Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America - Page 7

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 162

Thread: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

  1. #91
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) AMERICA 123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    12,527
    Thanks
    1,671
    Thanked 361 Times in 220 Posts
    My Ride
    The Toyota Rat Catcher

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    You cannot even run these misnamed Atkinson cycles under many combinations of load and rpm.

    They are in the main, completely incapable in terms of high load higher rpm operation.

    - and for a different but partially similar load of fail down low - but with load.

    They knock and detonate like no tomorrow - w/o assistance ala Mazda - yes it is true this thermodynamic abomination ( @ low rpm with load ) can be helped with the right kind of boost - and fuel trim etc.

    Or a big enough battery or other member assist.

    Then, you also have to subtract off where you 'could' run it, but other choices - not the least of which is a dreary and drab Otto cycle would 'out perform' it - including massively.


    It does have a role to play but it is extremely limited - like a niche unless you combine it meaning utilize it as but one tool in the box ie with multi modes of operation.

    Oh look, we're back to GM ......


    Which truth be told, is the most likely case with what Honda is bringing ie part time 'atkinson'.

    And within that, for certain specific cruise conditions and light acceleration - at best.
    Last edited by AMERICA 123; 08-22-2012 at 08:03 PM.
    "From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they're about to do it again."
    "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
    "If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — " Matt Taibbi

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #92
    2.5L Iron Duke
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    While a large displacement Atkinson-cycle might be theoretically efficient, it likely would not have the broad torque spread of a small-displacement turbo. That characteristic allows these engines to be geared fairly long without feeling too lethargic. And that ensures that a) people actually buy them and b) regular people happily drive them in a way that gets good fuel economy.

    OTOH, Atkinson-cycle engines tend to be a bit weak on the low-end torque. Which is why Mazda went the related Miller-cycle route -- which uses supercharging to improve low speed cylinder-filling -- on the 90s Millennia.
    Actually, that is not true. An Atkinson Cycle engine is not really weak on low end torque. It is simply weaker overall by about 25~30% compared to an equivalent Otto Cycle engine. Put another way, a 2.5 liter Atkinson cammed four will have roughly the same torque curve as a 1.8~2.0 liter Otto cycle four, but it will be more efficient than the 1.8~2.0 liter four. In fact, given that the 1.8~2.0 liter NA engines are outperforming GM's 1.4T in fuel economy while matching or exceeding its power output, the 2.5 liter engine will be more efficient than the 1.4T as well.

    From a cost standpoint, the 1.4T is more expensive because of its turbocharger and intercooler sub-system. A larger displacement engine -- regardless of the camshaft profile it uses -- is cheaper to build.

    The following is a comparison of Ford's Otto and Atkinson version of the same engine. Note that the Atkinson's torque band is not actually narrower, it's just generally lower overall.

    fehmmhtorquecurve0.jpg

  4. #93
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one) AMERICA 123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    12,527
    Thanks
    1,671
    Thanked 361 Times in 220 Posts
    My Ride
    The Toyota Rat Catcher

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Her you go again - tryin' to mislead the kids.

    Go ahead, calculate or find the specific fuel consumption numbers that support your junk science concerning the 1.4T.


    Start with year one job one so we can see how the other's really stacked up - and failed.


    Once again you fail to account for the other variables - Cruz is much heavier because of it's higher durability factors and superior structure - and safety performance - and nicer interior , and far superior NVH and etc etc.


    Current Civic is a cross between Honda and old Kia - while the Cruze can be likened to a cross between GM and the better third of MB -


    And I hate to tell ya' but if you switched the motors all around - the discrepancies on FE would most likely worsen ie a Cruze with a Honda motor would fall behind even further a Civic with a Cruze motor - and with a nice performance increase for the Civic and big loss for the Cruze.

    Through in the AT's and it becomes a full blown route.
    Last edited by AMERICA 123; 08-22-2012 at 08:15 PM.
    "From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they're about to do it again."
    "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
    "If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — " Matt Taibbi

  5. #94
    2.8 Liter Turbocharged V6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    879
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    True. But if GM wanted to do a sport version of the Cruse, then it would be easier to just use the same 250 hp turbo as the Verano. It's the same platform, so the engineering is essentially done. The Verano isn't supposed to be a sports sedan, according to Buick, so a Cruze equipped to match the Focus ST would be appropriate for Chevy.

    Mmm... A 200 hp Sonic or a 250 hp Cruze -- there's a choice I'd like to have.
    I think the Cruze is not getting the 1.6 Turbo because its getting the 2.0 Turbo found in the Verano Turbo.

  6. #95
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    3,581
    Thanks
    385
    Thanked 270 Times in 149 Posts

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
    Actually, that is not true. An Atkinson Cycle engine is not really weak on low end torque. It is simply weaker overall by about 25~30% compared to an equivalent Otto Cycle engine. Put another way, a 2.5 liter Atkinson cammed four will have roughly the same torque curve as a 1.8~2.0 liter Otto cycle four, but it will be more efficient than the 1.8~2.0 liter four. In fact, given that the 1.8~2.0 liter NA engines are outperforming GM's 1.4T in fuel economy while matching or exceeding its power output, the 2.5 liter engine will be more efficient than the 1.4T as well.

    From a cost standpoint, the 1.4T is more expensive because of its turbocharger and intercooler sub-system. A larger displacement engine -- regardless of the camshaft profile it uses -- is cheaper to build.

    The following is a comparison of Ford's Otto and Atkinson version of the same engine. Note that the Atkinson's torque band is not actually narrower, it's just generally lower overall.

    Attachment 11572
    I get that, but my point is that modern boosted motors have torque plateaus -- the 1.4 T makes its 148 lb-ft at a low 1850 rpm. The Focus's 2.0 makes 146 lb-ft at a much higher 4450 rpm -- a point where the 1.4T is nearly all done breathing: its hp peak is only 4900 rpm.

    Yes, the 1.4 has the added cost of the turbo and intercooler. But it uses cheaper port injection (vs. Ford's DI) and an iron block (vs. Ford's aluminum block). Given its broad use, I'm guessing the 1.4T is pretty cost competitive, especially when GM can charge a premium for it over the 1.8!

    In terms of real world fuel economy, neither engine comes close to EPA ratings unless driven very carefully. In terms of real world fuel economy, the Cruze's economy seems to do quite well, especially in steady state running, where long gearing and good torque really pay a dividend. See http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html

    According to your estimation, an Atkinson 2.5 would make 30% less torque, with a similar curve, to GM's new 2.5. That engine makes 191 ft-lb @ 4400 rpm; an Atkinson version would make 134 ft-lb @ a similar rpm and presumably much less at the 1.4T's 1850 rpm torque peak. Plus it too would need an aluminum block and DI. So how would it compete on cost and driveability while even matching the 1.4T's fuel economy?
    Last edited by Tone; 08-23-2012 at 09:43 AM.

  7. #96
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    4,623
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 211 Times in 163 Posts

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
    It is all relative. Is the Cruze 1.4T an improvement over past GM efforts and is it a decent engine for a well executed small car? Absolutely. This, however, doesn't change the facts that downsizing displacement and adding a turbocharger does not result in better fuel economy numbers than doing the opposite.

    The Cruze 1.4T is basically bottom of the pack in fuel economy and horsepower. Comparing apples to apples:-
    .
    • 2012 Cruze Eco -- 1.4L Turbo (6-spd automatic) -- 26 / 39 MPG (EPA); 138 hp / 148 lb-ft
    • 2012 Civic HF -- 1.8L NA (5-spd automatic) -- 29 / 41 MPG (EPA); 140 hp / 128 lb-ft
    • 2012 Focus SFE -- 2.0L NA (6-spd automatic) -- 28 / 40 MPG (EPA); 160 hp / 146 lb-ft
    • 2012 Hyundai Elantra Blue -- 1.8L NA (6-spd automatic) -- 30 / 40 MPG (EPA); 145 / 130 lb-ft

    I am not making this up. Feel free to look up the numbers @ fueleconomy.gov which has all the official EPA numbers.

    What I was trying to say is that -- contrary to popular beliefs -- downsizing displacement is an ineffective means of improving fuel economy. A more effective path lies in increasing displacement, adopting Atkinson Cycle and going to as few cylinders, as few camshafts and as few valves as you can get away with while meeting your performance and refinement objectives.

    The money GM spent on the turbocharger and intercooler for the 1.4T is better spent on adding direct injection, a 2.5 liter aluminum block and an Atkinson Cycle camshaft. The Malibu's 2.5L with an Atkinson Cam if you will, which actually cost less than the 1.4T. Output will be around 140 hp / 134 lb-ft. But fuel economy will be better than the Honda, Ford and Hyundai 1.8~2.0 liter engines -- all of which beat the 1.4T. This is working entirely with stuff they have. GM can do even better if they go to 3-cylinders and/or a SOHC head.
    Your hilarius! Atkinson cycles will not work to make better MPG or power in a conventional car. They work well when suplimented on hybrids. The peak power is lower and the response is slower. Hence you would be reving the hell out of it to get up to speed, and hurt your milage. If GM did what you propose EVERYONE would hate to drive those cars.

  8. #97
    2.5L Iron Duke
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    Your hilarius! Atkinson cycles will not work to make better MPG or power in a conventional car. They work well when suplimented on hybrids. The peak power is lower and the response is slower. Hence you would be reving the hell out of it to get up to speed, and hurt your milage. If GM did what you propose EVERYONE would hate to drive those cars.
    Actually, none of that is true except that you get less out of a given engine size. The torque curve is very similar to an Otto cycle engine of otherwise the same design, it is just lower across the board for the most parts. It is smooth, it is similarly responsive and it runs just as well at idle. The torque curve is not actually peakier. If you don't believe it, just look at the curves if a Ford or Toyota Atkinson engine. A simply way to think of a 2.5 liter Atkinson cammed engine is to think of it as a 1.8 liter Otto cycle engine except it's fuel economy is better due to the asymmetric compression and power strokes. So you'll hate it no more or no less than a 1.8 liter powered car, except that it's fuel economy is better than a Otto 1.8 or 1.4T.

  9. #98
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dearborn, MI
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My Ride
    FORD

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
    Actually, none of that is true except that you get less out of a given engine size. The torque curve is very similar to an Otto cycle engine of otherwise the same design, it is just lower across the board for the most parts. It is smooth, it is similarly responsive and it runs just as well at idle. The torque curve is not actually peakier. If you don't believe it, just look at the curves if a Ford or Toyota Atkinson engine. A simply way to think of a 2.5 liter Atkinson cammed engine is to think of it as a 1.8 liter Otto cycle engine except it's fuel economy is better due to the asymmetric compression and power strokes. So you'll hate it no more or no less than a 1.8 liter powered car, except that it's fuel economy is better than a Otto 1.8 or 1.4T.
    Do you currently own a vehicle that utilizes an Atkinson cycle engine? Do you think that automakes are incredibly obtuse, and that they would not go the direction that you say if there was in fact a true benefit?

  10. #99
    6.0 Liter L76 V8 DirtyMoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Warner Robins, GA
    Posts
    2,094
    Thanks
    188
    Thanked 97 Times in 67 Posts
    My Ride
    Ford Explorer/2002/Green

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by usa1 View Post
    The fact that his was announced as being developed by Opel and not GM Powertrain is odd. It would be like saying the new small block were engineered by Chevrolet engineers. Hopefully it's all just marketing, otherwise, GM still has a long way to go.
    It goes a long way to say how important Opel is to GM and it's shareholders.

  11. #100
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    4,623
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 211 Times in 163 Posts

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
    Actually, none of that is true except that you get less out of a given engine size. The torque curve is very similar to an Otto cycle engine of otherwise the same design, it is just lower across the board for the most parts. It is smooth, it is similarly responsive and it runs just as well at idle. The torque curve is not actually peakier. If you don't believe it, just look at the curves if a Ford or Toyota Atkinson engine. A simply way to think of a 2.5 liter Atkinson cammed engine is to think of it as a 1.8 liter Otto cycle engine except it's fuel economy is better due to the asymmetric compression and power strokes. So you'll hate it no more or no less than a 1.8 liter powered car, except that it's fuel economy is better than a Otto 1.8 or 1.4T.
    Actually it's exactly true. They are less power dense, so less hp/l. So you still have to the same amount of air to get the same power which means more rpm's. I agree that the stroke itself is more efficient because your exhaust pressure is closer to atmospheric. However you loose on the compression end and make less power because of it. Hence they work better when supplemented with other sources of power like hybrids.

    Ford doesn't use the technology you’re talking about in its non hybrid engines. I believe it's reversed, your leaving the exhaust valve open, not the intake. This still lowers your effective compression and pumping losses, but since the engines are turbo powered you get some efficiency back on the turbo. I'm not arguing that the technology isn't good, it's just not the correct application for a standalone car engine.

  12. #101
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dearborn, MI
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My Ride
    FORD

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by spd98 View Post
    Actually it's exactly true. They are less power dense, so less hp/l. So you still have to the same amount of air to get the same power which means more rpm's. I agree that the stroke itself is more efficient because your exhaust pressure is closer to atmospheric. However you loose on the compression end and make less power because of it. Hence they work better when supplemented with other sources of power like hybrids.

    Ford doesn't use the technology you’re talking about in its non hybrid engines. I believe it's reversed, your leaving the exhaust valve open, not the intake. This still lowers your effective compression and pumping losses, but since the engines are turbo powered you get some efficiency back on the turbo. I'm not arguing that the technology isn't good, it's just not the correct application for a standalone car engine.
    Thank you for weighing in, and bringing actual tech knowledge to this thread which had begun to reak of misinformation. There are definite NVH tradeoffs with the Atkinson cycle , and that fact is illustrated in the back to back drives of the RX350 as well as the RX400/RX450h.

  13. #102
    2.8 Liter Turbocharged V6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    777
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    My Ride
    2012 Cruze LTZ, 2012 S60 T6

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Wouldn't atkinson cycle be preferrable for turbo charging?

  14. #103
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    3,581
    Thanks
    385
    Thanked 270 Times in 149 Posts

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_raider View Post
    Wouldn't atkinson cycle be preferrable for turbo charging?
    That's essentially what Mazda did back in the 90s (though with a supercharger), though then it becomes a Miller Cycle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cycle.

  15. #104
    Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dearborn, MI
    Posts
    14,995
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    My Ride
    FORD

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    Quote Originally Posted by Tone View Post
    That's essentially what Mazda did back in the 90s (though with a supercharger), though then it becomes a Miller Cycle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cycle.
    This engine while exemplary in some ways was compromised in others, and quite simply it did not offer a significant real world fuel economy advantage.

  16. #105
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6 DmitryKo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,122
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts

    Re: Opel's New 1.6-liter Headed to America

    AutoNews hosts a leaked suppliers chart for the 2012 US Chevrolet Sonic; the PDF was created by IHS Automotive back in June 2011.

    Both MGE 1.6 DI start&stop (engine code B16SHD) and SGE 1.4T DI (RPO code LE2) are listed as coming in 2014 and replacing current 1.4T Family 0 (RPO code LUJ) and 1.8 Family 1 (RPO code LUW).

    Also a Dual-Clutch semi-automatic transmission is coming in 2014 and will be mated to the 1.6 L DI.

    (There are a few errors, with current 1.4T listed as Family B, Medium Gasoline engine (MGE) listed as Opel Family 1, etc.).
    Last edited by DmitryKo; 08-25-2012 at 06:00 AM.

  17. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2