Grab our RSS Feed
GM Officially Announces it Will Open Chevy Volt Engine Plant in Flint Michigan
September 25th, 2008 | Posted in: Generator, Production
In a major step forward towards production of the Chevy Volt, GM CEO Rick Wagoner today announced that GM will move ahead to open a new engine factory in Flint, Michigan, investing $370 million to do so.
This 552,000 square factory will be tooled to assemble the special 4-cylinder 1.4 L combustion engine that will turn the Chevy Volt’s generator. The plant will also produce the 1.4 L turbo version that will power the upcoming Cruze, expected to achieve over 40 mpg.
To help encourage GM to choose this location, the state of Michigan had granted GM $132 million in tax incentives.
GM has also requested further $136 million tax abatement from Detroit over 25 years in order for them to re-tool the Hamtramck plant to assemble the Volt.
Source (GM)
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- It’s Official: GM Intends to Build the Chevy Volt’s Engine in a New Plant in Flint, Michigan
- Chevy Volt Generator Engine Plant Construction Placed on Hold
- GM Considers Chevy Volt Plant in England
- GM Moving New Equipment to Michigan Needed to Build the Chevy Volt
- GM CEO Confirms 4-Cylinder 1.4 L Engine Being Considered For the Volt’s Range Extender
(7 votes, average: 4.14 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Posted by: Lyle
September 25th, 2008 at 10:43 am
FIRST!
Lets get the volts wheels on the road!!!!!
September 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Yeah and the price affordable!
September 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Other random tidbits:
GM Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said the new plant will build a 1.4-liter four-cylinder engine that will extend the range of the Volt… Production at the new $370 million plant will begin in 2010, and both cars are slated to go on sale in the same year”
“Although GM said the new plant won’t create any new jobs, it will retain about 300 hourly positions…”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080925/gm_engine_plant.html?.v=3
—-
They certainly aren’t leaving time for failure/hiccups.
—————————–
Article also has a ditty about the generator/battery too (at the bottom of the link):
The company is banking on the much-ballyhooed Volt to be its car of the future, although it conceded this week that the Volt won’t operate exactly as advertised.
GM initially said the Volt would be able to run 40 miles on its lithium-ion batteries, with a small internal combustion engine recharging the batteries to extend the range hundreds of miles. A top executive said the same thing as recently as last week.
But company spokesman Rob Peterson said Wednesday that engineers changed the design so the Volt engine will power a generator that would run the electric motor after the batteries are depleted. A small amount of power from the generator will recharge the batteries, but most will be used to directly run the car, he said.
He said bypassing the batteries is more efficient, and GM did not intend to deceive people by maintaining that he motor would only be used to recharge the batteries.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Now THAT is the kind of incentive I can get behind.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
What is wrong with the old engine factories?
September 25th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I cant believe they need a new factory for this. There has to be alot of other factories that are looking for work now, that would be cheaper to retool than building a new factory, Unless Im reading this wrong.
How do I get a part of these Tax Incentives?
September 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Re Statik’s #3
$132 million in tax incentives to create no jobs? At least it will retain 300 jobs. If the state of Michigan gave those 300 people the $132 million, they would get $440,000 each. Would I want an hourly job or $440,000?
Whateva! Get me an affordable Volt!
September 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Er…I’m sorry…may I just say WTF? The engine will be used to drive the car? When the hell did this happen? I thought the idea of not having the engine linked to the drive train was what made the Volt so much different from a hybrid. Is this really true?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
eGMCARTECH reports the engine for the Volt will be a 3 cylinder?
http://www.egmcartech.com/2008/09/24/just-so-you-know-chevrolet-volt-batteries-do-not-recharge-while-driving/
http://www.egmcartech.com/
September 25th, 2008 at 11:03 am
#8 Sherman
Of course the engine will be used to drive the car - indirectly.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:03 am
@Statik
I think as long as the ICE is not directly hooked into the drive-train, we shouldn’t see any problems… though it is kind of sad it isn’t just being put back in the battery for storage.
Thankfully, my commute is short enough that I probably won’t even use the ICE on most days.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
#3 Statik - Thanks for pointing out that GM has finally fixed the “recharge the battery” lines. It was driving me nuts!
#7 ThombDbhomb - To be fair the tax incentives are probably over at least ten years, so divide the job pay by a factor of 10. My guess is that a GM manufacturing job with benefits is way better than $44K/year.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Okay, I get it. I thought they were saying the engine would turn the wheels. They’re just saying the engine will create the electricity to turn the wheels, not just charge the battery.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:06 am
“GM has also requested further $136 million tax abatement from Detroit over 25 years in order for them to re-tool the Hamtramck plant to assemble the Volt.”
What is Detroit waiting on? This has been up in the air long enough. GM needs to set a deadline. There are plenty of other places the Volt could be built. Sounds like some politician is waiting to get his palm greased before moving forward. Who knows the real skinny on this?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
So does this mean that they are providing an engine that can get roughly 44 mpg after the initial 40? (using 300 miles with a 6 gallon gas tank)
That is only 11 more than I get now.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Everyone needs to get past this recharge the battery crap. We knew the engine was designed to power the wheels and sustain the battery at about 30 - 35% SOC months and months ago. This is nothing new. So what if the car only gets 40 mpg on the gas engine. Not many of us will be using gas on a daily basis. The Volt still solves the problem of getting us off big oil most of the time.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:17 am
JimShelton # 6
“I cant believe they need a new factory for this. There has to be alot of other factories that are looking for work now, that would be cheaper to retool than building a new factory.”
*** *** ***
I don’t quite understand it either. You would think that if GM were going to build a new plant it would *not* be in UAW country. However they do have the recent contract to honor.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Statik
& Sherman @ 8
“Er…I’m sorry…may I just say WTF? The engine will be used to drive the car? When the hell did this happen? I thought the idea of not having the engine linked to the drive train was what made the Volt so much different from a hybrid. Is this really true?”
Me too, i was under the impression from the very start that the generator would never be used to propel the elctric motor. What happened to eliminating the “human factor”. Just a few weeks ago they were saying that once the battery reached it’s “depletion point” the generator would run to “maintain” the battery at a 30% SOC to power the car.
When did this change, or is this just another douche bag reporter that can’t change a flat?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am
When you figure the cost of burning gas in the quantities it would take to recharge the battery, it is tremendously cheaper to plug the Volt into the electrical grid at night for recharging. Gasoline is expensive and I don’t want to use a drop of it if I can help it. When I take longer trips, I expect to consume gasoline at a higher rate than when I am at home. My first 40 miles will be gas free and the remaining miles (until I can plug in and recharge) will be at a mpg I can accept. The mpg may be 40 or 50, who knows at this time. But, it will be better than what we are doing now.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I wish GM could get the Cruze into production for the American market next year instead of Europe. We need a car like the Cruze as much or more than our European cousins. They have much shorter distances to travel than we do and have mass transit available in more places. Sorry, Europe, but if it was left up to me, America would be the first place to see the Cruze.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
#18 JonP
“When did this change, or is this just another douche bag reporter that can’t change a flat?”
I am not sure if it changed or if the way it was expressed was changed by GM. I know the report about the 1.4L 3 cylinder engine was an error on the reporter’s part. GM has stated the Volt’s engine would be the 1.4L 4 cylinder engine. Reporters are human, just like the rest of us. They just don’t think they are.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Statik, Sherman and JonP…
This as only one goal, to reduce the number of recharge cycle and extending the life of the battery… As long as the car perform the same way and have about the milage, what do we care?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
#22 frankyB
“This as only one goal, to reduce the number of recharge cycle and extending the life of the battery… As long as the car perform the same way and have about the milage, what do we care?”
Better said than I did. I agree. Why should we care as long as the end result is what we want.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Statik,
I just read the press release, and couldn’t find any reference to your quote. Where did you see that?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Another thing, if the generator will be used to drive the electric motor how will it run @ fixed rpm’s?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I think a lot of people are getting confused with regards to the operation of the ICE. Of course, we have journalists that want to write stories, but have very little technical understanding of the Volt’s design.
I agree with N Riley, that there is really nothing new here, but only a clarification of the misunderstandings of the media. The Volt will travel 40 miles on battery power, and when depleted, the ICE/generator will start.
Since power demand for the electric drive motor is constantly changing as you speed up, slow down, climb, and decend, the ICE must operate at a point to provide “average” power demand. In this manner, only a small amount of energy is transferred to the battery pack over time, while the bulk of the energy is used by the drivetrain.
However, when accelerating or climbing, energy will be drawn from the battery, and when slowing or decending, energy will be returned to the battery. At level driving, only a small charge will be sent to the battery pack. As driving conditions dictate, the power setting of the ICE will change.
The net result is a nominal recharge of the battery pack, with most of the ICE engine power driving the vehicle. At some point (maybe 40% SOC), the ICE will likely shutdown. I believe that GM is trying to dispell the notion that the ICE will come on and fully recharge the battery pack to its normal (80% SOC) point. So the pharse used in some of the media reports “a small engine will come on and recharge the batteries”, is not quite correct, so GM is trying to clarify, that’s all.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
#18 JonP - I’m with N Riley and BillR. I thought all the regulars here understood it the way Riley just outlined. I even wrote in to FOXNews to try and correct their impression that the engine fully recharges the battery. I wonder who this “top executive” is that “said the same thing as recently as last week.” Sounds like a misquote of Lutz on Colbert.
JonP - we had a lot of discussion on RPMs about a week or two ago.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Am I missing something or is this just symantics whether the engine drives a generator that charges a battery (to a 30% depletion point) that drives a motor, or you say the generator drives the motor with a little for the battery to get it to the depletion point? Isn’t it all the same?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I have been logging my daily trips for the last month, and 90 percent of the time my work/leisure trips are under 40 miles….and I am a real estate broker. If I could plug my Volt into an outlet sometime during the day my gasoline free experience would be even higher. Since I usually work out of my home no doubt I will pull in the garage and plug in even during the day. My current work car, a Lexus Landcruiser, averages 15,000 miles a year.
I am considering creating a log and recording my driving habits
(and my wife’s) over a longer period of time and calculating how
much gas I won’t be using.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
#26 BillR
You absolutely nailed it. That is the best explanation I have seen to-date. Everyone should read this and remember it. Thanks, Bill.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
As a side note: Ford is retooling some European models for the U.S. market. They are running into a problem where the extra material to conform to U.S. bumber safety standards reduces mileage and their margins.
There are other ways to save fuel besides reinventing the drive-train. We also need to look at how much fuel is wasted by unnecessary vehicle design regulation.
Checkout this article at BusinessWeek
The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can’t Have
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=innovation_auto+design_top+stories
September 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
#24 Jon P
Statik, I just read the press release, and couldn’t find any reference to your quote. Where did you see that?
—————
It is not off the shiny GM press release that Lyle gave us, it is off the AP wire.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080925/gm_engine_plant.html?.v=3
Right down at the bottom
September 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am
#28 Len - It’s a difference of series or parallel on the electrical bus. There was a big discussion on this as well, probably a couple weeks ago. I’ve slept since then.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
When GM or Bob Lutz says the engine will come on and recharge the battery they are partially correct. The engine will power the wheels and send some energy to the battery to sustain the SOC GM will set as the depletion point. Everyone is correct and everyone is wrong. How much better can that be. You can have your cake and eat it too. I like this method much better than trying to waste fuel (expensive fuel, at that) to recharge the battery.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I can’t believe i’m this confused we have been over this 100 times. I’m going to break it down step by step and correct me where i’m wrong.
1. Start driving with full charge
2. Battery drops to 30% SOC (depletion point)
3. Ice comes on runs @ a fixed rpm (a few different fixed rpm’s)
4. Ice knows what rpm it needs to run at to “maintain” the 30% SOC and feeds energy into the battery.
5. The battery will stay around 30% SOC and as it gets higher or lower the ICE will adjust it’s RPM, or go off accordingly.
But at no time will there be energy leaving the generator & going directly to the electric motor. Energy will leave the generator go to the battery, then to the electric motor in all situations.
Is this correct?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:43 am
#35 Jon P
I can’t believe i’m this confused we have been over this 100 times. I’m going to break it down step by step and correct me where i’m wrong.
1. Start driving with full charge
2. Battery drops to 30% SOC (depletion point)
3. Ice comes on runs @ a fixed rpm (a few different fixed rpm’s)
4. Ice knows what rpm it needs to run at to “maintain” the 30% SOC and feeds energy into the battery.
5. The battery will stay around 30% SOC and as it gets higher or lower the ICE will adjust it’s RPM, or go off accordingly.
But at no time will there be energy leaving the generator & going directly to the electric motor. Energy will leave the generator go to the battery, then to the electric motor in all situations.
Is this correct?
———————
That is how it ‘used’ to work…although, only in theory.
Which lead to GM’s disclaimer/apology on unintentionaly misleading on the relationship between the ICE and the battery pack:
The issue is that the concept plans had the ICE powering/maintaining the batteries when it reached a certain level (30-35%). That was scrapped and now the ICE provides power direct to the electric engine through the generator.
File it under ‘more efficient’ I guess.
OLD: ICE -> 100% power to battery (maintaining 30%)–> to electric motor
NEW: ICE -> 95% power to electric motor
—————> 5% power to battery (I assume like a alternator to keep ’schtuff running)
(guess on the 5%..they said ’small’)
September 25th, 2008 at 11:49 am
#36 Statik
“File it under ‘more efficient’ I guess.”
Correct. Give the man a cigar.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
The article says the Cruze will get 40 miles per gallon. This is old news and not surprising. Hopefully the Volt will do substantially better (if not, then the whole E-Flex concept would have a problem).
Having the current bypass the battery when possible, with any excess/shortage (above/below the current the genset produces at one of its efficiency-optimized setpoints) being stored in/pulled from the battery just makes sense.
Nothing to be concerned about in this article.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I have the same question.
Why build a new plant when you have an old one that just closed.
Maybe to re-tool a old plant costs more ?
Anyone know anyting on this?
September 25th, 2008 at 11:54 am
FWIW, I just sent another email to FOX Car Report with the AP reference and the quote at the end. Can’t hurt to spread the word. ( I think.)
September 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am
#36 Statik
OLD: ICE -> 100% power to battery (maintaining 30%)–> to electric motor
NEW: ICE -> 95% power to electric motor
—————> 5% power to battery (I assume like a alternator to keep ’schtuff running)
Like driving a locomotive on tires… Wonder if the Volt will come with a train horn?
Now, maybe someone can help me with this. In order to operate the ICE at a constant RPM, the battery needs to supply boosts of energy during acceleration. The small percentage of ICE energy stored by the battery supplies these boosts. Is this a correct assumption
September 25th, 2008 at 11:58 am
#41 Aspherical
Like driving a locomotive on wheels… Wonder if the Volt will come with a train horn?
————-
A horn?
I have it on good authority that the ‘horn’ only comes in the 1SB package (which is also the only one with A/C).
….a $7,500 option
September 25th, 2008 at 11:59 am
#41 Aspherical - Exactly. That’s how I got started on this website following the Volt. My father was an engineer on C&NW for most of his working life. My first thought was, “this works like a train engine,” but with a battery. It attracted me at least.. Watch the current CSX ads on TV.
#42 Statik - No this is actually the answer to the problem with the silent operation and the blind. The Volt will now sound like a locomotive.
FWIW, here’s a news report from Monday:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3105107&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/us/foxcarreport/index.html
September 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
#35 JonP
There was an interview with Farah a few weeks ago, and of course many posts, about how this would work, even including a discussion of a customer depletion point and an actual depletion point. You probably should check that out since it has the best discussion of the issue I’m aware of.
FWIW charging the battery is sort of silly when you think about it because it just adds losses without any benefit. IOW gen->motor is more efficient than gen->battery->motor.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Details on GM’s petition/beg for $136 million for the Volt line in Hamtramck. But before you get ‘too’ up in arms about it…this one is actually not all that bad, because it is just a tax abatement…over 25 years.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/BUSINESS01/80924072/1014
Highlights:
Construction of the Chevrolet Volt electric car would bring 550 jobs to the city, General Motors Corp. officials told a Detroit City Council committee today.
“We will be evolving this technology here involving the residents of the city of Detroit…. and moving GM’s technology forward, at the same time moving the city of Detroit forward,” Watkins said GM has proposed $336 million investment into the plant to build the car. The plant currently employs 1,944, he said.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The turbo 1.4 should get ~40mpg powering a traditional, mechanical transmission automobile (the Cruze).
The normally aspirated 1.4 turning the Volt’s generator, tuned to run at maximum efficiency over a narrower band of speeds, or discrete specific speeds (and with regenerative braking thrown in, don’t forget), was at first said to be capable of 60 mpg in range-extended mode (recently downgraded to “only” 50 mpg).
Official specifications have not been released yet. I think we could be in for a pleasant surprise.
The generator, battery system and motor are all on a parallel bus.
Look. If you have a lamp plugged into a wall socket, and you plug a radio into the other socket, is there suddenly something fundamentally different happening? Do you now imagine the electricity going to the lamp first, and then the radio? They are wired up in parallel, they are sharing the same single electricity source.
What makes the Volt more confusing, perhaps, is that it’s the generator and battery sharing the responsibility, if you will, for creating the power, intead of the lamp and radio sharing the load. Otherwise, it is … at least … similar.
The AP quote, if accurate, must be an attempt to dispel unfortunate wording, the Volt was always suppposed to work this way.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
#36 Static
Bypassing the battery should increase efficiency. When you convert from electrical to chemical and back to electrical energy, there will be losses. Bypassing the battery eliminates this loss.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
#44 DonC
FWIW charging the battery is sort of silly when you think about it because it just adds losses without any benefit. IOW gen->motor is more efficient than gen->battery->motor.
——
This move does make alot of sense, and probably one of the first few ‘alterations’ that is not born out of cost cutting. I know with back-up battery power packs, recharging from standard solar panels the loss is in the 7-10% range…I assume a similar situation in this application?
Nasaman, you want to take a stab at the losses if your around? Sounds like something your probably more well equipped to explain/guesstimate.
—-
(#47 cautious fan: I was already sussing/writing this out before I saw your post…exactly my point, nice post)
September 25th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Dang it, I needed to edit this above but got called away (darned Employers),
The battery takes turns being a load and a power source. When the generator is running at a rate which exceeds the need of the motor, the battery absorbs the excess. When the load on the motor increases past what the generator provides, the battery becomes a supplemental power source to fill the gap. A change in the average over a set time (who knows what) causes either the generator to switch to another efficient speed, or to shut off altogether if conditions warrant.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Why build vs retool? because it is likely the old plants are ineffecient.
A new building with better power and climate management, lights, building materials, green alternatives etc make new plants a better option, plus the PR, a VERY green car being built ina climate damaging building would not be good. It will have solar power and heat, high efficiency equipment and be a 0 trash producing facility like other new plants GM has built.
The indirect savings are enourmous and being energy independant helps GM’s bottom line and image too.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
AR they now talking 40 MPG after the battery quits or is it still 50MPG
September 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
We should be putting the 700 BIllion for cars and trucks like these and th 25 Billion for wall street.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Cautious Fan #47
“Bypassing the battery should increase efficiency. When you convert from electrical to chemical and back to electrical energy, there will be losses. Bypassing the battery eliminates this loss.”
*** *** ***
Not to mention the fact that the battery will only receive a charge when it needs it to maintain 30% SOC. There could be extended driving situations where the battery is at 30% and the engine’s RPM/gen output are just enough to cover moderate driving. This could eliminate excess or continuous cycling of the battery.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
$700 billion is a big number. Take a look at this article:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/7BetterUsesfor700Billion.aspx
September 25th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The generator output will be AC, and the frequency will vary directly with the rpm. This AC voltage will never directly run the AC motors.
The motors will be driven by an output power section (inverter), while the input converter section will convert the generator AC into a DC.
The batteries are DC and will feed ahead of the converter section (some type of diode OR, but more sophisticated I would suspect). The next section is the inverter portion of the power electronics. The inverter will generate 3-phase ac (actually the output will be pulsed DC, which can be considered ac). The outputs will modulate to provide the required torque and speed to turn the motors, based on need. The batteries would likely be able to still supply bursts of power to the motors, but this will be limited to the SOC of the batteries. (The generator and batteries are in a psuedo-parallel system, for lack of a more elegant description)
So whether running off the batteries or the generator, they are never DIRECTLY connected to the motors, but always are connected VIA the inverter section of the power module.
To be capable of charging the batteries, the rectified generator output voltage would need to be higher then the DC battery voltage. I assume they will use the same battery charger electronics used during plug in charging.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I am posting my comment from the previous post (about the 25 billion approved by congress). Thought more people could comment on the idea if it was posted on the more recent post.
_____________________________________________________________
“I understand that GM will place up to several hundred Volt-like test cars on the road during 2009. I would like to propose to GM that they sponsor a GM Volt Nation day with many of these cars present at their launch. Some of us, certainly many of us, would attend. It would be a good send off for the test fleet and would give GM a good opportunity for some more easy publicity. Maybe they could do a drawing and let several members of the visitors take a test drive around the track or something. I would think that of the 41,000+ on this site, GM could expect to see a pretty big crowd. They could limit the size by first come first serve tickets. Kind of like what was done in New York. What do you others think?”
________________________________________________________
We have discussed another Volt Nation type of get together, so why not at the launch of the test fleet.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Regarding the battery/charging discussion … here’s my (non-technical) explanation…
Think of the batteries as a “bucket of energy”. The brakes/generator make energy and the motor/accessories use energy. When the brakes/generator make more energy than the motor/accessories need, then that extra energy gets added to the bucket. For the reverse, needed energy may get removed from the bucket. The Volt computers will continually adjust the generator’s energy output (not necessarily its RPM) to try to keep things balanced, so that the bucket stays as close to 30% as possible. Since adding/removing energy from the bucket wears it out, you don’t want to do this unnecessarily.
Hope that helps.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
#3 Statik said:
But company spokesman Rob Peterson said Wednesday that engineers changed the design so the Volt engine will power a generator that would run the electric motor after the batteries are depleted. A small amount of power from the generator will recharge the batteries, but most will be used to directly run the car, he said.
_____
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. It confirms what many have come to believe from the tidbits that have become public these past several weeks/months.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
#52 Randy:
AMEN!!!
This is all good news. At least SOMETHING new made in USA!
LJGTVWOTR!!
Statik:
See how easy that was? You guys spend hours composing highly researched and literate comments, and I just say amen and maintain my position as most compulsive. LOL, hahahahahahaha!!!
Not to diminish Randy’s brilliant comment, which is God’s honest truth IMHO.
September 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
#56 N Riley - Volt Nation, I’m all for it. I joined the list later than many (June 4, 2008), but I am very interested and enthusiastic.
How about somewhere in the geographic middle of the country? I guess GM would get to decide if they are hosting it, huh?
September 25th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Thanks Guys:
I’m clear now
I can’t believe i missed that in the last few weeks.
Was that during the whole pike’s peak thing?
September 25th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
As another explaination of the ICE mode, I would look at the addition of a large power device onto a conventional automobile. I will use a snowplow as an example.
Some older trucks could not provide the needed power (amps) required by the motor that powers the hydraulics, which moves a heavy snowplow up and down. The motor on some of these systems is similar to a starter motor, and may draw several hundred amps. An alternator might only provide 80 amps.
So, when you are moving the plow up or down, the battery has to provide the incremental power that the alternator cannot supply, and thus discharges. Fortunately, the plow is in either the up or down position most of the time, so the alternator has time to restore the battery to its full state of charge. All this happens seamlessly, however, there may be a dimming of lights under heavy amp draw.
Note that the electricity goes directly where it is needed, to power the hydraulics or to charge the battery, and it doesn’t go from the alternator to the battery first and then to the snow plow’s hydraulic motor.
I believe the Volt will be similar, only the Volt’s ECM will monitor the overall power consumption, and determine the appropriate power setting for the ICE to best maintain the battery at 30% SOC.
September 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
#60 Michael
I suspect it would be held near where the test fleet is manufactured, probably the Detroit area. Unless GM wanted to transport a small contingent to the sunny South and get away from the cold climate in Detroit during the winter months. I am assuming the launch might occur during the frosty months of early 2009. Hey, I would be glad to host it at my house. That way GM could just leave me one in the driveway for testing. That would work out just great. Lyle could pick his up at the same time and have a road trip from Mississippi back to New York. Wouldn’t that be just great.
September 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
#40 Micheal (me) - FOX Car Report wrote back:
Thanks.
Yes, that information became more clear after that article was published. Will be noted in future reports.
Appreciate your interest.
Regards,
FCR
September 25th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
#63 N Riley - Did you say “sunny south?” That sounds like New Mexico to me.
My driveway, my driveway.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
To JEC,
Are you sure that the generator is AC with varying frequency ?
I would think it would make more sense to have the gen-set produce DC power with a fixed voltage and a varying amperage with different set operating speeds like a welding machine.
Another thing I was wondering about is where are the super capacitors used for initial get up to speed power requirements , and those bursts of needed power used for passing or for going up long extended hills?
I never see anything about the super capacitors and everybody knows that they will capture all the kinetic power of regenerative breaking while the battery will only accept a small amount of this returned energy.
It would make sense to have the capacitors after the generator and before the power controller so that the generator keeps the capacitors charged up for the extra power rush without charging the depleted battery. It could be put together with only one set of capacitors as I described , but it also would be good to have another set between the drive motor and the battery to capture the regenerative breaking generated electricity too.
If you JEC cant answer this question , maybe somebody else can give me an answer. Thanks.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Keith:
Super, or Ultracapacitors have been suggested for future versions of the Volt in conjunction with the Lithium Ion battery pack. For now, the battery pack must deal with the extra power pulses from regenerative braking or sudden accelaration as best they can (still pretty well, at that size, compared with something like regenerative braking / assist in the Prius).
Ultracaps are still a bit on the expensive/bulky side.
When they can be used in conjunction with Lithium Ion, the packs could be made according to a less-expensive “energy” (verses “power”) protocol, leaving the heavy-lifting to the capacitors.
Don’t hold your breath. I wouldn’t expect to seem them in a Volt until the 3rd generation of E-FLEX technology.
None of this takes into account the claims of EEStor, which most observers think are hugely exaggerated. If their properties manage to hold up, it could replace every competing energy storage technology (but the odds of this are considered quite small at the moment).
September 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Very good, it’s great to see progress. I see here it is simply worded as “tooling” but I’m assuming they are re-tooling factories for these tasks. They said that it isn’t going to create jobs, but retain existing ones. That is great at this point. That also suggests obviously, that it is a factory currently in use. Good news!
September 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
So is that the Volts ICE in the photo for this article?
Just curious….
September 25th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
# 52 IS RIGHT
The charge rate can be controlled for optimum battery life. I like it.
Volt,Apterta,Volt,Aptera,Volt,Aptera,iMiev,Volt,Aptera,Volt,Aptera. Which one do I want?
September 25th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
#56 N. Riley said “We have discussed another Volt Nation type of get together, so why not at the launch of the test fleet.”
=====================
By all means yes. Great idea.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
#70
I’d go with something other than the aptera, unless you want people to question your sanity or sexuality.
The whole airplane fuselage thing and one rear power wheel. Don’t know about that. Non regulated safety standards. Three wheels.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
There are many on this site who questions how GM runs their business. Hey, don’t even think of it because you guys don’t have a clue.
Many are questioning about where the power goes from the generator. What difference does does it make if most of the power goes to the electric motor rather than the battery? GM still says the car will still get 40 miles on battery and after that,the gas mileage still remains the same as before.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Word BillR, I posted your post at Jalopnik
September 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
#66 Keith.
No one in industry uses dc generators anymore. The brushes make them unreliable. The accepted standard now is to rectify AC into DC. Just like the ALTERNATOR not GENERATOR on your typical ICE powered car.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Just had a thought — If ultracapacitors and an “energy” Lithium Ion battery pack are used in a future version of the Volt, doesn’t that leapfrog Chrysler / GE’s announced approach of using a combination of “power” and “energy” Lithium Ion cells in one pack?
Bob C (#31):
What could bring Diesel to America (assuming the stink and smoke are really removed)? Biodiesel from Algae. Some power companies are thinking of using Algae to recycle CO2 from burning coal, using (essentially) Solar Energy.
Actually, coal to electricity for EREVs and BEVs, with bio-diesel fuel for big rigs as a byproduct, and the “clean diesels” can stay over there.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Man, everyday there is huge news revolving arounfd the Volt - it feels like were really moving at a swift pace!
I wish somebody would just come out with a car ready to go tomorrow and shock the bajeezuz outta GM!
September 25th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Bio-Diesel does not stink like regular diesel. A B-20 mixture or above causes no bad odor outdoors or indoors. We sell B-20 Bio-Diesel and have run our trucks on B-100 (100% Bio with no diesel). Problem is Bio-Diesel is hard to find and is expensive. The Bio part of the Bio-Diesel anyway. Some suppliers keep saying they are going to start making and carrying it, but they haven’t done so yet. Bio-Diesel would be a good substitute fuel for straight (100%) diesel.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
#77 Rudi
“I wish somebody would just come out with a car ready to go tomorrow and shock the bajeezuz outta GM!”
Not as easy to do as it is to say. Hard to meet all the U.S. requirements and still make a vehicle you can sell that people would buy and let you make a profit. Its a tough business. Just ask GM, Ford and Chrysler. The foreign automakers are nearly all supported by their respective governments, plus some of them make some darn good autos.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
After having read the informative and numerous posts discussing methodology for the ICE and battery charge, I think it’s important to note that Mr. Lutz has said before that the number of battery charge/discharge cycles determine overall battery life. Given the fact that the batteries account for such a large portion of the price of the Volt, it obvious that getting every mile out of a pack is very high on the design priorities list. With that in mind, I think it’s clear why the ICE doesn’t purposefully charge the batteries. Add that to the facts (stated earlier in this thread), that charging the batteries from the plug-in is far cheaper than with the ICE, plus the inefficiencies of passing electricity through a battery, and it makes perfect sense why they have designed it that way.
IMHO this also means that owners should be careful about charging a partially drained battery pack repeatedly…unless they want to shorten the life of their pack.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
For anyone who’s interested in my analysis of how, I think, the Volt powertrain will work…. read on. My analysis comes from many years of job experience working for GM, now retired. This is the first time I’ve divulge what my career has been on this site.
The engine will have three ranges of RPMS. Each range will be tune to its maximum efficiency (sweet spot). I say three ranges because the number sounds about right. The voltage coming from the generator will be three phase and will be constant. The electric motor will change speeds by using an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD) that uses frequency cycle rather than changing the voltage (the old way of changing speeds). Doing it this way there is little loss of torque at the low RPMS.
A Load Control will monitor the electric motor’s load which in turn will pick the correct range. The lower range (lower RPMS) would be used when the Volt is cruising. The higher ranges (higher RPMS) would be used when heavier loads are detected by the load control.
Thanks for reading
September 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
JEC- #55
What you said makes perfect sense. When the characteristics of the pieces are taken into account it makes sense.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
no plug =D- no sale
September 25th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
N. Riley #79
“#77 Rudi
“I wish somebody would just come out with a car ready to go tomorrow and shock the bajeezuz outta GM!”
Not as easy to do as it is to say.”
*** *** ***
You’re absolutely correct about that. I remember early on on this site there was a mentality that all you really had to do was take a Cobalt and nail in an electric motor and ICE/genset and…presto…you’re done! There was a corresponding misunderstanding of what took so long to develop the Volt. The point to remember about the Volt is that it’s being developed on a shorter time scale than any regular ICE vehicle with known proven technology and off-the-shelf parts.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
This is my 600th post, and we still have two years, one month, and 5 days to go before we see the first Volt for sale…..
It just seems so far away!
Oh well, No Plug - No Sale!!
September 25th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
To clarify a few points about the gas engine, battery, and electric motor; All 3 of these are basically connected together on the same DC bus.
Using this common DC bus, several flows of current are possible:
1) Battery supplies current to electric motor (first 40 miles)
2) Electric motor supplies current to batteries (regenerative braking)
3) ICE supplies current to electric motor, bypassing the battery
4) ICE and battery both supply current to motor (accelerating or steep hills)
5) ICE supplies current to both battery and motor (to recover from acceleration / hill)
6) Both ICE and motor supply current into the battery (when braking begins)
7) etc.
Note that each constant speed step of the ICE can handle a wide range of loads. This is accomplished by varying the amount of air in the mixture. So an engine running at a constant RPM can power a heavy load or a light load. However, when the load gets really heavy or really light, the efficiency is not optimal, so the gas engine will switch to a different constant RPM that is more efficient for the current load range. The design of the engine and exhaust are tuned to these specific RPMs.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
#84 Grizzly
I dunno Griz, Chrysler didn’t start from the ground up, like the Volt. Chrysler seemed to nail in an electric motor and ICE/genset to their existing minivan and Jeep. However, from what little we know, they have been in E-REV development as long as GM. I suppose it remains to be seen how the products will turn out.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Wow, look at all the comments. Is it common for people to make conclusions w/o reading the contents and to ignore what they already know to make comments on a headline. Well, live and learn.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
# 79 N. Riley
Good point. It’s clear that few people have ever created vehicle projects at the scale and complexity of contemporary mass production, let alone profitably. The Prius was a loss leader for almost a decade. GM has stated the E-Flex will initially be a loser for them, although they are already learning a bagful of new tricks, with much more learning to follow, that will help them in coming iterations. It will be hard to follow this without serious all out commitment let alone leapfrog. Time will tell.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Once again the vast majority of the folks posting here know more about what should be done than GM!
September 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
ThombDbhomb #87
I dunno Griz, Chrysler didn’t start from the ground up, like the Volt. Chrysler seemed to nail in an electric motor and ICE/genset to their existing minivan and Jeep
*** *** ***
I didn’t know that they’ve been developing that vehicle as long as GM has the Volt. Of course it could be up to interpretation what “development” means as we all know GM was developing the Volt before they even had the appropriated funding from the BOD, then it really took off.
Regardless of the development approach, you’d have to agree that it’s still no small task, and unless I’m mistaken I don’ t think the Chrysler RE EV will be out until about 2012.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
#80 GLV - “IMHO this also means that owners should be careful about charging a partially drained battery pack repeatedly…unless they want to shorten the life of their pack”
These lithium batteries don’t work this way. Charging and discharging half the pack twice equals one charge cycle. If you recharge the pack 5% you’d have to charge it 20 times to equal a cycle. Also the batteries are more robust in the middle of the SOC so perhaps the number would be 25. Basically charging a partially depleted pack is not going to shorten the life of the pack.
#81 Joe - “For anyone who’s interested in my analysis of how, I think, the Volt powertrain will work”
This is very consistent with how it’s been explained. (I think three set speeds are exactly the number mentioned). There is a question — set off by Lutz’s remarks about a “top secret transmission” — of whether the windings may change.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“The state of Michigan on Tuesday approved $132.5 million in tax incentives for the automaker to spend $838 million on the new plant and to upgrade four other facilities, including the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant where the Volt will be built.
The Flint investment includes the 552,000-square-foot plant as well as machinery and other equipment. GM says it will invest $21 million in tooling for its suppliers to support the new Flint factory.
The factory, GM said, will have 300 flexible work stations that will allow the company to build different four-cylinder engines without retooling”
So they are building a new plant and re-tooling 4 others including the final assembly plant. The “300 flexible work stations” probably contribute to it being more affordable to build new vs. retool old….not to mention savings by building a more energy efficient building.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Found this picture on the web today.
Is that a photovoltaic top on this GM Saab?
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/electric_saab.jpg
September 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
#45 Static
Waddya mean just a tax abatement. I worked my tail off for the last 25 years and I didn’t get no stinkin’ tax abatement!
September 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
The post says “In a major step forward towards production of the Chevy Volt, GM CEO Rick Wagoner today announced that GM will move ahead to open a new engine factory in Flint, Michigan, investing $370 million to do so.”
========================================
How is this announcement any different from the earlier announcement that said the same thing?
September 25th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
DonC # 92
“There is a question — set off by Lutz’s remarks about a “top secret transmission” ”
*** *** ***
Don,
I keep hearing this on this site, but I don’t remember Maximum Bob ever saying this. Do you remember where you read/heard this?
September 25th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
hi Grizzly,
I think Bob mentioned “other technologies and accessories”, but never pointed directly at the transmission.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=bob+lutz&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&tnr=21&vid=000171449884
Think about the year 2015. Old, heavy metal, sub 17 MPG vehicles will be worth nearly nothing. They will be traded-in on 50+ MPG EV’s. The dealers will be sending these monsters to the recycle yards.
Will a surge in the recycling of metal be a side-product to the EV boom? Will the China economy have recovered by then as a buyer of metal for expansion?
Exciting times ahead.
no plug =D- no sale
September 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Dave G.
It is an AC motor so it must be fed from a electronic drive unit. I would bet the Generator is AC too and variable frequency. JEC #55 has a very logical sounding scenerio. Not knowing alot about AC motors, I am curious how the regen braking works though.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Len
Regen braking is actually fairly simple. The energy from the motors back emf created when you brake, will reverse the power flow, so the battery will actually absorb the energy of the motor, which will basically load the motor, causing it to slow.
You will have an issue if your battery is fully charged, since you do not want to over charge (ie: damage) your battery. In this case, I assume the regen is disabled, any your using the ole rotor/shoe brake, but this is just a guess.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
#97 Grizzly,
I believe Nasaman discussed this. Supposedly it was mentioned in one of the chats that was sponsored on the GMnext website on the Centennial celebration.
I will check to see if those chats have been posted.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
#99 Len Says: “It is an AC motor so it must be fed from a electronic drive unit. I would bet the Generator is AC too and variable frequency.”
————————————————————————————–
The bus is DC. This has been well known since August 2007. The generator output goes through diodes, which converts it to DC. The electric motor uses pulses of DC voltage, not AC voltage.
For electric motors that drive automobiles, the terms AC and DC are meaningless. Better terms are induction and brushless. Both types use pulses of DC voltage to operate. Both use software algorithms to figure out exactly when and how wide these pulses should be. So the electric motor controller controller (a.k.a. inverter) hardware is actually the same for both DC brushless and AC induction motors. The only real difference is that, since brushless motors use magnets on the rotor, the algorithms are much simpler, but the magnets are more costly and heavy, so it’s harder to scale brushless motors up for higher power applications. More info here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45
September 25th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Grizzly,
I still don’t see the transcripts of the Sept. 16 chats.
I’ll keep looking for them, because they sound interesting.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
81 Joe
I do not know what RPM range GM is working on. I do know that back in 74 when I was working with Briggs & Stratton we almost doubled the mileage on the motor by limiting the RPM range to
400 RPM. I do not know what is possible with the engines today.
Fuel injection should make a BIG difference. The other difference
I am not so sure about. That would be the camshaft. The camshaft is like the operating system on your computer. You can grind them to do a few thing well but you can not grind them to do everything well. JMHO
Take Care
Arch
September 25th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
#100 JEC Says: “You will have an issue if your battery is fully charged, since you do not want to over charge (ie: damage) your battery. In this case, I assume the regen is disabled, any your using the ole rotor/shoe brake, but this is just a guess.”
————————————————————————————–
Remember that when you plug in the Volt, it only charges up to 80% SOC. The ICE comes on when the battery hits 30% SOC. So the Volt only uses 50% of the battery’s total energy storage. This prevents the battery from wearing out sooner.
So even if you are fully charged from the grid, there is still 20% more battery storage capacity for the regenerative brakes. This is more energy than the regenerative brakes will ever provide. So this is not an issue.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
#5 ThombDbhomb et al:
“What is wrong with the old engine factories?”
I believe that’s because the old Family 0 engine factories are in Europe, since they were developed by/for Opel.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
#104 Arch Says: “I do not know what is possible with the engines today. Fuel injection should make a BIG difference. The other difference I am not so sure about. That would be the camshaft. The camshaft is like the operating system on your computer. You can grind them to do a few thing well but you can not grind them to do everything well.”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt’s camshaft uses and “Atkinson Cycle” tuning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle
The Prius also uses an Atkinson Cycle ICE. The normal “Otto Cycle” tunings maximize torque at the expense of efficiency. In a hybrid or E-REV, the torque is handled by the electric motor, so the normal Otto Cycle is not necessary. The Atkinson Cycle much more efficient but has much lower torque.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
DaveG
Your right. I forgot about the extra 20% of battery.
But, I am unsure about how much energy regen actually captures. The batteries cannot absorb power as quickly as a capacitor, and therefore you can only dump so much energy in a given time. Do regen systems in auto use a supplemental capacitor, that will capture more of the instantaneous energy? (I think I have asked this in an old thread, but not sure if I got an answer….Statik was asking this at the same time I did, if memory serves…which it usually does not)
Ok, where’s NASA dude when you need him?
September 25th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
107 Dave
THANK YOU! I had heard of this but never understood it. Now my next question is this. Will GM put a different Cam in the volt than the other car that will use the same engine? I ask this question because I drive a restored 76 GMC motorhome. The cam and the final drive ratio is the same as the Toro. There are several companies that now make final drives that work a whole lot better. Four years ago I helped design a cam that was for the motorhome which NEVER sees RPMs over 4000. Man what a difference! With the cam and the final drive I can get going from a stop sign and get up any hill. LOL
Take Care
Arch
September 25th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I have the same question.
Why build a new plant when you have an old one that just closed.
Maybe to re-tool a old plant costs more ?
Anyone know anyting on this?
————————————————————————————
Based on my experience as an industrial engineer ( I’m better now, thank you), I will make a couple of points:
1. When building a factory, a rule of thumb used to be, the land cost 1% of the total cost, the building 10%, and the equipment about 90%.. Your mileage may vary.
2. Frequently, when a single product family is built in a building, the process is built into the building. Examples would be placement of pits, drains, etc.
So given an old engine plant, if you cannot use the old machinery, you dont save much by recycling the building. And if you need special features built in, it may be cheaper to go green fields. A third factor could be they have some other use in mind for the existing building.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
AltCar Expo, One of Nation’s Largest Displays of Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Frees Consumers from Gas Guzzlers 09/26/08-09/27/08
Giant Green Car Event Features 100 Eco-Friendly Vehicles for Test Drive and Purchase and West Coast Debut of GM Chevy Volt
SANTA MONICA, CA–What should my next car be? That question is challenging millions of Americans stressed over record gas prices and global warming. At AltCar Expo 2008, they’ll get expert answers to the quandary plus the chance to test drive green cars at one of the nation’s largest displays of alternative fuel vehicles.
The free, two-day expo will be held for the third consecutive year in Santa Monica, CA on Sept. 26 & 27 and for the first time this year in Austin, TX on Oct. 17 & 18. The event typically draws 10,000 in Santa Monica, where this time around General Motor’s production Chevy Volt, which recently had its world debut in Detroit, will have its West Coast unveiling.
Both cities plan to showcase more than 100 alt-fuel and ultra-efficient vehicles including zero-emission electric cars and trucks, hybrids, Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles rated in excess of 100 miles per gallon, and those running on hydrogen fuel cells, natural gas, propane, biodiesel and ethanol. Scooters, Segways, electric motorcycles, bicycles and more will also be on hand. Low-speed and freeway-capable vehicles will be available for public “ride-and-drives” and for immediate purchase.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Can’t GM or any auto company do anything without spending tons of money? Why the new factory? Use an existing facility and put solar panels on the roof or drill for geothermal heat with the tax incentive.
They will complain the Volt doesn’t turn a big enough profit and try to give it up. Seems foolish when you are borrowing money from the fed to build a new factory when many are shuttered and waiting for workers!
September 25th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
BillR, Grizzly - I agree Lutz made the remark at the end of the Sep. 16 online chat. Based on my experience with looking for the Bob Boniface chat in the archives, it takes weeks for GMNext to post the transcript. The Boniface chat is now posted, but that is very recent and the chat was several weeks ago. When they post the transcript, it will be here:
http://www.gmnext.com/Pressroom.aspx
under “Chat Transcripts.”
September 25th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
They must’ve looked into retooling vs. building a new one, it must have been significantly cheaper either up front or the long run (shipping the engines to the final assembly point).
Though, shipping can’t be too much, flint is only 280miles from Oshawa, where they will be closing some of the plants here. (Unless that has changed.. haven’t heard anything in a while)
Just my thoughts.
Also, has this site been slower for others?
It seems ever since the day of the unveiling this site loads like 10x slower for me. Is it just me, or does Lyle need a new host?
September 25th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
#105 Dave G, #108 JEC,
I don’t disagree with your discussion points, but let me point out that GM shared awhile back that the “50%” range on the battery was changed to 35% to 85%. Maybe they decided that they only needed 15% at the top to allow for regen braking.
It could also be that 35% is a better cushion on the bottom end for those times when the software would allow you to go below the CDP.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Smilyremhof #15 wrote:
So does this mean that they are providing an engine that can get roughly 44 mpg after the initial 40? (using 300 miles with a 6 gallon gas tank)
That is only 11 more than I get now.
Sheesh, tough crowd! (Still 50 MPG I’ll assume with 10 to 15 thousand miles a year at no gas at all.)
LJGTVWOTR
September 25th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
#107 Dave G
This 2 stroke opposed piston opposed cylinder engine looks like it could be a spiffy alternative at some point.
http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/archive/2008/07/01/opposed-piston-opposed-cylinder-engine.aspx
September 25th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
#15 Smilyremhof
So does this mean that they are providing an engine that can get roughly 44 mpg after the initial 40? (using 300 miles with a 6 gallon gas tank)
That is only 11 more than I get now.
———————–
#116 Jehre
Sheesh, tough crowd! (Still 50 MPG I’ll assume with 10 to 15 thousand miles a year at no gas at all.)
=============================
Yes, thats right. About 44mpg, but you need to factor in the regenerative braking. Lets take the Prius’ stats as a baseline and just assume the same efficiency (not like we have a better benchmark available).
The Prius regen saves 1 litre per 100km/city
(Source for this tidbit: http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en/regenerative_braking.html)
Therefore, .264 gallons on 62 miles…or a ‘free’ 16 miles per gallon when you are herky/jerkying yourself about the city, which blends out (according to the EPA 55/45) to about 9 miles per gallon, given relative uselessness of regen on the highway.
44+9 = 53MPG
The drive ’should’ actually be a little more efficient with the motor hitting the sweet spot to run the generator to power the wheels, so you might be able to make that 53 a 55-56….BUT of course with have to also penalize it for being the ’shamu’ of compact cars (3500lbs)…which the Cruze is nowhere close to (2750).
The Volt is pegged/projected at 50MPG, which looks like a reasonable expectation AFTER the battery is juiced. Raw math holds up anyway…unless someone sees some big flaws in the way I am converting? (…feel free to poke holes in my balloon)
September 25th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
#109 Arch Says: “Now my next question is this. Will GM put a different Cam in the volt than the other car that will use the same engine?”
————————————————————————————-
Yes, the Chevy Cruze will use an Otto Cycle cam to get the higher torque required for a normal ICE design. The Chevy Volt will use a Atkinson Cycle cam to maximize efficiency since the electric motor handles the torque. From what I’ve heard, different cam tunings aren’t a big deal to manufacture.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
#115 Michael Says: “… let me point out that GM shared awhile back that the “50%” range on the battery was changed to 35% to 85%.”
————————————————————————————–
First they said 30/80, then they said 35/85, then they said somewhere around 30/80.
Specifically, in this article:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/25/what-happens-in-the-chevy-volt-past-the-customer-depletion-point/
Lyle asked:
Is the customer depletion point going to be exactly 30% state of charge (SOC)?
and Andrew Farah answered:
“We are continuing to tweak and tune and develop exactly what that number is.”
September 25th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
119 Dave
I sure hope you are right! GM has not done this in the past.
Take Care
Arch
September 25th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
#118 statik Says: “Yes, thats right. About 44mpg, but you need to factor in the regenerative braking.”
————————————————————————————-
Where did that 44 MPG number come from? Does this have anything to do with the Chevy Cruze MPG? The Chevy Cruze uses an Otto Cycle cam, and a turbo, so this is a totally different beast in terms of efficiency.
The Atkinson Cycle cam used for the Volt has much lower torque and much higher efficiency. The Volt doesn’t need much torque since the engine is not connected to the wheels.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
#121 Arch Says: (on different cam tunings) “I sure hope you are right! GM has not done this in the past.”
————————————————————————————–
My understanding is that all hybrid cars use Atkinson Cycle, so I would assume GM’s current hybrids (e.g. Chevy Malibu Hybrid, Saturn Vue Hybrid) use Atkinson Cycle, but I could be off on this. Have you heard otherwise?
But for the Volt, it seems really obvious. The 1.4L engine is only around 75hp. That screams Atkinson Cycle. And you really can’t use Atkinson or Miller cycles in a normal (non hybrid) ICE car design like the Cruze.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I am constantly amazed that people want to an electric vehicle to drive around with a siren to warn the blind. It does nothing for the deaf.
All that is needed is to a limited distance radio that broadcasts a few hundred feet to people that need that signal. Like a cell phone, the blind or deaf get a ring or vibrate signal.
Meanwhile all the rest of us have and can enjoy wonderful blissful silence.
The same prinicple could easily apply to crossing street lights. They would help a lot more than sounds for the deaf, or flashing lights for the blind…
September 25th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Damn we got some really educated guys on this site!
We have basicaly reverse enginered the drivetrain based off little info, with efficiency as the main goal.
This thread (though hard to follow due to the highly technical nature) is by far the most informative in a while.
Getting “off-topic” in this case was great. Besides how much can you say about a new plant!
September 25th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I want to go back to where the ICE did not drive the wheels after the initial 40 miles cause I was going to take out the ICE and replace it with a honda generator that I bought from Camping World for $999 that would run all day on about two gallons of gas, I could even run a small a/c off of it and probably make coffee, I’m really disappointed.——-NO PLUG NO SALE
September 25th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
names not Mike asey
September 26th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Where is the generator and electric motor being built…..Japan?
September 26th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Michael #113, BillR #101,103
Thanks, that’s why I don’t remember it, I wasn’t part of that online chat. I was pretty sure that it didn’t come from this forum or other articles I’ve read, and thanks again for posting it.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:20 am
#126 Mike Casey Says: “…I was going to take out the ICE and replace it with a Honda generator that I bought from Camping World for $999 that would run all day on about two gallons of gas,”
————————————————————————————-
In case you are serious, it would take around 10 of those Honda generators to be equivalent to the Volt’s gas engine generator.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Oh, I’d better get a bigger one, might need to buy one of those little trailers from sears to pull it around though, not serious just wasting time waiting for my Volt—–NO PLUG NO SALE
September 26th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Dave G #119
“The Chevy Volt will use a Atkinson Cycle cam to maximize efficiency since the electric motor handles the torque. From what I’ve heard, different cam tunings aren’t a big deal to manufacture.”
*** *** ***
Dave, are you sure that the Volt’s ICE is an atkinson cycle. engine? A true atkinson cycle engine has more than a modified cam, it’s also got a different crankshaft that allows all 4 cycles in 1 revolution of the crank. This would be a considerably different design than the otto in the cruze.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:22 am
#132 Grizzly Says: “Dave, are you sure that the Volt’s ICE is an atkinson cycle engine? A true atkinson cycle engine has more than a modified cam, it’s also got a different crankshaft that allows all 4 cycles in 1 revolution of the crank.”
————————————————————————————–
All of the hybrids today use the Four-stroke Atkinson-cycle engine, which is just a camshaft tuning. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle
Read sections on Four-stroke Atkinson-cycle engine and Vehicles using Atkinson-cycle engines.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Government welfare!
Using tax incentive money under the “volt” ( electric car project) to develope a engine for GMs new downsized platforms!
Hope this one is better than the “amazing” quad 4!
September 26th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Great news for a much depressed Flint, MI!!! Should generate at least another 1,500 “support” jobs centered around the Volt, in addition to the Engine Plant employees. I’m hoping for a new assembly plant in Flint, also, as GM’s market share slowly increases with their ever increasing lineup of excellent cars and trucks.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:07 am
#134 THOM Says: “Government welfare! Using tax incentive money under the “volt” ( electric car project) to develop a engine for GM’s new downsized platforms!”
————————————————————————————–
The engine has already been developed and is in use for Opel cars in Europe. In fact, since the engine plant in Flint will likely not be fully operational by 2010, the first Volt engines will probably come from the existing plant in Germany.
If you want to talk about government welfare, take a look at the true cost of gasoline. If you factor in all the money to keep the oil flowing, its over $10/gallon. That’s government welfare.
Details here:
http://www.setamericafree.org/saf_hiddencostofoil010507.pdf
September 26th, 2008 at 8:14 am
#44 DonC, #48 Statik……
“FWIW charging the battery is sort of silly when you think about it because it just adds losses without any benefit. IOW gen->motor is more efficient than gen->battery->motor.”
——————————————————————————————
What you say is correct. However, there are various ways GM could configure the circuit path from the gen>controller>motor, including a single power bus like used on conventional cars: alternator>voltage reg>batt>fuses/breakers>bus. Another option might be dual power buses, for which power sources (ice/gen, regen br