backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 167 comment(s) - last by Penti.. on Aug 6 at 4:27 PM

GM tosses the turbocharged three cylinder engine out in favor of a naturally-aspirated four cylinder

Ever since the Chevrolet Volt was first announced in early 2007, it has garnered a lot of attention due to its radical design and unorthodox approach to vehicle propulsion. The Volt's main source of power comes from a lithium-ion battery pack which can provide enough juice to power the vehicle for 40 miles. When the battery pack's charge dips below 35%, a 1.0-liter, turbocharged three cylinder engine was commissioned to charge the batteries back to 100%. Alternatively, the Volt can be recharged using a household electrical outlet.

According to GM's Executive Director of Hybrid Powertrain Engineering, Larry Nitz, the Volt will be ditching the complex turbocharged three-cylinder engine in favor of a more conventional naturally-aspirated 1.4 liter four cylinder engine. For its given application in the Volt, Nitz says that the four cylinder engine provides better fuel economy which is key in a eco-friendly vehicle like the Volt.

Another advantage to going with the four cylinder engine is in refinement. While four cylinder engines aren't always known for smoothness or utmost refinement, they are much better in these respects than three cylinder engines. "The objective is to keep the engine off and when the engine comes on, you don't want to know it's on," said Nitz. "You want it really smooth and four cylinder is smoother than a three."

When it comes to packaging, the naturally-aspirated four cylinder engine doesn't have to accommodate the turbocharging or its requisite plumbing; thus it's lighter than original three cylinder engine envisioned for the Volt. The four cylinder engine, however, is still slightly longer than the three cylinder engine with its attachments, so changes to the vehicle packaging had to be made.

Nitz went on to say that the Volt's 16 kWh battery will provide the best range of performance for the vehicle when operating at a 35% to 85% charge. Once the four cylinder gasoline kicks in at below 35% charge, it will provide 50 kW to power the vehicle instead of the usual 100 kW provided by the lithium-ion battery pack.

Even when operating in this reduced capacity, the Volt will still be able to respond on command when a surge of power is needed. "Zero to sixty, passing maneuvers, you'll be fine, the ability to actually use more than about 50kW doesn't exist very frequently," explained Nitz.

The Chevrolet Volt has made the news quite frequently over the past month. Most recently, GM announced that it would work with utility companies to provide the infrastructure necessary to support electric charging facilities for electric vehicles like the Volt.

Earlier this month, it was reported that GM reduced the capacity of the fuel tank from 12 gallons to 7.2 gallons -- this cut the estimated driving range from 600 miles to 360 miles. Finally, GM Vice Chairman "Maximum" Bob Lutz in mid-June expressed his confidence that the Volt will arrive in showrooms in 2010.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Compromises to bring it to market?
By Darkskypoet on 7/27/2008 6:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Is this just to bring it to market on time? Or are these compromises in place to lower the price? Or perhaps the fuel cap, and engine length are directly related in a design sense, thus its the simplest way to make the engine change. Either way, the drop in power from the engine, anybody following the volt enough to know if this is cause for concern performance wise?




RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By MisterChristopher on 7/27/2008 6:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know, but hopefully it will reduce total vehicle costs.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By DigitalFreak on 7/27/2008 7:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt it. They just recently raised the expected price from $30k to $40k.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By phxfreddy on 7/27/08, Rating: 0
By Jim28 on 7/27/2008 9:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
Been there, done that, got the wrinkles in my dick to prove it. God does it hurt!


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By shabby on 7/27/2008 7:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
Add some options, taxes, freight and its 50k out the door.
A fuel efficient 50k car... good job gm. I think i'll buy a 15k kia rio and swim in the 35k i just saved.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By GlassHouse69 on 7/28/2008 1:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
yeah but your kia is a laughable piece of shit.

ill be riding around in my supercharged mini with driving lamps and style.

the volt has style.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 306maxi on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
By StevoLincolnite on 7/28/2008 5:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
Style can be brought in through Aerodynamics.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By afkrotch on 7/28/2008 5:51:54 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think either the Mini or the Volt have style. Unless you're a woman.


By foolsgambit11 on 7/29/2008 2:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
I guess with an name like afkrotch, we should expect sexism like that.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Samus on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Noya on 7/28/2008 7:13:56 AM , Rating: 1
Touche.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Chaser on 7/28/2008 8:28:55 AM , Rating: 5
Um not Touche. As demonstrated by the Prius this is more than just gas mileage savings. The Volt is a significant step away from volatile gas price fluctuations. As the article indicates it can be plugged in to be recharged. A noteworthy option for many car owners.

And this "they don't do anything exceptionally well". My suggestion for your broad stroke, baseless dribble is to speak with your wallet and buy your exceptionally well Kia. Volt is a major undertaking for GM. And they are doing a fairly good job at responding to the market. Lets let the car make it to the market and then let the judging begin.


By teldar on 7/28/2008 5:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, that sounds far too rational. What are you doing posting after a little thinking?

T


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By kc77 on 7/28/2008 8:52:30 AM , Rating: 4
While it would be easy to bash GM on thier reluctance to actually promote fuel efficiant vehicles, in terms of quality they rank up their pretty high. Their luxury brand easily competes with any of the others out there, even if it does come in a drab grey with oversized buttons.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 9:51:33 AM , Rating: 3
Just another GM basher who hates American cars.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 67STANG on 7/28/2008 11:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
I love american cars, but lets be honest with ourselves... what car (other than the Corvette-- I love the C6) is actually an all-around decent competitor to anything else in its class?


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Aloonatic on 7/28/2008 11:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
Just a couple of quick questions.

When people on here (mostly Americans I assume) talk about American cars they seem to ignore Ford. Why is that?

They are very popular over here in the UK and have been for a looooong time.

The Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo all sell very very well and compete nicely with anything from the Far East and Europe.

Are these models not available in the states?

I know that (traditionally) the markets have been very different with America having more of a liking for large engined cars to carry loads and for cruising, which is not something that we need to do much in the UK but with the times a-changing there must be a market for these cars that do well in the UK in America too?


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By DFranch on 7/28/2008 12:12:03 PM , Rating: 3
Of the 3 cars you mentioned only the focus is available in the US. I think the reason why ford is not mentioned much is while their trucks are thought highly of and have been for a long time, their cars really kind of sucked for a long long time. That said their cars have been getting better for several years, but it takes many years before general perceptions change. When I was growing up Ford stood for "Found on Roadside Dead" or something like that.


By Chudilo on 7/28/2008 12:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
In addition, Ford focus that is sold in Europe is on par with other semi luxury cars. It is available with all sorts of niceties. Not so in the US. Up until now the Focus is considered an econobox and is thought to be competing with KIA and Hyundai. Wit the quality of everything on the inside being relatively similar. With oil prices at their current levels, this may change rather quickly.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 67STANG on 7/28/2008 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ford is actually advertising that they now "match Toyota in quality". Whether or not that's true, I don't know. What I do know is that the only Fords I've owned have been Mustangs and F-150's and I've never had a single problem. Not really saying much I guess, as I rarely keep a vehicle longer than 2 years.


By Aloonatic on 7/28/2008 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
My first car was a Ford (don't laugh) KA.

It was OK for what I needed to do which was mostly short journeys and the only problem I had was a suspension problem shortly after a load of rather aggressive speed bumps appeared on my route to work, which disappeared within a few months (no doubt with a lot of claims for other similarly broken cars flooding their complaints department) and the repair work was carried out under warranty, so I don't blame Ford.

It had air conditioning (turned off when you needed to accelerate of course as the engine was ~70bph), leather seats and even an air bag but that was about it really, but did the job very well.

Then I got my Toyota corolla (which I am pretty happy with) and within the first 3 years the water pump and air pump both broke, luckily just within warranty period.

I would at least put them on a par with reliability from what I have seen and heard from friends and family.

More importantly I would put them both way ahead of any French built car. My cousin's Peugeot 307 literally fell apart (inside) and hasn't lasted long. It has (essentially) been scrapped after 5 years. She's gone back to Toyota again.

it seems strange to hear that Ford treat a car like the Focus as they do in the States, offering it as a cheap/budget option.Hopefully that'll change as they are a pretty good car.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By adiposity on 7/28/2008 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 3
Fix
Or
Repair
Daily


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 67STANG on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
By Screwballl on 7/28/2008 4:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ford - 90% of our vehicles are still on the road today (the other 10% made it home)

F**ked on race day


By Xenoterranos on 7/30/2008 8:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot:
Ford
Only
Rolls
Downhill

The best thing about this acronym is that it's recursive :D


By LordanSS on 7/28/2008 6:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
The Ford Fiesta (and KA) are popular here in Brazil, mostly their 1.0L Flex engine version. Some people even add a vehicular gas modification kit to it too, allowing people to use natural gas as well.

Being able to use gasoline, ethanol or gas is pretty neat. Filling up your tank with $5 (if gas) and going a long ways is even better. =)


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 1:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Cobalt?
New Malibu?
Silverado?
Tahoe?
Suburban?


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 67STANG on 7/28/2008 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Try again...


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By theapparition on 7/28/2008 2:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Nice quip,
But just choosing one example, the Suburban, is hands down better than anything else in it's class. That might be due to the fact that it's the only vehicle like it in it's class. It's only competition was the Excursion, which is long gone. Expedition or Durango don't even come close.

Nice try yourself.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 67STANG on 7/28/2008 11:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sad, perhaps if you knew anything about vehicles, you'd know that the Expedition EL is the direct competitor to the Suburban. And oh yeah, here's how bad the Suburban loses to it...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0611_f...

Please, do some reading and get back to the rest of us.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Aloonatic on 7/29/2008 4:10:55 AM , Rating: 2
Just looking at that link (as I have no idea about the cars that you are on about because they aren't available or at least well marketed in the UK) and it seems that both of those are American cars.

So whichever one you think is the best it's an American car which

quote:
is actually an all-around decent competitor to anything else in its class

it just happens to be that there are 2 American cars competing with each other in that class.

After some (admittedly limited) research with my above comments it seems strange that some American companies (well, Ford) seem reluctant to compete in some classes even though they have successful vehicles already out in the wild all over the world.

The marketing of American cars seems a little strange.

Over here in the UK it would seem that Chevy are trying to make inroads into the market but are going down the value route and that (IMHO) will not be successful.

If you want a value for money car then there are KIAs,Daewoos, Hyundais etc. Usually with 7 year warranties and such, which people (in the UK) will go for and the perceived quality and status of these vehicles is no more or no less than a cheap Chevy, so why get one?


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By stryfe on 7/29/2008 1:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the cheap Chevys are Daewoos anyway, Aveo, Optra...
I see no problem in competing with Korean cars by selling rebadged Korean cars.


By Aloonatic on 7/29/2008 5:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to ask if Chevy were doing that after seeing a little Chevy Matiz today and remembering Daewoo made a small car of the same name.

It's a pretty competitive market place but using re-badged Korean cars makes sense, in the short term anyway.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By theapparition on 7/29/2008 8:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And oh yeah, here's how bad the Suburban loses to it...


I think your exagerating a tad.......from your own link. Did you even read the article?

quote:
Both of these SUVs are orders of magnitude better than their predecessors in comfort, capability, and civility. In the end, the Expedition EL's edge in price, performance, and interior trim/features/space utilization earned it a split decision. Like our sole dissenting judge, we suspect few dedicated Suburbanites will even consider switching allegiances from what's long been viewed as the de facto king of this hill.


Split decision? So that's a bad loss. Car and Driver rated the Suburban higher, albeit not by much either. Overall, still pretty close and could go either way. Hardly a slam dunk.

quote:
Pretty sad, perhaps if you knew anything about vehicles,

Please go back to your carborated 30+mpg 400+hp stang, you know the one where the sky is pink and lollipops grow on bushes.


By 67STANG on 7/29/2008 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I read the article, the one where they gave the Expedition EL first place. Strange considering nothing comes close the the Suburban... Did you even read the article? How about the vehicle specifications comparison on the next page?

I'm not sure what "carborated" means, but if that's some sort of new way getting fuel into an engine, I'd like to learn more. Please share. By the way, I've got your lollipop right here.


By djc208 on 8/2/2008 8:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
The 300/Charger/Magnum/Challenger are still solid competitors in their respective classes. Yes I know they're based off MB designs but the sheet-metal, interiors (atitude), engines, and tuning are all Chrysler.

The Malibu has gotten wonderful reviews from all the automotive press, almost reluctantly so, and is shown as an example of what GM needs to do more of.

The new Cadillac's are also seen as very competitive with their siblings. They may not be first but they're not an also-ran any more either.

While people are moving away from full-size pickups the big three still are very competitive with the newer Toyota (the Honda doesn't really count here). Even if only due to the arms race they're in with each other.

And on the "forgotten vehicles" end of the spectrum the Dodge and Chrysler mini-vans are still well respected in their (admittedly small) class, even if only for feature content and practicality.

Besides the C6 is actually a competitor to vehicles well above its "class" in many respects. And the Viper will still beat the pants off cars costing far more as well, just not comfortably.


By Polynikes on 7/30/2008 10:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
If saving the planet is your plan, and you can afford it, the Volt is a better option for many people, since it can theoretically never use gas (as long as you have a short commute.)


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Hiawa23 on 7/27/2008 9:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
sounds cool but looks like it will be out of most peoples price range. Since most of us are not maving away from gasoline engines, I hope these vehicles get the price of oil down for most of us, that's all we will ever have, which are 100% gasoline engines. I have two cars & not buying another anytime soon, for most of us the hope is that gas prices will fall.


By stryfe on 7/29/2008 3:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you think the entire population is 60+ years old so we'll all be dead in the next 20 years your view is incredibly short sighted.

As alternative fuel technologies develop and economies of scale bring their cost down, more and more people will buy them. Driving this is the fact that gas prices are never really going to go down. They may very well fluctuate and drop 10-15% at times but they'll head back up again. If you were to graph them the trend would be ever upward.

You may not want to replace one of your gas engined cars now, but how about in ten years? What if gas is $6/gallon then? How about if it's $10?


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By The0ne on 7/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Ringold on 7/27/2008 9:55:51 PM , Rating: 5
You hope GM fails because it gave people what they really wanted for so long? Yeah, serving markets, how dare they.

No, if they fail, they'll simply do so because, asides from labor unions and the related legacy costs, their poor management and a bad roll of the dice will have landed them there. No need for moralistic BS to explain the success/failure of a company.

I doubt they'll "fail," though. They're too big. Even if it went belly up and its component parts were sold off, much of the same business would still exist. Just the name may change. In fact, the name might even stay the same -- people don't buy Cerberus Capital Management trucks, they still buy Dodge trucks, made by most of the same people as when Daimler owned the brand.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By JAB on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By Spoelie on 7/28/2008 3:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
Sure! A high revving (15k rpm), inefficient (fuel consumption wise, not power-to-weight/displacement) low torque motorcycle engine in a day-to-day commuting vehicle, that would be the best!


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By JAB on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By theapparition on 7/28/2008 7:36:03 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
But they had no back up plan and no effort to improve effecency- until the bottom fell out of the market.

GM has always been AHEAD of the market. Too far ahead for thier own good.

Guess what they used to make in the 80's? Turbo charged cars. Way before they became mainstream. The turbo Buick Grand Nationals are some of the most coveted collector cars and most are still going strong.

Guess what GM made in the 90's? That's right.....the Geo brand. Small cars with high fuel efficiency. They were pretty good little cars (most were licensed re-brands), but nobody bought them. GM had the highest mpg car in the 90's, the Geo Metro.

So what do you want a company to do? They did make those fuel efficient products, but were spurned by the market. So those designs were shelved, in favor of trucks and SUVs, which the market wanted. The only thing they were unprepared for was a complete market shift in only 1-2years. That's enough to make almost every company gag. That includes Toyota too, since they have more trucks/SUVs than any other foreign automaker, and were heavily invested in them. The Tacoma's and Sequoia's sales have dropped sharper than the F150's or C/K1500's. Only thing propping up Toyota was thier wise investment into the Prius, and thier Apple like mystique that they are somehow better.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By kc77 on 7/28/2008 8:48:36 AM , Rating: 1
GM didn't market the GEO brand worth crap. They were basically rebadged Toyotas and Suzukis, which came out first. How many GEO Prism commercials have you seen say versus any of their other cars, trucks, or Corvettes?


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By theapparition on 7/28/2008 8:53:53 AM , Rating: 3
I did see pleny of GEO prism commercials, but all were at the end of GEO's lifespan.

I don't think I've ever seen a commercial for the Corvette (I have 3 vettes, so trust me, I'd be paying attention), except the one that was banned for glamorizing "underage driving". (BTW, excellent commercial!!!).


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By kc77 on 7/28/2008 9:50:01 AM , Rating: 1
You have to remember the Corvette brand isn't just marketed by conventional commercials, but magazine covers (care to guess how many marketing pieces exist within magazines on the Corvette... you probably looked a few when you bought yours), Nascar events, F1 racing events, etc.


By stryfe on 7/29/2008 3:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Isuzus. The Geo Storm was an Isuzu Impulse


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 10:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
I would kill for a GNX. A buddy has a Grand National though.

The turbo TA beat the Corvette of its day. I've even seen videos of GNs eating Vipers for breakfast on the stock bottom end.


By Alexvrb on 7/28/2008 10:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I love turbocharged 3800s. They prove that the Buick 231 (in transverse form) still responds incredibly well to being turbocharged. Although the centrifugal supercharger kits are pretty nice too. The stock blower on the L67s... not so much. But the turbo and centrifugal SC setups are sweet.


By stryfe on 7/29/2008 3:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
The Turbo Trans Am ranks amoungst the least reliable cars of all time thanks to it's engine and the Corvette of it's day was completely casterated thanks to new emissions regulations and the oil crisis.

Before you go discounting me as a "hater" I have to say; I love both the Corvette and Trans Am, they were objects of boyhood fantasy and I'd still love to have one of either as a second car to take out on the weekends. It's just the particular versions of them you're talking about are some of the worst of the breed.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 67STANG on 7/28/2008 11:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
Umm turbocharged cars in the 80's doesn't make GM ahead of their time... Mopar and Ford also had turbo cars in the 80's... In fact, Mopar had and sold more turbo cars than the other two... As far as fuel efficient cars, again, the big 3 all made fuel effiecient cars... remember the original Ford Fiesta for example?

The problem is, gas prices were down and demand for big V8 torque was up. Car manufacturers always shift to the market. The market right now says, we want fuel efficient cars, so that's what they're trying to make. 10 to 1 says that if gas prices dip down below 3 bucks a gallon again, you'll see a lot of these fuel efficient cars die. Of course, we'll probably never see sub-$3 gas again.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By theapparition on 7/28/2008 3:06:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As far as fuel efficient cars, again, the big 3 all made fuel effiecient cars... remember the original Ford Fiesta for example?

Yes, another example was the Dodge Colt.

quote:
Car manufacturers always shift to the market.

My point exactly. Yet major shifts don't happen overnight and it will take some time to come out with new designs.

I just don't like the monday morning quarterbacks here thinking that American car companies were out of touch. They produced EXACTLY what most buyers were looking for. Large powerful trucks/SUVs. When that market disintegrated overnight, they were totally caught off-guard.

And some may say they were gun-shy about pulling the trigger on fuel-efficient/turbo'ed designs, partially because they invested into them 20-30 years ago, and didn't get a return. If you were burned doing something years ago, would you elect to try it again?


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By foolsgambit11 on 7/29/2008 2:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When that market disintegrated overnight, they were totally caught off-guard.

That's why they should have been diversified. My investment portfolio isn't entirely tech stocks, or manufacturing, or even stocks. And large companies should do the same. Even if it was the worst selling car, having a fuel efficient sub-compact in their lineup would have enabled them to respond to changing demand quicker by simply ramping up production, instead of having to start production on a variant of a European model that needs to be adapted for US safety and emissions standards. Maybe they lose a little money, but it's an insurance policy.


By djc208 on 8/3/2008 7:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
None of the auto manufacturers were missing from any of the segments. They all have a dog in the hunt. Problem is the competition, and therefore the engineering resources are concentrated on the models that sell the most. That used to be trucks and SUVs, now it's small cars and cross-overs.

It takes time to shift those resources, and the results take even longer to reach market. If part of your portfolio became heavily de-valued over night it would still take a while for you to re-evaluate and re-distribute that portion and future investments. There's no difference here.

To continue the analogy if the auto makers have a problem it's lack of diversity within each sector. They have a small car but they only have one or two models. Same as you having tech stocks but only in computer companies. They were heavily diversified in trucks and SUVs, now they're trying to re-diversify into cars and cross-overs. At the same time trying to branch out into hybrids and alternative technologies, all while dealing with reduced sales and lower profits.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By JAB on 7/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By theapparition on 7/28/2008 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Rebranding a Suzuki is not exactly innovation at least adapt it to the American market.

The '89+ model years were all designed in the US.

quote:
Again just because you put a turbo on an American car doesn't make you some kind of oracle.

Potentially a bad example, since GM had turbocharged cars in the 60's as well. My point was they had an internal push to convert ALL thier cars to turbos in the 80's, yet market conditions and perceptions of turbos back in the 80's (heat/oil bake) caused a shift of product. I find it ironic now that the average DT readership is now clamoring for Turbos. That was the point I was trying to make.

quote:
How is this some stroke of genius they did not control the weight or bother working on the suspension just think of the car it could have ben if they dropped some weight and made it handle.

You act like this is some revelation. Take some weight out, simple. Not quite.

For starters, over the last 20 years, every car has increased in weight. Even Honda Civic's are pushing upwards of 2900lbs! Yet I don't hear you calling them out.

Safety standards demanded that cars gained weight.....or.....meet structural requirements by going to exotic materials (read that as expensive/difficult to manufacture). Since all automakers didn't have the luxury of trippling prices, weight was increased. Aluminum and Carbon Fiber are still thought of as exotic and only available on the highest priced cars.

quote:
A complete market shift in 1-2 years is common it is almost clockwork.

Not even in your wet dreams. Electronics industry, maybe. Automotive industry, no.


By stryfe on 7/29/2008 3:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Potentially a bad example, since GM had turbocharged cars in the 60's as well. My point was they had an internal push to convert ALL thier cars to turbos in the 80's, yet market conditions and perceptions of turbos back in the 80's (heat/oil bake) caused a shift of product. I find it ironic now that the average DT readership is now clamoring for Turbos. That was the point I was trying to make.
It's not ironic, it's simply that turbo technology in the 80s simply wasn't ready for prime time. They were unreliable, expensive to repair, and mostly had bad lag thanks to heavy materials being needed for the compressor wheel to make them even remotely reliable.

The reason people want them now are the huge advances in the technology. Reliability has been improved with better design that prevents the oil baking in the turbo during cool down, stronger materials, better bearings, etc. Lag has all but disappeared thanks to light yet strong composite materials in the compressor wheel and turbos with variable geometry making compromises in maximum boost/spool up no longer necessary. Costs are coming down thanks to economies of scale as well as years of experience in building them.


By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
So had GM. In the 70s they were putting turbos on Trans Ams. Before that the 1962 Oldsmobile Turbo Jetfire had one.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By The0ne on 7/28/2008 4:40:01 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry to burst your bubble but in fact I am very much aware of the quality, management problems, unions issues and so forth that has and is going on. I'm not simply stating that I like them to fail, although I hadn't backed it up in detail except for the EV1 comment.

Here's a hint, I'm a Test, Instrumentation, Design (electronic) and most importantly I'm a Manufacturing and Quality person. So spare me your comment as though I know not what I've said. I've simply choose to say what I've said in short.


By The0ne on 7/28/2008 4:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
And that goes for what I've noticed most of the readers here as well. Most are well educated readers and posters that IF each were to go into details of their experience and expertise there be no end to discussions. Sometimes it's just best to just say what you have to say, in your own opinion, and just let it go without too much he-haw.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By fenderkb76 on 7/28/2008 12:40:45 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with you whole-heartedly about GM. Way to go, let's help the environment and lower our dependence on foreign oil by bringing a car to the "masses" that can make daily commutes on electricity alone. Too bad that only the well to do will be able to afford it, practically guaranteeing a failure. Sure, Ed Begley, Jr. might bite, but let's get realistic, not that many people who care have $40-$50K to do their part. Look at the current economic situation. Most people who can afford this thing can also afford cars like BMWs, Mecedes, Escalades, Hummers, etc. and couldn't care less if they have to pay $100 per week for gas.

GM should have used their leading market position to be innovators starting in the 1970s and 1980s instead of buying up all the patents that would put them out of business only to sit on them and maintain the status quo. My dad drove a 1980 VW Rabbit for years that got 40+ MPH. My mom drove a naturally aspirated 1.6L diesel 1985 VW Jetta that could get 50+ MPH on long trips. These were not expensive cars. Obviously, with today's technology, we should be able to do even better while even boosting performance a little.

Way to go GM, wake up and smell the 90s if you can pull your head out of your arse long enough to get a wiff. I'm all for buying American, but look where GM is now. This has been a long time coming, prepare to reap the whirlwind gentlemen.

American car companies cry about the upcoming environmental regulations on fuel economy and add that the prices of cars will have to go up by $5000. You should have thought of this 20 years ago! Our culture of excess and instant gratification has not helped things. We all need to take a page out of the book from foreign countries where they've been paying the equivalent of $10 a gallon for some time now. </rant>


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By theapparition on 7/28/2008 7:41:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
You should have thought of this 20 years ago!

They did!!!

They offered the GEO Metro with over 50mpg as early as the late 80's. It was the cheapest car on the road, and got the best fuel economy. Didn't sell enough to justify keeping them. If you want to point fingers, the other ones are pointing back at you (the public masses). GM made the cars that people bought. Period.

Oh, how soon you media lemmings forget truth and start believing your own version of events.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By 4play on 7/28/2008 11:23:42 AM , Rating: 1
The Geo Metro was a piece of crap. People aren't buying the Cobalt either, even though it has great fuel economy. Yet MINI's and Honda Fits are selling quite well.

Aveo? Yeah GM is really ahead with small cars...


By jmmcc691 on 7/28/2008 2:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
People aren't buying Cobalts? Are you kidding. Cobalt was Chevy's 2nd highest selling vehicle in 2005, was in the top 10 of all vehicles sold the last 2 years and will probably do the same this year.

As far as a hybrid releasing us from the clutches of foreign oil... No company will allow their profits to drop regardless, so if oil profits start to drop then the same people who have control of oil will just up the cost of natural gas, which in turn increases electricity costs for any area with gas power plants as well as increases the cost of natural gas use in the home. So where you may see a savings in gasoline costs (nix the 42k more the car costs than say a 12K 4 cylinder base model, that you could never make back on gas savings even in a 10 year span) you will definately repay it in the cost increase of natural gas, plus the cost of electricity everytime you plug that 100Kw beast into your house.

I love our capitalist society but people seem to forget that corporate shareholders will not accept lower yields regardless of what's good for the economy or whether or not we are funding both sides of a war.


By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 10:11:46 AM , Rating: 1
The government regulations are nothing more than a push by environmentalists to force us to use less fuel. The price of gas should be the main drive in the economy of cars. As it is now completely independent of those regulations. Of course the cost of oil is also being manipulated by the same environmentalists who won't let us drill.

These new EPA standards will only punish those who wish to have a choice in what they drive. And those with large families who need larger vehicles will be punished threefold. Once in trying to find a vehicle for sale that will fit their large family. A second time in trying to afford the vehicle. And again at the pump because of the inflated price of fuel because of environmentalists not allowing us to increase supply. But environmentalists don't care about people. They hate the idea of large families because that means even more of the "blight" of humanity upon the world.

People should be allowed to get as poor mileage as they can afford. Air quality standards are one thing. But our air is typically cleaner than parts of Europe where they drive higher efficiency cars. These new mileage standards do nothing for air quality.


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By StillPimpin on 7/28/2008 12:27:44 PM , Rating: 3
WOW! That was a load of crap.

quote:
Way to go, let's help the environment and lower our dependence on foreign oil by bringing a car to the "masses" that can make daily commutes on electricity alone.


News flash, THIS IS NOT A MASS MARKET AUTOMOBILE!!! It is GMs entry point into electric/hybrid vehicles, (and yes I know this is not a true hybrid.)

quote:
Sure, Ed Begley, Jr. might bite, but let's get realistic, not that many people who care have $40-$50K to do their part.


Come on people; let’s get real about a few things. Let’s use our high school economics for a few seconds. In the real world there are two forces which determine the price of goods and services. Come on every body, say it with me S____Y & D____D. Changing either one of these variables has an effect on price.

GM knows that when the price of their product goes up, demand for said product goes down. They also know that because of availability of materials, their supply will be constrained. This is what's called a "compound Effect" which causes prices to rise even further. There are also R&D costs to be recouped from this project which need to be figured into the price. Combine ingredients in a large pot and simmer for 3-4 year and you have a $50K science project.

quote:
GM should have used their leading market position to be innovators starting in the 1970s and 1980s instead of buying up all the patents that would put them out of business only to sit on them and maintain the status quo.


Prove it. Not with a conjecture and conspiracy, but actual proof that GM purchased patents and did not use them just to keep status quo. Go ahead, I'll be here all week.

quote:
My dad drove a 1980 VW Rabbit for years that got 40+ MPH. My mom drove a naturally aspirated 1.6L diesel 1985 VW Jetta that could get 50+ MPH on long trips. These were not expensive cars. Obviously, with today's technology, we should be able to do even better while even boosting performance a little.


So, by your own reasoning and logic we should all be driving 60+ and 70+ MPG VW Rabbits and Vettas right now. *GHASP* Where are they? Not even their diesels are up to that standard. As a matter of fact, any of their vehicles would be doing EXCELLENT to be pushing that kind of gas mileage today. So what did VW do with all their excellent technology patents? Are they just sitting on them just to keep the status quo? Will they release next year the 90+ MPG "SuperBunny" and totally destroy the investment that GM, Toyota, Honda and all the others have in hybrid and alternative technology? Go ahead, I'll be here all week.

quote:
Way to go GM, wake up and smell the 90s if you can pull your head out of your arse long enough to get a wiff. I'm all for buying American, but look where GM is now. This has been a long time coming, prepare to reap the whirlwind gentlemen.


And you sir should be ready to reap the whirlwind of one of Americas largest corporation collapsing. I can think of only 1 good thing to come from the demise of GM and that is the severe weakening of the automotive union, and maybe other unions, in America.

quote:
American car companies cry about the upcoming environmental regulations on fuel economy and add that the prices of cars will have to go up by $5000. You should have thought of this 20 years ago! Our culture of excess and instant gratification has not helped things.


So 20 years ago "American" car companies should have known that oil speculation would be out of control, no new oil refineries would be built in the US in that 20 years, liberals in congress would castrate our ability drill for oil in our own country, we would be importing almost 70% of all petroleum consumed, and India and China would become major players in the world economy and would have just as insatiable appetite for oil as we do? Yeah, I'm glad you had that foresight 20 years ago.

quote:
We all need to take a page out of the book from foreign countries where they've been paying the equivalent of $10 a gallon for some time now.


So we should impose massive taxes on gas for what reason? So people will consume less? So car companies will be forced to make more fuel efficient automobiles? So the price of everything that you use in day to day life will skyrocket as well? And use the extra tax money for what? Hey, how about decrease the tax burden on working people so they can afford to by gas to go to work and buy groceries and maybe go on a vacation every 10 years or so?

Listen people, this country is in an "Energy Pinch", not Crysis, yet. And the car companies didn't get us here all by themselves, so let's stop using GM, Chrysler and Ford as whipping boys. If your going to beat up on car companies, at least be fair and line them all up and dish out punishment equally because there is more than enough "Blame" to go around. IMHO, we should start with VW for not continuing to supply us with all their might uber gas mileage Jettas and Rabbits. Hell, if they had continued we would be driving 100MPG cars, trucks, and SUVs right now with no need for 35-50MPG hybrids, or plug-in electrical vehicles. Yeah, let’s start with the Germans, eFing FARFEGNUGEN!

Ford Lover, Out


RE: Compromises to bring it to market?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, cars like that Rabbit don't exist anymore because they wouldn't meet the crash test standards of the modern day. Cars have been getting heavier and heavier due to safety standards. A muscle car used to weigh a little more than 3000 pounds. Now they're near 4000. If not over. But they still get better mileage. And make more horsepower. And pollute less.


By StillPimpin on 7/28/2008 3:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
And that is exactly my point. There is no way to compare gas mileage of vehicles today with vehicles of 20+ years ago. Cars today have to operate under much stricter emissions and safety controls. All the technology that goes into said controls adds weight to the vehicle, reducing its fuel economy. Hell, most compacts today are almost porkers compared to full size vehicles of yesterday.

Cars have gotten a lot better over the years, stronger faster and safer. This is the point that a lot of people miss in this debate.

If I were to present you with 2 cars, the same make and model. Both cars styled exactly the same on the inside and out. One got 30MPG and the other 40MPG. The only differences were the 30MPG car was safer, performed better, and gave off less pollution, which one would you drive?


By Calin on 7/28/2008 6:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
Overall, the 1.4l 4 cylinders engine will prove cheaper and require less maintenance than the turbocharged one. Taking everything into account, the 4 cylinder is better at everything here: cheaper, probably lighter (no need for extra resistance due to extra boost), with less maintenance. As for the use of a turbo charged unit, this (with variable geometry turbo) gives you better power and torque distribution - but this is useless as the electric motors drive the car. As such, an gasoline engine optimized only for efficiency at high power (for loading batteries) is quite enough


By Alondor on 7/28/2008 6:33:00 AM , Rating: 1
Most of things are difficult.
First, most People are afraid changing things.
For instance in her privat, her Job, her friends and others.
So for manufacturers of cars where build the same system since 100 years, it will be a massive impact to change the direction.
Especially people where stay behind such new decisions are living very dangerous in case of loosing thier job if the new way don`t work.
(o.k. in case of not leaving the way they are using since jears and they are loosing everything, the are loosing their job as well)
It is the game that plays every where.... no pain no change.

Everything has to be checked. The weight of a car has to be reduced first, and an electrical engine with the right sized batterie pack can drive the car as well as it can do with old models.
The biggest problem in a old big car manufacturer like GM is, how much people don`t wont to leave the old way.
Here in europe we pay the double price for gasoline since years and now people having much more pressure because a lot can not pay it.
Eurpoean car manufacturer have learned in the past that tey have to build smaller cars and smaler engines to save peoples money.
The oil industrie has to learn that they can not supply the western hemispehere with oil if the arabians stop to deliver it.
I read the related artikels since month and there are some manufacturers on the market, where offer new batteries for electric cars. most of them are based in the states, like A123 and others.
Of course, companies like tesla show the market how it works
and if the big ones can not change fast egnought, they will die.


50mpg combined, not bad
By joex444 on 7/27/2008 6:41:24 PM , Rating: 5
In the US, we're a little unfamiliar with the kW unit for power. 50kW = 67hp, 100kW = 134hp. Go look at a power curve for your car, most of the time you get nowhere close to what your engine is rated. All cruising is done under 80hp.

I understand that electric motors can go to much higher revs (12k or so), so does this mean it can operate with say, a light-weight 3 speed automatic, or perhaps a CVT? I can't imagine that they'd consider running it with 1 gear.

Speaking of, does the gas engine have like a 2 speed transmission to help charge the battery faster? Suppose the Li-Ion battery gets weaker over time, will the gas engine still be able to charge it quickly enough after your 40 miles are up?

The quoted ranges work out to 50mpg, combined. Will this get better mileage in the city or the highway, as the Prius gets better city mileage.

Is there any regenerative braking?

If they used a diesel engine, which we all know operates more efficiently at a single speed, and they used it at a fixed RPM to charge the battery, they could easily boost their MPG from 50 to ...? My guess would be around 80mpg, maybe higher. Even with gas at $4, and diesel at $5, that makes diesel cheaper. And even though 1 gal of diesel produces more greenhouse gases than 1 gal of gas, when that gallon of diesel is burned over a longer distance, it has fewer greenhouse emissions than the gas.

I'm kind of interested to see how this turns out. I think its a unique idea, and is a step forward from hybrids. Realistically, a 360 mile range is more than I would need. I fill my tank about once a month, and get about 280 miles off it.




RE: 50mpg combined, not bad
By Solandri on 7/27/2008 9:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Usually engines in these applications are hooked up to a CVT (continuously variable transmission) so the engine can always be run at the most efficient RPM, whether it's gas or diesel. The only reason CVTs aren't used in regular cars (they are used in hybrids) is because they can't yet handle the 150+ hp available in today's engines efficiently.


RE: 50mpg combined, not bad
By sprockkets on 7/28/2008 12:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's a torque issue, not a HP issue. And you forget there are CVTs in Audi's, Nissan's and even Fords. The Murano has a CVT option, and is a 245hp engine.


RE: 50mpg combined, not bad
By Solandri on 7/28/2008 2:17:49 AM , Rating: 2
power = torque x rpm. That is, torque is how much energy is generated per cylinder firing. Power is how much energy is generated over time (energy from cylinder firing times how many cylinders fire in a second). So torque, power, RPM, and efficiency are all interconnected.

Each engine reaches peak efficiency at a certain RPM. It also reaches peak power at another RPM. That's actually part of the reason why diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines. When you design a car engine, you have two conflicting design requirements - efficiency at cruise (low power), but power on demand. With a gasoline engine, the peak efficiency is at a low RPM, but peak power has to be at a high RPM. So you're trying to optimize the engine at both high and low RPMs. A diesel tends to reach its power peak at a lower RPM, so there's less separation between peak power and peak efficiency. So it's easier to optimize a diesel engine's design than a gasoline engine's.

A CVT mitigates this problem for the gasoline engine. With a CVT you can design it so its peak efficiency is at a higher RPM (if you can stand the engine noise), making it easier to optimize. The same holds for a hybrid. The electric motor provides most of the peak power, so you can just concentrate on optimizing the gasoline engine near its peak efficiency RPM.

And I hadn't been following CVT advancements for several years. Thanks for the update. It's good to hear they've managed to get one working on an engine that powerful.


RE: 50mpg combined, not bad
By Calin on 7/28/2008 6:34:32 AM , Rating: 3
Power is how much work is done over a time unit. Torque is how much force (like weight pulling) is at the end of a bar with a 1-unit length connected to the engine shaft.
If my engine has 200 Nm torque, it will maintain its rpm if I attach a 1 m rod to its crankshaft and apply on its end a force of 200N (or connect it to a capstan 2m in diameter pulling up a 20 kg mass). In imperial units, a 250 pound-feet torque engine will maintain its rpm while pulling up a 250 pounds mass on a capstan with a 1 foot radius.
What is the power used to do so?
Power is force multiplied by distance - so in our metric case, the engine pulls its 20kg mass (200N force) 6 meters and a bit per engine revolution. If the rpm is 100/s (6000 rpm), it will pull 600m of 200N force every second (or 120 kW). If the engine is only making 10 rotations a second (like, let's say for a big diesel engine at idle, 600 rpm) it will only make 12 kW.


RE: 50mpg combined, not bad
By theapparition on 7/28/2008 7:54:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Power is force multiplied by distance - so in our metric case, the engine pulls its 20kg mass (200N force) 6 meters and a bit per engine revolution.

Technically incorrect. Power is force multiplied by distance (aka Torque), divided by time . You forgot the time factor, but you do include it later as "per engine revolution".

Power (hp) = Torque (ft-lbs) x RPM/5252

Simple as that. Problem is that a torque curve for an engine is non-linear, requiring most commonly the use of a torque curve to calculate power. While germaine to use on normal cars, it is completely irrelevant on serial hybrids such as the Volt. That engine will run one speed and one speed only. Maximum power. We don't have to be concerned with any sort of torque or curves, only final power numbers.


RE: 50mpg combined, not bad
By Calin on 7/28/2008 8:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
Divided by time, certainly - forgot about that (but mentioned in the opening of the post, per unit of time).
Thank you


RE: 50mpg combined, not bad
By ziggo on 7/28/2008 1:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
The engine could be run at maximum power, but if I were designing it I would run it at the torque peak for the majority of the charging. This is where the volumetric and thermal efficiency is maximum. That way you get more charge in your battery for a given unit of fuel.

Ie battery power falls below 35%, charge at torque peak, falls below 10% charge at power peak.

If someone from GM reads this I expect to be reimbursed. 5$ shall do.