GM CEO Confirms 4-Cylinder 1.4 L Engine Being Considered For the Volt’s Range Extender
The initial Chevy Volt concept model had a 3 cylinder 1.0 L engine as the generator to keep the battery charged. The model with this engine suggested the vehicle would get 50 mpg when running beyond the 40 mile EV range. Recently we heard rumors on this point, neither confirmed nor denied, that GM might be considering a 4 cylinder 1.4 L engine instead.
Now GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner has confirmed these rumors. The 1.4 L turbocharged ICE is expected to power the Chevy Cruze we’ve recently just seen photos of, the car Wagoner refers to as the next generation Chevy compact.
Wagoner answered the following question, among others posed of him by the Flint Journal, centered around the fact that GM was planning to built this engine’s assembly plant in Flint, Michigan:
Flint Journal: Are there opportunities for Flint to have a hand in the future production of the plug-in Volt?
Wagoner: The new, small displacement engine that is tentatively scheduled to be built in Flint will be used first in the next generation Chevy compact car. However, we are looking at other potential; vehicle applications, including an application as the range-extender engine in the Chevy Volt.
Wagoner also mentioned that the turbo 1.4 L “achieves a superb balance between fuel efficiency and power” and specifically tell us “when teamed with a manual transmission, the new engine will offer customers a 9 mile-per-gallon increase in fuel economy over Chevy’s current entry in this segment.”
It is possible that this engine change decision may not represent so much an engineering issue, but rather an economies of scale advantage. It is clearly a big decision since Wagoner himself is aware of the debate.
Source (MLive.com)
Popularity: 9%
Related posts:
- GM Has Decided on the 1.4 L 4-Cylinder Engine as the Range Extender for the Chevy Volt
- It’s Official: GM Intends to Build the Chevy Volt’s Engine in a New Plant in Flint, Michigan
- GM Explains Why the 1.4 L ICE Range Extender was Chosen For the Volt
- 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?
- GM Officially Announces it Will Open Chevy Volt Engine Plant in Flint Michigan
(9 votes, average: 4 out of 5) 
Loading ...
July 20th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Lyle, yes the economy of scale argument for the 1.4 liter engine seems sound. As I recall, it was not going to be turbo-charged. I wonder if it will be mounted just as in the Cruze, but with the generator in the place of the transmission?
July 20th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I will be needing a car in the next two - three years.
If the Volt is unavailable or overpriced, the Chevy Cruze is sounding like a good alternative. Especially with the manual transmission.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Well I sure hope GM has some logic for this call. Thats a much bigger engine than they need to drive the generator. JMHO
Take Care
Arch
July 20th, 2008 at 8:03 am
T. Boone Pickens would like to see the Volt powered by electricy generated by wind and then the range extender powered by natural gas……Check out his plan @ http://www.pickensplan.com………..
July 20th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Seems a bit strange to me that they would cut the size of the gas tank from 12 gal to 6 gal to save weight and then increase the size of the engine as reported. What about the added weight?
July 20th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Waist of time and money. This shows GM is still interested in keeping the oil companies in business. With the ICE GM hopes it will keep itself in business by selling you spark plugs, wires, antifreeze, and exhaust system. The Volt will probably have a catalytic converter to meet federal emission standard. In California the vehicles will have to pass the smog check.
I have purchased 9 GM vehicles in the past…my next vehicle will be a 100 % battery electric vehicle. I will charge the battery with PV cells on my garage. Goodbye oil! Goodbye GM!
July 20th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Is that 9MPG increase an increase over the 2009 Cobalt XFE’s numbers (currently 25 city, 37 highway, 30 combined)? If so, 34/46 or 39 combined is a damn solid effort, especially if that’s without a hybrid system.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:13 am
This is clearly a cost saving plan but will result in a less efficient drivetrain when running on ICE. It is looking more and more like I will have to wait for the second generation Volt.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:21 am
For the Cruze anyway they had better consider the automatic transmission option. Look at the sales figures for the Pontiac Vibe manual transmission model versus automatic. Don’t tell me the Cruze auto tranny is going to be another antique 4 speed. If they can’t design a decent auto transmission maybe they can liscence the DSG selfshifting manual from Volkswaggen. At work opur fleet has to be automatic because of the large number of people who can’t drive a manual. People who post on car forums “car people” aren’t the general population.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Pardon the interruption, does anyone here understand Japanese? The link below points to a gm-volt post that points to a 15 minute Japanese news show which seems to be detailing Ultracapacitor technology, in cars, trucks and a solar car charging station. The package looks like lithium packs in size. If someone could view the video, explain whats being discussed and post to the link below I’d appreciate it.
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8401#post8401
July 20th, 2008 at 8:30 am
!.4 liter. Way too large. Maybe it will cycle on and off during low battery just to do maintenance on the battery otherwise why so much.
I hope they are still planning a BEV version of the volt. TED
July 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I for one CAN’T have a straight Electric Drive, I have to have the gas engine on many occasions. This just looks like a decent cost-cutting move, the increase in weight I can’t speak to as I have no idea what the difference is, but if they can use the same platform/engine combo, the price of the Volt WILL drop to a reasonable range as they will be able to easily parts-swap. If you want a truly unique drive train, you wind up with a truly expensive hybrid, like the Fisker. If you use existing components, you may loose some efficiency but you gain $40,000+ you can use to buy a taco or something when you are only commuting and using no gas ANYWAY.
I’ve worked out on paper a 40 mile electric range, compared to my existing gas bill, and I’ve found that I could go up to $30,000 on a plug-in and still beak even with the car payment vs. my existing gas payment. In five years, it becomes profit. Your mileage may vary (sorry, had to say it…) but above $30,000, I couldn’t make it work. Yay, standardized components!
July 20th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Looks like someone has made some progress on ultracaps. We sure life in exciting times. TED
July 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am
And it keeps coming down.>>>>>
Every new announcement seems to bring more bad news. They keep adding more traditional ICE and the specs keep getting worse. Pretty soon this will be just another hybrid. I am expecting the announcement soon that the Volt will now only run on batteries for certain speed bands, then it will switch to ICE for the more demanding tasks.
Here we go again GM. Promise, promise, promise….followed by compromise, compromise, compromise.
This is another bullet in the Volt. I am thinking I may starting calling this the Re-Volt, if GM keeps downing the original specs on this machine.
A 1.4L engine is NOT a generator anymore, it’s a true ICE. So, you get to carry around all the “luggage” of an ICE plus the battery, motors and the sundry of electrical gadgets.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I agree with both #3 Arch & #5 Glen.
I raised these same issues some time ago when the gas tank was cut in size from 12 gal to 6 gal and when the possibility of a 1.4 L engine was first raised. None of this makes sense!
July 20th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I can understand why GM might want to share engine technology for cost and reliability reasons, but I would be really surprised if the Volt still gets 50 MPG with this engine.
Lyle, could you ask at GM if the 50 MPG figure is still accurate?
July 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
#3 Arch says: “Thats a much bigger engine than they need to drive the generator. JMHO”
————————————————————————————–
The originally specified engine was 1.0L with turbo. Now they are saying 1.4L without turbo. So both engines would have about the same power, but the 1.4L would be heavier, less efficient, and less expensive.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:28 am
My commute to work is 40 miles. I’ll be able to plug in there, and remain electric-only no problem as long as there’s no
crazy government mandated
built in charge only at night-time
so called off peak hours
charging restrictions on this car that is potentially offering so much freedom.
As for the ICE this 1.4L looks like a good option, maybe too good?
July 20th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Personally, I’d prefer it if the ICE was only large enough for a fully loaded Volt to achieve….say 80 mph (under ICE power). I myself don’t need 100 mph capability (battery or ICE Genset). Saying that, I also appreciate the need for performance “headroom”. The Volt needs to be able to climb those pesky Rocky Mountains (fully loaded) under ICE generated power without breaking a sweat. I’m sure that the design team has taken every conceivable issue into the computer model of the Volt’s performance.
I do hope that the design team has taken full advantage of the “serial” nature of the vehicle when it comes to servicing. Routine servicing and even an ICE Genset swap (quite rare) should be drop dead simple and fast.
With servicing in mind, I always think back to the Monza with the V8 that GM produced back in the mid 70’s. You had to remove the motor mount bolts and jack up the engine to access certain spark plugs !
I hope that removing & swapping the ICE Genset and/or “T Pack” are high priority items in the design. 2 hours max at the dealership ?
I believe consumers will appreciate a “Solid State” Car.
Go GM Volt !
Go Mitsubishi iMiEV !
Go Subaru R1e !
July 20th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I sure hope the illustration is a stock image… It looks like a turbocharged twin-cam inline four. Great engine for a “normal” car, but a serial hybrid’s ICE should be something that just “turns on” at the optimum rpm (preferably really low speed) since it’s only function is to run the generator. The ICE needs only a paper-thin powerband.
Talks of “economy of scale” don’t really apply here. The Volt, with a $40k price tag, is not going to be a loss-leader (hah! Lutz has already said they’ll lose money on every first year Volt). A projected build capacity below 7 figures annually prevents it from being a primary source of income.
Let’s face it, for the first couple of years the Volt will be a halo car. It needs to out-green and out-mpg the Prius so that buyers who cannot affort or access a Volt will be induced to seriously consider other GM vehicles with more traditional drivetrains.
Looking at the e-Flex platform (and the Volt in particular), GM should have three long-term goals for this car, in order of priority:
1) Generate interest (buzz) in GM, something at which it has succeeded brilliantly… just look this web site.
2) Maintain and advance GM’s existing superior experience with battery-powered vehicles (which started with the much maligned/sainted EV-1)… something that’s not trivial as Tesla is coming to understand.
3) Make money on the platform as it matures and ONLY when it matures.
What I want out of the e-Flex drivetrain is
* A battery that will support driving the car IN THE REAL WORLD for at least 30 miles before needing a recharge (sure, Lutz wants 40 miles, but I’ll be happy with a bit less)
* A battery that can be recharged to capacity in a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 6 hours from “flat” to “full”) with household current (115v 15A)
* A generator system (ICE and generator) that will provide enough electrical power to both drive the drivetrain motors and charge the battery when the battery has been drained to its lowest safe level
* The most fuel efficient ICE possible to drive the generator
A high-reving, high-horsepower pseudo race car engine is just ridiculous in this application.
Not that I have any opinion on the matter
July 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
#17 Dave G says “The originally specified engine was 1.0L with turbo. Now they are saying 1.4L without turbo. So both engines would have about the same power, but the 1.4L would be heavier, less efficient, and less expensive.”
Help me on this. Where is it that GM stated the 1.4L Volt engine will be w/o turbo?
July 20th, 2008 at 9:50 am
_____________________________________________________
I vote YES on GM using the standard 4C/1.4L in the VOLT.
GM re-purposing the new upcoming standard GM 4C/1.4L engine for the VOLT makes a lot of sense because:
1. The ICE per unit cost will be lower because of better economy of scale.
2. More service technicians will already be trained to service this engine (not a specialty engine).
3. This ICE is already engineered therefore quicker time to market for the VOLT.
4. This ICE will allow GM to more easily ramp up higher production volume for the VOLT.
5. Spare parts (if required) will be cheaper.
6. It’s better to error slightly on over-powering rather than slightly on under-powering the range extender. If it was under-powered, that’s what you would hear in every automotive review (“except for the ICE range extender being under-powered…”).
7. This engine offers an excellent weight/power ratio
8. This engine offers an excellent mpg/power ratio.
9. This engine will have a better after-market sale value for the hardcore EV nuts (you know who you are) wanting to take out the ICE and sale it on eBay.
10. This engine will be more balanced (its more symmetrical) therefore quieter and less cabin vibration.
_____________________________________________________
July 20th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Since the range extender (ICE,gas tank,generator) requires no mechanical connection to the vehicle, only electrical, why not have it removable. A removable range extender similar to streachers from ambulances would allow me to remove the R.E. for most days and only install for extended trips.
I might even buy a Volt without the range extender if I could rent one as needed.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Ok, maybe I missed this, but I thought the Volt would be a electric car with an ICE assist?
So, why the need for so much power from the ICE? Should not the ICE really be just a generator, used to re-charge the batteries? Is that not the best way to get this thing done? The batteries are already their, and can store the energy that will be needed to meet the varying power requirements, and the ICE does NOT need to be able to put out peak power, just constant charging power. The car does not drive directly from the ICE, but from the electric motors, so you should never need to get peak power from the ICE.
If you run the ICE at constant power output you should be able to easily maintain the charge on the batteries, right? I thought the 1.0L was overkill, now they need 1.4L engine.
I am not a big believer in the conspiracy theories, but this just seems to not add up.
Something smells at GM, and it’s starting to smell like burning OIL! (Maybe the Oil companies are helping GM design this now).
July 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am
My favorite for the Volt will always be the Opel Ecotec 1 Litre
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
http://media.gm-powertrain.at/powertrain-media/media/images/200308200001_01.jpg
July 20th, 2008 at 10:10 am
If you can, just for a moment, forget all you know about the Volt and all of these technologies. Then imagine you are hearing about this vehicle for the first time as the “average” consumer and you hear that the Volt has a 3-cylinder. A 4-cylinder is more recognizable to the average consumer. I thought it a bit strange when my buddy bought a 5-cylinder Colorado.
I did a little research on wiki for 3-cylinder cars and found that there have only been a handful of small cars in N. America. I only recognize one - the Geo Metro.
So, I agree with a previous post - 2nd or 3rd gen Volt will more than likely be the ticket for me, and I’ll seriously look at the Cruze in the interim.
Go Volt!
July 20th, 2008 at 10:11 am
very disappointing….why would I buy a Volt if it is just a 4-banger with electric drive? I’ll just skip the whole thing and get a 4-banger and save the $15 grand……
July 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Once the battery is low the car must move on the ice solely, so think about it a diesel over electric locomotive dose not use a car engine to drive a generator to move, it uses one the size of a living room. I know that the Volt ice will stay at a cretin rpm to stay in its power band but it still has to make the same kWh to move a 4 door car with people up a hill.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
To: GM executives…cut costs with volume, not quality…
This feels like GM backing off of the commitment to the Volt by producing a more expensive and watered down version.
If they made a specific ICE for the Volt (the same engine for other future EREV models) wouldn’t THAT become the cost saving standard? The difference is that now you have had it in several model years and it has been proven at a time when you can really ramp up production.
For some reason (I can’t imagine what it could be), I think that a three liter engine would be more efficient for this task then a larger four liter engine. I’m no engineer but this ICE will be running at an optimum speed and not be tied to the drivetrain and thus would need less power and use less fuel. The only reason they would do this is money. It is just simpler and cheaper in the short term to use what they have on had to cobble this project together. Personally, I would rather pay to have a better product. This reminds me of Preston Tucker who wanted to create a really exciting, modern and safe car with a multitude of new features. Due to a multitude of reasons, many of those innovative features remained on the drawing board.
With the new, larger engine can we expect them to go back to a 12 gallon tank? Will the total range come down from what we have been told now that we have a 6 gallon tank and a larger engine that will suck that fuel out at a faster rate?
In summary….WTF?
July 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Remember this is not just another 4-banger with electric drive. Remember if you only drive 40 miles the ICE will never turn on. Yes for longer trips maybe the Volt and Cruze will equal the same milage but the power of the Volt is that first 40 miles.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:38 am
14 JEC:
“A 1.4L engine is NOT a generator anymore, it’s a true ICE.”
What is that supposed to mean? An internal combusion engine, be it 1.0L or 1.4L is still an ICE. The size has nothing to do with it. The generator is an external device connnected to the ICE engine.
That said, perhaps the engine had to be resized for highway-speed hill climbing capability. A 1.0L engine could be adequate for such an application if there was a driver-selecable hill climbing switch/option to turn on the generator so it runs to the point of charging the battery to its full state of charge, so if you run into a steep hill, there will be enough battery juice to climb it. It’s been my experience that the nastiest of hill grades that really tax an engine are only a few miles long before they scale back to a less of an uphill grade, which afterwards would allow the generator time to catch up and recharge the battery again for the next steep hill.
The idea would work great for tech-friendly people who frequent this web site, but the problem is that the average driver, to be honest, would be too, uhh… stupid to remember when to turn on the hill climbing mode. The idea of the Volt is that it’s operated the same as any other car, and I can’t imagine grandma remembering turn on the hill-climb mode before the battery drains to the point where it can’t go any further uphill.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@27 Li-Ion
But, a locomotive runs off the electricity produced directly from the diesel engine (yes they do have batteries, but these are sized differently, and have more specific purpose than the Volt would use). The Volt has the very expensive “charge pump”, that can be used to store energy for when it is needed. The battery is already on-board, so why not use it in this manner.
If, to meet some spec’s for hilly terrain, I would opt to have them begin charging the battery sooner, so it is not nearly discharged, so that they could meet the needs for climbing a mountain. Or at least give the option to me to only pay for what I need (I do not live in mountainous region, but I appreciate it for those who do).
This auto is really encroaching into Prius territory, and we already have a Prius. GM needs a differentiator, and they are sadly moving away from it.
Just my opinion, of course (you know what they say about opinions…)
July 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am
#30 Gary
You are correct. An ICE is an ICE, no matter the size.
This was not what I meant, but I meant that this vehicle is becoming more of the traditional ICE, since now the ICE is actually appearing to be sized to run the car directly. If this is the same engine that will be used in the Cruze, and the Cruze appears to be the same size as the Volt, then again, the ICE is now a “real ICE” in it’s application.
It just seems like GM is not getting any benefit from installing all this new battery technology and electonics into the Volt. To get real benefits, you need to leverage the expensive battery, and keep it charged to meet the needs. If this cannot be done without installing a full size ICE, then this car is, in my opinion, a failure.
So, I for one, will be looking/waiting for a true electric vehicle to be available.
Funny, because Volt construes potential, but the direction that GM is taking this auto, it looks like it will be more hype than potential.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Daveo #25
My Honda has a three cylinder engine. TED
July 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
First, some people need to leave their pre-conceived notions of ICE’s behind. Typically, larger engines are more efficient than smaller engines. Engines are typically most efficient a lower speeds, and at high load. The problem becomes the point of operation.
https://www.mhi.co.jp/en/technology/review/pdf/e451/e451021.pdf
In a conventional drive automobile, the engine directly drives the vehicle, and must modulate its power output to meet the demand. So as the car climbs a hill, it must be downshifted to a lower gear so that the engine can rev higher and produce more power. So an econo car like the Cobalt may use a 140 hp engine.
However, on the open road at cruise speed, the car may only need about 20 hp to propel it forward. A higher gear drops the engine revs, but the throttle is still at part load, so the efficiency is not optimum.
The E-Flex system alleviates some of these shortcomings by turning the ICE into a generator drive that does not drive the vehicle directly. I do not have info on the 1.4 liter engine, but see the attached link for info on a GM 1.6 L engine. Click on the “PL” link for a PDF of the engine characteristic.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2009a/09car.htm
Note that this engine produces a nominal 20 hp (15 kW) at 1500 rpm, 25 hp (19 kW) at 1800 rpm, and 70 hp (52 kW) at 3600 rpm. At VoltNation, we learned that the ICE will likely operate at 3 distinct load points, so these are the ones that I am suggesting for discussion purposes.
So when the Volt’s battery pack discharges to 30% SOC, the ICE starts and operates at the best efficiency point (probably 15 kW). If the average power consumption over the next few minutes continues to drain the battery pack, the ICE will index up to the appropriate load (19 or 52 kW). When the SOC of the battery pack increases to 40%, the ICE will shut off.
In any event, the ICE will be programmed to operate at the most efficient point possible to meet the demands of the vehicle. It should operate with the throttle wide open, and at the optimum speed.
I see the 1.4 L as being more efficient than the 1.0 L turbo, and its already been established that weight is third behind aerodynamic drag and auxiliary loads in energy loss. So I don’t see the disadvantage of using a high volume production engine for the range extender.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I am sincerely encouraged by all of the bright minds participating in this website.
With this latest post, I’m afraid I am reminded of my intial reaction to the Volt concept. Maybe I was fortunate that my car buying schedule had me purchase a Corolla in the ‘07 model year. I don’t think my next car will have an ICE.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Glen, while “weight” was cited as one of the reasons for reducing the gas tank(s) capacity, the other reason was “volume” which I think is the bigger factor when you have limited space… in addition to reducing complexity (which increases cost) as I believe for 12 gallons the design required a dual tank design.
For most daily driving the generator will either not come on at all or for only a small fraction of the drive. The heavier generator (ICE) will slightly (probably not even enough to notice) reduce BEV range.
It would be interesting to know how much of the retail cost of the Volt will be for the generator and it’s integration with the rest of the Volt’s systems.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Certainly, there are economy of scale to be gained by doing this, but it may also be necessary for those climbs to Pike’s Peak.
For those worrying about fuel economy, I suspect it is easier to balance a four cyclinder while shutting off two cylinders than balancing a three cylinder while shutting off one cylinder. Add turbos, and you will get a very powerful, very efficient 4 cylinder engine.
Given that the Lumina’s used to sell so well, I suspect the new Cruze will sell very well, especially when put side by side with small foreign cars with equivalent fuel efficiencies.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am
>> Well I sure hope GM has some logic for this call.
It’s the same thing Toyota did with Echo. Reusing the engine that was already in Prius (though detuning it to deliver more power) allowed for greater production volume… which reduces cost.
For Volt to become a game-changer, cost controller is absolutely critical. Being a niche won’t actually make a difference. $4 gas is here already.
.
>> Every new announcement seems to bring more bad news
Realities of the automotive business, this in particular, were mentioned long ago. Finally acknowledging them is a step in the right direction. The fixation on engineering alone should have been an obvious path to disappoint.
1,000,000 hybrids per year is Toyota’s next goal. Think about how grossly out-numbered Volt could be then, especially if GM pushes BAS+ as they’ve been hoping to do.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:52 am
ugggghhhh… Again it appears that everyone here thinks the Volt should be designed just for them. From the beginning the Volt was (and still is) targeted at being a vehicle that held no power or speed compromises, a car that the totally not with the electrification of the car people would drive and realize there doesn’t have to be compromises. Also basically everyone here raised hell when the price was said to NOT be about 30K. And now all I read for the most part is “wah wah wah they are cutting cost to keep the price from going even higher.”
Give it a rest people. Get it through your head that this car is not and never has been about eeking every mile per gallon efficiency out of a car. It is too prove a concept to the average joe, which nobody here is with regard to this technology.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:57 am
With this ICE engine, I no longer see the advantage to the Volt in having the big battery and electric engine. If the ICE is big enough to drive the car up Pike’[s Peak— why not simply let it do it, without the increased weight of the auto-sized battery and the inefficiency of mechanical to electric to mechanical?
That is, it seems to me that with this ICE engine it may be that GM has essentially given up on the EREV design.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I’m very disappointed. It’s obvious GM is depending on gasoline engines for their survival. This new larger engine will only make the consumer pay in more gasoline/oil related maintenance that could have been avoided if they really had the vision. I was hoping to give a US Company a chance by supporting them with my hard earned dollars. By 2010 there will be a company that will have the right car. Tesla has the right idea.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Come on, you cannot have the argument both ways!
GM is saying they expect this car to be a high volume car. This is not supposed to be an experiment on how to build an electric car (series hybrid).
So, by compromising again and just using traditional 1.4L ICE and then saying it’s all in the name of cost savings is bogus. If they are truly designing a long term, high volume auto, then you invest the engineering and money to design the right engine for the job. A high volume auto would absorb the engineering costs and it would be irrelevant.
Maybe the original concept is not achievable with current technology, but just say it and don’t keep dumb-sizing this auto.
How can you even call this a series hybrid, now that your using the same engine in your new Cruze. Let’s just put a damn transmission in the Volt and call it what it is going to be. A high priced PRIUS with lipstick!
July 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
2008 Cobolt XFE - Extended Fuel Economy (XFE)
This has 36 MPG highway, and a poster here says that 2009 a model has 37 MPG highway.
This is with a 2.2L engine and 5 speed manual box.
When using the 1.4L Rick Wagoner says add 9 mpg and you get 45 or 46 depending on which base figure you use.
Now running the ICE at optimum RPM and using the battery to do load leveling is bound to yield an improvement and that improvement only needs to be 10% to hit the 50 mpg figure previously discussed.
Also remember that GM can invest more time optimizing 1 ICE than 2 ICEs. This just sounds like a sensible business plan.
If there are any comparable cars here are some engine sizes:
Honda Insight (tiny hybrid - think 2 seats) 3 cyl 1l
Civic hybrid 4 cyl 1.3L
Prius 4 cyl 1.5L
Mini 4 cyl 1.6L (although I remember the 4cyl 850cc 4cyl 998c and the 1248cc was big then - but that shows my age).
When running in ICE mode other than the load leveling advantage (optimal RPM) I would expect the engine capacity needed to be not far from a Honda Civic. On highway I wonder how much saving the optimal RPM is able to give compared with a 5 speed manual box 20%?
July 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
perhaps gm came to a conclusion . That people will take the ICe out and sell it? OR WORSE cut gms profits more , by droping that ice in a different vehicle . GOD forbid we have 50 pmg like the old metros . Or run the volt without a ice , and get 50 milesbefore u run out of juice. Either way , would hurt those precious oil company .. and we dont want that do we? .Yes sarcasticly said.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The pessimism on this thread is bordering on ridiculous here people, stop being chicken littles.
Its one freaking cylindar! 4 tenths of a liter! Chill!
Case in point, #32 JEC,
How precisely is GM not getting any benefit from installing all this new battery technology and electonics into the Volt? Does this mean it no longer runs on battery power or achieve 40 miles per charge? If you say the benefits are leveraging the expensive battery, what else would a switch to a stock engine in the car be as opposed to custom building a new engine? If this is about minor environmental impacts, I think its negligible. Why would using a 1.4 liter engine somehow be the breaking point of Volt “failure” exactly?
You’re free to wait for the “true” electics, personally I never want to depend 100% on the grid for my car, but the only way to such advances in battery tech is through the success of the E-REV concept in my opinion.
Point is, how does this change in any way effect the only relevant variables; range on electric only, mpg afterwards?
BillR, thanks as always for injecting logic and reason into all debates here.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Where’s statik?
July 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
HCCI!!!!
I’m wondering how the cruze could get 40 mpg on a non-hybrid, I’m very suspicious due to the fact the GM has their HCCI engine up and running:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/26/abg-tech-analysis-and-driving-impression-gms-hcci-engine/
that’s old news but if anyone doesn’t know what an HCCI engine is, it’s a gasoline engine that runs like a diesel (without spark plugs) but in reality the GM version runs like a diesel when you are easy on the gas and runs like a normal ICE when you floor it. It gets better fuel economy like a diesel when in HCCI mode and I can imagine that it needs a little more displacement and a turbo to get the same torque output so that you can stay in HCCI mode more often when you accelerate.
Also GM needs to use every asset that it has in order to survive because lots of GM people like myself and my american car fanatic parents are now driving toyota prii, my brother has a civic. I’ll trade the prius in for a volt
and maybe also a very good HCCI powered cruze. I’ll even deal with any technical problems or bugs with tolerance as long as they are ironed out.
I don’t see any way that the cruze with a 1.4L turbo will get 40 mpg even on highway without the HCCI, I think it’s impossible.
I also think they won’t put the HCCI in the volt the first year, I think they will introduce both technologies, HCCI, and EREV at about the same time in different limited production vehicles so they work the problems out of each one individually before they put HCCI in the volt and EREV in the cruze. Then when they do that the 1.0 L turbo engine will have been a waste of money.
Let GM do their job, stop being babies! If they screw it up they may go under or their stock may go down to 1 cent and another company will buy them out and many americans will be disapointed. If they do everything right then the market will reward them, I also think if obama is president this will be a turning point for oil and we will never ever have cheap gasoline again.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
#45 snowboard asks “Point is, how does this change in any way effect the only relevant variables, range on electric only, mpg afterwards?”
It’s unclear, but I think both are lower than with a smaller ICE.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Maybe GM can shift the Volt’s ICE a little more and just put in GM’s favorite engine, a V8.
It will be good for Pike’s Peak, the new design criterion, and GM seems to have some extra V8s these days, so that will save money too.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
# 48 RB,
How could the electric only range possibly be lower with this engine?
#46 Rick,
Don’t ever, EVER ask that. Its like talking to a pitcher in the middle of a perfect game.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
#45 Snowboard
Its one freaking cylindar! 4 tenths of a liter! Chill!
True, but it’s a 40% increase in size, which you cannot just ignore. It’s not the end of the world, but it is just another compromise in this design. I do not want compromises, I want it done right, the first time.
—
Why would doing that somehow translate into “failure” exactly?
Failure is not achieving your goal. You cannot keep lowering the bar, again, and again, and call it success (This is what we now teach in school, so maybe it is not failure).
—–
Again, as I said previously, if GM is realizing they cannot meet the original goal, then tell everyone why, and how they are changing the goal to meet the new objective.
This is just my opinion based on my area of expertise, and that’s the whole idea around this blog. I want more opinions and facts, so I can make my own judgment about what is and is not important. I respect the optimistic and pessimistic opinions that I read on this blog.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
All you arm chair engineers are regoddamndiculous, you all are throwing around numbers as if you know what the heck you are talking about. Don’t you think that GM has crunched the numbers and figured out how many KW the car will need to do a steady 65 MPH, how many KW will be need to move a car with 4 people up over a mountain road. What about how many KWs will have to be generated to get the car with 4 passengers over the Rocky Mts with the A/C on [and don't forget that an ICE produces less power at high altitudes so you have to factor in for HP loss at altitude]. How much HP the engine will need to make those KW. All you people that are amateur engineers throw around number probably don’t have any idea what the requirements are in KW and how many horses are needed to make those KW.
Here is a hint one HP is equal to 3/4 KW but in the real world it is less due to loss from wire resistance and generator efficiency
July 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
GM’s Volt will be a great car but I am disappointed in GM’s vision. It reminds me of IBM’s PC. IBM execs dropped the ball on the PC and allowed competitors to make lots of cash off IBM’s original PC idea. GM should have at least 3 models of plug-in hybrids in development right now and I only see one. Inventories of the Volt will be severely constrained for several years causing Chevy dealers to charge thousands over invoice and allowing Toyota, Honda, and other competitors time to bring their plug-in hybrids to market. The Volt is great but its future is being controlled by the kings of the gas hog SUV. Not a good sign.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
#50 snowboard asks “How could the electric only range possibly be lower with this engine?”
The new engine is more dead weight to carry, in electric only.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Didnt gm state they wanted a HOME run? not just a hit or a ground ball or a miss. i realize they need some Redundency to prove the tech works , but that works The other way too. TO much of the same makes everyone say so what? just another car big deal . They will then go with a brand they know and can trust in their opinion ,which isnt gm . honda or toyota anyone? ya..
So its one of those dammed if u do.. Damed if u dont… Hopefully they can find the right balance to compinsate for all the normal car parts they are putting in. One way MOSTcorperations selling ice to eskimos .
July 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
#52 Larry — Thanks, you are helping me with my argument for the small V8
More seriously, there are many advantages to the original concept of an electric car with ICE backup. There also are some disadvantages to such a car, e.g. perfomance on Pike’s Peak after the battery has run down. Now the design seems to be shifting to overcoming all disadvantages by making the Volt into an ICE car with an expensive electric transmission. I don’t see how that is better than the standard ICE Cruze, only more expensive.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Attention !
This is the Volt 101 ICE/Generator and Battery Classroom.
As your first assignment, please read this link from late last August….
http://gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/
Several people have been posting theories / speculations on how the Volt’s ICE/Generator might “charge the battery” while it’s running. The whole point of the ICE/Generator is to supply electrical power “on the fly” for the drive system only. Please note the term “Charge Sustaining Mode”. The ICE/Generator will not be “charging up” the battery above 30% SOC (State of Charge). GM and the 2 battery teams know how to treat the cells. In order to get the needed life expectancy out of the pack, the battery cells must not be exposed to quick, repeated partial charge/discharge cycles.
The only charging of the pack occurs from the Grid in the garage at your home. Empty is 30% - Full is 80%. They are purposely protecting the cells from “abuse”.
This is your instructor signing off.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Yeah, this does seem like a step in the wrong direction. 1.4L is overkill, a 3 cyl 1.0L Geo Metro with outdated speed density, throttle body injection has more than enough power. Now put more modern MAF, port injection on that same size engine and you have more than enough power to run a generator.
How big of an engine do you need, for Pete’s sake? You can go to your local hardware store and buy a generator with a carbureted 1 cyl engine that would make enough power to be the genset for the Volt.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
#56 Larry Parylla
Here is a hint one HP is equal to 3/4 KW but in the real world it is less due to loss from wire resistance and generator efficiency
——————
Well actually it’s 746 Watts. Also one HP is typically the shaft rated HP on an electric motor, so when you buy a 1HP motor, this is based on the output shaft power. You have losses in the motor due to electical IR drop and heating/losses due to eddy currents and other dynamics of the motor and wiring. But 1HP is always 1HP (or 746 Watts if you chose).
I also would be careful about calling out the arm chair engineers. The posts I have read on this blog consist of many well thought out and technically sound ideas.
I expect the GM has run all the numbers, wrt to required energy for all different scenarios. I am sure they are excellent engineers. This blog is not a design blog, but it is for disseminating information and ideas. Also, don’t hold any engineer to a level of deity. Sometimes even the best engineers can miss the most obvious deficiency. When your up to your ears in design, you can easily forget to open your eyes.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
This Volt must be a more powerful car than many people on this forum think. Turbocharged 4 should put out huge amouts of HP. Maybe their will be a manual override switch that combines ICE and battery power for even more power on demand.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
#57 Exp_EngTech
Ok. Thanks for the refresher. I forgot this “minor” fact that the ICE will not charge the battery, but only sustain.
So, If you want this car to perform 100% of the time for all conditions, then you need the larger ICE. I understand but I don’t really like this (and no, GM did’nt conference me in the last conference call)
Let me stew on this a while…my kids are screaming at me to get off the computer.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Sorry I meant 3/4 of a kilowatts [approximately]
I believe most of the time that electric motors power is measured in KW
July 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
There are some very well informed people here but I have also read a lot of comments from people that just throw numbers around without taking into account that GM has done a lot of testing with mules and they aren’t guessing how many horses will be need to get the job done. So unless the people that are telling us hat GM is putting more or less HP into the car than is needed have done tests of their own and can prove it with data they are just arm chair engineers to me
Yes they engineers do make mistakes but thatnis why they have mules, to catch what they missed
July 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Of all the hundreds of cars and motorcycles Jay Leno owns his 1909 Baker Electric is the most RELIABLE vehicle he has. It has never needed repair, still runs great, and he even has the original Thomas Edison batteries and they STILL WORK. BTW, this car has a range of over 100 miles per charge.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
#61 JEC wrote…..
“So, If you want this car to perform 100% of the time for all conditions…”
It’s not “me” wanting this level of performance. It’s the guy buying a Volt near Denver that FULLY EXPECTS his Volt to produce enough electrical “juice” on the fly from the ICE/Generator to cross the Continental Divide in a fully loaded car without braking a sweat. I guess that’s reasonable for him. Personally, I don’t live there and I rarely need to jump on an Interstate and cruise at 75 - 80+ mph. That’s just me.
In order for the E-Flex Drivetrain to be accepted, it has to meet the performance expectations of the AVERAGE CONSUMER. I suspect that both you and I (and a lot of people on this site) have much lower performance needs of the Volt & E-Flex.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
>> In order to get the needed life expectancy out of the pack, the battery cells must not be exposed to quick, repeated partial charge/discharge cycles. The only charging of the pack occurs from the Grid in the garage at your home…
Clarification is most definitely needed.
That seems to imply there is no regenerative braking.
It also counters the whole idea of steady-state engine operation, since a constant amount of electricity will be generated even though the draw from the traction-motor frequently vary.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Ok, what is so hard about devising an algorithm to charge the battery at the normal 3hr rate while on the ICE generator. Current motor power+ optimal charge rate. No heating of battery and no rapid charge rate. That would work out that at 65MPH after 195 miles on ICE the fuel consumption at 50MPG would be about 4 gallon and then back to battery for 40 miles. 195 on gas, 80 on battery. 275 on about 4 gallons or 68+MPG! not bad. About 375 miles on a tank a gas. Now if only the VOLT price would be under $30k!
July 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
The beauty and elegence of a series parallel hybrid drivetrain is that the prime generator for the vehicle is an electric motor that’s attached to a battery. The battery acts as a (chemical/electric) holding tank for the power that buffers the power requirement from the ultimate power generator. With a plug-in hybrid, the ultimate power generator can be 4-stroke, 2-stroke, diesel, rotary, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cell, hydro-electric, coal-fired, solar-power, nuclear, zero-point energy, black hole… (getting a little far out there…) whatever.
The point is that the battery divorces the on-board power generator from the running power requirements just as thoroughly as it divorces drive motors from the type of power that’s suppling the electric grid. As long as the juice going into the battery meets the battery’s requirements, the battery just don’t care.
Given that separation of responsibilites, the ICE should be purpose designed to fulfill the role of electrical generator… period. And don’t tell me that GM doesn’t have the ability to design a purpose built on-board engine in ANY configuration.
Given western civilization’s established petrolium-based infrastructure, the only reason to go with a gasoline ICE is the ready access by civilians to gasoline fuel. Once alternative energy infrastructures are in place, GM can plop in whatever type of motor is consistent with that type of energy store… one of the stated design objectives of the e-Flex platform.
My problem with the illustrated engine is that it’s designed to give usable power over a broad spectrum of engine speeds. Which is not what the e-Flex platform needs. e-Flex needs an engine that will produce target electrical power at an optimum engine speed. If/when the e-Flex platform takes off, that engine will be the basis for hundreds of MILLIONS of vehiciles. The engine that goes into the first production Volt should be purpose-designed for its intended use.
GM claims to be betting the farm on this car, and I think its a good bet. Cheaping out on the ICE is irresponsible.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Having said all of that, wouldn’t it be ironic if GM put an existing engine design into the Volt because it wouldn’t have time to get a purpose-designed ICE past national/state emissions certifications :-O
July 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
#51 JEC,
Source please on this engine being a 40% increase in size? That makes no sense.
“I do not want compromises, I want it done right, the first time.”
I say +40G is a much bigger compromise. This does more to alleviate cost over runs then it would impact mpg.
Again, you didn’t answer the question, how precisely does this engine change constitute “failure” exactly? Be specific.
I see no evidence of this engine change in any way altering or lowering GM’s professed goal unless someone can show a demonstrable change in the 40 m electric range or the mpg because of this. Until that time opinions are like anal orifices. Everyone has one, and they all stink.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
#54 RB,
How much dead weight? As BillR pointed out in post #34
weight is third behind aerodynamic drag and auxiliary loads in energy loss. We’re aren’t talking about weights so finely engineered that a man has to say no to his pregnant wife sitting in the passenger seat because it will affect his electric range.
I think we need a better sense of proportion, if this engine change is meaning 400+ pounds maybe its relevant, less then that I fail to see the concern.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Clearly, GM is in a financial position where it is looking at costs first,
as it should be. Unless that proposed 3 cylinder turbo can be used
as powerplant in something other than E-Flexes, I would eliminate it from consideration. With 4 cylinders, it would no doubt be an intrinsically smoother engine to boot. We remember Lutz’s remark about the roughess when the range extender kicked in.
I noticed that the proposed Fisker is taking a rather unique approach in order to achieve sportcar-like power while only
having a small battery pack aboard - they will have a “high performance switch” which will quite obviously start up the range extender (even though the batteries are charged and producing power) in order to produce lots of juice and fast acceleration times. This is really neat - if you’re going somewhere outside of the Fisker’s 50 mile electric driving range anyway, why not go in style ? - it won’t make any difference in terms of the gas you’ll burn - you would have burned it getting there anyway. And even if you don’t,
how many drag races can you get involved in in the next 40 miles?
I predict that this feature will appear on an E-Flex, perhaps a Pontiac or Caddy version. How about a Solstice or Saturn Sky E-Flex variant, with just such an option and an ultra high performance electric motor? THAT would be something. Corvette next?
If Tesla can con the younger public with speed, how about answering with both speed, economy, and practicality? And the
ability to buy, insure, maintain and garage just one single car?
July 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
23 RLM
That is an interesting idea. I had assumed that GM would consider the choice of ICE would be “optional” in the sense of it being chosen at the time of production, but you’re right. It needs no physical connection, therefore (in theory) it could be designed to be easily swappable unit, or even removable. I just think of all the import modders who customize their cars, those types of people would love this kind of car.
Secondly, all you people insisting that the ICE be strong enough to climb Pike’s Peak? Do any of you live at higher altitude? Think for a minute. You have two power sources in a hybrid. One is dependent on oxygen. One isn’t. Insisting that a hybrid’s oxygen-dependent component be designed for an oxygen-starved environment is sensless. [/rant off]
I actually have no opinion of the 1.0L vs 1.4L ICE. I just want the car to be well-made and affordable. Because I only like compacts and I grew up in the era of crappily-made American compact cars, I’ve never owned an American car.
GM, please change my mind.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
#64
Thank you for bringing up the 1909 Baker Electric.
Today the automotive industry is going through a revolution like it did 100 years ago. The horse and buggy companies were trying to make a better carriage to compete with the electric car back then, but they failed. The federal government did not bail out the horse and buggy companies. Is GM listening? If GM had any vision they would have invested their money on building a new Battery Electric Vehicle with no ICE. They have the expertise and knowledge.
This Volt with the 4 cylinder should be called a hybrid. Why not just remove the electric motor with the batteries and the 4 cylinder could probably get more than 60 mpg.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“If GM had any vision they would have invested their money on building a new Battery Electric Vehicle with no ICE. They have the expertise and knowledge.
This Volt with the 4 cylinder should be called a hybrid. Why not just remove the electric motor with the batteries and the 4 cylinder could probably get more than 60 mpg.”
I’m sure after E-flex will come pure BEV’s, but right now they want to appeal to the masses.. if you told someone they could only go for 100miles before having to charge (for 12hrs+, even) they would say “forget it, I can go farther on my tank of gas now”
But the volt says ‘you can go 40 miles without gas. If you go past it, keep on driving, because you can use the gas to run your car. If you never go over 40 miles before you charge up, you will never use gas.’
This is a “transitional” item.. its the first of its kind in major production, so just sit back and watch its progress. If you don’t want to buy it because it has a gas engine, then don’t. Buy a full-battery car when its available. This is for the stubborn public that won’t give up their gas and long-range ability. (even if its only 2-3 times a year for most people)
July 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
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 difference of about 154 lbs in a vehicle that’s likely to weigh well over 3,000 lbs.
Difference: about 0.51%, or less.
Leave your golf clubs at home.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
#6 Good Point!
#8 My thoughts also.
#14 YEP.
I really want to purchase an american Volt but, I really want to stop using petroleum for my 40 mile work commute. Maybe the iMiEV is what I need? If GM makes a I gotta have more horsepower than you VOLT then I guess I’ll be shopping elsewhere. I just want to get off oil, not be faster, or more powerfull. or superior, or start a war to kill people to prove how retarded I can be.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
76 DocM
Actually thats 5.13%. Its still not a huge number.
Also what about the volume increase, the gas tank size increase, the cost increase, the range decrease, etc…
Its like a person on a diet, saying “oh, its just one doughnut”.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
2Snowboard
Is not 1.4L 140% the size of a 1.0L?
—–
I never said it was 140% in weight or physical size.
=================================
If you are going to quote me, please do me the courtesy of quoting me completely. A few missing or changed words can totally change the meaning of a statement.
————————-
I said “If this cannot be done without installing a full size ICE, then this car is, in my opinion, a failure.” The words “in my opinion” indicate that I am expressing an opinion based on what I understand. You want specifics, you can ask, but please specify exactly what you want.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
#75 canehdian
Will any sensible person pay $15K extra to get a car with (what will be understood by ordinary sales personnel and the layperson to be) an electric transmission rather than a mechanical transmission, if the car is the same size and has capabilities that otherwise are the same? Especially if the electric transmission is unproven, while the mechanical transmission is a proven product. That is, why buy a Volt instead of a Cruze? Both are going to be able to climb Pike’s Peak. Probably the Cruze will do it a little quicker, without the heavy battery.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I keep seeing the cry for using NG for fuel. Well, my natural gas bill is
going up nearly 40% this year. Keep the NG for home heating. Not to
mention it comes out of the ground usually from the same place oil does.
If we all start using NG, I can bet it will be just as expensive as gasoline.
I can assure you it will be a lot cooler in my home in the Chicagoland area
this year as a result.
JMHO
July 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
#66 john1701a quoted and wrote…..
>> In order to get the needed life expectancy out of the pack, the battery cells must not be exposed to quick, repeated partial charge/discharge cycles. The only charging of the pack occurs from the Grid in the garage at your home…
Clarification is most definitely needed.
That seems to imply there is no regenerative braking.
It also counters the whole idea of steady-state engine operation, since a constant amount of electricity will be generated even though the draw from the traction-motor frequently vary.<<<
End Quote
Perhaps Lyle should quiz the Development Team on the issue.
The FAQ states the following…
Q; Does the car use regenerative braking?
A: Yes. This means when the car is slowed, the kinetic or motion-based energy will be recaptured as electricity stored in the battery.
I would like to see some technical specs on this. I can only venture a guess and say it’s got to be fairly inconsequential. So much so that it wasn’t mentioned last August in the info.
As far as the “steady-state engine operation” statement….
The info from last August stated…
“Rather, it seems, the engine will continue to run, constantly matching the needs of the car to keep the battery at 30% until you stop driving.”
To me, “Constantly matching the needs of the car” means throttling up and down the ICE/Generator to match the load.
Did you read somewhere that the ICE/Generator was always going to run at a fixed RPM ?
July 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
@21,
GM currently has an older non-aspirated 1.4L Twinport Ecotec that gets about 90HP. The 1.4L turbo generates 140HP. Last I heard, it was in prototype stage and should be in a few European GMs first.
___________________________________________________
@74,
GM did try building a BEV with no ICE. It failed. People aren’t willing to drive a car that goes dead after a certain range. I don’t want a car that dies in the middle of a trip. I would have to borrow a friends car or tug a genset trailer or build a pusher trailer to go anywhere far. I want one car that will do everything for 10+ years. Not one BEV and one gas car. You can call the Volt a hybrid, but I agree with GM- the electric and genset motors do not both put mechanical energy to the wheels. Only electric does, even with the genset active.
___________________________________________________
The first generation Volt will be a mutt of the most inefficient technologies one could ever imagine. I would like to see a few things from the second generation Volt (or Volt competition)…
1) A smaller, lighter, more efficient genset design. Taking parts off the shelf is the economical way of doing things, so I think it’s acceptable for the first generation. But second generation should use a purpose built motor if they want to see E-Flex really take off.
2) More genset fuel options. I would really like to see gasoline, E85 flex-fuel, (bio)diesel, CNG, and especially- CNG/gasoline dual-fuel gensets. As per the Picken’s Plan, CNG could offset a large chunk of our dependency on oil. Unlike hydrogen, it’s cheap and we already have the technology and infrastructure for refueling. We have several CNG stations in my area. So please, offer a CNG/gasoline genset! GM did this up until I think 2003 and then stopped with a few of their cars (I think the Sierra and Cavalier had dual fuel CNG/gasoline engines). Just imagine relying on 40-mile 100% clean all electric mode, then once that runs out, kick on the super clean and super cheap 180-mile CNG mode, then (and only then), kick on the dirty and expensive 400-mile gas mode.
3) Upgrade the Volt with in-hub motors (or offer it as an upgrade). In-hub motors allow several benefits, such as all-wheel-drive, advanced and efficient traction-control, etc… All-wheel-drive is necessary if GM wants to extend the E-Flex platform to other vehicles (especially light trucks).
July 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
#82 There was an article in Motor Trend about the Volt that had a graph from GM. It is referenced in the forum section of this blog.
The graph showed that when the ICE came on the battery would charge gradually from about 30% to 50% charge. So the point was that the battery would stay in the lower percentages of charge due to the ICE, not that it would remain exactly constant.
That was 2-3 months ago, so possibly GM thinking has evolved.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
JEC, again, chill. Look back at the post I referenced, “but it’s a 40% increase in size” then looked at how I asked for a source that this means it is a 40% increase in size. How could I possibly have misquoted you?
I don’t think that 1.4 = a 40% increase over 1.0. I could be wrong, I am no engineer, but it does not appear that the overall size/weight is defined with such a narrow 1:1 ratio. For sake of relevant argument, let’s say you are 100% right, so what? The relevant question would appear to be how does that affect mpg? (since no one has established, nor would GM allow, this to affect the electric range)
–I said “If this cannot be done without installing a full size ICE, then this car is, in my opinion, a failure.” The words “in my opinion” indicate that I am expressing an opinion based on what I understand. You want specifics, you can ask, but please specify exactly what you want.
Yeah, I got that it was your opinion, thanks for the recap, for the 3rd and final time, what did you base this opinion of failure due to this engine change of the Volt project on precisely? Supporting opinions makes them relevant, you have not supported why this alleged “full size” engine in any way constitute such an over arching conclusion.
There is too much emotion in all this from the negative posters on this, as I said from the beginning, the sky is not falling.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
kubel @83 says “GM did try building a BEV with no ICE. It failed. People aren’t willing to drive a car that goes dead after a certain range. I don’t want a car that dies in the middle of a trip. ”
I agree that I don’t want a car that dies, so a backup ICE has a lot of attractiveness to me. The question is how well the car has to perform in ICE mode. I think GM has moved to the line of thinking that in ICE mode the car has to perform as well as a standard gas powered car under all circumstances, such as going up mountains. Perhaps that is what people will like the best. After all, you don’t give up anything except maybe $15K and some gallons of gas.
I would rather have a car that was more nearly a BEV, with the capability to come home with the backup ICE, not roar home in a car where the battery power really is just a decoration. Certainly the present design is less and less in this direction.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Snowboard
Let’s call this a stalemate.
I am not sure I understand what you are asking. As you said, this is getting to emotional, and is not adding any value to this blog.
Let’s move forward and see where it leads us.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
#84 RB
This must be what you’re talking about….
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0804_chevrolet_volt_update/photo_03.html
I hadn’t seen this one. Thanks for the info.
Attn: john1701a
This chart does show a small kick from Regenerative Breaking.
I wish there was some numbering on the side of the chart.
To me, it doesn’t appear that the pack gets anywhere close to 50% SOC.
30% to 40% maybe.
What do you think ?
July 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
#88 Exp_Eng
Yes, that’s the one. In earlier discussion, everyone wished for more on the left. After discussion, opinion was that the vertical axis went from 0% to 100%.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
#88 Exp_Eng
Looking at the chart again, I agree, range is maybe 20% to 35%. Hard to tell exactly, and it’s my impression that the illustration is a drawing, not a measurement, so apparently it only illustrates the idea rather than a precise range.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I remember one post where a GM exec said he was happy with his mule ride, except that it was a bit rough when the generator (ICE) cranked up. What if this move to a slightly larger motor was to allow them to not run with a turbo (more efficient at low rpms) to get rid of the vibration and noise of the smaller motor running on turbo. What if they found that they could generate the power they needed and use less gas with a lower reving slightly larger motor.
This is all conjecture, but my point is that no engineering excercise ever goes exactly as planned and there could be sound engineering reasons for what they have done, it doesn’t have to be a cost cutting comprimise dictated by the front office.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
#91 Len — These are good points. Maybe that’s what happened.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
The all-electric car has been a persistent dream since the gasoline engine displaced the old Baker and City electrics — on the basis of performance and range, mainly. Since then, for decades, any attempt at making this a reality again faced a chicken-and-egg dillemma: Who would build such a car without an adequate battery, and who would go to the expense of developing such a battery without there being a ready market (electric cars)?
Then, about a decade ago, the old ‘chicken-and-egg’ began to show some cracks with the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius. Were these electric cars? Only in a very narrow sense. Did they even make a compelling case for the added expense of the hybrid system? Only for those seeking ideological benefits, not economic ones; but that was enough to squeak into a market for better batteries (NiMh).
I submit to all the idea that the leap to a pure electric car was just to great to take all at one go. If nothing else, the Prius was an attainable step.
Pure electric cars are closer today than before the parallel hybrids, but they’re still niche, tiny-volume vehicles at absolute best.
Now, comes the Volt. This is actually pushing it as an attainable step; I hope it isn’t a stumble (I would have expected a parallel power train using Li-ion in between). Now we will have a car that functions as a pure electric for the majority of most drivers’ miles; with all the important components for a pure electric car except for overall range.
As is often the case with such an ambitious reach, this step comes with some heavy economic penalties. What have we heard over and over in this blog? “Over $30K and I’m out.” “This will be a halo car for the rich.” “Too bad, this isn’t a car for the masses.”
I can well imagine someone (Lutz? Wagonner?) asking Lyle, “What is the number one issue with your website fans?” The answer, based on virtually every thread is “COST” with a captial “C.” GM merely does something sound based on economic sense, and suddenly the show seems to be all over, based on most of these replies.
The Volt as a short-range EV, serial hybrid, maybe-attainable step loses next to nothing from an engineering standpoint with an additional cylinder (try reading the thread where the new 1.4L world engine was first put forward as the range-extender).
If the Volt fails, it will be due to high cost. Show some consistency, guys.
I hate to have to make a speech like this, here.
…hate…speech…
D’oh!!
July 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I think going with the 4 banger is a smart move. Production costs are reduced by using a standardized engine and eliminating the turbo.
The larger displacement engine should operate at a lower average RPM. The lower the average RPM, the higher the fuel efficiency.
**********************************************************************
An HCCI engine would seem to be a great fit for the Volt.
**********************************************************************
July 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Foot Pound McFly
Help me out.
“The larger displacement engine should operate at a lower average RPM. The lower the average RPM, the higher the fuel efficiency.”
So why not move right to the V-8 from the Chevy Camaro?
Am I not getting the point today?
July 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
#75 canehdian
“if you told someone they could only go for 100miles before having to charge (for 12hrs+, even) they would say “forget it, I can go farther on my tank of gas now””
70 % of the commuters drive less than 40 miles per day in the USA.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It will just add unnessessary weight to the EV … affecting the 40 mile EV range … GM trying to save $$ by using something they already have …. false economy…..
July 20th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
JEC #95
I think you’re on to something there. The 2007 Corvette gets 28 MPG highway (due to operating at a low RPM) which happens to be as good as many small cars (ie: my 2005 Kia Rio).
Maybe GM should instead, skip the battery and drop an LS7 engine (with a gigantic generator) to power the Volt’s electric motor ?
July 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
#98 McFly
lol.
My first chuckle of the day. Thanks!
July 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Anyone looking for a good read on engines, here is a great site. The guy who wrote this must be a real hoot! Sounds like the kind of neighbor you would love to have.
You really should read it all, but he has an interesting take on “hybrids”, near the end, that makes you think.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/engine.html
July 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
As I posted before, it would be nice to reverse engineer the Honda Insight ICE that had the power needed to drive the Volt 53 KW generator but weighed in at less than 200 lbs. But if you wish in one hand…
Post 57 provides info I had missed before, that the Volt ICE will operate in three modes, producing about 8 KW, 25, KW, and an unspecified high KW so that the battery charge is sustained even while climbing Pikes Peak. The 1.4 liter ICE will be able to operate at low RPM and supply any of these performance level requirements.
So it sure looks like a win win decision for the Volt. Go Volt!
July 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
#87 JEC
This shall be taken as an admission that there was nothing behind the opinion expressed then. For the future, it behooves you, as well as the blog as a whole, to refrain from such emotionally charged words as “failure” without just cause.
I agree that we need to focus on where the engine leads us, as in what are the final mpc and mpg #s.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
So GM’s NEXT generation car will get almost the fuel economy of Honda’s CURRENT generation and Toyota’s PREVIOUS generation? Amazing!
After months of reading the posts on this board, I think many of us are overlooking an important fact. We (the engineery posters, not me) discuss technical issues like COD, optimal engine size, battery pack characteristics, the pros & cons of photo cells on the roof to run cooling fans and the not so technical posters wonder if they should connect their Volts to the grid or a windmill in the back yard, but none of that really matters coz few if any members of this board will ever even see a Volt let alone own one.
Right now GM has a unique product even if it is not quit real yet, but 15 years from now when they are done fooling around with it and you might be able to walk into a dealership and actually buy one, it won’t be unique any longer - it will be obsolete.
I saw the concept Volt and the Tesla on the news this evening. We were told that in only two years we would no longer be troubled by high gasoline prices because we will all be driving a $100,000 Tesla or a $40,000-$50,000 Volt. The newscaster was having trouble curtailing a belly laugh.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
#93 Jackson
I’m with you on this one (and I’m not even a grumpy old neocon scumbag).
The standard rule is that you have cost, time, and quality. As you astutely point out, everyone here is screaming about cost, yet when GM suggests using an engine that may not be perfect in order to keep costs down, the complaining shakes the rafters.
Time is another factor. It’s fine and well to say that a different drive system needs a unique engine, but spending the time developing one and getting it approved could effect a long delay.
Better to get the first generation out and address special engine needs along with other issues later, if that proves necessary or desireable. Lord knows that there are enough other issues. Given that 90% of the time people don’t drive more than 40 miles a day — which means that 90% of the time the ICE won’t even be a factor — whether the engine is a 1.4L or not strikes me as a one or a two on a ten scale.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
A message to Lutz:
Hey Bob, I’d like to remind you that in the first iteration of the F-16, for cost and convenience, they slapped together a bunch of off the shelf avionics that were not designed to work together in such unique high performance platform. How many men died before McDonald Douglass finally admitted it, and purpose built avionics for it?
#DA
July 20th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
#95 JEC and McFly — You’re absolutely right, GM needs to move on promptly to the Camaro V8, or maybe the Silverado V8. We’ll never get up Pike’s quickly with half measures. The V8 also will solve the “too quiet” issue
July 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
22. C. Davis
If everything you say is correct, it looks like it makes sense to go with the 1.4 liter engine. As long as the tradeoffs for mpg, weight, and cost aren’t too much they ought to use it. Hopefully, this engine will be one of the best all around 4 cylinder engines in the world in 2010 as far as fuel economy, power, and cost goes. I suspect that GM has mastered the latest and greatest IC engine technologies and they could make it match up well against the best Toyota and the rest of the industry are planning for 2010.
The more of these 1.4 liter engines they sell they cheaper they’ll get. I definitely want GM to use the highest technology they have available for this engine … as long as it’s not TOO expensive. I want it to be an engine that will easily last 200,000 miles … maybe even 400,000 miles since it won’t be running all the time. That will help with the resale value. I want the Volt to hold its value for a long time.
I also would like GM to use a heavy duty muffler for this engine and some good noise reduction materials all over the Volt if possible. One appealing aspect of the Volt is that it is supposed to be a super quiet car … like in those Volt commercials on TV.
People like cars that are quiet … the same people that buy the Rolls Royces and Bentleys, etc. Plenty of wealthy people in places like Hollywood and Miami will probably be buying a Volt you know. They’re used to those quiet cars. The Volt should have the decent 7-9 second acceleration that they like too. I’m hoping that they can get it to do 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds or better. The Volt will probably be one of THE cars to get in 2011 so GM better try to think of EVERYTHING that customers will most need and want. Some of the fancy features they come up with could go into a future Cadillac with an E-flex powertrain if they can’t get it into Volt 1.0.
Lots of people will probably want to talk to their friends at parties about their new solar panels and electric cars, etc. Gotta have some “green cred” these days. Women will probably feel bad about driving a “gas pig” SUV … because they make them feel fat or something. They’ll feel a lot better about driving an ultra gas sipping, good performing, cutting edge Volt electric car.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
#104 DonC — With an ICE that grows heavier by the hour, AER may fall to only 33 miles or so, but that will be OK, yes?
July 20th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The WSJ has just posted a column, in the online edition, about electric cars, including the Volt. It quotes Stempel, a former GM leader. The column is skeptical that electric cars can be cost competitive with gas.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
#21 Estero asks: “Help me on this. Where is it that GM stated the 1.4L Volt engine will be w/o turbo?”
————————————————————————————-
Lyle mentions it here:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/24/has-gm-increased-the-size-of-the-chevy-volts-ice-from-10-l-to-14-l-and-cylinders-from-3-to-4/
It also makes sense. For the Volt, the gas engine only needs to deliver AVERAGE horsepower. Peak horsepower is provided by the electric motor and batteries, even when the gas engine is running. Since average horsepower is around 1/2 of peak horsepower, a 1.4L turbo would be overkill for the Volt.
By contrast, the Chevy Cruise is a traditional ICE, which means the gas engine has to deliver peak horsepower. So a 1.4L turbo will be barley adequate. In other words, the Cruise will probably be a lot more sluggish than the Volt.
In addition to the turbo, another difference between the 2 engines will be the cam cycle. The Volt’s engine will probably use Atkinson cycle, while the Cruise engine will use Otto cycle.