GM Diesel Engine Lineup -- Circa 2013

[dwightlooi]

GM Diesel Engine Lineup - Circa 2013

[Drew Dowdell]

Yes please. :-)

[dwightlooi]

Side note:

The 4.5 is Duramax DOHC 72 deg V8. The 6.6 is the Duramax Pushrod 90 deg V8. Both already exist.

The 3.0 is a new diesel version of the 3.0 OHCC gasoline engine. Here it is simplified to an SOHC layout and probably has a cast iron lower block for the extra strength to handle compression ignition.

The 1.5 is half a 3.0. The 2.25 is half the 4.5. Both of these share the piston, rods, valves, cam layout, etc with their bigger brothers.

Edited October 1, 2010 by dwightlooi

[67impss]

Question GM has the 2.9L 60* DOC 24 valve V6 built by VM Motori .The engine has a torque of 550 Nm (406 lb.-ft.) beginning at 2000 rpm. The new, compact V-6 powerhouse features aluminum cylinder heads and a 60 degree bank angle, 83.0 mm bore and 90.4 mm stroke, which results in displacement of

2935 cubic centimeters. The engine block is made of stronger and lighter Compacted Graphite Iron (as compared to lower strength aluminum or heavier grey cast iron) to optimize engine packaging, weight, refinement and performance.2.9l diesel V6

Why would GM develop another engine if this one is in the pipeline it was last used in the CTS EU model?

[dwightlooi]

Question GM has the 2.9L 60* DOC 24 valve V6 built by VM Motori .The engine has a torque of 550 Nm (406 lb.-ft.) beginning at 2000 rpm. The new, compact V-6 powerhouse features aluminum cylinder heads and a 60 degree bank angle, 83.0 mm bore and 90.4 mm stroke, which results in displacement of

2935 cubic centimeters. The engine block is made of stronger and lighter Compacted Graphite Iron (as compared to lower strength aluminum or heavier grey cast iron) to optimize engine packaging, weight, refinement and performance.

Why would GM develop another engine if this one is in the pipeline it was last used in the CTS EU model?

Well, the idea is that there would be a new gasoline V6 displacing 3.0 liters that replaces the 3.0 and 3.6 HF V6. The corner stone of that engine is that instead of a traditional DOHC layout, it'll have an concentric cam layout. The concentric can looks like an SOHC head except that it actually has one camshaft inside another. It combines the lower friction and compactness advantage of SOHC with independent intake/exhaust adjustability of DOHC.

The hypothetical Diesel V6 is then based on the gasoline V6, replacing the lower block half with a cast iron structure for additional strength and reversing the flow direction on the heads such that the exhaust exists in the Vee. This allows it to use one larger turbo instead of two smaller ones. In general, larger turbines and compressors are more efficient, plus they are also lower cost than two separate units.

From a technical standpoint, it is better because:-

• The aluminum upper block + iron lower block construction is lighter than an iron block engine.
  
• The SOHC heads are lower friction and more fuel efficient than DOHC heads
  
• The SOHC heads are slimmer than DOHC heads
  
• The commonality with the Gasoline engine makes installations and adaptations simpler.
  
• An in-house engine is potentially lower cost than an outsourced engine and brings expertise in house for the future.
  

[67impss]

I looked into this further with this result "This application RA 629 is canceled by VM Motori / GM ". So in house is the next step. All that money spent on the Fiat misadventures and they(GM) still didn't get a decent diesel program going

[CGIron]

I looked into this further with this result "This application RA 629 is canceled by VM Motori / GM ". So in house is the next step. All that money spent on the Fiat misadventures and they(GM) still didn't get a decent diesel program going

This wish-list is very well corresponding to the foundry Tupys plans. They are investing for a capacity over 100.000 ton of CGI this and next year.

Tupys plans

[67impss]

I looked into this further with this result "This application RA 629 is canceled by VM Motori / GM ". So in house is the next step. All that money spent on the Fiat misadventures and they(GM) still didn't get a decent diesel program going

This wish-list is very well corresponding to the foundry Tupys plans. They are investing for a capacity over 100.000 ton of CGI this and next year.

Tupys plans

I see that they(Tupys) purchased two Mexican foundry's in November. Will they send GM blocks????????

[G. David Felt]

On 10/1/2010 at 1:35 PM, dwightlooi said:

GM Diesel Engine Lineup - Circa 2013

Come Back Dwight and give us your input on the new engines.

[dwightlooi]

5 hours ago, dfelt said:

Come Back Dwight and give us your input on the new engines.

Well... things have gotten simpler. There are only 4 diesels left in GM's portfolio for new vehicles (for the US market anyway).

These can be loosely split into the Turin Two* and the Detriot Two.

The Turin Two (GM Medium Diesel and GM Large Diesel)

• GMMD 1.6L Inline-4 DOHC 16-valve (LH7) 137hp @ 3,500 rpm / 240 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm

• GMLD 2.0L Inline-4 DOHC 16-valve (LUZ) 170 hp @ 3,750 / 295 lb-ft @ 1,750 rpmDuramax

The Detriot Two (Duramax)

• Duramax 3.0L Inline-6 DOHC 24-valve (LM2) Performance 260 hp @ 3,500 rpm / 445 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm (est.)
• Duramax 6.6L V-8 Pushrod 32-valve (L5P) 445 hp @ 2,800 rpm / 910 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm

* After the sale of Opel to the Peugeot-Citroen Group, GM retained its Diesel R&D facility in Turin, Italy. This produced two 4-cylidner diesel made in Hungary and (at least for now) supplied to Opel among others. Apparently, 2.0L is "Large" by European Global Warming Coolaid standards.

[G. David Felt]

10 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Well... things have gotten simpler. There are only 4 diesels left in GM's portfolio for new vehicles (for the US market anyway).

These can be loosely split into the Turin Two* and the Detriot Two.

The Turin Two (GM Medium Diesel and GM Large Diesel)

• GMMD 1.6L Inline-4 DOHC 16-valve (LH7) 137hp @ 3,500 rpm / 240 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm

• GMLD 2.0L Inline-4 DOHC 16-valve (LUZ) 170 hp @ 3,750 / 295 lb-ft @ 1,750 rpmDuramax

The Detriot Two (Duramax)

• Duramax 3.0L Inline-6 DOHC 24-valve (LM2) Performance 260 hp @ 3,500 rpm / 445 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm (est.)
• Duramax 6.6L V-8 Pushrod 32-valve (L5P) 445 hp @ 2,800 rpm / 910 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm

* After the sale of Opel to the Peugeot-Citroen Group, GM retained its Diesel R&D facility in Turin, Italy. This produced two 4-cylidner diesel made in Hungary and (at least for now) supplied to Opel among others. Apparently, 2.0L is "Large" by European Global Warming Coolaid standards.

I would have to agree with you on the data you point out here. It has been interesting that Diesel has lost a bit of it's benefit with stronger turbo gas motors and what electric power trains are doing. The break even point as we have discussed in other threads here have shown some crazy long years of ownership to recover the cost. Other than businesses, it will be hard for normal people to really justify the new straight 6 diesel or 3L Duramax that they are coming out with I feel. I hope they have it smooth and quiet like the Cruze diesel was. No one would know a diesel was next to them in how quiet that engine was.

[dwightlooi]

On 10/8/2018 at 5:26 PM, dfelt said:

I would have to agree with you on the data you point out here. It has been interesting that Diesel has lost a bit of it's benefit with stronger turbo gas motors and what electric power trains are doing. The break even point as we have discussed in other threads here have shown some crazy long years of ownership to recover the cost. Other than businesses, it will be hard for normal people to really justify the new straight 6 diesel or 3L Duramax that they are coming out with I feel. I hope they have it smooth and quiet like the Cruze diesel was. No one would know a diesel was next to them in how quiet that engine was.

The DIesel's 1st and foremost advantage is that it is not choked by the throttle body all the time.

Unless you are a bonafide retard in desperate need of a suspended license, 99% of all driving is not done at WOT. With gasoline engines, this means a partially or largely closed throttle plate. The engine is constantly working to suck air at partial vacuum against the obstruction of the throttle plate. It's like working a syringe with a needle attached and takes a lot of effort.

A diesel engine does not have a throttle plate. It runs wide open and sucks in all the air in wants all the time. Power is simply regulated with fuel flow and the engine simply runs lean most of the time. That is where most of the efficiency of the Diesel Engine comes from. The 16~22:1 compression ratio being secondary. This is also why diesels are high in the oxides of nitrogen and use nitrogen storing catalysts which in turn require low sulfur fuels. The lack of refinement and high construction costs stems from the fact that, as a compression ignition engine, the diesel engine by design ignites the mixture and sees a spike in cylinder pressures before the pistons reach the top of their travels. It's knocking all the time by design.

 

[balthazar]

On 10/8/2018 at 8:26 PM, dfelt said:

I would have to agree with you on the data you point out here. It has been interesting that Diesel has lost a bit of it's benefit with stronger turbo gas motors and what electric power trains are doing. The break even point as we have discussed in other threads here have shown some crazy long years of ownership to recover the cost. Other than businesses, it will be hard for normal people to really justify the new straight 6 diesel or 3L Duramax that they are coming out with I feel. I hope they have it smooth and quiet like the Cruze diesel was. No one would know a diesel was next to them in how quiet that engine was.

The EXACT same POV can be expressed towards EVs- very high buy-in threshold & hard for 'normal' people to justify. Hence the sales figures.

[G. David Felt]

58 minutes ago, balthazar said:

The EXACT same POV can be expressed towards EVs- very high buy-in threshold & hard for 'normal' people to justify. Hence the sales figures.

Yet Diesels have been around long enough to have reduced their cost and yet have not.

As such, I do expect as the EVs take off prices will come down across the whole spectrum of autos from entry level to Luxury.

[balthazar]

^ So has IC vehicles, but the ATP overall continues to rise. Don't expect EV cars to drop appreciably in cost. Once they are in solid enough demand that they are finally turning a profit, the OEMs are not going to push to reduce revenue by appreciably lowering price and potentially dip back into the red.
 

It's not the way commerce works.

 

[G. David Felt]

9 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ So has IC vehicles, but the ATP overall continues to rise. Don't expect EV cars to drop appreciably in cost. Once they are in solid enough demand that they are finally turning a profit, the OEMs are not going to push to reduce revenue by appreciably lowering price and potentially dip back into the red.
 

It's not the way commerce works.

 

I understand that, I am just trying to say that once we recover R&D on the high end of auto pricing, we should be able to move electric powertrains into the low end of auto costs so that you can have a proper $20,000 auto that is pure electric and profitable.

 

[dwightlooi]

15 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I understand that, I am just trying to say that once we recover R&D on the high end of auto pricing, we should be able to move electric powertrains into the low end of auto costs so that you can have a proper $20,000 auto that is pure electric and profitable.

 

There are three flaws to this logic...

#1 There is no significant R&D to recover on electric drive trains. Neither motors nor inverters are anything "new".

#2 The main costs in the electric drive train is the battery. You cannot have a $20,000 car with a $12,000 battery. And, the reason the battery is $12,000 is the physical cost of the cells in the battery. And, that, is again not an emerging technology with a lot of cost reduction pending either due to improvements or economies of scale. Those same cells have been used in Laptops and all manners of personal electronics for decades. That $40 battery you stick in the Camera or $80 battery for your laptop? Imagine that you need 200~400 of them and with liquid cooling.

#3 There is still the fundamental problem of energy densities. Gasoline is at 46 MJ/kg vs Lithium-Ion Batteries at 0.30 MK/kg.

[G. David Felt]

11 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

There are three flaws to this logic...

#1 There is no significant R&D to recover on electric drive trains. Neither motors nor inverters are anything "new".

#2 The main costs in the electric drive train is the battery. You cannot have a $20,000 car with a $12,000 battery. And, the reason the battery is $12,000 is the physical cost of the cells in the battery. And, that, is again not an emerging technology with a lot of cost reduction pending either due to improvements or economies of scale. Those same cells have been used in Laptops and all manners of personal electronics for decades. That $40 battery you stick in the Camera or $80 battery for your laptop? Imagine that you need 200~400 of them and with liquid cooling.

#3 There is still the fundamental problem of energy densities. Gasoline is at 46 MJ/kg vs Lithium-Ion Batteries at 0.30 MK/kg.

I disagree:

1) There is always engineering costs to recover from all work in building something, we see this in everything we design and build, everything has costs to recover. You cannot say that a design of a proper platform that incorporates waterproof motors, electronics, etc. does not have significant engineering costs. Mechanical engineer average wage is $69,019, electrical engineer average wage is $73,368, computer engineer average wage $94,898, auto engineer average wage $73,938. All these costs have to be recovered as you design, implement, test and validate the design and build before you can go into production. These are not trivial costs. There is significant R&D to recover. Static thinking is that electric motors and inverters have not changed. They have and will continue too.

2) As I posted already in the GM thread to you about battery cost reduction you look at this in a very conservative no change approach that costs would not come down. They have and will continue to as they have dropped 24% from 2016 to 2017 at $209 per kWh cost with the focus being on less than $100 per kWh by 2025. This will ripple out into all things and once we move to mass production of solid state batteries with a higher energy density and much faster charging times this will change again. R&D will drive moving forward better ways to build batteries that are denser and more capable than what we have now or only a few years ago.

3) In regards to energy density, it is improving all the time. Oil took millions of years to form and over 100 years to improve it from the crud version used with the initial ICE auto to today's versions sold. Battery density will continue to improve and with the increase in density we will see a decrease in cost due to natural competition of business.

TheEnergyStorageFrontierLithiumIonBatteriesAndBeyond_MRSBulletin40106715.pdf

 

For those interested in more details of how the last 5 years have gone with improvements you can read more here: http://www.emvalley.com/?From=Quora

[dwightlooi]

2 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I disagree:

1) There is always engineering costs to recover from all work in building something, we see this in everything we design and build, everything has costs to recover....

2) As I posted already in the GM thread to you about battery cost reduction you look at this in a very conservative no change approach that costs would not come down...

3)...Battery density will continue to improve and with the increase in density we will see a decrease in cost due to natural competition of business...

Of course there are costs associated with electric drive trains. It is simply not substantially different from developing a new generation of ICE or transmission. Of course, battery costs is being reduced. But it is not dramatic because it is not an emerging technology and has always been seeing reduction from mass production and evolution in the electronics space. Chemical battery density will NEVER approach combustible hydrocarbons. This is not an engineering problem; it is a physics problem. This also why you will never fly to Tokyo in an electric 777!