backtop

Print 54 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Sep 1 at 3:05 PM

BMW Vision EfficientDynamics Concept   (Source: Autoblog Green)
Vehicle is a plug-in hybrid with performance and fuel economy

BMW has officially unveiled the Vision EfficientDynamics Concept that will be on display at the Frankfurt auto show in a few weeks. The vehicle is a concept that uses a new BMW powertrain that combines a plug-in hybrid system with a small 3-cylinder diesel engine.

According to BMW, the plug-in hybrid vehicle can get 62.6 mpg and still do 0-62 mph in 4.8 seconds. The three-cylinder diesel engine is 1.5 liters and has a turbocharger. The engine has a power rating of 163 hp with a peak torque of 214 lb-ft and is paired with the BMW 6-speed DCT that is similar to the one used in the M3 and Z4 sports cars.

Along with the diesel engine, the concept uses a hybrid system developed from the one that will be debuting in the ActiveHybrid 7. The concept has an 80hp electric motor for the front axle and a 33 hp electric motor between the engine and transmission. When tallied up the total power output of the vehicle is 356 hp with 590 lb-ft of torque.

BMW used battery tech similar to the GM Volt with a lithium polymer battery pack that runs down the center of the vehicle and offers 8.6kWh of power. BMW claims that the battery pack will be able to use 80% of its power compared to the Volt only being able to use 50% of its power.

The hybrid concept can travel 31 miles on electric power alone. Unlike the Volt running on electric power only, the BMW concept relies on both the electric and combustion engine combined at all times. The engine is mounted in the middle of the car allowing BMW to design slippery bodywork to reduce the drag coefficient and improve the concepts efficiency.

The chassis is made from aluminum and the skin of the concept is made from a light-sensitive polycarbonate making the entire vehicle weigh 3,076 pounds. The polycarbonate bodywork gets darker as light shines on it.

As is the case with most concept cars, BMW hasn't announced production plans for the Vision EfficientDynamics vehicle. However, expect to see its powertrain offered in future production vehicles.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Looks nice...
By Amiga500 on 8/31/2009 11:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
But of course, they'll never build it.

Probably economically unfeasible.




RE: Looks nice...
By PAPutzback on 8/31/2009 11:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
True. But someone would buy it.


RE: Looks nice...
By dwalton on 8/31/2009 6:42:38 PM , Rating: 3
If the design is very similar to what GM is trying to do, I can't see how it would be economically unfeasible especially considering that the BMW badge can generate demand at far higher price points than GM.

Luxury brands are in a better position to push new tech. They can command higher price tags and thus have more flexibility in terms of much high cost tech they can place in their models.

What Im surprise about is that Toyota with its investment in the Prius doesn't have more exotic clean tech showing up in their Lexus brand. They are in a far better position than BMW to drive costs down because they have the luxury of offering their new costly tech in their highend lexus models and work to drive down manufacturing costs until the tech is affordable enough to be offered in their low end Toyota lineup.

Toyota should be at the forefront of driving clean tech in automobile arena and their efforts should consist of more than the Prius and similar tech found in they higher end models. Given their initial efforts in this area and their being #1 in both practical and luxury automobiles, they should have had something exotic like this plug-in/diesel model on their showroom floors by now.


RE: Looks nice...
By Spuke on 8/31/2009 7:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
Toyota nor the Lexus brands are marketed as exotic. Lexus is (WAY) understated luxury. A car like this concept would not fit with their branding. Exotic is not really BMW's forte either but I guess going outside the box is ok when you're only dealing with a concept.


RE: Looks nice...
By dwalton on 9/1/2009 11:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
I referring to the technology not the cars themselves.


RE: Looks nice...
By glenn8 on 8/31/2009 11:24:28 AM , Rating: 2
This car looks awesome. If only the majority of people were accepting of radical designs...


RE: Looks nice...
By kattanna on 8/31/2009 11:29:59 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If only the majority of people were able to afford $100,000 + cars


there.. corrected it for you.


RE: Looks nice...
By werfu on 8/31/2009 11:38:28 AM , Rating: 4
It will, just use a couple of years of inflation :P


RE: Looks nice...
By glenn8 on 8/31/2009 11:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
Nah I don't mean they all have to be super cars... most car design in general are pretty boring once they hit the show room.


RE: Looks nice...
By invidious on 8/31/2009 12:05:12 PM , Rating: 4
If people wanted whacky looking cars then car manufacturers would make regular gas drinking cars that look whacky.


RE: Looks nice...
By glenn8 on 8/31/2009 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 3
Well yes... isn't that what I said? If more people were open to new design concepts then yeah manufacturers would supply them. Things only really seem "wacky" because people are afraid of change in general... but that's another issue...


RE: Looks nice...
By Schrag4 on 8/31/2009 1:42:15 PM , Rating: 3
I'm fine with the 'radical design' of this new car. I think it looks nifty. However, I'd never buy it because it's completely impractical for a host of reasons. First and foremost is cost. Next, this thing is only good for commuting. That's fine for some people, but many people have kids, and quite often parent A drops the kids off at day care and parent B picks them up after work, meaning the family has to have 2 vehicles capable of moving around the little snot-machines. So, to make a vehicle practical, it has to have just a touch more room on the inside. In most cases that means it will look like every other vehicle on the road, and it will use more energy. I don't think this case is any different.

Vehicles are merely a tool for most people (and for good reason). In my opinion, 'new design concepts' are only useful if they can address issues with how much it costs to operate the vehicle and what you can do with it. How it looks is usually just a function of what shape the darn thing has to take in order to bring down operating costs while allowing you to do as much with the vehicle as possible. Obviously there are exceptions (people with tons of money, people with no kids, people whose hobby is collecting and/or working with cards), but don't mistake the lack of 'radical' designs on the road as close-mindedness.


RE: Looks nice...
By 67STANG on 8/31/2009 11:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
I would tend to agree, except.... I've seen at least 20 of those Nissan Cube's driving around. Clearly a "wacky" design that just doesn't work. (I think I saw so many as a result of the cash for clunker's program).

You have to stipulate that not only does it have to be wacky, it has to be good looking too. Something that not too many of these car designers can nail down.


RE: Looks nice...
By FITCamaro on 8/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Looks nice...
By inperfectdarkness on 9/1/2009 12:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
it's also about as tempted as i'll ever be to buy a BMW. they're DEFINATELY not the car to own for DIY car owners. that, and they also are ridiculously overpriced & usually rather fugly (6-series & z4 hardtop being the only possible exceptions).


RE: Looks nice...
By Spuke on 9/1/2009 3:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they're DEFINATELY not the car to own for DIY car owners
The members of e90post would disagree.


RE: Looks nice...
By theapparition on 8/31/2009 11:46:08 AM , Rating: 3
Not to mention that 62.6mpg dropping off a cliff if it ever came to the US. After all the weight added to meet US safety laws, and more strict US emmissions, I'd be surprised if it got anywhere near 45mpg.


RE: Looks nice...
By George Powell on 8/31/2009 12:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think you'll be surprised. The US has not really had much experience with diesel engines. The engine that is mentioned here is destined to be one of the engines in the next 3 series, and I'd imagine it will also find it's way into the 1 series as well. By adding hybrid technology to an already fuel sipping car will bring 60mpg+ within range for even 4/5 seat production vehicles.

Here in the UK we have a whole pletora of vehicles from a range of manufacturers that offer economy close to, or even exceeding this already.
As for the emissions, modern diesel engines do not produce the filth that was once common with them. Certainly on this side of the Atlantic the Euro5 regulations have resulted in some exceptionally clean engines.

The only stumbling block I see is actually convincing an American buyer to purchase a diesel car.


RE: Looks nice...
By theapparition on 8/31/2009 12:50:54 PM , Rating: 3
Diesel engine technology has certainly come a long way in the last 10 years. Gone are the lackluster performance and soot spewing behemoths of yesteryear. This I don't disagree with you.

However, when you add several hundred pounds to a car, fuel effiency will drop. That's just physics and has nothing to do with the engine itself.
America's safety standards are the strictest in the world, by far. That's why many of the cars Europe gets will never make it over the pond. Add to that incompatible regulatory compliance (EU wants clear markers, US amber etc.) means many manufacturers are not willing to take a chance.
Also, US consumers still have diesel prices in mind during the price gouging of 2008. Diesel prices were 25%+ higher than gasoline, and unless your car got 25% better gas mileage, than it was a losing proposition. While prices have settled, you know logic doesn't factor into the equation when talking about public perception.

A 100mpg car is a relatively easy thing to create. But one that meets US safety, emmissions, and isn't stripped bare and has the amenities and power that American consumers demand is a huge undertaking.


RE: Looks nice...
By jonup on 8/31/2009 2:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Allow me to disagree. Most vehicles in Southeast MI are SUVs and minivans, and for that matter they either do not have to comply with any safety regulations (large SUVs) or are inherently/design challenge unsafe (minivans and small SUVs). I have seen crash test footage of EURO NCAP 5 star rated compacts and the some large SUVs, and in a head on collision with a concrete wall or a tree I would rather be in the smaller vehicle. Just because we have bigger vehicles here in the states do not make them safer. Transferring the impact energy around the passenger compartment is a lot more important.
Then comes the misconception that the diesel engines pollutes the environment more then gas ones. The only state that has an issue with diesels is California. (I love the golden state and enjoyed every time I am in San Diego.) The problem with Cali is that there is too many 'mentalists. There has not been a study clear confirming a correlation between modern (low in sulfur) diesel and cancer. But then again, according to these 'mentalists there is global warming and it is cause by CO2. Mind you water vapor is 3000 more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and there is more vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere. Back on the topic a diesel VW Passat emits 20g/km less CO2 than a petrol powered one. So, any one that clams that diesels are worse pollutants than gasoline, please do some research first.
theapparition, I just checked on the VW UK website, a comparable diesel Passat is about 25% more economical than a petrol one. (50.4 vs. 37.2 mpg combined)


RE: Looks nice...
By theapparition on 8/31/2009 3:14:05 PM , Rating: 1
jonup,
Please respond to let me know what the hell you are rambling on about? No disrespect intended.

US safety regulations are the strictest in the world. Fact. Not open for discussion or argument. Why you would talk about SE MI and SUVs/minivans is beyond me. True that many small cars may actually be safer than some larger cars due to superiour crumple zones, etc. However, this does not change the fact that most cars designed for the EU do not meet the required safety standards that are necessary for US import. Keep in mind safety is not just crumple zones, but also placement of gas tanks, bumper height, and fire resistance along with over 1000 other items that differ from Euopean specs.

That is the topic at hand.

The one point you brought up that's valid is the VW's. I was thinking of them (specifically the Jetta TDI) when writing the article. And yes, 25% is nice, but if gas prices for diesel ever inflate like that again, than 25% just breaks even, and you'd need more to realize a miles-per-dollar benefit.


RE: Looks nice...
By lelias2k on 8/31/2009 3:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Links? I mean, you seem to be very confident about your knowledge, but the fact is that here where I live (San Diego, CA) diesel has been cheaper than gas for quite some time, so no gold stars for you on that one...
I'm not necessarily doubting you, since we do need higher standards in American considering the amount of ridiculously big vehicles on our roads, but I'd like to see facts instead.


RE: Looks nice...
By jonup on 8/31/2009 4:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
He has a point in summer of 2008 diesel hit $5 while gas was "only" $4.30. (in MI)


RE: Looks nice...
By jonup on 8/31/2009 4:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
All I was trying to say is that majority of the vehicles in my area would get an NCAP 3 star or lower rating. All BMW vehicles sold in Europe do better than that, so there would be no need to strengthen their rigidity when exported to US. Therefore, I did not think that there would be an added weight. However, I was not aware that they need to make the design changes you mentioned to comply with the USDOT requirements. If that is the case I see your point.
BTW, on Euro NCAP website the Passat is listed at 3359lb (1527kg) while the VW US website lists the Passat at 3344lb. I do not see the US version been heavier but this could be an exception. (not being sarcastic)


RE: Looks nice...
By imoholo on 8/31/2009 4:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
I read on wikipedia:

Research on the trends in use of heavy vehicles indicate that a significant difference between the U.S. and other countries is the relatively high prevalence of pickup trucks and SUVs in the U.S. A 2003 study by the U.S. Transportation Research Board found that SUVs and pickup trucks are significantly less safe than passenger cars, that imported-brand vehicles tend to be safer than American-brand vehicles, and that the size and weight of a vehicle has a significantly smaller effect on safety than the quality of the vehicle's engineering.[18]

I do not know the "power" of this study, nor if something significant changed the last years (probably did). But unless you prove me otherwise i agree that safety standards for cars in europe are general a bit higher based on this one source, as it is atleast a source, even how weak it might be...


RE: Looks nice...
By Spuke on 8/31/2009 6:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But unless you prove me otherwise i agree that safety standards for cars in europe are general a bit higher based on this one source, as it is atleast a source, even how weak it might be...
There's not one thing in your statement that says that US safety standards are lesser than the Euro standards or vice versa. You haven't made a point to disprove.

That said. I will simply say that Euro and US safety standards are different enough that you could not import a Euro standard car, as is, without significant and costly modifications.


RE: Looks nice...
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2009 7:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sure US safety standards are the highest, but Germany has much safer drivers. The overall safety rating goes to Germany.


RE: Looks nice...
By croc on 8/31/2009 9:43:35 PM , Rating: 1
I love how you yank-wankers seem to always think that your opinions are 'facts'...

Here are a few 'facts' for you to consider:

Euro, Japanese, Australian air quality standards for new cars are more stringent than ANY in the US. Including California.

Safety standards in those areas also meet or exceed ANY safety standard in the US.

Oh, and a bit off topic, but another fact: The average US family pays the highest for health care of ANY OECD country, and is near the bottom of the table for health care outcomes.


RE: Looks nice...
By drmo on 9/1/2009 9:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
"Oh, and a bit off topic, but another fact: The average US family pays the highest for health care of ANY OECD country, and is near the bottom of the table for health care outcomes."

Yeah, but we don't pay 19% VAT and our doctors and nurses are paid well.


RE: Looks nice...
By Spuke on 9/1/2009 3:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love how you yank-wankers seem to always think that your opinions are 'facts'...
And then you go stating your opinion as fact. LOL!


RE: Looks nice...
By Eri Hyva on 9/1/2009 3:34:36 AM , Rating: 3
You really don't have a clue.
European safety standards are the highest on the planet.

In Europe we have 2 level system: the European Union has very high directives (=laws) in automobile safety.

And then we have the totally independent system of EuroNCAP. I haven't heard anything similar in the US (Car manufacturers don't allow it?)

When a car manufacturer makes a new model (according to the laws), EuroNCAP goes to a car salesman and buys couple of cara. So the manufacturer can't ship any "special" versions to EuroNCAP.

And then EuroNCAP makes the tests.
Results:

http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx

American cars get 2-3 stars less than European or Japanese cars that are made to European standards.
Check it out.

EuroNCAP tests are totally independent and transparent.


RE: Looks nice...
By Johnmcl7 on 9/1/2009 7:18:07 AM , Rating: 3
The US cars perform poorly in the EuroNCAP tests which doesn't say much for the US safety system.


RE: Looks nice...
By theapparition on 9/1/2009 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Saying I don't have a clue is quite ironic.

Tested European models score beyond terrrible in NHTSA and IIHS testing in the US under the requirements for US cars. Wouldn't surprise me that US cars test similarly bad in NCAP testing based on a Euro test.

It's all about the requirements the car was designed for. The tests are different and focus on different areas. That's all. However, any manufacturer will universally agree that it costs far more to make a car US ready than any other place on the planet. Call that safety, or call it unnecessary overhead, but it is still fact. That's why many desireable European models never make it out of Europe. Why do manufacturers jump on the US standards? Simple, it's the largest market in the world.

quote:
European safety standards are the highest on the planet.

Food for thought......EU will allow import and certification of most US cars as is. US will not. For example, the Australian Holden Monaro was resold in EU as a Vauxhaul "as is". For US import, things such as the gas tank had to be relocated and structural bracing added.

And NHTSA are government certified. IIHS gets completely independant and verifies results with thier own set of standards.

Nice try.


RE: Looks nice...
RE: Looks nice...
By Operandi on 9/1/2009 12:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Dose this remind anyone else of the Ford GT90?
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/wallpaper/fordgt/g...


By SublimeSimplicity on 8/31/2009 11:29:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
BMW claims that the battery pack will be able to use 80% of its power compared to the Volt only being able to use 50% of its power.


The Volt could also use 80% of it's battery power... the battery pack would just last about 1/2 as long. Unless BMW has come up with a fundamentally different way for batteries to work they'd be faced with the same trade-off.




RE: Can and should are two different things...
By cpeter38 on 8/31/2009 11:48:09 AM , Rating: 3
You are quite kind to the BMW engineers.

In laboratory conditions, changing from a 50% DOD (depth of discharge) to an 80% DOD will reduce the lifetime energy transfer capacity (total number of coulombs charged/discharged) by 50%. However, the further you take the battery out of its optimal temperature range of 25C to 30C, the more lifetime energy capacity degradation you see.

BMW can only afford to make claims like this because the car will never see production.


RE: Can and should are two different things...
By dwalton on 8/31/2009 7:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
GM have been first many times in alternative fuel tech, turbochargers, cylinder deactivition and the first modern all electric automobile (EV-1). However those first have often led to lackluster to disastrous results as GM doesn't really have a history of producing durable alternative fuel tech that performs well or deemed practical enough for mainstream success.

Believing BMW can do something better than GM doesn't require a large leap in faith.


RE: Can and should are two different things...
By Spuke on 8/31/2009 7:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM doesn't really have a history of producing durable alternative fuel tech that performs well or deemed practical enough for mainstream success.
Other than the EV1, what vehicles are part of GM's history of "alternative fuel tech"?


By dwalton on 9/1/2009 11:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
My apologies. I not referring to just alternative fuels but alternatives to standard fuel tech like your common gas engines. GM was among the first to try to market and introduce tech like turbochargers and deactivated cylinder tech.


Not a plug in hybrid
By nafhan on 8/31/2009 12:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unlike the Volt running on electric power only, the BMW concept relies on both the electric and combustion engine combined at all times .
Either the article is wrong, or this vehicle is not a plug-in hybrid. Plug-in means it can run off electric power (from the plug), only, right?




RE: Not a plug in hybrid
By nafhan on 8/31/2009 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, upon re-reading that section, I get the feeling that what they are trying to say is that the vehicle can act as a parallel hybrid (i.e. Prius, non-plug-in) for extra power or a serial hybrid (i.e. the Volt) for extra range.


RE: Not a plug in hybrid
By Steve1981 on 8/31/2009 12:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily. AFAIK it just means the battery can be charged via plugging into the grid.


Article seems to contradict itself
By somedude1234 on 8/31/2009 3:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The hybrid concept can travel 31 miles on electric power alone... the BMW concept relies on both the electric and combustion engine combined at all times.


So can it go 31 miles w/o using any gas (i.e. "on electric power alone") or does it use the ICE at all times?




By lelias2k on 8/31/2009 3:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, that got me thinking too. AFAIK it can only be one of the two... :)


RE: Article seems to contradict itself
By drmo on 8/31/2009 5:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
From the link in the article, the car can use electric only, a combination of electric and diesel, or diesel only. This is different from the Volt, which (if I understand correctly) uses the gas motor to charge the battery or run the electric motor, and the electric motor is the only one turning the wheels. The combination mode makes the BMW much more powerful (BMW:356 hp vs Volt:160 hp). This means the BMW will be competing on an entirely different level than the Volt.

From link in article:
"BMW Vision EfficientDynamics is able to run completely under electric power, with the power of the turbodiesel engine alone, or through an infinite combination of the three power sources. Depending on driving conditions, the two electric motors may be used both for accelerating and for regenerating energy when applying the brakes and while coasting. This principle ensures efficient energy management, with the charge status of the lithium-polymer battery constantly remaining within the optimum range. When accelerating, the electric motors help to boost the car for even greater performance, ensuring immediate response and a significant reduction in fuel consumption. For a short time, such as in passing maneuvers, the cumulative maximum output of all three engines increases to 356 hp, with maximum torque generated by the three engines reaching 590 lb-ft."


Skin deep
By guacamojo on 8/31/2009 12:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
If the powertrain is so revolutionary (and the focus of the article), why are there no images allocated for it?

Instead, 3 images dedicated to a design concept of dubious utility and styling that likely won't ever see the light of production. Another supercar-looking concept that won't be made. Yawn.

I guess it's advertising. No one cares what the guts of the car are (except maybe techie non-buyers like me)... even here on DT, most of the comments seem to revolve around how "hot or not" it looks.




RE: Skin deep
By lelias2k on 8/31/2009 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree, especially considering the fact that diesel-hybrids are still a novelty on the market (which begs the question: WHY???)


this car won't be made
By Murloc on 8/31/2009 1:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
it's just a concept car, it's the hybrid system that will get used, not the car.




RE: this car won't be made
By RivuxGamma on 8/31/2009 8:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of what happens with concepts. A lot of them don't ever see production. That said, I do like the doors. Very insect-like. Also, I'm wondering about the polycarbonate darkening. Is it permanent or is it like those "transitions" lenses that go back to normal?

Also, if 356 hp is only available in bursts, I wonder what the normal output is.


Awesome'O
By SiliconJon on 8/31/2009 2:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
That is the most wicked vehicle I have ever seen.




By on 9/1/2009 9:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




meh.
By justniz on 9/1/2009 2:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
There's no way BMW will release this. It looks far too cool.
They'll either massively dull it down or charge Lamborghini prices for it.
Either way, theres no way the car industry will put a car like this in reach of a regular person.
They really just want to keep selling their same old boring grey boxes at massive markups to us.




Ugly as sin !
By Beenthere on 8/31/09, Rating: -1
"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki