Volvo Phasing Out Internal Combustion Engines

This might work for a luxury car maker but wouldn't work for most brands. Also Volvo has to be one of the smaller car manufacturers now.
 
I think it's a step in the right direction. Remove the heavy and expensive drivetrain/transmission and slap electric motors at the wheels. Run motors off battery power. Plop in a small, very tuned and efficient ICE to recharge battery. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard. A properly designed/tuned engine that only runs at specific low RPM ranges could be hugely more efficient as a DC generator. Also.. no more transmission problems.

I've been saying this should be in every vehicle (excepting special purpose vehicles) for like 15 years, since I read about the first hybrids.

And think about what it could do for tractor trailer trucks. Keep the diesel engine idling at a low specific rate and let the batteries and electric motors take the abuse.

I have even had delusions of small electric generating super efficient turbine engines replacing the general ICE as a generator. Take a closed loop turbine, designed to run an optimal efficiency, and they will sip fuel all day long. Also the emissions from a setup like a turbine hybrid would have to be so much better than a regular gas or diesel ICE. I know I read something about this years ago, let me see if I can find it.
The battery pack Tesla typically uses weighs 1,200 pounds/544 kilograms. If you want to add a small ICE as a charger that is another 200 pounds/91 kilograms, at least, and you still need a conduit to transfer the charging energy to the batteries like a transmission, which is yet another 200 pounds.

A small I4 engine + automatic transmission + driveline + fuel tank weighs 600-700 pounds/272-318 kilograms when wet. That is nearly just one-third the weight compared to the above scenario.
 
The battery pack Tesla typically uses weighs 1,200 pounds/544 kilograms. If you want to add a small ICE as a charger that is another 200 pounds/91 kilograms, at least, and you still need a conduit to transfer the charging energy to the batteries like a transmission, which is yet another 200 pounds.

A small I4 engine + automatic transmission + driveline + fuel tank weighs 600-700 pounds/272-318 kilograms when wet. That is nearly just one-third the weight compared to the above scenario.

That might be to big, as from what I have read the big problem is how fast a battery can take a charge, that and be efficient, after a given point the battery temperature increases and so does resistance and charging efficiency drops. I am sure you could design an all in one generator with the motor, more compact and tune the engine and cam profiles to run at a constant RPM thats a low enough current rate to not totally kill efficiency and not so low as it really does nothing. But thats TOTALLY dependent on how efficient you can make that system, as you are converting motive power into electrical and then into storage and then back into motive power and if those losses are greater than a simple drive train loss, it's not worth it for anything other than emergency use, but then you are left with an extra, say at best 300lbs to total car weight for an emergency system only. And that is not even factoring in the extra cost of the whole system and complexity/maintenance.
 
Let me know when one can go for as long as I can drive... hybrids offer little to no advantage when you are mostly a highway driver...
Depends upon the highway.

If you mean the highways connecting suburbs to major metro areas, then you might be surprised how good hybrids are when traffic can regularly go from smooth to stop and go in an instant. Or worse for MAJOR metro areas where it's stop and go most of the daylight hours.

Also, wouldn't surprise me if hybrids were still better for highways, yeah they don't benefit as much but unless you're talking a place like Kansas where the elevation doesn't change more than a couple feet over the entire state, getting all those downward recharges do add up.
 
China is pushing hard on green tech right now, they have a huge environmental problem and they are combating it hard in the cities. Given that China is the largest car market and it has publically stated that all new vehicles sold after 2020 must be hybrids or full electric it makes sense that Volvo which is owned by the Chinese would be making changes to comply with their own countries laws.
 
So...Volvo is getting out of the car business. That's how I read it.
 
Rough numbers: current batteries have an energy density of about 250 Wh/kg. 500 is on the far distant horizon. Fuel sits around 12,000 Wh/kg.

That's an advantage to fuel of 48 to 1. And, as I use fuel, I get more performance (lighter load to carry). I can use it right down to the last drop. With batteries, dropping below 80% will permanently reduce the battery's ability to hold a charge.

That's why battery packs are so heavy and why range is so short: 250 Wh/kg. Physics.

Keep dreaming. Good things can come from dreams.
 
A bit of click-bait. According to the article Volve will have hybrid engines as well, which are still traditional ICE's + battery/motor.

If volvo did go ALL electric that would be their death nail. As we have pointed out here multiple times, marketing surveys do not reflect reality of buyers. It bit Microsoft in the ass on XBOne, and that whole VR survey of which is most popular.
 


Are micro turbines a real thing yet? I wonder how much wattage/amperage you would need to charge the batteries instead of an ICE

also saw this : http://newatlas.com/techrules-turbine-recharging-supercar/42624/


Yes they are real. The efficiency is limited to the Pin/Pout ratio. And it's a technology that warrants visiting again. I have said so for years. Turbines (even high speed ones) are highly reliable and take a beating. (That's what powers the Abrahms M-1 tank) But initial cost is a little higher than old school ICEs.

Turbines were played with in the 60's, but abandoned because of the excess heat, noise, and slow ramp up/wind down times which made it hard to accelerate the car with on demand power. Obviously not an issue in a hybrid setup.

As I posted on Nov 23rd on facebook:
Facebook post said:
So I'm sitting here wondering...Otto cycle ICE are still used as the primary backup to recharge batteries and to provide additional power to hybrid cars.

Gas turbines have an efficiency of ~60%, well above standard 25%->35% of standard ICE. They can also run on a variety of common fuels.

The reason turbines weren't used was because turbines were slow to spin up to acceptable speeds to supply power. However with battery backups, this is not an issue. There is sufficient reserve in the batteries to backup the turbine until the turbine spools up to power the automobile.

So what am I missing?

I talked it over with a couple friends who are all engineers and this was the consensus:

Friends said:
The likely issue will be creating turbines that are that small that have acceptable performance and low maintenance for consumer grade products. As they have never been rolled out in high quantities and given the required tolerances, it would just not make a lot of sense at the consumer level. We have 100+ years of experience with Otto Cycle engines. All you need is a youtube video of a turbine blade failure of a production vehicle and consumer acceptance of the product would never recover
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a person worries about mpg or gas prices, they will always drive a shitbox grocery getter.

Not true. Gimme a 1975-1978 Datsun 280z and some money to fix it up and I can show you a nice little sports car that can get 27+ mpg on the highway, around 20-25mpg in the city, has good acceleration and can go 120-140mph. And the handling on corners is to die for if set up properly.

You can have sporty, good mpg and good power if you know what you are doing.

Now if you are looking at the "smart" cars and wanting 35-40mpg+, sure you are going to have a crap car that will crumple to cracker-jack box size if it gets in a wreck.
 
Not true. Gimme a 1975-1978 Datsun 280z and some money to fix it up and I can show you a nice little sports car that can get 27+ mpg on the highway, around 20-25mpg in the city, has good acceleration and can go 120-140mph. And the handling on corners is to die for if set up properly.

You can have sporty, good mpg and good power if you know what you are doing.

Now if you are looking at the "smart" cars and wanting 35-40mpg+, sure you are going to have a crap car that will crumple to cracker-jack box size if it gets in a wreck.

And I got 32MPG on my corvette C6 with 400HP/400ft-lb cruising on the highway. But compared to 40, or 50MPG some compacts get these days that still pales. (Hyundai Elantra gets 40MPG on the highway)
 
This might work for a luxury car maker but wouldn't work for most brands. Also Volvo has to be one of the smaller car manufacturers now.

It might not work in "Global warming doesn't Exist" USA, but the rest of the world is Changing.

So far, Norway, Netherlands and France have announced they will banning gas/diesel engines in the coming decades:

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...ale-of-combustion-engines-from-2025-1.2757955
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/france-petrol-diesel-ban-vehicles-cars-2040-a7826831.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-replace-with-electric-vehicles-a7065616.html

Volvo is just getting ready for reality.
 
Not true. Gimme a 1975-1978 Datsun 280z and some money to fix it up and I can show you a nice little sports car that can get 27+ mpg on the highway, around 20-25mpg in the city, has good acceleration and can go 120-140mph. And the handling on corners is to die for if set up properly.

You can have sporty, good mpg and good power if you know what you are doing.
Agreed. And same can be said about many cars. Fox body mustang for instance. 4-cyl, 5-speed, and proper tire size. 27-28 around town, and close to 40-mpg on the highway.
 
Rough numbers: current batteries have an energy density of about 250 Wh/kg. 500 is on the far distant horizon. Fuel sits around 12,000 Wh/kg.

That's an advantage to fuel of 48 to 1. And, as I use fuel, I get more performance (lighter load to carry). I can use it right down to the last drop. With batteries, dropping below 80% will permanently reduce the battery's ability to hold a charge.

That's why battery packs are so heavy and why range is so short: 250 Wh/kg. Physics.

Keep dreaming. Good things can come from dreams.
I know right! Lets keep dreaming about those keebler elfs making new oil too!.. maybe more oil will come from that too.
 
I know right! Lets keep dreaming about those keebler elfs making new oil too!.. maybe more oil will come from that too.

He forgot to mention the power grid is nowhere in the kind of shape it needs to be in to supply the demands of charging cars on a regular basis. That overhaul has been on the books since the 70's/80's. And it's gotten nowhere fast.

Plus there isn't enough power. I'm sure many of you will say power demand drops considerably during the night. However that's also when plants take generators and substations offline to do maintenance. Even at full capacity, we are far short of generating the power requirements of everyone running on electricity.
 
He forgot to mention the power grid is nowhere in the kind of shape it needs to be in to supply the demands of charging cars on a regular basis. That overhaul has been on the books since the 70's/80's. And it's gotten nowhere fast.
Still easier than making new fossil fuels.
 
I know right! Lets keep dreaming about those keebler elfs making new oil too!.. maybe more oil will come from that too.

You're (hopefully on purpose) ignoring the resurgence in oil discovery. I was told, back in the '70s that several events would occur: a new ice age (due to man); widespread starvation ("obesity epidemic" anyone); and the end of oil.

I don't know about your Keebler elfs, but I do know from watching Lord of the Rings that elf chicks are hot. ;)
 
I know right! Lets keep dreaming about those keebler elfs making new oil too!.. maybe more oil will come from that too.

No dreaming. Oil reserves are known, and have been, the reason year after year they keep growing is because those reserves only cover what we can get to at the time, every year we are able to drill areas and depths not practical before, or refine oil from sources not deemed economical. Which is why even though oil consumption has grown many fold, reserves have actually grown as well, rather than shrink. Assuming no other efficiency gains, and continuing production levels and NO other reserve increases or discovery, we still have enough for another 60+ years. Funny enough however, that number has gone up every year and is predicted to do so for a while still.
 
I was told things back in the 60s. Where is my flying car dammit? :mad:

giphy.gif

PbK1Ie4NpCL8k
 
It might not work in "Global warming doesn't Exist" USA, but the rest of the world is Changing.

So far, Norway, Netherlands and France have announced they will banning gas/diesel engines in the coming decades:

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...ale-of-combustion-engines-from-2025-1.2757955
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/france-petrol-diesel-ban-vehicles-cars-2040-a7826831.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-replace-with-electric-vehicles-a7065616.html

Volvo is just getting ready for reality.
So hopefully by 2025, but more likely by 2040. That's 23 years and 8 years in the future. I seriously doubt they can pull that off by 2025.

It's virtue signaling of the worst kind. No one is saying Global Warming doesn't exist. What I was saying is that a car company with a record year of 500k car sales against an industry that is moving 35.6m units a year, isn't indicative of a trend.
Also by 2040 the people who instituted the policy won't be around-- sounds a lot like California, enacting laws that won't take affect until after the politician has left office.
 
So hopefully by 2025, but more likely by 2040. That's 23 years and 8 years in the future. I seriously doubt they can pull that off by 2025.

It's virtue signaling of the worst kind. No one is saying Global Warming doesn't exist. What I was saying is that a car company with a record year of 500k car sales against an industry that is moving 35.6m units a year, isn't indicative of a trend.
Also by 2040 the people who instituted the policy won't be around-- sounds a lot like California, enacting laws that won't take affect until after the politician has left office.

So you are complaining that 2025 is too close and 2040 is too far away???

I never said you were saying Global Warming didn't exist, but that is the position of the US government, the head of the EPA, and much of the US population.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141238/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-just-went-full-climate-denier

"But now that Pruitt’s all settled in at the EPA, he’s getting a little less shy. In a CNBC interview on Thursday morning, Pruitt explicitly said that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming"
 
So you are complaining that 2025 is too close and 2040 is too far away???

I never said you were saying Global Warming didn't exist, but that is the position of the US government, the head of the EPA, and much of the US population.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141238/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-just-went-full-climate-denier

"But now that Pruitt’s all settled in at the EPA, he’s getting a little less shy. In a CNBC interview on Thursday morning, Pruitt explicitly said that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming"
I'm saying they will not accomplish it by 2025, and 2040 makes it someone else's problem.

What does what the US government says have to do with what Volvo is doing, but I'll play.

Can you show me the actual proof that Global Warming is caused by man? Step up where Bill Nye failed by all means.

Again, it's not that global warming exists, it's whether or not it's man made.
 
yeah and they mean nothing to people that actually live outside of that area (like I do). I need my car to be able to perform in ALL conditions and thankfully, Subaru meets my needs with AWD and good fuel economy... a 2WD car sucks when roads are not plowed and you need to be able to get somewhere.

2WD is plenty capable with the proper tires.
 
I'm saying they will not accomplish it by 2025, and 2040 makes it someone else's problem.

What does what the US government says have to do with what Volvo is doing, but I'll play.

Can you show me the actual proof that Global Warming is caused by man? Step up where Bill Nye failed by all means.

Again, it's not that global warming exists, it's whether or not it's man made.

So you are an AGW denier. Sorry I don't have time for people who deny science.

Like I said, the rest of world is getting on dealing with scientific realities.

Volvo is preparing for that.
 
"But now that Pruitt’s all settled in at the EPA, he’s getting a little less shy. In a CNBC interview on Thursday morning, Pruitt explicitly said that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming"

In all fairness, he is correct. We base this information by looking at Venus.

The hypothesis states that CO2 results in the ability to hold up more particulates into the atmosphere which creates cloud cover which reflects infra-red back down to the earth. The problem with this theory is the effects of particulates have to simulated for the entire planet taking into account factors like UV, earths magnetic poles, varying density of atomosphere, varying composition, and temperature. So at best we have an educated guess. But simulating such particle movement is based on hypothetical models only and they haven't been proven correct.

The initial basis for the assumption was because there was a marked increase in CO2 whenever there was an increase in earth's temperature. But it was correlative. And earths CO2 levels at one point kept increasing when earth was in a period of cooling off from it's maximum. So if CO2 is an influence, it's not the only one.

The simple of the matter of fact is it's still too early to tell. We only had daily accurate data since the 60's. And everything before that uses point area averages which are subject to point area average errors which have a tendency to smooth out short temperature spikes/falls.

The people yelling the loudest about global warming are the people with a vested interest in making it true. IE their jobs depend on it. So it really is a conflict of interest.
 
A 2WD is fine in the snow if you are a competent driver. No issues there.
a 2 wheel drive car even with snow tires will not go though more than 10--12 inches of snow... a real awd car will without issue even on all season tires.
 
2WD is plenty capable with the proper tires.
I would say drivable, but I wouldn't go so far as saying "plenty capable" in snowy conditions.
So you are an AGW denier. Sorry I don't have time for people who deny science.

Like I said, the rest of world is getting on dealing with scientific realities.

Volvo is preparing for that.
AGW isn't settled science. The preponderance of the data we currently have actually shows the opposite of what AGW theory proposes, but we don't have nearly enough data to say definitively one way or another. As Krazy925 said: the question isn't if global warming exists and is happening, but is mankind affecting the warming cycle of the planet, and if so, by how much.
 
So you are complaining that 2025 is too close and 2040 is too far away???

I never said you were saying Global Warming didn't exist, but that is the position of the US government, the head of the EPA, and much of the US population.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141238/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-just-went-full-climate-denier

"But now that Pruitt’s all settled in at the EPA, he’s getting a little less shy. In a CNBC interview on Thursday morning, Pruitt explicitly said that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming"

He doesn't say that, he doesn't even say that in your own link, he said he does not believe carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to global warming. And he said that the degree humans impact this needs to be looked at in greater detail. And he would be correct in that.
 
So you are an AGW denier. Sorry I don't have time for people who deny science.

Like I said, the rest of world is getting on dealing with scientific realities.

Volvo is preparing for that.
Someone doesn't have any proof ;)
 
Depends upon the highway.

If you mean the highways connecting suburbs to major metro areas, then you might be surprised how good hybrids are when traffic can regularly go from smooth to stop and go in an instant. Or worse for MAJOR metro areas where it's stop and go most of the daylight hours.

Also, wouldn't surprise me if hybrids were still better for highways, yeah they don't benefit as much but unless you're talking a place like Kansas where the elevation doesn't change more than a couple feet over the entire state, getting all those downward recharges do add up.

Hybrid help a lot on rush hour/holiday highway traffic. I can usually hit 45-50 mpg in my Camry hybrid when we are stuck in slow traffic averaging less then 30 mpg.

As for open highway traffic, it get about 10-15% better than the regular 4 cyl, depending on speed. (rated 38 mpg vs 35 mpg). Not enough of a difference to justify the $3k increase in price for open highway driving.

Around town, I get almost double the mileage I used to get on my old 4cyl.

I'd never buy one of the current all electric cars, or even a plug-in hybrid. The added cost isn't worth it, since the high electric rates here in Southern California makes the payback period too long. Besides, I have yet to see an electric car or a plugin hybrid that comes with a spare tire.
 
I would say drivable, but I wouldn't go so far as saying "plenty capable" in snowy conditions.

AGW isn't settled science. The preponderance of the data we currently have actually shows the opposite of what AGW theory proposes, but we don't have nearly enough data to say definitively one way or another. As Krazy925 said: the question isn't if global warming exists and is happening, but is mankind affecting the warming cycle of the planet, and if so, by how much.

Found this earlier today:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Interesting paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
What's more interesting is how in case after case, the global climate alarmists are found to be "fudging" data to support a pre-conceived solution. Thanks for the link.


imagine that... I am shocked I tell ya, SHOCKED
 
Wait?! They are doing this without the force of the government? You mean, consumers have steered them towards this decision? Bananas.
 
What's more interesting is how in case after case, the global climate alarmists are found to be "fudging" data to support a pre-conceived solution. Thanks for the link.

Regardless, I don't think it's a wrong thing to want to steer towards "cleaner" solutions. Still, the cost at which some want us to do it at is absurd and, honestly, self defeating. Hysteria drives away people instead of including them. Level heads are needed. I don't disagree with climate change. I just disagree with the rhetoric of forcing the government and tax payers to subsidize technology that might not win out against other innovations. Why subsidize something that might not win the war for efficiency or cost? That's my concern. Let the market figure out how to save the planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
ICE had a good, 100years.
RIP

Ever watch Street Outlaws? Graveyard cars? Phantomworks? Gas Monkey?

ICE's going nowhere anytime soon.

And if I don't drive like a complete idiot I can get 350+ miles in my 2005 Toyota Matrix. I've already done it. Good luck EV beating that.
 
Ever watch Street Outlaws? Graveyard cars? Phantomworks? Gas Monkey?

ICE's going nowhere anytime soon.

And if I don't drive like a complete idiot I can get 350+ miles in my 2005 Toyota Matrix. I've already done it. Good luck EV beating that.


with the 2014 legacy I can go 520 miles before the gas light comes on and that is like going from St. Paul, MN to Hartford, MI following I94/90/94
 
Back
Top