dwightlooi

Too many variants... not much innovation. I am sure they are competent engines, but not particularly ground breaking. Instead of eleven, six would have been enough. And, that six can span the 80~300hp with 100% common bore size, bores, rods, valves, springs, cams, pumps, etc. 1.5L -- 3-cylinder Atkinson -- 85 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 85 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm 2.0L -- 4-cylinder Atkinson-- 113 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 113 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm 1.5L -- 3-cylinder NA -- 130 bhp @ 6600 rpm, 113 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm 2.0L -- 4-cylinder NA -- 175 bhp @ 6600 rpm, 150 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm 1.5L -- 3-cylinder Turbo -- 220 bhp @ 6000 rpm, 193 lb-ft @ 2600~6000 rpm 2.0L -- 4-cylinder Turbo -- 300 bhp @ 6200 rpm, 260 lb-ft @ 2200~6000 rpm Basically, you have outputs in six steps... 85, 113, 130, 175, 220 and 300. There are only two displacements, determined by piston count. At the bottom of the output spectrum are the Atkinson cammed engines designed for maximum fuel economy. In the middle are the Naturally aspirated engines designed for decent performance without the additional cost of forced induction. At the top rung are the turbocharged engines with 150 hp per liter. Everything has an 86 mm bore x 86 mm stroke. The valves, springs, lifters, followers, wrist pins, connecting rods, bolts, coil packs, sensors, tensioners, cam phasers, sprockets, water pumps, starters, alternators, etc. are common and interchangeable between all six engines. The crankshaft is common between all the three cylinder and four cylinder variants. There are three piston styles -- a 15:1 for Atkinson, 12.3:1 for Normally Aspirated and 10.8:1 for turbocharged engines. Nothing here requires any technological breakthrough. the only thing significant tech here is the use of 2-stage VVL alongside continuous cam phasing on all engines. The cam switching system is already in use with the 2.5L Ecotec in the Impala and is not exactly new. In this case the cam lobe switcher is used to create distinct intake durations. This is used so that part of the compression stroke can be negated to lower effective compression and displacement. In the Atkinson engines the intake durations allow effective compression to be 9.8 or 11.5:1 and effective displacement between 325 and 383 cc per cylinder. In the NA engines, it allows 10.5 or 12.3:1 compression with 425 to 500 cc of effective displacement per cylinder. In the turbocharged engines it allows 9.2 or 10.8:1 compression and 425 to 500 cc per cylinder. Playing with intake duration extension into the compression stroke and thereby influencing true compression and displacement is key to using higher than normal compression ratios.

The point here is that you actually get the best fuel economy for any given power output with large displacement + low specific output. Try beating the fuel economy of a 140hp 2.5L SOHC 8-valve Atkinson cammed engine with a 140 hp 1.4L DOHC 16-valve or 20-valve turbo. You won't beat it -- save yourself the trouble and don't even try. But, low displacement engines have an interesting role in beating displacement taxes and if you are going that route one thing that is worth exploring is to go really small and really high output. Doing any less really isn't worth the expense and effort.

The current word is never... both will be retired.

The XF is in part handicapped by the long overhangs and mass of the DEW98 platform (think Lincoln LS / Ford Thunderbird). The XS is unconstrained by 1990s antics... and it should be interesting. The 2.0L Jaguar engine is rather uninspiring -- it's basically the 2.0 Ecoboost -- being slower on response and inferior in output to most of the competition. The 3.0 V6 is not bad @ 340 bhp although I threw a rod bearing on a loaner from the dealer (LOL) if they'll allow the owner to permanently turn off that annoying start-stop feature.

We Well, that has everything to do with AWD and nothing to do with the engine.

I don't know why they keep coming up with weird names like "Clubman", "Countryman" and "Paceman" for the fattened up and enlarged versions of their product. Just call it the... Not so Mini Copper

Anyway... with the 460 bhp LT1 and the 630 bhp LT4, GM has plenty of firepower to throw onto a super sedan. The Europeans can try to get 600+ hp out of a turbo V6 or turbo V8 (of a smaller displacement). It's doable. But it'll be neither lighter, nor smaller, nor more fuel efficient, nor offer better drivability. And, it'll certainly cost a lot more and be a lot more complex. But, hey, it looks like they are committed to the path.

That's because Audi doesn't make a fuel efficient V8 engine because they are either unwilling or unable to adopt a pushrod 2-valve design! Think about it... For the port injected generation, the Audi 40-valve 4.2 V8 made 340 hp / 302 lb-ft, weighed 195 kg and got 14 / 21 mpg. Moving to Direct Injection, their 4.2 32-valve 4.2 FSI V8 engine made 414 hp / 317 lb-ft, weighed 212 kg and got 13 / 20 mpg That's horrible! And the only way they know how to deal with it is to go to a V6 and bolt on a blower or pair of turbos. For comparison:- For the port injected generation, the GM 16-valve 6.2 Pushrod V8 made 426 hp / 420 lb-ft, weighed 183 kg and got 16 / 24 mpg (Camaro SS). Moving to Direct Injection, the GM 16-valve 6.2 Pushrod V8 made 455 hp / 460 lb-ft, weighed 211 kg and got 17 / 29 mpg (Corvette Stingray - albeit not weight comparable to the S4/RS4) Pushrods + Displacement = lighter, more powerful, much more torque and significantly better economy And, that's despite 48% greater displacement. If that doesn't call into question the "superiority" of low displacement, high complexity and high specific output designs, well... it should.

Actually, I don't think the CTS-V needs anymore power than the outgoing car. The new (LWB Alpha) CTS is about 350 lbs lighter, so 556 hp would have been just fine. 600+ hp will be incidental to switching to a 5th Gen Supercharged small block V8, and that's all good. But it is not strictly speaking necessary and probably wouldn't make the car significantly faster. So as far as whether the engine makes the same power as the Corvette version or a few tens of horsepower less, I think htat's immaterial. As far as RWD goes, it's actually easier for the CTS to put power down vs the Corvette. Traction is generally a function of contact patch, friction co-efficient of the tire/road interface and WEIGHT. Being about 700 lbs heavier actually helps with traction. The car will ultimately be slower because you have more mass to accelerate. But you are going to be melting less rubber. If the car is 70,000 lbs heavier you wouldn't be melting any rubber (of course you wouldnt be going any where in a hurry as well).

Sad thing is that the ELR is a beautiful car... a good designed wasted on a product that will never sell. Swap the Voltec drive-train for a simple 2.0T and selling the ELR for $40K will see plenty of ELRs on the road.

Well, Tennessee is a Right-to-Work state. What that means is that regardless of whether a plant is represented by a Union, workers have the right of free association and no union contract can stipulate that any worker must be a member of the union and/or pay union dues as a condition for being hired or continued employment. So, let's say 55% vote for Unionization and 60% actually join the UAW's local at the plant. The remaining 40% do not have to be union members, obey UAW strike decisions or submit to their censure or even bay their union dues to work there. In other words, union membership, participation, funding and/or obedience is strictly voluntary and limited to those workers who want and value union representation. All it means is that all the workers will have to abide by the wages, work rules, seniority and benefits negotiated by the Union -- which they may or may not prefer over generally more meritocratic structures favored by management. The leading reasons workers vote against unionization are that being free of Unions and hence free of strikes and generous packages for senior employees tend to bring more work to the plant and result in higher growth and promotional opportunities. That and many younger workers prefer to be rewarded for performance rather than seniority. Many workers also disagree with the political positions of the Union(s) and do not wish to spend a few hundred dollars a month supporting causes, political parties and policies they personally oppose through Union dues which they have no choice but to pay if they want to work at the factory.

It's not just bugs, also additional deliberate actions which increase wear and tear like auto-stop-start. A starter which normally has to do it's thing once per trip now has to do it 20~30 times. If a starter lasts 15 years it'll now last 1/2 a year if it wasn't dramatically improved. I am sure it is beefed up considerably, but is it 20~30 times more durable? That's very doubtful. Another example is auxiliary air injection. Many cars now have a pump that force feeds fresh air into the exhaust during and for a few minutes after a cold start to help the exhaust run hot and fire up the cats sooner. This is a motor, a relay, a solenoid and one or two vacuum operated diaphragms which weren't there on cars without the system. On M-Bs a very common failure is that the relay gets stuck after a few years (usually 5~10) and the motor keeps running until it burns out or wears out. Another very common thing these days is the move to very low viscosity (hence) drag oil like the 5W20 and 0W20 formulations. Ultimately they have lower sear film strength and increase wear, but they may get you an additional 1/2 MPG!

About time... Making more than 256 hp Naturally Aspirated on 3 liters will mean revving the thing to 8 grand or higher. Highly unlikely given the "family" car application that is the Legacy. A single turbo will easily push 300hp with very little boost and minimal lag from 3 liters though and I believe that is where they are headed.

As a fuel, propane is a better fuel than Natural Gas. Propane is Liquid at very mild pressures which means it is denser and hence easier to store and more economical to transport. Unlike CNG which is typically stored in 3600 psi rated pressure vessels, propane tanks or bottles are pressurized only to about 120 psi. Even in 110 degree F heat, the vessel will only see about 200 psi. This means that the pressure vessel can be made cheaper, lighter and safer. It is possible to store propane in aerosol spray style cans for instance, but not CNG. While the specific energy is comparable to Natural Gas (about 49 vs 53 MJ/kg), Propane is about 3 times denser than 3000 psi CNG and denser even than liquified NG. This means that for every volumetric unit of propane you get about three times as much energy when combusted. The only reason we even use CNG is because we have more of it from fossil fuel fields.

Swept volume -- 0.5 x bore_size x stroke_length x Number_of_cylinders. They don't care about effective displacement. Now, Mazda did pull a fast one and called their 3.0 Miller Cycle V6 a 2.3 Miller Cycle V6 based on the fact that about 24% of the intake charge is kicked back out the cylinder because the intake valves stay open during first 24% of the compression stroke. But that's for the US Market, and the US has no displacement tax, so whatever they call it has no regulatory consequence whatsoever.

I don't know... but two things come to mind. No transmission at all -- constant ratio and hence the "constant" relative velocity between the engine and the wheels. A Continuously Variable Transmission -- where the engine can, under certain conditions, remain at a constant speed while the wheels accelerate. I am guessing it's the latter! LOL!

Yes, yes, I get that. But the idea is that this may be more interesting and advantageous compared to building 2.5L and 3.6L DOHC fours and V6es. Given the power demands and desired rev range of today's "passenger" cars -- by that I mean the Cruzes and Corollas of the world -- the most efficient engine in the 140 hp class is actually a 2.5~2.7 liter four cylinder with a SOHC, 2-valves per cylinder, direct injection, about 15:1 compression and an Atkinson Cycle cam. Specific output will be in the low-to-mid 50hp/L range, with an effective operating displacement of about 1.7~1.9 liters, but it'll have lower brake specific fuel consumption than any DOHC-4v 1.4T of the same 140hp output you can put together. But, such an engine is not without it's flaws. For one, it's BIG meaning some markets will penalize it with a BIG tax even if it allows the Cruze to get say 30/45 EPA mpg. Secondly, it's big meaning it is heavier than an aluminum block engine of a much smaller size. Finally, it's BIG meaning it has big slugs going up and down and that generates more vibrations and NVH -- although potentially not any worse than the 2.5 GM engine or the 2.7L Toyota I4 in the cute-Utees. Look.... DOHC is bad for fuel economy, 4-valves are bad for economy, turbos (consequently low compression) is bad for economy. Unfortunately, stupid law makers don't get it or don't care!

Anyway, there was nothing wrong with the much more attractive Concept they showed a year ago... they should not have bored it out. http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1088446_2015-subaru-legacy-concept-live-photos-and-video-from-l-a

Well... Toyota has been buying up Fuji shares and now owns about 16.5% of Fuji. May not sound like a lot, but that actually makes them the largest single share holder.

One word... Yawn I mean really... uninspring styling, uninspring interior, status quo powertrain, mediocre performance, ordinary fuel economy and, wow, the biggest thing that can talk about is if the infotainment screen is 7-inches or 6.2-inches.

No, it won't actually be lighter than a large displacement IBC engine. That's because a pushrod small block so extremely compact, lightweight and efficient it's not even funny... It may or may not be more fuel efficient, but if so it won't be a hellof a lot more fuel efficient. The main advantages are really the ability to skirt the higher displacement tax brackets in some markets and the lighter reciprocating masses resulting in somewhat improved vibrations and NVH. Those and also because there is nothing like it on the market -- a 2.4L V6 or a 3.2L V8 will be relatively unique. There are two ways you can make big power on a small displacement engine. By making a lot of boost (hence torque) or by spinning the engine really fast (hp = torque x rpm / 5252). Here we are doing a moderate amount of both -- using some boost and maintaining it higher than usual. This approach avoids the lag and poor cruise efficiency of a low compression, high boost engine. It also avoids the low end drivability of a stratospherically revving naturally aspirated engine. Methanol-Water injection will not work for a production car. Firstly, you can't get methanol at gas stations or grocery stores. Methanol is in fact a toxic substance which causes blindness and a bunch of other acute health issues when ingested or breathed in. Nitrous Oxide is illegal for use on public roads in most states and similar supply infrastructure issues exists. Ethanol or water or some mixture thereof is better but still... anything short of a factory rally car for the street is not going to resort to "Emergency Power" susbtance injection systems. Fact of the matter is that no factory production car is going to resort to a system which has enough fluid or gas to give just a few minutes of increased power, and cannot be easily refilled anywhere and everywhere. If you are after very high octane ratings running on E85 will get you most of the benefits of running an alcohol-water injection system. I think that a factory car with a "GM-1" or "MW-50" switch -- ala WWII Luftwaffe Fighters -- in the cockpit will be interesting but ultimately impractical.

Bimmers are getting fatter and fatter. It started with the F10, carried over the to F30 3-series and now the not so coupe coupes. BTW, that engine is not making 240 hp and 255 lb-ft... well at the wheels maybe!

4th Generation Ecotec (circa 2017) The 4th Generation Ecotec represents a significant architectural shift in GM’s High Feature engines and a significant reduction in the number of different engines in the lineup. There is no longer Family 0, 1 and 2 Ecotecs, and the total number of concurrently produced variants goes from 24 to just 5 for all applications. The following summarizes the key features of the Ecotec4:- All engines are turbocharged and utilize air-to-water intercooler(s) All engines sport a 79 mm (bore) x 81.5mm (stroke) with a 10.8:1 compression ratio The valvetrain transitions to a SOHC layout with concentric cams 2-stage cam profile switching and dual independent VVT are standard Direct gasoline injection is standard Pistons, rods, valves, springs, lifters, rockers and most parts are fully interchangeable Vee configuration engines feature reverse flow heads and a single turbocharger Ecotec4 engines are available in Inline-3, Inline-4, V-6 and V-8 configurations The Ecotec4 family seeks to achieve class leading refinement, superior fuel efficiency and performance equivalent to or exceeding the engines it replaces. Unlike previous GM turbocharged engines, the static compression ratio is kept at a lofty 10.8:1, while boost pressures are reduced by about 33%. High off-boost compression promotes reduced fuel consumption during cruise. The incorporation of independent VVT and a cam switching system allows the engine to manage compression under load by selecting between two intake periods and dialing in either overlap or keeping the intake valves open into the compression stroke. This allows 87 octane fuel to be used without the risk of denotation although output may be reduced. Because the boost levels are lower the engines do not make as much torque as the previous generation. The turbochargers are not actually smaller and, featuring 3D aerodynamics, are actually more efficient. Combined with the extremely small pressurized volume afforded by air-to-water charge coolers, boost rise is radically quick and maximum torque is maintained over the widest range in the industry. Most of the Ecotec4 engines stretches their torque peak over a 4000 rpm range – amounting to a 1000 rpm wider plateau than the previous generation. Maximum engine speed is capped at 6200 rpm allowing very light valve springs to be used reducing valve train drag, which along with using a single cam design provides superior fuel efficiency over competing DOHC offerings. The Ecotec4 family also replaces the previous 3.0 and 3.6L engines with a 2.4L boosted V6 and a 3.2L V8. These engines are very low in displacement for their cylinder count and offers a unique level of refinement and efficiency over the competition. The 2.4L turbo V6 is roughly equivalent to the outgoing 3.6L naturally aspirated engine, while the 3.2L V-8 matches the output of the outgoing 3.6L Twin-turbo engine. Both engines are about 6~12% more fuel efficient and 30% lower in NVH compared the engines they replace. Unlike the previous generation 3.6L bi-turbo V6, the new 2.4T V6 and 3.2T V8 do not drive like turbocharged engines. The combination of very light reciprocating mass, high compression and relatively modest boost allows it to mimic the driving characteristics naturally aspirated engines of 50% greater displacement. The low displacement of these power plants also allow GM to offer 6 cylinders against competing fours and V8s against competing V6 offerings in markets which imposes a displacement tax. 1.2T Ecotec4 (LV3) Configuration---Inline-3 Aluminum Block & Heads w/ single balance shaft Displacement---1198 cc Aspiration--------Honeywell MGT1544 turbocharger @ 14.7 psi w/ air-to-water intercooler Power-------------160 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque------------140 lb-ft @ 2600~6000 rpm Fuel Cut----------6200 rpm Fuel Type--------91 Octane recommended; 87 Octane (min) required Transmission----Hydramatic 6T40 6-speed automatic Applications-----Replaces all 1.4, 1.4T, 1.6 and 1.8 Ecotec engines 1.2T Electra (LVE) Configuration---Inline-3 Aluminum Block & Heads w/ single balance shaft (Miller Cycle) Displacement---1198 cc Aspiration-------- Honeywell MGT1544 turbocharger @ 14.7 psi w/ air-to-water intercooler Power-------------160 bhp @ 6000 rpm + 40 bhp @ 6000 rpm (Electric; via Flywheel Integrated Motor-generator) Torque------------140 lb-ft @ 2600~6000 rpm + 120 lb-ft @ 0 rpm (Electric; via Flywheel Integrated Motor-generator) Fuel Cut----------6200 rpm Fuel Type--------91 Octane recommended; 87 Octane (min) required Transmission----Electramatic 6E40 6-speed automatic Applications-----1.4L Voltec Drive, 2.4L eAssist 1.6T Ecotec4 (LV4) Configuration---Inline-4 Aluminum Block & Heads w/ Dual balance shafts Displacement---1598 cc Aspiration--------Honeywell MGT2056 Dual Scroll turbocharger @ 14.7 psi w/ air-to-water intercooler Power-------------214 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque------------186 lb-ft @ 2200~6000 rpm Fuel Cut----------6200 rpm Fuel Type--------91 Octane recommended; 87 Octane (min) required Transmission----Hydramatic 6T50 6-speed Automatic Applications-----Replaces all 2.0, 2.0T, 2.4 and 2.5 Ecotec engines 2.4T Ecotec4 (LV6) Configuration---Reverse Flow 90° V-6 Aluminum Block & Heads w/ single balance shaft Displacement---2397 cc Aspiration--------Honeywell MGTX2863R Dual Scroll turbocharger @ 14.7 psi w/ air-to-water intercooler Power-------------320 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque------------280 lb-ft @ 2000~6000 rpm Fuel Cut----------6200 rpm Fuel Type--------91 Octane recommended; 87 Octane (min) required Transmission----8T50 6-speed Automatic, 8L50 6-speed Automatic Applications-----Replaces 2.0T (high output), 3.0, 3.6 Ecotec engines 3.2T Ecotec4 (LV8) Configuration---Reverse Flow 90° V-8 Aluminum Block & Heads Displacement---3196 cc Aspiration--------Honeywell MGTX3067R Dual Scroll turbocharger @ 14.7 psi w/ air-to-water intercooler Power-------------428 bhp @ 6000 rpm Torque------------375 lb-ft @ 2000~6000 rpm Fuel Cut----------6200 rpm Fuel Type--------91 Octane recommended; 87 Octane (min) required Transmissio-----Hydramatic 8T70 8-speed automatic, Hydramatic 8L70 8-speed automatic Applications-----Replaces 3.6 TT engine

Here's another joke within the release... except it's not funny and potentially a big money loser. GM is leasing these things for $699/month for 39 months. A Lease is basically based on the depreciation of the car + a little profit for the dealer. $699 for 39 months means that they are assuming that the depreciation of the ELR is going to be less than $27,261 over 3 year and 3 months. Are they freaking insane? I mean who wants a 3~4 year old ELR for $50K? That's a 64% value retention -- right up there with the residual value kings like a Lexus ES or Toyota Camry. According to Edmunds, a Volt 2011 Volt only kept 52% of it's as new value. And, they believe that a $76K ELR will retain 64%. They'll be lucky if it keeps 40% of it's value. Remember there are no subsidies in the used plug-in market. BTW, anyone looking at the ELR will also be looking at the BMW i3 -- another plug-in with a range extending piston engine. That goes for $45K (before incentives and subsidies). GM is expecting a 3~4 year old ELR to resell for MORE THAN THE BRAND NEW BMW i3!?!! I don't know what they are smoking, but it must be pretty darn strong stuff!

Update... as far as Roots Blower are concerned, the new state of the art is the 2nd Generation Eaton TVS. The first of these the TVS R1740 is being used in the LT4 engine powering the new Corvette Z06. The 2nd Generation TVS blowers operate at up to 20,000 rpm (33% faster than than the 1st generation TVS. The operating speed may have improved but, being external compression air pumps, roots blowers are still most efficient in low boost applications. Typically, they are most efficient at about 0.6 bar of boost (8.8 psi), they OK at 0.9 bar (13.2 psi), beyond that they get very inefficient very quickly. This is because air exiting the blower are still at atmospheric pressure. It is when they are packed into the plenum at a faster rate than the engine is consuming air that pressure builds. When the plenum is at high boost pressures air actually gets pushed back into the blower when those lobes open up to the plenum before being forced back out again -- this is highly inefficient and it gets worse with increasing plenum pressures. Below are the compressor maps of two Eaton TVS blowers the R1900 (used in the CTS-V's LSA engine) and the R900 (used in Audis and Jaguars sixes). If you draw a horizontal line at 1.6 bar (corresponding 0.6 bar of boost pressure) you'll see that they are very efficient indeed. At 1.9 bar they start to miss the peak efficiency "island". At 2.5 bar they suck.