Grab our RSS Feed

GM May Develop Other Than T-Shaped Lithium-ion Battery Packs

October 14th, 2008 | Posted in: Battery, Engineering

The Chevy Volt, as did the EV-1, uses a T shaped battery pack. The stem of the T runs from front to back down the center of the car and the bar of the T is beneath and behind the rear seats. Because it cuts through the rear seat is why the car is a 4-seater.

Certainly if GM plans to expand E-Flex into other vehicles, they might need to redesign the pack shape.

I asked GM’s director of Hybrids and EVs, Robert Kruse, about this.

The T-shaped pack seems to limit the cars interior, such as only allowing 2 persons in the back seat. For other electric cars, will GM be designing other pack shapes?
The batteries are a modular design and we can configure it in a variety of different packages. We have an energy battery in the plug-in VUE that’s not T-shaped and it provides 10 miles of all-electric range in that configuration. I’m not tied to a T-pack. That T-pack is in the Volt but it doesn’t mean all my batteries are going to be T-shaped.

It is an efficient package for the sedan and it survived from the EV-1 to the Volt.

Popularity: 2%

(8 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

105 Responses to “GM May Develop Other Than T-Shaped Lithium-ion Battery Packs”

Donal Campbell Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:31 am

4 seater is plenty for a large segment of the population. This is a first generation vehicle give it a year or two and a five seater will be out. I for one could never own a vehicle as ugly as a prius. Go Volt I will stay the course with Chevy.
psklenar Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:46 am

I’m single. The vast magority of my drives are solo. But I do occasionally drive with friends or family, but I’ve never had a situation where I’d have wanted to carry more than two or three more persons with me … so a four seater is perfect for me and a two seater just isn’t big enough.
Jason Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:46 am

If EESTOR proves viable, the T becomes any letter desired.
Van Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:51 am

Yes the “T” seems like a well thought out design, giving the vehicle a low center of gravity and not putting too much weight aft.
Gsned57 Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:51 am

Put it in a 7 passenger van and with the raised body style you can have the rear benches ride on top of the T and then have the seats fold down into pockets on either side to allow for a fully open van (for plywood, sheet rock, or whatever). Now that’s what I need. Get it done GM
Bearclaw Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:54 am

I’m wondering if some sort of universal shape or size will be decided upon so that we could up grade from Volt battery 1.0 to 2.0 easier. I wonder what aftermarket products and updates will be available like capacitors and longer range batteries.

I don’t remember, was there ever a discussion about software being able to be updated as well so the Volt can tell it has a better battery or other components added to it?
Exp_EngTech Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:59 am

Mr. T. says….

“I Pity The Fool Who Doesn’t Buy E-Flex ! “
Dave G Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:59 am

I wonder what the cost would be to split the battery into 2 different modules. This would allow much more flexibility in designing the vehicle. Coolant would have to be piped between modules, but I don’t think that would cost a lot. Any thoughts?
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:18 am

I myself would prefer the J shape, as I like to drive alone….lets me have full control of the radio.

I don’t know if ‘develop’ is the right word, but a non-overly engineered plunk a box down would certainly go alot easier on the costs. It probably would have saved a few thousand a car if they just plnked a pack under the back seat and gobbled up third of the trunk…I’m more than willing to give up a little trunk room for cost savings, and *cough* extra range *cough*
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:32 am

#8 Dave G

I wonder what the cost would be to split the battery into 2 different modules. This would allow much more flexibility in designing the vehicle. Coolant would have to be piped between modules, but I don’t think that would cost a lot. Any thoughts?
————————————————————————-
Now that is odd. I didn’t see your post, but we have exactly the same though about two seperate packs. I guess I should refresh my page a little more often before I hit submit…or maybe type faster, lol.

/good idea you have there, hehe
DC Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am

Regardless of the backseat I’m interested to see what the trunk space is like. Will the back seat fold down? Will you still be able to fit bikes/skis through the trunk or will it just have a passthrough?

Depends on how its been utilized.
Exp_EngTech Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:59 am

Until the cells have a little better energy density (smaller size), the shape and placement of the pack is going to be dictated by the handling / weight distribution needs.

The carbon nano technology mentioned here recently may provide just that.
Steveland Harris Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am

#11

Yes, Chevy Volt will have fold-flat rear seats
RB Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:09 am

#8 Dave G says “I wonder what the cost would be to split the battery into 2 different modules”
============================================

That’s a provocative and interesting thought. If it was done, I wonder what the electrical relationship between the modules would have to be? In series? In parallel? Draw down one and then the other?

If the complications can be overcome without too much external control and wiring, I can see lots of advantages in design and service.

On the other hand, if the two modules have to be used in combination to function (as opposed to duration), it does make tracking failures harder. Split, possible sources of failure are no longer all “internal.”
Jeffhre Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am

Jason #3

“If EESTOR proves viable, the T becomes any letter desired.”
___________________________________________
If EESTOR proves viable that would be great for any number of applications.

If EESTOR proves viable specifically for OEM passenger cars, then on that day pigs would fly comfortably and over long distances eliminating our transportation worries entirely.
Volt T's Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am

A flat brick type would work well too. The T allows for the battery pack to act as a stressed member.
Dave G Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:39 am

#14 RB Says: (on 2 battery modules) “If it was done, I wonder what the electrical relationship between the modules would have to be? In series? In parallel? Draw down one and then the other?”
————————————————————————————–
I think we can guess pretty well how the battery is structured internally.

Bob Lutz did a video tour of GM’s Volt development facilities a while back. During that the video, Lutz said the Volt’s battery pack would have around 500 cells.

We know that the voltage of battery pack is around 350-400 volts. We also know that each Li/Ion cell is around 3.6 volts.

So this means that the battery is probably organized as 5 groups of around 100 cells each. Each group is wired in series, with the anode of one battery connecting to the cathode of the next. The 5 groups are then connected in parallel to increase current, probably with some redundancy software controlling those connections. If one group of cells fails, the parallel connections to that group are switched off.

With these assumptions, splitting the battery into multiple modules would probably mean that groups of cells are together in the same module, but the connections between groups could be made between modules. This implies the following connections between modules:
• 2 big wires for main power
• 1 control/status link for communication with sensors & redundancy switches
• 2 pipes for circulating coolant (assuming the coolant is circulated)
Keith Twombley Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:39 am

> I’m wondering if some sort of universal shape or size will be decided upon so that we could up grade from Volt battery 1.0 to 2.0 easier. I wonder what aftermarket products and updates will be available like capacitors and longer range batteries.

Exactly! When the range on my volt gets too short I want to go to the store and pick up a new duracell or energizer T-shaped battery and pop it in!
Dave G Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:56 am

#15 Jeffhre Says: “If EESTOR proves viable specifically for OEM passenger cars, then on that day pigs would fly comfortably and over long distances eliminating our transportation worries entirely.”
————————————————————————————–
From the previous thread on EEStor, and the focus of their detailed press releases, It seems to me that the EEStor technology is real, but that mass producing this technology at a cheap price is questionable, at least near term.

The key is their requirement for ultra-purity. This implies new manufacturing methods plus a lot of energy to get this type of purity.

As an analogy, look a silicon computer chips. The source material is basically sand - dirt cheap - literally. But the purity required means highly specialized manufacturing that uses lots of energy. After 30 years of making computer chips, silicon wafers still cost about the same.
Van Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:04 am

I remember around 1970 driving my 1967 Olds into the tire shop and driving out with my first set of radial ply steel belted tires. Wow, what a difference, what an upgrade. I fully expect folks who buy the first generation Volt to be able ten or 15 years down the road to be able to replace the battery with one that has twice the range and fits into the “T” box.
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:11 am

Can an H shape battery work as well?
I think in a normal car, the transmission is in the way. But in the Volt, I’m thinking there could be room for part of the H to fit under the front seats and part under the back seats.
RB Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am

#17 Dave G says “I think we can guess pretty well how the battery is structured internally.” and describes the probable structure
==========================================

Following the organization you gave, splitting seems straightforward.
It’s a great idea. Hope they do it.
Van Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:26 am

Utterly off topic, sorry.

In thinking about those who will not use much gas, being retired all my normal driving is less than 30 miles round trip, and believing that the Volt ICE will be “E-85″ certified, how about a home delivery service of 6 gallons of “E-85″ fuel. That would solve the issue of not having any E-85 pumps near you. Perhaps you could also ship old fuel back, like net flex. Just silly thoughts. Now back to your regular programming.
Mike-o-Matic Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:53 am

@ #3 Jason,

>> If EESTOR proves viable, the T becomes any letter desired.

Shame we won’t be seeing any capital Q’s anytime soon, though!
js1219 Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am

I have always wondered if that T shape prevents the back seat from coming down. 5 days a week, I carry a 6 foot ladder in my car; about 3.5 in the trunk and 2.5 in the back seat. It is a job requirement to have a vehicle that can carry the ladder and I do NOT want to go to a fuel ineffecient design like a pickup, van or ladder rack.
Doug Korthof Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:20 am

The VOLT is a HOAX.

If GM were serious, it would first admit that past Electric cars, such as the EV1, RAV4-EV and HondaEV, were successful and worked well, were beloved by their drivers, and didn’t have any problem with “RANGE” or “RECHARGE”.

In fact, there were no problems with the EV1 or any other Electric car except the fact that the Alliance of Auto Makers (AAM) members were unwilling to sell them to willing buyers. Unique to auto sales, the AAM just would not let go of EVs, insisting on keeping their mitts into the panties of EV buyers, controlling the EV, keeping it and refusing to alienate it by selling it.

If GM were honest, it would admit that the EV1 didn’t have a range problem, wasn’t turned in because it took too long to charge, and there weren’t drivers sitting on tenterhooks afraid of running out of juice. All those “reasons” were just plain false, and, if repeated by GM, just plain lies. A lie is an untruth told for malicious reasons by someone who knowss, or should know, that it’s false.

Secondly, IF GM were serious and the VOLT were not a HOAX, GM would look to past experience: instead of waiting for the perfect battery, past SUCCESSFUL EVs were started with the batteries that existed, and later upgraded to better batteries.

GM carefully defines the VOLT as a 40-mile-range Electric car with a range-extending genset, what Alan Cocconi used to call a “Long Ranger” which he had mounted in a trailer for hooking onto the T-zero (successor to the EV1) for long trips. This trailer was so sophisticated, it just plugged into the EV and had automatic backing software built into the system.

GM supposedly can’t produce a 40-mile-range Electric car without using $20,000 Lithium batteries that don’t yet exist. This is just plain ignrorant, if not dishonest. In fact, to those admitting the facts, it’s outrageous! Coming from GM, whose 1997 and 1999 EV1 had over 100 miles range using lead-acid PSB batteries, it’s just a lie.

Holding up the supposed VOLT to wait for the perfect battery — light, cheap, long lasting, small, non-toxic and not dangerous — is just plain deceptive. The astonishing thing is that while GM points out that the VOLT is merely a 40-mile range EV, it in the same breath expects you to believe that it’s “cutting edge” technology and needs a lot of engineering to prove the concept. Hogwash, top to bottom, front to back. A 40-mile-range Lead-Acid battery-powered EV can run on golf cart batteries. Many do.

The EV1 — The original team, including Alan Cocconi, used lead-acid battteries, later upgraded to NiMH. For years, until 1999, former GM employees who created the T-zero at their company
http://ACPropulsion.com
and sold the technology to Tesla insisted on using lead-acid batteries. Issue it first with lead, then upgrade.
Around 1999, when GM’s associate Johnson Controls bought up the lead-acid batteries that ACPropulsion was using, and de-rated them, Tom Gage and others who were desperate for batteries not sabotaged by AAM tried the idea of using banked 18-650 Lithium batteries, which had been used in electric airplaces by Aerovironment. They work, but they are expensive and have not, so far, lasted much longer than 50,000 miles in an Electric car. So Tesla buyers, who use it, are prepared to buy new batteries and can afford it.

Started with lead-acid, upgraded later to NiMH and then Lithium.
That’s the standard, if GM were honest and the VOLT not a HOAX.

RAV4-EV and HondaEV: the first versions had lead-acid batteries, later upgraded to NiMH and then improved. Honda brags about this on their website http://HondaEV.com while both originally used conductive charging (a plug) and could plug-in anywhere there was electric. It was GM’s NEC625 that sabotaged conductive charging. The Toyota RAV4-EV, still over 100 miles range on our two, is still running fine 5 years after it was last sold in Nov., 2002.

S10E: This Chevy electric truck first came out using lead, then was upgraded to NiMH. NiMH (and lead) versions are still treasured by owners, who bought them from fleet discards while http://EVBones.com keeps them running.

RangerEV: Ford’s electric pickup came out using lead, then upgraded to NiMH. There are few if any repair facilities; RangerEV folks are pretty much at the tender mercy of Ford dealers.

SO THOSE ARE THE FACTS: Normally, an EV is released with lead-acid batteries, to prove the concept, and then possibly upgraded.

If the VOLT were not a HOAX, GM would issue it with LEAD batteries, which is all you need for 100 miles all-electric range, and which are very cheap (as proven by the 1997 and 1999 lead-version EV1, which got over 100 miles range on the PSB EV-EC 1260 lead-acid battery).

But the VOLT, is a HOAX, for these exact reasons. GM is supposedly waiting for a battery that does not exist; they are just delaying until the price of gas comes down.

Now let’s see if 8 kWh of golf-cart batteries would run the VOLT for 15-miles of all-electric range. These batteries RETAIL for $1600 for the entire 8 kWh, and last over 50,000 miles. They recycle. Each kWh yields 3 to 6 miles, so if you only use half of the 8 kWh, you have at least 12 and possibly 24 all-electric miles; if you use all, you have over 20 to perhaps 40 miles all-electric range.

Now let’s look at the weight; the 20 to 40-mile range lead pack weighs 480 lbs (60 lbs. per battery, with racks); the supposed VOLT $20,000 16 kWh Lithium battery (8 kWh useable) weighs (in GM’s imagination) over 400 lbs. and doesn’t yet exist.

So with the same weight, low cost, and the imperative of getting them on the road, you can see why successful EV makers in the past started with cheap lead batteries as proof-of-concept and to run them (some S10E and RangerEV are still using lead-acid to this day).

Hence, GM is not serious, or is ignorant, or arrogantly denies the facts and the truth.

Thus, the VOLT…is a HOAX.
Grizzly Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am

You’ve got to wonder about larger vehicles like small CUVs. IIRC the battery pack in the RAV4 EV is not T-shaped yet it’s a 27Kw/h pack. I believe is is a large rectangle underneath the vehicle which significantly lowers its center of gravity. It makes me wonder if eventually the packs will become large in area but relatively thin comprising a large part of the under carriage of the car.
This way EV chassis could be engineered similarly to regular ICE vehicles.
dennis Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am

“T is beneath and behind the rear seats. Because it cuts through the rear seat is why the car is a 4-seater” - Article above

I don’t buy this arguement. Just because the floor is not flat for the rear center seat doesn’t mean you can’t add a lump of cloth for the rear center seat.

Let me know when you get a 5 passenger. I don’t have 5 people to drive all the time but I want the ability to drive 5 people.
mitch Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am

#26…and this has to do with the shape of the battery how?
Exp_EngTech Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am

Woop! Woop! Woop!

Dirty Angry Hippy Alert !

Sensors Indicate…Origin of Transmission…..Left Coast.
N Riley Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am

Time will tell about the shape of the battery. The shape will be controlled by the size of the vehicle it is placed in until advances with battery technology make the battery much better with less space and weight requirements. That will take some time. I think we are pretty well set with the T-shape battery for the first 3 to 5 years of production.

I bought my Volt-gap car yesterday. I purchased a 2009 Honda Accord EX with leather and navigation. It is a beauty. Made in Ohio. It will get me well past the Volt’s introduction in 2010.
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am

Doug. #26.

You are back. It has been awhile. I see you haven’t changed your opinion about GM. You need to chill a bit. GM made a mistake that they admit to doing. The EV-1 is in the past and is no more. May it rest in peace.

The Volt is the future. Let us mediate on this now. Ommmmmmmm
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am

N. Riley. #31.

Congratulations on your new purchase. I hope it works out to be reliable for you.
N Riley Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am

#33 Rashiid Amul

Thanks. I have had real good luck with my Hondas in the past. I wanted to wait for the Honda Insight hybrid, but determined it was going to be smaller than the Civic. I have trouble getting in cars that small. I am starting to save money for my Volt purchase again since I spent most of it on the Honda Accord. Maybe I will make it. If not, I am hoping you other guys will enjoy your Volt.
Cautious Fan Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am

#26 Doug

Chill out bro. GM made some mistakes with EV-1. Don’t believe the evil conspiracies though. GM always has and always will focus on profits first. That’s what companies do. They didn’t think EV-1 would make them a good profit. They’re not a Non-Profit. 8 years later, Tesla’s success suggested new technology plus high gas prices changed the paradigm and GM, like always, wants in on the money. That’s what companies do.

The Volt is real. GM has spent 100’s of millions on development, they’re converting the factories. For a profit seeking entity, there’s no stronger sign of future expectation then spending lots of money now.
Bob Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am

#26:

OK. I admit it. The people who liked the EV1 liked it. It went 70 miles per charge with lead-acid batteries. It had good acceleration and tolerable handling.

The EV1 also cost $80,000.00 to build. The $40,000.00 reference price on the leases means GM ate $40,000.00 per car. Then there were the servicing costs because as a prototype pushed into production the EV1 had all sorts of nit picking problems.

The Ranger and S10 EVs were also two seaters. There is a limited market for very expensive range limited two seat cars. They can’t have been much cheaper to build than the EV1.

The RAV4 EV seats 4, and gets tolerable range. It was still far too expensive to build.

If the electric cars build for the CARB mandate had been wildly popular, they could have bankrupted the companies that built them.

You can’t railroad until you have all the component technologies. You can’t have electric cars without all the component technologies, either. We’re just at the cusp.

By the way, you oh so conveniently forgot to mention the *volume* of those lead-acid golf cart batteries. In the picture, the EV1 pack is on the left, and the Volt pack is on the right.

#29:

Maybe it’s a packaging issue because he thinks the Volt battery pack is interchangable with the EV1?
Jim in PA Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am

Hey GM, listen up! I have what I think is a good suggestion here. Just because the middle of the Volt’s back seat can’t accomodate a regular person doesn’t mean you can’t configure it to hold infant/toddler seats via the LATCH system. Or better yet; in addition to making it LATCH compatible, have the back of the seat fold out as a hidden, stow away toddler seat (like the old Chrysler minivans had).

This accomplishes two things. First, it lets you put 3 small kids in the back if one is in the center car seat. Second, it allows parents to put the car seat in the center (not the side), which is far safer in a side collision.

How about it?
THOM Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am

WOW!

“DEVELOPE” a battery pack in a shape other than a T???

That seems like a really complex concept..it could delay the project by decades and cost millions!
Jim in PA Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:30 am

#38 THOM - LOL. Look at the bright side; Developing an upside-down T would only take 2-3 years and a few hundred thousand.
Casadore Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am

I would like a battery that can be eaisly exchanged no matter what the shape.
Joe Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am

Doug Korthof Says: @26

The VOLT is a HOAX.

*****************************************************************************

For having written such a long article, Doug, it looks like you really believe in what your saying, What makes you think that way is what I don’t understand. Maybe you’ve been living in a cave, maybe you work for Toyota or Honda, or maybe you just don’t think very logically. No matter what it is, I hope someone can show you the light.
Speedy Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am

Did’nt the article say they were development batteries that weren’t all “T ” shape. And the two mode pluge saturn vue batteries are not going to be ” t ” shape. That means some of the ” e flex drve system ” configurations will not be “T” shape, so it would fit other vehicles. That would hold 5,6,7, 8 people.
Casey Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

I have a friend who a few years ago had a 68 ford he put a electric motor and used a forklift battery, the whole thing only cost him about twenty two hundred, and he had no degrees in anything. Why can’t GM do something right away with all their engineers, whats taking so long we need it now not two years from now.

NO PLUG NO SALE
DaveP Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

If you think about it, the T shape is seriously different from a straight line. It’s TWO straight lines. So if the packs are all lined up like dominoes on end in the thing, then there must be two lines of them and they are simply wired together.

So, that means splitting the pack into two pieces has effectively been done (electrically) in the T shape, already. Physically separating the T into two lines (like to leave a gap for rear seat feet is then more a matter of structure and coolant. And size. And ease of installation and that kind of thing. I think as they get more comfortable with the whole thing, it will be easy to make multiple-piece packs.
JEC Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I would put the battery where the ICE is today….ok, I said it…let the flaming begin! I wore my asbestos undee’s today
Grizzly Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Korhof #26

“Holding up the supposed VOLT to wait for the perfect battery — light, cheap, long lasting, small, non-toxic and not dangerous — is just plain deceptive.”

*** *** ***

First off nobody is holding up anything, this car is set to come out in record time, less than 3 years. Second the battery is already here, it’s been tested and it works.

Third, those creepy things coming out of the walls of your house are all in your imagination!
Joe Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Casey Says:43
October 14th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

I have a friend who a few years ago had a 68 ford he put a electric motor and used a forklift battery, the whole thing only cost him about twenty two hundred, and he had no degrees in anything. Why can’t GM do something right away with all their engineers, whats taking so long we need it now not two years from now.

********************************************************

Casey, If it were that easy, don’t you think it would have been on the market a long time ago. GM and all other manufacturers would now be using them? Come on!! Let’s use some common sense. The battery from the forklift weights about a ton, is very corrosive and does not have the capacity. Sorry,for losing my patience.
Zorne Blloea Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

#26 Is a little nuts. People like this live in a vacuum. With all the American computer companies like apple, Microsoft and intell making chips and boosting the CA economy I fall to see where CA people get there anti American industry from when they are in fact themselves American manufactures.

GM is the largest American company in the USA and employees more workers than any US company and purchases more parts from us suppliers than any auto company.

They mean well and one person who doesn’t even work for GM anymore gave the order to recall the ev1.

So one person is not an entire company of smart young bright engineers who want to make a difference and bring the company into the future.

G
N Riley Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

We’ve all heard the saying “It’s not rocket science”, haven’t we. Well, building a car like the Volt may not be rocket science but is damn well near it. I have been just as impatient as the rest of you, but this is a very complicated engineering marvel, if it works as advertised. Just the software alone is a big job. Then you have to build the controllers and low-power accessory motors, fans and whatever else. Go ahead, any of you, and try to convert your existing vehicle to an all electric vehicle with a range extending ICE. It will be a big, big job. Give GM credit for a job well done so far. As far as we can tell, that is. GM says it will work and I want to believe them. And it will work.
Steve Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Apple just started selling their new re-designed Notebook computers today. They feature a uni-body construction that is created out of a single block of aluminum. This process yields a super lightweight and extremely rigid computer. GM should use this technology to build the Volt. It would be much lighter and stronger than that Delta chassis crap they got going on now.
mitch Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

#47 Casey.

“I have a friend who a few years ago had a 68 ford he put a electric motor and used a forklift battery, the whole thing only cost him about twenty two hundred, and he had no degrees in anything. Why can’t GM do something right away with all their engineers, whats taking so long we need it now not two years from now.”

As to buddy converting to electric..

Did the vehicle get certified to National safety standards, did they issue any engineering non compliance? If he did one for you, and it blew up, is there a national standard he adhered to to demonstrate its safety records meets minimum? can you sue him as a manufacturer? was he authorized to do so…

Do you have any idea how assinine that comment was?
Randy C. Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

That’s the beauty of designing an electric car. You don’t have this large chunk of metal that only works well while upright. The electric motor is so compact it can be placed in a normally wasted space like between the rear wheels. You don’t have to have straight mechanical shafts linking the drive train pieces either.

Batteries are very flexible especially when you move away from lead acid units that have to remain upright. When you are dealing with individual lithium cells you can package them in any orientation and any where in the car.

In a car like the Toyota RAV4-EV with a higher seating position and ground clearance you can lay the pack out in a large flat 6″ thick sheet. This you can bolt under the car blow the cabin floor taking up no cabin space or utility. The added bonus is with all of the battery weight low in the car the stability is vastly improved (much harder to roll it over).

The “T” shape is a great utilization of space. By making a wider stylish center console down the entire length of the car you create a great place to put batteries. It is low and centered giving the car good balance also provides crash protection to keep the bad things to a minimum. The cross bar also uses some usually wasted space under the back seats. If they pushed it they could invert the floor pans under the 2 front seats and put batteries there as well.
JBFALASKA Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Well, every major manufacturer except Honda seems to have an EV in the works. Hopefully oil will fall to $25 a barrel someday. What will the Middle-East American haters do then?
DC Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

@53

Oil will be small potatoes to them at that point. They are already investing tens of billions if not more in US companies/banks beaten down by the economy to say nothing of our real estate. Dubai recently paid $5B for half of the largest development project on the Las Vegas strip but it also got 10% of MGM in the deal.
Gsned57 Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

37 Jim in PA ,

With a kid on the way I like your thinking for the car seat on the center bump. The only negative I see to that is you are strapping your kid directly onto a 400 lb 300? volt Lithium Ion Battery. Personally I’m ok with this but I doubt it will be a good selling point for our wives.

As for the CA bashing from some of you, that’s like thinking everyone who lives in New York lives in NYC (For those who do think that, need to drive from Buffalo through Albany and down to NYC). CA just gets a bad rap from San Franatics and Hollywood pinheads while the vast majority of Californians I know are descent hardworking patriotic Americans. This group is better than that
carcus Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

#49 N Riley,

Rocket science would be closer to the two mode hybrid tahoe than the volt.

http://www.gmc.com/gmc-hybrid/index.jsp
ug Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

#26 Doug

Doug, I’ve seen your videos on Youtube. Running around like Charlton Heston screaming “Soylent green is people!!” is pointless.

If GM doesn’t follow through, Chrysler will, or Mitsubishi, or Aptera or Tesla. The electrification of transport is inevitable and there isn’t anything that will stop the freight train so chill.
Heather Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I don’t really care what the shape of the battery is or whether I can carry 3 friends or four. What I want to see is a readily available, affordable, electric vehicle being sold to Amercans as soon as possible. Why get picky about the seating or cargo space? Clearly one model is not going to cover every driver’s needs, but competition is the driving force behind diversity. Get the Volt out there on the road and others will follow until eventually there are available models for any demographic.

I think the main issues to consumers are affordablity and availability.

I want an EV now, Daddy!!!!!!
omegaman66 Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Doug Korthof you are leaving out one VERY important fact and this is the FACT that caused the EV1 to go the way of the dinosaur. Cost. 100K car back then just wasn’t something people were going to buy with range anxiety attached. You might CLAIM that they weren’t that expensive but you would be wrong. GM was simply leasing them at a huge loss. Why? So that they could sell other cars in California. Once the mandate in Cal. was dropped GM no longer HAD to lease these cars at a huge loss to keep doing business.

Clarification: The mandate never kicked in but was on the books scheduled to be implemented before it was reversed. Stupid law but if you want to blame anyone you need to blame the people that changed the law.
BillR Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Apparently #26 Doug is missing a little when it comes to understanding technology.

Anyone who looks close and examines the details will realize that the Volt is just a more modern 4-seat version of the EV1.

And don’t forget, the EV1 was leased exclusively in the CA/AZ area. In moderate climates it may have been fine, but here in the cold north country I’m afraid it would have been severely inadequate.

Thus we have E-Flex, makes the Volt a global car, not just a niche car for warm climates and short commutes.
Jim in PA Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

#50 Steve - From what I understand, the method Apple uses to make its solid “block” computer chasis is very similar to the hydroforming that GM has been using for years on the Pontiac Solstice frame. (they use a combination of lasers and high pressure water). It is very high quality, but unfortunately expensive. It’s one of the reasons why GM has discontinued the Solstice and its Saturn twin. They couldn’t make any money on them. Notice that only Apple can get away with doing this because people are willing to pay a premium for their product. You won’t see this from HP and Dell anytime soon.
Dan Petit Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

When GM builds anything, especially an entirely new kind of product such as the Volt, GM absolutely must take thousands of things into secondhand-consumer account. GM may have needed back in the good-ol’ EV-1 times (mandated construction) to consider how much money it would take to repair it when the battery pack dies, based on MANY, MANY EXPENSIVE POSSIBILITIES FOR ITS CUSTOMERS.
The one thing left out ENTIRELY from the film
“Who Killed the Electric Car” (which I saw with the Austin EV club a few years ago), was;

*** “How serviceable was it (any EV), from an economical standpoint of replacement batteries?”, and “How serviceable was it from the standpoint of aftermarket independent service-bay hours?” (With lead-acid IT IS DAYS not hours!!).
As well , the enormous set of safety concerns for anyone that touches a supposedly “dead” pack that still has 280 deadly volts left in it ( yet not enough amp-hours to drive a motor without burning it up). With thousands or tens of thousands of vehicles with “deadly” “dead” batteries needing cost-prohibitive services which few could afford,
SOMEONE WAS LIKELY GOING TO GET KILLED.
(And the prevailing assumption and expectations of the aftermarket that “all things OUGHT to be safe if it is an automobile”, therefore, “I will assume that I am capable of tinkering with it.”
Changing out 39 8-volt lead-acid batteries in a 98 Ford Ranger is most certainly NOT the least bit cost-effective.
Using 4 repair bays for 5 weeks for many thousands of dollars for a single-string series array of lead acid batteries is asking for the finest example of Murphy’s Law that ever could take place.
1800 pounds of lead was never feasible.
NiMh batteries were a great leap forward but still left lots and lots of safety concerns, reliability concerns, and was just not good enough cost-wise for pack replacement in the aftermarket service bay. Nowadays, customers “bail” (go get another car) when a price tag for estimated repairs runs around 2500 to 3500 bucks in independent shops.
Offsetting these concerns now are the radical fluctuations in the costs of gasoline, in addition to environmental concerns. This last leap of gas cost was the last nail in the coffin of our more casual economy, and most folks have now learned to distrust petroleum.
These offsets. plus, the savings in a lack of future brake services
and other services (as proven with Prius regeneration), in addition to the gentle driving of any vehicle for wear-savings, are absolutely compelling to the complete changeover of our motoring strategies.
IT IS COMING, AND, I AM WORKING AS HARD AS I CAN TO PREPARE MY FINANCIAL SITUATION TO GET ONE.

Dan Petit, Austin, TX
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Note to Lyle…no more pictures that have anything to do with the EV-1
N Riley Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

#56 carcus

Interesting link. Thanks.
KentT Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

How did the year 2010 become such a watershed year? The Volt, Karma, Tesla Model S, and maybe something from Chrysler ALL will debut in 2010!

For all you haters out there (Doug!), shame on you! We have the fortune to live in interesting times!

Don’t be dismayed by talk of how great the EV1 was and the Volt can’t be. I’ve had the fortune of talking with owners (sorry, lessee) of EV1s and going to the Silicon Valley electric car club. The EV1 a technical success? No. The first generation lead acid batteries were a disaster. Early failure (many packs did not make it through the three year lease let alone 150,000 mile or ten years as the Volt batteries will be warranteed!) and no Doug, you could not drive 100 miles per charge. Drive it as you would a normal gas car and 20 to 40 miles was typical. If the wind, terrain and production lot of the batteries was in your favor you could drive over a hundred miles on a charge–at 35 miles per hour. And this was in a 2000 pound, TWO seat car of which the batteries were 50% of the gross vehicle weight! The Volt, all 3500 pounds of it, will go 40 miles on a charge and I’m willing to bet this is with a soccer mom/joe six-pack at the wheel driving 65 at a slight incline against the wind with three kids in the four door, four seat, leather interior, climate controlled BMW 3 series, I’m sorry, Chevy Volt. After forty miles are expended you’ll then need to call a tow truck or have a very long, oh, sorry again, then you need to call a friend to pull the range extender trailer to you and oops! there I go again! Sorry! I mean the gas engine in the Volt will turn on, seamlessly as you drive, to take you home.

The Volt is not a hoax, it is a car that you will buy and not be forced to lease and it will shock the world. (No pun intended.)
noel park Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Jim I said it all in his comment at #50 on the thread below about the possible 80 mile AER.

We need to get the Gen 1 in the showrooms before it’s too late and worry about all of this other cool stuff later.

As I’ve said about a million times, my wife drives a 95 Impala SS. With the driveshaft tunnel running below the back seat, the center rear seat is a seat in name only, with VERY little padding. if you have to ride there very long, you will have one very sore butt.

To her credit, this was her response when I asked her about the 4 seat Volt. “What’s the difference, the 5th person can’t stand to ride in that huge Impala for over about 20 minutes anyway.”
canehdian Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

#11 “Regardless of the backseat I’m interested to see what the trunk space is like. Will the back seat fold down? Will you still be able to fit bikes/skis through the trunk or will it just have a passthrough?

Depends on how its been utilized.”
I wonder, if there’s no “real” 5th seat, if they will go for a full 3-way drop down seat (instead of the usual 1/3, 2/3 split).
That way you could have the centre drop down to put large items through (skis, etc) and still have two full seats on either side.

Also - how wide is the T? Last I checked, it is indeed humanly possible to have your legs 1 foot apart and sit normally. I guess people have never ridden a bike/motorcycle/horse? :p
There isn’t any reason to call it a 4 seater if it is the width of a conventional car.
That 5th (back, middle) seat is always the worst one for comfort anyway, that’s why it’s only used in the rare instance that you have 5 people in the car!)

#62 Dan
Not sure if you were quoting myths/rumours/or stating your opinion, but a “dead” pack with 280volts won’t kill you. I think you should look up the effects of electricity on the body. 220v from a wall socket can kill you, sure. But it’s not the volts that do it, its the amps along with it. That’s why taser’s don’t kill, they’re 50,000 volts, but very low amperage.
A dead battery has very low Amp-hours left in it and is incapable of supplying the amps to run the motor. Those same amps are required to kill you, so I’m not seeing the problem. You’d get a jolt, but certainly nothing to the effect of a taser, and not death.
Casadore Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Rename the Volt to EV-2 Volt
Joe Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

JBFALASKA Says: 53
October 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

JBFALASKA Says:@53

Well, every major manufacturer except Honda seems to have an EV in the works. Hopefully oil will fall to $25 a barrel someday. What will the Middle-East American haters do then?

*******************************************************
JBFALASKA says “What will the Middle-East American haters do then?”

Joe says, exactly is where Middle-East America? Does anyone know what JBFALASKA talking about?
canehdian Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

He is referring to people in middle east hating americans. Which is an awfully bad stereotype I must say.
Are all christians murderous barbarians? Not the ones I know, but they sure have been in the past.
Exp_EngTech Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Hmmm….when you look at that picture above….

The notch in the Volt’s T-Pack almost looks like a talking mouth!

“What’s that you’re saying Volt T-Pack?”
“Yeah….the EV1 really sucked”.
canehdian Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Re #67
I also meant to address #11’s comment, lol.
The trunk is “completely” unaffected (though it probably is affected to a very slight degree). The battery is “completely” under the passenger area.
kubel Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Doug,

I’m that annoying guy that’s been argueing with you on YT. I’ll say here what I said there. You claim to be against the Volt because they are using a battery that has yet to be “proven” in an electric car. I say to you that your NiMH pack in your RAV-4 EV was never “proven” when the automakers decided to impliment them. They did exactly what GM is doing now to their packs. They are doing lots of testing, and based on those tests, will conclude whether or not the battery is acceptable.

There is no need to start with something as ancient and heavy as PbA. NiMH would make a great option, but GM has already concluded that with mass production, Li-ion is actually a better value and is overall a superior battery technology.

Let’s be honest here. The real reason you area against the Volt is because you have issues getting over the EV1. You are going to damn GM for as long as you live, whether they try to build another environmentally responsible electric car or not. But you can’t lead on to this bias, so you try to come up with the most rediculous arguments.
DaveP Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

#26 Doug Korthof:
I am the proud owner of 1200lbs of large format (8A8D) AGM lead acid batteries and I for one would never drive a car with anything remotely like those things stuffed in it. Just my opinion.
I agree we could have had perfectly fine electric vehicles based on NiMH (which I would have driven except for the very important fact that when GM burned it’s bridges behind the EV-1, they sold the NiMH rights to the oil companies. Until the patents expire and we can get large format batteries from Panasonic, Cobasys will smother any attempt to use NiMH for an EV. Case closed; time to move on to the next tech, which is what GM is doing. It seems the only reasonable approach at this time.

#48 Zorne Blloea:
“#26 Is a little nuts. People like this live in a vacuum. With all the American computer companies like apple, Microsoft and intell making chips and boosting the CA economy I fall to see where CA people get there anti American industry from when they are in fact themselves American manufactures.”

There’s so much wrong with this statement I don’t know where to start. First off, somebody was jokingly speculating that #26 was a upset Californian. That’s a far cry from some kind of blanket condemnation of Californians and our attitude to manufacturing.
But most importantly let’s look at manufacturing. I work in the semiconductor industry in California (and have for about 20 years). Microsoft isn’t even based in CA but beyond that they are hardly a large manufacturer of anything, let alone chips (mice, keyboards and a few talking Barney dolls hardly make them anything like GM! . They helped design a few chips for the Xbox (most of the IP came from IBM and ATI), but they don’t manufacture them here. They don’t manufacture ANY chips. They farm it out to independent fabs, most of which are in Asia.
Same story for Apple, although they at least are based up the street from where I live.
Almost nobody makes chips or computers in California these days. The computers almost all come from China, and most of the chips come from Taiwan (although there’s more country variation on chip sources than for the circuit boards).
Even local stalwart Intel recently moved to close their Santa Clara fab facility. Much of their production is coming from overseas, as well (they have a huge foundry in Ireland, if I remember correctly).

We mainly just engineer stuff here in Silicon Valley these days. Most of the manufacturing for us like almost everyone else moved elsewhere/overseas a looooong time ago.
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

JBFALASKA #53 says,
Well, every major manufacturer except Honda seems to have an EV in the works. Hopefully oil will fall to $25 a barrel someday. What will the Middle-East American haters do then?

——————
They can all go suck eggs for all I care.
Thank you, sir, for your service in our military.
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

#70 canehdian says,
He is referring to people in middle east hating americans. Which is an awfully bad stereotype I must say.
Are all christians murderous barbarians? Not the ones I know, but they sure have been in the past.
—————–
First of all, I believe he was only referring to the ones that hate us.
It is not a general statement. Some of them do hate us.

As for your comment about Christians being murderous barbarians, you are correct. They sure were in the past.
But today, the only religion that carries out murderous barbaric acts is Islam, to the best of my recollection. Now that might only be a small percentage of Muslims, but it is Muslims none the less that carry out these acts in the name of their God. I highly doubt Allah is evil, but some of his followers are.
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

#65 KentT

“How did the year 2010 become such a watershed year? The Volt, Karma, Tesla Model S, and maybe something from Chrysler ALL will debut in 2010!”
=========================================
What about the iMiev, Plug-In Prius, SMART ed and Nissan Cube-ish thing? lol

Seriously, I think we should all just scratch out the ‘2010′ as the mythical year we all get our EVs and lightly pencil in 2011. Unless one of you has a job acting opposite Tom hanks or Russell Crowe…then you are pretty secure in the 2010 arrical date.
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I thought this was interesting. AutoChannel just put up a rather lengthy @ 13 mins (and quite good) interview with GM Group Manager Dave Barthmuss from the Alt Car Expo. Some good Q & A on production, hurdles that could delay it (crash tests, sites, etc), worldwide release stuff, etc., etc.

If you get bored he is standing in front of the Volt, so you can look at that…and of course keeping with the undercurrent of thread, the EV-1 is there too.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IMMSdLrdobA&feature=user

He actually calls the Volt a ‘EV-2′ I thought that was a ‘faux pas’ in the marketing book from GM.
RB Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

#77 ..or maybe 2012
RB Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

#78 statik said “He actually calls the Volt a ‘EV-2′ I thought that was a ‘faux pas’ in the marketing book from GM.”
========================================

…or a brilliant maneuver. The Ev-1 is famous. Take advantage.
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

This might be of interest to any Aussie readers, or NZDavid? And to everyone else, if you follow me pas the jump:
——————
At this week’s Sydney Motor Show, Holden chairman Mark Reuss confirmed the 2011 Chevrolet Volt will arrive in Australian dealerships by 2012. If all goes as planned, the Volt will be the country’s first mass-produced electric vehicle”

The highly anticipated Volt was designed with both left-hand and right-hand drive countries in mind and will utilize a small gasoline engine to help power its lithium-ion powertrain. GM engineers maintain it takes anywhere between three to eight hours to recharge the new electric car that is capable of running 40 miles on battery power alone.

Holden’s chairman and managing director, American Mark Reuss, is understood to have used his contacts in Detroit to fast-track the Volt coming to Australia. Indeed, the Volt’s 2008 Sydney motor show appearance is its first outside the US and only the second public showing globally.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=57556&vf=13

Aussie’s stealing some of our production numbers, eh? Just kidding.
——————–
More importantly, this article gives us one REALLY important factoid we can deduce. Namely, that the limited state rollout will only be for one year (assuming the first Volts roll out in 2011). If the Australian’s are getting it ‘in showrooms in 2012′ we will have it North America wide by then as well.
Grizzly Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

N Riley #49

“We’ve all heard the saying “It’s not rocket science”, haven’t we. Well, building a car like the Volt may not be rocket science but is damn well near it. I have been just as impatient as the rest of you, but this is a very complicated engineering marvel, if it works as advertised”

*** *** ***

I’ve been saying the same thing for quite some time. I don’t really think most people understand just what goes into engineering just another regular vehicle with basically OTS parts. There is quite a bit to it and it’s been done many times before so risks are known. The Volt doesn’t use OTS parts and it’s never been done before. It’s also on a compressed time table. This IS a moon shot and *no* it is not easy. Occasionally you see posts where people over simplify just what’s at stake here.
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

#79 RB

#77 ..or maybe 2012
——————————————–
I can up the ante….2013 for me in Toronto.
noel park Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

#76 Rashiid Amul:

Do you happen to recall what the Serbs did to the Bosnian Muslims and the Kosovar Albanians recently? Or the Hutus to the Tutsis in Rawanda, neither of which was Muslim to my knowledge? I’m sure that there are plenty of other examples around the world as well.

Bush I famously said “There is no monopoly on this sleaze factor.”

No religion has a monopoly on the murderous barbarian factor either. It’s lurking right there under the surface, just waiting for unscrupulous politicians to exploit it.

I am nothing but a failed Episcopalian, so some may say that I have no room to talk, but I assert that plenty of things are done in the name of religion in the good old USA every day that fly in the face of the alleged teachings of Jesus Christ.

In the great parody of “Star Trek”, “Star Dreck”, Captain Jerk famously said, “We come in peace, shoot to kill!”

I mean no disrespect to you, my dear friend. I have as little use as you do for many of our friends from what Thomas L. Friedman refers to as the “petrodictatorships”. Even so, we all could stand to take a second to look in the mirror.
noel park Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

#79 RB & #83 Statik:

If then, IMHO. I can’t get over the thought that the light at the end of the tunnel is an eastbound freight train. And it’s getting larger and larger every day.

On the other hand, Sen. Biden said today that he and Sen. Obama were going to revitalize the US auto industry to create Anerican jobs. I profoundly hope so, but I have to confess to being from Missouri on that one.
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Noel Park, #84.

I stand corrected as I did indeed forget about the Serbs and the Tutsis.

As for you being a failed Episcopalian, I am a failed catholic, and believe it none of it now.

But let us not forget what religion attacked us on 9/11.
I will never be able to get that heartache out of me.
When I think of Islam, I think of 9/11.
When I think of the Volt, I think of 9/11.
I strongly dislike extremists in any form.

We have our own home grown terrorists such as the ELF.

But, I live in a small town and shop at a gas station owned by a Muslim and his family. Once a week I go in there. I spend 10 - 15 minutes chatting with them all. They are good people. I also work with a few Muslims. They too are good hard working people.
It is the extremism that I am totally against.

Oh, and no disrespect taken. You and I have been here long enough when we can disagree. We’re cool, my friend.
Dave G Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

#53 JBFALASKA Says: “Well, every major manufacturer except Honda seems to have an EV in the works. Hopefully oil will fall to $25 a barrel someday. What will the Middle-East American haters do then?”
————————————————————————————–
Oil going back down to $25/barrel is a nightmare scenario. Actually, it’s a recurring nightmare, since this is exactly what OPEC did in the late 90s to kill EVs, and in the late 70s to kill ethanol. Whey do we have such short memories?

The U.S. government should set a minimum price on oil. If the price falls below that point, oil import tariffs should be raised to maintain the minimum price. This is the only way we can get plug-ins and bio-fuels off the ground…
Dave K. Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Perception IS reality.

Today FOX news reported that the price of oil is down due to “recession concerns”.

FOX is baking a gloom pie for us all. Are we going to eat it?

Why not present the lower gas station prices in a light that favors middle America? This includes all ages, gender, religions, and race.

“Due to lower gasoline demand and the shift of the public toward fuel efficient vehicles, price at the pumps is finally coming down”.

Yes folks, it is possible to have lower oil prices AND a good economic condition. Lower fuel costs mean more travel and more disposable income to spend at your local markets. Lower fuel prices mean that people WILL have heat in their homes this winter.

Don’t let big oil bamboozle you. They have allowed the public to suffer under $100+ oil as they profit millions of dollars PER HOUR.

As far as the topic of ‘Volt battery’. GM will pick a battery which provides a decent level of safety and 7000-8000 recharge cycle life (10 years normal use). It’s something for upper management to decide.

Volt ~ The sooner the better

=D~
Ernie V Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

it’s a big bo boo by GM peeps to make a ‘ T ‘
shape battery. don’t they realize that ‘ T ‘ is for…..Toyota !
john1701a Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

>> How did the year 2010 become such a watershed year?

That’s obvious to those that have been driving hybrids for at least 6 years. Back when we endorsed our favored technology with our wallets, the nonsense about Fuel-Cell vehicles was pretty intense. They were heavily promoted along with hydrogen for availability in 2010.

But since those unrealistic goals won’t be met and hybrid technology did indeed deliver as promised, it only makes sense that some automakers are now struggling to deliver something worthwhile by that same date.

And the fact that most are far from being able to build & sell hybrids in high-volume, they are choosing to deliver a small amount of vehicles that “inspire” instead… since delivering nothing would be not be looked upon kindly, even by the most forgiving.
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Uber side note to my Canadian counterparts here:

Not that it is of interest to 95% of the board, but tonight is election night here in Canada, and I love to make educated guesses, here is my seat breakdown by party: (the polls close in 15 mins @9:30 EST)

Conservative: 142
Liberal: 84
Bloc Quebecois: 51
NDP: 29
Other: 2

Popular Vote:
Conservative: 40
Liberal: 25

So minority government, and more of the same…I voted conservative as FYI, lol
Grizzly Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Dave G. #87

“Oil going back down to $25/barrel is a nightmare scenario”

*** *** ***

Let’s just hope that if it does get anywhere near there we’ve got RE EVs coming out of the woodwork and competition running rampant. One of the great things about EVs is that once driven anyone would question why we ever drove ICE vehicles. The silver lining is that other than range (which is covered and solved by RE) and quick charge capability there is no other liability to driving an EV. This ball has never rolled before, let’s hope we get it rolling before OPEC starts playing with the yo-yo strings.
statik Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

#87 Dave G

Oil going back down to $25/barrel is a nightmare scenario. Actually, it’s a recurring nightmare, since this is exactly what OPEC did in the late 90s to kill EVs, and in the late 70s to kill ethanol. Whey do we have such short memories?

The U.S. government should set a minimum price on oil. If the price falls below that point, oil import tariffs should be raised to maintain the minimum price. This is the only way we can get plug-ins and bio-fuels off the ground…
=====================================
$25/barrel is a nightmare scenario for a ton of reasons at that price. I think/hope nobody will forget $150/barrel anytime soon, especially when they are signing up for their long term loans.

This recession should keep the price ‘low-ish’ for the next while…but long term you have to believe its price will outpace that of inflation, as it is a non-renewable.
Jerry Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

#1 Donal Campbell says

” I for one could never own a vehicle as ugly as a prius. Go Volt I will stay the course with Chevy”.
Woooooooooooooooohooooooooooo….I hate the Prius too, yes, yes, Go Chevrolet go GM!!!!! Sorry, could never miss the opportunity to trash talk Toyota. LJGTVWOTR! NPNS….Take care all.
john1701a Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

>> Woooooooooooooooohooooooooooo… I hate the Prius too, yes, yes, Go Chevrolet go GM!!!!! Sorry, could never miss the opportunity to trash talk Toyota…

SMUG
Dave G Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

#93 statik Says: “This recession should keep the price ‘low-ish’ for the next while…but long term you have to believe its price will outpace that of inflation, as it is a non-renewable.”
————————————————————————————–
My prediction: Gas will start to rise just after the election. Then in 2010/2011, it will spike down really low for a year or two, and then go back up.
NZDavid Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

96 Dave G.
It might be of interest to you to know that the IEA (International Energy Agency) has done a study of oil reserves, that will be released on November 12th. Apparently, publication earlier than this date was blocked by GW & friends. Given the scope of this document, I find it amazing there have been no leaks, so far, of the content.

81 Statik
There is a God
2012, 2012, 2012

And made in Australia too. hahaha.
PS:Our election is on November 8th

Finally, I forget who, was worried about strapping their kid on top of the battery in the back. I just want to point out that the battery is DC so EM radiation is not an issue. Sitting on top of MG1 could be another story .

LJGTVWOTR
NO Plug, NO Sale.
Jeff Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 12:15 am

Hmmm…looks like SUV gas prices are here again.
NZDavid Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 4:29 am

For Statik
(Bloomberg) — GMAC LLC, the lender once owned by General Motors Corp., may deepen the automaker’s 18 percent U.S. sales slide this year by limiting car and truck loans to people with the best credit scores.

GMAC said yesterday it’s granting financing only to buyers with scores of at least 700, who represent about 58 percent of U.S. consumers. The Detroit-based company, now controlled by Cerberus Capital Management LP, provided 43 percent of GM’s second-quarter auto loans.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=am.hB81anEHU
Dave K. Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 4:48 am

Santa Monica Expo 09/26/08

I never thought I would see this again. Two tone rich Corinthian Leather seats. Woo hooo!
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt_back-seat.jpg

Hey GM, I bet Ricardo is available if you need a pitch person for the Volt.

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Ricardo_Mantalban.jpeg
Ricardo Gonzálo Pedro Montalbán Merino KCSG (born November 25, 1920) is a Mexican television, theatre, and film actor. He has a career spanning decades and multiple notable roles. During the late 1970s, he was the spokesperson in automobile advertisements for Chrysler Cordoba (in which he famously extols the “Corinthian leather” used for its interior). Though currently in his 80s, he continues to perform, often providing voices for animated films and commercials.

No Rich Corinthian Leather, No Sale!

NRCLNS

=D~
Jim I Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 6:45 am

Well, this thread sure stayed on topic……

Of course there will be other styles of battery packs, made to suit the individual types of vehicles/products they are designed for. After all, we already have AAA, AA, C, D, 9V, and 6V lantern batteries available, don’t we, so I think it would be safe to assume we will see many different styles and capacities of Li-Ion auto packs.

As has been said, Doug will never let go of the past, so it is a waste of time to try to argue with him about it. So, PDNFTT!!!

It has been my experience that once a person goes “extreme” in anything, (religion, politics, enviornment, etc.) and have locked their mindset to a particular position, it is just about impossible to change their opinion, no matter how many facts you have to present in your case. So go ahead and try if you like, but be prepared to be disappointed when they do not change over to your side……

I think I will just stick with my extreme position of:

No Plug, No Sale!!!!!
statik Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 7:29 am

#91 Statik (Me)

Morning armchair quarterbacking of my predictions of the Canadian election last night:

Party (predicted/actual)
Conservative: 142/143
Liberal: 84/76
Bloc Quebecois: 51/50
NDP: 29/37
Other: 2/2

Popular Vote:
Conservative: 40/37.63
Liberal: 25/26.24
—————————————————–

I totally covered that election in pwnsauce. For a $1 I’ll take a stab at the US election. Yours is easy, you only have 2 parties, lol.
MikeS Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am

I would really, really like to buy a Volt except for the fact that it’s currently only a 4 seater, and I have a wife and 3 children. I think this will be a big problem for a lot of people (see below for three example posts), and I think that the competition (Chrysler, Mazda, etc.) will capitalize on this. I really hope that GM can somehow work in an option for a rear middle seat, even if it’s higher and thinner, which is fine for most children. If they do that, they wouldn’t even have to change the battery pack shape. However, lowering the height of the battery in this seat area would be welcome, in order to get a normal seat in there. I would really, really, really like to see GM succeed on the Volt, and from my point of view, this could be a show stopper for too many people.

Here’s the first previous post:

>Is there any chance GM will have an option to make this a five passenger car? I have 3 children, so I really need a five passenger car. I know the battery pack is sort of in the way of a center rear seat, but maybe they >could reduce the battery capacity some for this option? The rear-center passenger could easily straddle the hump in the middle of the floor (like a rear wheel drive car hump), but maybe GM would have to trim down >the battery height in the seat area? Alternately, they could just make the middle seat higher and skinnier (for children in car seats, etc.) If GM doesn’t offer this option, then they will be vulnerable to competitors who >figure out a way to do it. This is already true with the new Chrysler EV annoucements!!!!!!!!!

A second posts says:

>The rear looks like there’s enough for a 5th seat. THe 5th seat is not supposed to be comfortable.
>Have the engineer’s play some more tetris and figure out a way to get a 5th seat in there.
>The stereo-typical american family of 5 (Husband, wife, 2 1/2 kids) could not use this car.
>Unless the battery is sticking through the cabin, I don’t see a reason why you can’t add a 5th seat.

And a 3rd post says:

>Where’s the rear middle seat?
>How can there be an “American Revloution” when you don’t build cars for the american family (husban, wife with 2 1/2 kids).
>The battery is pretty much set in stone, so changing the geometry of the battery is done. What should have happend is the battery should have been longer instead of thicker.
>I may not always have 5 people in the car, but it’s nice to know I have that as an option.
>You may not need the gas generator, but it’s nice to know you have it there just in case.
noel park Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am

#86 Rashiid Amul:

Thank you sir! Your comment was very thought provoking and caused me to do some careful thiking about my own beliefs. Which are strikingly close to yours, I might add.

#102 Statik:

OK, do it! Just let me know where to send the $1.
r4and0mn4me Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am

I will have to side with Doug on this one. Even if the EV-1 and Rav-4 cost $80k, those who wished to buy them should have had the option to. Where else in this world has cost stopped the people with money from buying something they wanted? Put a price on something and someone will buy it, bring the cost down and more people will buy it.

I feel the reason this is becoming such a big deal is GM feels that people are not willing to give up their normal ICE lives they have come to know. That people are not willing to change the way they live in order to live the dream. Human kind can not gain anything without first giving something in return. For anything gained, something of equal value must be lost. There is no free lunch here. For not having to shell out my hard earned cash at the pump, funding god knows how many domestic criminal originations as well as foreign religious fanatics. I am willing to live with the limited range and extra initial cost of a a pure EV, in exchange for peace of mind and hopefully see our troops home safely. On one hand, I believe that a range extended plug-in hybrid such as the Volt will have a place in the market and would work for a great many people.
I on the other hand will be quite happy with an ICE free BEV like the Mitsubishi i-MiEV or if that fails to make it past our governments strict standards to keep out the cool toys, my fallback EV conversion project is well under way. Never under estimate a few rebel fighters, long live the EV revolution!

GM May Develop Other Than T-Shaped Lithium-ion Battery Packs

105 Responses to “GM May Develop Other Than T-Shaped Lithium-ion Battery Packs”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts