More Power, Less Fuel, Fewer Emissions – A Direct Injection Trifecta
By Chris Meagher
Ecotec Engines Global Chief Engineer and Program Manager
We talk quite a bit about future technology on Fastlane, but today I want to take a little time to discuss a fuel-saving engine technology that’s available now and offered on many of our 2009 models – direct fuel injection. It’s the technology that helps a 260 hp vehicle like the Chevy Cobalt SS go from 0-60 mph in 5.7 seconds and still get 30 mpg on the highway. Basically, direct injection allows us to make gasoline engines that are more powerful and more efficient with fewer emissions.
With direct injection, highly pressurized fuel is sprayed directly into the combustion chamber, instead of through the cylinder ports, to create a more complete burn of the fuel-air mixture. Less fuel is required to produce the equivalent horsepower of a conventional port-injection combustion system and the mixture is more precise, which also helps the engine save fuel and start quicker with fewer hydrocarbon emissions. All of this makes for a more complete combustion of the gasoline, providing more power with less fuel.
That’s a pretty technical description, but let me see if I can make it a little easier to understand. Basically, direct injection is one of the advanced internal combustion engine technologies that allows us to downsize from a V8 to a V6, or a V6 to a four-cylinder without sacrificing power, but still improve fuel efficiency with fewer emissions. You can see in the video below how it works.
For 2009, we have several vehicles with direct injection, including the all-new Chevy Traverse, which features a 3.6-liter V6 with DI and variable valve timing – the same 3.6-liter engine that was voted one of the “Ten Best Engines” in North America by Ward’s AutoWorld the last two consecutive years.
Now, I know what you’re probably thinking; why not offer direct injection on all GM engines? Well, the short answer is direct injection is going to play a huge role in our fuel-savings and emissions-reducing efforts as we go forward, but there are also a host of other engine technologies available today like turbocharging, variable valve timing and active fuel management that help improve fuel economy and emissions without sacrificing power.
In the 2010 model year, we’ll offer 18 models in North America with direct injection including the Chevy Equinox and Camaro, the Buick LaCrosse, the Cadillac SRX and Sport Wagon and many more. In fact, 10 percent of our engines worldwide will feature DI.
With publications like Automobile magazine calling direct fuel injection the technology of the year, I predict you’ll be hearing a lot more about it from us and other automakers. So stay tuned, and as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts and questions.
49 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Chris Meagher,
So DI would be the reason the 3.6L gets 304 HP, and the reason the new unreleased DI V8 gets more then 450 HP from what 6.0 or 6.2 Liters?
So if this is the case why can’t GM make smaller engines like 1.6 or 1.8 L, or a 2.8L with turbos on them. Is this a case of EPA NOx requirements? Or is there a problem with cam timing and durations that reduces the MPG with added boost?
I would love to see some turbo GM DI engines preferably with AWD.
Pretty cool. Sort of like a cross between a diesel and a conventional gas engine. Would that make a good analogy?
“In fact, 10 percent of our engines worldwide will feature DI. With publications like Automobile magazine calling direct fuel injection the technology of the year, I predict you’ll be hearing a lot more about it from us and other automakers.”
Chris,
If DI is that good, why not take advantage of economies of scale and put it in every GM model? Make them in quantity, and you should be able to drive the price of each unit way down.
“That’s a pretty technical description…”
Please, not so condescending.
Nate, I believe the engine going in the Chevy Cruze is a 1.4L with direct injection
Excellent that your finally investing in your products, but are you going to stop the bleeding and act faster to consolidate your businesses and improve your market share?
why is nissan n.america more successful with their one brand at a 5.8% US Market share than Hummer, Saab and Saturn combined. which is clearly showing the lack of strategy and clarity of branding is taking a toll on the brands and the company.
the renewed emphasis on products,powertrains, and slimming down of the overly bloated model offering will ultimately help the company. the paring down of dealership outlets will allow the company to be more profitable and right-size their distribution channel to their current market share.
Globalized brands is the future for gm, not their current regionalized strategy that has been losing share and relevance for decades. trust me I know that there is nostalgia for the glory days of pontiac, chevrolet, and GMC, but those days of 50% U.S. market share and huge influx of capital to fund those many brands are long gone. some brands like saab only command 0.2% of U.S. market share, it is begging for it to be closed or divested.
GM must move swiftly in their restructuring brand and GLOBALIZE, a key factor that has been absent from the company up until 2007. I am not goint o repeat my usual comments on how to fix GM because management should know already. good luck, you need it.
You should be selling diesel engines in the US market. American customers want to get 40-60mpg as much as Europeans do, but you aren’t giving them the option. Spend a little R&D money figuring out how to make US-legal diesel engines for every GM vehicle.
Why didnt you out DI in the 2.2L Ecotec? You used VVT but I test drove a Cobalt with VVT and it actually felt slower than my ‘06 Balt even though it supposedly has 10 more HP. DI would make a difference and you should use it in every engine, not just 10%.
Speaking of DI, you could have made the 2.2L Ecotec DI and built the Cobalt replacement next year with that engine in it.
You don’t spread the technol,ogy where its needed. The Cobalt SS handles great but the base model handles like crap-why not improve the suspension and steering of your bread and butter models? Hey, maybe the would actually sell!
Oh yeh, don’t call the next Cobalt Cruze.
I’ve learned that some DI engines (not necessarily GM) are not capable to run on CNG or LPG due to the fact that Gasoline injectors would melt when running on CNG and due to the usage of Mechanical Pumps (instead of electric fue pump).
If these 2 issues are real, fixing them would help to have them available in Countries which require CNG/LPG capability.
Cheers.
Luis
Nate,
The Ecotec 2.0L turbo used in the Cobalt, Sky, Solstice, and Saab 9-3 is DI already. That’s why these cars are some of the best performing if not the best performing in their respective classes.
I appreciate that a lot of people are impressed by high horsepower. GM however is ignoring a big segment of the market that is more concerned with evironmental and geopolitical issues. How about using this technology to give us normal performance and incredible fuel mileage instead of the reverse.
It looks like GM was a leader in DI gasoline engines, but Ford is stealing your thunder. Ford gave it a catchy name and introduced it in a Lincoln. Cadillac could have done more to promote the benefits of DI engines in the Solstice, Cobalt and CTS, but now Ford “owns” the technology and GM looks like it is following.
Take a lesson from Toyota marketing: Prius was not the first, or the best, hybrid car, but Toyota outsmarted Honda and the public. Nevermind the facts, now Toyota owns hybrid technology and every other hybrid is a second-rate copy.
GM could have been the technology leader in DI if they did a better job to get the word out. I hope they do better to “own” the electric car.
Colin: You bring up a very good point. The economies of scale at GM’s disposal does play to the customer’s advantage. However, we don’t believe there is one solution to satisfy all customer demands. DI is good, but there are other solutions that can be more cost effective for the custoemr depending on their needs. For example, using Active Fuel Management for V8 customers is a way we can improve fuel economy by shutting down four cylinders when they aren’t needed.
Sorry if I offended you regarding the “technical” description. I was trying to recognize the fact that my blog was going to be viewed by a variety of people with knowledge of the internal combustion engine.
Nate: Let’s just say DI is a key enabler to getting the extra horsepower. DI enables us to use a higher compression ratio which helps a lot in achieving the additional power. As far as V8s with DI, we’ve definitely evaluated it, but no future applications to announce just yet.
With regard to your question on turbochargers in smaller displacement engines, we do make a 2.8L turbo V6. It’s currently available in the Saab 9-3 and will be in the 2010 Cadillac SRX. We also have available today, the Ecotec 2.0L with a turbocharger and DI in the Solstice GXP, Saturn Sky Red Line, Cobalt SS and HHR SS…all at 130 hp/liter! Hopefully, you’ve also heard about our new 1.4L turbo 4-cylinder engine we will produce for the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze.
Alex: Thanks for your passionate response! Let me just say a few words with regard to your powertrain comments as that’s an area I know first hand. I’ve been in powertrain engineering for quite some time, and I have to honestly say the emphasis you see now isn’t really renewed. GM has a heritage of emphasis on its engines and transmissions going back 100 years. From the first electric starter on the Cadillac in 1908, to automatic transmissions, to the small block V8, to 2-mode hybrids, variable valve timing, Active Fuel Management cylinder deactivation technology, direct injection, alternative fuel capability, and to the 9 six-speed transmission variants all in the market today, and all supported by our 5-year, 100,000 mile warranty, we are working aggressively to deliver efficient and cost-effective powertrains for our customers.
Luis: The combustion characteristics of gaseous fuels are different than those of gasoline or diesel. This makes the application of DI technology more challenging and not necessarily as beneficial with those fuels. We continue to investigate and study the benefits of direct injection fuel delivery with gaseous fuels as well as the technical solutions to optimize the efficiency of CNG/LPG capable engiens.
Steve: At the time the 2.2L Ecotec engine was being developed, the DI technology was not quite ready, and VVT provided us with the level of fuel economy improvement that the GM team felt was needed. We don’t believe there is one technology solution to answer all customer needs and vehicle applications. In this case, VVT was the technology solution we thought best served most customer needs. There are other factors that can affect vehicle performance — the mass of the vehicle, etc., but ultimately, on an equivalent comparison, a 10hp increase should provide better performance.
Preston T: In the U.S. where we have the most stringent Nox emissions requirements in the world, advanced gasoline engines with fuel saving technologies, such as DI, Active Fuel Management and cam phasing, continue to offer the most value for most customer needs. Hybrids provide very good fuel savings and good value for customers who do a lot of stop and go driving, and diesels offer the best balance for utility and working applications. It will take longer for a North American customer to regain their initial purchase investment for a diesel in a passenger car (the payback in terms of fuel economy savings versus the cost of the diesel engine compared to a gasoline engine).
Good thing GM has a lot of irons in the fire. There is an interesting article on the MIT website regarding EV programs.
http://technologyreview.com/blog/energy/23085/
Jon:
GM uses direct injection in Cadillacs NOW. The STS and CTS have direct injection V6s. GM beat Ford to the market with direct injection by several years.
Louis:
Thus far most engines that have received direct injection have been luxury cars and sporty cars. Its expensive technology and no one has applied it to lower end cars just yet. The whole point of direct injection is to increase hp and efficiency. As stated above, the Cobalt SS gets 30mpg on the highway in spite of its powerful engine. Customers are still concerned about hp and thus so are manufacturers. People want respectable power along with decent mileage.
PrestonT:
The US and Europe have different taxation policies for diesel and gasoline. In Europe, governmental policies help make diesels more competitive with their cheaper gas powered counterparts. In the US there has been no effort to raise the price of gas to make diesel more attractive. In addition, many of the diesels sold in Europe would not meet regulations here. Just because a diesel engine exists in Europe doesn’t mean it would be acceptable here from a regulatory standpoint. There is a reason BMW and VW are making such a big deal about their new 50 state diesels. Until recently, they didn’t have diesels that could much such a standard.
AlexD:
“why is nissan n.america more successful with their one brand at a 5.8% US Market share than Hummer, Saab and Saturn combined. which is clearly showing the lack of strategy and clarity of branding is taking a toll on the brands and the company.”
Hummer is a niche brand selling expensive vehicles. Its not a volume brand. Neither is Saab. Comparing their sales to Nissan’s is pointless. Until 2007, Saturn did not have a lineup equipped to battle Nissan. Even now Saturn only has 5 models and far fewer dealers than Nissan. How about keeping the comments relevant to the post?
SteveG,
The base Cobalt handles at least as well as the best selling Corolla. Most compact car owners are not looking for sports sedans hence the success of cars like the Corolla and Focus. The SS version of the Cobalt is sportier than any trim level of the Civic, Corolla, Elantra, Focus, etc. so just be glad GM even offers such a high performance compact.
Too late! Ford has already started mass production of Ecoboost.
Hi GM,
This is really great technology. With such technology that Cobalt could have a 130 HP 2 Cylinder engine, and get 60 mpg on the highway.
With 130 HP, it could do 0 to 60 in about 11 seconds, maybe less. Which would be good enough for metro area driving for 90 % of people.
You got the Aveo line for the penny-wise, pound fuelish people.
Make ALL the Cobalts BAS hybrids, to get a reasonable economy of scale, and use small hybrid battery (just for stop/start, and not much accell or regen) and you would have a Honda Insight II fighter for sure….
You could also use the two cylinder in the Volt. The two cylinder would be lighter weight giving more electric range, and have less manufacturing energy and materials costs. Helping to drop down the Volt cost.
“The economies of scale at GM’s disposal does play to the customer’s advantage. However, we don’t believe there is one solution to satisfy all customer demands.”
Chris,
OK, I understand the need to offer different solutions, but you said only 10% of your engines worldwide will get DI. If it’s as great as an advancement as you say (and I have no reason to believe it’s not) a lot more than 10% of GM’s engines should have it.
When Buick was the first to introduce 4-wheel brakes in 1923, they didn’t restrict it to only 10% of their production run.
GM should be cutting brands. the first brands that should be completely shuttered and not sold are Hummer and SAAB, hopefully they are closed by 2011. Saturn then should follow in 2012 with a complete closure.
The reason why Buick-Pontiac-GMC should stay is because they act as one brand, under one dealership roof, with shared manufacturing and could actually be successful going forward. in the yr. 2000 each had substaintially higher market shares but have deviated from their core branding and message.
It will not cost GM a lot of money to close Hummer/SAAB/Saturn because their dealership footprint is extremely small. combined they have under 1,000 dealerships which minimizes lawsuits and allows dealers to be successfully bought out by the company. when Oldsmobile was shuttered in 2000 the brand has 2,800 dealers which made it significantly harder and more expensive to close.
Using that logic it should only cost GM $700 million dollars to completely unwind those three brands, which is a mire pittance when compared to the $ 30 billion dollar infusion it is about to recieve from the U.S. government to sustain their operations.
To sell Saab/Hummer/Saturn would be a big mistake, it would strengthen their competitors and not help to alleviate the over-branded U.S. market. competitiors will shift production and produce lower cost vehicles and use U.S. dealerships for their entry to the U.S market, this will overall be a major negative to GM in the long term.
It is costing GM more to keep those three brands than it would cost to buy out dealers and shutter those non-essential brands that combined only account for 1.8% of the U.S. market as of 2008, while the Nissan brand alone accounts for 6 times more market share, the writting seems to be on the wall for this one.
Buick right now seems in trouble, as well as pontiac but both brands can be saved by being relegated to importing successful international automobiles. Buick becomes an importer for some high end Opel cars to the U.S., while Pontiac could import most of the Holden Austrailia line under their Pontiac banner to the U.S. this would allow the entire Pontiac/Buick/GMC line to exist with little to no investment or upkeep from GM, which would allow GM to be able to focus on turning around/creating new products for both Cadillac and Chevrolet.
Internationall there are opportunities for consolidation as well. GM should absolutely retain Opel as they are integral to the company and will provide products and logistics for other divisions, my main recomendation would be to eliminate Vauxhall and rebrand it as opel, having that one brand for just Britain is a drain on the company and is an unneccesary cost that can be avoided. this will be a benefit to strengthen the Opel brand as well as cutting costs.
The same logic is used for allowing Holden Austrailia to take over the Daewoo division rebranding the entire division as Holden Worldwide, significantly slimming down their overlap and investment costs and capitalizing on the Holden name and logo.
these steps will get GM on the right track to completely reinvigorate their business and return to their core values while removing brands that severely drain cash from the company as well as massive overlap. by taking the above mentioned steps they will be better positioned to grow their market share in the U.S. and internationally and will be better able to understand and respond to market shifts and changes in consumer tastes. GOOD LUCK GM!!!
Understanding that we GM are global and need to plan to optimize resources application and at the same time have the desired flexibility I would hope that the next GM DI engines have some type of modularization concept in order to be able to run full Flex fuel (E0 to E100) and with different types of Gas.
Despite far from US and Europe key DI markets, the emerging markets today and in the future must be accomplished inside DI strategy.
I personally see lots of German and Japanese DI engines/vehicles in Argentina and also in Brazil(running E22).
Regards and please continue motivated to push GM engines up.
Chris,
Are you saying the same DI engine used in the Cobalt is also used in the Cadillac CTS? Not so sure I’d want THAT getting around. Hopefully it’s tuned for more horsepower in the Caddy.
Also, I’ve read about a distinct intake whine in the DI engines – probably the high compression of the air/fuel mixture? What is being done to address this issue?
I’ve never understood GM’s use of engines throughout their product line. The money was there in the past to have a dozen engines being produced concurrently, but not anymore. All GM really needs at most are 5 base engines to power the entire line. A 4cly, V6, and V8 for front drives, and a V6 and V8 for rear drives. Five well-designed engines, and GM would experience a great economy of scale, all costs would go down, and so would development costs. Look at the G6, offering both a 3.5V6 and a 3.6V6. Why ? And why my Olds Aurora has a 4.0V8 in it that was only ever used in Auroras is beyond me. Nice engine, but GM can’t afford boutique motors anymore.
While you’re at it, pick the best transaxle you have and just use it across all your front drive products, and change the gearing as needed for the application.
Sheth,
I think your comments above directed toward AlexD and SteveG are irrelevant.
You are forgetting about other vehicles like Mazda…
And last I looked the Civics are a lot sportier LOOKING then the Cobalts are.. not to mention they have the magic word on them “HONDA” same goes with the Corollas they have “TOYOTA” on them and that is ALL that matters to many.
GM needs a new name to attract these people. It is THAT simple.
Sheth,
You have to compare those brands to Nissan. Just because they are not meant for volume does not mean they dont suck up just as much resources as a full-line automaker would. the real issue is that you cant even combine BUICK-SATURN-HUMMER-SAAB in the united states to even equal the market share of Nissan, and BUICK AND Saturn are both volume dealers.
These brands are extremely expensive to upkeep and release new products for. if certain brands dont fit with the portfolio they should be axed. GM already has Cadillac for luxury and Hummer at .2% of the us market along with saab with .2% of the U.S. market are not helping the company in any way other than to drain resources and advertising dollars.
the point that was being made was that the market share and prominence of certain brands needs to justify their existence. and saturn with 1.4% of the U.S. market along with SAAB and hummer just arent cutting it. it is actually costing more to keep the brands than they are bringing in to GM through revenue.
It is important to make those comparisions because having those niche brands are extremely expensive and dont recieve the economies of scale that nissan and nissan worldwide have. niche brands dont cut it in the U.S. market or around the world anymore. GM in and of itself is a VOLUME car retailer so it never really made sense to create or cultivate the niche brands that they have today.
to put everything together Saab-Hummer-Saturn have a 2008 combined market share of 1.8% compared to nissan which mean every advertising dollar spent on nissan, product development, and research, yields nearly 6 times the benefit it would for any of those three brands. Nissan continues to introduce relevant models and expand their market share as well. their constant 199/month lease program on popular vehicles is also helping the company during this market downturn.
GM as a volume car manufacturer should absolutely be comparing their numbers to the import brand of Nissan as they are both volume manufacturers, their brands should reflect their goals and intentions as a company and they do not.
Rob,
The DI engine is the Caddy is the 3.6L V6 DI, the DI engine used in the Cobalt is a 2.0L 4-cyl. They are not the same engine.
Donee,
Taking the engine in the Cobalt and figuratively cutting it in half so it’s a 1.0L 2-cyl does not mean you automatically get double the milage. Would there be an increase? Yes, but probably about 5MPG, 10 at the very most. You would not get 60MPG, but rather 35-40.
Also, a BAS hybrid with a simple stop-start feature would not compete with a full hybrid like the Insight. The Malibu and Aura already have the “mild” hybrid, and while there is a milage boost, it’s not the same as a full hybrid like the Insight.
Onell,
GM had turbocharged DI engines in production for over a year before Ford introduced the “Ecoboost’.
Louis: You bring up a good point. Because we are a full-line supplier of vehicles (small cars, large cars, trucks, etc.), we are playing in a lot of markets, and we recognize that fuel economy is very important to most of these customers. There will always be niche markets where performance plays a role. As we develop new technologies, there is often a tradeoff that can be made that might favor fuel economy over performance. In the case of direct injection, since it improves combustion efficiency, we get improvements in both. Also, by allowing the same performance level from less displacement, we can pick up even more fuel economy.
Jon: I guess we don’t pay as much attention to catchy names as we do to delivering the features that make a difference…years in advance of others. (We had direct injection in the market in 2004 and a direct injection turbo in the Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Redline in 2007. I agree with you, though, we do need to work harder to talk about all of the good fuel-saving technologies we have in the marketplace today for consumers. This is really what prompted me to volunteer to do this blog and hopefully get the word out to more people like yourself.
Onell: I think I need to help you get a few facts straight with regard to GM’s technologies. GM’s had direct injection in the market since 2004. We also introduced our first direct injection turbo (Ford’s Ecoboost is a DI turbo) in North America in the 2007 Saturn Sky Redline and in the Pontiac Solstice GXP. Today, that DI Turbo is offered in seven different models! And, in 2009, we also have 11 models with direct injection alone in North America, 18 models worldwide. In addition, we also produce 19 turbocharged engines for 16 models worldwide. So, you can see we are applying technologies across our portoflio where they provide the best value,: lowest cost, improved fuel economy and lower emissions. We don’t think one technology across our portfolio is the best solution for the customer.
Donee: Thanks for your suggestions! You can be sure that GM is looking at a number of powertrain options in our vehicles to provide even more fuel-savings to our customers.
Colin: I appreciate your follow-up comments. My blog should have pointed out more clearly that direct injection isn’t the only fuel-saving technology we are applying to our powertrains to provide fuel-savings for customers. Perhaps the biggest point I can make is that GM has many fuel-saviang technologies available today for customers.
As I said earlier in my responses, GM’s goal is to apply advanced technologies where they provide the best solution and value for the customer: fuel efficiency, performance and cost for the consumer. We don’t think applying ONE technology across the board is the right solution. We have turbocharing, direct injection, turbocharing DI, Active Fuel management, cam phasing, six-speed transmissions all in the market today. And, on top of what we are doing with DI, we are also increasing the offerings of these technologies also. Look for additional blogs on these technolgies form my fellow powertrain colleagues in the next few months.
George: We are constantly reviewing and updating our future engine plans relative to the quickly changing environmental concerns that are driving many different fuel solutions around the world. Ethanol and methanol(at various concentrations), CNG, LPG, biodiesel — the challenge is to develop systems that can handle most, if not all, of these fuel sources with minimal differences to keep costs down.
Rob: No, we have a 3.6L V-6 DI engine with 304 hp in the Cadillac CTS, whereas in the Cobalt, we offer an Ecotec 2.0L DI Turbo rated at 260 hp. In fact, today we offer 6 different engines with direct injection in 18 models worldwide. And, we also offer another 19 turbocharged engines in 16 models worldwide. Finally, we offer 2 engines in 7 models with direct injection and turbo!
As for the “intake whine” on DI engines..it is generally recognized that the requirement to supply high pressure fuel results in a different noise signature that manufacturers and DI system suppliers are working to diminish.
“All GM really needs at most are 5 base engines to power the entire line. A 4cly, V6, and V8 for front drives, and a V6 and V8 for rear drives.”
Concur Ted, though I would add 4, 6, and 8-cylinder turbo-diesels to the line up.
Just read the disturbing news on another blog that GM has abandoned plans for development of a turbo-charged V8 diesel for use in light-duty trucks. Their economic situation must indeed be dire if they are going to abandon competing for that market.
A reliable 4-cylinder turbo diesel would be a welcome in my home anytime. Let’s go GM!
“Are you saying the same DI engine used in the Cobalt is also used in the Cadillac CTS? Not so sure I’d want THAT getting around. Hopefully it’s tuned for more horsepower in the Caddy.”
The CTS and Cobalt do not share an engine, they share use of DI technology.
Onell:
GM had direct injection in production back in 2007. Ford is launching its first EcoBoost engines in 2009. How is GM too late?
Nate:
As usual I have no idea where you are coming from. Did I not say the Cobalt is dull looking? The car is over 4 years old and anyone who is shocked that others have surpassed it must not have a clue how the auto industry works. That said, no other compact on the market can outperform the Cobalt SS. Not the Civic Si, not the MS3 and most certainly not the anemic Corolla S. When it comes to engines in compacts the Cobalt SS has one of the best around.
“And why my Olds Aurora has a 4.0V8 in it that was only ever used in Auroras is beyond me. Nice engine, but GM can’t afford boutique motors anymore.”
The engine in the Aurora was a downsized Northstar, not a totally unique engine. That is why GM could offer that engine in that car. The 4.6L V8 in Cadillac models was on the same architecture.
All those criticizing GM for being too slow to spread DI across the product range need to remember that GM has more DI engines on the market than Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, Nissan and Honda. Ford has done a lot of talking about EcoBoost but has not released a product to date with such an engine. Toyota only uses direct injection on Lexus models. Honda hasnt even released a product with DI yet.
David/Sheth,
Yes GM has the 2.0L and 3.6L DI engines but it has limited brand and model application. Ford is planning to have DI in all their line-ups. Also, It’s too late to introduce 18 models because of the shaky status of the company. If GM is pro-active they should have this DI application in most of their line-up when two years ago. Instead of investing too much on hybrid GMT900 in which very few people can afford, why not produce a DI engine and strong hybrid that is affordable to the masses. This is my point!
Onell. I believe that the vehicle you describe – DI strong hybrid – would be exemplified by the Saturn Vue 2-Mode hybrid.
David, I don’t know how the product planners or marketing people of GM come up the idea of giving priority on 2-mode hybrid GMT900, Silverado, and Saturn Vue??? How many people will buy a big SUVs and Pick-ups that has price tag of more than $50K. Who will care to buy Saturn especially now a days? Why not GM discontinue the Saturn Vue 2-mode program and instead invest the money to produce a 2-mode hybrid Equinox/Terrain, Malibu, or Traverse?
Ted:
I agree with your comments. GM has been working to reduce the number of engines we have in our global portfolio so that we will have four-, six- and 8-cylinder modular and flexible engine architectures that will provide the fuel economy, performance, refinement and NVH, quality and reliability to meet our customers’ needs around the world. Within each family/architecture, however, we will have a number of displacements to provide the customer various options of engines at various price points – the Olds 4.0L V8 is a great example, as it was a smaller displacement version of the Northstar V8 family. The “balancing act” to maintain competitive cost, volume capability, etc., as well as to maintain flexibility to add technology, make this a more difficult task than it might seem without a close look. This same kind of strategy is happening on our transmission side of the house also.
Onell,
Full size trucks are the bestselling vehicle segment in the industry (still) and they are also the largest consumer of fuel per mile driven. It’s perfectly logical to offer hybrid technology in that segment that increases fuel economy up to 45% over a non-hybrid counterpart.
It’s the same reason that GM’s Two-Mode technology is being offered in higher priced vehicles from Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW. It makes more sense to put the fuel saving technology on the vehicles that are the most popular and/or consume the most fuel.
As far as the Saturn decision is concerned; it’s clear that economics are having an effect that was not planned when it was decided to focus the Two Mode technology on the Saturn Vue. That eing said; other than psychological reasons, there’s no reason not to buy a Saturn. It’s not like GM is going to abandon the warranty or customer service responsibilities it owes to Saturn customers.
“GM has been working to reduce the number of engines we have in our global portfolio so that we will have four-, six- and 8-cylinder modular and flexible engine architectures that will provide the fuel economy, performance, refinement and NVH, quality and reliability to meet our customers’ needs around the world.”
Chris,
What is GM’s position on developing a family of turbo-diesels to offer in the North American market? Turbo-diesels would certainly offer economy, quality, refinement, and reliability, and are no longer even that far behind gas-fueled ICEs with respect to performance.
David, IMHO it’s still a wrong business case. How much profit will GM heap by selling Full size hybrid trucks as compared to selling a hybrid (not the BAS) Sedan or Mid-size SUVs? GM will just answer that it’s for the environment and for the coming generation. For me the full size hybrid trucks is really a hogwash.
Onell:
First of all I dont know where you are getting your information about Ford’s plans. Ford has made a lot of vague statements about EcoBoost but initially it will be availble in limited production models like the Taurus SHO and certain trims of the Flex and MKS. GM is using direct injection on a $24k Cobalt model and soon on the Equinox. There is not one manufacturer that I know of that has DI on the MAJORITY of its engines. GM is doing a better job than Toyota or Ford of brining DI to affordable vehicles. I almost forgot the $23k Camaro will have a DI V6 with 300hp. What more do you want GM to do? You are asking them to do things their competitors arent even close to doing.
The two mode system as it currently exists cannot fit in cars like the Malibu due to the size of the batteries. In SUVs the battery is under the rear seat but this cannot happen in a normal sedan. They cannot simply drop the two mode system in any vehicle they make. I would think GM is strongly considering a two mode Equinox considering what is poised to happen to Saturn. David clearly laid out the reasoning behind offering hybrid versions of large vehicles. You say people cannot afford $50k SUVs and yet Lexus offers expensive hybrid versions of the LS, GS and RX. Don’t expect the upcoming hybrids from MB or BMW to be cheap either. Large SUVs tend to be expensive and $50k for a fully loaded hybrid SUV isn’t outrageous when considered in context.
Omell:
Part of the logic behind the full sized truck hybrids is that customers of those vehicles are used to high prices and would be more willing to pay for a hybrid vehicle in spite of the premium. A $4k premium is easier to accept on a $50k vehicle than on a $25k vehicle. I fail to see why you think having fuel saving technology on the largest, thirstiest vehicles is a mistake. Do you prefer the Toyota approach which basically ignores the biggest guzzlers?
Onell,
Hybrids are all loss-leaders so it makes even more sense for GM to put them on higher-profit trucks. To this day those of us in the know understand that Toyota has yet to make a single penny on an actual Prius sale. Of course; they make plenty of money on the Lexus hybrids.
By the way; a vehicle that has the capability that the FST hybrids have and can carry up to 7 passengers while getting the same fuel economy as a Toyota Camry 4-cylinder is hardly “hogwash”.
“$50k for a fully loaded hybrid SUV isn’t outrageous when considered in context.”
$50k for something that at its most basic is only transportation — a way of getting from point A to point B — is outrageous.
You talk about context. People that willingly spend that much for transportation are looking for a status symbol or a social signifier.
“You talk about context. People that willingly spend that much for transportation are looking for a status symbol or a social signifier.”
Aside from four wheels, a powertrain, two seats, and a steering wheel that’s what most transportation purchases are. Otherwise people wouldn’t pay $100,000+ for a Lexus hybrid sedan or $60,000 for a Lexus Hybrid SUV that do nothing for their fuel consumption at all . At least the Tahoe and Yukon hybrids actually save significant fuel.
David,
If I had enough money to purchase a status symbol it would be a Bentley, Ferrari, or Lamborghini. Since I’m not rich, and I don’t see a car as a social signifier, I’ll stick with buying a car that provides basic transportation. I think may people are also like me. Our concern is reliability, ease of maintenance, and value for money.
260 hp for a car the size of a Cobalt is a lot of power. I used to have a Chevy Citation with I think like 140 hp and it had more than enough zip. Why not cut the engine size down for a 40 or 50 mpg car? Most people don’t need a car that can go 150 mph or beat an old 60’s era hot rod off the line.
Engine displacement and even vehicle size/weight are not the only factors that determine fuel efficiency. You can build a ‘55 Chevy with a 502 ci big block in it cranking out big horsepower and get 35+ mpg and be very drivable if you gear it right. It has been done. As long as you have plenty of torque and keep the engine rpm low, you have the potential for good fuel efficiency. DI makes it possible to create a very lean burning engine and/or makes lots of power. Adding a turbo to a DI engine dramatically increases power output without necessarily reducing fuel efficiency. DI is definitely the way to as far as conventional hydrocarbon-fueled engines go. However, the cost may be difficult to recover considering EPA requirements. Ultimately, we’re going to switch to hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in electrics, so how much money should GM and the other manufactures spend on developing engines that may not be produced very long?