

But you can't defeat Europe + America + Russia all in one shot. Of course, in reality the Japanese f*cked it up for the Germans because had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, we might have not entered the war. At least not as soon. We would've just sat back across the ocean and continued to sell weapons to Britain.


RE: Plastic?
By Steve1981 on 11/4/2009 10:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
More to the point, Germany lost because the Fuhrer was a psychopath, a barbaric thug, and an idiot, and their principal ally Japan had leadership that was just as deluded.

quote:
Of course, in reality the Japanese f*cked it up for the Germans


There are some interesting books on that subject, ie "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and "World War II: A Statistical Survey" which show just what kind of mismatch ensued.

For example:

In 1943 the US produced more aircraft, merchant ships, and warships of every class (except submarine) than the Japanese did throughout the period of 1939 to 1945. To delve deeper: in terms of carriers of all types (heavies to escorts) the US put 65 in the water in 1943. The Japanese put 17 in the water...throughout the whole war.

In terms of aircraft... the Germans produced on the order of 95000 from 1939 to 1945. The US produced on the order of 95000...in 1944.


RE: Plastic?
By BarkHumbug on 11/4/2009 10:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, isn't it wonderful what you can do when all your factories aren't bombed to smithereens.


RE: Plastic?
By Steve1981 on 11/4/2009 11:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
While bombing the industrial centers of the Axis powers certainly didn't hurt, it was a mismatch from the get-go.

Even in 1942 the US outproduced the Germans and Japanese combined in practically everything. In 1942 the US outproduced the Japanese in merchant shipping 25-1, in aircraft 5-1, and in carriers 4-1. The US outproduced the Germans in aircraft and tanks better than 3-1. When you add in production from the rest of the Allies, things look downright ugly.

The funny part about it all: the Japanese leadership knew full well what would happen. Japanese studies in 1941 concluded the same as above. Of the few Japanese that had spent time in America and knew the American psyche as well as any Japanese person at the time, Admiral Yamamoto knew for fact the US wasn't just going to roll over and die and he explicitly warned of that fact. Unfortunately for them, nobody listened to the man.


RE: Plastic?
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2009 12:06:58 PM , Rating: 1
What is funny is even back then German engineering was causing their aircraft to break down and fall out of the sky. They were pointlessly over-engineered and complicated. Just look at the BF-109--there was a point in its lineage where if you turned on WEP while the engine was throttled up too high it would just break the whole engine right there.

It wasn't just because the factories were bombed, but it was also due to the Americans KISS philosophy. The planes might not have been uber-complex or groundbreaking like the German and (some)Russian planes, but they held together, did their jobs and sometimes not so elegantly. Heck, look at the ole' Sherman vs. the Tiger. We swarmed them with low-tech and eventually overran them.


RE: Plastic?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2009 6:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
The Glock is not a plastic gun. All the mechanical parts are metal including the slide, breach, barrel, trigger mechanisms/safeties and receiver as well as clip.

People doubted their reliability because nobody had even heard of the company, not because of the manufacturing. Glock was not the first to mount plastics onto a gun after all.


RE: Plastic?
By SavagePotato on 11/3/2009 8:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but aparently the slides fly right off the gun when fired once they get worn out.

Which I was told happened with the glocks on the range after extreme use. The all metal's like the 1911 stood up to the abuse.


RE: Plastic?
By SavagePotato on 11/3/2009 8:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
On a side note my friend that worked at the range used to say all the same things when he was pro-glock.

I remember he made me watch some video of one getting ran over by a truck in the mud repeatedly then fired afterwards. He was the most pro-polymer person I had ever seen till he worked there for a few months and did a total 180 to being anti-polymer.

For what it's worth.


RE: Plastic?
By evilclivenator on 11/3/2009 11:35:37 AM , Rating: 1
Ceramic Turbine Engines were the big thing in the 80s, and one of the reasons I became a Ceramic Engineer. It all sounded great on paper; Diamond like hardness, the ability to hold tight tolerance and withstand high temperatures, and relatively light compared to metal. Unfortunately, with Gasoline at ~$1.00/Gallon the funding dried up and challenges due to machining cost and reliability were never overcome.

Good Luck with the Plastic Engine


RE: Plastic?
By Hiawa23 on 11/3/2009 1:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I may be looking at this wrong way but there is noway in h---, I would want to buy a car with plastic engine parts, noway, no thanks, & not to mention the heat the combustiblke engines create. I understand the need to want to make cars lighter may be alittle cheaper, but come on, I would have thought gasoline engine technology would have improved to a point now where you could make em lighter, get better mileage without this idea of plastics. No thanks, enough things break down on cars as is.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 2:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would have thought gasoline engine technology would have improved to a point now where you could make em lighter, get better mileage without this idea of plastics.
You can but it costs more money than people care to spend. This "plastic" engine stuff is more than likely a way do lighten cars on the cheap. Just guessing though.


RE: Plastic?
By knutjb on 11/3/2009 11:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
many high temp plastics were developed for the SR-71 and the space program way back. I don't see an all plastic motor but there are many places where plastics will start showing up and you won't even notice like intake manifolds, pump reservoirs, pumps, radiator housings... I could see a fiber reinforced blocks in the near future.


RE: Plastic?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Plastic?
By callmeroy on 11/5/2009 8:36:15 AM , Rating: 2
FIT, I agree with you more than most posters on this site whether I say so in posts or not -BUT on this one I have to chuckle a bit....

With all respect, do you seriously assume that an entire company with engineers, investors, R & D departments, etc. wouldn't have extensively researched and considered how the plastics would hold up to extreme temperatures?


RE: Plastic?
By Gul Westfale on 11/3/2009 8:21:22 AM , Rating: 5
maybe they should call it the "iEngine millenium.com edition" and then people will buy it in droves!


RE: Plastic?
By swizeus on 11/3/2009 8:41:32 AM , Rating: 1
UNFCC : Hey,hey... what about global warming ?

Global warming what ? We gotta make money dude....


RE: Plastic?
By marvdmartian on 11/3/2009 9:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
Come on, they've had those plastic model V8 engines that work (with a hand crank) for years now! This is PROVEN technology, I tell ya!! ;)

Me, I'm still going to wait for the Mr Fusion to come out. Talk about a power source!!


RE: Plastic?
By Screwballl on 11/3/2009 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
and according to the movie, we only have another 2-3 years to wait... don't forget the $200,000 hover car conversion kits.... which reminds me, time to watch that and Idiocracy again to see where I need to invest for the next few years


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 10:20:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
One of the easiest ways to reduce ignorance is to switch the American mindset away from making generalized, sweeping statements with no basis in fact.
Fixed that for you.


RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 11:46:41 AM , Rating: 2
There have been plenty of posters on DT that have said if a car can't do 0-60 in under 6 seconds it is too slow for them...

How many times do you really need that kind of performance? Sure it's nice for overtakes. My DD's 0-60 is allegedly 11.0s... but being ancient it's probably really 12-13.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 12:34:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How many times do you really need that kind of performance?
That wasn't my point nor did imply it was. MY point is that if you're going to accuse the whole of the US of ONLY wanting 400hp, large engines, you need to back that up with FACTS! And I WILL challenge this BS at every opportunity. Back it up or shut the hell up! For those with obvious short term memory problems. I provide you the following link (again):

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...

Here you will see what Americans prefer to buy. The vast majority of vehicles on the road are not 400hp monster-engined vehicles. That's a fact!!! Do we like our pickup trucks? Yep. Do they sell well? Yep. Combine the sales of the best selling trucks on that list and compare their sales to the rest of the list. What do Americans prefer again? And how many of those monster-engined SUV's are on that list? Everyone hates on them but they've NEVER sold very well. Actual facts and data back that up not feelings and conjecture.


RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 2:14:22 PM , Rating: 1
Unless I am missing something I don't see any reference in those figures to engine capacity or power...

Midsize cars..................206,833
SUV/Cross-over................206,711
Pickup........................100,037

Yup you love your Trucks and SUVs, they make up 46.1% of total US sales and by European standards they would likely all have "large" engines...

Not that I am against people having a car with a bit of poke.

What do you consider to be the US opinion of a decent amount of power?


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 2:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Most drivers would want over 200hp for a mid sized sedan these days. 20 years ago this was sports car power.


RE: Plastic?
By Steve1981 on 11/3/2009 3:01:08 PM , Rating: 3
Most drivers would want as much horsepower as they can get for the money they are willing to pay for the car taking into consideration other vehicle requirements such as safety and size, as well as the cost of fuel.

It so happens that money goes a lot further now than it did 20 years ago thanks to the progression of technology.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 4:33:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unless I am missing something I don't see any reference in those figures to engine capacity or power...
I don't need to list those. You can visit those manufacturers yourself and see what they offer but I will tell you that 15 cars on that list are either 4 cyl only or are 4 cyl with optional V6.

quote:
What do you consider to be the US opinion of a decent amount of power?
It depends on the weight of the car but it seems that people are satisfied with anywhere between 130 hp and 250 hp. For example, the Civic, Corolla/Matrix are between 130hp and 200hp and weigh around 2700-2800 lbs. The power of those cars hasn't changed much in 10 years (except the higher performance trims) although the weight has so I'd assume the power is fine for those customers. In the Altima, Accord, Camry those vary between 160 and 250hp (4 cyl, V6, Hybrid). The power of those cars has increased with the weight (3500 lbs plus).

People seem to not mind a performance decrease when buying SUV's. The CR-V is 4 cyl only and has 180hp weighs around 3500 lbs. The Escape is 4 cyl, V6 or Hybrid with 150 to 240 hp and weighing around 3500 lbs or so.

quote:
Midsize cars..................206,833
SUV/Cross-over................206,711
Pickup........................100,037
Why did you only list midsized car sales?

September 2009 Sales
Cars: 402,230
Pickups: 100,037
SUV/Crossover: 206,711


RE: Plastic?
By Black69ta on 11/4/2009 2:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
You must be smoking crack. My Grandmother had Volkswagen Rabbit that had the Diesel Engine and It had a sticker that stated to the effect "Only 65 Hp 'not made for Air conditioning and do not add aftermarket air conditioning'" Now a Base model Civic comes with 140ish Hp and a Volkswagen has a twin Charged 1.4L 4-cylinder with 170 Hp. Base power moves up with Time. If for no other reason than the new efficiency requirements result in more power.


RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/4/2009 7:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
I referenced the total cars in the percentage of SUVs, sorry if that wasn't obvious enough, the point was that SUVs (in all their forms) sell as well as midsized cars...


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 1:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
And your point is? You enjoy worrying about how we're killing the planet. I enjoy going fast when I feel like it.


RE: Plastic?
By PlasmaBomb on 11/3/2009 1:52:41 PM , Rating: 1
I never said I was worried about the environment...


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 2:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Thats why we need to tax gas to a level you cant afford it. Just like in europe.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 2:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats why we need to tax gas to a level you cant afford it. Just like in europe.
Then you better make it $10 a gallon. Even at that price, it'll simply justify the expense of buying a third car that gets at least 28 mpg highway (which would save me a couple hundred bucks a month). Of course, at that price, you get the side benefit of raising the cost of EVERYTHING that gets shipped by truck. Given the warm reception by truckers last year, I figure, at those prices, there might be some interruptions of deliveries. No matter to me, I can afford it, can you?


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 2:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
ya, I dont drive my own vehicle very much. I have a 2005 with 21,000 miles on it.


RE: Plastic?
By Steve1981 on 11/3/2009 2:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
So what you're saying is we should levy a gas tax that won't have any significant impact upon you, but could well tip many families over the financial edge? Quite the humanitarian you are.


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 9:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
exactly, like the idea of building mass transit to get free up the roads. That way I can drive to work without sitting in traffic.


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 2:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
By the way the point at which most americans started to panic over their gas guzzlers was at around $3.50 per gallon. We don't need it to go up to $10, $4 will work just fine.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 4:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way the point at which most americans started to panic over their gas guzzlers was at around $3.50 per gallon.
Americans only look at price per gallon. We're used to paying low and simply don't like paying high. People that did the math kept their trucks/SUV's. People that didn't incurred MORE debt by dumping their trucks/SUV's at a loss and bought a more fuel efficient car that actually cost them more money. How dumb is that? My wife and I figured that gas would need to cost $10/gal in order to justify buying another car that cost $15k out the door AND got a fwy commute mileage of ~28 mpg. We would save a couple hundred bucks a month which includes maintenance. I can only imagine how much that Camry cost when you roll over the negative equity of a $40k SUV or truck (that's probably worth about $25k) into it. Just plain dumb.


RE: Plastic?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 9:30:22 PM , Rating: 1
There is no way that the $4/gal gasoline didn't shake up the industry. Pushed things like 6speed autos, direct injection, fords ecotech engines. It warned the industry that they are going to have to start making more efficient vehicles.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 3:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if you're kidding or just stupid. That raises the price of EVERYTHING in society. Goods, services, and food.

If you love the way they do things in Europe, move to Europe.


RE: Plastic?
By eldakka on 11/3/2009 6:12:02 PM , Rating: 3
Why raise the tax on something that has no shortage? That's an artificial cost increase.

If there is a genuine shortage, then the price will go up, you know, the whole economic supply and demand thing.

As demand increases, and supply fails to keep up with demand, fuel will become more expensive. When it naturally hits $5+/gallon, then it becomes worthwhile for private investors/researchers to invest time/money into researching, testing and producing more fuel efficient or alternative fuel vehicles.


RE: Plastic?
By Mint on 11/3/2009 2:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think performance will eventually sway people to electric/PHEV. The incremental cost upgrading electric motors is much less than going from a small ICE to a large one, especially if you can use in-hub motors that don't require upgrades elsewhere in the drivetrain.

That's why cars like the Karma are such great technology. They'll increase the demand for high power motors and make it into a mass market item. Plus it looks f***ing sick :)

A high power PHEV with ~10 mile battery pack (to save weight because I don't ever intend to commute long distances daily) complemented with some supercapacitors would be perfect for me.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 10:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
I don't need it. I want it. Who are you or the government to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to buy it? Or should be punished for purchasing it. Which is what this comes down to.


RE: Plastic?
By FaaR on 11/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Plastic?
By kattanna on 11/3/2009 12:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
so.. now your trying to say we have an iron shortage, and we should all start conserving it?


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 12:51:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
To turn your reasoning around, why should you be allowed to squander as much as you like just because you WANT to?
And to use your reasoning, why should we even allow any choice outside of law? Going over the speed limit is illegal in most countries yet we still have cars capable of going over it? Why not limit cars electronically to the max speed of the road the cars driving on? That would be cheap to implement. Put a device with wifi in all of the signs and wifi in all cars.

Drinking and driving, while illegal in most countries, still occurs because people can get in their cars and drive them. Have a breathalyzer in the car and if you're over, the car doesn't start (I think there's some testing being done on this).

Why allow people to have choice when it directly conflicts with law? If you want people to comply with law, make it so they can't break it. Once that's accomplished, if you want people to comply with something, make it a law. Easy sh!t!

Why isn't this done? No brow beating or coercion would be needed. It would just be.


RE: Plastic?
By eldakka on 11/3/2009 6:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have a breathalyzer in the car and if you're over, the car doesn't start (I think there's some testing being done on this).


Yah these work really well. If you blow overlimit and car doesn't start, ask a passerby to lean in and blow into the breathalyzer for you so the car starts.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 1:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To turn your reasoning around, why should you be allowed to squander as much as you like just because you WANT to?


Our government sure thinks its ok. Why not me?

And we could be on algae based diesel in a decade if we wanted. So I'm not too worry about us running out of fuel. Since we have the ability to make all we want. Or we could use nuclear power to generate electricity and hydrogen. The list of possibilities is endless.

Yes we'll need oil for other things. Also consider that this is why we need an active space program. To figure out ways off this rock.


RE: Plastic?
By lightfoot on 11/3/2009 2:06:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
why should you be allowed to squander as much as you like just because you WANT to?

He's not; he's only able to "squander" as much as he can afford to. That's how capitalism works. Presumably he has to create something (even if it is just a service) in order to gain money. That money can then be exchanged for anything he wants, so long as he can afford it. That is how it works. If you create value, you can then consume (or squander as you put it) a proportional amount of value.

That is a choice that he has earned.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 2:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He's not; he's only able to "squander" as much as he can afford to.
Never thought of it that way. Thanks for the lesson.


RE: Plastic?
By Steve1981 on 11/3/2009 2:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo.

I would add that he should be "allowed" to squander as much as he can afford to for the same reason all American's have that right: every last one of us would loathe living according to the dictates of someone who felt they knew better for us than we did.


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 3:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well we're about to if the health care legislation passes.


RE: Plastic?
By theapparition on 11/3/2009 12:25:43 PM , Rating: 4
You got it all wrong FIT. You'll still be able to buy 600+hp Ferraris, Lambos, Porsche and even Mercedes. They make so few cars, they're exempt from CAFE.

Heaven forbid a US manufacturer who also makes high HP cars now has to compete with them, but also has to do with thier hands tied by CAFE.

If you have the money, you'll be able to buy anything you want. Just like the celebrities who drive a Prius and demand "we" need to save the planet......then go through 50000 gallons of fuel on thier private yacht or jet.

In the end, I've pretty much resigned myself that with the nitwits in this country and in office (voted in by said nitwits), this is the world we will live in.

I figure there's no way cars like the ZR1 will last too long, which is exactly why I have a 2010 Cyber Gray sitting in my garage right now.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 12:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They make so few cars, they're exempt from CAFE.
No, they're not exempt. They just roll the fines into the cost of the car. And it's not just them either. BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and even Chrysler do it too.


RE: Plastic?
By theapparition on 11/4/2009 6:55:49 AM , Rating: 2
While I couldn't find any direct evidence to contradict you, I'm almost positive that some manufacturers with very low sales are exempted from the newest legislation that congress pushed through. They're not exempted from CAFE, but are not subject to the updated regulations.

Almost positive I read about that before, but can't find that info again. So maybe it's not true.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 12:40:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just like the celebrities who drive a Prius and demand "we" need to save the planet
More accurately, they drive the Prius to the public events and drive it right back home afterwards and climb into their MB SL65's. How many times has a celeb been caught doing something stupid behind the wheel? And how many times were they driving that Prius?


RE: Plastic?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 1:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Come to Charleston and give me a ride b*tch.


RE: Plastic?
By Spuke on 11/3/2009 2:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I figure there's no way cars like the ZR1 will last too long, which is exactly why I have a 2010 Cyber Gray sitting in my garage right now.
Sweet car dude. Enjoy.


RE: Plastic?
By 91TTZ on 11/3/2009 11:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the easiest ways is to reduce weight is to switch the American mindset away from wanting big powerful engines. You don't need a 400hp engine to get a car up to 65mph


Actually, the faulty mindset is the one that feels the need to force everyone else to adopt their views.

People make the conscious choice to buy a car with a good amount of power. Usually it's not 400 hp, but it's a more realistic amount that's enjoyable to drive and still gets decent gas mileage. For instance, a person looking to buy an Accord may test drive both the 4 cylinder and the 6 cylinder versions and then make the choice based on their personal preference. One person may be willing to give up 5 mpg for an engine with more power. Another person may choose the 4 cylinder engine instead. That's why Honda offers both versions.


RE: Plastic?
By kattanna on 11/3/2009 12:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
my biggest issue i see with going plastics is recycling.

right now all that metal in those cars is valuable enough to ensure they are recycled, and hence they dont fill up landfills.

would this plastic engine be the same? or would recycling it be cost prohibitive, therefore cheaper to simply dump into landfills?


RE: Plastic?
By eddieroolz on 11/3/2009 3:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think plastic is an interesting idea and if they can show some prototypes to car companies they might like what they see.

The only problem I see is in crash protection. Right now engines act as a big block of metal to absorb a lot of the frontal impact. If it went largely plastic we wouldn't have that same protection anymore.


n
By Zingam on 11/3/2009 8:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
I drive Toyota Corolla. At about 40 000 miles the plastic air intake tubes broke. We actually have two Corollas and both with the same problem. We have driven many cars in the past many of them of much worse quality but their metal air intake tubes never broke before.

Good luck! Does plastic mean cheaper and greener?




RE: n
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 8:27:04 AM , Rating: 3
You mean the air intake tube for your intake manifold? I've never heard of those breaking on any car. Because they're not under any stress. Pretty sad if you ask me.


RE: n
By Integral9 on 11/3/2009 9:26:14 AM , Rating: 4
Sounds like an excuse to get a cold air intake. :)


RE: n
By Zingam on 11/3/2009 2:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what is the name of this engine part in English. I have to check some English manual.
I have tried to give them a descriptive name... sorry!

Anyway that part breaks. It seems it was a serial defect in the older Corollas that were made in Turkey and imported here.

I've also heart stories about machine parts made by the company Honeywell that worked for 20+ years without a defect and newer models where the brass gears were replaced by plastic ones (everything else was unchanged) that lasted only 5 years or so.


RE: n
By Einy0 on 11/3/2009 9:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
If you're talking about what I think your talking about... I can't remember the last time I owned a car that didn't have plastic intake tubes. From the back of the throttle body to the air filter box to the actual intake hole plastic. Hmmm maybe my 1985 Nissan 300ZX had a metal filter box but it was plastic and rubber to the intake manifold.


RE: n
By BeastieBoy on 11/3/2009 9:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well that seals it. If your air intake tubes broke then this idea is surely doomed. :-/


RE: n
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 10:05:22 AM , Rating: 2
What year, I know the early chrystler ones were cracking, as the tech gets more mature this really shouldn't be a problem. They were being super cheap on those intakes by the way. If you reinforce the plastic with carbon fiber or even chopped up nylon fibers they wont crack. One cool thing about plastic intakes is they dont transfer heat to the intake are and they are very smooth, like polished intake manifolds.


RE: n
By Zingam on 11/3/2009 2:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
We've bought these cars in 2002.


RE: n
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 10:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
plastic equals lighter which equals less fuel consumption which equals greener.


Modern Materials Science | Metamaterials
By Shig on 11/3/2009 8:31:36 AM , Rating: 5
Do a little bit of research guys and you'd quickly find out that they can make plastics infused with other materials that rival metal alloys.

Nanotechnology combined with real time computer simulation modeling will usher in a new era of materials with significantly better properties. From thermal capacity, to resilience, to self regeneration, the list goes on.

Granted that is cutting edge, but just because you see 'plastic' doesn't mean you should instantly think it's cheap and bad.




RE: Modern Materials Science | Metamaterials
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 8:55:10 AM , Rating: 3
As you said yourself, that is cutting edge. While they're at it why not make chassis' from carbon fiber. As well as seat frames, gas tanks, etc.

Sure if said materials were ever able to be made in a cheap, economical way, you might have a point. But that day is a long ways away. I'm not knocking the research into it, but it likely won't be any time in the near future.

And I know plastic is not bad in all things. My intake manifold is made of a plastic composite. As most are today.


By tastyratz on 11/3/2009 11:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
and that day is probably not that far away.
Plastics are here and like said they can rival metal.

Cutting edge? debatable - forward thinking in a new scenario. Selling consumers on the concept is going to be a lot harder than actual production of a reliable working prototype. Plastic is already far cheaper than metals - once this has some engineering time I am sure the cost per engine would be far lower than a fat block of aluminum.

I can see this emerging in the hybrid market first and spreading from there - I would consider plastics and alternative materials the future of engines.


By ksherman on 11/3/2009 9:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention they are not building the entire engine out of plastic, just the components that it would make sense for.


By amanojaku on 11/3/2009 10:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
just because you see 'plastic' doesn't mean you should instantly think it's cheap and bad.
Thousands of Hollywood women and trophy wives have me convinced otherwise.


By Fenixgoon on 11/3/2009 11:53:34 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with the "can" part is that a lot of these model predictions are purely theoretical. For example, you might mathematically predict a polycrystalline texture in a metal that's substantially stronger in shear than current metals offer. However, the model won't necessarily tell you how to achieve that texture. It simply tells you it is theoretically possible.

In theory, theory works. In practice, though....

Plastics have numerous hurdles in beating out metals, particularly in long-term use, due to viscoelastic behavior, creep strain, etc. I'm sure the owner of the company and the engineers there are well aware of these challenges, and many others, that need to be overcome.

All I'm saying is the road they've taken isn't an easy one. But if/when they succeed, the payoffs will be simply enormous. Best of luck to them from a fellow materials engineer! (granted I like metals :P)


enthusiasts snub this en-masse...?
By inperfectdarkness on 11/3/2009 8:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
it may weigh less, but what happens when you have to rebuild the engine?

let me guess...you get to replace everything with 100% brand new parts. whereas before you might be able to hone the block, port/polish the heads, etc...with a plastic engine--you'd have to replace everything because the long-term durability factor (100,000+ miles) would jeopardize the structural integrity of a plastic engine; rendering it useless for "recycling" during a rebuild.

i also question the ability of any plastic to withstand the temperatures generated by high levels of forced induction (20+ psi).

bottom line here, this might work great for mass-produced, economy-grade powerplants. i seriously doubt viability for racing, enthusiasts and the power-hungry will find something more proven & reliable.

if it was all that & a bag of potato chips--they'd already be the de-facto standard in F1, nascar, and le mans.




By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 8:25:25 AM , Rating: 4
Well the article says they sold stuff to racing firms.

What it doesn't say is racing firms generally do not reuse the same engine from race to race. Or it is at least rebuilt. There is a big difference between an engine lasting for a few hours in a high performance environment and it lasting 100,000+ miles without a rebuild.


Ummm....
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2009 8:17:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Such diverse technologies as cam-less pistons , gasoline direct injection, and advanced turbocharging are being explored.


Cam-pistons huh? Are they also going to reduce weight by making headlights that require less fluid?

Piston's don't have cams. Engines do. The camshaft drives the valves to open and close.




RE: Ummm....
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/3/2009 8:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cam-pistons huh? Are they also going to reduce weight by making headlights that require less fluid? Piston's don't have cams. Engines do. The camshaft drives the valves to open and close.


yeah, a piston with or without a cam is pretty useless...I guess I just assumed instead of car parts laying on the floor he was talking about solenoid actuated valves or something "crazy".


One step closer to plastic cars.
By MustangMike on 11/3/2009 9:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
This just in, researchers are looking to replace the steel in cars to make them lighter and greener! Buh-bye steel frames, hello MPGs!! /sarcasm

Seriously plastic engines? No thank you I'll stick with my Aluminum block that can handle 700HP without melting. I wonder how many miles you can get out of the plastic engines before you have to Recycle it. lol I thought plastics were bad for the environment and yet people keep on insisting on making more crap out of plastic.




By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
Plastics are usually inert in the environment. The problem is they stick around forever and ugly things up. Most plastics today can be recycled and turned into new products.


Do you really want a lighter car?
By SnakeBlitzken on 11/3/2009 10:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't weight add something to the ride and cornering ability, not to mention traction? How fast could you go before you start to lose contact with the road? That may be a stretch, but a very light-weight car would be useless in the snow.




By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 2:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Weight is almost always a performance penalty. On road, offroad, or wherever. Snow mobiles perform awsome in snow because they are light and pretty much float on top of it. It can help make the ride smoother, but lowering the unsprung weight on the vehicle does the same thing. Sometimes having a high weight/small tire footprint might help you, such as reducing the tendency to hydroplane. This can normally done with tread design though. In mud a heavy truck is much more likely to sink in and get stuck then a light one with a large tire footprint wide tires. Its kind of hard to design a vehicle thats perfect in all aspects, you always have compromises. No road truck is going to compete with a buggy offroad for instance.


Argh!
By Hieyeck on 11/3/2009 9:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thus as fossil fuels become more scarce,

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Melting+Arctic+Like...

Somehow, everytime someone says we're going to run out of fossil fuels, we find just a few BILLION more barrels of it.




RE: Plastic?
By Zedtom on 11/3/2009 10:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
When I was a kid my grandfather showed me an old telephone made from bakelite, the predecessor of modern plastics. He said that when it came out the engineers at Bell labs had felt that this new composite material would replace ceramics and eventually be used in internal combustion engines.




Ford already does this to an extent...
By iFX on 11/3/2009 11:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
Take Ford's modular engine line (4.6V8, 5.4V8, 6.8V10. These engines have been making use of resin parts since the early 1990s. Will we ever see a plastic engine block, pistons or cylinder heads? Doubtful.




"cam-less pistons"
By Motoman on 11/3/2009 11:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
...call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure pistons have never had cams in them.

...but what the hell is that actually referring to? 2-strokes? Diesels? Or is there some magical 4-stroke motor that has enchanted pixies push and pull your valves for you?




By Hulk on 11/3/2009 12:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
Right?




Electric Cars?
By DarthKaos on 11/3/2009 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
All the talk about this article is about gasoline engines. What about the inner workings of an electric car? A lot of the metal parts could be switched to plastic and that would help offset the weight added from batteries.




By nofumble62 on 11/4/2009 12:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's feasible, why not?




I dont know about you...
By Masospaghetti on 11/4/2009 8:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
But my experience with almost ANY plastic (especially in a severe environment) is that they don't last - they crack, they warp, they become brittle, the threads in bolt holes get stripped out...etc etc

I can almost guarentee that a plastic engine will suffer major reliability problems for a long time while kinks are being worked out. Until then, I'm buying metal.




Gonna wait...
By DeepBlue1975 on 11/4/2009 6:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
For the nanotube version!

These ones will surely feel to plasticky for my taste.




Gonna wait...
By DeepBlue1975 on 11/4/2009 6:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
For the nanotube version!

These ones will surely feel to plasticky for my taste.




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki