Grab our RSS Feed

AND

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 )

Posted by: Lyle

227 Responses to “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?”

beachliving Says:
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.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:59 am

Doesn’t Turbo help with better MPG?

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
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.

(Quote)
nucboy Says:
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).

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
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.

(Quote)
RB Says:
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.

(Quote)
Estero Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
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

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
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

(Quote)
Joe Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
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.

(Quote)
Dick G. Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 6:52 am

Not for anything, but Current WTI Crude Futures $137.90/Barrel…..

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
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.

(Quote)
57silver Says:
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?

(Quote)
pdt Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 7:01 am

We need options! I’d like the turbo 3 with 20-mile AER please.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
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/

(Quote)
Luke Says:
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.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
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.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
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.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
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.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
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.

(Quote)
Luke Says:
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.

(Quote)
Grant Says:
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.

(Quote)
cyclop Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 7:48 am

#9 Jean-Charles — Thanks for the link to the beautiful site with the beautiful car.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
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.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
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.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 7:54 am

Check this out! Smart car race!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5S1NAMnYKM

(Quote)
Chris Says:
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)

(Quote)
Sean Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 8:10 am

They may be trying to get the motor to power the generator and charge the battery.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
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.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
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.

(Quote)
Firefly Says:
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.

(Quote)
DIO Says:
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

(Quote)
Statik Says:
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

(Quote)
cyclop Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 8:38 am

GXT, #30 Maybe not more niche, just slightly more conventional for a highly unconventional car.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jason The Saj Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
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

(Quote)
Todd Says:
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.

(Quote)
DIO Says:
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.

(Quote)
Murray Says:
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….

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
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.

(Quote)
Cire Says:
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.

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
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.

(Quote)
DIO Says:
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……

(Quote)
cyclop Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am

GM Volt Fan, #42 I like the car you describe and hope it is the Volt.

(Quote)
nucboy Says:
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.

(Quote)
Sean Says:
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.

(Quote)
ElectRich Says:
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?

(Quote)
Eco Says:
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.

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
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.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
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.
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
Theoldguy Says:
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

(Quote)
ksuhwail Says:
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.

(Quote)
Cire Says:
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.

(Quote)
Murray Says:
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…….

(Quote)
DIO Says:
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..

(Quote)
Jarek91 Says:
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.

(Quote)
jScott1 Says:
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.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
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.

(Quote)
Dr.Science Says:
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.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
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

(Quote)
Statik Says:
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.

(Quote)
DA Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
DIO Says:
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?

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
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.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
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.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
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

(Quote)
Statik Says:
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/

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
Cire Says:
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.

(Quote)
leeper Says:
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.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am

Sounds like a step backwards to me.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
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

(Quote)
TBK Says:
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.

(Quote)
jehrler Says:
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.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
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.

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
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.

(Quote)
offpiste Says:
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.

(Quote)
MetrologyFirst Says:
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.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
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)

(Quote)
Anthony BC Says:
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!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
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

(Quote)
Exp_EngTech Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am

Engines, Shmengines….

Can we please get back to discussing the really important stuff ?

1. EEstor
2. Hydrogen !

(Quote)
eric Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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!

(Quote)
Noah Nehm Says:
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

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
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”!)

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
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.

(Quote)
cyclop Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
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

(Quote)
DocM Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
Exp_EngTech Says:
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…..

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
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

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
RB Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
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

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
Noah Nehm Says:
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/

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
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.

(Quote)
Estero Says:
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?

(Quote)
George K Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
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…..

(Quote)
noel park Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

#109 Jim I:

No s**t!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
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.

(Quote)
RB Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
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.

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
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.

(Quote)
Eric Marshall Says:
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.

(Quote)
Cire Says:
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.

(Quote)
BigCityCat Says:
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.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
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.

(Quote)
biodieseiljeep Says:
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?

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
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)

(Quote)
Murray Says:
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.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
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.

(Quote)
Michael S Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
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)

(Quote)
Talks Says:
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.

(Quote)
Noah Nehm Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
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

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
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.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

HCCI is mentioned as an “eventual” enhancement for the new 1.4 liter.

(Quote)
doggydogworld Says:
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 be at 0% SOC by mile 12. After that you’d limp at 35 mph. And even that’s not realistic because taking the battery all the way to 0% SOC is harmful to cycle life and will not be allowed in any circumstances. I’ve seen screwball patents for systems which integrate GPS elevation data into the battery charging logic (if you’re near the bottom of a mountain don’t let SOC fall below 60%), but this is asking for trouble. It’s easier to just make sure the ICE can handle the hill.

All – This Motor Trend blogger has trouble keeping his 3s and 4s straight. He says Volt was originally shown with a 1.0L 4-cyl. He later says the 1.0L 3-cyl for the foreign market Beat will be made in Flint which means they’ll be exporting 4-cyl engines. I wouldn’t put too much stock in this report.

(Quote)
mien green Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

GM family 0 engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine

Not sure how “new” a line this motor series is, tho. Excluding adding turbocharger(s), the last engine series modification appears to be the twin port configuration in 2003. Maybe the new part is the assembly line in Flint. The 3 cylinder was the first ‘zero’.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I didn’t forget the California Golf Carts, one-offs and conversions Jeff M; I just didn’t consider them significant (no way I could’ve had one that runs at real highway speeds and reasonable ranges = not significant ).

It comes as a shock to many, but there are often root causes for the adoption/non-adoption of new technology which have nothing whatever to do with what politicians know what business people.

If it doesn’t pay, it doesn’t stay; whatever people connive over or mandate. If it didn’t work then, the idea/economy wasn’t ready. I think the signs these days are far more auspicious.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

#105 Guy Incognito

“Your numbers are slightly off…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)”

Actually they are Jean-Charles Jacquemin numbers from post #77.

There was just had a snafu with his metric conversion to US numbers, I was doing the conversion off of the 5.5l/100km he quoted.

(Quote)
George Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

#67 DIO

By your definition, even the EV1 was a hybrid. Every electric car is a Hybrid, because a battery is a storage medium and not an energy source. So, since you are so all knowing and smart, please bring your grace upon us and build us a vehicle with it’s own energy source that won’t require an infrastructure to distribute that energy, by owning we won’t be beholden to any other for source materials and we will be free of all forms of serfdom.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

George #137

Except, of course, if he can build us one like that, we would worship him and would be beholden to only him. Fat chance, that. The guy is still crawling out of the potato bin where the Volt is concerned. Just another nay sayer.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I could care less what size engine or what type of engine is in the Volt as long as it gets the job done. I think the majority of us feel the same way. GM, do what you think is best and we, the market place, will decide if you are right or not. Ok? What is so different about that? It is what you have to expect.. Someone wins and someone loses. I am pulling for GM over the other companies followed closely by Ford and Chrysler, in that order. I want America to lead in this race.

(Quote)
Allan Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

The smaller engine could accomplish all of these problems. Your charge would never dip below a certain level, because it can recharge from the generator while parked.

It may be true that they don’t have any 2 or 3 cylinder generators on hand, and the 4 may be a transplant from another car… but that seems to contradict the idea here.

I hope they keep the idea of a small generator in the car, but in the end I may be dissapoined. Again.

(Quote)
mien green Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

GM family 0 engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine

Not sure why this line would be described as “new”, tho. Excluding turbocharger(s), the last series modification appears to be the twin port configuration in 2003. Maybe the new part is the assembly line introduction in Flint. The 3 cylinder engine was the first ‘zero’.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

121 GM Volt Fan………
Thanks for your post reporting the recent (2nd) Pike’s Peak climb by an LG/CPI-powered EV! Here’s a few of its design details….

Battery Pack 12kWh (LG Chem Lithium-ion Polymer)
Controller IGBT inverter
Motor 165 kW AC induction
Drive Line Single Speed Gear Box
Carbon Fiber Body, 1150 Lbs

I debated with myself about calculating the amount of energy the much heavier Volt would need to make the same climb, but decided to leave that to a “new hire” on GM’s Volt drive team <<<ATTN GM!!!

In any case, I’m confident GM did do this calculation —did they decide to upsize the ICE/Gen in part because of this VERY important capability to the marketing success of the Volt???

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/pikes_peak_ER3.html

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

#67, 138, 139…

Such passion over naming and limitations. Most single engine planes have a tow bar…and I would love to have a single engine plane except for the cost associated with it.

I think the key question on everyone’s mind…Can GM produce a vehicle like the VOLT without the expense of a single engine plane or a NASA space shuttle? The possiblity of mass volume production car at a price in range of a comparable ICE vehicle is my interest (and I would think most other folks here)…not a few vehicles.

Telsa and other various companies have been successful at producing “electric” low volume vehicles. The Toyota Prius is the most successful, mass produced, “affordable”, “part-time” electric drive vehicle on the market today…but it’s only energy source is petro.

There is no denying the world leading technical expertise of GM. But, it would GREAT if GM produces something besides a “SPACE SHUTTLE”. Only folks with deep pockets can purchase “SPACE SHUTTLES”. While the technical challenges are difficult, the manufacturing challanges are very important also.

If new cars were in the price range of laptops, doubling the price would not be as much of a concern for most buyers.

(Quote)
Canuck Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Cire has the best explanations.

The 1.4L 4cyl engine is a new engine they plan to use in many smaller fuel efficient cars. Clearly they have plans for a huge production, including a turbo version. Clearly Volt team wants to leverage the GM’s plans and use this high volume cheap engine. It is common sense.

As others explained turbo is not necessary for steady RPM operation.

Cire has provided the calculations regarding generator size. The 1.4L generato is needed to maintain the full set of features and comfort. So if you are cruising at high speed *AND* have air conditioning *AND* stereo, etc. then the total energy requirements are so high that you need a decent size generator – 1.4L engine.

Now, you could easily go smaller, say 0.6L motorcycle type engine albeit limited to lower max RPM (bikes these days go to 17K RPM, insane). However, a 0.6L I4 might produce half as much as 1.4L, so suddenly you don’t have enough power for everything. You turn on air conditioning and car slows down from 80mph to 60 mph, or even 40 mph. So you could use a smaller generator while having to accept performance limits. The top speed would come down to 60mph. Certain features like air conditioning might not be able to function at full power sometimes. And so on.

Clearly GM wants a vehicle whose performance is on the same level as conventional cars, so such performance limitations are not acceptable for Volt V1. I am fairly certain that some future versions like 20 mile range cheaper version might come with a smaller generator and lower max speed, albeit at a much lower price.

The other issue is state of charge (SOC). With this 1.4L engine capable or maintaing any SOC, there is no reason to go much above minimum 30%. Of course there is range, so that ICE starts at 30% and keeps going up to 40% or something like that. However you don’t want ICE charging to 80% SOC 5 minutes before arriving home where you’ll recharge from grid.

Now if a smaller, say 0.6L ICE were used, it would have a much tougher time maintaing a certain SOC. Therefore, it would have to start well before 30% SOC to avoid too low SOC. In other words, the ICE operation region would have to be bigger, say 30%-60% SOC which in turn would end up using more fuel. In any case, power management using a smaller generator become more complex, so for the 1st version it is safer/simpler to go with a bigger 1.4L ICE.

(Quote)
Theoldguy Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Jeff M.

Of course I was kidding about the Honda generator… but basically all you need is a motor capable of running the generator at a constant charging rate to maintain the battery at between 30 – 80 %. I beleive the original Volt specs showed that the ICE would not be charging the battery but maintaining the battery at the Mininumum of 30 % charge and would keep it at at least 30 % until such time as you would be able to plug the Volt back into an electrical outlet to get it back up to 80 %. Someone want to verify that ??

Ray

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

nasaman,

Maybe you are that new hire for GM! Make a good one, I bet.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Theoldguy

I think it was well explained by Canuck above. His explanation of the need for a 1.4L 4cyl engine seems to be quite valid. The 30% SOC figure is what I remember the ICE would maintain, also. But GM may have decided to up that figure with the larger 4 cylinder engine. Seems probable.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

When is GM’s 100 year anniversary? Still seems a likely time to introduce the production Volt design to the public. July or August? I can not remember. I am ready to see it. Still, will have 3 years before enough is mass produced to make them easy to find in a showroom. That is a LONG time. Lots of changes will come downstream by then.

(Quote)
hung Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

The car’s supposed to go on sale late 2010, and they don’t even know what engine is going in?

Does not sound good.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

hung,

Sure they do. Its just we don’t know for sure. GM isn’t talking yet.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

144 N Riley…..
You said, “nasaman, Maybe you are that new hire for GM! Make a good one, I bet.”

I’ll take that as a compliment, but —given the high mileage on my odometer— the truth is there’s NO CHANCE I could sell myself to GM/Detroit (they’re NEW car salesmen)! But if there’s a dealer around here whose USED car guys might like to dump my worn-out old chassis at the local auto-wholesale auction, who knows???

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I’d love to see something like this pursued as a range extender (quite a ways down the road, obviously):

http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/9830

See “New(tating) Engine Design” in Forums -> Engineering for another link and some pics. (I do get carried away in some of the responses, perhaps you’ll find it amusing).

An engine able to support continuous combustion could be made to run on virtually any liquid fuel, and be more efficient doing it. Turbines are likely to be too expensive, as others have said. This “Nutating Engine” has the potential to offer the benefits of a turbine with the materials/speeds/internal friction of internal combustion.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Jackson,

Looks far out, man. Who knows, as the engine develops, maybe it will be selected for a gen 2, 3, or 4 Volt. You never know. Right now, not enough information to tell us much.

(Quote)
TED in Fort Myers Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Why in the world would you want a larger engine?
More weight to carry around.
More gas consumption.
Larger PRICE TAG.
This is not necessarily good news
Give us more battery instead.
TED

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

#78 TBK Nailed it. Image matters. For the 1st gen, GM doesn’t want their new technology labeled “a dog”. Maybe later models will have smaller engines to improve efficiency but until the technology is accepted, they’ve got to compromise. This car actually has to work for the average American and not just appease the conscience of a guilt-ridden environmentalist. If it’s not functional, it won’t sell in sufficient quantities, even with gas at $4. If word gets out that Volt’s can’t climb Pikes Peak, people who may only commute in it still won’t buy it because of the label. You’re trying to sell to the same person who used to commute in M1 tank due to the image.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

The Nutating engine is in it’s infancy. I do think it would be past Volt 3 at the earliest (lots of research by GM, or someone, to be done first). I still think it would end up in a car ahead of a small turbine.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

For any of you that are interested, the translated Opel Ecotec engine page, featuring the 1.0 liter three cylinder & the 1.4 liter four cylinder.
Babel Fish did a good translation job, except for the word ‘haven’, as you read it, substitute it with the word ‘port’; as in ‘twin port’.
Anyways, heres the link
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-res&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gm-powertrain.at%2Fscripts%2Fdepot3%2Fpowertrain-media%2Fmedia%2F200308200001.txt&lp=de_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

TED in Fort Myers

I remember Gm saying weight was not as important as drag or CD. Plus, a 3 cylinder engine is going to weigh nearly as much as a 4 cylinder engine what with the balancing weight it must have as a counter balance. I am not an expert, hardly, but I do not see this as a problem. Let’s get over this and let GM do what is best for the Volt. Let’s support them, because we are not talking about anything that is going to make a real difference.

(Quote)
TED in Fort Myers Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

N. Riley
Just give me a BEV. I don’t need 4 cylinders to use alot of gas. My current car has 3 cylinders and gets 60 MPG. GM we all know you can make it bigger heavier and faster now see if you can not loose sight of economy of operation we are all looking for now. TED

(Quote)
Bill Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Production turbo-gasoline engines require premium gasoline which is significantly more expensive than regular unleaded or E85.

Opel is a Euro brand, so it’s unlikely that 1L, 3-cylinder engine meets the much stricter U.S. emissions standards.

Remember, GM makes small car diesel engines in the U.S. for Euro market cars, which although fuel-efficient, can’t be sold here in the U.S. ( newest U.S. diesel emission standard of T2B5 is several times stricter than Euro 4)

Rotary gasoline engines in production vehicles have always struggled with lower fuel efficiency and higher emissions than piston-powered gasoline engines.

Finally, almost all EV1 battery packs were lead-acid, a chemistry that has a dismally short life in passenger vehicle use.

Lithium-based battery technologies are light years ahead of lead-acid and NiMH.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

TED in Fort Myers

It is coming sooner than later. Several companies will be producing BEVs in the U.S. by 2010. So, be patient.

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

#119 Cire – Thanks for the info. Your examples were quite good and informative. I STAND CORRECTED.

(Quote)
TED in Fort Myers Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

N. Riley

Was still hoping for my first new GM car. I am 57 and have owned several GM in the earlier years but all were used. The last was my 68 Chevy wagon. Now I am really excited by the Volt. We just have to guide them. Look at their last 20 years of offerings. They just get larger and heavier and guzzle gas like they don’t have a clue. GM you just have to do it right. This is your last opportunity. TED

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Given the choice, I’d go for the non-turbo 4. More proven (who uses three cylinder engines?) and smoother and cheaper to build. Turbos always add cost in exchange for power. The Volt’s extender engine doesn’t need power beyond the kilowatts required. Once you’ve managed to provide that, any additional power capacity is meaningless. I’m assuming it will depend upon cost.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Re: to Jackson calling the BEV’s that came out of CA’s ZEV mandate just “golf carts”…

you really call Toyota’s Rav4-EV and GM’s S10-EV just “golf carts”? I can see you maybe calling GM’s EV1 as such since it was only a 2 seater (especially the original one with the broken Delco lead acid batteries), but I would not call highway capable road legal cars able to go up to 150 miles/charge anything close to being “golf carts”. I’d love to have the Rav4-EV or the S10-EV with those Cobasys NiMH’s, both of which are still on the road today.

Your comment “If it doesn’t pay, it doesn’t stay” fits right in with what I said… the auto compaies are for profit, most with shareholders, just like the oil companies… and it didn’t pay (from a revenue standpoint) to build them when you are making huge profit margins on big SUV/trucks not only at the point of sale, but in lots of after sale revenue (parts and service). I don’t believe there was any “conspiracy” between the oil companies, auto companies, their dealerships, and the parts suppliers (for example brake pad makers would have been big losers thanks to most breaking being done via regen)… each had their own reasons for wanting to gut/kill the ZEV mandate. It does not mean the market (consumers) weren’t ready for them, and which the facts showed they were indeed ready (ask former GM employee Chelsea Sexton).

In any case, I’ve mentioned it in other threads… I still don’t see, if maint costs for the Volt are similiar to other BEVs (like the ones that came out of the ZEV mandate, and others since), how they plan to keep the same business model they’ve had for so long. The only way that it would seem to work is that for each Volt sold, they can sell X number of SUVs/trucks/larger vehicles, and still meet the CAFE standards (ie. the Volt helps bring down the fleet average).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_S-10_EV

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:19 pm

I’m no engine expert, but wouldn’t a 4 cylinder ICE run smoother than a 3 ? Also a 1.4 L ICE may produce more efficiency than a 1.0 L. It doesn’t really matter because it won’t be used much for most driving,
I don’t think I would ever run with more than a gallon of gas in the tank anyways except for long trips, At 10 lbs a gallon who needs the extra weight of a full tank and hopefully you wouldn’t need to keep getting your gas tank cleaned. Also when the batteries are upgraded within the next few years the need for the ICE will be even less. Its pretty obvious where technology is going and I wouldn’t be surprised if the ICE became redundant over the next decade. I can hear our grandchildren talking now ‘back in 2010 cars only got 40 miles per charge and now we can drive across America on a single charge’.
Anybody have any thoughts. We’ll truly have reached a new world when the Indy 500 and NASCAR switch to battery powered vehicles.

(Quote)
TED in Fort Myers Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Honda used three cylinder engine in my 2006 Insight. Smooth as silk. TED

(Quote)
Koz Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

#134 doggydogworld,

Freeway 6 degree grade for 20 miles (10,900′ rise)? That seems a little extreme, but I agree we need the 50KW generator since we like to go 80

The weight, if they do indeed use a heavier 4, is not really a factor for efficiency but does matter for the climbs. I think the 4 could be a win, win, win as other have mentioned. Cheaper, simpler, quiter. They had been thinking of running the generator in 2 or 3 modes, most often in 25KW mode. I assumed when they were talkin about the turbo 3, this meant no turbo for 25KW and turbo to go to 50KW. They are also speaking at one time of leaving the generator running continuosly once range extended mode was reach. A more recent graph showed that they planning to run the genset for a sub-cycle of battery charge (~25% to ~40%) during range extended mode. I think this is an excellent advancement of the concept and this allows for better optimization of the ICE. Perhaps another reason for choosing the standard 4 is that it is better (or at least as good) for this operational mode, while also having the advantages mentioned above.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Re: George …. your logic is flawed in implying that if we call the Volt a series hybrid EV, that we have to call pure battery EV’s also “hybrids”.

By your argument we’d have to call gasoline a battery as well, and hence every ICE is also a “hybrid”. That’s because gasoline is, if you think about it, just a chemical way (which is what a battery does) to store solar energy (oil comes from millions of years worth of plant growth that stores solar energy in chemical bonds).

The Volt (and any “range extended” EV) is a (series) hybrid because it has both a battery and another source of electricity (the generator). Get rid of either and it’s no longer a hybrid (it would be either a pure BEV or be a gasoline-electric vehicle like a diesel-electric train).

I don’t blame GM marketing for using the term “range extended EV” instead… they are trying to distinguish the Volt from parallel hybrids like the Prius where the general public have come to associate the unqualified term “hybrid” with. However as an engineer I prefer the technical term, not the marketing one. But both “(series) hybrid EV” and “range extended EV” are correct.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm

I think we may be basically on the same page, Jeff M,except for this matter of non-mass-produced California electrics. You cannot, in good conscience, equate the Prius and Insight with something sold only in only one State to satisfy a local legal requirement (and you yourself said that these conversions were never mass-produced).

I should have realized that all of you going on in these threads about “Rav4 conversions” must have been from California, but you see, I’ve never been West of Nevada; and I kind of think most of us may fall into that category. So no, I can’t have been considering these California-mandated vehicles that I’d never heard of before lurking here.

In many ways California is on a planet by itself, and when we speak generally about the history of the EV in America, many of us are mostly talking about the “backward 49″ .

Maybe one of the reasons so many of us are interested in the Volt is that for the first time, we have a shot at an electric vehicle of the sort that people in your State take for granted as “general knowledge.”

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

#28 Chris says “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)”

=======

This makes sense on the maintence issue. If the same engine is going to be in all GM cars then Mr. Goodwrench will be able to work on Volts with no problem.

(Quote)
Jim G Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Lyle,

Congrats on breaking the 30,000 mark on the wait list! I just hope that GM actually takes it seriously. I don’t know if anyone tracks it like I do, but it is becoming nicely exponential! At first it was very linear (like a whole 7 months ago when it was only 6,000), but lately it has really taken off. I guess $4 gas helps.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Well, I am going to go out on a limb for this one.

I agree that a 1.4 L natural aspirated engine will likely have the same output as a 1.0 L turbo. It may weigh more, but we have learned that weight is 3rd in line as far as energy drain is concerned, with aerodynamic drag number 1 and auxiliary loads number 2. So the added weight should be a small consideration.

Since the 1.4 L may be a production engine, this saves time and money over a purpose built 1.0 L turbo, and will bring the Volt to market sooner for a lower price.

However, as I mentioned, I am going to go out on a limb. See this attached link on the upcoming Insignia:

http://www.motorauthority.com/cars/general-motors/opel-insignia-to-debut-hcci-sparkless-technology/

Note that GM will put HCCI into production in 2010. This engine technology makes a gasoline engine similar in efficiency to a diesel engine, and has much lower emissions.

Now see this link on its operation.

http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/researchdevelopment/a/HCCISaturnAura_2.htm

This 2.2 L HCCI engine can operate from idle to 3000 rpm in HCCI mode. The engine is rated at about 180 hp, at I am guessing 5200 rpm. By direct ratio, the 1.4 L would be rated at 70 hp at 3200 rpm (53 kW). This would meet the requirements for the Volt’s ICE.

At VoltNation, we learned that the ICE would operate at 3 different power settings. My guess would be an HCCI load point of 10 kW (maybe 1500 prm), a second HCCI load point of 30 kW (maybe 1800 rpm), and a third spark ignited load point of 53 kW (3200 rpm).

Based on battery SOC and sustained power draw, the ICE would be programmed to maintain the battery SOC between probably 25 and 35%, so the ICE would switch between these 3 load points, depending on vehicle demand.

Could this be what Bob Lutz was referring to in his recent test drive when he mentioned that the ICE was a little rough?

(Quote)
Glenn West Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Hey guys.

The banter is nice but pointless.

On the choice of engine, I’m happy with it. But actually from my point of view, I like wankel. (Rotary Engine).

http://www.moller.com/downloads/LFTP_01-2008.pdf

10Kilowatts in 40lb!!! Verses 350lb for your Home Depot Variety Generator. And multi-fuel as well. The disc loading spec is better than a “harrier”. And you could easily put “two” of these babies in a volt. (Or three). Load balance, run balance them as well. (How about full redundancy of your “IC”) They even have designed them to be “modular” and “field” replaceable. (Think about it, you could get a “low” end “volt” with one engine, and upgrade up to three sockets.

I’ve oversimplified, but its a good example of new-age rotary.

The reduction of moving parts is tremendous, also the emmisions specs for Moller’s design is great. No seal problems either.
(At one point they even ran it on diesel !!!)
Short term I agree totally with GM, long term, weight is king in electric. So a move to this would be great. And you could “hide” the engine(s) pretty easy.

Also I think long term, that traditional “car” building will go to “automated” composite processes. See http://www.fiberforge.com and “Hypercar”. Reduction of 100+ parts down to 14, with snap togeather composition.(And better strength than steel!)

(Quote)
ross Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Imagine the average traffic jam in the average city, engines idling as far as the eye can see. There are MILLIONS of you who know exactly what I’m talking about. Now imagine if they were all Volts, or even Priuses. No idling engines, and no emissions. I don’t give a damn what anyone defines as zero emissions, that’s a good start heading the direction we need to go. It doesn’t matter what ICE they use, at low or no speed, we’re not emitting squat.

(Quote)
mien green Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

GM family 0 engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_0_engine

According to this, there is also a 1.2L 4, so the 1.4L is not necessarily the first step up from the 1.0L 3. The Motor Trend article states that the 1.0 to 1.4L family 0 series are to be manufactured in Flint, so this would imply the 1.2L 4 as well. Appears like this may be more of an actual design attempt to match the ICE (66 kW) to the electric load scenarios, rather than 4 vs. 3 cylinders or an engine availability issue.

Nothing really “new” about this engine series, tho, except the Flint assembly line.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

I like how people hear a RUMOR about a certain size engine and immediately assume that fuel economy will take a hit. Maybe, but maybe not. Patience is a virtue guys…

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

172 Mien Green:

Thanks for that link! Interesting stuff. Definitely more electric output from the ICE.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Bill R,

I just checked out that Opel Insignia car. That’s a pretty nice looking car. Why in the heck doesn’t GM bring these cars over to America? I also like the exterior of another GM subsidiary’s car from Australia … the Holden Coupe 60.

http://www.autoclub.com.au/2008/02/holden-coupe-60-concept.html

I’m hoping the Volt turns out to look as good as this car … or better. Maybe GM can put the E-flex powertrain into a few Holden cars like the Coupe 60 in the future. If it sells in Europe and “down under” in Australia then they ought to bring it to America. GM should never underestimate how much a cool exterior design can sell cars. GM should try to get the most talented exterior design guys they can find … guys with a track record of good designs that sell cars.

(Quote)
mien green Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Morgan-

I definitely like the timing chain. My Cavalier 4 engine wore like iron. Never have to worry about a rubber timing belt stretching or breaking at about 80,000 miles or so. Not that we’d ever expect to put that kind of mileage on this ICE.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

176 Mien Green:

haha too true. That does bring up an interesting point though. The ICE WILL need to be serviced just like any other ICE. How do you determine when it needs it? Can’t go off mileage because the ICE mileage is going to be different for everyone.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Morgan,

ICE maintenance in a Volt will probably be based on engine hours … just as in a boat or airplane.

(Quote)
Donan Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Picture John Belushi.

“Diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel”

That would be the best (most fuel efficient) power generator for the Volt. It was mentioned as a possible candidate at the beginning of 2007 when the concept was still in its infancy. A nice 3 or 4 cylinder diesel as an option would really make the Volt more appealing to me.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

GM Volt Fan,

I like both of those cars as well. However, for now, its seems that E-Flex will be used for FWD applications.

This includes the Insignia and the Buick Invicta as well. Both nice looking designs based on the Epsilon platform, I believe. A little bigger than the Volt.

Actually, I am probably one of the few frequent posters who is not on the Volt waiting list, as I would prefer something a little larger with 5 person capabilty, like perhaps an E-Flex Insignia.

(Quote)
Kevin (nyc) Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

I have always thought that from the beginning though . Using a 3 cylinder design is very unconventional and has yet to prove itself in this modern world. Gm is taking a very bold step into the future with these batteries that may or may not be ready yet and they are depending on such new technology heavily . Using a more radical unconventional design will wow the crowd and show how daring gm really is but in the end , if functionality is not there then who wants that type of car? I rather gm increase the size of the engine to adequately suffice the battery and motor while me driving at 85 miles per hour. I know 80 -85 is over the speed limit but im being realistic . I live in nyc and there is almost nobody on the Long island expressway w ho drives that pityfull 70 unless they see a state troopers lights or there us some old hag messing with traffic for the rest of us .

Liker seriously poeple , they have not even officially stated that also the fact that concept vehicles such as these are normally not open to the public. Normally there is a concept released , they set a product date , it arrives , and then many are disappointed don how unastonishing it is . Bob lutzs is Magnificent at best and nice at the worst for even letting us in this far on the development of such a new ground breaking vehicle. . Also consider this – they want to make the engine “green” being able to utilize e85 and things such as ethanol . Using those fuels in an already untested field of 3 stroke engines is a recipe for disastor. Just be easy and wait for the secound model and maybe what more of you want will be in there
~Kevin (nyc)

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

The issue at hand is not the size or HP of the engine, but rather that of duty cycle and necessary torque to handle it. If a 1.4 (4 banger) is a consideration it’s because at the modest displacement and modest RPM and therefore modest ” turbo boost” of the 1L 3 banger couldn’t adequately handle the duty cycle. If this is the case then more cylinders w/ less displacement per may be the answer. What this does to mileage is anyone’s guess, but the ICE must maintain the 30% SOC. This would be a no brainer if the 3 banger were allowed to rev to high RPM and boost, but that would have mileage consequences and this IS important. It could also be that there were heat issues with the turbocharged engine.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Kevin #181
Careful, those old hags could be our wives your talking about

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

One other thing that comes to mind is the recently posted Y-tube interviews with Max-Bob where he talks about just how rough the ICE=ON condition was. I know this particular 3 banger has been used extensively in Europe but perhaps it’s just not up to the task as an RE engine.

(Quote)
dagwood55 Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

#181 Kevin (nyc) wrote, “I have always thought that from the beginning though . Using a 3 cylinder design is very unconventional and has yet to prove itself in this modern world.”

GM put a 3-cylinder into the base Sprint some 20 years or so ago. And both Yamaha and Suzuki motorcycles have had successful triples. I-5’s seemed weird when Audi brought them out some years ago but now they’re part of the GM lineup, too.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Grizzly #182
I think the 1.4L will better handle the severe mountain climbing out here, There’s some fierce roads in the west and plenty of overheating with ICEs.

(Quote)
Zen Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

DIO – There is a solution. Remove the Volt gas tank. Presto, a zero emmissions BEV with a 40 mile range, totally free of oil. Cool.
++++
#123 biodieseiljeep – Why not diesel ? Answer: International Falls, MN in late January. Diesel fuel can jell at very low winter temperatures, typical in the northern states. But if you live in CA, diesel on, dude !

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

#109 Estero
That article said, “…Zenn hopes to have cars featuring EESU technology on the road by Fall 2009.”

I predict that NaturalNews guy will have to eat his hat. For his sake, I hope it is a hemp hat.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

#187 Zen
Do we really want to engage/encourage DIO?

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Ed M #186

I’m guessing that in many situations like this the turbo 1.3 would have had to kick into high RPM/heat/fuel consumption to handle the load, not just in the west. I still marvel at those who scoff at GM and think that the Volt should be out this fall.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Kevin
Has there ever been any mention of using hydrogen in these engines ? Cal,, Ore.,Wash., and BC, Can is establishing a hydrogen highway for 2010. There’ll be a ready supply of H filling stations along I5 from the Mexican border to Whistler BC.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Dial it in, GM, dial it in. Make me a Volt that will let me practically eliminate gas use. I rarely exceed 40 miles in a day.

The Volt will be a great improvement over existing mass-produced automobiles. All this great engine discussion suggests that there are many improvements to come. This is an amazing time in automotive history, and history in general.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Grizzly #190
“I still marvel at those who scoff at GM and think that the Volt should be out this fall.”

I agree, it takes quite a bit of time to address all the different driving conditions in America. It took 100 years of tweaking to get American vehicles to where they are now. We need to give GM a few years to produce an EV that can be driven anywhere in the US, from the harsh cold and snow in the north to the boiling sun in the summer deserts to the steady mountain climbs in the Rockies. Overall, quite a daunting challenge.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

ThombDbhomb #192

“This is an amazing time in automotive history, and history in general.”

Nice upbeat comment

Ever since I was a kid I knew the day would come when the oil supply wouldn’t keep up with demand and here it is. But GM is finding solutions.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Ed M #193

It is indeed that, but that’s exactly what GM is up to. The public can speculate as they will but E-Flex will succeed and dominate! These are tough times, but I’d argue that no company is better situated to rise to the challenge than GM. Regardless of Toyota’s cash balance and balance sheet, they’ve invested in the wrong technology. They have invested HEAVILY! It’s not as though they can just abandon this overnight. Things change on a dime when no one ever predicted. Nimbleness is the key.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 12:30 am

Grizzly #195
“they’ve invested in the wrong technology”
I totally agree, E-flex will blow the doors off the hybrids.

“They have invested HEAVILY…they can’t just abandon this overnight”
I never thought of it quite that way and your right. I noticed that Bob Lutz mentioned a few days back, that for once GM had the jump on Toyoto.

(Quote)
kubel Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 1:10 am

I think the first generation will have a 1.4L because that’s what exists. It’s something they can use on other vehicles, so cost will be much less. They will probably wait until Volt production numbers warrant the production of an entirely new engine.

But remember: More weight (a 4 cylinder 1.4L will weigh more than a 3 cylinder 1.0L) equals less range. It will also equal a lower MPG rating (goodbye 50MPG, hello 40MPG).

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 1:20 am

#197 Kubel

Not necessarily. Weight is a distant second to aero in the world of AER! More weight equals more energy and more regen!

As I said, this is a matter of sustaining the duty cycle with enough torque at low RPM. It’s possible to tune a 4 banger to get this done at minimal RPM and fuel consumption. This will be GM’s call and I have no doubt they’ll get it right!

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 2:12 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.

Good comment, but even 40-45 mpg running under ICE power is OK if overall average for a 50 mile round trip is over 100 mpg. The big barrier to Volt acceptance is not a few mpg one way or another, but initial purchase cost. To ask people to pay $35k (net of rebate) for a subcompact which would cost $18k with an ICE engine is a real problem, especially if gas stays under $8 per gallon for the next few years.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 5:52 am

I’m not sure GM will be totally off with a final price of $35k.

The Lexus ES350 goes 0-60 in 6.8 sec (about 7 for Volt), has a 109.3″ wheelbase (between 104 to 113 for Volt, longer than current Cobalt, less than Malibu), and has 215/55R17 tires.

The MSRP for the base model is $34,120.

http://www.lexus.com/models/ES/detailed_specifications.html

If GM loads the Volt with great features, and also has great styling, I see no reason why the Volt couldn’t be a direct competitor to a car like this. Note that the Lexus gets 19/27 city/hwy. For 15,000 miles, this equates to a nominal 665 gal/yr.

Even without the AER, the Volt may be 50/50. As we all know, most of the Volt’s miles will come from energy from the electrical grid. Thus, with 5000 miles from the ICE, this equates to only 100 gal/yr.

It will be interesting to see how competitive the Volt is with these upscale models.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 6:48 am

Like I said – 200 posts of pure speculation……………..

GM, Please give us something REAL to talk about!!!!

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 7:53 am

Jim I @201

AMEN! I guess we can still hope for that July 4th showing….
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
Joe OBrien Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 11:59 am

A four cylinder probably would give it a more smooth operation than maybe a 3 cylinder, but why does it need to be such a large 4 cylinder, as it is only running a generator basically. If they are using the same block and head in a cobalt then this is a sizeable engine.

If anything, I hope that they make it an E85 capable engine because living in the midwest E85 pumps are all around me. And it would just make me feel better being able to only have a 15% usage of oil for my traveling needs.

With my solar panels I have now the car will already be free for me to drive on electricity so my only expenses other than car payments will be the occasional few gallons of fuel every few months.

Over 2 1/2 years to wait though, ughhh, gas may be $12.00 a gallon by then if the speculators don’t get put into check soon.

(Quote)
Van Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

•
995 cc 1 liters in-line 3 front engine with 72 mm bore, 81.5 mm stroke, 10.8 compression ratio, overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
•
Unleaded fuel 87
•
Multi-point injection fuel system
•
Power: 54 kW , 73 HP SAE @ 5,700 rpm; 79 ft lb , 107 Nm @ 1,500 rpm

And the engine used an aluminum so it weighed less than 200 lbs.

What engine is this that was perfect for the Volt? The Honda Insight engine produced years ago. Now GM wants to put a 4 banger made of iron that weights over 400 lbs into the Volt.

(Quote)
fred Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Zero percent financing will get me to buy the Volt. Then I’ll rip out the 500 lb iron duke generator motor and throw my Honda EU200i generator in it ( 40 -50 lbs or so and 1800 watts). Just start selling the darn thing! I want an electric car. You can pass me out on hills I don’t care. I want to stop using gasoline for transportation.

(Quote)
TBK Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

You do realize that in a perfect world you need a 200 HP ICE motor to drive a generator to fully power a 200HP electric motor, right? It’s goes down hill from there……

Now I guess that if you want to park for 8 hours and wait for it to charge, bring a blanket and a bottle of wine!

(Quote)
Billy Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Reply to Statik Question 20, Chevy is using a .08 3 cylinder in-line / SOHC 6 valve in the UK on there Matiz model. Its funny that the cars in the UK get better convential MPG than the cars in the U.S.

(Quote)
Billy Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

All Y’all are saying that GM has a jump over Toyota, Honda is coming out with a Hybrid Fit next year and they are advertising it as affordable. GM cars in the UK get better MPG than the cars here in the U.S. Who are they pulling the wool over who’s eyes?

(Quote)
Billy Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Reply to ED M question 191, again Honda will have a production Hydrogen car and it will be released in Southern Califorina. The thing about Hydrogen is the infrastructure is not here and that is going to be left up to our government. Do I need to say anymore. Great idea of using hydrogen that would free us from the Oil Gods.

(Quote)
doggydogworld Says:
June 25th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

#165 Koz – 6% grade, not 6 degrees. That’s about 6300 feet elevation gain in 20 miles.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:21 am

Jim I #201

“Like I said – 200 posts of pure speculation……………”

*** *** ***

Jim, like it or not speculation is the name of the game on this site. I don’t think since its inception that this site nor GM has released anything concrete WRT the Volt. I don’t think there is necessarily anything concrete as it’s a perpetual work in progress and that’s part of the fun IMHO.

Gotta’ admit that this topic is far more in line that the “demise of GM” topics that preceded it.

(Quote)
Darius Lazauskis Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I have calculated what is achevable with conventional power generation technique:

Calorific value of gasoline – 39,3 kWh/gallon
Average backup power genset efficiency – 40 %
GM-Volt milage – 8kwh/40miles

It means that acceptable engine miilage should be 79 miles per gallon with “suitable” engine.

(Quote)
Darius Lazauskis Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

I have feeling, that Volt will be designed for mountain area. I visit mountains once per year with my car. On average quite often in my area. And when visiting mountain area I can drive my car at lower speed. Therefore I would name current Volt version Volt-Mountain since it has no mountain area limitation. On other hand I would propose for normal Volt to get “mountain mode”. It means that batteries can stay fully charges and work in parallel with engine when elevation starts and charging when descending with regenerativ vraking. No advantages of being Volt electric but one can survive.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Darius@213
Nice idea but the gas engine cannot work parallel to the battery, because it’s not even connected to the wheels.
HTH,
Tag

(Quote)
Darius Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 3:17 am

Tagament

It is not necessary to be connected. My proposition would be electrically el. generator and the battery to operate in parallel. I would sugest that practical implementation of that would be by playing with variable el. generatot voltage level to be possible operate in parallel. When charging batery – higher voltage level and when working in parallel – little lower.

(Quote)
Cire Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 7:52 am

205 Fred

“Zero percent financing will get me to buy the Volt. Then I’ll rip out the 500 lb iron duke generator motor and throw my Honda EU200i generator in it ( 40 -50 lbs or so and 1800 watts). Just start selling the darn thing! I want an electric car. You can pass me out on hills I don’t care. I want to stop using gasoline for transportation.”

Just to let you know, that generator is equivelent of plugging your volt into the wall. (120Volts * 15amps = 1800 Watts) Enjoy parking on the side of the road for 8 hours every 30 minutes of driving on the highway. You would get horrible gas mileage with a honda generator. They are efficient for the task they are made to do compared to their competitors, and thats about it..

(Quote)
Larry R Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 8:39 am

As a locomotive electrician I can tell you that the efficiency from the diesel engine threw the main generator to the electric traction
motors/wheels to the rail is 80%.

You will need enough EMF (electromotive force) to propel/charge the volt when the batteries drain down.

A 1.4 liter motor running at a static RPM can be very efficient. Make lite and reliable will work just fine. The turbo just adds more maintenance.

(Quote)
j man Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

The advantage of the 1.4L is that it would robibly charge the battery faster than the 1.0L. It would also be cheaper to produce since it will go in the next generation Cobalt. Also not having a turbo will reduce the cost of the Volt. Has anyone ever had to replace a turbo on a car, they are not cheap. The only reason they can keep it offordable in the next Cobalt will be the mass prduction (100,000+ per year) of the car.

The engineering for the motor is allready done, they use it in Opels and Vaxhauls (sp?). If you compare the weight of a 1.0L 3cyl with all the turbo related parts to the 1.4L motor, the weight is probibly about the same. Plus the 1.4L is really small, the block is about the size of a loaf of Wonder bread.

(Quote)
treewrestler Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Using a 1.4L naturaly asperated engine over a 1.0L turbo seems of little or no concern, they are basicly the same weight accept the 1.4L loses the added complications of the turbo, as far as fuel use goes they would both work equally hard to produce the same amount of energy, useing basicly the same amount of fuel to do the same job.

(Quote)
Rick Says:
August 25th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

GM had a 3 cyl 1.0L turbo engine in it’s stable in the mid 90’s. It was built by suzuki and used in the Geo. It had good pick up and ran 52MPG in the car I had. It’s biggest problem was the engine had too much torque for the clutch suzuki matched it with.

(Quote)
Bennie Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

It is true that a 4 cyl is a better balance than a three, but since the motor will not transmit any torque to the wheels, the engine mounts can be made very soft and squishy, like any generator, therefore It will be a VERY smooth ride when the engine is running.

(Quote)
zeksteve Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Since the engine will run at a steady RPM it doesnt really matter if its grown in size. A small engine that is underpowered would work harder and burn more fuel then a larger engine.

The weight difference from the i4 NA and the I3 turbo would be maybe 10-20lbs at best. Also dumping the turbo saves a few grand

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55
Do home chargers include meters? November 6, 2009
I conduct a real-world fuel economy survey (http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php), and will want to adapt it for electric and range-extended... […]
mkaresh
HHSE (Hybrid-Hybrid-Serial-Electric) vehicle invented November 5, 2009
A HHSE is a cross between using a lower efficiency but more functional serial hybrid drivetrain for city driving and using a mechanical drivetrain to... […]
Texas
Renault, Nissan to build $892 million battery factory outside Paris November 5, 2009
“This will be the center of our lithium battery production for all of our assembly plants and for other carmakers,” Ghosn said. “It’s a major... […]
Texas
GM to cut 10,000 Jobs Across Europe After Sudden U-Turn on Opel Deal November 5, 2009
Max Keiser on Russia Today. " ... General Motors cut ten thousand jobs across Europe at its Opel unit in favor of Christmas bonuses." -Max... […]
Guy Incognito
Nissan Releases Concept Sketch Of Light Commercial Electric Vehicle November 5, 2009
NISSAN RELEASES CONCEPT SKETCH OF LIGHT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler

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?

227 Responses to “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?”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts