Challenging Toyota's Hybrid Hegemony

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ggood @ Apr 29 2006, 06:25 AM) [snapback]247150[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for posting this. It looks like they're trying to accomplish Toyota's efficiency without the software. The core value of the CVT is the ability of the software to implement an infinite number of torque/horsepower combinations -- the technology in these vehicles is instead loaded with clutches and a series of fixed gear transmission drive ratios. It essentially looks to me like a drop-in system that lets them leverage much of their existing engine blocks and transmission technology to get some fuel/emission savings.

While I don't fault these auto makers for finally "joining the party" I have to disagree with the conclusions mentioned in the article. The concept of efficiency loss of 20% with Toyota HSD (as attributed in the article) to me is a concept that does not hold water. In my mind, for this to be true, the assumption is that the engine/electric powertrain were operating only in one mode and one specific combination or torque/output power. [The only analog I can think of here would be the Honda system, which is assist, much like this system being proposed.] The whole concept of CVT is to make the system operate at peak operating modes, driven by software, continuously changed -- electric is used when efficient, new technology engine blocks drive on gas when it's more efficient, and the two can be combined when needed. Now, if taken in the context of a fixed gear system, with fixed ratio gears and fixed electric/hybrid assist, I might buy the efficiency loss argument, but the comment made appears to fly in the face of the HSD design principle.

It will be interesting to see who reliability compares between the two systems. Toyota has had three generations to tune and develop this technology -- and to be honest, the track record of GM in this space leaves a little to be desired. That being said, the fact they finally woke up and decided to start becoming more "green'" in my book is welcome.

- Matt

 

GM has had recent success with Active Fuel Management and Variable Valve Timing for OHV engines as well. GM's full-size trucks and SUVs are already the cleanest and most efficent on the market and this will help them sustain that lead in the future. The 2008 Tahoe will be the first vehicle available with this technology and hopefully the rest of the full-size line will be available with it soon after. I just hope the tech is developed for their FWD vehicles as well.

I wonder when BMW will roll this tech. out on it's products?

 

Whether we like to admit it or not, SUVs and large trucks are not going away. Neither are 18 wheelers, school buses, or any of the other large vehicles we as a country rely on. While there are people who do not need a large truck or SUV and waste fuel by driving one, there are times when they are necessary. I grew up in a farming community, and I'd like to see you put a round bale of hay in my Prius.

I'm glad to see that fuel efficiency is finally taking its place among the things people consider when buying a car, and in turn, car companies consider when designing them. I'm sorry to see it has taken this long for car companies to realize we want more than just 0 to 60 in 8 seconds. Now....may American car makers entrance into the Hybrid world be more successful than their entrance into the diesel car market.

 

This is my favorite line from that article:

Because the two-mode design uses some off-the-shelf components and spreads costs across three companies, it should be less expensive.

That is most definitely not long-term thinking, especially with 3 automakers involved. The upgrade approach should work fine for awhile, but they will inevitably be faced with the need to completely replace obsolete technology later. I've been witnessing that reality with the computer industry for years. You can only get so much of a return from outdated hardware & software for so long. Eventually, you have to start over with everything new.

It's well proven that those painful, risky, and costly investments in entirely new architectures pay off big time in the end. Toyota was willing. GM, DaimlerChrysler, and BMW are not still.

Of course, how many reusable components are taking about anyway? The electric motors, battery-pack cells, and power-split-devices are obviously completely unique to hybrids... of which compose a majority of the cost. So that "less expensive" claim probably doesn't actually amount to much.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Apr 29 2006, 08:25 AM) [snapback]247171[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I'm glad to see something, anything, coming from US auto manufacturers. It's possible that with their experience with the EV1 and Allison hybrid busses, that GM will have a winner here. I hope they do. They may be a step behind, but at least this is a step in the right direction. Competition in the making of more fuel efficient vehicles is good for all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ Apr 29 2006, 05:44 PM) [snapback]247339[/snapback]</div>

Yea, and GM has all of that experience of converting a gasoline engine to diesel too!

 

One easy and cheap way to get some improvement would be to add instantaneous and per-tank MPG displays to all new vehicles. We've all seen how much fuel economy is affected by driving habits; that kind of feedback would help most drivers do better.

 

Did anyone else notice that GM's explanation of two-mode hybrid is exactly what Toyota has in GS450h? .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spwolf @ Apr 30 2006, 06:22 AM) [snapback]247503[/snapback]</div>

That's GM for you.. A day late and a dollar short.. Their downfall will be their constant assumption that the rest of the world will stand still for them to catch up.. Surprise- the rest of the world has moved that much further ahead in the time they had their heads buried in their asses..

Completely mechanical systems are impressive for the engineering design, and slightly less expensive at the outset, but their reliability plummets with the sheer number of mechanical components, and electronic systems quickly beat pure mechanical systems in both reliability and price as soon as there's sufficient volume.

 

For the first 5 years that hybrids were available in the United States, these automakers made fun of them. Calling hybrids a "stop gap" was a theme agonizingly repeated over and over and over again. I was so frustrated that they would choose to shun the technology rather than just keeping quiet and competing some other way.

Now, they are touting that they will be offering a better hybrid system. But it you look for details, you won't find many. They are quite vague. Of course, even with only that it's pretty clear that they are contradicting the very statement they themselves made just a few years ago.

Whatever the outcome of the technology itself is, it won't actually make much of a difference. This phrase in the concluding paragraph of that article points out why: "the three automakers' two-mode production could reach 83,000 by 2010". Toyota's striving for 1,000,000 per year, a quantity 12 times greater with a worldwide distribution.

Could those 3 automakers move any slower? Imagine what the market will be like then with the reality that gas prices will probably be even higher then than they are now. Lots of attention will be placed on hybrids in the meantime, yet their production will be so small that barely anyone will have an opportunity to actually buy one from them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Apr 30 2006, 09:28 AM) [snapback]247525[/snapback]</div>

And, just like the EV1, they'll discontinue it and say there was no interest, even though they only made a limited quantity, no advertisement, and high demand.

This whole thing is almost embarrasing to me as an American to see the big 3, for the last few years, do everything, and spend big money, to say hybrid technology was a passing fad. Now, they come out with vague statements to make it look like they are reinventing the wheel. To me, they are more than 20 years behind and still moving backword.

Good for them to see they are working on this...but they are only doing it to appease the ignorant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(2Hybrids @ Apr 30 2006, 07:23 AM) [snapback]247537[/snapback]</div>

Well, if they are only doing this to appease the ignorant, they may have a really big market here. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Apr 30 2006, 02:22 PM) [snapback]247637[/snapback]</div>

Yep... Toyota offered to license hybrid technology to GM and they refused.. In the same article GM said that Toyota was going about hybrid technology the wrong way... dooh!

Nissan, Subaru, and Ford have license arrangements with Toyota..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spwolf @ Apr 30 2006, 03:22 AM) [snapback]247503[/snapback]</div>

And the 400h, and the new Camry. They all are using Toyota's newer two planetary gear HSD system.

As it's been said:
o Where are you going today?
o Where are you going tomorrow?
o Are you guys coming or what?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Matt Domenici @ Apr 29 2006, 07:37 AM) [snapback]247159[/snapback]</div>

If you study the gearing of the PSD, 20% of the engine's torque tends to be always routed to the sun gear (MG1). I guess if you lock up the MG1 to match the rotation of the planetary gears (engine) then more of the engine's torque would be routed to the wheels, but this requires the MG1 to be electrically powered so it's easy to read that it's a 20% loss of efficiency. This of course ignores varying power/energy demands, and how flexibly the PSD can configure itself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Apr 29 2006, 11:02 PM) [snapback]247403[/snapback]</div>

What an inexpensive way to begin the education process. Add a converter that tells how much "$$$$" they are using after inputting current costs. That will get their attention.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ May 1 2006, 01:50 AM) [snapback]247852[/snapback]</div>

I agree -- and I think that's the crux of it. Software can achieve much better modes of operation in "real world" conditions -- which change constantly.

- Matt