2 questions I’ve been wondering about the Volt lately:

1) Why a brand new assembly plant for the engine – couldn’t they have retrofitted an existing plant and retrained the employees there to build the engine? Lately all I hear about is how they are closing plants left and right. Or does opening a new plant allow them to hire new staff at new rates and contract terms that are less costly than legacy plants?

2) This is a bit more out there: in theory, if you are gonna build a combustion engine that acts strictly as a electrical power generator (ie. not a mechanically linked drive source), isn’t it more efficient to go with a gas turbine based generator than a standard reciprocating engine? This would essentially be the same technology that powers an M1 tank, the APU on a commercial jet, or the power plant for alot of rail locomotives.

Ok, I realize the Volt needs to get to market quickly and cost effectively and going with what you have off the shelf is the best way to go in the short term. But in the long term, if the Volt is a hit, is it possible to create a small gas turbine electric generator that would fit in a small car and burn fuel more efficiently? I’ve seen those little 4-6 inch jet engines for model planes – maybe something a big bigger that could spin a electro-magnetic generator cost effectively?

I figured turbines might be less maintenance and more efficient. And in the winter, imagine how much quicker it would be to get some heat into the car! (yeah, I’m from Canada…) Peace-out.

GM calls the Family 0 the smallest widespread engines from I-3 1.0 liter to 1.2 and 1.4 liter I-4 that it builds worldwide. The originally proposed I-3 1.0 liter turbo, is a member of the same family produced in the same engine lines and merely a chopped off I-4 block.

The I-4 turbo is the engine going into the Cobalt replacement the Cruze and the I-4 for the Volt wil have the updates of the third revision too. DOHC, VVTs, multivalves, Alloy heads, GDI, dual turbo ready, HCCI ready, and local US production to ensure there are no problems with exchange rates as there would have been importing the same engines from a European Family 0 engine plant.

The Plant that I want to see announced is the plant of the winner of the battery selection contest. I want that facility located as any major supplier usually does, near the assembly plant right here in the USA. I’d like GM to even participate in the construction of the factory, and its automation. That is GM’s real competence, mass manufacture. Longterm, it needs to know how to make battery factories.

Thanks?
Be well,
Tag

Sorry if my comment sounded a bit dramatic. It’s always pretty exciting when the room is rocking, but we’re all fine. You heard if first, anyway!

Again, many thanks. Deeply appreciated.

Hey! No stepping on Tag’s dreams!

…thats my job,hehe

Just because the building exists, doesn’t mean that it will be a good fit for the production lines. It might take more $$ to retrofit an existing site in order to make it work for the platform they are building. Also, many of the plants (existing and closing) are old, which means that energy bills to keep the ambient environment up to OSHA standards would probably be high due to lack of insulation. Also, the equipment in these closed plants have probably been scavanged by other plants (that’s what happened @ Ford), so either way, they’re going to be sinking money into new equipment, so why not roll the cost of a new facility (even if it’s on already owned land).

There are a lot of factors that goes into making a decision on whether to build new or retrofit old, so don’t be so quick to criticize the decision.

Also, I’ve seen a plant area from one area being resused at another that was such a bad idea. The “cost-save” of reusing existing equipment for a platform nearly twice the size of the original platform hurt overall productivity. It’s not always the best idea to reuse existing.