« Survey: 81% of US Energy Consumers Are Concerned About Climate Change | Main | Safeway to Run Trucks on B20 »
GM Opel to Present Corsa Diesel Hybrid Concept at Frankfurt
22 August 2007
 |
| The Opel Corsa concept diesel-electric hybrid. |
Among the cars GM will present at the upcoming IAA in Frankfurt is an Opel Hybrid concept that combines a new starter/generator and stop/start automatic transmission system with a diesel engine to deliver average fuel consumption of about 3.75 l/100km (62.7 mpg US) and 99 g CO2/km.
Based on the 55 kW/75 hp Corsa 1.3 CDTI, the hybrid uses GM’s next-generation belt-alternator starter technology, which debuts in this concept. The Corsa Hybrid concept uses a lithium-ion battery.
 |
| The next-generation Belt-Alternator-Starter system. |
Opel will also introduce a Vectra Flexpower with a 2.0-liter turbo engine designed for operation with bioethanol/gasoline mix at the IAA, as well as the Corsa 1.3 CDTI ecoFLEX and another concept model that uses a diesel engine in combination with the electric drive system of the E-Flex architecture. (Earlier post.)
The Flexpower’s engine management adjusts throttle position, air volume, injection and ignition point depending on the fuel mixture. Despite the differences between gasoline and bioethanol when it comes to knocking resistance and energy density, the Vectra Flexpower’s 2.0t engine produces 129 kW/175 hp and 265 Nm (196 lb-ft) of torque at 2,500 rpm.
Opel will also soon offer new ecoFLEX variants, which have the lowest CO2 emissions in their respective model line. The ecoFLEX variants of other high-volume model lines will be available at the end of the year: Meriva 1.3 CDTI ecoFLEX, Astra 1.3 CDTI ecoFLEX, as well as natural gas-powered Zafira and Combo CNG ecoFLEX versions.
August 22, 2007 in Diesel, Hybrids | Permalink | Comments (58) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/21020575
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Opel to Present Corsa Diesel Hybrid Concept at Frankfurt:
Comments
Is this the model that comes to US as Saturn-Astra.
It will be good if they bring in this. Still lot of people are willing to goto Diesel.
Posted by: Max Reid | Aug 22, 2007 2:22:13 PM
Wow! GM is really making strides in Europe. Now if they'd only offer some of these wonders here in the US market.
I'll stand in line for a 60mpg 1.3 CDTi ecoFLEX (Saturn) Astra!
I wonder how long before this next generation belt-alternator system will make its debut in GM's US line-up.
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Aug 22, 2007 2:24:26 PM
I want to see something like this on a crossover SUV--V6 diesel with idle-stop getting 30-35 mpg with the ability to tow 5000 lbs. Seems like such a concept would really go in the USA.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 22, 2007 2:31:24 PM
I wouldn't think this will be the Astra, the Astra (in Europe) is the next model up.
It goes Corsa, Astra, Vectra.
People generally complain about diesel emissions in built up areas - these will be much better, as they have stop/start, they will not be used so much in stop/start situations.
Also, a lot of hot buttons here: Diesel Hybrid + LiOn batteries - all we need is the plug.
So well done Opel - lets get these into production and off the podium.
Posted by: mahonj | Aug 22, 2007 2:55:03 PM
They mentioned it uses an automatic transmission. Is it a traditional automatic (with torque converter), or an automated manual? A traditional automatic would seem like a silly choice on this car, considering they went to the trouble of combining Li-ion batteries, BAS, and a modern diesel in this design.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Aug 22, 2007 3:11:01 PM
GM is dragging their heals. The stop/start feature should NOT be considered hybrid. Minimally better mileage is a fraud. Screw GM. Don't buy GM. Don't buy any Saturn psuedo-hybrid. Don't buy a GM Silverado psuedo-hybrid. The hybrid feature to look for is the electric motor drive and continuously variable transmission. Ford and Toyota are the only cars offering that fully advanced drivetrain technology. All cars should be implementing this hybrid model drivetrain. It is the only one that can convert to Plug-in Hybrid. Screw GM.
Posted by: Wells | Aug 22, 2007 3:41:00 PM
If it was a serial diesel hybrid, I'd buy one. BAS is not good enough for me.
Posted by: KS | Aug 22, 2007 3:41:29 PM
Wells
Tell us what you really feel dont hold back
Posted by: kevin | Aug 22, 2007 3:49:25 PM
@mahonj:
Yes, the picture is a Corsa, however, read the article closely:
"The ecoFLEX variants of other high-volume model lines will be available at the end of the year: ... ASTRA 1.3 CDTI ecoFLEX............."
Could this possibly open the door for a US Saturn ASTRA ecoFLEX down the road??? Even GM-haters must admit, nearly 60mpg is nothing to sneeze at.
@Nick
I agree with you completely; the US would be much better served if GM and the rest of Detroit applied their efforts towards addressing their biggest gas hogs: SUVs, and "fool-sized" pickups.
Posted by: | Aug 22, 2007 5:11:30 PM
Mr. Wells
Toyota is selling Heavy Hybrids with V6 engine in
GS450h, RX400h, Highlander (500 pounds extra for 2008 model) and on top of that, the LS600h model with V8 engine and 500 hp. Do you think that they are hybrids and GM is not.
Ofcourse, Toyota is also selling gas-guzzlers like Sequoia, 4-Runner, FJ-Cruiser and again giving $3500 discount on Tundras.
There is no rule that only cars powered by motor is Hybrid.
As long as a company uses any type of mechanism to save fuel is good. Market for Hybrids (only those with V4 engines) and Diesels are booming and a Diesel Hybrid would be wonderful.
Currently the Rental companies are adding lot of Prius in their fleet, parallelly Taxi-fleets are also purchasing Hybrids. Diesel Hybrid buses and trucks are becoming common, why not in cars.
Posted by: Max Reid | Aug 22, 2007 6:54:22 PM
Mr. Wells
Toyota is selling Heavy Hybrids with V6 engine in
GS450h, RX400h, Highlander (500 pounds extra for 2008 model) and on top of that, the LS600h model with V8 engine and 500 hp. Do you think that they are hybrids and GM is not.
Ofcourse, Toyota is also selling gas-guzzlers like Sequoia, 4-Runner, FJ-Cruiser and again giving $3500 discount on Tundras.
There is no rule that only cars powered by motor is Hybrid.
As long as a company uses any type of mechanism to save fuel is good. Market for Hybrids (only those with V4 engines) and Diesels are booming and a Diesel Hybrid would be wonderful.
Currently the Rental companies are adding lot of Prius in their fleet, parallelly Taxi-fleets are also purchasing Hybrids. Diesel Hybrid buses and trucks are becoming common, why not in cars.
Posted by: Max Reid | Aug 22, 2007 6:54:35 PM
Wells, this isn't a forum for your personal vendetta against GM. Find another website. Your ignorant post doesn't even warrant a response.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 22, 2007 7:46:54 PM
How long have you been on the General's payroll, Angelo?
Posted by: jack | Aug 22, 2007 7:53:38 PM
Wow, I too am taken aback by Mr. Wells. This kind of development (mild hybrid in a mass market car) is exactly what will make the most difference in both global warming and energy shortages. Let's get mild hybrid on all new vehicles in five years, together with some full hybrids and clean diesels. Let's also use waste product ethanol and biodiesel wherever possible. Those two things alone could cut emissions (and oil use) 10% in those five years.
Let's do the easy things now, as soon as possible. We can work on the breakthroughs, and they will come, but for now I'll take 10% reduction in five years.
Posted by: dollared | Aug 22, 2007 8:50:27 PM
Rather than bashing GM push them to move ahead with two-mode hybrid with diesel!
From GM website
GM, DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group have teamed up to co-develop the world’s first two-mode hybrid system for passenger vehicles to more rapidly advance the state of hybrid technology in the industry.
The two-mode hybrid system has been established as the starting point for the GM, DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group collaboration. The two-mode system will be used for applications in GM, Chrysler Group, Mercedes Car Group, and BMW Group vehicles. Variants planned include rear, front, and all-wheel drive versions for cars, trucks and other vehicles.
The two-mode hybrid will be launched in 2007 in two of GM’s most popular full-size SUVs – the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and the 2008 GMC Yukon. When combined with Active Fuel Management, the two-mode hybrid is expected to enable the SUVs to deliver a composite (city and highway mpg) fuel economy improvement of 25 percent.
Posted by: shawn | Aug 22, 2007 8:56:07 PM
The Astra and Corsa are small cheap(ish) cars. You can only add so much cost to them before they become unaffordable. Hence the stop/start system rather than a full hybrid.
If GM are only starting with hybrids, they will still have high costs initially - give them a few years.
And 62 MPG is nothing to be sneezed at.
What matters is the MPG and CO2 levels, not the methods used to achieve them.
Posted by: mahonj | Aug 23, 2007 12:31:00 AM
I think everyone here are understanding the situation here.
With auto market getting tough because of gas prices and
housing situation with even Toyota having 7 % sales decline
in Jul-2007, its time for every company to bring the best
of their technology weather its mild, partial or full hybrids.
Already GM has applied the Flex-fuel tech in many of their
vehicles and mild hybrid is their 2nd choice, by november
full (2 mode hybrid) will be their 3rd choice.
Hope the gas prices are brought under control by use of
multiple fuels and hybrids.
Posted by: Max Reid | Aug 23, 2007 1:01:06 AM
Any technology that reduces fuel consumption should be welcomed.
However, a starter-alternator system with the start-stop functionality can however not be regarded as a "hybrid".
Be aware of Regulation 85 from the United Nations in Geneva which defines what a hybrid is. This definition was developed and approved by the technical experts from the contracting parties i.e. countries accross the globe, including Europe, Japan, Russia, Australia, Asian countries, have signed this (except US and Canada).
"Art. 2.5.1 Hybrid Vehicle means a vehicle with at least two different energy converters and two different energy storage systems (on vehicle) for the purpose of vehicle propulsion"
Especially this last requirement about vehicle propulsion makes that start-stop systems can not qualify as "hybrid".
This does not mean that start-stop is inferior technology - it could even be the most cost-efficient for small cars - but should not be marketed/labelled as such, because this would add to the confusion with customers.
Posted by: SirG | Aug 23, 2007 1:17:06 AM
Looks like they want to show a series-hybrid diesel using A123 lithium-ion too:
"Opel will also introduce another concept model that uses a diesel engine in combination with the electric drive system of the E-Flex architecture."
Now that would be worth looking at!
Posted by: clett | Aug 23, 2007 2:08:33 AM
In stead of having a full combustion engine on board, it is much better to use a PMG (permanent magnet generator) for conversion of fuel into electricity. In that case the drive train only requires an electric motor and small fuel turbine+PMG,
see for instance www.pmlflightlink.com/news.html,
which will reduce the complexity, costs and weight of a hybrid car substantially.
Apparently PML Flightlink is champion producer of in-wheel motors & PMGs with highest power/weight ratios.
Posted by: Koen | Aug 23, 2007 3:37:41 AM
@Bob Bastard -
the article's wording is most likely just confusing. The stop-start feature is automated, but the transmission itself will probably be a manual.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Aug 23, 2007 4:01:21 AM
Jack, I have never worked for GM or even owned a vehicle made by GM, so you can knock off the conspiracy talk. With that said, nearly everyone on this string is jumping to conclusions about what this proclaimed hybrid system can and cannot do. It does not say how much power this version of the BAS can output.
The current BAS can provide up to 10kw of power, but it's often limited from providing that much assist due to it's small, NiMH battery. That version, however, still meets all criteria for a hybrid. It generates/stores electricity during deceleration, it allows the engine to be instantaneously turned on/off, and provides a degree of electrical assist for propulsion. It may not do any of those to the degree that a "full hybrid" does, but it still is a hybrid system. The definition some of you have in your mind is not the industry accepted one.
As this is being billed as their second-generation BAS, and we know it will have a LION battery, it's very likely that this system will be able to produce more than 10kw, and be able to sustain that output much longer. As this is also a much smaller and lighter vehicle than those where the BAS is being used now (Vue, Malibu), this new BAS system is likely to provide a higher percentage of the overall system power than we have seen in the past. All while keeping the cost premium at a minimum.
But sure, GM is certainly evil for proposing an affordable vehicle that averages 62mpg and can be mass produced within a few years.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 23, 2007 5:03:21 AM
Higher power BAS = much more friction in the pulleys when assist is not required and increased parasitic losses.
Above about 2kW assist I think BAS should be replaced with a crank mounted system (like Honda's IMA etc) - assuming patent issues aren't the problem.
Posted by: clett | Aug 23, 2007 5:50:10 AM
After carefully having read the full press release at Opel News, I now understand that the system has the capability to take part in the propulsion of the car, which was not clear from the above article.
"When extra power is required, such as when accelerating or overtaking, the motor provides significantly higher torque."
No mention about extra kW.
As a conseqyuence, this vehicle complies to the United Nations definition of hybrid, as no minimum amount of propulsion power is mentioned of the electric motor.
Some countries in Europe, like The Netherlands, require that the electric power is at least 15% of the ICE, in order to obtain government incentives.
The Ford Fiesta "Micro-hybrid" as it has been labelled in Europe, with only a stop-start functionality,which did not add in the propulsion for example does not meet the Geneva definition.
The United Nations definition is known & supported by the worldwide car manufacturers representative body OICA, which is participating in these expert meetings. Individual car makers however may disagree.
Be aware that terms like "mild hybrid" and "full hybrid" are only used by experts in the field to differntiate various hybrid concepts, but in fact do not 'legally' exist.
I hope the above clarifies matters.
Posted by: SirG | Aug 23, 2007 6:42:10 AM
I like the concept photos of this car taken above. I hope they bring it to the U.S. and soon...A Saturn emblem would look nice on the front of that car.
As for the comments of Wells and the other naysayers, it appears that a GM article is never complete on this website unless it gets the token bashing. I would've been suprised if someone wouldn't posted trash talk to be honest. When in doubt, blame Bob Lutz I guess.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Aug 23, 2007 6:47:40 AM
"Above about 2kW assist I think BAS should be replaced with a crank mounted system (like Honda's IMA etc) - assuming patent issues aren't the problem."
Clett, you are ignoring the cost and complexity issues. The BAS is as close to a "bolt-on" hybrid drive as there is. Existing vehicles would require very little modification to accommodate a BAS. Honda's IMA is still sandwiched between the engine and transmission, requiring a modified and/or relocated transmission and many other changes, which the platform may not be able to accommodate. All of this adds to the development time and thus, cost.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 23, 2007 6:56:38 AM
Jack, I have never worked for GM or even owned a vehicle made by GM, so you can knock off the conspiracy talk.
So you don't get paid to write glowing things about GM, bash people who are even mildly critical of it, and put on pom poms for ethanol? I think you're short-changing yourself.
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 6:59:21 AM
"Screw GM. Don't buy GM. Don't buy any Saturn pseudo-hybrid...Screw GM."
Hey Jack, so you think Well's comment above was just being "mildly critical of GM"? That's funny stuff. You sure YOU'RE not on Toyota's payroll to bash GM?
Posted by: Schmeltz | Aug 23, 2007 7:12:17 AM
Hey Jack, so you think Well's comment above was just being "mildly critical of GM"?
I didn't claim it was. This isn't the first time I've noticed Angelo's behavior with respect to the General.
You sure YOU'RE not on Toyota's payroll to bash GM?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/gm-two-mode-suv.html
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 7:15:47 AM
An ICE car running alternatively on gas or hydrogen is a smart GM hybrid.
What would be an ICE car running (at will - manually or automatically) on fossil fuel or biofuels or hydrogen? A very smart Ford or BMW hybrid?
A common sense hybrid definition could be a ICE vehicle using electricity for propulsion (xx %) of the time or better yet a minimum of (xx %) of energy to the wheels.
Examples:
A 20% hybrid = 20% propulsion from electric motors. etc
Posted by: | Aug 23, 2007 7:26:01 AM
Jack:
I checked the link you listed, and don't see you're point. There are no posts at all from Angelo there. There are 3 from me, and 1 from you. At any rate, the point I think Angelo was trying to make is that comments like "Screw GM", are useless to pretty much everyone. If you don't like a car company's design or business philosophies, that's fine, but then post an argument worth debating and offer thought provoking suggestions. That's the kind of stuff I like coming here for, and can learn the most from.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Aug 23, 2007 7:38:22 AM
I checked the link you listed, and don't see you're point. There are no posts at all from Angelo there.
You asked whether I was paid by Toyota to bash GM. The link was my response to that suggestion. You can see my comments on that thread.
At any rate, the point I think Angelo was trying to make is that comments like "Screw GM", are useless to pretty much everyone.
http://www.google.com/search?q=angelo+gm+bashing+site%3Agreencarcongress.com
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 7:47:41 AM
1 out of every 6 gallons of fuel burned is in vehicles that are not moving. In urban settings with frequent traffic jams idle stop is a cost effective way to save fuel. With the diesel engine it will also have better cruise efficiency.
Posted by: tom deplume | Aug 23, 2007 8:21:22 AM
Jack, I can see this is likely to be an endless cycle with you. Wells was not close to being, "mildly critical," as you put it. Also, you are wrong on all counts about what my motivations are.
"I didn't claim it was. This isn't the first time I've noticed Angelo's behavior with respect to the General."
Yeah, Wells is not the only single-purpose, GM-basher on this site who adds no value to the discussion topic.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 23, 2007 9:16:33 AM
Wells was not close to being, "mildly critical," as you put it.
For the second time, I didn't say that he was.
Also, you are wrong on all counts about what my motivations are.
Right.
Yeah, Wells is not the only single-purpose, GM-basher on this site who adds no value to the discussion topic.
And what value do you add with your ceaseless hypersensitivity to GM critiques, boosterism of everything GM, criticism of everything non-GM, and tireless advocacy for "Live Yellow"?
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 9:30:14 AM
Jack, where is this coming from? You are completely embellishing everything to make your point. One of those last word guys, huh?
Yeah, I'm sensitive (and I'm not alone in this cause) to people making what I consider generalizations and/or short-sighted proclamations.
For the record, I'm just as pissed off at GM as everyone else for the way they handled the EV1. I agree that GM misused the term hybrid as it related to their FAS (flywheel alternator system) setup they put into the Silverado a few years ago. But in my opinion, that's all in the past now - what does it even matter? The most important thing is what the manufacturers are doing now, and while I wish they were this aggressive 10 years ago, GM seems to be doing more than many other manufacturers at the moment.
As for your, "Live Yellow" reference, I have never once suggested that corn kernel-based ethanol will free us from our energy dependencies or cure our environmental issues relating to transportation fuels. What I have said is that it is a necessary first step towards both of those goals. Create a demand, and the supply (a more efficient one) will follow.
Additionally, 95% of the time I have commented on this is because someone tries to utilize the current economics of corn-based ethanol to make a point about it being unable to meet our future needs (a point everyone on this site should already understand), in response to an article about a development relating to cellulose-based ethanol! Apples and orange, yet some don't seem to get that.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 23, 2007 10:12:24 AM
You are completely embellishing everything to make your point.
What have I embellished? I said "bash people who are even mildly critical of it". This refers to your pattern of behavior, and makes no reference to the specific comment by Wells. Don't claim I'm lying when you're not even paying attention to what I wrote.
Yeah, I'm sensitive (and I'm not alone in this cause) to people making what I consider generalizations and/or short-sighted proclamations.
Why would you be sensitive? You don't work for GM, right? So what possible reason could you have to be overly emotionally responsive to critiques of a given multinational corporation?
The most important thing is what the manufacturers are doing now, and while I wish they were this aggressive 10 years ago, GM seems to be doing more than many other manufacturers at the moment.
Didn't you just say you're against short-sighted comments and generalizations? Who are they doing more than? I read all their press releases, but what are they actually putting on the road? Hybrids have been out for 10 years now. And GM's just getting around to putting a real one out? And you honestly think their emphasis on flex fuel is anything but a greenwashing dodge that pads their CAFE numbers for very little money?
Cheerleading is just the mirror image of bashing -- equally lacking in value. You'd have a lot more believability if you weren't towing the GM corporate line so tightly.
GM has been either hostile or ambivalent with respect to fuel economy for many years. It was only a couple years back that Wagoner was dismissing gas prices in the US and kept saying that big SUVs were the way to go. For a company whose share value is countercyclical with gasoline prices, that sure is an odd position to be taking, unless of course they still hold on to the vain belief that oil prices will return to 25 or 30 dollars per barrel on a sustained basis.
The best that can be said about the company is that they have limited success with specific vehicles (eg, the Solstice GXP putting out 130 hp/liter and getting better fuel economy than its 170 hp brethren), but the general corporate culture is anti-green and cynical, to say the least. Flex fuel is a dodge, pure and simple, and their marketing of "most 30 mpg vehicles" is also hogwash.
No car company stands on a perfect pedestal, but to put GM at the relative top is not even worth considering. If they put as much effort into making great, fuel-efficient vehicles as they do into PR, they'd still be the world's greatest auto company.
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 10:35:00 AM
Jack:
Don't you ever get tired of carrying that chip on your shoulder?
Let it go.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Aug 23, 2007 11:30:30 AM
Jack, stop being a DICK.
Posted by: noname | Aug 23, 2007 11:58:14 AM
Don't you ever get tired of carrying that chip on your shoulder?
Want to see someone with a huge chip on their shoulder? Totally obsessed with the Invisible Bash Monster. They need to let it go.
"And cue the GM Bashing.......Wait for it.....ok, NOW!!!"
"As for the comments of Wells and the other naysayers, it appears that a GM article is never complete on this website unless it gets the token bashing. I would've been suprised if someone wouldn't posted trash talk to be honest. When in doubt, blame Bob Lutz I guess."
"You sure YOU'RE not on Toyota's payroll to bash GM?"
"MLHM5:
Funny how you bash Detroit in your post... You also bash Detroit for wanting to sell V-8 gas guzzlers, and again you conveniently forgot to include Toyota with it's Tundra, Sequoia, 4 Runner, and Land Cruiser,and Nissan with its Titan and Pathfinders."
"Thanks Richard for the token GM bashing comment. Geez...people criticize GM for not being green enough, then criticize them again when they are trying. No winning here."
"Message to GM:
Bless your hearts for doing this! If you make them well, people will buy them faster than you can make them!"
"Why is it when Honda and Toyota work with Fuel Cells, many here break their own arms trying to pat them on the back, and then when GM does it, GM is considered evil-incarnate?"
"It has just been my observation that whenever GM seems to do anything, let it be FCV's, Volt concepts, E85, or you name it, they get a lot of searing flack, yet when Toyota does it, little or nothing gets said."
"Had that been a GM related article, there likely would be floods of comments calling it 'Vaporware', 'Fool-Cells', 'smoke and mirrors', etc. You gotta be seeing the same thing I do here, where people are always taking shots at GM, and when Toyota does the same thing, the bashing comments are mysteriously abscent. That's called hypocrisy where I come from."
"thanks for your comment because it once again underscores un-warranted GM bashing in my viewpoint."
"It's laughable how you don't include mention of these cars in your bash above."
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 12:31:51 PM
'What have I embellished? I said "bash people who are even mildly critical of it". This refers to your pattern of behavior, and makes no reference to the specific comment by Wells. Don't claim I'm lying when you're not even paying attention to what I wrote.'
Maybe you should take your own advice. First of all, I never called you a liar. Do you even read what you write? Go back and look at how many assumptions you made about me. All of which, as I pointed out, are false. Since I did not agree with Wells' critique of GM, I must be getting paid by GM? Really? Is that the best you can come up with?
Again, I did not bash someone who was MILDLY critical of GM. I'd love for you to cite some example of my apparent unwarranted bashing that constitutes this pattern of behavior you refer to. This is comical - you are completing making stuff up.
"Why would you be sensitive? You don't work for GM, right? So what possible reason could you have to be overly emotionally responsive to critiques of a given multinational corporation?"
Uhhh, in the interest of not spreading inaccurate information. Is that good enough for you? Maybe you should look at Wells comment again. Let us dissect it:
GM is dragging their heals (compared to who?). The stop/start feature should NOT be considered hybrid (someone else already disproved this). Minimally better mileage is a fraud (what does he mean by minimally? 10-12% isn't worthwhile?). Screw GM (good point). Don't buy GM (why, and what's a better alternative?). Don't buy any Saturn psuedo-hybrid (if I can't afford the $4k more for the Toyota, I shouldn't buy one?). Don't buy a GM Silverado psuedo-hybrid (is he referring to the FAS that is no longer in production, and was meant for on-site construction workers primarily anyway?). The hybrid feature to look for is the electric motor drive and continuously variable transmission (great, this constitutes 1% of the available vehicles at the moment). Ford and Toyota are the only cars offering that fully advanced drivetrain technology (inaccurate - GM's 2-mode system meets the criteria). All cars should be implementing this hybrid model drivetrain (again, can everyone afford $4-8K more for the same car?). It is the only one that can convert to Plug-in Hybrid (not true - a more powerful BAS with a LiON battery in a smaller/lighter vehicle could provide a high percentage of the propulsion - the vehicle in this article has a diesel that produces 55kw of peak power (say 3000 rpms), while the new BAS will likely produce well more than the 10kw of the current, and have that full amount available from 0 RPM. You do the math) Screw GM. (I understood the first time).
"Didn't you just say you're against short-sighted comments and generalizations? Who are they doing more than?"
To name a few, in my opinion:
1. Ford/Volvo/Mazda (one platform on the road[Escape/Tribute with only one more announced [Fusion])
2. Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep (other than the 2-mode collab with GM/BMW, what else have they done?)
3. Nissan (other than buying Toyota's system for the Altima, nothing)
4. BMW/Mini (may eclipse GM a few years down the road, as their work in heat recovery may pan out, but what has it amounted to as of now?)
5. Daimler (only very recent news like HCCI and mild hybrid Diesels - still, nothing to show for it)
6. VW/Audi (some diesel work only)
"No car company stands on a perfect pedestal, but to put GM at the relative top is not even worth considering."
Again, putting words into my mouth. There is a difference between saying GM not being at the bottom and GM being the best. I never suggested the later. I only said they have some viable products that are pretty much ready for the road.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 23, 2007 12:52:20 PM
Jack--it sounds like you need a hug Mister!
Posted by: Schmeltz | Aug 23, 2007 3:11:13 PM
Jack--it sounds like you need a hug Mister!
Kind of hard digesting all your anti-"bashing" hysteria at once, huh.
Posted by: jack | Aug 23, 2007 4:13:30 PM
Jack:
Wow you sure can Google and paste with the best of them! I guess I struck a chord with the Chip on the shoulder comment. I have to hand it to you though, you really pointed out that I do sometimes take a bad turn with some of the remarks I post. I have to work on that. As far as defending GM, I never really followed much of their exploits until the Volt Concept came along. Then I became extremely interested and believed strongly in giving them a chance to deliver a game changer. I like the Company and what they are trying to do, and I'm not ashamed of that. I think if someone has a negative opinion of a subject, they should convey why they disagree, dislike, or whatever, and give suggestions to solve problems--not just write something like "Company X sucks!"--with no follow-up.
I always enjoy a good, healthy debate about cars as most do on this website. So, here's to better posts and more engaging discussions from now on...truce?
Posted by: Schmeltz | Aug 23, 2007 5:19:24 PM
I second what Schmeltz said....
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 23, 2007 6:27:42 PM
Angelo wrote:
To name a few, in my opinion:
1. Ford/Volvo/Mazda (one platform on the road[Escape/Tribute with only one more announced [Fusion])
2. Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep (other than the 2-mode collab with GM/BMW, what else have they done?)
3. Nissan (other than buying Toyota's system for the Altima, nothing)
4. BMW/Mini (may eclipse GM a few years down the road, as their work in heat recovery may pan out, but what has it amounted to as of now?)
5. Daimler (only very recent news like HCCI and mild hybrid Diesels - still, nothing to show for it)
6. VW/Audi (some diesel work only)
---------------------
I have been saying this for almost two years now, Toyota is #1 in hybrids, but GM by the end of this year will even eclipse Honda and will be #2 in hybrids.
GM is not an environmental laggard any more then the other car companies. They made a BIG mistake by killing the EV1 and some people just cannot forgive them for it. When they have 3 hybrids out and a maybe the Volt I will forgive em.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Aug 23, 2007 6:44:16 PM
Clett writes:
Higher power BAS = much more friction in the pulleys when assist is not required and increased parasitic losses.I call bull****. The belt tension is determined by the max (starting) torque, not the maximum power. A BAS system could have very high power by sustaining the maximum torque to a higher engine speed. Further, how hard would it be to off-load the belt tension when it was not needed? A tension spring opposed by a cylinder fed by engine oil would be cheap, simple and do the job. That would guarantee full belt tension for starting.
However, BAS is a kludge. It is much simpler to integrate a motor with the engine flywheel; Honda has shown how this can start the engine and even push the car without combustion. This eliminates the belt and its friction. Why is GM pursuing BAS? Good question! I doubt that we could get a straight answer (FYI, torque converter housings are rounded, while flex plates are flat; there is room to squeeze a motor into the transmission bell housing).
I will say one thing: BAS falls so short of what I expect and the world needs, that I will give it the ridicule it (and GM) deserves. I will do this until they have proven their change of direction by putting E-Flex or the like into showrooms.
Disclaimer: I was at one time on the payroll of a GM supplier.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Aug 23, 2007 8:00:35 PM
I'm just a little fed up with explaining over and over again the difference between 'mild hybrid' (psuedo-hybrid) and 'full hybrid' with electric motor drive, rather than an undersized electric motor that has an 'assist' and 'start/stop' features. I'm tired of explaining the importance of the full hybrid potential. I don't believe those who cheerlead for the cheap psuedo-hybrid are sincere.
I'll just remind everyone that the LA Times published an article awhile back regarding Plug-in Hybrids titled, "The 500 MPG Solution"
!!!! THE 500 MPG SOLUTION !!!!
And the Plug-in Hybrid is so much much more than that!!
Posted by: Wells | Aug 23, 2007 11:30:58 PM
"I'm just a little fed up with explaining over and over again the difference between 'mild hybrid' (psuedo-hybrid) and 'full hybrid' with electric motor drive, rather than an undersized electric motor that has an 'assist' and 'start/stop' features. I'm tired of explaining the importance of the full hybrid potential."
Wells, unless there is some specific comment you are referring to that I am overlooking, I think you are misinterpreting most of the retorts to your earlier statement. I think everyone understands the difference between "mild" and "full" hybrids as they are used. Everyone understands the extra potential of a full hybrid. I think the issues people have with what you said is that you were adamant that mild hybrids have no value at all.
It would be great if we could convert every car into a "full hybrid" that could be plugged in and is affordable within 5 years, but that is simply is not possible. The point many of us try to make about mild systems like the BAS, is that they are so easy to implement, cost-effective, and they can be applied to nearly any current vehicle right now, while we are wait for more vehicles like the Volt to become mainstream. I will absolutely concede BAS is a very short-term technology, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any value.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 24, 2007 5:19:34 AM
"It is much simpler to integrate a motor with the engine flywheel"
I agree that this setup would be more efficient, but I don't know if you can really say simpler. You can't just stick a motor in there and not have to modify the transmission or it's location. Also, if you want the A/C to be able to run when the engine is shut off, you have to use an electrically driven one (while superior, it adds cost) with the flywheel system. With BAS, the A/C compressor can run right off it.
"Honda has shown how this can start the engine and even push the car without combustion."
The first iteration of Honda's IMA (used in the Accord and last-generation Civic) had only marginally more power than GM's BAS anyway. Shouldn't we get some more information about GM's second-generation BAS that we are talking about here, before we start comparing it to Honda's second-generation IMA?
"Why is GM pursuing BAS?"
I think they've been very clear about this. Cost to benefit. Setups like the 2-mode do not come cheap, and are not easy to fit into a sub-compact vehicle without designing it for that purpose from the ground-up.
I wouldn't be surprised if BAS becomes standard within a few years. There really is no reason not do to this. However, you have to test something in the field before you do that.
Posted by: Angelo | Aug 24, 2007 5:36:37 AM
Angelo, the longer car makers drag their heals toward building Plug-in hybrids, the longer it will take to fully implement. Impossible you say? GM is practicing planned obsolescence once again. GM should build real hybrids. Don't kiss their but* for their cynical and malevolent promotion of obsolete vehicle technology. That body style could have a real electric motor drive. I will drag GM and their pampered lackeys kicking and screaming into the 21st Century for their own good or demand GM's corporate charter be revoked. GM is a threat to national security.
Posted by: Wells | Aug 24, 2007 9:48:46 AM
Ford Escape Hybrid v Saturn VUE Green Line
Cost net of tax credit - $21,386 v. $21,720
Price premium - 5% v 13%
MPG - 32 v 26
Bin - 3 v 5
FE boost - 45% v 24%
If BAS is so cheap, why does it elevate the pre-tax-credit price over $3,000?
Posted by: jack | Aug 24, 2007 9:50:52 AM
I guess GM thinks they can put the entire hybrid rebate into their own coffers.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Aug 24, 2007 1:21:11 PM
Calling this a hybrid will confuse the general public and make it harder for real hybrids to sell.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 24, 2007 1:27:49 PM
Wow, just like to say tit for tat about General Motors Corp gets a bit tired.
The car looks nice and at the least it has to be a step in the right direction.
Still don't get why ya can't just plug it in.
Posted by: Ted | Aug 26, 2007 3:29:16 AM
GM is not an environmental laggard any more then the other car companies.
You're either a comedian or off your meds.
Posted by: DS | Aug 26, 2007 8:19:38 AM
dear sir im srilankan people.1996 i was take opel omega b type car.
Posted by: asoka lewangama | Nov 17, 2007 12:37:59 AM
s
Posted by: asoka lewangama | Nov 17, 2007 12:39:44 AM
