Concept has Displacement on Demand
#16
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
Originally Posted by Josh452
Lutz looked me dead in the eye and said that GM's Hybrid II system could adapt VERY easily to a Camaro if it were to be made.
Guess that would suck for a lot of folk here.
Guess that would suck for a lot of folk here.
I'm not against DOD on the LS2 or 6.2l Camaros either, if it doesn't impact anything you can feel or hear like in the Hemis, why not gain some mileage on the highway?? As I understand it you're running on all 8 at idle and low speeds around town so you wouldn't notice it there either...
#17
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
Originally Posted by turbo96z28
exactly!!!!! and they still have the same amount of oil going into them so there is no extra friction to deal with.
#18
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
I have a friend who has the new Pontiac GXP with the 5.3L V8 DOD engine. Trust me when I tell you you cannot tell the difference when it's running in 4 cylinder mode or 8 cylinder mode.
#20
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
I think AFM/DOD is great, and a Two-Mode Hyrbid would bring the Camaro into the hearts of treehuggers. Imagine people spending 10k over sticker for a hybrid Camaro?!?!? GM would not know what ot do with itself.
It all looks good on paper, and us online-engineers and designers and all of us arm-chair product planners sure llike the idea. It would bring Camaro into a new light, and help shed the gas guzzling muscle car image.
Could you imagine? Id say that a standard LS2 in a 3700lb Camaro could get you 19/24 with 6spd auto? I forgot what the GTO's numbers are, I assume it will be close. What are the possibilites of having all of this technology combined? Lets look at a 5.3 equiped Camaro with a 6spd auto. You ahve VVT, AFM, have it run on E85, two mode hybrid system, and a low rear gear ratio. Could you imagine what kind of gas savings we could be looking at? It could seriously be a power house and a half, and wouldnt cost that much do develop because it already exists! the 5.3 VVT with AFM and running on E85 exists for trucks. Throw in the hyrbid system, a low 3.08 gear ratio, and everything is gravy.
And Im just thinking here now, if you had AFM and hyrbid, you would have technicly 3 engine modes, full out V8, 4cyl, and electric motor.
Anyway, im ranting...
It all looks good on paper, and us online-engineers and designers and all of us arm-chair product planners sure llike the idea. It would bring Camaro into a new light, and help shed the gas guzzling muscle car image.
Could you imagine? Id say that a standard LS2 in a 3700lb Camaro could get you 19/24 with 6spd auto? I forgot what the GTO's numbers are, I assume it will be close. What are the possibilites of having all of this technology combined? Lets look at a 5.3 equiped Camaro with a 6spd auto. You ahve VVT, AFM, have it run on E85, two mode hybrid system, and a low rear gear ratio. Could you imagine what kind of gas savings we could be looking at? It could seriously be a power house and a half, and wouldnt cost that much do develop because it already exists! the 5.3 VVT with AFM and running on E85 exists for trucks. Throw in the hyrbid system, a low 3.08 gear ratio, and everything is gravy.
And Im just thinking here now, if you had AFM and hyrbid, you would have technicly 3 engine modes, full out V8, 4cyl, and electric motor.
Anyway, im ranting...
#21
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
How much gas mileage does the concept actually get? I've read 30mpg everywhere, but someone pointed out to me that the LA Auto Show official site says the concept gets 40mpg.
http://www.laautoshow.com/2006/concepts.aspx
http://www.laautoshow.com/2006/concepts.aspx
#23
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
Originally Posted by morb|d
not quite. have you ever tried to close the other end of the straw and pull in the air? exactly! if there's a vaccume in the cylinder it's almost as bad as having it full of air. i'd say the answer lies somewhere in between, but with bias toward vaccume. there has to be SOME air in there to aid the intake stroke but just enough to not hurt the exhaust stroke to bad. happy medium.
#24
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
I guess Active Fuel Management sounds more fuel efficient than Displacement On Demand. Personally, I'd rather have AFM over a Hybrid design. It would also be nice if there was a deactivation switch on the higher end models.
Question. If a base V8 Camaro with AFM is just as efficient as a standard V6, does there even need to be a V6 Camaro?
Question. If a base V8 Camaro with AFM is just as efficient as a standard V6, does there even need to be a V6 Camaro?
#25
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
Originally Posted by RighteousReaper
How much gas mileage does the concept actually get? I've read 30mpg everywhere, but someone pointed out to me that the LA Auto Show official site says the concept gets 40mpg.
http://www.laautoshow.com/2006/concepts.aspx
http://www.laautoshow.com/2006/concepts.aspx
#29
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
I'm curious to know what the 'real world' fuel savings are with DoD on the GM engines. Anyone able to give their mileage figures?
I know that MDS on the 300C does not seem to be of much benefit to the Hemi 5.7L.
I know that MDS on the 300C does not seem to be of much benefit to the Hemi 5.7L.
#30
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand
Originally Posted by turbo96z28
i have no problem with it as long as it's optional and doesn't end up on the performance models standard.
i mean, the LS7 puts down almost 30mpg without it.
i mean, the LS7 puts down almost 30mpg without it.
Just my .02
Jared