Report: New China Policies to Favor, Boost Domestic EVs
Solar2fuel Project in Germany Pursuing Photocatalytic Conversion of CO2 to Methanol for Engines or Fuel Cells

FEV to Display Extremely Downsized Engine at 2010 SAE World Congress

FEV’s 698 cm3 Extremely Downsized Engine. Click to enlarge.

FEV, Inc. will show its Extremely Downsized Engine (EDE) at next week’s 2010 SAE World Congress in Detroit. The engine delivers a specific power of more than 100 kW/L and offers enhanced part load efficiency with significant improvements in low-end torque. This is the first time that this technology will be shown in the US.

Factoring in the need to optimize part load operation, FEV engineers combined boosting and direct injection to create a turbocharged two-valve SOHC three-cylinder engine with 698 cm3 displacement. The base engine is the Smart Brabus engine.

Direct injection (DI) is integrated by replacing the twin spark ignition with a single spark plug on the exhaust side with the DI device in place of the removed spark plug on the intake side. The DI spray pattern layout was optimized using FEV’s injector layout tool chain, which combines an early layout of the base geometry, FEV’s Multi-Layout Tool, and the FEV Charge Motion Design (CMD) process. A significant goal in this optimization was to reduce wall wetting to reduce the potential of diluting the engine’s oil supply with fuel.

FEV engineers also integrated independent, fully-variable intake and exhaust cam phasing using components from Mahle and Hydraulik Ring.

The specific power target for the powerplant is 100kW/L. However, part load efficiency is dramatically improved without sacrificing peak power and low-end torque is improved by about 32% @ 1,500 rpm. With a bore diameter of 66.5 mm, the FEV EDE is the smallest competitor powertrain in this market and could be adapted to the Japanese regulations for K-class vehicles. The small powertrain could also be utilized as part of a hybrid powertrain system.

FEV developed its EDE in anticipation of stringent new emissions laws due to take effect in both Europe and the US. After analysis of various approaches that have the potential of meeting aggressive future CO2 emission levels, FEV determined that downsizing and boosting appears to hold the most promise to meet the engineering targets




This could be interesting for HEVs and PHEVs insted of the heavier, much larger, I-4 currently used. Less total vehicle weight = more e-distance per charge.


Another important step you can take after downsizing is that the ICE/transmission can be mounted on the rear axle leaving space under the bonnet to fit a battery and electric motor.

A small turbo ICE driving the rear wheels (with IMA instead of starter / alternator) at highway speeds with a fixed gear ratio electric motor driving the front axle for city driving. 4WD acceleration inbetween would be pretty good too!

Another good idea is using an IMA to act as a 4th cylinder and balance the power strokes from the 3 cylinders


Very nice. I can't wait to see the full specs on it including weight, power, etc.

The only thing I wonder about is that it's a little tall. Many of the newer cars are trying to get a lower profile to reduce total frontal area and decrease aerodynamic drag. I wonder if they could try to rearrange a bit to make it a little shorter???


So, FEV makea a "FEV Volt".
Replace that cheap, Cruze, brick of an engine with this little gem.
Weight? Save 80 pounds
Cost? $3K more.

Add a "2nd" transmission in the rear.
Now it costs $6K more
And weight gain is gone.

You get the same EOR (electric only range).

Sustaining mode ? About the same mpg at constant "best" rpm.

And you live only 20 miles from work anyway.


More than 100 kW/l = over 93 HP from 698cc.

This resembles the Fiat TWIN-AIR in some respects, though the specific power is higher. It's about half the displacement of the Volt's sustainer and has more power, showing just how far behind GM is in the technology.


But without the turbo (or 2?) and no intercooler, the Volt sustainer probably costs much less.

Of all the specific powers, hp/$ usually counts most.


A turbo is one moving part. Eliminating even one cylinder is a piston, con rod, at least two valves, lifters and cam lobes, springs, spring retainers, etc. A lighter engine allows other things to be lighter and cost less. Then there is the boost in thermal efficiency if the turbo is used to run the engine on a Miller cycle. This allows the fuel system to be downsized even more, reducing weight further and making room available for other things.

You could get a lot of HP/$ out of an old V8 if you only consider the engine itself, but the size, weight and fuel consumption will cost you in other ways.

Stan Peterson

The Volt sustainer does not run all that much. NO one seems to comprehend the consequences of a daily, 40 electric miles, FIRST, reality. Does it really make much difference, if your annual fossil fuel consumption is 10 or 12 gallons per year, for the average driver in a Volt?

Not one whit.

The Fiat mass produced Twin SGE, unlike this lab mockup, is useful in fossil powered micro vehicles; but that is about all.


The Volt has a high cost due to the 'large' battery pack. I think you either need a large 100+ miles battery pack with no range extender or a much smaller battery in a PHEV-10/20 since the ICE will now be used more often you can spend the money saved from the batteries on it.


The Volt's sustainer is dead weight when it isn't running, and it is bulk regardless.

What's the cost of batteries to haul the extra engine weight around, plus the structure needed to hold it? I'm no auto costing expert, but I strongly suspect that a bit of money for a lighter, smaller sustainer with the same or higher efficiency would be paid for.


Yes, the Volt's sustainer and the Leaf's extra batteries are dead weight when not required, and they are bulk.

What's the cost trade-off of batteries to haul the extra weight around, plus the structure needed to hold them?

The industry experts determine this on cost and marketability/desirability.

I think studies have shown that the most cost effective type is a hybrid; Pris, Tahoe or whatever, but they aren't selling, in any significant way.

So a Prius, Volt, Leaf or any other BEV will not sell well with today's battery prices no matter the tradeoff you pick - except to the finges (and the Leaf, apparently, to the US government).

So the auto makers pick their type of token and get some press (desirability at minimum excess, cost).

At least give them credit for getting as close as possible to a real, desirable, almost marketable car.

The Volt has a cheap "in production" ICE that is quiet.

If I made it, it would have the smallest, lowest cost ICE that would "contribute" to get me from Phoenix to Payson at "highway" speeds before the batteries gave out
- without sounding like a chain saw.


The hybrid Tahoe may be a failure (because it's still a gas-guzzler, just a bit less of one) but the Prius is a runaway success. The hybrid segment as a whole was adding sales even while total US sales were shrinking; hybrids were about 3% of the entire US market last year.

Toyota's problems and a surge in the market as a whole (up 25%, with hybrids up only 18%) brought the hybrid fraction down for March, but gas prices are rising and that's going to have an effect. Auto industry pundits who declared that hybrids would peak out at about 2% of the market have already had to eat their words.

If I made the Volt and had to use an existing block for cost reasons, it would have higher compression, a different intake cam profile (Atkinson cycle), and a highly tuned intake for maximum cylinder air charge. Very slight changes in parts would suffice to do this. Not making any move in this direction shows that GM isn't even trying, and may be trying to take the Volt the same way the EV1.

Roger Pham

Engine's durability is at issue when extreme downsizing is done. Kinda like race-car engines that must be rebuilt after every race. In Europe and Asia where less driving is done, this engine may be OK, but in North America where much more driving is done, I'm afraid it won't make it past warranty period...meaning profit loss for the OEM.
For a battery-centric PHEV, this engine may be OK, but for an HEV, I'm afraid that this engine won't last.


If the Prius is such a runaway success, the Impala must be a real hit. By comparison the Impala sold 1.5% of the US market compared to 1.1% for the Prius, for both March and year-to-date.

The hybrid segment as a whole has been stalled at about 3% of the entire US market for the last few years, confounding auto pundits who declared that hybrids would soon exceed 5%.

The EV1 was an expensive brick.

A company cannot sabotage EVs by NOT trying, any more than Ferrari or Subaru, or Volkswagen or Toyota or Honda can affect the market by NOT making a battery only EV.

To think only GM could build, or NOT build an EV1 is childish. Finally, more than 10 years later, with better batteries, the Volt and/or the Leaf may be a “runaway success”.


The Impala can't even break 20 MPG city, but it burns a lot less fuel than a Yukon or Avalanche. Its main virtue is that it's a lot cheaper than the fully-loaded trucks which were GM's profit centers. It's what GM loyalists fled to after the shock, not what someone would buy for a real long-term strategy for dealing with high fuel prices.

Under the skin, the Impala is just a cheap car. It only has a 4-speed transmission while others are building 6- and 7-speed automatics.

If the EV1 was so bad, why did GM have to destroy them to keep from people who wanted them, and why was there always a waiting list for leases? The presence of demand proves that your simplistic claims are false.


The Impala is out selling the Prius.

And it is doing it with cheap construction and a 4-speed transmission while others are building 6- and 7-speed automatics.

The Prius is a great car, not so great for the money but great enough to sell over 1% of the market anyway.

If the EV1 was so good, why does no one in the world build a duplicate.

Why do YOU think GM destroyed them ?
Out of spite?

GM's claim that the technolgy does not warrent continued support is more rational.

If they destroyed all the Segways there would be loonies demanding to lease or buy them.

The lack of demand for the Insight I and the lack of a duplicate of the EV1, world wide, proves that your simplistic claims are false.

Allch Chcar

This is notable not just for it's high power per liter but because it uses DI through the second spark plug and 2 valves per cylinder with variable cam control. A turbo can mean an even higher HP per liter than displayed here but to a point the fuel can't be Regular grade and the amount of Boosted air pressure can't be too high as to give laggy response.

This engine could be used in anything from a 2000lb Subcompact to a sporty Microcar if it made it past the design stage. While I'd debate the use of a two sparkplug configuration due to the efficiency of 2 spark plugs is well known and 4 is still the best design from an emissions standpoint. But for low RPM fuel efficient driving a 2 valve should provide plenty of breathing room although a 4 valve design will still prove to be superior for larger more performance oriented vehicles.

I've always felt the ragging on 1.0liter motors was always due to a lack of development. The 3 cylinder 1.0liter Suzuki G10B could have been vastly better had it been built to include advances like DI, Turbo Charging, 4 plug design, and variable valve timing. The Geo Metro would have been considered "sporty" had it come with a lower revving 100+BHP engine. The FE was already pretty good it was just performance that was a problem. The 2000lb Suzuki/Geo Metro of the late 90's had gained so much weight that the 1.0l TBI Engine was upgraded to 4 valve and a higher profile cam profile but the FE was never what it used to be. Had it made the jump to MPFI it could have made up the difference it needed. But by then GM was trying to ax production.

The Big American three just isn't disposed towards fuel efficient designs, it really has to come from somewhere else like Japan or even Europe to be even considered a good idea. From the Design of the Volt being a brick in the windtunnel which they just slapped a boring Sedan front and terrible Kammback tail together, to the Ford's first full hybrid being so similar to the Toyota design that they patent trade to make it legal for production and putting a big 4 cylinder in just to differentiate it from the Prius, to the attempts to reawaken the Muscle Car era when Gasoline was dirt cheap to now when Gasoline sells for almost $3 a gallon on average. I suppose it has something to do with being from a younger generation that didn't experience cheap gasoline for more than a summer or two. I'm not angry to pay $3 a gallon for Gasoline even when I was delivering newspapers and it directly affected my profit margin, but many of my elder family/relatives/friends have been outraged at one point because of it.

The Impala is out selling the Prius.
Not by much, and the Impala is a much larger car.

There's no hybrid version of the Impala. Fusion sales lag the Impala, but the Fusion's fuel economy (23/34) would slaughter the Impala if fuel were in the $3.50-$4.00 range again. We're headed there.

A very large fraction of all VW sales in the USA are diesels. There's a big segment of the US public which is looking for fuel-sippers, for whatever reason.

And it is doing it with cheap construction and a 4-speed transmission while others are building 6- and 7-speed automatics.
In other words, GM is selling junk to its loyalists. That's the age-old business model which alienated so many and fed the growth of Toyota.
If the EV1 was so good, why does no one in the world build a duplicate.
What do you think the Nissan Leaf is? Well, aside from a 4-seater with a swappable battery and better everything.
Why do YOU think GM destroyed them ?
Out of spite?
Yes. (Ford sold electric Rangers to the public, and Toyota its electric RAV-4's; only GM discarded salable assets and crushed them to create a PR disaster.)

Next question?

The comments to this entry are closed.