Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Chevy Volt will Need Special Low Power Windshield Wipers and Audio System

January 29th, 2008 | Posted in: Efficiency, Engineering

Bob Lutz is clearly a guy who tells it like it is. When GMs father of the Volt gives an interview about the car its always worth listening closely, as what you get will be highly factual.

The Lansing State Journal published a very brief Q and A with Mr. Lutz, and thats where this nugget was found.

As we know to allow maximum battery range in the Volt, aerodynamic efficiency has to come first. In second place is to minimize electrical draw.

Per Mr.Lutz:

We are working on low-voltage draw windshield wipers. And even more interesting – and I didn’t know this – these high-powered stereo systems that everybody is putting in their car now? Those have a tremendous electrical draw and will actually affect your mileage if you crank the volume up loud enough. All of that stuff, plus all of the software we have to write for the interaction of the various elements of the car with each other.

Source (Lansing State Journal)

Posted by: Lyle

98 Responses to “Chevy Volt will Need Special Low Power Windshield Wipers and Audio System”

Sloaniac Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 6:47 am

Volt will be a niche vehicle, like Prius, and therefore does not need to be all things to all people. Rather it needs to inspire the individuals in its niche. For example, high-powered stereos are NOT an example of an efficient, environmentally thoughtful mindset, so don’t emphasize (or expend resources engineering) them.

Volt buyers will be willing to “participate” in the Volt’s operating efficiency, e.g., they will exert their own energy (muscle activity) if that energy is being converted well to aid the driving experience.

Of course, things like windshield wipers must be electric, but can the starting of them be manualized?

Think about the emergency cell-phone/radio hand-generator devices that are so popular. Give Volt owners “fun,” positive, efficient methods for contributing their energy to the experience (and maybe let them know how many calories they are burning, too!), and the accessory draw will be minimized.

Don’t try and make the Volt “deal” with people who don’t want the Volt for its merits. It’s a halo; let it shine upon the rest of the line with their more standard relationship between fuel efficiency and convenience.
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 6:51 am

Post #1

Hmmmmm. Very interesting. I for one, love to drive down the road
with Judas Priest, Aerosmith, or AC/DC cranked up real loud.
I did know that the higher the volume the larger the draw on the battery.
I just never cared before now.
Estero Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:12 am

#1 Sloaniac

The Volt may very well start off as a niche vehicle but it will soon become mainstream. The path to them becoming mainstream is for the vehicles to be “all things to all people”.
Tom Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:23 am

What is going wrong with this project that it’s such a struggle to get 40 miles of range?

The RAV4 EV had a lower-tech (NiMH) battery twice the weight and it went 100-120 miles per charge. It was NOT an aerodynamic vehicle and I doubt Toyota made extra fancy windshield wipers for it.

With the Volt’s fancy Li-ion battery, it seems like getting 50-60 miles of range should be as easy as finding pictures of Britney Spears’s beaver on the internet.
Brian Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:26 am

#4

“Volt buyers will be willing to “participate” in the Volt’s operating efficiency, e.g., they will exert their own energy (muscle activity) if that energy is being converted well to aid the driving experience.

Of course, things like windshield wipers must be electric, but can the starting of them be manualized? ”

Um, no I won’t. Rolling down windows manually I don’t mind, but I simply would never buy this car if it meant having to wind up some crank to start my wipers/whatever. I expect normal features in the car, revolutionary or not and I would bet the majority would agree.
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:29 am

Post #6

GM can’t afford to make the Volt for a niche market.
It must be made for the masses. Manually starting the applicances
with a crank, went out ages ago. The Volt must be what most of the people want
and would buy. Not just a very small minority.

If the Volt is to be for a niche market, then implement the changes suggested by Sloaniac above.
It will surely be for a niche market then.
Jim I Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:55 am

Sloaniac: Let me get this straight – You think I should have to pump the windshield wipers, have manual windows, seats, locks, steering, brakes, and have nothing electronic in the vehicle, and still pay $40K? Are you kidding me? I want to be “green”, but I do not intend to go and live in a tent, and I sure can’t ride my bike to work….

If this is what GM produces, it will be a total failure. Why waste all this time, just pull out the plans for Tom Edison’s electric Model T and start assembly tomorrow! That sounds like exactly what you are looking for.

Next, you can have some really great music, loud enough to ring your ears, without having to have a 1000 Watt per channel amplifier. I think that is what Mr. Lutz was saying. And they have been saying that aero is priority one on this design for quite a while, so I am not surprised that the wiper design has been looked at and had design changes.

IMHO, this car has to have all the features we have become accustomed to, and then raise the bar on everything; quality, warranty, service, features and options.

If GM intends to make the Volt a niche vehicle, then make it a “supercar niche”. The car magazines will love it, it will sell out the first few years of productions, and then they can release a second model, as some here call it, “for the masses”.

But I do not think that is what GM has in mind. Read the design parameters – a four seat compact, with 40 mile all electric range, designed to meet the daily travel needs for 78% of the trips to and from work, with range extension to make the car fully functional. Doesn’t sound “niche” to me…….
Demetrius Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:03 am

Tesla is coming in March – those owners waiting in line must be very excited. Just image when we too are one month from Volt rollout. Lyle – time for a countdown timer – we are about 1000 days from Volt launch (late 2010)!
David G Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:12 am

#9

I think that Sloaniac is poking fun…

If memory serves, several of the GM interviews have mentioned that the battery is the make or break aspect of this car. GM and others have tackled these engineering problems before and I think at this point they are just trying to refine them (the electronics) to make the best possible use of the battery.
Van Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:16 am

All these sort of bombshells are simply an effort to soften the ground for admitting the AER will fall short of 40 miles if only 8 kwh’s of capacity is used. But take heart, it is reasonable that 12 Kwh’s could be used out of the 16 available, and the 40 mile range achieved.

And to provide an alternate view, I believe the Rav got about 2 miles per Kwh, so its AER, if it only utilized 8 kwhs would have been less than 20 miles. The Volt will do much better than that, because it’s Cd will be about .26, and it will be lighter. Low speed, steady state Electric mode mileage may approach 5 miles per kwh, and overall electric mode only range is expected to be above 3 miles per kwh.
Dave B Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:17 am

#9

Sloaniac, it needs a stereo or it won’t sell. You mise well buy a ZAP. I get the feeling this car may rewrite how many products are manufactured in today’s “green world.” For example, why not apply the same energy saving techniques to homes, computers, and other automobiles?
Dave B Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:19 am

…my post ended up not being #9 with postings going up before I clicked post. Lyle, I love your efforts, but it is difficult to respond to someone without the quote feature or at least a number next to the post.
drivin98 Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:48 am

#13
And I thought Michael Jackson’s giraffe was odd, Britteny has a pet beaver? Dang!
Anyway, I think the battery has plenty of capacity to deal with all the creature comforts we’re used to. I could live without power windows since they always seem to fail anyways. I think using 12 kwh would be easily feasible if super-caps were used to buffer the draw and for the regen.
wlw Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 am

Ummmm, I’d have to call BS on this. If the energy draw from windshield wipers and loud stereos were so significant, why didn’t he provide numbers? It’d be easy enough to say this many kWh would be consumed over this time while they are on, which would shorten range by about this much.

Frankly I don’t believe these small energy draws are significant compared to overall battery pack size and the main factors affecting energy usage: aerodynamics, weight, and drive-train losses. YES, I know GM has to focus on the overall energy efficiency, but believe me knit-picking the windshield wipers is so insignificant compared to the real factors that I can’t believe he’s even mentioning it. BS.

Efforts and statements like this will make the EV1 critics think GM is trying to artificially inflate the price of this thing so they can say it’s not economical. They’ll see it as an exit strategy.
Kel Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:53 am

Can we find a way to make Bob Lutz’s “Bitching and Moaning Stereo” suck less energy from this project?

Seriously… it’s not the moon landing, you’re not the first to make an electric car, stop trying to give people false reasons to think that $40,000 is reasonable. We aren’t that stupid.
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am

Why do people keep mentioning power seats and power windows? You only use them for a few seconds, they don’t stay on. It’s not an issue; the Volt can certainly use them. And they can have regular windshield wipers and stereos too.
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:55 am

$50K here we come?
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am

In an effort to reduce efficiency losses GM should focus on the low-hanging fruit: aerodynamics. Does the Volt finally perform better in the wind tunnel facing forward than backwards?
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am

Van,
Note that if you use 12kWh of that battery, when you are out of the current “middle range” you will have worse regen braking efficiency on the high end and worse power on the low end, and because you’d be cycling the battery deeper it wouldn’t last as long (would lose power, efficiency, etc) and would not be as safe and would require more cooling. A design change like that probably would not be as easy as it is to say… (although I guaruntee enthusiasts will be modifying the computers to allow their Volts to use more of the charge).
nasaman Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am

Post #16

Designing the Volt’s electrical “appliances” to minimize power consumption is certainly a valid undertaking, one that GM’s *suppliers* should take an active part in or even lead. I’m amused that Mr. Lutz picked the windshield wipers & audio system as examples, however, because they’ll consume FAR less power than the heat pump they’ll undoubtedly need for A/C & heating. Think about it. I live in Florida where Summer temperatures routinely reach 95-100 deg daily. We tried an experiment suggested by a neighbor last summer, leaving our central A/C turned OFF & instead used 4 exhaust fans to cool the house. The surprising result was that our $300 electric bills dropped to around $150 or about HALF what they were using central A/C. This winter, we’ve tried using individual electric heaters instead of central heating with almost the same result …approx a 2:1 reduction in our TOTAL electric bill. Our home is on waterfront in a heavily-forested location, and it is very well insulated; but it’s clear that ABOUT HALF of our sizeable electric bill is due to central A/C & heating.

An automobile generally has much more glass area & is less well insulated than a home. The Volt has an expansive glass “dome” (huge windshield, top, rear hatch, 4 side windows). My approach to reducing its electrical power needs would be to utilize heat-reflective glass everywhere possible plus double-glass for the top (electrochromic option or not). Next, I’d heavily insulate the firewall, floor, doors, dash, etc using the best available thermal-barrier insulation plus a special acoustic barrier such as “Dyna-Damp” to silence the range-extending ICE & to reduce road noise (both of which will be more noticeable in an electric-drive car). Finally, I’d focus on developing a high-efficiency heat pump using improved heat exchange techniques wherever possible to extract heat from (or inject heat into) the passenger compartment’s evaporator (and/or the battery thru its built-in piping). The flow of cooled or heated fluid thru the battery could be controlled by solenoid valving under microprocessor control. It might even be possible to use the car’s steel frame itself, in addition to the conventional condenser/radiator, as heat sinks (or cold sinks when in the heating mode).

PS: Hey guys, let’s all number our own posts, OK?
Sentinel Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am

Post #17

Personally I don’t need a “high-powered” stereo system to listen to my tunes. But it has to be there and be loud enough to enjoy with the windows down @ 70+ mph. You don’t need massive amounts of wattage to have GOOD sound. I don’t need to shake the earth, just bang my head!!!

But what’s next??? Will Bob say the windows won’t go down because it has to much impact on the aerodynamics??? DOH!!!……
nasaman Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am

Post #18

Regarding windshield wiper efficiency, extended driving in blinding rainstorms or heavy sleet could require running the wipers at their highest speed for perhaps hours at a time. I’d focus on 1) developing very low friction blades; 2) reducing friction losses in the wiper gear/crank mechanism; and 3) improving wiper motor efficiency using high-strength Neodymium magnets, larger windings, etc.

For the sound system, my suggestion would be to use small left/right speakers (& a sub-woofer) in EACH of the 4 “winged-headrest” seats. This could dramatically improve the surround-sound effect & response for each passenger, while significantly reducing the amplifier power required. Also, I’d ask the suppliers for high-quality “class D” (digital) power amplifer stages, which are far more efficient than class A or AB, etc but deliver very high fidelity sound. BTW, another advantage of speakers at each seat would be individual VOLUME and ON/OFF controls at each of the four seats. For example, the system could be designed to allow the driver to listen to traffic updates while others listen to an MP3 player or to a CD/DVD. Pretty snazzy, huh?

PS: Hey guys, let’s all number our own posts, OK?
(…just scroll to the top to see what the next # is)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am

Post # 23 – Correcting the numbering. Keeping track of our own number is proving difficult. Lyle, we need that counter.

I live in the Northeast. In the Spring, I asked everyone here
how many miles I would lose on the battery if it
was summer time, night time, and raining.

I would have the High Beams on, A/C, windshield wipers, rear defrost, ,stereo, and my cell phone charging.
The people kind enough to respond thought it might only shave a couple of miles
off my electric range. Since I live in one of the wettest parts of the country (not the wettest though)
this scenario will come up, but I just don’t see it as really an issue.
nasaman Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am

Post #24

I forgot lighting! ALL interior & exterior lighting (including headlights) should be LEDs, which draw only a fraction of the power of conventional bulbs. An added big advantage is they never burn out!

(You’re right, Rashiid, we need the counter fixed ASAP. Although its correct right now, apparently even the number at the top is sometimes wrong.)
Ash Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am

#19,

This is the reason yesterday I asked about Heating the Car.

As you folks know Car is heated with excess IC engine heat.
Here in Midwest during winter you can drive without car being heated. If they are worried about wipers drawing power, how much power will an external heater going to draw.

Something to think about
Ash
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am

nasaman,
we can all agree those are excellent engineering optimization solutions. However, GM has to walk a fine line between overall efficiency/ev range and costs. At $40k (and rising?) cost might be the bigger issue which will eliminate some of your good ideas.
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:04 am

Note that I’m referring to initial retail costs
voltman Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am

How hard is this to understand? Every milliwatt of power that is used for something else cannot be used to move the car. It will perform worse when you have the stereo or headlights or wipers on. Why is this a big deal?
Nick Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:19 am

I wonder how much these optimizations add to the price of the car. I’d rather have 35 or even 30 mile range initially if it meant saving thousands of dollars.

-Nick
GXT Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am

#21

Good point Ash, without that ICE running they will need to use electric heat to heat the car. That is a massive draw. Perhaps they will copy Honda’s idea of using a radiant heating/cooling system embedded in the seats.

As for “Bob Lutz is clearly a guy who tells it like it is… what you get will be highly factual.”? Sure he “tells it like it is” but he is not “highly factual”. Bob does give some interesting nuggets, but he has also blown so much hot air up our collective a$$es he could be used as the Volt’s heating system.
omegaman66 Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Why is the battery the make or break of this car??? Suppose it only get 28 real world miles per charge! Certainly that isn’t what people want but it is more than the currently available cars.

Would it be so horrible to only get 28 miles all electric and then get 50 mpg after that!!!!

Heck 1 mile of all electric and then 50 mpg after that is better than 99.999% of the cars on the road today.

Obviously the future improvements to this car will come with adding more range. At some point replacing the ICE generator with more batteries will be the next move that many of the future cars will make after battery tech can eck out more miles per pound/cost/weight. That is the direction… more miles per charge regardless of the miles this car gets. Think about it when computers first came out they we like 6 megahertz. Over time that number has grown to where computers now run at about 4,000 megahertz!
Rich Anderson Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Has anyone considered generating power from the steering wheel. A little pint sized generator on the column could generate power every time the wheel is turned. What about fabricating the body with solar cells.
noel park Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am

#27, as best I can estimate.

Rashiid, #6:

I agree. If the Volt is meant for a niche market, and GM tries to rely on the rest of its uninspired offerings for survival, game over IMHO.

As for Mr. Lutz telling it like it is, check out his current post on Fastlane, “5 things I believe”, or some such. It speaks for itself.

Note his comments on small cars in general, and the Cobalt in particular. I don’t see Honda having any trouble selling Civics, or Toyota selling Corollas. Price for price, content for content, and mileage for mileage, they leave the Cobalt for dead.
Jim D Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am

I wonder if the Toyota Volt will have motors on each wheel?

Optimization is a good thing. I can believe it effects milage.
But I will be looking at the competition.
I dont want 40K either.
It looks like my 4 motors were optimized out…..
May be the best trade. Dont know, but I can guess…..
Kel Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am

@Rich Anderson

“Has anyone considered generating power from the steering wheel. ”

The key word in ‘power steering’ is power, if the Volt didn’t have power steering AND it had a power generator connected to it, we’d all have to drive in straight lines.
Jim D Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:39 am

Looks like this web site has been optimized….
Jim D Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am

why dont we install a keyboard….
Jim D Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am

We could chat about the volt and generate power
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am

voltman,
This is a big deal because it’s stupid to optimize the energy efficiency of some components that barely have any effect on overall efficiency. Do you realize how much extra this will cost than using off the shelf mass-produced components? There is already enough initial tech going into this car that these other added costs can bury it. The costs of improving low energy components that are insignificant to the overall performance, while you have a glaring aerodynamic problem, is just plain bone-headed! They should be focusing on reducing costs (below $40k) and on efficiency improvements through the big hitters: aerodynamics and weight.
Mikro Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:48 am

Why not just support a personal Audio system like an Ipod or Zune device they run on there own battery the volt have some kind of plug to plug the portable device with a 5 to 10 watt amp car speaker system.

Other Note: Who listens to Cds and FM radio any more I sure don’t
If the volt had a basic radio system in it It probably never get used with me in the car. The systems in place to stream music from a home computer loaded with thousands of Mp3s what be cool if there be a wireless way to send those to the car through the link with onstar or what ever.

I wouldn’t mind if the Volt would kill the Boom car stereo market off the map people where I live already Abuse these systems
Bass that vibrates the trunk, You can hear the dang car 3 blocks away & Bass so loud you feel like you want shoot the car with a big gun.
Jim D Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am

yes, I was listening to my Nano mp3 player a couple nites ago, and it sounds great. headphones channel the audio more efficiently less intrusively. I dont want a cd player on my next car. I want something which reads portable memory sticks, etc. And a reasonable speaker system with headphone jacks. I wonder if that is allowed. When you have those on, thats about all you can hear.
Demetrius Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Post # 43b

It seems to me that GM and all manufacturers should start working on high efficiency electronics. Electronic power steering and brake pumps and new solar cooling systems and LED lighting – if used across all cars and not just EV’s – would save much more fuel across the board. Any work done for the Volt for this can be used by all their cars.
Brian Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

~#39

“And a reasonable speaker system with headphone jacks. ”

I am almost positive that driving with headphones on is illegal.
noel park Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Kel, 11:37 AM:

When Mr. Waggoner gets his drive by wire system, we won’t need steering wheels anymore! They can give us a pair of bicycle pedals connected to a generator like the one my niece used on her recent visit to India to power her laptop. This will help us to while away the boring miles, get more fit, and increase our electric range.

Mikro, 11:48 AM:

AMEN on the boom car stereo market.!
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

The aero-drag is so bad we might as well have a parachute hanging off the back, but oh yeah we have these nifty windshield wipers among other things (included in your cost, of course).

Give me a break.
Jim D Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

I had assumed the lights would be LED. I thought many were doing that now. If not for efficiency, then for ruggedness and reliability in a vibrating environment.
David Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

I believe people need to understand that any additional drain may reduce your range before the onboard generator has to kick in. Things like running the AC and carrying 4 people instead of only 1 will also have a huge impact on range.

Something to remember is that battery technology will improve which will make these concerns eventually go away.

AC, high powered sound systems, and windshield wipers aren’t an issue for ICE vehicles because they have an alternator which generates enough power to go around.

I am still definitely buying an EV as soon as is available and within my price range. In fact, commuted EV cars are also tempting me greatly. The idea of a low speed (45 mph) commuter car as my second vehicle like the Th!nk city car very well may end up in my driveway soon.
Mike756 Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Lyle

I disagree with the wording of your title.

You say “the Volt will NEED special low power windshield wipers and audio system”

Lutz doesn’t use the word need, he just says they are working on the wipers and trying to account for the people who will want to install insane stereo systems.

They are probably working on the power draw of all the electrical components, as they should, but I don’t think I would go so far as to say that the Volt will NEED it.
Jim D Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

maybe auxilliary nuclear would offload the battery from all these options.
nasaman Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Noel Park; GOOD IDEA …let’s all use the TIME to reference previous posts!

Re: Demetrius & Brian, both 12:02PM:

Right, work on Volt “appliances” should be amortized across ALL e-Flex vehicles!

Earphones are illegal in most if not all states. But using speakers in the wrap-around “wings” of all 4 seat’s headrests is OK …and it can deliver superior sound than conventional door/dash/rear speakers at MUCH lower power. Plus, it could allow each passenger to adjust his own volume, source & turn it on/off (as in commercial aircraft).

Problem solved.
AES Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I think that GM should see this as an opportunity to develop more energy-efficient components for ALL their cars: efficient wipers could be useful on any vehicle. The technology from the volt program can trickle down to ICE models, and expanding production will help with costs too.
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Why not do a good job on the aero first and foremost?

GM: The car has better drag backwards than forwards in the wind tunnel. It might as well be an SUV. But, it looks snazzy. Also, with these fifty new low energy components that cost you an extra $5 to $50 a piece, you can go 250 feet further on a charge!

The nonsensical GM-Volt commenters: Yayyyy, energy usage must be optimized at any cost! We will ignor cost tradeoffs for optimization (until years from now when you reveal the actual cost)! While at the same time we are mad that the car with all this new tech is predicted to cost $40K instead of $30K! Those of us who will still buy it don’t want you to make the Volt look different than the initial model for better aerodynamics. If you do that we won’t buy it! But you should make it more efficient. Without increasing costs… etc… etc… etc…

How can you possibly make a decision on whether this stuff is worth it without knowing the cost and performance enhancement of the alternative low energy equipment and also the cost and performance enhancements possible by addressing drag and weight? This is a bunch of people having knee-jerk reactions when they hear “energy efficiency” clamoring for ultimate energy efficiency without knowing why or what big picture effects that can have, and a few engineers who stare at performance all day long and forget about the big picture (the market $$$ effects).
noel park Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

nasaman, 12:27 PM:

Well thanks, but I have to confess that I stole the idea from other bloggers on other blogs that also do not use numbers. GM Fastlane, for a start. The numbers were a really nice touch on this blog, and I hope they come back.

To you, AES, Demetrius, Brian, et al, I have to say “right on”. Every little increment of energy saving, spread out over hundreds of thousands of units, adds up to a lot of oil, or whatever is powering these things.

No to belabor the point, but this is exactly the same as what the great Steve Smith said about the weight of race cars. You have to get it out one or two ounces at a time until it adds up to a real advantage. Aerodynamics too. It all works together.
Demetrius Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

1000 days to go – just save 30 bucks a day – no more starbucks I guess. Must quite smoking. Drinking. Cell phone…
TomW Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Having long since lost track of what number I am in this post here it goes…Manually operated windshield wiper?!? WTF? As long as we are going in that direction I suggest, no I demand removeable floorboards so I too can be like Fred Flintstone and make that “patapatapatapata” sound with my feet as I pull out of the driveway. In the move Apollo 13, remember when they were squeezing amps by leaving stuff off and turnming it on in a specific order? Comments, Nasaman? That is where the gains will be gotten. A bit here or there, and it will add up. But PLEASE GM, don’t make a car where the basics are made to punish me for owning this car! Manual windows fine. But wipers?!? But making that sound with my feet sure would make my klids laugh…
rashomon Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

This is Lutz dropping engineering cocktail party chatter. Of course the engineers are looking at every current draw and attempting to minimize it. And of course the stereo and the windshield wipers are fairly minimal compared to accelerating the vehicle or heating and cooling the interior — but not inconsequential. The work on the windshield wipers and the stereo make a good story, and Lutz is good at telling stories.

Interestingly, though, these kinds of electrical system improvements can help conventional gasoline powered cars eke out mileage improvements, and probably will find homes other places than the Volt.
The Anti-Oil Jihadi Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I’m looking forward to driving a Volt.

Right now, when I blast the radio (battery powered), my camel sometimes reacts unexpectedly. So this will be a nice change.

death to oil -> http://www.oiljihad.org
Mark Bartosik Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

You might be shocked at how much energy is wasted by low power devices.

Since energy == power * time

If the power is low but the time high, the energy is significant. Out of my house that used to draw let’s say 8000KW per year, I eliminated 2000KWh per year with just getting rid of simple low power phantom loads that were on 24×7x365.

Stereos are among the worse, 15 years ago on am college course I looked at amplifier design. Some amplifiers almost burn power each because it is an easy and cheap way to get a clean waveform. Now I doubt that all amps do that, but they are usually not designed for low power operation. How many Energy Star home stereos have you seen? You’ll probably find a heat sink on the back of your car stereo, that’s a real giveaway that it is just burning up energy.
Michael Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

The article indicates needing low voltage wipers and stereo, but I think you meant to write low wattage. Headline is correct with low power. Power = Watts not volts
Tom Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Good that you raise the issue of time, 2:50 PM:

To keep the numbers simple, let’s say the Volt has a 40 mile range and you’re driving at 60 MPH, so you’re driving on battery power for 40 minutes.

A pretty good size space heater is 1 kW. To power the heater at full power (worst case scenario) for 40 minutes, it takes 2/3 kWh, or 8% of the Volt’s effective battery capacity.

That means that in this unlikely scenario, one of the Volt’s biggest-power-draw accessories is going to reduce your all-electric time by roughly THREE MINUTES.

A fairly normal stock stereo in a car is 100 W. So with the stereo blasting (literally at maximum volume), we’re talking about an EIGHTEEN SECOND reduction in drive time. Front headlights are a similar power drain.

I want to be green and conserve electricity as much as the next guy, but how about a little perspective here. We’re literally talking about a difference of SECONDS to power these accessories.
Neutron Flux Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

A lot of comparisons between LI batteries & NMH. Does anyone know for a fact that the NMH batteries used to get to claimed miles were only half bled down, thought so so twice the weight with 2 X the battery use = 150-200 miles sounds like the volt if you doubled the weight & used all the battery resources instead of 50%. Lets not compare apples & oranges. As far as wipers go, there is this cool stuff I put on my windshield & polish and I do not need wipers the rain rolls off like grease & water. Seems they could possibly put some kind of equivalent permanent coating on the windshield so there is less need for wipers, but if, not they sell it and it works. Problem solved!
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Anti-Oil Jihadi, Good to see you back! I have missed your slogan.

Rashiid
SilverBlade Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

So does this mean that an after-market stereo will be a hinderance on the overall mileage from the batteries?
wow Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Tom hit the nail right on the head @ 3:54. We all understand that these accessories do put some load on the batteries. However you need to further understand the extent a more efficient replacement can affect range, along with the cost of the improvement. I guarantee there isn’t THAT much room for improvement and the costs for that minscule improvement would blow your mind.

Bob needs to be talking aero and weight. For Bob and whoever he’s talking with to spout this about improving miniscule power draws, all the while the Volt may have a drag problem, is extremely ridiculous. I just hope his comments don’t reflect the true efficiency focus of the design team. I also hope they try to optimize the factors that really count, especially the aero where improvement potentials are huge at little increase in cost!
Brian M Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm

How about letting the wipers go into a compartment when not in use, instead of sitting their on the windshield.

I have always been a little irked by this, as I am sure they decrease aero at least a little bit.
Brian M Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Dang I misspelled “there” as “their”… I almost never do that.

Kinda wish we had an edit function around here…
Roger Swearingen Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

I think the whole point is that most of the motors on cars these days are crap cheap motors and not very efficient. Wiper motors, window motors, seat motors can draw more amps than they need to by using cheap bushing instead of bearings, having DC motors and brushes instead of AC brushless, large air gaps, etc. Mainly all the shortcuts you would take to make a cheap motor makes them inefficient motors. So the tradeoff between miles per charge and quality of the motors can be an issue. I suggest they take out their calculators and do some math. The amount of energy required to move a vehicle is obviously going to be the greatest amount of energy used. Will a crappy wiper motor affect the mileage, yes. Is it enough to notice, probably not. Driving my Ranger EV, the two biggest energy draws (outside of the main motor) are the headlights, and the heater-AC. The others are negligible. Wipers are generally intermittent, and overall really don’t affect range. Even if I had them on full speed, I doubt it would even take a mile off my range. The heater/AC on the other had can knock off about 25% of my range. Lights can also eat up some of my range, maybe about 5-10% depending on high/low beams.

I get about 40 miles on my NiMH battery pack, the truck weighs almost 5000 lbs, so a Volt should have no problem with a lighter vehicle, and lighter LiIon batteries, regardless of the radio or wipers.
Jake Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

To “wow” – Aerodynamics have been greatly improved from the concept. The drag coefficient is reportedly in the mid-2’s, which is Prius territory.

I agree with some others who say that this car needs to be as “normal” as possible to some extent. Now is not the time to add steering wheel column generators, photovoltaic body panels, mp3-only stereo systems (yeah right guys), and the like. If you want this car to cost $60,000 and/or appeal to a tiny fraction of people, then be my guest and demand these options. But I know what I want – a simple car with a few new things here and there, but nothing too absurd. Let’s keep it real here. Many of these “innovations” are easier said than done, and will add time, complexity and/or cost to the project. And we all know who will throw a fit when those topics come up…all of us!

Also, please for goodness sake stop hanging on Bob Lutz’ every word! Or anyone else’s for that matter. Some people act like as soon as a GM employee mutters something about the Volt, it is instantly FACT. Or that it’s propaganda meant to soften us up for the eventual announcement that the Volt will come out in 2015 at a price of $50,000. Please, a little restraint.
nasaman Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Roger Swearingen, 5:28PM:

I AGREE COMPLETELY! As you say, “The heater/AC on the other had can knock off about 25% of my range” …the but wipers & everything else are really almost negligible. Accordingly, part of my post from this morning is worth repeating…

An automobile generally has much more glass area & is less well insulated than a home. The Volt has an expansive glass “dome” (huge windshield, top, rear hatch, 4 side windows). My approach to reducing its electrical power needs would be to utilize heat-reflective glass everywhere possible plus double-glass for the top (electrochromic option or not). Next, I’d heavily insulate the firewall, floor, doors, dash, etc using the best available thermal-barrier insulation plus a special acoustic barrier such as “Dyna-Damp” to silence the range-extending ICE & to reduce road noise (both of which will be more noticeable in an electric-drive car). Finally, I’d focus on developing a high-efficiency heat pump using improved heat exchange techniques wherever possible to extract heat from (or inject heat into) the passenger compartment’s evaporator (and/or the battery thru its built-in piping). The flow of cooled or heated fluid thru the battery could be controlled by solenoid valving under microprocessor control. It might even be possible to use the car’s steel frame itself, in addition to the conventional condenser/radiator, as heat sinks (or cold sinks when in the heating mode).

THIS IS UNDOUBTEDLY WHERE GM SHOULD FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION!
Jim I Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

wow – 12:31 PM:

You do realize that the concept vehicle will look nothing like the production vehicle, right?

We have been told that they have the CD # down to the middle 2’s, which will put it in a pretty good place as far as aerodynamics for a car.

So trying to get a bit better CD by doing a re-design of the wipers might not be such a bad thing…. If you look on the Aptera site, they have a video where the president of the company makes a pretty big deal of the aero improvement on the car by changing the placement of the wipers. So obviously GM is not the first to look at this.

So I think your comments about GM needing to look at the areo numbers has already been done.

And I agree with nasaman. The heating and cooling systems will have the biggest effect on the car. And lets not forget that in really cold situations, a heat pump is not going to do much, so they will have to have resistance coils for backup. If you do not know what that means, basically, that is like looking into your toaster at the glowing coils making heat, which takes a good bit of power!
Be There For the Cure Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

So you have to use a little more gas when it rains. Most of time I commute, it is not raining. Usually when it is raining, I have the intermittent wiping.

Torrential downpours in stop-and-go traffic will mean you have more of a conventional car for a day.

Is that really a big deal? People are going to be using gas with this car sometimes, right?

Now the music, that’s a different story.
Luke Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Since everyone is wondering about the big effects on efficiency, why don’t we ask to see more of the production body design and hear more about the arodynamics?

They only showed a corner of the bumper, but nothing else. I’d be happy to see where the design stands now, complete or not — with the caveat that they make be making minor or major changes in the future.

I use Open Source software; I understand that designs change over time[0].

[0] Even though I do insist that GM stick to the original targets for range, speed, price, and normal-car comforts — if they want my money, anyway. If they don’t want my money, then can do whatever they want!
John Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

What’s with all the hectoring and lecturing GM. None of you has ever designed and built a car before,.

GM on the other hand, is 100+ years old.

I can understand a discussion of the issues and features, but I am not too sure about the whining and endless panic that some people post here daily.

The car will come when it comes and cost what it costs. GM has built cars before *and knows what it is doing*.

Now,

I was wondering if anyone had ever thought of attaching a magnet and coil setup on all four wheels (and on the driveshaft of RWD cars) that could generate electricity every time the wheels are turning. What do you think would be the efficiency of such a setup? That would be nigh constant generation for relatively little additional effort.
Mike756 Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

“I was wondering if anyone had ever thought of attaching a magnet and coil setup on all four wheels (and on the driveshaft of RWD cars) that could generate electricity every time the wheels are turning. What do you think would be the efficiency of such a setup? That would be nigh constant generation for relatively little additional effort.”

The Volt will already have this, it is referred to as regenerative braking. But it will only be used when the brakes are applied, otherwise you would just be using electricity to make motion to make electricity.
mmcc Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong but this battery will have 8 kwh of usable energy at 330VDC (more or less). It’s been a while since I had to do any Ohm’s Law calculations but as I recall, when the voltage is reduced via a step-down txfr, then the energy (watts, amps, whatever) increases proportionally. If we are powering 12VDC accessories from this 330VDC battery, I don’t see a problem… so we lose 5 miles range, who cares. The biggest utility draw on this battery will be the HVAC system, everything else is ground clutter. Any electrical engineers out there to confirm or set me straight?
John Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Mike,

Are you talking about running the engine backwards? Does this produce friction automatically (as a byproduct?)

The thing is, that it would be no different to siphoning energy off the gas engine (to charge the battery).
The main purpose of the wheels will remain the same, they will just recapture extra energy that would otherwise be wasted.
John Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

I was proposing a coil and magnet setup on the wheels–not the engine braking.
Jimmy Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

My daily commute is only 18 miles round trip so it really does not matter to me if I only get 35 miles per charge. I know a lot of others posting here have round trip commutes greater than 40 miles so every little bit helps. I am encouraged that GM is considering the electrical draw on all components so the car will appeal to more people. The end result will be less petro used, less pollution, and lower trade deficits.
Statik Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Anyone done some math on this, how often are you driving your car with the wipers on? Like 3 percent? A hour a month? Two? What is the drain to the battery with these decadant ‘old-school’ wipers? Couple hundred watts? So maybe you lose a dozen miles a year?

If your worried about a dozen miles a year, how about putting down that double Big Mac at least one day of the year? Maybe you could wear a all-mesh jumpsuit whenever you drove your Volt? Or if you are weighing the financial implications of losing a mile a month, you could raid your couch for pennies…I hear there is alot of loose change in fountains too.
Eric E Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:53 pm

As a THX Certified audio engineer this is my area of expertise. Can’t tell you about wipers, but the audio is a piece of cake.
#1) Digital amplifiers are so efficient that they produce almost no heat. i.e.- an 1800 watt subwoofer amp can be inside a wood encloser with no need for fans or heat sinks.
#2) ALL speakers are rated by their efficiency. This is partly because the overall sound quality of a speaker is directly connected to it’s efficiency. The more efficient the speaker, the greater the dynamic range. Period. The rating can be found by looking at the detailed specs of any decent speaker manufacturer. The efficiency of a speaker is often rated as: (SPL 87db 2.83v/1m) which basically means that with one watt input the speaker will produce 87 decibels (A weighted) at 1 meter distance. Because the output to power ratio is exponential, every db (decibal) in gain decreases the necessary amplifier power exponentially. The most efficient speakers are horns. (i.e. the legendary audiophile Klipsh Cornerhorn)
#3) Historically, car speakers have been “acoustic suspension” type. This means they are mounted in free air as opposed to a sealed or ported encloser, thus decreasing their efficiency.
#4) A sound system must overcome road noise with output power. For every db decrease in road noise, the power requirement of the amplifier decreases exponentially.

Therefore, with four 8 ohm highly efficient speakers in tuned enclosers (moulded plastic), a ported subwoofer, the right Class D amplifier, and interior acoustic treaments to minimize ambient noise, a tiny 10-12 watt amplifier would blow your socks off. (I know this from experience and I like my rock-n-roll fricken loud!)

Don’t worry people…your smokin’ car stereo will not be sacrificed!!!
David G Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 12:09 am

John, I think you’re describing some form of a perpetual motion machine…any electricity generated by magnets/coils on the wheels would be impeding the car’s forward progress.

I do agree with you though that a lot of people are getting worked up by little tidbits of information sometimes taken out of context. GM has already seriously addressed CD concerns. A heat pump is really the only way to go for the HVAC, but the car is pretty small and heat pumps are pretty efficient. If they want to improve the design of electrical components while A-123 is trying to deliver a battery, more power to them.

Bottom line is that you don’t get a lot of essentially free electricity like you do with an ICE vehicle. Using it for things other than moving the car will impact electric range, although perhaps negligibly. I can imagine a situation sitting in slow traffic in the rain with the AC, radio, and the lights on where you would start to eat at the overall charge pretty quick.

It’s tough to just watch while GM works on the car, but I am willing to bet more qualified minds than most of ours have spent a lot of time with all of the questions that have been raised here.

It’s fun to talk about though
Eric E Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 12:25 am

OH YEAH!

AND…by adding a 24db/oct high pass filter @ 50hz we could decrease the power requirement of the amplifier another 7-9%.
mmcc Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:18 am

I think GM’s concern about utility electrical load has more to do with the fix (limited) output of the ICE/GEN than it does with battery capacity. While the battery has unlimited output up to it’s usable storage capacity, the ICE/GEN is only rated for a fixed output which as I recall is for average power requiements of the drive motor. Once the Volt has been driven 40+/- miles and is running on the ICE/GEN, then any additional load on the generator could (will) impact vehicle performance. If you are running down the road at night on the ICE/GEN in a rain storm with HVAC on max and the stereo cranked then you might not get full performance from the drive motor.
Tom Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

>> If you are running down the road at night on the ICE/GEN in a rain storm with HVAC on max and the stereo cranked then you might not get full performance from the drive motor.

This is unlikely. GM has stated that the Volt will be able to sustain 100 MPH, which will thus presumably require maximum output from the generator. Since air resistance rises exponentially, driving at 70-80 MPH will require much less than max output. There will be plenty of power left over to run accessories and charge the battery if necessary.
nasaman Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

84 Tom:

You’re right …the top speed shouldn’t be reduced appreciably by battery load or SOC. But as 67Roger Swearingen, who has a Ford Ranger EV* reported, “The heater/AC on the other hand can knock off about 25% of my range. Lights can also eat up some of my range, maybe about 5-10% depending on high/low beams.”

The Volt’s HVAC & headlights (for example) when operated continuously, can significantly shorten the Volt’s battery-only RANGE, so they need to be designed for maximum efficiency for that reason alone.

*The Ranger EV (NiMH version) had a reported range of 65 miles (105 kms) at a steady 65 mph. See the excellent article at…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV#Performance
mmcc Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

nasaman January 30th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

You have a point but the advertised range with the ice/gen on gas is around 600 miles and the 30% reserve in the battery for times that speed/acceleration exceed the gen output. The point I was trying to make was that GM has some latitude when running on battery that they may not have when running on the generator. They can make the statement “Range may be reduced by using electrical accessories” when running on battery but when running on the generator there is nothing to fall back on unless you continually dip into the 30% reserve. This is why I believe they are looking to make the utility load as efficient as possible.
mmcc Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Sorry Nasaman, the respose was meant for Tom. I think I liked the old format better.
AkRich Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 12:04 am

I think everyone is looking in the wrong places for efficiencies. It would seem that someone could run the numbers on the increased range you would get by losing weight (your own). Most of us could probably stand to lose 10-20 pounds and some quite a bit more.
So before you fill up with the combo meal, you might have 2nd thought if it cost you in mileage.
The other option is for GM to figure out a way to make people 1/32 size for the 2008 model Volt.
drivin98 Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 6:12 am

Anyone know if the power steering unit is electric? I imagine it is. The efficiency gains made in the design of all these components don’t just benefit the Volt but also the future electric vehicles GM makes. Hopefully, they won’t make the Volt buyers shoulder the whole burden.
noel park Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 1:39 pm

AkRich, #88:

Absolutely right. The cheapest way to go faster is to take weight out of the driver. It actually saves you money, as you don’t have to feed the !@##$% as much!

Take a look at the drivers in F1, any other top line open wheel racing series and, increasingly, NASCAR. They look more and more like jockeys. How about Robbie Gordon’s famous rant about Danica Patrick’s unfair advantage since she weighs about 106#.

I swear I read an article somewhere some months ago about a study on how much excess driver/passenger weight costs Americans in fuel. It’s probably in the billions over the course of a year.
mien green Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 7:32 pm

If you read “The Little Car That Could”, you’d find the one of the big concerns of EV1 national production was its problematic distribution in the northern climes because of the limited heat pump solution to interior heating.
Nick D Says:
February 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

I understand that there will be a large AC draw to heat the car but can that not be channeled from the heat produced by the electric motor and heat produced by the battery pack, this would help cool both of them and heat the cabin – would not provide 100% but would certainly help. Also heating/cooling the car from the 110 while its plugged in would help signifigantly and i know that was being discussed.

And just for fun (18 seconds of drive time loss) x (60,000 Volts) = 300 hours of drive time loss — Maybe GM is thinking about the greater good in redesinging these low draw accessories…
Larry Parylla Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

I got half way down and I haven’t heard anyone mention that wipers are not necessary. I have used a product called Rain-x for decades and almost never need wipers. My Lexus has side windows are treated at the factory with a product that does the same thing as Rain-x and after a year and a half they still work fine. They can treat the Volt windos with a product that does the same thing and the owner can refresh the treatment from time to time. Wipers will still be needed form time to time for snow but if wipers aren’t used that often why bother making more expensive wipers to save energy. As far as power windows I don’t open an close my windows that much I want power so I don’t have to reach over to lower the passenger window.

PS to the best of my knowledge planes do not have wipers
Larry Parylla Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Oh yes head phones are OK because there is no requirement to hear. If there was deaf people would not be able to drive
Tapoja maksimoida ja selviytyä sähköauton ajokapasiteetin kanssa « Unelmien sähköauto Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 6:44 am

[...] oudolta kuin se vaikuttaakin, niin GM Volt -hybridiä kehittävä tiimi huomasi tuulilasinpyyhkimien nielaisevan paljon akkutehoja. Tiimin tarkoituksena onkin nyt ollut myös kehittää sellasia pyyhkimiä, jotka ovat [...]
DaveP Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

I just posted this in a future thread, but I thought I’d back post to this thread because it references this thread and I’m trying to suck the entire world into a time-space vortex caused by a circular temporal reference.

Also on the fueleconomy.gov website is a really nice summary of where the enrgy that you put into a car actually goes… Typically, only 12.6% of the energy you put into the car actually goes to pushing the wheels…
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
I’m sure I will reference this in the future for something.

Also, there’s an article in EDN which I don’t know if anybody mentioned but it talks about the efforts to reduce power consumption in the car systems that don’t go directly to move the vehicle (such as reducing power used by headlights). It’s somewhat technical as it’s targeted to the engineers out there. It also references gm-volt.com a few months ago when we were discussing the issue of power consumption in the subsystems (apparently this author references gm-volt.com fairly frequently, too).
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6570998.html

Some points:
Tesla estimates cabin cooling in an EV would typically require 2kW. They estimate heating normally occurs with ICE waste heat equivalent to around 3kW. The Tesla fellow they were interviewing also pulled a back of the napkin estimate that an “extreme case” load for heating or cooling would consume 8% of the range… Headlights, 1.5% of the range.
Kevin Howards Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

Can you provide more information on this please.
Pithy Opiner Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

If I buy one, will I make it home on a cold, wintery night as it is raining cats and dogs and I’m listening to the news on the radiio or jazz from a cd. Headlights are on, windsheilds are flapping back and forth as fast as they can…just get me home, please. I promise to plug you in as soon as we drive into the garage. I’m only 7 miles from home to the job and I park under the freeway so i don’t have access to somewhere to plug it in during the day. I’ve always figured I would be a great candidate for an all electric vehicle. But, I hope I don’t get cold feet when it comes time to buy one.

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]
WopOnTour
gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010
interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]
prowler
A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010
I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010
I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]
1nk
Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010
I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]
XGC75
electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010
My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]
Velko Velkov
Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010
Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]
1nk

Chevy Volt will Need Special Low Power Windshield Wipers and Audio System

98 Responses to “Chevy Volt will Need Special Low Power Windshield Wipers and Audio System”

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts