Toyota Attacks the Volt…Again
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) are having a conference in Detroit this week. One paper that was presented was written by Toyota and called ‘Study on the Potential Benefits of a Hybrid System”.
The results were summarized by our friend Mike Milikin of Greencarcongress.
In the study Toyota compared the E-REV concept to the PHEV Prius concept. They analyzed each vehicle driving the US06 (aggressive) cycle which they calculated requires 100 kW maximum output.
Toyota argues that the Volt would need to have battery, motor, and electrical system all be capable of creating that 100 kw. For their blended or parallel PHEV, though, electrical output would only have to create 20 kw average and 40 kw maximum, the combustion engine taking care of the rest.
Toyota concludes that because of the cost of batteries large enough to be capable of generating 100 kw, it is primarily more cost effective at the current time to focus on blended PHEVs.
My take: Yes, Toyota, I agree the Prius will be cheaper then the first generation Volts, but we must start somewhere and battery prices will drop over time.
But most of all, is the value of being able to drive entirely without petroleum just about saving money?
Source (Greencarcongress)
Popularity: 5%
(10 votes, average: 4.7 out of 5) 
Loading ...
April 18th, 2008 at 7:14 am
100kW translates into a 5s 0-60 time for a 3000lb vehicle.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Quote: “But most of all, is the value of being able to drive entirely without petroleum just about saving money?”
In some instances, the answer is yes…
To me, not supporting the turmOIL in the oil rich nations is a reason…cost ranks up there too, and the environment is yet another…
The Volt’s time is now…GM’s time is now!…OUR time is now!…for peace, and for the environment…and the money.
Johnnie
April 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am
They can publish papers all they want… As they say, “The proof’s in the pudding!” Once both cars are out, we’ll know which one’s better.
I, like most, am very excited about needing to gas up for long trips only.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Quote: “But most of all, is the value of being able to drive entirely without petroleum just about saving money?”
If people buy it when the cost is over what the masses can afford, then the answer is No. Ending terrorism, saving the environment, ending the war, ending the oil monopoly on vehicles, etc. These are all part of the value of the Volt when buying it.
But each individual buyer will have to determine why they are buying the Volt. When the Volt cost about $20K, at this point it might be about saving money. But definitely not when the Volt is going to be sold at a premium. If they want to save money, they will be a Prius.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Battery prices will drop over time and with the level of R&D going into battery research I’m betting within a few years of the volts initial debut customers will have a choice of how powerful a battery they want without having to give up more space in the car. I’m sure it will cost the customer more for a 32 or 48KwHr battery but think of the improved range.
I for one can’t wait to kick OPEC, and quite frankly all the other oil producing countries that aren’t exactly friendly to the US, to the curb.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
The beauty of a free market economy and choices means both manufactures have to have excellent products. Honda can sabre rattle all they want, but time and user feedback will tell.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Quote: “But most of all, is the value of being able to drive entirely without petroleum just about saving money?”
totaly agree come on guys toyota has had the prius for how long and they still don’t want to switch to an electyric vehicle.
I used to be obsesed wtih the Prius and Camry hybrid i wanted one, but the advantages of having an electric car where the gas engine is used to charge the battery is awesome. It’s time for us to make the next step and i applaud GM for being the one to do it.
on a side note.
GM keep two batttery manufacturers for the first two years then have them bid for the new contracts so you can have some great competition between the battery companies between technology and price. meaning lower battery cost for GM and a cheaper VOLT for us.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Why is it that some people will think nothing of paying twice what they need to for a car that drives fast and has leather seats, but look at the environmental features of a car solely in terms of dollars and cents? If all you want is a car to get you from A to B, you never need to spend more than twenty thousand dollars. Anything more than that is because it’s worth it to you to have a car that’s better in some ways. You get something out of the extra cost, whether it’s a nicer interior, better performance, a feeling of social status, or, in the Volt’s case, the ability to contribute to lessen your impact on the environment. The fact that no one questions why this calculus makes sense when you’re buying a BMW, but think that it’s a waste of money with the Volt, just reveals how narrowly some people think about value in cars.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:45 am
The Toyota Prius design is well considered, given the limitations of the battery it uses. But the high power capability of the A123 battery negates the need for a huge battery in order to provide peak power of 100 KW.
And so if the Volt design packs enough battery capacity for an AER over 30 miles, based on the USO6 driving cycle, it will have ample peak power capacity if it uses the A123/Conti pack. I do not recall if the LG battery also features high power capability, but it probably does.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:46 am
I think there may actually be a little ‘tongue-in-cheek’ here from Toyota…these are the EXACT comments GM (Lutz himself actually) stated about the practicality of the Prius and continued to state until about 2 years ago.
That said, if ANYONE knows how to balance the cost/benefit of introducing new technology to the auto industry it’s Toyota. But you guys are right, we’ll see what’s what once both cars are on the road.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Let’s hope that Toyota is making the same mistake as GM made by not going with hybrids when they had the technology to do so. We all know GM is taking a risk on the roll of these dice. My theory is that doing nothing is worse than not trying new ideas.
We proved our technolgy and determination was superior in the second World War and we’ll do it again!!
Bless you GN, and go for it!
April 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Nice comment Jay, I like that one.
I’m going to repeat a rash generalization, hoping people take it the right way.
Toyota buyers tend to buy transportation
GM buyers tend to buy cars.
Toyota says you don’t need it, GM says maybe not, but it will be fun. They are both right, for their customers.
Which is why GM has survived to this day, at all, considering their problems with product reliability (past or present, or both, however you look at it).
I got whacked a couple days ago telling people on this blog that a car is a toaster, toast is toast, blah blah blah…but what it illustrated was that most of the people watching closely for the Volt are about the car, not the transportation. Those people are also willing to shell out over 30k, because they think it’s still worth it.
I’m still generalizing, but I’m not being unfair.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:59 am
The Argonne study examined mpg ratings for all-electric-ranges (AER) of 10 and 40 miles. How does that work? If a series hybrid (Volt) uses no gas for the first 40 miles, how do they conclude that a series hybrid has a 50+ mpg rating, and a parallel hybrid (Prius) has a 60+ mpg rating? I get the idea that more energy is wasted in the ICE-Battery-Electric engine conversion, but that presumes that the ICE will be used regularly. When I get my Volt, I doubt if the ICE will kick in even once per week on average, given my typical driving patters.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Allot of people with allot of money will find the Volt appealing and even sexy at first (along with a green-halo for the driver and for GM). That attractive/exciting aspect is one big thing going for the Volt that the Prius never had. The Prius has always had green-cred appeal and realistic payback periods but let’s face it most people find it kind of ugly and not very exciting.
For years to come the Prius will still be the “people’s” green car because it is extremely affordable and the price is still dropping as performance increases (we’ll see how well the new Honda world hybrid can compete) . The Volt will be more of a Corvette-type icon selling to an entirely different demographic at lower volume. Battery prices will come down eventually, but how fast and how far is still in question. If you don’t know the limiting material costs at mass production you can’t answer that question.
There will be some overlap in customers, but on the whole these two vehicles will not be direct competitors for a long time.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:08 am
It seems that I am stuck using gas unless the Volt can do about 60 miles in EV mode only. I have a 51 mile commute and possibly will be able to plug in at work. But GM says 50 miles at beginning of life.
So assuming that, I will run the ICE for 2 miles a day. I can’t imagine that being good for the system. It doesn’t really allow the ICE to warm up and lose any internal moisture, including the moisture that may be in the exhaust. So I wonder if the maintenance cost will be high on the ICE because of that. If so, then I buy an expensive Volt and will have expensive maintenance? I don’t know. I’m not a mechanic.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
The Prius is a brilliant execution of an innovative design. The people at Toyota are smart. Let us study what they say carefully and learn from it. Doing so requires no concessions on behalf of the Volt.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
“driving the US06 (aggressive) cycle”
Their entire premise is obsolete. The ever increasing fuel/energy prices will force more efficient driving modes. *ANY* aggressive driving style is a luxury that we won’t be able to afford in the near future.
You don’t design a brand new car technology for the past. You look into the future. Acceleration just won’t be as important in the future as it is now.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am
“But most of all, is the value of being able to drive entirely without petroleum just about saving money?”
Well the 1st priority is not so much saving money. Rather it is simply keeping driving costs stable and capping their growth. In other words, keeping driving affordable. It may mean a higher price short term (Volt) so long as the overall driving cost stops rising.
For gasoline cars there is no limit to total car costs (fuel, maintenance, etc.)
April 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Let’s see… I just traded my 2005 Toyota Tacoma quad cab (sticker was $29k) that I was getting 16Mpg (all city) for a loaded 2008 Camry Hybrid (sticker $31K) and am how getting about 37.5 MPG.
However I will DUMP the Camry in a HEARTBEAT if I can afford the Volt when it comes out. If I were Toyota I’d write as many negetive things as I could about the Volt… because it’s a real THREAT if it works as advertised.
Bottom line… If I can stop wasteing $ on gas I will. I drive less than 40 miles a day. I will use VERY little gas in a year, I estimate less than 5 gallons a month.
Toyota must have a real fear of the Volt, Gooo… GM!!!!
The Prius is UGLY, the Volt has the sex appeal the Prius never will. Just becaus it’s better on Gas than my Camry Hybrid doesn’t mean I have to drive it if i don’t like it.
I think Toyota has it worng betting on something that MUST use gas. As soon as I can get off that band wagon I will. Hopefully I will do it whith the Volt.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Toyota is seeing itself behind the eight ball and will try to discourage people from buying The Volt. Here in the US, thank God, we have the infrastructure to support E85 and the Volt (large farmland and nuclear power plants) and they don’t in Japan. They are looking long term and see them self lagging behind especially in battery technology.
In the first place, I don’t think they should have been allowed to build cars in the US without paying something to the US to offset the legacy costs of the domestic car manufacturers To me that was grossly unfair.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:51 am
E-REV is the next logical step toward full vehicular electrification to get off oil and ALL the costs related to it. What we pay at the pump is just a very small fraction of those costs. WAR, Disease, Pain & Suffering take a much larger indirect toll.
Toyota is playing political spin by telling half-truths.
On a related note: In order to have a MAXIMUM global societal impact, the E-REVs must be coupled with our willingness to disengage ourselves as the world police force. We must close over 500 foreign bases (and their related costs), defend OUR boarders, disengage ourselves the impotent & corrupt UN and throw out of our country, go back to sound (not fiat) money, abolish the NON-Federal Reserve and read, follow and OBEY (not interpret) the US Constitution.
Looking at the crop of Presidential candidates, I’m certain that there will be NO change after the election and that those saying that there will be change are simply lying to win votes from the gullible. (some of you are reading this now)
Business and politics are made up of the same stuff… posturing, lying, misdirection, spin and corruption. Toyota is just spinning as fast as it can to protect itself from some REAL competition and praying that we don’t wake up and engage our intellect.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:09 am
#14 Rashiid Amul
I share your concerns about the ICE running for short bursts. If I understand things correctly, the ICE will turn on as needed to maintain a battery charge at near 30%, but never long enough to bring the charge back up to 80%. This suggest to me the ICE will startup and shut down frequently even on long trips.
I had always understood that frequent starting of any ICE causes more wear & tear than letting it run for an extended period of time.
I had also understood that frequent starting of any ICE results in less fuel economy than letting it run for an extended period of time.
So, I’m concerned about both of thes issues. Perhaps others can comment on the effect of frequent starting of the ICE as it relates to both maintenance and fuel economy.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Quote “Toyota’s basic argument is that the costs and trade-offs of deploying an extended range electric vehicle architecture at this time outweigh the benefits, and that blended systems have greater benefit at this point in time.”
With their limited technology and experience with E-Rev’s, this may be true (from their perspective).
For some odd reason, their E-Rev needs 100 kW, however, the blended hybrid only needs 40 kW (if that doesn’t tell you something, I don’t know what will).
Quote “Toyota argued that providing increased EV range increases vehicle cost due to higher battery cost; reduces luggage space; and increases fuel consumption in charge sustaining mode due to increased battery mass.”
Interesting, since Frank Weber has stated that an additional 400 lbs (the weight of the Volt’s battery pack) only decreases AER by 2 miles. Obviously, GM knows something that Toymota doesn’t.
The moral of the story, many different conclusions can be made from a study like this, depending upon what your assumptions are. What is the size of the battery pack, what power can it deliver, how efficient is the traction drive motor, etc.
Its easy for Toymota to use a low power density 600 lb Li-Ion battery pack in their study (they’ve already gone on record warning about Li-Ion safety), use a DC traction motor in lieu of the high efficiency 3 phase AC, add a great deal of weight to the car to support the battery/associated equipment, and claim the ICE has poor efficiency due to its point of operation.
All this leads to the fact that GM has used innovation in its design of the Volt, while Toymota is looking to sell the same car that it has been for the last 10 years. That’s what we call “Moving Forward”.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Nothing is quite as sweet as driving in my buddies 1968 Chevelle with the windows down and the wind roaring while the needle passes 120mph. The rush of that motor and smell of the exhaust makes me giddy like a school boy.
Take that 180* and you have the Prius…If the volt can make this car FUN to drive(not necessarily in the same way as the chevelle) it will blow the Prius away. If GM makes a CAR not an APPLIANCE, then Toyhonda will have to put their foot in their mouth.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
First they ignore us.
Next the laugh as us.
Then they attack us..
Then we win.
Maybe not the exact quote, but something similar to what Mahatma Gandhi said about British while protesting British rule in India.
(I happen to be British).
It is not just about money, for me at least. If I can power my Volt via my solar panels and use no more than 20 gallons of gas per year — that would be priceless.
My BIPV: http://tinyurl.com/2jzbfq
April 18th, 2008 at 9:19 am
#20 Well said Tim !!
April 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am
What about the fact that the Prius is UGLY AS SIN!
April 18th, 2008 at 9:26 am
“…the Prius will be cheaper then the first generation Volts, but we must start somewhere and battery prices will drop over time.”
You only get one chance to make a first impression. A high priced Volt introduction will not plant in our collective psyches the notion of a people’s car.
Jay (#8) justifies a high Volt price because the Volt appeals to a niche; ability to contribute to lessen your impact on the environment.
Despite the claims of some on this blog, the Volt is GM’s answer to Toyota’s Prius. If that is the case, the Volt has to compete with the Prius. Has the Prius price come down from $40k to $25k? If Priuses cost $40k, would you see as many on the road? No. People buy the Prius because they can afford it and it satisfies their desire for a “normal” acting car that also saves them gas and does less harm to the environment.
I thought the Volt was supposed to be more than a high-priced niche vehicle. I thought the Volt was supposed to be a “people’s” car. If the Volt is going to be a car for the masses, it needs to give people what they expect in a car, and more - at an affordable price.
“…is the value of being able to drive entirely without petroleum just about saving money?”
Since the 1970’s, we’ve known that our dependence on petroleum might not be best for us. Yet, traditionally, petroleum use has not been a controlling factor in US auto purchases. Historically, we purchased large cars/SUVs/trucks instead of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. We want what we want. If the goal is to put a million Volts on the road, you aren’t going to do it marketing to altruistically-minded consumers consumers. You need to give people what they want at a price they can afford.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
My starting point is that the Toyota Prius is a well executed and even brilliant design with innovative features and innovative styling, So, we can learn a lot from the Prius, and from Toyota. One of the more important conclusions one reaches comes from studying its commercial success. Overall, most everyone who has looked at the Prius has concluded that it costs more, in total, than a comparable ICE Toyota. The success of the Prius comes not from lower cost but from its attractiveness to a large number of loyal (dare one say cult-like) owners. These Prius owners like its ecofriendly reputation, lower gas requirements, and like their ownership to be visible in its distinctive styling. These factors are positives for the Volt as well, or even better.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Most of the comments here state exactly why the Volt will be a winner and why I will be one of the first purchasers in 2010.
Minimal use of gasoline except for long trips.
Elimination of foreign oil dependence
Ability to have our military disengage from protecting petroleum routes…
…Which leads to less visibility of the USA on the world stage and thus we become less of a target to terrorists
Stop the transfer of wealth from United States citizens to foreign hostile countries
Reduction of carbon dioxide and other pollutants
Less maintenance and repair costs
The ability to charge the Volt via solar power via panels on one’s garage.
There are so many reasons to buy the Volt and many Americans will find several to support their reason to purchase one. Justification comes in many flavors. Choose any combination and it’s a win, win situation, both for us as consumers and nation and for GM!
April 18th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the comparison of the next-gen Prius vs. the Volt is pointless, because both cars will sell out, no matter how many they make.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Before we go on too long arguing about the price of the Volt, it is good to keep in mind that cost is one thing, price another. We bloggers (and probably most or all of GM as of now) do not know the actual production cost. We certainly do not know the Volt’s sticker price. That price is going to reflect marketplace demand at the time of introduction (which may be very strong), as well as GM magement’s outlook on possible follow up production schedules or other vehicles.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
#1 Joshua,
100kW is not 0-60 in 5 seconds because you can’t use all 100 kW at low speeds and aero drag plays a role at high speeds. If you distribute the 100 kW optimally among all four wheels you might achieve 6 seconds. Volt with 120kW will be at best 7 seconds due to FWD.
The Toyota paper says Toyota’s approach is the best. GM also put out a paper, which says E-REVs are superior. Shocking, isn’t it. The GreenCarCongress of the Argonne paper doesn’t make much sense. If I get time I’ll try to read the actual paper because Argonne usually does better work. BTW, I think the 20-40 kW Toyota comments relate to city cycle, not US06, but again I’d have to read the actual paper.
Blended IS cheaper, and not just because of batteries. I mentioned this in another thread. Volt has:
120 kW motor
53 kW generator
———————-
173 kW total
Volt also has 120 kW battery and power electronics. A blended PHEV could get the same performance from as little as:
40 kW mogen
45 kW mogen
—————–
85 kW total
with 85 kW battery and power electronics. Power electronics savings is 30% and motor/generator savings is 50%. These are expensive components, we’re talking thousands in savings. Battery savings are harder to compute. Power density is usually not the limiting factor for a large PHEV pack. Lower peak power might let you extend the discharge window a little. I could see 10% savings, call it $500 or so. Savings could be much more if it allows you to use a low-power chemistry such as NIMH, Firefly, Lithium-poly, etc.
Note: Toyota’s HSD does not allow both mogens to simultaneously provide full power to the wheels. As such Toyota won’t deliver the full savings mentioned above. I believe BYD’s F6DM design does allow both mogens and the ICE to simultaneously drive the wheels. Note that BYD says F6DM will cost only $6000 more than the F6. I don’t think E-Flex can match that. Final note: blended mode operation causes an emissions nightmare during US06-style driving because you run a cold engine at full throttle every time you accelerate. To my knowledge no one has addressed this issue.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Estero,
“to maintain a battery charge at near 30%”
Wrong. ICE maintains *AT LEAST* 30% SOC
There is no rule preventing ICE from chargining battery to 80%. Certainly one of the factors will be runtime to prevent frequent ICE restarts.
ICE starting is bad when an engine is cold! If an ICE is restarted often for a warm engine then there are no significant ill effects, like higher wear. So frequent ICE starts are not a problem so long as engine is warm.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“What about the fact that the Prius is UGLY AS SIN!”
AMEN!!!
Maybe if Toyota made an electric sports car.
ie. Supra EV
Now maybe I’d buy that.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
If gas prices keep going up, believe me, people are going to be taking a VERY close look at the Volt even if it is priced closer to $40,000 instead of $30,000 like we’d all prefer.
People don’t like being hit with unexpected price increases at the gas pump. Same thing with the prices of groceries going up. It makes people’s blood pressure go up and wonder if they are being taken advantage of by somebody. At least when you buy a Volt you know your car payments aren’t going to go up every month like your gasoline budget does.
I think people are going to be surprised how reliable the Volt is probably going to be. It will probably save a good bit of money on maintenance over time. The batteries will be covered in the warranty you know. You may be able to lease the battery and a get new one every 3-4 years that has more range and might even be cheaper.
I’m hoping that GM or some other company comes up with a really good battery charging technology that makes keeping your Volt charged an AUTOMATIC thing that you don’t even have to think about. A wireless charging system would be awesome. One at home and the office would be great.
http://www.ecoupled.com/pdf/tech_overview.pdf
http://www.ecoupled.com/resourcesMain.html
Just pull in the driveway or garage and a LED light comes up on your dash showing “charging now” or “set to charge later” or whatever. Keeping that IC engine from running as much as possible is going to be the key to getting the most “bang for your buck” out of the Volt.
People are going to have a lot of fun showing off their Volt to their friends and neighbors and telling them how INFREQUENTLY they have to pay for gas, how they don’t have to worry about the whims of OPEC oil countries, oil demand from China/India, etc. Volt owners won’t have to worry about that crap much at all if they keep the car juiced up as much as possible.
People will probably stretch their car payments some to get that peace of mind and the envy of their neighbors … especially the ones with the huge SUVs who have to drive like little old ladies because they don’t want to abuse their credit card again with another $100 (or more) tank of gas.
People that really can’t afford big SUVs and trucks will probably have to trade them in if gas prices keep going up. The Volt and 150 mpg will look pretty darned compelling to them in 2010. They’ll be able to floor that accelerator again like the lady in the Cadillac CTS commercial because they know that their Volt will be automatically juiced up again with much cheaper “electrical fuel” once they get to the office or home again.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am
They are both great designs.
But with more types to choose from, we now have the freedom to choose which model suits our needs and desires the best!
I hope there are 25 different manufacturers producing all types of electrified vehicles over the next five or six years, because then pricing issues will be sorted out by competition!!!
But for now, our hopes are resting with GM to get things going!!!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:16 am
# 21 & # 32 I am sure that GM has designed the software to start the ICE as required for optimum charging and the ICE will probably be able to run with a no charge going to the battery in order to keep it (ICE) in good order….. Some gas will have to used for it not to go stale…. GM has probably taken into account the low milage communters and the ICE will start and probably run for a specified period of time to keep the ICE up to spec. (oil has to lub the bearings and shafts etc.) Simple solution would be to run the Batteries down to 30 % once every couple of weeks and let the ICE charge for a 1/2 hour trip or so.. no big deal.. It would cost you a couple of gallons of fuel per month..
April 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Tim @ #20: Thats what I agree with. The Volt is the way to go — pure electric drive sourced from home grown electricity rather than oil, for the reasons you state in your post. The myriad of world troubles that is now being derived from the overuse and dependance on oil, must be stopped ASAP.
GM — Please do not be deterred by the naysayers of the E-flex technology you’re trying to bring to market. The inital purchase price of the Volt does not take into account the urgent need to get off oil.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Is is surprising to anyone, even given the initial price disparity between these two vehicles that the only way Toyota (or any Pro-Prius) can make an argument for the Prius is to scribble out a bunch of math on cost/benefit?
Think about the fact that a lot of vehicle purchases are emotional. Ya love it and ya gotta have it. The recent spike in the price of gas has taken a real bite out of this. This is the reason for the Prius’ success, and the purchase is rational rather than emotional. The Volt will take the sting out of this since it is greener all the way around and it’s 240 lb/ft in the basement will bring a smile the pregnant roller skate can’t. Not to mention it’s driveway appeal.
Can anyone imagine someone considering a Saturn Sky or Nissan Z car opting instead for the Volt? Of course, but how many of that group would have the Prius on even their extended list? Zip. Look at this the other way, how many people with nothing but mileage on their mind who would consider a Yaris or Prius might want to shell out even $10K+ for a Volt instead for the reasons I stated? Not all but there might be more than you might think and that purchase would be on pure emotion and guilt free.
No…if I were Toyota I wouldn’t like the Volt either.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Using Toyota’s logic, no one should have ever bought a Prius since there’s no way one could justify the price premium over say a Corolla based on mileage.
#8 Jay is right on. Ridiculous to try to justify cost of Volt technology by $$ saving on gas consumption any more than one would justify cost of leather seats, nav systems, stereos, etc. You buy it because you like it at whatever the cost. If you want to save money on gas get an old Geo Metro.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Interesting perpective on this subject on how over time GM and Toyota reverses roles. Back 10 or more years ago Toyota was building and hybrid car call the Prius. Initially Prius cost a great amout of R&D and Toyota lost money for few years. Over time the technology matured and know Toyota is looking good. Back 10 years ago GM was saying it is waste of time and money to develop this hybrid car. Well we moved forward today and then GM realizes they made mistake and need to regain leadership. The introduce the Volt and spend large R&D and expect to lose money but expect in 5 to 10 years the technology will mature and they will be seen a technology and market leaders. Only Toyota is today taking the old GM view, that it is not worth investing in the new technology because of the risk and cost. Maybe Toyota is thinking we spend enough on development on Prius technology and let someone else develop the next generation the E-REV and then will will copy it after it matures.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
This is painful!
This site has way too many ostriches that take legitimate criticism as proof positive that GM’s approach is correct and those criticizing are just running scared. You think there is criticism now? Wait until we get closer to release and the full folly of GM’s sideshow is known.
There are going to be a lot of disappointed ostriches.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
It’s unfortunate but hers the reality between these two cars, just check out this link on the next generation 3 prius 2009 release in January compared to the volt, basically the prius wins…by a landside.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-great-hybrid-showdown-chevrolet-volt-vs-toyota-prius/
April 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Someone mention about wireless charging. I like to inform those who think that might be possible, don’t. There is no way that can happen. There is no technology out there that can transfer all that power to a battery or whatever, through a wireless device.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“Toyota attacks the Volt. Again”
“Toyota concludes that because of the cost of batteries large enough to be capable of generating 100 kw, it is primarily more cost effective at the current time to focus on blended PHEVs.”
Maybe we are being too sensitive. Who disagrees with Toyotas statement , “…it is primarily more cost effective at the current time to focus on blended PHEVs?” That seems more like a factual statement than an attack.
As far as cost-effectiveness, as has been stated here before, you need to consider short-term costs, and long-term costs, and costs to the manufacturers image (halo).
April 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
With the addition of an ultra-capacitor perhaps increased all-electric Volt mileage could be achieved by 2010 or in the second generation? Companies such as AFS Trinity have ultra-cap-battery power test vehicles on the road today.
GM’s Volt appears to be on a more progressive design track to accommodate future technologies, plus it could save hundreds if not thousands of dollars in fuel costs for consumers.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
If what toyota was proposing was so obvious it would be common knowledge and they wouldn’t feel the need to try to convince us with there funded research papers.
Toyota has always built rice burners, so as the age of fuel economy began toytoa and honda stepped forward, and Chevy & Ford stepped backwards.
Well Toyota now you got the big boys attention, you were right there might be something to this whole fuel economy thing, so instead of selling us a car that gets 15 more mpg than any other car, GM is going to sell us one that for a large majority of its owners will never need gas at all.
Once again i say:
THANK YOU TOYOTA FOR WAKING UP THE SLEEPING GIANT!
now get back in line! your niche market has just become mainstream and a real car company wants in!
If we ever get a president who supports US manufacturing, and not sending all our jobs overseas, and cuts some of the ridiculos tax cuts Toyota gets we’ll see how they fare.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
If you read the article on Green Car Congress … http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/determining-the.html#more … it says this:
“GM concluded that:
The real-world RTS data set contains widespread and significant driving at power levels and speeds beyond that represented by the urban driving schedule.
An E-REV is more than TEN times as likely to finish the day as an EV than as urban-capable PHEV derived from an HEV, when operated in the actual application, as represented by the RTS data set.
An E-REV consumer, on average, use less than HALF of the petroleum of a PHEV in the real world, IF overnight charging is assumed.
An E-REV will reduce regulated emissions that are due to initial trip starts by more than 70% when compared to a PHEV in the actual application
Electric range when operating on the urban schedule is not a direct measure of a plug-in vehicle’s ability to run with the engine off, ability to displace petroleum or ability to reduce regulated emissions in the actual application. Rather, the ability to run with FULL performance on electric power alone leads to improvements which would be realized in actual application.
In the event of a petroleum disruption, an E-REV could support uncompromised vehicle operation for the majority of drivers.”
“We conclude that electrification that enables E-REVs may be well worth the effort. Specifically designed electric powertrains, incorporating higher power motors and thermal systems, higher energy batteries and integrating them into vehicle structures specifically designed for that purpose will be rewarded with societal benefits in real world use. While PHEVs can make improvements compared to HEVs, an E-REV appears to realize a MUCH GREATER portion of societal benefits.”
By the way, you shouldn’t technically call the Volt a “Plug-in hybrid” (PHEV) according to GM … even though you plug it in. PHEVs are pretty much considered the current Priuses out there that have been converted to be plug-ins. They are actually “plug in POWER SPLIT hybrids” I guess … P + HEV. HEV = power split hybrid electric vehicle. GM will have it’s own (2 mode) PHEV with the Saturn VUE in 2009 or 2010.
The “series hybrids” (E-REVs) will be the MOST technically advanced kind of hybrid. It’s more like a pure electric car which is probably how all future cars will be unless fuel cells become absolutely necessary. The marketing people will have some problems describing the new hybrid technologies to customers. Lots of new acronyms. They’ll have to train the car dealer salesmen on this stuff and give them some good laptop charts or something.
People that like Toyota cars should be asking Toyota if and when they are going to make a “SERIES hybrid” (an E-REV). Toyota will probably be in catch up mode to GM and will need to develop their own series hybrid in the next few years. It’s inevitable. They better start re-allocating their R&D budgets for another billion or so for series hybrids or GM is going to outshine them in 2010+. GM will be the top dog in the hybrid car business if they don’t.
In the RESOURCES section at the bottom of this article, there’s links to some good .pdf reports from Toyota, Argonne Labs, and GM. You have to pay $14 for them though. I got the GM (Tate) one for now and the other ones later maybe.
Edward Tate (GM) et. al.; The Electrification of the Automobile: From Conventional Hybrid, to Plug-in Hybrids, to Extended-Range Electric Vehicles (SAE 2008-01-0458)
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-0458
Aymeric Rousseau (Argonne); Comparison of Production Powertrain Configuration Options for Plug-in HEVs from Fuel Economy Perspective (SAE 2008-01-0461)
Masayuki Komatsu (Toyota), et. al.; Study on the Potential Benefits of a Plug-in Hybrid System (SAE 2008-01-0456)
April 18th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I sort of responded to this before it got posted, at #40 on the thread just below. So I won’t bore you with saying it again.
I agree with #8 Jay and #39 OzoneLevel, among others. If every car was bought based upon some sort of a strict cost-benefit analysis, Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Cadillac, and probably the majority of the car and light truck/SUV industry, would have closed up shop many years ago.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am
The same GCC article has a similar study from GM that points out that a Volt-type vehicle would be able to displace petroleum at all points of operation for the average commute. No blended PHEV can do that.
The article also has an Argonne national lab figure that shows that during hybrid mode, the power split (HSD/Two-Mode) hybrids have the best mpg (not surpising). However, the efficiency for the series designs is still 40-65 mpg. Not too shabby.
However, as I’ve said many times, the Volt can’t simply be a “me too” vehicle”. It needs to come to the party with a whole new bag of tricks.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hey Bob Lutz here’s a title for your funded research papers…….
Dear Toyota, thanks, now go find your place in line!
PS Bob, a couple of discovery chanel shows about the end of oil should get plenty of buzz going for the volt. Maybe a couple of scientist predicting that saudi arabia only has 10% of their oil left.
Or we could just do like big oil, and pay a couple of congressman, to say oil kills, it’s unpatriotic, your either with the terrorist….oops i mean, your either with the oil guzzelers or your with us.
Come on Scare tactics and fear mongering, the american way!
April 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hmmmm, didn’t GM say the same thing about the Prius, It wouldn’t be cost effective to build a hybrid. Now its GM’s turn to prove it to Toyota.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:11 am
#29 Kevin.
I understand all your reasoning for wanting to be an early adopter of the car. The reasons are the same for most of us. As for disengaging the US military from global conflict, ending our depence on foreign oil would help greatly in that task, but please keep in mind that we cannot become isolationist. That mentality was prevalent globally in the 1930’s and is partly to blame for Hitlers rise to power. America needs to maintain a presence in the world, but you are right in that it needs to be a much smaller supporting role rather than that of world cop.
This car and others based on its propulsion system will enable us to do just that.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I’ll leave the issue of frequent ICE starts alone for now so as not to hijack this topic but will raise it again at another time when the topic is appropriate.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:32 am
#43 Joe:
On the eCoupled website it says this:
http://www.ecoupled.com/technologyMain.html
“eCoupled technology overcomes the limitations of spatial rigidity, static loads and unacceptable power losses. It intelligently adapts to multiple loads - from milliwatts to KILOWATTS - and spatial configurations while maximizing energy transfer efficiencies by as much as 98%, making eCoupled technology comparable to hardwired connections in terms of energy costs.”
On this .pdf it says this:
http://www.ecoupled.com/pdf/tech_overview.pdf
“eCoupled technology has efficiencies near that of plug and socket
connections – a device will charge in approximately THE SAME amount of time as it would using a traditional plug-in charger.
eCoupled technology dynamically seeks resonance between the primary and eCoupled-enabled devices at high frequencies to achieve the optimal coupling coefficient under all conditions.”
I read somewhere that GM and Ford have already been talking to MIT and companies like Fulton Technologies about their “wireless charging” technology. It may not happen by 2010, but I bet it will arrive in the next 10 years somehow. It’s a great idea who’s time is coming.
People will not want to have to worry about charging their cars. Gotta make charging SUPER easy or some people will keep burning gas from their IC engine unnecessarily. People forget to charge their phones all the time. I’m for doing EVERYTHING possible to get people running on electricity instead of gasoline as much as possible. It’s good for their pocketbook and good for the whole world. This technology will already be available SOON for construction power tools, cell phones and so forth. Why NOT for plug-in hybrid cars?
Nikola Tesla must be in heaven somewhere with a big ole smile on his face because he pioneered this wireless power technology way back in the time of Thomas Edison. It was just his crazy idea back then. Now it is probably about to be implemented all over the world in the next 10 years. I bet Tesla Roadster owners will have this technology before too long. It might be pricey for the rest of us at first. That’s just how it goes with new technologies like HDTVs, etc. It gets cheaper later.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Frequent thermocycling of the ICE looks like a concern . If the battery needs to be cooled : may be that heat could be run thru the ICE to maintain a constant temperature ? Maybe an electric oil pump so that bearings are always wet . ( I know , electric load bad ) In that regard , I have always wanted a position for the ignition switch that would activate an electric oil pump , so that an engine is always fully lubed before it can start .
April 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/17/autos/chevrolet_volt/index.htm?postversion=2008041812
April 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am
By my calculations, the a123 batteries are 4 times as powerful as they need to be to produce the volts 120kw (160hp).
He is also wrong that each individual piece needs to be that powerful. The engine can produce enough power to keep the car going at 80mph, thenthe batteries can provide the power to accellerate and capture it back on decelleration.
And you are right, its not just about economics. I dont want the mid east or some crazy man in venezuela telling me i cant go to work. If you drive a prius and an oil embargo occurs, you are screwed no matter what mpg you get.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Jon (#29) How can the US “maintain a (meaningful) presence in the world if we are bankrupt?
There is a difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism.” Trade is good, but it’s our meddling in the internal affairs of foreign sovereign nations that has caused much of the “free” world to hate and distrust us. It is the cost of our international military police force coupled with domestic “entitlement” spending that has bankrupted our treasury and our children’s children for generations to come.
Question: What are you NOT entitled to from the US Federal Government taxpayer?
Answer: Read the 10th Amendment.
Question: When your airplane looses pressurization why do you ALWAYS put the oxygen mask on yourself first?
Answer: You can’t help others if you’re dead!
E-REV’s can remove the yoke of slavery which is petroleum. However, bought and paid for corrupt politicians want us to replace it with the slavery of world Socialist government of, by and for their elite masters who own the giant corporations. This is why they are creating the North American Union to mirror the European Union and this is why the “NAFTA Corridor” is being built from Mexico to Canada.
So for corruption Rome fell…
April 18th, 2008 at 11:47 am
@ 42 wirenutjd:
Before quoting that article, make sure to read through the comments and see all the errors that were pointed out about the author’s mathematical skills. The first reason to doubt the author is that fact that his entire arguement is based on gas being $4.00/gal in 2011 - I paid $3.75/gal just yesterday! As soon as you change that to $5.00 or even $6.00/gal to take reality into account, all of his alleged huge monetary differences begin to shrink rapidly. Not to mention that he replied at least twice in the comments acknowledging that his math was off, promised to fix it in the main text (see comment page 5), and never did. To me, there’s no crediblity in that article, just another Toyota lover attack piece…
The beauty of the Volt is that it works for all of us, regardless of our reasons of doing it - I’m with Kevin @ 29 for the “Elimination of foreign oil dependence”, “Stop the transfer of wealth from United States citizens to foreign hostile countries” and “The ability to charge the Volt via solar power via panels on one’s garage” reasons, not to mention being able to buy an American car I can be proud of again! I don’t care so much about the whole global warming argument, but this car works just as well for the environmentalist and anti-war type as it does for me.
As has been pointed out many times, why buy a Prius, when a Corolla will get you 80% of the mileage for about 60% of the cost? Even better, what ever became of the good old Honda CRX? The HF model from the late 80’s and early 90’s got about 50mpg, no hybrid electronics needed. Common sense is not often a large part of automotive purchases today - how else can you explain 10″ lift kits on trucks/SUV’s that rarely leave the road or 20″ rims on cars so beat up you just know the tires/rims cost more than the car itself?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Sorry, my comment # 57 was directed to Jon #51, NOT #29.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“But most of all, is the value of being able to drive entirely without petroleum just about saving money?”
Ironically, the car that proves this statement to be true is the Toyota Prius. It makes me chuckle that Toyota is now saying that the economics are not present to justify the volt. When the Prius was introduced, the car carried a $10,000 premium over a like model and gas cost $1 per gallon. The payback was never, but people bought for all the reasons described in earlier comments. Even today, the Prius is basically a $12,000 Yaris that sells for about $20,000. The payback remains extended.
So given these facts, we can assume that most Priuses were bought by either environmental, or Energy Security activist. That will be true of the first Volts as well, but the real fear for Toyota is that they will loose the activist to GM’s better product.
I’m buying one and I don’t care if Toyota thinks badly of me for it.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Toyota has produced an argument that is based upon some pretty squishy and questionable economic assumptions - that the cost of batteries will remain high and that gasoline prices will remain at or below current levels. And that it is worth nothing to consumers to be able to avoid crude oil and carbon emissions. All of those assumptions are disproved by their very own Prius, whose value is scarcely based upon economics. It is also true that the VOLT will, like the Prius did, receive govt subsidies,which weakens still further their by-now wobbly economic argument. We know that battery prices will go down - a lot, even if the EEStor devices don’t pan out; and we can be pretty damn sure that gas prices aren’t going to collapse - just look at those global demand numbers and those global production numbers. In just the time it took to write that report, their argument has been visibly weakened as the gas prices have topped $4 per gallon.
Toyota simply cannot admit that the Volt is the only realistic means of making a dent in crude oil demand and carbon emissions - their Prius as a commuter can be easily demonstrated, based on DOT commuter trip distances, to require over 12 times more gasoline
than the Volt, and produce tons more carbon emission, which Toyota is claiming is OK since it’s cheaper - an argument that has been thoroughly rejected by those supporting coal fired power plants. Perhaps Toyota was on vacation when the subject of global warming came up. Notice that Chris Paine made a deal with Toyota and agreed to
not mention them in his “history” of electric cars, and instead made the bizarre claim that GM was responsible for killing a technology that no one ever considered alive at the time.
Toyota has produced an argument that reminds me of whistling past the graveyard. Does this mean that Toyota can’t obtain a decent li ion battery? Or are they simply trying to stop any stampede of buyers over to the competition? Or both? Honda did the same thing when they claimed that plug-ins aren’t as economical as their hybrids. They could also have pointed out that their hybrids aren’t as economical as their regular gas jobs either, but that doesn’t stop them from building them.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Toyota’s piece - in my view, essentially marketing damage control. Will be interesting to compare this piece to what they have to say in 2 - 3 years when they roll out their own EREV. Likely something about waiting for better battery technology or similar marketing save-face pablum.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
#53.
I don’t know much about that technology, but as an electrical engineer who specializes in radar designs, I don’t like the concept.
Wireless power is a little scary at large power levels. Look at all the buzz over cell phones and the possibility of health hazards due to their SAR levels near the brain. Now, keep in mind that the power from that phone is limited to a mere amp-hour or less at 3.7V give or take.
While this topic is still heavily disputed due to the phone’s low power levels, it is a well known fact that significant amounts of radation can have terrible effects on the human body.
A wireless power device that would provide power in an amount to charge the Volt over, say, 6 hours, would have to provide many more amp-hours at a much higher voltage. The end result is a much larger amount of radation.
I work on a radar that has an average power of about 2kW (if you wanted to charge 8kWHr of the Volt, the power could be 2kW for 4 hours straight), and you have to keep your distance (100 feet typical) when it’s on to avoid over-exposure to radation. With all the people who have garages built into their homes, I’d hate to have all that radiation flying around near me while I’m watching TV, even if there are some walls and other objects to help attenuate it.
Aside from these safety concerns, wireless power will always be less efficient than conventional wired power. If it’s more efficient, well then you’ve got a perpetual motion machine and I think we all know those don’t exist. (Unless http://www.steorn.com has anything to say about it ;))
A wired charging system is the way to go, and I’m 100% certain that GM knows this. Efficiency, reliability, safety, etc. It all adds up.
I have some faith that people will realize that it’s much easier to plug in their car at night than to pay all that money at the pump. People will happily adapt.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
# 50. JPhillips
You mentioned Discovery channel shows about “peak oil” concerns to help get more people interested in the Volt …
There’s a show on Tuesday (4/22) at 8pm EST by PBS called “Nova”. It’s about “Cars of the Future”.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/index.html
It might be interesting. It should have a bunch of top people talking about energy issues, peak oil, efficiency, the latest electric car technology, etc. They have this video archive that talks about all sorts of stuff here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/open/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/open/clip-scene.html
April 18th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Grizzly says, “Think about the fact that a lot of vehicle purchases are emotional. Ya love it and ya gotta have it. The recent spike in the price of gas has taken a real bite out of this. This is the reason for the Prius’ success, and the purchase is rational rather than emotional. The Volt will take the sting out of this since it is greener all the way around and it’s 240 lb/ft in the basement will bring a smile the pregnant roller skate can’t. Not to mention it’s driveway appeal”
Grizz, I understand what you are saying. But at what cost will the Volt take the sting out? If GM sells this for $40K, Prius wins. GM desperately needs a winner and a vehicle that everyone wants.
Kind of like the new VW Beetle, or the Mazda Miata when it first came out. But at $40K, this won’t happen and GM loses.
There is no question in my mind that EREV is the better choice.
Since the new hybrids came out (Honda and Toyota), I couldn’t understand why they made them backwards (at least in my mind).
Backwards I mean that the electric motor assists the ICE.
For years I thought it should be the other way around.
Pure EVs are useless in my opinion because a second car is needed. E-REV takes that aways, but $40K is too much for the masses and the Volt becomes an elitist car, not a peoples car.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
wirenutjd,
That article’s calculations are flawed. He is using $4/gal and talking about payoff in 20 and 30 years. Who seriosly expects $4/gal in 20 and 30 years?????
On the contrary, gasoline price has no reason to stop at $4 or $5 or any other number so long as the main fuel source is gasoline.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
@ 60 Jeffery
It would just be nice if they would make the Volt the same price as the Prius, then it would be game over for Toyota. Also, everybody would be able to afford it. I’m having a problem justifying a 35-40K Volt. My Insight cost me 13K used, thats a big “pay back” compared to the Volt, John
April 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
#69, Wirenutjd, says, “It would just be nice if they would make the Volt the same price as the Prius, then it would be game over for Toyota. Also, everybody would be able to afford it. I’m having a problem justifying a 35-40K Volt ”
To steal Noel’s favorite word, “AMEN”.
I totally agree with what you’re saying.
It will be another 14K Hyundia for me if the Volt goes that high.
But I’m hoping my wife will be able to get the Pluggin Saturn Vue is a couple of years.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
At #55 and before Estero commented on the possibility of frequent ICE starts . I’m optimistic. GM has indicated that the ICE would first come on at 30% battery charge left. How long the ICE will stay on then is really up to the computer program in the control electronics. The Motor Trend article (cited in an earlier thread) had a graph that showed the ICE stopping at about 40% battery charge, which could be a long time or a short time, depending on what the Volt is doing concurrently (say moving on flat and slow roads versus up a mountain road fast). But the ICE is still stopping under control of the electronics. That is, if cycling too frequently occurs, it can be sensed and avoided simply by charging the battery to 50% (ICE on twice as long?) or some higher charge level. So, thinking positively, there seems to be plenty of lattitude for ICE cycle length adjustment, should ICE cycling prove to be a problem. GM engineering obviously is analyzing this aspect, so it’s not going to be an unanticipated possibility.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
70 Rashiid
my wife has the Ford Escape hybrid and loves it. Ford is also working on the next Generation Escape as a plug-in with impresive numbers.
68 Canuck
I know the article is flawed, but everything here is an educated “guess” RE: the future. My point is that the Volt is too expensive for us “average” folks. Thanks, John