Posted on 11/27/2009 8:18:12 AM PST by thackney
BMW's EfficientDynamics Vision concept car combines the best of all worlds with incredible fuel efficiency, breaktaking performance, and sensational looks. It's powered by a three-cylinder turbo-diesel engine, lithium polymer batteries, and electric motors front and rear. The BMW Vision gets a U.S. unveiling next week at the Los Angeles Auto Show, Dec. 4-13. The only bad news: The BMW Vision is more vision than production-ready concept car. What you'd most likely see on sale would be the key components such as the drivetrain and battery technology transplanted to a more mainstream body.
On a stopover from Europe en route to L.A., BMW held a series of press briefings at its Chestnut Ridge, N.J., U.S. headquarters. According to BMW, the goal was to create a car that would be as quick as BMW's V8 M3, yet tread lightly in terms of environmental impact. Here's how the BMW Vision has the potential to win the hearts and minds of hot-rodders, environmentalists, and techies alike:
Total output from the engine and electric motors is 356hp, and peak torque is 590 foot-pounds (a lot). Acceleration to 100 kph (62 mph) takes just 4.8 seconds and speed tops out at 155 mph. Average fuel consumption is 62.6 mpg or 3.76 liters/100 km in European figures. The fuel economy translates to CO2 emissions of 99 grams per kilometer; getting below 100 is the holy grail by EU standards.
The Vision has a range of 431 miles, BMW says: 31 miles in all-electric mode, about the same as the Chevrolet Volt, plus 400 miles from the 6.6 gallon fuel tank. BMW hasn't yet tried to play the U.S.-automaker mpg numbers game, saying that since most trips are less than 30 miles, and since big powerplant generation is more efficient than using a combustion engine, the effective mileage is up around 200 mpg. What is clear is that electric motors are extremely efficient, as are big power plants, so the effective cost of energy is less than half that of diesel or gasoline fuel.
The three-cylinder, 1.5-liter engine alone produces 163 hp. BMW says the output of 109 hp per liter is the most power produced by a diesel engine. It's small enough to fit ahead of the rear axle for better weigh distribution. Power travels to the rear wheels via a six-speed double-clutch transmission.
One electric motor, in back, sits between the diesel engine and transmission and produces 33 hp (51 hp peak). It can run on its own, without the combustion engine, making the Vision what's considered an active hybrid, as opposed to a mild hybrid where the combustion engine always powers the car. The second motor powers the front axle; it produces 80 hp (continuous), 112 hp (30-second bursts), or 139 hp (10-second bursts). The two motors also act as brakes and regenerate power into the lithium polymer battery pack that runs in a tunnel along the floor of the car. Fuel for the diesel engine is in the rear of the tunnel (separate compartment; it doesn't just slosh around the batteries).
The battery pack has enough juice to bring anyone back from cardiac arrest (or cause it): 98 lithium-polymer cells deliver 30 amp/hours at 3.7 volts, or 111 watt-hours. So each cell is about equal to two laptop batteries. For periods of up to 30 seconds, each cell develops 1,200 amps. Plug the Vision into a standard (in Europe) 220-volt, 16-amp circuit, and the car fully recharges in 2.5 hours. Uses 380 volts and 32 amps and you're back on the road in 44 minutes. Conversely, you'd be looking at overnight plugged into 120 volt U.S. power.
It appears most cars don’t match up like we would like them to. It’s never a apples to apples comparison. I would love to match a VW TDI diesel with a similar VW gasoline engine. No such luck. But in 3/4 and 1 ton versions of trucks. The comparison is there. I have a 1996 3/4 ton Dodge Ram 4x4 with a Turbo Diesel 359 CI engine, it weighs 7000 pounds. I average 19 to 20 MPG. A 1996 Dodge Ram 4x4 gas burner 360 CI engine will only get 10 to 12 MPG and most only get 8 to 10 MPG. Even if it got 14 MPG. I still get 40% better MPG.
Perhaps, but with hydraulics a smaller power plant can be used because the energy can be accumulated for power bursts and deceleration energy can be scavenged. It does everything electric hybrids attempts to do but far more efficiently and without the negatives of batteries.
Sully777;vigl;cagey;abathar;A. Patriot;B Knotts;getsoutalive;muleskinner;sausageseller;
Fiddlstix;Trappedinnj;TexasTransplant;Squeako;dennisw;gadfly-at-large;
norwaypinesavage;Jack of all Trades;1oldpro;mainframe65;B4Ranch;weps4ret;bert;Salo;
ConservativeMind;toast;Gvl_M3;roaddog727;elkfersupper;CPT Clay;AnalogReigns;
AirForce-TechSgt;LurkingSince98;scottteng;Jedi Master Pikachu;Iowa Granny;Groganeer;
Baseballguy;nina0113;HeadOn;Phatboy;ARE SOLE;Hydroshock;FrPR;
texas booster;Venerable Bede;CarrotAndStick;dgallo51;Recon Dad;sbilik;tubebender;
mjustice;NVDave;RightInEastLansing;e_castillo;keith in iowa;rightsmart;
Don Carlos;beef;Battle Axe;showme_the_Glory;Dick Bachert;JAKraig;Overseez;Froufrou;Theres millions ofem;
thedilg;Stashiu;Capt_Hank;stalban;shaggy eel;ex-Texan;giznort;Diggadave;EEDUDE;isaiah55version11_0;
2ndDivisionVet;FreedomPoster;ecomcon;doxteve;Frohickey;cpdiii;Ancesthntr;Little Bill;moonpie57;
JAKraig;Chas00;RichardW;jla;NeverEVERKerry;IamConservative;BwanaNdege;thedilg;youngjim;Ole Okie;
gnarledmaw;19th LA Inf;Clay Moore;SmoothTalker;69ConvertibleFirebird;srotaG adirolF;mowowie;Tom D.;
Texas Mulerider;Andy from Chapel Hill;shamusotoole;capitalistchic;Flavius;WLR;
RachelFaith;thedilg;herMANroberts;InLikeLevin;stephenjohnbanker;fightinbluhen51;Squantos;I_be_tc;
JoeA;Zerodown;msf bu;mission9;lfrancis;US_MilitaryRules;racnpartsales4u;tired1;Normandy;militem;
Jagman;Tony in Hawaii;Alaskaerik;Virginia Ridgerunner;RightOnTheLeftCoast;goorala;rednesss;
mcshot;woofer2425;tupac;flicker;anton;BroJoeK;NoLibZone;Sarevok;U S Army EOD;tallguy;
“Be not afraid!”;right way right;fishhound;wequalswinner;randog;Dan12180;PJammers;azhenfud;AFPhys;
MarkT;Army Air Corps;painter;kevmo;kimmers;blau993;Mr Fuji;Yo-Yo;posterchild;Gay State Conservative;
George from New England;STD;AdaGray;mmanager;
Doesn’t the fact that diesel engines run “cold” mean they lose less energy to waste heat?
Diesels Run Cold?
I tried to research this farther but didn’t find the data I expected to easily put my hands upon.
I think that from what I found diesel are more efficient but I believe the amount of difference is smaller than some here have suggested.
Unfortunately too many time constraints for me right now to find and document asI would like.
I’ll add it to the growing list of things I should learn.
I wanted to thank you for the info.
I still doubt the 40% as typical but I found it more difficult than expected to find basic data from the same vehicle with gasoline versus diesel engine.
I would think with options of both available it should be out there on the web somewhere.
Diesel is more efficient. Thanks for the exchange.
“Not enough room to haul my stuff.”
####
Indeed.
Not even close.
But it is oh so “smart”, and by implication you are “smart” simply for driving one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency
It appears that the average diesel engine is 50% (45% vs. 30%) more efficient in generating power output from a US gallon of fuel than can an average gasoline engine. The BTU content is a small amount of this (diesel has 5%-15% more BTUs/gallon (bio vs. normal) than gasoline). The rest comes from the effect of a high compression ratio.
Add to this that diesel is able to provide much more torque at the low end RPMs (which everyone must always use), it looks even better.
However, one must subtract out that the diesel engine is, itself, rather more heavy than a gas engine. This reduces our practical power output in the above mention, but it does not reduce the actual amount of real work it performs from a gallon of fuel (moving a heavy engine is still work performed, even if you'd rather not move a heavy engine).
What year is it?
M3s are fun little zoom cars...
I appreciated the effort but I don’t consider wikpedia anything beyond an opinion and not actual data.
It is useful to gain understanding and I often find the outside links helpful.
But don’t confuse wikpedia as confirmed data.
“Diesel engines are already more
efficient than gasoline engines (45
percent versus 30 percent), and further
advances are possible (to 55-63
percent).
http://www1.eere.e”nergy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/basics/jtb_diesel_engine.pdf
1 gallon of gasoline = 124,000 Btu (based on U.S. consumption, 2008)
1 gallon of diesel fuel = 139,000 Btu
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=about_energy_units
I know you may have a problem with governmental sources, but that's about as good as I can quickly find.
That first link shouldn’t have that quote in it. Here it is again, corrected.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/basics/jtb_diesel_engine.pdf
Mostly they are good. EERE can tend to be biased towards alternative fuels but rarely something like diesel. And EIA is an excellent source, in my opinion.
Thank you for that.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2010.pdf
The results are, in my opinion, conclusive of an efficiency advantage of diesel, but conflicted in terms of just how much.
The Volkswagen Golf numbers are right in line with both of your expectations, 40~50%.
The Mercedes is more like I thought I would see, 20~25% advantage to diesel.
Audi was 31~39% advantage diesel. BMW was 24~27%. Volkswagen Touareg was 29~32%. Volkswagen Jetta was 25~31%.
Altogether, they average 31%. Heavier trucks are not included, I wish the rated the 1 ton trucks the same way.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm
The difference is greater still for Reformulated Gasoline used in many different areas. Both Ethanol and MTBE lower the energy but ethanol is worse.
convectional = conventional
But also note that biodiesel has a lower BTU rating than that given by the government, and that the numbers collected by the US government on total efficiency of diesel vs. gas engines were possibly done prior to mandates for ethanol gasoline.
In addition, even at the “worst case” of a 22% fuel energy benefit for diesel, that no where accounts for the additional 28% efficiency provided by said diesel engines over that of gas engines.
Having just bought my first diesel a couple of months ago (a BMW 335d) I'm now a *major* believer.I get 43 mpg at a steady 65mph (unlike many Bimmer owners,I'm not a hot-rodder) and yet,when needed,the thing's a rocketship (passing,merging onto an Interstate,etc).The upcoming winter will be my first one with a diesel so I'm a bit wary of being stranded by fuel gelling but I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.