Time's up for petrol cars, says GM chief

[Spec]

And we have what, like 4% on that 6% for Hydro?

Spec.

[Patroklos]

Is that graph for all energy requirements or just electricity Oerdin, because he said electricity.

BTW, Nuclear

[Japher]

Nuclear

but only if we can agree on a way to pronounce it

[Dinner]

GM has announced it will design no new V-8 engines in the foreseeable future. Plans on having turbo V-6s instead. This is the type of improvements they need to do in order to comply with California's CO2 laws and the inevitable national CO2 laws once the obstructionist Bush is out of office.

Bye-Bye to GM’s V-8s - Car News

1 | 2
GM kills V-8 family and, like Ford, embraces powertrain downsizing.
BY ALISA PRIDDLE, January 2008

The ubiquitous V-8 engine under the hood of full-size SUVs and big cars could go the way of the eight-track tape deck in a modern world where fuel-efficiency and emissions standards are redefining the cars and trucks of tomorrow.

New regulations that will require U.S. vehicle fleets to achieve 35 mpg are responsible for General Motors’ decision to kill plans for a new double overhead cam V-8 engine for luxury cars to replace the aging Northstar V-8, Bob Lutz, GM vice chairman, says in an interview at the 2008 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

“The replacement of the Northstar, that cancellation was the direct result of the 35-mpg fuel legislation.” GM chairman Rick Wagoner says when the new V-8 family program began, “there was more optimism than we have today,” that V-8 engines could survive in today’s regulatory climate. The engine was to go into production next year, prior to phasing out the Northstar V-8 that is found in many Cadillacs, that is scheduled to be phased out in 2010.

Don’t expect new V-8 families in the future, Lutz says. Rather, look for V-6s tuned to provide low-end torque to power large vehicles.

Ford has been publicizing its EcoBoost powertrain strategy to provide V-8 power with a family of turbocharged V-6 engines with direct injection, starting with a 3.5-liter V-6 in the Lincoln MKS, followed by the Ford Flex, and eventually rolling out to 500,000 vehicles in the next five years.
Ford F-150 Gets V-6 for 2010

The new 2009 Ford F-150 full-size pickup is launching with an all-V-8 lineup for 2009, but a V-6 with EcoBoost will join the lineup for the 2010 model year, says Mark Fields, Ford president of The Americas.

Lutz says he agrees with the EcoBoost (direct-injection, turbocharged) approach, one which Volkswagen has been using for years, as has GM in Europe. The variable valve-timing and turbocharging for the Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky, and Chevy HHR SS employ similar technology, he says.

And the concept is perfectly valid for big vehicles, in his opinion. “You can tune the turbo differently for low-end torque where you need acceleration in a heavy car and the turbo fades out once the vehicle is in motion and sustaining. With sustaining, a little four-cylinder engine in a big car is perfectly sufficient.”

Wagoner wonders if the average customer cares how many cylinders are under the hood if the performance is satisfactory, suggesting without a badge, many consumers would not know how many cylinders are under the hood.

Less is More Under the Hood

“So we’re going to see a lot of engine downsizing,” Lutz tells Car and Driver. “What has been V-8 will become V-6, and what was V-6 will become fours. That is a relatively inexpensive ($1500–$2000) solution.” Even with the investment, “it will not get you from 25 mpg to 35 mpg. It will get you part way there.”

Many existing V-8s will remain, Lutz says, “but I don’t see anybody investing a ton of money into families of all-new V-8s.”

“I would predict pickup trucks in the future, and full-size SUVs, will have a lot of diesel engines and unquestionably the mix will shift to V-6 engines in full-size sport utilities,” he says. “You can make a small V-6 behave just like a V-8. All it takes is money.”
Another Round of Ethanol

Click here to find out more!

If the industry were to make a full-scale adoption of ethanol (GM used the Detroit show to announce a partnership with Coskata Incorporated of Warrenville, Illinois, which claims it has a process to produce low-cost ethanol from a variety of waste materials as opposed to just grain), the vehicle mix could be exactly as it is today, Lutz says, complete with large cars and trucks.

Without the ethanol solution, the industry will see an array of expensive diesels, expensive hybrids, semi-expensive extended range electric vehicles, super-expensive fuel-cell vehicles, and some conventional gasoline engines whose fuel-economy numbers have to be compensated for by vehicles that get beyond the 35 mpg with expensive alternative powertrains, Lutz says. “Without a shift in fuel, there is going to be a change in the complexion of vehicles offered by the auto industry in the future.”

Otherwise, Lutz says it would cost $6000 per car, on average, for GM to meet the 35 mpg requirements with the current vehicle-size spectrum. Even still, “we must make some choices,” he says, such as whether to make the next-generation Chevy Impala rear-drive with both a V-8 and V-6.
Make Up Your Mind on Impala, Please

That was the original plan for the Impala, to better differentiate it from the front-drive Chevy Malibu. That decision has flip-flopped many times, and still is up in air, Lutz says, but the current thinking (note the date, it could change again), is that moving to rear-drive with a V-8 would be unwise. “We are trying to preserve the size of vehicles Americans want to buy,” he says.

Meanwhile, Lutz says a decision has been made on bringing a version of the Holden Commodore VE Ute to the U.S. as an El Camino, of sorts. While he would not spill the beans, other reports have said it is a go to round out the Pontiac G8 family that has a sedan, but may not include the wagon. Complicating the decision to import the Holden from Australia has been the high Australian dollar compared with the U.S. dollar. Lutz has said if it does come to the U.S., it will not be badged a Chevy.

http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/14532/bye-bye-to-gms-v-8s.html

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Care to guess again? World energy production by source:

I said electricity generation, not energy production. Petrochemicals are mainly used for such things as vehicles and mobile stuff like agricultural and construction equipment not electricity generation. Other fossil fuels (coal/natural gas) along with nuclear and hydroelectricity are what powers most grids.

[Dinner]

Oh, I don't know. Even in the US patroleum and natural gas provide 21.7% of electricity production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sources_of_Electricity_in_the_US_2005_New.png

It's even higher in the rest of the world.

[Dinner]

Here's world electricity production by source. Petroleum and natural gas make up about 26%.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The problem with Coal liquafication is that it will be almost guaranteed to be more expensive then Oil even at these costs is. And because the Infrastructure would take Billions of dollars and years to develop it won't be invested in until its clearly going to be profitable. But the depletion of Oil is going to cause a major Depression, drying up funds and causing market volatility that will scare away ALL investments. I think we will be looking at shortfalls of 10% of demand in very short order and Oil has over the last 5 years shown a negative elasticity of demand (increased price lead to increased consumption), the system simply can not use less fuel short of grinding to a halt, prices will simply rise until regions or individuals do in fact grind to a halt.

[Dinner]

If it matters a smaller displacement V-8 which shuts off cyclinders under low power loads could still make the 35mpg target as long as the rest of the car was made out of light weight materials like aluminum and plastic composites. It can't be one of the domestics low cost low tech engines though it would have to be a truly modern high performance engine. Even better if it had twin turbos on it.

[Dinner]

BTW natural gas is a petro chemical. Most of our supply comes from the exact same wells our oil comes out of.

[PLATO]

At this point, I think it is just stupid not to go nuclear. The goal should be 100% nuclear electricity production.

If the Navy can build a small reactor with enough energy to supply a small city and make it fit in a closet...and make its emissions less than a standard civilian reactor, then I really think we have all been missing something here.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If it matters a smaller displacement V-8 which shuts off cyclinders under low power loads could still make the 35mpg target as long as the rest of the car was made out of light weight materials like aluminum and plastic composites. It can't be one of the domestics low cost low tech engines though it would have to be a truly modern high performance engine. Even better if it had twin turbos on it.

What?!? Turbo cars need a **** load of gas under boost so they dont run lean and/or detonate. Its also a restriction from the exhaust at low rpms which reduces torque considerably.

A regular 240SX has 180cc injectors on a 2.4l and a turbo one has 270cc injectors on a 2.0l engine. All turbo cars are like that. How is it better for economy?

And why Twin?! Twin turbos are useless unless you have progressive turbines which usually not the case and used on high end sprts car like a Supra. They are also very expensive and not as reliable as equal turbines. And Twin equal turbines are scary since they give out massive amounts of power on the spot from a specifiq rpm depending on the AR of the hotside. One big turbo is better than having 2 small ones. Why do you think most sports car owners remove their twin turbos to swap for a single bigger one?

And another thing. Why would you want to turbo a car that doesn't run on all its cylinders for economy? Do realize that you would be cancelling out the "economy" of the non-running cylinders? And that half the energy used and made by the turbo would be lost?

Do you know how a turbo system works?

Spec.

[Dinner]

Not really. Rotaries do but they're very thirsty engines.

[Spec]

I am not talking about rotaries but turbos on cylinder engines.

A turbo is a turbo.

Has nothing to do with or for gas economy.

Spec.

[Dinner]

Then you are simply wrong. A V-6 turbo will consume less gas then a V-8.