Comments on: GM Explains Why the 1.4 L ICE Range Extender was Chosen For the Volt http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/ Real-time news, information, and discussion about the Chevrolet Volt. Fri, 25 May 2012 12:54:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dylan Bostelman http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-187108 Dylan Bostelman Wed, 07 Apr 2010 03:23:23 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-187108 Thanks for the great desings.It will help me to redesign my jobs site Thanks for the great desings.It will help me to redesign my jobs site

]]> By: Richjc http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-61844 Richjc Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:15:56 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-61844 Interesting changes since inception, although as usual with GM it is usually due to cost/profit margin. First it was a small car on a colbalt frame at about 20k+, now it is an "almost" mid-size at 30-40k, and the changes look again more about profit than excellence. Raised as a gm man from a kid, I purchased american until age 45, bought a high milage used japanese car that has been more dependable mileage wise than any gm i have ever owned since new. I am dubious that the quality will compare with the japanese cars. Since now gm will have to win me back, I am still optimistic that gm can pull this off without the "bean counters" overruling the engineers on quality. This is a sorry comment to make by me, and I still have an unused six hundred dollar credit on my gm card. Interesting changes since inception, although as usual with GM it is usually due to cost/profit margin. First it was a small car on a colbalt frame at about 20k+, now it is an “almost” mid-size at 30-40k, and the changes look again more about profit than excellence. Raised as a gm man from a kid, I purchased american until age 45, bought a high milage used japanese car that has been more dependable mileage wise than any gm i have ever owned since new. I am dubious that the quality will compare with the japanese cars. Since now gm will have to win me back, I am still optimistic that gm can pull this off without the “bean counters” overruling the engineers on quality. This is a sorry comment to make by me, and I still have an unused six hundred dollar credit on my gm card.

]]> By: Compare to the Volt - Page 4 - Tesla Motors Club Forum http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-57755 Compare to the Volt - Page 4 - Tesla Motors Club Forum Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:34:18 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-57755 [...] News on the ICE side: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site [...] News on the ICE side: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

]]> By: r4and0mn4me http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-57512 r4and0mn4me Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:41:49 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-57512 GPS nav input and user changeable charge options would be nice, but would GM really let you mod your own cars software? GPS nav input and user changeable charge options would be nice, but would GM really let you mod your own cars software?

]]> By: berkpaul@yahoo.com http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-57500 berkpaul@yahoo.com Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:00:59 +0000 http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-explains-why-the-14-l-ice-range-extender-was-chosen-for-the-volt/#comment-57500 Running the 1.4L NA Ecotec in the Atkinson cycle really sounds like the way to go here (and apparently even the Chevy 2-mode hybrids do this?) But does this require major retooling of this engine, or is it more 'drop-in' with just some resized cam-shafts and valves? As this 1.4L engine sounds like it's going into volume manufacturing (Chevy Cruze, among others), any major retooling might be challenged with all the cost controls GM is understandably imposing. As a side topic, I think one thing GM has mentioned before is considering working the software side to enable in smart load balancing and charge cycle optimization. The ideal set up would feed GPS Nav input back to the drivetrain controls, and over charge the battery above the 30-35% level as long as the battery would drain back to ~30-35% at the destination. I think this would alleviate some of #DA's cycle optimization concerns. As simpler option (consistent w/ using this car mainly for daily commutes) would at least allow the drivers to input their daily commute distance so that if it exceeds 40mi, this same optimzation could be made for the inputted distance. Non-daily commutes that didn't fit this distance would get sub-optimal charge cycles, but I think something simple like that would be a really beneficial option for 80% of drivers. Running the 1.4L NA Ecotec in the Atkinson cycle really sounds like the way to go here (and apparently even the Chevy 2-mode hybrids do this?) But does this require major retooling of this engine, or is it more ‘drop-in’ with just some resized cam-shafts and valves? As this 1.4L engine sounds like it’s going into volume manufacturing (Chevy Cruze, among others), any major retooling might be challenged with all the cost controls GM is understandably imposing.

As a side topic, I think one thing GM has mentioned before is considering working the software side to enable in smart load balancing and charge cycle optimization. The ideal set up would feed GPS Nav input back to the drivetrain controls, and over charge the battery above the 30-35% level as long as the battery would drain back to ~30-35% at the destination. I think this would alleviate some of #DA’s cycle optimization concerns. As simpler option (consistent w/ using this car mainly for daily commutes) would at least allow the drivers to input their daily commute distance so that if it exceeds 40mi, this same optimzation could be made for the inputted distance. Non-daily commutes that didn’t fit this distance would get sub-optimal charge cycles, but I think something simple like that would be a really beneficial option for 80% of drivers.

]]>