Chevy Volt Vehicle Line Engineer on the Reduced Gas Storage Capacity
Our last discussion regarding GMs decision to reduce the size of on-board gasoline storage was very productive. We stayed on topic, which was very helpful. Most comments were positive, although there were certainly some who were unhappy about it.
I pointed out our discussion to Tony Posawatz who is GM’s Chevy Volt/E-Flex vehicle line engineer (shown above). He had this to say:
"After closely scrutinizing a lot of customer driving data, we strongly believe that given so few driving samples that would require more the 400 miles in one stretch, why would anyone want to carry all that extra petroleum and gas tank around. It takes up space, mass and hampers efficiency.
Given the number of fueling stations everywhere and electrical outlets (and hopefully public charging stations in the future), no VOLT customer would be left w/o options to get some "juice".
Remember, the VOLT customer has more choices than any other car for re-fueling and a larger battery than anyone else to extract the most possible from the grid. We have found a cure for the common illness known as ‘range anxiety’."
It’s great that we can communicate collectively directly from here to the actual Volt development team in nearly real time.
Popularity: 4%
Related posts:
- Volt Gas Tank Shrunk - Maximum Range Reduced
- Interview with Frank Weber, E-Flex/Chevy Volt Vehicle Line Executive, Part II
- Lithium-ion Battery Storage Capacity Research Breakthrough
- VIDEO: Volt Vehicle Line Executive Frank Weber On Driving the Volt - “It’s Like Flying”
- Gas and the Chevy Volt: Change Your Fuel, Not Your Oil
(5 votes, average: 4.8 out of 5) 
Loading ...
April 14th, 2008 at 6:37 am
The choice GM has made in regard to the size of the gas tank makes sense. There are many good reasons for making it that size.
I just can’t wait for this car!!!
April 14th, 2008 at 7:01 am
I read this site regularly but rarely comment. However, I am constantly struck by the number of rash comments that don’t give the Volt team due credit. E.G, a recent comment bemoaned the spoiler as adding drag. It is abundantly clear from the Volt team’s public comments that aero drag is one of the biggest factors they’ve had to overcome. Hence, I am sure that the spoiler is increasing aero efficiency or it wouldn’t be there. Likewise about the gas tank. Posawatz’ remarks show that this decision has been very well thought out.
My overall impression is that GM is doing a world-class job in thinking through all the angles of this car. Fiskers and Visionary Vehicles are promising serial hybrids in 2009, but I’ll wager anyone that the Volt will be far more reliable and better thought out when it finally arrives — not that I believe these newcomers can actually deliver next year….
April 14th, 2008 at 7:04 am
“It takes up space, mass and hampers efficiency.”
I know, I know, I know. But it still burns me.
I really want this car to be different. That includes extremely long mileage from one tank of gas. I don’t know any cars today that can travel 640 miles on one tank of gas. But many many cars can do 400 miles. Mine goes 420 before I start sweating. Unlike many of you here, I don’t need to stop and pee often. I drink only a small amount of liquid when I drive and eat very little. This helps decrease the number of necessary stops, and gets me to my destination quicker.
But why does a bigger tank hamper efficiency?
Does it make a difference if I only fill it half way under normal conditions and fill it all the way for a trip?
I don’t understand the “mass” issue either if I only fill it up half way.
Again, I would fill it all the way for long trips.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:04 am
I have to agree with GM on the size of the fuel tank. It also simplifies the Volt by having just one gasoline tank, reduces the probability of stale gas and makes for a more efficient package.
Lyle, I think its great that you have such access to the Volt team!
April 14th, 2008 at 7:07 am
The idea is to use less fuel and more electricity…seems carrying less is an excellent idea for longevity of the battery power (weight savings etc.)!! Again, I can accept this change as being very smart thinking in a flexable design.
Johnnie
April 14th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Well for me, usuing most of the smaller tank would be only twice a year, no drama here in the land of Oz.
(Would have been a great publicity feature - long distance Charge + Gas)
But I’d prefer less fuel, makes sence reallly and it’s not like I would be taking a passenger car into the outback desert anyway where there are no refill stations. Plenty of sun though…..
Got to be practicle really.
Just hope the roof height is good enough like a conventional Opel Astra and the seating positions good.
That will make me very very happy.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Tony Posawatz is a very capable person who is putting forward a logical engineering argument. From an engineering perspective, I agree with it. But he is not coming to that conclusion talking to potential customers who are of a non-technical background. Their vision of an electric car is a vision of being stopped on the side of the road. Range anxiety is real, and GM is taking away a wonderful talking point
April 14th, 2008 at 7:17 am
As some others have mentioned, its nice to have “bragging rights”.
Sometimes it is nice to advertise a long range, as it is psychological to associate long range with fuel efficiency (especially in a small car because they don’t have large fuel tanks).
But I’m sure that GM has other packaging constaints that may be compromised by a larger fuel tank, or perhaps the stale gasoline problem becomes even greater when there is more gasoline in the tank to worry about.
Another thought is the evaporative emissions system. If the Volt goes days or even weeks without using fuel, a larger tank might mean this system has to grow as well.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:56 am
7 RB….. I AGREE!!!
When this topic was first raised a few days ago I agreed with GM’s decision to downsize the tank, but after further reflection I DON’T!!!
Buying a car is a highly EMOTIONAL decision for most people, and any REASONS to buy it are often simplistic. Let’s look at these three original Volt performance specs as given on this site at http://gm-volt.com/full-specifications/…..
1) 0-60 time = 8.0 to 8.5 secs
2) Top Speed = 120 mph (limited duration)
3) Range = 640 miles (inferred w/ two 6 gal tanks @50mpg + 40 mi EV)
Simplistic as these are, they’re VERY WIDELY USED to compare cars! Clearly, NONE are necessary —and 120mph is dangerous!!! However, WE USE ALL THREE to quickly sum up a car’s performance!
Here’s my suggestion, Tony: As with the Saturn 2008 Greenline Vue, replace the Volt’s spare (or compact spare) with a “tire sealant & compressor kit”, and place a 10 or 12 gal tank under the trunk floor.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:59 am
A simple 6, 6.5, 7 or however many Gallons the Volt is proposed to now hold as well as what the expected mpg would have been a wonderful response or update. I suppose it is too early to divulge that information. This update is a rationale for why 400 or less miles, nothing here new. Most of us get “less than 400 miles” - how much less would be a nice subject to address.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Sorry, the link is apparently truncated by our site software; go to gm-volt.com “Home” then look for “Full Specifications “.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Anyone remember the civil ligation of side saddle gas tanks against General Motors?
http://library.findlaw.com/2007/Jul/1/247156.html
April 14th, 2008 at 8:14 am
12 Jeff….
Yes, I remember this horrific problem …..and as a consequence GM knows never to place gas tanks in vulnerable locations. My suggestion above, “replace the Volt’s spare (or compact spare) with a “tire sealant & compressor kit”, and place a 10 or 12 gal tank under the trunk floor”, should locate the tank well away from the Volt’s exterior with ample steel structure around it to protect occupants.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Hey Tony, not to be a nuisance, but you say -
“why would anyone want to carry all that extra petroleum and gas tank around. It takes up space, mass and hampers efficiency”
Now I know you don’t want to divluge the current tank capacity, but for 400 miles of range, I will guess at 7 gallons (7×50 + 50 AER = 400).
So let’s look at that extra 5 gallons. It occupies 0.67 cubic feet, weighs about 30 lbs, and adds another 250 miles of range (per original estimates). The added tank material may add what,10 lbs?
So IF I keep a full tank, I add ~40 lbs to the vehicle. Frank Weber has already stated that 400 additional lbs only reduces AER by 2 miles, so how much is this added range hampering efficiency?
I’ve never worked in the automotive industry, so maybe a Dartmouth engineer could explain it better (met Tony at the VoltNation event, so just had to tease him with that).
April 14th, 2008 at 8:47 am
What will happen to range if Coskata is real and we move to e 85 ? ( or e 100 if we sign the waiver and promise not to drink it )
April 14th, 2008 at 8:57 am
400 miles is fine. I am happy with that. I have been driving vehicles that typically get around that for over 30 years. I can not think of a time when that was too little or too much (although there was a time in my younger years when I was in the desert SW and wish I had another quarter tank
). If you have a small family then that would give you time to give the kids a stretch of the legs and burn off some energy. If you are an empty nester then this gives you time to stop and smell the roses.
The less weight is obviously a good scenario for MPG. At this point and time in my life I am willing to just kick back and watch the lines in the road fly by. If I have to stop at mile 401… so be it.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:04 am
If “range” of 400 miles is battery range (50) plus range-etension charging and running range (350), then, on a trip, your range after a fillup without a charge is down to 350 miles.
Frankly, that’s rather short. I can see other manufacturers mentioning this in comparisons.
E-85 will cut the range dramatically. I thought I’d seen a note on this site that said the Volt will not initially support E-85 (and I figure it’s mostly marketing due to that reduced range but maybe they’re doing enough tricks with the engine that it won’t like E-85).
April 14th, 2008 at 9:13 am
nasaman #13
I agree, and am unhappy about the reduced range. I’m wondering if this also has something to do with the need to freeze the design and move toward the production date. Re engineering the tank/tanks again
might push that date back.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:16 am
As theorized by BillR in #14, weight doesn’t seem to be the driver for this development. Space seems more of an issue. I’ll bet that not many people would be willing to give up cargo space for range. So, a compromise becomes necessary. Weighing space versus range, I’d go for space too. Otherwise, where would you put your golf clubs, groceries, the kid’s tuba, etc.? I’d use the extra space more than I would use the extra range.
Obviously, some people want a 640-mile range. A larger gas tank could be an option on a future Volt. You can’t always get what you want. But, right now, we need an E-REV sedan that has trunk space. In some categories, Volt 1.0 needs to be a compromise vehicle. KISS.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Griz @ 18,
Yep, let’s agree to freeze the design with the smaller tank and push this thing through. Tick tock.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
GM just needs to market this change correctly. The bottom line is, “440 miles on 8 gallons of gas” which is more impressive than any other car out there. Nothing bad happened here. It’s still 40 miles electric and drives the duration of almost every other car out there but on ONLY 8 GALLONS of gas. That’s what GM needs to drive into consumer’s heads right now.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:37 am
My thoughts:
1. This is primarily being designed as a commuter car, so going for “max” distance is not a necessary design goal.
2. I have NEVER purchased a car based on the range before having to re-fuel, have you? So why be concerned about it now? GM wants to brag about ALL ELECTRIC range, remember??
3. Many of you say you will not fill the tank up, so the gas does not get stale, but do you think that will be the norm? I don’t. Most prople will go to the gas station, and fill it up as soon as they drive off the lot. Then if the gas is not used, you are hauling around another 50 pounds of useless weight (40 lbs for the gas and 10 for the tank). And what happens when you have all that gas and it has gone stale from non-use? It is obviously a real concern to the engineers at GM.
Lets try to remember that we are not the planned normal owners and drivers of the E-FLEX design. Do you think that my wife will concern herself for one second about the age of the gas in the tank? Absolutely not! She will just expect to get in the car and drive it, just like she does now…..
And If I want to go 900 miles without a gas station fuel up, I will put a spare 10 gallon tank of gas in the trunk…….
Not everyone is a rocket scientist, or in my case a computer software designer!!!!!!!!!!
April 14th, 2008 at 9:51 am
So much fuss over the 400 - 600 mile range… For the 5 % of people out there that will do the 500 mile trip without stopping for gas/ rest stop… you basically are a danger on the road… NO ONE can be that alert for 6 - 8 hours of straight driving…. Just to brag to your friends that you made a trip from A to B in just X hours… Grow up… I do not have a problem with a 300 - 400 mile range…In fact I sometimes use my motorcylce for a trip to visit relatives… The byke gets about 55 mpg and I have a range of ….get this…. 150 Miles…that’s still 2.5 - 3 hours of driving between fillups.. NO BIG DEAL.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Posawatz is, of course, correct. Most of the cars I’ve driven don’t even have 400 miles of driving range, and I’ve never found this to be any problem. 24/7 you can almost always find a gas station nearby, even if you’re forgetfull and don’t pay attention. I once drove a car with about 300 miles of range and thought that was
too little for highway trips. But it didn’t prompt me to go out and buy another car with a longer range. Having a 12 gallon tank for the Volt would have had a lot of bad side effects - like trying to burn up that gas within a year or so. You probably couldn’t do it.
While examining customer driving habits is OK, you have to believe that assuming they will remain the same after they start driving a plug-in would be incorrect. I can think of plenty of cases where I’d stop by the house and wait to get a 1 hour, 25 mile recharge rather than push on and use a gallon of gas. I don’t mind earning $3 per hour for watching TV while my Volt recharges.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
#23, TheOldguy,
I am 44 years old and have grown up. I’m just not so old that I have to pee every 15 minutes. I am not a danger on the road and I am alert. When I’m tired I pull over. I’m not stupid nor reckless. But I want to get to where I’m going and spend the time there.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Hello! Anybody home? The Volt is a commuter car!
You don’t need an airplane to go grocery shopping. (unless you’re in Alaska) and you don’t use a screwdriver to drive a nail. (I guess you could if you had no other choice)
GM is doing the right thing by giving the Volt the same “maximum” range as an average ICE car. I just hope they add an easily accessible fuel drain plug so we can get rid of the stale fuel.
Why? MOST people will find themselves adding 40 miles worth of range EVERY night instead of stopping by the gas station every 10 days which would leave them with stale fuel.
If you NEED to economically drive hundreds of miles EVERY day, then buy a VW Jetta Diesel. It’s less expensive, proven technology!
April 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Doesn’t gas go bad if it sits without being used. So if you are plugging in and doing most of your driving by electric you could get a case of gas eroding. I wonder if GM has pondered this even with a smaller tank.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I will be using the Volt as a commuter car and I won’t have a stale gas problem. I travel 101 miles minimum, 5 days a week. Sometimes about 130 miles. I will burn gas, no choice. So for many of you, the smaller tank works nicely, but I would prefer a larger tank. Is this such a big deal?
I have to admit, some of you guys are extremely vocal (angrily) about such a simple thing. Please try and relax. It is just a gas tank.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Rock on! Such straight simple reasoning can only be found in the Midwest. GM just keeps making the best decisions in this endeavor. I am still waiting to see if any other players wise up and try to catch up.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Though I usually just lurk on this site, I feel compelled to speak up and defend this engineering choice, as others have. This will be a primarily commuter vehicle anyway - why waste space/weight, or worse, add cost and complexity, for what amounts to a minor bragging right, and maybe 5 minutes saved per lengthy roadtrip?
Besides, you never know. Perhaps the engineering team has already identified a smidge more cubic space near the tank, allowing them to bump up its volume a bit, say, to 8 gallons or so. Would the upset people still be so bothered if they could achieve a 440-mile total range? (50×8 + 40AER that is). It’s a “small difference that could make a big difference” for these folks, and it could happen. And yes, I am speculating :-).
Please folks, let’s support the Volt team, and let them finish the dang thing before we nag it to death. Personally, I would settle for a TWO gallon tank if it would help get the Volt on the market six months sooner, and under $29,995!!
Regards to all,
Your friendly neighborhood Mike-o-Matic
(longtime reader, first-time poster)
April 14th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Scott @ 21,
Marketing the smaller tank correctly is true. The Prius has a tiny little tank, and the Prius owners that I know tend to take pride in the small number of dollars that fit into their tank. My Ford Ranger takes about $55 to fill up now, but the Prius still takes about $20. The Ranger can go about 50 miles farther on a 17-gallon fillup than the Prius does on an 8 gallon fillup (the Prius gas-gauge is pessimistic, when it works), but the Prius makes the owner feel very frugal and mightily efficient.
Jim @ 22,
I have purchased a car based on the single-tank range. It’s a VW Jetta RDI (turbodiesel). Hypermilers can get over 700 miles per tank on the manual-transmission variety of the car, though I get somewhat less because of my driving style and the options I picked. Still, if one has a busy schedule and spends a lot of time on the Interstate, it’s an important consideration. But my Jetta is a highway-machine, and I wouldn’t use the Jetta for a short commute any more than I’d use an F-350 to get a gallon of milk.
Despite my preference for never-stopping-for-gas, the smaller tank makes sense for the Volt and for it’s purpose. It’s a general purpose commuter/family car and I think that the 400-mile range is spot-on for what is needed for that duty-cycle. Plus, Volt owners on road-trips will be able to take pride in the low number of dollars that fit into their tank.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am
400 miles is plenty for the vast majority if people.
One commenter complained that GM’s logic of extra weight didn’t make sense. That may be partially true, but he forgot to think about the extra volume. If the tank is smaller then there is more room for batteries, more room for trunk space, etc. I wonder if GM is just as worried about carrying around wasted volume as it is about carrying around wasted mass.
Geoff
April 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I agree with #20 Dave B and #30 Mike-o-Matic, among others. I am fine with the proposed size of the gas tank. Let’s get on with it. Next case!
April 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Theoldguy @ 23,
No. Inexperienced drivers who don’t respect the power of fatigue who attempt to do this are a danger on the road. Those of us who spend a lot of time on the highway, during the time that we’re normally alert, are much safer than average (per mile driven).
Why? Because we’ve seen a lot of bull$#!t on the highway, and have spent a lot of time figuring out how to deal with it. We have the moves down, and get to use them regularly.
I see a LOT of oblivious drivers out there. I’m rarely one of them, even on hour 10 of a 12-hour drive. On last-night’s 6-hour trip, I lost count of the number of minivans who blocked the left lane while talking on their cell-phones, tailgaters (who would change lanes and then tailgate the next driver), people who couldn’t maintain a predictable speed or following distance, people who cut me off for no reason, and various other kinds of hazardous drivers. Fortunately, I spend enough time on the highway to know how to deal with this.
If you get tired, you should stop. Various cars put vastly different amounts of fatigue on me — if yours is anything like my old Ford Tempo, yours may not be suitable for marathon driving.
For people who do a lot of long distance driving, there’s no excuse for poor judgment or poor equipment. Fortunately, experience and judgment come pretty quickly when you drive that much.
Theoldguy, if you’d like lessons on how to drive long distances safely on the highway, I’d be quite happy to help.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am
“After closely scrutinizing a lot of customer driving data, we strongly believe that given so few driving samples that would require more the 400 miles in one stretch, why would anyone want to carry all that extra petroleum and gas tank around. It takes up space, mass and hampers efficiency.”
So you didn’t know most people don’t go more than ‘400 miles in a stretch’ before you started pricing the job? Nice try.
Why would anyone want to carry the extra 30 lbs of petro? Guess what, everybody here if they had the choice between a 640 tank and a 400 tank would choose the larger…and just underfill if it was ’such a concern’ about the mileage.
We are all over the age of 12, we understand if we don’t ‘fill’ the tank up all the way, we could go another 2,000 feet…even with your new cheaper ‘400 mile’ tank, I have the ability to make it a ‘100 mile’ tank…and another 2,000 feet on top!
I’m guess your ‘customer driving data scrutiny’ hasn’t taught you to perform a ‘customer data satisfaction scrutiny,’ when dollar bills are involved…rather just a generic, “why would anybody want that?”
Your cheaping out…we get it. Let’s just move on.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Maybe GM is looking forward and creating more room for more batteries (or larger single battery) later. Maybe they are making the space where the gas tanks are fit the size of a future larger battery? Is it possible they are thinking “down the road”?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Anyone who routinely needs that kind of range shouldn’t be buying the Volt anyways as they will be much better served by many other much less expensive vehicles. As another poster mentioned, this is a commuter car, not a highway cruiser.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I think I like the idea of having one tank instead of two, but I strongly believe GM should size it such that there is at least a 400-mile E85 range with the battery not charged.
I think that sizing the vehicle in anticipation of using E-85 regularly, rather than advertising the normal gasoline range, is an important selling point.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:23 am
to #30
I agree with you 1000%. Let the Volt team do it’s job. They are a bunch of bright people and I’m sure they will pick the best way. I know they can not please everyone as it is quite obvious. The Volt will probably be basically a commuter car and I think the engineers are looking along that line.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:24 am
#36,
I respectfully disagree with your statement. The Volt is not just a commuter car, and its the concept of EV’s being limited to commuiting only that has helped stifle their growth in the market place. This car is capable of being much more than just a commuter, and it should be advertised and designed as such.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:41 am
#3 Rashiid,
Give the commute that you detailed on here previously, would you have the option of hauling in the trunk additional gas tanks? Or plugging in while at work? Neither is ideal understandably.
Did Mr Posawatz, or anyone be able to hazzard a guess at miles per charge/mile per gallon that these 6 or so gallons of gas would have otherwise cost?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I’m getting a kick out of the folks with comments like “Hello! Anybody home? The Volt is a commuter car!”. If folks really believe that then the Volt is already doomed as how many folks are going to pay possibly $40,000 for their commuting car, on top of the cost, taxes, and insurance for another vehicle for the rest (non-commute) of the time? If that was also the case, it would have made more sense instead of adding a “range extender” and put that space and money into a little bit bigger battery.
Remember, negative marketing about range is what partly killed the EV-1, Rav4-EV, etc… even though they could go 100 miles on a charge, were specificially designed and marketed as “commuter” vehicles, and at least in the case of the EV-1, you could only lease if you also had another vehicle.
However GM is clearly not designing/marketing this as solely (and I’m not even sure as even primarily) a “commuter car”, or a “secondary” car. It looks to me the Volt was designed to be an efficient possibly gas free “commuter”, but also an all around general purpose car that could be anyones one and only vehicle.
Or to put it another way, to label it a “commuter car” would be the same as trying to place that same label on the Prius.
However I will repeat what I put in the other thread (and others have repeated here)… 400 vs. 600 range is really no issue… except that they are going to miss out on some great marketing that I think could have resulted in additional sales.
And as others have pointed out, the Volt engineer’s statement “It takes up space, mass and hampers efficiency” is partly spin regarding the change… it only hampers efficiency if folks actually fill up the tank. It’s like buying a jacket with lots of pockets… just because you have them doesn’t mean you fill those pockets up most of the time… but when you do need them they are there. The dual tanks would have actually worked out nice, assuming they had separate fill caps. You could fill up the primary tank every time you “fill up”… but only put gas into the secondary tank for your long trips. However again repeating from the other thread and this one, the volume (space) for the tank(s) is likely the main issue, in which case it’s then a trade off, and if the trade off was vs. cabin or trunk space, I’d prefer the latter myself.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Is there someone who can explain to me the technical details of how they can suck 50 miles out of a gallon of gas (after the 40 odd miles of plug-in charge is used up)? This 50 number is being used as a proven fact, but it sounds a bit fishy to me.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The Volt’s battery and design probably will continue to improve by 2010 and have greater range even with a small gas tank?
Meanwhile AFS Trinity is on a nationwide tour with their battery-ultra capacitor (150 MPG) 2007 Saturn Vue, premiered at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, providing test drives. The AFS reportedly goes 40+ miles in electric mode and that’s with the aerodynamics of a stock 2007 Saturn.
http://www.afstrinity.com/press-release-4-8-08.html
April 14th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I agree with #3 Rashiid Amul and #7 RB.
“Mass” and “stale gas” are easily resolved by filling up the gas tank based upon your anticipated driving. If you’re going on a long trip, fill it up! If your diriving is likely to be mostly local, fill it 1/2 full or even less if that suits your needs. Just don’t take away our option!
April 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
First of all I think many of you are underestimating the miles per gallon. I think it will do better than 50. Now to get better mileage on E85 you are going to have to change the engine. E85 has a much
higher octane number that gas. You can build an engine that will get just as good mileage as gas. The problem is that the engine will no longer run on gas.
Take Care
Arch
April 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
42 Steve
We don’t have any hard information to support 50 mpg as an average once the battery is drawn down to the steady-state range. Even so, the car will be designed to be an efficient small car with good aerodynamics, with some degree of regenerative braking, so maybe mpg will be 50 under favorable conditions. More likely the actual mpg will be less, but one hopes it still will be a relatively good value. In any event it will not be too important for those owners who can plug in frequently.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I can’t help but wonder if this “stale gas” is a little over blown on this website. I live in SW Florida year around but have several friends/neighbors who only live in the south 4-6 months each year. The rest of the time they live in their northern home.
Most of these people leave a car parked in their Florida garage or carport for 6-8 months each year and another car parked in their northern home for the other 4-6 months. Not once have I heard any of them report problems with “stale gas”.
Prior to the time when I moved to SW Florida 9 years ago, I was in their shoes; having a car on both ends (Illinois and Florida). Once again, I never once had a problem with “stale gas”.
So, can someone explain this problem to me and others in layman’s terms?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I feel the reduction in range is a real downgrade. I can live with it, but it’s disappointing. I feel like the Volt is going to be a $50k Malibu before this all over with (the Malibu will probably have better range, however). Hopefully the previous article is wrong, and the production Volt won’t be a common looking, typical four-door sedan. I think for the price point GM has hinted at, the car is going to have at least some of the features they originally advertised, and more than a little style.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Has GM considered using thermoelectric for heating and cooling? It would extend both the all-electric range (AER) and fuel-mode range (FMR). Here’s an article from today’s MIT Technology Review on thermoelectric heating and cooling.
The savings of electrical energy such a system could provide to a plug-in hybrid car could be enormous. Where a conventional electric heating and cooling system requires up to 4,500 watts to maintain the desired temperature inside a car, a thermoelectric system would use 3,000 watts if the car is full of passengers or less than 700 watts if the driver is alone, according to estimates from the Department of Energy. Future generations of thermoelectric materials that rely on nanotechnology now being demonstrated in academic labs could improve these savings even more. (See “Cheap, Efficient Thermoelectrics” and “Turning Waste Heat into Power.”)
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20556/?nlid=1000&a=f
April 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Lyle,
What does it mean in my #47 post “Your comment is awaiting moderation”?
April 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
luke # 34
I am to assume your 6 hour drive was non stop? I will also assume you are not a professional driver. If you are professional driver with a log book…. you have to stop…according to the Canadian laws for a break a minimum of 2 hours on an “8″ hour day of driving… Break it up any way you like… but it has to be done… lunch/ nap/ walk…whatever.. by not complying… you, as a professional driver can be “shut down” for a 12 - 24 hour period. You can only “log” so many hours in a given week. And that is a someone being paid to drive. As for giving me lessons… I travel about 45,000 miles a year.. city and long distance. I make it a point to take a break at regular intervals whether I “need” it or not. It is only good judgement. And I replace my vehicles every 3 - 4 years even tho I maintain them very well… As for your Tempo. I truly am sorry for you…
April 14th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Snowboard #40. Believe it or not, I currently park my car directly underneath the plug. Whether or not I will be allowed to use is another question.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
If we are going to shrink the tank size I want to know what the maximum range will be based on E85 not gas! If the goal is to get us off oil & we limit the tank size, everyone knows or should know that you get less miles on a gallon of E85 than you do on a gallon of gas (approx. 28% less) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 . So if the engine gets 50 MPG on gas does that mean it only gets 36 MPG on E85? What is the 50 MPG based on? 7 gallons of E85 giving a range of 252 miles + 40 Batt. is nothing to write home about! It better get comparable range on E85 as my regular gas car does today otherwise you should have a disclaimer in your adds, only 252 miles range when burning E85 etc. Until I get clarification on the E85 range I am not happy!
April 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I would have to agree w/GM. However, if you wish to have a larger tank, When you get you car, just add another tank. End of Story
April 14th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Not everyone reads the forums so:
Spark EV–total scam–filed for bankruptcy yesturday.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/13/spark-evs-michael-papp-arrested-in-electric-vehicle-scam/
This is why I have always said…the first major automaker to market with a 4 seat EV (that I can also drive on EV power to get repaired) gets my money.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
$56, statik, Interesting development. I feel more comfortable buying an EV from GM or some other big boy.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I think, if I’m reading the comments right, some misconceptions about E85 (that is 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline)…
It is my understanding that ethanol has 10% less chemical energy per a given volume than gasoline. Ie. ethanol is less energy dense. That means filling up with E85 will probably give you that much less range. Ie. if it’s 400 miles with gasoline, it would be only around 366 miles with E85.
And for you (corn based) ethanol fans out there… I suggest reading http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
April 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Estero, #51 says, ”
Lyle,
What does it mean in my #47 post “Your comment is awaiting moderation”?”
Yup, mine too at #57. Seems silly really. There is nothing in there that should trigger a need for moderation. I wish I knew the rules so that I could avoid whatever the trigger is. But it is frustrating.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Well I tried posting it again. It definitely has a trigger word or something. But heck if I know what it is.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I have to laugh at all of this discussion. are we really that worked up, pro or con, about an 8 gallon tank? The official title ofthis article should have been “Slow News Day”.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
#48 Estero:
I agree that “stale gas” is a bit of an overblown concept. Our race cars typically sit for 2 or 3 months over the winter. They run on 108 octane, which is a lot more volatile than 87. We top off the tanks and try to remember to put Sta-Bil in, but someitimes we forget or get lazy. I am always amazed that they fire up in the spring with no more problems than we have. God forbid that we should have such a problem that not buying any gas for a year gives us “stale gas”!
April 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I’m a little concerned about the range of the Volt. I think a good idea would be to have two tanks in the vehicle. Put in a small (2-4 gallon) tank for primary use ie. every day range extention but also have an additional 6 gallon (or whatever) tank for extended mileage which might be needed on long hauls. The large tank needs not be filled unless necessary and the small tank can always be filled for primary usage. This eliminates some weight concern and stale gas problems.
About 5 or 6 years ago I remember thinking about how great it would be to have a Diesel VW because of the range they were advertising. The ads that ran up here in my part of the world claimed that you could go from Calgary to Vancouver on one tank of gas. I thought that was fantastic. Which is some 600 plus miles.
I for one, am the type of person that hates to get gas at smaller, local stations. I will if absolutely necessary but will only put enough to get me into the next major centre and hopefully find a major gas station. Maybe I’m crazy but I prefer to stick with the big guys. As an aside, I try to fill up at Citgo stations as much as possible whenever I’m in the US (hehehe).
I go on many trips into the mountains as well for hiking and snowboarding and whatever other stuff and with my current vehicle I can fill up in the morning, head out for the day and still make it back with plenty of fuel (on average that’s like 300 miles or so.) If I need to worry about making a trip like that on the available range I would seriously not consider a Volt. About 60% of my driving is in situations where I am on the highway driving to the mountains or somewhere else where I need the range. The remaining 40% is in the city where I would run on electric 90% of the time. If I feel the range isn’t adequate for the 60% long haul trips than it would be a tough call on picking up a Volt.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
#42 Jeff M
You bring out the key points to the added range:
1) The Volt should be an all-purpose car, not a “commuter only”
2) GM will suffer marketing opportunities with less range
3) Added range should be a minimal efficiency impact
For your post # 58, it seems that E85 only provides about 75% of the range of gasoline. See post #54 and
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Check out the mileage difference for the Impala with E85 and gasoline. Its about a 25% drop.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#43 Steve
The 50 mpg figure for “gas only” operation was provided by GM when the concept vehicle was introduced. See “Full Specifications” on the homepage.
A gallon of gasoline has the equivalent energy of about 36.6 kWh. GM has indicated that the Volt will require 0.200 kWh per mile of energy (the EV-1 tested at 0.168 kWh per mile at 60 mph). At 50 miles per hour, the Volt will need an estimated 10 kW of power. If the system efficiency (electric motor, power electronics, generator efficiency, etc.) is 10/36.6 or 27%, the Volt will indeed get 50 mpg at 50 mph.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Rashiid Amul #59.
I’ve checked both your posting #57 and my posting #48 again and don’t see what alarms might be set off with our words, unless it is big boy in your posting and over blown in my posting. We’ll see if this message triggers an alarm.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Nope, #66 didn’t set off any alarms.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I think the awaiting moderation trigger may well be the length of the post? Seems like I get that message alot on long winded posts.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I will sometimes get them on long posts, sometimes on short posts. I don’t know what triggers the “moderation” flag………
I have looked at the wording, and I sure have not been able to come up with any particular words or phrases!
April 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I don’t believe many would buy the Volt to get 600 miles of range. 400 miles, to me is fine. It won’t sell more cars, but I don’t believe you’d lose any significant numbers either.
Obviously the engineers believe that there is a significant enough gain to the Vehicle itself by cutting back to a 400 mile range. I’ll go along with that.
What a great opportunity giving direct feedback to the Volt team! Thank you Lyle for creating this situation, and please thank Tony Posawatz for jumping in as well.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
After thinking about nasaman #9 suggestion “replace the Volt’s spare (or compact spare) with a “tire sealant & compressor kit”, and place a 10 or 12 gal tank under the trunk floor.”
If this would work, it suits me just fine. I don’t recall ever needing the spare tire on any of my cars the past 10-12 years (knock on wood)! It seems that weight and space could be put to better uses, particularly given the technology of today.
Even though I’ve been a supporter of the 640 mile range, I was never really all that keen on dual 6-gallong fuel tanks…if that means having a fuel pump inside each tank. It has been my experience that fuel pumps have a habit of failing more frequent than other components on the car.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I’ve never had an issue with any statement by Lyle, until this subject came up. I really don’t see the issue as “how long a person can hold their bladder”. To me it is more along the lines of having a choice as to when, where and how often I choose to buy fuel.
When my wife and I travel, which is becoming more and more frequent, we stop at interstate rest areas more often other places; that’s our choice. When one gets on a toll road, gas becomes quite expensive. So, having fuel for 640 miles sure gives us more options than does fuel for only 400 miles.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@3 Rashad:
FYI, you said “I don’t know any cars today that can travel 640 miles on one tank of gas.” Check this one out - the various late 90’s model VW TDI: http://tinyurl.com/6cvm7z Just ignore the overall model reliability ratings…
The 45 mpg rating for the turbo diesel combined with an 18 gal (US) tank can get you up to 800 miles per trip. And I read somewhere that the wagon models had a larger tank (an option?), allowing some conservative drivers over 1000 miles on a single fill-up. Also check out http://www.tdiclub.com for more - one guy claims 1400 miles on a tank, but probably at 50mph with a tailwind all the way…
April 14th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Where in the world would anybody get the idea that the Volt is a commuter car?
Let’s say you never plug it in and just run on gas. It has a top sustained speed of 100 MPH, it will go 300-400 on a full tank, and it gets 50 MPG.
Which of those numbers makes it a commuter car?
April 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
400 miles is a perfectly reasonable engineering decision. It’s the original 640 claim causing all the problems.
It’s all about managing expectations.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
#65 BillR
If the A/C requires 2 kW, in addition to the 10kW required to maintain a 50 mph speed, then the range is reduced by a factor of 10/12, an almost 17% reduction. This reduction would apply to the Volt’s electric range as well as its fuel range since the wheels are always driven by the electric motor(s). This is why GM is, or should be obsessing about A/C and other electrical loads. It also explains why individuals may experience significantly different ranges.
Oh yes, climbing a 2% grade at 50 mph will require another 6 kW - but don’t worry you’ll require 6 kW less power on the return trip.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
#73 Estero:
On the other hand, I smiled when I read the comment about “how long a person can hold their bladder”, becuase it the absolute ground truth for us. My wife and I joke that whatever rest stop the one doesn’t have to stop for, the other one does. If we drive past a rest stop without stopping, we let out a little cheer. And an hour later we probably regret it.
Any range over 400 miles is absolutely redundant for our family. I would rather either make the car incrementally smaller, with the resulting incrementally smaller frontal area and/or weight, or have more interior room. Those are the tradeoffs.
I have quoted the famous race car engineer Steve Smith here before, so sorry to repat myself. He famously said that the only way to get weight out of race cars at the margin is ounce by ounce. The big opportunities get taken right away. The ones which make the difference between 5th place and 1st place are found by painful, time consuming, expensive, whittling away ounce by ounce. So it is with frontal area and drag. So saving a few pounds and/or a few square inches of frontal area by making the gas tank smaller is just part of the difficult but totally necessary process of developing a car with truly world class fuel economy/electric range.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Jeff M. #58
There is so much misinformation spread out there, much of it by the petroleum industry.
Please see
http://tinyurl.com/5n4e2g
and
http://tinyurl.com/6px4l8
April 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
To the Volt Team: Dont mind the fluf comments, I personally think its a wise decision. For the majority of people the gas would just be going stale. I have never in my life driven more than 300 Miles non stop.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
PS. I dont think this car was made with the intent of driving cross country and off road…at least not the first generation. If its that much of an issue to you wait untill the second generation where it may become an option or the battery tech will advance. However for the rest of us just give us our VOLT ASAP and stop the miniscule bickering!
April 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
@78 Grizzly…very informative…good to know. I kind of fell in to the propoganda and assumed that E85 was more expensive and inifficient. Which is true but only to an extent.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Tom #74:
I suppose I could haul gravel in the back end of a Chevy Tahoe too, but that is not the original design goal of the vehicle…..
This car’s initial design spec was for a car with 120 volt plug in charging capability for a battery pack to get 40 miles AER, because the statistics presented were that 78% of daily commutes were 40 miles or less. And under that spec, the gasoline used will be next to zero. But to keep the owners from having “range anxiety”, they designed in a small ICE with a generator. This would eliminate the main complaints of electric cars - getting stuck with dead batteries and the occasional longer trip.
If your requirements are everyday long range driving with no nightly plug in charging of the battery pack, the Gen-1 Volt is simply not the car you should be considering. There are other vehicles that would make more sense. I would also have to wonder what always running at a 30% SOC would do to the life expectancy of the battery pack!
The Volt is not THE one car for EVERONE’s driving patterns. That is an impossible design goal to meet. So I think that GM is staying on course with the choices they have made.
When the car is in the showroom, we will all be able to make that final decision……….
April 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Nasaman #9 & Estero #71:
“replace the Volt’s spare (or compact spare) with a “tire sealant & compressor kit”, and place a 10 or 12 gal tank under the trunk floor.”
My Chrysler Crossfire has a tire sealant / compressor kit and no spare tire, and I really hate it, especially with the low profile tires. When you hit something, you do not get a pinhole, you blow out the tire, and usually destroy the wheel. Having no spare means you call a tow truck. I have replaced 4 tires and wheels on this car in the 4.5 years I have owned it from potholes and hitting debris on the road…
Not fun and very expensive!!
April 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I am the proud owner if the finest midsized family sedan in the world today, the 2008 Chevy Malibu. In the fifteen weeks that I have owned the car, I’ve gone 1600 miles, or 16.16 miles a day. Certainly the Chevy Volt will serve my purpose, and I would be one that would use, almost exclusively, the 40 mile electric range. I’m the 82% demographic that GM is shooting for. If, however I choose to take it for a road trip, 400 miles is excellent. It’s 5.33 hours of driving at 75 MPG. I think most people would stop for lunch or dinner and fillup well before the range comes into question.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Yes, of course I meant 75 MPH
April 14th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Jeffery @73. Thanks for the URL. I honestly had no idea.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
DG @ 85 says, “I don’t think this car was made with the intent of driving cross country and off road…at least not the first generation.”
Well if that’s the case, then there is no point to buy it. Now I will need a second car to drive to Colorado from the east coast.
If the Volt isn’t meant to be an every day car, like the rest currently on the road, then what is the point of building it?
Sorry, but you are dead wrong on that one.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
400 mile range is fine for my purposes - daily commuter w/ roundtrip of 34 miles, occasional weekender out to 100 miles, and periodic long haul of 800 miles each way. For years the wife and I have switched every two hours whether or not we need fuel - gives the Boomer bodies a stretch and gives the better half a turn behind the wheel. Even in our 30s and 40s we rarely went beyond 300 without a stop - the kids would revolt - no pun intended.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
#82 Jim:
Your logic is completely twisted. Let’s apply it to the Prius. One of the Prius’s design goals was to run on all-electric power at very low speeds (thus making it a PZEV).
Does that mean the Prius is only supposed to be driven around parking lots? Should we call it a “parking lot car”? Maybe Prius owners should have another car for when they need to drive on city streets or highways?
April 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’ve never thought of the Volt as a strict “commuter” car. It should be capable of being driven as many miles as any ICE vehicle. This is part of the testing GM is going though, and part of the appeal of the car.
It has bothered me that a quote from a GM source once referred to the 3-banger/Genset as an “emergency” device. That can’t be the case and they know it, besides how could you even talk about a 640/400 mile range to begin with if the genset is for emergencies?
April 14th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I can allways add another tank if I need it. But I think 6 gallons is to much. I can live with a ONE gallon tank for emergency use only. When can i buy one?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
#87: Rashild Amul says “If the Volt isn’t meant to be an every day car, like the rest currently on the road, then what is the point of building it?
Sorry, but you are dead wrong on that one.”
Sorry, I think YOU are dead wrong. The Volt IS made to be an every day car, just not for really long distances.
And what is the point of building it?…wow..such a pro-oil statement. You sound like the average OPEC PR person ‘Oh, if an electric car can’t go the range of a gasoline vehicle, but has enough range for most people, what is the point’?
The point of of Volt, and other cars like it, is to reduce our oil consumption and is most cases, eliminate it. We don’t want to be spending 40% of our paycheck just to drive. We want to be energy independent. We want to have lower operating costs for cars…THAT is the point. 40 miles range on pure-battery is fine for most people. Add on a range-extender to give it a range of 300 miles and you can use it for 90% of all applications.
The Volt is made as an everyday car. You expect way too much from a 1st generation vehicle containing technology that is being used in this way for the VERY FIRST TIME.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t mind the tank just giving me 400 miles. I don’t take as many long trips as I used to and I don’t live out “in the middle of nowhere” where there aren’t many gas stations. I wonder how much both of the two 6 gallon tanks weigh when they are empty. I also wonder what GM would do with the extra space if they took out one of the side saddle gas tanks.
If GM and the car dealers could educate Volt buyers about the advantages of just keeping 2 gallons in the tank most of the time for city driving, then if might be okay to leave both 6 gallon tanks. Unfortunately, most people will just do whatever their usual habit is when it comes to getting gas. A lot of people will fill it ALL the way up when they go to the gas station even if they aren’t planning a long trip … and subsequently haul unnecessary gasoline weight around when the IC engine won’t even be running much … assuming they are plugging the Volt in at night.
Because of this, as a compromise I think GM ought to try to design one of the side saddle tanks to hold enough gas for about 480-500 (all electric + range extender) overall miles … and take the other one out if they need that space for something else. That’s close enough to match the 2008 Toyota Prius … which has a 550 mile range.
Sometimes you need to think about marketing you know. People buy cars for all sorts of reasons. I’m sure GM probably has some marketing research folks working on reasons people would want to buy a car like the Volt. I want the Volt to be one of GM’s best selling cars ever. I want GM’s first E-REV to be so good that people can’t imagine NOT getting a Volt or another upcoming E-REV model for their next car.
Who knows … people might think the Prius is a smarter buy because it has a range of 550 miles even if they never drive more than 250 miles between interstate breaks to go to the bathroom, etc. People will be thinking more about range in general with these new electric cars you know. Toyota probably gave the Prius two more gallons (11.9) than is really logical just so Prius owners don’t have to fill up as often. That makes it seem like the MPG is even better. If GM gets any info about a new plug in Prius, they ought to just get the overall range close to whatever theirs is.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
GMVF #92
I don’t believe GM is simply removing one of the side-saddles, they are scrapping both and moving a redesigned tank of unknown volume to the rear of the vehicle.
Since we know that the design of the Volt is or will be frozen very soon this is what Gen1 will have. When you’re working with technology like this and a 2010 release date, the last thing you want is to keep changing things.
I do agree with all who have stated that the range is an important marketing issue. I’ve also stated beyond this that it could be very important in an uncertain future of liquid fuel availability. While Volt Gen1 is targeted to roll off the assembly line in 2010, Gen 2 may already be working on this very issue.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I don’t understand you “commuter car” guys at all.
Why SHOULDN’T the Volt be used as a long-distance driver?
You can quote design goals and market placement at me until you’re blue in the face but those aren’t actual reasons why it wouldn’t be totally awesome to hop in a Volt and drive from NY to LA.
Do you know something I don’t, e.g., did GM decide to make the ICE out of Fischer Price material that will only last 1,000 miles instead of 150,000?
I agree with one of the posters above, you guys who are calling the Volt a commuter car are part of the problem. For some reason you have the mindset that electric cars can only be glorified golf carts and you’re perpetuating this myth. It’s time to start explaining to people how the Volt is NOT going to be a crippled vehicle. If you’re not doing that, you might as well tell people to go buy some more Hummers.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
GM did the smart thing by reducing mass and cost with the smaller, single tank. If you have to drive long distances, you SHOULD be stopping to take a break and get reinvigorated every 400 miles anyway.
Plus, more gas on board may mean more gas to drain/replace if you don’t use the gas engine enough and it sits in the tank for a long time. A twin tank set up worsens the problem of dealing with stale gas.. and hopefully most Volt owners will be driving around most often on purely electricity.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
#76 NorthernPiker
I believe the “range” discussed by GM is for intermittant AC use and for travel on a level surface.
For an uphill climb, my calculations indicate about 5 kW of additional power for each 1% of grade in a fully loaded Volt at 60 mph. See these calcs from the forum about 3 weeks ago:
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133
April 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I sure hope GM is reading this stuff. I am going to bet they do not have a clue as to what REAL people want in a NEW kind of car. They are going where no man (nor lady) has gone before. To do that they had better listen up. The next couple of years should be FUN! You can NOT reinvent something as important as a car without listening to your consumers. They also better have some TOUGH managers that can make tough decisions. There is NO playbook to follow for the Volt. I love it!
Take Care
Arch
April 14th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Mark #92
“The Volt IS made to be an every day car, just not for really long distances.”
*** **** ****
I can’t possibly believe you’re right on this one. Can anyone envision the release of the Volt with say a 6-7 gallon gas tank and a legal disclaimer stating that the tank size is provided so that a “theoretical” range is possible, but this car is really just a city commuter?
Can’t happen, because if it does, the Volt is doomed.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
This is a no-brainer. We’re all used to a driving range of somewhere between 350-400 miles on a tank of gas. Should one go on vacation with the Volt, the range would be what we’re all used to. If reducing the tank size and resulting mass increases efficiency and electrical range, then do it. Bravo GM Volt team….you’re thinking stuff through and making the changes appropriately.
Any chance you have something up your sleeve where we might be able to buy a Volt in early 2010? Gas is now at $3.60 a gallon here in mid-Michigan. It’s going to be a dreary summer as travelers will have to cut back as I will.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
#95 BillR
I agree with your comments and your calculation of 5kW of power for an uphill climb of a 1% grade with a 4,000 lb. car at 60 mph. My calculation of 6 kW is also correct for a 3000 lb. car on a 2% grade at 50 mph. (Your Volt carried four people and all their gear; mine carried only an anorexic driver.)
April 14th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
# 98 Kevin R
“We’re all used to a driving range of somewhere between 350-400 miles on a tank of gas.”
In other words, let’s just be ordinary. And consumers (other than us enthusiasts) can think the same.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
#100 BillR
Not ordinary…practical. This car is anything but ordinary. If you want ordinary, a Prius awaits you. But saying a reduction of range due to fuel capacity makes the car ordinary…then……
We’re trying to go electric, not carry gallons of fuel to burn so we can go 5, 6, 700 miles on a fill-up. It’s needless bragging rights and serves no purpose other than that. Most of us are buying a Volt to drive to and from work on pure electricity, plain and simple, day in and day out. If I wanted that kind of capacity I’d buy a ICE car and call it a day.
I want an electric that will go as far as it can without using a drop of gas, period. If sacrificing a few gallons of gas will give me even more range on pure electricity, so be it. If guys such as yourself want the range, by all means install a supplementary fuel tank.
Maybe GM will offer one as an option, though I hardly doubt it. It’s a thought though for those of you who foresee the need for that kind of range between fill-ups. But chances are it wouldn’t fit in the current configuration.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Again, most comments are positive and a few are not. Whatever happened to pleasing all the people all the time? I guess the Volt is not a panacea. I blame practicality.
Volt 1.0 is just the beginning people. Overall, I’m glad GM is pursuing the Volt, even if it doesn’t meet each and every contingency that might occur. When considering which car to buy, I think the Volt will be my best choice by far…and I represent one of many, many (did I say many?) people that drive less than 40 miles per day.
If Volt 1.0 is not for you, don’t buy it. But, don’t be mad that GM didn’t cater to you right out of the gate. If I wanted to sell a lot of cars, I’d target my biggest potential market too. But one car satisfying all? That doesn’t exist.
Be patient. Your car will come along. The E-Rev family tree will sprout many branches.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
If I put a 50-gallon gas tank in my ‘92 Honda Civic, I figure I’d have about 1200-mile range. If range is important to you, you should buy my car. I am now opening up the bidding for my 1200-mile range car. I hope you meet my reserve.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
#101 Kevin R
“We’re trying to go electric, not carry gallons of fuel to burn so we can go 5, 6, 700 miles on a fill-up. It’s needless bragging rights and serves no purpose other than that.”
Obviously, you haven’t read many of the other 99 comments to this post. There are many EXCELLENT reasons for having the added range (long trips, choice of refueling stations, traveling at night or in remote areas, fewer fill-ups for those with long commutes, etc.). But maybe, since they don’t fit your needs or lifestyle, YOU don’t consider them important.
For those of us who consider the longer range a great feature, we have our reasons, and its not for bragging rights (those are for GM).
“I want an electric that will go as far as it can without using a drop of gas, period.”
Perhaps you should read the next post, and advocate for a smaller ICE, less powerful electric motor, no AC, etc. All these changes will help to give you more electric range as well.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The Volt will, very likely, be expensive. People may well be willing to buy a primarily urban commuter car that has some compromised capability but they’re very unlikely to spend luxury car money on a vehicle that’s not fully capable.
The range is a consideration. I assure you, we’ve driven very long distances, safely, on any number of occasions. Long range adds flexibility. If we do stop for a little while, it might be at a rest area without refueling. We might stop where gas is expensive. We might not want to stop along an interstate where fuel is expensive and getting off involves some extra time.
I live in the Midwest. It’s a long way to anything. I’ve traveled in the West, where it’s a longer way to anything. I’ve glanced, nervously, at the fuel guage on our van, which has a 500+ mile range, on some of those trips.
Also, bear in mind that the range of the Volt, at 400 miles AER plus range-extension, can’t be entirely used. You won’t necessarily find a station at mile 400, so you fill up sooner. Think in terms of keeping a 50 mile reserve. After that first fillup, unless you can plug in, your Volt now no longer has the AER range, so range drops to 350 or so miles. But you won’t use all that, either, think in terms of 300. Your practical two-tank range is probably 650 miles. The two-tank range on our minivan (allowing for a 50-mile reserve) is 950 miles. A Prius is in the same ballpark, probably somewhat better. You’re filling up three times for our two. Some of those won’t be convenient for you.
The Prius sells pretty well because it’s more expensive than, say, a Corolla, but still less than most mid-size cars and it doesn’t require the owner to make many compromises. It acts like a regular gasser and has all the performance characteristics of a regular gasser.
If the Volt requires compromises, it’s going to reduce the market for the Volt.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
#105 Charlie H
Thank you for providing some first hand information. Some of the urban dwellers seem to think there are 24-hour gas stations every mile all across the country.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
If anybody is still reading this thread, by the time you get to this post you must be crosseyed! WOW! What a bunch of nit-picking and crying over something that almost nobody gives a minute of thought to on their current car. This limitation from “only” 400 miles of range is the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week. And I’ve heard some dumb stuff! My current commuter car (94 Prism) has a theoretical range of 450-500 miles for highway driving. I start looking for a gas station around 320 miles because I don’t want to run it dry and it doesn’t always get “highway” mileage. It’s a COMMUTER car that goes 15 miles at a time! Once I start getting low, I’ve got 3 DAYS to find a gas station.
Want something with serious range? How about my diesel pickup? It will go 600 miles per tank. So why dont’ I commute in it? That tank costs $135 to fill. OUCH! I have to top it off before I get down to 1/2 tank or else the credit card machine shuts down the pump at $75 and I have to feed the card machine again to finish filling up.
The psychological effect of being able to fill-er-up for less than $30 will be huge. I fully support the decision to go with a smaller tank. If it means fewer Volt sales then I’ll be able to buy mine sooner because the line at the dealer won’t be quite as long. Go GM!
April 14th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
#102 Kevin:
Don’t assume that we all have exactly the same motivations as you.
If I had to choose between a Prius and running a Volt on gas, the latter is a no brainer. The Volt will get similar gas mileage, but accelerate faster, handle better (due to weight and location of the battery), drive smoother (perfect torque curve/no transmission), and be less complicated and expensive to repair.
Why you people think the Volt is a glorified golf cart and not serious Prius competition is beyond me.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Tom #89:
How is my logic twisted?
The Prius is an ICE based vehicle with an electric assist.
The Volt is an electric vehicle with an ICE assist.
And I do not believe that purchasing a Volt over a Prius is a no brainer, as you stated. It depends upon your driing requirments and also the amount of money you are willing to spend.
Driving the Volt daily without charging the battery pack, and running solely on the ICE, makes this a very expensive highway driver just to get 50 MPG, and until more information is available, could put a real strain on the life expectancy of that pack.
The Prius, on the other hand uses electric assist in the lower end, but becomes a standard ICE based vehicle, with the engine powering the transmission and wheels directly at higher speeds, but still getting almost 50 MPG at about 60%-65% of the initial cost of a Volt (assuming a $40K Volt).
It is not that we do not consider the Volt to be serious Prius competition. Most of us think that they are two completely different approaches to the problem, and depending on how you need to drive, one may be better than the other.
But if performance and range is what you are looking for with great mileage, I think you should be waiting for the Audi TT Diesel. Here is a link:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/audi-tt-turbo-diesel.php
See? Different solutions for different needs!
April 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Mark #92,
I was asking a question while being sarcastic.
The Volt is an everyday car otherwise there is no point in building it.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Mark, #92.
Wow, you don’t really know me.
Let me explain. You have completely misinterpreted my remarks.
I hate oil. That is no secret here. I hate the middle east and terrorism too. I am well aware that every time I pull into the gas station, I am supporting terrorism.
My comments below were in response to DG’s comments.
The numbers are all screwed up here because of the moderation problems. But before you blast me, read the whole thing.
And let me repeat…..If the Volt is not meant to be an everyday car,
then there is no point in building it. But it is meant to be a primary car and that is what we need.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:31 am
#109 Jim:
Not sure why you think maintaining a 30% SOC for the battery could be any worse for it than constantly charging and discharging it. Depending on how the power electronics in the Volt are set up, if there’s a power bus that allows the generator to feed power directly to the motor, it may actually be much less wear & tear on the battery to have the generator running.
Anyway, if you bring price into the equation, the Prius is a better deal if you just want a gas-powered car that gets 50 MPG. I’d still prefer the Volt though.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Moderation problems again.
I think Lyle is angry at me as he keeps putting my comments into purgatory.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:55 am
To me, the big news in the interview is the fact that a charge-sustaining gasoline consumption of 50 MPG is still expected, even as all the aerodynamic and other detail engineering work is being completed.
Remember that the battery is expected to be the highest cost item of the E-Flex design. I think the 50 MPG news means that a vehicle with a smaller battery - possibly even with a less-expensive chemistry - but with the other E-Flex components - could achieve 50 MPG. This alone would be a revolution in American vehicle economy and blow away the 35 MPG CAFE requirement of a decade from now. It would also allow the E-Flex components to be made in volumes of many millions, get mechanics everywhere familiar with series hybrids and electric drive, condition consumers to the electrification of vehicles, etc.
For anyone I know, 350 miles of range is plenty.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Kevin R #101 said:
“I want an electric that will go as far as it can without using a drop of gas, period. If sacrificing a few gallons of gas will give me even more range on pure electricity, so be it. If guys such as yourself want the range, by all means install a supplementary fuel tank.”
Sorry Kevin, you have no clue. If you going to take a long trip in the Volt (you choose the distance), it makes not difference if the Volt has a range of 640 miles or 400 miles; the amount of fuel used will be the same. The issue at hand is “how often” will one have to stop for fuel.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:25 am
#113 Estero
I have ‘no clue’. Are you kidding? I routinely drive to Chicago and Toronto….both hundreds of miles in one direction. No clue eh? Folks, this is about a couple of gallons of fuel. So much negativity, so much whining.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
The purpose of this car is the commuter, not the long distance guy. A large tank will be a problem for most people due to stale gas. Gas will last less than 6 month and will need a very expensive drain and flush. Let GM get it’s mitts into the commuter market and then pressure them for 9 hour nonstop vehicle. (sounds awful to me but to each his own)
April 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Estero #113:
The real issue is NOT how far you can go before you have to fuel up.
IMHO, the REAL question is:
How often would that be utilized, and by how many of the owners of the vehicle, so therefore is it worth it to charge everyone to have this capacity, if only X% of the owners feel it is necessary? Or should they make it an option for those that want or require this capability?
Now, what we need answered are what is the value of X and what would the cost difference be?
Doesn’t that boil it down to the basics?
April 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Bill #112:
Interesting point. It does raise an interesting viewpoint that even without battery breakthrough’s or further longevity/safety testing on the batteries, the Eflex platform could concievably go into production today as a purely real time charge generator system.
I’m not sure that’s practical, perhaps someone more versed on the tech can chime in, but at worse, it appears that you could use current battery tech (on a more limited scale, just to provide some cushion for the ICE to generator conversion) and put this into production automobiles today and achieve 50 mpg. Am I wrong?
April 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Re: the original article, I think 400 miles is fine range wise since I’ll be able to stop, get gas, and continue on my way.
I hope that solar cells will become even more powerful and provide another means of extending range, especially since my car would be sitting outside in the sun all day while I’m at work. That would be a great opportunity for me to get a few extra miles range.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I think the decreased tank size is reasonable, although I don’t see it being a tremendous saving.
If we’re trying to save fuel and volume, I’d still like to see a Stirling engine.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
My current Honda Insight gets 600+ miles per tank and it is one of the features I like best about it. That is in addition to getting 60+ miles per gallon. I would trade it today for a Toyota RAV-4 EV which still provides 100 miles of all electric range even though the last one was made a number of years ago. My future goal is to have a solar charging garage for my Chevy volt so that no $3.50 a gallon gas will be needed at all. I would settle for a mule. You listening GM?
TED
April 15th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I didn’t read every comment, but I’m not sure I saw this addressed…the bigger the gas tank, the slower the gas gauge moves and it makes the car seem more fuel efficient than it really is.
My Full sized truck has a 30 gallon tank, but when I can drive over 500 miles it feels efficient, even though it costs $90 to fill it back up. A larger tank would make the Volt seem as if it hardly uses any gas, (which is nearly true).
I think a marketing advantage is being lost and GM is thinking too technical.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am
#97 BillR,
Thanks for linking to the piece with your 1% grade calculations, your Kansas-to-San Francisco example should be required reading for anyone talking about power requirements, etc.
I don’t believe the Volt ICE will run at 30 kW on level ground and recharge the battery to 40%, however. IMHO control logic will match ICE output to steady-state freeway road load. It’s easy to maintain near-peak efficiency over a fairly wide power band. You can do 12 kW at full-throttle low RPM and 40 kW at full-throttle medium RPM. You might give up a couple percent efficiency over this range vs. fixed RPM operation, but you get this back (and then some) by avoiding a round-trip through the battery.
The battery will always help with transient loads, of course, and the ICE will probably cycle on and off as you describe when road load is too low for efficient operation (e.g. 30 mph). Just my opinion.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I too would want to have a greater than 400 mile E-REV range even if the added tankage weighed us down some. If you choose to use a flex fuel, e.g. E-85, and the infrastructure is not there yet, a single trip to the pump is far better than many. The marketing benefit of a 600 mile extended range will go far to support GM’s recent efforts in growing alternative fuel resources. Maybe a compromise?
April 16th, 2