What happend to GM's gasoline-fueled diesel?

A few years ago several companies had new versions of diesel engines that ran on gasoline. Since gas today here in NY is $3.65 and diesel is $4.30 - seems a diesel engine that runs on gasoline might be nice to have. Of course, it would have to be 20 years old before I'd pay for one.

GM was the leader - but once the US and Canadian governments took control of GM - never heard another word about it. Last I heard of it was in 2009.

2007 article . . .

GM unveils diesel-like gasoline engines
Drivable concept versions of General Motors cars that use efficient new engines with HCCI technology revealed Friday.
August 24 2007: 3:07 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors revealed two drivable concept cars with new engines that burn gasoline in virtually the same way that a diesel engine burns diesel fuel.

The engines will get 15-percent better fuel economy than ordinary gasoline engines, GM estimates, but will not need the expensive exhaust treatment that diesel engines require.
2007_saturn_aura.03.jpg
GM is revealing the fuel saving diesel-like gasoline engine in a version of the Saturn Aura.

Several car companies have been working on this type of engine technology, commonly known as homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI. The technology promises the fuel economy of a diesel engine, which is typically much more efficient than a gasoline engine, but with the much cleaner exhaust of a gasoline engine.

In an HCCI engine, gasoline is ignited inside the cylinder using compression and the engine's own heat without the need of a spark. This is the same way that a diesel engine ignites diesel fuel. (When the engine is first started, and until it warms up, GM's HCCI engine still uses a spark to ignite the fuel.)

This type of ignition results in more energy to propel the vehicle because the fuel burns with less heat and light, which wastes energy, and because there is more compression when the fuel is ignited and, therefore, more of a push when the fuel and air expand.

"I remember debating the limits of combustion capability when I was in college," Tom Stephens, group vice president, GM Powertrain and Quality, said in a company statement. "HCCI was just a dream then. Today, using math-based predictive analysis and other tools, we are beginning to see how we can make this technology real."

The vehicles GM showed Friday are a Saturn Aura and an Opel Vectra, two virtually identical mid-sized sedans, both equipped with 180-horsepower 2.2-liter four cylinder HCCI engines.

They can drive at up to roughly 55 miles per hour using diesel-like ignition but will have to rely on traditional spark ignition at higher speeds or under heavy loads, GM said.

"Perhaps the biggest challenge of HCCI is controlling the combustion process," said Dr. Uwe Grebe, executive director for GM Powertrain Advanced Engineering.

Engineers hope to increase operating range under HCCI and improve performance under cold weather and high-altitude conditions, the company said.

2009 article . . .

Since our first encounter with General Motors' HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition) engines in August 2007, the powertrain research engineers at the GM Tech Center in Warren, MI have continued plugging away at the technology, trying to turn it into a marketable reality. The basic premise of compression ignition is simple. Based on the Ideal gas law (PV=nRT), if you decrease the volume of a particular quantity of air, the temperature rises to the point where fuel will spontaneously combust.

The hard part is controlling the pressure, temperature and air/fuel mixtures precisely enough to manage that combustion without causing excess noise and engine damage. When we first tried the HCCI prototypes a couple of years ago, the engines had a fairly narrow band of HCCI operation with the engine running in basic spark ignition mode the rest of the time. Thanks to a newly developed mixed-mode HCCI feature and external EGR, the engines can now run in HCCI from idle all the way to 60 mph!

We had a chance to drive a Saturn Aura with an HCCI engine based on the 2.2-liter EcoTec four-cylinder around the streets near the Tech Center. The engine ran smoothly and transitions between HCCI and spark ignition really couldn't be felt. The only indication of a transition was a slight ringing sound over the first couple of power cycles after transition.

The basic hardware for a production HCCI engine is in place now, with the only new piece of hardware being a combustion chamber pressure sensor. GM is continuing to work on the control software to make this a robust system and even adapting the homogeneous charge and pressure sensors to diesel engines to reduce NOx emissions. The HCCI engine achieves about a 15% improvement in fuel efficiency compared to a similar spark ignition engine at a much lower cost than a hybrid. GM hopes to have HCCI engines in production in about five years.

I think the Ford Ecoboost engines may be the only direct fuel injection engines in production at the moment that inject gasoline at the top of the compression stroke like a diesel.
They claim considerably better mpg at light load.

Yes, but the Ford EcoBoost is a spark-igntion engine and does not use the diesel principle of compression-igntion. That is, unless Ford just changed something I didn't hear about.

The GM four and six cylinder versions have been on the road for years. The all new 2013 pickups get the direct injected V8's.
GM wanted customers to purchase enough Duramax Diesels to pay for the research and tooling. Before they competed themselves out of the light diesel business with the direct V8's. Hence the six year wait.

What engines are you referring to? I'm not talking about a direct-injection engine with spark-ignition.

I'm talking about an engine that uses compression-ignition and runs on gasoline. NO spark plugs.

If there is such a thing on the market, I've never heard of it. Last I heard it was still in research and development.

I realize you have a great like for GM light duty diesels,and have had good luck with them, but with their past track record, converted 350 Olds,6.2 and 6.5's,none of which are known for reliability or power, they had better wait until the Japanese or Koreans can come up with a reliable,reasonably powerful version.

cant even compare the 350 olds conversion to the 6.2 or 6.5. they were quite a bit more reliable engine. i have owned and driven all these gm diesels and the only on i can complain about is the olds conversion, it just was too light and did not stand up. now have a duramax and happy with it also. biggest thing is drive it like a diesel!

I don't have any great fondness for GM diesels. None for GM as a company anymore either. I'm rooting for Ford - the only car company that has gone it alone with no tax-payer buy-out or bail-out. GM is partly owned by the US and Canadian governments and Chrysler is owned by Fiat of Italy. The only Chevy diesels I ever really trusted were the Chevys sold with Isuzu diesels. And those little 1.8 and 2.2 diesels were built from gas engine platforms and yet- lasted almost forever. I still have a diesel Chevette and a diesel LUV truck. But the Chevette was actually based on an Opel and the LUV on an Isuzu.

5.7s were awful until the very end when the new DX replacement engines came out. 6.2 was designed by Detroit Diesel - not GM. 6.2 was designed to be a power replacement for the 305 gas engine - and for that it was fine. When more demands were put on it, not so good. Put a turbo on a 6.2 with 10 PSI of boost, turn up the fuel, hit the pedal and watch your engine self-desruct in somewhat short order. Drive a 6.2 like a 305 gasser and you might get 300K miles or more out of it.

I like 6.2s because they have been plentiful and cheap. The only full-size truck diesel I'm really in love with is my 5.9 Cummins in my 92 Dodge. Next to that, I like the IH "Navistar" 7.3s. My 94 7.3 turbo IDI has been bullet-proof.

Would encourage you to stop by yer Ford shop and drive a 6.7.

They'll flat blow your mind. :>)

Allan

That"s gotta" be some pretty interesting technology. Gasoline will detonate well below the normal temperatures achieved in a diesel cylinder. In fact gasoline is blended to have high anti-knock properties, whereas diesel fuels are just the opposite. Are they injecting the fuel into a very hot, high pressure, cylinder gas? Do you have any references on how this is supposed to work?

I just googled on HCCI and it looks to me like there is some purposely retained exhaust gas in the cylinder after the exhaust stroke and this is mixed with the incoming air charge and then compressed, with the fuel injected just like a normal diesel. I"m thinking the residual exhaust gas may modify the combustion process and reduce the reaction rate after fuel injection so you get a smooth burn rather than a "big bang". In other words the presure-time history of the burn is smoother than the normal gasoline detonation pressure-time history.

(quoted from post at 16:26:06 11/19/11) 6.2 was designed by Detroit Diesel - not GM.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything else you say, but Detroit Diesel IS a GM company, was known as GM Diesel Division before the war, they may be owned by someone else by now. When the 6.2 came around they were most certainly still a GM company.

Yes, but GM was a separate division just as Allison was. That's why Allison transmissions are usually more trustworthy then GM designed 700R4s. You don't find too many Powerglides in big heavy equipment.

Detroit Diesel division was asked by GM to design, from the ground up, a light-weight power equivalent to the 305 gasser and with that basic design, they did all the development. No GM "Toro-flow" or "Olds 350" guys got their hands on it. GMC division designed the Toro-Flow diesel and it was an awful engine. Oldmobile designed the 5.7 and 4.3 diesels and they too were pretty awful at the beginning. No wonder GM finally asked DD to design them an engine.

I've been dying to try one out - but I'd never bring myself to pay the price. I can buy another house cheaper. So, I gotta' wait till the new Ford is maybe 15 years old. Catch is . . . I need to still be alive and diesel fuel needs to be still available.

I give Ford credit. Not only did they stay in business on their own with no bail-out - they also said goodbye to the "Navigating the Stars" company and built their own new engine. During a down-economy, I find that to be amazing. No dig intended for what once was IH. But I've never got used to that silly name. It really was "Navigating the Stars" at first, but then they quickly changed it again to "Navistar."

I guess where I disagree with you would be that Chevrolet/GMC asked Detroit to build an engine, not "GM". GM is the entity that owns Detroit just as much as it owns Chevrolet. Before the `60s, every division was responsible for making its own engines, with very little cross-breeding.

I really can`t fault the car manufacturers for making a bad diesel, Detroit did nothing but diesels for 45 years before the 6.2, same as Allison making better heavy duty transmissions.

Well, the USA owns the White House and the federal government - but there are still many quasi-independent divsions within it. Some following the rules and I'm sure, some not.

There was a time that each division had some lee-way in GM. That's why there was a Pontiac with real Pontiac engines. Buick with real Buick engines. Chevy with real Chevy engines, GMC with Chevy AND GMC engines, etc. I'm sure most people remember when Pontiac broke GM rules and invented the GTO?

I think of the 6.2 as GMC or Chevy since at first, they were the only divisions using the engines. I would of been more accurate saying it was a GM engine. Regardless, DD designed it and NOT engineers from any GM auto division.

GM during the US fuel crunch was in a pinch as were many other auto companies. The rush was on for something more fuel efficient. GM was the ONLY one to have an engine built new, just for them. Ford used the IH 6.9, but that was built upon an existing IH HD gas truck engine and Ford never offered it in light vehicles. GM was the only one to sell a 1/2 ton truck, van, or SUV with their own diesel and for that - I give them a lot of credit. Jeep sold some trucks with Perkins diesels in the 60s. Checker cabs also tried Perkins in a few cars. IH used a Nissan diesel in a few Scouts. Dodge sold a 1/2 ton full-size truck one year (1978) with a Mitsubishi 6 cylinder diesel. Ford had a few cars with Mazda-built Perkins licensed diesels. But GM was the only one with their own, new, diesel engine.
It still exists today in military Humvees.

Have a friend who runs an auto electric shop. He was telling me about some of the exotic engines they're working on, and have in some form of production... Diesel compression, deisel direct injection... very lean mixtures. Sounds like a gasoline/diesel to me.

On the disconcerting side, these engines are going to be very costly to produce, hard and very expensive to repair.

You are nit picking the little Ford is the real thing, a 20 mpg 4 door 4X4. Pickup. It is direct injection, who cares if it has spark plugs. Vic

Yes, the EcoBoost uses spark ignition and somewhat lower than diesel Compression pressure.

I did not realize the GM expermental engines used compression ignition with gasoline.
I wonder what it takes to compression ignite them when cold, gasoline must have a pretty low cetane number, so the CR would have to be pretty high ?

please explain what you mean about pontiac braking gm rules and inventing the gto?

GM had a displacement limit of 330CI on engines in any car other than a fullsize, with the only exception being the Corvette. Pontiac stuck a 389 in the new-for-64 Tempest, got away with it by calling it an option package as opposed to a seperate model, and got away with it long enough to prove it was a runaway success.

Who cares about spark plugs you ask? Me . . . since the question I asked at the first post was about new engines with NO spark plugs. Get the connection between "question asked" and relevant replies?

I did not say one was better or worse. A spark ignition engine IS very different from a compression-ignition engine. Do you know the difference?

I won't speak for you, but I certainly wasn't "nit-picking" as you put it. I was "explaining" the difference.

Yes, I had many. My 65 was a Lemans with GTO option. Can't recall what my 64 paperwork called it. Also had a 1963 Tempest with a 326 V8 and a transaxle. That was very unsual back then. Back around 1970 I blew that 326 up and could not find a replacement engine anywhere. Not a common 326 since it had a special crankshaft that mated with the pilot-tube - then went to the transaxle. Most of those transaxle Tempests had four-bangers and not 326 V8s.

The direct injection gassers will always have spark plugs to ensure ignition on startup and at low power/low rpm levels.
I don't know how anybody could figure otherwise.

i had one for a short time: but if international had a gas starting diesel, then why can"t any one build a combo the same way with a switch over valve, manual/eletric and have both gas and diesel, depending on where you are driving...

This from your first post, aparently the experimental GM engine uses spark plugs too under certain conditions.

"They can drive at up to roughly 55 miles per hour using diesel-like ignition but will have to rely on traditional spark ignition at higher speeds or under heavy loads, GM said."

I wonder why compression ignition of gasoline would only work at low speed and light load ?
possibly the low cetane number of regular gas ?

It's an interesting concept if they can make it work.

Ford itself might not have taken money, however Ford Credit took $15.9 billion in government loans. More than GMAC, BMW, or Chrysler.

Ford also received government fleet contracts, plus money to re-tool. so they aren't as innocent as people believe.

Yes, I am a Chevy man and will not buy a ford because they "didn't" take any TARP money.
Fordd lie

(quoted from post at 18:32:47 11/19/11)

(quoted from post at 16:26:06 11/19/11) 6.2 was designed by Detroit Diesel - not GM.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything else you say, but Detroit Diesel IS a GM company, was known as GM Diesel Division before the war, they may be owned by someone else by now. When the 6.2 came around they were most certainly still a GM company.

Click to expand...

The 6.2L was designed by DDD Detroit Diesel Division. It was built in a plant in Ohio, I belive Moraine. I was in the plant twice, it was coverted from WW2 production, I think it was originally a Fridgedare plant. I was there in 1985 & 86. GM sold DD to Roger Penske in about 1990. He sold it to Daimler (Mercedes) a few years later. Daimler still owns it. I have a friend that works there now.

I guess I am not following what you are saying as there were many General Motors cars besides the Corvette and full sized models that had engines greater than 330 cubic inch displacement.

The only car I have ridden in that had a 396 cid engine was a 1964 Chevelle.

Camaro, Chevelle, both had engines available larger than 330 cid. The 1968 Nova offered both the 350 CID and 396 CID.

I may just not be understanding your response correctly.