Volvo Bets Its Future on Small, Turbocharged Engines | Hacker News Reader

Volvo Bets Its Future on Small, Turbocharged Engines

wired.com

33 pointsdavidiach49 comments

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.

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.

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?

I didn't say anything like that. Only that "fun" is one of the reasons for more than the absolute bare minimum of engine power.

> 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 ;)

"I'd much rather see advancement / acceptance of self-drivers"

Volvo is doing that as well. See http://www.wired.com/2014/09/volvo-proving-grounds/ and https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...

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.

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.

I own a twin-turbo BMW. The performance is great, but one day those turbos will go out. I hope that is the next owner's problem.

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.

But Volvo has a third turbo that powers the other two turbos. The mustang's turbo is probably a conventional turbo on a 4 cylinder.

It sounds like they actually have a conventional supercharger in addition to 2 turbochargers. It'll probably be tricky to keep it all under control, but it could result in impressive performance.

It does not sound like a 'conventional' supercharger since it is not powered by the engine's crankshaft, but rather by electricity.

The article is kind of confusing. At one point, they say:

"The 2016 XC90 (on sale early next year) is the first of this new generation of Volvos. It’s powered by a 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine with a turbocharger and a supercharger. (While the turbo works best when the engine’s already going, a supercharger forces in air with power generated by the engine itself, so increased boost is available from idle.) The supercharger runs from idle to 3,500 RPM. Above that, an integrated clutch disengages the supercharger, allowing the turbocharger to take over."

Based ont his paragraph, it sounds like a traditional supercharger that works up to 3,500 RPM. Later on though, we get this bit:

"We’ve seen plenty of twin-turbos before. Volvo’s innovation is adding a third—third!—turbo. But this one doesn’t charge the engine. It charges the other turbos. It’s electric, hence the name “e-booster,” and sends air into the two conventional turbos to improve their performance below 3,300 RPM, filling out the torque curve and eliminating that pesky lag problem."

Now we have an e-booster referred to as a third turbo, which runs up to 3,300 RPM.

So, the confusion is warranted. The article isn't entirely clear on whether these are two engine options, or a single engine with inconsistent details.

The article discusses 2 different engine designs:

-A prototype with 2 conventional turbos and a third electric "e-booster" to help spool them up. This one is "five to 10 years" away.

-A 2.0L 4-cylinder 'Drive-E' engine coming to market on the 2016 XC90 that has a turbo- and a supercharger (but no electric fan).

Ford have several turbocharged engines [1], my next car will probably have one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine

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.

> It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine).

Except for all the auto enthusiasts that Audi (ur-Quattro and almost all their performance cars since), Toyota (Celica GT-R, Supra), Nissan (Skyline GT-R), Subaru (pretty much everything), court, or who remember the era of 1000 HP Formula 1 cars fondly.

But yeah, I guess all automotive enthusiasts.

Uh, I never said "all", I said automobile enthusiasts, then added the qualification of the ones who prefer N/A engines using parenthesis. Although, I see that my wording could be taken both ways. I didn't mean for the word everywhere to mean "all", I just mean that there are enthusiasts in just about every circle of automobile culture who prefer N/A motors. Just look at all the "all motor" import tuners. There's an "all motor" group in every sub-group.

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.

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.

Another interesting technology that we see in racing (F1), but haven't yet seen in a road car (although we probably will) is driving the turbo directly with recovered electrical energy.

Volvo is driving a third turbine, which works, but it's not as efficient as simply spinning the turbine directly with an electrical motor assist. The reason they don't do this is that exhaust powered turbochargers are a real motherfucker of an environment. Excuse the language, but they really are. A turbocharger glows red-hot when generating boost. Putting an electric motor anywhere near them requires lots of advanced materials science and engineering.

A turbocharger has two main parts: a turbine that is powered by exhaust energy, and a compressor that pressurizes the intake manifold. Volumetrically, these two are separate. They are connected mechanically by a shaft that runs between the turbine and the compressor. This shaft is, traditionally, only a few inches long, and has some pretty sophisticated lubrication systems.

Mercedes went all crazy with their F1 engine and spaced the turbine and compressor apart. Way apart. On opposite ends of the engine apart. This is crazy when you consider how fast a turbo spins. It's not unusual for them to exceed 100,000 RPM. The shaft must be lubricated and extremely well balanced. The benefit of this arrangement is that the compressor is not exposed to the heat of the turbine. As I alluded to earlier, the KERS system in an F1 car can drive the turbocharger directly using electrical energy that is recovered during braking. Spacing the turbine away from the compressor affords the perfect opportunity to save the life of your electrical motor that drives said turbo.

The hope is (and it always is) that this technology will trickle down to road cars. Volvo appears to be taking the first step, albeit with a compromise.

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 ;)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Have Tesla engines been proven to be 100% reliable in extreme cold conditions like certain parts of Canada and the rest of the world?

Considering how well they're selling in Norway, I'd say so.

They do sell very well here in Norway at least - and is said to behave decent during the winter: http://www.klikk.no/motor/bil/biltester/article896042.ece

Canada and the Northern US have much, much colder winters than the [densely populated parts of] Norway.

> 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

Interesting, I wonder if there's been some early studies for mass scale electric vehicles usage.

ps: the tv pickup thing is funny.

Teslas already have a feature that can be used to delay charging until the time-of-day electricity price is lowest. It's not rocket science to extend that to be sensitive to the amount of charging needed and the load on the grid. Most days, most Teslas only need a couple hours of charging.

Also keep in mind that Tesla plans to develop a battery-based energy storage business.

> it's incredibly naive to think a Telsa isn't contributing to burning fossil fuels

What if your area is predominantly nuclear or hydroelectric?

well then Elon Musk himself is "incredibly naive".

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-ted-talk-on-tesla-...

> 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.

I think you're grossly underestimating the number of people that an electric car is a complete non-starter for.

It's great that electric cars exist now (and maybe someday in the future I'd even be interesting in buying one once there existed infrastructure that made it feasible), but I think your timeline for the obsolescence of internal combustion engines is laughable.

per the article, the volvo engine here will be rolled out in "5 to 10 years", so in 10 years yes I think the demise of the internal combustion engine will be well under way by then.

As soon as a brand new Tesla costs between $20-30K (which is pretty typical for a new family car) you'll have a point. Right now they MIGHT be releasing a $36K car MAYBE at some unspecific point in the future.

That also entirely ignores the range problems. Even with charging stations every few towns, you'll still have to stop for 30 minutes to "supercharge." That is as opposed to 5 minutes for petrol or diesel.

I just bought a turbodiesel specifically because of range. I can drive over 750 miles without stopping. Yes, I will drive that far without stopping if I have the capability.[1] With a Tesla, even with supercharging stations I would have to make three half-hour stops over that distance. On top of that, currently there is a huge station gap between Dallas and Miami, my most common long-distance route. In fact, I'm not sure I can actually get out of the Texas Triangle with a Tesla right now.

[1] This has caused one co-worker to declare that he is never taking a road trip with me.

we're talking here about "the future". The Volvo engine described will be ready in 5-10 years. It is very feasible that a $25K electric car is established within a timeframe like that.

the range issue is essentially a different problem with electric cars, as you charge when you're parked. Charging can be done anywhere the electric grid is present, it's just a matter of access being established appropriately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com