Automakers make the case for electric pickup trucks

Tecumsehsbones
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid

OK we'll all hold our breath until you come up with the answers you're looking for that everyone on Earth already has.

“If ‘everybody knows’ such–and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”

-- Robert A. Heinlein

Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones

I would very much like to see an analysis of the environmental effects of producing and using storage batteries vs. producing and using petroleum products. I'll have to do some research.

NB: A gallon of water weighs eight pounds. Remember "a pint's a pound the world round?" Two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon. Eight pints per gallon.

In metric it's easier (always is): a litre of water weighs a kilogram.

Gallons come in two measurements, US and Imperial. A US gallon is almost a litre less than an imperial gallon. In Canada we used imperial measures before the metric system was introduced.
But let's go with US gallons. 500,000 x 8 = 4,000,000 lbs. So instead of 2500 tons of water to produce 1 ton if lithium, it's only takes 2000 tons of water to make 1 ton of lithium. Water shortage averted by a simple change from imperial to US gallons. Phew. So, based on 215,000 tons of lithium produced per year (as of now) that's 430 million tons of water destroyed each year in the process. I don't see that being sustainable, especially with the size of the increase in lithium that'll be needed to meet the 2050 target. And that's just one element.

Tecumsehsbones
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix

Gallons come in two measurements, US and Imperial. A US gallon is almost a litre less than an imperial gallon. In Canada we used imperial measures before the metric system was introduced.
But let's go with US gallons. 500,000 x 8 = 4,000,000 lbs. So instead of 2500 tons of water to produce 1 ton if lithium, it's only takes 2000 tons of water to make 1 ton of lithium. Water shortage averted by a simple change from imperial to US gallons. Phew. So, based on 215,000 tons of lithium produced per year (as of now) that's 430 million tons of water destroyed each year in the process. I don't see that being sustainable, especially with the size of the increase in lithium that'll be needed to meet the 2050 target. And that's just one element.

Yep, I completely forgot about the Imperial measure. The 20-ounce pint and such.

Ya got me good (actually, I got myself. You weren't laying a trap for me). I know about Imperial measures, I just totally brain-blanked on it.

I think I need a 20-ounce pint.

petros
#34
I've got my eye on the new 7.3L cuz they dont exist.

Ford's new 7.3-litre gas V8 makes some outrageous power numbers
BY MATTHEW GUY
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: AUG 1, 2019

Ford F-Series, America’s best-selling truck for 42 years, is once again raising the bar for capability with its all-new...

Email

Pinterest

When your author initially heard the Blue Oval was in the throes of developing a new truck engine displacing a prodigious 7.3 litres, it was assumed someone had frying pans for fingers and simply mistyped the displacement. “Surely they mean six-point-three litres,” I thought while eating a bowl of breakfast nails and shaving with a rusty razor (that’s the meal of choice for Super Duty owners, right?).

Nope, 7.3 litres it is, or 445 cubic inches. Ford claims this engine produces a best-in-class gas V8 output of 435 horsepower at 5,500 rpm; and 475 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,000 rpm.

In a day and age where most manufacturers are bent on downsizing and turbocharging their gasoline engines (including Ford themselves with its EcoBoost), this 7.3-litre brute is a remarkable departure.

The aim is to provide durability in the harsh environments into which Super Duty trucks are often pressed. Ford says to this end the engine uses overhead valve architecture — yep, this is a pushrod mill. Engine builders know having an in-block cam reduces engine height and width; look at an old Ford 5.0-litre and 4.6-litre side-by-each for that stark illustration.

This engine also features a variable-displacement oil pump that provides more oil when drivers are working the thing like a rented mule, but reduces parasitic loss under light loads. It is hooked to Ford’s ten-speed automatic. Engine start/stop and cylinder deactivation tech goes unmentioned.

Such a design choice is interesting because, for nearly twenty-five years, Ford’s gasoline V8 engines have been small(er) displacement units and of an overhead-cam design. If your author’s memory serves correctly, the last Blue Oval pushrod V8 was a 351 Windsor found in the 1995 Cobra R. I’m certain you’ll tell me I’m wrong in the comments.

Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones

Yep, I completely forgot about the Imperial measure. The 20-ounce pint and such.

Ya got me good (actually, I got myself. You weren't laying a trap for me). I know about Imperial measures, I just totally brain-blanked on it.

I think I need a 20-ounce pint.

Meh, no worries. Considering the info I gave out was gleaned from a US source, it's most likely they were referring to US gallons anyway.