Nissan Is Ending Engine Development, Except For US-Bound Vehicles (arstechnica.com) 162
Nissan is pulling the plug on its internal combustion engine development, except for the United States. Ars Technica reports: According to Nikkei Asia, the Japanese automaker has looked at the likely next set of European emissions rules and has decided it would be too expensive to design a new generation of engines that comply. Nissan is also not planning on any new internal combustion engines for Japan or China, although it will apparently keep refining existing engines and continue to work on hybrid powertrains. However, this new policy isn't a global one -- it doesn't apply to the US. That's because here, the automaker expects continuing demand for internal combustion engines, particularly in pickup trucks. If Nikkei Asia's reporting is correct, Nissan is just making explicit the fact that electrification of light passenger vehicles is going to be much more rapid in regions where governments create strong policy incentives.
What about Australia? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about Australia? I can't see demand for the gas-guzzling (or diesel-guzzling) SUVs and pickups Nissan sells in Oz (like the Nevara or the X-Trail) going away anytime soon.
Re: (Score:3)
In the big cities maybe but electric is sod-all use in the hinterland, country and outback. I liked a recent press release that there was an electric charging point now on the Nullarbor which to those who don't know is hundreds of miles of f-all; no houses, gas stations etc. - just a blacktop road.
The only slight drawback was it was connected to a honking big diesel generator.
Electrics vehicles here still suffer from poor choice, sky-high prices thanks to ADDITIONAL TAXES because they are expensive and terr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in a land where it can be 1000 miles between gas stations, the electric tech will NEVER allow that.
Re: (Score:2)
Never? Really?
So there's absolutely no way to build electric charging stations with solar panels and batteries anywhere in that 1000 mile stretch?
Open your mind even just a crack, please.
Re: What about Australia? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an Induction cook top and it seems to work as well as gas for home use, there are some annoyances like having to choose the right cookware, and having the match the element size to the cookware. But there are also advantages like safety that even if your child turns on the element they don't gas you or burn down the house.
But you are right in general technology in general is not really making significant gains despite the 370,000 patents being issued in the US last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a charger gets its electricity from liquid fuel does not mean it is worse off for the environment than an internal combustion engine. Generators can be tuned to run at the most efficient RPM for energy extraction where vehicles cannot due to varying RPM and the driver's choice of speed to drive.
Also, if it runs on diesel, it can easily run on biofuels, and be essentially carbon-neutral. Especially if that "biofuel" is used vegetable oil - at that point you are turning a waste product into ene
Re: What about Australia? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What about Australia?
Their engines will be poisonous-spider, poisonous-snake, hungry-dingo or angry-kangaroo powered -- really anything venomous or otherwise dangerous, so there are a lot of options for Australia.
Re:What about Australia? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are still designing them for use in the US, that means they are designing them for California emissions standards and they will likely meet or exceed standards for most other places that continue to allow gas/diesel engines in passenger vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because they are stopping development of internal combustion engines, does not mean they are stopping manufacture of internal combustion engines.
They can continue trotting out the designs they are using today for years, with simple modifications to keep them relevant. This way they can move that engineering talent over to creating designs for the next 20 years of business.
Why are there multiple iterations, anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Material science continues to advance, just look at the changes in the piston rings over the last 30 years. Manufacturers are still trying new things, like Nissan's variable compression engines.
Re: (Score:3)
Internal combustion engines have been around for, what? Over 100 years? Current materials science and understanding of the physics behind IC engines is at peak maturity. Why aren't there three, maybe four, gasoline-powered IC engines maximized for efficiency and power output standardized across all automobile platforms and perhaps the same for most diesel engines? Why must each manufacturer keep developing "new" engines?
We could just take the current engine design from a Ferrari or a Porsche and put them in everything!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://driving.ca/auto-news/n... [driving.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to boost the automotive service sector, that would be a great way.
Personally, I'd like something that is actually reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they though? Maybe we just recently got there, but IC engines have gotten a LOT more powerful and efficient in the last 10 years, much less 20.
Heck a lot of purists basically consider it blasphemy that the new Mustang has a 4-cylinder engine but that 4-cylinder generates 310 horsepower. My 1998 Mustang's 6 cylinder only generated 165 horsepower. Even stepping up to the V8 on that care would have only gotten you 305 horsepower.
Yes I know that full electric is going to eventually be the primary power s
Re: (Score:3)
I should add that in some spaces, there already is a consolidation of IC manufacturers. For example in Ag equipment, now that the Tier 3 and Tier 4A quotas are used up, some companies are turning to existing engines from other manufacturers to power their tractors. John Deere, for example, powers some of their smaller tractors with Iveco engines from FPT because it's too expensive for them to develop their own tier 4 final engines in that size. FPT has an engine that meets the requirements.
And of course b
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those improvements were in manufacturers' back pockets until they *had* to do it due to regulation and competition? Toyota was getting 320 HP out of the Supra in 1993, so acting amazed that Ford managed it 30 years later really isn't that impressive.
Forced induction has been a replacement for engine displacement for a long time now.
Re:Why are there multiple iterations, anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The US, being large and spread out, will still be a bastion of ICE sales for some time in places where the range and fill time are important, but why do we need engine development?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Everything you have listed has been around for over a century, just not in consumer cars because fuel was cheap and the engines didn't have to be efficient.
Decrease in size while increasing power and efficiency mostly comes from better materials allowing higher pressures and temperatures. At some point the materials required to push efficiency further become too expensive for consumer cars and are only used for jet engines. I guess Nissan reached that point.
Re: (Score:2)
--
Nothing defines a fool more than watching a political party seize emergency power and impose a slate of harsh mandates that they do not themselves obey, and still doing their bidding by accusing the other side of it. You. You are the fool here who watched the American Left impose mandates and let them get away with not obeying them. Worse, you gleefully join in on the gaslighting of America by claiming that somehow the
Re: (Score:3)
Manufacturers keep developing because a) the demand for IC engines is still high (see below) and b) because of increasingly strict emissions and fuel efficiency regulations. And of course these are all competitors, so they compete on engine performance as much as anything else. And it's pretty impressive what they have done in the last few decades. But it's true the low fruit has been picked some time ago.
IC engines will likely always be with us in some applications. Heat cycle engines may max out at a
Re: (Score:2)
Nordic countries do get extreme cold, enough to halve EV (and ICE) range at times. They have excellent charging infrastructure though so it's not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that still apply as you get close to the arctic circle?
Re: (Score:2)
It does. Check out Bjorn Nyland's channel on YouTube. He has done quite a few trips into the Arctic Circle with EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends which nordic country you mean, and from a certain point on it does not really matter how cold it is. -10C or -30C should not be much difference.
The difference between Canada and Scandinavia is, that you have so called "continental climate" in Canada. While Norway e.g. is bathed in the last outskirts of the gulf stream. There are islands in front of the coast which usually never are below 0C and basically never have snow. Same latitude, north Finland is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty funny. If you don't know the difference between -10 and -30 as far as how it affects machinery (and people) of all kinds, then you've never experienced it. I can assure you there's a huge difference between -10 and -30 that you can feel in how machines function. -10 is nothing. It's comfortable for human beings, and machines don't mind it at all. Big diesels start fine with no block heater and no glow plugs. Batteries are strong. Light cars and trucks don't even notice it when starting.
Re: (Score:2)
Glow plugs for your electric?
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla battery packs actually do have resistive heaters integrated, and their "cold weather tips" suggest setting a time you're planning on leaving in the app, so the car can pre-heat the battery while plugged in. It results in you having a nice toasty cabin to get into, and increased range because the battery and motors are at operating temperature before you leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Well increased range other than the range consumed by the resistivity heating. So in other words you get half your summer range instead of a third of it.
Re: (Score:2)
... which is why you warm up the battery pack while still plugged in before leaving, as I said.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you've noticed, but in recent years it seems nearly every manufacturer is offering a 2-liter turbocharged 4-banger in a wide variety of its vehicles. They're still not all the same engine, but that they're all more or less the same size and configured similarly is, I think, unprecedented.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe puts a relatively hard limit on engines of more than two liters of displacement - that explains why there are plenty of common engine sizes below 2.0 liter (the before mentioned 2.0 liters, the 1.9 diesels were basically everywhere a while ago, 1.8 liters turbo and non turbo, 1.7 turbo diesels were the antagonist of choice in Top Gear episodes), 1.6 was common in European cars that were below the "large sedan" size. 1.5 turbo (and older non-turbo) diesels are an econobox staple, 1.4 was used in older
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why are there multiple iterations, anyway? (Score:2)
Re: Why are there multiple iterations, anyway? (Score:2)
low cost (Score:2, Insightful)
In the US Nissan has models is several classes that are the lowest priced among the competition. Almost no one wants to buy a Leaf. I think that sums it up. People buying the cheapest one don't care if it takes gas, and otherwise I'm not sure Nissan can compete.
Strong policy incentives? (Score:2)
That's a euphamism for "EU governments are banning new ICE motor sales". Why would you continue R&D on a product that won't be legal to sell in those countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:3)
Gas cars refuel to full range in minutes. We will keep our hybrid SUV in addition to our Tesla until we can recharge in the same time used to take a bathroom break. Car companies will make what people demand, and in the US, that will be gas cars for a while longer.
The US is big. Don't sneer at or judge rural areas (read red states) who insist electric cars won't work well for their use case.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't sneer at or judge rural areas (read red states) who insist electric cars won't work well for their use case.
We sneer because the only reason they won't work well is that they don't have enough charging stations, which is through some combination of being unfriendly to them and there not being enough people there to make it profitable enough to fight over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the canonball record for crossing the US in a Tesla is 42 hours... so there's that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Bans are not incentives. (Score:2)
Well, yeah, but when a government says you can't buy or sell something it is not an incentive. It is a ban. You aren't giving people an incentive to make a particular choice, you're forcibly removing alternative options.
But I guess we can't modern "journalists" to know what words mean. Their training is all about how to engineer the outcomes they're told to pref
No more development of steam engines, either (Score:3)
There comes a point where you decide that a mature technology has had its day, and investing any more money in it is folly, if you can invest the money in technology with a future. This was a lesson I got from one of my economics books. In the UK, an example was coal mining. It simply is not worth investing in the industry, when the demand for the product has been in decline for decades. There is a new coal mine planned, but that relates to steel making, rather than energy.
As it happens, I came across this mature technology thing with an electronic product I designed over twenty years ago, which is still in production. My recent work related to this was to fix a test and programming setup that appeared to have been fried by an electrical surge. That was pretty trivial stuff, and worth doing to get production going again, and milk the cow for a few more years. However, upgrading the design to use up-to-date components did not seem worthwhile. Best just to take the profits while you can, and then maybe retire for a well-earned rest.
There is a market for legacy products. If you really need a petrol-driven pickup truck, someone will supply it, but at a far higher price than it used to cost, when those products were churned out in the millions. I guess Nissan are not in the antiques restoration business,
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, there is zero evidence at this point in time that many people want electric cars. It's only an eco fantasy at this point. For one thing, nobody knows how apartment owners... especially those who street park, will charge their car. And that's just one of the many issues.
Re: (Score:3)
... there is zero evidence at this point in time that many people want electric cars.
I think sales volume of electric cars counts as evidence of demand. Is the Tesla my boss runs just an eco fantasy?
Concerning availability of charging points, those will become more available, in order to meet demand, which is increasing. There is money to be made selling energy to charge batteries. Before motor vehicles were invented, there were no gas stations. The lack of infrastructure did not stop the growth of motor transport, though I presume early adopters of the new technology may have had some dif
Re: No more development of steam engines, either (Score:2)
Politicians are not engineers (Score:2)
This is what happens when insufferable know-it-all politicians think they understand engineering. That and they know just enough to move the goalposts beyond what's achievable in order to suit their flawed ideology. The same is true for healthcare. The same is really true for anything involving hard sciences. The bureaucrats don't know diddly or squat about it but they insist that they do and that everyone must follow their interpretation of "the science" as though there is only one "science" and only t
Re:Big Dumb Trucks! (Score:5, Insightful)
since box on frame pickemup trucks slice through crumple-zone consumer tin can commuter cars like a hot knife through butter
They may slice through crumple zones in said fashion but modern unibody cars have integral safety cages that make the structural integrity of body-on-frame vehicles (such as my '15 Suburban) look like a joke.
The only thing big pickups and SUV's have going for them is their increased mass (big fucking newsflash there); if they rollover - and with their higher CG's, that's all too likely - and their lack of stout bodyshells, you're a lot more likely to die in one.
Re: (Score:2)
1. crumple zones are utilized in unibody car construction
2. I am not saying that body on frame is safer, just that "safety" is used as justification for people to buy larger (even body on frame) vehicles to "feel" safer
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. It's all about the feel. The physics and statistics say "no" but those trucks feel safer.
Re: (Score:2)
What statistics would those be? For better or worse, that mass IS an advantage to surviving if you hit something that is willing to move.
Re:Big Dumb Trucks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really know how people are using their vehicles or are you just assuming? I own a single vehicle: a truck (a 2017 Chevy Colorado specifically). I drive it to work every single day, and if you pass me on the road there's about 95% chance the bed will be empty. That said, I also use it extensively hunting, I take off a bed-load of trash every Saturday, during the warmer months I tow a small boat fishing, and I've helped several friends move a few times.
Pretty much everyone I know has a truck for similar purposes - you need a daily driver but also want to be able to do things that require a truck without purchasing a second vehicle. Just because you don't see many trucks doing things that would require a truck on a daily basis doesn't mean that they never need to do such things.
Now I'm all fine with higher efficiency trucks. When I bought my truck I got a more fuel efficient one (at least as far as trucks go - it gets 25 MPG highway. The diesel version got 30 MPG but also cost $10k more). The new Ford Maverick actually has a hybrid option that gets 42 MPG and can still tow 2000 LBS (which is enough for me), and it looks pretty intriguing, though its not a wise idea to buy a new car right now. I'm all for making trucks more efficient, but don't needlessly villainize them as a long of people driving them have a perfectly valid reason to.
Re:Big Dumb Trucks! (Score:4, Insightful)
If all the people who do not use vehicles the way you do decide to do whats best for them, their driving habits, their pocket books , you will have to pay the full prize for you off beat use case. At that time we will know how much that is worth it to you.
Re: (Score:3)
Your use case is quite off the median and average use case.
Is it? The hunting is a bit of a niche usecase... but how many people bought SUVs (aka, light trucks) because of the ability to handle the occasional big load?
I'm not a truck guy, but I have the self-awareness to realize that the difference between a truck and a minivan/SUV is often cultural more than practical.
Right now, in a gas vehicle you are able to use your daily driver for rare use case.
If all the people who do not use vehicles the way you do decide to do whats best for them, their driving habits, their pocket books , you will have to pay the full prize for you off beat use case. At that time we will know how much that is worth it to you.
I have a small car, but I also don't have kids. Throw a couple of them into the mix and a minivan/SUV could be extremely useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they sit down and calculate how much they are paying in every fill up for that one occasional job they will find it is cheaper to rent the pick up from home depot for such things. It is all excuse making for driving a big truck. You like a big truck, drive one, if you can afford it and don't have to justify it to anyone.
What I am saying is, it is not a rational decision, just an emotional one. And the emotions will change wh
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I really do know how people are using their vehicles, from my own family, to co-workers, to the neighbors, to the jackasses commuting in prettied up BDTs that hadn't seen a bigger load than kids and some groceries
My son actually uses it for welding work, but everybody else uses them to haul their kids around in, and yes they believe they have a perfectly valid reason for it, because they don't want to be in a small car and get hit by a truck or suv.
it is a reinforcement cycle which just makes the trage
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really know how people are using their vehicles or are you just assuming?
Do you? I mean you're making just as much of an assumption as the GP, but you're doing so with your own biases attached. Yeah there are plenty of people who use SUVs as a commuter and a weekend work/rec vehicle. But Americans aren't unique in that they are more outdoorsy than anyone else. You don't generate more trash than anyone else (your car industry excepted of course *rimshot*). You don't have a higher portion of people who own fishing boats (actually I think you probably have a lower portion than many
Re: (Score:2)
What would you need from an EV to replace that vehicle?
Looking at the various EV trucks coming to market, 200-300 miles range looks possible. In winter and towing a boat let's say 100 miles. Would that be enough for you, assuming that the charging infrastructure was there and charging took say 30 minutes?
We may just have to compromise a bit in the end, but not as much as some people seem to think.
Re: (Score:3)
100 miles if you're lucky. That's 50 miles each way into the wilderness. Which is... pathetic. Then you're going to want a bit of safety margin. Might as well say 30 miles into the wilderness. That might not even get you to the city limits.
Re: (Score:2)
What can I tell you, it works fine in Norway. Bjorn Nyland used to drag his trailer all over the place.
Out of interest, where are you going >50 miles into the wilderness in winter with your boat, on a paved road that doesn't have any electricity?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that even possible? I mean, you and your entire family combined probably constitute one bed load (mass, volume). Are you saying your family generates a volume of trash equal to themselves every week?! My family's weekly trash - and recycling - fit in the back area of my hatchback, which also gets 50 mpg.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, while there is a lot of wasteful attitude in the US, we are undergoing change. The people that are most resistant are the same people that resisted changing from incandescent lighting to LED, the people that resisted eliminating leaded gasoline, the people that resisted increased MPG standards, and now are resisting the changeover to EVs.
There will always be luddites, even when presented with extremely practical solutions.
I choose to focus on the positive: Tesla is outselling every luxury car m
Re: (Score:3)
If you have a need to use a truck for actual truck things only a few times a year, rent one. It's $20/day plus mileage from several companies.
Instead you're hauling around several hundred pounds of steel every single day for no use, all the while slurping down fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
"My weekly rubbish, as a city dweller downunder, fills about two plastic buckets. If that."
You're single and live alone, right?
Re: (Score:3)
You're single and live alone, right?
This /. That describes probably 90% of the posters (the other 10% live in their mom's basement...)
But yea, a large family could easily fill the bed of a Colorado, especially since the short bed's volume is not much bigger than a standard garbage can.
Re: (Score:2)
Do children really generate that much trash? Between me and the wife we create one to two 13-18 gallon trash bags every 2 weeks. We dont even usually put our trash bin out for pickup every week but just wait for every other week to do it with the recycling bin which can be more full
Re: (Score:2)
My trash hauler doesn't even pick up the actual landfill waste every week - it's every other week. Recycling and compost are every week though, and the recycling bin is 30% bigger and usually full. Compost bin is the same size and is maybe 20% full - I wish they'd give us a smaller one so I could get a little garage space back.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
We are in the same league, rubbish-wise. We are two people, two dogs and a cat. We collect all animal waste as it happens and even with that we have almost a half empty garbage bin every week under normal conditions. We recently had to replace carpeting downstairs and so I cut up the carpet into chunks and disposed of it over several weeks but that is the exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> And that process should start when the world's last coal power plant is turned into a museum
Reduce, RE-USE and RECYCLE, remember? Those coal plants are pressurized boiling water and turbines that can be easily retro-fitted to cleaner natural gas as a transition.
The other option is to release gas into the atmosphere, or burn it off with no energy capture. I wouldn't be surprised if slashdot was able to perform mental gymnastics to justify either of those cases.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.c... [nsenergybusiness.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the decommissioning process can start when the factory-built molten salt reactors come on line. The current generation of reactors has lasted longer than was expected, but they will not last forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah the Tesla truck was hit by not just an ugly stick but an ugly log. No idea how that ever got greenlit. Usually concept vehicles look way cooler than the version that eventually hits the market.
In general though electric trucks wouldn't be an issue for me. My main hangup on any electric vehicle is speed of recharge, but I have a feeling by the time electric vehicles are down into my price range that issue will be better. The torque is good - usually I don't drive my truck any further than someone wo
Re: (Score:2)
imo, Elon just wanted to roll out something and the primary goal was to make it look different.
It really doesn't matter if the eventual Tesla truck looks anything like it, it was just meant to grab people's attention and get a lot of press
Re: (Score:3)
Musk has recreated the Apple reality distortion field. Everything Tesla makes is by definition magical and desirable, no matter what it looks like or how practical it is. In fact, making it look stupid and dated from the outset is part of the appeal - it stands out, and makes sure everyone knows you own a Tesla. Kinda like the big lit upside-down Apple logo on the back of their laptops.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: The Apple logo is since more than a decade not upside-down (anymore), and plenty are not lid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the Tesla truck was hit by not just an ugly stick but an ugly log. No idea how that ever got greenlit.
It's not clear that it was. After all, where the fuck is it? It was supposed to be here by now. Perhaps they went back to the drawing board after the R1T came out.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely they are focusing their limited parts availability on fulfilling orders for cars they can already make at volume while continuing to fine tune the truck manufacturing and design.
That won't prevent it from being ass-ugly when they do ship it. And they can't materially change the design much without endless stories of "bait and switch" and follow-up stories of preorders being cancelled. I think we're stuck with the hideous steel doorstop look on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Cybertruck" is a poorly-executed exercise in fashion. If you want a real EV truck, take a look at the F150 Lightning - it's a real truck, that looks like a real truck and acts like a real truck, but with batteries and electric motors. And the price isn't too far off of what a diesel F150 costs.
Tesla missed the target wide and late on that one. If Ford can manufacture them at scale and the performance is what they claim, they're going to own the next 50 years of small trucks just like they owned the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you feel good about mocking working people, patriotism and freedom?
He's not mocking working people, he's mocking people too dumb to buy the vehicle which best suits their needs. The people actually using their pickup for work are sharply in the minority, even in bumfuck. Patriotism is fucking stupid when it is used to justify stupid decisions, we should by all means mock that kind of empty-headed nationalism. And freedom? You don't even own your truck, really. The government can take it away any time on any pretext and you have to beg to get it back.
Re: Freedom trucks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No enforcement because 911 is responding to ODs so many times a day it burns up any ticket level enforcement availability.
Dude, nobody's calling 911 to report a trailer with inadequate connections. That's a job for the highway patrol or whatever that looks like in your area. Thing is, those guys are tasked first and foremost with revenue generation so they're looking for simple open-and-shut cases of speeding and the like which are all but guaranteed to produce profit, they don't give any fucks about public safety. It has literally nothing to do with ODs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to spend time and money on that - the end user will do that if that's something they want. And for reasons that defy explanation, some people want that.