backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 132 comment(s) - last by MKct.. on Jan 10 at 2:13 AM

Artist sketch of the production Chevrolet Volt  (Source: General Motors)

Chevrolet Volt Chassis  (Source: General Motors)
GM now says that the 2010 deadline is plausible, but not set in stone for the Volt

The battery-powered Chevrolet Volt is an important vehicle for General Motors. The significance of the Volt lies not with a large volume of production units (not likely to happen within the first few years) or bargain-basement pricing like the current Toyota Prius (the Volt will likely cost considerably more), but the Volt is instead a crucial building block in solidifying GM as a leader in advanced automotive powertrains.

Toyota is currently the 800-pound gorilla sucking all of the air out of the room when it comes to hybrid vehicles and advanced battery technology. GM positioned the Volt as its own revolutionary vehicle aimed at lowering dependence on fossil fuels.

"We have since realized that letting Toyota gain that mantle of green respectability and technology leadership has really cost us dearly in the marketplace," said GM Vice Chairman "Maximum" Bob Lutz in Late November. "We have to reestablish GM's leadership and the Volt is, frankly, an effort to leapfrog anything that is done by any other competitor."

Lutz added that the Chevrolet Volt would be delivered to customers before the end of 2010. Lutz also tried to silence the critics that were skeptical of the 2010 timeline. "There is a lot of skepticism within the company about the timeline," Lutz continued. "People are biting their nails, but those of us in a leadership position have said it has to be done."

Despite Lutz's confidence, there is a slightly different tone coming down from GM CEO Rick Wagoner. The company is still adamant on meeting the 2010 deadline, but is throwing in a bit of a crutch to allow for a slightly later launch.

"We continue to put massive resources into production as soon as possible," said Wagoner who fielded questions in an online chat with automotive journalists. "2010 would be great, but [we] can't guarantee that at this time. We'll keep you posted regularly on our progress."

The uncertainty comes from the fact that GM is still working with outside parties to develop lithium-ion batteries suitable for operation in the Volt. GM's E-Flex architecture, which underlies the Volt, is dependent on the massive lithium-ion battery pack to provide the energy basis for forward propulsion on the vehicle.

The use of such large lithium-ion battery packs in production automobiles has proven to be problematic for both GM and Toyota. Toyota announced during mid-2007 that it will not offer lithium-ion batteries on its next generation Prius due to safety concerns. Those concerns haven't stopped Lithium Technology from providing retrofit lithium-ion batteries for the Prius and UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies' Plug-In Hybrid Center from providing Californians 100 Priuses equipped with lithium-ion batteries.

The Chevrolet Volt is capable of traveling up to 40 miles on battery power via its lithium-ion battery pack. When the battery power level drops below a predetermined threshold, a 1.0 liter turbocharged internal combustion engine (ICE) steps in to recharge the battery pack -- the ICE does not provide forward propulsion.

GM will be in Las Vegas next week for the Consumer Electronics Show and DailyTech will be meeting with the Volt's chief vehicle engineer. We'll also be providing DailyTech readers with more insight into GM's fuel cell vehicles at the show.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sooner the better
By Operandi on 1/4/2008 12:12:15 PM , Rating: 5
This is exactly the kind of vehicles GM (Ford also) need.

Even if the Volt is an low volume vehicle this will be a good real world learning platform for the technology that will hopefully give them a good head start on the competition.




RE: Sooner the better
By pattycake0147 on 1/4/2008 12:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'd throw Chrysler in there as well. None of the American auto makers have a great standing when it comes to non-conventional power trains.


RE: Sooner the better
By mdogs444 on 1/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sooner the better
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/4/2008 1:05:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Although - with the popularity of their line of Jeep (Grand Cherokee, Liberty, and Commander mostly) & Dodge trucks, it would be nice to integrate some type of electrical motor and still keep the raw power and towing capacity of their large Hemi V8 and V6 as well.


http://www.dailytech.com/Chrysler+Jumps+on+Hybrid+...


RE: Sooner the better
By mdogs444 on 1/4/2008 1:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Very nice. Must've missed that article. I like the V8 modeled hybrids that keep the power trend. I am not so much for these little 4 cylinder motors being placed in crossovers and compact SUV's. Just a personal preference.


RE: Sooner the better
By eye smite on 1/4/2008 1:29:33 PM , Rating: 4
Let me say nuh uh. This is all BS, we done been over this ground. GM produced the EV1, totally battery powered in 1996, made 800 of them and discontinued the line. They couldn't make the same money off them for maintenance such as oil and filter and other expendables so they scrapped it. It would more than do posted spead limits and had a 100 mile range on one charge. California put in recharge stations for this car that is gone. They bought a battery company with patented battery technology that was superior to lead acid. They sold that company and the patents to Exxon/Mobil who 86'd the patents so they couldn't be used and the whole project was canned, Why? So you would stay a slave to gasoline, but hey, no one remembers the EV1.


RE: Sooner the better
By mcnabney on 1/4/2008 1:40:55 PM , Rating: 5
I couldn't agree more. I still hope GM burns for the catastrophic F-up they did to the EV. They could have been a decade ahead, but they decided to be stupid instead.


RE: Sooner the better
By eye smite on 1/4/2008 1:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
I do too, and they count on people forgetting. Their latest farse is the malibu hybrid. If you go to their site they list the mpg as 24 town, 32 hwy. I'm saying big deal. I have a 93 Oldsmobile 88, it gets 25 town and 30 hwy. How is this hybrid an improvement? It's not. It's there to make people feel like their doing the environment good and there's no benefit from this vehicle at all.


RE: Sooner the better
By michal1980 on 1/4/2008 2:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
its funny the only people that remeber the EV1 are the ones that remeber it wrong.

Did gm make a mistake? in hind sight yes. But you monday morning quaterback probably dont even remeber gas prices or this car. Just the propaganda film.

with oil prices 75% of what they are now. (in the 20-30 dollar a barrel range). a 2 seat car (similar to that ever popular honda insight. (that same great 2 seater that honda no longer makes ethier).

heck honda killed the accord hybrid, and might kill the civic hybrid.

And the prius hybrid didn't sell well until it looked goofy.

the ev1 was a car that could only work in warm weather states. (because range decreased if the temprature was below like 60 degrees). And costs apporaching 1 billion dollars. Yes the project was killed.

But to blame the company for what they did when they did it, knowing what you know today.


RE: Sooner the better
By Oregonian2 on 1/4/2008 2:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
The purpose of hybrids is to make the buyer feel good. They still are 100% gasoline powered vehicles. That's why Honda hybrids failed, they couldn't be easily differentiated from the regular ones so the owners couldn't properly feel green with it. They're to show off. So long as the Malibu is clearly visible as being a hybrid it should do well.

Your Olds does impressively well. My wife's '94 Honda Accord doesn't do as well as your car does either. She gets maybe upper 20's on the interstate.


RE: Sooner the better
By Ringold on 1/4/2008 2:42:34 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, stop the whining and dismount the "mightier than thou" Environmentalist horse.

You don't get a hybrid for the mileage in any mass-market car out there, even the Prius; the Prius is a badge of green honor, and takes significantly more energy to make then a standard vehicle. If you want fuel efficiency, everybody knows you get more bang for your buck with a diesel.

As for the Exxon/EV1 conspiracy theories, you're just making yourself look like a tool, except to that tiny sliver of the left wing prone to such theories. Clearly you're ignorant of your history, anyway. You say Exxon took over the battery technology patents, but you'd be wrong. That would of been Texaco, which took a controlling stake in what is presently, essentially, Energy Conversion Devices. Then Chevron bought Texaco. Now many of these hybrids out there today? Guess what. Powered by latest iteration of the same battery technology used in the EV1, with a 50/50 joint operation between ENER and Chevron, with ENER providing the license and Chevron the production capacity as I understand the arrangement. Actually the entity created to serve out this arrangement is Cobasys, but trying to keep it simple for leftists.

Some the other users of their technology include:
http://www.ovonic.com/al_alliances_licensees_batte...

Don't let reality get in the way of conspiracy theories, though. Whatever lets you sleep at night. Perhaps ENER is just a front for the Illuminati, after all..


RE: Sooner the better
By Pandamonium on 1/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sooner the better
By bhieb on 1/4/2008 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he blindly said switch to diesel. He said if you want higher milage then switch. And he is right, as you so cleverly pointed out gallon for gallon diesel gets better milage just as he said. It may or may not be more effecient, but it does do well milage wise and that is all the consumer cares about $$$ in the pocket.


RE: Sooner the better
By Hoser McMoose on 1/4/2008 5:59:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The question is whether diesel engines are more efficient than gas engines.

And the that question is a resounding "YES".

Typically a diesel engine will be a good 15-20% more efficient (as measured by kinetic energy out vs. potential energy in) than a gasoline engine. Add in the ~15% higher energy density and you get the 30-35% better fuel efficiency (as measured by distance per volume of fuel) that diesel's achieve.

The downside to diesel is that it burns much less cleanly and therefore tends to require a lot more filtering of pollutants. This is why there was a grand total of ONE model diesel car for sale in North America in 2007, all others failed the emissions tests. Similarly Europe's tightening emissions in 2009 will cause most current diesels to fail, which explains why the car companies are rushing to make better filters and catalytic converters for their diesels.

Now, all that being said, the gasoline engine is not dead yet. Some new designs are pushing it's efficiency (kinetic out vs. potential in) up toward diesel levels. HCCI (combustion caused by compression rather than a spark) is a VERY promising technology, especially for use in a serial hybrid like this Chevy Volt. It offers much better efficiency AND cleaner burning too boot. It's problematic now because it doesn't handle variable RPMs very gracefully, but with the Volt that isn't a problem since it's gas generator runs at a pretty constant, ideal RPM. Of course, most of the shortcomings of diesel are also eliminated by running at only a constant RPM too.


RE: Sooner the better
By masher2 (blog) on 1/4/2008 7:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "If every car were retrofitted to take diesel, we'd have to drastically increase drilling to keep up with demand."

Nonsense. Due to low diesel demand, we're already splitting diesel-length chains to produce gasoline in many refineries...we can as easily reform hexane, heptane, and octane to produce diesel.

> "The question is whether diesel engines are more efficient than gas engines."

That's not a question. Diesel engines are more efficient. It's simple thermodynamics...the Otto cycle has a higher compression, which means a larger temperature differential, and higher

Interesting enough, there's a technology on the horizon (HCCI) which allows gas-powered engines to run on the Otto Cycle as well, giving them very nearly as much efficiency as diesels.


RE: Sooner the better
By goku on 1/4/2008 9:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you keep saying otto cycle? Both diesels and gasoline based engines are generally otto cycle. How many LEGAL 2 cycle gasoline engines do you see on the road in cars?? 2 Cycle engines can be found in motorcycles but that's about it, otherwise it's completely irrelevant to mention that these engines are otto cycle.

There are 2 stroke and 4 stroke diesels and gasoline engines, 2 stroke isn't common due to incomplete combustion which makes it environmentally unfriendly. 4 stroke=otto cycle, remember that.. And if anything is interesting it's the 6 cycle engines, they're basically 4 stroke engines except at the end of the 4th stroke, they squirt water into the cylinders, water expands and then it's exhausted out, starting the cycle of air/fuel mixture once again...


RE: Sooner the better
By masher2 (blog) on 1/4/2008 10:09:19 PM , Rating: 2