Updated: Valeo makes your car engine hybrid

7/25/2012 3:08 PM EDT

The biggest hold-up is the time necessary to tune the system to the target vehicle, then validate the combination for durability. Once approved for production, there is validation at the component level and vehicle level. Vehicle level testing typically involves at least 4 seasons, including 2 winter cycles, of real world, test track, and lab testing to "prove" the design is acceptable. It is not uncommon for a program to take 4 years to go from approval to saleable vehicles. There are also regulatory issues to resolve (EPA testing in the US, crashworthyness testing and other levels of certification).

Full disclosure: I am retired from a major North American automotive electronics supplier. These comments come from 30+ years developing electronics for the auto industry.

Yes, Valeo and others have been pitching this and similar systems for at least 10 years now.

7/26/2012 6:36 AM EDT

Loloyd P, thank for posting. Ahhh, now I get it.

7/25/2012 8:41 PM EDT

That is certainly improved. No mention if this can displace the starter motor, or the increased battery-budget needed.
A starter motor pulling on the accessory drive belt does not sound like a recipe for reliability.

7/26/2012 9:17 AM EDT

I agree with you Bert. I would love it if all my car choices had twin turbo V6 with stop-start options. Completely off topic, but why are there no V4 engines to go with the V6, V8 V10 & V12s?

7/27/2012 7:14 AM EDT

I'll take a 2L turbo V8 spinning at 18,000 RPM

8/6/2012 5:30 PM EDT

And put it on a motorcycle! Take that, Honda GoldWing! (1800 cc 6 cylinder boxer)

7/27/2012 11:33 AM EDT

I don't know all the reasons but it's looking like four cylinders with turbo charging is all one might need in the under 200 horse category. That can be pushed to 300. What does V6 buy you?

More cylinders seem to be required only if you must go appreciably more than two liters for an easy 200+ horses.

7/27/2012 3:43 PM EDT

A V-6, or even better a straight six, is a sweet, sweet engine. No matter how much you try to balance a four with extra balance shafts, it's always going to be a buzzy four.

This has nothing to do with power. It has to do with naturally balancing the first and second moments. I'd much rather have a 2 liter 6 cylinder than a 2 liter 4 cylinder, EVEN IF the 6 did not produce more power.

7/27/2012 5:38 PM EDT

Above, I said I do not know all the reasons, but the six seems to be going away, at least in the power range I've been talking about. I think there are a number of reasons. These might include economics, fuel efficiency, physical size and reliability.

I like the six too, my favorite was the VR6 because of its compactness without too many compromises over the straight variety (actually with much of the soul and attributes of the straight) but it too seems to headed towards extinction.

The vibrations of the four seem to have been sufficiently tamed, internally and externally.

The bottom line these days seems to exclude elegance just for the sake of elegance. Power, efficiency, compactness, reliability and cost are what rules.

Intake pressure boost, sophisticated valving and fuel deliver,and electronic control of everything have changed the game. We have new goals and rules. Metallurgy and mechanical engineering are also much advanced.

And this is all part of a bigger platform and the ecosystem it lives in.

7/28/2012 5:22 PM EDT

I think what we are seeing is that the V-6 is the higher grade option, in the mid sized cars with upgraded package. Once the province of V-8s. Fours are becoming prevalent even in mid-sized cars with the basic feature package.

For example, the short wheel base Epsilon platform cars (platform designed by Opel), like the new Chevy Malibu and new Buick Regal, are turbo fours only (so far anyway). But the Buick Lacrosse, which is the long wheelbase Epsilon, comes with the V-6.

If you look at Mercedes Benz, the C class and the SLK come either with turbo fours or with the new 60 degree V-6. And the luxury models, all but one, now come with only turbo V-8s. For some odd reason, Mercdes Benz doesn't yet offer turbo V-6s, although I'm willing to bet that's just around the corner.

It looks like, for a given power output, you can get better EPA fuel economy ratings with turbo engines than naturally aspirated engines. Probably because, when driven mildly, e.g. city driving without hard acceleration, the turbo engine operates like low powered small displacement engine.

7/27/2012 1:37 PM EDT

For us city-dwellers, the start-stop system is significant. Even without the kinetic energy recovery feature of a hybrid drivetrain, the start-stop can potentially save a lot of gas if you spend so much time waiting at stop lights like I do on my commute. SO I think you're right - for city dwellers, even a very-mild hybrid should be significant.

We have 2 economy cars, one is a hybrid and one is not. In our 100% city driving routine, the hybrid literally doubles the fuel economy of our non-hybrid.

7/30/2012 11:26 PM EDT

I can see many advantages to the mild hybrid approach but there are of course shortcomings.

One is the inability to drive the vehicle without the engine engaged and running.

Another is the efficiency of braking energy recovery, especially if there is a torque converter type of automatic transmission. Braking recovery needs to optimized for low engine RPM so braking energy is not dissipated as heat pushing engine compression.

The use of a dual clutch automatic could alleviate much of the braking loss if the alternator could be made to deliver substantial charge rate at engine RPMs under 1000.

7/30/2012 10:07 PM EDT

When I was buying my F150, I looked at the eco-boost. The V6 was 1 mpg more than the V8. The eco-boost V6 was one more mpg than the V6. The eco-boost was about $3k more than the V8. I decided to have a V8.