Grab our RSS Feed

GM Welcomes Chrysler to Join Them in the Electric Car Future

September 28th, 2008 | Posted in: Competitors, Financial, Politics

Earlier this week Chrysler attempted to shock the world by displaying three new production-intent electric and range-extended electric vehicles. Word was also out that the automaker was in advanced talks with A123 Systems to develop automotive batteries and had formed a strategic partnership with GE.

Chrysler must have been interested in sharing some of the publicity bestowed upon GM for the Volt program, and also must have recognized the inevitability of the electrification of the automobile.

I was interested in GMs position on this new development. GM E-Flex spokesperson Rob Peterson offered us the following statement:

We welcome Chrysler’s decision to follow our lead into the electrification of the automobile and the development of extended-range electric vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt. When manufacturers compete, consumers win. We expect Chrysler’s announcement will accelerate the development of affordable electric vehicle technologies such as batteries - cost savings and efficiencies that will eventually be passed on to customers.

Brothers electric are also brothers in government assistance. Yesterday the US Congress has finally approved $25 billion in loans for automakers. The President has already agreed to sign the bill and money could flow in as little as 6 months. Distribution rules have yet to be decided.

Also the tax credit for plug-in cars approved last week by the Senate, was now also approved in a modified form by the House. It isn’t clear if the Senate will agree to these modifications, or if the issue will be solved prior to the Congressional recess.

Popularity: 2%

(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

101 Responses to “GM Welcomes Chrysler to Join Them in the Electric Car Future”

Exp_EngTech Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:16 am

I would consider buying a Chrysler E-REV “K- Car” but it must have fine “Corinthian Leather”.
Jim I Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:21 am

Hey Lyle!!

Nice photoshop work inserting the Volt into the Chrysler photo….
nuclearboy Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am

“The President has already agreed to sign the bill and money could flow in as little as 6 months. Distribution rules have yet to be decided.”

I would assume that Chrysler is trying to get into a better position when it comes to “deciding on the distribution rules”. This money is supposed to help fuel efficiency issues and is ideal for a Volt like project. The Volt will not give GM as much credit if Chrysler also has a “Volt-Like” vehicle.

I personally would much rather have the Volt because I think much more engnieering will go into it. You have to give Chrysler credit for being able to bring cars to market quickly, however. They have shown this several times over the years and in this regard they run circles around GM. The time it took GM to respond to the PT Cruiser was way too long. By the time the HHR came out the fad was over. Chrysler’s response to the F mustang beat the Camaro to market by almost 3 years.
mmcc Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:29 am

I’d like to see a Dodge Caliber EREV.
Bearclaw Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am

I like the look of the all electric sports car, displaced by the Volt above, but it doesn’t have a range extender currently. I don’t see how the van and jeep can meet the Volt’s capabilities having not been optimized for electric. I’d love to hear what the drag coefficient is for the Jeep and the weight of them would have to require much bigger batteries.
Spin Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:50 am

The more people that come to the party means there will be more people available to dance with. GM had better make sure their price for the Volt is competitive because there will be other choices for consumers.
Kyle Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:07 am

Exp_EngTech,

I too need “Corinthian Leather”. Its a deal killer without it. I was also hopping for an E-REV Avenger that is such a great car!!?
Dave K. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:07 am

hi EXP_EngTech #1

Humm? A Chrysler K-Car with rich Corinthian Leather and oversize front and rear safety bumpers. I could see myself in an EV ICE LeBaron. NOT!!!

Santa Monica Expo 09/26 http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt_grill.jpg

no plug =D~ no sale
harrier1970 Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:12 am

The more Automakers that go electric the better. We need the widest distribution as quickly as possible. I still think the Volt is tops and will lead the way in this but it will be good for people to have a choice for their specific needs.

Well done GM….if I were a Saudi oil sheik, I would be investing in solar, wind and….GM!
psklenar Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am

#5 Bearclaw
“… I’d love to hear what the drag coefficient is for the Jeep and the weight of them would have to require much bigger batteries.”

I can’t recall which site it was one, but I believe I read that the minivan will require 26KWh and the Jeep 27KWh worth of batteries in order to hit the 40 mile AER before the ICE joins in. Weight & aero do make a difference.

One thing that really intrigues me about the Jeep is the comment about four wheel motors!
Biodieseljeep Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am

i believe in bailouts for companies that make STUFF. Buy the stuff, sell the stuff. The chrystler bailout actually paid back the taxpayer very well.

I do not believe in any bail-outs for Wall Street that make NOTHING but paper trails. Paper ain’t worth $h!t when the chips are down.

Been around long enough to remember when times are really rough.. stuff IN YOUR HAND and what you can put IN YOUR BELLY means a lot more than paper somewhere that people can just forget. Tell you congressman NO WALL STREET BAILOUT.

But bailout GM please….
Exp_EngTech Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am

# 8 Dave K. wrote…

“….I could see myself in an EV ICE LeBaron. NOT!!!”

Hey…remember that Chrysler acquired AMC in 1987 and got several lines (including Jeep).

Chrysler needs to do their own version of “Shock and Awe !”.

2010 Chrysler TV commercial.

Lee Iacocca looks into the camera and says…
“I’m back to show you our new baby”.

He pulls a large white sheet off of a vehicle.

“If you can find a better E-REV, buy it”.

“Introducing the 2010 Pacer - E-REV Edition !

Commercial fades to black (sounds of crickets chirping).
jdsv Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:18 am

If it meant I could avoid the dreaded contraption known as the Chrysler transmission, I would LOVE to have an EREV Crossfire! Almost no chance of such a thing beating the Volt to market, though.

No Plug No Sale! =D~~
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:26 am

#1 Exp_EngTech

I would consider buying a Chrysler E-REV “K- Car” but it must have fine “Corinthian Leather”.

————————–

I can’t believe I have the opportunity to post these again! The famous Ricardo Montalban “Corintihian Leather” is actually from the 1975 Chrysler Cordoba ad spot.

He references it at (0:18)…also stay tuned for the ending, amusing reference to this whale, “Cordoba: The Small Chrysler”

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vIL3fbGbU2o&fmt=18
Dave G Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:49 am

#9 harrier1970 Says: “…if I were a Saudi oil sheik, I would be investing in solar, wind and….GM!”
————————————————————————————–
If I were a Saudi oil sheik; I would just open up the oil spigots until gas preices get really cheap (like I did back in the late 90s), and then wait for the car companies to kill thier alternative vehicle projects (like they did a few years later), and then raise prices ridiculusly high after that. That’s what I’ve been doing since the 1970s. Why should I change now?

This scenario is why I keep proposing an oil import tax that will trigger only if/when oil prices fall dramatically. This will prevent the Saudis from killing the electric car - again…
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:54 am

“Earlier this week Chrysler attempted to shock the world by…”

“We welcome Chrysler’s decision to follow our lead into the electrification of the automobile…”

——————-

Is it just me or does alot of the phrasing in this article sounds a little immature given the title? The article is about ‘welcoming Chrysler’ and ‘brothers electric,’ but it sounds like a big helping of ’sour beans’ to me…especially when as far as I can tell Chrysler has been working just as long and as hard as GM.

I mean, they do have 3 working prototypes that the MEDIA have already been allowed to drive, and they have more ambitious release dates…so we can say, ‘oh they are just trying to ‘cobble’ something together’ because they are ‘interested in sharing some of the publicity bestowed upon GM for the Volt program’ but that is just not true….and it sounds petty, like the kid who just released he isn’t special.

I’d wager we are second to this dance, seeing how Chrysler says they have been working on it for two years and they have the hardware in front of us to prove it. Whereas our GM execs are telling us they just threw the Volt together before the 2007 Detroit autoshow, tested nothing and never figured the thing would amount to anything until ‘public opinion’ convinced them otherwise. (see all threads on why the production looks nothing like the concept for references)

According to GM themselves, they have only been serious about producing the Volt for a little over a year…and you think Chrysler, feeling this ‘pressure,’ decided in a rush to hop onboard… then designed, got fully functional packs manufactured and built/tested a fully functional all-EV protoype Chrysler EV in a few months…and had so much free time on their hands while doing all that they said, “lets make a E-Rev van and Jeep?”

This is Chrysler we are talking about. So they way I see it we have two choices to believe.

1.) Chrysler has been working on this alot longer than us, and we are catching up to them, and hopefully we will both be on the market at the same time.

2.) Chrysler just started this program in response to the Volt, and judging by their progress in such a short time frame…they have the greatest and fastest engineering/production team the auto industry has ever seen, and based on their progress so far will obliterate us in both date to market and units on the road.

We can’t have it both ways.
Dave G Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am

#10 psklenar Says: “I can’t recall which site it was one, but I believe I read that the minivan will require 26KWh and the Jeep 27KWh worth of batteries in order to hit the 40 mile AER before the ICE joins in. Weight & aero do make a difference.

One thing that really intrigues me about the Jeep is the comment about four wheel motors!”
————————————————————————————–
Thanks for the battery info. This means the battery for the Jeep will cost around $17K, which means the total cost will probably be around $55K. Kind of expensive for a Jeep Wrangler E-REV.

If you are interested in wheel motors, be sure to check out the Volvo ReCharge and the Cooper Mini QED, both of which use PML motors:
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/index.html

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jeep used PML motors as well.
mikeinatl. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am

#16 Statik

Could there be one more possibility? Could it be that Chrysler is not as far along in their engineering and testing as it now appears? Just a thought.

Also, before you all ask for “Rich Corinthian Leather” in your cars, please consider how many Rich Corinthians must die to make the leather for just one car interior!
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am

#17 Dave G

Thanks for the battery info. This means the battery for the Jeep will cost around $17K, which means the total cost will probably be around $55K. Kind of expensive for a Jeep Wrangler E-REV.

If you are interested in wheel motors, be sure to check out the Volvo ReCharge and the Cooper Mini QED, both of which use PML motors:
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/index.html

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jeep used PML motors as well.
—————
I’d be very surprised if the Jeep made it to production…shocked actually.

The Chrysler van I can see going into production though, the numbers just add up to make sense.

We have estimates on the Volt pack initially around 8K…that would make the Chrysler pack around $13,000.

Chrysler sells their Dodge Grand Caravan for $16,995 here in Ontario (MSRP is a little over 20K–3K cash back). Chrysler isn’t attempting a whole new fancy product like GM…and the van already has the ’stow n go’ area to hold the pack, plus a ton of spare room to house the additional electrical components, so it’s conversion will save more than the additional cost of the bigger pack. (relative to the Volt I mean)

I’d say the Chrysler EV out the door first at around $60K in mid 2010, then the van for 2011 around 36-39K.

The Jeep is ‘too fancy.’ I think if they tried to produce it, we would see a ‘Volt-esque’ pricing scenario, where the complexity and the costing just kept escalating the intial target. They would start at 40K, but like you say, would end up well north of 50.
JEC Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:27 am

16 Statik,

My thoughts exactly.

GM has admitted that this “open forum” design is not their typical method for producing a new vehicle. So Chrysler’s intro. of a new line of technology driven cars would be more the norm for the industry.

GM’s decision to make the Volt visible from the early concept has its advantages and disadvantages. I just think showing to much to early just helps the competition, and would not be the way I would develop a new “leading edge” product. But GM also gets some advantages, and one is that they appear to be leading the pack.

Like you said, ya’ can’t have it both ways…
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:33 am

#18 mikeinatl.

#16 Statik: Could there be one more possibility? Could it be that Chrysler is not as far along in their engineering and testing as it now appears? Just a thought.
——————
I don’t see how. Chrsyler says they are as far along as ‘working prototypes that they are testing’…the media is driving around in working prototypes, seems pretty real to me.

I mean we have footage of Phil LeBeau from CNBC, who is clearly pro-GM, pro-Volt…bombing around in one going 100 mph. Seems pretty verified to me. Chrysler did come to him SPECIFICALLY, he didn’t call them. They saw the Volt special, and picked the guy who did it, the guy who would have the most critical eye for their product.

What we haven’t seen, is product from GM. There is no functioning prototype yet, the media has never even had their scheduled mule ‘rides by Easter’ (was that 2008 or 2009 again?). All we have is a Volt-shell limping around at 15 miles per hour, on a Cruze platform. It is GM that is attempting to keep pace with their own PR right now
carcus Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:50 am

Does anyone have links to material (written or video) from those who have test driven the Chrysler EREV products?
Ziv Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:02 am

Speaking of Pacers, I was driving north of York PA last year and a brilliant pink Pacer in factory condition pulled by me. Talk about an item out of time, I couldn’t believe it still existed, let alone in such good shape! I didn’t like it after the first year it came out, but now it is kind of cool looking.
Good luck to Chrysler, the more plugs, the better!
carcus Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am

From Chrysler’s website:

“For your typical commutes, the four-door Jeep EV won’t sip an ounce of gasoline or emit any carbon, relying on its electric motor and advanced lithium-ion battery system for the first 40 miles. When you feel like wandering, a small gasoline engine with an integrated electric generator produces the additional energy needed to power the electric-drive system - up to 400 miles on eight gallons of gas.”

https://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innovation/envi/specs/jeep_vehicles.php

400 miles - 40 electric = 350 mi. 350 miles on 8 gal gas = 43.75 mpg.

Chrysler claims they can get 44mpg out of the jeep after battery depletion?????

That would be truly amazing.

I’d like some independent confirmation on these numbers.

The skeptical side of me (the biggest half) suspects that these claims are B.S. . . . just false promises to keep the american consumer from purchasing a japanese built economy car for the next couple of years. Just buying time (and loans).
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am

#22 carcus

Does anyone have links to material (written or video) from those who have test driven the Chrysler EREV products?
——————————

Here is the CNBC vid:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=864784364&play=1

Some more vid/specs of the three zipping around:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/23/chrysler-llc-debuts-dodge-ev-jeep-ev-and-chrysler-ev/

LeBeau’s writeup:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26850309

PS) I don’t buy into the Jeep…specs or production at all either. Too soon…too ambitious. Just a electric drive vehicle please!
KDIB Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am

I don’t care who is first, I care who sells it in my Pocket Book range.

NPNS

=D-

PS. I guess Ford better Join the Party soon
Exp_EngTech Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am

I applaud Chrysler if they are genuinely serious about joining the “E-REV Revolution”.

They should focus all resources on getting an E-REV version of the Town & Country “people mover” out as soon as possible.

Chrysler should forget about any other plug-in vehicles until that model is rolling off the assembly line.
Bill Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am

I would LOVE to see a minvan ER-EV, even @$40,000.

Minivans are very versatile - haul 7 passengers, or remove the rear seats and fold the middle seats into the floor (”Stow ‘N Go”), and you have a ton of enclosed, weathertight cargo space.
Gary Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am

21 Statik: What we haven’t seen, is product from GM. There is no functioning prototype yet…. All we have is a Volt-shell limping around at 15 miles per hour, on a Cruze platform.

The Volt does have functioning prototypes… inside of Malibu–and more recently reported–Cruze bodies. They just haven’t been driven by the broad media… or at least with little public knowledge about it happening.

You’d might as well say that Chrysler doesn’t have any functioning prototypes yet either because the electric powertrains are in your run-of-the-mill Chrysler, Jeep and, ahem, Lotus bodies.
Larry R Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am

I think its great that another USA company (Chrysler)is working on plugins. My question is where is Ford?

As a locomotive electrician (30 years)I extensive training on moth GM (EMD) and G.E locomotives.
There technology on AC traction motors and excitation systems are both excellent.

If America finally gets its act together and go green, all plugins must be 100% Made in the USA.
mikeinatl. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:45 am

Preliminary Specs on the ERV Jeep 4-door Wrangler.
Interesting mileage claims for a 4 wheel drive brick.

https://www.chryslerllc.com/pdf/envi/JeepEV_specs.pdf

2010 is going to be fun. Hope we still have an economy to support all this by that time.
Rashiid Amul Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am

#29 Gary,

Speaking of the Malibu, I just returned from a week at Disney World.
In EPCOT, GM sponsored a “Test Track” exhibit. Besides being a very cool ride, they have several new cars to show off at the end.
One of them was the Malibu Hybrid. It is a very nice looking car both inside and out.
koz Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am

Static, your like a Youtube DJ. Where do you pull this stuff from?

Rich Corithian…where can I get one of those.

Chrysler’s EV development: Glad to see it, like everyone else. Tesla should be the only one concerned, though. Phil LeBeau drove the Lotus built sportscar, not the Jeep or minivan. Chrysler dumped in tech from partner vendors and ran vehicles. Anybody can do this quickly, but it means very little for high volume production. You can’t just throw 800lbs of EV components in an existing vehicle and call it good for production of thousands. If they were truly further along, they would have SHOWN more. Chrysler’s “announcement” sure looks a hasty effort to put their chips in the EV game, when viewed with a critical eye.
Rashiid Amul Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am

As for the article, the more E-REV manufacturers we have, the better we will all be. But the 40 mile battery range needs to increase. I wonder if that is one way the various manufacturers will differentiate themselves from the competition?
Dave G Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

#34 Rashiid Amul Says: “… But the 40 mile battery range needs to increase. I wonder if that is one way the various manufacturers will differentiate themselves from the competition?”
————————————————————————————–
The marketing people for these car manufacturers are, well, marketing people. The first thing you learn in marketing is the 80/20 rule. If you can perfectly satisfy 80% of the market with a given set of features, you are supposed to stop there. You only increase your feature set to go after the remaining 20% of the market after you have won the 80%.

It’s no coincidence that around 80% of Americans drive less than 40 miles per day. GM’s marketing team did the research and found that 40 miles = 80%, so they stopped there. Other car manufacturers marketing people will come to the same conclusion.

As battery technology improves, there will be 2 options:
1) Use batteries that have the same cost and weight to get more than 40 miles.
2) Keep the 40 miles with smaller cheaper batteries.
What do you think they will choose?
ThomC Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

29 Gary:
>> 21 Statik: What we haven’t seen, is product from GM. There is no functioning prototype yet…. All we have is a Volt-shell limping around at 15 miles per hour, on a Cruze platform.
The Volt does have functioning prototypes… inside of Malibu–and more recently reported–Cruze bodies. They just haven’t been driven by the broad media… or at least with little public knowledge about it happening.
You’d might as well say that Chrysler doesn’t have any functioning prototypes yet either because the electric powertrains are in your run-of-the-mill Chrysler, Jeep and, ahem, Lotus bodies.
———————————————————————————–

Gary, I’m with you. I see a lot of derivative engineering in the Chrysler prototypes:

The “Clotus” (ahem), looks like a pure BEV on a Europa chassis… not much from Chrysler here and absolutely no new technology. And (FWIW) my opinions on the viability of a BEV in the west are pretty well documented in this forum.

The Jeep’s claims of 40 miles electric and 50 mpg ICE are complete BS: The Jeep’s aerodynamics make a brick look good… the sides of a brick are smooth, can’t say that about the Jeep.

The minivan is the most plausible candidate. It has the room for a BIG battery as well as ample space for the range extender. However, the claims of 40 miles electric/50 mpg ICE are highly suspicious in this vehicle.

Now consider how many people on this forum bitched, moaned and gave up their “place in line” because the production Volt wasn’t as sexy as the concept Volt (at $40K USD). Now Chrysler proposes that a $60K minivan is a viable alternative to the production Volt… GAG

I suspect that GM is taking this time to flesh out problems with the e-flex platform, not just the Volt. If so, we could see an extensive line of e-flex models, not derived from the Volt, over the course of the next 10 years.
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

#34 Rashiid Amul

As for the article, the more E-REV manufacturers we have, the better we will all be. But the 40 mile battery range needs to increase. I wonder if that is one way the various manufacturers will differentiate themselves from the competition?
—————
Rashiid! Your alive…I was getting worried, hehe. Welcome back.

——————————-

#29 Gary

The Volt does have functioning prototypes… inside of Malibu–and more recently reported–Cruze bodies. They just haven’t been driven by the broad media… or at least with little public knowledge about it happening.

You’d might as well say that Chrysler doesn’t have any functioning prototypes yet either because the electric powertrains are in your run-of-the-mill Chrysler, Jeep and, ahem, Lotus bodies.
——
A prototype is not the Mali-Volt, it was just ‘components of the electric drive’ without regenerative braking in a old, last gen Malibu. Thats a test mule.

A fully functional protoype is just what it says. It has all the production intent looks and production intent working parts of the final product, subject to change because of unforeseen field testing deficiencies.

Chrysler does have these functioning prototypes, because the final product is just ‘electric powertrains in your run-of-the-mill Chrysler, Jeep and, ahem, Lotus bodies’ (not so much with the Jeep…it has electric drive but not ‘as described…thats why I call shenanigans on it).

The van is nothing fancy in design, it is akin to the ‘Cobalt with a battery’ type thinking…which is probably why it will be made.
Gary Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

33 Koz: Chrysler dumped in tech from partner vendors and ran vehicles. Anybody can do this quickly, but it means very little for high volume production.

I agree. The devil is in the details. The Volt team has spent countless hours working on non-powertrain related details such as aerodynamics, unique styling to make it stand out on the road, the interior design, center console and touchscreen integration (unlike the vids of the Jeep’s interior I’ve seen that replaced the stereo altogether for the quickly cobbled together electric powertrain controls and status LCD screen), logic for when the gas engine turns on, etc. etc. I wonder if there is even a working heater in these prototypes?

EIther way, I would expect Chrysler to make unique bodies for these vehicles when they do come out. Using a Lotus body for a Dodge doesn’t do much for brand recognition and would be the ultimate example of “badge engineering”.
carcus Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

#25 Statik
Thanks for the links.

—————————————–
More skeptical thoughts,

Notably absent from all of the big 3’s current/future production announcements is what some would consider the best solution for the country if the goal is to get off of oil. That being, a mass market small electric vehicle.

If the “free market” were to have it’s way from this point forward. I think an affordable (low to mid $20’s) small electric is the solution many (most?) multi -vehicle consumers would pick. They’d buy something similar to the Mitshubishi imiev for all of their “running around” and keep the pickup/suv for times when the little electric wouldn’t fill the bill (work pickup, pulling a boat, 5 people on vacation, etc…)

Unfortunately, what’s good for the country isn’t necessarily what’s good for the big 3. They want to sell cars, high priced cars, lots of high priced cars with high profit margins, lots of high priced cars that will need a fair amount of maintenance until you sell it and buy the next high priced car.

Making your next car purchase a small BEV could be your best financial move. This move could have the fastest/deepest impact towards energy independence. Unfortunately, it seems to be a move that the Big 3 don’t want you to think about.

New Study Shows Multiple Cars Are King in American Households

http://articles.directorym.net/New_Study_Shows_Multiple_Cars_Are_King_in_American_Households-a876964.html
Dave G Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

#30 Larry R Says: “If America finally gets its act together and go green, all plugins must be 100% Made in the USA.”
————————————————————————————–
Remember that the battery cells are all made in Asia. In the case of A123, it’s China. For LG Chem, it’s South Korea.

I think the days of 100% Made in the USA are gone. What is more significant is that the majority of the Volt’s development and manufacturing is in North America.

The most important thing to me is to stop importing foreign oil from nations whose people hate us. I would buy a Japanese car to keep billions in oil money from going to Iran, Venezuela, or Russia.
mikeinatl. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

We need all car manufacturers to join in the E-REVolution as soon as possible. It really is a matter of national security.

If everyone in America could go through the gas shortages we are enduring right now, the whole picture on energy independence and E-REVS would be vastly different.

I was in line at 5:00 AM (Sunday) to get gas. Waited about 45 minutes. The line a midnight was just too long. Even in the middle of the night now you can expect lines at the rare station that does have gas. People are not sure they will be able to go to work. No one seems to know how long it will last. Regardless of income or job, most are cancelling non-critical trips which means businesses are being effected.

Cost is not the main concern. Supply is.
Somewhere out there there are terrorists that also knows this.

What a different thing such a disruption in gas supplies would be in a Volt-nation. Life would be almost normal.

If there is one person on the thread that wants me to shut up about the Atlanta gas shortage, I will gladly do so. Please let me know.

But I do find it an interesting real-life study of how Americans deal with the world of serious gas shortages. And I can’t stop thinking how Volt-like cars would affect all this.
ThomC Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Wow… lots of traffic today. I was going to post this immediately after my #36 post:

One of the things we’ve heard from GM is how they don’t want to undermine the public’s perception of EREV by banging out a flawed production vehicle… which I consider to be extremely responsible and far-sighted. In contrast I see nothing but “me too” from Chrysler, a company with a richly deserved reputation for inconsistent engineering and god-awful production. Possibly the worst thing that could happen to the EREV architecture would be Chrysler releasing one of their Frankenstein monster vehicles before GM releases the Volt, souring general public perception of EREV with their bastard creation.
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

#36 ThomC

Now consider how many people on this forum bitched, moaned and gave up their “place in line” because the production Volt wasn’t as sexy as the concept Volt (at $40K USD). Now Chrysler proposes that a $60K minivan is a viable alternative to the production Volt… GAG
———————–

I was/am with you on the Jeep…I think that is a load of ‘hooey,’ but you lost me here…

“Chrysler proposes a 60K minivan….”

Seriously? I’m going to need a link on this.

I don’t see how a $19,190 in US van gets to 60K, especially considering all the ‘non-engineering’ we are talking about Chrysler doing.

http://www.dodge.com/dma/803/index.html?zip=90210&family=null#family=grand_caravan&zip=90210
Gary Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

37 Statik: A prototype is not the Mali-Volt, it was just ‘components of the electric drive’ without regenerative braking in a old, last gen Malibu. Thats a test mule. A fully functional protoype is just what it says. It has all the production intent looks and production intent working parts of the final product, subject to change because of unforeseen field testing deficiencies.

With all the dire warnings from people on this board who said that the Volt would be a sales disaster if it was going to look like a boring, run-of-the-mill warmed-over Cobalt, Chrysler had better keep this in mind. The homely Prius has shown us that people who want to show the world they they are trying to make a difference (*gag!*) want to broadcast it to the world, even at the expense of showing their poor taste in automotive design.
George K Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

#33 koz
Chrysler’s “announcement” sure looks a hasty effort to put their chips in the EV game, when viewed with a critical eye.

I had the same thought from viewing Statik’s #25 videos. Also, I’m not seeing much demand for a more expensive jeep. The Dodge EV looks very cool, but I’m predicting a high price tag putting it in the lower volume range.

The Mini-van looks like the best seller, if the price is right. However, Americans have stopped buying mini-vans and suv’s by the millions because of gas going up $1 this year. Logically, people shouldn’t flock to a much more expensive mini van. But then, I never understood why so many people bought suv’s who don’t live in the snow belt? *

A crossover is another story. An E-flex crossover could be the next soccor mom replacement vehicle with Big numbers. JMHO

* You can include greater Chicago. Years ago a mayor was voted out because he didn’t put enough resources into plowing after a big snow (met my standards, but I’d rather drive slower after a snow storm and pay less taxes for more trucks). Now, our mayors salt and plow so incessantly, sometimes the salt is deeper than the snow.

=D~~~
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

#39 carcus

Notably absent from all of the big 3’s current/future production announcements is what some would consider the best solution for the country if the goal is to get off of oil. That being, a mass market small electric vehicle.

If the “free market” were to have it’s way from this point forward. I think an affordable (low to mid $20’s) small electric is the solution many (most?) multi -vehicle consumers would pick. They’d buy something similar to the Mitshubishi imiev for all of their “running around” and keep the pickup/suv for times when the little electric wouldn’t fill the bill (work pickup, pulling a boat, 5 people on vacation, etc…)

Unfortunately, what’s good for the country isn’t necessarily what’s good for the big 3. They want to sell cars, high priced cars, lots of high priced cars with high profit margins, lots of high priced cars that will need a fair amount of maintenance until you sell it and buy the next high priced car.

Making your next car purchase a small BEV could be your best financial move. This move could have the fastest/deepest impact towards energy independence. Unfortunately, it seems to be a move that the Big 3 don’t want you to think about.

New Study Shows Multiple Cars Are King in American Households
————————–

This is true. What is interesting, now that the big rebates are passed and the Volt qualifies for the full $7,500 on the 16kWh pack, is the iMiev.

Pricing on the i-Miev is pegged at 3 million yen, after their rebates bring it down from 3.9 million yet. So that is about $36,750 at todays exchange, or post rebate $29,250.

But like all EVs, when the heck anyone will actually be able to buy one? Who knows…and the Mitsu is Japan only in 2009/2010, at least Mitsu is on the record to sell them globally now.

/wait…wait…wait
ThomC Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Static #43:
>>I was/am with you on the Jeep…I think that is a load of ‘hooey,’ but you lost me here…

“Chrysler proposes a 60K minivan….”

Seriously? I’m going to need a link on this.

I don’t see how a $19,190 in US van gets to 60K, especially considering all the ‘non-engineering’ we are talking about Chrysler doing.

—————————————————
Oops. Couldn’t find a reference to $60 for the minivan, I may have lost it on this. My apologies.

Even so, high $30K for a minivan with cobbled-together EREV doesn’t sound like a market winner. Espcially when this is relatively new technology. Almost by definition, minivans are haulers for medium-sized families and are viewed as extremely conservative “people-mover” transportation, which is why virtually no-one will admit to owning one. IOW, I can’t see soccer moms gambling with new technology. They want transportation appliances… four-wheeled toasters that they can’t break.

In contrast, we at this site are incensed to no end because we suspect GM will target the coasts for initial release because they recognize that’s where the adventurous money is.
Gary Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

41 mikeinatl:

I don’t understand why Atlanta would have gas shortages. It’s not on an island or in the middle of nowhere where shipping would be an issue. Special additives required for Atlanta gasoline? How stupid is that!?!
Guy Incognito Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

The reason why the Big 3 got $25 billion is so that they can retool to build hybrids & BEV’s.
Oh its an invitation alright, a compulsory invitation to the tune of $25 Billion.
They better build them.
carcus Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

#46 Statik,

Latest imiev pricing appears to be 3 million yen (before rebates , I presume).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/mitsubishi-mo-1.html

So would that be 28,280 - 7,500 = $20,780?

Because of its relative simplicity, one would think the production costs on the imiev would be significantly less than the volt.
mikeinatl. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

#48 Gary.

Its complicated.

It started with Ike and some oil refineries going down and for some reason product is still not getting to all the stations. Most in fact don’t have gas.

That created something akin to “a run on the banks”. (Painful analogy on this particular date.) But instead, it is a run on the gas stations. Because the situation drags on and keeps getting worse, most people are inclined to top off their tanks and also now an extra jerry can or two. “Just dont know when more gas is coming”. Which of course increases demand beyond normal levels and makes the situation drag on and keep getting worse. Which creates MORE fear and ba-da-bing were in a vortex here.

It would be interesting to see who is directing fuel flow where and why. The big picture of all this is not being reported to my knowledge. Hey, Atlanta is a big hub for petroleum distribution. So this REALLY makes no sense.

NPNS (GM could sell the first 10,000 Volts in Atlanta this afternoon!)
statik Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

#50 carcus

#46 Statik,

Latest imiev pricing appears to be 3 million yen (before rebates , I presume). http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/mitsubishi-mo-1.html
So would that be 28,280 - 7,500 = $20,780?

Because of its relative simplicity, one would think the production costs on the imiev would be significantly less than the volt.

—————

Nope, I wish. I touched on it in my post here :

“Pricing on the i-Miev is pegged at 3 million yen, after their rebates bring it down from 3.9 million yet. So that is about $36,750 at todays exchange, or post rebate $29,250.”

Of course I made a timely spelling error (yet=yen) and the whole sentence was not very clearly sussed out…my apologies.

The pricing is 3 million yen to the consumer in Japan, but the net cost is 3.9 million-ish before their rebates in Japan kick in, so the math has to be done off the 3.9 million figure…or $36,750ish. So we take the $7,500 off that…or $29,250.

The Mitsu CEO is on record that price should come down fairly quickly once production is in full gear, efficiencies, lower cost on batteries, etc…but everybody keeps saying that (Mitsu, Gm, Chrysler, Tesla, etc), and I seriously doubt it.

If demand is high and the consumer is buying everyone they produce, the price will stay steady (if not go higher) for as long as the conditions stay as such.
carcus Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

#52 Statik,

Bummer,

well, just give me the Li-ion batteries at a reasonable price and I’ll convert something on my own.
Jay Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Cool! Now we have four major automobile manufactures working on plug-in hybrids… GM, Chrysler, Mazda, and Toyota! The more the better for us consumers! The Volt is still the coolest of all that I’ve seen so far (except for the Dodge and Tesla EVs.. which aren’t plug-in hybrids).
canehdian Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

What’s mazda making? I haven’t heard news on that one.
A plug in tribute, or something new?
Rashiid Amul Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

#37 Statik says,

Rashiid! Your alive…I was getting worried, hehe. Welcome back.

———
Thank you, my friend. It feels good to be back. I missed a lot judging by the number of threads this week. Tomorrow I will be back to the same old grind. But a week off from a very busy work schedule can be quite therapeutic.
Rashiid Amul Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Dave G #35 says,

As battery technology improves, there will be 2 options:
1) Use batteries that have the same cost and weight to get more than 40 miles.
2) Keep the 40 miles with smaller cheaper batteries.
What do you think they will choose?

————–
I believe they will pick option 2, although I hope they will pick option 1.
Tom Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

GM has talked up the Volt project with so much bull**** that most of you now think it’s a bigger deal than it really is.

Aero is not a make-or-break thing. There are plenty of cars on the road with crap aerodynamics that still get pretty reasonable gas mileage, e.g., the Scion xB comes to mind. You guys make it sound like an electric car wouldn’t be able to move 3 feet if the aerodynamics aren’t record-setting.

And that nonsense earlier this year about high-efficiency windshield wipers? Give me a freakin’ break.

GM is obviously trying to give us a Prius-like emotional experience. Oh, the Prius has a fancy thermos for engine oil. The Prius has low rolling resistance tires. Okay, so GM is giving us tree-hugging windshield wipers or whatever.

Kudos to Chrysler for cutting through the BS, developing a new powertrain, and throwing it in some of their cars. I don’t see how this could be considered a less sophisticated engineering effort.
Koz Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

I agree that Chrylser’s EREV minivan has the most potential in theory, but there press release is pretty chock full of the brown stuff and remarkably similar to the Volt’s specs specs for a company that is “doing their on thing” or out in the lead.

40 miles AER, 400 miles range extended with 50 MPG

Puuuleeasee…50 MPG ain’t gonna happen with that minivan. 35 max on the highway and for range extended, that is what matters.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/23/chrysler-llc-debuts-dodge-ev-jeep-ev-and-chrysler-ev/

“Today’s announcement, however, was light on details, so it remains to be seen if Chrysler can accomplish its goal of bringing one of these EVs to market by 2011.”

Great to see other manufacturers jumping in. The more, the merrier… but don’t kid yourselves into believing more than what they actually show without more believable details.
Koz Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Tom #58

I agree about the low power windshield wipers. Other than a small example, they weren’t worth more than the 100 yards or so of extra range that you may get out of them the few times a year you actually need max speed wipers.

You are very wrong about aero though, unless usage is expected to be below 40mph. The Scion does OK, 28 mpg highway, because ICEs have a wide efficiency operating range. In general, cars are tuned so that their ICE is more efficient at highway speeds. Electric motors have much more constant efficiency (very high efficiency at nearly all loads). This makes aero much more important, particularly at highway speeds. For city travel it still matters but not as much. If GM was targeting just a commuter vehicle, they would be full of the bull for talking up aero.

A little bit of knowledge could go a long way for you.
Len Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Really strange about the gas prices. Supply goes up, supply goes down, price stays at about $4. Price per barrel drops by one third, price stays about $4. I don’t think we have to worry about sub $3 gas derailing the electric cars. Big oil sees the base demand level and loves the profits. They control what actually gets to market as gas not the Saudis.

Subaru is working on an electric car also. I bet by the time the govt starts doling out cash, Ford has and EV Focus or something. It actually looks like a lot of companies have been working on EV, I just don’t think we have been tuned into the subject like we have been in the past year and a half or so, and a lot of companies haven’t been talking about it like GM. I think GM and this site are creating more of a demand, and that is a good thing. My sister said something that reminded me of Toyota. “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while”.
Tom Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Koz: Drop some knowledge on me then. I can’t see how the high efficiency of electric motors means that aerodynamics somehow becomes super super critical for electric cars.

Let’s say it takes 35 horsepower to maintain 70 MPH in one car, and it takes 40 horsepower to maintain the same speed in a less aerodynamic car.

For what you’re saying about aerodynamics to be correct, an electric motor producing 40 horsepower must take disproportionately more electricity than producing 35. Like, WAAAY more. Like, you’ll only be able to drive half as far in a Volt if you put a ski rack on it. I don’t think this is a property of electric motors. My understanding is that they can produce any amount of power with more or less the same efficiency.

So please fill in my knowledge gaps.
Cautious Fan Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Maybe I’m being a little overly skeptical, but the Chrysler timing with the auto loan bailouts seems convenient. Maybe, they’re telling the world how these tax dollars are needed to push the new cars. But wasn’t GM planning on producing the Volt BEFORE the bailouts? Nissan and Toyota were jumping on the bandwagon too?
mikeinatl. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

If a $25 Billion US bailout stimulates more manufacturers to jump in the E REV pool, I’m for it.

That is about 3.6 % of the amount of oil dollars we are sending overseas every year to countries that don’t like us much.

Having a wide variety of plug in electric cars available would probably dramatically reduce that outflow and put us well on the way to energy independence.

Plus if they are built here, American workers get jobs (and pay more taxes). Oh yeah, and dramatically less carbon emissions if your impressed by that kind of thing.

Pretty good bang for the buck if its true.
Dave K. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

The first full size Chrysler EV ‘land yacht’ will be called “The Halliburton”. They will also introduce a smaller ’sport’ vehicle based on the Lancer to be called “The Ohm”. The family offering will be called the “L-Car” as it is just a little bit better than the popular “K-Car”.

All kidding aside, I hope Chrysler and Ford show with strong EV vehicles for the public market. We need to rethink our use of GASOLINE and buy American.

Santa Monica Expo 09/26/08 http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt-EV1.jpg

no plug =D~ no sale
mien green Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

#55 canehdian:

See post 142.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/23/chrysler-goes-electric/
Koz Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Tom #62,

Well…it depends on what one considers super super (or super duper) critical.

Bob Boniface stated range was increased 6 miles due to the design changes. This is roughly 15% increase for city driving and it will be a greater increase for highway driving (probably about 20% at 70mph). Personally, I consider this as pretty super super since this is similar to what Toyota’s synergy drive adds in the city and more than it’s benefit on the highway. The gains are also free and get better the faster you drive.

As to the relative efficencies’ affects. Assume the electric motor has the exact same efficiency whether providing 12KW or 14.4KW of power (reasonble guesses for production Volt load at 55mph vs concept load at same speed). The battery has to provide the difference 2.4KW plus drivetrain power related losses. If however we look at an ICE with the same power demands but factor in the ICE’s efficiency curve. Most ICEs get more efficient as you approach their rated load. So, some of the power difference is made up from efficiency gains.

Another important factor of the relative efficiency is that since the ICE is so inefficient, the increment gas demand even if the efficiency is the same is a much smaller percentage of the total gas usage than the incremental energy drain on the EV’s battery. This is also why auxiliary loads become so much more important for electric vehicles.

This is why if Chrysler just slaps some batteries and a motor in an existing car, they will create a second rate EV or EREV. This is fine as a stop gap and would have been great if they started 2 years ago and were selling today but properly engineered EV’s are going to eat their lunch.
Len Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

If they are the only mini van EV, and they are less than $40k, they will sell plenty.

I wouldn’t think the soccer moms drive much at freeway speeds, mostly around town where the aero doesnt mean much.

More choice is good. It may not be super efficient, but if doesn’t use gas it is great.
Grizzly Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Carcus #39

“Unfortunately, what’s good for the country isn’t necessarily what’s good for the big ”

*** *** ***

In a nutshell this exactly sums up the saga of the EV-1 yet GM has been made out to be an evil villain. It’s different this time around, competition is starting to set in and that’s exactly what we need, even if initially the price isn’t necessarily where we’d like it to be. The ball needs to continue to roll down hill and pick up speed.
RB Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

#48 Gary

Atlanta has shortages because, in effect if not in name, they have price controls. If the Georgia government would let it happen, there would be some higher prices, people who have gas would delay on topping of their tanks, and there would be availability. As it is, the price is kept artificially low, so rationing is by waiting in line instead of by price.

The good part is that gas pipelines are returning to normal this week in all the east coast states.
PJK Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Mini Van EV… practical .. room for actual people and cargo .. that’s a good idea… but I think we need the Hydrogen fuel cell to get here soon.. wouldn’t want to pay for the batteries that would be needed to haul 7 people and cargo… I think a EV HHR would be better choice for the near future .. I think the mini van will have to wait for the Hydrogen fuel cell to generate the energy it needs.

Looks like we will actually be making the first significant progress in common transportation since the Model T…. and it will be named the Chevy Volt.
carcus Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm

#26 KDIB, #30 Larry R,

Ford came early to the party.

EVS23: Ford hands over the plug-in Escape hybrid to SCE

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/04/evs23-ford-hands-over-the-plug-in-escape-hybrid-to-sce/

ABG First Impression: Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid w/Video

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/26/abg-first-impression-ford-escape-plug-in-hybrid-w-video/
Tom Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Koz:

I think you’re confused. Let’s say you have a constant 30% efficiency engine. If you inject 1 “drop” of fuel, you get 0.3 drops worth of raw power. If you inject 1.5 drops, you get 0.45 drops worth of power. So, 50% more fuel = 50% more power. Run the same numbers with 90% efficiency and you have the same relationship. So at least one paragraph in your reply doesn’t make any sense.

I don’t know if your efficiency vs. load claim for ICEs is correct or not. I remember seeing that graph for the Prius a while ago and its curve was pretty much flat once you got over 20% load, so I’m dubious. But I can’t find that graph again now for some reason.

So I will maintain my claim that if you can have efficient-but-not-aerodynamic regular (gas) cars, you can just as easily have efficient-but-not-aerodynamic electric cars.

I’m not impressed by your 15-20% more efficient statistic. If you look at the fuel efficiency of today’s popular sedans I’m sure you will see an MPG spread much bigger than that.

People buy cars for a lot of reasons. If you want a Jeep, I’m pretty sure you’d be willing to overlook a small sedan even if it’s 50% more efficient. Lord knows people do that today, and look at the price of gas. If anything, the switch to range-extended EVs may make people more willing to buy less aerodynamic vehicles that suit their tastes better, because traveling those first 30+ (or whatever) miles will be almost free anyway.
Grizzly Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Tom #73

“So I will maintain my claim that if you can have efficient-but-not-aerodynamic regular (gas) cars, you can just as easily have efficient-but-not-aerodynamic electric cars.”

*** *** ***

You’re forgetting one thing…regen braking. Aero is the enemy of regen braking, and it plays a major role particularly in city AER.
Tom Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Grizzly:

Is aero bad for regen because it naturally slows the car down?

I’d be surprised if that had much practical effect… I am no expert but from the conventional wisdom I’ve gleaned from car forums/magazines/etc., I think aerodynamics only plays a negligible role up to around 50 MPH… and typical city driving is much less than that…
mikeinatl. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

# 70 Gary

Atlanta has shortages because, in effect if not in name, they have price controls. If the Georgia government would let it happen, there would be some higher prices, people who have gas would delay on topping of their tanks, and there would be availability. As it is, the price is kept artificially low, so rationing is by waiting in line instead of by price.
__________________________________________

I agree to an extent. But after long enough without any reasonable explanation and so much doubt, people begin to top off regardless. Mobility is critical. A few tanks at twice the price wont change your life.
Not being able to travel at all might however. In extreme situations, people will hoard regardless.

I’m learning more about life in shortage mode every day. And I am beginning to think the lack of any real detailed explanations might just be due to security concerns.

NPNS
Grizzly Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Tom

Yes it slows the car down and you want the traction motor in reverse to do this unimpeded to capture max regen. I don’t have the figures, but some city/urban driving can see speeds of 45-50mph. If the difference between an aerodynamic and non-aero after a full battery cycle nets you an additional 1.5 miles, I’d consider that something. That would mean 41.5 AER as opposed to 40. Moreover, if GM implements deceleration regen and super caps it’s possible that the impact could be larger since we’d be talking about highway speeds.
dylan Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

i hope gm is scared, this is what they sohuld have done instead of a wheeni aroedineamic sadan thay should have electrfied the 3/4 ton suburban.
George K Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm

#58 Tom
“GM is obviously trying to give us a Prius-like emotional experience. Oh, the Prius has a fancy thermos for engine oil. The Prius has low rolling resistance tires.”

Tom, fyi the stock Prius doesn’t actually have low rolling resistance tires. It has Goodyear Integrity - 185-65-R15’s.

I make mine into low rolling resistance, however, by pumping them up to 42/40 lbs. The ride is a little stiff, but it really helps the mpg esp. if you glide a lot.

=D~~~~
Jscott1000 Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Gas shortage…what about electricity shortage? The electrification of the automobile has one MAJOR drawback, the GRID is in terrible shape. If you live in the Houston area you recently went between 3 days and two weeks (and counting) without electricity. An electric car is pretty useless with no electricity.

Before Detroit decides to electrify the automobile we need to spend some money on the electric infrastructure. And maybe we all need to have natural gas generators in our homes to recharge our automobiles.
Grizzly Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

George K,

I’ve always wanted to test drive a Prius for no other reason but to see what driving a part time EV w/ regen was like. Problem is that no dealer in my area has one, they’re tough to come by.

Question about regen braking if you don’t mind. How quickly does it slow the vehicle down? If you’re approaching a stop light at about 40 mph, how soon do you let off the accelerator to completely stop before the light?
Koz Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

#80 JSCOTT1000

Can you get gas from the gas stations? Last hurricane in Miami was terrible trying to get gas to run generators since no electricity meant no power for the gas pumps. My boats large gas tank came in handy though. By the way, without power and curfews, there wasn’t much need to drive. Next hurricane there, I’m sure people will know to fill there gas cans and gas tanks in advance. There aren’t any above ground grids in the world well suited to withstand hurricanes. The Volt would be much better in your situation than most cars since it uses much less gas and if GM listens to the growing chorus of hurricane affected areas, they’ll give us V2House option.
DonC Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

#73 Tom - “So I will maintain my claim that if you can have efficient-but-not-aerodynamic regular (gas) cars, you can just as easily have efficient-but-not-aerodynamic electric cars.”

You asked to have your knowledge gap filled in. Here it is, and it’s all you have to know: EVs do not have the energy reserves of an ICE. If an EV has an energy reserve of 50 and an ICE has an energy reserve of 1000, then even if EV is four times as efficient it can only go one fifth as far. Efficiency is not the issue with EVs. They have always been and will always be more efficient than ICEs. The problem they face is energy reserve. Because they are energy limited they need to make more judicious use of the energy they have available.

Plain and simple, EVs need good aerodynamics and lower weight in order to have decent range.

FWIW you also seem to be completely confused about efficiency. You keep postulating an efficient car with terrible aerodynamics. This of course is impossible because, by definition, a car with horrible aerodynamics won’t be efficient.

Finally the Chrysler and Jeep vehicles you think so highly of will never be produced. Take the Chrysler. Let’s see, we’re going to have a 6000 pound van that seats seven (8000 pounds loaded), uses a 23 kWh battery, has a CdA twice that of the Volt, and goes 40 miles. Not going to happen. If you have twice the weight and the CdA is double that of the Volt then you are going to need twice the battery power to go the same distance. And that’s on a flat. Add hills and it gets worse. (We won’t even talk about the 1.0 liter engine which will supposedly drive this thing)
JBFALASKA Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

More the merrier. For me, I need an American-made, American-fueled vehicle. I trust the Chevy Volt. Competition will keep me from getting gouged.
Grizzly Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

DonC #83

Congrats,

IMHO this is one of the best, most concise technical posts to date. I never looked at it this way, and I never cease to be amazed by the contributors on this site. We’ll achieve energy independence one step at a time, with or without our heavily lobbied legislators. GO GM!
Koz Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

#73 Tom,

You’re getting closer to understanding but fighting it hard.

“I think you’re confused. Let’s say you have a constant 30% efficiency engine. If you inject 1 “drop” of fuel, you get 0.3 drops worth of raw power. If you inject 1.5 drops, you get 0.45 drops worth of power. So, 50% more fuel = 50% more power. Run the same numbers with 90% efficiency and you have the same relationship. So at least one paragraph in your reply doesn’t make any sense.”

What I’ve been saying is that the ICE is not steady at 30%. At a lower power output it is less efficient, say 25%, so as you drop in more fuel you get proportional more power. This is a drastic oversimplification of course since you have to consider gearing, rpms, etc. You mention the Prius’ efficiency curve. This may be part of the confusion since Atkinson cycle engines have a much flatter curve as you allude to. No non-hybrid cars are Atkinson, rather they are Otto cylce which doesn’t has a much less flat curve.

I don’t disagree that there will be a huge market for EREV jeeps, minivans, etc. And yes they won’t get the same performance as an aero tuned sedan like the Volt but they will have a tremendous advantage over their ICE conterparts. And guess what, those EREVs designed with significantly better aero than their in class competition will have big advantages over conversion EREVs with little care for aero.

GM stated their goal was to make the most efficient affordable sedan they could. One could certainly argue the affordability of a $35+K sedan but I don’t see any logic in knocking 20% gains in range for an EREV at real highway speeds when it costs $0. GM’s goal was to minimize gas use with the least amount of compromise. Aero gains are the cheapest and easiest way to do this.
Tom Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 2:17 am

Koz:

“You’re getting closer to understanding but fighting it hard.”

Yeah, yeah, it should be clear from my last post that I already understand what you are saying about diff. efficiencies at diff. loads, but I was replying to your low/high efficiency argument from one of your original posts, just saying that low/high efficiency has nothing to do with it.

As for the 20% gains, well, of course if GM is going to design a new body they might as well make it aerodynamic. But my point was that there’s nothing wrong with making a new drivetrain and throwing it in an existing car, as Chrysler is doing, and as GM *plans* to do eventually anyway. You don’t HAVE to make a new body, as the GM propaganda machine seems to imply. (And the 20% is relative to the concept, which had terrible aero anyway. What’s to say the gain wouldn’t be closer to around 5% if they used a Cruze body. They look pretty d*** similar anyway.)

DonC #83: You clearly have no idea what’s been going on. Efficiency has nothing to do with “reserves,” so why bring all that up, and my main point was that aerodynamics do not affect efficiency as much as people seem to think. If you want to contradict me, provide some numbers or some other kind of insight, don’t just state that I’m wrong.
Marcus R (WL #5275) Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 3:18 am

So in looking for cars to E-REV they started with the Town and Country and the Jeep Wrangler?!? Then they did a copy/paste on Tesla’s Roadster so far as to even use Lotus for the shell. Welcome to the game Chrysler: +5000 pts for joining us here in the near future, -200 pts for originality, -1500 pts for not designing a car from scratch and -10000 pts for not starting with the cars people actually want to buy from Chrysler: the 300 and the (ugly meat wagon-style) PT Cruiser. Heck, even the Sebring would have been a better choice than the Wrangler.
Also, nothing I’ve read stated which of the vehicles they actually intend to produce or when. I’m feeling like they brought all this out now to steal some of the spotlight from GM and attract the attention of Congress now that the $$ for fuel-efficient cars looks imminent.
Len Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 4:17 am

The Mini Cooper converted to electric with a motor in each wheel does not have regular brakes. All braking is done with the motors and captures energy.

Drag increases with speed and the relationship is not linear. It is either squared or cubed, I forget which. So for a golf cart it doesn’t really matter, but for highway speeds it definately does. A vehicle going 55 consumes a lot less fuel than one going 65.

The more drag you have the less energy you will capture from regen braking. The difference becomes smaller at lower speeds.
NZDavid Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 7:27 am

Mikeinati

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c27b429c-8b23-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

Also check out:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4585

Can’t sell what you can’t get. You either, ration by price, or, by waiting in line.
George K Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am

#81 Grizzly
“I’ve always wanted to test drive a Prius for no other reason but to see what driving a part time EV w/ regen was like. Problem is that no dealer in my area has one, they’re tough to come by.

Question about regen braking if you don’t mind. How quickly does it slow the vehicle down? If you’re approaching a stop light at about 40 mph, how soon do you let off the accelerator to completely stop before the light?”

Well, do you live anywhere near Chicago?

Regen breaking has 2 parts. When you touch the breaks you are not engaging the mechanical pads, you are spinning the motor generator. This charges the bat and produces drag. It happens from your 40 mph (and higher) down to about 7 mph. At 7 mph, the friction breaks seamlessly kick in til the car is stopped. Reason is, so they get used occasionally and don’t rust out.

If, however, you hit the breaks for a panic stop, the friction breaks kick in immediately. You avoid an accident, but lose out on saving energy!

So, the best way to charge the bat is to anticipate a traffic light early and barely touch the breaks, so you have a long, slow decent. This allows for maximum bat charge (the faster you try to charge the battery , the more heat is created and you lose energy).

The other thing is, the Prius uses this regen breaking when you take your foot off the gas and coast. You feel a drag and slow down a little more than in a standard car. It works pretty well on a 5% grade, keeping you under 70 (mostly), though you may have to tap the breaks or open a window (ha ha).
Fred Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am

#25 Statik

Great Video of the de Dodge EV. I wonder what the price is going to be on that baby????$$$$
DonC Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am

#87 Tom - “If you want to contradict me, provide some numbers or some other kind of insight, don’t just state that I’m wrong.”

Aerodynamic drag in newtons equals 1/2 rho * Cd * A * V^2. To find the power needed to overcome this drag multiply this equation by V. In short, double the CdA and you double the power needed to overcome drag. Not sure what else I can provide you with.

FWIW the newtons of drag associated with rolling friction equals Kg * 9.8 * CoRR. To find the power in watts needed to overcome this drag, again multiply the newtons by V. Again, for a given speed, double the weight and you double the watts needed to overcome the drag. Again, not sure what else I can give you.

The energy needed to climb is just mass * gravity * distance. Again, double the weight and you double the energy needed to climb. You can recover some of that through regen but not all of it.
Jim 75 Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 10:57 am

Soccer and non-soccer van driving moms will drive at the chance to drive a minivan don’t use fuel, is cheap to recharge, and provides them the same benefits of their old van provided that the price isn’t too out of line. What would the battery pack cost for the van?
Frank B Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am

Here’s the link to the Chrysler electric site.

http://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innovation/envi/overview/

You’ll see all the cars including the operational sports cars omitted from the picture at the top of this thread.
Frank B Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am

From the Chrysler ENVI web site:

Where/When can I get one?
The first products for consumers in North American markets will start production in 2010, and European markets after 2010. There is a complete portfolio of Electric Vehicles and Range-extended Electric Vehicles.

What is ENVI?
ENVI is a cross-functional Chrysler team dedicated to making Chrysler the leader in producing and selling electric-drive vehicles. We are developing a generation of even more environmentally responsible Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles.

Looks like Chrysler is planning on several models besides the first three that they previewed, unlike GM who have been planning on only one. Something tells me that Chrysler is way ahead of GM.
noel park Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

#34 Rashiid Amul:

Yeah, nice to see you back man. I figured (hoped) that you must be on vac.

#84 JBFALASKA:

You too, come to think of it. And AMEN to your comment, BTW.

I’ll just say it again, NEVER underestimate Jim Press. And BTW, be very, very afraid of BYD and Warren Buffett. Talk about a dangerous combination!
Tom Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

DonC, thanks for the equations (I guess) but that doesn’t tell me much. For a typical sedan maintaining, say, 60 MPH, what percentage of power is used to overcome air resistance? How does that vary with CdA?

So I just looked up some numbers for a 2006 Maxima vs. a 2006 Murano since Nissan uses more or less the same powertrain for both. The Murano weighs 366 lbs. more (10%) and has a Cd of 0.39 vs. 0.28, i.e., aerodynamics are 40% worse. The EPA MPG for the Maxima is 20/28 and for the Murano it’s 20/25.

So basically you make the aero 40% worse (and add some weight) and it only takes the highway MPG down by about 10%.

So, okay, 10% isn’t nothing, but really, who gives a crap? To listen to GM and the people on this message board talk, you wouldn’t be able to drive an electric Jeep out of your driveway without needing to recharge it. I call BS.
jefro Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

GE, they bring good things to life.

Might be an excellent market for US Postal Service with a JEEP now wouldn’t it? HUUMMMM.
Andy Says:
September 30th, 2008 at 3:24 am

Ok, so now with Chrysler joining with also 40 miles range models that is the standard range for American electric cars. Fine, but the development seems to stop there. Now GM is not talking about future upgraded models but DOWNGRADED models with less electric range. Does not anybody else find this worrisome? Mitsubishi and the likes with full-electric cars already in production will roll over GM if they do not do everything they can to stay in the game.

For the very least: could you Lyle follow up on this and seek confirmation from GM Volt team on future UPGRADED electric car models?
Mike C Says:
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am

#16 I agree with you.

I think that Chrysler has take a different approach than GM.

The Volt is mostly new “from the ground up”. GM’s approach yields a new design, but it is 100% unproven - both in quality and sales.

Chrysler seems to have taken the approach of “which of our vehicles can be retrofitted with the new drive train”. This approach yields an existing design that adds another option to their existing models. Styling, chassis, interior work was already done and is probably popular. This is probably safer from a business standpoint, but certainly less exciting.

If none of them are successful and end up being canceled - GM takes losses on the entire vehicle - Chrysler will go on selling Jeeps and mini Vans and only has to lose the drive train.

GM Welcomes Chrysler to Join Them in the Electric Car Future

101 Responses to “GM Welcomes Chrysler to Join Them in the Electric Car Future”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts