Grab our RSS Feed
Has GM Increased the Size of the Chevy Volt’s ICE from 1.0 L to 1.4 L, and Cylinders From 3 to 4?
June 24th, 2008 | Posted in: Generator
The initial Volt concept showed a 1.0 L three cylinder gasoline engine as the on-board generator. The role of that engine is to keep the battery at a 30% state of charge once 40 EV miles or so had been driven.
More recent discussions with the Volt engineers suggested that the actual engine to be used was not yet finalized. Frank Weber indicated to me that GM would use a "family zero’ engine line but he wouldn’t commit to size or number of cylinders.
A new report cites "rumors" that GM has decided upon a 1.4 L non-turbo 4 cylinder engine for the Volt. The report goes on to indicate that a turbocharged version will be used to power the new Cobalt replacement car.
The engines will be built in Flint to be used on the Volts when they begin to run off the Hamtramck assembly line in late 2010.
Source (MotorTrend )
Popularity: 7%
(4 votes, average: 3.25 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Posted by: Lyle
June 24th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Sweet the more we find out the better the chances this will work… I am very excited about the progress that has been made to this point, I just hope in the end it’s not all smoke and if oil drops it will be phased out.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Doesn’t Turbo help with better MPG?
June 24th, 2008 at 6:00 am
It would seem to me that there would be no advantage oversizing the engine. In fact, undersizing the engine would be the biggest problem they could have with an EREV. Nobody is going to want to sit idle for an hour to let their battery charge. Sounds like standard engineering development, although I am surprised it hasn’t been finalized yet.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Just guessing, Maybe the smaller engine could not keep up with some serious hill climbing when the batteries were drained. I want to be able to go over mountains in my Volt if I need to (and not at 15 mph).
June 24th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Is it just me or does a 1.4 L engine seem rather large to be just turning a generator? It doesn’t seem like it needs to be particularly powerful to slowly get up to an optimal speed and then hold that speed while the battery is charging. It’s not like it’s pushing the car directly. There is no need for rapid acceleration up a hill, for example. The battery would be the buffer that supplies the power in that example. I’m not an engineer, so maybe someone who is can explain where I’m going wrong.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:26 am
When the ICE is off, a larger engine is just more weight and bulk to carry around, so it reduces all-electric range. Turbo 3-cyl gives advantages in higher power with lower weight, but also is a more tempermental combination. This shift may be to an engine that is more nearly a standard product. That way they can reduce development costs, time, and risk. Sounds like they are not quite so willing to be risk takers with gen1.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:26 am
If GM goes with a larger engine, perhaps they need to revisit the issue of a smaller gas tank. Generally speaking, a larger engine = lower MPG = shorter range. We’ve already seen the Volt range reduced from 640 miles to approx. 400 miles; we don’t need another reduction.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:35 am
I have no idea how much power is needed to turn that generator, but it would make no difference concerning the driving conditions, because the ICE is not connected to the wheels.
And weren’t we told that the enging speed would be set to just a few optimal speeds to best charge the battery pack? So why would you need a 1.4L engine to do that?
Or is this just a case of using what you already have available? I do not know if they already produce a 3 cylinder 1.0L turbo charged engine. If not, the startup costs may be too high at this time, with the current financial situation. So take an engine that is already sitting in the wharehouse and use it.
This is one of those threads where you can not make any type of decision because there are not enough facts, so now there will be 250 posts of speculation and conspiracy theories………..
JMHO
June 24th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Out of subject, but today in Belgium on the Opel site a new ad with the Flextreme in opening and closing , see :
http://www.opel.be/frameset.asp?path=http%3A//www.opel.be/news/news.asp%3Fnews%3Ddiscover_opel%26language%3DFR%26lnbcode%3Dnews_1
June 24th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Whatever GM does, I’m sure it’s to get optimal performance. There’s so many aspect to this complicated technology that nobody can know why. I will put my faith in GM and continue reading about it’s progress and wait for the day it arrives.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Joe #10
“There’s so many aspect to this complicated technology that nobody can know why. I will put my faith in GM and continue reading about it’s progress and wait for the day it arrives.”
That’s a wise and advisable position, i agree with it. Thanks Joe.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Not for anything, but Current WTI Crude Futures $137.90/Barrel…..
June 24th, 2008 at 6:53 am
#9 Jean-Charles Thanks for the link. The biggest shock for me was the built-in bike rack. That was flat-out cool.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Remember the original specs for the Volt was a 120 kW, 160 hp motor with a 53 kW generator driven by the 3-cylinder ICE. When the battery pack was discharged to 30%, the 53 kW generator would not supply enough electrical power for the motor, so some power still had to be provided by the battery pack for heavy acceleration.
I have read the motor may be increased to a 209 hp version. Possibly the larger motor will require a higher output generator to supply enough power for hills, etc. GM may need a higher torque ICE to turn a larger generator.
Or it may be related to smoothness or quiteness while the ICE is running. Isn’t it easier to balance a 4-cylinder engine so that vibrations are low? Is a regular engine, possibly running at lower RPMs, quiter than a turbo engine?
June 24th, 2008 at 7:01 am
We need options! I’d like the turbo 3 with 20-mile AER please.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:14 am
MarkinWI #13
Thanks Mark, if you are interested this built-in bike rack may be placed in the little city car : the Opel Corsa but also in the Opel Antara SUV (a clone of Saturn Vue) the price of this option in Belgium is 650 € that is something like 1000 $.
Link :http://www.gizmag.com/go/6278/
June 24th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Without looking at any engineering-data (I don’t have access to GM’s engineers — wish I did), my gut feel is that a 1L engine is plenty big, and that the 1.4L would just be extra weight, and a lot of it. Yes, I know the regenerative breaking makes the weight-penalty a lot less severe(and I’ve run the back-of-the-napkin calculation that shows it convincingly), and yes I also know that you can skip the penalty completely by not having the weight in the first place…
As long as we’re mucking with the engine choice here, though, I’d like to see a 0.9L turbodiesel or something like that as an option. I recently moved to the midwest and was surprised to see that there actually are E85 pumps in-town (I’ve never seen them before, and I travel quite a bit), so maybe the gasoline/Ethanol motor has some benefit — but biodiesel still seems to have a better EROI than commercially-produced E85, due to the simpler process it takes to make it.
I wouldn’t mind a little turbine engine, either… The only thing better than a diesel-electric would be a freaking-batmobile-powered compact green car.
But I accept that the turbine is probably too expensive for automotive use.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:30 am
The ICE turns the generator only. The batteries power the motor. Why do they need such a big motor to turn the generator? The more weight the less the electric range.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I see this as a cost cutting measure. The 1.0L turbo and the 1.4L non-turbo probably have about the same power output, but the non-turbo will be cheaper and heavier.
Bottom line: Say goodbye to 50 MPG.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:43 am
The 1L 3-cyclinder, as far as I know, is a mythical engine, ie)doesn’t exist atm. GM has the new 1.4 4-cyclinder coming out, seems like a no brainer.
I would doubt it would be a turbo, I think that would be unecessary and would cause a whole new serious of logistical problems as the engine would run at a optimal speed all the time it was functioning, obviously you can’t have the turbo running inline with it. I’m pretty sure enough power would be generated ’sans turbo’ anyway.
If they do go with the ‘new’ existing 4-cyl engine, I like the move…it makes sense. Don’t need to ‘recreate the wheel’ anymore than you have to.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:43 am
#17 Luke says “As long as we’re mucking with the engine choice here, though, I’d like to see a 0.9L turbodiesel or something like that as an option. ”
The diesel engine is a much better choice to drive the generator. Diesel fuel does not “sour” after a few months requiring the tank clean out that Lutz was talking about the other day and Diesel engines are extremely efficient when they run at a preset rpm.
Another question is how big is the gas tank? Lets say it’s 5 gallons, (I’m guessing here), then for intown driving you would only want about 1 gallon in the tank (depending on your commute) because of the weight issue.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Offtopic:
I recently to the midwest (from Appalachia, with spending a lot of time in places like Baltimore on weekends), I’ve also been shocked that the parking spots are big enough to park a Suburban, and the roads are straight enough that you wouldn’t necessarily spend all of your time trying to keep its wheels on the ground. I’ve also been surprised that those N/S/E/W compass displays are useful out here — it’s a rare road in Southwest Virginia that is built in an ordinal direction. I guess those big SUVs, that are fairly impractical both in the mountains and in an east-coast city like Baltimore, appear to actually be useful and parkable. Still expensive, though.
The bigger surprise is that, on the surface, the situation here doesn’t appear to be very different than in the mountains. The roadsigns look the same, we do business the same way — and have a d@mn lot of the same chains — it’s almost exactly the same culture, too, though with slightly different accents. And yet the requirements for a vehicle are almost contradictory.
I still want my enviro-happy compact wagon, though.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I don’t have enough info to really have an opinion, but I have heard (and it could be incorrect, I’ve been wrong before, and, I might add, am VERY good at being wrong!) that a four cylinder is easier to use with a flex-fuel system, as one engine cam handle everything from gas to pure alcohol if set up properly.
What I would really love would be a Volt with a flex-fuel engine, 40-50 mile E-range, and a solar roof to keep the battery temperature within a good range without draining said batteries (and if a trickle charge can be provided or a cabin vent fan operated too, all the better, or maybe one of those solar car covers I’ve heard about). This would give me a car I would actually WANT to buy new, which, I admit, I’ve never done before.
Until we see the actual models operating, it’s really hard to say what this means, if anything.
There’s also the possibility that they are just using a standard part, and the more ‘non-specific’ parts they use, the cheaper it will be and the easier it will be to get it fixed.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:48 am
#9 Jean-Charles — Thanks for the link to the beautiful site with the beautiful car.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:49 am
#4 nucboy says: “Just guessing, Maybe the smaller engine could not keep up with some serious hill climbing when the batteries were drained. I want to be able to go over mountains in my Volt if I need to (and not at 15 mph).”
I don’t think so.
First, the 1.0L turbo and the 1.4L non-turbo probably have about the same power output.
Second, the engine comes on when the the battery is at 30% state of charge (SOC). So that leaves 4.8KWh of battery to deal with hills, and this is in addition to the 53KW of engine power.
Bottom line: If you’re driving over a mountain on any normal sort of road, you’ll be fine.
On the other hand, if you’re driving to the peak of Mount Washington, or driving out of Death Valley, you may have to take a break on the way up, just like most other cars.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:49 am
#20 Statik says “I think you are right. The 1L 3-cyclinder, as far as I know, is a mythical engine, ie)doesn’t exist atm. GM has the new 1.4 4-cyclinder coming out, seems like a no brainer. ”
http://www.smartusa.com/smart-fortwo-pure.aspx
Statik,
The smart car has a 1L 3-cyclinder engine.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Check this out! Smart car race!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5S1NAMnYKM
June 24th, 2008 at 8:09 am
This engine is going to be a staple engine across all of GM’s car brands in the coming years. It’s already in a lot of their vehicles in europe. (the 1.4 L V4 I mean)
June 24th, 2008 at 8:10 am
They may be trying to get the motor to power the generator and charge the battery.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:26 am
19. Dave G,
Totally agree. This is a cost cutting move and now the 50 MPG is in serious doubt.
The Volt is becoming more niche by the moment.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:27 am
26. Brad G.,
If I can speak for Statik on this one, I believe he meant that GM doesn’t have such an engine.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I’m not too sure that removing the turbo 1.0L is a bad thing. One thing that many people have been haunted with was the supposed complexity of the car. Turbocharging adds complexity as there are necesseties like intercooling and all of the ancillary plumbing. Even though the ICE would not run all the time in city driving, on the highway all that weight is still there. For the generator, it may be something as simple as the old addage “there’s no replacement for displacement”. The torque from the larger motor would help in turning the generator. There may also have been issues with harmonics from trying to make the 1.0L 3 cyl. larger, a problem that has plagued GM in the past with engines where the cylinders are in multiples of 3.
Remember the Cadillac Allante’? The 90-degree V8 used the old generation of Displacement on Demand (8-6-4 cyl). But the harmonics in 6 cyl. mode were so bad that it nearly shook the car apart. The even number of cylinders balances the engine better. Probably the reason hardly any other car makers does 3 cylinder engines.
A lightweight aluminum NA 4-cyl really shouldn’t have a weight penalty compared to a 3-cyl with intake, compression, routing and exaust plumbing, intercooling, valving and control systems to run the generator. Honestly, it is too complex and without enough Volt trained maintenance techs as it is, this would only compound the problem. There’s a reason that while not being exotic, the Corvette and its “archaic” powertrain have been popular around the world.
I do not find this to be so pivotal a switch that it would put off Volt buyers. It’s more than likely something to get the Volt to meet the projected deadlines for production as GM has a lot more 4 cylinder engines than 3 cylinder ones. But it the turbo 3 is that important and you don’t mind the longer wait, then bee my guest. If this change keeps the 40 mi AER and keeps range to 400 miles or better then what’s the tradeoff? Many of you for your commutes would probably rarely ever run the thing anyway.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:32 am
GM is at it’s death & they think this will save them in 2010? Toyota & Honda have had Hybrids out for years that have been getting 45 to 55 MPG. How is this “new”? I’m sorry, but this is not the least bit impressive. Bring a car to the market that gets 100 MPGs OR which doesn’t require any kind of oil/gas/petrol. That will be the day we are on the right track. As for now, you simpletons are being fooled like a kid at a puppet show. Keep spending your dollars on inferior products while delaying the big 3 to make any real sacrifice.
The answer to our fuel problems is not via oil. We need to move to a completely different source for energy; hydrogen. It’s the most abundant element in the UNIVERSE. We can send a man to the moon & reach the outer limits of our solar system, but cannot break away form the internal combustion engine? It’s called greed & laziness; something we Americans can’t get away from. Our country is no longer the great state it used to be. We are arrogant and need to be dethroned in order to get back to where we need to be.
Thinking outside the box is the answer. GM/Ford/Chrysler have been shot in the knees from the UAW. They will never remain afloat with these scumbags expecting $40 an hour to sweep floors. Get with the program Americans; the times, they are a changing. If we can’t be adaptable enough to see that our method is flawed, the Japanese will take over and succeed as they don’t have uneducated asshats running the show (and steering the said companies off into a ditch as the brass’s pockets are getting fatter & fatter).
Keep praising this poor-looking Camaro wannabe turd. By the time this hunk of rust gets on the showroom floor, it will have a 30 MPG rating & will get you a 250 range before you have to tether it to a land line for 12 hours. What a car, huh? Try taking a trip in this thing across a few states. Sorry folks, your voyage will last a week as the thing will sit & sip AC for more than it runs on the road. Not to mention, our Electricity use will rise, so there is no win/win situation here. You’ll simply be paying more on your Hydro bill than at the gas pump.
Continue on lemmings….
PS - there is no God
June 24th, 2008 at 8:34 am
#26 Brad G
“Statik, The smart car has a 1L 3-cyclinder engine.”
I meant for GM, lol.
(EDIT: thanks GXT, I didn’t see you post under after I composed this one)
Side note: I own a SMART car, lol.
Only mine has the good ‘euro’ engine. Turbo diesel, 3 cyclinder, 40HP/74 ft-lb of torque. It’s a beast! lol. I’m getting a little over 69MPG, thus far (had to add a mod to get the info…hardly any gauges in the thing at all, $200 well spent, hehe).
They only sold them in Canada for two years. They figured American’s had to have ‘more power’ (hence the ‘new 71HP’ gas engine…and they stopped bring the TDI over). It also didn’t pass US safety standards (front and back miminum impact zones), so the new US one is bigger.
http://skattertech.com/media/2007/09/smart-fortwo-usa.jpg
June 24th, 2008 at 8:38 am
GXT, #30 Maybe not more niche, just slightly more conventional for a highly unconventional car.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:40 am
33 DIO:
How on earth that sheer level of trolling got through moderation I just do not know.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Maybe they’re looking at allowing the motor to directly dump electricity into the drive system for hard acceleration or long uphills.
Think about it…if you discovered that driving up steep hills greatly reduced the battery life. But you could kick the motor on just when going up those heavy acceleration points and maintain a good battery charge. Well, that’d be worth it.
I do hope it has the photovoltaic cells on the roof. I wonder how much of a charge such would provide on an approx. 9 hour stay in the sun (ie: while at work).
Oh an added benefit, it would help keep the vehicle cooler when parked in the sun.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Statik #20, Brad G #26
The GM 3cyl engine is an old thing, it powers the 1l Opel and Vauxall Corsa.
There is an ad for an used Vauxhall corsa of such a type :
http://cars.trovit.co.uk/used-cars/vauxhall-corsa-3-cylinder
This one is in the Triumph dolomite of the ’80s :
http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/group2/engines/development_history_of_the_K.htm
etc.
Hope that helps, JC
June 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am
#14 57silver
Where did you read that the motor has been upgraded to 209hp? If so, that’s fantastic news. At that output, performance should be excellent.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:50 am
36 Morgan:
How is it trolling when the almighty is bringing valid questions to this project?
I need someone to show/explain to me what the big hoopla is about this car. To your Lord, this is nothing more than a glorified hybrid that has been done for over 6/7 years now.
Bring something new to the table; otherwise, cram it into your already insignificant and stale vehicle line-up as you do with the rest of the garbage that gets copied from Pontiac, Saturn, Buick & Chevrolet. Why is there a need to repackage the same car under all in-house brands? Use that money which could be saved on branding/logos to put towards a REAL fix; not copy what’s been done already by the Asian market.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Question for #33 DIO…
Do you know what the MPG is for the first 30 to 40mi of propulsion on this “poor-looking Camaro wannabe turd” ???
(the only thing I agree with you on is your ‘PS’)
Lemming out….
June 24th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Hmmm … I wonder what the weight, cost, and mpg differences would be between the 1.0L vs. the 1.4L engine. If they put the 1.4L engine in a bunch of other cars, it might end up being around the same price as the 1.0L.
Maybe GM can put all their very best IC engine fuel saving technology into the 1.4L engine so that it has good enough power AND the best possible fuel economy. Maybe they can do that cylinder deactivation technology, direct injection, etc. It would also be great if they made the IC engine as QUIET as possible. People will be expecting their Volt to stay pretty quiet after they run out of all electric range and the IC engine kicks in.
I think it would be great if they got the Volt to do 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds (or less) and STILL get pretty good AER and miles per gallon and a reasonable price tag. THAT would definitely make the Volt sell like hotcakes. Good 0-60 mph performance, the same 150 mpg, super smooth, quiet electric drive acceleration, cool looking exterior/interior … all at a reasonable sticker price. I’m sure there will eventually be electric cars that “have it all” at reasonable prices. Sure would be nice if we could get it in 2010 with the first Volts coming off the production line.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Because the generator can produce more power it can charge your battery up quicker, meaning you have to run it less time to get back the same ammount of electricity. It all depends on how efficient the engine runs. The downside is the extra weight, if there is any difference in weight at all, though this loss is reduced because of the regen braking. A 4 cylinder will always be more smooth running then a 3 cylinder because it is much better balanced, and removes the need for balance shafts and other weight adding things. Also there is the worry of the generator not being able to supply enough electricity, lets say when your driving a long trip at 80 MPH (75MPH speed limit, and speeding like usual) that will take quite a bit of electricity to keep up with the aerodynamic drag. I believe they want to keep it as simple as possible, adding turbo’s make it more complex then the first Generation needs to be. I am sure by the 3rd or 4th generation we will have every combination you could ever want to power your car.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
For crying out loud, a motor cycle engine can do the trick. Oh I forgot GM doesn’t make motor cycles that’s Honda. Maybe they could partner with Harley Davidson.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Looks like I’m going to have one of those engines one way or the other; in the Volt, or the 1.4 turbo in a little Saturn
I imagined that the engine would cycle on and off as needed, kind of like the compressor in an airconditioner. Perhaps a bigger engine merely means cycles would be shorter.
If it’s a question of economy-to-power, a four without a turbo (simpler) might produce more power than the three, with. I would like to know how this decision could effect mpg with the ICE running.
Does anyone recall Bob mentioning (after his ‘electrifying’ Volt-mule ride), that there was “still a little roughness,” that the engineers could work out? A four would be inherently smoother than a three.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
41 Murray:
Yes, your master is aware that it uses no gasoline fuel for the first 40 miles, but this is not practical for mass use/distribution/travel.
The concept of this vehicle is broken; the solution is breaking free from oil/gas entirely; not just using less of it.
I cannot replenish the Earth forever; God needs to rest every now & then.
Carry on……
June 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
GM Volt Fan, #42 I like the car you describe and hope it is the Volt.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
#33. DIO
You are completely off the mark. Your post shows no understanding of the vehicle being developed or the effort (and thinking outside the box) that GM is putting into this. A volt, with any engine, (even a V6), will get over 100 mpg for most people most of the time. SOme will achieve well over 200 mpg and some anal rententive nuts will never use gasoline at all (infinite mpg). For cases where you need to drive cross country, you will not need to stop and recharge. Just fill with gas and go. If you drive cross country all the time, a small deisel car would be better. If you drive like most americans, about 40 miles per day, then the Volt is a great solution.
A hybrid getting 45 mpg is not much better than a chevy sprint or honda civic hf from the 1980s which both could do this without the hybrid overhead.
Volt is not a hybrid. It is an electric car. Electric cars should have a tow bar installed to tow them home when the battery dies. The volt uses an ICE for this purpose so you can just keep driving when the battery is low.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:09 am
#30 GTX: I have had a 1998 Saturn SL1 with a five speed and a 1.8L that at 65 MPH go about 39 to 40 MPG. How is it that a 1.4L operating at an efficent RPM not get 50 MPG. Displacement has alot to do with how much fuel an engine uses.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Does the larger engine with larger charge capacity mean that the engine will be able to fully charge the battery and allow switching back to full battery and shutting off for 40 miles before starting again? Could it thus extend range closer to the original 600 miles?
June 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I’m just hoping that their is an E85 / diesel option. After that, it’s not such a big deal.
It makes no sense to produce a 3 cylinder engine for the Volt, when moving the drivetrain up to bigger vehicles a year or two later will require a four anyway. Producing a whole new engine is not cost-effective, when you are already producing one that is close enough.
It has me wondering though…does this mean the battery is getting well over 40 miles from full charge down to 30 percent? If you are doing the EPA test cycle and can cover more of it without the generator starting, but use slightly more fuel per mile of the remaining drive cycle, then it could be a wash on overall MPG.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am
DIO, Your post exemplifies everything that is wrong with the Internet and forums like this. You don’t seem to know much about the subject at hand, but you talk as if you are an authority. And then, totally unprovoked, you hurl personal insults at people to show off what you think is your superiority. Please try to make a valid point without the insults next time; it will lead to a much more productive disucssion.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:15 am
_____________________________________________________
Applying KISS is a very good thing for the range extender. I like the idea of GM using their new standard 1.4 4-cyclinder as the range extender.
______________________________________________________
June 24th, 2008 at 9:15 am
GM is mulling choices of what enngine could charge the batteries when they are cycled down.. Here’s an idea… go to Home Depot.. pick up their top of the line Honda Generator. (5500 Watt output 8 HP and 7.5 Gallon tank (9 hours run time) for $2000) Demensions show that you could probably squeeze the whole unit into the Volt with out a lot of trouble..
Problem solved !
Come on GM.. get the car out there.. show us the final prototype production car !
Ray
June 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
This new 1.4L Turbo motor is supposed to give the cobalt replacement (Which rides on the same chassis as the volt) about 40MPG on the highway. If that is the case I find it hard to believe how the motor wouldn’t beat that in the VOLT considering the power train differences.
It truly isn’t a big deal if the ICE gives you 43MPG vs. 50. I think I could live with that as long as the electric range is still a solid 40+ miles and it recharges the battery quickly.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
#37 Jason The Saj
Solar panels can produce about 10 Watts per square foot, so depending on how big the roof was it could produce arround 300 watt hours (assuming the roof was 30 sq feet, it could be more or less) Assuming this, it would charge 2.7KWH in 9 hours, or 17% of your cars battery (from 30% to 47%) assuming you can drive 40 miles on a charge from 80% to 30%, this will add another 13.6 Miles to your total distance per day without using the generator.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:22 am
DIO…
Thank you for your all-seeing solution! I would have never even thought of that….
“breaking free from oil/gas entirely; not just using less of it”
…did everyone catch this guy’s idea on #46 above???
Wow, you’ve got this agnostic re-thinking himself now….
maybe? just maybe there is a …… ?
Seriously dude, you need to take a lesson on being a ‘nay-sayer’ there are plenty of them on this site (you know who you are) and most of them are providing critisim and insight that makes people actually think….rather than spouting off and proving that you in fact are not “all-knowing”
May PEACE (not God) be with you…….
June 24th, 2008 at 9:23 am
48 nucboy & 52 MDDave:
If it accepts gasoline, it is a hybrid….regardless how you spin it. It uses gasoline, period. The industry needs to completely (meaning 100%) disconnect from crude oil/fossil fuel/etc..
June 24th, 2008 at 9:29 am
#52 MDDave
It’s the internet. It can’t be helped. What you have here is a prime example of this Penny-Arcade strip (NSFW-language):
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
Fortunately we don’t get them on here very often and it seems folks ’round these parts are smart enough to not feed the trolls. On topic, I think it’s best to sit back and wait for a bit more info before going up in flames over the ICE change. I want to hear their reasoning before I start ranting about it.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
It makes sense to me… I thought the concept ICE was too small. It makes no difference if it’s connected to the wheels or not, if you want indefinite range the ICE has to be as powerful as if it WERE connected directly to the wheels. It’s not just trickle charging the batteries.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am
33. Dio
You need to educate yourself a bit more about plug-in hybrids and the pros/cons of the new automotive drivetrain technologies on the way. Right now, hydrogen fuel cell cars are WAAY too expensive … even if they tried to mass produce them. Honda said they were hoping to have a $92,000 Clarity fuel cell car … by 2018. You will have a while to wait AND you better have deep pockets. By the way, GM is neck and neck with Toyota, Honda and everyone else with their fuel cell technology. You should read up about the Chevy Equinox fuel cell SUV:
http://www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell/
The hydrogen isn’t going to be cheap and it won’t be all that environmentally friendly since the cheapest way to get the hydrogen these days is by getting it from natural gas. If someone can come up with a super cheap way to get hydrogen by splitting water via wind turbines or solar power that would different. Still, you have the high costs of the fuel cell cars themselves and the cost of hydrogen distribution infrastructure. Hydrogen might be viable in 2020 or so. The best technology for now is clearly plug in hybrids like the Volt. The Volt is the most advanced kind of hybrid. It is a “series hybrid”. Toyota sells parallel hybrids (”power split hybrids” is what Argonne Labs and the scientific community calls Priuses.
Here’s some good videos about plug-in hybrid technologies and the issues around them.
http://www.stefanoparis.com/piaev/WhyWeNeedPlugIns/2008.06.11PlugInConference/2008.06.11PlugInConference.html
There’s a Toyota executive on one of the videos talking about their technology. Toyota said they’ll have a plug-in hybrid for FLEETS by 2010 and consumers by 2012. They are clearly behind GM in the latest and greatest hybrid technology. I still don’t know if their proposed plug-in hybrid will be a series hybrid like the Volt. More likely, it’ll be like GM’s “2 mode hybrid” technology. The Volt is much more like a pure electric car like the Tesla Roadster … only a lot cheaper. Most people drive less than 40 miles a day. That’ll be ALL electric all the way up to highway speeds (top speed 100 mph, 0-60 acceleration of 7-9 seconds). After 40 miles the IC engine kicks in and you keep on driving for up to 500-600 more miles. If you keep it plugged in and drive under 40 miles a day, you might not use ANY gasoline during the year … or very little of the stuff.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Since battery costs per Kw are too costly to produce an all electric VOLT with say a 300 mile charge range, the ICE is here for the time being. The non-turbo 1.4 is more logical, turbocharging gives more power to weight but sacrifices logevity and adds costly components.
I know because I just replaced the turbo on our Golf TDI, it failed at 250k, a new turbo cost $800 just for the part.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
# 20 Statik
Here is the link for the1L 3-cyclinder mythical engine that you claim doesn’t exist.
http://media.gm-powertrain.at/powertrain-media/media/images/200308200001_01.jpg
Link showing Dr. Joachim Quarg, chief engineer for OPEL with said mythical engine.
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1161
Statik, I don’t have issues with you like Jason M. Hendler does, but the least you could have done before claiming the engine did’nt exist was to do a little research.
When I first set out to find the engine that matched the engine in the Volt’s detailed renderings, the internet search took me all of about six and a half minutes.
Opel engine page link; unless you can read German, suggest AltaVista Babel Fish Translator.
http://media.gm-powertrain.at/scripts/depot3/powertrain-media/media/200308200001.txt
June 24th, 2008 at 9:39 am
#38 Jean-Charles Jacquemin
“The GM 3cyl engine is an old thing, it powers the 1l Opel and Vauxall Corsa”
They still make that JC? I thought it was discontinued.
I thought they didn’t have a 3 cyclinder that would do the job in the Volt…if they do, well then thats great. I confess I’m not up on the Euro engines.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I guess GM figures the extra cost of a turbo charger and non-standard engine cost isnt’ justified as the vast majority of driving done on teh volt over its life will be on batteries.
A 1.0L turbo would be more efficient and possible a hair lighter. I’d like to see them do an air-cooled flat-4 like the original beetle. That would save weight, size and complexity (no radiator, water pump) to maintain.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Might need a larger 4 cylinder to run smoother and power more accessories through the generator. I will let GM explain later why. There could be a multitude of answers, including cost to produce a new 3 piston engine.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:46 am
48 nucboy:
You say, and I quote:
“Volt is not a hybrid. It is an electric car.”
Maybe you should look into this platform further and get your facts straight as I’ve done my homework and am well educated in this area.
As seen from the FAQ on this very website:
“The Volt is a series (hybrid) vehicle meaning only the electric motor power the car at all times, the gas engine is just a generator, making electric to keep the batteries in a steady state of charge”
“Today’s hybrids (Toyota Prius) are called parallel hybrids”
“The car is a plug-in range-extended electric vehicle with an on-board gasoline generator”
As seen from Wikipedia:
“The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in series hybrid electric vehicle by General Motors”
This is a HYBRID vehicle. GM is not fooling anyone with their smoke & mirrors tactic. Get with the program & move on to a REAL solution; a hydrogen fuel cell automobile.
I do love it how GM tries to hide the fact it’s a hybrid by pitching ‘the car only uses it’s gasoline generator to charge the batteries’.
It doesn’t matter if the gas engine is charging the on board batteries OR if it’s helping with the propulsion of the actual vehicle; at the end of the day, it’s a HYBRID vehicle which CONSUMES gasoline/petrol.
I ask again, please explain to me where the earth-shattering breakthru is for this car?
June 24th, 2008 at 9:52 am
66 N. Riley:
I thought of that. We know not more than two weeks ago the ICE engine boot up was “rough”
it could be rather than dump engineering into determining why that was they put a bigger engine in there and it went away.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:59 am
#63 Guy Incognito
Interesting. I confess I don’t know all of GM’s lineup. Good find.
But to be fair my quote was, “The 1L 3-cyclinder, as far as I know, is a mythical engine, ie)doesn’t exist atm”
I didn’t actually ‘claim it didn’t exist’, I said I didn’t know. If I state facts I generally add a source link to back it up. If I am unsure of a fact that I am basing analysis on, I will say it.
Good link on the Opel engine, I consider myself informed now.
Cheers.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I agree with Jim I WAY up there - not enough info to do anything BUT speculate (not that that has ever stopped any of us before)
Be well,
Tag
June 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am
In a effor to be fair and balanced, I present today’s ‘in other news’
GM is trading at $13.46, up 54 cents (4..18%).
“Out of the Gate: GM shares gain after price hikes”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25347686/for/cnbc/
June 24th, 2008 at 10:09 am
It wouldn’t hurt to have a larger engine that operated at more than one speed, so that worst case conditions are always covered - steep, long distance grade, heater / air conditioner, headwind, loud stereo, aggressive driving, etc.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:17 am
DIO
Sorry, but I don’t agree with a darn thing you said, especially the PS statement about there not being a God. Maybe not for you in your state of mind. How did you escape from the turnip patch? I think you have a clod of dirt for a brain. Give us some credit. We might be “taken in” by GM with the Volt, but we can recognize what you are very easily.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am
#50 ElectRich
A larger engine does mean it could charge the battery quicker. I have a feeling that the engine will run until the battery has enough charge to run on itself for 5-10 minutes, then it will shut itself off. It will not fully recharge the battery because if you are almost done with your driving it would be a waste of gas, because you could have just recharged it from the wall.
To everyone saying that the larger engine will lower the MPG of the volt because other engines give other ICE cars higher MPG’s dont understand. The efficiency of a generator is completely based on how much power can be produced per gallon of gasoline. If the engine can recharge your entire battery per gallon of gasoline - 8kwh/gal, and 1 charge will drive you 40 miles - 8kwh/40 miles, then you get 40 MPG. If 1 gal of gasoline can get you 16 kwh, then that is 80 MPG. This efficiency depends on many factors, though larger sizes are generaly more efficient. Personaly I think the efficiencies will be close between the 1L and 1.4L engines, the difference - and why GM decided to switch is because the 1.4L can provide more power - more energy in less time. This will ensure that your battery doesnt die because the generator cant keep up. It will also cost them less becuase they already have them. This also saves them time and keeps the pricetag down, so you can buy a volt in 2010.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am
From the first time I heard of the concept, I thought it should have a rotory engine. There is a ton of energy lost with a 4 cycle combustion cycle, the constantly having to stop the piston after combustion. With a rotory engine, there is a constant direction of the rotor. This seems like it would add well to turning a generator.
With the motor running at a single speed, it could be tuned very well to ensure a good fuel savings.
Plus the whole motor is smaller an lighter compared to a 4 cylinder.
First time post, long time viewer.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Sounds like a step backwards to me.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Statik #71
As Guy #63 as shown, and I checked a few minutes ago. it is possible to buy today an Opel Corsa with a 1.0 3cyl. engine for (base price a little more than 9,800 € for the simple version). It does more or less - sorry for my unit conversions - 85 mpg, that is 5.5l/100km.
Hope that helps
June 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Speculation:
Since California will be one of the first states to get the Volt, GM has to make sure it passes our daily driving requirements.
In California you rarely go anywhere of any distance where you don’t have to go over a high elevation pass. Around town, a small electric motor, battery and ICE will work fine but once you hit the road the requirements go up.
If people in California start complaining that a drive from the Central valley to SoCal or a run from the valley to Reno/Tahoe required them to stop and let the battery catch up before making it over Donner Pass, the Volt will be doomed. Sure, it might be fine everywhere else but the bad press will be devastating.
I believe this is motivating the increase in electric motor and ICE output. As long as I can run it in all EV mode for 40 miles on flat ground, it doesn’t both me if the overall ICE MPG is as low as 35 MPG. What I don’t want is a slug that requires me to do 35 MPH up Donner Pass. I don’t need to maintain 80 MPH, but 65 would be nice.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am
One reason I thought they may want the 4 cyl is engine start. We have a Prius and it is a very smooth ICE start and it is a frequent occurrence.
I don’t know if the plan for the Volt is to have the ICE charge then shut off and then charge again or to kick on and stay on, but I would imagine the vibration on starting a 3 cyl is worse than a 4.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Another drawback of using the smaller turbo engine (in addition to price and risk already mentioned) is the possible need to burn premium fuel in it. My Mazdaspeed3 is a turbo, and although its combination of performance and economy is amazing, it does require premium fuel.
I’m sure GM is considering all these factors and dozens more.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am
DIO @ 58, Call the Volt a hybrid if you want to, but I belive it will be a major step forward over the current hybrids on the market from Toyota and Honda, which can’t really operate without at least some gas. The Volt, on the other hand, will be able to get around with absolutely no gas for most trips that people take, and it still has the benefit of being able to go longer distances on gasoline. Even though the Volt has a gas tank, some people may never fill it and that’s a big deal to most people here. Maybe Honda and Toyota will have something similar when the Volt comes out, but that also remains to be seen.
I’m with you on the need to stop using oil (at least for transportation), but I think it’s going to take many steps to get there, and the Volt seems like a fairly large step on the way.
Jarek91 @ 59, Thanks for the Penny-Arcade strip, it made me laugh because it’s true. I frequently fall into the trap of feeding the trolls… I just can’t help myself sometimes.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Maybe 10,000-60,000 vehicles a year isn’t such a bad idea….
http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf
Then again South American women are much hotter than Saudi Arabian women, at least from what I can see through the hiijab.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Please folks, don’t even respond to DIO. He is having a good time at your expense. HE is clearly not educated about the nuances of the definition of hybrid as it is used for cars, nor the details about how the Volt is intended to work, nor the benefits of this approach. He is a troll with an agenda.
Uneducated and unenlightened. Feel sorry for him, but don’t respond. There is a good discussion going on here. Keep it on track.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:08 am
#77 Jean-Charles Jacquemin
“…it is possible to buy today an Opel Corsa with a 1.0 3cyl. engine… It does more or less - sorry for my unit conversions - 85 mpg, that is 5.5l/100km”
Don’t worry, we are metric here in Canada, and I lived in the States for along time, I can go both ways.
Actually you might have made it more confusing for some…you have done the 5.5l/100km to MPG, but have not used the US conversion (and I think, forgot to convert the km to miles)
In the US, 1 gallon = 3.78 liters
In the UK 1 (Imperial) gallon = 4.53
5.5l/100 km = 41 MPG
(I range about 3.2 -4.0l/100km in my 40hp TDI SMART…works out to be 69 MPG overall, which is about as well as you can do in NA)
June 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
From God to Lemmings, can’t you just feel the LOVE on this topict? LOL
3 or 4 cyl ??? Whatever makes the best choice for cost & power, go with that!
GO LEMMINGS, er GM, GO VOLT!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:17 am
GM Volt Fan #61
Great link and educational post. You did a very good job of explaining things. It is really good to see quality posts. Keep them coming.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Now here is a cool idea.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/06/24/transportation-tuesday-antro-solo-gets-150mpg/
Take Care
Arch
June 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Engines, Shmengines….
Can we please get back to discussing the really important stuff ?
1. EEstor
2. Hydrogen !
June 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I am sure a balance shaft 3cyl with a turbo will weigh the same or 10lbs more than a 4 cyl.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Exp_EngTech
Hydrogen is off the table for discussion for the next 10 years. I thought we had all agreed on that.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I don’t have a single problem with GM using a 4 cylinder engine over the 3 banger. I know it will be smoother starting up and running. And who ever suggested a Honda generator needs to consider the sound level. The last Honda generator I heard was loud. Plus, I suspect they will not hold up in an automotive vehicle for 150,000+ miles. But, maybe you were trying to be funny. HaHa!
June 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
It seems to me that the functionality of the engine in the series hybrid will be quite different than the usual automobile. Once the charge in the battery goes below a particular threshold, the engine will start up, and will run flat out. In so doing it will 1) maximize the efficiency of the motor 2) provide a charging rate that is matched to ability of the cells to accept charge. It will not need to disable cylinders, etc, because the power demand, once it’s turned on, will be high. In fact, it will be run more like an airplane engine (which needs to be operated at a high power for long periods of time) rather than a car engine.
I’m curious: do you suppose that GM might consider a different cycle, like an Atkinson or a Wankel cycle? The former might given a efficiency advantage, while the latter might be able to operate better in a constant high-rpm regime…
BTW, some nice animations of engine cycles can be found here:
http://www.keveney.com/Engines.html
June 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am
If it’s true that the ICE will be a non-turbo 1.4L (hopefully including GM’s VVT & direct injection), I’m very pleased! The weight difference (if any) will have a negligible effect on battery range, acceleration, etc and the engine’s inherently better balance and simplicity are all PLUSES. My discussion with Tony Posawatz in NYC this March convinced me that GM sees the Volt as a PERFORMANCE car, and this improvement will help assure its fast acceleration, sustained high speeds and uncompromised performance on long, steep grades —drive one up Pike’s Peak for the publicity, GM!
Best of all, this improved performance should be at NO increase in cost! Finally, ICE/Generator starts and stops should now be virtually undetectable (i.e., both extremely smooth and quiet —and with no turbo “screaming”!)
June 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
GM knows ICE’s, so who are we to second guess them? All I care is if it works.
Here’s what I really want to know about. I’ve pleaded for months, but not a peep from GM. Please open up the hood and tell us about the electric motor. And the regenerative braking system. We know precious little about these, but it’s the key to this technology.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
#89 eric — Excellent info to know. If weight is the same or less, the 4 cyl is the better choice, so the GM choice is logical.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I was looking at the home page of GM-VOLT and there was a bank ad showing a guy at a service station gasoline pump looking kinda perplexed. Maybe the ad was about getting a bank loan before filling up your vehicle. Might just come to that with prices climbing. Drive in, insert your bank card and fill-up with our low, low 7% loan good until 6 p.m. today. Rates go up after that.
Makes you wonder.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
#90 N Riley
“Hydrogen is off the table for discussion for the next 10 years. I thought we had all agreed on that.”
But you can get your shirts today!
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/intergalactic_hydrogen_t-shirt.html
June 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Let’s apply a bit of perspective here.
Several posters have said that the change from a 1.0L 3 cyl to a 1.4L 4 cyl would basically kill 50 mpg or otherwise be some kind of “killer” change because of the weight.
I say that this depends on the net weight difference between the “old” and “new” engines.
A quick Google discovered that the 4 cyl family 0 engine has a weight of about 460 lbs. A 3 cyl is very likely no more than 1/3 (33%) lighter, so we’re talking about a mass change of about 154 lbs in a vehicle that’s likely to weigh over 3,000 lbs.
Difference: about 0.51%
IMO trivial, especially if it makes for a less tempermental, more easily serviced unit.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Noah Nehm
I am sure GM is choosing to stay with what they currently have in their “stable” of engines. later on, who knows. It makes sense at this time to keep initial cost down.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am
#90 N Riley wrote:
“Hydrogen is off the table for discussion for the next 10 years. I thought we had all agreed on that.”
I guess I missed that thread and the “table”. Sorry.
Sooo, that still leaves EEstor !
I’m sure somebody out there has some inside information.
Any day now…..
June 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Arch@87,
Nice looking car, and I love the part where, if needed, you could PEDAL (g).
Be well,
Tag
June 24th, 2008 at 11:47 am
OhmExcited says:
“Here’s what I really want to know about. I’ve pleaded for months, but not a peep from GM. Please open up the hood and tell us about the electric motor. And the regenerative braking system. We know precious little about these, but it’s the key to this technology.”
I suspect, without really knowing, GM does not want to give away too much to the competition at this stage of the game. Later, I believe, there will be all the information you can handle.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
off, #82 Thank you for the link regarding lithium reserves.
To me it seems like the text of the article is the opposite of what is shown by the data. That’s because one has to be very careful when looking at tables labeled “reserves” as these usually are totaling what oil or mining companies are listing as their own reserves. These companies have no need to invest in finding reserves beyond their own needs for the next 10 or 20 years. It’s also to the advantage of people interested in commercial extraction to stick to places that already have proven reserves that are economical to extract. That’s what the table in the link looks like.
It likely is the case that geologically there is a lot of other lithium out there not listed in the tablee, e.g., in Utah. So far maybe it has just has not been seen as worth the exploration costs. My reading of the table is that there is a huge amount of lithium available, compared to present usage, and it comes from many different countries, so it is a relatively “safe” supply.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Exp_EngTech says:
“Sooo, that still leaves EEstor !”
EEstor sounds like exciting technology. We just have not seen any proof of it yet. Let’s keep hoping it will work as well as some of their claims.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am
#84 Statik
Your numbers are just slightly off.
It just so happens that metrology is a hobby of mine, rest assured my numbers are correct
From the Opel site, the link I previously provided (post #63) translated:
The consumption advantage of the new aggregates in the OPEL Corsa:
1.0 liters (44 KW/60 HP)
5.3 liters gasoline per 100 kilometer
Minus 3 per cent (0.2 liters)
Not sure what the “Minus 3 per cent (0.2 liters)” is all about, perhaps its % error, conversions for 5.3 & 5.1 (5.3 minus 0.2=5.1) as follows:
At 5.3 liters per 100 km=44.38 miles per gallon
At 5.1 liters per 100 km=46.12 miles per gallon
Sorry about being so exact, I’m a stickler when it comes to accuracy.
In fact, when someone asks me what time it is, I give them the time down to the second (my watch receives radio signals from UTC atomic clocks) such that I factor in the amount of time it will take me to tell them, so that when they hear me say its 8:37 and 54 seconds it really is 8:37 and 54 seconds exactly
June 24th, 2008 at 11:57 am
We keep hearing about why GM does not include this or that new technology in the Volt. GM has to be pretty well set by now on what will or will not be in the generation one Volt. They have to decide what to include and stick to it because of production schedules, etc. Gen 2 or 3 will see more additional technology. We just have to wait for some things to occur. Give it time and I am sure all of our “dream” technology will be addressed by either GM or some other company.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
#98 N Riley
You’re almost certainly correct about GM using an engine from their stable; still, it’s fun to think about the possiblities of more exotic engines.
A few years ago Green Car Congress reported that the diesel Rand Cam rotary engine (from Reg Technologies) was entering series hybrid testing, and that they were developing a 125 Hp version of it. It’s a neat technology, and if perfected, might be a better match for the series hybrid.
Here’s an animation of that cycle:
http://www.regtech.com/Radmax_Technology/Rotary_Principle/
June 24th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I’m not even sure we needed a 3 cyl, 1 ltr engine. It’s sole function is to turn a generator. Even a lawnmower engine can do that with gearing. Sounds like GM is trying to sneak in a larger production engine and at the last minute decide to make it a hybrid instead of an EV. A 1.4 is big enough to drive the vehicle. This doesn’t sound right. Hope I’m wrong.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
There is a report that EEStor is building their EESU production facility in Cedar Park, Texas; a full, state of the art production facility that is nearing completion.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023063.html
Is this for real?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#45 Jackson
Yes, it was just last week when Bob Lutz mentioning the noise and roughness on this site. I assume that’s why they are going to the 4 cyl. As #93 Nasaman says, the engine’s “inherently better balance and simplicity are all PLUSES”
But good for the engineers for starting with a different approach (1 L. turbo). And while they have ” a year and a half to work on that”, it appears that the answer is already at hand.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Well:
We are already over 100 posts of speculation and conspiracy theories, and a new troll too!!!!!!
Keep it going people. Lyle needs the ad income…..
June 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
#109 Jim I:
No s**t!
June 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Noah Nehm
Thanks for the link. I agree rotary engines are interesting. I remember Mazda’s rotary engine in the ’70s. It was a good idea then and should be considered by GM or some other manufacturer for a future car/truck. Today’s rotary engine is quite advanced over the ’70s version.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Jim I
I can’t say Lyle needs the ad income, but he does deserve every penny of it. I can’t imagine the amount of time it takes him to keep this site up and going. Keep up the good work, Lyle. Your reward is coming.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
#60 jscott1 said “It makes sense to me… I thought the concept ICE was too small. It makes no difference if it’s connected to the wheels or not, if you want indefinite range the ICE has to be as powerful as if it WERE connected directly to the wheels. It’s not just trickle charging the batteries.”
Even with indefinite range, the ICE only has to be as large as the average power needed, not the peak power, so the ICE can be lower power than it would in a non-EREV design.
I agree that the difference might be small going up a mountain someplace, if the “traditional” ICE engine can just barely make it and therefore is always demanding the peak and the EREV is the same way. That car in either version will be so sluggish, though, that no one will enjoy driving it. That is, for a satisfactority car, the performance for an EREV will be better than with the ICE alone.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I may eat my words later, but I’ll believe EESTOR after an actual prototype leaves their hands for (successful) testing in an independent lab. That’s not to say that a less-incredible-than-EESTOR ultracapacitor doesn’t have a future in an EV or EREV; perhaps as a surge buffer for a lower-energy-density battery. EESTOR’s claims don’t have to pan out all the way for ultracapacitors to make a difference.
===
Existing hybrids and the Volt are alike in at least one respect: they are attainable steps. For decades, you couldnt’ build an electric car because there wasn’t an adequate battery. It didn’t pay to develop an adequate battery, with no extant market (electric cars). This catch-22 didn’t start to crack until cars like Insight (remember who was first!) and Prius took the first baby-step down that road. Did they make economic, or even environmental sense? That’s debatable, but they did pass one crucial test: they sold.
The Volt is a giant step, and it won’t be the last. We can’t economically go from gas-guzzler to all-electric, but we can end up there taking attainable steps.
===
Wankels look interesting in theory, but GM has been down that path before. With the state of the art 30 years ago, the seals leaked; and a GM rotary in an advanced state of design had to be scrapped. Small cars developed to use it had to be hastily re-tooled for 4-cylinders, resulting in some of the most lackluster, trouble-prone cars they ever produced. I don’t think enough time has passed to say “Wankel” at GM.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
@ #44 Nelson
>> Maybe they could partner with Harley Davidson.
Sweet Jesus and saints preserve us, I hope not. (I’m not a Harley fan, in case you couldn’t tell).
@ #46 DIO,
>> I cannot replenish the Earth forever; God needs to rest
>> every now & then.
Seek professional help. And do it ASAP.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
GM, did you hear about a “FREE PISTON ENGINE LINEAR GENERATOR”? It has one major part, an opposed piston that shuttles back and forth with a magnet in the center that generates electricity.
Also, why 53kW? The average consumption at 100kph/62mph is likely about 15kW and the Li-ion batteries can supply enough energy to climb the longest mountain road. I think a smaller/lighter/cheaper 25kW unit would be sufficient.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
#106
“I’m not even sure we needed a 3 cyl, 1 ltr engine. It’s sole function is to turn a generator. Even a lawnmower engine can do that with gearing. Sounds like GM is trying to sneak in a larger production engine and at the last minute decide to make it a hybrid instead of an EV. A 1.4 is big enough to drive the vehicle. This doesn’t sound right. Hope I’m wrong.”
Lets do the math.
we know that the Volt drives for 40 miles, using the range from 80% to 30%, or 50% of the 16Kwh Battery. So you get 40 miles with 8Kwh. So if your driving 80 MPH on the highway, and driving 80 MPH you drain your battery in 30 minutes. This means that the motor can drain 16Kw. This means that you have to be able to charge the car at 16Kw at the very least unless you want your battery to die. Of course if you were driving 80 MPH you probably wouldnt get that efficiency either due to aerodynamic drag, so you would want it to be able to produce even more then 16kw of power, I think arround 30Kw. 30Kw is 3x as much as Honda’s most powerful generator. Also when you convert the 30Kw to HP, you get 40HP, which is way more then any lawnmower engine. Remember, your powering a 3000 lb car, not your laundry machine. And you cant just use a 40HP engine, you need a engine that can produce 40HP when it is running efficiently, you would get horrible mileage if the engine could only produce 40 HP when your at the peak of the power.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I didn’t realize god was a dumb ass. Who knew?
Not one Asian car I know of running Lithium Ion.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
CPI/LG Chem has already been testing their batteries on Pike’s Peak with an electric car. If they get the contract for the Volt’s batteries it should do fine driving in the mountains … er, I hope.
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/pikes_peak_ER3.html
I’m sure Continental/A123 are doing the same kind of testing with their battery. I think GM ought to be working with a LOT of different battery companies on an ongoing basis. I want them to just get us GM Volt customers the optimal battery technology available as it comes out.
I’m hoping maybe I can lease the battery if the payments are reasonable and upgrade my Volt battery as “new and improved” batteries become available. A 100 mile all electric range battery with excellent power and quick charge capability would be great in say 2014 or whenever.
I’m hoping that Dr. Cui at Stanford will combine his silicon nanowire anode technology with this manganese titanium cathode technology I read about the past month or so. A “super ultra mega battery” with TEN times the capacity of today’s automotive batteries. It would definitely get some sort of X Prize like McCain is talking about … and probably BILLIONS more from the marketplace. I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens sooner than people think. Once a huge number of scientists and engineers get super focused on something, they usually can make things happen pretty quick. They know that the market is perfect right now for electric car breakthrough technologies. LOTS of big money is on the line.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Eric Marshall (#118):
Did you hear about the version which placed two such pistons in one cylinder, so that they converged on the center on the power stroke? The solenoid coils supposedly kept them in sync (european design, must’ve been mid ’80s that I read about it). The sharp increase in compression on each stroke supposedly made it a super-diesel, able to ignite virtually any fuel with no spark. Don’t know what happened to it, but there must’ve been some snag (Oh, and I think the original free piston engine compressed air (with a second, shaft-attached piston) on a U-boat).
===
Details of motors / generators? I can’t really say anything about that directly, but I wonder how many of you know that Neodymium Iron Boron permanent magnets (the most powerful in existence) were invented by — General Motors?
My Uncle worked at GM for many years. When I told him, first about the car I wished they’d build, and later, the Volt, he mentioned that it sounded like what the Electromotive Division did in the 1930’s. A diesel locomotive engine turns a generator, and motors turn the wheels; it’s the only way to get thrust at all speeds with a heavily loaded train.
The General has gone down a lot of roads in a century.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Haiku for Volt ICE
Why, oh why, oh why?
Oh, gee golly, why, why, why, why?
Won’t they use a diesel?
June 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Oops, I meant converged on the center during the compression stroke (for some reason, my browser at work won’t let me edit, here)
June 24th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I certainly hope the EEStor ….um, story….comes true, it would be revolutionary but its just more wait and see….
I tend to agree with you Jackson #116 (on all counts)
As for the EESU….
Has anyone heard whether or not they delivered a working prototype to ZENN yet? I know there are lots of secrets involved there, which is understandable I guess….
If EEStor ends up working out, are they entitled to McCain’s $300mil ‘reward’…. being that its not really a battery?
Sorry I’m mixing topics….I’m also scared of the link in #109 after looking at the author’s credentials…. I gotta go take a Tylenol.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Regarding Wankel rotary engines…
They’re still used in the production Mazda RX-8. it’s my understanding that they make a lot of power for their size and weight, but they’re not too fuel efficient. Probably not a good fit for the Volt IMHO.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This engine might be derived from X14YEH, the 1.4 L SOHC FlexPower engine that can be powered by 100% alcohol or gasoline.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Brad G (in regards to the Smart car having a 1L 3 cyclinder engine)…. let’s not forget GM’s Geo Metro from 20 years ago that also had a 1L 3 cyclinder engine, and got 50 miles/gallon way back then!
My Volvo also has an odd number of cyclinders… it has 5. Though I guess the problems with 3 cyclinders may not be that it’s an odd number.
How about instead of a turbocharger, just a more simpler supercharger? In any case, turbo/super chargers are mainly designed to provide “additional” power when needed but to retain the fuel economy of a smaller displacement most of the time when the additional power is not needed. Since in the Volt the ICE is being used in a generator set and running at constant speed and load, turbo/super charging doen’t provide much benefit. Unless the original design called for the generator being able to run at two different speeds/loads? Ie. such as for hill climbing without having to also supplement power with juice from the battery?
DIO regarding hydrogen as a “source” of energy… google “hydrogen hoax” or see the most recent thread on this site on it at http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/11/gm-says-goodbye-to-oil-and-hello-to-hydrogen/ as there is no need to rehash it here (though from your post you don’t seem to be interested in discussion)
Jason (The Saj) regarding directing generator output directly to the drive motor…. I’m still confused why the design is such that the generator is only being used to keep the battery at 30% SOC…. to me to it seems to be reducing battery life that way. Maybe it’s only the way GM has explained it (ie. they may have simplified the explaination so it’s easier to describe). I would imagine the controler is sending as much power to the drive motor from the generator as is needed (possibly all with the battery supplementing it when needed) and only any excess is going to recharging the battery.
nucboy, actually the Volt is technically a hybrid… but not a parallel hybrid like the Prius and others on the road, but a series hybrid. The big difference is that a series hybrid the conventional engine (ICE) is not mechnically connected to the drive train, but is connected in series (ICE -> generator -> battery -> electric drive motor). Because of the confusion for marketing reasons GM now (but not always) prefers to call this design an “extended range EV”. Get rid of the onboard liquid fueled geneator and you have a non-hybrid battery EV. You could also get rid of the battery so it’s no longer a hybrid (like a diesel-electric train) but then it wouldn’t be a “plug in”.
Eco… the Volt does not ever charge the battery to “full” charge… the design calls for max of 80% state of charge.
Theoldguy, I think you are joking, but while technically taking an off the shelf generator may work… I believe the Volt’s generator will still have to meet the emissions requirements of a conventional vehicle (catalytic converator, muffler, etc).
DIO (again) as to what is ground breaking about the Volt…. it’s that it’s the 1st planned MASS (10k 1st year, 60k 2nd year, …) produced plug-in with a decent BEV only range.
ps to Dave G… are you located in NH as well? (I see you mentioned driving to the peak of Mount Washington)
June 24th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
As far as I know, the current GM’s three cylinder is a cast iron one which is heavier than aluminium. It appears the new four cylinder one is all aluminium as with the other four bangers in the sedans. So I think weight difference should almost be the same between 3 and 4 cyl.
It Wouldn’t surprise even if 4 cyl is lighter than an Iron 3 Cyl one considering the weight of turbocharger, intercooler etc.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
#126 Paul-R
Ok, the Wankel is out. On the other hand, the RegTech Cam Diesel, based on the criterion of efficiency could still be a fit. According to a recent assessment, it’s 20% more efficient than a gasoline engine:
http://www.regtech.com/News_Releases/?newsID=99&yr=2008
I can’t help but think that there are other cycles (e.g. dynacam) that might work as well. While I realize that something like this isn’t going to be in the works in the near future, the possibility that it might in the long term makes it fun for an engineer to contemplate.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I don’t care about the ICE engine.
I can’t wait to get my hands on the Volt as long as it has a plug.
It must have a plug!
When I get it, if not an option, I’ll toss the ICE out onto the garage floor and drive it like my old EV1.
ALL ELECTRIC, 50 miles per charge worked for me.
NO GAS AT ALL.
Jeff
June 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Jackson (couldn’t build an EV for decades because of inadequate battery)… I think you completely missed the EV’s that came out in the 90’s thanks to California’s ZEV mandate as well as Cobasys’s revolutionary design using the NiMH chemistry. It resulted not only in the EV-1, but the Rav4-EV (the best one imho), Chevy S10-EV, and others. None were mass produced though… and they weren’t a failure, as even with almost no marketing (more was actually spent on a misinformation campain from big oil) demand exceeded supply. Big oil wanted it killed… big auto wanted it killed, both for different reasons (big oil because it would reduce demand for their product, big auto because of significantly reduced maint. costs, and for their dealerships that was big as they make more on parts/service than they do on sales).
In any case, times have changed, $4+ gas, food prices significantly higher, the Bush admin (big oil) having less influence and on it’s way out with both major canidates with better energy policies (though I’m not sure I like Obama’s ties to big corn ethanol). I do worry that if the theory that commodity speculators are indeed responsible for 30-50% of the price of oil, and gas drops to $2.50/gallon, it all reverts back to status quo like it did after the oil crisis of the 70’s.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
HCCI is mentioned as an “eventual” enhancement for the new 1.4 liter.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
#98 DocM - engine weight is not the main MPG driver. A 1.4L 4-cyl will generally be less efficient in the Volt’s typical 15-20 kW range than a 1.0L 3-cyl due to higher internal friction and pumping losses. Also, 154 lb is 5% of total weight, not 0.5%.
#118 Eric Marshall - the battery cannot provide energy for a long hill climb. You need all 53 kW to push a loaded Volt up a 6% freeway grade at 70 mph with A/C, etc. Out west these grades can run for 20 miles. A 25 kW generator would leave you 28 kW in the hole. Pull that 28 kW from a battery starting off at 30% SOC (4.8 kWh) and you’d b