backtop

Print 97 comment(s) - last by ZHENZHEN.. on Jan 27 at 8:46 AM
ABC News says all electric version is confirmed, Automobile Mag says its not

One of the most talked about green vehicles in the media and by fans of hybrid and electric cars is the Chevrolet Volt. The Volt is set to come to showrooms later this year and is quite different from a Prius or even a full electric vehicle. The main difference is that the Volt is an extended range electric vehicle.

That means that the Volt runs off battery power at all times. The combustion engine inside the vehicle is used as a generator to recharge the batteries on-the-go as a driver reaches the all-electric driving range of 40 miles.

That 40 mile ranges falls clearly under ideal conditions though. Reports are that the battery pack has a significantly lower all electric driving range when in hot and cold weather. Andrew Farah, chief engineer on the Volt project has already stated, "The Volt may not be right for everyone. If you live in the Southwest, depending on how you use your car, the Volt might not be right for you."

GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told ABC News that he had a Volt for a few days during Thanksgiving weekend and only got about 23 all-electric miles because of the cold weather. GM is quick to talk about the claimed 230mpg estimate that the Volt is capable of, but the company has never stated what kind of fuel economy the Volt will get after the electric motor turns to the four-cylinder generator for power.

ABC News reports that Lutz stated that the next step for the Volt program will be a fully electric version. ABC News quotes Lutz saying that it would be "technologically trivial" to remove the internal combustion engine and make an all-electric Volt. The comments by Lutz led ABC News to reports that GM will be building the all-electric Volt.

However, Automobile Magazine reports that GM and Lutz in fact did not confirm an electric only Volt would be coming. Andrew Peterson of Automobile Magazine writes, "Despite several media sources running the story -- complete, of course, with quips from the ever-quotable Bob Lutz -- General Motors has not confirmed it would build a pure-electric version of the Chevrolet Volt."

Automobile Mag quotes GM's Rob Peterson saying, "It [the all-electric Volt] is not currently on the production timeline." However, Peterson stopped short of denying that GM could build a fully electric Volt in the future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2010 11:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
1. Why would Lutz knock his own product and state the mileage was actually half of the anticipated 40?

2. Why not just listen to common sense and release a diesel version?




RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By AEvangel on 1/15/2010 11:43:47 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why not just listen to common sense and release a diesel version?


Because it's GM they don't have to use common sense or good business practices. They have the Unions whom vote for Democrats who then get the Govt to bail them out whenever they screw up.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By ahodge on 1/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Hiawa23 on 1/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 12:51:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I sure hope we as a country can start finding solutions instead of the right or left trying 1-up the other side.
Great point!! It gets old hearing all of these politically biased arguments. The government is not God. Everyday people find solutions to problems regardless of who's in office.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 1:06:00 PM , Rating: 4
"Many of these issues were in placce before we ever heard of Obama & the Dems"

The Obama Bailout certainly is a recent issue, but there's no denying that GM was dying a slow death due to its union structure...a structure that was largely placed upon it by the legalities of operating (and even being headquartered in) pro-union states.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Dorkyman on 1/16/2010 8:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
My take is basically that the current administration is partially blinded by a socialist/environmentalist ideology that drives their decision-making in a non-optimal direction. And it's accepted knowledge that the auto unions have long been damaging the U.S. automaker's competitiveness. So, yeah, Obama and his administration are necessarily a part of discussions about futures.

My question is this: assuming that an on-board engine is used solely to recharge, isn't it true that a small diesel is always going to be more "efficient" (i.e. at turning fuel into watts) than an equivalent small gasoline engine?


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By ZHENZHEN on 1/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Solandri on 1/15/2010 3:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
am not big on diesel but if it is as great as you guys state, why don't all auto companies release diesel vehicles here in the States

Diesel is not as great as people state. The greatest portion of its better mileage is just an illusion created by its higher density. It simply contains more matter for the same volume of stuff. Per liter, it weighs about 18% more than gasoline (and thus puts out ~18% more pollutants per liter). For equal amounts of fuel by weight, gasoline contains about 6.7% more energy than diesel.

In English, this means if emissions controls on the gas and diesel car were the same, diesel would put out about 6.7% more pollutants per mile traveled than the gasoline vehicle. So comparing the two based on mpg is deceptive, and misleadingly favors diesel. The diesel cycle is more efficient (it's able to convert a greater portion of its energy per kg into vehicle motion), and its design favors high-load applications (like truck engines). So it's not all bad news for diesel. Once you account for all this, the 50 mpg VW TDI is actually getting the equivalent of ~43-45 mpg for an equal amount of pollutants put out. Still pretty impressive, but significantly worse than the Prius.

The reason diesel is not so popular in the U.S. is two-fold. First, gasoline taxes here historically have not been as high as in Europe and Asia. Those places typically had lower taxes on diesel relative to gasoline. So there was a financial reason to favor diesel there, but not in the U.S. Second, North American oil tends to have a higher sulfur content, so the diesel typically sold here resulted in higher sulfur emissions than diesel sold in Europe. This means that an emissions package which meets EPA sulfur standards using European diesel would not pass when run on U.S. diesel. Consequently, any diesels sold here needed a beefier emissions package, adding cost and reducing mileage. This should no longer be a problem though since the world has standardized on ULSD (ultra-low sulfur diesel) as of 2006.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 3:27:33 PM , Rating: 5
"For equal amounts of fuel by weight, gasoline contains about 6.7% more energy than diesel."

You're off on a tangent. Diesel does contain more energy per unit volume (but less per unit mass). But the real factor here is diesel engines have a much higher compression ratio, which means their Carnot efficiency is higher. They extract more USEABLE energy from heat than do gas engines.

"Once you account for all this, the 50 mpg VW TDI is actually getting the equivalent of ~43-45 mpg for an equal amount of pollutants put out"
That assumes equal pollution controls, which doesn't have to be true. It also assumes that "zero" pollution is something we should mystically strive for, no matter what. Once the air is clean enough where it doesn't cause any health issues, what does it matter? Already in most US cities, people have far more health problems from things naturally in the air (like pollen and other allergens) than they do from auto pollution. And our air gets cleaner every year, as older more polluting cars slowly get retired.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Jedi2155 on 1/15/2010 6:20:27 PM , Rating: 1
As I actually live in the city breathe the smog created by automobiles and industry....I think we still have much we can do to improve. The Los Angeles basin area is still terrible in terms of smog and air pollutants so yes we should still strive towards zero emissions.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 6:39:18 PM , Rating: 4
First of all, LA is the worst city in the US in terms of air quality...its a gigantic basin, the air can't get out easily. You don't build a national policy around just one city.

Second of all, even in LA, the smog levels are less than 1/20 of what they were in the 1970s, despite the much larger population. Already the air is so clean it doesn't cause anything but a few asthmatics problems.
And when all the cars have year-2010 or better pollution controls on them, the air will be much cleaner still.

Would "even cleaner" air be better? In a perfect world sure. But trying to say we HAVE to switch to electric cars because of the air in LA is crazy. On a national level, the problem is already essentially solved.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 7:15:00 PM , Rating: 3
To be fair, Los Angeles has always been that way, and until the geography changes it will always be that way.

New cars, including Diesels, emit approx 1/100 of the pollution that the cleanest car did in 1991. Several cars border on the 1/1000 level. The rate of return for cars is starting to approach Zero. California might need to start focusing on Zero Emission Shipping, or other means. At some point, when you have a set of fires dump much more air pollution into the air than a whole years worth of your cars... you have to consider what good can be accomplished by taking very very little to none.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By randomly on 1/16/2010 12:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
No he is actually making a good point.

Diesels have mainly 3 reasons why they achieve better gas mileage:
1) Diesel fuel weighs about 18% more than an equivalent gallon of gasoline. This is not a true advantage since you are actually burning 18% more fuel in a gallon of diesel, but calling it the same as a gallon of gas. Fuel comparisons should actually be done on a weight basis, not volume, but volume measurements of fuel is what people are familiar with.

2) Increased Carnot efficiency due to using a higher compression ratio. Gas engines have compression ratios of around 10:1, Diesel around 16:1 to 20:1.
However the newer gasoline HCCI engines that will reach production in the next few years also run at similar high compression ratios with similar efficiency.

3) Diesels don't suffer from throttle losses. These are pumping losses of the engine at partial throttle pumping against the intake manifold vacuum. Since diesels don't have a throttle plate and the intake manifold is at atmospheric pressure they don't have these losses at low and partial throttle like gasoline engines do. However again the newer HCCI gasoline engines also don't have these throttle losses, and again achieve similar efficiency to diesel engines.

HCCI engines are actually a good fit as range extender engines in serial hybrids like the Volt since running them at constant rpm/load simplifies the combustion control difficulties these engines have and maximizes overall thermodynamic efficiency. Turbocharging can also help increase engine efficiency. HCCI engines can be run on gas, diesel, and most alternative fuels.

The gas and diesel engines are converging and the efficiency advantages diesels used to enjoy are now being copied in the newer gasoline engine advances.

The real future shift though is moving toward electric power which is much more efficient and allows alternate energy sources besides petroleum to be used for transportation purposes. The plug in hybrid is the first step to displacing some of that petroleum consumption used for short range light vehicle travel. Long range travel is going to be dominated by petroleum for many decades to come.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Alexvrb on 1/16/2010 5:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
HCCI looks promising... coincidentally, GM is working on HCCI motors and has working prototypes. Would make a good fit for a future generation Volt E-REV, except for noise. That's one of the issues with putting a diesel in the Volt in the first place. Noise, and harshness of engagement when the engine kicks on and off.

Don't get me wrong, you can make modern small diesels pretty quiet... but going from silent electric mode to diesel/HCCI operation is much more noticeable than a quieter gas engine. It would't bother me or most men, but it'd probably be the number one complaint of every female that test drives one. That and "I don't like the color", no matter what color it is.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Spoelie on 1/18/2010 11:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
Why by weight? This seems artificially chosen to produce better numbers for gasoline.

a fair comparison would be: how many *energy*, not weight, contained in the fuel is actually converted to motion. There isn't 18% less energy in a gallon of gas than in a gallon of diesel, there's "only" 10% less. Which would be the "right correction factor" on mpg numbers.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By randomly on 1/18/2010 12:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent point.

A comparison of energy in vs. energy out would be reasonable.

For the Carbon concerned a comparison of energy out vs carbon expelled should be another useful metric.

For the Peak oilers energy out for crude oil consumed would give you the efficiency of crude oil consumption if that is a concern.

It would definitely be nice to see all these ratings for engines and vehicles.

But miles per gallon is a deceptive measure if you are comparing diesel vs gasoline.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By knutjb on 1/17/2010 11:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
You missed the single biggest reason why diesel is not a common commuter fuel. Trains, planes, and semi trucks. These constitute the larges consumers of fuel by volume. Jet A and diesel come from the same part of the refining process with jet fuel being the more highly refined product. Jet fuel runs great in diesels but is too pricey to do so.

Yes I do have some experience in that area. In the AF we ran contaminated jet fuel in support equipment and in cold weather, sub 0, diesels would start like it was a warm day and they didn't stink. Jet fuel burns much cleaner too.

Because of the market loading commuter diesels remain impractical unless there is is a sudden flooding of diesel from another source. We in the US end up with a glut of gas because of the industrial demand for diesel and Jet A. I know that doesn't explain gas' price.

Coal gasification is a better source for those fuels as it has a much lower sulfur content and high quality product than petroleum based diesel even with high sulfur coal. Even natural gas runs great in diesels tuned to run on it and it has no cold temp flow troubles like diesel.

With the current Admin there is no chance in hell of promoting any interim fuel because they hate it all and the power plants that enable their idyllic EV wet dreams. Coal is bad, nuke is bad and hydro kills fish, save the fish.

No, I am not against cleaner air, I grew up in 70s LA. But you can't make a product solely from idealism based on vaporware technology.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Chaser on 1/16/2010 8:01:55 PM , Rating: 3
It becomes political when my tax dollars are paying not only to keep GM Afloat but also for GM union employee pensions and their ridiculous benefits including medical.

So to those political naysayers, keep my our tax money out of it and I'll do the same.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2010 3:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They have the Unions whom vote for Democrats who then get the Govt to bail them out whenever they screw up.


The word you're looking for is who . Whom does not fit there.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Hulk on 1/15/2010 11:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure a diesel version would be an advantage. It seems as though the biggest obstacle to mainstream market penetration for the Volt will be price. Assuming of course there are no major problems with the car...yeah I know, big "if."

As you know it isn't easy to put a diesel car on the road in the US, which is why there are very few sold these days. And you have to add an expensive chemical injection system to pass emissions on top of the already more expensive diesel engine. And to make the diesel really worth it you need a turbo on it. Increasing cost even more.

No, I think GM is on track here. The Volt will be a very efficient vehicle even with the gas generator. It's a big enough pill for drivers to swallow the electric only drive to the wheels. At least they won't have to deal with a diesel as well. Different fuel, different maintenance, different sounds and smells. I know those things are a big deal to you and me but it's new and therefore unknown to many Americans.

Plus I think that GM is betting that as battery technology improves battery only range will increase while keeping the same weight battery. This would allow the generator to become smaller and smaller as it becomes more of a "limp home" device. Or, say the battery pack was good for 80 miles with an 85% max charge. When the battery hits 50% discharge the generator could kick on so that you'd still have full motor power even with a really small perhaps 500cc two cylinder gas engine/generator.

In conclusion for the first try I think GM is doing it right by staying with as many off the shelf, inexpensive parts, as possible. There are enough unknowns with the Volt.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 11:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would Lutz knock his own product and state the mileage was actually half of the anticipated 40?
It's the truth. LOL! Would you rather he lie or just hide it?

quote:
Why not just listen to common sense and release a diesel version?
How many diesel cars are sold in the US? How many similarly equipped gas engined cars are sold in the US? Are YOU going to buy a diesel-electric hybrid Volt if GM produced one?


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2010 12:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I would buy it. My current weekday commute is 2.4 miles round trip. I actually drive the CRV for this duty, but even it sucks gas. Before some wise guy asks why don't I just walk or ride a bike, there are other personal reasons involved.

To answer your question with a question; whats the ratio of gas versus diesel cars available for sale. The Jetta TDI has been a big seller, now only if Honda produced their Accord in the same. Its just a matter of with the diesel option that is holding things back. Look around at the old 80's MBs on the road, they are almost always the diesel versions. During that era, 1 out of 5 MBs being sold were diesel in the US.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 1:06:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Its just a matter of with the diesel option that is holding things back. Look around at the old 80's MBs on the road
Well it's not the 80's and the Jetta TDI is a niche car. According to VW, the TDI accounts for 40% of Jetta sales. 2009 sales for the Jetta were a bit over 18k so TDI's sold account for 7k. 7000 cars for the whole YEAR!!! Meanwhile, Toyota sold 11,000 Prius' last month!! LOL! Sorry dude, the numbers don't support a mass move to diesel in the US market. The numbers DO support a mass move to hybrids in the US which is why you see more and more manufacturers announcing hybrids.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2010 1:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
While I respect the Prius, if Toyota made the Jetta TDI (already looks like a Corolla from behind) it would be selling a lot more. VW will be able to move more cars once they have their new US plant finished. You are quick to forget that the Prius started out as a niche product just like the Volt will. Plus, like many things in life, perception sometimes outweighs reality. The numbers don't support the return on investement for the Prius, isn't it like 26 years to recoup the cost differential where the TDI is five years? My intended service life for my TDI is 10 years.

What there is room for is a diesel hybrid and hence my original statemet above about the Volt. With MB releasing their E Class diesel hybrid, hope VW will soon follow.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I respect the Prius, if Toyota made the Jetta TDI (already looks like a Corolla from behind) it would be selling a lot more.
I don't much for hybrids but consumers have spoken. If diesel was really what people wanted, Toyota would've gone that route but the fact is the Prius sold beyond expectations on the 2nd gen and subsequent hybrid cars from multiple manufacturers are experiencing massively increased sales. The Jetta (and VW for that matter) have seen large gains also but they are still too small to start flooding the market.

If people really wanted diesel, Jetta sales would be ridiculous and production of them would've increased drastically. Honda wouldn't have pulled the plug on their Accord diesel. Car makers would be doing diesel instead of hybrids.

People in the US simply are not interested in diesel. And sales show this. I gave you some figures above. In diesels defense, hybrids are not huge sales leaders either (down 11% in 09), WAY more than diesel for sure but the vast majority of cars still have gasoline engines and those sell the most by far. IMO, hybrids exist solely for marketing purposes.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 5:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Toyota would've gone that route but the fact is the Prius sold beyond expectations on the 2nd gen and subsequent hybrid cars from multiple manufacturers are experiencing massively increased sales.


Sorry Spuke, unfortunely this is not quite true for the US market. In Japan, its certainly true, since Japan has an ongoing subsidy for High Mileage cars.

The Prius sells well. The Ford Fusion Hybrid sells okay...

VW, the only manufacturing offering reasonable Diesel Cars in the US, sells approx ~4,500 a month in 2009. Given that we are talking about 1 Sedan, 1 Wagen, and 1 SUV and that accross the model lines in question roughly 33% were choosing Diesel.

If we look at the Ford Fusion, a car with a highly praised Hybrid edition, only 20% or less of consumers are opting for the Hybrid. In fact, more opt for the V6 edition than the Hybrid.

The Civic Hybrid has traditional sold approx 15% of all Civics.

The same is the truth from Automaker to Automaker (Including Toyota's other model). Hybrid sales rarely account for more than 20% of a total model. With 10-15% being the norm. GM is especially abysmal at ~5% being the norm.

As far as Honda pulling the plug... well, they haven't been making the best choices regarding the US market lately have they? Insight 2.0, CR-Z, Crosstour, the list goes on...

When it comes right down to it... Executives have bet that US consumers will wait to get Electric/PHEV Cars rather than convert to Diesel. Its not really based on "numbers" any more.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 7:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2009 sales for the Jetta were a bit over 18k so TDI's sold account for 7k. 7000 cars for the whole YEAR!!!


Sigh, off by almost a whole order of magnitude. Volkswagen of American sold 213,454 Units in 2009. Jetta sales were 108,427. Total TDI sales were 41,278. Approx. 33% of each model line. (Check VW press releases right on the VW site)


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By JCheng on 1/18/2010 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... if your commute is only 2.4 miles, what do you care whether it's gas-electric or diesel-electric? The ICE will rarely run, assuming you plug it in even occasionally.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By RU482 on 1/15/2010 2:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
yeah...cause they aren't already catching enough heat for a $40000 car, let's make it $45000


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By pavel486 on 1/15/2010 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel is heavier.
GM is not stupid. All it takes is to press Congress to pass $20K tax rebate for the cars "that capable to run on batteries ONLY" and BINGO! Prius is out.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 6:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
1.

1st, I had read a quote of 28 miles, not 23 from other sources, also attributed to Lutz.

2nd, People seem to have this stupid idea that someone electric cars will change the basic physics. Cold weather reduces mileage. Accessory loads go up. Mileage goes down. If we go with the 28 miles I saw quoted (in multiple places), thats a reduce of only 30% with temps below Freezing. This is very typical for ICE cars. (Most ICE cars lose around 25% at 32F compared to 75F) Buyers need to be realistic and understand 40 AER means 40 AER on EPA cycles, not 40 AER when its Freezing and your running the Heater full blast.

3rd.
30% loss is fanatastic if true. Something like the iMeiv supposedly gets less than 30% (ie 70% loss) of its oft-qouted 100 mile range in Cold Weather. If the 28 miles is the correct quote, its actually good news.

2.

Why Why Why?

The electric portion should cover roughly 75% of a normal persons driving. (Probably greater given the target of the Volt in well-heeled enviromentalist that likely live close to work). The 20% typical bump in mileage from a Diesel is very small for the Volt, equating to a bump of only 5% in the final numbers. The added expense of the Diesel, plus the loss of E85 capability, doesn't really seem to justify the relatively minor increase in mileage.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 6:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
"This is very typical for ICE cars. (Most ICE cars lose around 25% at 32F compared to 75F) "

What the...? An ICE doesn't lose efficiency in cold weather, except a very little due to thicker oil, greater warmup time, etc. The car cabin is heated with waste heat...costs you nothing whatsoever.

An electric car on the other hand, has to expend huge amounts of power to heat the cabin, plus its batteries are less efficient at those lower temps.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 6:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
Errr.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR...
http://www.exstrom.com/mpg.html

Porkpie. Colder temperatures (under Freezing) destroy ICE efficieny, especially over shorter range. This is the one of the reasons for the revision of EPA testing cycles in 2008.

Its not just a simple matter. Colder Air is denser. Air resistence increases. Colder Tires have higher rolling resistence. Colder Pavement also tends to have higher rolling resistence, even after Tires have heated up properly.

Now its entirely true, that if you talking about driving 100 miles on completely dry roads in 32F compared to 75F, an ICE will get much closer to 90% of the same efficieny.

At 50 miles, it drops to less than 80%, and it keeps going south.

At 33 miles (Average driving distance), its often less than 70%.

quote:
An electric car on the other hand, has to expend huge amounts of power to heat the cabin, plus its batteries are less efficient at those lower temps.


Yes, thats why 28 miles would be good news.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 7:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
In case I am not being clear, I am talking about overall car efficieny.

Cold Weather air resistence increases by approx 8% from 75F to 32F due to an 8% increase in Air Density. Even if a Motor/Engine was the same efficieny at 75F and 32F, the Car would be significantly less efficient.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 8:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Its not just a simple matter. Colder Air is denser. Air resistence increases. Colder Tires have higher rolling resistence. Colder Pavement also tends to have higher rolling resistence, even after Tires have heated up properly."

Erm, all the above factors affect electric cars just as much as ICEs. They have nothing to do with engine efficiency. They're also minor factors, nowhere near a 25% differential.

The fact is that ICEs aren't less efficient in cold weather. They're a bit less efficient when the engine itself is cold...but that really doesn't last that long, and even then its not a 25% drop.

By the way, neither of your links said anything about 25% decline in mileage during cold weather. One of them had nothing to do with ICE's at all, it was a study on fuel cells.


By mindless1 on 1/15/2010 10:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
You read to be a bit bias. 28 vs 40 MPG is "good news" but losing 30% with an ICE is "destroys ICE efficiency"?

Last time I did that /math/ thing, the numbers for good and destroys were pretty similar.

The important thing to remember is it doesn't matter if it reduces the ICE MPG because it has such a high cruising range, while it would definitely cripple an all-electric Volt.

It doesn't matter what one's average or daily commute distance is, it matters what the longest trip one wants to take is, or else you have to have yet another car free for the trip.

When I can ride a bicycle further in two hours than a car can go in four (including recharge time), something is very wrong.


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By WUMINJUN on 1/24/2010 7:56:12 PM , Rating: 2


http://www.brand-bar.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---****Handbag $36 ---****sunglass $18

---****jean $36 ---****ugg boot $60

http://www.brand-bar.com


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By WUMINJUN on 1/24/2010 7:56:21 PM , Rating: 2


http://www.brand-bar.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---****Handbag $36 ---****sunglass $18

---****jean $36 ---****ugg boot $60

http://www.brand-bar.com


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By WUMINJUN on 1/24/2010 8:00:10 PM , Rating: 2


http://www.brand-bar.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---****Handbag $36 ---****sunglass $18

---****jean $36 ---****ugg boot $60

http://www.brand-bar.com


RE: GM is run by a bunch of morons
By WUMINJUN on 1/24/2010 8:02:24 PM , Rating: 2


http://www.brand-bar.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---****Handbag $36 ---****sunglass $18

---****jean $36 ---****ugg boot $60

http://www.brand-bar.com


Volt issues...
By KIAman on 1/15/2010 1:53:05 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, with all the problems with the Volt itself, I don't understand its significance unless the price can be lowered by 20k.

It won't matter one bit if it met all advertised specifications if it means one has to fork over 40k to buy it.

I don't get it. With cars like the Prius, Insight, Fusion which offer great mileage at a baby-step-up price, why try to make such a monumental leap in mileage at a huge-giant-step-up price?

Does it have better road performance? - no
Does it offer more luxury? - no
Does it have improved safety features? - no
Does it revolutionize the auto industry? - no
Is it made of space-age technology? - no
Are the parts to build especially rare and precious? - no
Is the gas mileage better according to EPA estimates? - yes

Does that yes equate to 20k? - hell no.




RE: Volt issues...
By Hiawa23 on 1/15/2010 2:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
I don't get it. With cars like the Prius, Insight, Fusion which offer great mileage at a baby-step-up price, why try to make such a monumental leap in mileage at a huge-giant-step-up price?

It seems obvious, GM is banking their entire future on this Volt. It's their savior, so if it's a bust look for more need for a bailout, or the company to fold alltogether.


RE: Volt issues...
By mindless1 on 1/15/2010 10:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
False, GM's cars were desirable enough to take a large % of the global market for many years. They "hope" to get Volt into the market but it would not change their business expenses.

Whatever business changes they make would benefit them without the volt, or if they didn't/don't make those decisions, would still sink them with a successful Volt.

Simply because the news you read is about VOlt, you are somehow oblivious to all the GM cars for sale or on the road today?

How's it feel to have your head in the sand? Personally I wouldn't drive a GM car but others feel differently.

Before the recession caused everyone to put a grip on their wallet and gas prices shot up, GM was doing pretty well in sales numbers (2007):

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/23/gm-releases-glo...

While gas is a bit higher now than pre-2007 (IIRC), the situations that caused GM's downturn are mostly over but for the bad PR of the bailout and now governmental intervention.

In the long term, the Volt really means nothing. Early adopters of green cars already adopted one, and it isn't too green to keep buying new cars instead of using and maintaining what you have.


RE: Volt issues...
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 2:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
"why try to make such a monumental leap in mileage at a huge-giant-step-up price?"

It's called a Halo product. GM is not going to make money on the Gen 1 Volt. They're hoping that the goodwill factor, as well as the experience they gain in making all-electric vehicle, will pay off in the long run.

Me, I'm not so sure. Most people don't know that we started with electric cars back in the late 1800s-early 1900s. Gas-powered cars eventually took over, because the technology was better. I don't see that changing anytime in the next 30 years.


RE: Volt issues...
By Chudilo on 1/15/2010 3:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
Have you considered that the conventional combustion engine might eventually be replaced by something a lot more efficient. For Ex.: A miniaturized turbine or a fuel cell generator.
While that may not happen immediately, the experience that GM will HOPEFULLY gain from releasing this car will position the company to be one of leaders in this market segment. If GM would have managed to do a better job with using the whole EV1 Fiasco to their advantage, the Prius would have been in a whole different situation at this point.
The reason why people buy a Prius today is so that they would in their own mind somehow help the environment and decrease the use of Oil. In reality the benefit of manufacturing the Prius + operating it over it's lifetime is only marginally beneficial to the environment as many extra components that are not normally found in conventional vehicles cancel out many of the benefits. Even though the car might not actually benefit the environment, it certainly seems to be the first step in the right direction.

Toyota was the first to create hybrid vehicle that a mainstream car buyer could use as their primary vehicle, which is why it became such a huge hit. Now everyone else is playing catch up.
The Volt is actually something that will conceptually go above and beyond the Prius. GM is hoping that it will become the thing that all of the same people will want to own. I'm guessing that that is the reason for them trying to appeal to the geeks with the recently announced apps and such. I think they might actually have a good marketing strategy for once. We'll see if the additional cost will counterbalance that.

Based on my past experience with GM vehicles, I think that this whole thing will most likely be undermined by some executive making a brilliant, last minute, decision to use a cheaper plastic for something that everyone gets to touch every time they are in the car. Which will in turn make the car feel like a cheapo piece of junk. NOONE will consider Paying 40k for a car that feels like a piece of junk even if it exhausts butterflies or drives on tap water.

And that's when I'm hoping we'll finally see GM be split up and made into a couple to a few companies that might actually take pride in the products they manufacture and hopefully even respect their customers. that however will leave companies like Tesla and Fisker to become the GM of tomorrow.


RE: Volt issues...
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 3:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Have you considered that the conventional combustion engine might eventually be replaced by something a lot more efficient"

Sure. But it won't be soon-- and even if it does, it'll be a fuel cell vehicle or something else-- not an electric vehicle. And worse, the billions they spent developing electric vehicles is money they won't have to spend on technologies with more promise -- like fuel cells.

"If GM would have managed to do a better job with using the whole EV1 Fiasco "

The EV1 was a fiasco because the technology wasn't even close to being available. Nothing whatsoever could GM have done to change that. Today, the situation is only slightly better. Without a massive federal tax credit and a few million hyper-environmentalists in the country, the Volt would be dead on arrival. As for the experience gained by manufacturing it...that's only going to be an advantage if electric vehicles take off in a big way. And in my opinion, that isn't going to happen soon enough for this 'experience' to be worth the billions of dollars they're going to spend on acquiring it.


RE: Volt issues...
By Jedi2155 on 1/15/2010 6:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel cell technology is and always will be less efficient than a pure electric vehicle. Only the in case of harvesting hydrogen from fossil fuel sources would it "possibly" be more efficient in terms of overall energy cost in its production. When you introduce electrolysis however to separate hydrogen from water, then you are wasting a lot of energy in processes that wouldn't be necessary at all in a battery electric vehicle.

Electrolyzing water into usable hydrogen in fuel cell is not a simple process either but requires many steps in cleaning the hydrogen from contaminates which would otherwise degrade the fuel cell stack by clogging up the proton exchange membrane. Battery electric technology is simply better/less complex if we can increase the capacity/cost & durability which I see as more likely and practical alternative to solving the issues with hydrogen fuel cells.

In terms of most efficient to least efficient modes of personal transportation it goes in this order:
ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) -> HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle) -> PHEV (Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle) -> FCEV (Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle) -> BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle)


RE: Volt issues...
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 7:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
As a note:

Fuel Cell does not mean Hydrogen Fuel Cell.

Others exist, and in many ways, a Menthonal Fuel Cell might be a good solution with the right innovations.

But in defense of the Volt (and investment).

Forward Rotational Energy will be required for all wheel based transportation means. Electric Motors are the most efficient means of producing Forward Rotational Energy given a supply of energy. Any Fuel Cell Car, would be an EREV type car, potentially with 0 AER.

Personally, I see Algae Diesel grown from NG/Coal electric plants as an Ideal ER fuel for EREVs are being a very potent future combination for extending the US NG resources and replacing important energy


RE: Volt issues...
By mindless1 on 1/15/2010 11:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Electric Motors are the most efficient means of producing Forward Rotational Energy given a supply of energy


Which is all well and good once we figure out how to coax lightning bolts to make direct hits with the engine in a timely millisecond manner.

Until then, we have to look at every step of R&D, materials, manufacture, energy generation, storage, transmission, conversion, storage, delivery, and the weight of honkin'big battery packs among other factors.

It is good to invest the resources, but perhaps not until there is a more cost and energy density effective technology available to build upon. We need a scientific breakthrough in battery tech just as we always did, with no reason to believe the auto industry is more likely to find it than any other that's been looking.


RE: Volt issues...
By porkpie on 1/16/2010 4:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Which is all well and good once we figure out how to coax lightning bolts to make direct hits with the engine in a timely millisecond manner"

Well I rarely agree with you in the past, but you deserve a 6 for that little gem :D


RE: Volt issues...
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 8:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Fuel cell technology is and always will be less efficient than a pure electric vehicle"

Sure. So? Efficiency is only one factor among hundreds in the total picture. A fuel cell that is very close on efficiency, but lighter, cheaper, and can be refueled instantly certainly would beat out an all-electric solution.

Also, there are usage scenarios where a pure electric vehicle IS less efficient than a fuel cell. Intermittent usage, for one...batteries leak charge continually. Fuel cells don't leak fuel (normally).


RE: Volt issues...
By thorr2 on 1/15/2010 2:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
Patience Grasshopper.

The first hybrids had their own set of issues and had quite a price premium that made the non-hybrid equivalents the better buy. Over time, the issues got worked out and the prices came down. I don't see this being any different for the Volt. They are starting with low volumes and will develop the car over the next several years until it becomes mainstream like hybrids are starting to do today with competitive price and performance.

Look at LCD TV's. For the longest time, they were smaller and crappier than plasmas. Today, it is becoming harder and harder to find plasmas in the sea of LCD's and now LED's which will probably replace LCD's before too long. Personally I still prefer plasmas though and I am happy I have one that was purchased before the high-powered versions were outlawed to be sold in California. (LED's may eventually become my new preference). For the benefit of our planet though, lower power consumption is the future, whether we like it or not. Thankfully, technology can be developed to make the greener stuff better in the long run.


RE: Volt issues...
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 2:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
" ...and now LED's which will probably replace LCD's "

Erm, "LED TVs" are still LCDs. They're just backlit with LCDs rather than a CCT.


RE: Volt issues...
By thorr2 on 1/15/2010 2:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Coolio. Thanks for the clarification. They still call them LED TV's though and they look much nicer in my opinion. My point still is that over time, things get better and cheaper.


RE: Volt issues...
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 2:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
NP. Thanks for bearing with my anal-retentive need to clarify trivial points ;)


RE: Volt issues...
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 5:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NP. Thanks for bearing with my anal-retentive need to clarify trivial points ;)
I think I might be worse. :(


RE: Volt issues...
By Solandri on 1/15/2010 3:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's an unfortunate accident of marketing nomenclature that those things are being called LED TVs. TVs based on OLEDs and laser LEDs should be significantly better than LCD TVs. The LCD TV still pumps out the maximum amount of light (whether from a fluorescent tube or an LED), then uses the LCD to block out the unneeded light. OLED and laser LEDs on the other hand will dynamically scale the light per pixel, and thus will take considerably less power while achieving higher brightness and color gamut, with better contrast.

Unfortunately, people are going to get confused as you did by the "LED TV" name being used by marketers with the current generation of LCD TVs. Many people will buy a TV thinking they're getting something they're not, or will pass on a better TV in the future thinking it's the same thing as what's available now.


RE: Volt issues...
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 7:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Errr... Some LED "TVs" actually dynamically shut-off sections the backlighting. Cathode based LCDs are also capable of this.

I think you don't need to worry. Marketers will come up with new slogans for the Laser LED TVs and OLED TVs. How about "Super Clear Lazer Vision" and "Super Thin Super Bright LED"


RE: Volt issues...
By RMichael on 1/15/2010 8:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
All of the LCD monitors that I've seen that have LED backlighting do not use 'laser LEDs'.


RE: Volt issues...
By boogle on 1/17/2010 4:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OLED and laser LEDs on the other hand will dynamically scale the light per pixel, and thus will take considerably less power while achieving higher brightness and color gamut, with better contrast.


There is an unwanted side-effect of this method. The TV will constantly be using varying amounts of power, and in a somewhat unpredictable manner. Over thousands / millions of TVs this could present somewhat of a problem. The power grid is fed by power stations that output a constant amount of power. The grid is monitored by various control centres (think regional) who then decide how much power will be required at any given time, and make sure the power output into the grid is just right, not too much, not too little. This is why you never get a perfect consistant voltage from your wall sockets. These control centres even go as far as to get live TV listings from the major networks. For example here in the UK, they know that when a popular soap goes to commercial break, the populace will often turn on the kettle to make a cup of tea - they know when the commercials will start, so they ensure more power is going into the grid.

So, hopefully you're starting to see the potential issue. If the consumption is constantly changing, but the supply remains constant, then you'll get a wider voltage variation. I'm not sure if it'll have any real affect or not - but it is something worth thinking about.

I suspect if we get a lot of wildly fluctating devices (with energy saving as the big thing, it seems to be happening a great deal now), the grid will just have to adapt. I'm thinking massive energy storage though glorified batteries. If consumption drops, the battery takes up the excess and then drains it back into the grid when consumption peaks. Similiar to what a transformer does converting AC to DC.

Erm, where was I going with this?


RE: Volt issues...
By MrFord on 1/18/2010 10:24:15 AM , Rating: 2
If that kind of variations brings down the electric grid, we'll have much worse problems. We're talking of a variation of a couple Watts. Not unlike any computer running with power saving, or with a recent GPU with variable clock. And much less than electric heat, AC compressors switching on/off, or even an hair dryer.


RE: Volt issues...
By mindless1 on 1/15/2010 11:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike the rapid evolution of LCD TVs, batteries and electric motors have been around for quite a while.

Certainly they will try to play the recoup development costs game (regardless of grants, etc), but that does not decrease the inherent increase in cost from having that huge battery pack.

We might think "someday batteries will cost less". "Great" I say, "that is the day we should build electric or hybrid cars".

You are surely mistaken to think a car with electric drive, batteries, and the ICE generator engine, could ever be competitive in price. Adding complexity and technology AND additional subsystems seldom does anything to price but raise it.

You write "for the benefit of our planet", but our we here to benefit our planet or is our planet here to benefit us? Do you actually have any proof we need to reduce energy consumption?

It seems fairly clear all we need to do is move to nuclear power and could easily use double the power or more with fewer planetary effects. Being power scrooges is not the answer but if you believe it is, do show by example and stop using power writing about this in a forum where it will make no difference. That is not meant as an insult, I am quite serious that if you are serious you are doing the opposite of what you suggest we should do.

Technology has not shown us that it will develop anything greener. On the contrary this technology is producing energy consuming devices, more and more and more of them. 100 years ago do you think the average person used as much energy as they do today? Hmmmmmm.


RE: Volt issues...
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 6:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does that yes equate to 20k? - hell no.


Maybe ought to tone that down. Right off you announce your Bias. Even taking pessimistic assumptions of 40K Sticker price, to suggest that one can buy an equalivent car as the Volt's displays for 12.5K is stupid.

quote:
I don't get it. With cars like the Prius, Insight, Fusion which offer great mileage at a baby-step-up price, why try to make such a monumental leap in mileage at a huge-giant-step-up price?


WHAT!?!

Sorry. You lost me here.

Prius. C-Segment Hatch. Unfront increase in cost 25%.
Insight. C-Segment Hatch. Unfront increase in cost 20%.
Ford Fusion. D-Segment Sedan. Unfront increase in costs 30%.

Strong Hybrids cost a significant bit more than standard cars.

quote:
It won't matter one bit if it met all advertised specifications if it means one has to fork over 40k to buy it.


Actually, it would. If it meets all advertised specifications, its TCO will be less than most family sedans. (Certainly anything with a MPG combined less than 25 MPG) Doesn't you care about how much money you spend over the lifetime of the car? If not, then why would you consider the Hybrids mentioned about "baby-step-up price" when many are 5K steps?

quote:
Is it made of space-age technology? - no


HAHAH, actually this one is a yes. Check out the Moon Rover. The rest of your points are unknown.

I think you have a long way to go to get your head wrapped around this concept. The Volt will be the cheapest and most reliable way to put an EV in your driveway. Its not really ment to be a substitute for a 15K Honda Civic. Or even a 25K Toyota Prius. Its premium over standard transportation is acceptable if it performs as advertised.

The Volt will the cheapest and most convient way to drive electric on a daily basis.


RE: Volt issues...
By Hulk on 1/15/2010 7:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about performance.

I've driven a Prius and it's a dog. I can feel the IC kick on and it's annoying. And it's slow as all get out.

I bet the Volt will be faster and will feel better around town with nearly 280ftlb of torque.

And if it takes off it WILL revolutionize the auto industry.

Parts rare and precious. Yes. Go see what it takes to build a Li ion battery.

Space age technology. Yes. Again look at the car without body panels. Maybe I admire it because I'm an engineer though...

More luxury? Don't know but you should look into a late '70's model Caddy for plush picnic sized bench seats and AC that can blow your hair back.

GM is fighting an uphill battle without every person adding uninformed two bits. Let's look at the facts and give them a chance at least.


Why a four cylinder engine?
By brundall on 1/15/2010 12:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Why does this thing need a four cylinder engine just to charge the batteries? Wouldn't a single cylinder motorcycle engine be much lighter and vastly more fuel efficient at recharging?




RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 1:09:23 PM , Rating: 1
When the batteries are dead, the engine has to not only recharge them, but move the car as well. Running a 5-passenger car on a tiny motorcycle engine isn't very practical (0-60 in 9 minutes, anyone?)

In any case, two-stroke motorcycle engines are LESS efficient than a four-stroke auto engine, in terms of fuel consumed per unit power output. The MPG you get from a motorcycle has to do with the vastly reduced weight, and the lower power outut.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By brundall on 1/15/2010 1:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
The engine does not have to move the car - it is purely there to recharge the batteries. The Volt cannot be moved on the engine by itself.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 1:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The engine does not have to move the car - it is purely there to recharge the batteries.
Yes, and that engine is required to keep a charge on that battery.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 3:03:28 PM , Rating: 3
"The Volt cannot be moved on the engine by itself."

That's rather a matter of semantics. The engine can't drive the wheels mechanically, true (its a series hybrid after all, not a parallel) -- but when the batteries are entirely discharged, its the engine itself moving the vehicle, via the electric power it generates.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2010 3:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The engine does not have to move the car - it is purely there to recharge the batteries


Actually this is incorrect. The engine does have to move the car. Whether the engine is coupled to the drive wheels mechanically or electrically is irrelevant; the fact remains that the gasoline burning engine is what's producing the power to move the car. Same thing with trains- the huge diesel engine is actually turning a generator which powers electric motors. It's either more efficient and/or more robust than a mechanical transmission.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 1:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does this thing need a four cylinder engine just to charge the batteries?
Because it's not just charging the batteries. I'd suggest you read on the motors operation. There's TONS of info on it.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By brundall on 1/15/2010 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Volt is an electric vehicle with a range extender. Well, what does that mean? It means Volt runs on electricity from its battery, and then it runs on electricity it creates from gas. Let's assume you have a fully charged battery. Now, depending on the weather, the electrical features that are turned on and how you drive, you can drive up to 40 miles on the electricity stored in the battery — totally gas and emissions free. After that, its gas-powered, range-extending generator automatically kicks in to provide electrical power. So Volt can go for several hundred additional miles, until you can plug it in or fill it up again. And Volt is even a FlexFuel vehicle as well, capable of running on the biofuel E85 ethanol (5).


If you could tell me what else the engine does other than provide electricity instead of telling me to read up on the subject I would really appreciate it.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By brundall on 1/15/2010 1:36:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
For the Chevy Volt according to John Bereisa, director of advanced engineering at GM, “All we need is 67 horsepower, enough to maintain the batteries’ charge when the car is cruising at highway speed.”He explains how the choice for the Volt’s combustion engine was arrived to: “Since there wasn’t time to design an engine from scratch, we looked for the smallest existing engine capable of supplying 67 horsepower, which turned out to be G.M.’s Family Zero design used in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.”He also tells us the Volt’s engine when in use will run in a target range of 2000 to 3000 RPM. He notes “When you map an engine’s power versus r.p.m. versus fuel consumption, the resulting chart looks like the Rocky Mountains. In conventional cars, you’re driving all over that map. But in the Volt, we’re able to keep the engine operating in what I call its happy valley, where it delivers the power that’s required while consuming minimal fuel.”Bereisa hints at what GM is planning for the Generation II Volt engine. He says “We’d select a smaller displacement engine for the future, probably less than 1 liter,” and “We’d position the catalytic converter and route the coolant lines to minimize heat losses.” He adds not surprisingly “the engine for the next Volt will definitely be as simple and as light as possible.”And so the gas-powered combustion engine shall ride off quietly into the sunset.Source (New York Times


Found it - They needed an engine capable of 67 hp and the four cylinder was the only one available in their inventory that met the specs.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 1:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Found it - They needed an engine capable of 67 hp and the four cylinder was the only one available in their inventory that met the specs.
See. There you go.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 10:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
"“Since there wasn’t time to design an engine from scratch..."

This bothers more than anything. GM had 3 years from concept to production...and its not like the engine itself needed any new technology. If the largest car company in the world can't make a new engine in 3 years, they should fire all the management and half the engineers.

Oh wait-- GM isn't the largest car company in the world anymore. Guess we know why.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By Spuke on 1/15/2010 1:38:43 PM , Rating: 1
All of that reading and you still don't understand its operation. Keep reading.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By brundall on 1/15/2010 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Thankyou puke - you are obviously a far more intelligent person than me and I bow to you. For the rest of us with below average IQ's my original question still stands, I just found the answer myself.

Question - Why a relatively large four cylinder engine to simply act as a generator?
Answer - because GM couldn't find one or build one that would develop 67 hp in a smaller lighter package. Something that will be fixed in the gen 2 Volt.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 5:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
Okay Brundall, I will try to explain the differences

1. If you attempt to "charge" batteries, you are suggesting using the battery as a strong buffer. IE, the Engine will charge the battery and the battery will power the car. In such a situation, the idea state is find the average power usage over the entire US06 cycle, find the cheapest and lightest engine you can that provided 10% more power at peak efficieny. Run this engine at peak efficieny all the time, and shut if off when enough battery level exists.

This is not what GM is doing. In the above sitation, a 40-hp or smaller motor likely would have sufficed.

2. GM is using the Battery as a Weak Buffer. Similar to the Hybrid operation of the Prius. In this situation, its important to have an Engine provide highest expected power draws over a narrower operation time, for example the accerlation from 60-70 mph in US06 cycle. This results in GM needing a engine with high efficiency over a range of RPM levels and upto a higher peak power. Engine sizing would need to account for the change in efficieny at the expected power loads going forward.

Notice how the 2009 Prius had a 1.5L engine, but the 2010 has a 1.8L engine, yet Mileage on EPA tests improved! (Even with additional wieght and cross sectional area)

In conclusion, its unlikely GM will reduce the size of the motor unless they change from situation 2 to situation 1. Since thier is relatively small efficieny gains to be had in the first "40" AER miles by reduce the engine size to a 3 cylinder or 2 cyclinder engine, and 78% of the time people are in electric mode anyway, there will not be significant benifit. (Using an average driver over the average year, switching from the proposed 1.4L Otto to even say a 1.4L Diesel will say less than 25 gallons a year or a 1.0L Turbo 3 gasoline should be less than 10 gallons a year)
Counterbalancing this small benifit is the much greater stress that situation 1 puts on the Battery. Situation 2, the Battery is likely to maintain a "40" AER mile charge for longer. Over a vehicles entire lifetime (20 or so years), a 1.4L Otto cycle engine will likely have lower lifetime fuel consumption in situation 2 than a 1.0L Turbo Otto would in situation 1.

Hope that clears it up.


RE: Why a four cylinder engine?
By brundall on 1/15/2010 8:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
.”Bereisa hints at what GM is planning for the Generation II Volt engine. He says “We’d select a smaller displacement engine for the future, probably less than 1 liter,” and “We’d position the catalytic converter and route the coolant lines to minimize heat losses.” He adds not surprisingly “the engine for the next Volt will definitely be as simple and as light as possible.”And so the gas-powered combustion engine shall ride off quietly into the sunset.Source (New York Times


So I guess this part of the quote I already posted didn't register with you. GM itself states that the next engine in the Volt will be probably less than 1 liter and will be as simple and as light as possible. which was exactly the point of my original post. They are admitting that the current engine is too large, heavy and complex to be ideal.
I hope I cleared that up for you.


The Volt should be modular.
By bildan on 1/15/2010 2:43:32 PM , Rating: 1
The Volt is a battery electric with a generator set permanently installed. It would be a better vehicle if the genset and battery pack were easily swapable.

I frequently know for a fact that I won't be driving more than 40 miles a day for months at a time. Why should I lug an inert generator set around? I always know well in advance when long trips are scheduled when I would need the genset. Let me have it installed only when I need it.

Same thing with the battery. If I need 80 mi/day, the option to install a 2nd battery pack in place of the genset would be welcome.




RE: The Volt should be modular.
By thorr2 on 1/15/2010 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
Great idea! I am not sure how feasible it is though with the weight of swapping the parts out. The other problem is when you have those unforeseen circumstances that may leave you stranded. Overall I love the idea though.


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By dnd728 on 1/16/2010 2:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Adding a generator sounds like too much, but I definitely like the idea of a second battery. I know lots of people that rarely (or never) drive a long distance. Such an option should satisfy their needs.
Project better place does suggest battery exchange stations and lower capacity batteries, but I guess they won't be available everywhere.


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 3:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt the generator weighs more than 100 lb or so. That isn't going to save you much in mileage. You'd have to take out the entire engine to get an appreciable savings....and that isn't very feasible.


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By Fred242 on 1/15/2010 4:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason a diesel is more efficient than a gasoline engine is to do with the the fact that a diesel does not have a throttle so it always, even at part load, operates at its maximum compression ratio so at near its maximum theoretical efficiency. With a gasoline engine as soon as you are running at part throttle, your fancy 12 to 1 compression engine has about the same effective compression ration as a model T Ford. This is why diesels are so much better under part load conditions like town driving. The difference under high speed conditions are still there but are much smaller. On the issue of generator size and type, the reason why GM are using a four cylinder engine is that they don't want the vibration and noise that a two cylinder engine out of a concrete mixer would make. If they had one, they could probably get a away with a small 3 cylinder turbocharged engine- some VWs and most Smarts use 3 cylinder turbocharged engines of about the right output and these are very small and light and would do the job just fine. A generator engine can be designed to run efficiently at just one speed so the advantage of diesel is not so great- you will run the engine at full throttle so for the reasons discussed above the advantage of diesel is real but not so great. As for the size of the engine you need, it needs to provide the power to drive the vehicle at the maximum steady state speed you choose in your design. If you want it to maintain 80 mph then a motor that overcomes the various drag forces at 80, plus a small margin so you charge the battery, will do. Even for a relatively fat vehicle, by European standards, like the Volt, this will be probably less than the 67hp that is mentioned. Transient loads, acceleration hills etc are covered by the battery. Once you have used up the battery charge put in from the electrical supply at home, the Volt is little different to a Prius: all the energy has to come from the on board prime mover whether gasoline, diesel, gas turbine or nuclear.


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By bildan on 1/15/2010 4:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
A 50KW generator alone will weigh ~200 Lbs. A 67HP engine with fuel tank, cooling system & accessories will weight at least 200 Lbs.

Weight is the biggest problem with electrics. 400 Lbs will make a HUGE difference in both performance and efficiency.


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 4:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
"A 50KW generator alone will weigh ~200 Lbs. A 67HP engine with fuel tank, cooling system & accessories will weight at least 200 Lbs."

The generator itself? I doubt it. I have a 5KW generator that (without engine, gas tank, and frame) only weighs about 20 lbs...and I'm sure it scales a lot better than linearly as you go up in size.

In any case, the real issue is the engine, fuel tank, cooling system, exhaust & pollution-control system, etc. That stuff weighs a HECK of a lot more than 200 lbs total. There's so much size, weight, and complexity to it in fact that having an end-user just "pull it out" just isn't practical. You'd have to design the entire car around such a lego-block approach, and your end result would weigh and cost a lot more than the original.


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 6:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh...

Okay. An "Electric Generator" is a fancy name for a reverse electric motor. A 50 kW Electric Motor tips the scales at 75-100Lbs depending of the type and inverters required. Its actually possible that the Volts "Electric Generator" add 50 lbs of wieght to the car.

Also, I really disagree with the Wieght being the biggest problem with electrics.

Wieght is the biggest problem with electric storage on moving cars.

With a ~400 lb addition of generator, engine, and fuel, the Volt has essentially infinate range using existing infrastructure. Adding an additional 400 lbs of battery would probably only get another 60 all electric miles... with the same provision of taking hours get another hour of driving. Removing 400 lbs from the Volt would result in less than 5 more AER miles... so what would you buy?

Option 1. 45 AER Battery Car for 30,000
Option 2. 40 AER Battery Car with Gasoline Backup integrated for 40,000
or
Option 3. 100 AER Battery Car for 50,000

Think most people would be most likely to buy option 2.


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By bildan on 1/15/2010 8:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
NBD, I just pulled a 454 Cu In V8 and transmission out of a pickup - probably 1000 pounds. Drop by Harbor Freight and look at an "engine hoist".


RE: The Volt should be modular.
By porkpie on 1/15/2010 8:59:30 PM , Rating: 3
Are you seriously suggeting the average consumer go out and purchase an engine hoist, just to reconfigure their car to get a few extra mpg out of it? Especially when a car with the option to do so would cost them thousands of dollars more...more than they'd ever save in gas by doing it? Hell, where would the average consumer even PUT the engine when they weren't using it? Leave it exposed to the weather? Fill up half their garage with it?

Sorry, its just not a practical idea.


What sense does this make?
By wookie1 on 1/15/2010 11:42:18 AM , Rating: 4
So the Volt gets a maximum 40 mile range on electric-only power, and most people are probably going to get 40-60% of that because it will be too hot or cold for peak output, so maybe 20 mile range. The only way that this would work for most folks is because it has the gasoline engine to kick in when needed to make sure you can get home. People think that it would make sense to remove this gasoline engine and have only batteries? I think the market for that kind of car isn't big enough, and part of that market is already served by golf carts.




RE: What sense does this make?
By FITCamaro on 1/15/2010 12:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well the question is what do they consider hot weather. If its 100, then in many areas the volt will probably get 30ish miles per charge for the majority of the year. If its 90, that's a problem.


RE: What sense does this make?
By Chudilo on 1/15/2010 2:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing they mean in areas where AC is not required to cool the cabin/batteries.


RE: What sense does this make?
By Keeir on 1/15/2010 7:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt is advertised to acchieve 40 AER miles on both the EPA City and HWY Cycles. (Note, these are the pre-2008 mixture of cycles).

The idea that is the maximum is false. It will be possible to get ~8 kWh delievered to the electric motor before the ICE is required to start. Its possible to cover 50 or more miles with 8 kWh of energy depending on your speed and acceleration. (For instance, driving at a smooth constant 40 mph)

A good way to think of it is this... are you the type of person that constant exceeds EPA mileage estimates? If so, your likely to get 40 AER+ under similar conditions. If you always get 25% less, then your AER is likely to be less than 30 AER.

The idea that most people are going to get 40-60% based on a Lutz, someone who loves performance cars, driving around in what I assume was Freezing weather in Detriot, seems out there in terms of plausability.

Most people, most of the time, will be within 10% of the AER. Its true, I entirely agree, that the few times a year when your 40 AER car becomes a 20 AER car because of weather, traffic, driving like a jack-ass limits the ability to market a low AER electric car significantly.


RE: What sense does this make?
By wookie1 on 1/16/2010 1:34:23 AM , Rating: 1
Well you'd really be hoping that you didn't hit traffic or anything, because you'll be waiting for a tow truck if the batteries don't get you home. I don't think that this will be acceptable for that many people. If you need to go to the store or run an errand after you get home, I guess you'll have to wait for the car to charge up.


Lutz is...
By The0ne on 1/15/2010 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Lutz = LMAO

Please review the stupid stuff coming out of his mouth over the years. Youtube has plenty of them available. One of my favorite moment is when he actually admitted the Aztec to be a POS vehicle and should have never been made. Genius!




By croc on 1/16/2010 12:53:54 AM , Rating: 2
In Sydney AUS, almost every taxi is powered by 'autogas', or LPG. Most all of our buses are either dual fuel, diesel / LPG, or LPG only. Ok, LPG gives up some effenciency, up to 23%, but more than makes up for it in price - typically less than half of regular unleaded. So cabs and buses have less operating costs based on fuel use alone. Now add in the lower pollution, lower engine maintenance required, and these fleets make significant short term savings irrespective of the conversion cost.

Then take diesel... No one that I know would take a gasoline powered 4WD outback, as a diesel is far more reliable, gets better mileage, and COSTS LESS. Not to mention they typically have far more low end torque, run lower RPMs, and have overall lower maintenance costs. 10c a litre less fuel cost (at least) adds up. AND lower overall pollution, what's to whinge about? Myself, I mostly use the buses, (or the electric trains) with the occasional local trip to the grocer's or the fruit and vegie shop or the beer store. I think I used a whole tank of fuel last year....




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki