Volt Nation VIDEO: Public Q and A Part I
This video segment covers question from the attendees of the Volt Nation event and the Volt executive teams answers.
The first question covers electric grid capacity and thermal management. Frank Weber says the powertrain components are there but its the functional integration that will be solved over the “next couple of months”.
The next question was about pricing and generator operation, and door design. Chevrolet president Ed Peper took on pricing and noted Chevrolet is an affordable brand and that GM needs a high volume solution to petroleum dependence. He says there is no exact price answer just yet. Frank Weber points out that one shouldn’t just look at MSRP but also at “running cost”, and points out that the Volt is not a niche car.
Andrew Farah, Volt chief engineer talks about the generator simply keeping the battery at an even SOC while maintaining the rest of the functionality of the vehicle including the need for going up hills, for example. He talks about getting the car home at “customer empty”so that most benefit is from charging the car from electricity.
Popularity: 4%
(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
53 Responses to “Volt Nation VIDEO: Public Q and A Part I”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- GM CEO’s Best Guess: Volt Will be Priced in “Mid to High 30’s”
- The Dawn of the Next Vintage of Chevy Volt Developmental Vehicles
- GM May Reveal the Production Chevy Volt on it Centennial Webcast, September 16th
- GM Has More Than Two New E-Flex Vehicles Already at Scale-Model Stage of Development
- The Volt’s #1 Fanboy and Our Wait List Story is the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”
- GM’s Future Volt and E-Flex Plans
- GM’s Advanced Battery Director Denise Gray is “Keeping Her Eyes on the Future”
- Interview with Chevy Volt Chief Designer About the Production Car: Plus Leaked Pictures and Video
- BREAKING: GM Releases New Production Volt Photos
- Chevy Volt Update from Chief Engineer: “There’s Nothing Standing in Our Way”
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Excellent !!!
Does that mean the car will be GPS aware, so that you don’t
overcharge the batteries unecessarily ?
Thats what is being hinted at here, I guess a few options in REV mode would be:
1. RE keeps battery at min charge
2. You manually input estimated distance to next charge
3. GPS car knows where you are going and knows you are going to charge it - eg. at home.
Interesting posibilites.
Lets hope the Sales / budget guy’s don’t get carried away with the lower total cost of owner ship and get carried away with the initial price.
Well done All!
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Just so I am understanding correctly, did Mr Weber say that studies have indicated that the first million electric cars would not have a significant impact on the electric grid?
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
That’s what I heard him say. Actually, it’s not surprising because it wouldn’t be any different than 1 million Americans plugging in an additional refrigerator/freezer in the garage.
The only difference is that the Volt won’t be charging 24/7.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I beleive he said the reason for this is that most vehicles will be charging at night when they have excess capacity.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I was very impressed by both Frank Weber & Andrew Farah. Since Frank was already engaged in a one-on-one chat with another VoltNation attendee following the formal Q&A session, I cornered Andrew, the Volt Chief Engineer. A program’s chief engineer is normally where the "technical buck" stops –he’s really the most important guy on the team to keep the ‘devil out of the details’ as well as to review ALL the engineering work to be certain of its excellence in general.
We started off by discussing Bob Lutz’ earlier comment that the name of Toyota’s founder (Toyodasan) was "on their buildings", which Lutz said gives them (a privately-held company) a major advantage —not needing approval by a board of directors representing stockholders (like GM has to deal with). I asked Andrew if he knew that the lobby of Toyota’s world headquarters has a picture of Toyodasan hanging next to a picture of another man named Edward Deming (an American)*. Like most people, even those in the automotive industry, he didn’t.
But he did seem to know that Edward Deming had shown Toyota in its early years how to design & build cars 1) that were superior to any yet available on the world market and2) that they could sell at a lower cost than most competitive designs —by simply designing & building in exceptionally-high quality, something Deming had learned from his experience in the US space program. And something Detroit’s "big three" and European manufacturers had rejected out of hand over 50 years ago.
Andrew seemed receptive, so I explained that it boils down to intensively analyzing "every nut, bolt, cotter key, tire, wiper motor, switch, etc, etc, etc" —in short, every component of a car including those used by all suppliers. All components must be subjected to formal worst-case analyses, followed by rigorous testing to limits beyond those predicted by analysis, i.e., to failure in many cases. He generally agreed, implying they are doing top-down & bottom-up worst-case analysis as well as limit-exceeding testing and/or testing-to-failure on every Volt component.
We next discussed another famous American, Tom Peters, originally from Stanford University. Peters has long advocated strongly against what is all too common in industry —insulating oneself from the details of the business by relying heavily on your chain of command to keep you informed ….WRONG! Dr. Peters became famous for his book "In Search of Excellence", as well as several subsequent books & papers and for his consulting work with top executives at major corporations world wide (including GM & Toyota). All of Peter’s work can summarized, by following his simple advise: "get rid of your MBA (or equivalent) and get yourself an "MBWA" ….."Management By Wandering Around". In other words, get your butt out of your office & into the design studios, the engineering labs/offices and the factory (like Toyota’s managers at every level are famous for doing)!
Andrew seemed to agree with the advice of both Deming & Peters, which I see as very good news. And if he (and others on the Volt program) truly follow Deming & Peters, his 24 years with GM will be followed by several more years as one of those key people who not only engineered a spectacularly-successful breakthrough in automotive design, but also helped Wagoner, Lutz, Weber & others re-engineer General Motors itself!!!
*PS: the picture of Toyota’s founder is smaller than the picture of Edward Deming hanging near it! So guess who REALLY made Toyota the manufacturer of the world’s most reliable cars …..cars they can sell for less than most competitor’s cars?!?
[BTW, I've never owned a Toyota nor do I have friends or relatives who work for Toyota or own their cars. But the most reliable car sold in the US today is the humble, inexpensive little Toyota Yaris, which is 110% more reliable than the average car or truck sold here -- see the latest Consumer Report's Annual Auto Reliability Data (from owners) recently published].
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Frank Weber says that customers need to consider "running costs" implying that the Volt will be cheaper to operate vs. a normal ICE vehicle. We all certainly hope that this is the case. However, many of us can’t afford a higher initial investment in a Volt over a comparably sized ICE vehicle even though over time the costs of ownership will balance out.
I’m sure that electrification of GM vehicles will occur in the future since the new CAFE requirements will force them to do this. I just hope that the E-Flex architecture becomes cheaper as the volume of such vehicles increase.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
How many of Toyota’s cars were recently removed from CR’s "recommended" list after being there for many years, was it 2 or 3?
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I love this extended range vehicle approach, because it successfully stradles current driving infrastructure, while gently seguing to another infrastructure. The electrical grid will slowly ramp in demand, because production will be slow to start, as well as the initial charging requirement for only 40 mile range, and not 200 - 300 mile range, per night.
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
So the ice/gen WILL maintain the battery at 30% SOC… I think this was stated some months ago by one of the engineers but the confusion I had was that the Chevy’s web page was stating, until recently, that the ice/gen would "recharge" the battery. Even now, with the recently updated page, they still use statements like "to recharge the battery while driving" and "Chevy Volt’s range-extending power source kicks in to recharge the lithium-ion battery pack as required." If they replace the word "recharge" with "maintain", then it would be a lot clearer.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I like the fact that it won’t recharge the battery much above 30%, in Virginia the electrical equivalent of a gallon of gasoline is less than a dollar. And the confirmation that there won’t be any rear hinged Suicide Doors for the passengers in the back is welcome as well, despite the questioners support for the idea.
I think that the Volt is going to have people making all sorts of errors like ‘recharge’, especially when reporters are trying to describe the gas mileage/energy use per mile.
I understand Frank’s effort to minimize the huge disincentive to buy the Volt, i.e. the unknown but probably rising price, by stressing the reduced cost of operating the Volt, but a $10,000 battery pack and a $15,000 car (Cobalt) shouldn’t cost us $35,000, and relying on the government to make up the difference isn’t a sound policy if they expect to sell more than ten or twenty thousand of these cars a year.
I am being a bit sarcastic about the pricing issue but it is critical to the potential success of the Volt, and we NEED the Volt type of cars to be successful. We need to kick our oil habit or it will destroy us economically.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Ziv,
Where in Virginia is your $1/gallon calculation coming from?
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
If most cars are charged at night, there should be a minimal effect on the grid. Typically power consumption peaks between 4 pm and 8 pm in the evening.
Please see the following link for the California ISO (Independent System Operator).
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html
In the early morning hours of Mar 22nd, power demand in this region averaged 22,000 MW (a MW, megawatt, is equal to 1000 kW). The system available generation was about 30,000 MW. (Note, this graph changes daily).
Since the Volt will consume 8 kWh in a 6 hour charge time, its power draw is 1.33 kW. Therefore, 1 million Volts charging between the hours of 12 am and 6 am would require 1330 MW. This is only about 17% of the 8000 MW of available generation capacity of the system at this time of the day.
The effect on the grid is probably not a big concern, and if more electric vehicles are built, the system will have to plan for more resources to provide this power.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Grizzly, I have read several articles that said that electricity was equivalent to $0.75 to $1.00 a gallon, but when you asked I actually looked for myself and a couple sites say that electricity is about $0.08 per kWh in Virginia, or $0.64 to fill up a Volt’s battery, which will give me 40 miles or the equivalent of 2 gallons of gas if you are driving a reasonably efficient car, or 1 gallon if you are driving a Prius. So it would be $0.32 per gallon, not ‘less than a dollar’, unless I was driving a Prius, which would make the electrical equivalent about $0.64 per gallon of gas equivalent. That actually makes me even more fired up to drive a Volt to work.
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Ziv,
The reason I asked is that I also live in Va. and only about 65% of Va. is served by Dominion Va. Power and I’m not even sure the rates are uniform for those that have it depending on where they live.
Like you, I’ve seen anywhere from $.60-1.00, so I’m encouraged by your findings, and I noticed you used the median rate. When I get home I’m going to check my bill
which should give me my actual rate.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Andrew Farar said he is not looking at a rear hinging door? Does that mean the Volt is 2-door (instead of a 4-door)?
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I think his response was that the rear doors will not have the hinges on the rear and open from the front as was suggested by one of the participants.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
The batteries have the capacity
The engineers have the sagacity
To end our useless toil for oil
Deliver the Volt
Don’t let the momentum spoil
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Never trust GM, they claim to need more battery scientists and engineers, in fact, they lied, they advertise such positions all the time, but actually never hire, nor even interview anyone, this is in sharp contrast to Toyota. I hope Toyota will continue to succeed, in the USA, Japan, most important china and India. As for GM, those iodiots will fail their ailing company. I think most fans here are iodiots who are easily duped by GM. DON’T TRUST THEM, you will be disappointed! Volt is a sham!
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 am
I promised I wouldn’t feed the trolls but it’s late and I’m tired so here goes.
Notrust #17:
The reason you weren’t hired by GM’s battery development team is simple. This is going to be a very good battery!
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 am
I can understand getting the car home at “customer empty” for local driving. But, what about when the Volt is driven on long trips with overnight stays and recharging capabilities that may or may not be available? There needs to be a switch, option or something that would allow the ICE to recharge the park to 80-100% under these conditions.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
There have been several comments that recharging the Volt batteries will be at night. I think what is more likely to happen is the Volt will be plugged in by habit whenever the car is pulled into the garage, if for no other reason to avoid forgetting to plug it in.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 am
19 Estero….
You said, "….There needs to be a switch, option or something that would allow the ICE to recharge the (Volt when parked) to 80-100% under these conditions (long trip, unable to plug in)."
You’re right that there needs to be a dashboard switch, but NOT for the purpose you’re suggesting. Based on my long battery experience in the space program (with high-performance batteries of similar size & performance to the Volt’s), a state-of-charge of 30% leaves the battery fully capable of supplying as much surge current for extended periods of time, and at as low an impedance, as if it were at 80% oir even 100% SOC.) There is therefore NO advantage to recharging the battery (maintaining, yes; recharging, no) by use of the ICE on even, say, a 10-day trip ….in terms of acceleration time, top speed, sustained high-speed driving or any other performance aspect. Who knows, the little old mom & pop motel on day 8 might have an outlet in your ground-floor room, and they’ll let you give them a buck to plug in an extension cord you have in the trunk, with the net result that your equivalent mileage the next day will more like 125 mpg than 50mpg using the ICE to recharge (maintaining uses much less than recharging because of it’s done at a lower duty cycle, thanks to regenerative braking & deceleration).
However, an "EV-only" dashboard switch that would be automatically overriden by the car’s computer if battery state of charge drops too low would be worthwhile to keep the ICE from starting needlessly, for example, as you turn into your neighborhood with only a couple of blocks to go. (This was one of many questions/comments I gave to Bob Lutz after the meeting in NYC).
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
From a Van Pool to back behind the wheel - CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American-FUELED
Well, I’m on the waiting list, and I’m in a van pool to keep my American dollars here in America rather than pump my income to the Middle-East. Let’s hope the count down to an affordable, mid-sized electric car keeps going. Sooner is better.
CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American-FUELED
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
GM, please help me get back behind the wheel with the VOLT.
I’m getting used to a van pool here in Denver CO. I refuse to put miles on my gas car at these gas prices. I know where the money goes, into Middle-East hatred of Americans.
Signed, Retired US Air Force veteran.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Any chance GM will number the first 10,000 (1st year production vehicles). Helps make these cars instant classics.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Nor sure what fuel savings technologies are being used in ICE apart from turbo charger. I would expect it to have Dual VVT (Variable valve timing) as engine rpm would vary for VOLT. If GM is not going to put this, Toyota would take the lead and again GM will be a loser. This is the same reason why GM is losing small car business to Honda and Toyota as they are more fule efficient. GM dont have VVT in small engines.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Anyone who thinks VVT is a big fuel saver is living in a dream world. VVT wasn’t even brought to market for that purpose, mainly because the effects on fuel consumption are insignificant and not cost effective. GM has direct injection technology which is effective, and had it before most other brands, if not all of them. GM’s not going to make any money building econoboxes, nor will Mercedes, Volvo, Saab, BMW, etc. etc. The stupidest move GM could make would be to compete in that "winners are losers" arena. That’s also not
how Toyota makes any money either. The Prius hybrid is NOT a cheap car, and that is the only small car that they make that is selling. The Japanese automakers are going to get slaughtered by the Chinese when they enter the small car market in a big way.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
I originally was also wondering about the need to arrive at your garage with battery "empty," but realized that the Volt’s battery actually is never allowed to attain anywhere near that state, and that the engine-gen will run simply to
maintain the approximate (but not exact) state of charge
that represents "empty battery." We all know that the battery pack is actually capable of powering the Volt 80 miles down the road.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
I read an article about Subaru’s R1e small electric car (a.k.a. Death Trap, model I) that notes it has a 50 mile range. I can just see a salesman trying to sell a car that has no more range than a Volt but 1001 more inconveniences/incapacities (i.e. trips to destinations OVER 25 miles away) . No mention of battery lifespan - bet it doesn’t top 5 years, making this one very expensive ride.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 am
Kent,
VVT engines produce more power for the same dispalcement with less fuel consumption and also this will allow you to downsize the engine as it produces more power leading to further fuel savings. So the net fuel savings will be substantial.
Dont take my word, see below
2008 Toyota Yaris:
1.5L VVT 106 hp EPA 29/35 (Automatic)
2008 Chevrolet Aveo5:
1.6L 103 hp EPA: 23/32 (Automatic)
Yaris produces more power for smaller displacement and it is fuel efficient by 6mpg in city and and 3mpg in highway which is very big difference and can easily lure the customer to buy Yaris and not Aveo5. Hope GM is paying attention to this. It looks like 2009 Aveo5 has VVT. Hope VOLT will also have one.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Kent,
If GM should not compete in small car segment, then it should not make make any models in that segment. If it does, they should be on par with their competitors not subpar.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
>> The Prius hybrid is NOT a cheap car, and that is the only small car that they make that is selling.
Obviously, we have yet another example of not knowing what’s actually happening in the market. These are the sales counts for 2007 from Toyota in the US:
387,388 Corolla
173,034 Scion A/B/C
70,308 Yaris
It’s really important to study the big picture. There’s lots of misleading info spewed online all the time. But when it comes to sales, that data speaks for itself. And that’s how Volt success will be measured… hence the lofty goal Lutz recently stated.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Ths point about the Toyota small cars remains unaffected by those "large sales numbers of small cars." Toyota large corporate profits do not arise from their Corolla, etc. sales. It remains important to look at the big picture, not simply sales numbers. GM once sold a larger share of Chevy Chevettes than all those 2007 Corollas, Scions, etc, combined and still did not make a profit on the line. Toyota is building their giant Tundras and very expensive Lexus line and THAT’s where their profit is.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
The U.S. grid possesses approximately 1,200,000 megawatts of capacity, and at worst case, with 190 million Volts (every US private vehicle) all plugging into a 110 volt outlet at night, all those Volts would draw only around 190,000 megawatts (assumes no more than 85% would need any recharging on a given night). So nighttime recharging doesn’t look like anything to be concerned about. However, Volt owners will definitely recharge plenty during the day, and even at dinnertime (a peak demand time) for an hour or so using a 220 volt feed (roughly 6 to 9 kilowatts, depending upon what GM battery engineers allow) for evening driving. I believe that this is where problems may arise, but the notion that plug-ins should be avoided because they will stress the utility grid I find really, really dumb : the grid will always need to be expanded because the need for energy is always growing and also because we are obviously moving towards a unified, single energy system (electricity), which will be far more efficient and flexible than what we have today. And it’s not as though any gigantic grid expansion is required post-haste : that 190 million strong plug-in fleet won’t be arriving anytime soon.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I love that claim that GM can slap a $10,000 battery into a $15,000 Cobalt and produce a Volt. We better go tell Lutz that all those engineers aren’t needed - we got a wizard here who can guarantee GM a way to make billions.
So how come Toyota is slapping $1,500 battery pack into a $12,000 econobox and charging $27,000 for a Prius?
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I get a little nervous when they start talking about the "cost of ownership". I understand that the ongoing costs are going to be lower, which is what draws me to the car. But if the total "cost of ownership" is going to be the same as mid sized cars, I’d rather have an Altima because it is bigger and more comfortable, and older technology is less risky. That’s part of the cost of losing their reputation for quality; GM has to produce better quality at lower cost than the competition. That’s how Toyota got ahead. And with Toyota/Nissan/Honda, Hyundai as competitors, that’s a tough challenge.
I want the Volt precisely BECAUSE "cost of ownership" is lower. If it’s not, then they limit their market to Greens and Techies.
As excited as I am about the car, it’s got to be better/cheaper/faster, or it will just be an expensive curiosity.
This 3 year run-up is going to give me time for the logical side of me to overcome the emotional side, which is probably NOT what the marketers like to hear (homes and cars are sold on emotion, not logic). This car has to make sense in the end before I’ll plunk down the money.
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
There is no effect on the "grid" for a million cars being plugged in at night. But this does have a very significant impact on the energy industry. Base load is typically provided by coal, hydro and nuclear power plants that run 24/7. In California, peak power demand is mostly provided by natural gas fired plants. If we were to flatten out the demand curve, so that night time use is equivalent to the day time use, this would not have an impact on the grid per se, but would have profound consequences for the price of natural gas. So, in order to meet supply and keep prices low, more reliable base load capacity will need to be built to support significant night time charging of electric vehicles. With the introduction of CO2 cap and trade legislation, this leaves limited options.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
lsmithlin @ 36,
Early adopters / early purchasers of the Volt are not going to save money with this car. If that is your purpose, I’d propose you buy a gasser and save yourself the heartache down the road. This car is about ideals and people who do not want to burn oil. As much as I want to believe it will save me money in the long run, economics dictates it WILL NOT.
Demand is high for this vehicle because it is new and different, and flies in the face of Big Oil, Big Government, and the status quo.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
There’s no way I will save money by getting the Volt, because I don’t need a new car. I intend to buy one solely to advance this technology. It is imperative that we reduce transportation’s dependence on oil.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I find it intriguing how the definition of "profit" here isn’t to simply have a net gain, selling the vehicle for more than it costs to produce & deliver. No wonder there is much market confusion.
Large sums of money from the sale of each vehicle isn’t how an automaker will survive anymore. Calling that "profit" simply isn’t realistic. It’s back to the basics… selling large numbers of product at a slim margin… which is exactly what the computer industry had to accept. And they managed through that paradigm change just fine. Now it’s the automaker’s turn.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
The VOLT’s ICE won’t need variable valve timing (VVT) because it won’t be able to take advantage of the benefits of VVT. VVT helps an engine perform more efficiently while under varing loads. That is, it can change the characteristics of the performance curves, when needed, for better performance during acceleration or scaled back performance during periods of highway driving. The VOLT’s ICE will always operate at a constant RPM (like a stationary mounted generator) and therefore dosen’t need, nor can it take advantage of, complicated systems such as VVT, variable ignition timing, and changing advance curves. Keeping it simple will reduce both manufacturing costs and the long term cost of operation.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
"Mike756 #39 There’s no way I will save money by getting the Volt, because I don’t need a new car. I intend to buy one solely to advance this technology. It is imperative that we reduce transportation’s dependence on oil." ** *** *** **** ****
The issue of the Volt quote/unquote "paying for itself" is moot. With only about 10K planned for the first year I think we need to resign ourselves to the the fact that the price will be high, and those that purchase them will either be unaffected by this price, or like myself, be driving a 10+ year old car and were well past due to buy a new one anyway. That said, if you’re like me and might not get one of the first 10k, you might hold out another year to get a second gen that not only will have bugs fixed, but might very well be one of 60-100K offered and hence come at a reduced price.
I still can’t believe that a Publicly held Corporation is taking the initiative to go this alone.
To those that think that Lutz overstates or "over promises" I’d like to say that I wish GM the best and I hope that they under promise and over deliver. However, I would always prefer a man whose position is "Car Czar" to see any glass of anything as "half full" rather than "half empty". You’ll never succeed with the latter.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:30 am
This thread is all over the place. It is hard to pick a place to chime in…
But I think I will respond to #40 - john1701a, who said "It’s back to the basics… selling large numbers of product at a slim margin… which is exactly what the computer industry had to accept. And they managed through that paradigm change just fine. Now it’s the automaker’s turn."
Having lived through that "fun" period, I have to tell you that there were dozens of manufacturers and thousands of small computer dealers that either went out of business, or changed to a service based model, because the large chains were given preferential pricing from the manufacturers, and had no other method of selling this type of equipment, except to discount the price. And by the way, my computer company managed to survive and prosper by getting out of hardware sales completely.
Let me put it another way. Do you feel you are getting the same type of quality service when you call an 800 number and are talking to someone in India, and then having to mail it in for repair as you used to get when you took your computer to the local dealer you purchased it from and had them service it for you?
So I am a bit curious as to how you would have the sales of cars adapt to this slim margin / high volume scenerio. Should we order online direct from Chevy, and pick it up at a freight terminal? Who prepares the vehicle for delivery? What do you do with your current vehicle for a trade in? Who handles warranty issues? And how about service? Are you willing to drive to a regional service center that may be 100 miles away?
Although your proposal sounds like a good idea, for something as necessary as a car, I do not agree that it would work.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
>> So I am a bit curious as to how you would have the sales of cars adapt to this slim margin / high volume scenerio.
$10,000 gain from the sale of each SUV is not a sound business model. Why is that so hard to see?
We will be going back to the way it was before (the "more" craze), earning a modest for each vehicle.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Replying to post #1 which I think has been answered but to rephrase: The goal is to produce the smallest, leanest & meanest ICE possible. Since the ICE’s sole job is to produce enough Volts to power the drive train & keep the riders comfortable adding capacity to allow it to produce extra current to charge the batteries would require a larger ICE, ergo burning more fuel whenever running regardless of charge state. Makes no sense to recharge a Volt from the ICE on a long trip since the extra fuel needed to do so would be burned either way and avoids additional cycles on the battery. Whether your running the ICE to power the drive train or Charge the vehicle, your still running the ICE and to do both on long trips means a bigger ICE & less overall efficiency & less MPG. You would not save anything by being able to charge the batteries using the ICE and would lose from less efficiency of the ICE & more weight & maintenance. The concept is precise - Plug in not drive in if you don’t want to plug in, this car is not for you! As for me I want my ICE as small as possible & would settle for a weedeater engine if I could get away with it.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The strategy of allowing the battery to go to "customer empty" is a good one, and it doesn’t need a GPS/nav system, although that would be a beneift, just a button that tells the computer it’s OK to drain the battery to minimum and then run the ICE often enough to keep the battery between 5 and 10% over "customer empty." As long as you pull into your garage close to empty, that’s good enough.
Hooking it to a nav system that understands distance to home, hills yet to climb and descend, etc, would allow for really optimal discharge by the time you reach the garage door but it’s not really necessary.
Neutron Flux, there’s a certain minimum size to the ICE and "weedeater" isn’t big enough by a long shot. The ICE will probably occasionally be called upon to both charge the battery at a reasonable rate and provide enough juice to move the car uphill. That takes some power. If it isn’t big enough, you could get into driving situations where you hit the gas and the car won’t got near as fast as you expect or like.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
OhmExcited @ 37 — More electricity from natural gas does not necessarily mean more natural gas. I once ran some numbers for a typical California summer day. If everyone drove EREVs the CAISO load profile for that day would have been flat, and total electricity usage would have increased from about 840 GWh to about 1000 GWh. However, a flat profile means you can use combined cycle natural gas plants instead of the single cycle powerplants used today to handle daytime peaking. The actual amount of natural gas required to generate the 1000 GWh would thus be LESS THAN the amount used in reality that day to generate 840 GWh.
Of course the results would be different for other days in other locations. But this result was a real eye-opener for me.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
46doggydogworld
That idea to use combined cycle gas-steam plants versus single pass thru gas turbines is all well and good. Any Engineer worth his salt, will say theat Efficiency is its own reward.
But they are two different physical installations. It’s as if you said I can generate electricity with a classic coal steam plant, or an IGCC coal-to-gas, to compound gas-steam cycle plant.
So since the second is more efficient, I’ll chose to operate the plant on the IGCC model. Its comparing apples to oranges.
The single pass through NG peaking plant does not have the equipment to operate in that fashion. You might as well ask that your Toyota Yaris to substitute for a Peterbilt, and start pulling the semi trailer in its place. And also expect it to continue to get 40 mpg, even if it were even possible for it actually to move the trailer, at all.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Kent,
I just completed a 2,000 mile trip in my 2007 Aveo and it’s little 1.6 engine without VVT and using real world pen and paper data I consistently got 36 MPG with a/c on and cruising at 75 mph the whole way. On certain legs without the a/c I hit 38-40 mpg.
All that to say that don’t just bench race the specs. Wait until we have some real data to go on to see what the car can do.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
As for the size of the ICE what most people don’t seem to realize that since the ICE has to provide all the energy needs of the car it has have the same or better power capability as if it was hooked directly to the wheels.
In other words expect it to be a 150hp+ and 1.8L+ with at least 4 cylinders. A smaller engine won’t be able to power the car and it’s accessories.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Electric VS Hydrogen and Hybrids
Please, we know that you know; that the only reason to have hydrogen vehicles as a preferred power system is to keep the American commuter tithed to the petroleum industry.
The billions of dollars that the petroleum industry has in vested in their delivery system, would go the way of the buggy whip if the auto industry chose to really provide the best product to the consumer. Why else would the petroleum industry be such an active player in keeping the Electric vehicle from becoming a viable product for the past 20 years.
My suggestion for the petroleum industry is to try to come up with an alternative use for their real estate, they should think, dry cleaning, coffee, and fast food.
We know!
April 1st, 2008 at 3:21 am
jscott1000
The Prius ICE is 1.5L and 78HP, just to give you an idea.
I don’t think you’re thinking it out all the way when you say that the ICE has to provide all of the power for the car. I mean…you’re correct in a sense, but what you don’t take into account is the fact that the ICE is in almost all situations able to produce more energy than is needed at the moment. It stores this extra energy - as well as that reclaimed via regenerative braking - in the battery for access as needed.
Basically, you would only be correct if the car were being driven in such a way that all available power were required for an extended period of time…..like if I were to try to drive 50 miles with the accelerator on the floor, or some such thing.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:23 am
Eh…forgot to mention that the Prius battery pack isn’t able to store anywhere near what the Volt’s will be able to, and that the Volt is pulling quite a bit of energy from the grid as well.