Blast from 1969: GM ad for Stirling-engine hybrid, the Stir-Lec I
click above to see the full ad
We've seen GM's very ahead-of-the-curve Stir-Lec concept before, but BangShift has found another old magazine ad scan to share with the rest of the
Gallery: Chevy Volt print ads
[Source: Bang Shift via Treehugger]
Advertisement text:
This is the Stir-Lec I.
And if you saw if on a highway, you'd probably think it was a standard Opel Kadett.
You'd be half-right. It's got an Opel body. But it's powered by electricity. The power plant consists of 14 conventional lead-acid batteries that you could by down at the corner. The energy from the batteries is transferred to an electric motor which in turn drives the rear wheels. And the car can tool along at speeds of up to 55 miles an hour.
While the car's running, the batteries are constantly recharged by a small Stirling engine in the rear. It's so quiet that you can hardly tell whether it's on or off. And since the Stirling is an external combustion engine (fuel is burned in a separate chamber from the engine), the exhaust has virtually no odor and pollution levels can be made very low.
Stir-Lec I is still only an experimental model. A project the Engineers at GM's Research Laboratories are working on today, to meet the demands of the future.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave 9:00PM (5/27/2009)
Looks like a really cool science fair project.
But considering how unreliable GM (not just GM) cars were in the 70s and 80s, this looks like a million headaches waiting to happen.
GM couldnt even make the 4-6-8 cylinder engine (cylinder deactivation) work. No way was this gonna work.
Reply
rg 2:36PM (5/28/2009)
While I do agree with the quality of GM products in the 70's and 80's (and later), when it comes to the 4-6-8 engine, in their defense it was a good idea but just not possible with the technology of the time. That's a very hard thing to do without computer control and nothing more than a carburator for fueling.
I don't necessarily fault GM for what they tried in the past. What I fault them for is forgetting they tried it. You'd think that as new generations of engineers come along that they'd learn from those that came before them and either expand on their ideas, improve them, or create new ones. Many old ideas from long ago were good but the available technology of the time didn't allow them to work out that well. Some of those ideas could certainly be revisited today as they may now be viable options. As far as I'm concerned it's too late for that though.
Having never owned a GM vehicle for the quality concerns of years past, I did have hope for their future. That is until last week. Now that they will essentially be GM (Government Motors), I refuse to ever buy a product from them. I don't care if they somehow build a car for $10,000 that gets 300 mpg, does 0-60 in 2 seconds, can stop from 60 mph in 12 feet, has pure oxygen for emissions, and could protect a passenger in a crash against a fast moving freight train. I refuse to buy a car (even a perfect one) if half of the money I paid for it is going to the governement. Especially the current one. I'm also blatantly against the UAW so money going to them is also a deal killer. Sorry GM. At one time long long ago you showed promise. Now it's gone.
Ron F 2:21AM (5/28/2009)
In the 70s "external combustion" was the buzzword for achieving lower pollution levels. Sadly this typically also meant lower efficiency. The helium reservoir just holds the working "fluid" for the sterling engine. Other gases can be used. I agree its unlikely that GM could build a system like this cheaply, reliably and efficiently in the 70s. That was before the dawn of high power electronics, which is why we see "commutating capacitors" up front.
Reply
kert 6:43AM (5/28/2009)
Lets not forget that they did not forget this with EV1 either, and built a gas-turbine series hybrid out of it.
Reply
gorr 9:32AM (5/28/2009)
I have said and i repeat to add a small gasoline battery recharger and performance enhancer to electric cars, trucks, tractor-trailor, ships, airplanes, agricol machineries and electrical power stations. I won't go see in dealerships cars with just a battery without a small electrical generator that can power the car all day like any gasoline only car. Quit often i drive more then 40 miles a day. I won't pay 40 000 just for a battery like tesla or the imiev, think or 30 000$ like the volt battery.
Reply
gorr 9:58AM (5/28/2009)
And i won't buy the gm volt with their low tech gasoline generator and over-wheight and over priced battery.
James 2:54PM (5/28/2009)
Dean Kamen has been working on a Stirling engine series hybrid recently:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/dean-kamen-deka-revolt-electric-car-stirling-461108
http://www.design-impact.org/blog/2009/05/helicopter-engines-in-hybrid-cars/
Stirling engines are attractive because of their efficiency and fuel flexibility, but there are definitely practical reasons why they have not been embraced for mobile applications.
Reply
Andres 9:25PM (5/28/2009)
I went ahead on the link and ended up reading the Popular Science article about the normal hybrid that GM had developed in 1969. It was a small hatchback with a flat twin and electric motor in front and some lead acid batteries in back. Shame GM never greenlighted this project. This would have done a better job of retaining market share in the US during the fuel crisis compared to any of that junk they ended up making. (except maybe the Cosworth Vega, supposedly that was the first hot hatch) Oh and you would not have $10,000 battery packs to replace.
Reply
Sean 1:52PM (5/29/2009)
No, you would just have a hybrid Vega that cost $40,000 in today's dollars!
GaryS 9:32PM (5/28/2009)
Diesel-Electric Hybrids have been used successfully for decades.
Why all the Gas-Electric Hybrids and no Diesel-Electrics?
VW, BMW and others are bringing their proven clean diesel designs to the U.S.
Why can't a small-displacement, efficient diesel engine be incorporated in a U.S. hybrid?
Can you say The Corn Lobby?
Reply