
Volvo Bets Its Future on Small, Turbocharged Engines - davidiach
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/volvo-turbo-engine-concept/?mbid=social_fb
======
incision
It seems an odd choice to say three turbochargers in an article that
references superchargers when it reads as an electric supercharger plus
sequential turbos.

Personally, I'd much rather see advancement / acceptance of self-drivers even
if limited to highways than incremental improvements to traditional cars.

The main, perhaps only reason I really care about response and acceleration is
the generally selfish, adversarial behavior of human drivers.

The contrast between the same daily drive in a 4-cyl compact and torquey V8 is
stark. In the former, every lane change has to come with permission - that
drivers are often unwilling to give. In the latter, I'm in complete control.

I'd much rather the third possibility - to know we're all on autopilot gliding
along at a safe, predictable rate to our destinations.

~~~
sliverstorm
It isn't all about the commute. There's also towing, high mountain passes, and
plain fun to consider.

It's amazing how gutless my old 140hp/150lb-ft wagon was at 10,000ft. Foot to
the floor, 3rd gear, barely maintaining speed.

~~~
undersuit
The plain fun aspect isn't a reason to keep the human driven automobile around
as a legal activity on public roads. We segregate fun from business and
competition for a number of activities. We don't go hunting with fully
automatic weapons, why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously
overpowered vehicles when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next
to them driving to work?

~~~
MrDom
> why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously overpowered vehicles
> when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next to them driving to
> work?

Why do people get to tell me what I can and can't drive? Lots of people manage
to drive safely on public roads with cars far far more powerful than they
technically need.

> We don't go hunting with fully automatic weapons

Then you're clearly not having as much fun as you could be ;)

------
makhanko
I own two Volvos and I can tell you that with the new insanely complicated
engines no mechanic will touch the car. You will be stuck servicing it at
Volvo dealership at lawyers hourly rates. And this will be aggravated by the
fact that with more moving parts the car will break more often. Plus the cost
of the new engine is much higher. The base price of the 2016 XC90 with the new
engine is well above what the previous model cost. The fuel efficiency savings
are unlikely to come close to offsetting the increased cost of ownership.

It seems that Volvo adopted the "differentiation" strategy of some hardware
manufacturers - needlessly boosting the specs which looks good on paper but
doesn't do squat for the end user.

In my opinion it's move in the wrong direction for Volvo that used be known
for it's simplicity.

~~~
nextw33k
I would disagree with you there. Yes there is something to be said for
simplicity, however advancement often comes with complexity.

I think the engineering model is going to have to take into account the new
economics of selling cars. Last month I brought a new BMW, I negotiated a 5
year servicing deal which means I am only liable for tires, brake pads and
possibly the clutch if it is burnt out but not if there is a mechanical fault.
BMW have a vested interest in making cars that can last for as long as
possible.

We should all be considering how we can place the liability of equipment
makers back on the manufacturers. We'll end up with a less throw away society.

------
DTV
Volvo isn't the only one. One of the new Ford Mustangs is running a 2.3L turbo
4-cyl. Some Mustang fans complain because they like that classic V8 rumble but
I don't think the people buying Volvos are too worried about showing off at
the each red light.

~~~
bradleyland
Yeah, my initial reaction was "name an auto manufacturer who _isn 't_ betting
its future on small, turbocharged engines. It's pretty much a necessity, and
much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-
revving, naturally-aspirated engine).

Volvo does appear to be distinguishing themselves though. Namely in the fact
that they're coming to market with an e-booster (electric turbo). There are
plenty of dual-inlet turbocharged engines on the market, and Mercedes pushed
the envelope with their M133 engine found in their performance oriented
version of the CLA, but no one, that I'm aware of, has brought an e-booster to
market. There was quite a bit of speculation that BMW would use one on their
latest M3, but instead they went with a dual-turbo setup and some cool
electronic wastegate management software that improves spool-up time.

The combo supercharger/turbochargers setup is crazy exciting though. The last
car I can remember with that kind of setup was Lancia's group B rallye
submission, the Delta S4. That car made, ostensibly, 480 HP from about 1.8L.
In reality, the output was more in the area of 550 HP, and legend has it that
engineers pushed the powerplant close to 1000 HP.

Every auto manufacturer is staring down a future of emissions and fuel economy
standards that are going to require some fundamental shifts in the way cars
are built and powered. Most manufacturers are moving in the direction of
hybrid technology. BMW is betting the farm on mass-produced carbon fiber
technology. Everyone has a strategy, and most involve lower displacement,
forced-induction engines, often coupled with hybrid drivetrain components.

~~~
sliverstorm
A "twincharger" (super+turbo) is notable for different reasons than you
suggest. A turbo can hit stupid peak power numbers all by itself.

The addition of the supercharger to the turbo dramatically improves low RPM
power and often peak torque as well. In doing so, it also makes a larger turbo
more practical as it reduces the problem of "turbo lag" (wherein a large turbo
paired with a small engine doesn't engage until very high RPM)

Race engines, of course, often aren't quite as worried about turbo lag because
many cars spend their entire time at peak power.

~~~
bradleyland
Yeah, I didn't mean to use the output of the Delta S4 as a statement of intent
for the system. In fact, the purpose of the supercharger on the S4 was the
same as is mentioned here (by you) and in the article. All group B cars
suffered from sever turbo lag, and the combo setup on the S4 was considered a
significant advantage for Lancia.

------
frederickf
My current ride is a 1992 Volvo 740 Wagon. It only has 12 volts, 1 turbo, and
192,000 miles. In another twenty years from now maybe I'll upgrade to one of
these fancy 3 turbo, 24 volts cars, but only if my current Volvo has stopped
running ;)

------
peterjs
I have to admit that it comes close to Volvo's best achievement today. But not
quite. I've managed to cram a 2m (6.6 ft) ladder into my 15 years old S40.
Which makes me even more fond of it than ever before.

It has no touch screens - just terrific hardware controls. No fancy
electronics, manual transmission, a 2.0l petrol engine without turbos (not
even one). All this makes me believe that this incredibly sleek and calm
vehicle has its best days ahead of it! I got a bit carried away, still, that
durability and utility of these older Volvos... There is something refined
about them even when carrying ladders around.

------
nether
A three-stage compressor for reciprocating engines. The "turbo lag" is why we
don't use turbines in cars.

~~~
lafar6502
The lag is there because turbines are powered by exhaust gases and theres no
increase in exhaust without increase in intake, and the turbine is responsible
for increasing the air intake but it can't because there's not enough exhaust
- a hen and egg problem... But Volvo did something interesting - they used an
electric turbine that doesn't have to wait for the exhaust to increase, it can
be spinned almost instantly when you press the pedal, so there should be no
lag

~~~
sliverstorm
Turbo lag is a non-problem with a turbo that is sized to match the engine.

Too small of a turbo hits peak flow too early, cutting the peak power

Too large of a turbo doesn't get enough exhaust flow to develop boost until
4000RPM or higher

A properly sized turbo begins to develop boost between 2000-3000RPM, which is
just right for most cars. When you are just puttering around town you are not
developing boost, but the steep power curve of boost is only a moment away.

------
ufmace
I'm not sure offhand how well this will work, but it is good to see real
innovation in car engines, in a time when most manufacturers seem content to
punch out the same stuff with a few percent more efficiency.

~~~
tormeh
This isn't about energy per unit of fuel, but max output per unit of engine
weight. It's more exciting, but less important, really.

Anyway, I really hope every car manufacturer out there has CAD drawings and
plans ready for the moment we get a breakthrough in battery technology. Teslas
are nice, but the batteries are holding them back. Once they get good
batteries, though, they will walk over every other kind of car. The BMW i3 is
sad but it's the closest competitor.

~~~
tailrecursion
Yes. Turbos make sense but if Volvo is betting on them they are only joining
VW, BMW, and Subaru.

Your remark about the i3 is due to its range? Otherwise it is a good car.
Tesla's products are very attractive partly because of Tesla's commitment to
supercharger networks (which are no cost to use) and other recharging
infrastructure. BMW's story seems weak by comparison but their EVs are good so
far.

~~~
tormeh
They just look like BMW took some inspiration from Fisher-Price. It screams
"we don't take this car seriously". Teslas look good, like they're /meant to
sell/ rather than just making an eco-statement. It might be a nice car in the
practical sense but it's not a serious entry in the EV space. The only
electric cars that matter is Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, period.

~~~
mikestew
It's the "takes this car seriously" part that matters a lot. I've seen one or
two i3s around the Seattle area, but Teslas and Nissan Leafs fill the roads
around here, so there's bound to be a few BMW early adopters. Is the i3 going
to sell in Indianapolis, though?

I already have a Nissan Leaf. But if I were to have never owned an electric
car and were to go buy one today, it'd be a Leaf or a Tesla. Why? Because I've
already bought a lifetime of half-assed, soon-to-be-unsupported tech. Those
items were typically less than $1000 (though I've purchased some duds that
were more pricey). If I'm dropping $30K or more, it's for damned sure going to
be from a company that I'm confident is in it for the long haul (and not, as
you say, making an "eco-statement"). Right now Nissan and Tesla are the only
ones that have convinced me that they fit that requirement.

------
jeffhodsdon
Kawasaki has their 300hp turbo 4 cylinder coming too. Super similar
[http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R](http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R)

------
fezz
No doubt a result of all those Saab engineers finally infecting Volvo.

------
zzzeek
Having driven a Tesla, IMO if this engine still burns fossil fuels, it has no
future (edit, folks, where "future" is the "5 to 10 years" noted in this
article). Tesla should be proving that the combustion engine [will within the
next 5-10 years, note this article is titled "Volvo _bets its future_ "] no
longer have a legitimate reason to exist for passenger cars.

~~~
cones688
> engine still burns fossil fuels

It does, it's just centralised and called a power station... it's incredibly
naive to think a Telsa isn't contributing to burning fossil fuels - it's just
not in front of your face.

Also I am not sure whether any modern power grid in the world could cope if
even 10% of cars became PHEV, imagine the spike when everyone got home and
plugged in their car - would be like a "TV Pickup[0]" on steriods, they
usually cover these with short term solutions such as hydro pump but this
wouldn't run the time it takes to charge a car.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup)

~~~
zzzeek
well then Elon Musk himself is "incredibly naive".

[http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-ted-talk-on-
tesla-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-ted-talk-on-tesla-spacex-
and-solarcity-2013-3)

> First of all, he said, burning fossil fuels in a plant to generate
> electricity is more efficient that burning them in a combustion engine in a
> car. Because it is large and stationary, the plant can use the fuel much
> more efficiently:

> In a stationary power plant, you can afford to have something that weighs a
> lot more, is voluminous, and you can take the waste heat and run a steam
> turbine and generate a secondary power source...

> Even using the same source fuel, you're at least twice as better off.

> Part two of Musk's argument is not based on numbers, but on the fact that
> electricity can be produced from renewable sources, most notably solar
> power:

> We have to have sustainable means of power generation anyway, electricity
> generation. So given that we have to solve sustainable electricity
> generation, then it makes sense for us to have electric cars as the mode of
> transport.

