Comments on: Chevy Volt Update from Chief Engineer: “There’s Nothing Standing in Our Way”

By: Dan Galbo

Dan Galbo — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:54:08 +0000

I don't think that GM would manufacture AC induction motors in-house. They will need to be purchased, just like the batteries from a different company. 100HP to 150HP AC induction motors are selling from $4000 to $14000 (http://www.ctiautomation.net/FUJI-Inverters.htm). So motor plus vfd will be another $10000 to $20000 extra.

By: Curious

Curious — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:13:08 +0000

I think plug-in vehicles are essential for our economy, especially ones manufactured in the US. I believe the root cause of the economic collapse is our continuous trade deficits, driven by oil and autos. Keeping our economy growing at a modest pace under such a burden required low interest, easy credit and low taxes. Certainly, better regulation would have mitigated the effects but I don’t think such an economy can be sustainable in the long run. At some level the US gov seems to acknowledge this need because various agencies have spent billions of $ on advance vehicle research, but they seem to be a bunch of duds. The only result was to prod the Japanese manufacturers into selling hybrids.

The problem is, I don’t think a small, $40,000 plug-in sedan is going to be the solution. Hybrids have been sold in the US for a decade without having a noticeable impact on oil consumption. Three quarter of the hybrids built have been sold in North America where fuel is relatively cheap. Countries in Europe and Asia have been paying $6-$10/gallon for some time but don’t seem to have as strong a demand for hybrids so it remains debatable as to what fuel cost and usage is needed to make the hybrid economically viable. Whatever the point of viability is, it seems likely the price of oil needed to support hybrid use will more than offset the fuel savings so that the $ amount of oil imports will not decrease.

By: William G Brand

William G Brand — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:22:48 +0000

1. What about air conditioning? I have to run the air when stopped or I roast in TX. You could pick up 3 MPG and save a lot of babies left in cars if the greenhouse effect is dealt with. No car seems to do anything about it.
2. Isn’t it time to replace the side view mirror on all new cars with a tv camera? Mirrors cause drag and don’t give a good view. Since GPS is comming in why not replace the entire dashboard with a big liquid christal tv screen showing all speed data, rearview display, and GPS. It might be cheaper than analogue.
3. Is the battery on the VOLT designed to be quickly changed out or will it cost $500 in labor alone to take the entire car apart to change it. If the battery is easily changeable, used VOLTS will give 100 Miles per charge once improved after market batteries are worked out in Japan. The old 40 mile battery will soon be replaced with the latest upgrade. The best selling point for a battery car would be the promise of a new improved battery in a few years.
4. Why use an internal combustion engine? The reason the Chrystler turbine never worked was that cars, unlike boats or planes have to constantly change speed to avoid runing into the car ahead. Turbines work best at constant RPM. The engine on a series hybrid does not need to constantly change speed. That is what batteries are for. I hope that GM or Toyota realizes this and ditches the internal combustion engine for a multi fuel turbine that can use gas, diesel, natural gas or hydrogen which ever is currently cheapest.

By: stas peterson

stas peterson — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:41:22 +0000

Statik, Mike and GTx among others. No one wants to hear repetitive comments for the fiftieth time. Please develop something new to say.

I suggest you wander over to the the Tesla site and chant “Oh-um” where, after three years of mass manufacture, the fifth (or is it the sixth?) Tesla is heading down the for certain, slowest assembly line in the world.

Or maybe you would prefer the EV1 Memorial site, where you stand around and masturbate in front of a picture of the completely-developed, lead-acid EV1, price-unspecified, the perfect electric vehicle for every occasion, from in town runabout to tow vehicle to carry a large family and tow a boat to the lake, as it was handed over to a CARBite governmental puke.

It was done, to pacify said puke, on pain of losing access to the California marketplace.

By: yosemitemtb

yosemitemtb — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:59:46 +0000

$10k to replace the batteries doesn’t sound too bad to me. A new engine (shortblock) and clutch for my Subaru cost $6k installed. As for the styling, once the technology has been developed, there won’t be much in the way to keep GM from producing sports cars, station wagons, suv’s and light trucks. I look forward to seeing an electric sportscar on an autocross course, mmmm, torque!

By: Shawn Marshall

Shawn Marshall — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:15:21 +0000

Dissipate heat from the batteries = keep the sensation of heating out of the cabin – it will scare the nannies and girly men.

Mechanically transfer energy to the wheels means coding the controller to run the electric motor appropriately under all conditions and include traction control? and include stability control? and shift points for the 2 speed gizmo and etc?

Techno-babbling detractors should back off when GM has men at work.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:28:06 +0000

#87 GXT

It’s not about saving money by using less gas. It’s about not using any gas at all. I will buy a volt not because of any financial reason, but because I love this country and I’m sick of sending 60 cents from every dollar spent on gasoline overseas. I’d rather see that money go to the local power plant that employs Americans.

If you think that is foolish, then we will just have to, in the famous words of Ron Burgundy, “Agree to disagree”.

By: DaveP

DaveP — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:23:49 +0000

#119 maharguitar:
Well, I think it’s more like this on the waste heat:

Batteries run almost at the correct temperature all the time, but for extreme cases they put in the liquid cooling.
When liquid was applied, batteries shorted out and ceased to function.

I remember reading that they had that problem many months ago. Presumably, they resolved it but there’s LOTS of issues they may be dealing with that neither we nor they thought of initially.

By: Whistleteeth

Whistleteeth — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:00:45 +0000

100,000 units by 2012? I’ll bet they could do that in one year. If they build it, I wil buy it.

By: Frankie

Frankie — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:28:40 +0000

I agree let’s grow up and appreciate the open attitude gm has about the development of this car. They could have shown you the prototype and then in five years said “ok, here it is”. Don’t forget the main idea is NOT HAVING TO BUY ANYMORE GAS! Yea, I know the first ones are going to be expensive….. but remember the first microwave ovens, big screen tvs, pagers, cell phones, computers, etc? Perhaps this is the start of cheaper erevs to come. I mean look at the first retro mustangs, camaros, and chargers…. you can only buy a loaded v-8 top of the line when they debut. Eventually the ‘early adopters’ get to be cool and have the first one in the neighborhood and then the less expensive models come out and the ‘regular’ people can afford them. Other models will have the erev tech and perhaps even an erev cobalt to drive to work and maybe even an erev camaro with 0-60 times in the 4 sec range. Relax, take the info with a grain of salt, and enjoy the EREVOLUTION! It’s going to be great.