Chevy Volt Still Expected to Get 50 mpg In ICE Mode After Battery Depleted
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.
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- GM CEO Confirms 4-Cylinder 1.4 L Engine Being Considered For the Volt’s Range Extender
- 2009 Saturn VUE 2-Mode Hybrid First Drives
- New 40 mpg Chevy Compact Car to Debut Next Year
- Has GM Increased the Size of the Chevy Volt’s ICE from 1.0 L to 1.4 L, and Cylinders From 3 to 4?
- Progress on the 2-Mode and 2-Mode Plug-in Saturn VUE
(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5) 
Loading ...
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….
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 am
Sweet…
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.
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%?
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 am
Told you so, take that you nay-sayers!
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.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 am
Lyle,
Thanks for getting GM to answer this question. Great site!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Jim I @ 23:
Do we expect that level of sophistication of the drivers?
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.
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!!!!!
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
Cautious fan @ 29:
That was my argument about the full body redesign.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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)
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…
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
Has GM looked at using an air cooled engine? since every pound counts.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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”
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.
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.
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
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:
Anyway, correcting this error actually pulls my MPG numbers in line with #100 doggydogworld’s and #143 BillR’s numbers:
(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.
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.”
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.
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
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Title = Got 50 mpg ?
Uh what, does this car run on milk.
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.
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!!!
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I like it . . .
Got 50 mpg?
Got VOLT?
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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