FIAT Technology

[Sean Malone]

Many of the articles regarding the FIAT purchase of Chrysler mentioned the ‘new technology’ that Chrysler would benefit from. No specifics were mentioned, but I assumed something along the lines of small displacement diesels or whatever hybrid/full electric tech FIAT had. I read a rumor today that mentions more specifically the use of ‘stop/start’ technology and electro-hydraulic valve control systems. “Stop/start’ increases fuel mileage by shutting off the engine at idle and restarting the engine when needed seamlessly. Didn’t someone here post a video buy a guy that did ‘hypermiling’ (sic) by utilizing the same engine shut off but doing it manually. He was averaging 45+ mpg if I recall in a 10 year old Honda accord.

As for the electrohydraulic valve system…


Fiat Group and Fiat Powertrain Technology introduced their new air management technology Multiair at the Geneva Motor Show. Multiair is an electro-hydraulic valve-timing system that provides dynamic and direct control of air and combustion, cylinder by cylinder and stroke by stroke.
Fiat expects that Multiair, with direct control of the air through the intake engine valves without using the throttle, can help reduce fuel consumption by up to 10% for turbocharged or naturally aspirated gasoline engines. Pollutant emissions are likewise reduced through combustion control. Applied to a turbocharged, downsized engine, MultiAir can contribute to up to a 25% reduction in fuel consumption over conventional naturally aspirated engines with the same performance, according to Fiat.
link (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/03/fiat-introduces.html)

Both strike me as a bit underwhelming when so many expect the ever nearing, full electric car as commonplace or some other breakthrough tech like free cow methane (you just need your own cow). But 10% here, 25%...

Thoughts?

[datachicane]

Electricity isn't a fuel, so going full-electric won't fix anything unless you're getting your juice somewhere besides the grid (which would be fun, but pricey).

Barring some (unlikely) breakthrough, 10% here and 10% there seems like the most viable way to get us where we want to be...

[oddlycalm]

If you want to see what the Chrysler dealership will look like 2yrs from now look at what Alfa Romeo is selling.

What the mainstream media means by "new technology" won't be all that new to you and I, but it'll be real new to Chrysler. :D While Multiair is a further refinement of variable valve control, and may not be all that earth shattering, it does allow their little two cylinder econobox motor make 100hp which should be good for a few grins as the driver sails past gas stations trying to catch a Mini...

Regardless of what the media is blathering mindlessly on about, electric cars are an urban convenience not the answer for everyone everywhere. People like me that run a car for 10 minutes or less then turn it off and for whom every trip is a cold start cycle (with the attendant low fuel economy). Lightweight high tech turbo-diesels are going to be a more acceptable option for folks that do more driving or live in the burbs IMO. They are quiet, they don't smoke, and they have torque to burn.

The other thing I'd add (yet again) is that the real challenge is weight reduction, not power source manipulation. The most efficient engine in the world isn't going to make a 6000lb SUV efficient. The first company to come out with a full size SUV that weighs under 3000lbs and gets an honest 30mpg will find plenty of interested customers. People that think they are going to push Americans into tiny cars have never been to a NASCAR race....:gomer: The question is, how many American could get into a Fiat 500 and, if they did, how many could get out....:laugh:

oc

[Ankf00]

they can take my chicken-fried steak from my cold, dead hands!

[stroker]

The question is, how many American could get into a Fiat 500 and, if they did, how many could get out....:laugh:oc

time to invest in KY and Astroglide...

[Gnam]

As for the electrohydraulic valve system…

Thoughts?

Can it help the Aston Martin Lolas run with the diesels at Le Mans?

[datachicane]

A Heinkel/Trojan Kabinenroller made a decent city car, and got 65 mpg in 1964. Translated to current tech that oughta allow a bit of performance at that. Too bad Colin Chapman's lessons have largely gone by the wayside...

[Michaelhatesfans]

People that think they are going to push Americans into tiny cars have never been to a NASCAR race....:gomer:

In the words of Bob Varsha, "Indeed."

http://funnyhub.com/content_images/4203_2102_hairy-nascar-fan.jpg

[Sean Malone]

Saw this today; ( link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103106.stm) ) about a hydrogen fuel cell city car hitting UK streets in a few years. The plan is to roll the fuel costs into the lease.

[datachicane]

Saw this today; ( link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103106.stm) ) about a hydrogen fuel cell city car hitting UK streets in a few years. The plan is to roll the fuel costs into the lease.

Great! Now all you gotta do is figure out where to get all the natural gas you're gonna need to crack to produce that hydrogen, since that's the cheapest, cleanest, and most efficient way on the planet to produce the stuff. If you're gonna spend the bucks and go electrolysis instead, you'll need an even bigger boatload of fossil fuels to burn to make the juice to make the hydrogen, since you're introducing several nice lossy energy conversions before you ever turn a tire.

OTOH, you could just burn the natural gas in your car instead... :saywhat:

[Sean Malone]

Great! Now all you gotta do is figure out where to get all the natural gas you're gonna need to crack to produce that hydrogen, since that's the cheapest, cleanest, and most efficient way on the planet to produce the stuff. If you're gonna spend the bucks and go electrolysis instead, you'll need an even bigger boatload of fossil fuels to burn to make the juice to make the hydrogen, since you're introducing several nice lossy energy conversions before you ever turn a tire.

OTOH, you could just burn the natural gas in your car instead... :saywhat:

The new age of smoke and mirrors in the name of 'being green'. How ironic that the obliviously delusional, Zoloft addled green freaks and their fossil fuel free people movers will be even a larger contributor to greenhouse emissions. Is that too mean?:)

[oddlycalm]

OTOH, you could just burn the natural gas in your car instead... :saywhat:

My favorite part of the fuel cell fantasy is where they talk about cars sending electricity back to the grid at night. We're going to take power from the grid to make hydrogen, then put it into cars to supply power back to the grid at non-peak periods when it's not needed and with efficiency losses at every stop along the way, then have no hydrogen left to power the car to get to work....:gomer: :thumbup:

oc

[Napoleon]

My favorite part of the fuel cell fantasy is where they talk about cars sending electricity back to the grid at night.

Really? I have never heard that suggested for fuel cells, only for battery power, which on its face makes sense if a significant portion of your power is coming from wind and sun, which appeared to be the assumption in the articles I read. Specifically the discussion I have seen on this are tied directly to smart grid technology and how battery powered cars become much more economical and green if used in conjunction with a smart grid, and with being able to feed power back into the grid from car batteries you help with issues related to the fact that those sources can not be expected to generate 24/7. That is part of the whole idea of having a smart grid in the first place (and implicit in your comment is the existence of one because that is the only way you could meter feeding power back into the grid from a home source).

[Napoleon]

OC,

A PS. After my original post it occurred to me that if the hydrogen was created using wind or solar I suppose that on the generating leveling front it would be no different then my battery scenario, but unlike hydrogen, of course, they electric car can just repower at home once power sources ramp back up, which as you point out is not an option with the fuel cell.

[datachicane]

The new age of smoke and mirrors in the name of 'being green'. How ironic that the obliviously delusional, Zoloft addled green freaks and their fossil fuel free people movers will be even a larger contributor to greenhouse emissions. Is that too mean?:)

It has nothing at all to do with 'being green', whatever that means, and everything to do with the nearly limitless power of marketing (which, when we're talking smoke and mirrors, is a redundancy). There's no difference between a mechanism which can foist such unimaginable crap as the Hummer H2, 'Survivor', the WWF(E), freecreditreport.com, Enzyte, etc., etc. ad nauseum, and the 'hydrogen economy'- if you can figure out how to make a buck off of it, no matter how void of actual value it may be, folks will line up if you advertise the hell out of it.

I wouldn't say the green freaks are delusional or Zoloft-addled, just successfully marketed to in the same spirit as the cult of Dale Jr., Starbucks or suburban off-road vehicles. An absolute crapload of money and effort was spent to create the impression that it would work- it didn't just spontaneously appear out of some ecological ethos, and you can bet that the industry that spent that money isn't particularly concerned with whether or not it's ecologically sound.

[datachicane]

Really? I have never heard that suggested for fuel cells, only for battery power

I've seen it suggested several times, FWIW.

[Napoleon]

I've seen it suggested several times, FWIW.

Well it sounds like a stupid idea.

[Napoleon]

. . . and you can bet that the industry that spent that money isn't particularly concerned with whether or not it's ecologically sound.

Exhibit A to this comment is Ethanol.

[Ankf00]

Exhibit A to this comment is Ethanol.

that's as accurate as alluding to the entirety of the o&g and chemical industries as "oil." corn ethanol certainly has no future, but the infrastructure development its mandates have led to could be of use in the future with algae generated fuel

[datachicane]

that's as accurate as alluding to the entirety of the o&g and chemical industries as "oil." corn ethanol certainly has no future, but the infrastructure development its mandates have led to could be of use in the future with algae generated fuel

...and that's why ADM lobbied so hard for those mandates, right?
:rolleyes:

Some good might, someday, possibly, maybe come out of the infrastructure (if it isn't already obsolete by then), true, but that particular scenario was hardly enough to sell that fustercluck. It's an ex post facto CYA at best.

[datachicane]

Well it sounds like a stupid idea.

Ours is largely a stupid-idea-based economy.

[Ankf00]

...and that's why ADM lobbied so hard for those mandates, right?
:rolleyes:

Some good might, someday, possibly, maybe come out of the infrastructure (if it isn't already obsolete by then), true, but that particular scenario was hardly enough to sell that fustercluck. It's an ex post facto CYA at best.

ADM lobbying it for their corn profits has absolutely zero bearing on the reality of ethanol and its future. if some moron comes up w/ a cure to cancer are you going to eschew that discovery due to the fact a moron came up with it? In the meantime we need an oxygenate in our fuel, and politics says it's going to be corn ethanol. Tough **** for us.

also, kind of hard to make distribution out of date. people don't really go around reinventing the pressure vessel on a frequent basis.

[Napoleon]

ADM lobbying it for their corn profits has absolutely zero bearing on the reality of ethanol and its future.

The reality is that ethanol as a fuel is a joke.


Ours is largely a stupid-idea-based economy.


Really! I hadn't even noticed. ;)

[Ankf00]

The reality is that ethanol as a fuel is a joke.


the material and combustion properties of ethanol speaks for itself, similar performance as gasoline in medium loads, up the compression ratio and get markedly better efficiency.

fact remains we still need a safe oxygenate for our current gas blends, MTBE and lead didn't work out too well the last time around.

if cellulosic generation is not financially feasible in the future we won't be implementing it, the corn mandates are b.s. as is, but the alcohol itself works great if you need something to burn

[opinionated ow]

the material and combustion properties of ethanol speaks for itself, similar performance as gasoline in medium loads, up the compression ratio and get markedly better efficiency.

fact remains we still need a safe oxygenate for our current gas blends, MTBE and lead didn't work out too well the last time around.

Rubbish. Ethanol is about 67% as efficient as petroleum. You need to burn about 133% to get the same energy as a portion of petroleum. AND when you do that, CO2 emissions work out to be almost exactly the same. And that's not accounting for CO2 emissions during the manufacturing process. A full investigation was done by a domestic car magazine when they moved the V8 Supercars to E85 this season. If I can find what I've done with it I'll attach it.

[Ankf00]

published SAE research vs. a comparison of race cars? srsly?

energy density: lower
octane rating: higher (re: higher compression ratios)
laminar flame speed: higher (re: combustion efficiency)

[oddlycalm]

that's as accurate as alluding to the entirety of the o&g and chemical industries as "oil." corn ethanol certainly has no future, but the infrastructure development its mandates have led to could be of use in the future with algae generated fuel

It's certainly possible that we will fall down the stairs and land on our feet. We could use some luck about now.

I'd not argue that an efficient ethanol source (and conversion process) may develop but I think corn and fired stills reached the apogee of their utility the day moonshine was invented... :D

oc

[Napoleon]

Well the Fiat 500 to be sold as a Chrylser comes from Poland (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/business/global/15fiat.html?hpw)

[Sean Malone]

I flipped through a recent MotorTrend magazine (my least favorite of all car mags) and thought it was interesting that they claimed Fiat needed Chrysler as much as Chrysler needed Fiat due to the access Fiat now has for Chrysler's SUV/large size platforms. I find that hard to believe.