AD #2935 – MX-30 Rotary Range Extender Confirmed; New MDX Interior Revealed; Amazon & Rivian Show Off Delivery Truck

October 9th, 2020 at 11:59am

Audio-only version:
Listen to “AD #2935 – MX-30 Rotary Range Extender Confirmed; New MDX Interior Revealed; Amazon and Rivian Show Off Delivery Truck” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 10:35

0:07 France Considers Huge Tax on Gas Guzzlers
0:38 Another Startup Accused of Misleading Investors
1:25 Amazon & Rivian Show Off Delivery Truck
2:07 Mazda Confirms Rotary Range Extender for MX-30
3:37 GM Using 3D Printed Parts in Motor Racing
4:46 Waymo Resumes Service in Arizona
5:34 Ford Buys Velodyne Stock
5:59 Acura Shows Off New MDX Interior
7:14 You Said It!

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone, BorgWarner and Intrepid Control Systems.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

65 Comments to “AD #2935 – MX-30 Rotary Range Extender Confirmed; New MDX Interior Revealed; Amazon & Rivian Show Off Delivery Truck”

  1. Larry D. Says:

    a. French tax. So who cares???? They will buy their Lambos and Ferraris in GERMANY and then drive them across the border. France is not an independent nation but a EU member, so what can it do, impose… a TARIFF on the Lambos bought in another EU state?

    WHat a DUMB idea. BUT, it is one more proof of what I told you LONG ago, Governments all over the world spend billions on electrification and impose stiff penalties on dirty cars to ENCOURAGE said electrification.

    Maybe some will drop the Ferrari and the Lambo and get a clean Taycan “Turbo” S, or even a bargain priced but AWESOME performance Model S.

    b. One more indication of the above is Amazon’s MASSIVE 100,000 Delivery truck order, which ensures RIvian’s survival, because I doubt many will buy its silly Pickup or SUV.

    c. Mazda resurrects the STUPID rotary engine. WHo cares? Even SUbaru has twice the sales of this lame company.

  2. Rey Says:

    Mazda ust cant kissoff its rotary fossil burner,lol, one of the most polluting and in- efficient ICE engines on the planet.LOL

  3. MJB Says:

    Hey Sean, I hate to be the one to break the news to you and Scott Stephenson (actually, I love breaking this news), but that neat little ‘wish-cars-could-do-this’ feature Scott mentioned of having the driver’s seat adjust to ones exact body proportions is already standard in the Genesis G90 flagship sedan.

    YEP! ;)

    You simply punch in your inseam, height and weight and voila! The car automatically adjusts your seating and steering wheel positions to what is recommended according to clinical analysis for a healthy back. The feature is called Smart Posture.

    I know many folk simply won’t ever consider spending the money on a Genesis (I would), but this is one of the nicities you get with that car that no one else even offers as an option.

  4. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Wankel engines are inefficient and dirty, but are much smaller and lighter than piston engines of the same power. An occasional-use range extender sounds like an ideal application for a Wankel, if there is an ideal application.

  5. Sean McElroy Says:

    @MJB – This is why we love you all. Thanks for the info and we’ll try and work it into Monday’s show.

  6. Kit Gerhart Says:

    3. I’ll have to visit a Genesis store sometime to try that out. It would be interesting to see how close it would come to what I’d do adjusting the seat manually.

  7. Larry D. Says:

    3 I sure would not. You would, but you have not and will not and that is why Genesis is already dead. As proven by sales.

  8. Lambo2015 Says:

    Workhorse stock probably was not affected as much because it didn’t have a deal with GM and who can really take a company named Fuzzy Panda seriously..

    Surprised Mazda is still messing with the rotary engine. Even more surprising that they decided to put the engine that struggles to meet emission in a BEV as a range extender. Pair something green with something that is not.

  9. Sean McElroy Says:

    @Rey – Rotary engines can be efficient at low, constant PRM, which is how it will likely be used as a range extender. They’re even more efficient when made to run on hydrogen. Not saying that’s what Mazda is going to do, but I think it’s wise to wait before writing it off.

  10. MJB Says:

    @Sean – Sure thing.

    @Larry D. – Well, gotta be honest with you Larry. There are several material items I’d (like to) buy, but just haven’t yet. And I don’t think I’m out of line in assuming you’ve got your own private list of such material possessions which you have yet to acquire.

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Better get out of that glass house…quick. ;)

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    9. An engine used as a range extender would almost definitely run at constant RPM. Its (relatively) compact size, is probably the main reason BMW used the scooter engine for the i3 REx, rather than a more efficient car engine they might have. A rotary engine would be even more compact for its power output.

  12. Larry D. Says:

    8 exactly, in recent years Mazda seems to be doing nothing right and its always tiny share of US sales has been stagnant to lower.

  13. bradley cross Says:

    Mazda has no money (it still sells mainly a 6-speed auto from ages ago) and it needs more Toyota partnerships to survive. They have some nice external designs but they dont have the volume. Lets see how their new luxury Mazda-6 RWD sedan sells. I wish them luck.

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    13 Speaking of ages ago, I just read in local Kokomo, IN news that Chrysler made their last 4-speed transmission today. I don’t know what it would have been for, as they have been using 6 or more speed for everything for a few years. Maybe they were making 4-speeds as replacement parts.

  15. Sean Wagner Says:

    9 & 11 Exactly right.

    Some years ago, Mazda showed off a hydrogen-powered Wankel range extender. It’s well suited to that task because the usually problematic seal in this case doesn’t lead to all kinds of noxious by-products of conventional combustion.
    And it does run smoothly, if my excursions in an RX-8 are anything to go by.

    I never understood why Maxda didn’t drop a Wankel into the MX-5.

  16. merv Says:

    6 good one, I would like to know what my ideal driver position would be,compared to what I prefer.

  17. Larry D. Says:

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/10/could-the-ram-700-foreshadow-something-smaller-for-north-america/

    tiny little Rams for Brazil and LA

  18. Larry D. Says:

    16 I don’t want Genesis’s silly gimmick, if the seat follows the contours of my body I will soon be sitting like in a Lazyboy chair watching something idiotic on TV and with food stuffed in my face. I need the car seats to be supportive, incl side support, and encourage me to take driving seriously.

  19. Larry D. Says:

    Another neighbor here, a couple of civil engineers, have a 20 year old Honda HR-V (the CRV’s smaller sibling) in a loud, crazy orange color. The thing is roomy but really ugly, qst gen ungainly HRV. But what stands out is its ground clearance, it must be over 8-9″.

    COmpare this with the ground clearance of Tesla’s self-appelled SUVs ( the sporty minivan proportioned Model X) and crossovers (the Model Y). The ground clearance in the photo of the very elegant Y looked like HALF that of the HRV, and equal to most CAR’s ground clearance.

    The Model Y actually looks much more like the failed and discontinued BMW “grand coupes”, which were taller versions of its sedans with a coupe-hatchy like back. Buy in the Model Y the styling is much better, thanks to Tesla’s chief Designer, the very tall guy with the big hair they stole from… Mazda, Hans von Holtzhausen or something.

  20. Ziggy Says:

    @14, maybe it was a replacement trans for my 2012 Jeep Liberty which has a four speed trans and runs as good as the day I got it 100k miles ago. There is something to be said for simpler things….

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    19 Tesla calls the Model Y an SUV, because the term hatchback is stigmatized in the U.S. I mostly like the Model Y, because it’s a roomy hatchback, and not lifted very much. The side profile is similar to a 3rd generation Prius, but scaled up somewhat and lifted a little.

    The BMW 4 and 6 series Grand Coupes are not taller, they are just mildly swoopy hatchback versions of the cars, like Audi “Sportbacks.” The lifted BMW hatchbacks are X4 and X6. Maybe there’s another one.

  22. Kit Gerhart Says:

    20 That could be. They used a lot of those transmissions over the years in Liberties, Durangos, and both Dakota and big pickup trucks. I think some “middle years” of Grand Cherokees used them. The earliest GC’s used an Aisan 4-speed.

  23. Roger T Says:

    Mazda all electric SUV with 35 kWh battery pack? 120 miles range? with this range I suppose that is their plug in version, no?

  24. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I found that those last Kokomo 4-speed transmissions were probably transaxles for Dodge Journey. In its final year, it was 4 cylinder, front drive only, with a 4-speed automatic.

  25. Larry D. Says:

    21 Ι did not mean the grand coupes but the “GT” versions, if I remmeber well, of the sedans. hey were much taller than the sedan.

    Tesla calls the Y and the X “SUV”s and “crossovers” because the average buyer puts a PREMIUM on these utilitarian AND safe (unlike real hatchbacks) vehicles.

    THe shapes of the X and the Y have NOTHING IN COMMON with what THe VAST majority of people understand as a “hatchback”, which is the GOLF or my old CIVIC 3 door hatch.

    You seem to want to call EVERYTHING that moves a hatchback, like the…. Model S (RIDICULOUS, and I do not care who agrees with that), the Model 3, the Panamera, the 911, and who knows what else. If you get SERIOUS for a moment and look at these vehicles CAREFULLY you will have to agree that the X has the proportions of a (very sporty and interesting, but still a) Minivan, and that BOTH the X and the Y are NOT SUVs just for the big reason they have ridiculous ground clearance.

    THis forum sounds like that movie, GROUNDHOG DAY where we regurgitate the same old crap again and again and nobody learns it even the nth time we say it.

  26. Kit Gerhart Says:

    25 You don’t seem to understand, but a car being a hatchback has nothing to do with price. It’s the way the rear cargo opening is configured. Golf, Civic hatch, Panamera, and Model S are all hatchbacks. Similarly, price has nothing to do with a car being a sedan. Jetta and S-Class are both sedans.

    The “crossover” moniker is a little more vague. How tall does it need to be to be a crossover, rather than a hatchback. The Model Y at 67 inches would be a crossover, while the Model S, at 57 inches would be a hatchback.

  27. Bob Wilson Says:

    Better than opinions, my web link is to a Motortrend article about taking a couple of Model Ys to the track.

    “… Zero to 60 mph in just 3.7 seconds for the Performance and 4.6 seconds for the Long Range. … unless you’re driving another Tesla or a high-end sports car, don’t try to stoplight drag a Model Y. It won’t end well for you. Also, street racing is bad, drive safely, all that. …”

  28. Kit Gerhart Says:

    25 FYI, price has nothing to do with a car being a hatchback. It’s the rear cargo area configuration. Golf, Panamera, and Model S are all hatchbacks.

    26 Thanks for the link. Interesting article.

  29. ChuckGrenci Says:

    I liked the hatch on my 1980 Citation and I certainly didn’t have any stigma of having a hatch that seems to be prevalent to some of the buying public and the lack of acceptance that went along with it. Huge access to the cargo area was always a plus to me, and with the cover, security wasn’t a factor either.

  30. Kit Gerhart Says:

    28 I had a Citation 2 door hatch; I liked the looks a little better than the 4 door. I had the rear seat cushion removed most of the time I had it. That gave it more floor space for stuff, and allowed the seat back to fold down flatter.

  31. Larry D. Says:

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/10/adventures-in-marketing-ford-stretches-the-mustang-name/

  32. Kit Gerhart Says:

    30 I hope Chevy refrains from making a faster Bolt, and calling it a Corvette.

  33. Larry D. Says:

    31 Actually some days ago I wanted to ask you, if Chevy made a fat hatch like the VOlt, with identical mechanicals and engine with the COrvette and sold it for the same price, would you really shell out $55k to buy it? If not, this should show you why short fat and tall hatches don’t sell.

  34. Larry D. Says:

    32 correction like the Bolt, not VOlt.

  35. Ed Wilm Says:

    Regarding your show mentioning cars selecting the proper seat position: The Genesis G90 has done it for two years. Just put in your height and weight and the car will select what it determines your ideal seating position.

  36. Kit Gerhart Says:

    32. Probably not, but if it drove like a Corvette in all ways, and established a “following” like certain other cars, maybe.

    Maybe you hadn’t noticed, but short, fat hatches sell pretty well, if “lifted” an inch or two. Crosstrek sells over 100K a year, and HR-V, Rogue Sport, Encore, etc. sell near that number.

  37. Larry D. Says:

    34 I will believe it when I see it (aka I don’t believe it will happen unless hell freezes over).

    Fat hatch sales are MISERABLE for my standards, which are 300,000 to 400,000 a Year, which is achieved by SUVs and Sedans, and on top of it they cost much more than these ugly things. Not to mention they are much safer.

    FOr a fat cheap hatch to sell well it should sell MORE, not MUCH LESS, than a Camry or a Rav4. TO the UNBIASED observer who is not out to make excuses for them.

    I started writing an update on Euro Hybrids, plug-ins and BEVs but accidentally the text was erased. So I’ll summarize here.

    THere are very cheap small to tiny hybrid hatches here, from the roomier Citroen C3 to the tiny Fiat Panda and FIat Panda Cross (LOL) which are still cheaper than the even tinier Fit 500 (cuter and retro styling sells). THey are priced dirt cheap by Euro standards, (11,400 and 12,200 for the Cross Panda Hybrids) but the non-hybrids already have high MPGs so unless you are sentenced to drive a ton of city miles in jams every day, the only benefit is lower emissions.

    Some Brit outfit declared the Peugeot e-208 the “BEV car of the year”. Looking at its specs, it is quite poor compared to even the base Model 3, and its 50 km battery offers AT MOST and optimistically a very inferior 340 KM range, and cargo room is tiny.

    Citroen’s non-Citroen “DS 3 Crossback E-tense”is a weird looking tall hatch claimed to be DS’s “smallest SUV” and “surprisingly luxurious” (no matter what they mean by that, it sure does not look the part), and will cost you an arm and a leg even AFTER govt subsidies AND recycling your old car it will cost you 35,919 Euros. ARE YOU KIDDING ME, poor europeans? THis is MUCH higher than the REGULAR, with NO GOvt help, much bigger, much more capable, base Tesla Model 3. and its RANGE SUCKS big time too, ‘up to’ and always optimistically, 320 KM (barely 200 miles, I bet its EPA will be 120-130 if they ever dare to bring it here)

    most important, the VW id3, I assume it is smaller than the ID4 we get in the US and based on the smaller POLO not the GOlf.

    45-58-77 kwh give optimistic ranges of 330, 420 and 550 KM, NOT MILES.

    If you SUBTRACT the GOvt subsidy, its price of the weakest model STARTS at “less than 35,000 Euros” (must be 34,999), which makes it VASTLY INFERIOR to the CHEAPER base model 3 at $37k. Remember the euro is about $1.20, or at least $1.12-$1.15.

    So, conclusion, lots of action, but Joe will be desolate to see that NOTHING here can even BEGIN to challenge the Model 3, whose price was reduced even further in CHina recently.

    So the Current TOTAL DOMINANCE of Tesla in the US market will be here to stay. (the unreal 75% may go down to 60% in a few years, which is GM’s ALL TIME HIGH, but again it may NOT, with such inferior rivals).

  38. Kit Gerhart Says:

    37 Comparing European and U.S. prices is no comparison at all, even if you convert Euros to dollars, because the European prices include the VAT which is ~20% in most countries. The Model 3 “starts” at 43,990 euros in Germany, and is not eligible for a 6000 euro incentive, available only for EVs under 40,000 euros. Tesla has an incentive to lower the price, as this article indicates.

    https://auto.hindustantimes.com/auto/news/will-tesla-s-price-slashing-spree-next-hit-german-shores-41591267569189.html

  39. Kit Gerhart Says:

    37 “So the Current TOTAL DOMINANCE of Tesla in the US market will be here to stay. (the unreal 75% may go down to 60% in a few years, which is GM’s ALL TIME HIGH, but again it may NOT, with such inferior rivals).”

    Huh??? GM had more than 50% of the U.S. market at times during the 1960s. Tesla has less than 2%.

  40. Bob Wilson Says:

    #32 – Not Corvette but Chevette so I won’t spit every time I hear that name. Other options Geo Metro and Yugo.

  41. Larry D. Says:

    38 Are you for REAL????? I said many times, GM maxed at 60, not 50%, awhy don’t you GOOGLE before you object?

    AND to further waste my time, TESLA DOES have 75%, NOT 2% as you cluelessly blurt out, of ITS RELEVANT MARKET, that of PURE BEVS.

    John and son said so very recently, I got the number from them.

    SO TESLA DOES, UTTERLY, DOMINATE ITS MARKET OF PURE EVS IN THE USA, whether Joe and the other flat earthers choke on your food when I say it or not.

  42. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I ran across an interesting video about Tesla “chill mode.” The video was kind of repetitious, but the bottom line of what they found is this. Chill mode in Model S performance, Model 3 Performance, and Model 3 Standard Range Plus is a similar 7.5 to 8 seconds, about like a four cylinder or hybrid Accord or Camry.

    https://insideevs.com/news/427849/video-tesla-model-s-model-3-race-chill/

  43. Kit Gerhart Says:

    “Larry,” you are an effing idiot. Tesla has about 2% of the US market. As far as GM, I google it a while back, and GM had over 50% a few years, but as I remember, never quite 60%. That is irrelevant to your rant. Tesla has 2%, not 50% or 60%.

    Yes, Tesla dominates the BEV market, as Toyota dominates the hybrid market. So what? When EVs as a whole dominate the total market, things will be different.

  44. Lambo2015 Says:

    43 Tesla doesn’t even have 2% they have 75% of that 2% of total BEVs so 1.5%.. Either way about as much as Mazda.

  45. Kit Gerhart Says:

    44 Yeah, I was being nice in saying 2%. Also, GM’s market share peaked at 51.1% in 1962. Ford’s market share was 60.9% in 1921.

    https://www.autonews.com/article/20090601/OEM/306019739/detroit-3-domestic-brands-u-s-market-share-history

  46. Larry D. Says:

    It’s close to 2 PM ET any reason why no new show today?

    Re the Euro prices, they do include VATs of 13-24% depending on the EU member, but even then, the Fiat Panda HYBRID and the Fiat Panda CROSS Hybrid (mini sized crossover) cost only 11,800 and 12,400 Euro. The most miserable Kia or Nissan in the US costs much more, and that is before the 6^ sales tax in MI.

    Tesla has done very well in Europe for years BEFORE the Model 3, sellingt many many Model Ss and some Xs, and recently pricey Model 3s, BUT you need to know it has not even BEGUN to fight in the Euro Market.

    The Gigafactory in Berlin-Brandenburg will make 500,000 cars a year, initially Model 3s and Ys at lower prices than tody (No Protectionist tariffs from the Euros when you build it there!) and more importantly, soon it will be making smaller Teslas than the Model 3, that will obliterate the far inferior models I mentiond from Euro makers.

    AND Tesla may import its smallest models FROM CHINA.

    Investors are aware of all that, which explains the crazy rise of the already pricey stock, and the COmpany being worth twice as much as the gigantic TOYOTA.

  47. Kit Gerhart Says:

    re. no new show, probably Columbus day.

  48. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The reason for no new show is probably Columbus day.

  49. Larry D. Says:

    As I said often, GM’s market share at its peak was about 60%. I wondered what Ford share was at FORD’s peak year and it might have been 1924:

    Production Figures for 1924
    Ford 1,720,795
    Chevrolet 264,868
    Dodge 193,861
    Willys-Overland 163,000
    Buick 160,411
    Hudson/Essex 133,950
    Durant 111,000
    Studebaker 105,387

    This only has the top 8 makers, but as TESLA today, Ford then clearly and utterly DOminated the Industry.

  50. Larry D. Says:

    http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?p=70995&cpage=1#comment-1131364

    has data for 1924 and other years.

  51. Larry D. Says:

    http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?p=70995&cpage=1#comment-1131364

    has data for 1924 and other years.

    GM’s peak might have been 1977

    Production Figures for 1977
    Chevrolet 1,755,773
    Ford 1,569,608
    Oldsmobile 631,795
    Pontiac 531,922
    Buick 481,768
    Plymouth 454,105
    Mercury 404,650
    Dodge 377,462
    Cadillac 264,732
    Chrysler 251,549
    AMC 241,501
    Lincoln 101,843
    Imperial 8,830
    Checker 450

  52. Larry D. Says:

    the data in 50 copied wrong. the link has the correct numbers, Olds has over million sales in 77, pontiac and buick over 800k each.

  53. Larry D. Says:

    the correct 1977 data show GM had a 58+% market share.

  54. Kit Gerhart Says:

    48 Yes, you have often said that GM’s market share was 60% at one time, but you are still WRONG, as you have been all of those previous times. Look at the link with actual data from Autonews that I posted in #45. It peaked at 51.1% in 1962. It was 45.1% in 1977.

    Yes, Tesla, like Volvo and Mazda dominates the market with <2%.

    52 Where did you get your data saying that GM had 58+% in 1977. Autonews says 45.1.

  55. Larry D. Says:

    53 SERIOUSLY???? so OVER 58% is not “ABOPUT 60%” with ALL THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES that if you ever passed close to a serious BUSINESS SCHOOL would also know??? Like Industry COncentration and the POWER the DOMINANT (Like TESLA 75% in US BEVs?) derives from that?

    Nice try. YOU insisted the peak was about 50%, I correctly stated it was about 60%. IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS CAN FIGURE OUT WHO KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT AND WHO KEEPS WASTING MY TIME AD LEARNING LITTLE.

  56. Larry D. Says:

    54 and this is NOT the first time I mentioned the 60%, Which was seconded by GM employees who KNEW. Like I said, Ground Hog day movie all over again Keep wallowing in your ignorance.

  57. Larry D. Says:

    But it gets worse for you, nitpicker, MUCH worse. Because I just gave you the 58+% market share in 1977. That does NOT mean there were NO years with OVER 60.00% GM MARKET SHARE.

    LIKE THIS!

    Production Figures for 1981
    Chevrolet 1,673,093
    Ford 950,301
    Oldsmobile 873,678
    Buick 856,996
    Pontiac 489,436
    Plymouth 393,633
    Mercury 375,756
    Dodge 340,899
    Cadillac 240,189
    AMC 137,125
    Lincoln 69,537
    Chrysler 56,726
    Excalibur 235
    Avanti II 200
    3,893,203
    6457804
    do the 1st grade division and you get?

    60.28679409% GM MARKET SHARE!

    T H E R E !

    (like you will n ow apologize for being a pest and wasting my time. But I was watching an action movie at the same time, so it was not a total loss…)

  58. Larry D. Says:

    A few months from now, we will have the SAME stupid discussion and objections to my 100% ACCURATE statement that GM topped with OVER. NOT EQUAL, BUT OVER, 60.00% US MARKET SHARE>

  59. Kit Gerhart Says:

    54 Are you stupid, or just crazy? Seriously, the largest market share GM ever had was 51.1% in 1962. 51.1 is not “almost 60%.” It’s a little over 50%. GM had 45.1% market share in 1977. That is not even “almost 50%.”

    https://www.autonews.com/article/20090601/OEM/306019739/detroit-3-domestic-brands-u-s-market-share-history

    55 You still have not posted links from a reputable source saying that it was ever close to 60%, because it never was. You have a major mental problem. Your saying it was 60%, no matter how many times, does not make it so.

  60. Kit Gerhart Says:

    56 You kind of forgot Toyota, Datsun, Honda, VW, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Mitsubishi, and a few others.

  61. joe Says:

    #9
    I’m curious to know if a regular ICE would also be more efficient if it ran the way you describe the Wankel engine. And if the answer is yes, how would the two compare with each other? I know a regular ICE can be more efficient if it runs in it’s sweet spot. I’m just trying to figure the bottom line.

  62. Kit Gerhart Says:

    61 Atkinson cycle tuning increases efficiency of a piston engine, while compromising low speed power. I’d think it would be good for constant speed operation running a generator in “middle” rpm.

    https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15345875/what-is-the-atkinson-combustion-cycle-and-what-are-its-benefits/

  63. Lambo2015 Says:

    Kit your wasting your time the almighty Larry is too dumb to realize he is only looking at American car companies. So GM probably had over 60% among only the US car makers but toss in the imports and you get the actual number as you stated.. You would think someone with such a great education from such a prestigious university would know how to research data. Feel so sorry for all the people that he misleadingly teaches and fills their head with bogus information.

  64. Lambo2015 Says:

    62 That’s why many of the hybrids use Atkinson engine cycle because they have the electrical assist at the low end and don’t need as much torque but then power when they need it at higher RPM.

  65. Kit Gerhart Says:

    64 Yep, Atkinson cycle is used mainly for hybrids. I’ve read that Atkinson engines might be used in non-hybrids, in cases where the engine is fairly large, so the low speed acceleration would be ok without the help of the electric motor(s). With today’s many-speed transmissions, I’d think it would be easy to compensate for weak low rpm torque, but using a very low gear at breakaway.