Last Thursday, GM asked the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for "extra credit." Despite the fact that Chevy's gas-electric plug-in hybrid isn't in production, the General's generals wanted the rules modified so the Volt could more fully satisfy the Golden State's Zero Emissions Vehicle requirements. Done. And then, today, GM announced it will build 1000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for the same purpose. Only it wants someone else (i.e. taxpayers) to fund 40 hydrogen refueling stations. Once again, GM's reveals its core weakness: ADD.
According to the American Psychiatric Association, people with Attention Deficiency Disorder (ADD) demonstrate "a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity, as well as forgetfulness, poor impulse control or impulsivity, and distractibility." As the Brits would say, they "run around like a blue ass fly." GM's CARB strategy is a perfect case in point. It's not ONE strategy: plug-in hybrids. It's TWO: plug-in hybrids AND hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Of course, if THAT doesn't work, it'll be something else. Just pay the fines? Build an EV-only Volt? Who knows? Not GM. And don't ask, ‘cause they're very, very busy.
You don't have to read many installments of this series to know that GM is all over the show with everything all the time. To wit: GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz infamously dismissed hybrids as a fad. Not long thereafter, GM rushed to produce not one, but two different gas – electric systems ("mild" belt-assist and dual-mode), both on their own and in partnership with other automakers. Cars get the former, SUVs the latter. (For now.) And then GM launched a "moon shot" mission to create an entirely new type of hybrid using unproven technology. But wait! There's more!
At the same time, GM is developing and unleashing hydrogen fuel cell test vehicles, and talking-up the technology– to the point of "unveiling" a hydrogen fuel cell concept Caddy without a powertrain. Yes, "all" GM needs to make hydrogen-powered, zero-emissions (at least at the tailpipe) cars work is $160m of California taxpayers' money for the filling stations. What's that's just $10 per resident or "two Starbucks coffees!" Meanwhile, passenger diesels are not on GM's menu. Until, of course, they are. And then…
Stop! While my Honda minivan was in service, I drove a base (as in cloth seats) Accord. I was amazed by the sedan's four-cylinder engine. It was smooth and reasonably powerful. The five-speed transmission did its thing without fuss. Does GM have an engine to match this? No.
Last year, Honda sold 392,231 Accords. Some 71 percent were four-cylinder models. Even without considering the Ohio-built sedan's German style, American-sized comfort or brand-faithful reliability (discounting excessively darty steering), there's no wonder the four-banger Accord is a popular car in these fuel-conscious times; it delivered well over 20 miles per gallon (EPA 21/31).
GM's Ecotec (Emissions Control Optimization TEChnology) engine is GM's "house" four. It's found in 12 American products, from the Chevy Cobalt to the Satrun Vue. It's not a bad unit. In some installations, GM's engine gets slightly better mileage than the [supersized] Accord. And the Ecotec is more-or-less bullet-proof. But it's no world-beater in terms of refinement, power or efficiency. So what if…
GM took all the billions of dollars it's plowed into hybrids and used them to develop a smooth, more powerful and a more efficient four-cylinder engine? What if they kicked Honda's ass? Don't get me wrong: I have no doubt GM is working on improving its gas-powered four-cylinder engines. They're working on everything else; why not that as well?
As an ADD sufferer, GM singularly fails to understand that the only way you can create a world-beating anything is to NOT do other stuff. Hybrids? Fine. Go for it. Fuel cells? Uh, OK. But not all of it. Because no matter how many engineering divisions or worldwide resources you have; "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" is the worst of all possible development strategies. Or, more simply put, just because GM CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD.
GM should have spent its money developing what it had. They should have refined and improved their mainstream Chevrolets, Buicks and Caddies– rather than "investing" in new brands (Saturn, Saab, Hummer), new vehicle genres (SSR?), new models (dozens) and new technology (complicated powertrains). But it didn't. The mess you see today is the result.
So the only remaining question is this: is there enough time left for GM to stop messing around, focus its energies, strengthen its brands, recapture lost momentum and stay in business? Judging from the torrent of news coming from RenCen these days, I don't think we'll ever find out. Unfortunately, it seems clear that only bankruptcy will provide the Ritalin that General Motors needs.
You have a point about GM’s ecotech 4 – a friend of mine recently bought a Cavalier with that engine and I told him he’d have very little trouble out of that engine…the rest of car is a different story.
If they spent a little on refining that engine they could really have something to tout.
It’s always easier to just add, add, add as opposed to streamline. That’s true of companies, research papers, food, art….
And yet, streamlining is generally what works the best, because you keep only the essence, the original idea, what really works. Anybody can just add more stuff together. Well, architects can’t, otherwise their buildings would not stand.
And as engines go, I can’t wait to get a go at VW’s new turbo/supercharged 1.4. It looks like a really sweet engine with great power and fuel economy.
To be fair, GM have some great ideas in the pipeline, but don’t seem to be doing anything with them.
For instance, GM’s Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI)*. In a nutshell, it’ll deliver diesel-like mpg’s with a petrol engine. Why haven’t they rushed this to market? That would be a great selling point against the Toyota Prius.
* = http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/26/abg-tech-analysis-and-driving-impression-gms-hcci-engine/
Does GM have an engine to match this? No.
Remember how long they hung on the Iron Duke 4 cylinder? God.
In any event, the answer is no they have never been able to match the ‘foreign 4s’ and now it is unlikely they will. I think this is one their most egregious failures.
The need for a good 4 has been evident for decades.
I would expect a large company like GM to have a robust R&D program. I would criticize them if they didn’t have their hands on all the latest technology.
What GM lacks is the ability to follow through on their advancements and bring them to market.
If GM were looking for existing products with potential, I would tell them a boring story about our fishing trip last year. 8 people, two vehicles, 2200 miles to north Ontario. Vehicle One was my Honda Pilot with 3 people and some odd gear. Vehicle Two was a 1990’s Oldsmobile minivan (with a weird slooped front end), 5 people and towing 800 lbs of gear plus the trailer. Both vehicles got identical mileage despite the differences in load- low twenties/gal. Pretty impressive on the van’s part. Maybe the aerodynamics, maybe the engine, and maybe worth updating with 15 years worth of intervening technology.
John
From what I’ve read, HCCI won’t be ready for the market for a few more years. It sounds like it works, but it still needs a lot of refinement before it’ll be ready for production. But you make a good point, Katie—what if they could focus their resources on a couple of technologies instead of trying to do half a dozen at once?
HCCI would work great with E-Flex, since it would be a lot easier to optimize it to run in a small RPM range, but it will need a lot of work to replace a normal ICE.
GM has a 2.2 VVT variant of the ecotech coming out in 2009, it will be a lot more competitive power and efficiency wise with everyone else (not sure about smoothness).
If you think that the other major manufacturers aren’t working on all these technologies, you are naive.
GM’s problem is that they should shut up until they have something to say that will actually influence their products.
Interesting note: Today is the 3 year anniversary of the GM Death Watch!
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/general-motors-death-watch-1-gm-must-die/
The alt fuels thing is a great metaphor for what’s wrong with GM, and what’s right with Toyota.
GM builds ethanol cars to skirt around CAFE. If GM isn’t fighting regulation, it’s looking for loopholes in it.
GM built the EV-1 to show CARB that electric cars couldn’t succeed, so that the rest of its products wouldn’t have to change for the sake of the law. There was no intent to sell a lot of them, and it was canceled as soon as possible.
GM is promising hydrogen and plug-in electrics for PR purposes. There is no intent to sell a lot of them.
Toyota built hybrids in order to build its brand and to eventually make money from them by anticipating and creating a market demand for hybrids. They spent years trying to develop a market, eventually succeed with the effort, and profit from it. Patience, hard work and luck paid off, and they are now prospering from their efforts.
GM seems unable to develop technology for the right reasons. There is always some sort of half-assed PR or legal motivation for their R&D initiatives. As a result, there is no follow through beyond what is necessary to serve their limited objectives.
At the heart of the corporate culture at GM North America seems to be a belief that a concern for fuel economy is not only irrelevant, but also a detriment to their business. They just don’t want to be in the efficient mainstream car business, so they invest little into it and assume no coherence to their approach.
Most of their homages to fuel economy are meant to serve the advertising and the regulators, not the consumer’s need and desire for reliable transportation. The opportunity is right under their nose, but they refuse to take it. They are beyond help and will never, ever get it.
As long as I can remember and actually cared about cars and the auto industry GM problems has always been that it simply has too much!
While I know GM has reduced it NA production footprint in recent years it still has too much REDUNDANT production capacity.
Paradoxically GM cant do any one thing better than the others without upsetting its own apple cart. Needless to say GM could make the finest or one of the finest 4cyl engines but that would only conflict with all of those other nasty (small-displacement) OHV 6 cyl engines that are being made by American UAW workers that need to keep their jobs. That is why we see things like Saturn Aruas being offered for sale without a 4cyl option.
An excellent and more powerful Ecotec would hurt production of GMs 3.9l ohv units, which might actually be cheaper to make. The problems is its a hard sell to try and sell a 4cyl for more than a 6cyl.
RF,
Nicely put.
A 2.0 Ecotec motivates my wife’s ride. I agree its not as silky smooth as a Honda four, due to higher NVH; its kinda like a really hot chick with a little bit of facial hair.
She gets great mileage, great performance (supercharged), with great reliability to date. Can’t really complain about that.
I wonder if the turbo 2.0 has taken care of the facial hair? Per Lutz, we should see this engine in the Camaro. Can you believe it? A 4-banger in a Camaro….Personally, I think its a great solution for these gas conserving times!
“Yes, “all” GM needs to make hydrogen-powered, zero-emissions (at least at the tailpipe) cars work is $160m of California taxpayers’ money for the filling stations. What’s that’s just $10 per resident or “two Starbucks coffees!” ”
Unfortunately, that $10/resident estimate only works if you use California’s population when I was a kid. Factoring in the current figure of 38 million residents, I’m only being asked to contribute a bit more than $4 to the cause. Instead of two lattes at Starbucks, call it “a gallon of premium unleaded” at current Bay Area prices.
whatdoiknow1 :
Paradoxically GM cant do any one thing better than the others without upsetting its own apple cart. Needless to say GM could make the finest or one of the finest 4cyl engines but that would only conflict with all of those other nasty (small-displacement) OHV 6 cyl engines that are being made by American UAW workers that need to keep their jobs. That is why we see things like Saturn Aruas being offered for sale without a 4cyl option.
I disagree. Americans have been making soem very high quality engines recently. No need to develop a new engine. The bread and butter is in these 6s and 8s.
And I see no problem with getting some government help developing the Volt. The only reason the Prius is competing is from heavy donations by the Japanese government. About time Americans are competing on a level playing field.
It pains me to agree with Farrago, but I must. Personally, I’d buy me some o’ that sweet, sweet clean diesel action long before I’d ever spend my dockets on a hybrid. After driving a few small diesel cars in Europe, I’m utterly sold on them. But such an automobile manufactured by the big 2.8 isn’t to be found on these shores. Their loss.
@whatdoiknow1
“That is why we see things like Saturn Aruas being offered for sale without a 4cyl option.”
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/aura/overview.jsp
The AURA is sold with a 4cyl as the base powerplant.
If you want proof of GM’s ADD, I think that this says it all:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vA2PSdlp4QI
It shows a guy walking into a Saturn Dealship, and showing his disbelief that the cars inside are all really Saturns.
Imagine that you start a brand with one of the strongest brand identities in the business, and then destroy it to the point of anonymity. It boggles the mind.
Until GM does something with Saturn (and by the same token, GMC and Buick), it will continue to falter.
DetroitIronUAW :
I guess I should not have said the silly part about the 3.9l ohv being a POS.
But my point is GM is committing necessary resources to these engines for better or worse.
Since the auto-shoppers are looking for powerful effiecent 4cyl engines today I would say it is for the worse.
While the 3.9l engine may be reliable it is a joyless, soulless engine better suited for a stationary generator than a “excitement” inducing Pontiac.
I disagree. Americans have been making soem very high quality engines recently. No need to develop a new engine. The bread and butter is in these 6s and 8s.
Well…since Farago said that 71% of Accords are sold with 4-cylinders, and I imagine it’s be about the same proportion for all cars in this sector, I’d say not. And that doesn’t include the compacts that use the same engine and the small CUVs that use them as well. This ain’t 1969 anymore. Or even 1999. Sales of the trucks and truck-based SUVs that had those 6- and 8-cylinder engines you mentioned have been flat or in freefall.
And I see no problem with getting some government help developing the Volt. The only reason the Prius is competing is from heavy donations by the Japanese government.…if you believe the angry former executive from the company who has a vested interest in another automaker.
I agree with BuckD – there is nothing inherently wrong with diesel cars. Americans are just snake bitten by the GM POS diesel V-8 and V-6 from the late 70s – mid 80s. You remember, the Cadillac and Oldsmobiles with converted gas, er, I mean diesel engines that caused a class action law suit against GM? The reasons behind the premature failures were eventually identified and remedied – so the last couple of model years of the GM car diesels were actually good ones. But by then the damage in consumer trust and confidence was done.
However, Americans seem to buy up the Duramax diesels in Chevy/GMC trucks, the Ford truck/SUV diesels. The Dodge Cummins was always in it’s own class – a true big rig diesel. It’s just the CAR diesels that Americans are afraid of from GM and the other 2.8.
As most TTAC readers know, diesels are fundamentally more efficient and robust than their gasoline counterparts. And yet that would be an effective way to meet and beat CAFE. As far as emissions – if the Germans and Japanese can meet and surpass USA standards, why can’t the 2.8? Because the extra technology needed to make them run clean wouldn’t be cost effective on a Chevy Malibu or a Ford Taurus X. If the 2.8 want to forfeit yet another market to foreign manufacturers, that’s a real shame but ultimately their own fault.
I respect diesels a lot, so much so that my next car may be a Jaguar X-Type diesel (No comments, please!).
But, hybrids are streets ahead. They’re quieter, for starters.
Every comparision I’ve seen between diesels and hybrids always has one/many gaping flaw(s) in their testing.
I watched a video on “The Times” website comparing a diesel BMW 5 series to a Toyota Prius. The whole thing was riddled with bias. For instance, they made a big song and dance about how many times the Prius had to filled up with petrol, but “forgot” to mention that the Prius’ tank only holds 42 litres, whereas the BMW 5 series’ tank holds 70 litres.
They also mentioned how the BMW 5 series had eco technology like, rolling resistance tyres, regenerative braking etc. Again, they didn’t mention how the Toyota Prius had all this technology, as well.
At the end, they worked out that the BMW did 50.3mpg and the Toyota did 48.1. making the BMW the winner. Again, they “missed out” salient points like, how diesel is more expensive than petrol, thereby killing that small margin the BMW has over the Toyota. They also “forgot” to mention how the BMW 5 series is £7000 more than the Toyota Prius and that the Toyota Prius is car tax band B (£35 per year) compared to the BMW 5 series which is car tax band C (£120 per year). In the Toyota Prius’ driver’s write up, he admits to slamming the accelerator down every so often. Hardly “eco driving”!
Also, instead of having one person driving both cars, they had 2 different people driving the cars, so driving styles could make the difference.
Don’t even get me started on the comparision between the VW Polo Bluemotion Vs the Toyota Prius!
Diesel is good, but hybrids are better.
If anybody wants to see this video here’s the link: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece
I should have guessed something was wrong the moment I saw Jason Dawe’s face pop up…..
BAck to GM, I think I’ve got blood coming out of my ears……
Americans don’t like diesels. Nobody in the auto business expects demand for diesels in the United States to take off in a significant way. I think that we should accept that, and move on.
Just as long as the American automakers fail to offer best-in-class compact cars, they will flop. Because compacts are favored by the young, and their experience with those cars will create the basis for their brand experience for the rest of their lives.
It’s no surprise that people buy Camrys and Accords when they grew up on perfectly serviceable Corollas and Civics. What good reason would they possibly have to change?
It is because GM is so top-heavy with MBAs…All having “great” ideas and feeling the need to greenwash for PR and taxpayer-teat-sucking purposes.
Their new Ecotec 2.0L Turbo is shockingly good…Check out it’s torque curve.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT%20Library/Ecotec/2008%20LNF/2008_20L_LNF_Cobalt%20SS.pdf
Then get the HCCI technology working…..
Raskolnikov
I wonder if the turbo 2.0 has taken care of the facial hair? Per Lutz, we should see this engine in the Camaro. Can you believe it? A 4-banger in a Camaro….
It won’t be the first time. When Chevy debuted the third-gen Camaro in 1982, it was available with the 90hp “Iron Duke” 4-cylinder. It managed to get the car up to 60mph in about 20 seconds. Thankfully whichever product manager thought that up went into rehab in 1985 and that was the last time a Camaro rolled out of the factory door with a 4-banger.
Or so we thought…
Well, please correct me if I am wrong, but GM does have a great 4 banger. I have a 2003 Saab 9-3 5 Speed 2.0t (175hp) that gets 35mpg on the highway doing around 80!…Why can’t this engine be passed around?
Pch101 :
Americans don’t like diesels.
GM executive circa 1998: Americans don’t like cars and they don’t care about mileage. They like big SUVs.
The above statement was true until suddenly it wasn’t. Diesel cars were once popular in this country. With the right engineering and the right marketing, they could be again.
Diesel cars were once popular in this country. With the right engineering and the right marketing, they could be again.
Diesel has never been popular for cars in the US. Never. Even in its alleged heyday, diesel barely penetrated the market.
There is no hint that there is massive pent up demand for diesel cars in the US. Betting big on diesel is a good way for them to lose even more money, because consumers don’t see it as a solution.
And since GM’s legacy as a producer of diesels is severely tainted, they are well behind the curve for those few people who would want one.
If GM wants to make its technology initiatives credible to the consumer, then their bread and butter products have to be worth eating. If the core products are mediocre or just suck, then no one is going to care about their fancy tech promises when it comes time to write checks.
My first car was a 1978 Rabbit Diesel…what a hoot to drive. If I remember correctly it go about 40mpg. I think VW had that corner of the market for a brief time? I rember seeing alot of them in So Cal. Whenever I would go out and come home late at night I would have to turn the engine off a block away and coast into the driveway! otherwise I would wake the parents up! (not cool at 2 in the morning).
Mr. and Ms. Mainstream do not want to pump diesel fuel. Diesel will loses it’s mileage advantage with cleaner emissions mandated by the EPA. HCCI system will have a big advantage when the bugs are ironed out. HCCI will burn clean and be able to run on low-octane fuels and probably boondoggle-juices as well. Also, eliminating the valve drive train will boost efficiency by replacing the system with electro-mechanical valve actuation.
When the HCCI technology is perfected, you will probably see 300HP/300Lb-Ft. (300Lb-Ft coming on at very low RPM) out of a 1.8L I4 with huge fuel mileage gains.
they need to take 1/2 of the corvette engine depart and half of the guys that did the 3.6l V6 int he caddy cts and tell them to build an I4 family of engines. maybe a 1.6l a 2.0l and 2.0T.
no one can argue that the LS series of engines are some of the best in the world and the new 3.6L V6 is a gem…so we know they CAN build amazing engines when they want to.
I love reading “TheTruthAboutCars’ but sometimes you guys get so wound up in talking about the pluses and minues of various cars or engines you miss the big picture. Right now there is a shortage of diesel fuel because of a lack of refinery capacity. Until the U.S. gets a few more refineries the price of diesel fuel is going to be too high to make it practical as a vehicle fuel for large numbers of cars and small trucks.
The manufacturers know this and this is why Fuji did not send over any Subaru diesels, why VW doesn’t currently have any diesels in the U.S., and why MB only has one diesel model here.
VW has a new Jetta TDI going on sale this summer. 2.0L ~140hp ~240lb/ft ~50mpg (in the wagon not sure about the sedan, yes its going to be in the wagon)
@Luther:
When “Mr. and Ms. Mainstream” are out shopping for a new car and see how much higher the mileage is on diesel cars than on their gasoline counterparts, they’ll be much more inclined to buy one. The new EPA regulations don’t put that much of a dent on clean diesels, and since you’re speculating on the fuel savings of unproven technologies, I’m betting that technology will bring the MPG numbers back up within a few years.
That said, I have to agree with folkdancer–so long as diesel fuel prices are where they are now, it’s unlikely diesel will be widely adopted.
erikhans asked:
“Well, please correct me if I am wrong, but GM does have a great 4 banger. I have a 2003 Saab 9-3 5 Speed 2.0t (175hp) that gets 35mpg on the highway doing around 80!…Why can’t this engine be passed around?”
Actually, I believe that engine IS a variant of the current Ecotec. And the blown versions that are in the Stateside SS models have some (IIRC) significant Saab engineering content to them. So it has been passed around.
This discussion does bring back memories of the time ca. 1990 when GM first bought into Saab. At that time, they were also spending millions on developing the Quad-4. Of course, Saab already had a four-valve I-4 that was in use, including a majority in turbo applications. I think there were compatibility issues with the engine in US platforms, but why GM didn’t seem to make more use of that technology was puzzling to me at the time.
“…the Ecotec is more-or-less bullet-proof. But it’s no world-beater in terms of refinement, power or efficiency.”
Thanks so much for saying this. I’ve asked before why Detroit STILL can’t make a four-banger that’s up to Honda or Toyota smoothness. Is it that–
(1) they’re too cheap to make silky 4’s?
(2) they don’t know how? Or
(3) they want to sell more profitable cars with V-6’s?
I suspect the answer(s) is 1 or 3 (or both), but I can’t rule out 2. Any engineers out there with relevant experience in the Big 2.8?
It would be nice if all 2009 model vehicles would shut the engine off at idle. At stop lights for instance, no vehicles running would be nice. Just put a beefier starter or alternator in them to start it back up and propel the vehicle forward at the same time automatically.
Here is a mod I’d like to do to a hybrid if I owned one. A button to shut off the gas engine whenever I wanted to instantly. Coasting down long hills, coasting to a stop, pulling into a parking lot or driveway. Or a more aggressive mode the vehicle could be put in that would shut off the engine anytime the throttle was released.
Hey, this company is doing just fiiiine. You leave ole General Motors alone, you hear? When their financial results are tallied for the year …we won’t need a bottle of ipecac to induce vomiting. I think this patient needs to lay on the bed and have have one of those “different” thermometers inserted in that most lovely of body cavities. This patient is covered in oozing bed sores and the room stinks to high heaven.
But hey, as long as they are investing in the future, maybe they can take a page from the book on Nazi. If you think the EV…I mean, the Volt is something special, take a good look at this:
http://www.eyepod.org/Nazi-Disc-Photos.html
Perhaps Wagoner and Lutz can conjure up a spirit from Vanu from the 12th Dimension and provide us some REAL money-making engineering undertakings!
Gimme a “G”.
Gimme an “E”.
Gimme an “N”.
…. Rah Rah Rah…Gimme a Camaro (HAHA…where’s my space mullet).
And I see no problem with getting some government help developing the Volt. The only reason the Prius is competing is from heavy donations by the Japanese government. About time Americans are competing on a level playing field.
With repect that’s just rubbish! The reason the Prius exists and is doing as well as it is/has, is because it has no competition. Given that GM is still unable to build a reliable, durable, refined, powerful and efficient I4, what makes anyone think it will be able to produce a better hybrid even if was given the keys to Fort Knox! I do respect those that support the ‘domestic’ auto industry in general and GM in particular, but the fact is that GM has wasted Billions in foolish investments, buying off the Union when they should have faught them, rolling out concept after concept that rarely last the length of the car show season or flunk in the market (Chevy SSR anyone?). Why should US taxpayers fund one cent to a corporation that squanders resources like GM does?
GM is paying the price for so little serious 4 cylinder development in the 90s. Saturn had the same 1.9l SOHC and DOHC in SL1/2/SC1/2 for years and never refined it to match the japanese. GMs other 4s were over 2 litres. Toyota/Nissan/Mazda/Honda had a variety of sub 2 litre SOHC and DOHC 16 valve motors from 1.3 to 1.8 litres. GM doesn’t make squat in these small displacement sizes. All they did was re-badge them as GEOs and later Chevys (prizm, metro, tracker, storm…) . Why? Cause GM thought small cars make no money but you might as well pick up a sale and the revenue if some joe walks into the dealership and wants a small car. Re-badging is the cheapest way to enter that market.
Now GM just re-badge Daewoos which makes crap. That Chevy aveo gets incredibly bad mpg for being so small because Daewoo doesn’t have the brains to build efficient small 4 cylinders. Anyone think Honda or Toyota would rebadge a Daewoo??
Skip the I-4 – bring back the TRIPLE!
GM could/should leapfrog the competition. If a modern I-4 can get 150hp, it’s time to revive the triple. Fewer moving parts = less friction = greater mpg.
Suzuki/Geo had a triple in the 90’s; so did Subaru. If GM can bring back the triple (half an existing V6?) it could leapfrog the competition and win an mpg race.
But GM would never think of such a thing…
A triple would be cool. You are probably thinking of the old Geo Metro 1.3, especially in XFI version. It got over 50mpg but was pretty slow. I don’t think it weighed over 1700lbs. I think it had around 55hp.
rtz, engines in decel (no throttle, more than ~2000 rpm) do not inject any fuel. They are basically off already in terms of fuel usage. This is part of the reason that manual transmission cars can get greater fuel economy is that they can hold the engine in decel down hills or when slowing to a stop if driven properly.
I do agree that engines should have a start/stop mode when the vehicle is stopped. This would require larger battery capacity and faster spinning starters in addition to electrically driven accessories such as air conditioning. All of these are achievable with current technology and should increase fuel economy 5-10%. If they make a combination starter alternator, which is more efficient, they essentially have a Honda style integrated motor assist (IMA) hybrid system.
While my Honda minivan was in service
OK RF, that was scary….
actually, I’m the King of Practical. There’s a sexiness to the old base black-bumpered Honda Accord DX, bonus points for the rare wagon version….
Katie wrote: For instance, they made a big song and dance about how many times the Prius had to filled up with petrol, but “forgot” to mention that the Prius’ tank only holds 42 litres, whereas the BMW 5 series’ tank holds 70 litres.
Well…to me ‘range’ is an important attribute (I’ve had a 200 mile “detour” due to a wildfire with the first gas station being 100 miles away, for one example), but that has nothing to do with the engine technology and everything to do with sizing the tank appropriately for the vehicle.
Apart from that, with most driving being heavily urban, I suspect the fact that hybrids do better in urban driving than on open highways is a huge benefit.
Skip the I-4 – bring back the TRIPLE!
Regrettably, the Japanese are already way out ahead here. There is a class of vehicles in Japan called the Keicars. Triples are commonplace in that class.
Dang!
One thing I like about the death watch series, (now going into its fourth year if comments here are correct) is that it helps me refine my views on whether I should keep my shorts in place. I’ve been shorting for the longest time on this baby and am still increasing my exposure. Krikorian gets 50 marks for at least closing his long, did he earn the other 50 by shorting?
folkdancer :
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I love reading “TheTruthAboutCars’ but sometimes you guys get so wound up in talking about the pluses and minues of various cars or engines you miss the big picture. Right now there is a shortage of diesel fuel because of a lack of refinery capacity. Until the U.S. gets a few more refineries the price of diesel fuel is going to be too high to make it practical as a vehicle fuel for large numbers of cars and small trucks.
The manufacturers know this and this is why Fuji did not send over any Subaru diesels, why VW doesn’t currently have any diesels in the U.S., and why MB only has one diesel model here.
That’s not the reason. The reason is that it’s very hard to make a 50-state diesel car. VW’s diesels, when they sold them, polluted too much to be sold in California and the other states that follow California’s pollution laws-and when strong Federal laws came into place in 2007, they didn’t meet those standards either (hence 2006 was the last year for them). They are working at it, but pollution standards are the main reason diesel cars aren’t sold in the US, not lack of refinery capacity.
RF:
While my Honda minivan was in service
At first, I thought maybe this was a belated April Fools…
Dave M. :
OK RF, that was scary…
Not scary at all. But a little bit like seeing Superman put on his glasses and suit and tie…
To RTZ:
My Prius has the capability to shut off the gas engine at my desire. Back in 2004, I installed an aftermarket chip to do this. I hardly ever use it, but it does work. If you drive faster than 35 MPH or if the hybrid battery falls to 30% or so, then the computer will override the chip and start up the gas engine.
I don’t use it very often because when you “force” the Prius to use it’s battery, that’s just a temporary thing. Eventually, you have to use gasoline anyhow. And the car gets great mileage already, so why bother trying to second-guess the computer?
More useful is the automatic door-lock chip that I installed. The 2004 Prius did not include this feature, so with the chip, the doors will automatically lock when the speed goes above 15 MPH.
Eggsalad- I rented a Geo metro with the triple engine once. I believe it was a “HamsterTec 1.3”. It was powered by hamsters running on a wheel. As I recall, it had the power and sound of my electric razor.
With respect to diesel, in the very long run ultimately energy content per energy content it should be just slightly cheaper than gasoline. This is due to the refining for a decane molecule being slightly cheaper than that for an octane molecule when heavy oil is the input. (Decane has ten carbon atoms, octane has eight). Remember also that a gal of diesel weighs 15% more than gasoline, and has a far higher energy content, so you get more for your money.
Dave M- a 3 door Civic hatchback DX with crank windows, no AC and an aftermarket radio is even sexier
The 1.3L Geo Metro was a 4 cylinder, the 1.0L was a 3
I have the Ecotec 2.2L in my vehicle. In 4 yrs, has never used a drop of oil. It’s also the simplest, most compact engine I’ve ever seen–no random wires to be seen. Gets 38mpg hwy. Simple oil filter cartridge is a wonder. Timing chain never needs replacement.
The 2.0L turbo Ecotec is just as efficient and makes 260hp. If GM gets smart and drops this into the Camaro, Hyundai’s upcoming rwd coupe will be gathering dust in dealers’ lots and Scion will start sweating. GM also offers a 2.4L version similar to Honda’s upgraded four. I’m not sure why GM offers the 1.8L Ecotec (Astra). They should’ve just stuck with the 2.2L.
Regardless, the Ecotec family is fully competitive with anything the Japanese offer and superior to any VW mill.
GM: IF you really care about lowering your CAFE then why not small diesel engines in the smaller to midsize cars? The technology is already there. You have it in Europe. Just bring the bloody things over here to the US and shut up about all the stupid “efforts” you are making towards alternative technology.
DetroitironUAW.And I see no problem with getting some government help developing the Volt. The only reason the Prius is competing is from heavy donations by the Japanese government. About time Americans are competing on a level playing field.
If the Japanese govt wants to to use funds confiscated from its citizens to subsidize the purchases of some American Consumers, fine by me but as ford fancier (for my sins), GM can crater rather than get tax money to cover up its own failings.
Kwanzaa it would not surprize me if the Nazis did attempt a flying saucer – like GM they frittered their resources away on that sort of thing rather than decent fighters, tanks and submarines