GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I found the following tidbit an interesting insight GM's future powertrain ideas.

The new battery pack, a lithium-ion pack made by Hitachi, combined with an improved alternator-generator, can deliver three times more power than the company's older system, which used nickel metal hydride batteries. GM claims that this system will be a perfect complement to another fuel-saving strategy: downsizing the engine and adding a turbocharger for bursts of power. The turbocharger doesn't kick in right away, and it doesn't work well at low engine speeds. But the battery and motor kick in right away, compensating for the so-called turbo lag.

Full Article: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/22028/?nlid=915
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
See this is what I'm talking about: everyone came down on the government for tightening the CAFE standards; but while they may have been extreme, they're motivating companies to innovate and create better products. And do we really think that these simple tactics will make price tags balloon? I seriously doubt it. There may be some growing pains involved, but I think cars in general - and domestic cars in particular - will be better for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,730 Posts
See this is what I'm talking about: everyone came down on the government for tightening the CAFE standards; but while they may have been extreme, they're motivating companies to innovate and create better products. And do we really think that these simple tactics will make price tags balloon? I seriously doubt it. There may be some growing pains involved, but I think cars in general - and domestic cars in particular - will be better for it.
1-2 grand for BAS+ and 2-3 grand for DI and a turbo. A 3-5 grand price increase isn't ballooning to you?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,653 Posts
1-2 grand for BAS+ and 2-3 grand for DI and a turbo. A 3-5 grand price increase isn't ballooning to you?
Let's take a Malibu LTZ, which gets a combined 21 mpg. With BAS+, DI and a turbocharged 4 cylinder, it easily would get 40% better mileage. If in the future gas costs $3.50 and you drive 15,000 miles per year, you would save $714 per year in gas. If the system costs $4,000, it would pay for itself in 5.6 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,426 Posts
See this is what I'm talking about: everyone came down on the government for tightening the CAFE standards; but while they may have been extreme, they're motivating companies to innovate and create better products. And do we really think that these simple tactics will make price tags balloon? I seriously doubt it. There may be some growing pains involved, but I think cars in general - and domestic cars in particular - will be better for it.
I don't think the automakers indicated they couldn't do it, they indicated they couldn't do it without a major price increase. I suspect they are correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,730 Posts
Let's take a Malibu LTZ, which gets a combined 21 mpg. With BAS+, DI and a turbocharged 4 cylinder, it easily would get 40% better mileage. If in the future gas costs $3.50 and you drive 15,000 miles per year, you would save $714 per year in gas. If the system costs $4,000, it would pay for itself in 5.6 years.
That's assuming 40% better mileage (though you're comparing V6 to I4), which would then negate the 2-mode. I don't think they'll hit 40% with this system.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,653 Posts
That's assuming 40% better mileage (though you're comparing V6 to I4), which would then negate the 2-mode. I don't think they'll hit 40% with this system.
The whole point is that with these technologies, you can downsize the engine. Of course, if you keep the 3.6L V-6, and turbocharge it and tune the DI for performance, you won't improve mileage. But you'll have a family sedan that can do 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds, too.

With a turbocharger and DI and the BAS+, you can have the same performance numbers as today's Malibu LTZ with a 4 cylinder engine. That's the point. Whether or not it negates the 2 mode is irrelevant, but it won't because there are no plans to put the 2 mode in a FWD Epsilon sedan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,431 Posts
See this is what I'm talking about: everyone came down on the government for tightening the CAFE standards; but while they may have been extreme, they're motivating companies to innovate and create better products. And do we really think that these simple tactics will make price tags balloon? I seriously doubt it. There may be some growing pains involved, but I think cars in general - and domestic cars in particular - will be better for it.
The Volt and a dozen other hybrids were already either on sale or in development before the gov mandates. Now cars like the G8, pickups, SUVs, and any future of the Camaro past 2020 is grim.

Instead of being able to go to a car dealership and choose between a hybrid or a muscle car or a pickup, we will soon only be able to choose between a hybrid and a tiny diesel.

The market was already driving fuel economy improvements...GM's diesels, the volt, the new 2 mode hybrids, and the BAS system were already here or in development. Sales of full size trucks are down, as well as full sized SUVs.

So far the only things the CAFE standards have produced is canceled projects and complaints from automakers. Toyota has been selling Priuses for years and there was no government quota on those.

If the government wants to promote fuel efficiency, then they should give out larger tax breaks to consumers to buy alternative fuel vehicles or hybrids and give military contracts to the American companies that sell them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Automakers are in the business to sell cars. To the extent that models are priced above the reach of families, or that buyers drive a vehicle into the ground is not good for their business. So what exists is that if you have lots of disposable income you can buy lower operating costs, if not not you have higher operating costs and are not a potential customer for a new car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,371 Posts
Let's take a Malibu LTZ, which gets a combined 21 mpg. With BAS+, DI and a turbocharged 4 cylinder, it easily would get 40% better mileage. If in the future gas costs $3.50 and you drive 15,000 miles per year, you would save $714 per year in gas. If the system costs $4,000, it would pay for itself in 5.6 years.

Don't forget the fact that a turbo 4 uses premium, while the V6 uses regular. Premium grade is normally 20 cents higher, sometimes more, than 87. This increases the payback period quite a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
I'm with HoosierRon here that the point here is that we could look at an Epsilon with a 1.6L DI turbo BAS+ that has reasonable performance and could get a combined 30 MPG and still be drivable without breaking the bank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,774 Posts
They have the 2.0L DI Turbo 260HP and 260FT.LB of Torque I4 now. And the peak torque is delivered at only 1500RPM!! Lower then the 3.6L V6 of today with like HP #'s so why not replace or add this engine were the 3.6L is today?? They could even do the RWD Impala or a Buick even a G8 with this engine as an ECO/GREEN option. They could even use it in the Malibu Aura G6 FWD models. Do a even more green 1.5L version of this Engine with around 230HP and like Torque figures for the smaller FWD models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
The whole point is that with these technologies, you can downsize the engine. Of course, if you keep the 3.6L V-6, and turbocharge it and tune the DI for performance, you won't improve mileage. But you'll have a family sedan that can do 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds, too.

With a turbocharger and DI and the BAS+, you can have the same performance numbers as today's Malibu LTZ with a 4 cylinder engine. That's the point. Whether or not it negates the 2 mode is irrelevant, but it won't because there are no plans to put the 2 mode in a FWD Epsilon sedan.
You really, really need to stop making so much sense! Duh! Don't you know you're supposed to be bitching and moaning here?:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
Let's take a Malibu LTZ, which gets a combined 21 mpg. With BAS+, DI and a turbocharged 4 cylinder, it easily would get 40% better mileage. If in the future gas costs $3.50 and you drive 15,000 miles per year, you would save $714 per year in gas. If the system costs $4,000, it would pay for itself in 5.6 years.
All these ridiculous numbers people quote for increased costs ignore the fact that they only have to make the change once.

The total cost of parts for these batteries, turbocharger pieces, direct injection, and smaller engines really doesn't add up to much. A smaller engine requires less metal. Direct injection just moves the location of the fuel injectors. The net material cost is pretty tiny!

The expense is in design, changing your supply lines, and changing your manufacturing processes. But you only need to do it once. After a few years, you recap the cost of the migration and then your actual expenses for parts and assembly is just marginally higher than it was before.

If you don't like it, you can buy something you do like from the 1960s and run it forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,730 Posts
All these ridiculous numbers people quote for increased costs ignore the fact that they only have to make the change once.

The total cost of parts for these batteries, turbocharger pieces, direct injection, and smaller engines really doesn't add up to much. A smaller engine requires less metal. Direct injection just moves the location of the fuel injectors. The net material cost is pretty tiny!

The expense is in design, changing your supply lines, and changing your manufacturing processes. But you only need to do it once. After a few years, you recap the cost of the migration and then your actual expenses for parts and assembly is just marginally higher than it was before.

If you don't like it, you can buy something you do like from the 1960s and run it forever.
So, once GM recoups their development costs, the price of the cars will come down. Riiiiight... :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
I'm with HoosierRon here that the point here is that we could look at an Epsilon with a 1.6L DI turbo BAS+ that has reasonable performance and could get a combined 30 MPG and still be drivable without breaking the bank.
Combine this with the 6 speed auto, which GM announced will in certain applications be available as part of the BAS+, and GM has created a new drive train that I for one would go out and buy in 2010. Sounds like a class leading combo to me, One with great gas mileage to boot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,822 Posts
All these ridiculous numbers people quote for increased costs ignore the fact that they only have to make the change once.

The total cost of parts for these batteries, turbocharger pieces, direct injection, and smaller engines really doesn't add up to much. A smaller engine requires less metal. Direct injection just moves the location of the fuel injectors. The net material cost is pretty tiny!

The expense is in design, changing your supply lines, and changing your manufacturing processes. But you only need to do it once. After a few years, you recap the cost of the migration and then your actual expenses for parts and assembly is just marginally higher than it was before.

If you don't like it, you can buy something you do like from the 1960s and run it forever.
You make a good point. Plus, manufacturers always say things are going to cost tons of money and do no good when they're resistant to the change. They had the same agrument against catalitic converters and passive restraints.

What I don't understand is why these technologies are always looked at in terms of $$$ or how long it takes for them to pay for themselves. Tons of people pay $800 for a sunroof and $ 1,500 for a Nav system that never pay them back 1 cent. Is it so terrible to spend money to reduce greenhouse emmissions and make the world a better place to breath? Our kids will thank us for it. The fact that you can recoup much or all of the cost by saving fuel is gravy! I just don't get why there is so much resistance to air quality and required efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,501 Posts
If you don't like it, you can buy something you do like from the 1960s and run it forever.
Sounds like a good idea...

I've been thinking about restoring a '67 - '69 Rambler with an inline 6 cylinder and a 3 speed manual.

They got around 25mpg, have very little that will break on them, and a good fairly rust free 4 door or wagon example won't cost much to buy.

Plus, it only needs a safety inspection because it's 25 years or older.

It won't do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, but in Houston traffic who cares?

:eek:
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top