A Two-Mode Hybrid for Highway Driving

I wish I knew how this was going to help get more rear wheel drive cars including the CAMARO into production.

Thats great, but thats late 2007. Its 2005 now!

That's all well and good but given the ridiculous and quite frankly laughable recent diatribe against GM by NY Times editor Tom Friedman GM should immediately cut their advertising as they did with the LA Times. It is simply unacceptable that GM continues to line the pockets of an organization which has apparently made it one of its stated missions to unreasonably attack GM at every chance even when those attacks have no basis in fact.

Please note Autoextremist's dead on accurate response to Friedman's column. See also The Car Connection's response. It validates the facts that those guys are sticking up for GM but, honestly, GM needs to start sticking up for itself or these kinds of unwarranted attacks will never cease.

Premium compact diesel car please.

We could save a lot of energy in the USA if people were only permited to build houses of 1400/1500 square feet.Any house larger than that is wasting energy heating and cooling unused space. I bet all those who want to have the cars run on lawn clippings have large homes that waste energy or do not even own a car.

I can't wait to get my hands on the 2007 Suburban.

Hey, Wright, I feel your pain buddy, but here's the NYT in a nutshell:

Do you play golf? Look at the NYT this way. You're on the tee of 185 yard par 3, with a lake guarding the green. In order to reach the pin, you have to hit the ball at least 175 yards over water.

The NYT is like the water hazard...there's no use complaining about it, just carry the ball past the hazard!

I know we’re concerned about the “DNA” of Hummer, but many potential buyers wouldn’t even dream of going off-road: they just love the look. Why not give them what they want with a “Street” version of the H3? (H3-Lite).

Pull off the heavy metal plates underneath, give them an extra year of OnStar and free roadside assistance instead of the big spare tire, maybe lower it a bit, and put in a 6 spd automatic transmission for the extra oomf and fuel economy- same price as the standard H3, but reaching a different market and polishing our green image at the same time.

I applaud GM on bringing a more affordable hybrid system to the market on the vehicles that need them the most. I think the sooner these can get to market, the better as it would be a huge boon in he PR war.

I believe that the displacement on demand is definitely going to help the hybrids. I'm still waiting to see what residuals are going to be for used hybrids approaching 100k miles, which is when their batteries seem to expire. How much to replace the batteries?
BTW, I applaud GM for working on both hybrid and hydrogen at the same time, and for working toward unique and possibly better solutions than just licensing the Toyota tech.

I can't wait for America to get off its addiction to foreign oil. So much technology, so much promise, so long to deliver.

I want GM to have a multiple strategy for high oil prices with the import of smaller cars like the Astra, Corsa and Zafira into the U.S. market. Also the Daewoo engineered T2X, Matiz and S3X and yes the BLS.

There is no reason for your brands to be starved of fuel efficient product and market share and volume generators.

Buick/Hummer = Romeo & Juliet

Pontiac/Buick/GMC = Death by starvation.

Pontiac/GMC = Sonny & Share

Bob, it is definitely advantageous for GM to work with DaimerChrysler (and Toyota) on venerable hybrid drivetrain systems.

For better or for worse, hybrid drivetrains (and clean diesel) are all we really have until fuel cell technology and hydrogen fuels become commercially viable. We are probably looking at a minimum of 10 years for the latter.

And we need the automotive industry's top Engineering talent working together to develop and enhance hybrid drivetrains across the board. If GM, Ford, Toyota, and Daimler are all working in a fog, then the engineering behind the drivetrains will only benefit a small subgroup of the driving population.

Keep up the good work, I was a Suburban owner until recently, when I traded my Chevy in for a Saturn Vue due to mileage issues. I would like to be behind the seat of another Suburban soon.

PS - I share the same sentiment as some others on this board that I would rather purchase an American made Toyota as compared to a Chinese made Chevy. Please do not contribute to our trade deficit further by offshoring or outsourcing any more production. People buy GM cars because they are American owned and American made. Take away a part of that equation, and GM will lose a good portion of their customers! I was dismayed to hear that all of GM's layoffs will come from North America. What about South America or overseas?

Hybrid tech for the big SUV/Trucks is all well and good, but I hope GM will introduce hybrid technology in midsized cars like the Malibu (and please, not with a 4 cyl - nothing worse than an underpowered car on the LA freeway system).

As for H3 Lite, do everything Dan said, then add chrome wheel dubs, low profile tires, and supercharger as options, and the buyers will come.

O.K., Honda is letting a family in CA test drive a hydrogren vehicle. I've said this on an earlier post, you've got to get one on the street (a regular Joe driving it) to show the naysayers how promising this is. I'm not what you'd call a "tree hugger", but I want GM to succeed and the foreign competition is really playing up fuel efficiency card, even though we all know they produce low fuel economy trucks just like the next automaker. Putting a hydrogen, or two, out there will give you a leg up on the competition, by helping change your image! Keep developing the hybrids, that's great, but it is just a catch-up at this point. Do that behind the scenes and get a hydrogen out on the road!

LM
GM does have a small group of Hydrogen MPVs (Chevy badged Opels) in Washignton DC as USPS mail carriers. I drove one last week. Surprisingly decent drive but not much different than if electric cars had been under development for the past 20 years.
Of course GM, nor Toyota, nor Ford et al can force this nation's enegy companies into developing, refining and distributing hydrogen. GM said the cost of a hydrogen station infrastructure would only be $15 billion. That's nothing compared to the billions going to fight in Iraq.

Now the problem is there isn't enough hydrogen to fill a US full of hydrogen "fuel" stations. And right now most hydrogen is produced using electricity from standard fossil fuels. Hopefully wave, wind and solar energy can develop fast enough to help produce this miracle hydrogen that will be fueling all these vehicles. Until then at least GM has cars that can run on Hydrogen already out there and they'll keep working on them.

The big deal to me is the mpg haven't gotten much better since the day I first drove a car. That's pretty ridiculous. Displacement on demand should be in every vehicle!
DT

This from the NYT story about GM's hybrid powertrain: "G.M.'s position is that incremental economy gains on popular large vehicles - full-size pickups are best-sellers in the United States - will have a greater effect than big improvements on smaller, less popular cars."

Did you catch how the NYT editorialized that phrase with the sly statement "GM's position" neglecting to explain the CAFE math driving GM's very logical position.

If you calculate a vehicle's mileage in units of gallons per mile (as is used in CAFE averaging) you will see that increasing a 20 mpg vehicle to 24 mpg will bring a larger CAFE improvement than increasing a 30 mpg vehicle up to 40 mpg.

Toyota and Honda built their little science project cars not so much to improve CAFE but to win over hearts of environmentalists and journalists, wisely relying on the typical American's ignorance of mathematics.

For the life of me I can't figure out why GM doesn't try to educate the public on this obscure bit of CAFE trivia. It would go a long way to helping American consumers understand GM's strategy in improving fleet fuel economy.

Did you know that using CAFE math, the average of 20 mpg and 60 mpg is 30 mpg? I didn't think so.

In my humble opinion, you have got it all wrong. The Hybrid technology that Toyota has is flawed, and not very efficent either. General Motors needs to be better not just keeping up. Be an initiator instead of a runner up. For my own intrest I shouldn't supply the internet world with my idea of how the hybrids can be more implementable and efficent. However, if you look for the answers they are out there, because thats where I have found them.
Also you're CVT could also use some redesigning, and should be implemented on you're larger vehicles to increase overall fuel efficeny. Its a bit of an elementry and antiquated design. But what could a punk 19 year old kid know any how?

GM should be getting more from it's alliances with Subaru and Isuzu. GM could get an all wheel drive platform from Subaru and more diesel engines from Isuzu. How about a diesel engine option for the Colorado, Canyon and H3?

The bias against GM, and US companies in general, is distrubing. I do agree, however, that GM must go the propaganda offensive-NOW. I am sick at having to defend US car companies from such Bull s--t all the time.

Nice, I definately can see a market for that technology. But personally, I would prefer to have an economy version of the Duramax Diesel in a half ton Silverado. I would think with current technology, that it would be pretty easy to put together a "Work Truck" to vehicle for 25K or less that gets 30 mpg.

I wanted to buy a hybrid. Forget about why, that's my business, just like it's your business to want a Hummer or a Corvette. GM doesn't have a hybrid, so I bought a Honda. It's a low volume product and not that important from the sales viewpoint.

EXCEPT: Now I'm buddies with the local Honda dealer, and my wife has been talking to the salesman, and she's wanting to try out a Honda to replace her old minivan. Oops! Now it's that much harder for me to get her to a Chevy dealership...

THAT'S WHY GM NEEDS HYBRIDS.

What a terrific approach for the technology. Perfect, Perfect, Perfect.

I just read Katsuaki Wtanabe's, President, Toyota Motor Corporation, statement that Toyota will sign a fuel cell cooperation agreement with GM soon. I have read GM has been working on fuel cells since the 1960's and is a leader in fuel cell research. Hopefully GM signs any agreements with competitors with its eyes wide open. I remember witnessing Don Esmond, Senior Vice President, Toyota Motor Sales, bragging that Toyota was well ahead of the competition in hybrid gas/electric vehicles and that competitors would have to pay Toyta royalties to build gas/electric hybrids. I do not think Toyota has GM's best interest at heart. Hopefully GM does not make a major mistake such as IBM did with its relationship with MicroSoft.

Sincerely,

EMV

"The hybrid system... will use a second set of gears and Displacement on Demand to achieve fuel economy in highway driving as well as in city driving"

This is just what we need! Something even more Rube Goldberg and kludgy than Toyota's hybrid technology. Even with Toyota's legendary best-in-the-industry standard of quality control, I just don't trust these claptrappy solutions.

Long term, hydrogen power in some form is the answer. Until that fine day arrives, diesel is a proven way to accomplish lower emissions and higher fuel efficiency. Diesels have lower specific fuel consumption than gasoline (hence lower CO2 emissions per mile) as well as inherently lower CO. Nitrogen oxides are a thing of the past with the most modern diesels and if the EPA would enact European Union-like standards for fuel cleanliness and quality, diesel's remaining bugaboos, sulfuric compounds and particulates, would also be a thing of the past. What's more, diesel can easily and cheaply adapt to flexible fuel capability, using renewable biological sources like corn, soybean, safflower and grapeseed oils, as well as recycled and re-refined lubricating and cooking oils.

For a sample of the state of the art in diesels, test drive a Volkswagen Jetta or Passat TDI. These engines admittedly run out of steam above 80 mph, but they compensate with gobs of low-rpm torque - peak torque of 180 ft/lbs at a measly 2500rpm - from less than 2 liters; that's a specific torque output of nearly 100 ft/lbs per liter! These cars won't peel a lot of rubber, but accelerate smartly, merge into traffic from on-ramps easily and cruise effortlessly at 85 mph. They have excellent throttle response and in-town driveability, returning 40-ish mpg in the city and up to 55 mpg on the freeway.

For comparison with hybrids, a Jetta TDI feels subjectively peppier than a Toyota Prius, and is cheaper to buy, cheaper to fuel, and cheaper to fix. Plus, no one has talked much about how hybrids' battery packs will be handled once they have worn out - they contain huge amounts of toxic heavy metals. Presumably, they will have to be recycled somehow, but certainly not for free. And I shudder to think of what a dealer will likely charge for replacing a worn out battery pack in a hybrid - a legitimate concern, since the battery packs will most certainly NOT last the life of the vehicle in real-world conditions.

I think it is a fairly solid principle that given more than one way to approach a problem, the lower the tech, the better. Diesel is a proven technology that has been refined over a century into a clean, relatively efficient, cost effective and ultimately usable and liveable alternative for passenger car power plants. At least as things stand now, hybrids are kludgy, complex, expensive, relatively untested, and not all that efficient for all the extra cost and complexity. Plus, no matter how one slices it, the economics of hybrids just plain suck.

In my opinion, GM should not rush pel-mel into "me-too" hybrid tech. GM already sells perfectly good diesel cars in the EU market (where 6 out of every 10 cars sold is diesel powered) through its Vauxhall and Opel nameplates. If GM and the oil industry, with some regulatory help from the EPA, concentrated instead on marketing refined diesel cars for the North American market which run on clean, sulfur-free diesel and/or bio-diesel, the customer would be better served and the money GM saved in R&D and manufacturing costs could be passed on to the buying public as well as perhaps rechanneling into hydrogen fuel cell research, toward a much to be preferred long-term goal - environmentally benign, cost-effective, infinitely renewable hydrogen power.

Hi GM,
I could not wait for GM to come out with a hybrid. In June 2005, I just purchased a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. Love it. Come on GM , hurry and get on the ball. This is the coming future. I could not wait until 2007 for a 4-wheel drive hybrid. Maybe by the time I am ready to sell Highlander, you will have one on the market.

The Company that develops and patents a non-fossil fuels engine will put the rest of the automakers out of business. Hybrids are nothing but a quick fix bandaid solution thats goin nowhere.

GM needs to remember that the world is bigger than just the US. Hybrids haven't taken off in the UK yet, for example, where only 3 hybrids are offered: the too-big-for-cities Prius, lardy Lexus RX400h and a very dowdy Honda Civic IMA. A compact hybrid Chevrolet, Vauxhall or Opel could do very well here, where fuel costs $7 a gallon.

GM,

I agree that the greatest benefit from hybrids and other technologies is to be gained on the largest vehicles. I have been putting off buying a big SUV because of gas prices and enviromental concerns. We all know economics are the driving force in consumer decision making. I am interested in your hybrids and have been researching biodiesel. Any chance that in 2007 you will offer a diesel / electric hybird for the Yukon XL or Suburban? I see you have fielded this system on your buses. In my mind the better gas mileage of a diesel, clean diesel technology, hybird technology and the ability to use biodiesel is an unbeatable combination. It appears it would be economical, enviromentally friendly and reduce our dependance on foreign oil while putting money into american farms.
I volunteer to do a user evaluation on a prototype vehicle if you build one.

"This is just what we need! Something even more Rube Goldberg and kludgy than Toyota's hybrid technology."

You clearly don't understand how HSD or AHS2 actually work. HSD is actually considerably SIMPLER than a conventional automatic transmission. Two motors, a power-split device (planetary gearset), and an electronic control system. Mechanically speaking, there's less there than even a manual transmission. No starter, no clutch, no flywheel, no alternator, no torque converter.

AHS2 (GM's system) is more complex, but that's because it was designed to fit into the space used by an automatic transmission.