E-Flex/Chevy Volt Battery Lab Tour and Update
I had the chance to tour the Chevy Volt battery lab and hear presentations by Lance Turner and Roland Matthe, battery engineers. This was actually my second trip there (see prior post).
Lance showed us a sample of the LG/CPI pack running a series of driving cycles including the aggressive US06. The first pack has been running these daily for nearly the 6 months since it first arrived at GM.
Lance remains pleased with the functioning of the packs, which continue to run without the cooling system for extra rigor. Indeed even without it, the packs only appear to increase by 6 or 7 degrees Celsius.
He explained how GM needs to demonstrate that the packs will last 10 years/150,000miles and be able to get the 40 miles range at the end-of-life. Per Bob Lutz at Volt Nation, the packs might be able to reach 50 miles when they are new.
To simulate this, Lance is running the packs the equivalent of 200 miles per day, which will yield nearly 150,000 miles after 2 years.
Roland showed us a LG/CPI and Conti/A123 sitting side by side in a temperature chamber, that exposes the pack to everything from minus 20 to 50 degrees Celsius. In there, the cooling systems are running, and the packs are as well, performing to specs.
I was told that each team’s packs differ considerably in design, and slightly in performance, but both are meeting specs. There are some camps in GM pushing towards choosing one vendor over the other, but diversifying vendors may lower risks.
As of right now, there are 2 Conti/A123 packs and 3 LG/CPI packs in the lab. One LG /CPI pack at the proving ground awaiting placement into a mule, and one LG/CPI pack in Germany being tested there, for a grand total of seven.
So, after 6 months of ownership, and observation on the bench, the packs appear to have ample capability of powering a Chevy Volt. The next landmark is testing them within prototype vehicles.
Popularity: 4%
(6 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5) 
Loading ...
75 Responses to “E-Flex/Chevy Volt Battery Lab Tour and Update”
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”
April 8th, 2008 at 6:58 am
This report on the batteries reassures me that the batteries will be ready in a couple of years. I would like to hear about volume production of the batteries - which company has the resources to ramp up to the production required for the Volt.
I also appreciate the emphasis on the batteries being able to get 40 miles range at the expected end-of-life of the battery.
Good report, Lyle! Keep the info coming.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Only 7 batteries to test? Seems like a small sample. More would provide better data.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:34 am
40 Miles at the END OF LIFE….I think it all just a little sweeter! So GM under promised and should over deliver with a range of more than 40 when the car is initially purchased!
I wonder what would happen if they use both suppliers and people prefer one pack over the other. That would render the cars made with the other battery inferior in some way. Or if you could specify what battery maker you would prefer when you order the VOLT. I think it might be better to stick with one supplier even if quantities are lower initially.
Do you guys see this as a problem or am I reading into this way too much?
April 8th, 2008 at 7:46 am
@ 3
What an awesomely easy opportunity for GM to offer a BEV-type application (in know, the range extender is a perk) with another pack available for consumers that want to pay. That, OR, the loser of the pack bid can offer after-market conversions for a bit extra.
Let’s face it, there is a market out there for 200 mile range BEVs. I am VERY INTERESTED in what that would do to cost. And what an option that would be for the consumer.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:48 am
If the packs can do 50 miles at the start of life, they will meet CARB standards and get 2 credits per vehicle sold in CA.
#3 To us it would matter which battery was in the car, but to most people, “who cares” would be the attitude.
#2 I agree. By now I would have thought would have dozens of each type. Maybe they are holding out on Lyle, gasp.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:53 am
GM should keep 2 vendors for the next few years, until the market shakes out. Perhaps they should even qualify a third:
[url=http://www.lithiumtech.com/]LTI[/url]
These guys produce the batteries for the world record holder in electric bike drag racing.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I agree GM should go with the supplier that provides the best battery for the cost. Of course they haven’t shared the cost with us, so maybe they will be able to use the 2 competing suppliers to reduce the cost of the battery and thus the overall cost of the vehicle.
Again, Lyle keep up the awesome reporting on the Volt!
April 8th, 2008 at 7:56 am
40 miles at EOL! Sweet! Keep the two tiered approach on the batteries, make it a choice, EX gives you slightly longer range, albeit with a shorter life, perhaps, while the LX gives the reverse. Let us choose, and give GM the opportunity to build two companies, with twice the output in the critical early years. We can choose between an I4 and a V6, why not choose between A123 and LG?
Can’t wait to hear that there is a LiIon mule on the roads, NiMH is nice but LiIon is where my money will go.
I just hope GM keeps the two suppliers but otherwise keeps it as simple as possible, and as inexpensive as possible. With battery production coming from overseas and the dollar dropping, it may not be possible to ‘keep it comfortably under $30,000′, but keeping it as close as possible is critical to selling enough Volts early enough to make it a transformational vehicle and drive train.
Having looked at the probable appearance of the finalized Volt, it isn’t quite as sexy as the prototype, but given a 40 mile range at EOL, I will gladly buy a Volt and proudly drive a car that I can fuel myself with a backyard wind generator or PV Cells on my homes roof. I will love keeping my dollars in the US rather than financing a Dubai skyscraper with its indoor ski resort.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Batteries age whether they are used or not. Simply sitting in the heat will influence their life. Decisions about draw & charge algorithms will too. Heck, even SOC monitoring software does. Robust design will eventually emerge.
And don’t forget about cost.
Then there’s the anti-hybrid backlash. (What a pain.)
April 8th, 2008 at 8:17 am
This sounds like good news on the battery front, Lyle. Excellent report.
In order to have a consistent produce and get production up to the necessary capacity, I would think GM would write the contract so that the selected supplier would cross license their product to other manufacturing facilities.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:28 am
This looks like very good news. Lets hope the testing continues to go well and we will all be driving Volts in a couple of years!!!!
April 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Larry Burns, General Motors vice president, research & development and strategic planning, said GM will deliver 1000 fuel-cell vehicles to California to meet CARB requirements in 2014. Three hundred mile range versions would get the most ZEV credits.
I figure GM’s money is better spent getting great batteries into mass production.
Perhaps instead of a fuel cell based E-Flex (Volt) , GM should just put longer range batteries in the Volt and make it all electric to satisfy CARB ZEV requirements. The test results on batteries reported here sure make it seem like a better choice.
By 2014, improvements in battery technology should allow for very long range Volts, with or without an ICE-based generator.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Great report Lyle. I had thought the pack being tested in Germany was an A123/Conti pack, but perhaps not. I seem to see a glimmer that if the battery life performance is solid, then less KWH capacty will need to be reserved, and so more, perhaps 9 or 10 KWH could be used to extend the “all electric range” even in hard driving.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
@4
Don’t forget that a BEV, because it weighs more, will likely but more CO2 in the air than a REV. A BEV carries all that extra battery weight even durring the 80% of the time that it doesn’t need it. I suppose the extra battery could be made portable and only put in the car when needed.
On another note, perhaps making the range extender lighter at the expense of efficiency makes sense - assumeing it is seldom used.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:28 am
When Bob Lutz didn’t make the Easter mule drive date, many were quick to say GM was behind. Last week we learned that they have been driving mules with NiMH batteries for 6 months. One of the engineers at the VoltNation event mentioned that GM has accumulated hundreds of Gigabytes of data on these cars and how they operate.
Now we discover that battery packs are meeting specs and at least one battery pack has been undergoing tests for 6 months. Soon mules will be driving with the Li-Ion battery packs installed. This all sounds like good progress to me.
I wonder what the final range spec will be? I notice that in the “Full Specifications” link on the home page, the battery is listed as having a capacity of 16 kWh (minimum). This means that the actual pack could be even greater.
Let’s suppose that a new pack comes in at 20 kWh (vendor margin). After thorough testing, GM may consider it safe to operate the battery pack between 85% and 25% SOC versus 80% to 30%. This would equate to an available 12 kWh in lieu of the 8 kWh now planned. This increases range by 50%!
The EV-1 with NiMH batteries tested at 179 Wh/mile in a driving cycle. If through improvements, GM can reduce this to 160 Wh/mile, combined with the battery specs previously mentioned, the Volt could have an AER of 75 miles!
Time will tell how conservative they hav been with their estimates, and how well the battery packs are performing.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I thought I read somewhere that because of the dynamics of the batt packs the fuel tank capacity will be cut from 12 gal. to 8 and correspondingly cut the range from 640 to about 440.
Was that erroneous reporting? Anyone know for sure?
April 8th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Basically … who cares as to size of the gas tank… I think a minimum of 5 Gallons (@ 50 mpg) would be more than ample to get you from a to b. I sure you can find a gas station within a hundred miles in most parts of the country.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:50 am
A 50-40 mile range Volt should get about 3/4 the credit of a 200 mile range BEV. It should go off of average amount of petroleum offset, not range.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am
That’s certainly new - 50 miles of range new. Let’s see, now, calculations using DOT commuter trip statistics now indicates a fleet
of commuter Volts would achieve 490 MPG and avoid 96.5% of
current gasoline used for commuting. The gasoline industry is no more.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:56 am
If GM picks only one battery supplier, what happens to the other supplier? That supplier will have spent tons of money w/o a buyer. This would leave the door open for GM’s competitors to buy the battery. I’m sure Toyota would be one of them. I know GM would not allow that to happen but I’m curious to know what’s up GM sleeve.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I cannot tell where the irony in this is.
The Volt is possible because oil is stuck at over 80 dollars a barrel. If oil was 50 dollars a barrel, this entire project would not exist. Crude oil is stuck at 100 bucks a barrel because OPEC is holding steady on production, the war in Iraq provides the uncertainty, and speculators buying futures to flee housing and financial markets provides the rationale for buying oil futures, when the actual US market for gasoline does not merit 100 dollar a barrel oil.
The three of the classes of people I dislike the most, are creating the incentives that will lead to a better world, despite themselves.
Life is strange.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am
#17 Ray O:
I agree. there is no way in the world I can drive for 640, or even 440, miles without stopping for other reasons (ahem, ahem), so who cares.
In our race cars we continually strive to run the smallest possible gas tank. Gas is heavy, and we don’t want to haul one extra ounce. Even if you put less gas in, the a larger tank weighs more anyway. Plus, it takes up room, which should be critical in a car like the Volt where the goal is, or should be, to minimize the weight while providing acceptable interior room.
Of course kent makes a good point at #18. Maybe there will be a lot less gas stations in the future! Which will be a problem in more ways than one. Maybe we can have more rest stops with charging stations.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
There are pros and cons to having two suppliers. Having two ODM’s is almost always better than one. With two you have naturally built in competition which aside from price really puts the pressure on quality production. Vendors know that if they let quality lapse, that the OEM (GM) will just go to the other vendor. The down side is variability between the end products. Consumers don’t want to see any difference between vendor A and vendor B. This is not a problem with small components like capacitors and inductors, but a giant Li-ion battery may be a different story.
If the differences between the batteries are unnoticeable my vote is use both!
April 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
When it gets to the point of less gas stations, I am sure that the range of the batteries will be up to 2 - 300 miles by then
April 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am
It’s interesting to me that of the total 7 battery packs that are being tested, only 2 are Conti/A123 supplied, the remaining 5 are LG/CPI’s. I’m not sure one can draw any conclusions from this, but it would appear that GM is perhaps more confident in the A123 packs and less so with he LG’s and thus are subjecting them to more diverse testing.
Or the converse of that…
They might be leaning towards the LG packs and thus devoting more time/resources to them and decided to use A123 as a backup option.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Something that struck me when listening to the audio playback of the media tour (specifically the wind tunnel piece) was that just after the wind tunnel demonstration they were taken into the milling room where an actual job was taking place…Boniface is describing the clay and how the bits are staggered to produce a smoother shape… From this, it would appear that the clay model that was being milled was not hidden from view. Has anyone commented on the appearance of this model?
April 8th, 2008 at 10:46 am
#20 Eco:
Well I think it’s just human nature. When I was a kid in the 50s, there were days in LA when the smog was so bad I couldn’t ride my bike to do my paper route. I can still remember how much my chest hurt. People finally got fed up and forced change.
Rivers in the Midwest caught fire, and people forced the Clean Water Act. If and when the impacts of global warming get bad enough, we will do something effective about that too. Eventually, the traffic will get so bad here in LA that we will change our lifestyles in response. If not us, then our kids for sure. Just don’t get too far out ahead of the curve, or you get called all sorts of names.
So it is with cars like the Volt. When the price of gas and diesel get high enough to really hurt, people will rise up and go some other way.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I guess they haven’t done collision testing on the batteries yet. What will a high speed collision do to the batteries? Will a broken battery electrocute me?
April 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I found the idea that these packs are being tested without cooling systems, and getting 40 miles at the end of their life to be interesting, my question is, this end of life everyone talks about, is it 10 years to the day? Does that mean there is a 10 year warrenty on the battery? Outside of liabilities, what is the realistic hope of their lives, 15 years?
Noel @ 21,
Let’s not forget that 640 between fillups is not only important during rare long trips, I for one find few things more irritating then driving for over a week, seeing my gas gauge on E and saying “again? Didn’t I just fill you up? Now I have to find a station around here, I hate this.”
Remember that with electric motors that weight is not nearly as critical as it is in ICEs, and Aero is more so. I assume this has to do with EVs getting full torq at startup while ICEs have to change gears. (Why in the world aren’t all semi’s hybrids?)
As to you and Kent having optimism about less of a role of oil because of any technology advances, let’s not forget that oil has been the dominant world industry for about 100 years. They have such larger markets then they did even 10 years ago selling to China, India and Russia that even significant changes in Western driving habits will be a drop in the barrel. There is now too much demand to ever “hurt” them, our hope is merely not to need them. Short of a big government mandate to ban all foreign and domestic ICE sales in the US coupled with massive biodeisel infrastructure ramped up beforehand, I don’t see oil’s dominating role in the US changing in our lifetimes. My main hope is that the biodeisel Volt technology can become standardized in a few decades so that a future OPEC embargo does not shut down the US economy. (And no, I unlike many others on the net don’t see pure EVs being a viable or realistic alternative)
April 8th, 2008 at 11:06 am
#16 Grizzly
I believe this link talks about the need to reduce the size of the fuel tank for packaging purposes.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4257460.html
April 8th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Noel Park #21
Ray O. #17
The reason it’s important is that it gives me the option of taking an entire vacation w/o ever filling up with gasoline. Soon we are going to have 2 E85 pumps where I live. If I fill up my car with E85 and start on a vacation destination 200 miles away where there is no E85 I can get there, enjoy my vacation, and make it back home w/o ever using any gas (except of course the 15% in E85)
The same goes for gas/E85 shortages. The larger tank and range allows you to fill up before an anticipated shortage (which could happen) and have the confidence of being able to make any trip.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
#27 2Snowboard:
Well if we’re lucky, maybe we can drive around during the week mostly on the battery.
As to weight, I am unconvinced that it is somehow less of an issue with electric power. I inadvertantly touched off a big exchange about the importance of rapid acceleration on another thread recently, and I don’t want to do that here, but I simply believe that it takes more energy to move more weight, and/or to accelerate it faster. This is clearly true with ICE powered vehicles. It is beyond me to understand why it should be any different if the power comes from a battery. Maybe it’s just my experience with the dramatic impact of weight on race car lap times talking, but I don’t get it.
As to world oil demand, obviously you are quite right. I was somewhat kidding about no gas stations. Even so, where we live there is a constant shrinking of the number of gas stations, for whatever economic reasons. Out on the Interstates, I don’t notice it so much yet. If much more fuel efficient vehicles like the Volt ever catch on in significant numbers in the US, I could see it happening though.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I am hoping that Dr. Cui at Stanford uses his new $10 million grant to get us an AWESOME, super light, super energy packed, world-changing 300+ mile range battery that can be charged up quickly.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/april2/cui-040208.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103105.htm
http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/
Everyone who wants to see a LOT more electric cars on the road in the next 5-10 years should pray that this new silicon nanowire lithium ion battery proves to be a big breakthrough. It could increase the capacity of the lithium ion battery by up to TEN times.
World changing is not overstating it at all. The whole energy world would change … it would be a genuine energy storage revolution. Big Oil wouldn’t like it one bit. Their oil can will have to start being used primarily for plastics and other stuff I guess. I know I’m ready for the extinction of the internal combustion engine.
Now that he has plenty of money to work with, Dr. Cui ought to get the best people in the world to work with him on his new battery technology at Stanford. Hopefully, he can have a commercially viable battery available for the auto industry SOONER than everyone thinks. For my laptop batteries too. Hell, everyone wants better batteries … from Christmas toys to energy storage for your house so you can pull cheap electricity off the grid at night to charge your Volt at the lowest prices ANYTIME.
Ideally, the Volt 2.0 won’t even NEED a “range extender” IC engine or fuel cell if the battery technology gets good enough. I bet it happens someday. It just might happen in the next 5 years. Who knows? A LOT of money should be poured into battery research and development, I know that. Get the best brains in the world working on battery technology. We need it bad and we need it NOW.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:22 am
#28 BillR:
Thanks for the cool link. Even if it does make me look silly on the weight issue. It is totally counter intuitive to me, but it is true that getting rid of weight can get really expensive. Carbon fiber and magnesium ain’t cheap.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:27 am
#31 GM Volt Fan:
You may remember that one of our European friends commented here the other day that we should stop whining about $4/gal gas as he or she had just paid the equivalent of US $9.62, or some such number.
When that happens here, I would bet that everything you have suggested will come true PDQ.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“The next landmark is testing them within prototype vehicles.”
Obviously, this is the test that really counts.
The only other test result that will matter is the effectiveness of the pack after 150,000 miles………
April 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
BillR #28
Thanks for the link, and that is where I believe I saw it, the only place I’ve seen that mentioned. I noticed it mentions “gas tank” as opposed to “tanks”, which makes me wonder how old their info is. It also mentions A123’s pack as using “cylindrical” cells, A123/Conti switched to prismatic over 6 mos ago.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Question for anyone, and if it was already answered in the past, I apologize for bringing it up again…
Will there be any option to REMOVE the generator when the owner knows it won’t be used? Maybe it’ll be too heavy, but if it were similar to a Honda portable generator, it could be possible, and reduce weight for added gain.
My $0.02. I’m happy to have the generator just sitting in there anyway if I can get 40+ miles on all my commuting days, but thought such an option might pacify those who feel this is too much extra weight to always be dragging around.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I think both suppliers should be kept and used. GM would be in real trouble if they picked one, then that supplier ran into financial or labor difficulties. It could really hurt deliveries. Plus if GM went back to the cancelled supplier, the price would be much higher…..
April 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Grizzly 29. Now I am going to assume that GM will be making the ICM able to burn E85 or Reg. Gas. I would think they would start with just reg. gas and offer the E85 as an option.. I myself would go with a 5 gallon take that uses reg gas. E85 Stations would mean that you would have to plan your long trips (to accomidate the E85 stations) with a lot more detail..
With my current vehicle I gas up every second day ( $40 - 50 ) now so just having the electric go for the first 40 - 50 miles would be great. I would not mind “filling up” for less than $ 20.00 and $1.00 - 3.00 (worst case) of electricity charging overnight.
Heck… even at $10.00 gas+ 3.00 electric/day would still be cheaper than what I am paying now… I could save $ 150.00/month just on gas.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Dwayne @ 13,
Don’t forget about the weight of the genset… The REEV has to carry around 400lbs worth of generator wherever it goes. Trading that for 400lbs worth of batteries or for a weight reduction might be a very reasonable thing in some cases. (Though the genset does turn the Volt into a general-purpose passenger car.)
Great news, though! I’m glad to hear that the packs are being appropriately torture-tested.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I wonder if GM might keep both suppliers of batteries and use the second supplier for other projects. After all they will be bring out more and more hybrid models over the next several years and they will need batteries. So perhaps even if they don’t end up in the volt they might still be able to utilize them.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Jim I #38,
I am sure GM will have multiple suppliers, the real issue I think is, will all batteries put in the Volt be identical in design and manufacture? That is why I said the following in #10:
”In order to have a consistent product and get production up to the necessary capacity, I would think GM would write the contract so that the selected supplier would cross license their product to other manufacturing facilities.”
This meaning that one battery design (whichever GM thinks best) would be manufactured by multiple suppliers.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
#27, #30, Noel:
I was very surprised to hear that weight is not “as much of an issue” last year. I read about this comment and listened to the interview several times, very carefully.
What it boils down to is this:
First, it was presumed that if weight was added to the car, it would be in the form of extra batteries, which would of course increase the range instead of decrease it.
Second, regen braking in a heavier car recovers more energy, so the extra weight is offset somewhat.
So unfortunately this comment from last year has been often repeated and misinterpreted. It does not mean that extra weight is inconsequential. And aero is of course exactly as important for the Volt as any other car. (Air doesn’t care what kind of drivetrain a car has.)
April 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
#42 Tom
Here is an excerpt from an article on the Volt.
“Before taking AutoblogGreen and others to the design studio on Monday, Frank Weber, the Vehicle Chief Engineer for the Volt, talked about the effect of aerodynamics and other factors on vehicle efficiency. Driver behavior is clearly a factor for both traditional and electric cars. Beyond that, on traditional cars, factors like mass, aero drag and rolling resistance come into play in that order. In testing and simulation GM has found that for electrically-driven vehicles mass actually drops to third on the list behind aerodynamics and electrical loads with rolling resistance coming in fourth.”
The rest of the article is here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/12/volt-aero-and-styling-touring-the-e-flex-design-studio-and-gm-w/
April 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
# 31 GM Volt Fan (with pending name change to Convective Cooling?)
The 10 x increase in anode capacity means the anode, which is about 1/3 of the total battery, can be reduced by a factor of 10. However, the other 2/3’s of the battery (cathode and electrolyte) are still at their same capability. So, one would only presume to decrease the battery size by about 30% when the anode is decreased by 90%. A 30% decrease would be a very good advance in battery technology as it equates to a 42% increase in energy capacity for a given size of battery.
However, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has announced a new cathode material that is safer and can store 50% more energy than the cathode material used in a typical laptop or cell phone battery, which are 40% more energetic than A123’s batteries but also not so stable nor as capable of handling large power bursts. If feasible (safe enough, powerful enough and cheap enough) for a PHEV or E-REV application, this material and the Stanford nanowire anode material would allow an approximate future doubling of the energy storage capability of the Volt battery.
“The electrode material can store 45 percent to 50 percent more energy than the best electrodes in laptop batteries. In terms of an entire battery cell–given that the positive electrode represents less than half of the total weight and volume of a battery cell–the total energy storage of the battery can be improved by 20 percent to 30 percent, Henriksen says. “
http://www.technologyreview.com/advertisement.aspx?ad=energy&id=30&redirect=%2FEnergy%2F20524%2Fpage1%2F%3Fa%3Df
April 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
It was interesting to listen to Rick Wagoner on a recent episode of Autoline Detroit with w/ John McElroy, they were discussing the Volt / Eflex.
Rick mentioned the challenges of ramping up production capability for the Volt’s pack, and it seems GM is still deciding how they’re going to do that. I would think that CPI may already have this capacity on their size alone, which makes me wonder if GM is leaning towards A123/Conti.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Computer-codger #43:
Although that sounds like a good idea, why should the winning company have to give out their proprietary design information to a competitor, especially if it is a superior design in such a new and competetive industry? If I had the better design, and that was the demand from GM, I would be sending out spec/quote sheets to every other car manufacturer in the world, to see what they had to offer.
I know, I know, license agreements. But contracts are only as good as the lawsuits that follow when there is a breach of contract. And who wins those? The attornies……..
From what I am reading, there is not much of a difference in the performance between the two designs. So let them both provide units in quantity. And as someone already said above, with the assumption that there will be several models using the E-REV design across all of GM’s divisions, they will need them anyway!
April 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
#47 Grizzly
Production volume may also serve as a reason to keep 2 battery suppliers. We can make too much of there being some difference in performance, as GM already delivers with tires from more than one source (a critical component too) and probably lots of other less visible components that differ slightly from vehicle to vehicle over the course of a model run.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Has anyone found a link, or posted a copy of Lyle’s interview yesterday on Fox Business News? I would like to see it!
Thanks.
April 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
#44 Tom:
Thank you very much.
April 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Saturn Flextreme aims at 444 milesStory Highlights
Saturn’s Flextreme has battery pack, 3-cylinder 1.3-liter turbo-diesel
Diesel engine used only to charge lithium-ion battery pack
Battery pack can go for 34 miles before diesel kicks in
With full tank, charged batteries, car may go 444 miles
April 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Saturn Flextreme … Looks at the Photo ! WOW !
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/01/14/saturn.flextreme/index.html
April 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Thanks Lyle,
I am glad to be a participant on this site. There is less internal resistance in an electric drivetrain than an internal combustion one. That is the major reason to build electric. GM, call me 239 410-8826….I do want my volt but a mule will do in the meantime. TED
April 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
RB #49
While that may be true, tires can be changed quite easily and don’t have to last 10 years through rigorous charge/depletion/climate cycles. There may very well be other parts that differ slightly from car to car but none as important in an EV as the source of power.
Jim I #50
It’s uploading to You Tube now, I should have a link soon.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Jim I #48,
I suspect that GM will need production capacity beyond what both companies can produce, and that should have been anticipated in the original contract that GM drew up. We don’t know but what the original agreement with both companies had language that requires a licensing arrangement with other manufacturers. This could have been a development contract where GM owns the design, if not the technology. That should have been part of their original competition agreement. I am sure GM has much contracting experience along these lines that protect their ability to get a new car into production. As has been stated in other threads, GM will have multiple suppliers, they can’t afford not to have multiple suppliers. What if the one source had a disaster that put them out of production?
I also can’t imagine that GM will install batteries with different capabilities in their Volt 1.0. If both batteries meet the exact same specification then there shouldn’t be any noticeable differences and they may use both suppliers. However, if there is some noticeable difference between the two after testing and one is noticeably better, GM surely will want the better battery still built by multiple manufacturers.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
For those that missed Lyle on Fox Business network, you can catch it here:
http://tinyurl.com/3zms8h
The quality isn’t the best given the rinky- tink way I pulled this from the DVR, but it should suffice.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Here’s a thought, one battery for the US market, and one for foreign markets. Assumes they are more or less equal. This would make the whole spare part system a lot simpler for dealers, etc.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
#56 Grizzly
Thanks for the video, Lyle is a really great ambassador. I would love to know how many times he has been mentioned in GM’s boardroom as a reason to keep going.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
NZDavid #58
Correct. Most people realize as do I that this thing could still be pulled by the very “room” you mention.
Whatever it takes to keep this thing going. It CANNOT die.
Cheers.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Wow, This is the best picture I have seen of the battery. I sure hope GM uses both A123 and LG. I think it would be a mistake to cut one of them loose. GO VOLT
April 8th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
56 Grizzly….
“For those that missed Lyle on Fox Business network, you can catch it here:
http://tinyurl.com/3zms8h ”
Great job! (I always have much worse results with You Tube)
April 8th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
#45 BillR,
Thanks so much for finding that article, I knew I’d seen somewhere a detailed explanation of why Aero means more to an EREV then to an Escalade, but I couldn’t find anything.
#44 Tom
Its not that weight is inconsequential, just that Aero is more so as the article details with regards to a lack of Aero slowing the car down for you rather then letting the regen brakes do it.
Thanks also to Bob Lutz for realizing that even though it bothers him as much as anybody (myself included) to lose the sharp muscle car look of the concept, that reshaping the Volt body had a huge ROI.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Grizzly #56:
Thanks! And the quality was just fine. I do think it was rude of Fox to cut over our fearless leader’s head with stock prices of GM while he was talking……………
And is it just me, or is Lyle starting to get much more comfortable doing interviews????????????
April 8th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
NZDavid #58 & Grizzly #59:
I think that if the mules work as well as the engineers think they will, it would be really tough to turn the lights out on this project. So we just have to see how that goes through the summer…
I think the final “go” decision would be a great announcement for the 100 year anniversay in mid September!!!!
April 8th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Some people here seem to think that electrics have to completely replace internal combustion engines instantly to be meaningful. Not so. First, anything takes time to adopt, even if there is massive desire for change. Production of 10,000 electrics a year sounds like a nice, easy first baby step. Second, in its present state, electric based transportation is best viewed as more of a complement than a substitute. That doesn’t mean there’s no market for it - quite the opposite, it’s a market expander. Electrics are far superior at most things than an internal combustion engine (ICE). ICEs excel at non-stop range and, currently, rapid refueling. The beauty of electrics is we need pretty much no change in our infrastructure or behavior to use them and the benefits (such as to national security) are immediate and can be accomplished by individual action. Buy an attractive, new electric vehicle and save a soldier’s life. Who knew that environmentalists were patriotic (hint: they care about handing over a relatively undamaged county to our descendants and recognize that a healthy environment makes for healthy people (or do you want increased health costs instead?))? As electric vehicle adoption become greater, we can slowly modify our infrastructure to best match actual transportation mixes changing over time, which will include a saturation of faster refueling options. Finally, rentals and multiple vehicles have their roles, now and in the future. Does everyone own a moving truck because they move once every few years. Why own a long range vehicle when you can rent a different one each year for your extended family vacation or other long distance road travel? Many people/families own both bicycles (and/or motorcycles) AND a car (and/or a truck), etc. Based on the average American’s schizophrenic driving habits, I would think that owning some variant of an electric vehicle (for errands and up to moderate commutes), leasing a battery, and renting a long range and/or heavy duty vehicle once in a while would work best.
For example you could rent a Lamborghini Murciélago once in a while, if you could, for fun, and tear around at top speed for an hour. Then, when you run out of gas, despite having a 26.4 gallon gas tank, your spouse could come pick you up in a Tesla Roadster, an electric car, which has a longer range than the Lambo and similar mid-range performance, despite having more than 300 horsepower less. See, complementary.
Yes, for now a Range Extended Electric Vehicle appears to make one vehicle do the best at completely different driving requirements. That one vehicle can do it better all around, an unnecessary restriction, compared to the current choices perfected over 100 years, makes it clear what a no-brainer it is to start manufacturing electric vehicles in general. Why, even Silicon Valley start-ups are doing it.
As an economist and consumer, what I like best is more choices. Electric based motion and energy carriers provides excellent opportunities to tailor different energy source/carrier blend options for marketing, as folks here have noted.
Who would have thought that the fundamentals of motive power choices would become marketing cream? People are excited about gearboxes now, for goodness sakes, which can only improve quality.
Yes, a strange but very wonderful world.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:38 am
There could be several reasons for GM to retain both battery suppliers:
The demand might outstrip the production capabilities of either batters supplier - they might need both!
They might decide to use the LG/CPI packs in the Asian and European E-Flex models, and use the A123/Cont packs for North and South American E-Flex versions.
If one is higer energy and the other higher power, they could use the high energy packs in longer EV range vehicles, and use the high pwer packs for ripping performance cars! Anyone for an E-Flex Corvette? E-Vette!
April 9th, 2008 at 1:39 am
64 Economist… well said. Moving forward, it will be difficult to justify using your volt to go pick up sheets of plywood to help build the addition to your house (or whatever…) but knowing that you don’t have to drive a full-size truck all the time makes perfect financial and ecological sense. Rent that U-Haul Silverado when you need it.
Also, even vehicles that run only via ICE’s are becoming more financially and ecologically friendly. We see cars getting 35-40 MPG more frequently, and the numbers continue to rise in most occasions. Even for those who chose not to buy a hybrid, there are other options on the showroom floors currently, that get MUCH better gas mileage than their 1998 Oldsmobile (or pick your older full-size vehicle here).
As options increase (even the Hybrid Tahoe), we see people choosing better options than what they had just two years ago. Heck, even making sure your current car is tuned up correctly and has a clean fuel system will do a part (albeit very small) towards reaching long term goals.
Noel…I have to ask. What type of cars do you race? Mag, Ti, and carbon are expensive, so I’m interested to know what you run. Our family runs a small NHRA race team so I had to ask. And yes, the tank is my car holds only 7.5 gallons and I’ll use about 4.5 per 1/4 mile, so we only fill it to 5.5. Keep that weight down in those ICE cars!
April 9th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Just to add a little to the debate on the Toyota Prius vs other cars, the Battery Vehicle Society run a test between a Diesel BMW5 and a Prius between London and and Geneva.
The movie of this test may be found here and guess what : the Prius didn’t won on the mileage.
Link : http://www.batteryvehiclesociety.org.uk/wordpress/?p=394
April 9th, 2008 at 8:03 am
What debate? Ignoring price & emission-rating and using selective numbers, it’s easy to greenwash. The same precedent you setup for the competition will later be used on Volt too. Be careful.
The 95,500 miles of real-world data from my PZEV clearly reveal the true story.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:33 am
John, #70
It is just a matter of choice for the consumers and a way of elaborating the good fiscal incentives. This video and report is just an additional piece of information for the citizen who wants to have a critical view on the advertizing of car companies.
I’m sure your PZEV beats both vehicles in the test.
JC
April 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am
#68 MLRTYME:
We run a 55 and a 58 Corvette in the vintage road races. We are also restoring a 1917 Chevrolet which was converted into a “speedster” in the early ’20s in honor of the 100th anniversary. It will have a 5 gallon fuel cell. We hope that it will get somewhat better mileage than the 265 and the 283 in our other cars.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
For months now I have been following the progress of the Volt, hoping GM (America) will reap the rewards of their efforts into this “Next Generation” vehicle. Unlike in the past, the public may now be ready to buy electric vehicles because of $4.00/gal gas. Marketing the Chevy Volt will be much easier and more convincing to the public than during the EV-1 timeframe. I’ve been set on buying one even if it cost above $30,000. Kinda my way of spittin tobacca juice in the eyes of Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc. for the high dollar crude. PLUS, I would like to see an American car company excell in America. (Silly, huh.) But, today I had the wind kicked out of me after stumbling on some posts suggesting that GM will build the Chevy Volt in China. This is exactly what I will not support. I want to see America get turned around in my lifetime. I’m tired of seeing “Made in China” on everything. Please GM, say it isn’t so.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am
#73 Jerry:
As I can see the handwriting on the wall re delivery of the Volt, I started thinking about getting another, better mileage, car to bridge over. There are quite a few rumors about the 2009 Cobalt - restyled, possible 6 speed automatic and possible 1.4L turbo engine. Made in Lordstown, Ohio. All good.
Then I saw the news that 2009 Cobalt production will be moved to Mexico.
Non-starter.
A lot of folks here have reminded me that many “Japanese” cars are manufactured in the US, using American workers. I have always said, “No way, Japanese profits go back to Japan.” Now we have the spectacle of “American” cars being built overseas with overseas workers. What is a Chevy loyalist to do? Is it more important to have US jobs, or profits for US corporations? Does it make any sort of useful statement to drive around in a car with a bowtie on the front which was made in Korea? Alas!!!
April 16th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
#74 Noel
Yep, I’ve heard all that, too. It’s like they can’t see the forest for the trees. At 55, I remember when them “Japanese” cars were few and far between in the Roanoke, VA area. I also remember listening to many disgruntled friends saying, “I’m tired of poor quality American cars. Japanese cars are better.” Now think back to Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, etc. and tell me who won the war afterall. It’s one of those, “You reap what you sow” examples for what the “Buy Foreign” mentality has done to GM, Ford, Chrysler… America.
I know the Toyota / Honda plant(s) in the US employ Americans but you’re right, the leftover $$ go back to the homeland. Let’s convert those plants (and the employees) to 2009 Cobalt and Chevy Volt facilities. Nahhh, let’s don’t…all this foreign stuff is good for competition…gives us more selection…weeds out the weak American companies that pay their workers too much.
Well, I’ve said too much…this really isn’t the forum for this, so I apologize. I guess it all started with the Chevy Volt possibly being “Made in China”. Ohhh!! The thought of it!!!