Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines

[martinss01]

i guess big oil got scared and released one of their patents....

GM says Volt to get 230 miles per gallon in city - Autos- msnbc.com

The Volt is powered by an electric motor and a battery pack with a 40-mile range. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity for a total range of 300 miles. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet.

GM is marketing the 230-mile figure following early tests using draft guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for calculating the mileage of extended range electric vehicles.

honestly, im having some trouble buying this one. 230 mpg and has a max range of 300 miles... so...... it has a 1.3 gallon fuel tank? could i get the slightly larger fuel tank option please? oh and for some reason im guessing this car will be putting down less than 400 hp to the wheels and its 0-60 will be a little slower than 3 seconds. i suspect when this car hits show room floors with all the power accessories consumers will expect and the safety equipment the gov. will demand. they'll be hitting about half their 230 mpg estimates and the poor thing will be dog slow. still very respectable but only marginally better than the diesel's being offered in europe already.

oh and bucki, you ever get a chance to talk to your uncle about his chevy citation?

 

[jimotis4heisman]

GM’s Volt to Get 230 Miles Per Gallon in City Driving (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

in a deal brokered between govt motors and the govt us epa it will get about 100mpgs. i believe it is a jimmy rigged result b/c the thing can only go 40 miles on its battery and their is an onboard generator.

...
testing method that would yield a rating of at least 100 mpg for the Volt, which will be able to go 40 miles (64 kilometers) on battery power before tapping an onboard gasoline engine for a recharge. 100 MPG Combined
With combined city and highway mileage, the Volt still will probably exceed 100 mpg fuel economy, Henderson said.
“At that level, you’re still doing pretty darn good,” Smith said. “It all comes down to how much people are willing to pay to get that savings over time.”
The EPA rates the Prius as the most fuel-efficient car on U.S. roads. The 2010 Prius is rated at 51 mpg in city driving and 48 mpg on the highway, according to the agency’s vehicle- efficiency Web site.
The EPA has not tested a Volt and therefore can’t confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM, Cathy Milbourn, an agency spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.
“EPA does applaud GM’s commitment to designing and building the car of the future: an American-made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs.”
Real-world mileage varies depending on such things as driving style, weather and road conditions.
‘Very Realistic’
The anticipated ratings are an accurate indicator of the mileage typical drivers might get, said Frank Weber, the executive in charge of the program.
The Volt will use about 40 cents’ worth of electricity to get its overnight charge, he said. Used that way, “numbers between 150 and 300 miles per gallon are realistic” for the average driver, Weber said.
...

interesting idea none the less.

 

[kinch]

There is no miles per gallon on the Volt for too much of its driving for there to be any meaning in such a silly description as "230 mpg."

It gets infinite miles per gallon for the first 40 miles (though you pay for those miles through your home electricity), and it then gets around 50 mpg or something from then on.

So if you drive less than 40 miles a day it gets infinite gas mileage. If you take one long trip to grandma's and back on Saturday, going 250 miles each way, it gets about 54 miles per gallon.

Can't they just give its real miles per gallon when using gasoline, and say it uses no gas otherwise?

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

All of the arguments that scott' is making with respect to engineering are true. They are not his opinion, they are mathematical fact.

Those of us who have degrees in engineering from The Ohio State University know, we don't just believe, we KNOW the things that scott' is trying to explain to you all. We are not part of a conspiracy.

And the arguments about, "Well they used to think this and they used to think that and they were wrong"... those are the silliest arguments of all. There have always been charlatans that claimed to have beaten the second law of thermodynamics and there have always been people that have believed them. Both types will continue to exist for as long as there are people. None of that changes the fact that the second law of thermodynamics is inviolable.

This is not opinion, it is fact. Disputing it is to attempt (vainly) to discredit the very highly respected College of Engineering at The Ohio State University where these facts are taught.

 

[scott91575]

There is no miles per gallon on the Volt for too much of its driving for there to be any meaning in such a silly description as "230 mpg."

It gets infinite miles per gallon for the first 40 miles (though you pay for those miles through your home electricity), and it then gets around 50 mpg or something from then on.

So if you drive less than 40 miles a day it gets infinite gas mileage. If you take one long trip to grandma's and back on Saturday, going 250 miles each way, it gets about 54 miles per gallon.

Can't they just give its real miles per gallon when using gasoline, and say it uses no gas otherwise?

Yeah, it's all about simplicity in advertising. The average person can see that and go "wow!" A lot harder to describe what you said in a simple one line advertisement.

Anyway, they got the 230mpg number from running 5 EPA city cycles (11 miles each run). The first 4 were done totally on battery, and the 5th was done with the battery discharged (all gas). They knew if they just ran the regular test it would say infinite fuel economy, so they added one cycle after the battery drained to get some fuel usage. Until the EPA comes up with a test for this vehicle GM is going to go with this number.

 

[kinch]

Yeah, it's all about simplicity in advertising. The average person can see that and go "wow!" A lot harder to describe what you said in a simple one line advertisement.

"The Volt uses no gas for the first 40 miles, after which it gets 50 mpg."

Do you really have so little faith in the intelligence of Americans that they can't get that? It is short and simple enough, right?

Or. . .

Crap. You're probably right.

*hangs head*

 

[BrutuStrength]

I found some updated information about the engines from their site.

HP2g.com 110mpg V8 Engine Motor
What makes the HP2g get such incredible gas mileage without a significant loss of power?

For lack of a better description: marriage and frugality.
HP2g technological achievement has been the marriage of an electric motor into his E85-powered V-8 internal combustion engine, and controls that allow the combined powerplant?s output to range from more than 400 horsepower to as little as 15 horsepower, depending on what is required at the time by the accelerator.

This phenomenal range of energy output is accomplished by the HP2g E-85 fueled engine can transition from running on all eight cylinders down to firing on just one.
We in the auto industry call it ?variable displacement? ? shutting down normally half of an engine?s cylinders when not under load ? to improve fuel economy. But unlike other designs, HP2g has discovered a way to vary which cylinders are shut down, so that when his engine is operating on a single cylinder, the cylinder that is firing rotates between the eight in his engine. This avoids excessive carbon buildup in part because we are using clean-burning E85 ethanol as his fuel source instead of a standard gasoline blend.

HP2g powerplant also picks up added efficiency because his incorporated electric motor ? greatly responsible for the 500 ft. lbs. of torque the powerplant generates ? operating on a pulse basis, instead of at what is called full saturation. In other words, the electric field used to generate power to the vehicle?s wheels can rapidly cycle on and off as required, saving energy. The vehicle uses just two ?spiral core gel? batteries, common in racing, one on each side of the vehicle, and also reclaims some energy from more established manners, such as regenerative braking, which captures energy that would otherwise be lost as a vehicle decelerates.

The HP2g design picks up added efficiencies because of tight tolerances and sturdy design that reduces engine vibration and heat, all of which drain energy output from traditional vehicles.

Also the HP2g has log more than 22,000 miles of real-world driving on his 3,250 lb. 1987 Ford Mustang over the last 18 months with an average fuel economy of 109.7 mpg.

Standard EPA testing on the vehicle in Cleveland in May confirmed that ? without the benefit of a catalytic converter, which his design does not require ? the Mustang?s tailpipe emitted 86.6 of hydrocarbons and 0.46 percent carbon monoxide, both well below the newly imposed EPA standards for all automakers.

I'm curious as to what the engineers think about these engines now that more is known. Additional information can be found at their site.

 

[Ttown]

Naysayers? Your turn.

 

[Poe McKnoe]

I found some updated information about the engines from their site.


I'm curious as to what the engineers think about these engines now that more is known. Additional information can be found at their site.

I'd question why the inventor decided to use a V arrangement and not an inline arrangement, especially if the engine can produce torque off of one cylinder. I know you only get a power stroke every 2 revolutions of a 4 stroke engine, but there sure are some uneven loads on the crank if odd number of cylinders are running. I assume the crank is mutiple parts? If not, that's a heck of a lot of inertia for 1 cylinder to be rotating. Ok, it's one piece. You have to make it light enough to be efficient with minimal torque yet strong enough to handle 500 ft-lbs? Would it have to be a small displacement V8?

Let's speak more to the manufacturing side. "picks up added efficiencies because of tight tolerances and sturdy design". Someone call those Ford, Toyota, and GM engineers up and let them know they've missed the boat on tight tolerances and sturdy designs. Let's see how well that holds up in a production setting when your employing unskilled workers in Napoleon and not master machinists, have to meet production tolerances with off the shelf machines, and have to keep production up while minimizing scrap.

Every inventor/engineer has hoped to develop the 'perfect engine'. John Delorean predicted in the 1950's that the turbine engine would become the next great automotive advancement and later patented a swash-plate engine with variable displacement. Guess what, he's dead and so are his ideas.

Also, engines don't get MPG. Engines don't get you from Napoleon to DC. Engines need to power AC units, alternators, cooling units (unless this new engine doesn't produce heat). Engines need to transmit power through transmissions, axles, differentials, universal joints, gears, tires, etc. They need to generate enough power to overcome the weight of the vehicle and the forces that act upon it when in motion such as drag. So the 1987 Ford Mustang averaged 109 mpg? Why not put the V8 in a new car? Something more aerodynamic? Less weight? A 1992 Mazda Miata might get 140 mpg.

Could you develop an engine capable of producing 400HP and 500 ft-lbs of torque and put it in a car that gets 110mpg? Sure. I could install an electric motor on one wheel of a Corvette and drive around town at 5 mph, but if I want to produce the 400HP, I'm going to have to use more energy. It's not going to do both at once, however. As many people have stated before, you put some form of energy source into an engine, a process occurs to change the energy into something useable, and some of it gets wasted in the process. The best you could dream of is an efficiency of 1.0, assuming no heat loss, vibration, friction, and basically all other conditions of the world we live in.

Unless you are creating energy, which in that case, I want to be your best friend.

 

[Ttown]

Unless you are creating energy, which in that case, I want to be your best friend.

we create energy when we fart so find a way to harness it.

 

[scott91575]

I found some updated information about the engines from their site.


I'm curious as to what the engineers think about these engines now that more is known. Additional information can be found at their site.

First of all, cylinder deactivation is nothing new. GM did back in the 70's (although very poorly), and multiple vehicles do it now. The Chrylser hemi has been do it for 5 years, along with some Mercedes and GMs engines (probably some others I am leaving out). There are some complex issues like vibration, shutting down specific part of valvetrain, and smooth transition for drivability that are very difficult to solve. Until someone besides them drives this thing no one knows how well it works. Current forms of cylinder deactivation can see an increase mpg by about 12%.

Next to the "electromagnetic" portion of the whole thing. Well, do they mean hybrid? I don't hear anything about that. It doesn't sound like they are doing any regen braking. If they are, there are very complex issues of getting energy while braking, and the overall complexity of the brake system itself (which I highly doubt that original guy could do). If not, where is the energy coming from, magic? How are they turning fuel into electric energy? That takes a combustion cycle with it's inherent inefficiencies. Then they need to convert it to electric energy through a generator and another loss in energy, then finally back to usable energy. Incredibly inefficient. Lastly, how do they store the energy. First they state there is no plugging in. Well, so much for energy from a socket and cheating (which I am still not sure about....methinks they drain a battery on their runs then ignore when it's recharging). So back to extracting electric energy from fuel to run the electromagnetic portion of the engine. Like I have stated, there is only so much efficiency from burning fuel. The vast majority of the energy is lost to heat....that is simply gone unless you can use that heat somehow. Doesn't seem like they are doing that. So that simply means we return to the physical energy it's exerting. Converting that energy to electric energy then back to physical energy is inefficient. You are adding another cycle to an already inefficient process. Hybrids are smart because it is scavenging energy the driver no longer requires (braking). Yet that does not sound like what he is doing here.

I could go on, but no real point at this moment (these are still the same claims from his initial prototype which I have discussed in length). Much of that stuff is still wait and see. As I stated earlier, you can make a 100+ mpg vehicle. Any OEM can do it now (some have in prototype form). The problem is making it cost effective. If you drive 2000 miles a month (a fair amount) with a 20mpg vehicle at $3 per gallon gas that is $300 per month in gas. Let's even say you keep the vehicle for 10 years. You could save around $29,000 (which is actually significantly less if you factor in opportunity costs, but I won't turn this into an economics debate). If this thing costs $50,000, maybe up to $60,000, and meets all it's claims while actually building a car that is not a complete piece of crap durability/reliability wise (another huge if) I would call it a success. Yet all of that is highly dubious.

 

[scott91575]

"We're moving at the speed we can, working with our own funds. No banks are willing to consider financing us," Pelmear said

Hmm, look at that. Banks are smarter than I give them credit for. Oh wait, it must mean the conspirators got to them too. Little does he know the government is in on it also. Bwahaaaahhaaaaahahahahaha.

 

[BrutuStrength]

Next to the "electromagnetic" portion of the whole thing. Well, do they mean hybrid? I don't hear anything about that...

On their site are a number of other little articles as well as some youtube videos of presentations and interviews. Amongst those items you will find references to where he refers to the engines as the first "true hyrbid," or something to that effect.

There is a chart on this area of the site that shows the 109 MPG as being the lifetime mileage of the engine, and that it averages nearly 138 MPG when it is running at a speed of 65 MPH. This page also shows a number of illustrations and the like.

Anyhow, I figure the various links on the sight are worth your perusal to further your understanding of their claims, and denounce or approve them as you see fit.

 

[scott91575]

On their site are a number of other little articles as well as some youtube videos of presentations and interviews. Amongst those items you will find references to where he refers to the engines as the first "true hyrbid," or something to that effect.

There is a chart on this area of the site that shows the 109 MPG as being the lifetime mileage of the engine, and that it averages nearly 138 MPG when it is running at a speed of 65 MPH. This page also shows a number of illustrations and the like.

Anyhow, I figure the various links on the sight are worth your perusal to further your understanding of their claims, and denounce or approve them as you see fit.

First of all, I can make up all the pretty charts you want. The guy is begging the government for money, and you are cool with him coming up with his own charts.

Next, I do see he makes a claim of regen braking in one of the articles. I watched the video, and saw the press release and didn't see it. First of all, regen is great in city driving. Yet all his claims are highway driving. It does virtually nothing. I also highly doubt he has worked through all the issues there are with regen braking, something OEM's who have over a decade of experience are still dealing with.

His emissions claims are complete crap (I have dealt with this in an earlier post). He doesn't even report them correctly. A huge reason for distrust.

In the end you can believe whatever you want. Yet I will break it down for you....this guy is asking for government money through charts he created, and no one else has been able to test the vehicle (at least in any thorough manner). Of course I am going to doubt him. Until he hands over his super car for independent testing I am not going to believe him, and neither should you. Especially since he is essentially asking for your tax money.

BTW...since you want me to go into more info on his system....he still uses a combustion process. No matter how much regen braking you do or how many cylinders you shut down you are working with an inefficient process. He is not the first to have tight tolerances (probably not even one of the people to do it since I doubt his claims). Then add in ethanol is even less efficient that regular gasoline (he uses equivalent mpg, another one of his tricks, and the reason why he uses ethanol). Cylinder deactivation is great, yet you still need to overcome aerodynamic issues (you can only shut down so many, and even then you are at best like a normal 4 cylinder car for MPG). That takes power, power created by an inefficient process. Regen braking can only recover some of the unwanted energy, but on the highway it's all wanted (no braking). Which says to me he is draining a battery on his runs, using tricks to inflate his numbers, and essentially knows it does not work in everyday driving.

 

[scott91575]

Let me further add reasons for distrust. This guy claimed last year his vehicle would be ready for production this fall. That showed an unbelievable amount of stupidy into what it takes to actually make a vehicle from the ground up. Some can do it if they grab an already existing powertain and chassis. Essentially just making a body. Yet that is not the case here. The development of powertrains is a multi year process. He is in the very early stages. He has thousands of more obstacles to overcome, and needs to do it in a cost efficient manner with low volumes. All his parts outside of the stuff he actually manufactures will cost 3 times more than what OEM's pay (plus his capital in the stuff he actually makes will be spread over a smaller volume, increases his costs for those parts also). Plus he will have to pay everything up front since no one is going to give him credit. He also has no proving grounds, no dynos, no knowledge of how to run a true reliability cycle, etc. For some small auto manufacturers this is not as major of a deal since as I have stated, they use OEM powertrains and chassis (already proven...they also tend to be pieces of crap that may perform well in a few runs but have zero practical value). All of that will take hundreds of millions of dollars, or he can risk it (more than likely creating a huge pile of crap).

There is more to building a car than just an idea and some trumped up charts. No matter how good the initial idea, it takes thousands if not tens of thousands of people to build a good car from the ground up and make it cost efficient. If his idea truly worked he wouldn't be asking the government for start up money, he would be selling it to someone with the ability to build a car. It has scam written all over it. Well that, or stupidity combined with ignorance.

None of the above I posted requires any engineering knowledge. It's common sense. So do you trust a guy that is so ignorant to building a car or how to truly sell his invention? I don't. you shouldn't either, especially since he is asking for your tax money.