Posted by Lyle in: E-Flex, E-REV, Engineering, GM Q and A, Opel, Original GM-Volt Interviews, Production with 28 Comments
Share:
A few final questions from my interview with Frank Weber, Chevy Volt/E-Flex vehicle line executive:
Do you have or are you working on E-Flex simulation models for other sizes of vehicles besides the Volt?
Before we get the team up off the track in thinking too much about the expansion of E-Flex, the focus is clearly to get as fast as possible the Volt on the road. While we do this we think about what is the smartest was of expanding the architecture and the propulsion system. The natural thing that you would consider is looking into the mid-size segment or the small segment, where you have a lot of architectural similarity where it would be easy to take an E-Flex system into those architectures, before you start thinking about putting it into SUV’s.
To go into those larger and heavier vehicles you would have to reconfigure how the architectural components are laid out.
Considering the new potential CAFE standards of 35 mpg and the fact that the Volt can drive without gas, how does GM expect to see the Volts fuel efficiency calculated?
Unfortunately there is no current regulation in the U.S. that is properly reflecting the EV range of a Volt. This means we have with all authorities a discussion ongoing what is the proper label value of the Volt. We’ve said it from the beginning. This is a clear must requirement to make a success of the program is to make the authorities understand the EV capability and quickly develop a cycle for plug-in electric vehicles that is available in the 2010 timeframe, to give those vehicle the right label.
We are working with all authorities because as you know this is a tricky intense process in setting up those regulations and we are currently working with them so that everybody understands the concept. This is very important and is currently happening while we are developing this program.
The Volt will have a significant role in the CAFE discussion.
Since the EV-1 had a very low CD (coefficient of drag) are you using the knowledge you gained with that vehicle in redesigning the Volt?
Absolutely. We have a long history of aerodynamic performance within the organization (GM). We have many activities, also in Europe, and this is all coming together now. I think that the advantage is for the Volt we have said from the beginning the aerodynamic performance is really key. When you work it from the architecture of the vehicle down to the hardpoints of design and into the finished surface as we have now. We have had and will continue to have enough time to work into all the various details.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 20th, 2007 at 6:00 am and is filed under E-Flex, E-REV, Engineering, GM Q and A, Opel, Original GM-Volt Interviews, Production. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Dec 20th, 2007 (6:28 am)I think the EPA should measure the mileage of the Volt based on what the driving habits of the average Volt driver will be. I believe most drivers will drive it starting with a full battery, and as GM has pointed out, 80% of people will satisfy their daily needs with electricity only. So if EPA tests with a full battery, that will most accurately represent the real-world performance of the Volt.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (8:04 am)There is a problem with that. This country is used to miles per gallon as a rating. If I never burn any gasoline, then does that mean I am getting 10 million MPG?
And if they produce an SUV that only has 20 miles of all electric range, and I only drive 18 miles per day, then does it get the same rating as the Volt with a 40 mile all electric range?
There is going to have to be some standard, based on battery capacity, range, and vehicle weight or size for the electric only portion of these vehicles.
When the range extender kicks in, we are being told that we will get 600 miles from 12 gallons of fuel, so we know and understand that it is 50 MPG. It is those first 40 all electric miles that will cause all the confusion, becuase of the different ways this vehicle will be driven.
For me, on six out of seven days, I will not use the range extender. On that seventh day, I will use maybe 1.25 – 1.50 gallons of gasoline. I will have driven approx. 280 miles for the week. So what is the rating of my particular car?
With the new CAFE regulations, GM is going to want this number to be defined, so they can use it to increase their fleet ratings to get it up to and over the 35 MPG as mandated.
Not as simple as it seems, is it?
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (8:05 am)[quote comment="20697"]I think the EPA should measure the mileage of the Volt based on what the driving habits of the average Volt driver will be. I believe most drivers will drive it starting with a full battery, and as GM has pointed out, 80% of people will satisfy their daily needs with electricity only. So if EPA tests with a full battery, that will most accurately represent the real-world performance of the Volt.[/quote]I basically agree, Brian. Plus, it would make good sense to include, in addition to 1) a city (low-speed) loop and 2) a highway (moderate-speed loop), the following:
a) equivalent gas mileage for local travel of 100 miles and of 150 miles with a full charge prior to each, and
b) equivalent gas mileage for extended highway travel, leaving a fuel reserve of ~100 miles in the extended range mode, i.e., 500 miles without charging (starting with a full charge prior to each 500 mi leg of the trip)
[And because of the wide range of electric power costs, I'd suggest simply noting this, but also including an example of the total equivalent mileage calculation using the U.S. average KWH cost for the local loop case.]
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (8:19 am)See how the government gets in the way of everything?
I just wish people were more aware and cared more.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (8:38 am)I think it can be simple to show this:
The numbers aren’t accurate but you can
get the meaning.
Example:
The Volt
City estimated
40 MPC (40 miles per charge)
45 MPG (45 miles per gallon)
Highway estimated
35 MPC (35 miles per charge)
50 MPG (50 miles per gallon)
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (9:10 am)I think Rashiid’s example is simple and strait to the point.
People will quickly see that there regular daily commute is covered or is not, by the battery. The gas miles are rated as they have always been.
The all electric miles should bee left out of all CAFE calculations. They have nothing to do with gasoline fuel economy! This will speed things along in the transition to electric.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (9:21 am)If it runs on gas (or ethanol), then why not run it straight through the entire charge and then the entire tank…I don’t see what is so complicated. It would be tested like a hybrid.
On another note, I don’t mean to get off-topic, but I thought this was big news: Miles Javlon launched their production car in China and it will cost roughly what the Volt will:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/19/new-york-mayor-bloomberg-test-drives-miles-automotives-javlon-i/#comments
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (9:32 am)3 factors involved for a PHEV/E-REV:
1. E = Watt-hours (from A/C outlet) per mile
2. R = EV range
3. MPG = Sustained mpg
Give it 2 scaling factors, C1 for electric and C2 for gasoline, then compute miles per “Volt”.
MPV = C1*E/R + C2*MPG
A low MPV number is good.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (9:53 am)Dave B #7 – I agree on the one tank range, but I think that the government will have to come up with gas equivalencies. Say GM adds the option of a fuel cell, or Honda does release the FCX. They would use 0 gasoline, which would result in infinite miles per gallon. Average that with the rest of the fleet, and it is still infinite! The automakers will definitely want any form of an EV included in the CAFE calculation, or they will have much less incentive to produce them.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (10:44 am)I think we’d need to see two separate numbers for the “mileage” efficiency to make sense. It’s not only about gas, but power in general.
So, I think need to see the efficiency of the electric motor (kilometers/kwh) and then the ICE generator (kwh/liter) with different fuels.
(Heh, as good a time to switch over to metric as any– we can wish, can’t we? Otherwise, stick in miles and gallons instead…)
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (10:49 am)Jim G #9:
I agree completely. If these vehicles are left out of CAFE, GM has no real incentive to put hundreds of engineers on this project, and they will move them back to improve the ICE for the rest of the fleet.
Rashiid #5:
Having a separate MPC rating is OK for me and most everyone on this site, but for the average non-tech person, it will just add FUD to the process. And again, how does that help GM with CAFE?
OhmExcited #8:
Who comes up with the “Scaling Factors”?
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (10:57 am)Just to followup on #10, that way as a consumer we can compare how much power it takes to actually move the car separately from how much fuel it takes to generate that power. That would allow for swapping the ICE generator for fuel cell, for instance, which doesn’t change how efficient the electric motor is, but does change the power generation.
And if you don’t have a generator at all, but instead go all electric, you just don’t have the generator efficiency to consider and would be able see how much your electric bill would bump based on your cost/kwh compared to the kilometers/kwh.
Also, the all electric max range is important to know, but it doesn’t really change the efficiency equation, to me. As long as your within the range whether it’s 40 miles or 400 miles, it only changes how frequently you need to plug in.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (11:00 am)The scaling factors could be negotiated between industry and regulators. A lab like Argonne, who have done a lot of research and provided software for well to wheel analyses, could help provide some logic behind some scaling factors.
It would be good if each vehicle listed E, R, and MPG, and then an overall number like the MPV I suggested. It would be sort of analogous to an Energy Star rating.
There are other ways to do it, but the equation I suggested measures something significant that should be tracked in my opinion. I’m not an expert on this, but I did stat at a Holiday Inn Express.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (11:02 am)In a previous thread I had linked to the proposal from Argonne. They look at what they call the “utility factor” which allegedly tells them how much would be in all electric mode (or an equivalent of) for the average fleet and uses those numbers to calculate total mpg. They were very aware that “your mileage may vary.” Using their numbers I had calculated it out to 125 mpg for the Volt but their graphic seemed to say that only 60% of driving would be in all-electric mode for the average fleet for a 40 mile all electric range. That seems very low to me and I am sure that what figures to use will be part of those ongoing discussions. higher percentage grated to all-electric mode for the average fleet obviously would significantly move the avg mpg credited up.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (11:10 am)[quote comment="20734"] I’m not an expert on this, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Thanks. This is what makes this site so great!
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (11:27 am)I strongly believe you have to keep this measurement simple for the masses.
As I understand it, CAFE dictates 35 mpg by 2020.
My way of showing the data is extremely simple and would only require a minor learning curve. That is to teach people what MPC means.
MPC Miles Per Charge (assuming full charge)
MPG Miles Per Gallon (everyone already knows what mpg stands for)
If in #14, we use 125 mpg, which we know the car doesn’t get unless you factor in a few plug-ins, that will be veruse one full charge and one tank of gas. 0 miles to empty tank of gas. Get the MPC and MPG for city and highway this way, and the masses will understand it. Just keep it simple.
As for helping with CAFE, I don’t have all the answers. But I’m thinking if the ICE by itself can get over 35 mpg, (the Volt’s ICE gets 50 mpg), then the battery doesn’t need to get factored in.
I’m probably doing a lousy job explaining what I mean, so I will try to clarify if need be.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (11:55 am)Why couldn’t they just make a determination of what % of driving will be done on battery alone, start with that level of charge, and run it through the standard cycles. I have no idea how many miles they are, but my sense of it is not that many.
Let the numbers come out however they come out. I think that they will be quite high. I think that that’s good. Even if it does somehow spoof the overall CAFE and allow more big vehicles to be sold for awhile, I think that that market is going to shrink automatically as the price of gas goes up.
Meanwhile, a big mileage number will encourage the sale of these cars which are so critical to the future of GM.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (11:56 am)BTW, this is one of the best interviews yet. This is as close to engineering straight talk as I have seen.
Well done Lyle, and Mr. Weber.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (12:20 pm)They should put a meter on each car that calculates how many miles were travelled and how much fuel was used. This would contact the governement every week or so with new data for that car. If someone gets less than the alloted mpg rating, robots will be programmed to discreetly eliminate the vehicle owner during the night using powerful lasers, while the automaker would have to pay a small fee.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (12:29 pm)MPG has always been a misleading measure. The purpose doesn’t make sense. Isn’t the intent of a vehicle to get from location to location? How is that travel need considered? DISTANCE!
That’s why most of the rest of the world uses “liters / 100 km” as a basis to measure efficiency instead.
At first, the two seem to be the same. But when considering how much easier it is to introduce other forms of energy into the distance equation, like electricity, it makes more sense. That type of calculation is clearly a better choice. Future estimates from the EPA will factor consumption that way, with respect to a standardized distance. After all, the same problem exists when trying to figure out efficiency rates of various blends of ethanol. That’s the case for cold climate operation too. DISTANCE is the key.
They may translate it into a MPG equivalent for those that don’t readily accept change. But the underlying equation will have a basis centered around the purpose to travel a specific distance, not gallons.
JOHN
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (12:59 pm)#16 Rashiid Amul, but that’s more like rating a conventional (internal combustion engine) car as “miles per tank of gas”. Your “miles per charge” rating would depend on how big the “tank” (battery capacity) is. Better to put “miles per kilowatt hour” (or better yet, MJ/100 km) for electric mode, and MPG (L/100 km) when in series hybrid mode.
#19 john1701a, I’ve heard that the fact that the USA uses MPG vs. the rest of the world’s L/100 km is a statement about American psychology.
The rest of the world thinks “I need to go to such-and-such town, how much gas do I need to get there” whereas an American would ask “I have 15 gallons of fuel, how far can I go?”
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (1:25 pm)Geoff Olynyk #20,
“#16 Rashiid Amul, but that’s more like rating a conventional (internal combustion engine) car as “miles per tank of gas”. Your “miles per charge” rating would depend on how big the “tank” (battery capacity) is.”
Geoff, good point. That didn’t occur to me.
But thinking about that, I think I would rather know how far I can go on a single charge. What if I was clueless about KWH but knew I had to plug my car in overnight. I would want to know how far I can go on that full charge.
I think both ways of showing distance would be helpful.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (1:49 pm)I would guess that the Volt MPG would be based on how far the vehicle can travel on a tank of gas with the ICE running.
Traveling 600 miles using 12 gallons = MPG.
Most likely will leave the “EV” stuff out of the CAFE equation.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (4:23 pm)With any paradigm shift the masses will be slow to the new lingo of measurement. It helps them accept change more readily if you can explain the new concepts it in a language they can understand even if it isn’t quite accurate. It helps them feel more comfortable accepting a new technology if they can relate it to something they are familiar with.
I have my order in at a dealer for the Chevy Volt. When I talk about this car to friends I tell them it gets 40 miles on a charge and that when the battery runs low and the flex fuel engine kicks in it will give me an additional range of 600 miles. I then tell them that this equates to 50 mpg. I inform them that by using E-85 I will cut my gasoline consumption by over 90% since I will only have to fill up once every two months instead of once per week. They relate well to the idea that my commute is less than 40 miles per day and that I may only have to use the flex-fuel engine on the weekends.
Thus Rashiid’s idea of keeping it simple to 40 miles per charge and 50 mpg city when engaging the engine will help people to quickly accept this vehicle concept.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (6:03 pm)Between peak oil and ever increasing worldwide demand (never mind geopolitical factors as more oil comes from unstable producers), by 2020 the 35mpg CAFE standard will be left in the dust.
That is, pressure from consumers for affordable to fuel vehicles will be the biggest driver to higher fleet averages, not CAFE mandates.
(Quote)
Dec 20th, 2007 (6:43 pm)[quote comment="20823"]That is, pressure from consumers for affordable to fuel vehicles will be the biggest driver to higher fleet averages, not CAFE mandates.[/quote]
pressure = REACTIVE
mandate = PROACTIVE
There’s a huge difference. Penalties are much higher if you delay. Some of us are tired of the status quo, tired of waiting… knowing just how long it actually takes for acceptance even after the first becomes available.
It has already been 10 years.
JOHN
(Quote)
Dec 21st, 2007 (2:41 pm)Want to increase the production of alternative vehicles? It’s easy; simply use an annual, revenue neutral tax incentive.
Find the weighted mean mpg for all vehicles. Any owner of a vehicle getting less than the mean number is taxed annually by $100 per mile for every mile less than the average. If the average is 23 and your vehicle gets 19, then you pay an annual tax of $400 for the privilege of driving that fuel inefficient vehicle.
If you buy a vehicle that gets 40 mpg, then you as the owner of that vehicle would get a $1,700 per year tax refund. Since it is revenue neutral the politicians shouldn’t have a beef. It will also provide buyers an incentive to buy new technology that provides higher standards and it gives them the extra cash needed to pay for the initial higher cost of this new technology.
Put this in the hands of the people and watch the auto companies scramble to get on board the green bandwagon. And they will because if they can’t sell the old inefficient gas guzzling technology, then they won’t build it.
(Quote)
Dec 21st, 2007 (5:05 pm)Jeff M., #25:
Exactly right.
I said a long time ago that the car companies should stop whining about a 35 mpg CAFE in 2020. Anybody who can’t make that will cease to exist long before then.
(Quote)