Print 76 comment(s) - last by XtremeM3.. on Oct 20 at 3:04 AM

Eight 2011 Chevy Volts took the 1200-mile roadtrip.  (Source: Jeffrey Sauger for General Motors)
The Volt is withstanding the rigors of road testing admirably

The first preproduction models of the 2011 Chevy Volt hybrid electric plug-in vehicle were built earlier this year.  Since then, the vehicle has been put through a number of rigorous tests.  Starting yesterday, a fleet of eight Volts launched on the most ambitious test of the vehicle to date: a 1,200 mile road trip.

Chevrolet Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah is among those making the round trip from the Milford Proving Ground through Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, before returning home.  The drive will take a few days and will require approximately 4 tanks of gas.

The drive is dubbed the "65-Percent Drive" according to Autoblog, which in GM-speak means the test drive made when 65 percent of the vehicle's hardware and software is done.  Reportedly, GM is actually about 90 percent done, but is just sticking to its traditional naming.  GM will complete 70, 80, 90 and 100 percent drives in coming months.

One thing GM is still tweaking is how much power from the gas-engine generator to put directly to the electric drive motor, versus using the generator power to charge the batteries.  GM is finding that frequently putting the power directly to the motor improves performance.  However, the generator will still charge the batteries in some cases, as well.

The engine will be run between 1,200 and 4,000 rpm, using factors like speed and power load requirements to decide on the necessary speed.  GM wants to keep the engine between 30 to 100 percent load, as higher loads reduce pumping losses.  GM was tight lipped about fuel economy under the old method (sustained charge) or the new method (variable speed, some power going directly to the electric motor). 

The company did say that the prototypes are getting good mileage -- over 300 miles on a tank of gas -- when operating in generator mode.  This is in addition to the vehicle's 40 mile all-electric range.  Another interesting test will be when GM runs the car's gas engine on E85 ethanol fuel.  The vehicles are FlexFuel designs, so they can enjoy both gas and ethanol.

As to the battery mode, the batteries are performing well and aren't getting too cold or too hot, both conditions which can degrade performance.  The cars aren't yet reaching the 40 mile target on a charge, but GM expects to pass that milestone on the next test, with tweaking.  On the trip, GM is testing vehicles both running on a depleted battery charge, and a full charge.

GM is also looking to fine tune and minimize noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH).  Currently, the gas engine typically won't turn on until the car is moving, at which point the noise will be drowned out by the wind and road noises.  GM, nonetheless, is pleased with the performance, and plans to further reduce NVH by tweaking vehicle parameters that effect the road and wind noise.

Other GM engineers were off testing Volts at Pikes Peak in Colorado.  One key concern is whether the Volt will reach a "tipping point", where the gas engine can't sustain battery charging, and the battery becomes depleted below the typical minimum of 30 percent charge.  Even a strenuous 14-mile trip to the 14,000-foot summit was unable to overwhelm the 100 hp generator, though, so it appears that the "tipping point" will never be reached in real world situations  -- if GM's claims hold true.

A critical test to come will be how the vehicle performs in cold weather.  In cold weather, the Volt starts with the generator running, to help heat up vehicle and jump-start performance.  Battery performance typically suffers incrementally worse degradation, the colder it gets (this is a major argument for ultracapacitors which perform favorably, but are more expensive).

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By mdogs444 on 10/16/2009 9:27:20 AM , Rating: -1
Amazingly similar look to a Prius right there. May be a bit better looking, but I can't give it too much credit. Thanks, but no thanks....I'll take my 15/20MPG SUV. Goodnight Government Motors.

RE: looks
By reader1 on 10/16/2009 9:30:18 AM , Rating: 5
*pfft*, cars. Mah horse drawn buggy is just fahn.

RE: looks
By Hiawa23 on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: looks
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 2:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Since this vehicle will be out of the price range of mostly everyone I guess it's another fantasy that someone will find a way to keep gas prices down cause for most, gas powered vehicles is it.

You know...

Average purchase price of a GM Auto in Sept 2009? 35,069!
Average purchase price of all Autos in Sept. 2009? 30,327!

Expected Price of Volt post rebate? 32,500-35,000 or less.

So please explain to me how a good 40%+ of the car buyers today are willing to plunk down more than the cost of the Volt. Yet the "Volt is out of the price range of mostly everyone".

Keep in mind that with the dramatically lower cost for Electricity, the Volt will easily save a 25-30 MPG car driver 5,000+ USD over 100,000 miles. Know someone who purchased a car worth more than 27,000? That person can afford a Volt! Know a person with a Truck/SUV more than 20,000? That person can afford a Volt!

Car buyers buy based on precieved value. Some drivers will significantly value the electric drive and preception of zero emissions and flexibility. Of course, not everyone will or should.

The Volt is not the cheapest Compact Car. It is also not the most expensive. Here is a quick list of more expensive cars in the same size range: BMW 3 Series (All), Audi A3/A4, Anything with a V6, Impreza (All but the base model), Volvo C30, Most Mini S types, Acura TSX, MazdaSpeed3... well the list goes on and on and on. GM must deliever a value package that meets the cost, but end price does indeed give them a chance at it.

RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: looks
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 2:40:49 PM , Rating: 3
The Volt is a compact car that offer neither high performance nor luxury features, so comparing it to BMWs, Cadillacs, and Acuras just isn't comparing apples to apples.
Can you post a link to the final specs of the Volt? I'm interested in seeing them. Thanks.

RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 3:51:48 PM , Rating: 2

The peak output from the motors turning the wheels is 160hp. That doesn't sound like V6 power to me since this car isn't going to be terribly light. Because these are electic motors I imagine that the torque will be good, but I have never driven an electric car before. The Tesla Roadster provides 248hp at the wheels, but that is a much lighter vehicle.

RE: looks
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 7:03:06 PM , Rating: 3

I think your trying to look at one number and come to a conclusion about driving experience from just that one number.

Here's another number
273 lb-ft of torque

Yow! Thats alot of twist for a family sedan, even one at 3,500 lbs.

As to the Roadster. Somehow, it achieves a sub 4 0-60 time with only ~100 hp/1000 lbs. Most gasoline cars in the same zone require ~130 hp/1000 lbs...

Conclusion- In the Segment of cars that include Prius and Insight, it should be no contest for the Volt. No, its not going to do better than a WRX STi or MazdaSpeed3. However, the Volt should be better than almost all base model compact/midsize cars and power issues shouldn't be a concern for anyone driving a non-performance car today.

RE: looks
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 7:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt is a compact car that offer neither high performance nor luxury features, so comparing it to BMWs, Cadillacs, and Acuras just isn't comparing apples to apples.

Hrm. Define "Luxury Features". Only seen Leather Interior. Heated Seats are definately there. Dual Screens, so Nav/Fancy Electronics are there. Fog Lights too.

Volt will provide a feature that no other car on the road currently will offer. 40 miles Electric + Unlimited Range with current infrastructure. There is no Apples to Apples comparison.

People get caught up in the initial price of the Volt at ~32,000 (after rebate). This does not look at the long term. People also somehow think the Volt must be the Cheapest Car on the Road.

The Volt has to offer a reasonable value proposition to customers. The 10 year cost of owning a Volt for the end customer, (I estimate around 40,000) is close enough to Prius (38,000), Civic DX (34,000), Fusion Hybrid (43,000), Accord I4 (46,000) to give the Volt a shot at this mark. Other cars clearly offer the value in the same segments and same price. Cars the same size offer the value at significantly higher prices (328i is more like 53,000+ 10 year, A3 2.0T is close to 48,000+). Its possible for GM to get the value proposition right for the Volt. Its also possible for them to mess it up completely.

RE: looks
By Fenixgoon on 10/16/2009 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
Amazingly similar look to a Prius right there.

the laws of aerodynamics apply to all cars.

the "egg shape" for a small car is basically the most optimal shape people have found for reducing drag. that's why the volt, prius, and insight look the way they do.

RE: looks
By Spuke on 10/16/2009 12:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
the "egg shape" for a small car is basically the most optimal shape people have found for reducing drag.
Yawn. It's the most optimal shape for good aero, interior room, and other compromises. The new E350 Coupe is nearly the same CD as a Prius and doesn't look butt ugly.

2010 Toyota Prius: .25
2010 Mercedes-Benz E350 Coupe: .24

RE: looks
By theapparition on 10/16/2009 1:06:44 PM , Rating: 4
While true, Cd does not equal drag. You have to multiply by cross-sectional area. That's why some cars can have lower Cd's and yet still have higher drag.

Too much emphasis put on Cd.

RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah I agree. Anyone buying GM right now has to be the dumbest person on Earth. Let's see, they take your tax money to bail them out. They become part of the Federal Government at this point. And then, you give them MORE money to buy a vehicle.

You know what you just did ? You taxed yourself. Good job, moron lol.

RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 2:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
The government owns non-voting shares of GM in exchange for their investment. It doesn't make it part of the Federal government any more than my investment in Microsoft makes me involved in their business. The Feds will sell their stake as soon as they can find a buyer to give them most of their money back (unlikely for the Feds to make money on their GM investment, I know). But your reasoning of avoiding GM because of the investment actually will decrease the government's return and loss more of YOUR tax dollars.
So if you use the investment model of invest in what you buy and buy what you invest in, it is in every US citizen's best interest to buy products that they have invested in.

RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 2:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
So if you use the investment model of invest in what you buy and buy what you invest in, it is in every US citizen's best interest to buy products that they have invested in.

Investment implies we had a choice. We never did. I didn't choose to invest in GM, so I choose to do the most I can to not support them.

p.s. screw you.

RE: looks
By MadMan007 on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 3:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
The US government 'invests' in tons of things, many of them through private companies. You are using one of those 'investments' right now. The internet cost the US taxpayer billions in giveaways. So you better get offline, hypocrite.

Also, the footprint of GM failing outright - across suppliers, vendors, and employees is huge. My company, who is a vendor, would have lost tens of millions.

RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 4:37:07 PM , Rating: 1
Really the Internet was a private business, who the government gave billions to, fired it's CEO, and then told them how to run their business ???

Brilliant analogy mcnabney !!

I suppose I should get off the roads because taxes pay for that too ? Or did you not actually get my point...

Also, the footprint of GM failing outright - across suppliers, vendors, and employees is huge. My company, who is a vendor, would have lost tens of millions.

We HAVE lost tens of millions, more. And GM HAS laid off thousands of people and closed tons of dealerships, the same thing that WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO GO INTO BANKRUPTCY. Do you get it ?

RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/16/2009 5:19:40 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, unassisted they would have gone into liquidation. All assets sold, creditors paid in order of seniority. Vendors would have gotten nothing. Warranties would be cancelled. No bank was in a position to assist in a reorganization. Only the Federal government could do it. And yes, firing the leadership was the best thing that happened. There was plenty of griping about management getting the money during the Circuit City selloff period.

And also, who do you think paid for most of the network, routers, and many servers in the early years of the Internet and Web. The Feds through grants and direct investment. What, you think private and public universities just print the money? All they paid for was local servers. The Bells got to keep the wire, but the cost of putting it in was Federal.

RE: looks
By MadMan007 on 10/16/2009 5:26:58 PM , Rating: 3
Your logical and factual debating points are not wanted here! Away with thee!

RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/17/2009 1:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry. I'll go back to work.


RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 5:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. ALL BANKRUPTCIES for a company that large are federally assisted. All of those things would have happened anyway. The goal wasn't to "save GM", the goal was to keep the unions ( and their campaign contributions ) and take over the company.

Do all you people watch MSNBC or something ? Have you actually noticed who's running GM now and what their board of directors is made up of ? There are more union guys and politicians running the company than actual car people now.

And weather or not GM's CEO " had to go " isn't even the issue here. The President fired him, which is beyond unconstitutional. This kind of stuff is the EXACT reason businesses and government don't mix and why we were against the bailouts.

What happened to GM is just wrong. Period. It's wrong for the taxpayer, and in the longrun it will be bad for them as well as the country.

RE: looks
By mcnabney on 10/17/2009 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
They are all managed by Federal bankruptcy courts, but financing is typically arranged from large banking/investment institutions. For example, Enron and MCI/Worldcom didn't cost the Feds anything. I even believe that the court costs were paid from the remaining assets. The Chrysler bankruptcy involved Fiat and some cash there, but for the most part the court just assisted in negotiating new terms for some debts and discharging others. Before that can be done the entire financial structure of the business has to be studied to make sure there aren't tangential assests that can be liquidated. For example, in the GM bankruptcy the Saab and Hummer brands were sold. Saturn would have been, but Penske flaked-out. In GM's case the Feds played the role of a large bank by buying a major percentage of the business ownership after the previous shares were cancelled. This actually worked out as it should. The equity investors were punished first by getting nothing. Second, the bond holders only received a fraction of their matured value (that is where a lot of US funds went to). Third, management was fired w/o parachutes. Fourth, employee stakes were converted to shares which made them dependant on future prospects to have any value. If the whole thing fails, the Feds won't be able to sell their equity stake in the future to get there money back. Long story short - if you want the US taxpayers to get their investment back, buy GM products.

RE: looks
By Reclaimer77 on 10/17/2009 2:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I see we have fundamental differences of opinion that aren't going to be resolved by picking at the edges of arguments.

I'm apposed to the concept that any business is "too large to fail" and that it's up to the taxpayers, in a big recession I might add, to pick up the tab and bail them out. Especially without even a vote ! Taxation without representation ring a bell to you ? We weren't even given a CHANCE to have an honest and democratic debate on this issue. This is NOT the way things should be done. I, and a great many other Americans, are honestly sick and tired of crap being rammed down our throats before anyone even knows what's going on or has a say in it. The TARP, the Auto Bailouts, the "Stimulus", Tax and Trade, and now Universal Healthcare.

Period. No iff's, and's or buts. And I find your assertion that it's our patriotic duty to buy into the farce that is Government Motors, frankly, offensive.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki