GM to Introduce First Diesel Chevrolet SUV in Europe
23 November 2005
 |
| Captiva will use the new GM Daewoo diesel engine. |
GM announced it will introduce the Captiva—a new compact Chevrolet SUV based on the S3X concept vehicle—at the Geneva Show in March 2006. At the Paris Motor Show in 2004, GM showed a diesel micro-hybrid version of the S3X concept—a vehicle that used GM’s Belt Alternator Starter (BAS) system to provide stop-start functionality and regenerative braking. (Earlier post.)
The Captiva will offer the first production application of the new 2.0-liter GM Daewoo diesel engine (earlier post), making it Chevrolet’s first compact diesel SUV in Europe.
Captiva also will be the first model in Chevrolet’s European range with an electronic stability program (ESP).
 |
| The new 2.0-liter diesel. Click to enlarge. |
GM Daewoo will produce two variants of 2.0 liter, four-valve, single overhead cam, common rail engines jointly developed by GM Daewoo Auto and Technology, GM Powertrain and VM Motori of Italy:
A version with fixed geometry turbo (FGT) will develop 88 kW (118 hp) at 4,000 rpm and maximum torque of 280 Nm at 2,000 rpm.
A high-performance version with variable geometry turbo (VGT) will turn out 110 kW (147 hp) at 4,000 rpm and maximum torque of 310 Nm at 2,000 rpm.
The engines are Euro-4 compliant. A diesel particulate filter (DPF) will be offered for both versions to further reduce emissions of particulate matter.
The engines also feature design details that offer step improvements in noise, vibration and harshness (NVH).
GM launched the Chevrolet brand in Europe on 1 February 2005, replacing the Daewoo brand across the region. Sales have gone well—in September, European sales were 82% higher than in March. The diesel platform will help further.
The lack of a diesel engine range has been a big obstacle to our sales growth in the UK where diesel sales now exceed 35% of the market.
—Andy Carroll, Managing Director of Chevrolet UK
Future Chevrolet applications of the new diesel engine family will be in the range of Lacetti 5-door, 4-door and Station Wagon models.
More details on the Captiva will come closer to launch, and there is no indication yet whether or not GM will implement the BAS micro-hybrid system in the first production version of the vehicle.
"Not all versions of the hybrid car deserve tax incentives", letter to the editor, Christian Science Monitor 11-22-05 -- http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/p08s01-cole.html
"The electric motor of the GM Silverado, Saturn VUE, and even the initial models of Honda hybrids merely "assist" the internal combustion engine, and do not propel the car without the gasoline engine running. These quasi-hybrids do not deserve a tax break or perk of any kind".
GM's 'start-stop' feature too, should not be considered a true hybrid. CSM editors changed one word in their version of my letter. In the last sentence, ".. hybrid technology is sometimes being wrongfully promoted..", the word 'promoted' replaced my word 'hamstrung'. Quasi-hybrids are wrongfully promoted, but my charge was that Plug-in hybrids are wrongfully hamstrung.
Art Lewellan
Posted by: Art Lewellan | 23 November 2005 at 11:06 AM
How bout just saying that in order to receive tax incentives, a hybrid must be capable of exceeding 100 Miles per gallon?? That way Quasi-hybrids are just that -- Quasi nothings!
Posted by: JJ | 23 November 2005 at 11:41 AM
Why shouldn't an 18 wheeler that got 10 mpg instead of the typical 5 mpg recieve a tax credit. Within a year it would save the equivalent of hundreds of Hondas.
Posted by: tom deplume | 23 November 2005 at 12:59 PM
Yeh, let's focus on mpg; let the best technology win. We have this absurd world where 20 mpg hybrids are being subsidized over 40 mpg non hybrids.
GM's response to the market so far is better spin and commercials that pretend that giant SUVs are efficient. Well, I guess it depends on how you define efficiency.
And yeh, Ford too. Have we not all heard how fuel efficient the Expedition is?
Ford is touting innovation as its buzzword for the 1st part of the 21st century. Yeh, innovate your ass off. But show us the money or the mpg, as it were.
Posted by: tom | 23 November 2005 at 01:00 PM
Art Lewellan, theres a BIG...BIG difference between the Silverado & VUE "hybrids" and Honda's IMA Hybrids (Insight, Accord, 1st gen Civic hybrids). All 3 of those Honda hybrids IMA system "assist" the engine during acceleration, the Silverado and VUE do not....that's a BIG difference. Honda's "mild hybrid" should DEFINATELY receive tax breaks. Honda's system, I would guess, is cheaper to produce than Toyota's HSD. The Honda system uses smaller batteries (which you would think would mean they'd cost less) than Toyota's, so why this doesn't allow the cars to run solely off electric motor (IF...you accelerate like the EPA and never exceed 30-35mph) it does allow for a smaller/cheaper hybrid system can be applied easier across more models.
JJ, I agree with Tom Deplume. If an 18 wheeler hybrid increases it's mpg by 100% that is a HUGE...HUGE feat. You can't haul new cars and trucks from assembly plants to dealerships in a Prius. Nor can you keep a grocery store stocked full of food with a few trips in a Prius. Ect, ect, ect.
If you take a pick up truck that gets 15mpg and you improve it's mpg by 20% to 18mpg, if driven 15k miles per year, that improvement will save 167 gallons of gas per year. If you take an '06 Civic that gets 40mpg (highway just for this arguement), make it a hybrid increasing it's mpg by 25% to 50mpg, that improvement will save 75 gallons of gas each year. You really have to ask which hybrid is more important in the big scheme of things? You can't move a washer/dryer or a large chest of drawers in a Civic Hybrid.
Posted by: eric | 23 November 2005 at 03:08 PM
It gets even more interesting when you factor in sales volume.
Let's say Honda sold 30,000 Civic Hybrids a year (searched quickly for a number but all I came up with was 10k from 1/04 through 4/04) and that a regular civic averages 35mpg verses the hybrids 50mpg. If driven 15,000 miles per year the hybrid will save 128 gallons of gasoline.
All '06 Dodge Ram's with the Hemi V8 come standard with MDS (their version of Displace on Demand), from what I can tell that bumped up the mpg on a Ram 1500 4x4 from 13/17 to 14/18. Let's say the '05 Rams got 15mpg and the '06 Rams got 16mpg. If driven 15,000 miles per year the improvements to the '06 Ram will have saved 63 gallons of gasoline per year per vehicle.
Dodge sold 427,000 Rams in 2004. Now some of those are 2500/3500 heavy duty models and some regular 1500s won't come with the Hemi V8. Let's say 15% of all Rams sold have a Hemi, which would be 64,000 vehicles. So 64,000 trucks get a 1mpg improvement for '06 saving 63 gallons of gasonline per truck equals 4,032,000 gallons of gasoline saved. 30,000 Civic Hybrids get a 15mpg improvement over the regular civic saving 128 gallons of gasoline per car equals 3,840,000 gallons of gasoline saved.
Ford sold around 940,000 F-series trucks in 2004 and Toyota planned to sell 100,000 Priuses for 2005. Obviously it'd be great for saving gas if some teacher or police officer traded in their F-150 for a Prius, but contractors, construction works, landscaping, plumbers, ect ect people just aren't going to be able to do that.
Posted by: eric | 23 November 2005 at 04:19 PM
Tats very brief and nice calculation, eric. In fact, it is very very true. Similary, if all airliners' fuel efficiency improve by 10% that would mean astronomical less crude oil burnt.
18 wheeler delivering 20 tons of goods from north to south, thats still ok, you are utilizing its towing ability. Full size SUV go all the way of 20miles just to buy a pizza or hamburger is what we call not efficient.
Posted by: rexis | 23 November 2005 at 04:54 PM
Eric -- Yes, I agree 1000% if a car can get 100+ miles per gallon that that is a good thing and if a Semi Truck can go from 5 MPG to 10 MPG that is also a good thing AND yes Pckup trucks are good necessary things when used as a work truck and if they get good MPG via technology (hybrid) then they too should get the same tax break -- using 100 MPG was strickly an example -- the whole idea is to wean us all off of cheap/dirty fossil fuels -- once there is parity on an economic stance then that will happen and if Gov't can nudge us all along a little then that is a good thing too -- of course the A-rabs will just lower the cost of oil but we gotta hold our Gov'ts (all Gov'ts) to a steady course of less oil and more renewalables or maybe just more common sense.
Posted by: JJ | 23 November 2005 at 05:11 PM
First comment:
I think the hybrid hype in small cars will reach a point where combustion engines will reach maximum viable efficiency. (2l/100km is my estimate in about 8 yrs) For the sake of saving fuel as pointed out an effort should be made into making large transport vehicles more efficient because these are realistically driving the economy and providing our day to day need like food and import/export.
And although I'll probably get pelted with lots of negative comments from everyone, I will say:
Anything above 50mpg is good enough.
Concentrate on designing retrofit technologies for existing cars because they use up many times the fuel of an efficient hybrid. So a case study of 100 cars in a town that use 20 mpg. And 10 get replaced by 70 mpg hybrids. It still leaves the other 90. Most people cannot afford a new car.
Second Comment:
A bigger effort should be made in designing better power stations so that when we are forced to eventually go electric (Battery technology built for hybrids is really getting very good) we won't have to rely on coal or 30% efficient nuke plants.
I like the idea of fusion, the pebble bed reactor design, or any exotic creations like the underwater turbine pushed by water currents. More effort should go into these so that when the world falls on its ass we don't all start going to war over the last scraps.
Keep in mind that realistically the mpg efficiency must go up proportionately with the number of new vehicles being registered for the road in developing countries.
So for example (I'll probably get blasted for saying this too) India's move to hybrid is not a good thing, because even though it is a modern move to the future from a developing thriving country, before this they had mopeds and bicycles on account of being a poor third world country. Similar with China.
In closing, 3 billion people using 20 mpg cars(ave) = 3/2 = 1.5
vs
5 billion using 30mpg(ave) cars = 5/3 = 1.66
is not better off!! Ratio needs to get smaller. All the while the oil supply is still diminnishing regardless.
Posted by: Adrian | 23 November 2005 at 05:52 PM
"A version with fixed geometry turbo (FGT) will develop 88 kW (118 hp) at 4,000 rpm and maximum torque of 280 Nm at 2,000 rpm."
"A high-performance version with variable geometry turbo (VGT) will turn out 110 kW (147 hp) at 4,000 rpm and maximum torque of 310 Nm at 2,000 rpm."
Quite powerful for a 2.0 diesel engine! Just no idea hows the fuel consumtion?
Posted by: rexis | 23 November 2005 at 06:35 PM
Quasi-Hybrid's getting over 100 mpg ... The Insight, HCH-I, and the non-Quasi Prius II hybrid have all seen south of that number.
OTR 18-wheelers could achieve 7 mpg instead of 5 if they were limited to 50 - 55 mph. Oh my god, how dare we lower the speed limits and lose all that Gasoline and Diesel fuel tax revenue!
It's the guys driving the Dodge Ram's, GMC Yukon's, and F-150's not for work but to work that need replacment hybrid automobiles.
Ford's Escape HEV is worth > 40 mpg as well but some of us are simply in to much of a hurry to slow down a few mph I guess?
Posted by: Wayne Gerdes | 23 November 2005 at 10:43 PM
A mild hybrid in an suv saves more fuel per year then a full hybrid in a compact car.
Also a mild hybrid is the only way to keep towing cap up.
Until they develope the power systems needed to power a full power set of eletric motors full time when needed for towing this will remain an issue.
Posted by: wintermane | 24 November 2005 at 07:30 AM
As far as 18 wheelers, I suppose that some incentive would be worthwhile but wonder if we would have all these 18 wheelers if we had an efficient and pervasive rail transportation system.
As far as marginal improvements in big vehicles being used to cart single passengers to work and other places, we need to incentivize these people to move away from big gas guzzling vehicles even if they have been rendered less so by hybridization or other means.
Marginal improvements are not going to get us out of this mess whether you are focusing on peak oil or greenhouse gases or both. Marginal improvements in big vehicles are greater impacts but switching to a smaller vehicle has an even greater impact.
Posted by: tom | 24 November 2005 at 07:33 AM
With people flying less and driving long distances for holidays more alot of families are getting an suv for around town driving and for the holiday drive.
You dont drive 1-2000 miles in a prius.
Those who can afford 3 cars get 2 commute cars and a utility truck those who cant have to use the suv for one of the commutes. Those who enjoy driving and take pleasure in driving and who want a large spacious interior when they drive pamper themsevles with some form of suv either compact suv or mid or even full depending on how much money they make.
Poeple used to pamper themsevles with v12 and v16 behemoth luxury cars that got 3-5 mpg. Now they pamper themselves with behemoth land cruisers that get 15-19mpg.
Meanwhile all you supposedly improved supposedly effiecent people have gone from 50-75mpg to um 50-60 mpg in all these years.
Where are the small cars getting 100mpg? Why have they been able to boost a behomoth from a v16 3 mpg monster to an even BIGGER v6 that has even more power but now gets 18mpg? But small cars are worse then they used to be...
Where is the super charged turbo charged hybrid .3 liter small car?
Why is it that the excape a behemoth tank of a truck gets better milage then many minicoopers?
Posted by: wintermane | 24 November 2005 at 08:29 AM
Wintermane, your post is full of crap. V12 and v16 luxury cars were made in almost no volume and got better milage then 3mpg. It has little effect what .01% of the population does, if they drive a v12 sports car. Now on the other hand if 15% of the population drive a 11mpg hummer it makes a big difference. The excess fuel used by the modern SUV not being used for work is billions of gallons of fuel wasted.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml
Shows two 12cyl cars getting better mpg then your typical large SUV. While they are obviously the least effiecient cars they suck less fuel then a Hummer. But your point is crap anyhow, Hummers and Excursions are everywhere. I see them often on my commute.
Most people would not call a Ford Escape hybrid a tank either, its even often called a mini-ute.
How often do you see a Bentley Continental GT 12cyl or a Aston Martin V12 Vanquish S, 12cyl?? Not often unless you are cruising Rodeo Drive.
Posted by: little shop | 24 November 2005 at 09:16 AM
Wintermane, very good points about the mild hybrids and towing capacity. Take some of those full size trucks/SUVs and give them displacement on demand, a mild hybrid system and infor people how to drive them....we'd see some significant improvements. I read the new '07 Escalade went from 17mpg hwy to 19mpg by adding a 6spd auto trans and VVT to the intake and exhaust. In '08 they're adding DoD so it should get 20-22mpg on the highway then. Mild hybrids don't help much with highway mpg but electric assist might be able to help keep those big 6.2L V8s in V4 mode longer which would save some gas.
Posted by: eric | 24 November 2005 at 10:40 AM
Bull little shop. The ONLY reason v12s were less common then hummers is all cars were less common back then.
Back when the v12 was around it was a given that nearly all families had 1 car or didnt have a car and only a few had 2.
Also there were alot fewer people then.
And dont give me crap numbers on fuel econ I know how much fuel those cars went through I was there alive and watching!
It was common for v12s to get 3 mpg in the city. That was the REAL fuel econ not the fake made up numbers they might have bothered to publish.
Now yes they supposedly sold v12s that gt better fuel eff.. but thats about the same as offering a hummer with a v4 and then saying average fuel econ is 25 mpg...
Also most v12s were retuned to get more horsepower right off the lot BUT because of how things work that didnt effect OFFICIAL numbers even tho it commonly made the things guzzle fuel like crazy.
And then there was the iron 8s and the heavy muscle monsters.
But then unlike you I remember freinds complaining about gas prices when it cost em a whole 12 bucks to fill a 40 gallon tank.
Posted by: wintermane | 24 November 2005 at 11:45 AM
The v12 in a car is a rare engine. I dont care how few cars were made and when, no matter when far less then 1% are or ever were v12. Its a non issue.
Secondly these cars are as close to thier epa as any other car. They are getting better mpg then hummers. So did some of the early model T's.
Posted by: little shop | 24 November 2005 at 02:16 PM
As I said I was there I know exactly how gas gulzzling they were and how many cars came with v12s and big block v8s.
Posted by: wintermane | 24 November 2005 at 04:03 PM
There have been efforts to get great efficiency from way way back, and yes, it is more difficult to improve from great efficiency than from poor efficiency.
If we move to a vehicle with more gear choices and a smarter shifting system, we can actually get along with fewer KWs in the engine, and we can squeeze more km out of a litre of fuel. But we can use the extra gears and smarter shifting to give us greater performance. (in the case of some cars that decision can be at the flip of a switch.)
We can not improve the EPA rating this way, but if we put a speed control device that limits speed to the speed that will give the optimum fuel economy (This may very well be a vacuum guage that is connected to a bump on the car surface metal) we can reduce actual fuel consumption. The vacuum guage approach allows one to go faster downwind than upwind for some reason.
Simply put, 120 km/h (wind speed) will typically give better economy than 90 km/h, though some cars are aerodynamically designed to optimize at up to 110 km/h, so our 1970 move to limit speed to 90 km/h was intended to optimize fuel useage. Those few cars that are optimized at 110 km/h do not lose a significant amount of efficiency at 90 km/h.
Posted by: don fletcher | 24 November 2005 at 08:56 PM
Please tell me which cars got 50-75 mpg, say in the 70s. I drove a civic and bugs then and they didn't get close to that. So I don't know what you're talking about by saying that Priuses, for example, have improved nothing.
Yeh, let's pamper ourselves into oblivion. As far as comfort goes, I bet to differ. I have driven my Prius on a 1000 mile trip and found it quite comfortable.
There is no comparison between a Prius and say a Karman Ghia in the 70s. The Prius gets much better gas mileage, is roomier, is more powerful, and is a helluva lot safer.
Posted by: tom | 25 November 2005 at 07:08 AM
They were sold via mother earth news back then as I remember it and most were kit /semi kit to get around regulations.
Only only a few people I knew were into such cars tho so I only delt with some first hand.
A micro spider sports car. It got fab fuel econ and was sporty.. downside was it was death on wheels.
A micro van. Smaller then current minivans this thing was used mostly for hauling stuff to and from swapmets and craft events.. was quite popular amoung that crowd for obvious reasons and yes it got GREAT fuel econ. Downside wich was a common one was it polluted fairly badly due to engine design and lack of any exuast system whatsoever.
The main issue back then was to get the fuel econ you had to drop a 4 cycle engine and go with some other 2 cycle or otherwise as few 4 cycle engines f the day were fuel eff and of them most were old low power designs.
Posted by: wintermane | 25 November 2005 at 08:02 AM
Again more crap. 2 cycle engines are not more efficient. And they are horrible polluters. There were no production cars doing 70mpg in the usa in the 70's. Unless you call the Prius a 100mpg car, then there were. :)
Posted by: little shop | 25 November 2005 at 06:29 PM
Little shop enough im right your getting forgetful in your old age and frankly this topic is getting old anyway.
The fact is a the time there was no realy small 4 cycle engines. Reemember it was only relitively recently they managed to make small 4 cycle engines. So back in the 70s the ONLY way to go below x hp was to either use a very old prewar design or go for a motorcycle engine. Many econ cars of the day used 30s and 40s tech engines because they were very low power yet could still move a car at speed.
Posted by: wintermane | 26 November 2005 at 04:39 AM
You've heard of "near beer", now GM is making "near hybrids".
Posted by: James White | 26 November 2005 at 04:02 PM