Comments on: Lutz: 94.5% Confident Chevy Volt in Production by November 2010

By: Mark Mullins

Mark Mullins — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:04:47 +0000

I liked the original chevy volt design better. This final design looks like a malibu with it’s trunk cut off…or worse, a 80’s model ford taurus with futuristic accents…..I like the internal engineering though, but if it’s a success, it won’t be for it’s external design.

By: A Clean Way to Play Extreme Peak Oil Scenarios « MrGreen.Biz

A Clean Way to Play Extreme Peak Oil Scenarios « MrGreen.Biz — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:59:16 +0000

[...] things in order to keep up with the increasing cost of driving will not be able to afford a new Volt or Prius Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle, or even my favorite, the Aptera. For people forced out of [...]

By: Karl

Karl — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:24:12 +0000

It would be perfect if the Volt came out in late 2010…that way they’d be able to work out all of the defects/bugs and I could buy a second generation one when I graduate college in 2011.

By: Koz

Koz — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:46:45 +0000

Charlie H, you are correct. Lowering weight does help performance in the same way it does with conventional cars, but with regenerative braking the efficiency gains are lessened compared to conventional cars. There is still rolling resistance in the tires and other weight sensitive losses in the driver train, but thesec are small compared to breaking losses. Regen also doesn’t recapture anywhere close to 100% (e.g. battery loss and other parasitic losses mentioned above plus friction braking for heavy breaking), but it can retain a significant amount of the energy. So, I’m not saying lowering the weight isn’t a good thing. It’s just less important to this type of vehicle and if it’s not worth it for an ICE, it’s certainly not worth it for an EREV. If they get the cost close to conventional body panels, I’m all for it.

By: Charlie H

Charlie H — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:01:17 +0000

33/Koz – The weight is both a performance issue and an efficiency issue. The lighter the vehicle, the better it can climb hills with a smaller motor and the less fuel it uses in cruise (weight may be less important than aerodynamic or other drag but it’s still in there, I’ll ask a physicist friend about this, sometime). The lighter it is, the better the acceleration – or the less power needed for a given level of acceleration. My tastes don’t rule the world but I’m very happy with 0-60 in about 10 and I’ve been perfectly satsified with cars significantly slower than that. Cut vehiclle weight, engine size and I could have a perfectly satisfying vehicle wiht impressive mileage.

By: Koz

Koz — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:46:53 +0000

rksparks is saying in more detail what GM engineers basically said they discovered during earlier development of the Volt. Although, I don’t really understand why it took much testing for this to be determined since it is a simple logical deduction. Carbon fiber and weight reducing features are nice, but are greatly beneficial to cars that don’t have energy recovering capability (e.g. traditional ICE vehicles). I don’t see much benefit from what Charles H mentions. The electric motor only weighs about 70lbs and reducing the capacity also reduces efficiency for A/C indution motors. This is not to say there aren’t benefits to carbon panels, they just are minimized in electrically driven vehicles with regenerative breaking. The biggest benefit would be to performance (acceleration and handling), but city driving would see mild improvment and highway much less. As rksparks and the GM engineers point out, drag and accessory load become even more important. Personally, I believe that beyond battery development and charging station implementation; drag and the A/C systems are the most important aspects to focus on.

A lot of attention has also been focused on smaller, lighter, and more efficient ICE’s for the genset. It doesn’t make sense to me to concentrate on this either. With 40 miles range, the Volt will be capable of providing all electric propulsion for 78% of all American daily drives according the GM’s data and I bet it would be a higher percentage for the rest of the world. LI batteries have been steadily improving since there introduction to the market and more recent improvements are even more encouraging. GM is anticipating 50 miles initial range for the Volt which will like be 75 miles for the second generation of their battery pack. Charging stations would double the daily commute range. Not that I think increasing the efficiency of the ICE and/or reducing it’s size is a bad thing, IMO it is just unimportant for the path that the Volt puts drivetrain development on.

By: Artimus

Artimus — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:34:03 +0000

Wow! How utterly refreshing to read the productive, positive comments on this site. There is an astonishing amount of pessimism working overtime out there and it is truly a breath of fresh air. I think that Lyle and the regulars on this site know that it is in good part their groundswell effort that is pushing this project forward. You all have something to be proud about along with GM and its captains. Who said it’s never too late to change? The GM team is doing a tremendous job of listening and responding to the public that wants it to succeed. With this kind of Volt-age, how could it not? Keep up the great work – you are all making a difference in the world!

By: noel park

noel park — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:55:36 +0000

#17 mmc:

Amen!

#29 Charlie H:

Amen!

Preach on brothers and sisters!

By: Tor

Tor — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:30:46 +0000

I really like the idea of a roadshow. When can this question be brought up to GM and see if they would consider a stop (or 2) in every state ?

I would gladly attend.

By: Charlie H

Charlie H — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:32:09 +0000

Weight reduction is synergistic. If you reduce the weight of the body and frame, you can reduce the size of the engine and/or motor, battery and other components and still maintain performance. Carbon fiber could be important and the benefits could be very large.