By on December 17, 2014

B4_2CEmIAAAqnOV

The next 25 years of automotive powertrain technology belongs to the internal combustion engine, according to oil & gas giant ExxonMobil. While many will dismiss this as the wishful thinking of an industrial dinosaur, it’s worth remembering that 25 years isn’t that long of a timeframe in the automotive world.

As we speak, automakers are already planning for what products will be on the market within the next decade. As it stands now, they must meet increasingly stringent emissions targets in the United States and the European union by 2025, in the form of both CAFE and the next round of Euro regulations that call for a fleet average of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer (for comparison, a Toyota Prius emits about 100 grams per km).

One way of meeting this target is through the use of hybrid technology – a sector that ExxonMobil sees as making rapid, substantial gains over the years. At this point, every single OEM has some kind of hybrid technology that can be adapted to their volume models in a way that is efficient in terms of both packaging and cost. This is sure to be the case for plug-in hybrid technology as well.

The zero-emissions front is substantially more fraught. The battle between battery electric vehicles (BEV) and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles has barely begun, but supporters of the two camps are already locked into a Betamax vs. VHS style conflict. As it stands, there is minimal infrastructure for both systems, and a combination of low oil prices and consumer skepticism is likely to stall its growth for the foreseeable future. And while BEVs technically have a head start on hydrogen, their market share is, in real terms, negligible.

In 2013, BEVs had a market share of just 0.28 percent, or about 260,000 units. Even the relatively scarce plug-in hybrid segment managed to best pure electrics, with 0.31 percent of the new car market. Only in Norway, where BEVs receive heavy subsidies in the form of tax breaks, have electric cars made any real headway, and even then, they have barely cracked 6 percent.

While tales of daring and disruption and averting cataclysmic climate change make for great headlines, the reality is that technological progress, especially in the automotive sector, moves at a much more gradual pace – otherwise, we’d likely have seen a major breakthrough in EV battery technology by now, one that would allow for significant range and negligible refueling times. Utopian visions of a fleet of silent, zero-emissions vehicles are just that. Instead, we are likely to see a proliferation of hybrid technology throughout new model lineups – and much of this will likely be driven by regulatory inputs, as a means of helping vehicles meet government mandated fuel economy targets, even if consumers don’t necessarily care.

Advances in the internal combustion engine are also on the horizon. Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) engines, which allow for diesel-like combustion while running on gasoline, are expected to debut on Mazda cars by 2020. Mazda claims that they will provide a 30 percent fuel economy boost, while significantly lowering emissions. Between HCCI, increasingly cleaner diesel engines and incremental improvements to traditional engines, the ICE powertrains are likely to be ubiquitous due to their familiarity and what is sure to be a cost advantage. Barring any major, prolonged spike in energy prices or a wholesale shift in attitudes towards climate change and the environment, dollars and cents (not to mention sheer convenience) will remain the primary motivating factor in new car purchases. And that means that the internal combustion engine is well placed to continue its dominance through the next quarter century.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

132 Comments on “Chart Of The Day: ExxonMobil Predicts Long Reign For The Internal Combustion Engine...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    In other news Apple predicts a long reign of the Smartphone

  • avatar
    John R

    In other news, I, as a father, will predict my daughters will not start dating until they’re 27.

    In all seriousness, with regard to the Betamax vs VHS situation, if Lockheed makes good on their claim to have a fusion reactor (I’m serious) available for private consumption in twenty years I feel that hydrogen might be toast, yeah?

    If it’s proven to be safer and more efficient that nuclear fission, coal, etc I feel like there would be a mandate for BEVs and its required infrastructure

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      Then only guys you approve of… Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, snort

    • 0 avatar

      @John R

      BEVs will happen long before fusion does (and I’m not sure BEVs will ever become more than a niche). I wrote about fusion 35 years ago. It wasn’t happening then. It’s hardly further along now. There was a long article this year in the NYer, about an experimental reactor in France. It was quite obvious the writer wanted to believe. But it was obvious from his story that fusion wasn’t happening.

      An analogy: If fusion is like a trip from the east to the west coast, fusion hadn’t left the driveway when I wrote about it in ’79. It still hasn’t left the driveway.

      • 0 avatar
        John R

        Hm. So Lockheed is blowing smoke I guess. Why would do that?

        I would expect that sort of behavior from a start up. Not from a defense contractor that has to struggle to find places to put all its cash.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Leading Member of Cartel Predicts Continued Dominance of Cartel

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      dal20402, the cartel is dead. The cartel couldn’t even stem the slide in the price of oil. But Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, now there are the oil producers to watch.

      The cartel is dead.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        You’re talking about a different cartel. The unofficial cartel of major oil companies is much more powerful than OPEC, a “cartel” of governments. They may not be able to prevent a slide in the price of oil, but they sure as heck can prevent competition from taking root or regulation comparable to that imposed on most businesses.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          It would appear to me that for any cartel to be effective, they should be able to reach a consensus.

          Neither OPEC nor Big Oil has been able to reach any consensus among themselves, while the small producers are squirting out as much oil as they can, while they can.

          And as far as competition is concerned, in America at least, the development of private and state-owned lands has resulted in the glut of oil we now have, in spite of O’b*m* fighting big oil tooth and nail on behalf of the eco-freaks and greenweenies. Keystone, anyone?

          I believe that in Canada the government is more realistic about the benefit of increased oil production and increased incoming revenue, and is effectively derailing their eco-freaks and greenweenies. Production in Canada is “well oiled.” Good for them!

          No government who relies on oil-revenue wants to cut back and lose future market share. Even the Russians have said Nyet to production cutback and Venezuela is near death, in default shock and unable to speak.

          Imagine the financial mayhem that will happen once Iran and Iraq production comes back into the market, not to mention Nigeria once they get their pipelines repaired.

          Europe is in a recession and no one is willing to forecast when they will hit bottom.

          In the mean time, back at the ranch, life is good in these United States. The best thing O’b*m* did in spite of himself. But he gets the credit for it because it happened on his watch.

          Which makes me wonder, where are all the greenweenies and eco-freakin’ treehuggers that verbally chastise us on this board for loving cars and oil?

          Oh, and peaceniks are also missing. Probably because we are now in O’b*m*’s war and they are experiencing deep buyers’ remorse.

          Whooda thunk that O’b*m* would ever get us in deeper in the Middle East than Shrub?

          But here we are. Good thing the cost of oil is low.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “Neither OPEC nor Big Oil has been able to reach any consensus among themselves”

            The constituent companies of “Big Oil” are happy to compete with each other over who can provide more and cheaper supply, but they are in total consensus about how to respond to threats to their industry as a whole.

            First, stubbornly deny any and all externalities imposed by oil usage and spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about other energy sources, to ensure the public continues under the impression that oil is the only viable energy source for transportation.

            Second, use every relationship you have in capitals to fight off any and all regulation or taxes, even ordinary corporate income taxes most other businesses pay or ordinary health and safety regulations essentially all other businesses have to follow.

            American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade association, is the vehicle for much of this cartel behavior. Check out its list of members here:

            http://www.api.org/globalitems/globalheaderpages/membership/api-member-companies

          • 0 avatar
            jdash1972

            Good lord, you understand NOTHING about the energy market. Go back to getting all your information from Fox News.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I, for one, hope that the shaking out of this industry will take a long, long time and keep the price of oil low and the cost of gasoline cheap.

            But as a realist I also have to conclude that at some point, at some low price of oil, some of the producers will have to capitulate and sell off or close down. No business can be run at a loss for long.

            OTOH, I also believe that, once the West/NATO breaks Putin and destroys his Ruble and economy, there really is no more need for the price of oil to be this low (and currently heading lower).

            And at some point, demand for oil will rise again and, invariably, the price of oil will go up again, as global economies spin up again.

            So, regardless of API and Big Oil manipulation, at some point the oil market will shake itself out and come to equilibrium.

            It is at that equilibrium that we, as consumers, will be forced again to pay whatever the market bears in the price of oil and gasoline.

            And even though I no longer use anywhere near the $400+ a week gasoline I used to buy, I hope that the lower price will remain so for a long, long time.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “Good lord, you understand NOTHING about the energy market. Go back to getting all your information from Fox News.”

            When you say stuff like this offering a counterpoint helps everyone understand why you said it and gives you credibility, otherwise you sound like FOX News

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Anybody worth discussing OPEC with would know that Saudi Arabia and their allies within OPEC are what move it. The whole point of this deep barrel cut is to shut down fracking so that they can keep the cycle stable long enough to keep fracking from maintaining relevance since it requires infrastructure to maintain.

        The Cartel is far from dead and as long as most of the US navy fuels up with SA Crude we’re going to see them dominate the oil market for the foreseeable future.

        • 0 avatar
          Roader

          No doubt that is the Saudi’s strategy. But Obama has a strategy of his own. Environmentalists are horrified that the US became the world’s biggest oil producer this year, no thanks to and in spite of Obama. Obama has nothing to lose shutting down an entire industry and throwing tens of thousands out of work because it satisfies his high-dollar base. Oil is icky! Unfortunately for the enviros the US is expected to keep the #1 spot for another 15 years or so. And Putin stung Obama bad, especially after Obama promised Putin “after my election I have more flexibility” and then Putin turns around and annexes the Crimea. Shades of Joe Stalin! Lastly, China stands to make out like a bandit, swooping in to buy long-term Russian oil and natural gas contracts on the cheap because Putin will be so desperate for hard currency.

          We live in interesting times.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Roader, I agree. I can’t recall that “the times” have ever been as interesting as they are now.

            I’m grateful all my kids and grandkids have fulfilled their military commitment and will no longer be directly engaged in deployments to war zones.

            We’re going to be involved for a long time in the Mideast, and Putin, feeling the pressure, is doing some unpredictable things, like having the transponders turned off on his warplanes while they fly over Sweden, Norway, Denmark and other European countries, probing defenses.

            One of these days one of these bad boys is going to have a mid-air collision with a civilian airplane.

            And then there will be hell to pay because other nations, especially Israel, are not as timid as our fearful leader is.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            “And then there will be hell to pay because other nations, especially Israel, are not as timid as our fearful leader is.”

            I wish that were more generally true. Most of Europe, though, thinks that “war is obsolete”…it’s just for those unbelievably stupid bitter clingers in America. Maybe one good thing about Putin gulping all that Viagra is that the Europeans will get a clue and start spending money on defense. In any case, I have loved ones of draft age and have no desire to see them sent to Europe’s backyard to fix whatever skirmish the Europeans don’t have the nads to tackle themselves. Maybe they should start teaching Russian as a second language if they don’t want to defend themselves.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Roader, the Swedes don’t fool around. They were p!ssing mad when a Russian jet fighter nearly collided with a Swedish commercial airliner recently. Or when a Russian sub sashayed through their waters.

            The Swedes have always been neutral, except when it comes to a violation of their own territory. That’s why the Nazis left them alone.

            Like the Israeli armed forces, the Swedes are some bad motherfockers. They were neutral observers during some of the Reforger exercises during the 70s. They are intensely professional and dedicated.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            HDC, the Swedish military are professional and dedicated, as are the Finns. Unfortunately neither country spends squat on defense. Maybe the Russkie sub and military aircraft incursions embarrassed the Swedes enough to crank up defense spending. I doubt it. I’m afraid they’ve become too attached to their nanny state, no matter how competent their warriors.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I thought their weaponry was pretty darn good, according to Jane’s. Homegrown, terrain adapted and effectively accurate.

            It’s true that they don’t spend a lot on defensive measures but I would not be the one to test them.

            In my view, the Swedes are pretty relaxed until someone pushes them.

            No one wants to be embarrassed and we may find that the Russkies may be embarrassed the next time they stray into Swedish territory.

            OTOH, Russian Bear bombers have been violating American and Canadian airspace for quite some time now, in probes of our responsiveness.

            But all we do is send up a couple of interceptors and trail them at a distance. No outrage on the part of our administration because peace is love and love is peace. And we’re all good. And everyone loves Americans.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            Guys, don’t overlook the Scandinavians’ ferocious CBW capabilities.

            They all have lutefisk. Highly deliverable.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            Maybe I’m being simple minded, but until the Swedes ditch their reflectively anti-military nuke stance, they will never be able to withstand Russian aggression – explicit or implicit – w/o relying on the US as their protector. Personally I wouldn’t rely on the US for squat nowadays. And that’s probably not a bad thing.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Roader, I agree. The Swedes haven’t the capacity to take on the Russkies. But sometimes it is all about being embarrassed in front of the whole world.

            Like America embarrassed itself by pulling out of the Mideast like premature ejaculation and getting caught with its pants down by ISIS.

            Our allies probably snickered when we had to get involved again with our tail tucked between our legs when Iraq’s Army folded like a rag doll and the tribal leaders switched loyalties because they knew that the current administration didn’t have their back.

            But hey, this is what America voted for. This is what the majority in America wanted. This is what they got.

            And now we are going to be dickin’ around there for an even longer time thanks to O’b*m*’s War. Mission creep is alive and well. Saw this sh!t in ‘Nam. Hasn’t changed. Same old same old.

            What were they thinking? Who handed out such numbskull advise?

            Must have been one of those Harvard intellectuals thoroughly indoctrinated in a paper war. Looks good on paper, so that’s the way it will be in real life. NOT!

            Someone forgot to tell the enemy because we had too much r e s p e c t for them.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            That’s some interesting implications on one man who doesn’t have the kind of power you’re implying. But thanks for being the far right kook. :)

            In reality: Putin annexation of Crimea is something the US stands against and cutting our ties on oil actually forces him into a much worse position. Unless you want to go there personally and fight or send your children you may want to stop playing soldier. China still needs major oil imports that Russia cannot meet so it’s irrelevant if he sells it cheaper there or not, in fact it just hurts his long-term strategies.

            As for Domestic movements, if we shut down the entire fracking industry it would barely move unemployment a hair because of how transient the actual industry is. We would be better served replacing those jobs with manufacturing of solar panels and continued expansion into services and green tech. Long-Term oil is dead, when I’m old and gray we’ll be driving less than a 1/3rd ICE (approx. 40+ years). But again, the environmentalists are facing a political party run by extraction tycoons who have made it patriotic to destroy the earth, so congrats.

            PS: Obama got major concessions from China on pollution, so you may want to rethink how great those Kochs are at getting their extraction plans protected. :)

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “Unless you want to go there personally and fight or send your children you may want to stop playing soldier.”

            Don’t be disrespectful, HDC is a veteran and is entitled to his opinions, perhaps even more so then you

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            @Lie2me – This is exactly why patriotism is a stupid concept in and of itself. It wasn’t aimed at HDC but Roader. But the fact that you equate his military service with his right to an opinion is just asinine. You don’t hire chefs to do the job of Engineers. I don’t care if he was a 4-star general, he doesn’t have the training to discuss politics as an action like I do nor does his theoretical 4-stars make his opinion more valid on the width and breadth of knowledge he opines on.

            Simply put, watch your remarks because you know damn well I’m not going to submit to any military officer unless I’m enlisted.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            *nyah-nyah melody*

            Calvin got a spaaan-kin’
            Calvin got a spaaan-kin’

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            “… nor does his theoretical 4-stars make his opinion more valid on the width and breadth of knowledge he opines on.”

            Absolutely. Civilians control the military in the US, not vice versa.

            “…he doesn’t have the training to discuss politics as an action like I do…”

            Sounding kinda’ Gruberish. Sounding real Gruberish. Vanguard of the proletariat and all that reactionary lefty claptrap.

            “Unless you want to go there personally and fight or send your children you may want to stop playing soldier.”

            The thing is, Xeranar, I never implied that the US should have anything to do with the Ukraine or Russia or the Baltic States or Poland or any other state over there. It was just your reactionary leftist, steel-trap-of-a-mind that led you to believe so. Quite the opposite. Let old Vlad do what he will. The US can easily be self-sufficient in energy. We don’t need no stinking oil or natgas from anywhere else, for a couple of decades, anyway. Let the social democratic idiocracies that make up the EU fend for themselves. They’ll either 1) start teaching Russian as a second language or 2) get off their lazy, socialist asses and defend themselves.

            Makes no nevermind to me. But then again, I’m not “trained” to “discuss politics” as you are, Xeranar. It’s almost like looking up at a clear, Western Slope night sky and feeling my insignificance, so awed am I with your mastery of dialectical materialism. It as if you’re the living embodiment of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, so awesome am you, comrade.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            I’ll leave it at this Roader since that went down ad hominem road too quickly for me to bother with. When you slather your remarks in cold war Bolshevism and pretend that Left is the same as Communist you realize that only works in old man red state discussions, right? I’m not stymied and whatever wondrous private sector job has no impact on my teaching credentials. But you really should rethink playing out that tired angle because nobody worth two bits is biting that besides your die hard fans.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “he doesn’t have the training to discuss politics as an action like I do”

            Who the f*ck are you?

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            “he doesn’t have the training to discuss politics as an action like I do”

            Who the f*ck are you?

            Substitute “indoctrination” for “training” and all will become clear. You must first learn how evil your country is. Try reading Howard Zinn. Take off the blinders, white guys: America = bad, socialism = good. Convinced? Good. Now you are trained. Green light to discuss politics. Have at it.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “Substitute “indoctrination” for “training” and all will become clear. You must first learn how evil your country is. Try reading Howard Zinn. Take off the blinders, white guys: America = bad, socialism = good. Convinced? Good. Now you are trained. Green light to discuss politics. Have at it.”

            Oh, so common dickhead then, got it

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            “he doesn’t have the training to discuss politics as an action like I do”

            Stand back! I’m a trained Discusser.
            I’ll handle this.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            So, a BS in BS from Baloney U then

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          The Saudis know full and well that “shutting fracking down” where it is already established, is pure folly. Fracking in the Bakken is 15 guys with a truck and a mobile rig. Two weeks of $80 oil, and they’re back to making money again. It is an industry with a completely different ROI timeline than the big-field-buildouts-in-inhostpitable climes that constituted non Opec oil production for 3-4 decades prior.

          What lower oil prices can do, is keep the frackers from making inroads in more conservative (drilling wise) areas outside the US; where lots of people are still scared of the industry poisoning their water supply, creating seismic events, letting long buried ancient spirits out of fracked grave sites, or whatever the worry of the day might be.

          It still won’t really work in the way economic illiterates on the various scare-the-plebians news outlets portray it, for the simple fact that the whole idea of “driving the competition out of business by ‘dumping\'” was never more than economic illiteracy to begin with.

          But it will certainly allow OPEC to supply a larger share of total oil than they would if prices were higher. So Saudi gets to sell 12 mill barrels at $60 today, instead of 10 mill barrels at $110 tomorrow…. Not my idea of good business, but the Saudis always did let politics interfere with simple profit maximization. And, truth to be told, it’s not like estimates of realistically recoverable oil in Saudi, and Opec, itself hasn’t seen upward revisions with the development of fracking and it’s enabling technologies. Meaning, Opec can comfortably plateau production at a higher level than they previously thought, without fear of running out anytime soon.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Xeranar- you raise a point that most don’t notice or are not aware of…….. the military is a monstrously huge consumer of oil.
          There is the navy but in this day and age an airforce and air superiority is a huge factor in any conflict or any potential conflict.

          Some “paranoid” types have indicated that the expansion of diesel engines in the USA has been deliberately stalled because of military use.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            It’s something we never consider since approx. 20% of the annual military budget is invested in oil for fuel/lubricants. The air force gobbles up fuel for sure but the navy is still the biggest user by far because they have the most active planes AND huge diesel drinking vehicles. The nuclear subs & carriers are still supported by diesel cruisers, frigates, and support vessels. This is exactly why we go to war on behalf of Saudi Arabia. We need a steady supply of fuel in a place that is our biggest war zone. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy in so many ways.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      “This is exactly why patriotism is a stupid concept in and of itself.”

      Could not disagree more, but much respect for the refreshing honesty from a leftist.

  • avatar
    raph

    Best line I’ve ever read in defense of the internal combustion engine – supposedly an old German automotive engineer talking to a young automotive engineer about the viability of ICE technology into the future.

    and I’m paraphrasing here but; “Young man, the hearse that drives you to your funeral will still have an internal combustion engine”.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    They’re guessing and they are relying on commentary such as we’ve seen on the many different Tesla articles that say drivers will never adopt BEV vehicles–without considering how many different brands are approaching BEVs in different ways or how the recharging infrastructure is growing at a steady pace.

    Twenty five years can show a sea-change in technology as we’ve already seen on American roads. Go back 25 years and look at how blocky cars looked and how basic their internal technologies were. Turbochargers were used at relatively high boost to give cars “acceptable” power while most were grossly underpowered. Ford is showing how they can get big horsepower out of smaller engines with a modest boost while other brands are showing how even a tiny engine can offer amazing performance simply through better gearing over a broader range with more gears in the transmission. Meanwhile, not one but three different electric-only concepts have hit the road and one of them is currently available on the open market–not just limited, prototype leases. In fact, it took that BEV less than 10 years to have a very visible impact on the American road. Twenty five years? You simply can’t make that kind of estimate reliably.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    But what we really need to know is whether $9/quart synthetic oil (that I bought on sale for $2 a quart this am) is “better” than $2/quart dino oil!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Nice sale, how did this happen?

      I run Mobil 1 in the Pontiac I think I’m on 7K since last change but I did have to add a quart at near 6Kish.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Deedub below covered it. LS short – it’s VERY store specific, but AutoZone is clearing out various brands/grades of full synthetic – everything from Castrol 0-40 FS to Mobil 1 AFE 0W30 FOR $10 for 5.1 quart jugs.

        They have Valvoline SynPower, Royal Purple, Control Edge, and other full synthetics for $3 quart, too.

        Don’t even bother calling stores. Just drop in b/c clerks get confused since selection is all over the board in terms of brand and weight.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Oh I know where I am heading later. Incidentally I got four NOS dino Pennzoil quarts for FREE because someone left them and an unopened gallon of coolant in my building’s laundry area. People routinely abandon stuff there when they move out for others to use.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Here’s the Bob thread that tipped me off with discussion of prices, grades/weights & brands:

            http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3564003/Autozone_Synthetic_Clearance#Post3564003

        • 0 avatar
          mik101

          5.1qt? You either meant 5qt or 5.3qt.

          Your jugs are 4, 4.73 or 5L.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Correct.

            Did motor oil producers at one point do the 5.1 odd container?

            There has to be a reason the 5.1 figure has been stuck in my hewd for so long now.

    • 0 avatar
      DeeDub

      Yes it is.

      http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/motor-oil-103/

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      DW, it would appear that the synthetic oil made from natgas, like Penzoil’s, has longer hydro-carbon-ester chains than synthetic oil made from gasified coal. This means that natgas-derived oil takes longer for the chains to break in ICEs.

      As for me, all that new synthetic may be nice, but I’ll stay with good old Castrol 5W-30 dino oil for all my vehicles, and change it every 3000-5000 miles, whether it needs it or not.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Yeah, I agree that synthetic is zero-value added unless someone is doing long OCIs (7,000 miles or more) with a high quality oil filter.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I live in the desert, so there is a lot of dust ingested, silicates, crud. I wouldn’t want all that crap suspended in my oil for more than 3000 miles, if I can help it.

          The quick answer would be to swap oil filters periodically, like they do on jet-engines. They never “change” the synthetic oil, just the filters, until the next time they rebuild the engine.

          Especially true in jet fighters. They monitor engine wear with oil spectro-analysis. When too many metal particles are detected, they swap the engine out and rebuild it.

          • 0 avatar
            jetcal1

            HI HDC,
            That’s a kinda true statement. Our samples were pulled every ten hours. Depending on the type of wear metal or a recent maintenance action some stuff might spike. Say for example, a fan change, since I went into a bearing area, I might see a small spike in silver. If I changed a oil cooler, I might see a spike in silicone. (Packing lubricants read as dirt.) We might get continue trend, or a change oil, or a flush oil.
            As far leaving the oil until the next scheduled pull….you can pretty much figure about 1/4 quart or more an hour leaving through the breather. That adds up, especially if you got a good flyer. So, 5 gallon tank, plus bearing areas, coolers, bearing scavenge, lines, etc. Call it 7.5 gallons or so. I’d guess you’re probably going to pump around 30 gallons or so, assuming 500 hrs on wing, more if you have a weak breather, or someone that doesn’t know how to pressure service the engine.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            jetcal1, during the 70s I was stationed in Germany with the USAF and because of my German language skill I was tasked with a being a liaison for REFORGER at various German host-nation air bases for the deployed US squadrons.

            Every deployment I made several trips to the nearest US AFB SOAP lab for the deploying US forces who flew their jets from the US over to their German Host bases.

            One year, it was the ANG A7s. Another year it was RF4s. Near the end of my tour it was the F-15s that came over from Langley.

            They all had their SOAP samples taken after they landed, and then again right before they returned states!de.

            It’s amazing the reams of data that one oil sample could produce. It was like a complete physical of the jet engine.

  • avatar
    theupperonepercent

    If only they could make a synthetic fuel from liquid human waste marketable.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    25 years? So, one Tacoma refresh?

  • avatar
    Lynn E.

    How sad. I can’t argue with Exxon’s numbers and have to agree they are probably correct in their predictions. But will there still be air clean enough to breath in 50 or 40 or 30 years?

    The ICE is a marvel in technology. As an old man I have watched and sometimes worked on ICE’s from flat heads to overhead valves to overhead cams, from 1 barrel to 2 to 4 barrel carbs to fuel injection, no anti-pollution devices to awful anti-pollution devices to devices that work fairly well, and 3 speed std transmissions to 3 speed automatics to 4 to 6 and now 7 or 8 speed automatics. But ICE’s still burn oil, they still waste oil in heat and noise, and now they are extremely complex. And we are still prisoners of Exxon.

    • 0 avatar
      Roader

      “But will there still be air clean enough to breath in 50 or 40 or 30 years?”

      Right now the air is way cleaner than it was 50 or 40 or 30 years ago. I see no reason to expect that improvement won’t continue, in the developed countries, anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        It’s cleaner in California now, but certainly not in Beijing, or anywhere downwind from there.

        • 0 avatar
          Roader

          Yeah, China definitely isn’t a developed country, not in the same way as US/Canada/Europe. China is trading pollution for growth and they have good reason to do so in the short term, but in some parts of the country the air is unbelievable filthy. I audited a vendor in Xi’an a few years ago and smelled and saw that I was in coal country. Turns out that staying outside all day was equal to smoking a pack a day, at least according to the internets. The air was pretty thick.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Spambot ate my post.

    Methane from human/animal waste is a very potent greenhouse gas. There are vegan environmentalists who say a vegetarian lifestyle would do way more to drop greenhouse gasses.
    Making beef consumes energy and even the fertilizer can contribute to greenhouse gasses and of course all of that cow flop.

    So the next time a greenie protests the big pickup you drive, tell him you are a vegan.

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    Within 10 years there will be a reliable battery with energy density for a 200 mile range. Then the future will be EV’s and hybrids.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      What’s going to change in the next 10 years that they haven’t been able to figure out for the last 110 years of EV battery technology?

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        What’s going to change? We went from carbon-zinc to alkaline, then to Cadmium and Nickel-Metal-Hydrite and now to Lithium-ion.

        Other metals with very high electron density are out there. Tech just hasn’t been able to make good matches as yet.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          I would say that battery tech has reached a plateau that not even Elon can break through. Believe me, if there were a chance in hell that an EV could achieve a 500 mile range Elon would have it

        • 0 avatar
          CarnotCycle

          “Other metals with very high electron density are out there. Tech just hasn’t been able to make good matches as yet.”

          Heat engines (and fuel cells) have big energy density advantage in that they do not carry bulk of the needed chemistry (the oxidizer) with them.

          Some batteries, like Al-O , are essentially metal-chemistry fuel cells and have the same advantage – but do not lend themselves well to recharging (essentially need to rebuild battery).

          But for a true self-contained battery, I don’t think there’s a chemistry out there which approaches the ‘total’ energy density of the external oxidizer approaches.

          For good anecdote on what that involves, look at a bi-propellant space launch vehicle like a SpaceX Falcon 9. That’s basically heat-engine chemistry built like a battery (self-contained), and I believe some three-quarters of the launch vehicle’s mass is oxidizer.

          For a battery to be competitive, energy-density wise, with an ICE or a fuel-cell, one would need to pull off the equivalent of cramming the total internal chemical energy of a Falcon 9 into a quarter of a Falcon 9’s launch mass.

          Engineering-wise, that doesn’t seem likely anytime soon; and even if it was that would be one heck of a dangerous battery!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            IIRC there has been a ton of work and some big breakthroughs in capacitor design. That may be the future replacement for batteries.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “Engineering-wise, that doesn’t seem likely anytime soon; and even if it was that would be one heck of a dangerous battery!”

            So, EV battery tech is at an impasse

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Battery tech may end up not going the rechargeable route but instead may go to sacrificial-metal type chemical reaction, like the radioactive batteries of America’s space program during the sixties.

            Fuel cells by themselves don’t put out enough energy yet to power an EV drive motor, but it is a proven concept, although very expensive.

            Combining battery and capacitor tech with a miniature reactor/generator was tried decades ago, but the reactor-shielding was too heavy to be useful in anything other than satellites and space vehicles.

            I’m thinking in terms of combining a battery+capacitor coupled with a generator using the chemical reaction between sacrificial metals, to meet the demands of electric drive motors.

            Sandia Labs in NM and Livermore Labs at China Lake at one time back in the 80s and 90s had similar programs looking into generating power with dissimilar metals, but nothing ever came of it.

            But we did see major advances in battery tech as a result of all that research that got us to the iPad, iPhone, iPod and MacBook batteries we use today.

            Maybe the future will see better battery tech. I wouldn’t put it past the Chinese to develop such advanced batteries. Their science budget puts ours to shame.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @HDC and the number of engineers that China is churning out, often taught at US and Canadian Universities, is much higher than we are turning out in the US. Which is why I spend so much time involved with the non profit org that does our best to inspire today’s youth to be tomorrows science and technology leaders. We are loosing the war and most people don’t have a clue. There was a time when US students were at the top of the heap in math and science and now we are middle of the pack at best.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Scoutdude, I’m impressed that you “spend so much time involved with the non profit org that does our best to inspire today’s youth to be tomorrows science and technology leaders.”

            That’s exactly what we need! More people encouraging our youngsters to excel in a field they are passionate about.

            My wife and I are passionate about seeing our kids, and now our grandkids, get ahead. It’s a different world out there today.

            But, often, even they if excel and succeed, the opportunities simply are not there for them in America because of the administration’s national economic policy, i.e outsourcing.

            Ah, but this is not the site for such a tangent.

            Bottom line: dude, keep doing what your doing. You’re doing good!

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        But the reality is that there has only been significant investment in battery technology for EVs in the last 10 or so years, not for 110 years since there were big gaps in the interest in EVs.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Moore’s law isn’t working when applied to battery tech and I think that’s been a huge surprise and disappointment to everyone

          BTW GM had the EV1 available to the public 20 years ago

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Yeah and as soon as CA dropped the proposed ZEV regulations GM and most everyone else forgot about it. Well at least until CA reinstated the ZEV regulations and gas hit $4 per gallon.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    I am an oil-burner and a carnivore. I am T-Rex, king dinosaur of the humans!

    But I drive a hybrid for over a decade now so I burn less oil than I used to, and I don’t eat meat during EVERY meal.

    I just live under no illusions. If humans were TRULY interested in reducing use of oil, then we would find a way to make public transportation WORKABLE and SAFE, not just affordable.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I am happy that the ICE will still be around for the rest of my lifetime. I, too, am a prolific carnivore and an oil addict. I think that oil packs the most energy and value no matter what the price and I am very happy to see that the cost of gasoline is coming down to more realistic levels, where it should have been all this time.

    • 0 avatar
      an innocent man

      For those TRULY interested in reducing our use of oil, I’ve previously, and for many years now, offered the solution: National 35MPH speed limit. On all roads. Enforced not by law enforcement, but by onboard software. And very easy to implement. The fact that we don’t do it is proof that there is zero interest in reducing our oil use.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        ” proof that there is zero interest in reducing our oil use.”

        Exactly. Only the greenweenie eco-freeking tree huggers want Americans to stop using oil and revert back to the agrarian age.

        Oil is one of the best things that has happened to mankind. Without it, we would still be living in Fred Flintstone land.

    • 0 avatar

      Our personal transportation vehicles in the US amount to only 15% of greenhouse gases. As someone else has said, meat production emits more than that. When I wrote about policies to mitigate global warming several years ago, 3 experts on 2 continents told me that public transportation was far too expensive a way to mitigate global warming to prescribe it.

      But you can make cars a lot more efficient than they are now.

      • 0 avatar
        an innocent man

        From the EPA: In 2012, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for about 28% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions…

        From NASA’s GISS: In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term.

        Also from that same study by GISS: “Targeting on-road transportation is a win-win-win,” she said. “It’s good for the climate in the short term and long term, and it’s good for our health.”

        That’s NASA’s take.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    I really don’t think it’s that crazy of a prediction, especially when you consider countries like China that have 900% increase in the amount of drivers over the last 10 years.

    Even if 100% electric vehicles catch on in a big way in 1st world countries, there’s billions of people in less developed countries that will want the lower cost of gas powered engines.

    Then there’s the separate issue of how the electricity will be generated for electric cars, and it’s not going to be solar despiet the pie in the sky dreams. Most likely it will be natural gas. It’s trading one fossil fuel for another.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      even if we went electrical for most vehicles that power has to be generated somehow and somewhere.

      We are falling behind on electrical capacity as well.

      There is a looming energy crisis that alternatives cannot match even when combined with hydrocarbon energy.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    For local use, the infrastructure for BEVs is 100% in place, which is to say, nearly everyone in the developed world has electric service. The current BEVs aren’t well suited to highway travel, that’s a job better left to a PHEV.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      PHEVs are not well suited to highway travel, the extra weight means that they getter worse MPG at highway travel than the corresponding hybrid that the current ones are based on. You also loose cargo capacity which with today’s cars is at a premium and is something many people have a need for if they do long hwy trips.

      • 0 avatar
        PandaBear

        Nonsense.

        If you are talking about weight and waste, you should look at how much excessive power in today’s engine can be eliminated by downsizing and pair with a hybrid.

        When I was in school I was taught that a mid size car like Taurus only needs 30hp to cruise on highway travel, yet has a 3.0L 150hp engine. Downsize to a 1L Honda 3 cyl K car engine and a hybrid system had made this car an 80mpg car (Taurus), back in 1995.

        And you are talking about battery weight waste?

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          My point is that a straight hybrid is more efficient for hwy travel than a plug in based on the same vehicle. In general though the Ford/Toyota style hybrid is not that efficient at hwy speeds since the traction motor/generator draws power from the drive line to power the range motor/generator to couple the engine to the transmission. The best set up for hwy travel is the current Accord’s serial/parallel system. At constant speed cruise the motor/generators are just along for the ride neither generating or using energy and the lack of the planetary gear set means less frictional loses.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “PHEVs are not well suited to highway travel, the extra weight means that they getter worse MPG at highway travel than the corresponding hybrid that the current ones are based on. ”

        The PHEV Prius doesn’t get worse mileage than the conventional Prius, nor does it have less trunk space. It actually does better because the battery capacity is much, much higher.

        It simply adds a charger and uses LiIon instead of NiMH. It’s very slightly heavier; less than 100lbs.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          In the real world the PIP does get worse MPG after the battery has been depleted that the standard Prius slightly less but still less. The reason it doesn’t suffer the significant loss of trunk space is because its battery has a worthless ~10 mile range which is a joke. If you really want to save fuel and money then a Leaf and a retired P71 for long trips. If your normal daily driving is sufficiently covered by the ~10 mile range then the amount of fuel you are saving vs a conventional ICE powered vehicle is insignificant and you’ll spend a whole lot of money to save those few drops of fuel.

  • avatar
    EAF

    I use Shell Rotella T on my cat-less turbo 4cyl. It’s supposed to be amazing stuff for reasons I don’t understand, admittedly I jumped in the bandwagon!

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Rotella T is a really great oil, but it is more suitable for use in Diesel engines because of its increased waxiness, than in gasoline-fired engines. I used it exclusively for the (used) Cummins RAM I once owned.

      For a gasoline Turbo isn’t the recommended viscosity supposed to be 0W-20 to 10W-30, depending on temperature range, unless it is a Turbo Diesel, like a Banks?

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Current turbo and virtually all current gas engines specify those thin oils purely for CAFE purposes. For example Ford switched many of its engines to 5-20 from 5-30 around 2000 without making any changes to the engines. I’ve talked with engineers who did durability testing for Ford in that era and they suggested using the 5-30 as the engines lasted longer in their testing with it instead of the 5-20. They also confirmed that was those people watching the CAFE numbers that mandated the use of 5-20 and not actual engine engineers that made the choice. You can be assured that is the same reason Honda and many others started specifying 5-20 and now 0-20.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Interesting. I suspected but didn’t know that for sure.

          And good to know. Our Grand Cherokee Pentastar has 5W-30 printed in red on the oil-filler cap. So I use Castrol 5W-30 dino oil.

          Our Highlander, the owners manual says 10W-30 for year ’round use in our climate. So I use Castrol 10W-30 dino oil.

          Ditto the Tundra and the Sequoia, 10W-30.

          In some of those old jalopies I used to have around I often put in straight Tech2000 SAE 30HD or Tech2000 20W-50 before I sold them.

          No complaints so far. But if the new owner changed to a lighter viscosity, chances are the cars would smoke from blow-by. Most of them were pretty well-worn. The thicker oil worked nicely to stop the smoking but may be a b!tch to start when temp is below freezing.

          • 0 avatar
            EAF

            Indeed, Shell labels the oil as intended for “heavy duty vehicle” use. Factory recommended oil was Dino 10w-30 back in 1995. 212k miles later, having experimented with many brands and weights, I get the least amount of consumption and the least amount of lifter tick with Rotella 15w-40. Interestingly, there is no discernible affect on MPG.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Rotella T is advertized as a Mixed Fleet oil suitable for use in diesel and gasoline engines. I use it in all of my older gas powered vehicles. I do not use it in my late model vehicles that do have a cat and were not designed for use with x-40 weight oil. Those get 5-30 except for my wife’s car which has variable valve timing that is controlled by oil pressure and is an engine that was designed from the get go to use 5-20.

            @HDC look up USFIRST and look for the upcoming movie Spare Parts which is about a team of kids from AZ and the person who led the team who happens to share the same title in our organization. I wish there was a good way for us to get in contact with each other w/o putting our email address up for the world to see.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Scoutdude, are we talking Dean Kamen’s USFIRST here? That’s impressive!

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Yes HDC I’m talking about the organization co-founded by Dean Kamen and the less well known Woodie Flowers. Yes I’ve met both but I’ve only had the opportunity to have multiple long talks with Woodie.

            So how do you know about the organization? We really could use help from a thoughtful, intelligent, well spoken individual like you. A one or two, one day commitment can change a young person’s life for the better, and help the future of our country.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Scoutdude, I’m flattered that you would even consider me but my days of volunteering are devoted to my church, my fire department, my Air Force and my family.

            I have to admit that the only young people I am interested are my direct and indirect off-spring.

            They are my life and I am totally devoted to getting my grandkids a leg up on the competition, in any way I can, so they can launch successfully.

            I am very, very picky what I choose to donate money to.

            For instance, the national charities are out but the First Sergeants Association, the Airman’s Association, sending packages to our deployed military people, the Sergeants Association, the DAV, they are all in.

            I have watered some eyes with the folding money I gave them, as they expected a dollar here or a dollar there. But I never gave them my name. I don’t need to be recognized.

            And I have dropped some big bucks just to get the Grand Cherokee washed at the Commissary for some NCO Dining In/Out function, or the Airman’s Attic.

            I am also a counselor at my church, primarily for seniors and am on-call 24/7.

            As such I have often been one of the first on the scene of a death and have helped the surviving spouse with the arrangements and notifications once the cops left.

            My wife and I are deeply involved with such things.

            But thank you for thinking of me. I do appreciate it greatly.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Scoutdude, I’m flattered that you would even cons!der me but my days of volunteering are devoted to my church, my fire department, my Air Force and my family.

            I have to admit that the only young people I am interested are my direct and indirect off-spring.

            They are my life and I am totally devoted to getting my grandkids a leg up on the competition, in any way I can, so they can launch successfully.

            I am very, very picky what I choose to donate money to.

            For instance, the national charities are out but the First Sergeants Association, the Airman’s Association, sending packages to our deployed military people, the Sergeants Association, the DAV, they are all in.

            I have watered some eyes with the folding money I gave them, as they expected a dollar here or a dollar there. But I never gave them my name. I don’t need to be recognized.

            And I have dropped some big bucks just to get the Grand Cherokee washed at the Commissary for some NCO Dining In/Out function, or the Airman’s Attic.

            I am also a counselor at my church, primarily for seniors and am on-call 24/7.

            As such I have often been one of the first on the scene of a death and have helped the surviving spouse with the arrangements and notifications once the cops left.

            My wife and I are deeply involved with such things.

            But thank you for thinking of me. I do appreciate it greatly.

        • 0 avatar
          EAF

          Hypothetically, would using Rotella T be immediately harmful to a cat-equipped vehicle? Or does it become harmful as it ages / breaks down? I have a couple of friends with GDI turbo Sonatas who are under the impression that Rotella T is OK to use as long as the change interval is frequent. I’ve been thinking about switching to T6 synthetic, Walmart sells the gallon for relatively cheap! Does your wife drive a Honda?

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            It would not immediately cause damage and changing the oil frequently will do nothing to lessen the damage. The problem is that the zinc reduces the Catalytic converter effeciency. It does take a long time for it to have a significant effect but it is certainly not recommended if you want long life of your emissions system. Yes it will probably protect the engine better but if you are going to have to replace the cat which can exceed $1000 dollars and sometimes even $2000 I wouldn’t risk it. If the person isn’t planning on keeping the car for the long term then it probably won’t bite them in the butt. However what would be the use in using the more expensive oil if you are going to not keep the car for the long run. Long story short I wouldn’t recommend it.

            No Hondas in my driveway since the N600 ~30 years ago. She drives a 2010 Fusion Hybrid. Honda however is the other mfg that jumped on the 5-20 bandwagon early on.

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            Replacement catalytic converters are reasonably priced on Amazon.
            They are not difficult for the average competent home mechanic to swap out. Paying a dealership their huge markup and overpriced hourly rate for such a simple job is for those with no tools or mechanical know-how.
            They even sell California CARB compliant cats.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Exxon has a point: At this point, there does not appear to be a disruptive technology that is ready to replace internal combustion.

    Internal combustion will probably be improved, but there isn’t any indication that it is going to disappear entirely anytime soon. Perhaps the guys in the lab coats will come up with a better battery, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      The interesting thing in that chart is that they predict that the popularity of diesels will drop in the long term after a short rise.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The problem with diesel is that there are too many competing users for it.

        When you pay for gasoline, your primary concerns are the general price of oil and consumer demand. When you require diesel, you have to also cons1der the effect of the business cycle on trucking, transportation and agriculture.

        There are a lot more reasons for diesel prices to increase. Using it when you don’t have to makes you vulnerable to price shocks for no particularly good reason.

        • 0 avatar
          CarnotCycle

          To be a reductionist with the Exxon report, one might say there is no more accessible energy mechanism than oxidizing hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future.

          One does not even need combustion to take advantage; hydrocarbon-based fuel cells are technically feasible (probably not cost-effective), and numerous prototypes have been built.

          Of course, the CO2-is-doom crowd would never approve using hydrocarbons at all, even in a fuel cell, given the resulting chemical products would essentially be the same as a combustion engine.

  • avatar
    slance66

    None of this is remotely surprising. The oil will all be found and burned, sooner or later. It isn’t going to be left in the ground. Making it last and making the use of it contribute less pollution (not counting CO2, as a pollutant) is a worthy goal. But I don’t see ICE going away any time soon.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I read where they are going to start selling synthetic motor oil made from soybeans. They have been testing this oil for the past 10 years in postal vehicles and taxi cabs and they have discovered the engines stay cleaner and the oil is not a biohazard. The price of soybean oil is suppose to be between the price of regular oil and current synthetic oil. As for petroleum we will be using it for the forseeable future but with the hybrid technology we we see various forms of hybrid engines that run on gas and diesel.

    highdesert cat I have a stockpile of 5w30 Castrol that I use on my 99 S-10 but I have gone to Mobil I on my 08 Isuzu and on the 13 CRV I let the dealership change it to not have any problems with the 5 year warranty but once the warranty is up I will either use Mobil I or the new soybean motor oil (the weight of the CRV is 0w20). I don’t have the dust that you have but I drive so little that I change at least once a year which in the S-10 is about 2k.

  • avatar
    George B

    The history of the oil companies that eventually became ExxonMobile dates back to 1859. They must be doing something right to stay in business that long. If they expected the internal combustion engine to go away, they would be making the long-term investments to be a player in the new market that replaces the current one. If they saw a market in providing hydrogen for fuel cells, for example, they’d make investments in hydrogen infrastructure.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      George you mean Drake’s first well in Pennsylvania in 1859 but the original parent of Exxon was Humble Oil and it was the Spindletop well in Jan 10, 1901. Humble Oil became Enco and Esso and then Exxon. True Exxon was Standard Oil but Humble Oil & Refining was a big part of Exxon. Mobil was originally Magnolia Oil which was a Dallas oil company and the Magnolia Oil Co headquarters circu 1920s is now a hotel in downtown Dallas with the original Pegasus still on top of the building and still lit up at night

  • avatar
    TW5

    The only issue with oil is how we obtain it. If we have a bio-oil breakthrough, we won’t need to change.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      TW5, were you aware that there is a huge industry based on recycling dino oil (in America)?

      And…. there is a huge industry for recycling plant oil used in preparing fried foods.

      All that “used” oil isn’t wasted. The vast majority is actually recycled and reused. Recycled dino oil is cleaned up, fresh additives are added, and it is re-used as motor oil.

      Even the additives are reclaimed from used oil and the viscosity-agents are stripped, purified and recast into gel-blocks to be sold to refineries.

      Bio- and plant-oils are recycled into bio-diesel and can be purchased by anyone using a diesel-engined vehicle, including 18-wheelers.

      The drawback is that recycled oil costs more and that’s why so many people avoid it.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Back in the early 70’s I bought recycled motor oil for about ten cents a quart. It was used motor oil that had all the impurities screened out and new additives added. My dad had an old Chevy II that leaked oil from the rear main bearing. I don’t think that it is as much cost to recycle oil as it is that for a little more you can buy virgin oil and also many new vehicles use lower viscosity oil such as 0w20 which are synthetic. Oil itself does not wear out but the additives can break down and oil gets dirty.

    I do see over a period of time oil usage will drop with more efficient and cleaner engines and cleaner sources of energy. I doubt oil will go away but we will all use less of it.

  • avatar
    jimbob457

    I used to work (circa 1970) in the Corporate Planning Department of what is now called Exxon-Mobil. All the guys were smart.

    If that didn’t do it, the company had on retainer guys who were even smarter in their field – this included, bye the bye, climate change and CO2 as seen by the cream of the scientific community in 1970.

    Our focus was corporate survival.

    Nobody is smart enough to see even one day into the future. Give them credit. Exxon-Mobil is well over a century old. By comparison, one of the great Big Three American car companies of 1970 is dead and a second is dying or on its way to China.

    Exxon-Mobil sees the same thing in fracking as any other informed and intelligent person sees. It is, most likely, a game changer that gives the internal combustion engine another two or three decades.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • thehyundaigarage: Is that the best they could do for panel alignment on a press vehicle? That hood and fender, damn!
  • Dave M.: That was said about Social Security too. And the Clean Air Act. I could go on and on about the times a...
  • RHD: This shill article for imported Chinese junk sold on Amazon is to genuine journalism what the Peel P50 is to...
  • RHD: This sell-out article would get a generous D- in any journalism class. If journalism were a tire shop, this...
  • Tagbert: This is almost certainly about residual value and that Ford has found, like Tesla, that the residuals were...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber