2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos

Concept has Displacement on Demand

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-14-2006, 12:36 PM
  #31  
Registered User
 
Z28Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The land of ice and snow.
Posts: 528
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

WRT to a hybrid Camaro... GM isn't stupid - they're not going to add a bunch of bulky, heavy battery packs and motors to the next Camaro that adversely affect the high performance aspects of the car to save a few MPG in city driving (or no savings in the case of especially leadfooted folk ). When the technology is truly ready it'll start appearing and we'll look at it as just one way to get more fuel economy AND performance.

Until then, I hope we'll start seeing more widepsread use of displacement on demand, direct injection (has GM expressed interest in using this?), flexible fuel options and other incremental improvements to the internal combustion engine.
Z28Marcus is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 12:44 PM
  #32  
Registered User
 
Z28Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The land of ice and snow.
Posts: 528
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

Originally Posted by butterbar
Agreed. The problem I would see with AFM or DOD would be maint. down the road, I mean what kind of problems are we looking at witht these systems? I can see it right now, an 8 running on 4 all the time because of some computer glitch. I know technology is good and all but my experiances with it havent been good... I would like to see it as an option rather than standard on the 8's.

Just my .02

Jared
Computer glitch? Jeez... it's not that hard to wrtite software to cycle the deactaved cylinders . No harder than the software that controls the rest of an engine's features. If the hardware and software guys were that innept - todays cars wouldn't be running.

Look what people feared EFI would lead too.. the end of hot rodding. LOL. That really turned out to be true. NOT .

Technofear is understandable, but this ain't the 80s. Eveyone knows they can't shovel half-baked DOD implementations onto the public. Technology has improved so much. Today we have 32 and 64 bit bit CPUs, single chip solutions and all sorts of other packaging advances that make electronics more stable and reliable.

DOD isn't exactly rocket science either. Just look at technology like Variable Valve timing and other mechanical approaches to increasing the efficiency of ICEs. It's all about good engineering.

Last edited by Z28Marcus; 01-14-2006 at 12:58 PM.
Z28Marcus is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 10:33 PM
  #33  
Registered User
 
morb|d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Posts: 1,440
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

Originally Posted by Z28Marcus
Computer glitch? Jeez... it's not that hard to wrtite software to cycle the deactaved cylinders . No harder than the software that controls the rest of an engine's features. If the hardware and software guys were that innept - todays cars wouldn't be running.

Look what people feared EFI would lead too.. the end of hot rodding. LOL. That really turned out to be true. NOT .

Technofear is understandable, but this ain't the 80s. Eveyone knows they can't shovel half-baked DOD implementations onto the public. Technology has improved so much. Today we have 32 and 64 bit bit CPUs, single chip solutions and all sorts of other packaging advances that make electronics more stable and reliable.

DOD isn't exactly rocket science either. Just look at technology like Variable Valve timing and other mechanical approaches to increasing the efficiency of ICEs. It's all about good engineering.
thank you. the thing to "fear" most with integrated components isn't a software glitch, as that's the last thing to happen "all of a sudden". most integrated systems have software written FOR the specific hardware in native assembly and stored in what's called "write-once-read-many" memory (aka ReadOnlyMemory). the most likely thing to happen to an engine computer is an IC burning out. but if that happens it takes with it pretty much everything else. so, as far as engine computers are concerned, its all or nothing.

i'm more worried about the mechanical parts wearing out or seizing up due to overuse/misuse/abuse/whatever. the whole system is based on oil pressure right? if, over time, the oil channels delivering the oil pressure get gunked up, the system won't work right. like when your muscles get tired, your brain's sending the signals but the muscles aren't responding. i only hope the GENERAL designed the system so that if/when proper oil pressure isn't delivered, the system operates in "power" mode. meaning the valves actuate as they would with no AFM/DOD present.

/ramble mode off

Last edited by morb|d; 01-14-2006 at 10:42 PM.
morb|d is offline  
Old 01-14-2006, 10:45 PM
  #34  
Registered User
 
morb|d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Posts: 1,440
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

Originally Posted by jg95z28
I guess Active Fuel Management sounds more fuel efficient than Displacement On Demand. Personally, I'd rather have AFM over a Hybrid design. It would also be nice if there was a deactivation switch on the higher end models.

Question. If a base V8 Camaro with AFM is just as efficient as a standard V6, does there even need to be a V6 Camaro?
sure, if the V6 has AFM too and delivers fuel efficiency of a smaller V6 or a large 4. why the hell not?
morb|d is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 02:59 AM
  #35  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Ardskoay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

I am glad to see that some people agree with me. It is not that I am afraid of it. But I just do not like the idea and it will probably only give you a few more mpg anyway. As for not being able to hear it, I just do not understand that. You have a pipe big enough to channel the air of a 8 cylinder and then you start running on 4. This probably means when on 4 cylinders it does not run as effciently as it could because there is not enough back pressure, and it will sound buzzy or ricey. Maybe I am way off though.
Ardskoay is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 06:24 AM
  #36  
Registered User
 
Seth's_Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hanford, CA
Posts: 139
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

Originally Posted by metal
AFM/DOD, who cares build the damn thing!
Amen brother!


Seth
Seth's_Z is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 09:58 AM
  #37  
Registered User
 
POWERFREAK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 369
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

I'm all for GM putting DOD into the Camaro...it'll help sales to people who are concerned with MPG. BUT, I'd hope they'd make it an option and not put it in every model. I'd be worried that you'd run into problems once you started bolting on aftermarket engine parts...sure there's a fix/hack for everything, but I wouldn't want to have to worry about it.

FYI, the 5.3/DOD in the Trailblazers only get about 21mpg/highway.
POWERFREAK is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 10:47 AM
  #38  
Registered User
 
1stls1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 649
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

Ok, it has been said that the DOD will add weight to the car, how? I thought it was only computer soft. Also, lets not forget that the STS had the Northstar the had the same comcept. As far as I know, they didn't have the problems stated. I'm 4 it if NO performance loss. Anybody have any specs on the 09?
1stls1 is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 01:16 PM
  #39  
Registered User
 
burnzie2413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

POWERFREAK stated it perfectly- it should be an option- some people love the idea and some people hate it. make it an option and please everyone
burnzie2413 is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 01:35 PM
  #40  
Registered User
 
RussStang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

I don't think DoD is ever going to be an option though. The car will either have it or it won't, with likely no convential option to turn it off if it is equipped. I don't think the EPA would be very keen on rating a car a specific gas mileage and then having the owner be able to turn off DoD and affect that gas mileage, even when driving patterns are the same in both scenarios.
RussStang is offline  
Old 01-15-2006, 01:36 PM
  #41  
Registered User
 
RussStang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

Originally Posted by POWERFREAK
FYI, the 5.3/DOD in the Trailblazers only get about 21mpg/highway.
The Trailblazer's are also SUVs, so they make a very poor comparison to what a much lighter Camaro might get.
RussStang is offline  
Old 01-17-2006, 06:20 AM
  #42  
Registered User
 
Mustang Killer57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 279
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

First off, AFM or DOD cannot be an option, unless its engine related. Its part of the 5.3 v8 no matter what. So the only way to not get it is for them to not put it on the ls2 or v6. Second, like it was previously stated, your only going into 4cyl mode if your at cruising speeds and not giving much or any gas. As soon as you get back in the throttle, 8cyl. If you are the type that never lets out of the throttle then you wont see any mpg savings because it will never switch to 4cyl. Also, i think a couple extra mpg with no sacrifice in performance i think is a good thing. If it wasnt then we'd still be in the age of big blocks gettin 8mpg.
Hears a good read on GM's DOD and how it works. Its pretty detailed and if you dont understand the system its really informative.

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...0405phr_gmdod/

Also, if your worried about added weight, the entire 5.3 v8 with DOD weighs less(around 60lbs) than the 3800sc, so added weight isnt going to happen. It probably weighs close to a normal 3800 from the 4th gen camaros.
Mustang Killer57 is offline  
Old 01-17-2006, 09:23 PM
  #43  
Registered User
 
1stls1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 649
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

When you are in the 4 cylinder mode, what happens when you punch it. Also, w/ a car eq w/ the DOD system, what about modding it?
1stls1 is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 05:52 AM
  #44  
Registered User
 
91_z28_4me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

Originally Posted by 1stls1
When you are in the 4 cylinder mode, what happens when you punch it. Also, w/ a car eq w/ the DOD system, what about modding it?
Computer tune and new lifters would make it a non DOD engine. When in 4 cylinder mode and more power is required the engine pumps oil into the lifters making them 'solid' and extends them to full length.
91_z28_4me is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 05:53 AM
  #45  
Registered User
 
car_ramrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 133
Re: Concept has Displacement on Demand

First, I just want to say I echo the other response of DOD or not just build the f'in thing.

2nd, I can get better than 30 MPG highway in my 95 T/A LT1 with A4 and 2.73's mostly because of my driving style. Therefore I'm hoping for hybrid level mileage out of the concept Camaro if I get one. just kidding, sort of.

Either way, I don't think it would be a big deal if all cars came equipped with DOD, all the M6's came with CAGS and all you need is a $20 plug and play harness to fix that, I don't see why this would be more difficult to disable, if you wanted to, because DOD is only enabled part-time. I would even go so far as to say it could be done with a (insert name of favorite re-programmer) programmer. That is completely speculative on my part, but hey, we're all crapping ourselves over a car that isn't even being built as of yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

As with most concepts, the production version won't look like what you saw at NAIAS, it won't be as powerful, won't have as many whiz-bang gadgets, and it won't cost a million dollars to build. I apologize for my cynicism, but seriously, it's getting harder and harder to make hi-performance 2-door sport coupes that can pass EPA and crash test req's and actually perform that are within my, and the average consumers budget.

What I expect is there will be a:
Base V6~20K
5.3V8 with DOD~30K
LS2V8 without DOD~35K

Base
Z/28
SS

Sound familiar?

Also, I would really love to have someone who knows what they are talking about explain the DOD concept to me, because I've been trying to figure it out on my own for a while, and just can't come up with a viable answer. Do they leave valves open? closed? is it magic pixie dust that makes it work? I do know that engines spin pretty easy with out spark plugs in them. Or with compression releases like the high-comp V-twin guys have. In my mind, it's the compression stroke that is the hard one to figure out. You can't just close the valves and expect the engine to run, cuz it won't. I mean, ever have a spark plug go bad, that compression stroke without combustion is what makes your ride run like a tractor. I would like to know the real story behind DOD if anyone knows. Just my rant. FWIW.
-zogorion
car_ramrod is offline  


Quick Reply: Concept has Displacement on Demand



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 PM.