Nylon Resin Replaces Steel in Exhaust System Parts
26 February 2008
DuPont Zytel nylon resin has replaced steel in exhaust system parts on all Volkswagen vehicles built on the current Golf platform, cutting weight of the component by nearly 50%, according to DuPont.
|
| The new nylon resin catalytic converter bracket. Click to enlarge. |
The new Golf catalytic converter bracket, which experiences temperatures up to 175° C due to its proximity to the engine, was previously a complex metal/rubber part which required multiple assembly steps. The new component is a global first, as a metal to plastics transition had not been attempted for parts such as these, which must withstand dynamic forces, chemical exposure and high temperatures.
In addition to the nearly 50% weight reduction, the new all-plastic design also makes possible more efficient, one-step assembly.
Nylon resin - petrol industry based product?
Posted by: | 26 February 2008 at 10:37 AM
It's not like the old steel part was harvested from sunshine, either :)
Posted by: Wes | 26 February 2008 at 11:53 AM
Nylon is manufactured using hydrocarbons and chlorine products. Even if nylon's manufacturer has a greater impact on the environment than manufacturing auto steel (I don't believe that is the case) I would have to believe that the reduction in petrol burnt by the Golf in the next 15-25 years would make up for this transgression. My only question is what can we do to eliminate more steel and more auto glass?
Posted by: sdogood | 26 February 2008 at 12:41 PM
guess what ?
with an electric car you can reduce the weight of this component by 100% !
Posted by: andrew rose | 26 February 2008 at 12:47 PM
It is interesting how many components that you do not need with an EV. Mass production has made all these components affordable, but other designs do not even need them in the first place.
Think of the whole parts network with present day autos. Every make, model and year needs to be stocked and distributed. It is mind boggling that the system works at all. Now think of how simple an EV is...much better.
Posted by: sjc | 26 February 2008 at 02:52 PM
Yeah, right. Just show me those unobtainium batteries ...
Posted by: Brian P | 26 February 2008 at 03:25 PM
Brian P: Google A123,Altair Nanotech, LG chem, Electrovaya, Firefly, Valence, Enersys if that isn't enough there's lots more.
Posted by: Neil | 26 February 2008 at 04:03 PM
The auto companies are marching along like the ICE is a forever. Judging by the slowness with which the BEVs are progressing to market, they may be right.
GM has announced the "Volt." Tesla is finally producing a roadster and ZAP is bringing out a four wheeler. Companies are producing BEVs by the tens of tens...that's the trouble it's by the tens when it should be by the thousands to make a dent in efficiency, GHGs and our dependence on foreign oil. Is someone controlling the auto industry like Big Oil controls our energy? Is that the AAMA? Someones slowing up the werks!
Posted by: Lad | 26 February 2008 at 08:53 PM
When an electric car can do everything an ICE car can do (comfort, acceleration, reliability, range, initial cost, etc) there will be a conversion. Market study after market study has said most consumers will accept NO compromises from a HEV, BEV, PHEV or other alternate tech vehicle. Today, the Tesla is a $100K car - cool, but does the approximately the same thing as my '99 Corolla. Even when Tesla has their 4 door car it will be ~$50K - still $25K more than a comparable ICE vehicle on initial cost.
I think there is great progress and great promise - but it isn't in the showrooms today at the same cost/capability point.
Even HEVs, after 10 years in the market, are still not even at the point where they are really considered "mass market" (at least 4% of total sales) that most manufacturers use to gauge adoption of technologies (eg: electronic fuel injection, 4 spd automatics, etc, etc)
Posted by: shane | 26 February 2008 at 09:08 PM
EV's are great, but not for a people who can only afford 12-20K for a car. Please try to keep this in perspective. When you can get a reliable family car into that range, with a radio, dvds, A/C, etc., then you will see a paradigm shift.
So, exchange subsidies from oil to EV? OK, go for it. But be careful and do not jolt the industry. Millions of jobs exist on the current paradigm. Many people have nothing to do with oil directly, yet livelyhood exist off of the oil industry. Many good people who desire a good life and want to do what is right. It has to be a planned strategy from oil to EV. With all the expectations building for 2010 EV, it appears to be moving at a very good pace.
Remember, Tesla's cars require oil to make as well, and all the plastic, plus so much else. This will take time. It is exciting to see the initial breakthrus. This time EV will make it not because of mandates, but thru entrepreneurial effort and market prices. I said this earlier. Even Tesla needs one of the Big Three to produce at large numbers for affordable prices.
Posted by: Michael | 27 February 2008 at 06:44 AM
shane: what you are saying is true for todays paradigm of slightly expensive and reliably available gasoline. Let a couple of major supply shortages hit (for whatever reason) and people will change their priorities from money to security. As for Tesla, the only major compromise is recharge speed. It's not competing against your corolla (unless you've done something amazing with it, it wont get to 60 in 4 seconds), it's competing against exotic sports cars, which in many cases cost far more.
Posted by: Neil | 27 February 2008 at 08:44 AM
What you are talking about is a slower, practical transition to electric cars. And, that's all fine with the exception that all the environmental problems continue to escalate. I believe a bite-the-bullet approach from our government is called for to accelerate this transition simply because the health of the earth's people is at stake and I don't believe we have the time to casually move to Solar Power Generation and Electric cars.
We have wasted $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) on the Iraqi War. Just think how that money might have been better used to development solar energy devices and batteries for EVs and to have brought those products to market instead of being used to protect our oil interests. I see no reason why government credits to help you buy a $20,000 PHEV or BEV wouldn't have been proper. It is time our federal government started helping solve our energy problems instead of creating new ones.
The production of electricity by solar and renewable devices and the storage of this "fuel" is the "Next Big Thing." We should be embracing this home-grown technology hand over hand and not be shirking away from the good changes it brings. If we develop this technology, by exporting the devices, we might very well reverse the balance of trade and put our workforce back to working in well-paying jobs again.
Sorry to get on my soapbox.
Posted by: Lad | 27 February 2008 at 09:29 AM
That is quite all right. It may be easier for a family to have one of their older cars converted to all electric soon. The PHEV conversion is more expensive, but people have been converting cars to EV for quite a while. The batteries were not good for range, but that is changing.
Posted by: sjc | 27 February 2008 at 10:15 AM