GM is confident about being correct in choosing the 40 mile electric-driving range the Volt offers.
They decided upon this range based on a Federal study showing that 78% of US drivers drive less than 40 miles per day.
Since the concept’s announcement in January 2007 we’ve had countless spirited debates about that range. To this day one of the most common criticisms from those new to the concept is that the range too short. The typical comment goes like this “if Tesla can make a car that goes over 200 miles why does the Volt only go 40?” Of course the car can go infinitely further than a 40 mile drive using the gas powered range extender, but that will only take place in less than 20% of all of the US populations’ driving. Furthermore, clearly the goal is to keep cost to a minimum, not quite so with the 100K Tesla.
So one question worth asking is what will the range of future Volt versions be?
The answer per GM’s Volt vehicle line executive Frank Weber is “Forty.”
Weber explains it as follows:
“I don’t want to go higher than 40. Everything I do is to go down with cost, cost, cost. All battery improvements will go into cost reductions for the batteries. Next generation battery will be half the size, and half the cost.”
He also indicates how other components of the Volt will improve, stating “next generation power electronics will be half the size and half the cost. Next generation electric drive unit will be actually not half the size and cost, but you will see improvements in the electric drivetrain.”
He also notes that battery modularization will likely occur in the future, just as you might have V6 and V8 engines now, future E-Flex vehicles may have optional electric ranges for those at the extremes of the daily driving curve. Weber says “when you look at the core of the (E-Flex) program, once you can shrink the battery and make the cost of the battery more reasonable, the next generation will allow you to modularize the battery capacity. Because there are people who who might need 20 miles or 80 miles. Very different people have very different demands and so the next stage is to get different levels of batteries.”
Of course mission one is to just get the car out there as Weber says “at this point this is new technology and I am happy if we get one solution that really works.”
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 24th, 2008 at 6:57 am and is filed under Battery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:05 am)It’s a disappointing statement to hear that the limited 40 mile range is the best GM can do. I was hoping GM would surprise us at Detroit with a BEV Volt with a range of 150 miles. That isn’t going to happen.
I suppose that’s what competitors are for. I’ll still likely buy the Volt, but my primary goal is to avoid using imported oil. It will be difficult with 40 mile limited range and the complete lack of charging station infrastructure.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:07 am)“Of course mission one is to just get the car out there as Weber says “at this point this is new technology and I am happy of we get one solution that really works.”
———————————————————–
Yes, let’s get that one. It will be a wonderful achievement, but it has to be a polished, nice car.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:10 am)#1 Dave B said “…and the complete lack of charging station infrastructure.:
———————————————————
Please bring along an extension cord
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:22 am)The Volt was never intended to be a BEV. That is not to say that GM will not produce a BEV at some point. But for now, I agree with the “Range Extended” idea, to get people used to driving gasoline vehicles their entire lives to make the switch without having to deal with range anxiety.
I am really looking forward to seeing the Volt in the showrooms! Now, if we can get Lyle to convince GM that we would be the right people to be purchasers of the first year’s production run, all the better!!!! Having to wait until 2012, just because some movie star thinks he should have one first, just seems wrong…………
Merry Christmas everyone! And lets hope that we, along with GM and Lyle’s gm-volt.com have a successful, safe, and prosperous 2009!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:23 am)Modular batteries seem to make sense. You customize according to your needs. Perhaps you could even lease a module short term for special occasions. Of course this is just to get us by while we are waiting for the ‘coast-to-coast’ all electric to arrive.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:33 am)Excellent way to put it, Weber.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:34 am)#1 Dave B.
You must be in the 20% group that drives over 40miles/day.
I drive 24 miles/day. I don’t even need 40. Everyone is different.. You have to apply the 80/20 rule.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:40 am)Of course mission one is to just get the car out there as Weber says “at this point this is new technology and I am happy of we get one solution that really works.”
————————————————————————–
When I read this quote, there appears to be a typo. I think the word OF should have been IF.
This single word puts a completely different spin on what he is saying. “…I am happy IF we get one solution that really works.”
So, was this a typo?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:44 am)Can someone clear up the v6/v8 option he was alluding too for me? Is he speaking in terms of potential available performance? If he is not talking about more range, exactly what did that mean?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:04 am)Then you wonder why GM is in the crapper. Stubbornly refusing to increase the range flies in the face of any common sense. The Chinese have already produced a 62 mile plug-in hybrid and are selling it for 22K, yet the geniuses at GM tell us 40 is it.
Truly maddening. Give me the 140 mile range EV1, then I do not even need a combustion engine…..
http://OilFreeNow.blogspot.com
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:15 am)40 mile range fine for my daily commute of 26 miles roundtrip. I’d buy on that basis, assuming car is otherwise acceptable.
It is however realistic to expect marketing types from competitors to tout the longer ranges of vehicles that have them. If Weber is correct, and those competitor vehicles are otherwise similar to the Volt in performance, battery reliability, equipment levels, etc (not some econobox) their cost should be greater.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:21 am)“Because there are people who who might need 20 miles or 80 miles. Very different people have very different demands and so the next stage is to get different levels of batteries.””
==========================================
#9 Brian
I think the article is a little misleading. I believe he is mixing the wants for the Volt and the possibilities of the future. The goal for the Volt is 40 miles as cheap as possible, but in the future, they would possibly sell different battery sizes based on individual buyer needs. This makes the article confusing, because they say they are only interested in range of 40 miles, but then they pull in the subject of future, modular batteries, and buying what you want.
Me, personally, I want to buy the range I want. I would love to be able to buy a 80-100 mile range, but then get rid of the ICE and all things associated with it. Remove the cost, complexity, and the maintanence issues with a hybrid, and give me my simple, reliable, relatively cheap electric. (Said it before, and yes I know I am range limited, but I am willing to sacrifice the range for all the other benefits).
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:25 am)GM is absolutely on the ball with regard to this. It is smart engineering and price selection. There are many people who currently say 40 miles is not enough. But after people own a 40-mile EREV for a year or so they may change their tune. I consider my commute to be a pain in the ass (45-60 minutes), and it is STILL only 30 miles round trip. Many Americans think they drive farther than they actually do because they spend an hour in gridlock traffic just trying to crawl 15 miles. If the Volt meets the needs of 78% of Americans, then it is a great success.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:28 am)PS – What gives with the V6/V8 comparison to modular batteries? There is no comparison. V6/V8 is a change in power and drive train, whereas adding battery cells simply increase drive range (assuming it is truly just a modular battery). To offer different power options woud be far more complicated and would have to include various options for electric motors, etc. I think he needs to drop this attempted analogy. Modularly increasing the size of your battery is more analogous to increasing the size of your gas tank (which, granted, is a far less sexy analogy) .
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:31 am)I think the 40 mile range makes sense. Once the size and price of batteries (capacitors?) comes down, there will be tuners that will figure out a way to put them in parallel and double or triple the range. EREV is the way to go, without a doubt.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:31 am)akojim #5
“Modular batteries seem to make sense. You customize according to your needs. Perhaps you could even lease a module short term for special occasions. Of course this is just to get us by while we are waiting for the ‘coast-to-coast’ all electric to arrive.”
I think you’re right on the money. A customizable range with the appropriate number of modules would let folks carry just the battery pack they need without having to have hundreds of extra pounds and thousands of dollars worth of battery that they never use, to make Dave b and Jabroni happy campers. If modules were offered in 20 40 60 and 80 mile ranges it would go most of the distance toward eliminating most of the oil burning for drivers buying those cars.
If 78% of the needs of US drivers would be met with a 40 mile pack then modularity would seem at first read to take care of most of the rest, although I’m sure there will be dozens of posts that claim that this is an incredibly stupid bullheaded decision that will result in horrible hardship, possibly the end of civilization and certainly the death of the big 2.5 starting with GM.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:32 am)I believe the ‘estimated 40 mile battery range’ should be available at the highest demand operating condition. With lighter demand offering 40+ miles per full garage charge. Can the sensor system be adjusted to cheat the depletion point to provide at least 40 miles at the highest demand condition? This will be a positive selling point.
“You will get 40 miles before using gasoline”
Sounds good to me.
=D~
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:45 am)The Volt will start with a 40 mile range, however, no matter what GM now says, if others start selling large volumes of EVs or EREVs with much longer electric ranges, GM will have no choice but to extend the range of its EREVs.
Ah, the wonders of Competition and Capitalism! (If these social structures, and GM, still exist 5 years from now!)
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:51 am)Dave B:
” primary goal is to avoid using imported oil.”
Use E85 gas made in the USA – The battery use plus the rare use of the generator will make for no imported oil. (E85 is 15% petrol but the US gets at least 15% from home right)
————————————————————————————-
I think that anything over a 40 Mile range would be very wasteful for average drivers. It sort of fits the whole messed up american mentaility that we need the biggest or best – just transitioning that philosophy into green(er) transportation.
If you had a 100 mile range (imagine the extra upfront battery cost) first of all, but how much of that range would sit unused every day – that extra 60 unused range miles could have been better off building 1 and 1/2 more volts where the range would actually be used. I know on occassion I use 50-60 miles per day – but typically about 25. On those days I will not be opposed to burning less than a quarter of a gallon of ethanol or gasoline knowing that the next 5 days I will use none.
Everyone needs to look at the bigger picture – if you want a BEV then buy the iMEV – just remember when your range runs out there you will be using a LOT of gas to have a tow truck pull you home…
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:53 am)They are dead-on correct NOT to change the driving range of the batteries, and target reduction of battery cost, size and weight. Once drivers experience an E-REV, they will see the wisdom in this.
As costs go down, more people will opt for an E-REV.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:58 am)#1 Dave
The article says nothing about 40 being the best GM can do. I believe Jerrry #18 has it right: if competitors emerge, GM will have to bring more range.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:00 am)#14 Jim in PA Says:
PS – What gives with the V6/V8 comparison to modular batteries?
————
All i can come up with is that they may make a car the gets a sportier 40 miles or has more payload due to a larger battery (or holds more modular batteries). So it would be more like driving a car with a V8 engine and will allow for much greater acceleration or will be larger and allow say 7 passengers.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:02 am)It isn’t that a even a 400 mile range isn’t doable by gm it is longer ranges currently have a much higher cost and also weight issues that needs addressing much more than having a car that NEVER uses any gas.
I would imagine that most of the people voiceing their opinions that 40 miles isn’t enough don’t realize how rarely they drive more than 60 miles at a time. Think about it you gas use goes down 50% at least on an 80 mile drive.
And given the choice I would bet many would also opt for the 40 mile range when it comes time to fork over the money for that 100 mile battery.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:13 am)Some people are missing the point. Get the car on the road and just because the cars range extender may start up it’ll only start up for 12% of the owners, that’s nothing. Read what Weber is saying – he’s pointing out that just about anything can be placed under the hood of the Volt to extend its range. You want a Tesla style Volt, pull the engine/gen package and drop in a second battery. Just don’t complain when you’re out of juice and can’t get anywhere in your Volt.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:21 am)Competition will decide the AER (all eletric range) for future cars…but 40 miles sounds like a good target.
What if you daily commute is 20 miles?
- 40 mile AER EREV $40K
- 25 mile AER EREV $28K
Which would you buy?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:22 am)#14 Jim in PA Says:
PS – What gives with the V6/V8 comparison to modular batteries?
I think he is alluding to the idea of OPTIONS.
If you want a V6, or V8 for your ice car, you have a choice.
With a modular battery formation (When they are smaller), you can (I believe this is the intent here) choose 20, 40, 60, 80 all electric range.
To all those that compare the Volt AE range to Tesla..GM can do it..ready to drop $100,000? Loose 2 seats? and like Cinderella be home in time?
You are comparing apples and hand grenades folks…(#1 Dave B #10 Jabroni) remember you can drive farther in a volt, the infrastructure is there, and 120V outlets are I believe easily found in some places here in North America..Heck in Canada some Hotels have them outside for block heaters..so they shouldn’t be too hard to find..
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:24 am)You guys are missing the point.
V6 or V8 is referring to a comparison of OPTIONS. Traditionally, a vehicle will have a few different engine options, perhaps a V6 or V8, or an I4 or V6.
While the above OPTIONS primarily effect those who are interested in more power (no other reason to get a V8 over V6), it can also be used to compare fuel economy, where having more batteries will result is better fuel economy.
It’s not perfect, but it should get the idea across to anyone who really wants to see it.
EDIT:
To #26, Jim, aren’t 120V outlets typical in USA? Was that meant as 220V?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:42 am)Cost, reduced cost is the biggest challenge to the Volt. When we see postings from other car manufactures in the $20k price range they seem more appealing. Regardless of the “Polish” or the extra Bells and whistles the majority of the population will go with the lower cost.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:50 am)I have changed my mind and decided that low battery cost is more important than long range. GM is on the right track here.
The battery pack is an expensive asset and it only make sense to pay for what you will really use. Let’s say that you only need a battery pack for 40 miles per day, for most days. Over the life of the car, that battery pack will pay for itself in gasoline savings. Next consider adding a second battery pack to get to 80 miles. This second battery pack will almost never be used and therefore cannot pay for itself over the life of the car.
The article below looks at the “break-even” point for batteries versus gasoline. While the author is an advocate for advanced lead-acid batteries, his logic seems to be undeniable.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/111835-alternative-energy-storage-needs-to-take-baby-steps-before-it-can-run
First consider a 10 KWH battery pack that might carry a vehicle 40 miles. If a lead-acid battery is used, and the cost of the battery, interest, and electricity for 10 years is considered, then gasoline would need to be at US$0.93/gallon to reach the same cost. If Li-Ion is used, gasoline would need to be US$4.07/gallon to reach the same cost. In the future, the price of Li-Ion might be cut in half, but lead-zcid is not likely to change.
So the high initial price of a battery pack is a big challenge for EVs. More expensive battery technology (no matter how much improved) makes the EV even less competitive with the ICE engine.
Second, consider a 25 KWH battery pack that might carry a vehicle 100 miles. This sound good, right, but the economics are terrible. For the lead-acid battery, gasoline would need to be at US$1.76/gallon and for Li-Ion gasoline would need to be at US$9.62/gallon to achieve the same cost.
So larger battery packs are great for longer range but are terrible economically. You are paying all the cost for the large battery pack, but for most trips, there is no benefit.
This discussion looks pretty bad for the EV, but I can think of a few bright spots.
1) the E-REV (a.k.a Chevy Volt) is probably the right model. Only pay for a small battery pack (16 KWH) to reduce the cost of the pack.
2) the Aptera with its very high efficiency can get a long range (120 miles I think) with a small battery pack (10 KWH). So they can avoid the expense of the large battery pack with high efficiency.
3) the Tesla Roadster works because the high price-tag in the sports-car market segment is less of an issue. I don’t think this is a matter of cost-benefit analysis, it is a matter of buying something that you want and enjoy.
Later
John C. Briggs
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:04 am)IMHO 40 miles will be a great starting point. My Wife’s commute is 45 miles at 50mpg on the ice that’s to weeks commuting on 1 gal of gasoline. Even at $10 a gallon I take it. My commute is 25 I’ll never use a drop to commute. This works out to $0.50 a day each for gas. Life will be sweet.
Can’t wait …. Let’s go GM….
=D~~
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:12 am)The E-REV is just a stepping stone on the way to electric-only vehicles. (I hope EESTOR is not lying)
HERE IS THE KEY:
Once people realize that it’s just plain stupid to buy and carry around a generator that they almost never use, they will buy EVs for commuting and use their old ICE car or rent a hybrid for that occasional long trip. That is until they realize that they almost never use the old ICE car and that’s it’s cheaper to rent a clean, new hybrid for that occasional long trip than it is to insure and maintain that old ICE car. Many will decide to take public transportation and rent an EV at their destination.
The Volt is there simply as a stop gap until people build confidence in EVs or a niche product.
Change is hard for most people, but the E-REV is the “teaspoon of sugar” which will help the “medicine” go down AND GM KNOWS IT!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:14 am)#27 Zach..
I am not sure I understand your question… My understanding is that the Volt can be recharged using 120 or 220, and I was (sarcastically) mentioning that 120V outlets shouldn’t be toooo hard to find in North America (for Dave B and Jarboni (as well as others) who complain about 40 miles and comapre to a Tesla Roadster)
Mitch (not Jim)
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:20 am)I think john hit the nail on the head. You want the smallest battery necessary to bring the return on investment to less than the extra price of the batteries over it’s useful lifetime. The closer that number is to the purchase date the better.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:24 am)I doubt a PHEV with less than 5 KWH of usable capacity (20 mile AER) would have much of a market. However, ones with 10 and 15 KWH of usable capacity would in addition to the 5 would blanket the PHEV market.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:31 am)I like the modular idea… this is hypothetical, of course, but let’s say some future Volt can accomodate 4 modules that each provide 20 miles of charge. You have a 30 mile daily commute, so you buy your Volt with 2 modules (20 x 2 = 40 miles). Some time later, you get a new job, but your commute is now 50 miles, so you add another module and you get 60 miles per charge (20 x 3 = 60 miles). You buy that 3rd module new because you can, but perhaps you could have also bought it used from someone that had 3 modules and now only needs 2… that is a pretty intriguing future.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:38 am)I think most engineers would agree with me here. You can’t design for 100% of the people. Usually you aim for 80-90% of the user base for cost reason so you can make a decent profit. The others adjust or go somewhere else. You can’t be everything for everyone.
If 40miles if 78%, and to have a higher electric range would further push the car in luxury status, I would go less before more. Isn’t the goal to have this be in mass production (to further cut costs and get energy independence)? This is a Chevy not a Caddy.
I personally would like to see a plan for a future muscle car running a platform like this. But that is outside the 78%, so I am willing to wait and buy a G8 to go with my Volt.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:42 am)I don’t think Weber is saying GM won’t make 80 mile AER cars, he just said the Volt will be coming out with a 40 mile AER. The penultimate paragraph is very clear…
_the next generation will allow you to modularize the battery capacity. Because there are people who who might need 20 miles or 80 miles. Very different people have very different demands and so the next stage is to get different levels of batteries._
GM is going to build cars for people who want a cheaper car with a shorter range and a car for people who want 80 miles all electric, but it won’t be the first generation Volt.
Re-read what Weber said, he is talking about the first generation Volt when he says everything is about cost, and he is right. Get the Volt’s wheels on the road, in a version that works for 80% of us, at a decent price, THEN build the cars that the 20% want. Also reducing the price for all of us in generation 2…
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:47 am)Ah, a range debate thread! My Christmas present to the site is that I will not ’stir the pot’ on this thread.
Have a good Christmas Eve. Go finish up your shopping, have a nice afternoon meal at your favorite restaurant before it closes early, threaten the kids to be quiet and go to bed ‘or Santa isn’t coming’, wrap up some presents and then put your feet up on the couch and enjoy some downtime before the mayhem of Christmas morning and the endless onslaught of Christmas get togethers starts.
/I’m ready for your fancy ‘Europeon kisses’ this year auntie…bring it!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:47 am)Tim @ 31… I think you are right, but only if a quick charge method is developed for electric-only cars and/or batteries become so cheap that everyone has a 300+ mile battery in their car.
I was at work yesterday and my co-worker asked me if I would give him a ride to pick up his car from the repair shop–this was an unexpected trip. I did that, and then we decided to meet our wives for lunch, so more driving in the opposite direction. After lunch, we decided to blow off the rest of the work day and go to our neighborhood bar for a few beers. Unfortunately, traffic conspired against me and I ended up inching down the highway for 45 minutes longer than I expected with the heater running, radio on, etc… So, If I had an electric car with a fixed range and no way to recharge it, the flexibility to do all of these things might not have been possible. Or worse, I might have run out of juice on the highway in the freezing cold. At best, I probably would have been nervous that I wouldn’t make it home before exhausting the battery.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:48 am)#36 Adrian
—
You are correct. I’m an engineer and I use the 80/20 rule a lot. I posted this at #7 but worth mentioning again.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:49 am)This is a logical decision in my opinion. The object is to get the vehicles AFFORDABLE. Once we get them affordable, they will be everywhere. A large number of Volt type autos on the road with 78% of drivers driving less than 40 miles per day is better than a very small number of Volt type autos having a range of 60 or 80 miles per day. Good logic as far as I am concerned.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:03 am)Since for the foreseeable future battery production will be the bottleneck for EREV production, then it doesn’t make a lot of sense — from a total transportation-system and energy-independence/carbon-footprint (whichever you prefer) standpoint — to go higher than roughly 40.
Two 40-mile EREVs will definitely eliminate more imported oil/CO2 than one 80-miler.
Personally, my commute is 11.5 miles each way; I’ll take that $28,000 25-miler, please.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:05 am)#29 John C. Briggs
That’s an interesting article. I think his Li-ion prices are high though (unless he’s using computer battery prices). $13K for a 10KWh battery seems too much. Especially when the Volt has a 16KWh battery and the supposed cost is approx $10K.
Based on the difference in the estimated car prices (ice vs electric), there’s approximately a $15,000 premium for a Volt. My SWAG is about $3/gallon as the break even point over 10years (i dont feel like doing the math right now). I think gas will be well over $3/gallon in the next few years.
Money savings is one motivation for buying an electric car, but I wont list all the others since I’m sure you’ve heard them 1000 times by now.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:07 am)The term “future Volt generations” strikes me quite a leap. when the company has an expected life span of about 3 months. Are we ignoring this 900lb gorilla in the room now?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:09 am)I think that is a good idea, I have always said that even if it only gets 15 or so miles, it is better them 0!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:10 am)I see Frank Weber’s point but I respectfully dis-agree with maintaining strictly a 40 mile range. For instance what would it hurt to boost the range a small bit to 50 miles say as a nice round number? There appears to be space in the back of the car chassis for more battery capacity and a relatively small increase in range/battery capacity shouldn’t throw a lot more cost on to the pile. I recommend for GM to increase range in small, affordable increments for future generations, if only to compete. Because you know that when competitors see a success, they will come out with slightly longer ranges to “one-up” GM. It just makes sense.
Merry Christmas all!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:14 am)I guess the number 40 is significant.
After all, it does appear in the Bible over & over again.
Thats got to count for something right?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:22 am)As usual, some people here are missing the point, clouding the argument with their desire to use no gas, instead of finding economical ways of using much less gas.
GM needs to sell these cars at a reasonable price and make a profit at some point. Their approach is spot on IMO.
The battery technology (supply and manufacture) will clearly be the bottleneck. THEREFORE, it make NO sense to put 160 miles worth of batteries in one plugin car (that will almost NEVER get used to the full potential), instead of putting 40 mile batteries in 4 plugin cars (that WILL likely be used to potential).
It’s about using less gas as a society, not about making a statement.
Idiocy at its best in some of these comments here.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:25 am)I would appreciate the longer range. The wife and I both drive between 37 and 49 miles one way to work. Anything over 40 that could be provided would reduce the ICE consumption, and I’d consider laying down the coin for that capability.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:29 am)#44
The Volt will be built. In the worst case scenario, GM goes belly up and bankrupts in a major way. With the union no longer a problem, GM cuts the flab, hires monkeys to work for peanuts, and release the e-Flex platform without the drain of Hummer and the like.
The cool thing to me is that America is actually releasing something to solve the problem of global emissions (whether you believe in global warming or not, the emissions are “un”clearly a problem). Even with gas selling at sub $2.00/gallon.
NPNS
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:30 am)Lyle, I just want to wish you a Merry Christmas and tell you how much I appreciate the work you do in providing this website. Thanks!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:33 am)OT
Safe and Happy Holidays to everyone here (yes even the Trolls)
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:35 am)#47 MetrologyFirst
I agree, a Serial Plug-In Hybrid like the Volt, if it had a 160 mile AER would indeed be a waste.
But for me, I’d like to see the Volt have 60 miles AER instead of 40.
Just my 2 cents.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:37 am)Sounds like the argument about the size of the gas tank, LOL.
#37 ziv:
Right. LJGTVWOTR and then worry about all of these wonderful options later.
#38 statik:
Amen!!! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to the entire Volt Nation.
May God send that GM is somehow still around a year from today, and that the Volt remains on schedule.
God bless, us every one.
BTW, that’s two references to God in one comment from a highly non-religious citizen. That must tell you something abot the “interesting times” we are living through.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:39 am)# 49
Jason. You’re right. It is cool that the U.S. automakers have responded to the call for sustainable energy which will improve the environment. But their action is not to ally the fear of global warming – that theory is dead and buried by now. It is about gaining independence from foreign oil that drains $700 billion a year from our pockets. And gives it to a community that in part wants to destroy our way of life.
The move to electrify transportation is as much a national security issue as it is an environmental one. Good news is it’s a win for both groups.
Happy Christmas!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:40 am)They’re still not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It’s a good idea to keep within the boundaries of the current specification, and keep it such as the cost of components comes down. The Volt is likely to start with little to no profit for GM. As component costs come down, they start profiting, and start reducing MSRP. Once those are at comfortable levels, then they can engineer something more/different. They just don’t want to say/promise that now, since they have no idea how long it will really be until component cost comes down.
We’ll all just have to put on our big boy pants and deal with it. If you want a Volt with an 80 mile electric range… just keep waiting.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:42 am)Half the cost and half the size, that should mean half the wieght. It looks like the right path to go down. So if then, the size of the battery stays large with twice the capacity could it power up a Suburban? HHmm… the future is bright.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:44 am)GM can probably utimately get better PR, market penetration and sales if they offer different power pack sizes, for different ranges, as different model options. The Toyota Tacoma, a basic pickup truck, comes in 55 or more (depends on model year) different configurations, for goodness sakes. If one size fits all is truly GM’s biggest bang for the buck to start, though, I’ll be somewhat patient for them to realize the possibilities and eventually spread power pack differences across models and into different model versions gradually over the coming decades.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:50 am)If I had a 20 mile Volt with no ICE, I could easily do all of my local driving. (So put a limp home battery pack reserve in the trunk to compensate for no ICE). Then I could hook up to my ICE/battery expansion unit for road trips as needed. While idle in my garage, the ICE/batt unit might be useful for running my house (on Coskata ethanol) or for storing solar power from a house rooftop array.
If GM survives, they will be able to provide a pretty rich menu of energy options to consumers.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:54 am)The first sentence of the post is “GM is confident about being correct in choosing the 40 mile electric-driving range the Volt offers.”
———————————————
but all the rest of the post seems to say otherwise. It seems to say that as GM now understands costs and the market, it would have been better to have a lower-cost Volt with perhaps half the all-electric range. They might be right.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:57 am)So when someone comes along and offers a better range at a better price, I will buy it. (But I suspect that will be a few years.)
Merry Christmas!
Best regards,
D’Artagnon
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (12:00 pm)Have a great Christmas everybody! Go Volt. LJGTWOTR
As visions of presents dance in our heads, note that halving the size and weight and cost is basically doubling the range — probably more like quadrupling once you factor in how much harder you can treat the battery!
#29 John C Briggs
I haven’t read the article fully, but I’d agree with K-dawg that the estimated price for Lithium batteries is grossly exaggerated. The best guess is that GM will pay about $5K for a 16kWh pack, or, if they cost two packs into every car, $10K per car. The $5K number is consistent with the price A123 has agreed to for the Battery Consortium.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (12:01 pm)LJGTVWOTR!
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (12:12 pm)I think USaid this long ago, but it bears repeating: Every kwh that GM can remove from the battery pack let’s them start making a profit on the car sooner. While chasing lighter and cheaper batteries and power electronics will pay dividends, the fastest ROI is going to be in improving the platform physics so they don’t need so much battery to hit the range in the first place. And that means continuing to refine the aerodynamics, the weight, the rolling resistance and the accessory loads.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (12:19 pm)I think it’s pretty hilarious to read the impassioned argument about the upgrades that may or may not occur in the SECOND generation of a car when serial number 1 of the FIRST generation is still TWO YEARS AWAY.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (12:27 pm)Wow, Frank Weber sounds like a smart educated man. Let’s get what we can out now and worry about the “what if’s” later. what a great way to put it. How has GM been able to keep a hold of him?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (12:35 pm)#64 rob says “Every kwh that GM can remove from the battery pack let’s them start making a profit on the car sooner.”
This doesn’t seem to be a prudent course. Improvements in aerodynamics and weight are limited by design considerations and government regulations. Rolling resistance is improving only incrementally and there are performance and safety considerations which limit those improvements. Finally, removing kWh from the pack is somewhat self-defeating: Every kWh that GM removes from the pack means more charging/recharging cycles which means either more battery warranty work or a more shallow Depth of Discharge and a shorter range.
Moreover, development costs are a bigger bogey than battery costs. If the Volt incurs $500M in development costs, that’s $10K per car for the first 50,000 cars or double the battery cost. GM will make lots of money on E-REV if it can recover its development costs, and the way to do that is sell a lot of them — the more cars sold the smaller the cost allocated to each car.
To sell a lot of them GM needs to make a reliable and appealing car and have the right price signals — either through gas prices or government incentives. Let’s look forward to 2010 when we can help GM recover those costs by having a Volt under our tree, er, in the driveway!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (12:52 pm)Don’t compare the Volt to the Tesla. The Tesla was built for a different purpose. Compare the Volt to The EV1. 2 cars that were made for the express purpose of commuting. What gets me is, if in 1999 GM could build a car that goes 144 miles with inferior NiMH batteries why in 2009 GM can only build one that goes 40 on more advanced Lithium? Who ever heard of a next generation car getting less than half the performance of its predecessor?
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (1:42 pm)Funny that no one mentioned the possibility of a five passenger Volt with a downsized battery not taking up the rear center seat space.
Forty mile range-smaller battery-five seater.
Merry Christmas ALL
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (2:00 pm)In 2003 U.S. passenger cars consumed 74,590,137,000 Billion gallons of gasoline which roughly equates to 3,825,135,200 Billion barrels of oil. In 2003, the US imported 4,101,870,000 Billion barrels of oil. If every passenger car in the United States had been an E-REV with a 40 mile electric range, then 78% of the demand for passenger car gasoline would be eliminated according to a Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Omnibus Household Survey. That equals 2,983,605,000 Billion barrels of oil, or 72.7% of all net imported oil for the year.
Furthermore according to the same BTS survey, an additional 12% of daily commuters in the BTS survey drive between 40 and 60 miles per day. If they too drove a E-REV with performance like the Volt (40 miles EV, then 50 MPG) their equivalent gas mileage would have been 150 MPG or greater. That is more than 7 times the 2003 average passenger car fuel consumption of 22.3 MPG. Thus the next 12% of American drivers who consumed approximately 459,016,220 Million barrel of oil in 2003 would have consumed less than 68,523,316 Million barrels of oil. That equals to another 10% net reduction in imported oil. Ignoring the remaining 10% of American drivers who drive more than 60 miles per day, the first 90% have the potential to eliminate more than 82% of net imported oil by simply driving an E-REV with performance like the Volt. That’s not a bad start for first generation E-REV technology.
GM absolutely has the correct perspective; they should focus on getting the cost down for deep market penetration. We need the Volt to be the Model-T of the 21st Century.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (2:17 pm)DonC says: “Every kWh that GM removes from the pack means more charging/recharging cycles which means either more battery warranty work or a more shallow Depth of Discharge and a shorter range.”
This may be true right now, but not if battery technology continues to improve.
Randy C. – For me, the Volt is not very similar to the EV-1. First off, size. The Volt seats 4, surely has more cargo space, and competes well size-wise with other small sedans on the market (maybe not a factor for you, but surely a factor for some). Second, targeted market. The Volt is being heavily advertised and it shooting squarely for the mainstream car buyer, in all areas of the country. No, it won’t reach every corner of the U.S. when it is first released, but it is clearly designed for broad appeal and flexibility. It won’t be a small-scale lease, it will be for sale everywhere in the thousands. GM wants people who would never buy an electric car (and let’s face it, there are a lot of people like that) to consider the Volt with its range extender. One “price” of eliminating range anxiety with the use of the range extender is that there is less space for the battery pack. So, less range. Those are just a couple things that, personally, make it hard for me to compare the Volt to the EV-1.
This is not to say that your point is totally invalid. GM lost a lot of credibility and technical experience when it canceled the EV-1 program, and they’re paying for it now with whatever compromises they’re making with the Volt. But I’m looking forward now. I’m thankful that GM is getting back into electric cars, and while the Volt may not be perfect it is a lot better than nothing. The EV-1 is gone. Let’s hope the Volt can do the EV-1 proud.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (2:31 pm)The V6/V8 comment was simply trying to draw a comparison with a typical powertrain option available within many current models with the possibility of battery capacity options for future EREV models. No more, no less.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (3:05 pm)Excellent news! Keeping the 40-mile range means GM’s marketing department knows what they’re doing.
In America, we seem to have this obsession with always wanting more. In the end, more is often worse. In the case of EREVs, keeping the the same 40-mile range means that over time, the battery will cost less, weigh less, and be smaller. All good things.
Or to make it more acceptable, I should say it will become more cost effective, have more acceleration, and more interior space if the range stays at 40 miles.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (3:51 pm)Makes a lot of sense to me. We also have to remember that this is an 80 mile battery that only uses %50 of its capacity so they can slap on a 150,000 mile warranty on it. I belive the tesla warranty is only a year. I really only need 20 miles range for my daily driving needs so I’d opt to save some money and get half the battery range.
I always thought they should have a business plan like Apple does with the Ipod. Have a 20 gig harddrive and for a lot more money a 40 gig drive. then in 2 years make the small one a 40 gig and the big one 80. Battery capacity isn’t going to double every 2 years but if the cost issue is battery related, I think the modular approach is the smart way to go.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (4:44 pm)I like GMs choice. Assuming they have two choices.
1. lower cost making it available to more people.
2. improve range for those who can afford it.
GMs focus on step 1 is a great idea and will sell more cars.
I am sure step 2 will follow along but lets get step 1 done first.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (4:46 pm)#74 gsned57 Says: “We also have to remember that this is an 80 mile battery that only uses %50 of its capacity so they can slap on a 150,000 mile warranty on it.”
————————————————————————————–
Even if there were no issues with wear, you normally don’t want the battery to go below 30% charge . You need around 30% charge to supply peak power when the gas engine is running. That’s how you get 150 peak horsepower out of a 75 horsepower gas engine. These pictures help explain:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Volt_Electrical_Block_Diagram.jpg
Also, if you happen to live on top of a mountain, then when you start your morning commute, regenerative braking will want to charge the battery, but if the battery is completely full, there is no place for the regenerative braking energy to go. So again, even if there were no battery wear issues surrounding the charge level, you don’t want to charge it fully when it’s plugged in.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (5:01 pm)#75 nuclearboy,
As battery technology progresses, the 40 mile battery will get smaller. This means you can have more room in the interior of the car.
But if you’re offering a bigger battery option, how would that work? Where would you put the extra batteries? Most options don’t significantly change the shape of the interior.
80% of the population drives 40 miles a day or less. Of the remaining 20%, many (perhaps half) could find places to plug in during the day (e.g. at work). So I don’t thing a big battery option that would actually change the shape of the interior cabin would be financially viable, given that the maximum market is only around 10% of total. I think this is what Frank Weber of GM is saying.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (5:10 pm)This is real news, after hours on Christmas Eve no less… and great news if you are GM, not so good if your a taxpayer:
—————————————————-
Fed lets GMAC tap bailout fund
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve has granted a request by the financing arm of General Motors to tap the government’s $700 billion rescue fund, bolstering GM’s ability to survive.
The Fed announced Wednesday that it had approved GMAC Financial Services’ request to become a bank holding company. That designation makes GMAC eligible to receive a portion of the bailout fund and get emergency loans directly from the Fed.
Under the Fed’s order, Cerberus and GM, whose businesses are mainly outside banking, would both have to significantly reduce their ownership stakes in GMAC. GM has committed to reducing its ownership in GMAC to less than 10 percent. Cerberus was ordered to reduce its stake to 33 percent of total equity in the company.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fed-lets-GMAC-tap-bailout-apf-13915347.html
——————————————
Morale of the story:
A) If your a bondholder, do not capitulate, the government will still bail you out
B) Those ‘minimum standards’ for becoming a bank holding company are bogus.
Paulson wasn’t kidding, nothing will be allowed to fail It is going to be a ’spend-happy’ 2009 I think.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (5:15 pm)Just offer an option for a longer range battery!
Wow this is far from rocket science.
A few less than stellar executives within GM that can not run a company properly certainly can not accurately estimate what the people want.
They have not done that in decades!
Offerer battery options. People pay extra for larger more powerful engines and diesels….same for batteries. Aslo a larger battery can handle a more powerful electric motor for sport applications.
Why these decision makers are still with GM is a huge mystery. They suck. Period.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (5:21 pm)Stop Global Warming buy local !!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (5:45 pm)Psst, Vincent at Post 79; um, that’s what Weber meant when he said:
He also notes that battery modularization will likely occur in the future, just as you might have V6 and V8 engines now, future E-Flex vehicles may have optional electric ranges for those at the extremes of the daily driving curve. Weber says “when you look at the core of the (E-Flex) program, once you can shrink the battery and make the cost of the battery more reasonable, the next generation will allow you to modularize the battery capacity. Because there are people who who might need 20 miles or 80 miles. Very different people have very different demands and so the next stage is to get different levels of batteries.”
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:02 pm)81 Didn’t read his post.
Commented on the subject hoping GM will read.
Pssst…get it….want to be a moderator… start your own site.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:11 pm)Thanks, Lyle, for all the good work. I hope you have a great Christmas and a very prosperous and Happy New Year. And this also goes out to all the great people who regularly contribute to this site.
I must admit I’m more into the philosophy behind the Volt and a little less into the nuts and bolts. But I’ve learned a good deal from you.
During this past year I’ve been very impressed with the decision making at GM. I believe that Lyle Wagoner and Bob Lutz have done a tremendous job in plotting a new course for GM. I hope the rest of you agree. GM is like one of those huge oil tankers making a course change at sea during a very bad storm, it takes a while.
I’m particularly pleased with our politicians who in my estimation handled this situation with considerable finesse.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:24 pm)Merry Christmas to you every one.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:24 pm)Hello All
I know this if a little off subject, but I wanted to wish you all a Wonderful Chistmas!
Although I do not comment often, I do read your posts almost every day. I enjoy your company and view many of you as friends and acquaintances. It is people like you all that make the world a better place. I especially thank the “regulars” ( tagamet, statik, DonC, Rashiid, Dave, Bill, RB, Noel, BillR, CaptJack, Cautious, Koz, ) who obviously take their time to give us their input and thoughts.
I truly thank all of you who commit their time to the future in electric transportation.
Best wishes to all of you for Christmas and the New Year
Michael D
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (7:29 pm)The 40 mile range will certainly knock the stuffing out of gasoline demand. Adding another 20 miles won’t make a whole lot of difference, except in those locales of very long commutes. For the vast majority, reducing the battery cost component by half will be far and away the best play, rather than doubling the mileage. The question, of course, is just when that “second generation” of battery packs will appear.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:27 pm)JUST GET THE DAMN THING ON THE ROAD
MERRY CHRISTMAS, and goodnight
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (8:31 pm)vincent Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
81 Didn’t read his post.
Commented on the subject hoping GM will read.
Pssst…get it….want to be a moderator… start your own site.
__________________________________________________
Vincent,
Feel free to rant if you want. I just thought you might be interested to know that had you read Lyle’s initial post, which began this thread, you would have learned that he interviewed the GM Volt vehicle line executive Frank Weber. He is the Weber I was referring to in my post.
In short, Frank Weber, the GM Exec, is in agreement with you already on the use of modular batteries on later versions of the Volt.
No offense intended.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:22 pm)A modular add on pack could be done ever for the gen 1 of the volt, just maybe not year 1. Himotion.com (A123) is selling addon packs for other verhicles. Cost is a major driver though. GM must do everything they can to drive the cost down. The volt Gen2 I suspect is already in the planning stages. Everytime GM learns something about building the gen 1 volt you can bet that it will be considered for the gen 2.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (9:29 pm)The cost of an electric (or hybrid) will look expensive as long as fossil fuel price does not include the cost to society. Afterall lead paint is cheaper than non-toxic paints.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:05 pm)I would like more electric range in my volt for Christmas!!
Please remember to pray for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces this holiday season.
Merry Christmas to all!!!!
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:16 pm)Sorry guys. It has really been a busy day and I haven’t read any of the comments above. My apologies if I am repeating.
From the article:
“I don’t want to go higher than 40. Everything I do is to go down with cost, cost, cost. All battery improvements will go into cost reductions for the batteries. Next generation battery will be half the size, and half the cost.”
—————–
I understand the cost issue and agree with it. However I think staying with a 40 mile limit is a bit shortsighted. The competition has something to prove now by extending the battery range. GM needs to be more open minded about range and needs to keep thinking about maximum electric range. As the technology improves and the maximum range gets extended, GM too should extend their 40 mile range.
Modular is a great idea in my opinion as long as it doesn’t stifle innovation.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:17 pm)From the article:
Of course mission one is to just get the car out there as Weber says “at this point this is new technology and I am happy if we get one solution that really works.”
————–
Well said and agree 100 percent.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:23 pm)To all of my friends here, Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah.
Over the last couple of years I have been blessed to know you all.
Yes we have had our disagreements but that’s life.
Lyle, Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah to you and your family. Not sure what you celebrate but the sentiment is the same. Thank you for this wonderful site.
The children are nestled all snug in their beds, and I will be doing the same shortly. Santa doesn’t come if anyone is awake in the house.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:49 pm)I noticed a few comments about warranty of the battery packs and depth of charge and longevity of them. GM wisely chose to limit electric range to 40 miles. I wonder how many of its competitors will be able to offer warranty of their batteries that will last the life of their vehicles. Time will tell but GM by limiting the depth of discharge insures that the batteries will last longer.
As technology improves the performance of the batteries, their size and cost will lower just like what has happened with CPU’s. It would be nice if GM would lower the price of the Volt as battery cost lowers without waiting for the next generation of the Volt.
Remember the Radio Shack’s Color Computor (the so called Trash 80). It was a 64K machine from day one. it originally came out as a 4k , then an 8k, followed by a 16K .. etc. As CPU production yield improved they put the better chips in but didn’t let anyone know about it. Those in the know were able to take advantage of it! There are those who will surely find ways to enhance the performance of the Volt! Others have pushed the concept of modularity with replacable batteries that are leased and swapped along the way for extended trips. GM may give us the ability to just slip a better battery pack in when the original runs low on power. With smaller and lighter batteries, two batteries might be sufficient to drive for one day, park at a motel for the night and recharge them over night for the next days trek.
GM did the right thing when it targeted AER at 40 miles. We can be sure that the life of the battery was considered as a factor when they made this decision.
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (10:50 pm)______________________________________________________
Happy holidays to all….
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
Dec 24th, 2008 (11:05 pm)This time has come to finally get clarification from this claim:
“…the size of the battery must be significant enough to supply the peak horsepower. Bigger batteries not only have more energy storage (kWH) but also more instantaneous power (kW). So a little battery with a 5 or 10 mile range won’t cut it.
By the way, people on this site have been asking about this since the summer of 2007, and the answer has been the same. It won’t work.”
What size will work?
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (2:17 am)I’ll take a 10-mile range EREV, but it better be cheap.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (5:35 am)hi Gary B #95,
“Remember the Radio Shack’s Color Computor ”
________________________
My first (basic function) hand held calculator cost $35. The same calculator cost $1 today (cash equivalant). Battery technology is going to get CRAZY in these next 10 years.
Merry Christmas to all at GM Volt dot com. And a special hello from Santa to GMAC financing.
=D~
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (8:25 am)Less weight will translate to better gas mileage on a long trip. I’m sure GM will be creative on this. Maybe they will offer an optional battery. Who knows at this point what will transpire.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (10:13 am)The news that the FED approved Bank Holding status for GMAC is surprising, but positive as is the required disbursement by both GM and Cerebus of ownership to 40% or less.
I assume the theoretically simpler LLC format for the other finance arms, Chrysler Finance and Ford Finance, will be forthcoming soon too. Perhaps they will then also seek the same further presumed enhancement to full bank holding company status that GMAC achieved. But maybe not.
I frankly thought that they would get their supposedly simpler approvals sooner, and GMAC would have to downgrade their request to that status.
With the required reduction in ownership to 40% as a BHC, the renewed GMAC over time may lose interest in financing cars at a lesser profit, to help the manufacturing company sell/lease cars.
GM may find that with BHC status (and the concomitant reduction in ownership allowed), that GMAC evolves in to a financial institution that DOES NOT finance cars. Or more accurately any differently than any other Bank, with no inclination to cut a deal. Hardly what they were established to do in the first place. Then GM effectively ends up with out a finance arm at all!
Moral: Beware of what you wish for, you just may get it.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (10:19 am)The volt would have an 80 mile range if its existing battery was allowed to be discharged 80%. This could be achieved if the weight of the car was reduced. One way of reducing the weight is to make the ICE a plug in, in other words, the ICE would be an optional modular item. For example, under normal circumstances the driver would only use the electric battery for power. When the user would need extended range, he/she would be able to stop by a service station and drop the self contained ICE Generator into the car for extended range operation. This would bring several benefits:
1. The ICE generator space, could be used for cargo when not in use
2. The battery would not have to carry ICE weight when operating in electric mode only
3. Volt acceleration would improve due to reduced weight
4. Volt cost would lower since you are minus an ICE/generator
5. ICE/generator could be rented only when needed
6. Dependency on foreign oil would be reduced since electric range is extended
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (10:26 am)#86 kent beuchert Says: “The 40 mile range will certainly knock the stuffing out of gasoline demand. Adding another 20 miles won’t make a whole lot of difference, except in those locales of very long commutes. For the vast majority, reducing the battery cost component by half will be far and away the best play…”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. Well said.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (10:42 am)#77 Dave G.
What I would assume is that battery tech will improve and the size of the batteries will get smaller (higher energy density). This would allow more range in the given size or the same range in a smaller size.
We can safely assume that battery tech will improve and energy densities will increase.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (10:45 am)#79 vincent Says: “Just offer an option for a longer range battery!”
————————————————————————————–
#92 Rashiid Amul Says: “Modular is a great idea in my opinion as long as it doesn’t stifle innovation.”
————————————————————————————–
Offering additional range as an option isn’t viable from a design point of view. The major issue is where to put the additional battery. As it is, the Volt only seats 4. The battery hump down the middle of the interior prevents 3 people from sitting in the back seat.
As battery technology improves, the hump between the rear passengers can be eliminated, allowing a 5 passenger car. It will also be lighter, which will give it better acceleration. Once they’ve redesigned the Volt to take advantage of all this, then I don’t think it makes much sense to design it with or without the hump as an option. This would actually affect the chassis, since the battery is inserted and removed through the bottom.
In other words, a car with more range is a whole different design – not something you want to do as an option.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (10:47 am)#104 nuclearboy,
See my post #105.
By the way, battery energy denisty has been improving at an average rate of 9% a year, which means battery capacity should double every 9 years.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (11:32 am)#102 Electriciti Says: “One way of reducing the weight … the ICE would be an optional modular item. For example, under normal circumstances the driver would only use the electric battery for power. When the user would need extended range, he/she would be able to stop by a service station and drop the self contained ICE Generator into the car for extended range operation. This would bring several benefits:”
————————————————————————————–
Not installing the ICE is defiantly a possible option, and it would reduce weight. But making the ICE a modular piece that you can insert or remove relatively easily would make the design very complicated, if not impossible.
Remember that a big part of the car’s design is how safe it is in a crash. A big heavy component like the engine needs to be in a certain place and mounted a certain way for crash safety. Also, the radiator for the liquid cooling system has to be right in front, and the exhaust has to come out the back. The design issues are considerable.
Then there are the marketing issues. If you only need to drive longer distances occasionally, and you know in advance when you will, then why not just buy a pure BEV and rent a car for those longer trips?
But then there are a whole bunch of scenarios where this doesn’t work. Here’s just one example. Let’s say that your brother lives 200 miles away, and you get a call at 11pm that he is in the emergency ward. You want to be with him, but all the rental place that’s within your BEV range is closed.
Some people will say they’ll just use their “other car” for longer trips, but that doesn’t work for most of us. Buying and insuring an extra car for every family is expensive. Alternatively, you could have a pure BEV for one spouse and a gas engine car for the other, but that means that 1/2 of the cars on the road are still regular ICEs, which sort of defeats the idea of driving plug-ins.
In the end, I think most people will want the security of having an ICE in every car, but will also want to drive most of the time on electricity.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (1:39 pm)Merry Christmas, Lyle! Thanks for all your work with GM and this website, it’s one of my favorite!
With that said, WOW! Half the SIZE for next gen batteries? That is news! That is Moore’s Law progress! But of course once big industry gets involved this is more or less expected. I hope everyone appreciates that big industry can act much like the results of war. In peace things move at a rather lesurely pace and one has boutique one offs like Tesla. 10,000 cars for Tesla’s next car? That is next to meaningless. GM can build that in a day (worldwide production). But now that GM is in the game battery technology will finally take off like we were at war though we’re not.
Big business has a place just like start ups.
Go America! And Merry Christmas!
40 mile range? Makes sense. I’m afraid the missing piece for the BEV is FAST CHARGING. I define that as 50% charge in 5 minutes with expectation of 100 mile range. It has been done experimentally. I also expect a BEV practical car as 4 doors, 4 seats (not a 2+2) and 200 mile range at 65mph under $40K. Until these goals become economically achievable don’t expect a BEV from a major automaker like GM.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (4:19 pm)As usual, GM is lying about the range and the batteries. They could use lead-acid for the cheapest batteries, or they could use NiMH for the lowest life-cycle cost batteries (still in use on the Toyota RAV4-EV, last sold in Nov., 2002).
By weaseling on the battery size, GM is moving back to gas cars, just as predicted.
Only the gullible believe GM.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (4:21 pm)P.S., we have fast charging on our NiMH batteries; but we seldom use it, after all, most days we don’t drive more than 120 miles on a charge, and we like to plug in overnight for charging using off-peak electric.
Who drives more than 120 miles per day?? If so, you could fast-charge, we have a 12 kW fast charger (50A 240V) and could even go higher, if we had any interest in fast charging.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (4:45 pm)The A123 26650 cells (used most notably in power tools and RC vehicles) can accept VERY fast charge rates, fast enough to charge 50% in 5 minutes. There are no immediate harmful effects from this treatment. In the long term, cycle life could possibly be reduced, but I haven’t seen any numbers on this. That’s going to be a major factor of course. But fast charging is just barely starting to become a reality for certain battery users. You’d need a heck of a charger to do it on the Volt’s pack, though.
It seems to me that the Volt’s battery pack will be downright babied during normal use. Staying between 30% and 80% state of charge and charging in a leisurely 8 hours is not even approaching a stressful environment. The only real question is rate of discharge. But under normal driving circumstances that would be a somewhat mild process compared to what these batteries (we’re talking A123’s and assuming LG’s are similar) are capable of. So in my opinion, GM is being VERY conservative with their battery treatment. And they have to be, at least until they have a better idea of cycle life under normal driving conditions. What I’m saying is, I think even the current generation of batteries may have more to offer than the general public seems to think. GM just has to play it safe until we get a final answer to that question.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (7:57 pm)Here’s a potentially very realistic example: Let’s say someone has a 60 mile round trip commute to work, so they fall pretty well outside of the 78% noted in the GM article. As such, they would drive 20 miles using the range extending ICE and then have the opportunity to recharge the battery pack. According to the most recent reports, it’s expected that the Volt will have a total range of ~340 miles on ~6 gallons of gas using the reduced sized gas tank, or about ~300 miles of range extended miles from the ICE. Therefore, a Volt owner could expect to be able to drive 15 days or 3/4 of a month on ~6 gallons of gas plus the minimal cost of recharging the battery pack each of those 15 days. Therefore, this means that a person with 60 miles round trip commute to work could drive an entire month or 1,200 miles on 7.5 – 8 gallons of gas, which would be a truly incredible reduction in oil consumption.
(Quote)
Dec 25th, 2008 (9:19 pm)20 miles is fine with me, if more people can afford it, then let’s DO IT!!!
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (5:31 am)Two points.
1. For all the people calling for more range, complaining that the Tesla and EV1 get way more miles, that you want to be 100% off foreign oil, etc., I want to see what happens when your pen meets your checkbook. Let’s say you’re at the dealership buying a Volt and you have the option of paying $10,000 extra for double the range. I bet you’d have a pretty quick change of heart. “Well, how often do I *really* drive more than 40 miles…” Oh wait, NOW you understand what everybody else has been telling you…
2. Yeah, the Tesla gets 200+ miles with a battery that costs almost as much as the entire Volt itself. And that battery is made up of laptop cells… notorious for exploding, losing charge capacity after a couple years, barely functioning in cold temperatures… okay, they claim to have worked around these problems by building an elaborate HVAC system just for the battery itself… what a hack. If you want a Tesla then nothing is stopping you from making a downpayment, but I’m going to wait for the Volt’s next-gen battery chemistry. And lord knows what the Chinese are using to make their crazy claims… or if the claims are legit in any way at all.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (8:26 am)40 miles is enough guys.
You can leave it on at night time and then go to work with it.
If pickens manages to create natural gas trucks and GM and Chrysler manages to create electric cars, America will be stronger than ever!
Imagine the US economic growth if you add an extra 700 billion dollars a year that currently go to oil imports.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (11:30 am)I think GM has thought this out pretty good. I would love to see a fully electric Volt (BEV), but the current plans with a range extender is definitely the way to go at this time. Thanks, GM and get the Volt on the road ASAP.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (5:29 pm)Anyone that doesn’t think a 40 mile range is enough doesn’t understand the law of diminishing returns. If everyone had a Volt with a 40 mile range, we would probably eliminate about 90 percent of the use of fossil fuels. If you increased the range to 100 miles, the battery would cost more than double and you probably would eliminate about 95 percent of the use of fossil fuels. Thus, doubling the battery size and life would only give you a 5 percent improvement, not a very good return on investment.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (7:28 pm)Basically, Weber is saying version two will be 40 mile EV range FIVE seater, at less cost.
I would like the option of a ‘limp home’ generator of say 20kW, down from the current 53kW. I would also want the option of turning it on at the start of a trip if I knew I was going to drive about 100 miles.
The modular system would be easy to implement. Make the ‘vertical’ section from the front fire wall to the start of the rear foot well, the same size as the ‘cross’ section under the rear passenger seat.
That would be a great Christmas present for me.
>b>LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (8:08 pm)#112 Jay,
I agree. I’ll even go further.
If a person has a 60-mile round trip commute, they will be highly motivated to charge at work. Of the 22% population that drives over 40 miles daily, I suspect half of them could somehow find a way to charge up at work. So in the end, only around 10% of the population would use any gasoline for their daily commute.
And that assumes it would be gasoline and not E85. Using current methods, cellulosic ethanol can replace up to 35% of our current gasoline consumption, without using any fossil fuels or affecting the food supply. See here for details:
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
So between charging at work and filling up with E85, I don’t see a strong reason for GM to offer greater than 40 miles of AER.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (8:19 pm)#115 Alex S:
Natural gas trucks exist. Full size 18 wheelers. They are operating every day at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The issues are political will and fueling infrastructure.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (8:24 pm)#118 NZDavid Says: “I would like the option of a ‘limp home’ generator of say 20kW, down from the current 53kW. I would also want the option of turning it on at the start of a trip if I knew I was going to drive about 100 miles.”
————————————————————————————–
Interesting.
GM said here
http://gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/
that 30 kW is enough to drive the Volt 65 mph slightly uphill. So a 53 kW ICE/generator does seem a bit over-kill.
Once consumers get used to the idea that the size of the engine doesn’t have anything to do with EREV acceleration, then I bet car makers will use smaller ICEs.
If ICEs get really small, smaller than average power, then yes, a manual switch to turn it on at the beginning of a long trip would make sense. But I’m not sure how popular such a small engine would be, since this would affect your total usable range.
(Quote)
Dec 26th, 2008 (8:35 pm)#115 Alex S
#120 noel park
Compressed natural gas (CNG) engines have 2 problems:
1) They are very inefficient
2) They emit more CO2 than gasoline or diesel engines
CNG engines are cleaner, so they emit much less pollution. This is probably why they’re used around L.A., to help with smog and other air quality issues.
But for the long-term global warming issue, CNG is worse that what we have now. Also, the U.S. imports more natural gas than we export, so CNG could just change one foreign energy addiction for another.
For trucks, I believe bio-diesel from algae holds more long-term promise. See here for details:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD29bevtO_g
(Quote)
Dec 27th, 2008 (11:04 am)I’ve heard information that GM has the ability to produce a battery with a 300+ mile range. This isn’t conspiracy theory crap, it turns out a friend of a relative knows someone working on the project who did not directly reveal any confidential information but told a story about the original patents and the person who held them. Politics require that the vehicle still use gasoline or they’d get destroyed trying to release an all electric vehicle that has an extended range.
(Quote)
Dec 28th, 2008 (4:48 pm)Jason Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
#44
The Volt will be built. In the worst case scenario, GM goes belly up and bankrupts in a major way. With the union no longer a problem, GM cuts the flab, hires monkeys to work for peanuts, and release the e-Flex platform without the drain of Hummer and the like.
——————————————————————————
The non-Union workforce at the US Honda plants make the most reliable cars in the world, and earn about $50k plus very good benefits for doing it. So they are not monkeys, and they do not work for peanuts. The big three needs to rid themselves of the cancer known as the UAW,
(Quote)
Dec 28th, 2008 (4:56 pm)#79 Vince
Offerer battery options. People pay extra for larger more powerful engines and diesels….same for batteries. Aslo a larger battery can handle a more powerful electric motor for sport applications.
Why these decision makers are still with GM is a huge mystery. They suck. Period.
———————————————————————-
Vince, you need to learn a little bit more about how batteries and motors work together. A larger storage capacity battery will not make the car accelerate faster. So the question is, who really sucks?
(Quote)
Dec 28th, 2008 (11:14 pm)This is all marketing hype that is typical of GM. They don’t even have a battery available for the car at the moment. There is not enough lithium to make such a battery viable which is why the other car makers are sticking to older technologies.
(Quote)
Dec 28th, 2008 (11:50 pm)The GM Volt will create a completely new economy
Since a 40 mile commute is probably 20 each way:
I predict that a new business selling electricity at parking lots will emerge.
You drive your Volt to work, plug it in and drive back.
The GM Volt WILL create new jobs, new opportunities
(Quote)
Dec 30th, 2008 (3:20 pm)Dave B @ #1,
Your post is exactly what is wrong with EV enthusiasts
You can’t just make and sell a 150 mile EV to even the upper middle class right now because of the tradeoffs between cost, range, performance, and service life of the batteries. It would be 100% idiotic of GM to try to do that now because the batteries are a combination of too expensive for how much you get out of them. The Volt is going to cost around $40K with just these smaller batteries, how could it be viable in the near future if you use 3-4 times more batteries??? That criticism makes no sense.
The Volt is already stretching what current batteries can do. We can only get there in steps that make sense. There is no such thing as selling a 150 mile BEV today. It’s impossible today.
Believe me, plug-in hybrids will have a much larger effect on reducing oil consumption than a 150 mile BEV, becuase you would be able to sell more of them. You would end up with more electrical miles driven. This isn’t GM’s fault, it is an absence of your dream technology. People are working on it but it isn’t there yet. It might never be. We might always be stuck with a plug-in hybrid (possibly using a renewable liquid fuel as the range extender). It all depends on how good electrical energy storage gets vs how available liquid fuels are.
Another cool thing about the PHEV is that it makes the goal of a BEV more attainable. A person can buy a PHEV and through that they have increased demand on vehicle batteries which increases their production which will ultimately make them more affordable compared to today’s prototypes. PHEV’s will also slowly increase the demand for plugging infrastructure as more people will get chargers at home and lobby for them at work, all the while it will take away their range anxiety because they know they can count on gas stations if a charger is not handy or they need to refuel quickly.
This is paving the way for BEV’s if they are ever economically and technically feasible. Until then, please stop criticizing the automakers for not making long range BEV’s. Criticize them all you want for not making more fuel efficient vehicles.
(Quote)
Jan 2nd, 2009 (3:57 pm)BOO!!!!! BOOOOOO!!!
80 miles electric range would get me to and from work every day. Sure some people don’t need that much electric range, so MAKE IT AN OPTION AT LEAST!!!
EDIT: and I am *NOT* talking about demanding that they make a longer range one right now, but rather plan it for the next version when they have more room to extend the range even if they have to do it as a PAID OPTION!
I hope GM is forward thinking enough to realize that 40 miles is simply not enough electric range if they can do more easily at a later time. As batteries become more powerful and the vehicle becomes more efficient I hope they won’t leave us long distance commuters out in the cold.
Sure make the basic model of Volt 2.0 cheaper with a smaller/lighter battery back… go right ahead! But plan well enough so that those that want to upgrade to 80 miles (or more) electric range can.
I would love to be able to drive 40 miles to work, have a solar panel trickle charge the batteries and drive 40 miles back home on all electric. Since my car sits out in the sun all day long I might get an extra few mile buffer there. That would be perfect.
(Quote)
Oct 1st, 2009 (8:31 pm)Can anybody remember when the times were not hard and money not scarce?
(Quote)