Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Chevy Volt Still Expected to Get 50 mpg In ICE Mode After Battery Depleted

August 22nd, 2008 | Posted in: E-REV, Efficiency

When the Chevy Volt concept was first introduced, GM indicated that when the vehicle was running on internal combustion engine (ICE) generator power, after the batteries charge was depleted, it would get 50 mpg.

Recently we found out that GM had decided on a different engine than it planned in the concept. Instead of being a 1-liter 3 cylinder turbo engine, it will be a 1.4 liter 4 cylinder normally aspirated model.

This led some to worry that the car would get less than 50 mpg in the ICE-mode.

In a new conversation I had with Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah, those fears are allayed.

The reason the larger engine was chosen was “a combination of will it do the job? and will it do the job on time,” said Farah implying the very tight time frame to production was the primary reason for this change.

Asked whether the chosen powerplant will change the 50 mpg projection, he said “not significantly”.

This engine is expected to get more than 40 mpg when used in a non-hybrid model, such as the upcoming Chevy Cruze. Therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that when used in the Volt’s series hybrid system with a massive lithium-ion battery and regenerative brakes, that 50 mpg could be achieved.

Posted by: Lyle

214 Responses to “Chevy Volt Still Expected to Get 50 mpg In ICE Mode After Battery Depleted”

Jim I Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 am

To get this out on time, you knew there would have to be some compromises, but I think it will still be a GREAT car!!!

Countdown continues….
DC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 am

Sweet…
Firefly Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 am

For some reason, I believe them. It might only get 47-48 but that’s still good under the new standard of testing. At average speeds and constant rpm, that could easily equal 49-52 mpg.
Rashiid Amul Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 am

From article:

Asked to whether the chosen powerplant will change the 50 mpg projection, he said “not significantly”.

———-
In engineering speak, what does “not significantly” mean?
1%, 10%?
cire Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 am

Told you so, take that you nay-sayers!
gsned57 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 am

This to me is good news like I’ve been saying. They are hitting their promised numbers and doing it with components that aren’t uber optimized for the job. Think of how good the next bunch of models will be!!! I do still want a Gen1 though.
Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 am

Lyle,

Thanks for getting GM to answer this question. Great site!
-1 THOM Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:01 am

This is bogus!

1)First the max efficiency point of the engine does not give “huge” increases in fuel efficiency. Airplanes, portable generators, and lawn mowers do it, and there are not huge efficiency gains.

2) if you cant acheive 50MPG directly coupled..ie take a chevy cruze with a stick shift (drive it on the hiway at max efficiency RPM),
you certainly wont be able to do indirectly coupled
(generator-> electroinic controller->battery in->battery out -> electronic controller->drive motors). The regenerative braking energy will not make up for the 1000 extra lbs of weight on the volt
greg woulf Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 am

THOM, there’s gains and losses both ways.

Regenerative braking and an electric motor with much higher efficiency than an ICE will give better mileage. That’s the advantage electric has.

The increase in mass also means an increase in energy reclaimed by braking. With a battery capable of faster charge times regenerative braking will claim a lot more than existing EV’s.

Why do you think locomotives run on electric driven by a diesel generator.
Pat Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 am

I believe that using this car using one operation mode does not use the inherent strengths of this type of auto mobile power system. There is enough power in this system to do some modes of operation that would strengthen the economy of the ICE while under gasoline powered use. Here are a couple of ideas that I will submit:

1) This mode is for when you know you will have to do long distance driving like on vacation. You could call it Heavy Hybrid (HH) mode. It would work much like a standard hybrid, but because of the large battery it would be set to help the engine in any case where the load on the engine would cause it to use more fuel such as acceleration on to a highway or up long grades. It would do this based on the max range of the car with a full tank of gas. The computer would only use as much battery power as needed to run to the end of the tank of gas so that end of fuel and battery happen at the same time.
2) This second mode could be used when you know how far you will drive on a given trip like say 120 mile trip. This could be called Programmed Heavy Hybrid (PHH) mode. It would work much like the HH mode, but would have the advantage of pre-known distance for the computer to use in calculating battery use.
3) The last and primary mode is electric only mode.

The use of these modes would, I believe, enhance the MPG on the ICE greatly. With the way that the battery usage is planned now you would only see a large peak in MPG when driving at distances greater then 40 miles and under 80 miles. I think that there has been little thought on how the Volt should be operated when driven greater then 40 miles. I believe that using the second mode, PHH mode, for any distance under 150 miles could give mileage that might be in the order of 70 to 100 MPG range.
THOM Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 am

“Why do you think locomotives run on electric driven by a diesel generator”

Its not from a efficiency standpoint. The reason locomotives use an electric drivetrain is because it is virtually lmost impossible to make a drivetrain large enough to take the torque needed to move a loaded train! They use that same concept on large mining equipment.

You can verify…Ask the guys at caterpiller.
john1701a Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:35 am

IDEAL conditions, only.

The negative effects of seasonal change and traffic will obviously have an effect. That’s why my most of my 25-mile drive yesterday can’t be considered typical. I’d love to quote the resulting 60 MPG average, but without a disclaimer that would be quite misleading.
jabroni Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 am

The ICE in the Volt will be able to run continuously at an ideal RPM, never having to start and stop like regular cars do. This will insure the best possible mpg for the engine.
Gsned57 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 am

#8 Thom,

2) if you cant acheive 50MPG directly coupled..ie take a chevy cruze with a stick shift (drive it on the hiway at max efficiency RPM),
you certainly wont be able to do indirectly coupled
(generator-> electroinic controller->battery in->battery out -> electronic controller->drive motors). The regenerative braking energy will not make up for the 1000 extra lbs of weight on the volt

How do we know you can’t achieve 50MPG with a chevy cruze on the highway at max efficiency? The Fed standard isn’t reporting fuel econemy at max efficiency. My prius with the engine on is all over the chart with MPG. when I’m cruising on the highway I can get anywhwere from 15 – 80 MPG (with the engine running). With the volt, the electric equivelent MPG would probably also run between 15 and 80 MPG or some number there about based on the terrain and the driver. What the generator is doing though is providing a constant charge independent of how easy or hard the electric motor is working. To take a non hybrid as an example, my dad’s F150 has an instantaneous MPG display and it too can get well above the federal estimate while cruising at it’s sweet spot (not just a coast with 0 acceleration).

Also, it was stated that more energy would be captured by regen do to the higher weight, and even though this is true that same amount of energy (probably more do to losses) is required to get the car going in the first place, so it’s essentially a wash. Doesn’t matter if it’s a matchbox car or a dump truck.
cire Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 am

Thom im sure yiou could get 50mpg on the cruze if you were driving at the most efficient RPM and if the cruze had a low CdA like the volt. In reality though you wont be driving at the most efficient RPM’s and the CdA is probably going to be higher. Its not bogus its just reality.
mello Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:58 am

I heard the FLUX Capacitor will increase the mileage and in the next generation, MR. FUSION will give it another boost.
maharguitar Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 am

#9 greg woulf “Why do you think locomotives run on electric driven by a diesel generator.”

Lots of reasons. You can run the diesel at its sweet spot for max efficiency. You can get regenerative braking. You can gang multiple engines together. ( Can’t do more than two with steam.) But the primary reason is you get torque at every speed. Making a clutch for a pure diesel locomotive is nearly impossible.

With most things there are multiple reasons that one technology may be preferred over another.

#10 Pat. “I think that there has been little thought on how the Volt should be operated when driven greater then 40 miles.”

Why do you think this? We know very little about what is going on in GM’s engineering lab. They may well have a whole team working on this one aspect of the Volt’s performance.
cire Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 am

16,

I know you were being sarcastic but.. They may have a capacitor in the next generation to increase mileage actuly.
DC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 am

Another sort of related follow up. I think I posted a couple weeks ago about a local DC mid-day talk show that was hyping up the Volt pretty agressively. Well yesterday they had John Hughes, the Volt Marketing manager on for a 30 minute segment on the Volt.

Very interesting stuff.

Podcast can be found on itunes (search WJFK Big O and Dukes) – date was Aug 21 – Segment 03 “John Hughes Marketing Manager of the Chevy Volt”. Also should be available on wjfk.com
lh_newbie Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am

Doesn’t matter to me all that much, I plan to drive mine with only a gallon of gas in the tank to save weight since 90% of my driving will be less than 25 miles per day – so I could conceivably go through less than 10 gallons of fuel per year.

While people complain about the weight of the ICE + generator… I often wonder what the weight of the battery pack to make this vehicle a full BEV with a 125+ mile range, not to mention the inconvenience of having to charge it for 8+ hours. If the 40 mile pack is 400lbs, wouldn’t that put a 125+ mile pack at 1200+ lbs? So the ICE+generator weight may well be equivalent – but it can be “filled up” in 5 minutes to extend the range.

IMO, the ‘convenient refilling’ functionality of the Volt, or other EREV based vehicles, is why this concept will take over the complicated transmission type hybrid we have today.
dagwood55 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am

#10, Pat, “Heavy Hybrid Mode…”

That, Pat, is a pretty good idea. However, another piece of information that the navigation and powertrain management computer would want is altitude information.

If you think about it for a bit, you’ll realize it’s OK to hit the top of a hill with a discharged battery but it’s a bad thing to hit the bottom of a hill with a discharged battery.

If the computer knew the terrain, it could manage the charge to ensure that you would have full power available, uphill, all the way to the top but allow the battery to arrive at the top exhausted and recharge on the way down.
bob Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am

This is great news!

That was my first response….. then I thought I little more…

With a range ICE of 300-400 miles and a mpg of 50 (those are the best #s I’ve heard). Then I can expect the gas tank to be about 8 gallons (or less) in size. At $4 a gallon, it’ll take $32ish to fill the tank. It currently costs me about $50 for the same milage, but I have a bigger tank.

Take this how you will; I thought it interesting.
~Bob
Jim I Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am

dagwood55 #21:

That sounds like a really great idea. But then you would have to program in every single trip you are going to make. If you got to the bottom of that hill, and the car thought it needed the battery charged, the ICE would kick in. But what if you turned left and did not go up the hill? And even if you did program the trip, what if the road going up the hill was closed for repairs and you have to make a detour?

All I am saying is that It gets really complicated……… And do we expect this level of sophistication in the Gen-1 Volt???

I think if there was a simple setting that said use ICE first and then the battery at mile 250, that would be enough for the first model.
DC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 am

Follow up to my post on 30 minute interview with John Hughes, marketing director of the Volt – on a local radio station.

Some highlights:

- production version will have “very specific resemblances” to the concept car, will have a lot of the “gotta-have, attractive” styling concepts. Believes people will be very pleased with the look of the production version. Its a “good looking car” picks up on a lot of the cues of the concept model.

- 78% of drivers will drive 40 miles a day or less so if 78% of us drove a Volt 78% of us would use no gas – other than on long trips.

- Chevy has more vehicles that produce over 30mpg hwy than any competitors and more cars on the road compatible with E85.

Talked about the waiting list.

- “alot of excitement, anticipation and desire.” JH – excited about the enthusiasm and anticipation. Did not mention gm-volt.com specifically. But no right now there is no waiting list and no plan for one at the dealers.

Pricing question – “a lot of different prices floating around.” But because the development is so compressed they are working to understand the cost of all the components. Still working through the development costs. Very evasive on this question, no mention of any cost, no reaction to a question on the $30k price point.

Would not comment on the production numbers either.

Took some calls from listeners.

First call was about the cost being too high for normal consumers if it got to $40,000. Answer was eh, OK. JH said Chevy is known for value among other things and he is aware of the issues but that it is still new technology.

Good interview though, worth a listen.
MetrologyFirst Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am

lh_newbie @ 20:

The convenience and non-intrusive nature of the Volt into our daily lives is absolutely why it is a winner. People really need to not underestimate the importance of “comfortableness” with something this important to the general public.

I mean, we can’t get this country to go metric because it would add too much stress. How silly is that? Why in the world would some expect the public to handle a car that will simply stop in 100 miles when the batteries run out? Our attention span couldn’t handle it.
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am

40 or 50 mpg still sounds pretty good to this old boy. I would expect to see improvements in this in the future. I am looking forward t seeing the Volt.
bob Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am

#23 Jim I
“All I am saying is that It gets really complicated……… And do we expect this level of sophistication in the Gen-1 Volt???”

We don’t expect that level of sophistication with any vehicle, and it’ll be a long time before we can…

The VOLT is the first step on that long road!
~Bob
MetrologyFirst Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am

Jim I @ 23:

Do we expect that level of sophistication of the drivers?
Cautious Fan Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:56 am

This is great news and removes a lot of my caution. My remaining worries are battery life in hot environments & cost.

Using common engines will save a lot of money. Developing a new engine costs in the upper 100’s of millions. GM is already spending a lot on the Volt development. They shouldn’t spend 100’s millions more to eke out a few more MPG on a risky product. Once V 1.0 does really well, MAYBE then it will be economical to develop a new custom engine, though I doubt it.
Jim I Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 am

MetrologyFirst @28:

HAHAHAHAHA!!

If they can stop talking on the phone, stop putting on makeup, or stop grooving to the music while trying to drive……………

I actually passed some guy yesterday that was reading the newspaper while driving on the interstate at 65 mph!!!!!
MetrologyFirst Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am

Cautious fan @ 29:

That was my argument about the full body redesign.
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am

#4 Rashiid Amul

Even 10% loss still leaves 45 mpg from the initial 50 mpg. Still not bad. I would buy the car (less the battery cost) just for the 45 mpg. Wouldn’t you?
Richard Hagen Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:07 am

I think the 50 MPG might be overly optimistic. If it is achieved, it will be quite impressive considering the added weight of the battery that will be in the vehicle. It might also improve its marketability to prospective purchasers who may only be able to charge it from grid electricity a smaller fraction of the time.

Still I wait with anticipation for this vehicle to come out. I think that this type of vehicle is strategically important to the western democracies because it will aid in their consumption of lower quantities of liquid petroleum products. This vehicle is part of the answer to our current energy problem. Mine will be charged in part from my existing solar array for example, a direct replacement in part of foreign oil for domestic solar power.

A note to any GM Volt engineers who may happen to read this is that in my opinion, their hard work now really does have the potential to change the world for the better. Good luck with this endeavor.
Van Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am

Back when I had a math class, and it was explained to me that the approximation given by slide rule was close enough, significant meant about 3%. So 3 or at a max 4% below 50 would be 48 MPG.

And that of course would be city cycle driving where drag is not a “significant” factor. On the open road at high speed, expect to get just a little better then the Cruze, just like the Camry Hybrid gets a little better highway mileage than the non-hybrid Camry. So set your expectations low, say 46 MPG, and perhaps you will be pleasantly surprised when you do “significantly” better.
Talks Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am

:he said “not significantly”.

What did he mean by the above ? We heard 1.4L NA was chosen
because of better fuel efficiency and low NVH. Based on his statement it appears that 1.0L Turbo has better fuel efficieny than 1.4L NA. GM… comon.. be clear in what you tell to us, we are whole heartedly waiting for VOLT, please don’t feed us with wrong info.
Aspherical Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am

50 mpg, huh? I like that. 100% of my driving will be all electric on weekdays, and then 40 miles AER then 50 mpg after that on weekend trips in the mountains (I am saying so because of regenerative braking on the way back ). This car is PERFECT for me! Way to go GM!
Jackson Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am

I’ve been wondering where all this doubt about ICE-mode efficiency has been coming from, and I think it could be extrapolation downwards from diesel-electric locomotives and industrial equipment.

It is correct that diesel electric locomotives exist because a mechanical transmission capable of matching the diesel’s rpm to all speeds of a loaded train is nearly impossible (or at least, wildly impractical).

The important difference between a locomotive and the Volt is that it has no way to store the electrical energy it produces. Locomotives do not have regenerative braking. They can use dynamic braking, in which the momentum of the train turns the generator to slow down: but there’s no place for the electricity to go except into a huge resistor. This has the advantage of prolonging the life of friction brakes, but does nothing for efficiency. The diesel has to crank pretty much constantly regardless of the train’s speed (unless it’s slowing down).

I suppose one could produce a railroad version of a volt by filling the first few boxcars with batteries (but again, I doubt this would be deemed practical — at least at today’s battery prices).

An ICE car does have a transmission, which transforms the rpm of the engine to all speeds, but still requires the engine to operate over a large range of rpms: tradeoffs in the engine to allow running at idle, or wide open, cost efficiency when running in what should be it’s most efficient middle-range. The Volt eliminates this inefficiency by using the battery and electric motor to produce all speeds, and allows the engine to be tuned to run at maximum efficiency over a much narrower range. Add regeneration, and you could easily get high mpg — in every driving cycle.
John Mulcasky Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am

EnerDel is ramping up production of Lithium batteries in INDIANA (yes, right here in USA). Supposed to add 850 new jobs. I think most of these batteries will end up in the new Think electric car, but down the road some could end up in GM products.

http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=31097
THOM Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am

The regenerative braking is overstated….it doesnt mean if you brake from 30 mph in 5 sec that you will get back enough enery to accelerate from 0-30 mph in 5 sec. You probable wont get enough to accelerate to 10 mph.

Try this:

Get a set of li-po batteries, charge at rate foe a specific time , then discharge at that same rate and see how much you get out.
Then in this application, figure motor losses, speed control losses ect.

There is a reason that they need cooling in the battery compartment
(heat = losses)
Aspherical Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am

#38 THOM

You are correct saying that you can’t recover all the energy you lose from braking, but have to look at it another way. Regenerative braking effectively lowers the energy required to accelerate after braking, thus increasing the all-electric range (in the city). So I wouldn’t say that the regenerative braking is overstated at all…
GOK Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am

Has GM looked at using an air cooled engine? since every pound counts.
Mike-o-Matic Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 am

Anybody looking for the John Hughes WJFK podcast can download it from here…
http://www.wjfk.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=2843429

I had a little trouble finding it due to my unfamiliarity with the DJs, shows, and WJFK’s website. So while I haven’t actually listened to it yet myself, hopefully this saves y’all some time locating it.

Regards to all,
Mike-o
Neutron Flux Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 am

#32 Without the battery you are not going to get 45 MPG, where you going to store the trons from regenerative breaking? Would you buy it for cost – battery at 40 MPG is the real question? The regenerative breaking system now becomes excess useless baggage & weight. Better add that Flux capacitor back in, if you want the higher MPG
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 am

#29 Cautious Fan

The battery is not going to be a problem. The chemistry works well within the parameters. It will be heated and cooled. The reality is that GM is babying the pack. Lutz has said GM has been surprised by the battery. That’s obviously true. They believed neither the claims nor the field results of people using the chemistry. (If you’d like I can explain more. Bodes very well for future models).

#37 Jackson

Thank you. Just as an aside, a locomotive has a non-existent coefficient of rolling resistance with steel wheels on steel tracks, making braking tricky.
Ted in Fort Myers Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am

I could not be more pleased with the progress so far. At 50 MPG this will be the top mileage performer even for those who charge infrequently. For one who can charge every day it will be a real dig to the major oil companies.
Take Care,
TED
Dr.Science #11 on the list Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am

#8 beg to differ, personal expierience with ‘08 Camry hybrid, close to the same weight as the VOLT at a constant speed of 60 mph the TCH gets 46 mpg, thats for 300 miles non stop with the cruise control, measured in actual miles & actual gallons used. The Toyota is a 2.4 and the VOLT will be a 1.4. I think the 50 mpg figure on ICE power will very attainable.
DC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 am

@ #41 Mike-O

Thanks for the link, all sorts of radio websites are blocked here at work so I couldnt get to it.
mitch Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am

#33 Richard HAgen.

“I think the 50 MPG might be overly optimistic. If it is achieved, it will be quite impressive considering the added weight of the battery that will be in the vehicle.”

Remember, in the VOLT unlike other hybrids, the ICE is not driving the vehicle, and there fore does not have to overcome any resistance from battery weight, it ONLY charges the battery, the ONLY load is the resistance of the generator.

I believe the ICE will have 2 settings..recharge RPM for when moving (say 1800) and one when stopped for noise reduction (800 or engine idle). Any additional charge above the lower thresh hold of 30% will get consumed when the vehicle starts out from a complete stop. The RPM will likely be set to match average power consumption from the battery pack. While certain conditions will exceed this, remember there is 30% capacity, the RPM set to an average, will eventually catch up.

simple noise reduction technology will make the ICE isolated and quiet.
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am

I listened to the WJFK show with John Hughes. Nothing new was said. He talked around giving direct answers. First, he is a marketing guy and they never seem to talk straight at a subject. Second, there is not enough information GM wants out that we don’t already know. It was interesting to some extent.
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am

#43 Don C

“The reality is that GM is babying the pack.”

I did not get that idea from the Lutz interview on the Charlie Rose show. They showed those environment chambers where they were putting the batteries through their paces in cold and heat. I would expect the chambers would be pretty good for testing the batteries in extreme conditions. Real world testing begins next year and follows through in early 2010. I think GM knows they can trust the batteries more than they are letting on, but will wait for the real world testing.
Murray Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am

This is good news…it adds to the fact that this is a breakthrough vehicle.

I’ve been with the group of people who are trying to get over the revamping of the concept design because I loved it so much … while I’m still a bit timid to see the final design (I’ll be looking at it tenatively with 1 eye closed) I’m still very excited overall about each peice of good news and each day that gets us closer to seeing this dream become a reality.
Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am

#16 mello,
#42 Neutron Flux,

Flux capacitor availalble here:
http://www.gearlog.com/2006/05/diy_back_to_the_futures_flux_c.php
(humor)
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 am

#50 Murray

Sooner or later we will convert you to the view of many of us that the production Volt is really better looking than the concept. That is based on what we have seen of the peek-a-boo photos. But, it is going to be a great car even if it ends up not as good looking as the concept.
Pat Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 am

dagwood55, Thanks for the comments. I was also thinking about the use of GPS as a way of the car knowing the terrain, but getting it from the GPS is a problem. Most GPS I know of are not accurate enough to figure out the altitude accurately enough to make a good calculation in the volts computer. Best way would be to get that info from the data base, based on actual position, because that can be fairly accurate from the GPS system. This all has to do with how many sats can be seen by the GPS and if it is calculating position in 2D or 3D modes.

I really think with input of data like how far you plan to drive and GPS position/altitude the computers in the Volt could make some very logical decisions on how to share the energy in the batteries and the ICE for Max MPG in trips greater then 40 miles.
noel park Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am

Lyle:

Makes sense to me. Plus, as many have said, the “sweet spot” rpm range of the engine will help too.

Tagamet:

Where the !@#$%^ are you? OK, I’ll cover for you:

“Let’s just get the Volt’s wheels on the road!”

Statik:

Picking up on your comment yesterday, where is the latest financial analysis, BTW? Are they going to have enough cash to make it until the Volt and the Cruze ride to the rescue or not?
avatar Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 am

Driving to attain higher mileage must become part of the American way of life. The days of cheap fuel are over. The Volt, if driven correctly, will achieve these mileage objectives. If drivers want to push it to 100 miles per hour, then the Volt will return less than expected mpg. Why is that so difficult for the American consumer to understand. Hypermilers are able to achieve 60 mpg on average cars right now. Go GM- build it and they will come.
john1701a Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am

>> For one who can charge every day it will be a real dig to the major oil companies.

60,000,000 new vehicles are sold annually worldwide.

The number of Volts needed to make that much of a difference won’t be available for quite a number of years still.
maharguitar Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am

#49 N Riley
I don’t think Don C was talking about the same thing that you are. They are stressing the battery in testing but the design of the Volt drive system is not going to stretch the limits of battery. They’re staying well within performance envelope.
George K Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am

“Asked to whether the chosen powerplant will change the 50 mpg projection, he said “not significantly”

This is another reason for GM to provide a free wheel glide feature on the Volt. This along with the right gauges, such as; instant mpg, relative SOC, engine rpm, and also, some kind of indicator to tell how fast you are depleting the battery, or how effectively you’re using regen braking. Some more technical on the forum, could probably come up with others.

With the right gauges, and some practice, someone who wants to, could get 60, 70, or greater mpg (under 40 mph). Hypermilers are getting these numbers and better, and I see no reason why the Volt couldn’t produce these, as well!
Murray Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am

#52 N Riley

Yes, it will probably be a little later rather than sooner but I will get over it. At least I know when I’m whining (my wife has helped me recognize when I’m doing it)

It would be nice to NOT have to see the concept design remain at the center of all the marketing (TV and Web)….but I will get over it….I will try to stop the whining as it is just not warranted yet…not until we get a look at the full picture of the production Volt…..

I will remain hopeful that I can get one of these things and be just as excited about it as I was almost 2 yrs ago when I first learned about it.
Dave B Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 am

You’all catch this little gem about the Detroit 3 asking for 25 billion in federal loans? A government bailout of sorts?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26348390
+1 Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 am

#8 THOM Says:
2) if you cant acheive 50MPG directly coupled … you certainly wont be able to do indirectly coupled (generator-> electroinic controller->battery in->battery out -> electronic controller->drive motors) …
————————————————————————————–
I disagree. When the gas engine is completely disconnected from the wheels, there are many ways to get it to run much more efficiently. Here’s how:

1) Realize that most of the electric energy from the ICE genset doesn’t go through the battery. The normal path is generator-> electronic controller->drive motors. The only exception is when you accelerate hard or go fast uphill – then the batteries come into play momentarily.

2) The electric conversions from the generator to the motor are very efficient, so not much energy is lost here.

3) Electric motors have lot’s of torque across a wide range of RPMs, so there’s no transmission required. Since the Volt has no transmission, there are no transmission losses.

4) The gas engine only has to supply AVERAGE horsepower. The electric motor and batteries supply the PEAK horsepower for accelerating or going up steep hills. This is why a 70hp gas engine can power a 150hp car.

5) When the gas engine is disconnected from the wheels, torque and peak power become a non-issues. In a normal car, they use the Otto cycle to meet torque and peak power requirements. When the engine isn’t connected to the wheels, you can use a much more efficient Atkinson cycle gas engine. More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle

6) With no relationship between the gas engine’s RPMs and the wheels, other optimizations can be made (e.g. constant RPM).

Now all this comes at a cost. Namely, you need a fairly big battery pack to supply 150hp when the battery is at 35% SOC. But a big battery is also what gives you your 40 miles of all electric range, so that’s a good thing.

As for weight: when you have a big electric motor and large batteries, regenerative braking works very well, so the extra energy required to accelerate the vehicle will be recovered on braking. Rolling resistance is affected by weight, but not as much as you would suspect. So a little extra weight really doesn’t affect efficiency that much.
john1701a Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am

58 >> Hypermilers are getting these numbers and better, and I see no reason why the Volt couldn’t produce these, as well!

How would that be accomplished?

An engine running at a fixed RPM and an electric motor as the only source for thrust provides nothing to interface with. There needs to be a transmission or PSD allowing for the user to adjust for optimization to overcome the default behavior.

What do you believe will be available for you to control?
The Grump Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 am

I think everyone’s getting too hung up over this 50 MPG thing. That’s for extended trips only. If you go 100 miles, you go 40 miles in no gas at all, and 60 miles on gas. At 50 MPG, you would use 1.2 gallons of gas to go 100 miles. I did the math, and for this 100 mile trip, you would get 83.3 MPG (100 miles divided by 1.2 gallons of gas).

The Volt is the only car where the driver gets to decide how many MPG the car will get. The shorter your trip, the higher your MPG. It is amazing, but is it $40,000.00 amazing ? Hopefully we will find out soon.
Enerdel Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 am

EnerDel is ramping up Lithium battery production in INDIANA (yes, that’s in the USA, can u believe it). Supposed to add 850 new jobs. Most of the batteries will go in Think electric vehicle but could end up in some GM products down the road.
Van Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am

John1701a @ 56, any PHEV will do as an impact on the use of foreign oil. Lets say there are 240,000,000 vehicles, and one fourth of them are replaced every year. The turnover would be effectively complete within 8 years. But lets say, because of the price barrier, that is optimistic, and the turnover will take 16 years. If the plug in only burns one third of the gas of the non-plug in due to the combination of higher MPH and AER, at 16 years, our gas consumption will be one third what it is today. So we would be off foreign oil if our domestic supply and consumption stays about the same as today. And how far along that continuum would we need to be to have a “significant” impact? No more than 6 years. So if they hit the market in 2012 with all the cars they can sell, by 2018, we will be on our way of ending our addiction to foreign oil. Or so it seems to me.
Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am

#56 john1701a Says: “60 million new vehicles are sold annually worldwide. The number of Volts needed to make that much of a difference won’t be available for quite a number of years still.”
————————————————————————————–
If the experts are right and world oil has peaked, then cars like the Volt will get real popular real quick. Yes, it will take a number of years, but that number could be relatively small.

A while ago Lyle reported on GM’s internal bean counters looking at world population trends. If I remember correctly, GM said that by 2020 there wouldn’t be enough oil to supply all the cars people will be driving, even with more efficient engines. 2020 is only 12 years away. If car manufacturers want to continue selling cars, they will have to have significant numbers of alternate fuel vehicles on the road by then.
noel park Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am

#60 Dave B:

What was that loud bang I just heard? Was it the other shoe dropping?

Thanks for the cool link. Today’s biggest news for sure.
GXT Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am

45. Dr. Science,

“#8 beg to differ, personal expierience with ‘08 Camry hybrid, close to the same weight as the VOLT at a constant speed of 60 mph the TCH gets 46 mpg, thats for 300 miles non stop with the cruise control, measured in actual miles & actual gallons used.”

As a man of Science you should probably throw out that result as it is not typical.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=22825&browser=true&details=on

On a related side-note, I am getting pretty annoyed at how EVERYONE seems to be beating the EPA estimates. I don’t buy it. Check out this fool getting 37MPG with his 21/29 cobalt:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=23131&browser=true&details=on
And suprisingly another person with a city/highway mix within 1% is getting 28.4!
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm

#49 N. Riley

I meant they were babying the pack when using it in the car, not during testing. For Pete’s sake, they’re only using HALF the pack at most and the recharge by the gen-set is as mild as can be. This seems to be borderline insanely conservative given that:

1. LG Chem claims their spinel cells to last around 40 years of typical automotive PHEV use

2. A123 has tested their LiP cells to 7,000 cycles

These claims are very believable. For example, an RCGroups amateur tested the A123 cells for 1,000 abusive cycles (3-4C charging and 6-8C discharging) all the way down to 0V and only had a 20% capacity loss after 1,000 cycles. And the i-Miev has roughly the same pack and they’re going 100 miles on something more like an 85% DOD.

So yes, GM is absolutely babying the battery pack. I assume the reason for this is that GM, not overestimating the intelligence of its existing customer base, is designing the pack for the .2% of all drivers who will abuse the pack either intentionally or unintentionally.
Cautious Fan Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm

#31 MetrologyFirst

Are you suggesting the body design is similar in cost to engine design? I would expect an engine design to cost an order of magnitute over changes in body design.
RonR64 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm

GXT – Believe it. The best mpg car I ever owned was a 93 Corvette. If driven correctly I could get 40mpg with a 300 HP V8 and a 6 spd manual. Now I could also get 12 mpg if I drove it “right”! Anticipating lights, corners, stops, slowly accelerating and pretending there was a bomb connected to the brake lights will get you huge mileage gains. Is this reasonable driving though? No, not really, it is more of a game and one that you really don’t feel like playing all the time but still some of the skills get adopted at least partially into your daily driving habits. No matter what vehicle I drive I will get 10 – 20% better mileage than my wife does. This is still after years of polite “coaching” on my part – she may tell the story slightly different!
THOM Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm

A 1.4 l engine in a car gets 50 mpg??….I had a dodge colt (marage) with a 1.5 l and 4 speed and could get almost 40 MPG (on a good day). I have even went so far as to drive for long distances at various speeds (constant RPM). I may have got up to 10% better gas mileage @35 MPH verses 55MPH. The aerodynamics do not have huge effects at slow speeds (colt vs other car) then add 1000lbs and what do you get???

I need to see electric motors, speed controllers, cabling, batteries, and generators with 100% efficiency ratings at all speeds and loads, then ill beleive it.
Cautious Fan Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm

#43 DonC

I want to believe the batteries are less sensitive to capacity loss at elevated temperatures, but I’m not convinced yet. The wikipedia link below shows how LION’s capacity drops significantly when stored at temperatures. For example, 77F, 100% charge, batteries will loose 20% capacity in their first year. It’s far worse at higher temperatures.

I believe GM has made advances on these numbers, otherwise they couldn’t warranty a battery for 100,000 miles, but I’m a doubting Thomas. I’ll believe it when I see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion
George K Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm

#62
john1701a
“an engine running at a fixed RPM”

Who said it was going to be fixed rpm? I understand it will come on and off, and rpm will vary depending on demand and SOC.

Free wheeling will allow the Volt to go down the street w/o using any gas. That increases mpg (miles per gallon). Especially with it’s extra battery weight, with the smallest decline, or even flat, it will go for quite a while (esp. with drag coef. close to Prius) free wheeling from 40 down to say 25 or less (if no one is behind, or coasting to a light – zero mph).

I hope free wheeling is technically possible. Since the Volt engineers can determine how much drag there is when you coast, I would think they can take it a step further. At least I hope so.
Paul Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Doing the Free Wheeling in my 03′ 4-Runner (with the V8)
I CONSISTENTLY get an average of 27+mpg around town.
Now granted I do live in a flat area so I don’t have hills to contend with.
I do it as more of a challenge then to save the planet or a buck..

I just wonder if all that shifting into N and back is going to wear out the tranny any sooner….
I’m sure some expert here can tell me.

As long as it lasts until Volt 2.0 arrives…
Thanks in advance.

p.

“60 Miles From Nowhere and 6 Feet From Hell”
Morgan Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm

67 Noel Park:

Old news I think…I didn’t click the link but the 25 billion looked familiar. This was passed by Congress last year and must be executed before 2009.
JonP. Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm

#55 Avatar says,

“Driving to attain higher mileage must become part of the American way of life. The days of cheap fuel are over. The Volt, if driven correctly, will achieve these mileage objectives. If drivers want to push it to 100 miles per hour, then the Volt will return less than expected mpg.”
————————————————————————————

Actually thats the great thing about the volt there is no human factor (aggressive acceleration) in the fuel efficiency formula. Whether you drag race it from light to light, or drive it miss daisy you’ll get the same fuel mileage.
Driving habits will affect the amount of AER(all electric range) you get but thats it.
That’s why i say 50mpg running the ice at a few fixed rpm’s will be easily attainable. If you can get an AVERAGE of 40mpg driving a cruze with all the acceleration and stop and go driving, you should easily be able to get 50mpg if you drove that same cruze on a flat road at 55mph for 300 miles straight on cruise control. There is hyper milers getting sick numbers with all types of cars, hypermiling is basicly trying to accomplish the same thing the Volt already has, eliminate the driving conditions from the gas efficiency of the engine.
Jackson Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm

We haven’t had enough Hydrogen controversy, lately.

Uh oh. This looks like a major potential advance, perhaps solving the distribution to point of use problem:

http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/10180

/ducks
DaveP Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Hey, we’ve been over the 50mpg VERY thoroughly, before (just last month!). There were 3 different analyses that came up with pretty much the same 50mpg number. My “thought thread” was based on the assumption that if 8kWh gets you 40 miles of driving; how much gas for how much energy production can an efficient generator produce and then how many miles does that give you. I was using the “brake specific fuel consumption” (BSFC) measurement of efficiency for engines, and comparing that to using a portable Honda generator (which are horribly inefficient, by the way):
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/02/wall-street-journal-opinion-chevy-volt-just-a-political-tool/#comment-50173

Which was the most roundabout analysis. BillR’s comment was simply based on the energy in a gallon of gas and therefore the drivetrain efficiency necessary and doggydogworld’s was on the various engine efficiencies.

It’s probably worth a read of the whole thread if you really want to explore the analysis, but 50 mpg should be totally achieveable (Indeed, if you want the data that backs up my analysis, the links are in an earlier post in that thread of mine but due to sloppiness, my original post had a big mistake in it which made the mileage come out way low).

Here’s the relevant technical part:
(see my earlier post for the explanation of the equations:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/02/wall-street-journal-opinion-chevy-volt-just-a-political-tool/#comment-50060
“And, yes, as others have noted, small generators are really inefficient. Anyway, correcting this error actually pulls my MPG numbers in line with #100 doggydogworld’s and #143 BillR’s numbers:
6.9gallons/4.4 hours*2838.75 g/gallon/9.5=469
Using the wikipedia diesels as comparisons:
30/200*469=70mpg for 100% electric conversion efficiency which is kinda bogus. At 85% for the electric generator part, which I think is a decent guess, the BSFC for the engine is much lower since the engine is actually putting out more power so the 9.5kW becomes more like 11.2kW at the shaft. That makes the BSFC 399 and gives a resulting 60mpg.
Of course the problem with this is that the electric generator in the Volt also has to be 100% efficient to get that so figuring another 85% efficiency there, you get right around 51mpg.
There’s a lot of assumptions going on here, but certainly nothing beyond the bounds of reason.”
User Name Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Fifty MPG is a low number….I expect it will get more than that.
I have no data to back this up; just a hunch.
DaveP Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Also touched on locomotive engines in the same thread…
It’s kind of hard to single out the electric motors and say they were used because they had to be used and not for efficiency reasons. The whole drivetrain is designed for efficiency and the electric motors are a necessary part of that. For example you could move the train hydraulically (as was done with steam) but it wouldn’t be as effective an overall drivetrain.

http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/02/wall-street-journal-opinion-chevy-volt-just-a-political-tool/#comment-50299
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm

#54 noel park:

“Statik: Picking up on your comment yesterday, where is the latest financial analysis, BTW? Are they going to have enough cash to make it until the Volt and the Cruze ride to the rescue or not?”

Are you serious? Because I got a whole can of whoopass ready to go right here beside me!

I’ve been lying low on this thread, letting people up their ‘Statik tolerance’

————–

But on the subject of 50MPG, will the 4 banger do it? Maybe. Do I personally care? I really don’t…heck it could be 25MPG, I don’t care., this is one area I won’t hold GM to.

I just want a fricken electric car. If I am going on a 60+ mile trip…the Volt is staying in the garage. Period. No way that thing is comfortable on long trips, and I want the ‘roomage’ as well…there is no getting around the fact it is on a Cobalt platform. (which is perfectly fine for commuting, bombing around town, etc.)
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm

#76 Paul says:

“I just wonder if all that shifting into N and back is going to wear out the tranny any sooner….
I’m sure some expert here can tell me.”

Maybe an expert can answer Paul’s question as well as mine. Can you shift an automatic into neutral at highway speeds and back into drive without damaging the transmission over the long haul? How about during stop and go driving in the city? I have done that with manual transmissions, but I am a little “scared” to risk my automatic with hyper-miling.
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm

#79 Jackson:

“We haven’t had enough Hydrogen controversy, lately.Uh oh. This looks like a major potential advance, perhaps solving the distribution to point of use problem:

http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/10180
/duck”

More hydrogen talk…we are truly blessed.
/eagerly refreshes thread
RonR64 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I’m with you Statik. I could care less what the post electric mpg is. I do however like the range extender idea. For the average commute for me it would be no problem but what if I am 1/2 way home on a Friday and then remember that I fly out somewhere Monday morning and I need my laptop? I usually leave it at work so I would need to turn around and get it. Whoops, I don’t have enough range! What if I want to run a couple of errands before heading home? Go out for lunch? Hit a nasty head wind on the way in that convienently switches direction just in time to head into it again on the way home? There are countless scenerios that could leave you hating your pure electric car if you didn’t have a range extender.
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm

#74 Cautious Fan

Don’t forget the pack will be cooled during operation. But basically you’re looking at the wrong battery. The Wikipedia page you’re looking at is for standard Li-ion batteries. If you want to stay on Wikipedia you’d probably want to look at this page for the LiP batteries. The chemistry of this type of Li-ion is different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

Valence has some information about the performance of its LiP batteries at different temperatures:
http://www.valence.com/assets/pdf/vlnc_epoch_data_sheet.pdf
The similar graph for A123 would be this one: http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/life/lchart1/
A123 also has data on the performace of its LiP batteries at 140 F, which is unrealistically high for a car like the Volt.
http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/life/lchart3/

Note that in the A123 graph we’re talking about 7000 cycles at 100% DOD and 1C charge/discharge rates. That’s far beyond what GM is talking about.

Everyone working on the Volt keeps reiterating they have been surprised by the fact that they have encountered zero issues with the batteries. Trust them. No doubt there will be problems, but the durability and cycle life of the battery pack won’t be one of them, especially with the kid glove treatment GM is giving it.
Jackson Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Okay, let’s really stir the old Hydrogen puddin’.

Let’s suppose this device can be miniaturized to the point that it and a fuel cell could fit into a future EREV as the range extender.

The Volt is a bridge between ICE and electric, is it so far fetched to suppose that a later Volt might be a bridge to Hydrogen?

* the fuel is ethanol, which can be tanked like gasoline; there would be no need to solve the ‘on-board hydrogen storage problem’

* converting to hydrogen with 90% efficiency and using a fuel cell would be more efficient than any form of combustion powering a mechanical generator

* since the real work of moving the car would be done by the battery and motor, the requirement for fuel cell performance might be less rigorous/more inexpensive than a fuel cell intended to be the sole source of power.

* such a use might be the first reasonable market for mass-produced, consumer fuel cells; where it goes from there is anyone’s guess.

Of course, they still have to figure out how to make such a thing cheap enough to be feasible (I’m thinking at least a decade), and by that time, EREVs and BEVs will be on the road with much farther ranges: so the actual roll-out would follow this by perhaps even another decade.

The catalyst, you’ll notice, releases CO2; which is probably why they’re stressing “biofuel;” but in practice, such a device wouldn’t care where it’s feedstock comes from.
Gsned57 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm

#84, you can shift an automatic into neutral on the highway and back to drive. Don’t know how bad it hurts, but seems ok. Just be careful not to shift too far and get it into Reverse! A mistake you may only make once with that tranny
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

#79 Jackson

Please, if we’re going to have a controversy let’s have something better than this. Let’s see … the link is suggesting we distribute E85 to the gas stations and then fill up our Volt’s with E85? Nope, the gas stations would then change the E85 into hydrogen which we would then put into the Volt’s $200,000 fuel cell. Hmmmmm………

The MIT guys who suggested using water in a closed system to generate electricity were able to make a compelling case assuming some breakthroughs. Their vision would be tres cool. This is silly.

You’re eliminating all the obvious reasons why it’s silly by “assuming” a solution. But that doesn’t eliminate the issue that if you start with a fuel why are you converting it? Water + solar = hydrogen –> electricity makes sense. E85 + E85 (you need energy to convert) = hydrogen –> electricity makes no sense since you can have E85 –> electricity.
Gee M Warranty Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm

The battery in the Volt has a 10 year warranty. If this is correct, that is not very long. The original Tommy Edison batteries used in electric cars still work fine today. They are 100 YEARS OLD and still have the original 100 mile range. GM can do better than that.
BillR Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm

From the previous thread, we learned that the Cruz will have either a 1.6 L (112 HP) engine or a 1.8 L (140 HP) engine.

Note that the Cruz is similar in size to the Volt, and will probably require about 12 kW to motor down the road at 60 mph (similar to the Volt’s 200 Wh per mile). To drive at this speed, the engine will operate at a lower speed, perhaps 1800 rpm, however, it will still not be wide open throttle. Therefore, there are still inefficiencies due to part load operation. In addition, the power must be transmitted by a transmission, so their are other losses that must be considered.

The Volt’s ICE can be tuned for operation at wide open throttle. At 1500 rpm, it may generate 16 kW, with 12 kW used for propulsion, and 4 kW sent to the batteries. The generator efficiency should be close to 95% with a permanent magnet generator. I would expect engine efficiency to be 30 to 35%.

As I mentioned in a previous post, a gallon of gas has the energy equivalent of 36 kWh. If the Volt’s engine-generator is 33% efficient, one gallon of gas can supply the 12 kW needed to propel it down the highway at 60 mph for one hour. Therefore, 60 mpg can be achieved.
John B Dairyman Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Title = Got 50 mpg ?

Uh what, does this car run on milk.
Jackson Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm

But DonC,

Isn’t this ever so much more fun than quibbling over how the ICE range extender won’t work / the original concept is gone, blah blah blah?

Just for the record, I think EREVs will be here to stay no matter what.

But just for grins, let’s take those arguments:

In the first place, it isn’t E85, it’s E100 (not that it really matters).

If you burn the ethanol in an internal combustion engine, you’ll lose about 2/3 of the energy as heat. On top of that, you have whatever inefficiencies may exist in a mechanical generator.

If you convert ethanol flamelessly into hydrogen with this (admittedly very new) device, the conversion is said to be 90% efficient. I’m not immediately aware of the figures, but proponents of fuel cells are always claiming much better efficiency than mechanically generated electricity, so for the sake of argument, I’ll accept that.

As to whether it can ever make economic sense, well, that is the $200,000 question .

The thing to note here though, is that they claim to have made this catalytic reformer without Rhodium or other $9000-per-ounce rare metals. I seem to recall reading recently (and posted a link on this site somewhere) that some other laboratory has claimed a fuel cell using no expensive metals.

I distantly recall (maybe 15 – 20 years ago) that someone (maybe Chrysler), was promoting the idea of a gasoline-to-Hydrogen-to-fuel-cell-to-electricity technology; they got laughed off the stage, as I remember. There were also “coking” problems with carbon collecting on the catalyst (which this group claims to have solved).

Even they don’t claim that their device can be made as small as I’m suggesting.

http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/10180

I’m really not out to make anyone angry; it’s just that we don’t really know as much about the future of technology as we sometimes let on.

Yeah, I’m still waiting on that sunlight + water = hydrogen (that’s better than going PV to eletrolysis) too. I’m not holding my breath.
Leo Karl Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Bob @ #22

“With a range ICE of 300-400 miles and a mpg of 50 (those are the best #s I’ve heard). Then I can expect the gas tank to be about 8 gallons (or less) in size. At $4 a gallon, it’ll take $32ish to fill the tank. It currently costs me about $50 for the same milage, but I have a bigger tank.”

Your numbers make sense if you compare the VOLT’s potential 50mpg with ICE vs. your current car with a bigger tank. BUT, you are missing the HUGE BENEFIT of the VOLT – any trip under 40 miles will use ZERO gasoline – thus you will likely get much more than 300-400 miles on each tank of gas. That is why GM has been quoted as saying the VOLT will get up to 100mpg!

Obviously it all depends on each driver’s mix of city/highway driving and comuting habits, but for anyone who has a 40 to 50 mile daily commute, the VOLT has the potential to revolutionize the costs of that commute.

Yes, there will be many manufacturers coming out with electric vehicles. But KUDOS to GM for allowing the public access into their ‘behind the scene’ development. I realize that GM has little to loose at this point, but lets face it, they are risking any trade secrets by being as open as they have been.

Go GM . . . bring on the VOLT!!!
Leo Karl Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I like it . . .

Got 50 mpg?

Got VOLT?
mitch Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm

#91 “The battery in the Volt has a 10 year warranty. If this is correct, that is not very long. The original Tommy Edison batteries used in electric cars still work fine today. They are 100 YEARS OLD and still have the original 100 mile range. GM can do better than that”

Are you saying those battries are STILL UNDER WARRANTY?!?!?! that they are working is totally seperate issue

My 72 chev silverado 4 x4 still runs sweet and it is way beyond warranty..

Warranty is NOT life expectancy …it is the time they will cover it at their expense. BIIIGGG Difference
omegaman66 Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm

GM please so Thom’s post #8. He is obviously smarter than your engineers. Please fire all your engineers and hire him.

Or maybe I am being a bit hasty. Maybe GM is lying. GM please immediately issue an apology. THOM has caught you in another lie. Shame on you!
Plug Free Volt Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Anyone know how often the gas engine will run while in “charge sustaining mode” ?

Say you’re travelling at a zero degree incline, 60 mph avg speed on an interstate road surface and carrying no passengers.

I don’t believe the gas engine will constantly run all the time while in “charge sustaining mode”. Doesn’t the gas engine/generator charge the battery from 35% SOC to 50% SOC during charge sustaining mode ? If so, this would suggest the gas engine doesn’t run all the time.
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm

#98 omegaman66

“GM please so Thom’s post #8. He is obviously smarter than your engineers. Please fire all your engineers and hire him.

Or maybe I am being a bit hasty. Maybe GM is lying. GM please immediately issue an apology. THOM has caught you in another lie. Shame on you!”

———-

I think maybe you need a day off Mike, hehe. I took one awhile back…it was glorius.
Jackson Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Plug Free Volt (#99):

This is also something I would like to know.

I’ve been told that nothing is worse for the life of an engine than to be used for many short trips without ever having time to fully warm up. Moisture collects in the oil, which is bad for nearly every internal part. I was told this years ago, so I don’t know if it’s still true today.

I would be very concerned if the range-extender “short-cycled” for this reason. Since my daily commute is just over 40 miles, I imagine my range-extender would come on within 5 miles of home, and then shut off before it’s fully warmed up. Every single day, for x-years.

I assume that the range-extender has a radiator, pump etc. for cooling, like a normal ICE, so I’ve wondered if there would be any advantage to putting insulation around the engine block; if it won’t run constantly. Of course, that wouldn’t solve my theoretical problem. I wonder if I’m worse off double-cycling the battery by plugging-in at work, or running the range extender daily for less than the time it takes for it to warm up?

On a long road trip, I’d fully expect it to run continuously.
Bob Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Leo Karl @ 95

“Your numbers make sense if you compare the VOLT’s potential 50mpg with ICE vs. your current car with a bigger tank. BUT, you are missing the HUGE BENEFIT of the VOLT – any trip under 40 miles will use ZERO gasoline – thus you will likely get much more than 300-400 miles on each tank of gas. That is why GM has been quoted as saying the VOLT will get up to 100mpg!”

Ah ha! So we come to the root of my argument! What I’m trying to make a point of is that even WITHOUT the battery-powered miles, it goes the same distance as my current car (A crap-tastic 98 Bonneville SSE) with LESS gas and has the electric to boot.

The battery power is a “range initalizer” on a very fuel efficient car.
It gets me an automatic 40 miles with a very reduced cost.

Hopefully my Bonneville won’t totally crap out on me so I can get the Volt in 2012!
~Bob
noel park Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm

#83 Statik:

I am serious. I hope to see GM survive, and I’m not clear on how, or if, they’re going to do it. Maybe the $25 billion will help some, LOL. Or cry.

#84 N Riley & #89 Gsned57:

The detents from neutral to reverse are not that strong. I actually shifted past neutral into reverse once in an old Suburban I had. Gsned57 is right, you only get one chance.

Our 3500 has the Allison 5 speed automatic, which has an engine braking feature which I hate. While searching through the owner’s manual trying to figure out how to defeat it, I came upon the warning in bold letters. If you shift from drive to neutral while driving, the warranty is void. So I never got brave enough to do it. I assume that GM has been down that road a few times before.
Bob Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm

For Clarification:

For me, the ICE is not a “range extender” as GM advertises.

Instead the battery power is a “range intializer” on an already very fuel efficient vehicle.

I get 40 miles for free!
(so to speak…I know that they aren’t totally free)
~Bob
Dave B Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Noel @ 103,

I think we share the same concerns. GM asking for a government bailout is distressing to say the least. If I were a shareholder I’d be screaming… Perhaps its time for a Chevy spinoff? A Volt brand?

I am not a fan of bailouts and would oppose it. Tax credits are enough meddling in “free market” affairs. Besides, do you want the government putting any “strings” on the production of the Volt?
+1 Noah Nehm Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm

#91 Gee M Warranty (Or is that Warren T. Frumm, G.M.?

Edison’s battery, if I remember correctly, was a Nickel Iron battery. That battery has an energy density of 50 Wh/kg. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries have an energy density of around 170 Wh/kg. While the Nickel Iron battery is unbelievably rugged, it’s relatively heavy – more than 3 times as heavy as the batteries going into the Volt.

Besides, there’s not much more room to improve for Ni-Fe batteries – it’s a pretty mature technology. There are still a bunch of innovations in the labs that should boost the energy and life-cycle of Lithium Ion batteries.
JEC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

99 Plug Free

I don’t think charge sustain brings the battery any where near 50%, I think it just attempts to maintain somewhere near 35%.

My guess is that once the engine starts and your running at highway speed, that the engine would run continuously. GM has stated (not that I agree, and they have yet to call me), that they do NOT intend to use the generator to charge the battery, but only sustain it.

I would even go out on a limb and say that the ICE may never shutdown once you hit the 35% sustain point. My reasoning would be, that if GM only sustains at 35% (yes, it will charge slightly above, but according to the graph on charge sustain, only slightly), that you would get only short period of power from the battery, before it would want to cycle back to ICE. The hysteresis would need to be fairly significant to keep the engine & battery switching between them. This is just a guess of course, but hey I am trying to be a vague as GM on describing the technical functionality.
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Well, I just found out smething I had been wondering about. I was hoping GM would revamp the 2009 Chevy Impala like they did the 2008 Chevy Malibu. No such luck, it seems. The 2009 Impala is essentially the same as a 2008 Impala. I was hoping for some re-styling of the line like they did the Malibu to really spark some interest in the Impala. Heck, I was hoping they would so I could feel good about buying the Impala as a stop gap car until I’m able to buy the Volt. The new version of the Impala will hit the roads as a 2010 model sometime in late summer or fall of 2009. Another year away. Another balloon burst. Another hope crushed. Oh, well. I guess I will have to narrow my car purchase down to Honda, Toyota and maybe the Chevy 2009 Malibu. (Especially since the Cruze won’t be out until late 2010, also.)
N Riley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm

#105 Dave B

“Besides, do you want the government putting any “strings” on the production of the Volt?”

The government already has the automakers tied up in strings. Another one is not going to make any real difference.

Edited to add:

No one really wants to see a bail-out, but I would rather see a bail-out low interest loan type of program rather seeing GM, Ford or Chrysler bought out by some other countries’ auto maker or worse yet, go broke and go out of business.
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm

#94 Jackson

Yeah, it’s a lot more fun! The point I think you’re missing is that you still need energy to convert the E100 (my bad) to hydrogen. (You have to have some energy to break the bonds). Where does that come from? If it’s flameless it probably comes from electricity ….

#88 Dave P

Wouldn’t it just be easier to say the battery pack uses 8 kWh, there are 37 kWh in a gallon of gas, so if you have a 25% efficient system you have a range of 46.25 miles and be done with it? Surely even the folks here wouldn’t argue with a 25% efficiency. Or would they?

#101 Jackson

Absent unusual circumstances you will never use the gen-set on your way to work. Not using it will be a challenge and you will rise to the challenge and figure out a way to get that extra couple of miles. No doubt in my mind.

Plus when new the Volt’s range will be over 40. Just to run some numbers, if they expect to lose 10% by EOL (could be conservative), and they want the range at EOL to be 40 miles, that means a range of 44.44 miles when the pack is new.
dano Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm

don’t forget this is an entirely new way of connecting an ICE to wheels. The engine can run in its sweet spot until the battery is partially recharged, shut off, then go through the cycle multiple times. You can do all kinds of things to optimize the vehicle. So I can easily believe 50 MPG.

In the end it doesn’t matter, say you have a 150 mile commute, say you only get 40 MPG when on ICE, with the first 40 on battery. You would use 2.75 gallons which would give you an average of 54.5 MPG.

This is not a vehicle built for an over the road trucking application

dano
+1 Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm

#73 THOM Says: “A 1.4 l engine in a car gets 50 mpg??….”
————————————————————————————–
Look at the Toyota Prius. The 2008 model has a 1.5L engine that gets 48 mpg city. The 2009 model will have a 1.8L engine that gets the same or better mileage. It all depends on how the engine is tuned. Since the Prius has the electric motor assist for power, they can use avery energy efficient Atkinson tuning.
Plug Free Volt Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm

JEC #107

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the gas engine would begin it’s “charge sustaining mode” at 35% SOC and would stop charging at 50% SOC. This would allow the battery to deplete back to a 35% SOC then, begin the charging cycle over again (kinda like a pulse type cycle).

I checked the archives and was unable to find anything to substantiate this though.
demetrius Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm

This is for Statik and any other Canadians out there who follow this site.

We in Canada pay a premium over what our American cousins pay for the same cars – lets say that is something like 7K (ex: Upper end Prius in US is 24 K and it is 32 K in canada).

So if the Volt is comfortably under 40 K (lets say 37 K US) then it will be 44K up here – then add freight, pdi and taxes we see that it will be uncomfortably close to 50K.

So I will be watching from the sidelines because I can’t see me or the average driver spending 50K for a small sedan.
ThombDbhomb Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm

#83 Statik
“If I am going on a 60+ mile trip…the Volt is staying in the garage. Period. No way that thing is comfortable on long trips”

An “uncomfortable” Volt is a claim I haven’t heard on this site yet. I suppose that is something we can argue about. But, like many Volt matters, we can’t really know until we actually drive a Volt.
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm

#103 noel park

“I am serious.”
-re GM update

…you bring me back into the fray you know. Ok, just a ‘quickie’ though. (I kid, nothing is quick). Since the last ‘update’ three major things have occured:

1.) First case: (In GM’s ‘dont worry we have extra cash coming’ – 15 millionish, but we aren’t saying exactly from where)

HUMMER sale. As I said here when GM first announced it was for sale…and that ‘many 3rd parties’ were interested i buying it—”there are none, there was none”.

There was not then, there was not now. What GM needed to do was say these to ‘appease’ it’s Hummer dealer base somehow, while they tried to buy as many of them out on the ‘downlo’ as they could. For the most part it worked, Gm only has 160. Most dealers that went sold out for 2-5 million reported. No other company wants them because the remaining dealers still have ugly contracts and franchise laws.

Status: No offers–life support

2.) Second Case:

Part of the ‘15 million’ bucket-o-cash to get through 2009 was the sale of their medium truck line to Navistar, (fantastical names such as Kodiak, TopKick in this line). Navistar would “purchase certain assets, intellectual property rights to manufacture GMC and Chevrolet brand vehicles in the class 4-8 gross vehicle weight range and distribution rights for GM’s medium-duty truck unit.” This would not only give GM a bunch of cash, but also let them cease production from it’s plant in Flint, Michigan, and transfer all the related nonsesene to a Navistar facility.

Status: Completely dead. Snippet from GM’s press release last wednesday, “Due to significant marketplace and economic changes, GM and Navistar have decided not to renew the memorandum of understanding to purchase GM’s medium duty truck business, which has expired.”

3.) Federal bailout/bailout requests:

Much of GM’s plan includes government bailout(s), as indicated by yesturdays lobby for a 25 billion (for the first year) at 4.5% by the big 3. (Side note, right now GM is paying upwards of 13% for credit, if they can find it…on the open market, so 4.5% is way ‘under market value’).

This is highly unlikely, even just 12-18 months ago it was more than a possibility, but times have changed. They may get something, but nothing like what they would require. In other times, GM would get the ‘government assistance’ they need, ala Chrysler in the 80s. It’s a ‘feel-good’ election story. However, the gov’t has it’s had more than full with supporting the banking/housing sector.

In the nexts few weeks (days) we are likely to see the fed forced to come in and take over Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to stop a ‘run’ at the banks. “Losses between April and June for the two totaled $3.1 billion as defaults in their portfolios mount. The pair hold about half of outstanding U.S. mortgage debt and are the largest source of funding for home loans” They are both off 90% this year and are on life support, so much so that no private sector group in existance has pockets deep enough to even look at them.

This is a monster undertaking for the US to say the least…and it in no way spells they end of the potential crisis’ they face. This leaves the pot virtually empty for other venerable ‘American Institutions’

The simple fact is the ‘Big 3′ are all in trouble (least of which is Ford actually). The recession is here (or almost depending on your definition). The car market domestically has already contracted almost 20% and looks to shrink by alot more. This is not a short-term issue either. Quite frankly, one of the ‘big 3 automakers’ needs to fold for the sake of the other two. Bailing out any of these would be disservice to the American taxpayers…and that is the flag that will be waved…as soon as the election is over.

Please post hate mail to ‘noel park,’ for this GM financial moment, hehe.
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm

#113 Plug Free Volt
#107 JEC

This is the latest information we have. Fifty percent of the pack will be used, 80% to 30% SOC. Depending on circumstances the engine and/or regen braking may charge the pack a small amount for a very gentle cycle, say to 35% SOC, at which point the ICE will shut down until the battery runs down again to a 30% SOC.

The graph for all this is here:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/07/26/gm-has-decided-on-the-14-l-4-cylinder-engine-as-the-range-extender-for-the-chevy-volt/
Jackson Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm

DonC (#110):

Yes, according to the article, the energy comes from heat. While the reaction itself appears to be flameless, there’s still the question of how you would get the catalyst to the necessary temperature which, while lower than “most industrial processes” would still require energy, and perhaps a burner of some kind.

They did mention that one of the (non-90% hydrogen) waste products would be methane, which could “help” generate the heat.

Of course, they do say that much of the thermal energy can be regenerated, so if the reaction vessel is insulated, the additional power required beyond initial startup could be quite small.

Some heat energy, probably from burning some of the ethanol, would be lost running the conversion. 2/3? I would tend to doubt it. Still, I’m only ‘throwing it out there’
OzoneLevel Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm

#116

Nice analysis, but that should be “$15 Billion” not million. I know, I know, million, billion, what’s the difference to people reading this….
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm

#108 n riley

“Well, I just found out smething I had been wondering about. I was hoping GM would revamp the 2009 Chevy Impala like they did the 2008 Chevy Malibu. No such luck, it seems. The 2009 Impala is essentially the same as a 2008 Impala.”

Indeed. This is hometown territory for me.

This plant is completely ballistic…in that I mean they make it (the Impala) in one place, on one line, on old architecture…and they sell every last one they can pump out as soon as they affix the bowtie to it.

It has low capacity because internally GM thought the Malibu would take all of the sales from it…well, not so fast Chet. Some people still want this wide body platform and just about everyone stopped making it, which has funneled all the demand into this vehicle.

GM makes a great margin (relatively speaking) on this car. No chance/need for change on this one (in GM’s thinking anyway).
Me Here Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm

#69 GXT
“I don’t buy it. Check out this fool getting 37MPG with his 21/29 cobalt”

We get 36mpg all the time with our ‘04 Ion (cobalt twin) and that is an auto. Key is flat highway and 55mph, windows up and no a/c, smooth transitions and cruise. Other conditions results in less MPG. I don’t think we have ever had less than 29mpg (winter so heater use and blizzacks on), we do have 70% highway miles though
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm

#119 OzoneLevel

“Nice analysis, but that should be “$15 Billion” not million. I know, I know, million, billion, what’s the difference to people reading this….”

Good lord! My mistake, obviously 15 billion…and I did it twice, lol. Too late to edit too, hrmmf. I did that in my last GM update too, sigh. Nice catch.

“15 BILLION, GAGILLION, FAFILLION, SHABOLUBALU MILLION ILLION YILLION…yen”
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm

#116 Statik

They will be bailed out. No question.

I have less heartburn about this than I do about the endless stream of financial bailouts. I am so tired of the same pattern. First we hear all the slop about “how the market is best” and “can do the job better” and how “we need to keep government out.” Then the market completely screws up and threatens the entire economy. Then the government bails out the financials at absolutely huge cost to the taxpayers.

Savings and Loans. Derivative trading. Merrill Lynch. Fannie Mac. Freddie Mac. The list is endless and the bailouts are huge. The auto industry is small potatoes by comparison and poses far less risk since the risks can at least be quantified.

We need to clamp down on the financial sector. The manufacturers are no big deal.
Bob Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Statik @ 116

This certainly is not looking good for America…

Anything positive to say?

Well I do:
Go VOLT!
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm

#123 DonC

“The list is endless and the bailouts are huge. The auto industry is small potatoes by comparison and poses far less risk since the risks can at least be quantified.”

I guess that is my point, the list is endless, the bailouts are huge, however the pot is not bottomless as most would believe. The more money you print/borrow, the less it is worth, the more inflation ruins the whole thing.

The auto industry isn’t small potatoes and you can’t ‘quantify’ the risks. They are asking right now for 25 billion for the first year. Is that the end? Does this money go to making them profitable…or keeping the lights on? The ‘Big 3′ have blown over 60 billion in the last few months, and it’s not getting better. They need alot more than 25 billion.

When it really gets bad, how does 50 billion a year indefinitely sound? Every 25 billion they blow is about $200 from each working American (that has the taxbase to acquire it from).

10% of Americans have lost their house to the bank or have been forced to sell in the last 3 years…they can give out $200 extra per year for GM/Chrysler/Ford?

But as I like to always say here, “Time will tell” You could be right…I can’t believe the coin they are still ponying out for Iraq.
Cautious Fan Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm

#123 DonC

The market isn’t perfect, bubbles occur. But they’re the most efficient method yet found. If the gov’t were running it, whose to say they’d be able to determine what’s a bubble and what’s the future. I’d trust a selfish investor to act in their own interest, way before I’d trust a gov’t official to act in my interest. If a selfish investor can’t spot a bubble, how will a salaried bureaucrat.

You’re examples of Freddi and Fani are interesting. The gov’t forces them to make loans the markets would never make, low-interest FHA’s. And when many of these loans start going bad and the gov’t has to bail them out, its the markets fault????
Kubel Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm

“Actually thats the great thing about the volt there is no human factor (aggressive acceleration) in the fuel efficiency formula.”

That’s entirely false. It will reduce AER and it will require the genset to be active more often than necessary. Your argument is flawed only because there are batteries acting as a buffer. If the genset were wired directly to the electric drive motor or were run constantly, then it wouldn’t matter, and you would be correct. But you would be wasting a heck of a lot of energy, you wouldn’t be able to reclaim energy from braking, and you would not have a buffer of sorts to provide for high performance.

The best way I can explain it is with a cup (battery pack) with a hole on the bottom (energy consumed from pack), being filled up by a faucet (genset) that’s either on or off (cycling between range consuming and range extending modes).

The bigger the hole in the cup, the more often you will need to keep the faucet running in order maintain a balanced fill level with the cup. The more the faucet has to run, the higher your water bill will be.

If you widen the hole in the cup (pedal to the medal), you will notice the cup will drain faster than the faucet can keep up with. Then when the hole returns to a smaller size (cruising at a steady speed), the faucet can begin to overcome the loss of water through the hole and replenish the cup (batteries). But since the cup can be filled perhaps too much than is necessary, the faucet can turn off, let the cup slowly drain, then turn back on when necessary.

A wider hole in the cup will make it drain faster, and the faucet will need to be turned on sooner and more frequently once the cup is depleted of its initial water supply. Likewise, driving faster or more aggressive than necessary will make the battery drain faster, and the genset will need to be turned on sooner and more frequently once the battery is depleted of its initial energy supply. More frequent genset usage means more fuel consumption than necessary, meaning less fuel efficiency.
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm

#118 Jackson

This is my favorite comparison summarizing how the energy efficiency of a fuel cell car — assuming all the breakthroughs — stacks up against the efficiency of an electric car with today’s technology throughout the entire process:

FC: 35% power plant, 70% electrolyzer, 85% compression, 93% shipping, 40% fuel cell, 85% drive train: Total 6.6%

EV: 35% power plant, 93% transmission, 93% charger, 99% batteries (slow charge), 85% drive train: Total: 25.5%

What part do you want to disagree with?
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm

#126 Cautious Fan

You’ve put your finger on the problem, which is that there is a world of difference between regulating a market and “running” a market. Markets only work under certain conditions. For financial markets to work you need transparency. The financial sectors constantly defeat attempts to make them more transparency by speciously arguing this would be “running” a market.

For example, because of unregulated derivative swaps, a lot of hedge funds have huge profits on their books based on the fact that they have “insurance” against losses from bad mortgages. Sounds great. But because the SEC hasn’t required them to divulge the entities which “insured” the losses, no one has any idea if those entities can in fact pay off. The guess is that they can pay off maybe 15-65 cents on the dollar, which means all those paper profits are probably actual losses.

This is why the financial sectors are in such danger. No one has a very good idea of what the actual situation is because the markets simply aren’t transparent enough.
DaveP Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm

#110 DonC
Well, I DID say mine was the most convoluted argument.
And the reason it was convoluted was because I was tying in the Honda generator. The original observation was that a Honda generator’s specs would come nowhere near producing a 50mpg car. So, yeah. But it was kind of nice that the convoluted approach came up with the same answer as the simple one.

Jackson, et al:
The problem with converting ethanol to hydrogen, even at high efficiency is that the efficiency of the process of getting the ethanol still has to be considered. The Tesla folks made a pretty good point that there is so much energy loss in making liquid fuel from plant matter that you are better off just burning the crops and making electricity from that.
Granted, that still doesn’t solve the problem of refueling your car quidkly but that’s probably just as likely to get solved through the development of cheap high current batteries as it is through the development of fuel cells.

Personaly, I think we’re going to ultimately bypass ethanol and hydrogen, etc. They’ll just make celluloistic gasoline or diesel directly (until those “refueling” batteries are ready . There’s already a few companies pretty far down that path… Here’s a couple, but if you google around you can find quite a few more:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4260296.html?series=19
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm

#125 Statik

The first fact of life is that you can’t fight a war and cut taxes. The second fact of life is that you can’t let financial markets go unregulated and not end up with huge financial bailouts. Perhaps the third fact of life is if you have an administration which doesn’t “get” lessons one AND two you will end up in deep guano.

We spend $12B a month in Iraq. We have cut $233B from the tax bill for the wealthiest Americans (of which I am one). Of course the pot is not bottomless. But resources are not the issue. Focus and leadership are the issues.
noel park Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm

#116 & #123 Statik:

Alas, I pretty much have to agree. As much as I hope for the Volt, Cruze, and similar, to become world class cars, I just don’t see how they arrive in time and in sufficient quantity, to provide a bridge over the abyss.

RE: the Hummer, I saw here, or in Autoweek, or somewhere just this week, that Toyota is pulling the plug on the FJ 40. At least they have the courage, and/or the financial ability, to read and act on the handwriting on the wall.

Re: truck sales to Navistar, are those like 4500 and above? What a shame. Kind of like selling Allison, or Detroit Diesel come to that. I know that it hasn’t happened (yet), but it really chills me. Maybe DB or Volvo would like to buy it, as they own most of our heavy truck industry already. Maybe when the fire sale gets a little bit more intense.

I think that there will be some sort of a bailout. As somebody mentioned above, wasn’t some kind of legislation already passed? As you correctly point out, it’s peanuts compared to the FMs. And the ongoing hemorrage in Iraq. $25 billion = 2 weeks of Iraq. Will it be enough? I share your skepticism.

Not to worry – we can just borrow another trillion from the PRC and the OPECers. Our granchildren will adore us when they suddenly become citizens of a second world (if they’re lucky) country.

And yeah, I’ll take the blame for starting this up again. Statik has been pretty low profile lately. But it’s perfectly appropriate for the blog, IMHO. The future of the Volt clearly hangs in the balance with all of this. As Mort Sahl always says, “Reality, what a concept.”
noel park Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm

#131 DonC:

Amen.
DaveP Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm

#127 Kubel:
Actually JohnC is more right than not. He’s talking about acceleration, and that should not be much of a factor at all.

Basically, the energy required to accelerate the car from 0 to 60mph is the same no matter how fast you accelerate.
Consider the energy required to lift a boulder up a hill (Ideally, in a vaccuum). From a physics standpoint, the energy requirement is the same no matter how fast you lift that boulder.
What is different is the POWER requirement. Which, given the broad and large efficiency ranges of the electric components inovlved is not going to make a huge difference in MPG (unlike it does for gas engines).

If you drive considerably faster (velocity, not acceleration) then the energy requirements are higher (due to frictional losses from higher drag) and if you brake faster than the system can regenerate (again, power limitation- braking up to that limit is the same as braking gently) then you will get worse mileage.

So as far as ripping from stoplights, it’s pretty much all good.
George K Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm

#116 Statik
“Quite frankly, one of the ‘big 3 automakers’ needs to fold for the sake of the other two. Bailing out any of these would be disservice to the American taxpayers”

I find myself agreeing with you again. It’s exactly the way I feel (as long as the odd man out isn’t GM)

A lot has changed in the last 30 years. Not only is there more foreign competition, but also, more Americans DON’T feel obligated to buy American. I must say, I was in that category, until the Volt came along.
mikeinatl. Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm

“50 MPG in ICE mode after the battery has been depleted.”

So what that really means is that 50 MPG is the LEAST mileage you can expect. Your actual mileage will depend on your driving patterns. Some will get 60 mpg, some will get 150 mpg. And there may be some who might get 500 mpg because they never use the gas and it evaporates from the tank.

And if you can do that in a car that is the least bit sexy, that makes VOLT a pretty interesting car.

So, a few questions off the thread:

1. Are the insurance companies ready for VOLT?
2. What will Volt sound like going down the road.
Golf carts make almost no noise but dont have an
ICE generator.
3. How many cars does crash testing use up and
how long does that design phase take?
Are the Feds ready to evaluate this different car
concept without delays?
4. If Volt-like cars become prevalent, would that mean
gas stations become harder to find due to much
less demand?

I
DaveP Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm

#134 DaveP
Sorry. I meant JonP was more right than not.
Plug Free Volt Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm

#117 DonC

Thanks for the link !

I knew that graph was around here somewhere but, just couldn’t find it.

With the gas engine intermittently operating during “Charge Sustaining Mode”, 50 mpg shouldn’t be a problem.
George K Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm

#113 Plug Free Volt
“I seem to remember reading somewhere that the gas engine would begin it’s “charge sustaining mode” at 35% SOC and would stop charging at 50% SOC. This would allow the battery to deplete back to a 35% SOC then, begin the charging cycle over again (kinda like a pulse type cycle).”

The last we heard is the Volt may be plugged in to charge from 35% to 85%. After being depleted, the range extender will attempt to keep it aprox + / – 6% of the 35% while driving.
That’s what I get from the graph.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0804_chevrolet_volt_update/photo_04.html
TL Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm

I really don’t want to spend 35+k for a Non-extraordinary 1.4 L 4 cylinder car(add the complex e-flex system that no1 can servise besides dealer). VW TDI can do 50mpg without complex e-flex and it’s already avalible not to mention it will take veggie oil, at least $10k cheaper and the 3 year/36k mi free maintainance program.
Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm

#75 George K asks: “Who said it was going to be fixed rpm?”
————————————————————————————–
Bob Lutz, in the recent Charlie Rose’ show interview.

See video here:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/20/lutz-production-volt-has-a-cd-between-28-and-29-and-battery-extreme-cold-performance-is-good/

About 7 minutes in, Lutz says:
“And you know the more we talked about it, we figured that the formula of a vehicle containing Lithium Ion batteries that could do 40-50 miles range purely electricly, and then automatically be recharged onboard by a small piston engine operating at a single RPM where is consumes very little fuel and emits very little …”

I know this doesn’t make it definate, but it’s the first time I’ve heard GM mention constant RPM.
Aspherical Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm

#136 mikeinatl

1. Are the insurance companies ready for VOLT?

- Excellent question. I’m sure the insurance companies won’t like the idea that the battery packs will cost $10,000 if severely damaged in an accident. That will be the only issue…

2. What will Volt sound like going down the road?

- Most likely like most hybrids on the road today. That may change shortly. I believe that California just passed a law that will require hybrid cars to make more noise for the deaf/hard of hearing people. Thus by the time the Volt comes to the market, it may have to make a “fake” engine noise even in all electric mode. So stay tuned for the answer to this question…
Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm

#140 TL Says: “I really don’t want to spend 35+k for a Non-extraordinary 1.4 L 4 cylinder car(add the complex e-flex system that no1 can servise besides dealer). VW TDI can do 50mpg without complex e-flex and it’s already avalible …”
————————————————————————————–
If you don’t plan to plug in the Volt and run on electricity, then you would be better off with a VW TDI or a Toyota Prius. If you plug in the Volt every night, and drive less than 40 miles every day, then your mileage will be infinite, since you wont use any gas or diesel.
Van Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm

How much energy does it really take to tool down the road?

Say we take our Volt out for a spin. It is all charged up and ready to go. We slowly accelerate to 40 MPH and hold that speed constant for 40 miles, when the ICE starts up. What have we done? We “burned” 8 KWh of electricity and went 40 miles. Thus we got 5 miles per KWh or 200 Wh per mile. And that is close to the best we could do, assuming that the energy to overcome drag was small at 40 MPH. Now lets recharge of Volt and do it again except drive at 60 MPH. Can we increase the speed by 50% and not increase the drag? Nope. So lets assume it now takes 300 Wh to go a mile at 60 MPH because of the increased energy required to overcome the increased drag. How far do we go? 27 miles. How long did it take? 27 minutes or about one half hour. So how much energy did it take to tool down the road at 40 MPH? 8 Kw. And how much at 60 MPH? 16 Kw.

How far could you go if you averaged 12 Kw during a city drive cycle? Around 33 miles. So lets set our expectations low and perhaps we will do significantly better.
Koz Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm

DaveP #134

There was a long discussion about this several month’s ago and I’ll spare everyone those gory details. Suffice it to say, everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong. There will be a some penalty for agressive driving due non-linear resistive losses the battery, wires, and electrical components. This penalty will be MUCH less than with ICE only cars because of regen and the much smaller efficiency penalty for high power delivery for the electric drivetrain. The affect on the generator activity will not be noticeable to the driver and will result in only minor increases to the runtime.
Koz Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Van #144

Where did you get 40 miles from 8KWh at 40mph from?
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm

#134 DaveP – “Basically, the energy required to accelerate the car from 0 to 60mph is the same no matter how fast you accelerate”

1. Force = Mass X Acceleration.

2. Power = Force X Velocity. Average Velocity = [Velocity (Final) - Velocity (initial)] /2 = (Acceleration * Time)/2.
Statik Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm

#129 DonC

“For example, because of unregulated derivative swaps, a lot of hedge funds have huge profits on their books based on the fact that they have “insurance” against losses from bad mortgages. Sounds great. But because the SEC hasn’t required them to divulge the entities which “insured” the losses, no one has any idea if those entities can in fact pay off. The guess is that they can pay off maybe 15-65 cents on the dollar, which means all those paper profits are probably actual losses.

This is why the financial sectors are in such danger. No one has a very good idea of what the actual situation is because the markets simply aren’t transparent enough.”

——————-
I would love, love to talk about his all day long, as you clearly have a strong understanding of how the market works…I generally don’t get into the ‘nitty-gritty’ like you started to there. However, I fear the thread would become even more derailled…thanks noel, hehe.

Your second paragraph has a ton of truth in it, and I completely agree.

However, as to your point that there is not enough regulation and transparency brought in by the government, I don’t necessarily agree. The weak must be allowed to fail, thats life. If people/institutions are too mentally weak to soundly invest, they get thrown under the bus, thats harsh…but thats life.

I have no ‘at risk’ asset to monitor right now, I’ve gone total ‘MAd Max’ and liquified (and I don’t even live in the US, lol), but when I was in the market, I checked my stocks, munis, bonds, reits, options, mutual fuinds and even money market accounts everyday, 3 or 4 times.

If you can’t committ to your investments as much as you committ to feeding your face…you shouldn’t invest in anything but a gov’t back security. (I couldn’t live without alerts to the Blackberry, lol).

I will say that some companies/institutions have been shown to be egregious in their actions, exposed by the overall economics of the market, in those cases…action is needed, gov’t intervention is a must to not only the individuals, but the institutions who will be sucked up in the undertow…ie) Freddie and Fannie, major banks, lest the entire country be pulled into depression.

Thats why I’d rather keep all the ‘bailout cash’ for the greater good, and just have the gov’t give GM alot of ‘bankruptcy protectionism’ if they really are intent on throwing them a bone.
Koz Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Statik #125,

“10% of Americans have lost their house to the bank or have been forced to sell in the last 3 years…they can give out $200 extra per year for GM/Chrysler/Ford? ”

You really should consider marketing. You have a tremendous gift. Start with good hard facts, a dolup of wit, and sprinkle in the skewing pepper. Your obviously well enough versed in US taxes to know we don’t have a flat national tax. Roughly 68% of income tax is paid by top 10% of earners (h://gm-volt.com/2008/08/22/chevy-volt-still-expected-to-get-50-mpg-in-ice-mode-after-battery-depleted/#comment-60982). If GM goes under, how much of a shortfal in tax collections will that create directly and indirectly? What kind of hardships will that create on the affected individuals? Sure the big auto companies don’t deserve a handout but a cold shoulder would be worse. They should have to show some mesure of long term viability and accept some capitulation on issues. This may mean that one goes under but more than that would be disastrous.
Grizzly Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Van # 66

“If the plug in only burns one third of the gas of the non-plug in due to the combination of higher MPH and AER, at 16 years, our gas consumption will be one third what it is today.”

*** *** ***

Not sure of the calculations, but let me remind you that with a vehicle like the Volt, your liquid fuel consumption could very well be cellulosic ethanol rather than gasoline. Now you see the compounding power of a flex-fuel RE EV to free us from foreign oil.
Koz Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm

DonC #147

Are you are trying to point out that the energy imparted to an object in bringing it to a particular velocity is different depending on the acceleration? Work is energy, not power alone but power for a period of time. There will certainly be different power rates to achieve different acceleration ratese for the same mass, but they will be acting over different times. Exactly the same amount of kinetic energy is imparted to the object regardless of how quickly it is accelerated. This is made obvious by the fact the KE=Mv^2, which has no relation to power or acceleration.
DaveP Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm

#147 DonC
Yes. And the key (for those following at home on their physics scorecards) being that if you double acceleration, then getting to 60 takes half the time. So power doubles, but energy which is power times time stays the same.

But of course, that was always true for ICE cars, as well. (or asteroids or geese or whatever)

Which of course brings us to #145 Koz:
Absolutely. And I’m expecting the difference in losses from the higher power demands to be just a few percent but I really don’t know for sure exactly how large they will be.

However, I’m totally looking forward to testing this theory on a real Volt and will be happy to report my findings!

(Note to GM- I’d be happy to borrow one of those Volt mules and conduct a very thorough examination of this issue in the public interest, of course. Just let me know.

But seriously, the fact that the GM engineers have said that weight doesn’t matter much for the Volt’s mpg, leads me to believe that higher power output will have very little penalty, since increasing the weight would have essentially translated into increased power demands.
Grant Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Keep in mind that part of this mileage may well be the fact that, according to the (somewhat out-of-date, most likely) graph we’ve seen, the engine doesn’t run ALL the time after you hit charge depletion. It does wind up shutting off sometimes even when you are not charged.

On the other hand, if this mileage is based off running constantly, then the fact that occasionally the engine cuts off on you as you travel becomes a bonus.

Either way, it’s better then the ‘99 Cutlass I have now.
Rashiid Amul Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm

N. Riley, #32 says,

Even 10% loss still leaves 45 mpg from the initial 50 mpg. Still not bad. I would buy the car (less the battery cost) just for the 45 mpg. Wouldn’t you?

——-
To be honest. Yes. But not at the $40K price.
My $13.5K 167,000 mile Hyundai Elantra is currently getting
39 mpg. For the price of this car, 39 mpg is close enough.
I’m not getting the first batch of Volts anyway, so I do have time
for the price to come down a bit. I will still buy the Volt and give it to my wife. She will never use gas. And that is the beauty of this car.
Rashiid Amul Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Grizzly #150 says,

but let me remind you that with a vehicle like the Volt, your liquid fuel consumption could very well be cellulosic ethanol rather than gasoline. Now you see the compounding power of a flex-fuel RE EV to free us from foreign oil.

——-
You nailed it good with that explanation. That is the power of this vehicle and flex fuel.
koz Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Rashiid Amul #155,

“Grizzly #150 says,

but let me remind you that with a vehicle like the Volt, your liquid fuel consumption could very well be cellulosic ethanol rather than gasoline. Now you see the compounding power of a flex-fuel RE EV to free us from foreign oil.

——-
You nailed it good with that explanation. That is the power of this vehicle and flex fuel.”

I agree but would like to add a thought. Conventional ICE vehicles can be made flex fuel. They can be purchased now but there is only enough alternative fuel for some. With EREVs, there will be enough alternative fuel for EVERYONE (disclaimer: tax, title, commercial and other heavy duty trucks not included).
Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm

#150 Grizzly Says: “… but let me remind you that with a vehicle like the Volt, your liquid fuel consumption could very well be cellulosic ethanol rather than gasoline. Now you see the compounding power of a flex-fuel RE EV to free us from foreign oil.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes! Exactly. It will be a combination of new fuels that will replace oil. Electric for shorter distances. Cellulosic ethanol for longer trips. Bio-diesel for trucks.
koz Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm

DaveP #152

Of course the Volt will have different battery chemistry than the Tesla Roadster, but the energy penalty should be very similar. From Tesla’s data, I’m guessing up to 10% extra losses from agressive acceleration. Breaking will be similar up to the point where the friction brakes are engaged.

Back to the meat of this thread. If highway rating is close to 50mpg, I’m really looking forward to city rating. It should be above 55 and perhaps closer to 60.
Dave G Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 pm

By the way, for those who haven’t see the videos of algae, it’s a must-see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBJ66Oim_Xw
Grizzly Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Statik #148

“Thats why I’d rather keep all the ‘bailout cash’ for the greater good, and just have the gov’t give GM alot of ‘bankruptcy protectionism’ if they really are intent on throwing them a bone.”

*** *** ***

You’re forgetting one thing. This arrangement means that suppliers and customers of GM won’t get paid what they have coming to them and this will hurt their near/long term chances of survival, not to mention THEIR customers/suppliers and so on and so on… Many people will lose their jobs and again, you’ve got a much bigger problem.

Given that GM and Ford have basically restructured themselves in the toughest of times it isn’t difficult to see 4.5% loans toward corporate infrastructure/solvency as an investment.
George K Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm

#141 Dave G
“About 7 minutes in, Lutz says:
“ and then automatically be recharged onboard by a small piston engine operating at a single RPM where is consumes very little fuel and emits very little …”

Hmm. I remember last year reading that the engineers said some people felt funny driving with a constant rpm, and that they felt more comfortable with the engine speeding up and down relative to the speed of the vehicle.

I know a lot has happened since then. I hope if it is constant, it is well shielded, as the noise would be annoying compared to the beautiful silence of electric driving. Picture crawling in traffic, etc.

Also, I hope, if it is constant rpm, at least they turn it off when you take your foot off the pedal (perhaps allowing for free wheeling).
George K Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm

#161 George K
“… compared to the beautiful silence of electric driving”

Hey. That would be a great line for the marketing folks!

But, it’s getting late…
Jeff M Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm

I’m late to the party so sorry as I’m likely repeating others comments….

…. Wow! over 40 mpg in the non-hybrid Chevy Cruze, now we’re talking! (and I assume that’s with a gasoline engine and not diesel) GM may be late itself to the party but having domestic brands with really decent fuel economy and at a price everyone can afford is sure to be a seller and make a difference!

Also great news that the Volt will (or expected to) get 50 mpg! If it got significantly less than the Prius in non-BEV mode and cost 50-75% more, it may have been a hard sell. If only they could reduce weight on future generation models to improve that to 60 mpg we’d really be talking!
DonC Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 pm

#152 DaveP

The question is whether the range (distance) is affected by acceleration.

Take two cases. In both the Volt weighs 1500 Kg and goes to 60 mph under constant acceleration. In case one it takes 7 seconds and in case two 14 seconds. The final speed in both cases is 27.5 m/sec. The average velocity in both cases is 30 mph or 13.75 m/sec.

Force = Mass X Acceleration
Power = Force X Velocity (here average)
Distance = 1/2 Acceleration X Time^2

Case 1: A = 3.92875m/sec^2; Force = 5893.125 Newtons; Power = 81,030.46 Watts; Distance = 96.25 meters

Case 2: A=1.9642 m/sec^2; Force=2946.3 Newtons; Power=40,512 Watts; Distance = 118.83 Meters

Expending 81,030 Watts to go 96 meters isn’t equivalent to using 40,512 Watts to go 119 meters. In Case 2 you are using half the watts but going further. Why does this happen? You are absolutely right that if you halve the acceleration, force and power also halve and the time it takes to get to a given speed doubles. You are also right that that the energy it takes to get to the final speed will be the same since the doubling time will cancel the halving power.

But the issue is range (or for an ICE miles/gallon), and when we get to distance things are different. Because the distance travelled is proportional to time SQUARED, the distance doesn’t halve as the acceleration halves and the time doubles, it actually increases as the square of the time dominates.

We can see this if we play Grandma and double the time to get to 60 mph to 28 seconds.

A = .982 m/sec; Force = 1473 Newtons; Power = 20256 Watts; Distance = 384 Meters.

Now you’re going four times further using one fourth the energy. All the nags are right. Don’t speed from traffic light to traffic light.

[I think these calcs are correct but I do fat finger a lot. Have at it]
DaveP Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 am

#164 DonC
Ahh, but you forget that in the ideal case, once the car has reached final velocity it will continue to roll without friction and cover the rest of the difference in distance for no additional energy.

Now, in the real world there is of course friction so in practice the more rapid acceleration means you spend slightly more time at higher velocity and therefore there is more energy lost than if you spent more time at lower velocity. But that’s not loss due to the acceleration, per se, that’s drag loss from driving at a higher average velocity, so I stand by my misstatements.

#158 koz:
Actually, I think the battery chemistry used in the Tesla has a very high internal resistance. Especially when compared to something with crazy low resistance like an A123 cell. I would think the Tesla would actually have a fairly large loss penalty for high power output from the battery pack alone. I really don’t expect more than a couple percent from the electronics, and probably not much more from the motor, either.
If the Volt uses A123 cells, I’d expect half that 10% number. And that’s going to be a small percentage of your driving energy consumption anyway… So, I’m expecting some thing on the order of less than a mile of range lost per 40 miles I might drive if I floor it from a stoplight every few minutes vs accelerating (yawn) slowly. Everyone’s mileage may vary, of course. I should repeat, I’d be happy to test my theory if someone loans me a Volt prototype.
The Grump Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 am

#117 DonC

Thanks for the link ! You have proven the point I have been trying to make on earlier posts – Yes, the ICE produces excess power which could – and is – used to recharge the battery (but just enough to keep it limping along). So why cycle the engine off at thirty-whatever percent SOC ? Why not run the engine until the battery is at 85 percent SOC, and get another 40 gas free, noise free miles ?

The Volt would be horrible for long trips, becuase the ICE would be constantly cycling on and off, over and over and over, starting and stopping, starting and stopping, starting and stopping, until you have to turn around, go home, and get your normal car for the trip or go mad from the ICE cycling. I don’t care how well insulated the engine is, it would still be noticable – and annoying. The Volt just keeps getting worse and worse.
————————————————–
#142 Aspherical – 1) Who the hell made California the capital city of the United States. 2) Why are blind people walking around without assistance or a seeing eye dog ? Do they want to get run over ? Let them try to put an “engine noise generator” in my car – my wire cutters and duct tape can quickly fix that. I HATE NOISE – that’s why I wanted a Volt in the first place. A nice quiet car (most of the time).
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 am

#166 The Grump asks: “So why cycle the engine off at thirty-whatever percent SOC ? Why not run the engine until the battery is at 85 percent SOC, and get another 40 gas free, noise free miles ?
————————————————————————————–
For 3 reasons:

1) If you’re close to home, you would rather not use gas to recharge the battery. The idea of the Volt is to run on electricity as much as possible. So you want to arrive home with a empty battery (i.e. 35% SOC).

2) Significant recharging of the battery would be less efficient. It’s much better to match the ICE output to the motor input as closely as possible. Charging/discharging the battery decreases efficiency. It’s better to go from the ICE genset to the motor directly and bypass the battery.

3) Significant recharging of the battery would cause it to wear out sooner.

As a side note, the ICE output will be varied to match the dynamic power demands of the car. This is true for both constant RPM and variable RPM engine designs.
mikeinatl. Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:16 am

#142 Asherical,

Thanks for your reply on my questions at #135.
I dont envy the insurance companies for trying to figure that one out. I just hope they are ready when the car becomes available.

Regarding using noise as a safety device, that is a similar concept to what a lot of the Harley riders claim when they put extra loud pipes on their bikes. But those are to keep the rider safe. I dont like those at all by the way.

I think reducing overall environmental noise is a valid goal. Maybe Volt-style vehicles will one day have that effect.

But I don’t think we will ever see a government mandated noise maker on cars. Seems a real stretch. I am sure the Volt will make some sort of swooshing noise as it moves.
mikeinatl. Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:34 am

The responses on this issue point out one of the Volts main challenges. It must be all things to all people.

Some want a sexy Prius that runs on vegetable oil give hyper-milers an new way to play their game.

Some want a 70mpg kickass Camaro-like muscle car
that goes 0-60 in less than 6 seconds.

Some want a whole new concept that can go 40 miles per day with no gas and has solar panels on the roof. And they don’t care much about how it looks or what else it can do.

Some say it must do one of the above and cost less than an ICE powered Japanese import.

The first Volt edition may not be any of these. I doubt if it will be all of these. But the important thing is not the first Volt on the sales lot but how this new technology can be used to create all the possible iterations that the various market segments desire.
And that will be the real fun. To see what comes in the generations of cars AFTER the Volt is introduced.

FINALLY something new and different coming from
GM. Using this platform GM can create a whole new paradigm in transportation.
jan Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 am

Perhaps a blind persons white cane will have a beeper on it that can pick-up a signal from electric cars. Not sure if that would be of real help but I’m guessing it’s better than being clueless. I’m not sure of the functioning of the white cane. It would seem there is a better technological solution than car noise.
Rashiid Amul Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:18 am

Jan #170.

No arguments here.
I want my car quiet.
JEC Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:20 am

117 DonC

So, would the ICE be likely to only really cycle when the car is in stop-n-go traffic?

My guess is they will only cycle from the ICE to battery when the car is either stopped or running very slowly in “city mode”.

With such a small charge window, I find it very unlikely that the car would cycle between ICE and battery, for any type of highway driving. Also, not sure of the type of stress the applies to the whole system, I wonder if GM has an understanding of the approximate number of times the car would typically survive. Any time you change power sources you will induce some amount of power transient, which typically stresses the electrical components. I would really like to see the electrical schematic and the spec’s the GM has that defines this transfer methodolgy (GM, please send my a your latest electrical design for review. I will be willing to sign any confidentiality agreement. : ) )
Dorp Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 am

It seems that there are many different opinions about when to turn on/off the ICE based on many different factors (expected range for a particular trip, terrain, amount of battery charge, amount of fuel, speed, temperature, ambient pressure, noise level, time of day, time of year, geographical location, etc.) I’d really like to learn more about the software and control logic that governs all of this. Will GM allow the user to tweak the logic based on any of these factors, or will the software just handle it without giving any options for users to “tune” it to their preferences?

Comparing it to the PC world, some people are Mac users because they want something that works well, and consistently, and don’t care about how it works or if its working as efficiently as it can. Windows PC users (maybe Linux is an even better comparison) like to have all the options to configure and tune the performance (and they pay for it with less reliability). As a software geek myself, I prefer to delve in and tweak it – I’m not afraid of or intimidated by the hundreds or thousands of design parameters and options. The more options, the better. So I wonder what the plans are for the software interface.

Some questions to start:
What options will be provided to the user to tune performance?
Will the software be easily “upgradable”?
Will there be a way to override the software and control the ICE manually?

Maybe Lyle could get an interview the the software design lead…
JEC Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:27 am

Regarding Volt noise and the blind.

I do not believe the Volt will be noticably quieter when moving in city traffic, then a late model, compact car. I have a problem with cars such as the Honda Civic, when they have the engine running, I really cannot tell the engine is running, when standing along side it. These new cars are incredibly quiet, and the only noticeable idling noise is if the fan on the radiator turns on.

Maybe the Volt could be armed with a low power taser, and optical recognition. So, if it sees any person standing in the way, it can provide them with the appropriate “corrrection”…
mikeinatl. Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:33 am

#170 Jan

Regarding your cane warning device.

Seems like a very good idea. Better than creating noise pollution that everyone must listen to.

Who knows what other helpful features could be built into some such device. Perhaps some sort of GPS gizmo that identifies their location as they walk. Perhaps even create safe corridors for their travels and warn them of a variety of hazards. I expect someone is working on ideas like this already, so your solution might dovetail nicely into that.
JEC Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am

174 JEC

After reading my own post, I realized that I was trying to inject humor into something that is very serious. I apologize for this, and did not intend for this to slight persons with blindness or visual problems.

I do still believe that the Volt will be no less noisy than a newer model sub-compact ICE, but maybe someone will find a solution to remedy both the Volt and the ICE, relative to noise/detection by blind persons.

Sometimes my fingers type before my mind is fully engaged…
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 am

#173 Dorp Says: “I’d really like to learn more about the software and control logic that governs all of this. Will GM allow the user to tweak the logic based on any of these factors, or will the software just handle it without giving any options for users to “tune” it to their preferences?”
————————————————————————————–
I’d also like to learn more about how the ICE will be controlled, especially things like constant vs. variable RPM, as this will affect the driving experience.

However, you can rest assured that GM will not allow the user to control the ICE. This system will be automatically tuned for reliability and longevity.

I remember a while ago Bill Gates said in a speech something like “if cars were like PCs, they would go 200mph and get 1000mpg”. GM responded by saying “unfortunately our customers don’t want cars that crash daily”.

So using your analogy, if Windows was on the left and Apple was on the right, car software would be even further to the right than Apple. In other words, compared to computer software, car manufacturers are extremely conservative with options.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 am

#172 JEC Says: “Any time you change power sources you will induce some amount of power transient, which typically stresses the electrical components. I would really like to see the electrical schematic and the spec’s …”
————————————————————————————–
GM has said previously that the generator, battery, and electric motor are all on the same bus, meaning that the 3 are basically wired in parallel.

If the ICE/genset is producing the exact amount of electrical current that the motor is consuming, then current will flow directly from the ICE/genset to the electric motor over the common bus, effectivly bypassing the battery.

Note that the ICE power output will vary. For a variable RPM engine, this is obvious. For a constant RPM engine, power ouput is varied by changing the fuel/air mixture. So with either type of engine, the idea is for the engine controller to control the ICE output to match the amount of power that the electric motor requires dynamically. However, no engine controller can do this perfectly, so the battery will be charging/discharging by small amounts.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 am

With regard to the Volt running quiet, I have only 1 word in response:
Lawyers

If the Volt has no noise generating device, then GM will get sued, and the Volt could be seriously delayed or put on hold.

So, there are 2 possible solutions:

1) Add a device to the Volt that generates noise automatically (i.e. at low speeds when tire noise is not enough).

2) Add a noise generating device that the driver controls.

For people that don’t like noise, #2 above is the best solution. This way when (not if) someone gets sued, it will be the driver and not GM.
Van Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am

Hi Koz @ 146. Not sure exactly what you are asking, but perhaps you are wondering where I got the idea that 40 MPH is close to the optimal speed for energy efficiency? If so, all I can say is that as speed increases, drag increases more. So the lowest speed where you are in the highest gear is optimal. It would vary from car to car, but 35 to 45 is the ballpark.

If you are asking where I got the 40 miles, that is the Volt claim, it can go 40 miles on electricity only and only use 8 KWH of energy.

Hi Grizzly @ 150. Yes, PHEV’s can free us of ethanol and foreign oil. But apparently your idea is looking further down the line to the shortfall of domestic oil. This of course can be forestalled with bio-fuel while we develop batteries or energy storage systems that can hold 300 Wh per kg and be charged at a rate of 2 KWH per minute.
JEC Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 am

178 DaveG
“GM has said previously that the generator, battery, and electric motor are all on the same bus, meaning that the 3 are basically wired in parallel.”

——————
Not sure exactly how this will be accomplished. The generator will produce ac voltage, that will be required to be rectified to produce dc. The batteries are dc. The motors are 3-phase, ac induction, and will be controlled by the power inverter stage. Therefore, the motors are not directly connected to the generator or batteries. The DC sources would need some type of diode-or arrangement (or equiv.), to tie these DC sources.

The inverter output drives the motors through the IGBT’s which will be controlled by the electronic controller. Not sure how complex the controller needs to be. Will GM use complex sensorless vector control or maybe more simple PWM. The drive companies (Siemens, Rockwell Automation, etc) have developed very complex alogrithms (patented of course) that provide precise torque and speed control w/o the use of any feedback devices (encoders, resolvers, others). Not requiring feedback devices reduces cost and wiring, but does add software complexity. Is GM looking at any acquisitions of a motor drives company?

So, the electronics will have transient events when you switch between power sources (the generator output will not match battery output exactly, which does imply a transfer of power sources). How often and how severe these transients are, I am unaware, but I sure would like to see there schematics (Like I said, I will do this w/o any compensation and will sign that non-disclosure agreement lol).
mikeinatl. Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 am

#179 Dave.

Re: Lawyers.

That would be an interesting case. Suing a company because their product is too quiet. Maybe there is precedent because of all those “back up beepers” now on big trucks. But I don’t see it as an easy case.

If and when something is added to cars to give them a “proper” noise level, it would be done by government mandate. I don’t see that being something manufacturers would do unilaterally.
And of course that would require years of study and federal grants for research and such.

So I doubt if this issue would effect the Volt introduction. Maybe some later generation.

Government is rarely pro-active. Only re-active.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am

#181 JEC,

Yes, the genset will require diodes on 3 phases to make DC with a little ripple, but I consider that part of the generator (a.k.a. alternator).

Yes, the electric motor will require a controller (a.k.a. inverter), but I consider this part of the electric motor assembly.

So conceptually, all 3 are on a common bus. This is what GM has stated in the past.

Yes, when the ICE/genset switches on there will be a bump in current that will have to be managed. This was certainly a problem in the first mules, as Bob Lutz mentioned this specifically when he first drove the mules a couple of months ago. Lutz said the mule had a noticeable jerk when the ICE came on.

As far as this bump wearing out electronic components, I’m not sure this is a problem. I would think they can choose parts that will the right specs to withstand this.
Koz Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Van #180,

Since your guestimates for AER under different conditions were based on the assumption that the Volt’s AER range would be 40 miles at 40mph, I was asking where this assumption was derived from.

I have only seen GM state that the AER would be at least 40 miles. A recent article indicated that the Volt will have 40 miles AER for highway. Of course it was not specific as to a speed or a defined driving cycle.
Koz Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm

JEC & DaveG

Why not have the bus operate on AC and only use an inverter between the battery and the bus? This seems simpler and more efficient. I’m not an electronics expert but I recall a previous discussion about bi-directionality of some inverters (AC to DC in one direction and DC to AC in the other).
Koz Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm

mikeinatl #182

Risk managers job is to protect the company against foreseeable liabilities. Clearly from the general publics comments on this blog, it would not be hard to show that it is a foreseeable issue. DaveG’s solution of artificial sound during low “natural” noise operation is the best they can do.

Much of our ability to function is based on past experiences. People have grown up hearing cars and act based on subconscious understanding that they will be able to hear a car coming. If the only cars were EV’s, lack of sound would not be an issue.
Koz Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm

DaveP #165,

I agree for the most part. This is basically the point I was trying to make in a previous thread. I believe Tesla and A123 battery efficiencies are closer than you think. Also, you have to consider I^2 losses in all current carrying components. Either, way the overall range penalty will be pretty minor for agressive acceleration.
Freemon Sandlewould Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

You forget an important factor: Even in non hybrid configuration this car is going to be running in diesel electric locamotive mode.

What does that mean? —

(1) it means the engine can run at the peak of the torque curve for maximum efficiency at all times

(2) It has no mechanical transmission – a source of 50% loss in a standard car

As an engineer I am very curious to see this car. It may turn out in the long run you just pitch the battery pack and use it and it STILL has great gas mileage.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm

#188 Freemon Sandlewould Says: “As an engineer I am very curious to see this car. It may turn out in the long run you just pitch the battery pack and use it and it STILL has great gas mileage.”
————————————————————————————–
When the ICE is running, you still need a big battery for peak power. The ICE genset only provides average power. The electric motor and battery pack supply peak horsepower. So even if you don’t want the 40 miles of all electric range, you still need a powerful (i.e. fairly large) battery to make a series hybrid design work. For example, the Prius has a smaller battery, so it can’t do typical highways speeds or accelerate without turning on the ICE and using a transmission so that they work in parallel.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm

#185 Koz Says: “Why not have the bus operate on AC and only use an inverter between the battery and the bus? This seems simpler and more efficient. I’m not an electronics expert …”
————————————————————————————–
The devil is in the details. Alternating Current (AC) can operate at many different frequencies. Homes use 60Hz. Planes use 400Hz. The ICE genset and electric motor in the Volt will operate AC, but with variable frequency. Even a “constant RPM” engine will vary the RPMs by around 10%.

So it all boils down to economics. The realities are:

1) Converting AC to DC is cheap. The alternator in your current car does this.

2) The Volt’s “AC induction motor” is probably mis-named. The motor actually operates on precisely timed pulses of DC current from the batteries, not AC sine waves. In addition, the Volt’s induction motor runs at variable speeds, as well as backwards. So this is nothing like the AC induction motors used for home or business applications. As a side note, the controller (a.k.a. inverter) hardware for AC induction and DC brushless motors are nearly identical. Only the software is different. More info here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45

3) Converting DC to AC, especially AC that is precisely timed to another AC source, is difficult and expensive.
Van Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Hi Koz @ 184,

The 270 Wh per mile highway number was from a GM Engineer supplied graph reporting on the computer modeling using both the EPA drive cycle and the US06 drive cycle. So whereas your impression is that GM has said the Volt will get at least 40 highway, my impression is GM has said “about 27 miles.” We will have to wait until someone gets to drive a prototype and reports on the actual highway all electric range. And this 27 number pre-dates the improvements made to drag, so the highway number may now be 33. Time will tell.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm

#191 Van,

One thing to note is that the 40 miles of AER is specified at battery end-of-life, 10 years or 150,000 miles. So a new battery will probably yeild 45-48 miles AER city. If you say 40 AER city may become 33 highway, then a new battery may be around 37-40 highway.
jefro Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm

I still want to take the gas motor out.

Why carry it around to work each day. I want the volt to get away from gas, to get to work each day or go out on the weekend. I could rent a caddy for a trip to granny’s.
JEC Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm

190 DaveG

The motors used on the volt are 3-phase, ac induction motors. While most motors in a typical home have single phase, they are still mostly ac induction motors.

The motors use on the volt will like be “inverter-rated” ac induction motors. The inverter rating mainly covers the need to handle the higher voltages that the motor will experince when driven by the inverter drive. This is due to the fact that reflections on the motor leads and motor can cause the voltage on the winding to experience nearly twice the amplitude as the dc bus. But, these are the same in almost every other manner to a standard, squirrel cage ac induction motor.

The voltage waveform is a PWM (pulse width modulated) that would appear as a series of varying width pulses. The controller is will need to fire the 3 phases in the proper sequence to get the motor to turn, and can reverse the sequence to run the motor in reverse. The actual current waveform (if you monitored on a scope) would appear more sinusodial, with a fundamental frequency proportional to the speed of the motor.

But back to my original point, related to the amount of stress being placed on the electronics during the power transfer between batteries and the generator. Yes, I am sure that GM will select a component that is rated to handle the transients, but this does not mean that they will not fail. I have seen many of the IGBT’s in ac motor drives “give up the ghost”, and the reasons are many (defective semicondutor material, poorly applied thermal grease, imporperly torqued heatsinks, and many more).

I am just making the point that the electronics in power devices have a tendency to fail when any “abnormal” stress is applied. The extent of this stress is unknown, at least to me.

Just my take on the electronics, based on my experiences.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm

#193 jefro Says: “I still want to take the gas motor out.”
————————————————————————————–
1) What happens when I forget to plug it in one night? Given my typical frame of mind when I come home at night, this is a lot more likely than running out of gas.

2) What if someone calls and invites me to a party tonight, and its over 20 miles away?

3) What if I plug in it, but it’s raining, so the GFI trips?

4) What if I have it on a timer to take advantage of night-time rates, but the timer fails?

5) What if it gets really hot outside and there’s an overnight blackout?

6) What if I plug in the car, but the plug on the other side of the cord has fallen out of the wall?

7) What if my brother has a serious accident and is in the hospital, and I don’t want to waste time renting a car?

The list goes on…

There are way too many what-ifs for me to ever consider a pure EV.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm

#194 JEC Says: “The voltage waveform is a PWM (pulse width modulated) that would appear as a series of varying width pulses. The controller is will need to fire the 3 phases in the proper sequence to get the motor to turn, and can reverse the sequence to run the motor in reverse. The actual current waveform (if you monitored on a scope) would appear more sinusodial, with a fundamental frequency proportional to the speed of the motor.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, all true. But there are a lot of other things to consider. Regenerative braking will definitely change things. Also, the power waveforms for accelerating and decelerating will be significantly different, even though the frequency may be the same. So to me, calling it an “inverter” is a bit over-simplistic. I would call it a motor “controller”.

To further muddy the waters, Toyota calls their Prius motor a “Permanent magnet AC synchronous motor”. Most people would call this a DC brushless motor, but Toyota uses a fairly complex controller, so they call it an inverter and use the term AC.

I think the terms AC and DC are fairly meaningless here. Perhaps induction and brushless are better.

With regard to your original point, I think GM will probably over-design their controller the first time around. They don’t want a cheap transistor to ruin the Volt. Also, they’ll probably test the hell out of it. At least I hope so…
Grizzly Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm

#170, 171, 174 ETC.

I’ve paid particular attention to the noise issue recently and I’ve come to the conclusion that most notable car noise is tire noise, not ICE noise. It also seems to me that what little ICE noise there may be is canceled out by most surrounding urban activity. When it’s night time and there is very little urban activity and all seems quiet, tire noise is even more pronounced. My conclusion is that if a person, blind or not, hears a car coming it’s because of tire noise not the ICE.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm

#197 Grizzly Says: “I’ve paid particular attention to the noise issue recently and I’ve come to the conclusion that most notable car noise is tire noise,…”
————————————————————————————–
On quiet suburban streets, at speeds of 30mph and below, I believe tire noise decreases to the point where ICE noise is more noticable.

There was a CNN news article about 2 months ago where a kid on a bike was hit on a suburban street by a Prius running with the ICE off. The kid said he couldn’t hear the car coming.

I hope I’m wrong and this is all a non-issue, but to be on the safe side, it would probably be best if GM added some kind of crude noise generating device that the driver can switch on and off.

Obviously, the horn won’t work because you don’t know when a kid riding a bike will suddenly dart out in front of you, so it would have to be something you can switch on and leave on when driving at low speeds.
graylion Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm

I wonder whether the fact that the engined will be running @ constant rev, which tends to improve fuel economy – load changes are bad.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm

#199 graylion Says: “I wonder whether the fact that the engined will be running @ constant rev, which tends to improve fuel economy – load changes are bad.”
————————————————————————————-
As I understand it, a constant RPM engine adapts to different loads by varying the fuel/air mixture.

Also, keep in mind that the reference to a single RPM engine by Bob Lutz was an offhand comment, and he’s been wrong about details like this before. GM previously said the engine RPMs would vary:
http://gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/

So I’m not certain it will be constant RPM. But a constant RPM engine can adapt to changing loads.
Van Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Hi Dave G @ 192. My understanding of how the end of life capacity is achieved, differs apparently from yours. Lets say a new battery has a capacity of 16 KWH. Over the life (say ten calendar years) of the battery, the capacity decreases so the end of life capacity is 80% of the beginning of life. (So the end of life capacity is 12.8 KWH.) Remember that the SOC varies from 85% to 35% using 50% of the original capacity? At EOL, the 8 KWH would be 62.5% of the 12.8 KWH, say 85% to 22.5%. Thus the additional range available at beginning of life is not made available to the driver and is reserved as margin for end of life cycle performance.
Dave G Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm

#201 Van,

Yes, battery capacity decreases with life. That’s why GM is building extra capacity into the battery, so that it will achieve 40 miles AER at end-of-life.

So in other words, at beginning of life, with a new Volt, the AER will be around 20% higher, or around 48 miles.

GM has said this MANY times, that they are designing the Volt batteries to have 40 miles AER at end of life.
RmW Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm

It would be nice if GM or some american auto could get 50 mpg on a car asap. I don’t care if it has a lawnmower engine.
Van Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Hi Dave G, 8 KWH is 8 KWH at the beginning and at the end. It is not 9 at BOC and 8 at EOC.
koz Says:
August 24th, 2008 at 12:37 am

From Top Gear’s recent Tesla review (http://www.topgear.com/blogs/drives/222-tesla-roadster/):

“It’s the Tesla’s party piece, a party piece that, married to its near-silence, leaves pedestrians in very real risk of bodily harm. At least half a dozen times, unwary Londoners wandered off pavements in front of me. If this electric car thing goes big, we’ll need some new chapters in the road safety guide.”

Grizzly’s study notwithstanding, quiet operation at low speeds is an issue for electrics for those that don’t see it as a reasonable application of natural selection. It isn’t that I want noise, rather I am greatly anticipating the much reduced noise polution that electrics can bring. Unfortunately, it is an issue and will need to be addressed.
koz Says:
August 24th, 2008 at 12:44 am

Van & Dave G

Much like Van’s conclusion regarding power draw, we just don’t know for sure how the Volt’s battery wiil be used. Bob Lutz did say at Voltnation that initial AER would be more, but time will tell and this certainly won’t be known until they have a lot more testing under their belt.
Imagine Says:
August 24th, 2008 at 7:43 am

To those imagining different programing modes for the Volt, consider this: It may be possible in the future to have GPS and a geo-information base linked to the Volt’s fuel/battery management computer. This would allow you simply to enter a destination address (the Volt would already know from GPS where you are), and the computer could determine the most efficient battery and fuel management protocols based on your route and topography to be traversed. Customized fuel management for each trip!
Always Thinking Says:
August 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am

I feel for GM, Thank You. This is bold. GM is putting their future in what they put out right now. I feel their finances may have been hurt just by researching something like this. This is history, and they may not slay the dragon right now, but this could be a spear in it’s side.
Now I am going to go, and look into Solar Energy for the house. That along with alternative heating sources will provide well for my family. I am not self sufficient yet, but this shows me that it can be achieved.
My concern is that the price of the car will be out of my reach. My impression is that will only happen if someone else is in control of the price (the dragon). I don’t trust the dragon. Is GM just a puppet?
Thank You again GM
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
August 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

#8 Thom:

“take a chevy cruze with a stick shift (drive it on the hiway at max efficiency RPM),”

The Volt’s ICE will be running at max efficiency RPM, and also max efficiency throttle position. If you did that with a stick-shift Cruze on a level road, you would quickly exceed both max efficiency RPM and the speed limit.

The Volt’s ICE will cycle on and off. When it’s on, it will always be at max efficiency RPM and throttle position both. (It may have a few different setpoints for different conditions, but the principle stays the same.) That’s how a series hybrid will (we hope) get better mileage than a parallel hybrid.

Think about what hypermilers do: they speed up at max-efficiency throttle position, then turn off the engine and coast — essentially using the car’s momentum as a “battery”. The Volt will do essentially the same thing, only much better.
The Daily Five: Monday, 25 August, 2008 | EcoTech Daily Says:
August 25th, 2008 at 5:56 am

[...] Chevy Volt Still Expected to Get 50 mpg In ICE Mode After Battery Depleted: It seems that pretty much every detail of General Motors’ upcoming Volt plug-in car has been mulled over by the automotive press, including its planned electric-only range of 30 miles. But what kind of fuel economy can motorists expect when the Volt’s engine kicks in? The GM-VOLT blog asked project chief engineer Andrew Farah. His response: a surprising 50 miles per gallon. And, then again, not a surprise — the Volt will use the same 1.4 liter 4 cylinder scheduled for the upcoming Chevy Cruze, which is targeting 40 MPG. The additional Volt efficiency will be derived from its hybridized drive train. (GM-VOLT blog) [...]
Pat Says:
August 26th, 2008 at 8:12 am

Imagine and dagwood55

Yes, you both have it right. I believe that the car will have the ability to be very efficient indeed as technology is added to the car. I don’t expect that it will happen on the ver 1.0, but latter there would be expansion into new modes all of which could be automatic. I do believe that there will always be a need to some interaction with the driver. In the short run though it would be nice to have a distance entry mode so that one could improve the mileage on trips over 40 miles and maybe under 100. I have a chart I made that shows that the care could get 80+ MPG with this sort of capability. I know how far I have to drive to work which is 90 miles, more then the battery can do, under present programing, but if you know the distance then it can conserve the battery for the full 90 mile round trip then I charge it up again in the evening.

In any case how ever this car comes out it will be a very efficient auto.
ShadowT Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 2:32 am

Jackson earlier commented on Dynamic braking vs Regenerative braking; in fact, there are several locomotive models now available that do have batteries that support regenerative braking. They are mostly used for switching and local use in heavily polluted areas like Houston and Los Angeles, and not so much for long hauls. Check out http://www.railpower.com/products_hl_ggseries.html for one example.
Dan Petit Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 10:15 am

I don’t recommend leaving only one gallon of gas in any fuel tank.
Two reasons for that are:
1. The in-tank electric fuel pump is cooled by the gasoline surrounding it. When heat builds up in the fuel pump otherwise, the heat travels to the bearings and causes very slight but definite wear on one side. Over time, this causes the impeller to scrape the wall and reduce fuel pressure.
One of my customers who always drove her SUV all the way down to the “Distance to Empty” mile of 4 or 3 miles, believing it to be the efficient use of fuel. She needed a new in-tank fuel pump for her Asian vehicle at 60.000 miles.
2. When there is a lot of empty space in the fuel tank, the daily temperature change makes it breathe deeply. Breathing in all that moist air every day and night allows for accumulated condensation which is absorbed by the ethanol component of the fuel. This degrades the fuel A LOT. NON – “TOP-TIER” fuels are absolutely the worst regarding this!!! You are never saving anything at any time when NOT using a “TOP – TIER” fuel.
The key is to keep the tank “FULL TO THE CLICK-STOP”.
Also, going on a trip a minimum of twice a year to clear out the fuel is wise. My two trips a year in my Winnebago (which I am selling to make way for a Volt) has always had the gas tank kept full for the 7 years I’ve had it. Not a speck of anything in the tank when it needed an in-tank fuel pump (after 16 years).
(Shell 87 if I may say so.)
Dan Petit Austin, TX
Geronimo Says:
August 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pm

They could pass legislation that quiet electric cars must always blast out “Freebird” from outward facing speakers.

Or, tell people to “look both ways before crossing a street”.

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]
WopOnTour
gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010
interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]
prowler
A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010
I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010
I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]
1nk
Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010
I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]
XGC75
electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010
My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]
Velko Velkov
Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010
Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]
1nk

Chevy Volt Still Expected to Get 50 mpg In ICE Mode After Battery Depleted

214 Responses to “Chevy Volt Still Expected to Get 50 mpg In ICE Mode After Battery Depleted”

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts