dwightlooi

Well, we can be pretty sure it is NOT a supercharged six (ala Audi). Even if the cover is intentionally misleading, the duct work shows the intakes going to the flanks of the engine, apparently feeding a traditional twin turbo setup. A supercharged engine or a reverse flow turbo mill would have those going to the valley of the block. It's impossible to tell if this is a 3.0 or 3.6. Both of these have exactly the same block size and spacing just different bore diameters and strokes. However, if this is the LF3 and not something else altogether, it is a 3.0. Personally, I doubt it is a 3.6 if not anything because the cylinder walls will have to be the thinnest yet we have ever seen on a mass produced, turbocharged engine. GM does NOT have a history of pushing very thin walls in their turbo mills, if anything, they have a habit of doing the opposite. The 2.0T for instance is intentionally 2mm thicker in the walls than the 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 with the same bore spacing. You can get a lot out of power out of a 3.0TT or you can get a super linear, ultra responsive engine. However, you you need to give up one for the other. BMW opted for very small turbos with extremely fast spool times, this gets them a paltry 300hp from 3 liters, but up to 335~370 lb-ft hitting as low as 1200rpm. On the other end of the spectrum, you can go for about 420hp, but maximum torque won't hit until about 3500 rpm and lag will be noticeable. A compromise will be a 360-ish hp engine with about the same amount of torque hitting at ~2000 rpm. Based on GM's tuning of their 2.0T mills my guess is that this is the approach they will use. One thing that we must not forget however is that GM has a great thing going with the Pushrod V8. This lineage is getting VVT, DI and AFM with the 5th Gen. It is not, and should not, be something they shun. Rather it is something they should flaunt. A twin turbo 3.0 or 3.6 V6 is not more powerful, not smaller, not lighter and not more controllable. Most often overlooked is that fact that a six liter class Pushrod V8 is also not appreciably more fuel thirsty than a bi-turbo V6 of equivalent output -- 16/25 mpg really isn't much worse than the best 400~450hp TT V6 can muster and this is expected to go up slightly with the DI Gen V engines.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to use the LSA at this point in time. The Gen V engines will be introduced at that point on the C7 and is pretty much ready for manufacturing. Chances are the SS will use a version of the new Direct Injected small block V8 either in NA trim to the tune of about 470hp or as a supercharged variant with about 600hp. The DI powerplant will see MPG figures better than of 25~26mpg and it may actually cost less over the life cycle of the vehicle as production ramps up for it and the Gen IV lines get progressively phased out.

Or, it can simply be that GM does not have a suitable Hybrid drive train for the XTS. The Volt's is too underpowered and not particularly adaptable use the 3.6 V6 as the ICE. A BAS-II system ala Buick LaCrosse does not do enough to be worth marketing. An all new system for the XTS does not not have enough volume to make a reasonable business case on its own. That, plus the low take rate of GM's Hybrid offerings, led to a decision to keep it simple and focus on the tradiational merits of a large luxury sedan -- isolation, comfort, room, refinement and, yes, amenities galore.

In time for the C7 Vette for sure. Then perhaps the ATS-V and/or the SS. So, I'll say 2013.

Given that this will be a 2013 introduction, it may be just in time to receive the direct injected Gen V Pushrod V8. That'll be interesting for folks who want more than a 2-seat Corvette and don't want to pay the premium for an ATS-V or CTS-V.

To put it simply, our energy policy should strive for cheap and plentiful energy instead of "green" and exorbitant energy. There are plenty of solid, liquid and gaseous fossil fuel within our national boundaries and on this planet. We should tap it to the fullest and continue to use it as the primary source of power for as long as it is economical to do so -- and it will be the most economical source of power for at least 50 years, possibly a 100. As so far as the ICE goes, the typical gasoline engine has a thermal efficiency of in the mid-20s. A typical automotive diesel is in the low-30s. You really don't need to get to 80 percent to yield wonderous results. In fact, you can't get to 80% with combustibles. Even a power station's gas turbines are about 40% efficient in a simple cycle and in the mid-50s if it is a 2-stage combined gas-and-steam setup. Realistically, you can't get much better than that as long as you are burning stuff and doing mechanical work to generate power. Fuel cells do much better, the problem being that the hydrogen it uses does not just appear out of thin air. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source and will never be; it is at best an energy storage medium and pretty lousy one at that. Unlike fossil fuel you cannot mine or pump it out of the ground. The production of hydrogen uses energy and quite inefficiently. Today you either get it out of electrolysis for which you need lots of electric power. Or, you hydro crack it out of fossil fuel which... well... needs lots of fossil fuel. Once you are done making Hydrogen you can have it either as the lowest density gas in the universe --- requiring a huge amount of tank space to go a given distance. Or, you can have it as one of the coldest liquids in the universe at -423 deg F which requires a huge amount of insulation and/or refrigeration. This all makes hydrogen a lousy way to store and/or transport energy. That's why I believe that in the end we'll be moving power we make on high voltage cables and not hydrogen carrying trucks or pipelines.

It's good to see that the obsession over fuel economy is coming to an end. I am not against fuel economy, nobody is. I am not even against Hybrids or electrics. But, like everything else they should make economic sense. At $4 a gallon, even $8 a gallon, systems that gets to 10 extra MPG at a cost of $4000~8000 simply does not. The same goes for this government's expenditure on solar and wind -- complete and utter waste of money and a building block for fiscal disaster. What we need is technology that gets the best return on fuel economy for each dollar spent and which does not add significantly to the price of the vehicle. That, plus the rapid and full development of US/Canadian coal, oil and gas resources in the near term, coupled with the a migration to nuclear generation and electric distribution 50~75 years from today.

Well, it doesn't surprise me that GM is planning on some kind of SS; there had always been one SS editions of various GM vehicles over the years. The big question is "which" model is getting an SS? It can be a Sierra, it can be a Cruze, it can be a Malibu, an Impala, and maybe even a Sonic! Depending on which model it is (or perhaps more than one model) this may or may not be very interesting to one person or another.

I wonder if the V6 is a 90 deg engine... looks like it given that it is derived from the V8. Also, fitting a roots compressor in the valley of a 60 deg is inefficient because the narrow block angle forces the supercharger higher up which results in a tall engine. The downside of the 90 deg V6 is that it is less balanced and needs a balance shaft to be civilized. This increases frictional losses slightly and it also increases inertia which makes the engine rev a tiny bit slower. It is of course wider from a packaging standpoint and is usually a tiny bit heavier. The Audi 3.0"T" supercharged V6 is also a 90 degree engine.

Overall a nice execution. It's targets the Avalon, just like Malibu targets the Camry. Longer wheelbase, roomier, more feature laden, nice UI on the infotainment suite. Unlike the Bu, it is available with a V6 for people who value refinement over a few points in fuel economy which is about 1/3 of the Camry/Accord buyers and presumably 1/3rd of the mid-size market in general. Now, when you divide the class up between a smaller Bu and a larger Imp, the ratio for the Imp probably skews closer to 1/2 while that for the Bu skews towards 1/4. The one thing I don't like is the grill -- it seems somewhat out of step with the rest of the Chevy lineup in not adhering to the new corporate split grill DNA. That and it is a lttle messy -- too many lines, too much clutter in the front end treatment. Also, it's curious that active noise cancellation is used only on the I4s.

A supercharger will fit where the intake plenum currently is. The H4 is actually pretty low, so there's plenty of room on top for an air-to-water aftercooler. It won't be as efficient as a turbo, but there will be no lag whatsoever. Should be able to hit 230~240hp easily, but more importantly Torque will crest 200 lb-ft and will peak much lower.

$79 million? That must either be a mistake or they have figured out how to really reduce their engineer costs. The Alpha platform that underpins the ATS for instance carried a $1 billion ($1000 million price tag).

The Gen V Small Block facts we know thus far are:- It will be a 90 deg Vee engine with pushrods and 2 valves per cylinder It will use the traditional 4.4" small block bore spacing It will be aluminum block and heads It will have Direct Gasoline Injection It will have Variable Timing (Sychronous or Independent is unknown at this point) It will have Cylinder Deactivation (at least on some versions of the engine) It will be assembled in Towanada, NY and St Catherines Canada It will get its engine block castings from Defiance, OH and Bedford, IN It will be introduced next year in the 2014 model Corvette

A VVT system, no. If you want the ability to switch between Otto and Atkinson cycles, what you need is either a cam switching system (ala VTEC) or a continuously variable valve duration control system. Basically, you need the ability to change the duration of the intake valve opening period. Long duration = Atkinson, short duration reverts to Otto. You can do it in steps or you can do it continuously. A by product of this however is that when you go from a 30% compression stroke negation to a regular Otto cycle, you also raise the compression ratio by roughly 43%. An engine with a 10:1 effective compression ratio in Atkinson mode will shoot to 14.3:1 when it goes to full Ooto cycle mode . You need to be able to deal with that. Alternatively, you can go light on the Atknson mode with say a 20% negation. This gives you a 12.5:1 compression in Otto mode on a 10:1 effective compression in Atkinson mode. Fuel economy wouldn't be quite as good, but it'll still be better than the current 6.2. On the otherhand, at full boil in Otto mode, this motor will make a whoping 530hp. Even in Atkinson mode its good for ~425 hp which is close to the current LS3. By the way, this has already been done. A 20% negation Atkinson at low loads and full Otto Cycle under full load is exactly what the current Honda Civic's D18A engine is doing with its iVTEC system. Part-time Atkinson operation along with a 2,700 lbs curb weight allow the Civic to clock in at 29/41 mpg using a 1.8 liter 140hp powerplant with a 5-speed auto and no hybridization -- beating the Cruze's Eco's 138hp 1.4 liter Turbo with a 6-speed auto at 26/37 mpg.

GM has claimed that along with direct injection, the upcoming Gen V Small Block V8 will feature a (quote) "brand new combustion system". This has left many guessing at what that is supposed to imply. The common speculations are:- Cam-in-cam independent VVT Variable Valve Lift Advanced version of Cylinder Deactivation Some combination of the above But, I think we may all have overlooked the obvious... There has been much talk about the possibility -- some even say likelihood -- that the next generation V8s will see a downsizing of displacement rather than improvements in performance. However, reducing displacement is not nearly as effective as going to an Atkinson Cycle in decreasing the brake specific fuel consumption. Put simply, reducing the displacement of a 6.2 liter V8 by say 30% to 4.3 liters will yield less fuel economy benefits than keeping the static displacement at 6.2 liters and simply delaying the closure of the intake valves such that 30% of the compression stroke is negated. The effective displacement will still be 4.3 liters and the power output will be similar to a 4.3 liter engine, however fuel economy will be BETTER than a 4.3 liter engine. This is why the Prius uses 1.8 liter Atkinson Cycle engine rather than a "normal" (Otto Cycle) 1.3 liter engine. This begs the question... perhaps, the Gen V Small block will be an Atkinson Cycle powerplant? Perhaps the mainstream displacemet will actually grow in displacement from 6.2 to 7.0 liters while it adopts the Atkinson Cycle? Such an engine will make approximately 375 hp / 350 lb-ft -- roughly equivalent to an Otto Cycle 5.0 liter. Not exactly spectacular, but it will be decent enough to provide performance parity with the C6 if they can shave 250 lbs off the car. The engine will exceed a bi-turbo V6 in terms of fuel economy while tipping the scales at a lower weight. The pushrod design's superior packaging density and lower weight actually compensates for the Atkinson engine's biggest flaw -- poor specific output and lousy power density (by size or weight). It'll still have the smoothness and burble of a crossplane V8. And, a car that makes 60 mph in 4.2 seconds while turning in around of 23/32 mpg all without the weight, cost and complexity of hybridization? It doesn't sound bad actually. Can the Future of the V8 be an Atkinson one?

At some point having more speeds is actually less efficient. This is so for three fundamental reasons which are not fundamental engineering problems that can be solved. While being in an optimal gear for a given speed and driving condition improves efficiency, the act of "shifting" itself reduces efficiency. During a shift, engine power is interupted and wasted as heat instead of providing propulsive force. Having more speeds generally means driving more planetary gearsets (or in the case of dual clutch units more parallel shafts and gear pairs). Turning more gears -- even if most are not underload -- increases parasitic frictional loss. With the same basic metalurgy, more speeds generally mean either a bigger, heavier transmission or one with a lower torque rating. At the end of the day, the question we need to ask is not how many speeds a transmission has. It is whether 1st gear can be low enough for maximum acceleration with the given rubber on the car, top gear is tall enough to give the lowest "drivable" crusing rpm on the freeway and in between there are enough speeds that a redline shift doesn't drop the engine revs outside the meat of the powerband. For engines with a high torque output and a broad power band, a 6 speed transmission may already do that. For some really peaky engines or engines with vvery narrow rev ranges (eg. Diesels), 8 speeds may not be enough for optimum performance. IMHO, an engine like a Small Block V8 in the Camaro and vette will not actually benefit from more speeds or a wider ratio spread. All they really need is a taller axle ratio to improve cruise economy. 1st gear acceleration may actually be better with a taller first except when wearing gumballs on a drag strip simply because melting the tires do not get you up to speed as briskly as just a tiny bit of slip. A turbocharged I4 like the 2.0T in the upcoming ATS and Malibu, will also not benefit much from having more speeds in the transmission. They will however benefit from an increase in the ratio spread from about 6.0 in the typical 6-speed box to the 7~7.5 range available in some 7~8 speed boxes. The gears themselves in the 7~8 speeders actually yield little benefit and are frequently skipped in actual operation. A peakier engine like the 3.0 and 3.6 DI V6es on the other hand can actually use an extra gear or two in addition to the widened ratio spread. The biggest problem with CVTs is that they rely on hydraulic pressure to clamp two pulleys onto a belt, chain or pivoting toroid. That hydraulic pressure is a lot higher than needed on clutches in automatics or dual clutch boxes because the CVT's chain or belt or toroid must, by design, make sharp and very narrow contact with the variator. A need for high hydraulic pressure means constantly driving powerful pump to supply that pressure which wastes energy. In many designs, CVTs are actually less efficient that traditional autos for this reason. The Ford 500 is a good example.

The Torana became the ATS. Honestly, I don't think a rebranded ATS with its posh content is a good fit for the Holden brand's market positioning. The ATS is also too small to be a commodore replacement. What will likely happen is that if they wanted a "small" alpha they'll do a unique rendition with a different skin, interior and content -- and maybe call it the Torana. The Commodore's replacement will likely be a "large" Alpha in the same dimension class as a the CTS replacement. But, again, not as luxuriously appointed and probably wearing a completely different bodyshell. But, then again, there is no Cadillac in Australia and no intention of marketing that brand there. So it is not out of the question that Holden will sell rebranded caddys as "high end" lines while as the same time doing rebranded Chevys as the everyman cars on their catalog. If you ask me though, it'll probably be better and simpler to simply keep Holden the everyman brand and simply import caddys at some point to covver the luxury market.

Well, Holden's bread and butter line is the Commodore. A RWD Zeta that save of the absence of the G8's ugly nostrils and Pontiac logo is same car. The Commodore is also the Police only Caprice. They'll probably face lift it (again) and have it run its course until it is replaced probably by a long wheelbased Alpha.

Actually, no, we don't "subsidize" gasoline, we just don't tax gasoline like the Europeans do to create an artificially high price for whatever politcal, environmental or revenue agenda they have. There is no direct subsidy on the sale or purchase of Gasoline, Diesel or Kerosene fuel, period. What is frequently termed "oil subsidies" are not really subsidies at all. They can be broken down to 4 categories... (1) Tax Deductions for domestic production. These basically matches the typical tax breaks that countries which export oil to the USA offer or partly compensate for the regulatory costs of US manufacturing. All businesses get these. They are there mainly to keep production domestic -- otherwise it will be cheaper to drill and refine elsewhere. If we eliminate it for oil companies we'll be singling out the oil ndustry as the ONLY industry which does not receive these tax breaks. (2) Capital Equipment depreciation allowance. Companies write down the depreciation of equipment. All companies get it, not just oil companies. An airline for instance gets to depreciate their jets and oil companies an oil rig. (3) Foreign Tax Credits. Companies get tax credits for taxes they pay overseas against taxes they have to pay domestically. Again, all companies, and in fact individuals, get this. If as part of your job, you do work in Europe and are taxed in Europe under their tax laws, you get to take all of those taxes paid as a deduction against your income when filing your US tax returns because they are no longer your income! (4) Non-tangible Drill Cost write down. This is the ONLY area where the oil industry gets different treatment compared to other industries. And, the only difference is that they get to take it all in the first year and not over multiple years. The magnitude of the deduction is not different from that we extend to other businesses on intangible write downs. The most important thing that one needs to know is that the total amount of tax breaks given to the oil industry is a mere $4 billion. Quite insignificant given the $625 billion US oil consumption and amounts to less than 1% of the price at the pump or 4 cents of the $4 you may pay for one gallon. More importantly, of this 4 billion, only $0.8 billion is given in a manner not also extended to all other US manufacturers and industries as legitimate tax deductions.

Politics aside, the Volt is not succeeding on the market as a product. It is not succeeding even with $7,500 in purchase subsidies. The way I see it, there shouldn't even be 1 cent of subsidy for Hybrids or Electric cars. They should either be viable products on their own merits or we should wait for the time when the market decide that they are -- whether that is 10 years or 100 years.

Congress better block every single last cent in this 4.7 billion boon doggle.

I am not interested in "green" and exhorbitant energy. I am only interested in cheap and plentiful energy. I am especially furious about my tax dollars going towards sponsoring somebody else's decision to buy a "green" vehicle. It makes my blood pressure hit 200 everytime I get look at look at my pay check or file my tax returns. The US is sitting on 1.4 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil reserves -- 3 times as much as Saudi Arabia. The only problem is that we refuse to allow exploration and extraction. I say lets tap it all, keep fuel prices in the USA the lowest in the world, grow our economy and let the market decide when "alternative" fuel and "green" energy becomes a viable and competitive alternative. If it's "never", I am fine with that too.

A simple way to look at it is that an engine produces torque. Torque is measure in Foot-Pounds. A Foot-Pound is exactly that -- the amount of twisting force you will experience if you hang a 1 pound weight off a 1 foot long crank. Horsepower is simply Torque x RPM divided by 5252. It is a measurement of the rate of application of torque. Let's say a hand crank produces constant 1 foot-pound of torque. One that is being turned at 20 rpm is twice as "powerful" as doing so at 10 rpm. Why? Because you are applying that 1 foot-pound of torque at with twice the number of repetitions over a given amount of time. The amount of torque an engine is capable of producing is described by the torque curve. At every point along that curve it maps to a horsepower figure equivalent to the torque at that point times the rpm at that point divided by 5252. At 5252 rpm, torque and horsepower is exactly the same figure. At engine speed above 5252 rpm, a foot-pound of torque is worth more than a foot-pound of horsepower. Conversely, at any point below 5252 rpm each foot pound of torque produces less than 1 hp. If we hold gear ratio constant, a car will always accelerate the hardest at when torque is highest. Horsepower is important because it allows you to take advantage of lower gearing. With a gearing of say 2:1 200 lb-ft becomes 400 lb-ft. However, the engine has to make two turns for each turn of the wheel. At a gearing of 4:1 200 lb-ft becomes 800 lb-ft but the engine has to make 4 turns to spin the wheels once. Therefore an engine making 200 lb-ft at 6000 rpm can be geared to created twice as much torque as an engine that makes 200 lb-ft at 3000 rpm while turning the wheels at a given speed! It is for this reason that horsepower is important -- it is a measure of how fast the engine can spin while making a given amount of torque.

This is how the whole Carbon Motors thing can work... The idea of a purpose build law enforcement vehicle with suicde doors, plastic door panels, a water proof interior and integrated siren lights and compartment divider is a good one. The idea of trying to build a grond up vehicular platform and manufacturing infrastructure as a STARTUP company is a horrible one. $310 million is not enough to go down that road, $3.1 billion may not be enough for that matter. The way they can do is it to partner with a major automaker like Ford or GM. Pick one of their RWD platforms and existing powerplant. Alpha Platform + an Opel diesel six will get pretty close to what they are trying to do. Work the composite bodyshell and all the design features into the existing lower dorminant structure. Secure the manufacturing contract which subcontracts the manufacturing to the automaker. Obtain an Authority to Offer from their board and partner(s). Then go out there and book orders for a few thousand vehicles to boot. With ab out 5000~10000 firm orders, they can then initiate manufacturing in an established factory.

That may be true, but 259hp (max hp) along with 260 lb-ft @ 1,700~5,500 rpm is not a mathematical possibility. 260 * 5500 / 5252 = 272.28