This is alpha1847's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following alpha1847's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Too bad they decided to couple 10-year old engine technology to the advanced electric powertrain. This could could only have been done for cost cutting reasons.
Sooooooo.....when does this 2x more powerful electric drivetrain trickle up to the Pathfinder? Would be a nice combination with their new variable compression turbo.
My guess is that you may be right about the voltage. The last eAssist setup ran at 115 volts, but produced 20hp/79lbs-ft for the LaCrosse. Why else would they reduce the output for this application? I hope this winds up being a field test for a broader application in the near future. No reason not to have this.
I wouldn't use the GM examples to judge the merits of a belt-driven system. For both BAS generations, they integrated with prev-gen engine/transmission combos, making the benefits seems smaller than they actually were. First gen BAS was limited by 4-speed auto and second gen by older 2.4 (when newer 2.5 with 2-stage lift was out). Would have been interesting to see latest BAS with new, lighter 2016 Malibu with 1.5 turbo.
As much as people like to complain, I have yet to hear a solution to the real problem. Blocking this attempt to transport the fuel more efficiently would not stop the mining of the tar sands to begin with. As I said, Canada would find a different route to the west that we would get no benefit from at all, yet still have the pollution. I think Obama realizes this. At least the new, proposed route has reduced the risk to the environment from the pipelines themselves.
I think it is inevitable that this gets built, unfortunately. The Canadian Prime minister already said they have an alternative plan to ship to the west coast and unload it to China (probably at rates favorable to China). If that happens, we still have all of the tar sands mining just north of us and China gets all of the economic benefits. Additionally, the cleaner production coming from the Bakken Shale would not benefit either. I think our best bet is to mandate the most state-of-the-art pipeline monitoring possible and separately, work towards a cap and trade system that will push them towards lowering their GHG emissions through carbon sequestration methods. The tar sands will never be clean, but they can be cleaner. Just need to nudge this along a little faster with the right incentives/penalties.
What I hope is that, coupled with their decision to discontinue the two-mode hybrid (at least in the half-ton Silverados and Sierras), we will see a scaled-up version of their latest eAssist system shortly after their debut. Bumping up the electric motor from 15hp to about 20-25 should do the trick. Even if that only improved combined MPGs about 20-25%, they would get a high take rate if they kept the price down.
Going back to the VVT discussion, all Ecoboost models have had VVT at least on the intake valves. I believe every version since the first-gen 3.5 V6 has actually had dual-independent VVT. My understanding was that all dual VVT versions were using Borg Warner's cam torque actuated system, since it is much more effective at low RPMs, has a wider range of phasing and does not require an oversized, power-robbing oil pump. Has anyone seen any confirmation of this for the 1.0?
Engineer, I assume you mean if the engine gets an IMPROVED variable timing system (since it has dual VVT), like the electrically-actuated version used by Mazda in their Sky-Active engines? Yes, I believe that type of system allows a crazy amount of variation (around 180 degrees, if memory serves), allowing it to run in the Atkinson-cycle on demand. That probably couldn't hurt, but I'd wonder if it would be worth the cost or delay. From what I have read, the Atkinson cycle is only worth about a 3% improvement in fuel economy.
Pretty impressive. I am just waiting for Ford to come to the realization that this needs to be the engine used in their new hybrid setup, replacing the 2.0 Atkinson engine. Not only would it be more efficient, it would weigh about 100 lbs less. Pretty amazing that an engine that is half the size could produce more torque (and not just peak torque either) and just sacrifice a few peak HP, which wouldn't even matter since the 1.0 would still have more power through most of the RPM range anyway, where an ICE would spend most of it's time in a hybrid setup. I don't see any way this change would not get them over the 50mpg hump (from 47).
Are the electrically actuated phasers that cost prohibitive? While these improvements are all good, they seem to be inferior to the electric versions, such as those employed by Mazda in their Sky-active family of engines. I believe they can phase up to 180 degrees, provide faster response and even adjust before the engine is running. You would think the next jump for everyone would be to this type of setup.
@Roger: "You cannot compare the small-size Sonic to the larger Prius...." You are absolutely right....the Prius is a much larger vehicle on the OUTSIDE. For all your concerns about efficiency, you seem to be ignoring packaging efficiency. The fact of the matter is that Sonic is VERY close in interior space. The Prius has a slight edge in both passenger (90.6 vs. 93.7) and cargo space (19.0 vs. 21.6), but that's pretty close for a vehicle over 16 inches shorter. In fact, the Sonic beats the Prius in a few important measurements as well, such as rear seat headroom. You can deck out the Sonic LTZ hatchback with nearly every option (and more features than the Prius III) and come in less than $20k. Not only are you likely to get a Sonic for less than MSRP, you'd be LUCKY to get a Prius for less than $1k over MSRP. You are easily talking about a $6k difference. That's a lot of money for a lot of people. The Sonic is a more practical car for the masses. Not only that, but the driving dynamics of the Prius would not even come close to that of the Sonic. Don't get me wrong, the Prius is a fine and very efficient commuting appliance, but there are many people who actually enjoy the driving experience and thus are not interested in a Prius. As I mentioned before, I hope it's inevitable that the Sonic gets the eAssist mild hybrid system. Even if that adds $2k to the cost, in this vehicle, you'll probably get close to 30/45 at around $4k less than the Prius. That should be even more appealing.
If only everything was agnostic of cost.... The Prius starts at almost $24k (and you won't find one at that price at any dealer), while this new Sonic starts almost $10k LESS ($14k). A lot of people don't have the extra $10k for the better city fuel economy. For some people who do a lot of highway driving, this could wind up being a much better value. Hopefully, it's inevitable that the GM starts to roll out their latest eAssist mild hybrid to vehicles like the Sonic and Cruze soon. When that happens, fuel economy will get much closer to the Prius than the price.
I get how Ford is trying to maximize fuel economy, and maybe this will be corrected the following year, but I have to agree that the omission of AWD in an SUV is completely ridiculous. It's not a question of whether you need it or not - many people that live in northern climates simply won't buy an SUV without AWD. That would seem to take a huge market away. My guess is that they simply cannot produce enough of the ecoboost engines the first year to satisfy demand, so they will push the Ecoboost FWD in the south and west. It's not like this is some big, heavy 4x4 system that they use. Their light duty system adds less than 200lbs and little drag. With the V6, you only lose 2mpg highway and nothing in the city. The highway drop probably has more to do with the higher axle ratio they use in the AWD. With the low-end torque of the Ecoboost, I'd have to imagine that they could get by with the same ratio, meaning the drop might be 1 mpg. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd buy a non-hybrid AWD SUV that hits 20/27 as soon as it was available.
"With half the volumetric energy density compared to gasoline, about 60 billion barrels of methanol (7.6 billion tonnes) would be required to replace the 30 billion barrels of petroleum used globally each year." I'm surprised they made this statement by itself, because it is a little misleading. It does not factor in that an ICE optimized for methanol (or ethanol) can be at least 30% more energy efficient, and likely more if we invested more into it. This takes a large bite out of the energy density issue. Also, if used within a fuel cell, it would likely close the gap entirely. It would seem to be a very good transition fuel for the transportation sector.
"For the money Chrysler are burning developing 9 speed gearboxes (that do NOTHING to improve energy efficiency)" Does "NOTHING" have some alternative definition that I am unaware of? You couldn't be more wrong. Considering that the existing 545RFE multi-speed automatic is geared more like a 4-speed (3rd gear is a direct drive), upgrading to the ZF 8-speed is going to be significant (along the lines of 20% improvement in combined mileage). Considering that they are merely licensing the 8-speed from ZF, this sounds like a pretty good way to keep their R&D costs low, not taking away anything significant from their EV development. This was a very cost effective way to provide some immediate results. Exactly what Chrysler needs. They do have to run a business.
"And Ford has exaggerated potential fuel economy ratings in the past, I have no reason to assume that they would get 19/26." No longer the trend. Most significant model releases introduced lately have tended to underestimate the "preliminary estimates". This allows them to get a double-bump in the PR when the final EPA estimates are published. I would absolutely bet that the Ecoboost comes out higher than 19/26. The only disappointing decision to me is to only offer the Ecoboost in FWD. Clearly, it has enough torque to handle the lightweight AWD system. This is a marketing decision I do not understand. They have basically disenfranchised most of the northeast market. No one wants a FWD SUV. I was holding out on upgrading my RX330 for this to come out, but now it's not a lock, since the difference with the V6 Explorer might not be enough to justify the change. Unfortunate.
Actually, joookes was correct. He was very clearly referring to GCWR, which is the maximum total allowable mass of the vehicle. In other words, it's curb weight plus the the total passenger and cargo weight capacity of the vehicle. This includes all fluids and the max trailer tongue weight as well.
Did anyone else notice the reference to the Powershift (dual-clutch) transmission? I was worried that Ford only designed this to work on less powerful engines. I thought the max torque was going to be something like 180 (at least for the dry-clutch version). Not sure if this is a dry-clutch, but it would be nice to see this paired with the 2.0 Ecoboost at some point.
"Does it HAVE to weigh that much. Is a heavier car a safer car ?" Chris, I completely agree with you. Cars do not have to weigh more to be safer. However, the original point was in regard to the powertrain, not the entire vehicle. The fact that this powertrain is motivating 30% more mass with 20% less fuel is a significant improvement. If we could bring down that mass, yes, there would be a much bigger improvement. However, this is clearly a step in the right direction. Ford, in particular, seems to be very aware of this. What they have done with the 2012 Focus is very impressive.
Terrible comparison, Chris. But, if you do feel the need to compare a 3000lb sports couple to an almost 4000lb full-size luxury sedan that exceeds all of the modern safety standards, at least get the facts straight. The 28mpg estimate above is for an automatic equipped vehicle. The vehicle you made reference to was rated in 1998 as 19/25 with the automatic. That was the old EPA ratings as well. Using the adjusted EPA ratings that Volvo is using, that car was rated at 17/23. So, this Volvo that weighs about 33% more and is an INFINITELY safer vehicle in every measurable way, is actually over 20% more fuel efficient on the highway.
I just don't get this.....Volvo is FINALLY going to offer a fuel-efficient option in a desirable car like the XC60, and now Ford is going to sell it to Geely? This solves the only drawback to that vehicle, in my opinion. If this was available now, and Ford was going to hold on to them, I would have bought one tomorrow. Very disappointing. Geely is really making out on this deal...
Very impressive. I wouldn't be surprised if the AWD version hits close to 35mpgs on the highway. This could be a very appealing vehicle.
Chrysler has announced on several occasions that the Pentastar V6 will get Multiair as soon as possible. They just, smartly, decided to focus on the higher-volume World 2.4 first. They weren't going to get the Multair integrated with the Pentastar in time for it's initial release in the Grand Cherokee - that would be unrealistic.
Variable valve lift does significantly reduce the pumping losses as compared to using a throttled engine. This is one of the primary reasons diesel engines have an inherent advantage in efficiency - they do not use a throttle either. They control engine speed by the amount of fuel injected. Anyway, back to the variable valve lift. Using conventional valvetrains, when the piston is in it's intake stroke and sucking air through the intake valves, the amount of air let into the cylinder is controlled by restricting the air via the throttle plate. So, the engine is "fighting" this added resistance during the entire intake stroke, which causes the "pumping losses" that are always mentioned. The lighter the load, the more the losses are. With variable valve lift, the amount of air let into the cylinder is controlled by the duration the intake valves are left open. During that time, there is no throttle to add additional resistance to the air intake. I'm sure you might ask, what happens when the valve closes and the cylinder is still in it's intake stroke? Yes, that would cause a temporary vacuum, but this vacuum that is created on the intake stroke is going to help the engine during the compression stroke, since the cylinder will be going the other direction very shortly. This is the same premise that enables the various "cylinder deactivation" strategies that are employed. They simply close all valves in that case that and the vacuums essentially offset each other, and the deactivated pistons work more like springs. Not sure if this helps...