Aug 20
Lutz: Production Volt Has a CD Between .27 and .28 and Battery Extreme Cold Performance is Good
The second hour of Charlie Rose’ show was centered around an interview he had with GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz and an extensive discussion about the Chevy Volt. The video appears below the post. Some key excerpts:
Lutz said the Volt will be the most significant vehicle of his career.
He talked about the Volt’s historical development and how he intends for it to leap-frog the Prius technologically and make GM become synonymous with efficiency in the publics’ eyes.
Lutz said the roots for the Volt came when he was CEO of the battery company Exide and he wanted to do a demonstration electric car. He was spurred by the Prius’ success, and that it was VP Jon Lauckner who added the range extender idea, as Lutz initially wanted a pure electric.
He mentioned that GM is astonished with the public’s positive reaction to the Volt.
He said that by next year GM will be producing “substantial quantities” of Volts that are not for sale, and that by next year at this time GM will be able to put “selected media” into driveable Volts.
He said in early 2010 there will be a couple of hundred Volts on the road for testing in various climatic conditions, with cars for sale to the public in November 2010.
In terms of the battery testing so far he said “we have had zero concerns”…”no abnormal heating, the cycle life appears good, the extreme cold performance is good.” He says the team is surprised how well everything is working out.
Back at the design studio Lutz showed off the front corner of the vehicle, which is all the public has been allowed to see. He did go on to show how the wheel house is very flush with the wheel edge to minimize turbulence there.
Lutz explained that the Concept Volt would have only gotten 35 miles of range based on it’s wind tunnel performance. From the ensuing design changes that have been made in redesigning the production version, Lutz said for the first time in public that the current Volt has a coefficient of drag (CD) of between .27 to .28.
[flash http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5331337021910564036:120000:3241000&hl=en]
[UPDATE: Post corrected to say .27 to .28]
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm and is filed under Battery, Design, Production. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:17 pm)stayed up last night to watch this. The battery center was pretty amazing and tells us pretty much exactly who has the battery contract based on the amount of black plastic battery packs in the tech center.
That EV1 pack is enormous and the Hybrid NiMH pack is tiny by comparison to all the others.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:18 pm)Isn’t the Prius .26? Didn’t Lutz himself say the Volt was going to better?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:20 pm)>> the extreme cold performance is good
Both “extreme” and “good” are relative terms.
Living in Minnesota, my definition of cold is sitting out in the parking lot all day with a temperature of only -10°F (-23°C), which happens every year in January.
Driving range is reduced by both the temperature itself and the need to power the heater & defrost. Are estimates of impact from this available yet?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:20 pm)Terrible news on the Cd (.28-.29). That’s much worse than the current Prius (.26), and the new Prius will certainly better that. My 1985 Mercedes 300E had a CD of .28!
Seriously, unless Lutz mangled this number (it won’t be the first time), a CD of .28-.29 is profoundly dissapointing. Plenty of regular sedans out there have that, or better.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:25 pm)I am not at all surprised that they are moving ahead without any major problems. I have always believed in American engineering prowess but I think it was the unions holding them down. Why can’t the government announce a rebate for GM which would cut from the $700 billion going out for oil imports and keep fuel prices up for just another year or so. They should use the extra money for VOLT subsidies and make GM retrofit every vehicle in US in exchange for those subsidies. Of course, the retrofitting should be paid for partly by the user, and partly by the government.
Can’t wait to see the government pull its act together on this.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:25 pm)The fact that the Volt’s wheels are driven by the electric motor, means as technology perfects, the electrification of the automobile will be complete. The Prius is a fine car but I think the big gamble for GM was to prioritize electric.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:25 pm)Morgan..
The black packs that were placed side by side (around 4) appear
to be from Continental (not CPI). Looks like they have
coated the chrome color ones them with some black color. I have analyzed the shape of those batteries closely and I feel they are definitely from Conti/A123. Also the black glossy finish is different on
CPI batteries. The first two batteries in the Video and the one in small room is from CPI and the remaining ones are from Conti.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:29 pm)#2 & #4
the difference of 0.02 and 0.03 is small. This is like measuring a turd with a micrometer.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:29 pm)7 Talks:
I will take your word for it…my wonderful 3 year old Sony LCD TV is a piece of junk.
Good eyes
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:30 pm)Some other CD’s:
Prius .26
Lexus LS430 .26
Hyundai Genesis .27
Camry Hybrid .27
Mercedes C-Class .27
Civic Hybrid .27
VW Passat .27
Camry .28
Lexus ES .28
Saab 9-3 .28
1995 Mitsubishi Diamante .28
2011 Volt .28-.29
All of GM’s windtunnel work is really paying off. Were they running the fan backwards?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:35 pm)#5 Gaurav
“Can’t wait to see the government pull its act together on this.”
Ahhhh…HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:36 pm)#8
the difference of 0.02 and 0.03 is small. This is like measuring a turd with a micrometer.
In an EV, aerodynamics plays a super critical role, at highway speeds. Range is much more dramatically affected by the aerodynamics on an EV than a regular car (think Aptera, etc). Lutz said the Volt would have better aerodynamics than the Prius. The EV-1 had a CD of .19!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:39 pm)“Lutz explained that the Concept Volt would have only gotten 35 miles of range based on it’s wind tunnel performance. ”
Hrm, thats odd…I remember saying it was only about 5 miles difference and they could have just added 1 more kWh to the pack…but then I got mathed to death, so I just let it rest.
I’m sure we can ‘reverse math’ the 5 mile difference and come up with the Concept’s cd…but sounds like it wasn’t the ‘brick wall’ of cars after all.
Anytime GM cuts anything, they say it’s not because they are cheapening the car, it is always for the sake of the cd…and 5 miles.
The concept would have had unprecedented demand, and blown any new EV/hybrid out of the water for appearance.
I think it is pretty clear that when GM sat down to actually build this thing they knew they could have just added a smidge more capacity to get the desired range, but when they ‘costed’ the vehicle it wasn’t high 20s, it was more like high 40s…so the easiest route to take was just keep cutting things in the name of efficiency.
It would have been nice if they just said, “We were way off costing this car, it would have been around 50K, we are going to make it more affordable, which means losing alot of the distinct features, but increase efficiency as well…it should allow us to be in the mid 30s.”
/could have saved us all some time/hope and we all could have moved on with the project…now it is just annoying whenever I hear them sticking to the company line
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:41 pm)I just want to thank Jon Lauckner for adding the range extender idea
Thanks Jon,
Good work!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:45 pm)#8 Sean
“the difference of 0.02 and 0.03 is small. This is like measuring a turd with a micrometer”
Sounds alot like 10 percent worse to me. And GM was telling us they were going lower than a Prius, that would be like .24/.25 or upwards of 20% failure.
Just because news is spoken in a upbeat tone, does not mean it is good. We have given up how much in the name of cd? How many unique features have been lost in the name of a missed benchmark?
————-
“In terms of the battery testing so far he said “we have had zero concerns”…”no abnormal heating, the cycle life appears good, the extreme cold performance is good.” He says the team is surprised how well everything is working out.”
If everything is so great why wasn’t a supplier chosen months ago, and on deadline? Why isn’t a decision being made now? What is the hold-up?
I’m a pessimist, so my gut says one of two things:
A) if they wait long enough they can use the battery as a excuse for a missed production timeline.
B) they just don’t want to pony up any cash right now on the Volt project other than engineering (that would also explain the lack of 3rd party contracts for the Volt and the fact that no machine fabrication or plant prep has begun)
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:50 pm)#15 Statik:
One word. Weak.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:52 pm)Ok, now the good news:
Bob is ROCKING THE PINK TIE again!
Lyle you have got to sell those ties, they would be hotcakes.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:52 pm)#5 Gaurav
I too believe in American engineering prowess. But that blame you want to lay on the unions has be laid equally at the feet of bad management. Bad business decisions had plagued GM for a while (i.e. devloping the H2 while Toyota was developing the Prius).
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:53 pm)#16 noel park
“One word. Weak.”
Whats weak? My math? OR my timeline?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:55 pm)I find it fascinating that Lutz remembers a VP and a CEO of a company being the ones responsible for the ideas behind development of the serial hybrid. Does anyone seriously believe this? So their senior engineers are just a bunch of worker bees? So the EV1 range extender concept was never put to paper more than a decade ago? I don’t think so… As an engineer myself, it really ticks me off when executives try to make it all about themselves, when they would be nowhere without their technical staff doing all the heavy intellectual lifting.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (12:55 pm)I really doubt GM will let the competition know exact specs until it’s on the road. GM is masterful at leaking just what they want to tease you with.
For the really cold climates if you burn a few ounces of fuel to run defrost and heat…I wouldn’t sweat it. Even “ICE” engines get less mileage in extreme heat and cold. Maybe they can run it on 2 cyl. if it “Knows” it warming up the vehicle. I assume the “ICE” will have a radiator and water jackets and there is a heat source. Unless it’s air cooled to save weight.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:01 pm)When they unveil the production version, the Cd will “miraculously” be .26. Remember guys, this is alot of hot air until the car is actually unveiled. They can say whatever they want for the next few months…
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:13 pm)Okay, I watched the whole show and it was GREAT. Charlie Rose is a class act. If you are not excited about the Volt, check your pulse.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:21 pm)#23 Tom
“Okay, I watched the whole show and it was GREAT. Charlie Rose is a class act. If you are not excited about the Volt, check your pulse.”
I like the show myself. Nice to have a good chunk of time to discuss a topic in a low key atmosphere.
Side note: Despite my negativity, I am still excited, lol. I know that doesn’t come through that much.
I think the fact of the matter is that I had ‘bought’ the Chevy Volt in my mind as soon as they said they were going to do it. Truth be told I went hunting on the net looking to put my deposit down and get on a waiting list the second I saw it a year and whatever ago…now I feel like I am fighting to retain as much of that dream as I can, hence my less than stellar reactions.
/thats how I am rationalizing it anyway, lol
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:24 pm)#19 Statik:
Cd of .28-.29 is weak.
I was just agreeing with you. I guess I was a bit too terse. Partly because had been reading, and also agreeing with, your economic comments on the previous thread. And following the news too closely for my own good this morning, I guess.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Nothing to do with you or your spot on comments, as usual.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:26 pm)Well it didn’t take long. Post #2, 3 and 4 is all I could read of the comments here.
People complain about the look and complain the aero isn’t low enough. He fools wake up and shake it off and decide what you want and stop thinking you can have something that will probably never exist!
Complain they don’t look like the volt concept. Complain that you would be willing to get a little less AER for the concept. Complain that the aero isn’t below the prius as if that matters at all. Complain the AER isn’t long enough.
Now come clean up the mess I made on the floor (vomit) after reading post 2, 3, and 4.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:33 pm)#25 noel park
Ok, I thought maybe my 5 mile ‘reverse math’ assumption that the concept wasn’t such a “brick wall” might have been off…guess it still could be, lol.
#26 omegaman66
“People complain about the look and complain the aero isn’t low enough”–well we really should be one or the other. If we are to give up design for function, we should, well…get function?
But I understand it is difficult dealing with the negative vibe of most of the comments/commentors (me? lol)…again I think it is just blowback from all the people who have mentally committed to the car feeling it is constantly under attack.
/don’t do janitorial work, maybe I could send someone over?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:38 pm)A Cd under .3 is excellent. By having the car relatively narrow, wide enough for two plus battery, rather than 3, the frontal area might be low. So its CDa might compare favorably to the Camry. Time will tell.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:43 pm)#26
“Now come clean up the mess I made on the floor (vomit) after reading post 2, 3, and 4.”
I guess you were dissapointed with those aerodynamic numbers too.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:50 pm)Talks – you are mistaken.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:51 pm)If I had to try and put a positive spin on things, which I hate doing
, maybe a worse CD than we were expecting means a cooler looking, less Prius-like car?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:54 pm)I hope you guys dont put bumper stickers on your cars, I heard they raise the CD by .001. Dont forget about the extra weight.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:56 pm)A simple way for the government to help us buy electric cars without adding to the budget deficit is end all the tax breaks to big oil. Every quarter they break the record with ridiculous amounts of profits which makes me think they don’t need the tax break.
Getting those oil companies to pay taxes like everyone else will help the country in so many ways. Lets help secure America by reinvesting in good ole American cars and electrons. Buying oil from the middle east funds our enemies and makes America less safe.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (1:57 pm)Little FYI,
I was just watching the show again, and he actually says .27-.28 drag versus .43 concept.
So, still off, but a little better number than .28-.29 relatively speaking for the production car, and the .43 is a informative number for the concept…which makes it also far from a ‘brick’
…and looking at the video around 44:30, you can see that the definitive wheel wells, side bulges have been completely taken away, was hard to get a feel for it from the teaser pics
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:00 pm)I had never heard Lutz speak before and was quite impressed by his intelligence and wit. He’s obviously ahead of Charlie Rose in both departments – he could easily handle a show of his own. I didn’t expect his mental abilities. Makes those 50 year younger greenies look pretty senile, or should I say, childish.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:00 pm)In the video, he said .27 – .28, not .28 – .29, so at least that’s a little bit better.
Just got finished watching it, and want my volt more than ever.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:01 pm)Those of you who are upset over the Cd numbers — does that single number really matter to you? Did you ever base a car buying decision on that? Do you even know what Cd of whatever it is you’re driving now? (No fair going to google or wikipedia)
As long as the car gets enough miles of EV range for you, who cares what the nominal Cd is?
(My car’s nominal Cd is .36, IIRC. And then I have a bike rack on the roof and drive with the windows down and the sunroof open. So my actual Cd is something abysmal. Abysmaller.)
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:01 pm)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:04 pm)I think people are over analyzing what they did. When they came out with the concept, they had a golf car with a cool body. They crunched some numbers and said with a 16kw batt and a CD about the same as a typical low CF car we can get 40 mi EV range.
They took their body into the wind tunnel and said OK new numbers suggest we’ll get 35 EV miles. What can we do to impact the style the least and get to the 40 mile promised EV range.
With the time constraints I think they just wanted to hit their benchmarks. If they wanted the concept volt they would have had to change their battery specs and possibly cause delays with the suppliers while they figured out what they wanted. If they wanted an EV to get the most out of 16KW hours, they could have had the driver sitting on the stick shift while laying horizontal and guessing about where to steer.
Working in the Aero field, you promise something to the customer (40 mi range and a cool looking car) and you make your numbers trying to mesh it all together as a system. They’re in a race against time so they left the battery alone (design similar to the EV1) and took off the hard edges from the body.
I think they did a great job and if they can pull this off in such a short amount of time I think it’s great.
Give it 10 years and Statik you may get your Volt concept body with 35 mile range and pauln I bet they’ll make you a car that looks like a street looge where you see the road from a monitor above your head and has a .05 CD. But for now get us the volt and get it now. Can’t please everyone so just try to piss us all off a little and none off a lot.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:06 pm)You can’t directly compare Cd’s without a reference area!
Cd=Drag / (Dynamic Pressure * Ref Area)
Although the Drag Coef of the Volt might be slightly higher than the Prius, it still may have lower drag (which is really what matters). A 5% difference in the reference area of the Prius and Volt may more than make up the 0.02 difference in CD. Lutz throwing out a CD prior to anyone seeing the production model was absolutely pointless.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:10 pm)Statik: “the .43 is a informative number for the concept…which makes it also far from a ‘brick’
Um, my gen1 xB, the ultimate “brick” has a Cd of .37.
Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but for GM to put out a concept for an (RE)EV with a Cd of .43 is really pretty dumb and embarrassing, when anyone who knows anything about EV’s realizes that aerodynamics are much more critical to an EV than a conventional vehicle. A .43 Cd would be atrocious for a regular car nowdays.
I just never got what they were trying to do with the (unaerodynamic) Volt concept; the EV-1 started with the spectacularly aerodynamic concept Impact. Why do an EV concept with such terrible aerodynamics?
I’m not “Volt-bitching”; I’m asking a serious question.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:15 pm)…and: “What jped said” (#39)
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:18 pm)#32 Cire
Good point. The amount of bumper stickers you put on the car will make the difference if you getting home on all electric or not (hehe, j/k). Man, I know I shouldn’t have put that “I’m not speeding, I’m qualifying” sticker on my car!
I have a ridiculous idea. Instead of lowering the Cd, GM should endorse a weight loss program that should get this point across: If you stop supersizing your meals daily, you will get an extra 2 AER miles a day!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:27 pm)#40 paulin
“Statik: “the .43 is a informative number for the concept…which makes it also far from a ‘brick’…Um, my gen1 xB, the ultimate “brick” has a Cd of .37.”
I hear you, it is still pretty bad, similar to your average truck.
But your right, why do a EV concept at all with terrible aerodyamics? Unless you are aware of them and are going to power the vehicle sufficiently to overcome them…that was always my thinking.
GM knew the concept was not ideal by any stretch the second they sketched it out…I just think they were not concerned, there is no rulebook that says a electric vehicle has to be a jelly bean. As was mentioned by Gsned57 in post #38, we’d all be driving around in a ’street luge.’
I think the ‘non-jelly’ bean look of the Volt is/was one of its strongest features…the ‘non-Prius’ if you will. It said, “this car is better than a hybrid, has independant electric drive, is functional for 4 people and is a handsome/sexy car,” which up until that time was/is a oxymoron in this area.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:28 pm)Certainly a 0.28 to 0.29 Cd isn’t very impressive… I haven’t watched the whole video, but are we sure he implied the latest “production intent” design has that drag?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:38 pm)#43 Statik,
“I think the non-jelly bean look of the Volt is/was one of its strongest features”
But also the most mis-leading. EV’s NEED to be very aerodynamic, period. And they don’t have to all look like jelly-beans. The Fisker Karma is a good example of that.
I know I have an anti-GM rep, but over the five decades I have followed them, I have also been willing to respect their technical prowess. I was very impressed with the EV-1, despite its limitations.
I think that ballyhooing an EV concept with a Cd of .43, showing it all over the world and saturating the airwaves with it, as the saving redeemer of GM, was a collossal mistake.
It wouldn’t have taken that much to do a little bit of windtunnel work to make sure the concept was at least REASONABLY aerodynamic. Instead, they indulge in c*ck teasing, and not delivering (what they promised). The Volt is going to end up looking pretty ordinary, that’s obvious.
Is it better to lower expectations and exceed them in the end, or over-promise and under-deliver?
Ever notice how Toyota doesn’t indulge in c*ck teasing, but just puts out the final product when it’s ready? Any connection to the two company’s relative success?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:44 pm)Let’s start a poll…
I would sacrifice 5 miles of range to keep the concept Volt styling intact…
My vote: YES!!! (and keep that killer sunroof too!)
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:44 pm)32 Cire – “I hope you guys dont put bumper stickers on your cars, I heard they raise the CD by .001. Dont forget about the extra weight.”
I was planning to put my new magnetic VOLT bumper sticker on my 2000 Diamante, but I can’t figure out how to make it stick to the plastic bumper.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:45 pm)I believe Lutz said the Volt would have a better CDa (Drag Area Product) than the Prius.
Big difference between the CD and the product of the CD and the frontal area (a) of the car. IIRC, the Prius’ CDa is .58m^2. With a CD of .26, that would equal a frontal area of 2.23m^2.
If the Volt has a smaller frontal area, it can be more aerodynamic than the prius.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:50 pm)#30 Engineer..
Why u think so ?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:51 pm)#21 Vincent :
“GM is masterful at leaking just what they want to tease you with.”
It’s nice to see someone giving credit to GM for a change; reading the posts, most of them make you think the company can’t make any good decision … Hell, they are just behind Toyota and were first until last year for the market share.
Finally they are masterful at something. It’s a start.
I tend to believe that engineers are making decisions for a reason and that everything, in the end, will be well balanced. Cars are always about compromise. As for the price point, time will tell but novelty comes at a price. Good to know that it’s gonna work in the cold temperatures.
We’ll see.
Pete
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:51 pm)#48 Taser:
“If the Volt has a smaller frontal area, it can be more aerodynamic than the prius.”
Quite true, and possible, but quite unlikely. The Volt sits on the Delta II platform, which is bigger than the old Delta (Cobalt) platform. Why do you think they’re using Malibus for mules?
For what its worth, the production Volt does not look all that svelte. And it would have to have a substantially smaller frontal area to compensate for its worse Cd.
Meanwhile, the 2010 Prius will undoubtedly have an improved Cd; I’m guessing .24. The gen1 Prius had a .29; the gen2 has .26; the gen3 will improve on that.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:57 pm)The extended range idea is pretty old……at least 15 years, probably a lot more. I drove one in 1993 (engineering senior design project). With the Volt’s lousy Cd, maybe we can ecomod it? GM apparently doesn’t want to move away from the standard, inefficient profile of today’s vehicles so your grandma will still buy one. Forget looks, give us performance. Doesn’t the Aptera have a Cd of 0.11?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:57 pm)CD does not mean much to me. The total ownership cost (TOC) is everything. Compare costs: 1) An $18K Honda where a tank of gas delivers 400 miles at a cost of $50.00 a tank. X 100,000 miles:TOC=30,500, 2) A Toyato $24K Prius where the cost of fuel is 1/3 that of the Honda x 100,00 miles: TOC= 28,167 or 3) A $37.5K Chevy Volt with fuel costs of $.80 per/400 miles: TOC = $37.700. What do we not know? Total number of miles each car will perform before its retirement. Maintenance costs, etc. Still if people can’t afford it, it can have the CD of a brick. It won’t matter. We need something that goes 40 miles on a charge, does not requre replacement for 150K miles and costs $15K. All of that discussion about the psychological and sociological impact of design – that’s just a problem that Madison Avenue have given us. Get over it.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (2:59 pm)For all the Cd fans out there, some of us care what the car looks like too. All indications are that the Volt will be beautiful. The Prius – let me put it this way – don’t get a brown one and park it by a punch bowl.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:02 pm)I still miss the concept … and would have happily accepted 35mi AER…but that is just an opinion
“this is more about the electrification of the car – not how cool it looks”
Once our precious Volt is finally unvieled…I’m afraid of seeing a Cobalt-sedan in concept Volt’s clothing
“this is more about the electrification of the car – not how cool it looks”
Early artist renditions of the re-design reminded me of an Acrua TL and made me miss the concept…
“this is more about the electrification of the car – not how cool it looks”
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:05 pm)It’s good to hear the battery works well when cold. The life of current LION batteries is greatly affected by heat as well, cold makes them last longer, though reduces the available charge. Heat degrades the battery permanently though.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:26 pm)Lutz HAS to be joking.
All this angst and work and redesign for a measly 5 or so miles of electric range? Are you kidding me??
Everyone figure out how many times that extra 5 miles of range would matter to them, then do the math @ 4 bucks a gallon and figure out what it would have cost you.
Then decide if the Volt redesign was worth it.
I can’t believe that. Something just doesn’t make sense. Did GM put themselves that far into a corner by “promising” 40 mile electric range?
Just sell the concept as the Volt SS and they will sell a bunch. That would be the anti-Prius. I would gladly give up 5 miles of range to have the concept. NO PROBLEM.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:30 pm)Prius has a CD 0.24 since 2004 and an old Tatra was doing even better… in 1935 was 0.21
Lutz probably had the “concept” numbers in mind.
I hope GM could do a bit better specially since they don’t need as much air to be used by the car itself. (no big hole in front to cool engine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_T77
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:38 pm)I saw the show last night, and thought it was great! Bob sure is an entertaining guy. I like the analogy of why we don’t worry about the looks of our refrigerator versus our automobiles.
Regarding the Cd, he stated that the concept car had a Cd of 0.43. See this following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients
Note that a 1990 Toymota truck had a Cd of 0.44. Although not listed, the new Yukon/Tahoe hybrid Cd is 0.34. Therefore, I’m not convinced that the concept actually had a Cd of 0.43. Likewise, I think we have approached the point where GM knows their competitors are trying to develop similar cars to the Volt, and will probably disseminate false numbers to keep the competition guessing. The true Cd for the Volt may well be sub 0.25.
When Bob showed the front corner of the Volt, I was amazed at how smooth is was. The headlight, grill, and lower corner lights were all flush. I can see the Cd easily being better than 0.28.
With Bob Lutz 99% confident the Volt will be successful, Mr. Cruze in the battery test lab stating they are designing for a 40 mile AER at end of battery life, and Bob Boniface stating that they are on schedule, I believe that this car will exceed our expectations (another trademark for the cars from Bob Lutz).
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:39 pm)as far as the CD numbers go…, I want 6 w/ in dash changer, and that is all I care about on the subject.meet the benchmark of 40 AER, and make it look cool and any other CD numbers mean nothing to me…
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:40 pm)#49 Talks, can’t really say.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:45 pm)I know a number of you love the concept car style, but a Cd of .43 is semi-truckish. When the initial requirements of this project were documented, it appears that a 40 AER was the most important spec. I believe GM’s mistake is not producing the concept body, but showing the Volt concept as we know it to the public at all. A small scale wind tunnel test can show the concept style just couldn’t cut it. It appears that GM is doing an incredible job creating a product that meets their initial requirements, but I would like to know the answer to a couple of questions.
1. How much thought did the GM engineers put into the aerodynamics of the concept before they showed it to the GM execs?
2. Did they go with a super cool design to wow everyone so they didn’t remind themselves of the EV1 debacle, even though GM knew that the concept design would never work?
3. Did they really believe that this design will work when they started?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:47 pm)BillR @ 58:
That is the only answer. Some of the released info must be false. That is the best competitive approach anyway, since their existance depends on this car.
But, when they do actually unveil the production car, they had better clear up a few issues about range and the reasons for the styling changes. Some of us neanderthal knuckle draggers who buy a car and consider styling and the emotional aspects important need to be addressed.
Unless the production Volt is a stylistic beauty, of course.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:50 pm)Listening to the video, I found 5 new pieces of information:
1) Bob Lutz said the gas engine will run at a single RPM. This is the first time I’ve heard this from GM. It would be nice to know more about this…
2) Referring to the Volt, Bob Lutz says “all of our major competitors are working on something like this”. I’ve heard nothing about an E-REV type vehicle from anyone else, so thats news.
3) The battery will be warmed in the winter and cooled in the summer. We knew the battery would be liquid cooled, but this is the first time they’ve talked about using battery energy to warm the battery.
4) The battery pack will have around 500 individual Li/Ion cells. Li/Ion cells naturally produce a little over 3 volts each, and the total pack voltage is reported to be 300-400 volts, so I would conjecture this means 4 groups of around 125 cells each.
5) The Cd is .27-.28. Not bad, but not great. Bob Lutz stressed that GM is a design driven company. The look of the car comes first, and then the look is modified as minimally as possible to meet reasonable performance specs.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:56 pm)Just so I have a elucidated understanding of everyones concerns-
The price of gas goes up, GM makes a concept called Volt. They say 40 mile AER and 50 mpg thereafter. The process has NEVER been done before and they predict 2010 and 30-40k. Responses range from-
Range sucks.EV-1 got 200!
(this ain’t the EV-1…get over it.)
Concept Cd is too high, GM! It’ll never do 40 miles!
(Testing, more testing. Nothing happens overnight except overnight)
1.4 L non-turbo is too heavy! We hate that idea!!!
(Do you have a scale @ home strictly for measuring GM engines?)
We do NOT want it to look like a Prius!!
(Then that alters the shape, which changes the form…which alters Cd…duh)
We don’t want it to be too heavy!!!
(but you want everything from solar panels to DVD in it which adds weight)
I’m not paying $40k for a Volt!!!No way!!!
(…but you probably paid in excess of $400 for an iPhone…that later became $200…that has been replaced by a 3G model one year after release…riiiiiight.)
The charging port has to be on the driver’s side/passenger’s side/front/behind license plate for it to work for me!!!
(So tell me-how many OTHER cars have the charging port in the location you desired?)
Stop your whining and either support the project and give positive feedback/suggestions to GM or just don’t worry about it and don’t buy it…there…problem solved.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:57 pm)Statik: Bob is ROCKING THE PINK TIE again!
I noticed that too. What’s with the pink tie meme? Who knows, maybe they’ll start making the Chevy “bow-tie” pink too…
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:58 pm)From my understanding of the history, Lutz wanted to build an all electric car after hearing about the Tesla. Lauckner suggested making a more modest electric range and putting a range extender on it so it would have more utility for more people. That doesn’t mean Lutz claims that Laucker “invented” the idea of a range extender. It’s just that he is the one who suggested adding it to this particular concept car.
I’ve never considered a concept car that is shown at an auto show to be anything other than a device to express a concept. Hence the name concept car. Think of it as a 3D sketch on the back of a napkin with a caption “What if we built something like this?”. It certainly is not a contract with the customer. Usually the most you’ll get is some of the ideas of a concept car in some future cars. I doubt that they ever put the concept car into a wind tunnel before showing it. The concept cars that I’ve seen at auto shows always smell of wet paint. The reaction to the Volt was so overwhelming that GM decided to go ahead and put it into production. At that point, almost everything in the concept is subject change. They have to deal with the realities of building a production car. From an engineering perspective the production Volt as a completely different car from the concept.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (3:59 pm)I just had a fantastic thought on how GM could recoup some of it’s losses on developing this technology and at the same time how our government could overhaul some of it’s transportation costs and avoid further debt to the un-unionized and probably overseas automotive companies that provide us with larger vehicles.
Use the Chevy Volt’s technology to transform every bus, trolly and ferry if possible into a full electric if possible, partially electric if not possible.
Particularly in rural areas like Ohio and Nebraska. Mr. Lutz I KNOW that you follow the major business news websites so you must have come across the stories of multiple school districts and city buses losing money because of the cost of fuel.
The schools in particular are losing the money they need for basic school supplies like paper, pencils and glue because of rising fuel costs. If you offered to negotiate a contract with the states to refit their buses with Volt technology they would probably be able to pay you better than the average consumer.
A bus that can carry 40 to 50 people sounds better than a sedan that can carry only 4 people, 5 if you really use the space in the car.
Our public transportation systems need a revolutionary new energy source just to make ends meet and Volts new lithium battery system could satisfy that need. Won’t you at least talk it over with your engineering department to see if it can be done?
Actually a company called Phoenix motors already has a fully electric suv and pickup truck I don’t know what the weight and towing capacity is but it does demonstrate the VERY REAL possibility that a fully electric heavy vehicle can be built.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:01 pm)What’s up, Statik? How’s everything up there north of the border?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:04 pm)#35, kent beuchert, “I had never heard Lutz speak before and was quite impressed by his intelligence and wit. He’s obviously ahead of Charlie Rose in both departments”
Don’t make me laugh. Charlie Rose intelligently interviews all kinds of people, not just auto execs. What he gives away to Lutz on the auto industry, he regains with advantages on foreign policy, energy policy, theology, cinema, literature, you name it.
And if Lutz is such a genius, why isn’t GM making money? Why don’t they have an Anti-Prius on the road today?
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:08 pm)For everyone who likes the concept vehicle, I believe it would not be built as designed for several reasons.
First, we are told about the aerodynamics. However, I have seen the concept car at the VoltNation event in NYC, and it didn’t appear to be that much of a “brick”. I sincerely believe the Cd for that vehicle is probably more like 0.34, not 0.43. See my previous post. The 2006 BMW Z4 M coupe has a Cd of 0.35. GM wants to provide “at least” 40 miles AER at the end of battery life.
Secondly, the overall length of the concept car is 170″. See the “Full Specfications” link on the GM-Volt homepage. I have scaled pictures of the concept car, and its wheelbase is approximately 125″! The Buick Lucerne has a 116″ wheelbase, and the Yukon XL (i.e. Suburban) has a wheelbase of 130″. GM needed to reduce the wheelbase to fit on one of their platforms, in this case, the Delta II. The wheelbase for the Delta II is between 103.5″ (Cobalt) and 112″ (Malibu). The 125″ wheelbase for the concept would have yielded a very poor turning radius.
Lastly, the concept is as the name implies, a special built car that is not in production. Bob Boniface stated in one of his interviews that the Concept Volt was put together in less than 1 year, and that it borrows heavily from the Camaro, and is sometimes referred to as the electric Camaro. I don’t believe at that stage of the game that GM was prepared to show a “near production” type car.
A lot more thought and innovation has gone into the Volt since the January 2007 Detroit Auto Show.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:09 pm)[sarcasm alert!]
I don’t care if the AER is less than a 1 mile! If it doesn’t have bulging wheel wells, they lied to me and I’m not buying. In fact, just get rid of all that electric garbage get me my wheel wells!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:10 pm)>> 3) The battery will be warmed in the winter and cooled in the summer. We knew the battery would be liquid cooled, but this is the first time they’ve talked about using battery energy to warm the battery.
Actually, it has been discussed already… but was dismissed as just anti-lithium propaganda. Clearly, it wasn’t.
The need for warming comes from the shortcoming with Li-Ion tech since “cell impedance goes up and the acceptance of the ions on the anode is drastically reduced” when the temperature is below freezing.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:13 pm)Maharguitar @ 66:
Good points, but concepts of “production intent” cars are usually pretty close. The Solstice is a good example of a Lutz concept. Almost identical to the production car. The new Camaro is VERY close to the concept. The Volt was clearly production intended when is was unveiled. Lots of car show concepts are silly exercises in eye candy. Everyone knows that. Some cars are truely intended for production and it is evident when you look at them.
But GM is still using the concept in Volt commercials. To most of the public, the concept IS the Volt.
Although the newest commercials are only showing the frontal view. No side detail, rear detail. Based on what we have seen so far the frontal view will be close to production, and they can not be accused of a bait and switch on the Olympic commercials.
The fact that the rest of the car is no longer being shown is what worries me. That alone means the side profile of the car will be recognizably different from the concept.
That is a lot of stylistic changes for 5 miles of range.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:17 pm)Who cares if there are lower cd’s out there, the car will still go 40 miles on battery only. I say not bad for the first iteration. I’ll take .28 and not look like a Prius. I’d also take the concept and lose 5 miles, still better than my current situation of zero miles electric only.
I agree with Statik @13, GM should’ve been upfront about cutting for the sake of cost, not efficiency.
Still looking forward to buying though!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:29 pm)>> Who cares if there are lower cd’s out there, the car will still go 40 miles on battery only.
It’s not a good idea to assume. In fact, a “climate” disclaimer is a fairly realistic expectation. After all, the demands of winter cannot be avoided. Energy from heat has to come from somewhere.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:31 pm)Well, everyone take note. The previous interview said the aero changes were good for 6-7 miles of range over the concept. Now Lutz says the concept got 35 miles. So the Volt is apparently now at 42 miles of range.
53. Joe, not that it makes a huge difference, but the Volt will cost $.8 for 40 miles, not 400.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:32 pm)Firefly #64:
That’s about it……………
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:38 pm)I stayed up late the last two nights and watched the Charlie Rose show. I thought both Wagoner and Lutz did an excellent job. I tuned in the first night only by accident while channel surfing. Bob B. and the battery guy also did a great job discussing the Volt.
We all have different tastes and opinions and are free to communicate them in this forum …thanks to Lyle. The bottom line for me is that I am thrilled the car is really going to be produced and will buy 4 of them when they are available. One for me, one for my wife, and one for each of my two kids. Hopefully they will come in different colors.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:38 pm)Along with Lyle’s wait list, we should start a petition to adopt #57 MetrologyFirst’s suggestion for a Volt SS. It would be clad in the concept’s body styling with production Volt internals. It would have a 35 mile range.
I will even offer a compromise, they can use the newly designed rear view mirrors and the .5 micron spoiler refinement from the production car (as discussed in Boniface’s video last week) and mate that to the concept vehicle. That should net them at least a mile more range without sacrificing any of the looks of the concept… And they would sell a ton of em.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:42 pm)I didn’t expect the Cd to be that high.
I also am saddened to know that the beautiful concept would have gotten 35 miles and production car will get 5 miles more. I wish I could buy the concept. My 2¢.
Having said that, a smooth brick has a Cd of 2.1, so the Volt will be much better than that. Things are not that bad after all.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:50 pm)#75 – I already get reduced performance in my car in the wintertime, the difference in electricity use would probably equate to that as well – I would end up around the same in the end – probably ahead of the ICE version if the climate-control-while-plugged-in feature is included.
Does anyone know why I get less fuel economy in the winter?
A block heater helps some, but not very much.
I see 22-24mpg in the winter and 28-30 in the summer, a pretty large difference.
The only thing I can think of is cold transmission/engine are harder to move and take a while to warm up, so the engine works harder and uses more fuel. And if your trip is short, the average fuel use is higher than normal.
Does that sound about right?
Or maybe it’s a complete fluke that I use 20% more gas in the winter? (doubtful)
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:51 pm)Here’s the skinny on the comparitive .CD and range using Lyle’s interview with Bob Boniface last week…
[quote]
What’s different about the rear spoiler?
It is higher and further rearward in the production car. What I showed is how we applied a higher millimeter tall lip to the end of it and how that resulted in a 5 count reduction in aerodynamic drag. 10 counts of aerodynamic reduction is equivalent to .55 miles extra driving range. The new spoiler and rear view mirror each removes 5 counts of drag resulting in a half mile more range.
In aggregate from the show car to the production model we’ve taken a total of 120 counts out, which equals 6 miles more range. However that 6 miles is not added to our 40 miles. We’re not giving you 46 miles now. It’s just that the original show car surface would not have delivered the promised 40 miles of range.
So the production car has a CD .12 lower than the show car?
Yes. The point of the demonstration was why we had to change the show car and how it changed.
[/quote]
So here’s what we can deduce from Bob’s statements coupled with Lutz reveal of the .cd of the production vehicle…
The slight mods to the side mirrors and the spoiler netted a half mile’s range increase over the production version. OK, let’s do that and leave everything else the same. We get 5.5 miles less range and keep the Volt production styling nearly identical to the concept.
I don’t even care if you change the rear as indicated in the production shots we’ve seen, that should be good for another mile perhaps, but I’d leave the front, sides and top alone. The changes are too drastic a change from the likable concept styling.
Also, using Lutz numbers and Bob’s response to Lyle’s question, we can deduce that the .CD of the concept works out to be ~.39 to .40 (Lutz’s .27 to .28 + Boniface’s .12 figure in the statement above)
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:56 pm)GXT Says: “the Volt will cost $.8 for 40 miles”
What the battery guy in the lab told Charlie was $1.80…. or a hypothetical $0.80 if you have dual rate metering (daytime and nighttime rates)…. I think most of us only have single rate metering… I could get dual rate metering but here in NH with PSNH then my daytime rate goes through the roof more than offsetting any savings during the nighttime (off peak) periods.
Still impressive to be able to go 40 miles on $1.80 (I assume that’s national average) and why I love BEV’s.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:57 pm)#81 canehdian
Your tires will have more of an effect on MPG in the cold than the engine. The material properties and design of the tire is heavily dependent on the temperature.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (4:59 pm)It is like I said 9 topics back. The 40 mile electric range has been stated so often by GM, the press and on this website that it has almost become the ‘minimum’ standard by which the Volt will be judged…Price, styling, options, etc. for the Volt v1 will take a back seat to the “range” issue.
Perhaps I should have included CD as another that will take a back seat to the range issue.
I’m like most of you. I want the Volt to be and look special, perhaps one day becoming a classic like the ‘57 Chevy. But, ‘range’ is #1 with me, ’style’ is a little further back but still near the top and ‘CD’ is much less important.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:00 pm)Vincent: Even “ICE” engines get less mileage in extreme heat and cold
fwiw, in extreme cold a liquid fuel vehicle could actually get more mileage… because it will be more dense when you fill up, so each gallon will actually have more fuel. I’m guessing though that you’d still pay for it in such climates as the stations would factor that into the price. Maybe they should sell gasoline by mass (weight) instead of by volume
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:01 pm)My guess is we have a bunch of immature people on this blog who sound like a bunch of kids. Hey, I don’t claim to be running a popularity contest like some are doing here, so I don’t care what you think about me. Just blog like an adult instead of complaining about every little thing. Be constructive!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:14 pm)Ryan (#67),
Electric buses with range extenders are running in many major cities. See:
http://www.orionbus.com/Projects/c2c/channel/files/270346_Orion_Hybrid_Transit_Presentation_Q2_2008.pdf
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:16 pm)Here’s the direct quote starting from around 42:27 in the video: “Instead of having a, I don’t know, like a .43 drag coefficient, we had to get down to .27 or .28, which is where we are now”
Sounds like he was just guessing on the 0.43 part and the CD he quoted was .27 or .28, NOT .28-.29 as it says in the article.
And the last talk with Bob Boniface said the improvement was 6 miles, not 5 miles. Lutz only said AROUND 35 miles for the old design, not exactly 35 like the article implies.
It’s on target and not as bad as some of you are making it out to be.
#83 Jeff M
I think he is talking about the negative impact on efficiency. Most cars tend to get worst MPG when in extreme cold conditions.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:18 pm)#87 Joe. Here’s an idea that could be constructive. What if everyone here (and all over this country) were to pull ALL their assets from any oil investments. Now, especially from emerging markets, look whats happening in Russia. Then if all American’s invest in alternative energy instead. This would take the profits out of selfish regimes, speed up the benefits in having more efficient means of transport and mainly, get us off oil. The Volt is a big factor in this equation of independence from oil. I say, let the dictatorships keep their dirty sludge. This is something I can do, starting now.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:20 pm)Hmmm…
Overall, I think everything is shaping up to be a nice car.
40 miles on a charge….CHECK
Cool electric vehicle with range extender….CHECK
On schedule to be delivered late 2010….CHECK
Everyone on the project seems to be on top of the details. We, here in the peanut gallery can do nothing but watch and cheer them on and put away money to buy a Volt in 2010.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:22 pm)Drag coefficient is not the same as drag force.
Drag coefficient is not the same as drag force.
Drag coefficient is not the same as drag force.
Yes, the Cd statement is a bit disappointing, but we do not necessarily know what the net effect on the Volt’s performance will be. I’m not trying to make excuses here. I’m not clinging to false hope and I’m not committed to buying a Volt. I’m just saying…it is what it is. As stated multiple times above, drag force on a vehicle is dependent on the drag coefficient AND frontal area (plus a couple other constants). Saying “my 1975 Mack truck had a Cd of .XX” does not necessarily tell us much.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:30 pm)Additional important news from last week’s conference
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/08/gm-provides-a-few-more-details-about-chevy-volt-lithium-ion-battery.html
“…..from GM battery guru Denise Gray, is that the lithium-ion battery pack for the extended range electric car (also called a plug-in hybrid, and both terms are correct) will weigh-in at about 400 pounds, have fewer than 300 cells and pack 16 kilowatt hours of energy.
Denise Gray, director of hybrid energy systems for General Motors Corp., divulged the info during last weeks Management Briefing Seminars sessions in Traverse City, Mich.
She said the T-shaped pack will take six or seven hours to fully charge and is being designed so it can fit into a number of different compact models that GM offers worldwide……….”
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:34 pm)I think computer modeling has established using realistic drive cycle modeling, the the Volt would get 32 city and 27 highway AER. Now you improve that by 3 miles city and 6 miles highway by reducing the Cd, and voila, you get an AER of 35 city, 33 Highway. Recall the study where only 3% of the folks would get 40 AER driving slowly and carefully, like the Prius drivers that get 60 MPG when the rest of us get 45.
I expect the software to be changed with the Volt using 10 of its 16 KWH of capacity, so it will be able actually achieve a city AER of 40.
Time will tell.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:44 pm)If you can’t beat them… join them. Figure I will try it out and see how it feels.
Why are they not using wheel motors that would be sooo much better than what they are doing.
Why don’t they have a bigger battery so we can do away with the range extender all together? How stupid!
Why don’t they use a smaller battery to bring down the cost? How stupid!
Why don’t they just add a few batteries and give use the concept volt? How dumb can they be.
Why don’t they lower the drag and give us more AER, after all this car is about saving the world from all the toxic CO2? How stupid.
Why don’t they have a real grill… how stupid.
Why don they cover the wheel wells… how stupid.
Why doesn’t GM sell it at a loss to start? How stupid.
Why don’t they have solar cells on the roof so I can get an extra quarter of a mile at huge cost. How stupid can GM be!!!
Why don’t they let us use more of the battery??? How stupid!
They aren’t really going to make this car. Just another concept car that will never see the light of day!
Why aren’t they incorportating this into more makes and models? If this design is so good why wait??? How stupid!
Why don’t they use EEStor and bypass lithium ion??? How stupid.
Why don’t they use a proven technology like NIMH? How stupid.
I don’t know where are how many charging ports there will be but GM is soooo stupid for not doing it the other way!
I don’t know why I am restricted to 110 charging… I want 220! How stupid.
I don’t know why GM insisted on putting a 220volt charger my house can’t handle the load when the AC or Heater and drier and oven are all running. How stupid.
Why did GM change the tires the other size was so much better. How stupid.
Why don’t they make more the first year. How stupid don’t they want this too be a success? How stupid.
Why haven’t they decided on a battery maker. Stop the negotiations now it is more important that I know now even if it ends up being the wrong choice at to high a price! How stupid.
Why are they going to jack up the cost so high.. that is unjustified. How ignorant.
Why such a limited roll out only in selected areas? I cdon’t care if they people that service the car know anything about it?
Why aren’t they pushing harder for tax incentives? Why did they kill the EV1? Why are they pushing for incentives? How stupid.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:44 pm)First let me say that the interviews (w/Lutz, the battery guy, and that other guy) went relatively well. And Lutz does come across relatively well, and still with it for his 76 years.
However it still makes me cringe when he (and other GM execs) still spew mis-(and incorrect) information. Take the comparing the EV1 battery pack to the Volt’s…. he shows the EV1’s NiMH pack and says it’s a 16kwh pack… however the EV1’s NiMH pack was 26.4kwh, off by a whopping 10.4kwh. I thought maybe the EV1 pack shown maybe was the original lead acid packs, but even those were 18.7kwh. Giving Lutz the benefit of the doubt maybe he meant to say 26kwh but was confused because he had Volt on the brain and it’s 16kwh pack (surely he didn’t mean deliberately try to pass them both off as 16kwh packs to exaggerate the difference in size of the EV1 and Volt battery packs)?
On top of that of course what he completely ignores usable capacity of the two packs and only mentions raw capacity…. the Volt’s 16kwh pack of course only uses 50%, or 8kwh, or it’s capacity. I don’t know the actual usable capacity of the EV1’s 26.4kwh NiMH pack, but I think it’s closer to 100% from what I’ve read (recharge time to go from 0% SOC to 100% SOC was 6-8 hours).
It doesn’t mean that the Li-ion packs aren’t smaller and lighter compared to NiMH, because they are… so there is no need for GM or Lutz to compare the two packs as apples to apples when it’s not.
And never mind the misinformation regarding the sales of the EV1…. (GM never offered them for sale, so obviously they sold zero of them as Lutz said)…. or the fact that demand far exceeded supply, etc.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:51 pm)Another thing I remember from the interview…. when Lutz was showing Rose the front of the car, he pointed out that they have a fake grill on the front so it looks like a Chevy….
Personally I don’t want a vehicle that looks like a Chevy or any other GM vehicle… what I would recommend is no painted on grill look… it would look way cooler to have the car show that it has no grill… that it’s a new bread of cars, make it clear it doesn’t need it (a front grill).
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (5:55 pm)They could easily use something like ceramic insulative paint / coating to insulate the battery container (if needed). Could use solar cells in the roof to heat/cool the pack as needed as a supliment to using the battery pack itself.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:12 pm)#95 Omegaman66
Flattery will get you nowhere…
with normal people…I couldn’t have typed it better myself. I’m glad that someone here understands my point. Why gripe? This car will obviously have things that don’t appeal to everyone’s liking. Having said that, one could say the same about every other car on earth. But I have been wrong before…
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:18 pm)Lots of talk on this thread about Cd and missing benchmarks, etc. Lyle quotes .27-.28 and other posters list .28-.29. Realistically, it could be 100 and not matter as long as AER and MPG meet their goals. Obviously not possible with 100 but the point is Cd by itself is not a meaningful goal. Perhaps they didn’t stray as far from the design concept as some have thought. Keep in mind it is CdA that affects aero drag. The Volts A may be enough less to make the Volts CdA less than the Prius. This is certainly possibly since the Prius has a relatively high roof and the Volt will be low slung.
On a negative note, even if they meet 40 miles AER, that would certainly not be for driving 75mph. So, the AER in these conditions will lose out with the higher Cd.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:26 pm)#95 Omegaman66
Point taken.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:33 pm)#81 canehdian:
Just to add another thought. Does the fuel formulation change between the summer/winter where you are? That can have an impact, too.
One more offbeat thought… The air density and stoichiometry may be at play, too. If your car is normally aspirated then in the cold more oxygen will enter each cylinder and in order to keep a 3-way catalytic converter operating efficiently more gas must be used to offset the increased oxygen. (Basically, you can’t have much extra gas OR oxygen leave the cylinder for the 3-way catalyst to operate). So, if your air temp is REALLY cold it might also be contributing to your poor winter mileage.
Just a thought. Don’t really know. Personally, I like #84 Aspherical’s tire explanation, best, myself.
What were we writing about? Oh, yeah, Cd. My 1996 Eclipse GSX has a .29 cd and I personally think that is a hot car. It’s not terribly practical or comfortable, but it’s low drag gives it a drag-limited top speed of about 145 on just 210 hp. If it had an electric drivetrain like the \Volt, it would be very quiet on the freeway as there is little wind noise (the current drivetrain sounds like someone is torturing the squirrels, I’m afraid).
So, I think I will like the low drag of the \Volt if for nothing more than to be able to have a really, really silent driving experience. (All the better to listen to that killowatt stereo powered off that 6 miles of charge they reclaimed.
And for those asking for a \Volt SS, I’d really prefer a \Volt “syclone” with another motor on the rear wheels.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:35 pm)A CD of .27-.28 sounds like a mistake to me.
Personally, I’m guessing the production design (and many other cars) might eventually end up looking a lot like the ESX3 diesel-electric hybrid that Chrysler created 8 years ago. It’s CD of only .22 helped it get 72 MPG.
http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_52172/title_ESX3-Next-Generation-Family-Car/newsarticle.html
Personally, I prefer the Volt concept, but the ESX3 isn’t nearly as fugly as a Prius.
And David, I don’t get your comment about painting the battery; since the battery generates its own heat, the last thing you’d want to do is insulate it, no? And I seriously doubt solar cells can generate any significant amounts of power. At best, I think they’d only be useful to add a little bit of charge whenver you could park the car in the sun for a few hours.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:38 pm)Are You Kidding Me !
This has got to be a typo or misspoken words.
A Honda Element or Nissan Cube has a better CoD than .28 !!!
This just cannot be correct.
This will not help the Volt in any way shape or form.
We need some urgent clarification on this issue.
I am sure the EV-1 had much better than this.
Every dawn brings on a new ERROR.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:42 pm).28 does not sound good. Something is wrong here.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:49 pm)It must be that fake closed grill. I am sure it is a contributing factor. Something needs to be done quick.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:56 pm)“it was VP Jon Lauckner who added the range extender idea, as Lutz initially wanted a pure electric.”
Well..
As some of us sadly find out, the best ways to get things done is to convince someone more important that your idea is really their idea.
It seems to work and I am pleased that these gentlemen think that e-flex was their idea.
And it is a great idea!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (6:58 pm)They must have used the wrong claydoh model to get those ridiculous numbers. If I remember correctly the old EV1 was below .2
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:02 pm)I wouldnt mind betting the Detroit Electric had a cd of about 0.28, it certainly is thin, but arguably excessively upright.
http://www.detroitelectric.org/
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:06 pm)The Volt may not be a brick, but it sounds like it is at least half brick. I thought they used a wind tunnel to test scale models with. Maybe they never got around to testing the actual full size car yet. I sure hope so.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:10 pm)This 1921 Rumpler was tested in a modern windtunnel and has a Cd of .27
http://tinyurl.com/5whjmn
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:10 pm)Who went to lunch during the aeronautic testing of this vehicle ? Heads need to roll on this one.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:14 pm)Pauln,
That car is a work of beauty.
I guess the message is a car should look like a racing yacht.
lol
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:17 pm)Between .27 and .28 ???
That can’t be right.
A Ham Sandwich can do better.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:22 pm)To y’all Volt fans out there.
Prepare for a _BIG_ disappointment!
Bwahahahahaa!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:23 pm)I am sure that Lutz misstated the CD. He has misstated numbers before. Those of you that attended Volt Nation probably remember him stating that the Volts 0-60 time would be about 7 seconds. About 10 minutes before that, Weber said it would be about 8 seconds.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:23 pm)Bang… bang… that is the sound of GM engineers and managers commiting suicide. Why? Because they had a big board meeting were the decision was made to give the GM-Volt.com readers what they asked for… a Volt that looks alot like the concept Volt even if they have to sacrifice a little on the aerodynamics, since the readers here have said that looks is very important. Now that they gave us what we asked for we attack them!!! Bang.. bang… there go a couple more.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:28 pm)Wow, what a liar Lutz is. He claims that they couldn’t give the EV1 away. What? And he said the lease was for 300 bucks a month. WRONG, it was 599, then 499…
It is extremely difficult to believe anything he says due to his never ending mendacities…
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:30 pm)In the video Bob Lutz said GM wants to leapfrog the competition and then some. With a .27 you are not going to be leapfrogging much. If this is true he may start being known as Minimum Bob.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:37 pm)Omegaman 66:
This is a quote from yourself that happens to be TRUTH. There is no doubting the success of the Toyota RAV4 EV’s NiMH battery pack.
“Why don’t they use a proven technology like NIMH? How stupid.”
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:42 pm)They must be testing with the tarp still on.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:50 pm)They may need a wedge or cone shape in the front to knock those numbers down some. Or maybe the wind tunnel just needs to be calibrated. Also, I would look at modifying that spoiler, it needs to be much larger in my opinion. Whatever they do it needs to be done fast because final lock down on the design is mid september, after that no more changes will be allowed.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:51 pm)#66 maharguitar Says: “From my understanding of the history, Lutz wanted to build an all electric car after hearing about the Tesla.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, the way I hear the story, Lutz was already trying to get GM to do an electric car for a year or two, and the rest of the GM execs weren’t listening, or said it would never work. So when Tesla announced the Roadster, Lutz went ballistic saying “if a little startup like Tesla can do it, then GM can certainly do it”. So Tesla did help Lutz make the Volt a reality, but Lutz was pushing the idea before anyone knew about Tesla.
In addition, Lutz reportedly had a meeting with the guys from Tesla, and told them about the Volt. Now Tesla plans for their 3rd model $30K family sedan(Bluestar) to be a range extended electric vehicle (they call it REEV). So the influence seems to work both ways…
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (7:56 pm)#104 Reginald
ERROR DETECTED!
Must sterilize in case of typing error
Error is inconsistent with my prime functions.
Sterilization is correction.
Everything that is in error must be sterilized.
There are no exceptions.
Faulty!
Faulty!
Analyze … error …
Must … sterilize.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:00 pm)A blind man could see that this car will not be cutting through the wind very well. They should have spent more time analyzing birds and planes to come up with a better shape if CD is really as important as they seem to make it out to be. I personally think weight is more important.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:07 pm)#68 Firefly:
“What’s up, Statik? How’s everything up there north of the border?”
Pretty good. Unfortunately every able bodied man now has to put in 10 hours a week working on our giant fence on the border to keep the Americans from coming up and stealing our jobs and getting our free drugs.
#95 u omegaman66
I know what you are saying and yes, we are a little harsh (mostly me, lol) and more often than not, unhappy. C’est la vie. You have to live with us being negative, and we have to live with you on the flip side. It’s all good, all part of the ‘online community’
However, it was GM that rolled out the Volt and said, “Here it is, it’s going to be virtually identical to the concept, get 40 miles electric, have a 640 mile range and it’s going to cost comfortably under 30K.” It’s not really my problem they were either outright lying or unbelievably incompetant. They put the standard up, I am holding them to it.
I’m the customer…I’m GM’s customer, I have a new GM car in my driveway and it’s the 5th new GM car I have bought in 10 years, they need to sell customer’s like me.
Personally, I have never asked for a feature that was not offered in the show car, or any upgrades…just merely to deliver what they promised, on time and on budget.
I think if they did what they said they were going to do, and the only ‘but’ was it was only going to get 35 miles at ‘end of life’ instead of 40, (it would still get 40+ on initial possesion), we’d be ok with it…or at least been able to get over it a year ago.
So, I’ll keep crabbing everytime something is dropped, or a timeline is missed…I will also eat crow when GM outperforms my expectations happily. Hopefully you will be along for this long ride to keep me honest, hehe.
/salut
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:11 pm)I’m hoping for color adjustable LED interior lighting.
I don’t care what the outside looks like, I tend to drive from the inside most of the time.
And…..
Toys!!! Lots of toys! And touch screen displays! And a “GEEK” setting on the displays so we can watch all the engineering parameters that the GM geeks (respectfully stated of course) get to look at when they are doing their cloaked, real world testing. You know, that time when Brenda Pritty will be hunting you down in Death Valley for those elusive first pictures. :O)
Rock on GM….
Rock on….
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:15 pm)e-Flex Corvette
This thread is all over the place, so, what the hell…
When the e-Flex architecture has pulled GM out of the financial swamps and GM can afford to start playing again, I’d like to see “the next Corvette” using a high-performance version of the e-Flex architecture. GM’s got so many really neat toys in their closets:
1) e-Flex with a flat-six diesel (bio-diesel?) range extender (aluminium cylinder and crankcase). The engine would be mid-mounted behind the passenger seats. The batteries would be in sills on either side of the passenger compartment. Forget AER, I’m looking for high performance.
2) All-wheel-drive through four electric motors, each dedicated to a wheel, driving through tubular axles. Dynamic distribution of power based on weight distribution, axial and lateral G forces, slip-rates (i.e. traction control), etc.
3) All plastic body & chassis. Back in 1973, GM had what is probably the coolest chassis ever created. It was an ALL fiberglass two-seat sports car that bore a striking resemblance to the C4 Corvette. The body/chassis panels were made out of a sandwich of inner and outer fiberglass panels bonded together with expanding foam (like the foam insulation in cans trade-named “Great Stuff”). The hard points for drivetrain and suspension components were bolted to steel plates that were bonded into the plastic body. Other than the attacment points, there was NO STEEL in the chassis.
The principle reason for building the car was to explore the crash worthiness of such a body. Occupants of an XP-898 were anticipated to be able to survive a 50 mph crash (in 1973). In addition, crash damage to an XP-898 would be localized to the impact point. This is in contrast to a steel frame where the impact’s kinetic energy is transported through the steel until it hits a pinch point, causing damage romote from the impact point.
Car & Driver magazine did an article on the XP-898 in the early ’70s and the GM engineer told the journalist that they had put road racing tires on the car and ran it to 1 lateral G on the skidpad to determine how much the chassis would flex. As I recall, the engineer related that story to the journalist while they were in the car on a skid pad with the journalist pinned to the door
Wish List
GVW – 1800 to 2200 lbs
Power to Weight ratio: 1 hp to (6-8 lbs)
Total HP at the wheels – 180-220 hp
Electric-only range – 20 miles
Total range – 200-250 miles
Lateral G force – In excess of 1 G
0-60 mph – Less than 5 seconds
60-0 braking distance – Less than 130 ft
Cd – .20 to .24
XP-898 links
GMNext Wiki page about XP-898
http://wiki.gmnext.com/wiki/index.php/1973_Chevrolet_XP-898_Concept_Car
Photo of XP-989 (in a parking lot! its a real car!)
http://motortrend.automotive.com/32983/112-0608-2006-woodward-dream-cruise/photos1-0.html
Discussion of XP-898 fabrication techniques… note the isometric drawing of the chassis & major body components in the lower right corner of the page.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4PZxakNhjT0C&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=xp-898&source=web&ots=kT6Ip62g5j&sig=XxVITL4vZYB8ugs9UUegDdB0kwI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:23 pm)Dear GM:
I second ThomC’s (#128) wishlist.
Except cross everything off and just make a good plug-in hybrid electric car like you’re planning. Thanks!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:24 pm)#96 Jeff M Says: “…he shows the EV1’s NiMH pack and says it’s a 16kwh pack… however the EV1’s NiMH pack was 26.4kwh, off by a whopping 10.4kwh…”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, the EV1 pack shown was Lead Acid, 16KWh.
660 Generation One EV1s were produced for the 1997 model year. These all used the 16KWh Lead Acid batteries.
GM later built 457 Generation Two EV1s (1999 model year) with nickel metal hydride batteries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev1
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:35 pm)#120 jabroni,
There are 3 problems with NiMH batteries:
First, a 16KWh NiMH pack would be about twice as big and twice as heavy as the Volt’s Li/Ion pack.
Second, NiMH batteries have a significant issue with self discharge. For example, if you leave you car parked somewhere away from a plug for a month or so, a NiMH battery will have lost it’s charge.
Third, and most important, Chevron now owns the patents for NiMH, and they won’t let anyone build NiMH batteries for cars that don’t use gas. We can blame GM for that, but it’s water under the bridge…
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:42 pm)For the battery experts:
If the Volt will have a AER of 40 miles, and the generator will kick on at around 15-20% SOC.
What would the actual range of the Volts battery be if you drove it on electric till it sputtered out? (winded down??? i guess)
Assuming normal landscape and driving conditions.
My reason for asking is i’m sure there will be guys “cracking” the software code, and “chipping” the car to use every ounce of battery power before firing the ICE. How does the generators output compared to the batteries draw play into how low you can discharge the battery. Also i think i remember some discussion on Li-ion saying that if you fully drain a li-ion cell it degrates alot faster.
CD is mute to me at this point, it has been thouroughly over opinionated in this thread.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:45 pm)PS:
Did you guys see the post i made in the comments under the video on the Charlie Rose site.
What did you think, how did i do?
I felt like it was important to be informational as possible, since readers of that post will have alot more questions than the readers of this forum.
It’s #8 from the bottom under the name Jon Phillips
To all of you make it a point to “inform” the public about the volt as much as possible, and give as much detail as possible. Particularly on sites like that where it will be seen by a far greater number of non-volt followers. Also it dosen’t hurt to mention GM-volt.com either.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (8:54 pm)#132 JonP asks: “If the Volt will have a AER of 40 miles, and the generator will kick on at around 15-20% SOC.
What would the actual range of the Volts battery be if you drove it on electric till it sputtered out? (winded down??? i guess)”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt’s ICE generator actually turns on at 35% SOC. The changing port turns off when the battery reaches 85% SOC. So the Volt normally only uses 50% of the battery’s available 16KWh, or 8KWh to go 40 miles.
So if you ran out of gas or had engine problems, the 35% SOC remaining in the battery would drive you about 28 miles.
Note that if the battery drains significantly below 35% on a regular basis, then it will wear out much sooner. Anyone that cracks the software and runs down their battery will void their warranty and have to pay $10,000 for a new battery. Not very smart.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (9:05 pm)#132 JonP asks: “How does the generators output compared to the batteries draw play into how low you can discharge the battery.”
————————————————————————————–
If you accelerate or go fast uphill, the gas engine output will not be enough and the batteries will drain. But note that you can’t accelerate or go fast uphill forever. So acceleration and going up hills represent the peak horsepower which the remainging battery charge can handle in limited bursts. The gas engine is only required to output average horsepower. This is part of the beauty of the series hybrid design.
As for battery drain, the worst case scenario is if your daily commute has one or more very long, very steep mountain grades. In this case, your battery will probably wear out faster than the 10-year, 150,000 mile warranty, and GM will have to replace it at their expense. But how many people’s daily commute has one or more very long, very steep mountain grades? Statistically, this is not a problem for GM.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (9:06 pm)I just watched the entire video and loved it. Many people here have some negative things to post about the CD of .27-.28, but that really doesn’t upset me at all. The goal was never to have a CD that beat the CD of a Prius. The goal was ALWAYS to have a CD that allowed a 16Kwh Li-ion battery to propel the car 40 miles. They have achieved that.
Again there are people posting that the original Volt concept is constantly under attack, and I disagree with that as well. They made it public knowledge that the concept was not what the production car would look like. Didn’t Lutz say the concept would have done better in the wind tunnel if it was put in backwards?
GM is not compromising, or cutting, or underdelivering on anything. What they are doing is making sure that they DO deliver on the 40 mile AER at a reasonable price.
Remember, this car is already a $35,000 ride. Possibly $40,000. The battery alone costs 10 grand. If they make a bigger battery to power the concept the full 40 miles, that’ll make it a 45 or 50K car. Somehow I think GM wants to ensure that they can actually sell the thing (in mass quantities), and unless they keep it in a reasonable price range, that won’t happen.
Once again, I’m absolutely thrilled that the Volt has come so far. I can’t wait to put my money down come Nov 2010.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (9:11 pm)I think Bob is bluffing on coef of drag.
After all this hardwork and sacrificing the grill, coef of drag worse than competition (Prius 0.26 and Civic Hybrid 0.27) ?
It just can’t be.. I think he just don’t want to reveal it to the competition. Looking at the shape of the car and the modifications explained by Boniface, I suspect coef of drag to be around 0.25.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (9:25 pm)Just watched the whole interview.
Great stuff.
Lutz understand how important the emotional reaction to the car is to its success in the marketplace.
I strongly believe the car will look and feel like a $35,000 car if not better. He is betting the ranch on that. And its a very big ranch.
Lets not get too attached to the look of the concept car. It could not deliver the car’s primary purpose.
We have not yet seen a real VOLT. I think when we do, most of us will like it. Lutz is driven to make that happen and has had many years of success at it.
What is introduced with be just the first of a long line of EV’s that will eventually take many exciting shapes.
Looking forward to the September intro.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (9:43 pm)If the new Volt design looks like a civic then I would have gladly given up 5 miles on the range to drive a car that looks like the original concept. Especially if this thing’s gonna cost mid to high 30’s. And seriously, I better get leather for $35k too which is way over my budget anyway.
I have a sneaking fear that they’re trying to roll out an electric civic and then upgrade to the electric camaro 4 years later.
Hoping I’m wrong,
Mike
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (9:51 pm)Frankly I would rather of had the bigger battery pack and an all electric vehicle with a shorter range, but then I never fit the mold.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (9:59 pm)#95 omegaman66
“If you can’t beat them… join them.”
At first I reacted negatively to your negativity. Then I became positive that your negativity was indeed positive.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (10:12 pm)Don’t you wish Lutz would have slipped to the floor with a loud “whoops” and pulled the whole cover from the Volt!
All these negative vibes and they’re hitting all their benchmarks. What would everyone say if they were failing? Look there are 37,000 opinions of what’s good and important in the Volt. Folks this isn’t a custom car and it’s not a 15k econobox. And it’s not a combination of both plus a Prius killer priced like used Civic. Lighten up, stop killing your braincells and hardening your arteries.
Jeez tough crowd.
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (10:44 pm)Talks Says #7
“The black packs that were placed side by side (around 4) appear
to be from Continental (not CPI). Looks like they have
coated the chrome color ones them with some black color. I have analyzed the shape of those batteries closely and I feel they are definitely from Conti/A123. Also the black glossy finish is different on
CPI batteries.”
*** *** ***
My first reaction with my paleontological 32″ CRT TV was that it was a “no brainer” that CPI won the contract. All I saw from start to finish were “black packs”. Lutz made it clear a month ago in his T-shirt w/water bottle that basically this thing has been decided. I find it interesting that you have evidence that there has been some camouflaging of the packs. I’d certainly like to hear more and will definitely review this again in digital since this link was captured in digi, but I’ve only reviewed it on my analog TV.
Can you please be more specific?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUcJ921tNg
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (10:51 pm)#85, Jeff
“because it will be more dense when you fill up, so each gallon will actually have more fuel. I’m guessing though that you’d still pay for it in such climates as the stations would factor that into the price”
They’re way ahead of you on that one. They figured out the cold = more dense thing a ways back – all the pumps say right on them: “volume corrected to 15c”
AFAIK the gas formula stays the same for winter except for Petro Canada – they do “Winter Gas”, But I don’t buy from them. (Maybe I should? Lol)
It may very well be a combination of tires, air, gas, engine – everything, really. I can’t really be bothered to test. All I know is the volt should perform better at least
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (10:55 pm)kent beuchert Says # 35
“I had never heard Lutz speak before and was quite impressed by his intelligence and wit. He’s obviously ahead of Charlie Rose in both departments – he could easily handle a show of his own. I didn’t expect his mental abilities. Makes those 50 year younger greenies look pretty senile, or should I say, childish.”
*** *** ***
One of the points he makes that Rick Wagoner reinforces is the economics of producing cars. The point speaks long and hard not only to the enviro-nuts that chide GM about the Ev-1 but those that criticize GM for being the purveyor of large cumbersome SUVs. I thought the commentary was true and to the point and I’ve got to say it’s quite in line with the arguments I’ve been making for quite some time on this site.
I thought this was a very good CR segment and the second half with Bob Lutz covers the Volt quite extensively.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUcJ921tNg
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (10:59 pm)Voltme @#46.
My vote would be a resounding “NO!!!” I would not give up 5 miles AER to get a Volt that looked like the concept.
I don’t understand the mindset of most posters on this site.
I don’t want a car that looks like the concept. I liked the “concept” (40 mile AER, range extender). I did not like the look of the concept car. It reminds me of the ghastly huge bricks, like the Corvette looked like in the late 60s/early 70s. Overpowered, gas-guzzling, bricks.
Give me a car that looks fast, elegant and sleek. Not large, lumbering and HUGE!
(Quote)
Aug 20th, 2008 (11:29 pm)#143 Grizzly..
Watch the below video and pause it when the remaining time is 1:44.
You can clearly see the flattened edges of the battery , dull and non-uniform coating with some black color which definitely appears to be some type of camouflaging. Actual CPI packs are glossy and doesn’t have flattened edges, only the Conti’s pack have flattened edges. Just look at some high resolution Contis and CPI packs that
were posted many times in our website, you will see flattened edges only on Contis Packs. Hope this helps.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5545196
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (12:00 am)125 Robert: “They should have spent more time analyzing birds and planes to come up with a better shape”
If that happened, we would be getting another ridiculous looking three-wheeled Aptera clone. There are enough people who don’t want to drive a Smart car or Prius because of how it looks… I’d hate to see how it would fare in the marketplace if one wheel was taken away.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (12:59 am)Off topic:
Go to the below link and watch the video, you can see design of
the large format LG Chem/CPI individial Cell. Its nothing like what we were shown earlier.
http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/archive/2008/05/20/lithium-ion-electric-race-car.aspx
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (1:43 am)Yes, this is “profoundly disappointing”. My 2000 Chrysler Concorde LXi has a CD of 0.26
I’m not a fan of lumbering bricks, nor of “jelly bean cars” either. What I do want is for form to follow function, without ending up with another Aptera.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (2:10 am)#150 Ryan P
“Yes, this is “profoundly disappointing”. My 2000 Chrysler Concorde LXi has a CD of 0.26″
I found 0.29 for the 2000 Chrysler Concorde LXi, and 0.31 for the newer Concordes, so you might want to check your numbers.
I don’t get why everyone is still so “disappointed” by the CD. GM never really put up a CD target for the Volt, and as others mentioned the only real goal was to get the CD down for 40 miles AER. They are doing that while keeping the looks as close to concept as possible. .27-.28 is already VERY VERY close to the competition (civic hybrid is .27 and prius is .26 as mentioned), even assuming Lutz wasn’t just guessing. As long as the car looks good compared to the civic & prius (both of them look wierd in shape b/c of changes to get higher CD), a slightly higher CD isn’t a problem, esp considering that the Volt might have a small frontal area given the car overall is lower.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (5:38 am)Volt engineer “Hi Mr Lutz, we have the final Cd from the wind testing programme it’s 0.275.
Maximum Bob Great, is that better than the Prius?
Volt engineer No sir, the Prius is 0.26
Maximum Bob Not good enough, I want it to be at least 0.25 if not lower.
Volt engineer OK sir, but, we won’t be able to make the November 2010 production deadline if we do that.
Maximum Bob As I was saying, 0.275 is fine with me. What is it about November 2010 you don’t understand?
Statik
MARKETING was in charge of the CONCEPT Volt & its performance/cost figures.
ENGINEERING is in charge of the PRODUCTION Volt and its performance/cost figures.
It’s all Lyle’s fault really. Without him the Volt might have died a quiet death & marketing would not have been caught out lying.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (5:55 am)Does Hyundai & Honda count as major manufacturers?
Still, not Plug in though, so does not count for me.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN2048157320080820?sp=true
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (6:47 am)For those who can’t read 150 posts – Summary of Posts:
(1) Many posts complained about the cd, because the cd number is so critical, but more than 1/2 of these got the cd number wrong.
(2) CD v. Cool was summed up at #150 by Ryan P. who said: give me low cd, but don’t let it look like low cd. No jelly beans, no space ships. Me want cake, me want eat it too.
(3) Statik finds the glass 1/2 full. Shocking.
(4) Whose packs are those? Good question. Doesn’t rule out the possibility that GM will buy from more than one supplier.
Next article please, Lyle.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (6:49 am)Given the fact that the Volt is no longer a concept but destined to be a production car, I believe we will no longer get as much accurate technical data and answers from GM as before.
Therefore, I do not believe the concept car had a Cd of 0.43, but probably more like 0.34. The new Camaro SS (which looks somewhat similar to the concept Volt) has a Cd of 0.35.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/22/chevrolet-camaro-ss-laps-the-ring-in-8-20/3
Now if we believe Bob Boniface’s numbers that they have taken 120 points (.120) off the Cd, we arrive at a Cd of 0.22 for the production Volt, similar to the Chrysler ESX3 (thanks to ttommy #103).
Maybe for lower speed driving in the urban driving cycle, a 10 point reduction adds 0.55 miles of AER, but for highway driving, this should be more significant. See the attached link for the EV1.
http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf
Since drag is proportional to velocity squared, by examining the EV1’s drag at 45 mph and 60 mph, we should be able to corelate the linear component of drag (rolling resistance) from the exponential component (aerodynamic drag). Having done this, it appears that over 90% of the drag is aerodynamic!
The EV1 had a CdA of 3.95 ft^2. The Volt is slightly wider and higher, and with a Cd of 0.22 has an estimated CdA of 5.0. This is a nominal 25% increase. Therefore, since the EV1 required 168 Wh/mile at 60 mph, the Volt would need about 210. However, the EV1 had NiMH batteries, older power electronics, induction motor, and a double gear reduction. The Volt has more efficient Li-Ion batteries, modern power electronics, a permanent magnet motor, and a single gear reduction. I will assume a 10% increase in overall powertrain efficiency.
Therefore, at 60 mph, I will estimate the Volt to require 190 Wh/mile. For the usable 8 kWh in the battery pack, this equates to 42 miles AER.
Since the drag at these speeds is almost all aerodynamic, the effect of going from a Cd of .22 to .34 would be a nominal 50% increase in drag. Therefore, the AER would be reduced from 42 to 28 miles. This equates to 1.25 miles of added range for every 10 points of aerodynamic drag that is reduced.
This is why the original concept vehicle had to be made more aerodynamic.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (7:15 am)#154 MarkinWI
For those who can’t read 150 posts – Summary of Posts:
(3) Statik finds the glass 1/2 full. Shocking
—I bring balance to the force…
————————
(1) Many posts complained about the cd, because the cd number is so critical, but more than 1/2 of these got the cd number wrong.
I’d like to take a moment and pat myself on the back…for TWO things:
A) most importantly – noticing Bob and his pink tie…again (post #17)
B) for pointing out the the cd number in the article was wrong (post #34)
/cookie please
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (7:40 am)Speaking of cd/aerodynamics as it relates to working out the Volt’s range (either concept or prototype):
I actually finally took the time to ‘learn the math,’ to be a little more educated on it, however once I did, I came to a big roadblock it actually trying to work out the numbers when it comes to expected ranges. (not so much comparitively of course)
How can we start to do the math when we are trying to work out ‘end of 10 year range’ range, when we have no end of range data on the lab tests themselves. It seems like it is a ‘cart before the horse’ type of scenario…GM must be facig the same issue.
I believe they said they only had 17,000 bench miles on the constant run battery in the lab…thats 340 days at ‘maximum’ use.
Allowing for 40 mins driving at 60mph (and a lets give out a ambitious estimate of 8 hours to fully charge). GM would need to run the bench test for 31,655 hours straight(8.6hrs x 3652.5 days—allowing for 2.5 leap year days, lol) or 1,318 days (3.61 years) to get a accurate 1 charge per day/maximum usage baseline…and that test would be flawed due to the unrealistic nature of the test.
At first I realized saying people will drive over 40 miles per days is improbable, but then thought many may commute near or over 40 miles one way to work…and will recharge it again during the day. Under that scenario, those customers would charge even more aggressively.
This is actually one of the things I am not too concerned about, but I thought it was interesting. I have yet to own a car for more than 4 years personally, (other than the ones my business runs into the ground…and a Stealth Twin Turbo in ‘92 I had for about 6) so odds are my Volt will be flipped in 4-5 years tops…the residual should be hella good!
I don’t think they can reasonable factor ‘end of range’ mileage…either in capacity or physically how well the pack hold up over that period of time. I think maybe they are just putting as much load on it as they can, and as fast as they can to try and extrapolate their best guess.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (8:22 am)Statik,
GM can accelerate battery testing by performing their tests at higher temperature. Listen to the podcast with engineers Turner and Matthe at the attached link:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/07/the-april-2008-chevy-volt-update-a-visit-to-the-battery-systems/
Essentially, at higher temperatures, battery life is shortened by a known factor. By performing tests at these temperatures, the batteries will last for fewer cycles, but then this data can be extrapolated back to expected life at normal temperatures.
Hope this helps.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (8:22 am)Statik..I believe you went beyond your self imposed 5 posts.
#95..second last line you forgot to add”how stupid” (how stupid lol)
#136 RIGHT ON> (See mine at #59)
#154 sub line 3..hilarious!!
ALL.
What matter the CD.. they could likely get it to be 0.1 but you will drive something that looks like a wedge of cheese and you whine cuz you love the concept version.
..and you will wine (mis spell intented), or it is .27 and looks cool!!
WHo the HELL CARES?!?! micro analyzing numbers from an exec (NOT the ENGINEERS) who may or may not be correct (Look through all the posts for all the criticism of Mr. Lutz’s accuracy) and you can agree that you are quibbling over dog drool…its MEANINGLESS!!!
I want a volt that gets 40miles (60km) AER, and bout 400 miles (600Km) overall and looks cool (think NOT prius) and I don’t are if a ham sandwich has a better CD,
Think about it folks IF GM NEVER told you the CD, and met the 40 aer and LOOKS cool would you complain? likely not..
If they said the CD is 0.2, better than a prius, but it looks NOTHING like the concept..would you buy it? LIkely NOT..
Quit your whining….all this..”My god that CD certainly is dissappointing..take me off the list” crap is friggin nauseating..like you care…the VOLT made us passionate because it looked COOL!!! not because it rolled on stage with a big friggin neon sign flashing “CD=0.2!!”
get your head out if it and like the song from one on Canada’s BEST rock trio’s ever (Triumph) “Follow your heart!!”
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (10:05 am)Mitch @ 159:
If GM never told us 40 AER and produced a near concept styled Volt that gave us 35, would you have still bought it?
Of course.
The only reason this argument exists is that GM told us 40 AER upfront. That was their mistake. That is the number that a lot of people are clinging to and are using to judge the Volt a success or failure.
As someone said a while back, many here are becoming the very beancounters that we all say we dispise.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (10:16 am)I don’t care what the numbers say get me one of those first few hundred on the road next year.
Take Care,
TED
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (10:45 am).27 to .28? the 2009 Audi A4 will have a .29. What have they been doing in the wind tunnel for so long? Is that all the better they can do after all this talk of aerodynamic efficiency? Wow, disappointing.
(Quote)
Aug 21st, 2008 (10:50 am)#160.
No Aurgument from me.For me the 40 AER is more than I need..I bike to work right now only 7km.
Thing is GM gave 40 as a benchmark they would meet, and many here will hold them to it
My point of the post is because a LOT of posters in theis thread are moaning how bad the CD is…WHO CARES? that is not something that made you love this car!!
it could have the CD of a ham sammich but if it LOOKS COOL, and has the 40 AER..they have a winner.
If they have 40 AER, and a CD of .1 but looks like a prius..then it is an EPIC FAIL. (and I doubt that many moaning her about the CD would buy it either even though they got their wish of great CD!!)
as stated in #59..the only CD number I care about is 6, with an in dash changer and a killer sound system.
I agree that with a 35 AER, hell even a 20 AER and COOL LOOKS and I would still buy it.
It was the LOOK that hooked us, not the CD that soooo many are crying about…(and whining, moaning etc…) you didn’t know, you didn’t care, you saw the concept and wanted one…because it LOOKS COOL!!!
Go Volt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW ted..I think you are getting a wee bit ansy here..I think that you posted you want one of the first hundere in every thread this wekkLOL..know how you feel man
(Quote)