BASF Catalysis Research Commits $600,000 to Support Related Research Initiatives at Columbia University
Citroën Launching C4 BioFlex in September

Volvo to Introduce a Special Efficiency Version of the C30, Getrag-Ford Powershift AMT

Volvo C30 Efficiency.

In 2008, Volvo Cars will introduce a Volvo C30 1.6-liter turbodiesel with fuel consumption of less than 4.5 l/100 km (52.3 mpg US) and CO2 emissions below 120 g/km.

The Efficiency version of the C30 1.6D reduces consumption by more than 8%, or 0.4 l/100 km from 4.9 l/100 km—the official figure for the C30 1.6D that is available on the market today.

Volvo engineers achieved the fuel consumption reduction through measures within four main areas:

  • Aerodynamics. The Efficiency has reduced chassis height, a new rear roof spoiler, a new rear bumper, underbody panels, optimized engine cooling and aerodynamically optimized 16-inch wheel rims.

  • Rolling resistance is reduced with a new generation of low friction tires.

  • Higher gearing. The unique gearbox variant has revised gearing on 3rd, 4th and 5th gears.

  • Powertrain efficiency increase. This includes new low-friction transmission oil, optimization of steering servo assistance and engine management optimization.

We are firmly committed to lowering the fuel consumption of our conventional petrol and diesel engines. By doing this we will continuously reduce the overall CO2 emission level for our whole model range.

This is a science of small adjustments and gains. Many systems and details in a car model have been dimensioned to suit all engine variants, from the smallest diesel to the most powerful petrol unit. This gives possibilities for fine adjustments to individual engine variants, particularly the smallest alternatives.

—Magnus Jonsson, Senior Vice President Research and Development, Volvo Cars

In Sweden, a conventional car with carbon dioxide emissions of 120 g/km or less is classified as an environmental car. This entitles private new-car buyers to a state-provided cash-back of SEK 10,000 (US$1,400).

The Getrag-Ford Powershift transmission.

Powershift. Also in early 2008, Volvo Cars will introduce a version of the new Getrag-Ford dual-clutch automated manual transmission, demonstrated at the 2006 Frankfurt International Motor Show.

Getrag-Ford Transmissions is a 50:50 joint venture between Getrag and Ford.

In the Powershift, two manual gearboxes work in parallel and are controlled by separate clutches arranged on two main shafts. One main shaft operates the odd gears while the other operates all even gears. Since there is no disruption in torque delivery during the gearchanging process, gearshifts are instantaneous and the efficiency rating is higher.

Powershift cuts fuel consumption by approximately 8% compared with current automatic transmissions, thereby providing the functionality of an automatic transmission with about the fuel economy of a manual. In the Volvo family, it will be available in the Volvo C30, S40 and V50 with the 2-liter turbodiesel (2.0D) engine. Ford also plans to apply the transmission in its other brands.



It seems pretty easy to get that extra 8%, no rocket science or extra bucks here.

Rafael, how much overlap is there between the Ford/Getrag box and the VW DSG designs?

Steve Agneta

This wont be coming to the US correct due to emission issue correct?



I would say more than the emissions issue is a perception issue among the AVERAGE consumer. They are pushing the C30 with high power for the US (high power relative to the size of the vehicle and power to weight of typical Volvos).

Tim Russell

I hope to see the Powershift tranny in the US. It's time to put the old power/fuel wasting slush-box autos out to pasture. Many automakers are working on these including Chrysler. Great to see because as Clett said an easy way to cut fuel consumption.

Hard to say if we'll get this engine in the US but if other companies clean diesels start racking up sales numbers we'll get it.


@ Steve Agenta-

You are correct- this 52mpg vehicle (wchich you can modify to run on 100% renewable biodiesel) will not make it to the US market due to emissions. Remember, diesel is dirty.

However, you can go to your local HUMMER dealer and buy "clean" 10mpg HUMMER H1's, 12mpg HUMMER H2's, and 14mpg HUMMER H3's.

The Green extreme's shortsightedness is ridiculous!


However, you can go to your local HUMMER dealer and buy "clean" 10mpg HUMMER H1's, 12mpg HUMMER H2's, and 14mpg HUMMER H3's. The Green extreme's shortsightedness is ridiculous!

"GM announced that 2006 would be the last model year for the Hummer H1, with production winding down in June 2006 due to a new emission law for Diesel engine vehicles which takes effect in 2007. Due to the requirement to meet EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards, the cost involving recertification for a low volume civilian variant vehicle was not able to be justified."


Dagnabitt!! With the death of the civilian H1 we have one less "clean" vehicle choice. The stigma of driving a 50mpg "dirty diesel" was bearing so hard on my conscience that I was considering trading it in for a "clean" 10mpg gasoline HUMMER H1.

Well, at least I can still buy other "clean" vehicles (that will never see a single drop of E85 in their gas tanks) such as HUMMER's H2 and H3, not to mention Escalades, Navigators, Surburbans, Expeditions, Yukons, Titans, Sequoia's, Land Rovers, F-150's, Silverados, etc, etc.

The number of "green" choices available to us here in the US is mindboggling.

The E85 loophole is a beautiful thing!

Rafael Seidl

@Clett -

all dual clutch transmissions (DCT) are conceptually similar. I'm sure there are patents that need to be licensed or worked around, but there are now several transmissions specialists that can deliver dual wet clutches and the associated control electronics: BorgWarner, Ricardo, Getrag, LuK, ZF Sachs, ...

VW's first-gen DSG was targeted at performance cars with much higher torque, which meant using wet clutches. Those suffer less wear and tear but they are also much heavier. They also require an oil pump inside the transmission, which reduces overall fuel economy by 3%.

However, I suspect this particular Getrag design features dry clutches, which is ok up to approx. 250Nm rated torque. The 1.6L engine in this model tops out at 240Nm.

A DCT gives you the comfort and convenience of an conventional AT at lower cost. It's also much easier to fine-tune the gear ratios and shift points to ensure the engine operates in a high-efficiency region of its map. My hunch is torque converters will be obsolete within a decade, at least in Europe.


Well, at least I can still buy other "clean" vehicles (that will never see a single drop of E85 in their gas tanks) such as HUMMER's H2 and H3, not to mention Escalades, Navigators, Surburbans, Expeditions, Yukons, Titans, Sequoia's, Land Rovers, F-150's, Silverados, etc, etc.

The number of "green" choices available to us here in the US is mindboggling.

Tailpipe emissions are not the same thing as fuel economy. Something can waste a lot of fuel but have clean emissions.


...about the emmissions. VOLVO/Ford only has to equip the Diesel car with a reasonable exhaust gas after treatment system. Then, everthing is fine. Unfortunately, they don´t do that due to costs.

Btw, the German car magazine AUTOBILD (strong supporter of dirty Diesel engine cars) performed a test between the Diesel Rabbit with 105 HP engine and the new TSI 122 HP patrol engine. Suprisingly, the new TSI (patrol) won the test: Cleaner, efficient, refined.

Rafael Seidl

@ Michel -

the comparison isn't really quite fair, since the 105hp diesel is an old unit injector design, whereas the 1.4L TSI is brand-new. Still, it is true that downsizing + small turbo + GDI + cam phasers + long gearing have narrowed the fuel economy gap between the two engine concepts. The difference in volumetric fuel consumption is due mostly to the higher density of diesel. However, people buy their fuel by the liter (or gallon) rather than by the kg (or lb). Moreover, European fuel taxes have long favored diesel as a sop to farmers and commercial vehicle operators. On a fuel cost/mile basis, diesel is still a lot cheaper. However, the engine is also more expensive, as are insurance and road tax. For a car the size of a Golf, you have to drive in excess of 15.000km annually before the diesel delivers lower cost of ownership for a private citizen.

Btw, the current Euro4+DPF diesels are actually very clean, except for one glaring issue: NOx. In Los Angeles and the SF Bay Area, that's a very serious public health problem. Fortunately, Europe doesn't have comparable regions that simultaneously feature inversion layer topography, oodles of sunshine and massive urban sprawl. Besides, many Europeans take a month off in summer, just when high NOx concentrations from urban traffic would produce the greatest problems.

Stan Peterson


EU4 is a joke as an emission regime. It beats nothing at all, I will concede. But that doesn't mean much.

Talking about EU4 + a diesel particulate filter is a nonsense. That is not a "standard " at all. Its just an admission that the EU standards lag way too far behind the practical technology limits. Such a DPF can be nothing more than a a figment of the marketing imagination, to a real, valid, DPF.

Europe needs to either get serious about emissions, or stop hectoring everyone else about emissions. They can't have it both ways. I concede that the idiots-true-beleivers at CARB are more than prone to demand impossibilities. They continue to beieve that to wish for a technology is all that is required. The scientists and engineers have all the answers hidden somwhere, and are wihtholding it from the market so as to poison the world, in pure malevolence.

But when the industry achieves a technology and palces it in widespread use for a decade; there is little excuse for not updating lagging emissions standards.

I do concur that the USA has major urban areas that suffer thermal inversions, but to say that none such exist in Europe, especially the Mediterranean States, is somewhat dubious.

When EU6 succeeds the still not promulgated EU5, in the 2016-2020 timeframe, it will still be 4.5 times worse in NOx emissions than every American diesel on the roads for much more than half a decade! The first T2B5 compliant diesels are showing up as 2007 models, and the flood begins in 2008 model year, in America.

I can predict that long before EU5 transitions to the inferior EU6, that SULEV II diesels, or T2B2, will be required in Southern California. this will come, so that air quality does not deteriorate with the coming of these T2B5 "clean" diesels, replacing even cleaner gasoline vehicles.


what T2B2 compliant vehicles are expected for 2008? I know there is something from VW. I heard something from Audi. Anything else?

I would really like to understand all of the regulatory hurdles to bringing these cars to the US. Is there a lobby for green cars? That someone can link to? Does this site organize advocacy?

Rafael Seidl

@Stan -

in case you haven't noticed, you're really the only one hectoring anyone about emissions here. Europeans happen to be as concerned about fuel economy (expressed as CO2 emissions to compare across fuels) as they are about CO, HC, PM and NOx, because that balance makes sense in their particular situation.

Btw, PM and NOx emissions in Europe have virtually zero impact on public health in the US. High oil consumption in the US does have a significant economic impact on Europe and the rest of the world. Time will tell if the associated CO2 is problematic as well.

As for Euro 4 + DPF, it's not a legal standard but it has become the de facto standard in Europe's new diesel LDV market. For once, consumers actually insisted on getting a technology that had become viable only after the legal emissions standards had already been cast in stone. Euro 5 will come into effect in 2009 and set PM limits that most industry observers believe can only be met with DPFs.


No all of us think in corporate sound bites like "Remember, diesel is dirty". I've been running my VW on biodiesel for many years. It's clean and I get 50mpg.


Thank you, Stan!!

Voguish euro-trashy esoteric diesel marketing is not remotely adequate (please excuse my weird german English) and making nothing but sick, except for sales of course (and related pollution in related production).

may serve as an example. Original .pdf disappeared, but have a look at successing ones if you wish, at:

As long as manufacturers are free to have exhausts emit as many particles by number as they can, under mass restrictions...
Resist dirty diesel with all the breath you have.
(... and enjoy the shortsighted calling you names in exchange, even on this platform )



...about the engine comparison. I think is rather fair. Both a Turbo charged and DI. Only recently, everyone was comparing a none charged patrol with a charged Diesel engine and celebrated the tourq and efficency of the Diesel. Indeed, the problem was that patrol engine develpoment came rather to a halt one decade ago. Almost all the R&D money went into Diesel projects, at least in Europe. Now, patrol engine are back again.

About migrating emmissions, Icelandic fish industry is very concerned about see water pollution in the North Atlantic due to air pollution from the west (USA, Canada). And even Scotland gets her share. So what happens with the European air pollution, particularly Diesel emmissions from cars and trucks (and ships)? Effecting only water quality in the Baltic sea and the health of American people living in Europe? There is no doubt about it, that European emmission regulation are a nuisance. I just spent a week in London. Air smells "Diesel". I only fished more Londoners would go Prius.

And as we know, Brussel came forward with a strict EURO V PM regulation but not about NOX because of pressure from Franco-German car industry. It would have damaged their profits and competitiveness if they had to do both at once, integrating PM traps and NOx after treatment in their Diesel cars.


I've been complaining to Ford for over two years about bringing their diesel motors into the US. They offer the Duratorq motor which comes in several different displacements and hp ratings. It's know wonder they are falling behind every other car manufacturer. They are followers and they won't listen to consumers. If Cat, Cummins and Detroit can make a diesel that meets the new standards surely Ford can.


I've been running my VW on biodiesel for many years. It's clean and I get 50mpg.

And I have a magic rabbit named Bert!

The comments to this entry are closed.