Volt Gas Tank Shrunk - Maximum Range Reduced
When the Chevy Volt concept was first introduced it included a pair of 6 gallon tanks. At 50 mpg (under ICE range extension mode) this resulted in the car having an overall 640 mile maximum range.
Over time, as engineers have developed the car’s final internal layout, as per Volt lead engineer Andrew Farah, it became apparent that there really was no need to carry 12 gallons of gas.
The concept actually had two six gallon saddle-type tanks, These have been removed in exchange for a single tank at the rear. Although Mr. Farah wouldn’t confirm exactly how many gallons it would contain, he said maximum range would be about 400 miles. Later, VP Jon Lauckner told me would be under 400 miles.
At this point I surmise the tank will hold between six and seven gallons, which should lead to a 340 to 390 mile total range. The tank is actually box-shaped, wider at the top than bottom. I was able to see it on the 3-D virtual reality screen (that’s not it in the graphic above).
Debating how much total range is needed usually evolves into questioning how long can people hold their bladders on long trips and that fact that gas stations are particularly abundant.
We also know that some EV enthusiasts hope to never use gas at all. Thats OK, because I’m told the car will indeed run without any!
Does the maximum range really matter to you?
Popularity: 5%
(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5) 
Loading ...
April 11th, 2008 at 7:20 am
300 miles is more than enough, in my opinion. In the east, you could drive across multiple states with that much range! This is a smart move on GM’s part since that much fuel is unnecessary as well as very heavy. About 6 or 7 pounds per gallon?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Makes no difference to me. 90 percent of the time my travel will be right at the 40 mile range anyway. I just hope I live long enough to get one.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I posted this in the last thread, but… My only preference for the longer range would be to fill up only with E85. I understand there’s still some controversy around that fuel, but I’m hoping with cellulosic ethanol developments, the controversy disappears and I can be virtually gasoline free, even on long trips.
As a result of this, I’m just hoping the engine will be FlexFuel so I can do E85 when possible and gasoline when it’s not available.
I also heard (but have not confirmed) that Ethanol is less problematic when it comes to not running an engine often. If true, this would lend itself nicely to the Volt.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I really liked the 640 mile range, 400 hundred would be pretty good, I just hope it isn’t to far under 400.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I was hoping for a lagrer tank so that I can use the Volt for a long running generator during an extended power outage (I realize some modifications will be necessary since the first Volts will not offer the generator option).
A smaller tank is probably more practical on shorter trips so that the expansive gasoline doesn’t go steal.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I frequently make a run from my home in southern California to Phoenix, 370 miles, door to door, and so a range of 400 miles works for me. My 96 Avallon has a 450 mile range (15 gallons @ 30 MPG highway). And so I would like to see the 7 gallon or even an 8 gallon tank. I make my pit stops at rest stops where I can take a short walk and look at the country, not gas stations. Just my 2 cents worth.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I think the smaller tank the better. It will encourage people to plug it in, reducing oil consumption. I like the idea.
Besides, some jackass trial attorney will invent a lawsuit that will charge GM with negligence for creating a car that doesn’t require a driver to stop a car for 700 miles. How tired would you be after driving a car after 700 straight miles? Do the math, and I’d bet likelihood for accidents increases greatly, and GM would be the deep pocket.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:36 am
600 was too generous, but much under 400 would start to be a annoying. I own a Pontiac that has a 525 mile range when it’s full, and that is a nice fature. I can make long trips and fill up once.
400 is a good number. 375 or less and I’m starting to think about why they did that.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:37 am
feature. sorry.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Smart move if only for the psychological feeling you get when filling up. Hummm. 6 gallons X $4.00 for a gallon of gas is only $24! Yeah, when the guy next to you spits out, “I just spent 100 to fill my darn SUV!” You can reply, “Yeah, I just filled mine up too and it almost cost me $25! If I have to ever put $25 bucks into my tank I’m going to sell this piece this thing and get me a full on EV!” Then you can watch out of the corner of your eye as his jaw hits the pavement. Priceless.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:43 am
I can accept this change, most of my current commute is less than 40 miles round trip, and most of my major drives are less than 300 miles round trip.
Johnnie
April 11th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I’m one of the people who will use the ICE very little. Having less fuel will mean that I will have less old gas in the tank to worry about. But I’m buying stock in STA-BIL fuel stabilzer
April 11th, 2008 at 7:54 am
My present vehicle, a minivan, that I use for out-of-town gets 500 miles between fill-up and the “fuel low” warning light. This has allowed me to take advantage of the best fuel price in my area and by-pass higher gas prices while traveling.
I liked the Volt’s initial 640 mile range but can live with the 400 mile range.
Others have commented about “stale” gas, so having a smaller gas tank may mean there will be less of a problem with stale gas.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:56 am
#10 Texas, Spot on brother! It KILLS me to run into that stupid $75 limit on the pump and have to feed my credit card a second time to finish filling up. The psychlogical impact of needing only $15 to fill up will be huge!
April 11th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Lyle’s right –gas tank size is all about how long you can hold your bladder. I’ve lived both in California & in Florida most of my life and have driven I-10 between LA & I-95 many times. It’s hard to average 50mph even on I-10 & at 50mpg w/6 gals that’s 6 hours. Even with a cast iron bladder, my legs need to be stretched at least that often.
So a 300mi range (6 gal tank) is OK, especially if the Volt’s dash has an emergency override switch so if you run out of gas & the battery is at only 30%, you can still get another few miles to the next station. And on long trips you can also carry a 2gal tank in the trunk.
Like Eric in #3, however, I’m also hoping the engine will be FlexFuel so I can do E85 when possible and gasoline when it’s not available.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:15 am
640 mile range is definitely an attention grabber–no question, but in final analysis, 350-400 mile range should be sufficient in reality. That is roughly the range of my Grand Cherokee currently, and we have always gotten along. The only way I could possibly see this as a detriment would be if someone was driving a 15 year old Volt with a depleted battery pack where the little gas engine needs to run constantly to propel the car. But that sort of scenario is a ways off.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I do hate to lose the range. from my house to Branson, Mo is about 430 miles. I’d too would rather stop and rest at some of the great rest areas along Hiway 400 in kansas, or Beaumont cafe, or at Bass Pro in Springfield.
Rather, i’d like to have the saddle tanks with the ability to switch between tanks, maybe leaving one tank empty for normal commutes, but leaving the max range available.
But at this point i’ll just be glad to have a Volt, regardless of max range.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Let’s also admit to the unpleasant possibility that the new gas tank is 8-9 gallons and extended range MPG is more like high-30s to mid-40s instead of the original 50 MPG goal.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:26 am
“But at this point i’ll just be glad to have a Volt, regardless of max range.”
Same for me, thanks for the wording Cantjam #17.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Good! Less stale gas to worry about. Here’s a link for E-85 refueling.
http://www.e85refueling.com/
April 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am
The more i think about this . . .
you know, i think this tank thang is part of the “let’s use existing tech to save money, maximize development time and lessen future complications” mind set.
Most of use have had to replace an electric fuel pump. What if we had two of those things to pay to replace? I’ve driven GM cars long enough that i remember using a feeler gauge to hold up the actuation rod in order to replace the mechanical fuel pump on the 350 c.i. engines. ‘Like stone knives and bear-skins, man!
At this point i’m for seeing the maximum of technology costs going to the electronic controls and batteries and maintaining a K.I.S.S mindset on the rest!
April 11th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I’m fine with anything. The only long trip I could see using it for is Chicago area to upper Minnesota (600ish) and even with my Civic Hybrid we still stop about 1/2-2/3rd of the way to fill up. Even with only a 350-400 range this would still be a one fill up trip.
The concern I have (misplaced or not… I don’t know) is the gas in the tank not being used much. If you fill it up and rarely use the ICE, in theory the gas could last you months and months. Is there any problems with it just sitting there? I’ve heard that diesel has problems when sitting for a long time but I don’t know about regular gas.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I think the 600+ range was a great PR gimic, people said wow when they heard that. If I wasn’t using Electric I’d want at least 300, but the truth is that every day you get a fresh 50 so even if you run a lot you won’t be going to the gas station very much.
I think they should change the name from range to something else. You don’t hear the range for ICE cars and I think giving a range makes people think that it’s a hard limit. As in, “after 300 miles you have to charge it.”
They shouldn’t give a ‘range’ at all, and instead should go back to what ICE states and say a tank of gas in the generator will last for 300 miles between refills or something that makes it clear that it’s not a shut down point, just a pause.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I prefer the longer range, but I can live without it. It would be nice to be able to go 3 weeks without ever having to visit a gas station, even if I’m not plugging it in at night. Of course I usually will be, but it is disappointing to lose another feature that I was excited about.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:47 am
The tank they’re going to put on the Volt is pressurized so that the gas in the tank stays good longer than a normal tank would. I’m not sure how long that is, but I imagine it’s for quite a while.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am
“VP Jon Lauckner told me would be under 400 miles”
I’m going to assume a range of 350 miles, for discussion purposes.
With the Bob Lutz AER value of 50 miles mentioned at VoltNation, this equates to only 300 miles on gasoline. This means for a long trip, the second tankful only gets you 300 miles (with no battery recharge).
From what I can gather from this site:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
E85 will only yield about 75% of the range that gasoline will. Therefore, at the start of the day with E85 and a charged battery, your range will be 275 miles. The next tankful will only provide 225 miles of range.
Of course, these ranges may be based on full utilization of the fuel in the tank, and typically, most people stop to fill up before the tank is empty, so one question becomes “Does the range as mentioned include any reserve?”
The second question I have is will the ICE be compatible with E85? At one time the answer was no, but I haven’t heard any verification lately one way or the other. (At one time, the ICE was planned to have direct injection, but someone from the VoltNation event mentioned port fuel injection, so that is a separate question for the ICE).
April 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The nice thing about the 12 gallon tanks is that you don’t have to use them if you don’t need them and the empty weight is negligible. It is my understanding that the ICE in the Volt will be E85 capable and given GM’s plans for the proliferation of cellulosic E85 it should go w/o saying.
http://tinyurl.com/55jq9w
The problem with E85 is that it doesn’t provide the mileage of gasoline and therefore the 400 mile range might be down to about 250-300 with the smaller tank.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:17 am
GM’s rationale for eliminating one of the two saddle tanks makes sense, but I wonder if it was also done to reduce the weight of the Volt, or because other components are heavier than planned, Either way, it would be interesting to know if the weight savings will have any impact on the range of the Volt when operating on its battery, only.
I do wish that GM would consider an option for either a diesel or natural gas-powered ICE to improve fuel economy, rather than petrol. I suppose ethanol would also be viable, though as has been noted, it’s a poor substitute for petrol in terms of fuel economy.
In any event, apart from a few trips each year to San Diego from Huntington Beach, I expect to use my Volt in all-electric mode most of the time. So, the ~ 350 mile range is fine.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:18 am
It’s not a 400 mi range though! The only time you will really feel this change imo is on long trips. That’s fine for me because you EXPECT to be fueling up on long trips. It’s part of it. Deal with it.
What gets me is having to fuel up once a week (as I almost currently do) just doing normal everyday driving. My car currently gets around 320 something mile range (it’s an old car which only gets 19mpg, I’m poor) and I deplete that in about 10 days easy, sometimes less. That’s 32 miles a day. This means charging it up nightly I won’t be fueling up at all. What’s my range then? It’s not 400mi I’ll tell you that!
Person B drives 50 miles a day on average. This means each day he burns up 10 miles worth of gas. This means he’ll have to fuel up after 40 DAYS! He goes over a month easy without visiting a gas pump! His range is 2,000 miles!
60 miles a day on average: 20 miles a day of gas.
20 days without fueling. Range of 1,200 miles.
70 miles a day on average: 30 miles a day of gas.
~13 days without fueling. Range of 930 miles.
80 miles a day on average: 40 miles a day of gas.
10 days without fueling. Range of 800 miles.
100 miles a day on average: 60 miles a day of gas.
~7 Days without fueling. Range of 660 miles.
200 miles a day on average: 160 miles a day of gas.
2 1/2 days without fueling. Range of 500 miles.
The only time you’ll only get 400 mile range is when you go on long trips in one day. I’m cool with that. I’d be cool with something less, but hopefully it won’t be less then 400 just because. Let me know if my math is way off.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
It’s important for people to feel that they’re not giving up something in order to drive electric. If many current cars have more than 400 mile range, then the having less would make potential Volt buyers pause.
What percentage of current cars have greater than 400 mile range?
April 11th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Well, if the statement that we make by buying a Volt is, “we are getting away from gasoline”, then a 300 mile range should be no problem.
Currently, if you fill up driving cross country, it’s pretty unlikely you’ll find an E85 pump( though who knows in 3 years). So, according to #25, BillR’s site, the 2nd leg of the trip will get you 20-30% further (not E85).
Still, it doesn’t matter to me, but I believe the car would have less appeal to the public if its range was less than 300 miles.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Normal cars do 400. In my current lifestyle (commuting 340 miles every other weekend with scarce/expensive fuel along the way), this is a limitation. My Volkswagen Jetta TDI goes a bit farther on a tank of fuel[0], which is a big deal for me!
However, once I can convince her to move in with me, then the single-tank range will not be such a big deal for me. I expect that to happen long before the Volt is available[1].
[0] I get 450-500 miles — I can’t bring myself to drive like a hypermiler in heavy Interstate traffic at night.
[1] One implication of this lifestyle change is that I won’t need a high-efficiency alternative-fuel vehicle quite so badly — so I’d be more interested in an E-Flex and/or (bio)diesel powered compact pickup truck for household projects. The Volt will still be an awesome option, but only as an end-of-life replacement for the Jetta.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
When I first heard that the fuel tank(s) would be 12-gal, I was sort of surprised. I do agree that a shorter range is quite acceptable. I also like 17. Cantjam’s suggestion about having two tanks, only using one during shorter commutes with the option to engage the second for longer commutes.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:07 am
40 Miles on Electric (when new I would suspect closer to 50 - 60 under normal driving….Right GM ?) then another 300 or so miles… I will take it.. I would be in the 80 miles per day average… and I would be saving at LEAST $150 - $ 200 / Month just on fuel alone…at today’s prices. I could add the savings to the monthly payment and be able to go up to $ 45 - 48 K to get this car…..but still hoping it is going to stay in the 35 - 40 K Range…
Edmonton, Alberta Canada… When Can I expect delivery of my Black Volt (with all the options) ??
April 11th, 2008 at 10:09 am
We routinely drive 700 to 900 miles per day when travelling. When driving in the Western states, looking for fuel every 300 miles could be somewhat inconvenient. Among other things, it means you may be forced to fill up where gas is expensive (Eastern example: NY Thruway) or make extra top-off stops to fill where it’s less.
Remember, you can’t drive until the tank empties, you have to start thinking about fuel before you run out and consider the circumstances. If your range is 360 miles and you arrive at the last convenient station for the next 100 miles with 270 miles behind you, you stop. If your range is 460 miles and you arrive at the last convenient or cheap station for the next 100 miles with 270 miles behind you, you can sail right by (I’d stop, anyway, probably).
We’ve been some places where 500-mile range was cause for concern.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I was looking forward to the 600 mi range. My Honda Civic Hybrid, currently get’s between 500-550. My daily commute is 180 mi roundtrip. So by reducing the range, I have to fill up one more time a week. On the east coast, this type of commute is unfortunately becoming common. There are many people working in the outlying areas where the trains are not reliable that have to drive further in to either catch a train that works with their schedule or just drive all the way, like I do. The original range was the best though, not just because of being able to go a long way, but as a hedge against the rising price of oil for those that make commutes slightly larger than the 40 mi electric range. Say you have a commute that is 60 mi round trip. with a 600 mi range, you are only using 20 mi of gas a day, which extrapolates out into a month and a half before you have to refuel. Then again, if there is a trade-off where the reduced weight from less tank size and less gas in the tank gives you about 10 more mi’s of electric, then I say it’s a good thing, for the same reasons, but unfortunately, I don’t think the trade off was made for those reasons. The trade off was probably made to allow room for some other fancy piece of heavy equipment that will keep the electric range down to 40 mi.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Sorry, but the reduced range really sucks! I live in SW Florida just a couple miles from I-75 exit 123. With the reduced range, I would have to stop for gas while still in Florida instead of Georgia I-75 exit 2 where the gas is ALWAYS cheaper than in Florida.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:13 am
What GM is really losing is another great marketing angle. While in reality it means little, pyschologically “range” means a lot for a public who grew up being told “more & bigger is better” no matter what it is.
Do note that the range takes a bigger hit when you do need that range… your initial range (hopefully it you plugged it in) includes 40-50 miles of pure battery range…. so your return trip your range will be that much less (unless you have a place and the time to plug-in to recharge).
And fwiw, it sounds like space is the issue, not weight, for the total volume of the tank(s).
Once I went from Southern NH to Chapel Hill NC in 11 hours (including one very reasonably priced speeding ticket in VA) with only one re-fillup (and only bathroom break) in MD. I was in my 20’s then so maybe an extra bathroom break would be needed now. Especially if travelling with any woman who has given birth… their bladders never seem to recover fully.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I remember going on cross-country vacations in my dad’s Chevy truck (454)/cab-over camper. He had an auxillary tank installed because he wanted more range for those trips. I’ll bet that somebody could develop after-market auxillary tanks for the Volt, if you really wanted to have more range. I guess you’d lose trunk space though. 400 miles is fine for me, since most (all?) of my trips will be less than 400 miles.
It would be great if one car did it all for everybody. But, that is not realistic. Compromises need to be made. The first major E-REV needs to address general needs across the market. Future E-REVs will allow for more diviersified choices; speed power, size, appearance, terrain, range, even more fuel efficiency, etc.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:25 am
In my case, I’ll use more dry gas and additives to try and keep the gasoline from turning into laquer.
Eighteen miles to the office, plug in and eighteen miles back home, plug in again for the next morning.
Thank you very much !!!
April 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Charlie H, you bring up an ongoing question that I haven’t heard (though it may have been given) yet….
Will the Volt’s computer let you access (use) that 30% (4.8kwh?) state of charge left in the battery when it normally switches in the generator, when one runs out of gasoline (or the hopefully never happens case that the ICE fails)? Ie. so you can use it to get to a gas station?
Of course the problem with that is that it should only be for use in such an “emergency”… but it could of course be abused and someone could deliberately keep letting the battery go below 30% state of charge to get more battery only range, which I assume would reduce the life of the battery pack. A fix for that could be to do what my Volvo does now, when you are in that state put the vehicle in “limp home” mode… ie. reduce power and max speed to 35mph. It’s a pain driving in that mode, but you can get somewhere instead of being stuck on the side of the road.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:27 am
That is more than enough range, and isn’t that about the average range of most cars that get 20-30mpg with at 12-15 gallon tank?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Maximum range on a tank of gas isn’t important, when rapid refill is available. Minimum range is important, as you don’t want to fill up too frequently, so just under 400 miles works.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
As has been mentioned, space is probably more the issue than weight in GM’s decision. If gasoline becomes scarce from OPEC problems or whatever, I like the idea that you can fill up locally on E85 and make the round trip w/o ever stopping for gas.
Who knows, maybe Gen2 will offer 12gal capacity as one of the improvements.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
From a practical standpoint, this makes alot of sense. Personally, I don’t expect to be using much gasoline anyway, so it won’t really affect me.
However: The range of the Volt was what impressed me about the car when I first read about it a year or so ago. I think it was because the general impression of plug in vehicles is that they have such a short range. When I tell people about the Volt (on my educational mission) the response is often “yeah, but how far will it go”? When they get the unexpected answer “640 miles,” they’re impressed and a interesting discussion ensues about the REAL breakthrough of the car: the electric only range. Because it is the range that is really such a sticking point with the general consumer, a little overkill isn’t a bad idea.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I think GM ought to go with a 400 mile range for Volt 1.0 … to be on the safe side. I wonder what the weight difference between a 300 mile tank and a 400 mile tank would be anyway? Probably not much.
Maybe they can make the tank out of thermoplastic carbon fiber or something. I hope they can get as much cheap carbon fiber and other lightweight materials for the Volt as possible … er, as long as it doesn’t jack the price up too much.
We need to root for those carbon fiber companies to get super successful so the price of their stuff goes down. Boeing and Airbus are buying a lot of carbon fiber for their newest planes, so maybe they’ll build huge factories and it’ll get cheaper in 3-5 years. I agree with efficiency expert Amory Lovins about those lightweight materials. They could make a HUGE difference if they get cheap enough.
New Volt owners will eventually realize that every bit of extra weight in the car is going to affect the all electric range to some degree. If people see that they aren’t using the IC engine very much during the year, they ought to leave about 2-3 gallons in the tank. It won’t be economical to be driving around with heavy stuff like toolboxes and other work equipment either.
Maybe by 2015 or so, the batteries will be so good, we won’t have to worry about weight vs. all electric range as much. Hopefully, by then the batteries will charge up pretty quick and give you 100-200+ miles. The IC engines will get smaller probably. They’ll be there as an optional thing if you anticipate not being able to plug in somewhere. They might even make them so small you can take them out of the car and leave them in the garage to save weight … like a portable Honda generator.
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/gensup.asp
I bet it’s going to happen. It’s just a matter of time. The world has some ingenious scientists and engineers out there. We really are in the Model T stage of this electric car revolution. At least the big car companies are actually DOING IT in a big way instead of all this …. “in five years … ” speculation we’ve been hearing for the past 10-20 years. 40-50 miles of all electric range is going to be awesome. We’ll be grateful to get that much. That’s plenty of cheap, all electric driving for most people in a day.
People will need to get themselves some sort of charging system that makes charging the car a ridiculously easy part of their day … without even thinking about it. People forget to charge up their cell phones and laptops all the time you know. I’m hoping that somebody comes up with a charging system where all you have to do is roll the front tires over a hump like at a car wash and a light comes on in the dash that says “set to charge later” or “charging now” or whatever.
Even better would be these automatic WIRELESS charging systems that are coming out for power tools and cell phones, etc. You could just pull into the garage OR the driveway and a light comes on in dash saying “charging now” or “set to charge later”. It doesn’t get more “no brainer” than that. People wouldn’t even have to think about charging the car up. Maybe someday the wireless charging range will get good enough for people in apartment parking lots and office building parking towers. Who knows?
http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/04/ada_company_develops_wireless.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiTricity
http://www.technologyreview.com/player/08/03/MagTR10Soljacic/1.aspx
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=emerging08&id=20248
It seems all sorts of things that we once thought are impossible are becoming possible these days. In 20-30 years, we might be looking like the people on the Star Trek TV shows. Apple might have Star Trek style iPhones with real time HD videophone technology in a few years for all we know. They are already talking about having holographic video (like in Star Wars) for the next generation Internet … which of course will have huge amounts of bandwidth. You could visit your parents more often holographically someday.
Check out this video about “smart materials” with this top GM engineer. These smart materials look like something the government “reverse engineered” from a crashed alien spaceship in Roswell or something. Amazing stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU-dChOfkAg
http://www.jumpthecurve.net/index.php/recent_posts/the_future_of_the_automobile/
April 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I’m fine with it. I think that nasaman got it right at #15 Matthew also makes some excellent points at #28. As did Lyle in his post, come to think of it.
Maybe there is a way to use similar methodology to that used to calculate average commute to analyze average bladder range. In California there are no where near enough rest stops to suffice, and they are so randomly placed that there are huge stretches between some of them.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Why would I need to go over 600 miles? Who in the world besides truckers can drive for 8 hours without stopping?
If it was an EV only vehicle, then the range would be important, but since gas stations are everywhere, as long as you can go a few hundred miles on gas that is way MORE than you really need. 300 is just fine with me and I’d be happy to see that I can fill up for only 15-20 bucks.
Geoff
April 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
IMO anything more than 350 miles is a waste of space in a car the size of the Volt.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
People get nit-pickey, but in the end we just need to see the important thing that is getting accomplished here.
Finally someone figured out what Detroit Electric Car company knew back in 1907.
The drive train is ELECTRIC!
(70 mile range on Lead-Acid Batteries non-the-less)
This opens the door to many different battery/charging technologies. Maybe the aftermarket can come up with solar panel add-ons, different generator/fuel options, battery upgrades, etc…
Who knows, maybe in a few years a new battery technology will be invented that will extend your non-fuel using range to 1000 miles.
Hell, maybe someone will invent a “Mr. Fusion” that will run on old banana skins and garbage.
For now though, a system that gets a similar range as most other cars in its class should be sufficient. My stupid SUV only goes about 200-250 miles on one tank.
I would be ecstatic to get 400.
Now, if someone will just come up with an inexpensive electric motor retrofit kit for my Durango…
April 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
After some more thought, I believe this probably became a packaging issue.
If you look at the concept chassis (from Lyle’s gallery), the twin tanks were located near the “T” intersection of the battery pack.
http://gm-volt.com/galleries/album/72157603653293621/photo/2173006858/Chevy-Volt-2007-Chevrolet-Volt-Concept-Chassis.html
Since this layout was created, we know that the battery packs now include a “notch” below the “T” to allow for a structual member to pass through (side crash stiffener). This may have compromised the fuel tank design as shown.
In addition, my “scaled” side picture of the concept vehicle indicates a wheel base of about 125″. The Volt’s wheelbase will be less than the new Malibu, which is about 112″. Therefore, I theorize that they ran out of space for the fuel tank(s) in the area in front of the “T”.
The next logical choice was behind the battery pack “T”, where the muffler is shown on the concept’s chassis. This is a compromise between tank volume and interior luggage space.
I liked having extra range for all the reasons mentioned, longer trips, better choice of places to stop (lower cost gas), longer range needed in more remote areas (try and find an open gas station after 10 pm in many small towns). However, for Volt 1.0, this will be acceptable.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The vast majority of people in the country will only be concerned about the maximum range of any car once or twice a year. I go from Detroit to Grand Rapids with my family once a year and that is about the longest trip I usually take.
We shouldn’t be getting our panties in a bunch over something that is only going to be an issue less than 1% of the time for most people. I agree with Geoff #47, if it were pure EV this would be a much bigger problem, but with an E-REV you can always just FILL IT UP IF IT GETS LOW!!!!
The only real concern I see with a reduction in max range is public perception, GM could deal with this in advertisment relatively easily. Focusing on the fact that you save thousands in gas over the year is more than enough of a trade off for having to make an extra stop on a long trip.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Makes no difference to me. I don’t know many people that can drive for that long anyway.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
GM Volt Fan #45
Great video. I want to upgrade to the changing angle spoiler!
Also, note Trend #9: Neurotechnology. Perhaps in his spare time (ha, ha) Lyle could help out in the new field.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
It looks like some more information about the Volt is trickling out about the Volt from the press:
http://www.nationalpost.com/life/driving/story.html?id=436590
It looks like the Volt will probably have P215/55R17 tires on it. Hopefully, GM will get some good prices from the top tire manufacturers like Michelin and Goodyear and get the Volt some super “low rolling resistance” tires for it that will increase those all electric miles. Ones that are low noise and are decent in rain and snow. They don’t need to be super gripping racing tires. People could get those at the dealer if they want those.
Here’s what Michelin has available in P215/55R17 size now:
http://www.michelinman.com/tires/luxury-performance-touring/energy-mxv4-s8/84172/#footnote-1
Maybe Michelin will have even better ones available by Nov. 2010. Maybe they’ll have some sort of nanotech ultra low rolling resistance tires available by then.
http://www.specialchem4polymers.com/resources/latest/displaynews.aspx?id=3075
https://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/print/175875666.html
It would be great if the Volt could (inexpensively) have some sort of tire pressure monitor electronics too. Tire pressure is going to be important for those “all electric range” miles you know.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
My gasoline consumption for my weekly driving habits will be less that two gallons per week, so I will still be able to go almost a month before having to go to a gas station, instead of every 9 or 10 days now.
This is a non issue for me.
And lets not forget that the car is designed primarily as a commuter vehicle, with the capability of making longer trips………..
April 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I think there is a more obvious reason for the small tank…
Higher MPG claims.
40 mile ev plus small tank = higher MPG
as opposed to
40 mile ev plus large tank = lower MPG
I personally like the larger capacity because my time is valuable. I don’t want to stop at the gas station unless I have to.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I was appalled at 300, when I realized on long trips thats about my sitting limit. Therefore for me it is a non-issue. I guess I was like a couple other readers and thought that 53KWs charged the batter to 90ish % and ran the car too. Not the case??
April 11th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
300 miles is plenty. Filling up every 4 hours on a trip couldn’t be considered too often by any but the most picky.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
#27 Bernie Torbik
I agree on diesel needing to be a near term option. With the E-flex design they claim to be able to easily swap out the ICE to other engines, unfortunately there have been no mentioning (that I have seen) of when those alternatives will be sold. I for one would definitely be willing to wait on buying a new car till 2012 if it meant getting a diesel model.
Also agree with mentioning that E-85 is even less efficient then gas, which is less efficient then diesel. I really wish we could drop ethanol from the discussion of alternative energy, until a better crop then corn became mainstream the massive subsidies really appears to be nothing more then kickbacks to the agra-industry.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The smaller tanks bites, IMO. I have to use gas as I travel 51 miles one way, 5 days a week. I have been telling people that this car will travel 640 miles before needing to stop and by gas. Now it will be under 400 miles. If I am able to charge twice a day, I should be able to use less than a gallon of gas. If true, I will still have buy gas about every week and half or so. I would rather have the bigger tank.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
#58 2Snowboard:
Amen on the ethanol issue.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I can certainly understand their concern that gas left in the tank could go bad. I’ve even checked on gas stabilizers as a possible
item I would buy. In thinking about it, I estimated thatduring the past 12 months, if I had owned a Volt, I doubt whether I would have used over 7 gallons of fuel. I believe the best plan will be to only keep 1 to 2 gallons in the tank and then add if a trip is planned.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
My current car (Hyundia Elantra) will go 430 miles before I start sweating about walking. The Elantra has a 14.5 gallon tank, I believe.
I see that many of you need to stop on long trips. I only stop when the car needs gas. Then I do the other stuff at the same time.
I was looking forward to 640 miles before needing to purchase gas.
I am disappointed and hope this changes before the car comes out.
I see no reason to cut the “range” in half.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Doesn’t make a difference to me, I plan to use as little gas as possible when I own this vehicle.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I’d like to be able to pull out a emergency solar panel to charge up
just to get to the next gas station.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Oh…look there… another gas station….. and another one… Lighten up folks…. The Volt is not being designed to be a Long distance/ cross country hauler… It is being built so that your FIRST 40 - 50 miles will be electric…Longer trips up to 300 miles… so what if you have gas up (20 25 bucks0 to do the trip… at 50 MPG… it is still a super deal compared to all the gas guzzling SUV’s..
April 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
600+ mile range was very generous, but when I was younger I wanted a car with 1000+ mile range and I would have driven to my destinations non-stop.
It would have been nice to have another bragging point of the longest range of any car sold…now it’s about like any other car and you can’t drive for more than a few hours non-stop.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
78% of ALL trips are less than 40 miles
85% are less than 50 miles
90% are less than 60miles
93% are less than 70 miles!
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/06/how-did-gm-determine-that-78-of-commuters-drive-less-than-40-miles-per-day/
A smaller fuel tank simply means that there is less gas in the tank to go bad. They should also install an easy to access emergency fuel drain plug. Good job, GM!!
April 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I’m fine with the 400 mile range. The only reason I like my Volvo’s 450+ mile range (large tank, not great milage) is that I only need to fill up about once a month. That will not be an issue since I will “fill up” on electricity nightly in my normal usage.
Anything much under 400 miles would be inconvienient when the volt was taken on long trips.
I also agree with the need to base this 400 mile range on E85 fule consumption rates.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Tim # 69
You beat me to it. I’ve drained many tanks and it’s a pain.
“EASY ACCESS” is the key words.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Hey, GM can always add a bigger tank on later models either, when they realize that a 16 kWh battery pack is not required to guarantee a 40-mile AER after 10 years or, when 16 kWh battery packs become smaller through technical advances
April 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
350 or 400 is fine with me. I plan on only using electric anyhow (leave 8 miles from work). Besides my current car I get about 300 miles on a tank of gas anyhow. So 350 - 400 is more then I am getting now.
I’m sure it’s not enough to even add up to anything, but using a 6 gallon tank instead of two 6 gallon tanks saves money and weight in regards to the car.
I’m used to going 300 miles in my car and 400 miles in my wife’s car. So 350 - 400 miles is fine with me. There really no need to have a 600 mile range gas tank.
If you consider your going 60mph and you travel 600 miles that would take 10 hours. If you go 60mph and you travel 360 miles that would take 6 hours.
Does it matter if you have to get gas every 6 hours or every 10 hours? The average probably gets gas every 6 hours of straight travel anyhow. So it doesn’t really matter to me 6 hours vs. 10 hours. I’m use to going 6 hours so it’s fine if it stays 6 hours.
Now over the years as the battery technology gets better I expect that time to increase. (Maybe some day we will see 24 hours of travel time)
But anyhow …………. 350 - 400 miles is fine with me.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
#55 GM Volt Fan
Thanks for the link regarding the Volt and its tire size.
Just for your information, the EV-1 had a tire pressure monitoring system.
http://www.eanet.com/ev1-club/evpics.htm
April 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Fuel is heavy and if you can gain a bit more distance while on battery power with less gas onboad, 400 miles is a great number. If the engine had to run for a short distance, that also would be good for it. As for me I see no problem with the way GM is doing it.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Fuel adds weight, and takes up precious space.
A six or or seven gallon tank, giving the Volt about a 400 mile range is perfect.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Sounds good to me. Carrying around 12 gallons of gas adds weight.
~6 gallons would work fine. I now live ~25 miles from where I work, and with the Volt getting ~50mpg while under gas power… the calculations come out to about 1 gallon of gas a week for commuting.
I’d be fine with filling up once every 6 weeks!
April 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I’d rather have more battery and less gas tank.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
If using a 6-7 gallon tank improves everyday performance through weight and complexity reduction, then great.
As for maximum range, I would focus on tuning the range extender to make the absolute most of that fuel. The EV1 series hybrid prototype got something like 65-70 mpg with a microturbine, which is typically less thermodynamically efficient than most ICE’s. If the Volt’s range extender hits the 37% “sweet spot” like the atkinson cycle engines in conventional hybrids, then it should deliver something comparable once you factor in having more drag than the ev1.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Thought this article fit the subject.
It’s about gas going bad!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/04/09/aa.bad.gas/index.html
April 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
#64 Rashiid Amul:
Could you go back and take a look at your comment #49 on the “My Fox Business Network TV Interview” thread? It didn’t seem to take, and I am always interested in your wisdom and advice. Thanks.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Because of the E85 capability and the fact that it’s corrosive, the gas tanks on the Volt will probably be a light polymer. Remember, that they’re only heavy if you fill them, and that’s only an option when needed.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
340 to 390 is fine. The only long range drive I would tend to use it for would be from the L.A. area to the SF Bay Area, which is about 350-375 miles. We usually stop midway anyway. A smart way for Chevy to shed some weight. Maybe improving the EV only range and 0-60mph times too?;)
April 11th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Geoff @ 48,
I drive 6 hours nostop each way every other weekend. 8 hours wouldn’t be much of a stretch for me.
Granted, I do have to plan a bit in order to make this work — no caffeine (it’s a diuretic), and that 6-8 hours must not cross regular meal-times and sleep-times. But driving during 8 hours nonstop during my regular work-hors with a bag-lunch and a reasonable amount of water sounds exactly like the way I’d cross the midwest if I’m driving alone.
(I live in southwest Virginia, my girlfriend lives in Maryland, and I have family scattered throughout the northeast, Colorado, and Florida. I have some relatives in Oregon and California, too — but airlines usually make sense for those trips.)
I’m working on to arrange my life so that these long trips are fewer and far between — but, for now, an 8-hour bladder-busting highway cruiser is exactly the car I need. But, VW seems to have this market covered with their TDIs — and the TDI seems like a wonderful car until the end of the warranty period, anyway.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Anyway, I think a 400-mile Volt would be perfectly good! And if saving a little weight makes the battery-range work better, then so be it!
But, I’m planning that my next dwelling be within walking distance of work — so I’ll really only need a trip-car.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I agree with Rashiid Amul #64. My wife and I are retired and have only a single car, at least for now. So, whatever car we purchase must suit our daily needs for short trips < 40 miles, our frequent weekend trips of 250 miles and 3-4 long trips each year. I was looking forward to the Volt 640 mile range and very disappointed to hear it will be more like 400 miles. I say again — that sucks!
I’m not sure what GM is thinking at this point. People fall in love with a concept only to see all the good things take away little by little! The price has went from “nicely under $30K to over $40K; some say $35K, but who knows! The fuel range has been cut 37.5%, from 640 to 400 or less. The list seems to be endless and we still have another 2 1/2 - 3 years before we ever see the Volt in a dealership showroom. Only time will tell what the next item that will disappear.
It is getting to the point where it doesn’t make much sense to continue believing in what appears to be a mirage!
April 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I think the GM engineers might have been doing some calculations with the 1.0 liter Ecotec Twinport engine and realized HOW frugal the Volt is going to be with gas mileage. It is definitely going to be a gas sipper! A gas fume sipping MISER actually … especially when running as a battery charger in optimal mode.
OPEC and Big Oil are NOT going to like this. They might even try to stop it somehow. They can’t permit the Chevy Volt to become a smash hit worldwide. They can’t have this! Ist verboten! This is a threat to their profits. It’s heresy! Don’t you just feel sorry for Big Oil and all their record profits.
Exxon Mobil had the largest PROFITS of any company in history in 2007 … $40 billion! And they STILL want to make sure that the govenment gives them subsidies and tax breaks to help them make even more money. Hard to believe, but true.
Check this out.
http://media.gm.com/gb/vauxhall/en/news/pr_old/7702.htm
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=3&docid=38737
http://media.gm-powertrain.at/powertrain-media/media/images/200308200001_01.jpg
The IC engine that’s going into the Volt could get up to 70.6 mpg on the highway. 57.6 city/highway combined. With the 12 gallon tank, you might be able to go closer to 741 miles between fillups … 395 with the 6 gallon tank. That is what you call a gas sipper alright. Plus, the engineers will probably be programming the IC engine to come on and off at optimal times and rpm. Who knows, this IC engine could get 90+ mpg if the weight and the aerodynamics of the Volt are pretty good.
Bottom line, you will NOT be spending a lot of money on gas if you buy a Volt. Going to the gas station could be a 2-3 time a year thing for a LOT of people if GM if you remember to plug it in every night. I bet by 2010, to make it a “no brainer” habit for everyone, some 3rd party company comes up with a wireless charging system or a “roll your front tire over it” charging system that will put the car in “set to charge” mode whenever you aren’t driving it (to charge at night when electricity is cheapest of course).
Volt owners are going to have a big grin as they pass the people with monster SUVs at gas stations on their way to work every day. It’ll be like not having to pay taxes to OPEC and Big Oil while everyone else has too. Come to think of it, very little GAS TAXES to the government too. The SUV and big truck folks will be paying for most of the roads and bridges in the future … til electric cars and hybrids are everywhere and they have to figure out some other way to tax transportation in order to pay for road construction and maintenance. Hopefully, that will be 2025 or so.
Give the tax breaks and subsidies to the people who buy hybrids and 100% electric cars instead of the super rich oil companies! They do NOT need it obviously. I want make sure we make sure the IC engine goes extinct as fast as possible. The hybrids and 100% electrics will have all the horsepower and torque you’ll need.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
My ‘05 Accord Hybrid will do about 600 miles on a tank of gas on long freeway trips. This saves me a few bucks driving from the SF Bay area to LA since I don’t have to stop at the expensive gas places in between. However, it’s hardly a deal breaker. I’ve driven other cars where I must stop in between and it’s not a huge inconvenience. And really, I’m looking to the Volt to improve my commute miles, not my infrequent long trip miles. So, the reduced range is mainly just a minor inconvenience, really. Yes, it would be cool to be able to drive 600 miles, but I’m not sure it’s worth trading off something else, such as trunk space. That’s the trade off that was made on the Hybrid accord, notably less trunk space (the batteries went in the trunk and it has the same sized gas tank as the regular Accord), and that’s been more of a bother than the benefit of not having to fill up on long trips (of course, there’s other benefits to the car, but just looking at the tradeoff between say, trunk space and massive driving range; for long trips, I’d go with the trunk space :).
April 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Doesn’t matter to me. I will only use the ICE on long trips, and don’t mind stopping a little more often for gas.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Ai @ 58
The genset will maintain the battery at ~30% SOC and drive the vehicle. There shouldn’t be a dimished performance when either the battery or the genset is providing the power. The idea is to arrive home at ~30% SOC so that plugging in provides the next 40-50 miles AER.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
GM Volt Fan
I expect to see mileage numbers to come in closer to 70 MPG
than 50 MPG. IMHO They are cutting the size of the gas tank
because they do not need it. I am waiting to see the data from
the mules. That will give us a clue. I will bet they will go with a
stock engine on the first volts. The next improvment will be to
redesign it for the task at hand.
Take Care
Arch
April 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
One less tank means lower cost and less maintenance. 350 - 400 mile range is plenty. Hopefully we have traded the second tank for more cargo or interior space. I’m totally fine with the reduction in range.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I’ll start by saying Hi to Tag!
What a surprise they are going from a tricky (2) six gallon tank setup to existing single tank architecture.
Like was mention earlier, here is another ‘wow—thats cool’ feature when it was introduced that has fallen by the wayside. I’m amazed how so many people just shrug off each piece of bad news.
What is with the argument, “No biggieI don’t drive 640 miles at a time” — no kidding? lol. That isn’t what a big tank is about.
Most people fill up when their car range gets down around 50-60 miles left (my wife is more like 100 and it drives me nuts). So if you have a 640 mile range…every 580 miles…If your range is 360, then at 300 miles. This means you will be stopping at gas stations TWICE as much! (and I don’t care how much you theoretically won’t use gas, you are still losing out on a feature…and you’ll still going twice as much)
GM has taken another thing away from us…bottom line. Spin how you like. Gotta keep with the slogan, “Overpromise, underdeliver”
They think they’ll be first to market so they can do whatever they want and we will suck it…and I’m the first to admit they are completely right. I will buy whatever they happen to spill off the line in Michigan…if they are first. If Mitsu or Toyota beats them out…they lose big time.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Tagamet
I am not so sure it will work that way. I am going to bet that the generator will put out more than the electric motor can use. Not a lot more but more. After a few hours the generator will shut down and
you will be back on battery power. This way the load is always
consistent on the gas engine. A consistent load is very important
in this game. JMHO
Take Care
Arch
April 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
#86 GM Volt Fan:
Thanks for the brilliant links.
While these things certainly hold out a lot of promise for the Volt, I have to confess that it makes me absolutely crazy every time I read about these sophisticated high mileage cars GM has available in Europe. Corsa Eco 57.6 mpg combined. Astra Eco diesel 64.3 mpg combined. Easytronic automated shift gearbox. What’s that?
And what do we get? The Aveo. I mean, what do they take us for?
April 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
All the cars I’ve owned have gotten 250 miles/tank normally and 350 miles/tank on long highway trips. These are just regular smallish not-particularly-fuel-efficient cars. And it works out fine for me. So if the Volt’s range is between 300 and 400 miles that’s not unlike a bunch of cars already out there so I assume it’s fine.
If you drive across Canada or something you can do what every other Canadian does in these situations, carry extra gas in your trunk. Maybe not the safest thing to do but it’s sometimes a necessity.
For those of you talking about an override switch, I doubt it will be necessary. They battery will have a cutoff point where it will no longer supply power to prevent overdraining. 30% is not the cutoff point because that means you’d barely be able to accelerate when the genset is active and trying to maintain the charge at 30%.
I expect the cutoff point for the battery is around 15-20% so there’s no reason to prevent the charge from getting that low when you run out of gas. But maybe they will have a special low-power ‘annoyance mode’ if you’re running below 30% and you don’t have any gas.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Arch,
I thought that that was what I said. (g)
PS HI STATIK! Still Under-complementing, Over-criticizing, huh?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Maximum range reduced???? It is my understanding that you should easily be able to get a range of at least 150K or more.
This maximum range bs does nothing but hurt the understanding of what this car is all about. The range is unlimited as long as there are gas stations.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Hmmm. I wonder what GM would do with the extra space if they take out the other 6 gallon gas tank shown in the picture in white …
http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/volt1.png
Breakthrough with the battery technology? Use the gas tank real estate for more battery to get the all electric range up to 75 miles? 100 miles? If more battery doesn’t weigh much more … why not?
I’m kind of hoping that Bob Lutz and Frank Weber surprise us with some big battery news between now and 2010. Everyone wants more electric range and quicker recharging times of course. Who knows what could happen in just the next few months with battery technology? A123 or LG Chem might have pulled of some bigtime improvements with their batteries in a hurry before GM starts the testing. Maybe they can dramatically reduce the weight of the pack materials or something so they can cram more battery chemical stuff in there.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I see the logic of the reduced tank size, but I also see yet another strong talking point slip sliding away. First price, then appearance, then acceleration (performance), then availablity, then range. By the time the car gets here, will any of the points that made the original Volt concept still remain?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
97Tagamet
You said “to arrive home at ~30% SOC”
I am saying I think the batteries will beg start charging once the gas engine starts. Not a rapid charge but a slow charge. If they run the engine for the generator at a constant load and speed it will be much more efficient. To do this the generator needs to be able to put out more than the electric motor can ever use. You then use the batteries to take up the extra charge. That keeps the load constant.
Take Care
Arch
April 11th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
My daily commute will be less than 40 miles. I think it should not drop too much below 400 a tank. 400 has been the standard number of miles for a tank in the industry for many years. If you are traveling with kids you probably do not want to make too many stops along the way.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
My current car (Suzuki Aerio SX) typically gets about 350 to 450 km (200 to 280 miles) per tank of gas. I’ve had no problems driving long distances across western Canada, including the less populated areas. I’ve always planned ahead so that there is no risk of running out of gas.
The proposed 400 miles (620 km) range for the Volt sounds great by comparison. The smaller tank will translate into a slightly extended fuel/electric efficiency.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
My daily commute is way less than 40 miles. Even if my wife uses it for work and makes sales calls she wouldn’t put 40 miles a day on it. Back in the days when we could afford the gas, for longer trips we usually went 600 miles a day, switching drivers occasionally with an early breakfast, stop for lunch, and a late dinner. So if we get gas at lunch time, which we usually do, then the 400 mile range would allow us to take automobile trips again. That would be nice.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
#102 VaBchJim, wrote: If you are traveling with kids you probably do not want to make too many stops along the way.
My experience with kids is that you have frequent stops for bathroom breaks, etc.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
#99 GM Volt Fan:
>>Everyone wants more electric range and quicker recharging times of course.
Not really. I’d prefer a cheaper and lighter battery vs. one with more range. 40 miles is fine with me. Also I don’t really care about the recharge time. I’ll plug it in overnight so at that point I don’t care if it takes 3 hours or 6 hours. Any faster than 3 hours and I’d need some kind of fancy electrical work done to my apartment anyway; no thanks!
April 11th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I noticed that everybody is staying on topic. Is everyone ok?
April 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I’m not happy with “less than 400 mile” range. I much prefer the original 640 mi spec.
I understand that a smaller tank saves weight and space, and reduces problems with the fuel getting stale.
However, when I’m on a road trip, I like to only stop when needed for something else, and get gas while I’m stopped. I don’t like having to stop early because I’m low on gas. Extra stops add a lot of trip time. Also, this makes it harder to get a good gas price.
At a minimum, I want 400 miles *on E85* which would take about 11 gallons.
I certainly won’t have time to recharge the battery when I stop. The time to fill up is *already* killing my trip time, so the 40 mi electric range *does not count!*
Please keep the original 12 gal spec.
GSP
April 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I only get about 300 on a tank in my Saturn, and I find that a little annoying. I’d like to see it at least break 400. It would only be about 1/2 cubic foot to go from 6 to 9 gallons (and 25 pounds). Nobody is forcing you to carry around a full tank of gas everyday, but it is nice to have when you need it. I agree that when traveling through the midwest, a short range sometimes forces stops at inopportune times.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
ThombDbhomb
“OK” is such a relative word….. (but I noticed that stark oddity as well)
And now, back to the topic.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
#81 Noel Park:
Yesterday was a tough day. I was writing my comment while at work, got called away from my desk for about one hour, came back and somehow my unfinished comment was entered. I reread yours, and still have no idea what I wanted to say. I’m 44 years old and suffer from the mental disease of CRS. Sorry my friend, I just can’t remember.
But I always look forward to reading yours.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Hey Guys, knock off all the Bull@#$%
Lyle’s question is simply “Does the MAXIMUM range really matter to you?”
My answer is NO!
Just my $ .02 worth
April 11th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
#112 Paul
As I noted in my comment #107, there is less Bull@#$% than usual. We are staying on topic. So, I call Bull@#$% on your comment.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Statik, #93.
The same thing crossed my mind, I just didn’t say it.
I have to agree that this is another downer. I like the 640 miles to a tank. I really hate needing to stop and buy gas. It seems lately that it goes up every single day. I’m tired of it and would rather do it less.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Where did the idea that GM was simply ditching one of the side-saddle tanks come from? Reading the header, Farah states that both will be replaced with a single tank at the rear. This does not mean it’s only 6 gallons. It could be 8 or 9 gallons for all we know.
If Farah was assuming 50mpg with the ICE on then we’re talking about an 8 gallon tank. I’ve stated many times that I have reason to believe that the ICE on MPG may be considerably higher. GM Volt Fan #87 has come to the same conclusion, and the Corsa may be a very good example of this.
If the mpg is closer to 60 and it’s an 8 gallon tank, then we’re looking at 480 + 40 AER or 520. Again, I don’t know that it’ll get 60 but fuzzy calculations tell me it could be even better, so it’s a possibility.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
WHY DONT THEY BRING THE 1.0 CORSA TO THE U.S.A.????
April 11th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Range should be a consideration. I just returned from a 1200 mile trip in my Prius. At 54 MPG and an 11 gal tank, it was certainly nice to only have to fill up twice. I don’t think GM should give that marketing advangtage to Toyota . In addition, on long trips, more fuel stops at unknown locations could be a safety factor . . . especially for women and persons traveling at night. The weight issue would be negligable since if you’re not planning a trip, you would not have to completely fill the tank. My vote . . . 600 mile range!
April 11th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
When Bob Lutz said “we don’t know what we don’t know”, he was referring to the Volt and it’s development challenges, and he’s right. That comment would also be right about gasoline and it’s availability in the future. We’ve come to take it for granted. That may not hold.
Since the Volt is all about options and versatility, electricity, gasoline, and E85, it’s total range is another part of it’s appeal. I’m not thinking of the total range only WRT how many times I have to refuel on extended trips, but rather a safety net in the event of fuel scarcity.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Mike J # 116
Is it any wonder that the Smart car with barely room for 2 and highway mileage of only 44 isn’t selling in Europe? For this reason, they’re now trying to pitch it here in the US.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Who say’s they could 600+ miles out of a smaller tank?
April 12th, 2008 at 1:09 am
OR could you get 600+ miles out of a small tank with these Volt yes or no?
April 12th, 2008 at 1:13 am
If your primary purpose for the vehicle is 1000 mile nonstop trips, why pay the extra for a Volt? The reason for the Volt is to be able to use electricity for power. I don’t expect my Volt to go over 500 miles a year on gasoline. No matter how you slice it, burning gasoline to produce electricity to power an electric motor to turn the wheels is less efficient than burning gasoline to turn the wheels.
Optimizing a vehicle for a once a year occurrence is normal, but not very intelligent. Optimizing the vehicle for what you normally do and making it capable of doing what you sometimes do seems sensible to me.
If a long range or good mileage on gasoline is your most important parameter for your new car, then the Volt probably isn’t your best choice. It will only meet the needs of 90% of the drivers.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Storm #122
“No matter how you slice it, burning gasoline to produce electricity to power an electric motor to turn the wheels is less efficient than burning gasoline to turn the wheels.”
*** **** ****
Sorry….wrong, for a couple of reasons…..
1. Once the batt is charged it will always maintain a 30% Soc and act like a capacitor to assist the average power output of the ICE turning the genset. Again, the ICE/genset only has to supply “average power with the ICE running at a narrow and optimum rpm range. Not at all true of an ICE directly driving a vehicle.
2. No transmission…. which will drain quite a bit of power through a considerable amount of friction and heat. No ICE directly driving the wheels could realistically function without a tranny.
While the most efficient mode would be to battery drive the vehicle continuously, obviously we’re limited right now in that respect. But if what you stated was true, then surely the miller-cycle ICE in the Prius would deliver better highway/city mileage than the Volt, and that will not happen.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Sound like the volt can run a longer range (600 miles++) with a smaller tank than with a larger one, what do you think?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Hell, I go away for 1 day & there’s 124 comments. Maybe gen two could have a H design battery with the space freed up under the back seats now. Sorry if someone has already made this point.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:44 am
[...] Volt’s crash diet has started:- GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site
April 12th, 2008 at 7:19 am
People extrapolate vis-a-via their bias. The most gung ho here seem to want the car to defy physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and even what the Volt engineering team has said. The range of the ICE extender is Less than 400 miles (engineering team announcement above - believable). Depending on the MPG or size of tank right now we get a lot of solutions. Let’s say that as is the case with most commercial engineers, that is the BEST case - no accessory current draw and 30% SoC when you hit the driveway. If you have the Air wide open and the sound system blasting - ala Road Trip - mpg could be way less depending how much they allow the ICE extender to address the higher current draw and how critical 30% SoC is to maintain. Most charging curves flatten out a lot when you add Hp beyond optimal, the bad news being that it takes at lot more gas to add a little more current. Therefore, less MPG fast…
It is possible that 640m range is not realistic now for other reasons than 12 gallons. Changing the tank size and total range addresses that somewhat…
April 12th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Mike #117,
Good point!
Lets not give Toyota Prius the advantage of longer range.
The Volt should have at least the same or greater range on gasolene. Electric miles don’t count because you can’t recharge the battery on a one-day road trip.
GSP
April 12th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Mmmehhh…toss a jerrycan or two in the back if you’re doing a long-distance run. I don’t see a problem - it’s better than having the Volt get a bad reputation because people leave too much old gasoline in the tanks and having it do some kind of damage to the engine…another approach to deal with the old gas problem - maybe the computer could include some sort of ‘last fill’ date and run the engine component in preference of the battery if it’s been more than say 1 month or whatever - just another thought.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:01 am
#97
Over criticizing? Yes, I could conceed you that from time to time.
Under complimenting? No. Hopefully you can conceed me this one.
What part of the progress/promises made on the Volt in the last year deserve a compliment? All they have done is strip it down, hike the price up and slow production timelines down.
I think a fan site by nature over compliments, sees everything half full and does alot of shrugging off.
I want the best product I can get out of GM for the lowest price. GM says they read this site all the time, we have no reason to not believe them…it is in yours and my best interest to keep them honest and tell them when they make a BS move.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:10 am
To qualify my previous comment, I think it’d be great to have a ‘long-range’ option with a second fuel tank that could be filled for distance driving ONLY. Personally I’d prefer the extra space, and I think the majority of people are in the same position where they commute smaller distances and only occasionally do distance driving. The ‘will only be able to find more expensive gasoline stations’ issue is really not that significant when you consider the tiny overall amount of gasoline that you would be using with the Volt. With a 6 gal tank a 10c/gal difference is only 60cents per fill. The amount you would save on a daily basis FAR outweighs this difference, unless you are always doing long-distance driving. So I agree with the small tank approach for the first Volt, and if there is enough demand for a long-range option, then they can just add an option for a second tank.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:19 am
>>GM says they read this site all the time, we have no reason to not believe them…<<
I hope so! Message to GM boys and girls:
Don’t let the criticism bring you down - in my opinion you are working on one of the most important projects of the century!
P.S. Here’s a little secret. By the time you release the Volt, Ontario (pop 13M) will have installed smart meters in everyone’s home. Check out the current night-time electricity rates - it’s only about 30% of the peak daytime rate! You might want to make sure you can sell this thing here!
April 12th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Oops, sorry - here’s the link for previous post on electricity rates:
http://www.theimo.com/imoweb/siteShared/smart_meters.asp?sid=ic
April 12th, 2008 at 8:23 am
GSP:
Yeah, you might be right about the MARKETING advantage of having a bigger gas tank. You see some cars like the Nissan Maxima with commercials talking about driving range when they simply have a larger gas tank. You probably want to give the Volt bragging rights in overall range when people do head to head comparisons vs. the Prius.
If they are going to just take out both 6 gallon side saddle tanks and put in one bigger one, they ought to try to make it have just enough gallons to beat the range of the Prius. The Prius has a range of about 552 miles or so. It has an 11.9 gallon tank and MPG of 48/45/46 (city, highway, combined).
Soo, if the Volt’s ICE gets 57.6 mpg (combined city/highway), then the tank ought to hold 9 gallons instead of 12 gallons. Since the IC engine is optimized to run at optimal rpm, it might get mpg closer to the highway number of 70.6 (maybe a lot more).
Assuming the “all electric range” is 40-50 miles … if the IC engine gets the 70.6 mpg then they’d need a 7.25 gallon tank to have a little more overall driving range than the Prius … around 561 miles. I guess it comes down to where they put the tank, how much room it needs, etc. Maybe they could squeeze a 7.25 gallon tank into the space one of the 6 gallon tanks has and add a little more battery capacity to the other side if it doesn’t cost too much. If they can’t do that then they could just do two “saddle type” 3.75 gallon tanks instead of the two 6 gallon tanks on the concept.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
You know, I am s