Chinese Hornets

And in the latest news, Chery and DCX officials have been talking about a small Chrysler-branded car to be sold everywhere but North America, replacing prior thoughts of Dodge Smarts.

Yes, China - fashionable and sleazy. Fashionable in that every business in the US apparently wants to move all its work there, ignoring any impact that might have on their country (rationalizing it in the name of globalism, or, ignoring India, assuming Americans will all have jobs programming computers or something) or the possibility that transferring state of the art technology to China - which would have to be done to sell a competitive car in Europe - might backfire. Korea? Nope, don’t remember Korea. Never happened.

What are the other possibilities for the Hornet? Mainly, Volkswagen, but frankly that’s a Good Old Boy network and nothing else. Yes, the Polo is a nice enough vehicle, but really … Volkswagen? The company with quality in the toilet? Their main asset other than a rather nice diesel engine and cool, expensive, small-but-powerful engines is Wolfgang Bernhard. We know he and Dieter get along nicely, but that’s no reason to foist a VW on Dodge; neither is the agreement to use VW engines in Caliber diesels, or to sell modified Chrysler minivans as Volkswagens.

Frankly, I think there is no reason Chrysler could not do this inhouse other than the merger-required layoff of so many engineers, and the lack of funds resulting from Mercedes burning everything up to keep their cluttered vehicle lines intact while they try desparately to earn a profit. Had it not been for the merger, we’ll remind readers who have forgotten, Chrysler would have had a $10 billion (at least) cash fund to get them through hard times without sacrifice, as well as the ever-profitable Chrysler Credit, which now pays its cash directly to DCX. The reporters usually forget about Chrysler Credit when giving the merger full credit for Chrysler’s current tepid success.

The small car could even be made on a budget by resurrectingn plans for the first-generation Neon, which was smaller and lighter than the second generation. Shrink it down and safety-it-up, and you have a good, light small car with great cornering, a fun feel, and surprising acceleration with the base 1.8 liter World Engine, which would give the Hornet best in class power (by a huge margin). It would not go up directly against the cheaper Yaris and Fit, but it would give them Fits, so to speak, by being so much better.

Let’s assume, though, that there’s no money to do that. There probably IS no money to do that, because, as previously noted, Mercedes needs to have dozens of different models and Maybach and Smart, and all lose money, and Mercedes is busy rebuilding everything so someday they might make a profit; and of course Chrysler is also investing in the Challenger, hybridization, diesel versions, six-speed automatics, a new small V6, new minivans, and new flexible factories. (The UAW might cough up a few billion in savings if given the choice of that and a new factory in China, to be fair, but only if someone asked them.)

If Chrylser ran the factory in China they could keep quality up. However, we’d be giving away both our human and manufacturing technology at that point, and that would be eventual slow suicide. Unless you think Chery would be less likely than Hyundai to invade home markets eventually.
Since we already know Chery is planning to enter the US market, I don’t see teaching them to build cars as being a good idea.

Mitsubishi is also an interesting target, if anyone there will return calls from DCX. MMC and Chrysler have worked together quite a bit, and they do make nice cars in the right class. Collaboration would be no problem for the engineers, even if the execs can’t stand each other any more, and that cool direct injection system could be used.

I have to wonder about Peugeot and Renault. Both have historical linnks with Chrysler, and Peugeot is used to working with other companies. Both produce quite good small cars and both used to sell in the US and do not any more. Of course they are not German so they are clearly inferior, but other than that, if I had my choice of partners around the world, I think it would be Peugeot, because they won’t compete with Chrylser anywhere but Europe.

I should mention that Peugeot incorporates SIMCA and Rootes, which were owned by Chrysler, while Renault owned AMC. I would not be surprised if a lot of the same people were there. But I think at some point a Mercedes-Volkswagen merger is likely, and at that point, they’ll be happier to have Polos sold in the US by Chrysler.

Overall, another “not quite as happy as it should be” moment. Actually competing in the Fit/Yaris space should be a given, but at this point it seems clear they’ll be going the “rebadge” route, and probably personal relationships will take precedence over long-term thinking. It’s a shame.

Technology Run Amok? - Part 2

Lubricating oils of both mineral (petroleum) and synthetic types have a quality index known as the SAE viscosity grade (in the US/Canada/Mexico markets). To these oils there are 4 types of additives:

• Vicosity Index Improvers (VI-used to change the viscosity curve under temperature increases)
• Oxidation & Corrosion inhibitors (to reduce the acids and alkalis form the byproducts of combustion and atmospheric conditions)
• Detergents & Dispergents (to “scrub” the dirt off components and disperse them into solution)
• High Pressure Additives (added to increase the shear strength of the oil under loading, abbreviated as “EP”)

Heat as a factor in Lubrication breakdown:

Heat from the engine combustion and friction causes the engine oil to lose viscosity. Synthetic oils are formulated to reduce this effect and widen the flowable temperature range.

Synthetic oils, as a polymer, are formulated to cover a far wider range of viscosities and mineral oils are capable of handling. For example the SAE standard oil viscosities are as follows:

As you can see from this table, there is a point between 15W and 20 weight oil that is a “sweet spot” where the kinimatic viscosity is nearly flat. Synthetic oils (remember this chart is the SAE standard, and as such, was developed for mineral oils, NOT synthetics)
extend this spot to almost their full range, depending on the oil manufacturer. For this reason, Chrysler chose Mobil 1 synthetic for the Viper v10 engine. Under extreme heat, pressure, and shear, Mobil 1 performs more consistently than any other oil tested.

By reducing the friction, fuel used to overcome the friction is also reduced. On average, the difference is small, 1-2.5%, but, when combined with increased longevity and other factors to be discussed, these seemingly insignificant increases will reduce fuel costs.

COMMENTARY:

The costs of such changes are not insignificant to most people, and will be discussed later in this series.

From a personal standpoint, I ran Mobil 1 in my Ford Thunderbird V8 from 1996 through 2000. During this time I accumulated 129,000 miles on the car. By carefully monitoring the oil status, and having regular oil analysis performed at a cost of 19.95 each time, I increased the change
interval to 15,000 miles for the oil. Losses included a filter change every 3000 miles plus at every complete oil change, plus 1 quart of oil burned/leaked every 12,000 miles. At the last engine leakdown test performed at 110,000 miles, there was less than 5% engine compression
leakdown total.

Technology Run Amok? - Part 1

Today, vehicles of all types are coming under attack from “less than informed” (to put it politely) pundits, ranging from the US Congress, to the man on the street, as not being “efficient” and “advanced enough.” “Enough” for what, no one ever specifies-which is symbolic of the average consumer’s ignorance and aversion to true understanding of these complex issues and technologies. Quick fixes, such as hybrids, of any type or functionality, are now paid more lip service as “the solution“, along with E85 (ethanol based alcohol fuel), VVT (variable valve timing), GDI (gasoline direct injection), and other acronyms that are spouted with abandon, and even less understanding.

In this entry, and the following series of weblog entries, I will examine some of these fallacies and their proponents, as well has how the consumer is going to pay for it all in the end.

MAGIC- The “magic” of sound engineering and the costs of ignorance in application.

A few years ago, DCX demonstrated a version of the 4.7L, overhead cam, 2 valve per cylinder, truck engine which had some seemingly innoculous additions and changes to the production design. These changes, none costing more than a few pennies per engine, allowed the experimental engine to attain approximately 12% better fuel economy across its powerband, when compared to the standard 4.7 v8 engine. What happened? Keep reading as I bring some of the detail of what was accomplished to light in less than technical terms….

What causes engine losses? Basically, there are 3 items that affect engine efficency:

• Friction
• Pumping losses
• Uneven fuel burn

FRICTION:Friction is the resulting drag on free movement by material type and finish, lack of lubricant, molecular collision (vicosity of lubricants, as an example), and many other conditions. In a perfect world, a friction free bearing would be a uniform gap between components that move relative to each other that neither increases in size, nor decreases in size. Unfortunately, no possible in the world we live in today. Even a maglev (magnetic levitation) has friction between its non-contacting surfaces.

PUMPING LOSSES:

Volumetric efficiency of an engine is the ability to move air and fuel charge into and out of a combustion chamber of an engine. Unless supercharged by either a positive displacement pump (Rootes type or centrifical that is direct driven) or a turbo-supercharger (original and proper name for a “turbocharger”) a naturally aspirated engine cannot achieve 100% efficiency.

“Volumetric efficiencies can be improved in a number of ways, but most notably the size of the valve openings compared to the volume of the cylinder and streamlining the ports. Engines with higher volumetric efficiency will generally be able to run at higher RPM, and thus power, settings as they will lose less power to moving air in and out of the engine.”

-from http://en.wikipedia.org

UNEVEN FUEL BURN:

Uneven fuel burn can result in several issues with ICEs (Internal Combustion Engine), not the least of which is pre-ignition and detonation. When either occurs in a modern engine as the 4.7 litre, the ECU (Engine Control Unit or “computer”) will dump in more fuel and air to extinguish the explosion in the combustion chamber. NO, fuel/air does NOT normally explode-this is Myth #1 to remove from the public psyche- it burns in an even pattern across the combustion chamber from the spark plug to the farthest reaches of the combustion chamber.

HOW IS FRICTION OVERCOME?

Simply put, friction cannot be overcome 100 percent, but REDUCED to single digit percentages and less, by the careful application of lubricants, material selection, and fit/finish of the components.

Lubricants:

Every moving part has a mate of some type to apply its motion against. For example, a piston on a connecting rod travels in a linear motion within a bored cylinder, pivoting on a wrist pin fitted to the upper end of the connecting rod. The connecting rod lower end encompasses the rod journal of the crankshaft, which is in turn restrained by the main journals of the cylinder block.

The points of friction in this mechanism are:

• Cylinder block bore walls to piston
• Piston rings to cylinder walls
• Piston rings to piston
• Piston to wristpin
• Wristpin to connecting rod
• Connecting rod to crankshaft rod journals
• Crankshaft main journals to cylinder block main journals

9.0L John Deere Diesel Engine Cutaway-courtesy of John Deere & Company

Detrimental effects of Friction:

Lubrication is required to prevent metal to metal contact in the reciprocating and rotary motion components. Friction causes heat, wear, and fatigue in the component, generally speaking (there are other effects, outside the scope of this discussion).

Lack of lubrication will lead to such failures as:

Note galling on ends of pin, which rides in piston bore

(photo courtesy of Tim Gilles)

Worn main bearing half

(photo courtesy Tim Gilles)

Visit from a Blackhawk

So, as you may or may not know, my wife has a crocheting business, and we spend many spring and fall weekends at shows. Yesterday was one of them, and the highlight was this Blackhawk helicopter that did a flyover and then landed in the clearing right behind us. Definitely ‘hang on to your tent’ time!

After taking what seemed to be an eternity to spin the rotors down (during which we received our first clue that our canopy is ill equipped for such winds, and that we really need to upgrade), I was able to get some good shots of it, it’s truly an amazing piece of machinery.

I’m afraid of heights, so I’ll take the middle seat, thanks…

I believe it shook up more dust on lift off than when it landed, if possible. They may have been my sun-addled brain fooling me, though.

And so ends Show and Tell for a Monday morning :)