AND 
GM Has Decided on the 1.4 L 4-Cylinder Engine as the Range Extender for the Chevy Volt
Previously we heard rumors that GM might use a 1.4 L non-turbo 4 cylinder engine as the Volt’s range extender. Last week GM CEO Rick Wagoner confirmed it was under consideration.
Now GreenCarCongress’ Mike Millikin reports the decision has been finalized as per personal communication with Larry Nitz who is GMs VP of Hybrid Powertrain Development. Nitz also clarified that the engine will be naturally aspirated.
In the original Volt concept model the plan called for a 1.0 L 3 cylinder turbo engine.
Keep in mind, the only function of this E-85 capable engine is to fire up when the battery discharges to a level of 30% state of charge after 40 miles of EV driving. When it runs, it will match the demands on the battery that are called for by the electric motor. It will sustain the battery at that 30% state of charge, and will turn off at times (see graphic above).
The goal will be to get the driver home in the charge depleted state. This way the driver can get the most benefit from charging.
Source (GreenCarCongress ) thanks to Karik in the forum for the tip!
Graphic from MotorTrend, thanks to RB and Exp_EngTech for pointing it out!
107 Responses to “GM Has Decided on the 1.4 L 4-Cylinder Engine as the Range Extender for the Chevy Volt”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
July 26th, 2008 at 6:26 am
A very, very wise decision.
Thank-You GM
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Well, I’m sure there’s a reason. I was hoping for the smaller engine, but oh well – with the amount of driving I do every day, I’ll probably worry about the gas going stale, or the oil getting moisture in it due to age before I have to depend on it at all.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 6:38 am
We are getting closer to production… final decisions are being made.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Yes, I agree, wise decision. They should definitely go with a mass produced widely tested and understood engine. It cuts cost so so far down.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Question ….What is the voltage of the battery when charged ? ….&…When 30% state of charge ?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 6:53 am
How will this effect the MPG of the Volt when the range extender is running? Will it drop below 50 MPG? That was a number I was hanging my hat on. Do the oil companies win again? For long range driveing, I may as well get a Prius.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 7:20 am
OK, this decision is made.
Now lets get a decision on the batteries!
GO GM Volt Team!!! Jim I – #1196 On The GM-Volt.com List
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I think that the reason to go with the larger engine is shown in the graph. The 1L engine was probably barely powerful enough to replace the energy needed for respectable performance. With a 1.4L engine, it will power the car, and have a little power left over to charge the battery. Remember we are not working with a direct connection here. If they run the engine at a higher speed than is needed to displace the power being consumed at the moment, after some time the engine can be shut off. Then the car will technically be toggling between range extender charging and charge depleting modes. In the past, I had thought it would be best to let the engine run until the car was fully charged again, but this makes more sense. You are assured of using plug-in power most efficiently this way as opposed to potentially stopping the car with a fully charged battery.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Great, Is the mpg still 50?
I look forward to some more news on the Battery & who will build it.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:14 am
The graph shows a charging cycle like that of a typical furnace in a house. I expect there to be several different modes eventually. Like when driving on the freeway for a long time it will probably switch to running very close to needs of the car. That way you can run the engine at a very efficient speed and not have to keep turning it on and off. there could also be an interesting feature that when the nav system informed the main computer that the Volt was close to home the computer could choose not to fire up the engine so that it would arrive at a more reduced charge. More wall electricity and less gasoline. I’m really looking forward to see what the software guys come up with. It might take a few years to tweak however.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I definitely wonder about the decision. I understand that economies of scale will be benefited with an engine that is shared across the platform but is 50 mpg sufficient when in gas mode? Think of it this way: Many uneducated consumers will see that number and look at the mileage numbers of the new Prius (which may be over 50) and even the Cruze around 45. Many will not understand the plug-in is allowing for the use of a cheaper energy source for daily use. GM commercials need to immediately put even more emphasis on the advantage of electric power in terms of cost or GM are running the risk of looking mediocre to consumers who see much cheaper vehicles that get nearly the same MPG.
I think coming out and being not only cheaper to run due to electricity but also being the clear leader in MPG is the way to go. The people who visit this site are not the average person in terms of their knowledge of this product and its technology. Its a risk. But only GM knows what the cost numbers are telling them. Maybe they really need to do this.
Can anybody give an educated guess as to the performance loss of this decision?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:18 am
So the Volt will perform “better” with the 1.4L, but do not expect it to perform to the level of the Cruze (assuming it has the same 1.4L engine), when operating in the sustain mode.
The Volt will have to lug the extra weight of the battery pack and also supply a limited charging current to the batteries.
While this may be acceptable, I would like to better understand the type of performance we can expect, if we are running in sustain mode, and we are driving in heavy conditions.
The statement:
“The goal will be to get the driver home in the charge depleted state”
Sounds like they just want the car to keep running, and performance will secondary. I hope GM is not setting up people for disappointment, it just sounds a little fishy?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:28 am
That will be one less assembly line / risk that GM has to worry about. It is also more powerful, hopefully to avoid any problems climbing Pike’s Peak.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I for one, do not understand the graph. We see that when the SOC reaches the middle level (orange dashed line) the ICE starts and returns the state of charge to a slightly higher value (green dashed line) and then turns off. But when the SOC declines again to the orange line, there is no indication that the ICE restarted. Next, after declining to the red line, the ICE apparently restarts and restores the SOC to the green dashed line. Why no ICE start every time the orange line is reached, and if the red line is reached does the ICE shift to a higher output level. If this is correct, then the “three load points” would seem to be “off,” “On- low power” (when started upon reaching the orange line) and “On-high power” when boosted upon reaching the red line. Does anyone read it differently?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:35 am
12 JEC:
The way I look at it is they went with the 1.4L for precisely the reason you stated in this post. After mule testing the 1.0L Turbo wasn’t up to snuff. Do a search of the electrical energy outputs of the two engines, there is little change in fuel efficiency between the 1.4 and 1.0 but the power outputs are about 15-20 KWH difference.
In short, I think they went with the 1.4L because testing showed the 1.0L would have the exact problem you just outlined in your post.
This is my problem with BEV vehicles. I don’t want a car where I have “performance” worries when 3 people are in the car vs. 1 person.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:41 am
But really if EREV is successful how far along will optional engine choices be. If the car appeals to buyers it sells. GM is being transparent with this program I assume to educate as much as to excite the masses. The Volt won’t be perfect for everybody. Kind of depressing to see the hostile posts on the Green Car Congress board at the end of the brief article. The “treehugger” mentality is a bit much at times.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:42 am
_____________________________________________________
That is GOOD NEWS!
Both as a member of Lyle’s GM-VOLT Wait List and as a shareholder of GM,
I’m happy to hear that GM is to use the standard 1.4L/4C GM ICE in the VOLT.
I have previously detailed my reasons for supporting this ICE in a previous thread:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/20/gm-ceo-confirms-4-cylinder-14-l-engine-being-considered-for-the-volts-range-extender
Keep in mind that this ICE is E-85 compliant.
For me this means that I can own a car that is practical in the real-world to own/drive AND allows me to do my part in contributing to American Energy Independence; The Power of One.
About E-85 Gas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
#5 Dick G asks “Question ….What is the voltage of the battery when charged ? ….&…When 30% state of charge ?”
No recollection of GM answering either of these questions comes to mind. The following is just guessing. When charged the voltage is 400V. At 30% it is 390V. My guess is based on the idea that the battery cells are connected to give a relatively high voltage to make it easier to have a powerful electric motor. The 30% value is slightly lower, but not much.
There is some discussion on the forum of these same points, and some analysis there too.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Folks 1.4L is still a very small engine. The Prius is a 1.5L and must run all the time at freeway speed hence the 45mpg rating on the freeway. My wife’s 2002 Cavalier with a 2.2L and 5speed consistently got over 40 on the freeway (one of my disappointments with the Cobalt, mpg went down). Many have expressed concerns about the engine not being operated for long periods of time, or short start/stop cycles. That concern multiplies with turbocharger bearings. Don’t forget the Volt will have the advantage of operating the engine at a specific speed for efficiency. GM is also pushing the flex fuel part (I don’t believe a Prius is E85 capable), regardless of your views on ethanol, there are those who feel an attraction of the Volt is energy independence. E85 is currently blended with only US stocks. Relax people, this is a car for the masses, not high strung eco warriors, production considerations will need to be made. That in itself is a wondrous thing.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:14 am
#11 Kyle asks whether 50mpg will be recognized by the general public as a great mileage value for the Volt.
Maybe GM will use instead the composite mileage test pattern, which we are told is based on the first 100 miles, approximately. That test would start with the Volt fully charged and give a composite mileage of about 100 mpg (50 all electric, 50 on the first gallon of gas). That’s going to sound great to most people.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Million Dollar Question:
What is the weight difference between the two?
If it’s more than a couple ounces, can we have two plugs again?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:22 am
#14 Van
discusses the graph and when the ICE comes on, which seems to be at a different point between the 1st and later cycles.
Van: Your interpretation is the same as mine. I don’t think we’ve been given any information on what the 2nd ICE starting point is different from the first. My guess is that the graph is not an accident of how the artist drew it, but instead comes from a conceptual line of thinking in GM engineering, such as the one you give.
Whatever the history of this particular graph, no doubt the charging algorithm is one of the aspects of development that is evolving with experience and testing. That is, the graph gives us the idea of what somebody had in mind at the time it was drawn, but probably we cannot push it for details.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:27 am
#21 Statik
On the previous thread, knowledgeable posters thought the weight addition was about 100 pounds. Seems to me that adding the 2nd charging connector would add much less.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am
It appears from the graph that the conceptual S.O.C. in Extended Range Mode will cycle between 25% (red line) and 35% (green line). If true, it means the Volt would still have an approximate range of 20 mi. (to full depletion) should the range extender ever fail to start. I can live with that! I just wonder what negative effect full depletion would have on the battery.
As it relates to the 1.4L non-turbo 4-Cyl engine, I can live with that too even though I originally thought it was a mistake.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am
On the restart of the ice issue:
I would guess that the 2nd ICE on cycle has something to do with time and type of driving that is occuring (ie headlight, heater etc). It could be as simple as there being a minimum time for the ICE to be off before restarting.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Reminder: The T Pack decision should come soon.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am
#14 Van & #22 RB
I think it was discussed here a while back that the ICE would only be able to provide enough power to maintain speed on the highway & keep the battery at 30% charge. Then under heavy acceleration or on a long uphill grade you would also draw power out of the battery for the extra boost of power needed.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:56 am
#27 TSquare
I remember those discussions, which did not make sense to me at the time and makes even less sense now given the graph above.
If the ICE runs to keep the battery at a constant 30% S.O.C., then the ICE would run all the time once it is started. It only makes sense that the S.O.C. will cycle between a planned minimum and maximum. The graph above suggest a minimum of 25% S.O.C. and a maximum of 35% S.O.C. At least that is my interpretation of the graph.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I’ve heard that the latest test mules make this sound….
http://www.mattscdsingles.com/music/vanilla%20ice%20ice%20ice%20baby.mp3
Take that Al Gore.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Don’t you love the logic of Ghosn, who claimed his customers won’t have range extender engines. Actually they will have to have them – only their’s will be sitting in the gas powered car that his car requires
its owners to buy, insure, maintain and garage. Seems like a lot of expense for just a range extender motor, huh?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:10 am
What they’re planning, by the looks of it, is charge a chunk, use it up (engine is off, running in electric-mode), then charge another chunk, use it up, and so on.
If you’re doing heavy acceleration, the engine will probably stay on as you’ll still be below the cutoff point of 30-35% for longer.
Basically – its a roller coaster. The engine pulls you to the top, then lets you coast around until you get back to the start (the low charge %).
Then it pulls you back to the top again, and lets you ride some more.
Heavy acceleration means you move through the coaster track more quickly, so the engine stays on to keep you moving up the drop
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
So the 1.4 L won’t be a turbo?
Bummer.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Does anyone know when GM will announce their decision on the Volt battery supplier(s)? I had thought it was to be in July 2008.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Thanks #18 RB ………Maybe Lyle could ask the question to GM…..
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I for one am glad that they are using an efficient engine that they’ve already developed. That means they are trying measures to keep it reliable (proven engineering) yet bring the cost down (proven engineering already in production). The Prius get 45 to 47 on the highway but it won’t get it with 4 people. It seems that every automaker has an issue with weight. So 50 with one person will probably equal 45 to 48 with four. Plus, fuel economy has just as much to do with revolutions per minute as it does with displacement. The engine will do fine. I’m more concerned about operational software development.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
#11
I think that you are right…most people are forced to consider money as the primary decision maker for their vehicle choice.
The Volt is about choice of energy source…if a $40K vehicle is in your budget. A large percentage of people in the US consider an auto a need…therefore the fuel is a need. With so many new vehicles at half the cost not to mention the pre-owned market, it will cost you approx. $10K-$20K in front costs to have the ability to choose another energy source instead of just oil. With some effort from the drivers, energy from oil can be marginalized to a low percentage for the vehicle.
I hope that not even one Volt sits on a lot waiting for an owner. Demand should motivate the competition to produce a similar vehicle.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I don’t understand the disappointment in the lack of a turbo. I was hoping for the smallest engine possible, and I have to assume this is it. GM is supposedly also developing a new smaller engine for the Beat or whatever they end up calling it. There should also be good economies of scale to use this engine, but apparently it isn’t powerful enough. I’m sure GM already has several smaller engines in current production for cars in Europe and Asia. What is clear, is that it makes no sense to turbocharge the Volt’s engine. A turbo adds cost and weight, and is probably not very beneficial when run at a constant RPM as with the volt.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Turbocharging an engine makes it more efficient.
A more efficient engine can therefore be made smaller.
So, if its normally aspirated, its not the smallest engine possible.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
the 1.4 N/A means no extra weight for plumbing/turbo/intercooler/etc. Everyobdy was concerned about weight. Plus, the 1.4 has more natural torque than a 1.0, which in iherently more peaky unless you tune it rpm specific. Turbocharging is more efficient, but it still adds weight. Everybody seems concerned with the added 2 lbs of a second charging port, but not with the added 50 or so pounds of a turbo and all of its ancillaries. When you remove the complexity of forced induction, you only have the weight of a N/A engine that generates enough torque to turn the input shaft on the generator which powers the car. I honestly think is is for the best. I think #37 Motown has the right idea. Let the turbo 1.0 go in the Beat.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:40 am
#35 Firefly says “I for one am glad that they are using an efficient engine that they’ve already developed. That means they are trying measures to keep it reliable (proven engineering) yet bring the cost down (proven engineering already in production).”
The 1.4L 4-Cyl engine is proven engineering as it relates to powering a car. It is NOT proven engineering as it relates to it being used as a range entender.
It is well to remember there is “wear & tear” on the engine each time it is started. Only time will tell how well the engine holds up as a range extender and being started repeatedly in Extended Range Mode.
Having said the previous I agree the 1.4L non-turbo 4-Cyl engine is probably GM’s only choice for the Volt at this time. Perhaps there will be other options later. We’ll just have to wait and see.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am
GM made a very wise decision by selecting 1.4L engine for VOLT.
1.4L engine underwent lot of testing and its a very versitile engine.
1) 1.4L Normally aspirated 100+ hp can be used in subcompact like
Aveo
2) 1.4L Turbocharged 140+ hp can be used in compact cars like Cobalt and Cruze
3) 1.4L Turbocharged + Direct Injection 170+ hp can be used in midsize cars like Chevy Malibu and Saturn Aura.
Also just imagine the fuel savings it would bring to the customer if
BAS+ is added to all the above three.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am
#40 Estero
While I do understand your point respectfully, I feel that the interaction for powering the car or the wear and tear will not adversely affect its ability to operate in its specified parameters.
The engine will not have to operate as long as if it were in a constant fuel burning mode (a la normal vehicle). You are correct that it is not proven engineering as it relates to a range extender. I feel that this would not be that big of an issue as the engine only has to cycle on to a predetermined rpm to turn the generator.
I don’t think the hardware is the issue but the software that controls timing and interaction when alternating between charge and range modes. GM has already proven they can make an engine run at least 100,000 miles and operate well. Now they can make that engine run well but theoretically for not as long during daily commutes. I’d be worried about the oil and gas more. But I do understand and respect your point.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Does anyone know if the ICE will be started by the battery pack? If not, will it be started by a traditional lead acid battery?
The reason I’m asking is because traditional lead acid batteries do not last long in SW Florida. A battery that might last 5-7 years up north only lasts 2-2.5 years in SW Florida. And, there is no warning the 12-Volt lead acid battery is about to die. One can go to the grocery store and all is fine only to come out and find the battery is dead.
I would hate to be driving a Volt on trips longer than 40 miles and dependent upon a traditional lead acid battey to start the ICE, at least in this area. Not good!
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
#43 Estero
The pack might just start the engine. Maybe that’s why the ICE starts at 30% capacity, to allow enough energy from the Li-Ion pack to start the engine.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:04 am
19 Bill C…… “You said, “Folks 1.4L is still a very small engine. The Prius is a 1.5L and must run all the time at freeway speed hence the 45mpg rating on the freeway……”
Your post #19 is an excellent brief rationale why GM made an excellent decision to change the 3 cyl 1.0 L turbo engine to a 4 cyl 1.4 L NON-turbo. Remember that this larger engine still operates over a MUCH more narrow (higher efficiency) rpm range than the Prius 1.5L engine. And I’ll add that wise managers will NOT approve changes like this without 100% support from their engineering staff (and that this change most likely originated within GM engineering). One more thing…. a turbo is noisy as well as more failure-prone because it runs at high rpms. The Volt will be both quieter & more reliable with the NON-turbo 1.4L engine, with negligible loss in efficiency!
I strongly suggest anyone who’s still concerned about this change carefully re-read Bill C’s post #19 in this thread!
PS: I have a stern-drive Mercruiser boat with a 3.0 L Chevy engine more than twice the size of the Volt’s range extender engine — this (marinized) GM engine is famous for its reliability (lasts forever!), economy and quiet operation …..and its the smallest Mercruiser made!
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
8 >> If they run the engine at a higher speed than is needed to displace the power being consumed at the moment, after some time the engine can be shut off.
Thank you for pointing that out. I’ve been patiently waiting for that message to finally come across. Since the behavior closely resembles FULL hybrid operation, some have been quite resistant to acknowledge.
.
19 >> The Prius is a 1.5L and must run all the time at freeway speed hence the 45mpg rating on the freeway.
Fuel-Cut happens far more often that you realize. So even though the engine is spinning, it is not necessarily consuming any fuel. You’ll witness this a lot on the freeway.
Having the battery ample supplied means the electric motor can supplement the engine more to extend the many fuel-cut and fuel-reduction opportunities.
.
35 >> The Prius get 45 to 47 on the highway but it won’t get it with 4 people.
My 970 mile trip last summer from St. Paul to Chicago and back with 3 adults and the rest of the Prius stuffed with cargo resulted in a calculated average of 53 MPG.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Haven’t had time to surf the forums in a while. From the graph above, the battery SOC looks it will go from a high of 90% (not 80% as we have been speculating) to 30%. The significance being that 60% of the battery capacity (9.6 KWh) is available for EV propulsion, not 50% (8 KWh). It will matter for EV range at highway speeds. Earlier estimates by Tom on the forum hinted at a range closer to 32 miles using the US06 driving profile if only 8 KWhs are available.
Other than the graph above, has anyone else seen any info on this or posted anything on the forums? Is the graph above even a GM graph, and am I the only one surprised here?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Oooo goody. This fight again.
Lemme just say to the people who want the Volt to have a big enough ICE to pass traffic, going up an 8% grade, at the top of Pike’s Peak, while towing a trailer, all while the batteries are flat;
I am perfectly comfortable with the size of *my* penis.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:21 am
#43 Estero asks “Does anyone know if the ICE will be started by the battery pack? If not, will it be started by a traditional lead acid battery?”
So far as memory serves, no one at GM has said how that will be. Just guessing, I’d imagine it will be by the traditional lead acid battery. Following the same line of thinking as GM seems to have used for the 1.4L engine choice, starting the ICE from a traditional battery will follow a proven pathway. Also, the car will have to have a traditional battery for other electrical accessories, so it will be there and have to work.
From my own bad experiences in FL and NC, I am very sympathetic to your comment about abrupt failures. As a strategy, remember that the probably of failure rises with battery age. A person who buys 6-year batteries and replaces them every 3 years has a failure probability close to zero during that initial 3-year period and never sees the time of higher probabilities. Of course, it costs a little more, and somehow to me it is difficult to buy a new one when the old one still works. The additional cost is only about $20 per year, though, and worth it for its insurance value.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:23 am
#40 Estero – I wouldn’t worry about the wear and tear each time the engine starts. This degeneration occurs when it’s a COLD start and the engine parts are not lubricated for the first few rotations. Once then engine is warm and everything is coated with oil, restarting does not have much of an effect.
I read on previous threads that once the battery was depleted, the ICE wouldn’t recharge it since this would cycle the battery more. I’m glad to see it will recharge the battery. This will give performance boost because you’ll always have some extra electrons waiting for you to stomp on the accelerator. In other cars you just have the ICE. The volt will always have the ICE + Batteries since the ICE recharges them.
I think the car should adjust for drivers preferences. For example, after a few runs, if the software sees lots of heavy driving (hills or Mr. Aggresive) it should adjust by kicking the ICE on sooner and keeping more reserve. If it senses gentler driving habits, then the threshold for turning on the ICE should be lower. This will make the aggresive drivers happy as well as the slow pokes like me.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
#50 Cautious
Regarding the adaptive control, I agree with you. On generation 1, I doubt that will be there (keep it simple guys) , but maybe on gen 2 or 3.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:33 am
#47 Rooster
The graph was published in Motor Trend, who presumably got it from GM. You can find the article with the graph on the MT web site. As the graph is now a few months old, one might be cautious about details, which may not reflect the latest GM thinking, especially as related to the percentages. I think the graph reflects the concept of how the system would work before there was the mass of testing data they have now.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
#47 Rooster
I had assumed the Parking S.O.C. to be 80% as we have been told so many times. After reading your posting, the graph above does suggest the maximum S.O.C. could be higher.
If one takes the Orange line as 30% S.O.C. and then extend the graph both up and down, it would appear (at least from this graph) that the S.O.C. could go up to 92-93%. That would be great if true because it also suggests an EV range of closer to 50 miles instead of the 40 miles we’ve heard so often.
Of course, this is all speculation based upon a single graph of unknow origin. The reality could be quite different.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:51 am
GM has claimed that the Cruze with the 1.4 turbo will get 45 MPG highway. I think it is safe to assume that the highway cycle uses minimal turbo and has the engine at a relatively constant speed. Therefore I think it is somewhat comparable to the 1.4 that will be running in the volt.
What is a reasonable efficiency on the electric conversion 80%? If so, that puts the Volt at 36MPG highway.
Perhaps the Volt engine will be slightly more efficient as it will run at a more constant and optimized speed than the Cruze on the highway cycle, but at the same time it has to haul around a lot more weight.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
#52 RB appears to clear up the issue where this graph originated. Thanks for the information!
I agree, the graph likely reflects the concept of how the system would work before there was the mass of testing data they have now.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Here are a couple references/pictures of the 1.4 L engine at the GM Powertrain Development Center.
See this link,
http://media.gm.com/wieck/home/site/index.html
Its currently on page 2, which shows an engine on a test stand, and the following picture shows the technicians looking at the data.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Someone who had tested both motors said in the last 1L vs 1.4L thread that the 1.4L got something like 15% better mpg than the 1L because the smaller engine had to be geared by a factor of 1.8 to turn the generator with enough torque.
The new Vue shuts down gas to the engine during deceleration so you are getting plenty of on off cycles there, it probably isn’t an issue.
If the engine turning the generator is running at a highly efficient point and for the most part charging the battery while running, then the fact that it isn’t running all the time should give better overall mpg.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I still would prefer if they had a no ICE option. The thought of carrying all that weight around that would hardly if ever be used in my case (10 mile commute) is not appealing. I would also worry about non-use issues.
I’m guessing the software will start the ICE after so many non-use minutes, even if not needed for charge, just to keep it in use.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
#58 volton
Excess weight seems to be the fundamental downside of the EREV concept. When all electric, the car carries the dead weight of the engine. When on ICE, the car carries non productive battery weight. I guess this fundamental inefficiency, together with its greater complexity, is why people argue against the whole idea.
The good part is the flexibility and, according to recent comments, extra weight in a car that does not have as great a sensitivity to weight as cars of the past. Of course, if that’s true, we should be able to get 2 charger ports and make Statik happy hehe [couldn't resist].
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
#50 Cautious Fan
I’m not overly concerned about the ICE. Perhaps cautious is a better word.
I’ve been involved in leading/bleeding edge technology most of my adult life and have learned to be a little bit cautious, at least until there is sufficient history to prove a technology.
I know it goes back a ways, but I remember vividly the problems/challenges when we changed computer technology (IBM 1401/1410/7010/7070 to S/360), changed computer operating systems (MFT to MVS, DOS to Windows, etc.), change from bi-syn to ethernet communications, etc. Some technologies look good on paper, but don’t hold up. IBM’s OS/2 was probably a better OS than the early versions of Windows, but we all know what happened to that technology. The same can be said for the predecessors to cable TV.
I support the Volt extended range technology and am confident it will eventually prove to be a game changer in getting rid of our dependence upon foreign oil. But, along the way I will be cautious and ask many questions. I hope to learn from all of you who have more expertise than I as it relates to automobile technology.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Revolution Chevy Volt on Sale in 2009
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Hi TSquare, your view @27 does not seem to mesh with the graph. But as RB observed perhaps we should not put to much on the graph, it may be outdated. But in any event if you look at the average rate of decline in the blue charge depleting section, and assume that same draw down rate is occurring in the charge sustaining region, then when the ICE operates, it seems to generate nearly twice the power of the average consumption because the climb rate almost equals the draw down rate.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
#61 o.Jeff
What does that mean? Please explain!
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Off-topic question – If the electric motor causes enough drag to brake the car even before the contribution of the discs/pads; do you think that reduces the need to vent the wheels for cooling the brakes?
People were talking about the aerodynamics of the shape, and enclosing the rear wheels adds 10% improvement to the Cd.
If air cooling of the brake pads were not so necessary, one could have solid (unperforated) rims on front and back that effectively acted aerodynamically as if you had enclosed the wheels, right?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
With the engine selected and the battery tests going well, perhaps they will be able to sell some of the revolutionary Chevy Volts in 2009 instead of waiting until 2010. You know, 2010 is shaping up to be a crowded year of car introductions, it might make sense to move up the schedule. I’ll bet GM could score a lot of publicity points by selling a small number of Volts — perhaps 200-300 even before are ready for mass production. And, in return, they would get a lot of information about the car to make sure the mass production models will meet expectations.
Question: I’ve noticed that gas prices are beginning to drop in my area. If gas were to go back down to $2.50 – $3.00 per gallon, do you think that will doom the Volt?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Not being gearhead, I’ll ask an off topic question. Is there a way to check how many people (total) are on the waiting list?
Thanks in advance,
Tag
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Am i the only one that thinks that a 4cyl engine running at maybe three different set rpm levels with no fluxuations other than the 3 different charging levels will get way better than 50mpg. Shit if you can get almost 35 in a civic that has to deal with the human factor (aggressive acceleration) you should be able to get 60-70 in this thing easy.
Not to mention it is alot easier from an engineering standpoint to optomize for fuel efficiency an engine that has probably no more than 5 running configurations all with set rpm levels.
Anybody else think 50mpg is way below what will actually be?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
50 >> This degeneration occurs when it’s a COLD start and the engine parts are not lubricated for the first few rotations.
I seriously doubt Volt would be so primitive as to start the engine that way.
With a much more powerful motor (generator, compared to a starter) connected to the engine, the “spin to idle” start method is simple and far less stress than the traditional “crank then ignite” approach.
In other words, wait until oil pressure is established before even introducing fuel. After all, having the engine already spinning at idle rather than the minimum allows for a dramatically smoother start.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Stop Global Warming Buy American Made Cars: no polllution from overseas shipping…
More American Jobs for our sons !!
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
O. Jeff # 65 asks,
Question: I’ve noticed that gas prices are beginning to drop in my area. If gas were to go back down to $2.50 – $3.00 per gallon, do you think that will doom the Volt?
———-
It has dropped in my area also. As far as your question goes, here is my opinion.
I don’t believe it will doom the Volt, but at $40K, I don’t believe it will help gathering sales for it. I think the people need to see a real savings and the masses need to justify the added cost.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
#67 JonP
I agree. I think this 1.4L engine might just be decent. Hearing this news doesn’t really worry me much. Personally i drive an 02 chevy malibu with a 3.1L V6, and it’s non-turbo and naturally aspirated, and gets about 31 on the highway.
My personal guess is that a naturally aspirated 1.4L 4 cyl has substantially higher torque rating than a 1.0 turbo. I think torque plays a larger role when it comes to the engine being a generator. It’ll keep the RPM’s much lower when charging, saving fuel.
I don’t know about the Volt getting significantly higher than 50 MPG but i wouldn’t worry about it being much lower….
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
If I can get 40-mile AER, 50 mpg after that, with decent room and performance, at a decent price, I’ll be a happy clamper (happy as a clam and a happy camper). I’m not going to need that 50 mpg mode too often. If I calculated my personal mpg, I’d come up with:
(AER miles + ICE miles)/(gallons used)
Since almost all my miles will be AER, I won’t use many gallons. I will get something like a shitloadillion mpg. That will be much more efficient than the Prius’s 50 or whatever mpg. You long-haul people can make your own decision. For me personally, the Volt, if it pans out anywhere near what we expect, it seems like a brainier no-brainer. Bottom line; because of AER. I’d use less gas with a Volt than I would with a Prius.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
71 Mike D,
If it doesn’t do worse than 50MPG then that would represent a major acheivement for the Volt: The first item on which GM hasn’t been overly optimistic.
Based on what we know from the Cruze I am guessing the Volt gets 35-40MPG highway and 40-45 city.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Here’s a question:
If the the range extender runs out of gas, but you still have the 30% charge left in the battery, will you still be able to drive? I’d hate for the car to stop working and be left on the side of the road even though I had another 12 to 17 miles left in the battery. Could mean the difference between making it to an outlet or gas station.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“GM has claimed that the Cruze with the 1.4 turbo will get 45 MPG highway. I think it is safe to assume that the highway cycle uses minimal turbo and has the engine at a relatively constant speed. Therefore I think it is somewhat comparable to the 1.4 that will be running in the volt.
What is a reasonable efficiency on the electric conversion 80%? If so, that puts the Volt at 36MPG highway.
Perhaps the Volt engine will be slightly more efficient as it will run at a more constant and optimized speed than the Cruze on the highway cycle, but at the same time it has to haul around a lot more weight.”
You can safely assume equal, if not better than the gas version.
There is much more than 20% loss when using the ICE connected to drivetrain – gear/transmission losses, braking, etc.
In EV’s there is (presumably in this version) no transmission and braking can be done through regen (except for extremely hard stops)
I’m with Jon #67 in being optimistic on the numbers
Highway, I predict 50mpg, city maybe 60-70 because of regen braking.
If I calculate my MPG, It would look very nice
)
Lets see.
45k for the car (cause they like to hose us Canadians with some imaginary exchange difference…
so lets say 20k for a comparable car (this will have performance higher than that of an Aveo or Cobalt, is my understanding of the specs)
So 25k.
If I drive 15,000 km a year, 99.9% of those will be all electric.
but for calculations sake, we’ll say 14,000 electric and 1,000 gas.
14,000 km / 65 km per charge gives me 215 charges @ 8kWh = $189 for current electricity rate. Off peak (coming in ~2 years)
is roughly $140 (the raw rate is like half as much, but all those other fees bring the price up.. grr.)
1000 gas @ 50mpg = 4.7L/100k = 47L
At today’s gas price of $1.25/L thats $59 in gas a year.
Grand total, using most expensive electricity rate:
$248
If I used a 2009 Mazda 6 (cause I like the new look :p)
I’d get 24MPG combined.
9.8 L/100k for 15,000km is 1470L x 1.25 = $1838
Year 1: saved ~$1600
That’s 15 years ROI assuming gas price remains constant.
If gas and electricity price doubles sometime, I’d be looking at $119 in gas and $378 electricity with the volt
or $3676 with a mazda 6.
~$3200 savings a year now, ROI is 7.5 years
And then, if I were to keep the mazda 6 for 10 years, I’d actually be saving money.
The volt DOES add up, especially if you’re not doing long trips often.
(You can’t realistically expect gas prices to stay the same for the next 7-10 years.. in the last two years alone, it has doubled – at least in Canada.)
edit: I didn’t really calculate my MPG, haha.
15,000 km driven, 47L gas used gives me:
750 MPG, haha
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“Here’s a question:
If the the range extender runs out of gas, but you still have the 30% charge left in the battery, will you still be able to drive? I’d hate for the car to stop working and be left on the side of the road even though I had another 12 to 17 miles left in the battery. Could mean the difference between making it to an outlet or gas station.”
Since GM likes to sell that damn Onstar crap in every car, I would imagine they’d have an emergency override triggered by onstar to let you drive another x miles (would still cut out before getting to critical level for battery)
GM can leave onstar and satellite radio off of my volt.
I’ll take HD/DAB/digital radio capabilities though.
Why would I want to pay for radio.. lol.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
#75 don’t forget to calculate depreciation for each the Volt and the Mazda 6. What is your net loss of value after owning each car for 10 years?
I threw this figure into my calculations a while ago because i love high MPG cars, but my unfortunate conclusion was that the cheapest way to drive is by buying 7-10 year old economy cars, or just 7-10 year old regular cars. You get good MPG, low insurance cost, and you can keep it for a year and lose little to no value. (it was worth 2000 when you bought it, and ~2000 a year later)
Kind of a crappy conclusion, huh?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
#75 canehdian
Obviously, the actual purchase prices of the Volt and Mazda 6 will affect your estimates. You used a $45k Volt and a $25k Mazda 6 to arrive at a $20k premium for the Volt. It is likely that you will pay less for the Volt and more for the Mazda 6 (check MazdaUSA’s “starting at” MSRPs). We don’t know the first Volts’ MSRP yet, but we have our suspicions. Also, we can expect Volt prices to come down as production/sales go up. We in the US might even see government incentives that will lower our initial outlay.
I guess I’m saying that the Volt might provide an even better ROI than you suggested.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#77 Mike D
It might be cheaper, but not as fun. I guess you can buy more fun with the money you save.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
#75 and #78
I’m also under the impression that the Volt with retain its value much better than any regular car (mazda 6) because the overall life of the vehicle will be longer. most Volts will probably hit 500,000 miles in their lifetimes. I’d say maintenance will be cheaper too but we can’t be sure of that yet.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
74 NF & 76 canehdian….. Your question was, “If the the range extender runs out of gas, but you still have the 30% charge left in the battery, will you still be able to drive?”
I’ll answer for GM because I talked face-to-face with several of the Volt senior engineering staff at VoltNation about exactly this matter….. “YES, absolutely, because the Volt employs TWO separate propulsion systems, so if either fails for any reason the other will be able to at least let you drive to a safe place well off the highway, if not to the nearest service station or all the way home.” This capability, which is called “dissimilar redundancy” (the best kind) in the space program, is an inherent advantage of a well-designed E-REV vehicle architecture.
ATTN GM: Hopefully, GM realizes this HUGE potential, and 1) engineering will make sure there are no credible failures common to both propulsion systems that could defeat it, and 2) marketing will exploit/promote this major advantage over most other designs (including BEVs as well as perhaps some parallel hybrids).
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Was the “plan” for the 1.0 to run the Atkinson cycle? Is it possible that one of the reasons to go with the 1.4 is it will run using the Atkinson cycle? Seems like the Atkinson cycle gives you less power, but greater efficiency, so by moving up the 1.4, they get the 1.0’s power, but better economy.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
OnStar may be mandatory on all Volts. GM wants to monitor ALL Volt driver habits so that it can modify its internal software algorithms to better fit each driver. Also they will be monitoring all batteries in real-time. The Volt will be the Big Brother mother of all cars. In cooperation with law enforcement officials, police will be equipped with an anti-Volt device that will immobilize the Volt should it be operating in a criminal manner. The bottom line is this: You may own your Volt, but GM will be in control of it at all times. Any attempts to disable any of these advanced features will cause driver to become the owner of a new Chevy Brick.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Mike D #80
I agree, I don’t think we’ll see the typical 25% drop in the first year plus another 15% the second year for the Volt providing its well looked after and mechanically sound. But if later Volts come down in price so will the value of the 2009 and 2010 Volts.
I think that replacing batteries etc. will be routine maintenance rather than major overhauls. But the northern winters with ice and road salt will still take its toll on the body and undercarriage. A Volt from California or Arizona might last a lifetime.
There may be no museum Volts for for a very long time, because they’re all on the road.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“The goal will be to get the driver home in the charge depleted state. ”
I hope this means, if you want to drive 500 miles or more, the first 40 would be battery and the L4 would look after next 460 plus miles ?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
83 Volt Tracking….. You say, “OnStar may be mandatory on all Volts. GM wants to monitor ALL Volt driver habits so that it can modify its internal software algorithms to better fit each driver. Also they will be monitoring all batteries in real-time……”
Spoken like a GM insider! Kidding aside, I have an ‘08 GM vehicle with OnStar and I’m almost sure it’s more than paying for itself —at least my insurance company says the coverage for a car without OnStar and less than half the value of this car, but with all the same kinds of coverage, deductibles, etc would cost as much to insure. In other words, they tell me the latest OnStar, because it has proven to be essentially a non-defeatable theft prevention system, is saving me “several hundred dollars a year in premium”. And of the three GPS systems I own, my OnStar is by far the best & easiest to use (hands free, eyes free) …..and it also comes installed in the car at no added cost and WITHOUT upgrading to a “Nav system”. I LOVE ONSTAR!!!
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#14, #22 &27
The way I read this graph w/o a legend is that the 3 SOC points are that the RED is minimum 30% whereby the ICE will fire on and try to maintain the SOC at the orange/yellow which is slightly higher than the 30% to allow for acceleration draws. The third point, the green line is a level of SOC that can be attained with regen and hence the ICE can shut off for a while. This level can be reached because regen is attained through driving conditions and not SW programming, so if the ice had successfully brought the system to the orange/yellow level and there was incidental regen it could achieve this level.
It’s anyone’s guess, but that’s my take on it.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ed M #85
That terminology from GM has always bothered me as well. It’s almost as though GM is saying that the ICE is just to get you home, not for long trips. I think they should really revise that terminology, because if it’s true, then they’ve got a problem because if it’s confusing to GM-VOLT members, how does anyone think the gen public will interpret it?
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
GXT #54
“What is a reasonable efficiency on the electric conversion 80%? If so, that puts the Volt at 36MPG highway.
Perhaps the Volt engine will be slightly more efficient as it will run at a more constant and optimized speed than the Cruze on the highway cycle, but at the same time it has to haul around a lot more weight.”
*** *** ***
First off, at highway speeds the extra weight in negligible, far more so than for acceleration, particularly from a dead stop.
You’re also forgetting a huge factor, that being that the Volt’s ICE isn’t turning an energy vacuum known as a transmission. The Volt will probably get 55+ mpg on the highway, that is just my guess.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
For those wondering about the $40k price for the Volt- Some of the electric Rav4s are nearing the end of their battery life. (Many well over 100k miles) and Evaira is offering replacement NiMH packs for $35,000.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Just to warn you in advance, I’m going to convert to Canadian.
I actually go about 60 km (almost 40 miles) per day and my current car (Chrysler van with a 3.3 litre engine) will use about 11 litres for every 100 km. So, I use about 6.6 liters per day. I pay $1.25 Canadian (almost the same as American at today’s exchange rates) for a liter, so that’s about $8.25 per day.
My power company says that it is introducing time-of-day rates soon (when!?), and will charge about $0.03 per kw-hour at night … 12-7am. If I understand correctly, the Volt will take me 60km for about 8 kw-hours of energy. So, that’s $0.24.
So, $8.25/day for my foreign oil habit (OK, maybe Alberta, but I doubt it here in Toronto) and $0.24/day of locally produced energy (about 50% nuclear around here) for the Volt.
Is that right?!? Must be a calculation error somewhere …
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The decision to use the 1.4 L engine seems sound. Now, let’s move on to the decision of the battery supplier.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Steve 91
Power companies have to keep the generators spinning even when there is almost no demand. Selling at any price beats having it go to waste. Most off peak schemes also involve paying a higher price at peak times.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Quoteing Bill C #19
Folks 1.4L is still a very small engine. The Prius is a 1.5L and must run all the time at freeway speed hence the 45mpg rating on the freeway. My wife’s 2002 Cavalier with a 2.2L and 5speed consistently got over 40 on the freeway (one of my disappointments with the Cobalt, mpg went down). Many have expressed concerns about the engine not being operated for long periods of time, or short start/stop cycles. That concern multiplies with turbocharger bearings. Don’t forget the Volt will have the advantage of operating the engine at a specific speed for efficiency. GM is also pushing the flex fuel part (I don’t believe a Prius is E85 capable), regardless of your views on ethanol, there are those who feel an attraction of the Volt is energy independence. E85 is currently blended with only US stocks. Relax people, this is a car for the masses, not high strung eco warriors, production considerations will need to be made. That in itself is a wondrous thing.
==============================================
Lets put that statement into focus, as to what Bill C considers small. The 2009 Harley touring motorcycle’s engine is 1.594 L, and the engine on the 2009 Honda Gold wing is 1.832 L. So all those people that have their panties twisted in a bunch should consider that the Volt engine is .194 l SMALLER than a 2009 Harley touring motorcycle’s engine and .432 LSMALLER than 2009 Honda Gold wing’s engine
I don’t understand how anyone can think that moving a car with an engine smaller almost 1/2 L smaller than a Honda motorcycle could be considered going overboard in engine size
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
#46 John 1701A
19 >> The Prius is a 1.5L and must run all the time at freeway speed hence the 45mpg rating on the freeway.
Fuel-Cut happens far more often that you realize. So even though the engine is spinning, it is not necessarily consuming any fuel. You’ll witness this a lot on the freeway.
==========================================
I don’t think the engine spins at all, Unless the Prius is different than the Lexus RX hybrid I had and the GS hybrid I now have the engine shuts down and does not spin at all when going down long hills. When the engine needs to be started the electric motor spins the engine up to speed and after it is spinning the fuel injectors start pumping fuel into the engine and the ignition starts sparking.
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
#64 Lurtz
Off-topic question – If the electric motor causes enough drag to brake the car even before the contribution of the discs/pads; do you think that reduces the need to vent the wheels for cooling the brakes?
============================================
It depends on how they program the brake regen system
The 07 RX400H I owned didn’t have much regeneration programmed into the system, You needed to add pressure to the brake pedal to add to the regen. But with the 08 GS450H I now have they programmed a more aggressive regen into the system and you can feel the car slow down a lot more than the RX as soon as you lift you foot off the gas. So the correct answer is it depends. It all depends on how they program the computer to handle the regeneration. But keep in mind it they program a very aggressive regeneration the car won’t feel right. It will almost feel as if ou are dragging a parachute behind you and will feel a sudden deceleration every time you take our foot off the gas
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
#6850 >> This degeneration occurs when it’s a COLD start and the engine parts are not lubricated for the first few rotations.
I seriously doubt Volt would be so primitive as to start the engine that way.
With a much more powerful motor (generator, compared to a starter) connected to the engine, the “spin to idle” start method is simple and far less stress than the traditional “crank then ignite” approach.
In other words, wait until oil pressure is established before even introducing fuel. After all, having the engine already spinning at idle rather than the minimum allows for a dramatically smoother start.
=====================================
That is the way Toyota / Lexus does it
(Quote)
July 26th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
#91 Steve:
“Is that right?!? Must be a calculation error somewhere …”
It’s correct. No error
Electricity always costs the most in peak times (with the cheap rate comes a higher one from 11-5pm, mind you)
So you pay more for things when everyone needs electricity, and get bargain price at night, since it “goes to waste” anyway.
It’s like getting day-old doughnuts. (Do places still do that anymore? Lol)
(Quote)
July 27th, 2008 at 12:05 am
I have lived in 3 diffrent staes in the past 2 years (NY, TX, SC) and done of the offered off peak rates. I am willing to bet off peak billing is rare and not offered by many companies.
(Quote)
July 27th, 2008 at 1:56 am
#10 Texas:
“…there could also be an interesting feature that when the nav system informed the main computer that the Volt was close to home the computer could choose not to fire up the engine so that it would arrive at a more reduced charge. More wall electricity and less gasoline.”
Interesting thought, but unworkable. What if all your driving in pure battery mode was for running errands close to home? The nav system would prevent the ICE from starting at all. If you missed the little warning light you would deplete the battery to 0% SOC and you would have to manually start the ICE to get home. Wouldn’t doing this enough times kill the battery permanently?
(Quote)
July 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
canehdian@98
Some states down here are behind the curve about metering electricity. My provider here in Penna. does NOT charge different rates, though they “promise” to upgrade their meters before increasing their rate 50% in 2010 (when they are “de-regulated”
And yes, we still have cheaper day old donuts (g)
Be well,
Tag
(Quote)
July 27th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I say drivers should decide for themselves what mode they should be in. There are certain times when I may want the genset to remain on (when it may normally turn off) so I have peak performance (or maybe just a fuller batter) available at a certain point of my trip (when I may otherwise be in ‘limp-home-mode’).
(Quote)
July 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Kubel,
I totally agree that the more control options the owner has, the better, BUT everytime you give the owner another choice, it’s an order of magnitude added to the problem of getting the Volt out the door. As I’m fond of saying “Let’s first get the Volt’s wheels on the road!” I’m sure each generation of Volt and it’s spinoffs will be an improvement over the one that went before, but for now, it should be “Keep It Simple Sweetheart”.
JMO,
Tag
(Quote)
July 28th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
#103 Tagamet:
Sorry if it makes you nervous, but I totally agree!
(Quote)
July 28th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Noel@104
#103 Tagamet:
Sorry if it makes you nervous, but I totally agree!
“Nervous” doesn’t even START to cover it (g).
Be well,
Tag
(Quote)
July 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
The na 1.4L engine is a smart move. They’re claiming it’s more fuel efficient, and lighter than the 1.0L. I’m not in the least disappointed in loosing the turbocharger for that sort of trade off.
Someone is worried about running out of gas? What happens in a non- EREV car if you run out? They’re talking about about a TOTAL range of about 500 miles. That should be sufficient for anybody to find a gas station. The only excuse for running out would be doing something stupid. Products can be made idiot-resistant, but not idiot-proof. An emergency extra draw-down on the battery could encourage behavior that shortens battery life for the careless driver and then gives him a opportunity to complain when he fries the battery.
I’m sure a lot of GM Volt customers won’t have a clue about how the EREV system works in detail or even care. They are likely to only know that if they plug it in at night, it won’t burn any gas on a short trip and they’re getting at least 50mpg on the longer trips. GM has to build it with this customer in mind, not just the hyper milers, technogeeks and engineers. I think the average customer will like the quiet of little or no engine noise once accustomed to it. They won’t care as long as it goes and stops like they think it should.
(Quote)
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The ICE will almost certainly be started by running the generator as a motor. You avoid a heavy component and it would only be software in the generator electronic commutator.
-dk
(Quote)