-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Ex-GM vice chair blasts Tesla, saying supporters 'like members of a religious cult'
- Thread starter Cardforlife
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
It's just the engine producing the sound. And unlike BMW, which uses the stereo speakers to add sound, it increases engine output at higher RPM.
An eng'g dilemna occurs with ICE engines. Cylinder scavenging assists volumetric efficiency, but the length and dia of the intake runners and exhaust tubes enhance VE based on RPM and strength of the pulses. When a pulse travels down a tube, it generates a negative pressure wave that travels up the tube when the dia opens up.
Motorcycles and high performance engines often have active systems to alter the geometry after a certain RPM to give more average HP over the range (area under the curve). It's a long standing eng'g tech for variable RPM engines.
Cliff Notes - altering backpressure based on RPM makes ICE's more efficient and powerful. V-Tech might be one you've heard about.
He never has been a finance guy, but he has always tried to make the cheapest possible solution seem like something more to average consumer. Anybody who was [at least partly] responsible for BMW 3-series, Pontiac GTO and Ford Explorer can "make a silk purse from a sows ear". He's old and out-of-date but nobody should call him an "ignoramus" on any subject. Senile, perhaps, but probably not. Give the guy his due, he was a giant among auto execs, sort of like Lee Iacocca, but with brains.
HookBill
Member
In addition to the power and efficiency improvements we also know that some careful design helps produce the manufacturer-specific sounds, with (correct me if I am wrong) very few resorting to use of the audio system to imitate the engine sounds they want.
Yes, many cars including Ferrari, actually "tune" the exhaust for the right pitch without harming performance. First they get the peak performance at the legal sound levels, then they play with resonators and muffler design to give the car the "correct" sound. Few can argue that a Ferrari sounds sweet when you nail it.
I'll argue: you don't even need to 'nail it'. It sounds great idling.
Weird, I remember loving Ferrari sounds and driving. Now I really want nothing other than Tesla, but I do remember.
Two edged sword. I actually liked the sound of the blown V8's in the GM's. Nice rumble at idle, and they roar when you lay the spurs to them.
However, not for the street. It attracts unwanted attention. Streets are too busy today, and too many drivers aren't watching where they are going, plus add the inflation rate we've seen in traffic tickets and insurance rates, and it's just dumb now.
However, not for the street. It attracts unwanted attention. Streets are too busy today, and too many drivers aren't watching where they are going, plus add the inflation rate we've seen in traffic tickets and insurance rates, and it's just dumb now.
BluestarE3
Active Member
Or, for that matter, with external speakers à la the Stuka dive bomber to instill shock-and-awe.
It is ignorant to say the more cars they sell the more they lose. Completely false.
Huh?
A Volt was a BEV with a half-sized battery with an innovative thermal management design and a gas engine using a fuel tank that could store gas for up to a year without going stale and an innovative new transmission that could dynamically switch between series mode and an EVT. The Volt was the first car to ever use an output-split EVT (Prius uses an input-split EVT). The Volt was the first car that I'm aware of to use a battery thermal management system that interleaves pouch cells with full contact thin aluminum fins with built-in liquid thermal channels.
Yet you say the Volt made no technical advance and did not require technical innovation but a BEV (such as a LEAF) would do both of those things? That makes no sense.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Jealousy is not attractive and often makes the person appear little, ignorant, and dumb.
I'm still waiting to hear which company bankrolled the Prius "dirtier than a Hummer" FUD. I'll give 2:1 odds it was GM.
I'm still waiting to hear which company bankrolled the Prius "dirtier than a Hummer" FUD. I'll give 2:1 odds it was GM.
Last edited:
I do not credit him with the Volt design. The Volt does represent significant innovation, I would not argue otherwise. My only disagreement, if any, is the idea that Lutz had anything to do with technical issues for the Volt. No question about it he has been a proponent of hybrids, just as he has dissed BEV solutions. he deserves credit for his advocacy. By the time taht one came around Lutz had a diminished star but was credited with a good sense of market timing.
This is really weird. I am not accustomed to defending him, nor am I a particularly great fan, except in the respect that he used to have a great sense of market receptivity and figured out how to repackage existing technologies to make them attractive. The Volt was the final achievement of his career, even though he hadn't a clue about the technical aspects of the Volt.
I will not argue that I necessarily know all the facts, but I have watched the guy pretty closely for a very long time. He did get a lot of slack over the years because he was the 'token European' and had unquestionable flamboyance. That is why he still can have a column if a fan magazine when he is nearing senility.
I would love to see even a wildly speculative grassy knoll explanation of how that happened.
You need to understand that some car buyers and owners not only do not believe in EV technology, they believe NiMH batteries are going to be a huge toxic waste issue in the future.
Whether they are right or wrong isn't the point. The fact they exist is the point.
Stray auto executives have been known to say strange things. Would you not guess that one needs a "seriously well-developed National Enquirer-style conspiracy theory receptivity gene" to actually think that really happened.
Supposedly, Lutz originally proposed the Volt as a BEV but an engineering exec talked him into going with an EREV design based on battery costs and energy density at the time back in 2006. Later, as the powertrain was being design, Lutz reportedly had to push back on a proposal to go with non-EREV controls that would have started the gas engine under some circumstances when the battery still had usable energy. Lutz supposedly insisted the gas engine only start when the battery was empty because drivers would want to maximize the all-electric experience.
Even with gas-only cars, I doubt Lutz was in there wearing a lab coat sculpting the cylinder combustion chamber design or calculating the torque converter parameters with a slide rule. As far as I know, he's always just been a marketing and management type who knew what he wanted the driving experience to be but left the technical details to others.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I guess his point is he's not like Straubel (and perhaps Elon) who started out with engineering/scientific backgrounds and so does play a role in the technical nuances of the product. However, I would presume not a whole lot of auto executives are like that (Mary Barra is however).
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
3Victoria
Active Member
The question is: does GM make a profit on Volts or Bolts? or only after adding in the profits from their ICE products which were propped by the ZEV credits? Lutz is likely projecting GM's loosing money on their EVs onto Tesla ... oopsy.
