GM and others announce hybrid project

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 13 2006, 01:09 PM) [snapback]302577[/snapback]</div>

Because it really hasn't been necessary until now.

And I don't know what you mean by more. It's offered on a slew of cars out there.. more than I can name off the top of my head at least.

In the meantime, here's an article on balance shafts for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_shaft

 

OMG, all the BS and speculation that's been posted since I last checked the thread.

GM will produce all the hybrid systems it can. They expanded the Allison plant for a dedicated line for the "full" system and the simple BAS is only starting production. How many Priuses did Toyota build in '97 and '98?

The GM system is nothing like IMA, it's more like a twin HSD. More complicated? Yeah, 'cause HSD is sooo simple.

HSD is not efficient at high speeds, sorry. Yes, it helps move the car since the little 1.5L can't do it on it's own, but it's made for speeds up to 35-40mph. Don't think so? The 1991 Geo Metro XFi got 58+mpg on the highway without a hybrid system. Yes, it was slower, but over 40mph the HSD is just a power-adder for the ICE.

Cylinder deactivation isn't used on more vehicles because so few manufacturers have it right, and they've only had it right for a few years. GM tried and failed as early as 1981 with the V8-6-4 in Cadillacs. That system was before it's time and gave GM a basis to build upon. Go drive a 2007 Tahoe (if you can stand driving an SUV for 10 minutes ) and see how much "vibration" it has. Zero.

Because the Highlander is a small SUV like the VUE and both are offered with a hybrid drivetrain. For people that need a small SUV the VUE will be a more affordable option. Oh, and it's $10,640.00 CHEAPER. I never said it was supposed to be faster or more efficient, I said it was almost as efficient and much less expensive.

What it boils down to is that it's not a Toyota or Honda, so it must suck, right? Some of you are the reason I DON'T want to buy a Prius. I can accept the fact that HSD is amazing technology and want a car that costs $25,000 yet doesn't have a power seat and puts my knees on the dash, but you people can't accept the fact that GM is building an effective, affordable hybrid system and a world-class full hybrid system. You guys toss out the positive effect of cylinder deactivation and ethanol capability... guess it's coincidence that Toyota offers neither.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 13 2006, 01:00 PM) [snapback]302599[/snapback]</div>

Wrong.

There are a number of us that are really upset that Ford hasn't done more with their "full" hybrid system. And their recent announcement that they won't even deliver on their 250,000 unit promise really increased the sense of disappointment.

The aftermarket groups have been experimenting with the Escape-Hybrid platform. The results of plopping in an improved battery-pack have been impressive.

Ford is based in Detroit. We like their design. Your "suck" claim holds little merit.

GM has promised less, even though their design is already in use by some buses. So we question if they'll just later claim their was little interest (the EV1 story).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 13 2006, 01:18 PM) [snapback]302604[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm dissapointed in Ford too, but we're talking about GM, so your predisposition about GM's intentions are without merit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 13 2006, 01:22 PM) [snapback]302606[/snapback]</div>

EV1?

Who killed the electric car?

Sound familiar?

It is very realistic to question their intentions. Their history warrants it.

If you don't believe that, search through the online publication archives. They show a very anti-hybrid attitude. So the sincerity of this remarkable complete reversal is unkown. It is just a token effort, or are they really investing in it as a major strategic plan... a new platform or just a limited option?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 13 2006, 01:00 PM) [snapback]302599[/snapback]</div>

Since when is a (V6) Highlander comparable to a (S4) VUE? That doesn't even make any sense in the non-hybrid arena either.

The SUV you should actually be comparing to is the (S4) Rav4.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 13 2006, 01:26 PM) [snapback]302609[/snapback]</div>

Like I said previously, GM is a different company than they were just five years ago. Wagoner himself said he wished they would've handled the pubilc side of the EV1 program better. The EV1 lives in the new hybrid cars and fuel cell development. They used the EV1 as an experimental vehicle in the hands of the public and they still use them for internal testing. I will never forgive GM for the way it took the EV1s and crushed the vast majority of them, but at least they are moving forward with hybrids and even serial hybrids until hydrogen is pheasable. They still believe hybrids are a stop-gap to hydrogen, but at least they are working on both.

I can understand questioning them, but don't assume.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 13 2006, 01:42 PM) [snapback]302619[/snapback]</div>

Toyota has failed to offer us a RAV4 with HSD. I'm comparing hybrid to hybrid.

But since you asked:
2006 RAV4 2.4L 2WD 166hp, $20,905 - 26mpg combined, 7.0 tons annual GHG emission
2006 VUE 2.2L 2WD 143hp, $19,345 - 24mpg combined, 7.0 tons annual GHG emission
2007 VUE Green Line 2.4L/BAS 2WD 170hp, $22,995 - 29mpg combined, 6.4 tons annual GHG emission

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 13 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]302621[/snapback]</div>

Part of the problem you'll face arguing with John1701 is that he's always right, even when he's (usually) not. For instance, look at the way he refers to the RAV and VUE as (S4)s. (Edit: Ack... I guess what he's trying to say is Straight 4? Somewhat antiquated I guess).

You're also not allowed to point out that the VUE isn't EPA rated yet, but is expected to be SULEV. You're not allowed to question when he pulls TwoMode production figures out of his wazoo. If you try to raise a point or ask a question in response to one of his diatribes, you're attempting to change the subject.

That aside, I agree with your earlier point. I paid 26K for my Prius, and while the drivetrain is amazing (no doubt about that) the car itself is somewhat of a quality and ergonomics disaster. I can't fathom any car that starts at 23K (it is 23K now, right) not having either a seat height adjustment or a telescoping steering wheel. And drum brakes? At that price.. That's reason #1 I'm jumping on the Aura Hybrid when it's out. It seems to have all of the creature comforts, likely a better build quality, and if it's mileage is the same as the Malibu Hybrid's expected mileage (which is a fair parallel, since they're the same platform/engine), it'll beat the Camry on the highway, which is where I do most of my driving.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Aug 13 2006, 11:48 AM) [snapback]302568[/snapback]</div>

You still haven't explained how that relates to the topic being discussed... cylinder-deactivation?

It appears to be just a method of smoothing engine operation when all the cylinders are being used. How does that relate to when only half are active?

Of course, you haven't answered the quantity question yet either. I keep asking for production volume. You continue to provide model count instead, implying that is what I what I wanted all along. Thanks. I've added "implied meaning" to the analysis document.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 13 2006, 04:04 PM) [snapback]302637[/snapback]</div>

Dude, you're a tool. I don't know how else to say it. I simply DO NOT KNOW how many were sold. Given that the Impala has it, the Monte Carlo, the Malibu with the optional V6, most of the Chevy SUVs... that's a lot of Chevrolets. And that's just Chevrolets. I don't know the sales figures dude, because I just don't really care to be bothered to look. Is it over 100,000 Chevrolets? Most probably yes.

Edit: Given that 5 out of 6 engines available for GM SUVs/Trucks have cylinder deactivation, I'd say it's a lot of engines.

Whatever 'implied meaning' is, I hope it brings you happiness. You should try learning 'clear and concise writing' and then 'implied meaning' may not be such an issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Aug 13 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]302561[/snapback]</div>

Hi again Dipper,

The Prius/HH/RX400H and GS450H do not use cylinder deactivation probably because they have Atkinson VVT heads, and the Atkinson cycle is more efficient at low levels than any amount of practical cylinder deactivation could provide from a V6.

Argonne National Laboratories near here tested the Prius engine and found it had good efficiency at low power. I cannot find the reference now, but I think it was 25 % at 12 HP . An efficiency of 25 % is similar to an Otto engine has at its optimum power, and below that the Otto efficiency drops off quickly. The Prius engine is a 76 hp engine, and that means that 12 HP is like at the same efficiency of a Otto engine at 2 Times 12/76 ths displacement of the Prius. The 2 is included as the Otto 25 % optimum efficiency is at about 1/2 peak HP.

Otto engines get more HP than Atkinson engines. The Echo engine the Prius engine is based on gets 108 HP with an Otto head, and also has 1.5 liter displacement. That means that an Otto engine displacement with the same HP as the Prius would be 1.5 liters times 76/108 or 1.06 liters. And the displacment of an Otto engine getting the same efficiency as the Prius at 12 HP would be 1.06 times 2 times 12/76 or .34 liters.

.34 times 3.0 is 11.2 percent of the Accord V6 displacment, or .68 cylinders. So, the Accord would have to disable 5.3 cylinders to get the same engine efficiency with an Otto cycle that the Prius has at 12 HP, since the Prius engine operates on the Atkinson engine cycle.

As the goal of cylinder deactivation is to reduce the displaciment, to improve the airflow and efficiency in the remaining "on" cylinders, it seems to me that cylinder displacment is a way to keep the high power engine, and gain some efficiency back, but its just not efficiency competitive with the Toyota Akinson technology.

Honda would do better to switch to a 3.0 liter inline engine, with an offset crankshaft, and Atkinson cylinder heads. Such a Hybrid Accord would probably have the same performance as the present V6 non-hybrid, and dramatically improved fuel economy. Oh, maybe Honda does not have that Atkinson VVT technology yet?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Aug 13 2006, 06:27 PM) [snapback]302688[/snapback]</div>

Psst... the RX400H/HiHy/GS450H don't use Atkinson cycle engines.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Aug 13 2006, 09:51 PM) [snapback]302765[/snapback]</div>

He's right, Lexus uses otto's

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BobZ @ Aug 13 2006, 11:16 PM) [snapback]302781[/snapback]</div>

Oops. Looks like Toyota can make some improvements. This probably explains why those cars do have moderate mileage improvement in comparison to similar cars, versus the Prius simply stellar comparitive performance. The Camry has the similar engine specs, hybrid/nonhybrid too. The hybrids seem to detune the engine by 5 percent in power They might get another 5 or 10 highway mpg out of the Camry without a price increase still! Looks like they were trying to avoid competing with the Prius on that decision.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 13 2006, 01:26 PM) [snapback]302609[/snapback]</div>

Did you even see that movie?

The director/writer of that doc. even said himself that GM was not the only responsible party but that the consumer played the bigger role in it's demise.

You cannot blame a company on it's history. Go and take a look at another companies vehicles. See the quality before you make these very uneducated remarks. If we are to blame companies for their history, then we should stop buying Toyota vehicles now. Due to the incredible amount of recalls (including the Prius) that had been issued within 45 days that are well over the 1,000,000 mark now. I think that set some sort of record.

So since Toyota screwed us by not telling us about the recalls and skirting the issue, do we stop buying them? Thats what GM did and you're persucuting them because of their history.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(coaster @ Aug 13 2006, 10:30 PM) [snapback]302829[/snapback]</div>

Are you saying it isn't realistic to question their intentions?

Due to all those various factors that contributed to the unfortunate past outcome, it makes a whole lot of sense to ask what the goals are now. So... same question... Is this a new platform or just a limited option?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 13 2006, 10:59 PM) [snapback]302837[/snapback]</div>

A new platform. Hell, GM is even getting into serial hybrids. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/23/business/plugin.php

 

the new trucks uhaul uses have cylinder deactivation. ( I work ther I know they do) funny to see a 16000GVW truck get 22MPG (measured on highway over a 110mi trip). ~OMG he might be making a useful post?

NOPE

I miss the old ones with the big block that rumbled and could pull down a house and smelt of unburned hydrocarbons eating the atmosphere like they should

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 13 2006, 11:00 AM) [snapback]302599[/snapback]</div>

That's not comparing apple to apples. The Metro you cite would be a death trap by today's standards and would likely do poorly in terms of emissions compared to modern cars. It weighs ~1620 lbs (http://www.edmunds.com/used/1991/geo/metro/5609/specs.html) vs. the Prius' 2890 lbs and has a whopping 49 hp 3 cylinder engine vs. 110 hp combined. The Metro you cite is ~29 inches shorter and almost 6 inches narrower than a Prius too.

If the Prius weighed only 1620 lbs, I'm sure it'd get a lot higher real world and EPA numbers than it does now. There's been a lot of car bloat over time. See http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11310/...g-minicars.html.

Here are some curb weights of some other cars for comparison:
Chevy Aveo5 w/manual: 2343 lbs
Chevy Aveo sedan w/auto: 2542 lbs
Chevy Cobalt coupe: 2991 lbs
Chevy Cobalt sedan: 3216 lbs
Honda Civic sedan: 2628 - 2804 lbs
Honda Fit: 2432 - 2551 lbs