AND 
EXCLUSIVE: Ford Says No to E-REV’s and Explains Why
Nancy Gioia is Ford’s Director, Sustainable Mobility Technologies and Hybrid Vehicle Programs. I had a chance to speak with her recently about Ford’s view on the Chevy Volt E-REV design. Ford has announced it will bring a 100 mile range battery electric vehicle sedan on the market in 2011, and plans to bring a plug-in hybrid to market in 2012. They have not, however, announced an E-REV. Nancy tells me why.
What is your opinion about about the E-REV design?
Well we said by 2012 we’d have our plug in hybrid. If you’re familiar with our plug-in Escape project and our first partner Southern Cal., now EPRI has joined, and we are delighted that we have a whole other slew of utilities that have joined. And we have vehicle that we are now delivering around the country for testing. Our plug-in hybrid is a blended hybrid, so its a parallel series hybrid and and its based off our current power-split system that we have in our Escape. We make several modifications to that system but instead of having to depend upon the battery to go at highway speeds, or to do wide-open throttles, what we’ve looked at because of the battery costs and the size of the battery, and the weight of the battery, and the fact that battery technology is going to continue to evolve, we believe that the blended hybrid is a better solution.
So overnight you can fully charge your battery. It will be an energy lithium cell. You can run that down in up to 30 equivalent electric miles and then you go to regular hybrid mode. Just like our Escape hybrid today, or our Fusion/Milan, you are still then getting that 70% fuel efficiency city, overall combined 35-40% fuel efficiency.
So its never running on pure electricity, even as your running down the charge you are still firing the combustion engine?
Only in a wide-open throttle or high highway speed. So normal regular acceleration, up to a speed we are still determining, like today our Fusion/Milan goes up to 47 mph in pure electric, and that’s not feathering it to death, you can accelerate. We’re looking at that same thing in our blended plug-in hybrid. But if you need the highway speeds, actually you can run the engine very efficiently. In combination with the motor and give you great performance on the highway but not oversize that battery.
We did a lot of study with our HySeries Edge. This had a fuel cell instead of an engine but was a series hybrid. So it was similar to the Volt concept. What we found is the difficulty with the battery technology and the energy density that you can’t predict what the customer is going to need in the next five minutes. So if you’re in Colorado and you’re going up a steep grade for a very long time, and then you suddenly need to wide-open throttle around something, your state of charge of battery may be at a level even with the engine running full that to recharge that battery and maintain the highway speed and responsiveness you have a power fade issue. We also found if you wide-open-off, wide-open-off, that the 4th or 5th time into a wide open throttle, again because that engine can’t run fast enough and the chemistry of the battery can’t charge fast enough you may end up with limited power.
So the Volt has that problem?
Right. So from our point of view because you can never predict what the customer needs next, that doesn’t lead to a confident driving experience. The solution to that is a bigger battery, bigger engine, and then you get more weight etc. So what we thought was a better solution was our blended plug-in hybrid. You recharge, you have equivalent energy. When you turn the engine on and you have a need for speed or rapid acceleration we now can run that engine at its peak efficiency. Right on that torque curve, peak efficiency and supplement it with the motor. And always keep the battery in the happy zone. So the most expensive and the heaviest part, and the largest package consumer, the battery, can be the smallest it can be. And as the energy dentistry increases all we’re doing is giving greater electric range to our consumers. So affordability and attainability is the cornerstone of our sustainability strategy.
February 6th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Bummer. I think EREV, for the near future, is the answer.
However, he does bring up and interesting point about limited power when full power is needed. I wonder if this is really an issue.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:31 am
It seems like an E-REV could get around the problem of needing power when the battery is nearly depleted by building in a bit of reserve in the SOC. If the Volt’s ICE kicks in at 35% SOC, but the battery can be depleted to 30% if needed without damaging it, isn’t the problem solved for all but the most extreme scenarios?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Thoughtful comments from Ford that may prove to be correct. I am impressed by their serious evaluation of alternatives. Perhaps the conclusion is that the Volt may be great for some drivers but poorly suited for others, in other places, a bit more of a niche car than we have appreciated.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:40 am
I would have thought that a pure electric drive would have delivered more torque when accelerating from 40 to 60 as in an overtaking situation rather than what would be obtained by delegating to an ICE.
The Volt should be ’sensational’ compared to an ICE car in these real world situations thus making it more responsive and ultimately safer to drive. It would be nice to have some numbers in this area from GM.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Ford is taking the Toyota approach. The piece also shows why GM must spend so long perfecting the battery control systems etc. However with the ’spare’ 8kWh permanently on board I don’t see battery fade being the problem Ford and Toyota would have with smaller batteries.
I have wondered for some time, why GM is committed to the 40 mile range without having a smaller range battery. The problems of power fade are obviously one of the reasons downsizing is difficult. For this reason I have always supported a user operated ‘boost’ switch, which would reset the depletion point where the ICE comes on at 5% higher than normal, ie 35% instead of 30% SOC.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:48 am
MDDave says It seems like an E-REV could get around the problem of needing power when the battery is nearly depleted by building in a bit of reserve in the SOC. If the Volt’s ICE kicks in at 35% SOC, but the battery can be depleted to 30% if needed without damaging it, isn’t the problem solved for all but the most extreme scenarios?
I think the current plan is to have the ICE cut in at 30% and recharge to 35% SOC. The battery itself will be able to handle power drains down to 25% if needed. In this range the Volt will operate like a regular HEV.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:03 am
I think most of this issue would be taken care of in the hardware/software implementation. Maybe Ford could’nt figure it out…..
Also, Ford already invested in parallel hybrids, like Toyota, so this could just be spin justification to stay in that direction. If this is really a problem with electric cars, wouldn’t it also effect the Ford or any other true BEV???
Finally, think about your own driving patterns. I can’t think of a single time in the last year where I have five wide-open-on, wide-open-off cycles very close together. So I find it to be a non-issue. Also, lets not forget that GM is only really using 50% of the charge in the battery pack to start with, so they have some buffer area to utilize in “extreme” cases, probably with a warning displayed on the dashboard screen.
IMHO, for the Volt, all this would actually do is to reduce the AER, which would force the ICE to kick in a bit earlier.
Or am I missing something here???
EDIT: It looks like NZDavid and I were thinking along the same lines. He just must type faster than I do…..
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Vehicle …………………… Gallons per year
Volt …………………….….. 37
Prius PHEV-10 ……………182
Prius ……..……………..… 228
Ford Escape PHEV-10 …. 268
30 MPG car ……………… 380
20 MPG car ……………… 570
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Ford’s approach is to build a car that people can afford.
The fact that the Volt requires a large, expensive battery, along with a fairly good size engine, generator and all the high power electronics, makes the vehicle approach a cost most of us cannot afford.
I was impressed with Ford’s response and the insight they have. Ford is definitely on my “watch list” for my next vehicle.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:26 am
As far as I’m concerned, GM is taking the right engineering route. How often does one go up steep long hills? Rarely, unless you live in the mountains. Then, the Volt may not be the car of choice. The story about DC and San Francisco, which was taken out of context, I found hard believe because of all the hills in San Francisco. DC yes but San Francisco, no.
I think Ford and Toyota is making a huge mistake!
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:26 am
This is something that hopefully GM has thought of and engineered a solution for. Maybe it is time to bounce this off of someone in GM to get their responce…
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:32 am
From the article:
“So from our point of view because you can never predict what the customer needs next, that doesn’t lead to a confident driving experience. The solution to that is a bigger battery…”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt has a bigger battery that fully solves this issue. The ICE comes on at 30% SOC, which means there’s still 4.8kwh of juice in the battery. Together with the 53kw power of the gas engine, that’s enough to go 80 miles per hour up a constantly steep hill for 20 miles straight. If you slow down to less than 60 MPH, or if the road levels off or goes downhill for a bit, the battery recharges, and that 20 miles becomes considerably more.
Bottom line: Only maniac drivers will face this issue with the Volt, and the issue will be that you’ll have to slow down to 60 MPH on steep uphill grades, and only after you’ve been driving 80 MPH uphill for a long time.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/02/the-pikes-peak-question-chevy-volt-and-the-infinite-hill/
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Maybe I’m missing some fundamental point here, but…what the hell is a “parallel series hybrid”? Shouldn’t it be one or the other?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:38 am
I think Ford and Toyota is making a huge mistake!
_________________________________
The goal of phasing out traditional (engine-only) vehicles will be well served by FULL hybrids. How can shifting production to something that significantly reduces emissions & consumption at an affordable price to consumers while still delivering a profit be a huge mistake?
Within the next decade, what do you think the goal should be?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:48 am
what the hell is a “parallel series hybrid”?
__________________________
ASSIST = Insight & Malibu = parallel
FULL = Prius & Escape & Tahoe = series-parallel
EREV = Volt = series
Hybrids like Prius operate with the engine motionless at times (up to 42 MPH), offering abilities of a series type hybrid. The electric A/C, second electric motor, and power-split-device are what make it different from parallel… offering much more than just assist for the engine.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I am thinking the Ford Escape PHEV will be a good product, one that makes great strides in fuel efficiency, but I would still disagree with Nancy’s argument that essentially states bigger battery = bad. I think the EREV is the way to go with everything really–or if/until battery technology and range could evolve far enough to provide affordable all electric vehicles. Again, I think Ford’s hybrids are fine vehicles, but they are missing the boat if they are shunning EREV’s just because batteries would need to be larger. Just my opinion.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:51 am
I think its a good thing that Ford is producing something with a battery & a plug. I will buy the Volt, but for a cheaper, but more gas-using vehicle, Ford’s car will make many people happy (unless gas spikes to $10/gallon).
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Did anyone see what the AER Ford expects on their car?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I don’t believe Nancy understands the E-REV concept.
Once the generator kicks on, ALL the current supplied can go directly to the motor, it does not have to charge the battery if the power is needed by the AC motor.
Personally, I think Nancy is completely wrong, however, if they wanna make a parallel hybrid, more power to ‘em. HOWEVER, I wish the auto manufacturers would quit flapping their gums and give us a plug in already….
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:56 am
#2 MDDave Says: “If the Volt’s ICE kicks in at 35% SOC, but the battery can be depleted to 30% if needed without damaging it, isn’t the problem solved for all but the most extreme scenarios?”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt’s battery can be depleted far below 30% occasionally without significantly increasing wear. The question is: How often will this happen? If it happens a lot, then the battery will wear out in 3-4 years. If it happens a few times a year, no problem.
So now pretend you are GM and you have a 10-year, 150,000 mile warranty on the battery. Enter the bean counters. Remember that you need to be going more than 60 MPH up a 6% grade for many miles without slowing down to see this problem.
The vast majority of drivers don’t encounter very long steep uphill grades like this on a regular basis. I’ll guess 3%. Now out of that 3%, most will be sensible and not drive 80 MPH constantly up steep curvy mountain passes. So we are probably talking about 0.3% of the population that will deplete the battery significantly below 30% SOC on a regular basis.
If I were GM, I would happily replace the battery in 0.3% of the Volts I sell, just to be rid of this issue.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:57 am
We’ve had the debate about hills on this forum before and I feel comfortable with the SOC and systems engineering answers Lyle has gotten over the last 2 years. From an engineering standpoint I think the Volt is a brilliant way to go. I do think Ford will have a cheaper hybrid, but I drive on the highway 95% of the time. I want to drive 75 mph, I want to drive all electric, and I’ll pay a little more for it (with 10K help from the fed).
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Interesting article, and the responses to it are perhaps even more enlightening. Quite simply, the Volt isn’t for every driver, but it is perfect for many. If you want to help the US end its crushing dependence on foreign oil, it is a great car. If you like the idea of lowering your carbon footprint, it is a great car. If you want a sporty albeit not sports car-like responsiveness, it is a good car. If you tend to drive like a manic jackrabbit, not so good, maybe the Mustang is more your thing. I mean really, how often are you going to nail it WFO then shut it down completely five or six times in a row? Never?
I think Jim has a very good point in that both Ford & Toyota have engineered very similar parallel hybrids and therefore, they will denigrate any car that bypasses their approach even if that other car, the Volt, has an approach that may end up being superior. Stanley Steamers’ builder was critical of the internal combustion engine right up to the day they went out of business.
That having been said, JEC is also right, in that for the short term, EREV’s are going to be more expensive than a parallel hybrid because the EREV is going to need a bigger battery, in order to eliminate the vast majority of the problems Gioia mentioned, and to get you the nearly 40 mile AER, which gives the EREV the ability to cut the amount of gasoline needed so drastically as indicated by Dave G. The Volts price will come down and then it will become a Prius/Escape hybrid killer. But there will always be people for whom the Prius or the Fusion/Escape hybrid model will work better. No problem, bring on all the cars that will allow us to wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
When you come right down to it, the posters on this site are better educated about the problems and possibilities of this technology than Watanabe, Fukui, Mulally and Gioia. Or, more accurately perhaps, the posters on this site see the possibilities of the Volt just as clearly as the leaders of the big developers of parallel hybrids, but we don’t have billions of dollars sunk into the development of the modern equivalent of a steam powered car.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:05 am
#19 jabroni Says: “Once the generator kicks on, ALL the current supplied can go directly to the motor, it does not have to charge the battery if the power is needed by the AC motor.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. Diagram #2 shows this case:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Volt_Electrical_Block_Diagram.jpg
The Volt’s software varies the ICE power output to follow the demands of the electric motor as closely as possible. This has 2 benefits:
1) It lowers the wear on the battery (less charging/discharging)
2) It’s more efficient. Electrical->chemical->electrical conversions have some efficiency losses.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
#14 I think all he is saying is rejecting the Volt series model is a mistake.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:08 am
The engineers at Ford and Toyota probably know that they’re up against some proprietary stuff that GM now has, and to get around that and compete directly with the Volt may be an insurmountable problem.
So, as Jim I #7 above says, they have to justify staying in the direction they’ve already invested heavily in, which is parallel hybrids.
For the short term they will do fine, but long term they will be left behind when the electrification of the automobile comes about.
I greatly admire GM for this commitment and long term strategy. It takes a lot of courage to see where you need to go and then act upon that with all you’ve got.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Vehicle …………………… Gallons per year
Volt …………………….….. 37
Prius PHEV-10 ……………182
Prius ……..……………..… 228
Ford Escape PHEV-10 …. 268
30 MPG car ……………… 380
20 MPG car ……………… 570
This is so relative its not even funny. We dont know too much about the plug in prius, but if everythings true and we get 20miles before it uses gas then ill never (unless im on vacation) use gas. My total commute each day is right at 20 mile and its mostly city stop and go. So there is no difference for me between the two vehicles, except that the prius is about half the cost….
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I think Ford is being short sighted. The torque and power from electric motors is instantaneous. How many of us in America’s heartland or Canada for that matter will throttle wide open that often? How many of us are climbing steep hills that often? How many of us want to drive electrically for almost all of our miles every day? Sorry Ford, Toyota, Honda…..GM is on the forefront and you will be left behind in the end…… Enough said.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
#23 – Dave G.
Nice drawing, first time I have seen such. Thanks.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:18 am
People are referring to Gioia as “him” or “he”. Is Nancy Gioia a guy?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I would rather have the Volt over this system but I hope Ford sells millions of these things. A plug in hybrid with ever increasing battery capacity (as batteries develop) is a great idea and will be cheaper than the Volt.
IMO, GM too should have more plug-in hybrids ready to produce. I was excited by the idea of the plug-in Vue but who knows if this thing will ever make it to showrooms.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am
#16 Schmeltz Says: “I am thinking the Ford Escape PHEV will be a good product, one that makes great strides in fuel efficiency…”
—————
#17 k-dawg Says: “I think its a good thing that Ford is producing something with a battery & a plug.”
======================================================
I disagree. Look at the figures:
Vehicle …………………… Gallons per year
Volt …………………….….. 37
Prius PHEV-10 ……………182
Prius HEV ..…………….… 228
Ford Escape PHEV-10 …. 268
Ford Escape HEV ………. 335
20 MPG car ……………… 570
PHEVs with only 10 miles of electric boost offer far too little advantage over their regular HEV counterparts. In order to be convenient, plugging in has to eliminate most trips to the gas station. A PHEV-10 won’t do this. An EREV-40 will.
Within the next 5 years, PHEV-10s will only convince people that plugging in is not worth the hassle, so I think they will actually hurt the rollout of plug-ins.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Dave G #8 brings up a good point, but I don’t know if folks in this market take total operating costs into consideration or just go for the lowest fuel usage. It will take quite some time for a First Generation Volt owner to recoup the cost difference between it and the competition, so they will have to look at some other benefits (US jobs, lower total fuel usage, lower CO2, etc) to balance the equasion in favor of the Chevy. This is no surprise to us on this board, but what about the mainstream?
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year Fuel Cost @$4 gal
Volt …………………….….. 37…………………….$148
Prius PHEV-10 ……………182……………………$728
Prius ……..……………..… 228………………….. $912
Ford Escape PHEV-10 …. 268………………….$1072
30 MPG car ……………… 380…………………..$1520
20 MPG car ……………… 570…………………..$2280
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:33 am
The plot thickens.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Many of these automakers who have rejected EREVs are doing so because they simply can’t compete – Ford couldn’t build an EREV
until probably 2015, at the earliest. So they try to put lipstick on the pig and pull a Toyota. The weight business is a dead giveaway that they are lying here. Also thir brainless claim that you can only get
sufficient electrical power reserves from a dual propulsion hybrid.
Maybe someone should point out that Fisker not only will ahve a small battery, but will also possess high output when required – and they don’t need any gas engine powerring the wheels, as Ford claims. they simply run the battery and range extender simultaneously, something that the Volt could also do with nothing more than a simply software change. I’m disappointed that Ford is lying to save face.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:37 am
The datum which is described here the full-on full off repetitively shows up in datasets within scanning the PCM as “racing and abuse” only, not going up long one-mile climb mountains and needing to pass several semi’s . That sort of problem, normally going up a mountain and needing to pass many long trucks can be very easily programmed out of the scenario with the very first time the Volt is started and with the gps or cellular-tower data that the Volt might be able to incorporate in anticipation of any 5 or 10 mile long-hill climb, and then the need to pass many semi trucks at a blistering quickness. (Simply by pre-charging for 10 to 20 minutes).
From my initial perspective, it seems Ford is doing the “marketing” which they need to do to attempt to claim market. There was not sufficient technical impartiality, since the story claims that the Volt already has a problem in any performance category where they (Ford Motor) do not possess one to analyze any software which has not been finalized (nor likely will be until nearly ready to be sold). So, the interview has *zero* technical credibility, *zero* merit, and should be an embarrassment to Ford Motor Company.
I invite Ford Motor Company to publish their systems openly as does GM if we are to begin to respect anything further they attempt to represent. They’ve absolutely nothing to loose by doing that.
Dan Petit Austin TX
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:38 am
If this was a horse race, I’d put my money on VOLTEC.
That was a good interview Lyle did; it certainly reveals the Ford EV development path. It is good that there will be competing approaches taken by the auto-makers. I continue to believe that the VOLTEC platform is the superior approach by a wide margin at several levels. For example, the VOLTEC approach is superior in terms of “getting off gas” as illustrated by # 8 Dave G’s mpg chart.
Every bit of today’s VOLTEC development path accrues towards future EV development whereas the Ford EV development path puts development dollars and organizational inertia into an approach that all agree will diminish in viability as battery technology evolves (and battery technology is quickly evolving).
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Great! Pike’s Peak – It’s like deja vu all over again.
It’s simple. If you live on top of Mt. McKinley, you buy a Volt, and it isn’t as peppy as you like -don’t come crying to me. You’ve been warned.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:42 am
This will be resolved in a few years with ultra capacitors…
Which can release their energy much much more quickly.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:43 am
POWER FADE? Seriously? How likely is that to occur. Note to self, when taking the Volt up Pikes Peak, I will not be able to keep up with a Lambo. That’s not exactly a make or break decision on buying the car.
Ford is trying to steal some of GM’s thunder here, po poing their concept. You just wish it was your Mulally.
On another note, a lithium battery for “deep storage” combined with a supercapacitor for rapid discharge would help solve some of this issue. That’s my bet for Volt 2.0.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am
This is what FREE competiton in the FREE market is all about.
Oh, nevermind…
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
“Our plug-in hybrid is a blended hybrid, so its a parallel series hybrid and and its based off our current power-split system that we have in our Escape. ”
I love the double talk! It is either a series hybrid or a parallel one!
Just got to keep people confused! Confused people will buy anything. Thats why big stores move things around all the time. JMHO
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Todd Says: “This is so relative its not even funny. We dont know too much about the plug in Prius, but if everythings true and we get 20miles before it uses gas then ill never (unless im on vacation) use gas.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, we do know a lot about the Prius PHEV from the 3rd party conversion kits.
First, I’ve never heard of a Prius PHEV-20. The third party conversions I’ve heard of are either 10 or 30. I’m pretty sure the Prius that Toyota is building for fleet testing is a PHEV-10 (i.e. 10 miles of electric boost).
Second, there really is no all-electric range with the Prius. The gas engine needs to run at highways speeds and during acceleration at lower speeds. But even though the gas engine is running, the battery and electric motor still provide most of the power. So a more accurate way to describe a Prius PHEV-10 is that it gets something like 150 MPG during the first 10 miles, and 50 MPG thereafter.
So if you want to know how many gallons of gas you would use per year, plug your yearly driving habits (20 miles per day + some longer and shorter trips) into my spreadsheet:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Plugin_mileage.xls
and then compare a Prius PHEV-10 to a Volt. You may be surprised.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Very good interview Lyle. Good points from Ford for contrast to Voltec approach. Nancy is essentially saying the battery is big, heavy and expensive and is the core of Volt’s pricing problem. This is all accurate so Ford is taking a more conservative approach. I’m sure they feel that if and when batteries improve in energy density and cost they can seamlessly incorporate more battery range.
A 30 mile all electric range is very appealing to me in a plug-in.
The market will pick a winner. Ford & Toyota are going to undermine Volt’s price.
I’m still a Voltiac.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Relevant discussion from a previous thread:
The Pike’s Peak Question: Chevy Volt and the Infinite Hill
http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/02/the-pikes-peak-question-chevy-volt-and-the-infinite-hill/
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am
What did you expect her to say, The Volt is a brilliant idea and we really don’t have an answer for it except a copy of Japanese hybrids that are not quite as good. What she is really saying is we are taking a conservative approach and will let GM do all the heavy lifting and when they figure it out we will hop on board along with Toyota and Honda.
GM’s stance has always been to leapfrog current technology, a much more difficult path but one that will pay larger dividends in the end. She talks like battery technology is at a standstill, smaller lighter more energy dense batteries will ensue as the tech evolves and GM will have a huge advantage in the software side of the equation and In 10 years or so you may not need a generator at all.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
#41 Arch Says: “I love the double talk! It is either a series hybrid or a parallel one!”
————————————————————————————–
Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain
The Power-split hybrid is also called Series-Parallel.
“Power-split hybrid systems have features of both series and parallel hybrids.”
The Prius and Escape hybrids fall into this category.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Sorry Ford, E-REV is far better than hybrid. But thanks for adding another plug-in to the mix.
Take the Prius for example. A small economy box vehicle with a small low power gas engine. And an electric motor used to assist the car at parking lot speeds. Both the parking lot electric motor and small gas engine will NORMALLY be pushed at near capacity. This low power vehicle is not fun to drive by any measure. And is made in Japan.
The E-REV always has 150 HP and high torque performance. The ICE (generator system) has no need to run at high RPM. Oil changes can be done annually. Leaky valve covers and blown head gaskets are history. Service station waiting lines are minimal. Pollution production is halved. Quiet operation is the norm. Made in USA.
I know the usual reply to these facts is: “I can drive my Prius for 3 years on the price difference”. True, but look at what you have given up to do so.
=D~
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:59 am
# 26 Todd Says:
Vehicle …………………… Gallons per year
Volt …………………….….. 37
Prius PHEV-10 ……………182
Prius ……..……………..… 228
Ford Escape PHEV-10 …. 268
30 MPG car ……………… 380
20 MPG car ……………… 570
This is so relative its not even funny. We dont know too much about the plug in prius, but if everythings true and we get 20miles before it uses gas then ill never (unless im on vacation) use gas. My total commute each day is right at 20 mile and its mostly city stop and go. So there is no difference for me between the two vehicles, except that the prius is about half the cost….
————————————————————-
The difference is that buying a Volt supports American industry and American jobs, while buying a Prius does not.
Not going out of your way to buy American-made products whenever at all possible, especially in this economy, is tantamount to slitting your own throat.
What’s the real cost of buying a Prius vs buying Volt? How many more American jobs would be lost? How many more people would be collecting unemployment? How many more people would have to cancel their cell phone service, cable TV service, or magazine subscription, etc, all of which would lead to more people losing their jobs?
It doesn’t matter how you rationalize it; not buying American-made whenever possible, whether you’re buying a car or toilet paper, always costs you far more than you pay at the register.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
#43 Shawn Marshall Says: “Good points from Ford for contrast to Voltec approach. Nancy is essentially saying the battery is big, heavy and expensive and is the core of Volt’s pricing problem…
A 30 mile all electric range is very appealing to me in a plug-in.”
————————————————————————————–
A PHEV-30 would have a very big battery. I don’t believe Ford said they will produce a PHEV-30.
From a design point of view, I believe that when you get a battery as big as a PHEV-30 would imply, you have enough power to go all electric. So you might as well just lose the power-split transmission, save the cost and weight of that, and go EREV.
Higher power induction electric motors are very small and light. For example, the Tesla motor is 250hp, weighs 70 pounds, and is about the size of a watermelon. The Volt’s 150hp motor is presumably even smaller and lighter than that. In addition, induction electric motors don’t use expensive permanent magnets, so after they ramp up in volume, they should be fairly cheap to build.
So it appears to me that most PHEVs will be limited to small amounts of electric boost, like a PHEV-10, while EREVs will be the design of choice for cars with larger batteries.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
#42, Dave G, “Actually, we do know a lot about the Prius PHEV from the 3rd party conversion kits.”
No, you don’t know much about Toyota’s Prius PHEV. You are familiar with Hymotion upgrades to the current Prius and Toyota’s concept testing, also based on the current Prius. Toyota’s PHEV will be based on the 2010 Prius, which can go highway speeds on electric power alone and Toyota has said that it is “PHEV-ready.” They can drop in a larger capacity battery pack as soon as they think the costs and benefits are right. Their fall fleet test (500 vehicles worldwide, 150 in the US) will be representative of their upcoming PHEV.
#5, NZDavid, “Also, Ford already invested in parallel hybrids, like Toyota, so this could just be spin justification to stay in that direction. If this is really a problem with electric cars, wouldn’t it also effect the Ford or any other true BEV???”
Or… maybe Ford is entirely right. After all, Toyota has also decided they like this approach. GM is being outvoted two to one. Maybe there are really good technical reasons for series/parallel hybrids.
Consider this, GM showed off a concept car, the public liked it and Lutz committed GM to building it and then went to lunch. Maybe GM’s own people have found really good reasons not to do this but it’s too late to define the project from the bottom up, it’s coming from the top down, gathering speed as it goes, and stepping in front of it is career suicide.
—
Ford is taking a proven system and extending and enhancing it. They already have a successful system on the road that they can sell at a fairly competitive price. Their new Fusion hybrid actually beat the Camry on the EPA cycle.
I see no reason to doubt Ford’s ability and expertise.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Turbo diesel for the generator for fastest recharge. Problem solved. Duh.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Alright, I’ll wade into another thread…hold on to something, it is going to be another bumpy ride.
——
Ford (in this particular instance), unlike GM plans/builds future cars with reason, logic and accountability.
They know how to build a parallel and they build them. For them, these products are a logical extension of what they know, it is a no brainer (and fairly easy/thrifty) to add a pack and give it a all electric range for ‘most’ of the packs charge. Also, the pure BEV is a fairly straight forward creature, without all the tricky R&D questions of the E-REV (and the added cost/weight of basically 2 seperate propulsion system that go witht he E-REV system), the cost of the BEV is the pack…and thats about it.
Ford is building ‘next generation’ cars with the intention to actually SELL them, LOTS of them, and at a price that is AFFORDABLE to the WIDEST range of customers, and make a PROFIT on them. GM can not make this statement.
GM has come up with the most ideal and most practical use of available technology for the average driver. It has all the benefit of a full EV, backed up with the extended range of the traditional ICE (and the confidence that goes with that)…but invariably, it is still a flawed product when it comes to the most important things, CAN YOU SELL IT? CAN YOU MAKE A PROFIT WHEN YOU DO? What is your ROI?
The answer to those questions is: NO, NO and ‘really bad’. The only way the Volt sells and is ’successful’ is with MASSIVE gov’t intervention, subsidies to GM to build it and huge rebates to the public to buy it.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Diesel Electric trains have been around for 40+ years. A generator/electric vehicle is not a new concept. I don’t plan on using my Volt like a train, nor do I plan to use it in an SCCA event where multiple WOT’s (Wide Open Throttle) would be required, mountain or not. I am sure GM will have the ICE directly drive the electric motor when needed versus purely charging the battery for my driving needs, as in #23 Dave’s graph. Wouldn’t this negate the WOT issues if the ICE was running?
IMO, Nancy’s statement was made to confuse the unknowing public, and make an issue about something that’s a non-issue.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:15 am
#48 Daniel Says: “Not going out of your way to buy American-made products whenever at all possible, especially in this economy, is tantamount to slitting your own throat.”
————————————————————————————–
I’m more concerned about importing $700 billion of foreign oil a year from countries with totalitarian governments that hate the U.S., some of which are building atomic bombs, and others with terrorist groups that are trying to kill us. In the scheme of things, buying a 50 MPG Prius to save gas is better for our country than buying an American made SUV.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Power fade is a possible problem but, as Cautious Fan mentions, worrying about the zebras is more distraction than solution. In this regard, it seems inconsistent to be worrying about power fade on the one hand and releasing a BEV with a very limited range on the other. Can we spell “range anxiety”?
Thanks to Dave G for continuing to pound at the advantages of E-REV. Here is a more thorough explanation which has been posted before:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/13/autobloggreen-qanda-peter-savagian-talks-about-studying-driver-be/
Basically GM has gotten it right. Whether that’s by luck or design or whatever, all the variables like battery technology and battery cost and driving habits, over which it had no control, have come together to make the basic 40 EV range a very workable proposition. It all looks so obvious … in retrospect.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
#50 charlie h Says: “Toyota’s PHEV will be based on the 2010 Prius, which can go highway speeds on electric power alone and Toyota has said that it is “PHEV-ready.”
————————————————————————————–
I believe the 2010 Prius will top out at 62 MPH in all-electric mode.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am
personally PHEV’s are commuter cars or neighborhood vehicles. above 42-47 MPH you need the ice.
In my daily commute, I need to hitt 100kmh for limit and closer to 120 to keep up for about 35km.
The volt fits me better.
The PHEV for the wife to run to schools, soccer and get groceries would work.
Depends on needs I guess.
Either way my solar, and wind generator and next (if I can get it a free watt) will cover me nicely whatever I get…
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Many, many great posts on this thread – very well thought out.
I agree with the poster that Ford did Toyota’s math awhile back, committed to a blended hybrid, which Toyota is about to introduce with the plug-in Prius, and is now just spinning their choices.
GM’s Volt aims for the future, when battery costs have been significantly reduced, and/or other tech come online, to increase range / reduce volum and cost. Also, it becomes an excellent platform into which to place fuel cells, as they, and their fuel, are cost reduced / efficiency increased.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
The Volt way is the best.
The Ford way is ok and will cost less.
Success to both of them ! We can pay our money and take our choice.
Just get ‘em on the road.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Just shows the different ways the two companies approach matters. What is right for GM is not right for Ford. Doesn’t make Ford’s decision less correct, just different. I think they will have a very viable program and will provide value to their customers. GM’s Voltech drive train is a much larger gamble, but if successful, could place much more value into the customer’s hands. I can’t wait to see who is correct. I am pulling for both companies to be successful. That way we all are winners. Go, Go GM and Ford.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Cris A: No, The Volt always runs on Electric, the ICE is simply an electric generator & never directly powers the wheels.
From the Ford Rep in the Above article :
“….And as the energy dentistry increases all we’re doing is giving greater electric range to our consumers…..”
Does This mean the front grill will have Teeth?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Dave G–
I’m confused by your gallons used comparison. There is no baseline of miles per day. You’ve got the Volt using 37 gallons a year. If that is so, then obviously you have it going more than 40 miles per day. If that is true, the 20 MPG car usage of 570 gallons is off, because that amounts to only 31.23 miles per day driven. At 40 miles per day, the 20 MPG car would use 730 gallons.
What am I not getting?
Thanks.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am
#52 statik Says: “GM has come up with the most ideal and most practical use of available technology … but invariably, it is still a flawed product when it comes to the most important things, CAN YOU SELL IT? CAN YOU MAKE A PROFIT WHEN YOU DO? What is your ROI? The answer to those questions is: NO, NO and ‘really bad’.”
————————————————————————————–
Why do you think the Volt will cost so much to build in volume? Once mass production kicks in, what parts of the Volt are intrinsically expensive.
When you make batteries for cell phones and laptops, you can afford a certain amount of overhead. When you scale that up to cars, it’s a whole new ballgame. In other words, current battery prices reflect current battery markets, not cars.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am
#3 RB
“Thoughtful comments from Ford that may prove to be correct. I am impressed by their serious evaluation of alternatives. Perhaps the conclusion is that the Volt may be great for some drivers but poorly suited for others, in other places, a bit more of a niche car than we have appreciated.”
——————————–
Of course, another way to look at it is that they may be saying all of this as a way of justifying their decision to go the way they are going and not develop a competing drive train to the Volt’s. You just never know for sure. They have and will spend much money on their platform and they do not want to be second guessed before the final results are in.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am
#62 Detfan Says: “I’m confused by your gallons used comparison. There is no baseline of miles per day… What am I not getting?”
————————————————————————————–
My spreadsheet assumes the following typical yearly driving pattern:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
The spreadsheet further assumes 1 charge per day (overnight charging only).
I realize that this typical yearly pattern doesn’t fit everyone, but I needed some sort of pattern as a baseline to compare things.
You can modify the spreadsheet to fit your yearly driving pattern here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Plugin_mileage.xls
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:49 am
#52 statik Says: GM has come up with the most ideal and most practical use of available technology for the average driver. It has all the benefit of a full EV, backed up with the extended range of the traditional ICE (and the confidence that goes with that)…but invariably, it is still a flawed product when it comes to the most important things, CAN YOU SELL IT? CAN YOU MAKE A PROFIT WHEN YOU DO? What is your ROI?
CAN YOU SELL IT? – They will sell everyone they make. Do you honestly think they will not sell Volts ?
CAN YOU MAKE A PROFIT WHEN YOU DO?-Maybe not initially, but as they share the platform with other models and the cost of the technology comes down…YES! You don’t think the Japanese, Germans and Koreans subsidize their auto industries, think again.
What is your ROI? – Having a huge head start on electric powered vehicles and the associated software to run the package and putting people to work in new tech jobs that will be created. The generator is a transitional piece that will eventually disappear as the technology evolves and pure EV takes over. GM will be at the forefront of the next gen auto and have an advantage over the competition. So when the cost per unit comes in line with the competition it will be a no brainer for the consumer.
Are you a banker, because if you want to talk about subsidies at least you will get something for your tax dollar beside the vapor from trading paper and the problems it has produced?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Kudos to Ford, I think this is the way to go. We dont need range extenders! Gas cars don’t have range extenders, when you run out you run out. Just build us a battery electric car.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
1. It’s called product differentiation (it’s a competition, not a war).
@DetFan
Repeat from prior comment, sorry:
2. MPG is an obsolete metric, meaningless for directly comparing vehicle efficiency, especially for anything that uses electric drive. The correct (DOE/EPA, since the late 1980s) metric for direct comparion of vehicle efficiency is number of kilowatt hours per 100 miles ( # kWh / 100 miles), the smaller the number the more efficient the vehicle. GM claims the Volt will use about 33 kWh / 100 miles (dubious as that’s the same as the 2008 v.1 Tesla Roadster) unless there really are large (ca. 8%) annual improvements in battery technology and series plug in hybrids really are 50% more efficient than parallel plug in hybrids (based on real world aftermarket lithium plug in Prius results of about 50 kWh /100 miles (CR)). My estimate is that the Volt is claimed to be 1.5 times more efficient than a current aftermarket lithium plug in Prius. Against the 2010 more aerodynamic plug in Prius with incremental battery improvement, anybody’s guess right now. It’s closer than you think, Van and Dave G, but I agree that the Volt series hybrid is a leapfrog past Prius technology, just as the Prius full parallel beats current weak Honda and GM parallel (not the 2-mode) hybrid tech.
(new material)
The first gen Ford full parallel hybrids and plug in parallel hybrids will be Prius chasers in efficiency, using pretty much the same tech and methods, but will be cheaper (less dependence on battery and electric drive) and WAY more acceptable to general buying public on standard looks and small price premium. While less efficient than the Honda Insight, the results will have fuller hybrid tech than current weak Honda and GM offerings. As far as robust market penetration goes, Ford appears to have a great plan. This is GOOD NEWS for GM, as the mainstream acceptability of the new Ford (DOMESTIC) Fusion full hybrid and future plug in parallel offerings will increase GM Chevy Volt acceptability and awareness. Ultimately, series hybrid will dominate for quite some time (decades to centuries?), until some better electric drive configuration does.
What we’re seeing here is each company positioning themselves a little differently, with little leapfroggings of each other here and there in a competitive, yet very complementary and supportive way. Good job, automakers, all. You are reawakening my pride in the whole sector.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I’m actually quite impressed with Ford’s strategy. They are leveraging their existing technology to make a low-cost plug-in hybrid. The primary criticism of the Volt is “death by price-point”, and it is certainly a valid point given the $40k-ish year-one price. Certainly the price will come down over time as the battery becomes cheaper & higer performing, but Ford is pursuing full BEV (non-hybrid) vehicles at the same time as S/P Hybrids which will benefit here as well. it is a legitimate 2-tiered strategy: low-cost S/P hybrids in the near term moving to full BEV’s longer term.
–DRM.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am
The Voltec idea isn’t new. GM Engineers used a Motorcycle engine to charge the EV1. And it worked back then. The Volt will work and I will Love driving past all those Gas Stations.
NPNS =D~~
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Porsche designed a hybrid with electric motors in the wheels over 100 years ago. I don’t think GM is tying Ford in knots with patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche_Mixte_Hybrid
Locomotives use the electric motors in the wheels for two reasons: to apply high torque to the wheels in a very controlled manner so as to avoid wheel slip and to avoid gear boxes which are fragile when dealing with so much torque.
Paying for both electric motor and ICE will be more expensive than just an electric motor. If there are two, If they are in parallel, they can be smaller and less expensive.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am
#31 Dave G Says:
February 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am
#16 Schmeltz Says: “I am thinking the Ford Escape PHEV will be a good product, one that makes great strides in fuel efficiency…”
—————
#17 k-dawg Says: “I think its a good thing that Ford is producing something with a battery & a plug.”
======================================================
I disagree. Look at the figures:
Vehicle …………………… Gallons per year
Volt …………………….….. 37
Prius PHEV-10 ……………182
Prius HEV ..…………….… 228
Ford Escape PHEV-10 …. 268
Ford Escape HEV ………. 335
20 MPG car ……………… 570
PHEVs with only 10 miles of electric boost offer far too little advantage over their regular HEV counterparts. In order to be convenient, plugging in has to eliminate most trips to the gas station. A PHEV-10 won’t do this. An EREV-40 will.
Within the next 5 years, PHEV-10s will only convince people that plugging in is not worth the hassle, so I think they will actually hurt the rollout of plug-ins.
===========================
Where do you get 10 miles AER? I see that no where from Ford. I think you are making an assumption. I have seen you post about convenience of plugging in before. I don’t think i agree. I think if you have lots of places to plug in, its not a big deal, or even if you just plug in at home, you are still getting miles of electricity gas free. I think there is definately a place for this vehicle in the market, esp when it will affordable to most of the public, and I dont think it hurts the plug-in image.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
The public will be fortunate to have a choice between HEVs and PHEVs. PHEVs save more gas, but cost quite a bit more to buy.
At $2-4/gallon, the economics are all in favor of the less expensive HEVs, so the PHEVs will be niche products bought by those determined to reduce their own carbon footprint or petroleum usage, even at a personal financial sacrifice.
At $6-10/gallon, the economics are in favor of the PHEVs, so the HEVs will be niche products aimed at people lacking in financial resources, who cannot afford to buy a more expensive car that saves them money over its lifetime.
Of course, there are no mass produced PHEVs on the market now, so if the OEMs can get the PHEV cost premium down to $3-4k, then the PHEV becomes the more economical choice even at lower gas prices.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I would not go so far as to say, as others have done today, that Ford and Toyota will be left behind when the electrification of the automobile occurs. That is one reason both companies are developing a fully electric car (BEV). They are banking their gamble with their gas/hybrid vehicles with the electric vehicle development. If the Volt is a huge success and people don’t want what Ford and Toyota are trying to offer them, they will be able to provide a reasonable substitute instead. The Volt will not be a huge success unless and until the battery is made much more cheaper and possibly more powerful and smaller. The final verdict on the Volt and Ford’s and Toyota’s vehicles are many years away. Plenty of time for them to switch sides, if necessary.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
BTW…I just wanted to say that this is a great article Lyle.
You got Ms. Gioia to open up and give some really conscientious answers to your questions. I wish all execs put this much thought and effort into their responses.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
That is Good. Less competition
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am
#67 Mark J
“Kudos to Ford, I think this is the way to go. We dont need range extenders! Gas cars don’t have range extenders, when you run out you run out. Just build us a battery electric car”
ummmm HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Gas cars do not need range extenders because you can go to a gas station and “recharge” in about 5 minutes…
if I gave you an BEV with a 400 mile range, and a recharge time of 6 hours, would you drive cross country…I don’t think so.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:20 am
As this point, the Volt’s technology is expensive compared to the current hybrid and upcoming plug-in hybrid technology. Most of the cost is in the battery.
When the first hybrid cars came out on the market for people to buy, many people said that the technology was needlessly expensive, complicated, and full of compromises for what you get. When the cost of high capacity batteries will eventually fall through the floor (something like EEStor?), GM will have a leg-up on its competition with a pure electric drivetrain that’s been refined and perfected over many years.
There is something feel-good (sort of what hybrid’s cachet is now) about cruising around in pure silence using pure electricity, and if marketed right, cars like the Volt will be viewed by the tree-hugging public as feel-goodmobiles.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
#14 john1701a Says: “Within the next decade, what do you think the goal should be?”
————————————————————————————–
By 2019, I believe we can eliminate most (more than 1/2) of our current foreign oil imports, get 5-10 million plug-ins on the road, and get bio-fuels up to 20% of our liquid fuel supply.
If you look at Obama’s plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
• By 2015, Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars on the road.
• By 2018, save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined
and then extrapolate that out to 2019, it’s not that far off.
For me, reducing foreign oil dependancy is the prime objective, mostly because everyone can agree on this. Reducing foreign oil:
• decreases pollution and CO2 emmissions
• improves the economy
• decreases funding for terrorist organizations that are trying to kill us
• decreases the influence of countries with political and religious systems that differ from ours
So no matter what your political persuation, reducing our foreign oil dependancy is very important. In fact, there is a political organization of conservatives, liberals, religious leaders, environmentalists, national security experts, and farmers – all pushing together to reduce foreign oil dependancy. Their solution relies on a combination of Flexible Fuel Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids:
http://www.setamericafree.org/solution.html
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Toyota’s PHEV will be based on the 2010 Prius, which can go highway speeds on electric power alone and Toyota has said that it is “PHEV-ready.”
______________________________
The electric motor/generator changes clearly confirm that…
MG2 size kW has been increased from 50 to 60.
MG1 maximum RPM has been increased from 10,000 to 13,500.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:30 am
How many pepole live or drive on a 8000 ft mountain? A heck of a lot less than live on the east and west coast and commute to work on almost level highway every day. If you live in Colorado on a mountain don’t buy the Volt.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Dr. Dennis:
I want to thank you, once again, for all of your efforts in producing these posts for the faithful bloggers to chew over every single day. Amazing.
Today is great, with intense debate over the Ford vs. GM approach, and almost none of the mind numbing political back and forth of yesterday. Thanks bloggers.
I realy can’t see where the Ford version is going to be that much cheaper than the Volt. It’s all going to come down to strategic pricing for the early adopters anyway, so maybe just a little.
If Ford’s “plug-in-hybrid” is going to be based on the Escape, I’m not interested. No SUVs or “crossovers” for me. Too big, too heavy, and aerodynamics of a brick. Better the Volt, in which GM has taken their best shot at optimizing the package for best AER and mileage. It will make a lot stronger statement than an Escape.
But that’s jut me. As many have said, bring it on Ford, and let the market decide. Most likely, there is plenty of room for everybody.
#48 Daniel:
I agree, wholeheartedly.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I believe Ford can make a reasonable vehicle with this technology. Some observations:
“what we’ve looked at because of the battery costs and the size of the battery, and the weight of the battery, and the fact that battery technology is going to continue to evolve, we believe that the blended hybrid is a better solution.”
Interpretation: We don’t know a lot about large battery packs, and feel they will be expensive, so we will take the less expensive route and wait for GM and/or others to bring down the cost of batteries.
—————————————–
Even though batteries will evolve, so will everything else. Someone will still need to take new battery technology, test it, and make it suitable for automotive applications. Just like GM has done. So in other words, they are only avoiding the inevitable if they want to make reliable EV’s.
“So if you’re in Colorado and you’re going up a steep grade for a very long time, and then you suddenly need to wide-open throttle around something, your state of charge of battery may be at a level even with the engine running full that to recharge that battery and maintain the highway speed and responsiveness you have a power fade issue. We also found if you wide-open-off, wide-open-off, that the 4th or 5th time into a wide open throttle, again because that engine can’t run fast enough and the chemistry of the battery can’t charge fast enough you may end up with limited power.”
Sounds to me like Nancy reads this website. This actually could be a problem. The Volt’s electric motor is rated at 111 kW, while the ICE-generator only produces 53 kW. If you do a long climb with a low battery pack to begin with, or spend your time doing drag races, sooner or later the battery pack will have nothing left to give, and you will only be able to get 53 KW into your 111 kW electric motor.
Is this a real problem? As others have mentioned, for a select few, yes, for the vast majority, no.
And the Ford Escape Hybrid is rated 34/31 with a 153 HP 4 cyl. How would this compare going up Pike’s Peak to the Vue 2-mode rated 28/31 with a 255 HP 6 cyl?
E-REV or blended, I guess it all comes down to your needs (and desires) in a vehicle.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Sorry, I don’t get it. The Tesla has 0-60 of 3.9 seconds. So why is there a problem with acceleration from batteries alone?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
#77 Mitch Says: “Gas cars do not need range extenders because you can go to a gas station and “recharge” in about 5 minutes…”
————————————————————————————–
Yes.
And I’ll go one further. Gas stations are EVERYWHERE. Even in the most remote places of the U.S., you will find gas stations. It took over 50 years for gas stations to fully make their way into rural and remote locations. Changes to remote infrastructure take huge amounts of time.
So for the next 50 years, if you want to be able to go anywhere in the U.S., you’ll need a car that runs on gas. This is why the Volt is perfect for the foreseeable future – it runs on electricity, gas, or E85. You can go anywhere with it. I think that’s a big deal for most people.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
#54
Dave G Says:
#48 Daniel Says: “Not going out of your way to buy American-made products whenever at all possible, especially in this economy, is tantamount to slitting your own throat.”
————————————————————————————–
I’m more concerned about importing $700 billion of foreign oil a year from countries with totalitarian governments that hate the U.S., some of which are building atomic bombs, and others with terrorist groups that are trying to kill us. In the scheme of things, buying a 50 MPG Prius to save gas is better for our country than buying an American made SUV.
————————————————————————————–
GM and Ford manufacture an increasingly wide range of practical hybrid vehices from which you can choose. They also manufacture high-milage non-hybrid small cars.
Buying a 37 MPG Cobalt or 35 MPG Focus is far better for our country than any Prius. Buying a GM or Ford hybrid vehicle is even better, but either way buying American pumps cash into GM’s and Ford’s efforts to build more advanced practical hybrids and more fuel-efficient convential vehicles.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Keep in mind that, although for is taking their path tword Hybrid/electrics …
Many of their points will be moot, because remember, within about 1 year, GM will announce their plans & details on the following 2 current development projects:
A) – Full dual mode hybrid sedan(s). Compared to Prius, these will be similar or better milage, but “real” 5 & 6 passenger cars with performance . Plug in & non plug in models.
B) – The GM “series II” BAS mild hybrid system is just about ready to go.
They have already hinted that, with a lighter lithium battery, & a more powerful Elect motor, they will be all electric below about 20mph, & these may also achieve near current Prius milage, & in low cost vehicles like the Malibu. The system is also said to be able to add on to almost any engine combo, boosting output & reducing fuel consumption.
Remember, by time you can actually buy a Volt, which is soon, GM will probably be THE leader in Electrics & Hybrids, offering more & varied models than other mfgrs.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
#82 Noel Park said:
“I realy can’t see where the Ford version is going to be that much cheaper than the Volt.”
That is an excellent point. Some here have criticized the “GM approach” here with the Volt in that it will be too expensive and won’t sell. Don’t kid yourselves folks—a Plug-in Escape Hybrid is definitely NOT going to be a bargain either that will just magically fly off the shelves. Any and all new tech things such as hybrids or electrics are going to be expensive–no secret there. I think Ford has a good approach, but not a great approach. The Volt is a much more elegant answer to the All-Electric car conundrum, and the better path for most people’s situations. Most have figured the Volt to be in the $40,000 range. Now, if a PHEV Escape is guessed at say $35,000 (I think that’s a reasonable estimate), are you that far behind the Volt in reality? Not really–they’re both expensive, they’ll both probably be relatively low volume, and they’ll both be money losers for the first few years. Someone needs to explain to me how these facts make the PHEV Escape or even the PHEV Prius such a far more superior alternative to the Volt?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am
By 2019, I believe we can eliminate most (more than 1/2) of our current foreign oil imports, get 5-10 million plug-ins on the road, and get bio-fuels up to 20% of our liquid fuel supply.
______________________________
That doesn’t actually answer the annual production goal question.
There 14,000,000 new vehicles sold here per year.
How many will there be of each type?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I am sorry, but we all live in a “dream world” when it comes to making decisions on which vehicle is superior. Ford and Toyota will market their hybrid/gas vehicles as though they are the only vehicles standing between you and the big, bad oil cartel. Most people who buy new cars today do not really make an intelligent decision and evaluation of competing brands. No, they just drive down to their local Ford, Chevy, Toyota or Honda dealer (to name but a few) and buy from the same company that they believe makes the best cars in the world. We are convinced of the superiority of the brand we buy because we have always bought them.
What I am saying is that many, many buyers will be “sold” by the auto advertising before they even get into their vehicle to go to the dealer’s lot to buy a new car. Educating the masses is going to be a very difficult job for GM. I know plenty of people who would NEVER buy a GM vehicle simply because they believe in the superiority of their current brand. People are just biased when it comes to many decisions they have to make. It is bred into them from childhood and passed on from generation to generation. I find myself fighting this all the time from my own subconscious. IMO.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
All this speculation could be laid to rest if GM would allow some independent drivers to drive the Volt from Bakersfield to LA.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Hey at least they are all talking about using more electricity to power our cars…I like it.
This is why they make both chocolate AND vanilla milkshakes…
of course, only time will tell who ends up drinking who’s milkshake…
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Only 662 Day’s to go………….
That is if we give GM until Nov 30th 2010.
No Pressure GM.
So ‘Idiots’ stop saying just sell me 1 then GM..
662 Day’s to go…
662
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
#72 k-dawg Says: “Where do you get 10 miles AER? I see that no where from Ford. I think you are making an assumption.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. Since Ford didn’t really specify the PHEV range, I’m assuming the Escape will have range similar to other announced PHEVs.
To have significantly more range, the battery pack ends up being quite large, which would probably change the body and or chassis to accommodate it, or perhaps cut into the interior space, none of which are good options for an existing car design.
By contrast, a car maker can easily change a full hybrid to a PHEV-10 by swapping the existing NiMH pack for a new Li/Ion pack of the same size, which doubles the energy storage.
So this is why I’m assuming the plug-in version of the Ford Escape will be something close to a PHEV-10.
If Ford announces some new plug-in car design, with a new chassis or body style to accommodate a larger battery, then I would assume a larger PHEV boost range.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
#82 Noel Park,
“Someone needs to explain to me how these facts make the PHEV Escape or even the PHEV Prius such a far more superior alternative to the Volt?”
_____________________________________________________
Upgradable. Expandable.
A “regular” and much cheaper hybrid from ford or Toyota is now upgradeable to a plug in hybrid. If the OEM’s start offering plug-in upgrade options for their hybrids, this will be a big selling point for a more affordable car.
Cars are becoming more like computers, and, like computers, I think expandable and upgradable are going to become key sales words in the automotive industry.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
#86 Daniel – When the US makes a 50 MPG car, I’ll buy one.
35 MPG? 37 MPG? I guess it’s sort of impressive – for the big 3, maybe. Toyota has had a 50 MPG car for 10 years, and all Ford and GM did was fiddle around and watch Rome burn while Toyota sold, sold, sold. You would think that they would buy one, reverse-engineer it, and rebadge it as their own, but noooooo. They sold SUV’s – right up to 2008. I give the big 3 a B- for catching up, but minus several million for foresight. Idiots!
BTW, I’m waiting to test drive a Honda Insight. Good mileage, nice tech, priced right, uses regular gas, and has Honda legendary reliability. The big 3 need not complain to me about market forces – they need to make a better (+50 MPG) product. Competition – that’s what America is about.
———————————————————–
GM – would you kindly put the Volt in the showrooms soon? I need a new car NOW, not in 23 months – and the Volt gets a lot more than 50 MPG. Thank you.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
@ Gary:
Ha! What I love about my 100% wind powered pure BEV is the increasingly intense sound the motor makes and the huge instant torque and off the line acceleration I feel as I beat muscle cars that cost five to twenty times more, from stop signs and red lights. That feels real good.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
#63 Dave G said:
Why do you think the Volt will cost so much to build in volume? Once mass production kicks in, what parts of the Volt are intrinsically expensive.
#66 jackflash said:
GM will be at the forefront of the next gen auto and have an advantage over the competition. So when the cost per unit comes in line with the competition it will be a no brainer for the consumer.
=====================
I think there is some confusion here. GM does not have any proprietary technology or knowledge that allows for their exclusive benefit of scale. The only thing stopping other car companies from doing the same thing as GM, is that they think it is is a bad idea.
Everybody and their dog can make a E-REV. Little Fisker has one (in production), Tesla has a prototype ready to roll and just wants their gov’t check (like GMs) to put it in production. The lamest of all Detroit auto, Chrysler seems to be able to spit out working E-REV prototypes in their sleep…and are bringing one to market in the most magical of years, 2010. (a date, I don’t believe them on either)
If Toyota, Honda, Subaru, whoever wanted in this market they could be in it virtually overnight…even if a ‘non-car’ company wanted in this business (who knows why), they could be in ‘GM’s segment’ almost instantly, heck anyone could buy the entire Chrysler E-REV set-up for a $1.09 and be a player.
Worse still, if a real company like GE, who can also make batteries, and has a billion engineers on staff ever decided to get involved and put REAL money behind it, they would have GM’s lunch.
The tech/future here is not in the platform…it is the battery. The company that can both produce the battery, and for the lowest cost per kW is going to be the eventual winner/leader…and GM has decided to not get involved in this aspect of the EV at all.
Compounding GM’s ‘future problems’ to compete against its peers (even with the ‘benefits of scale’), will be the fact they will also have to make minimum payments on about 200 billion dollars. /that adds a few bucks per car
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
@ Grump
MPG is a useless metric for comparison of anything with electric drive. Please use # kWh / 100 miles, the DOE/EPA standard.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Nothing to say . . . just wanted to post at the century mark.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
#89 john1701a Says: “There 14,000,000 new vehicles sold here per year. How many will there be of each type?”
————————————————————————————–
Most of this depends on predicting prices 10 years out. My crystal balls aren’t better than anyone else’s, but if I had to guess, I would say oil prices will go up by a factor of 3 or 4, and battery prices will be 1/3 of what they are today. I say this because:
1) World oil has peaked, and world demand is rising.
2) Nobody has mass produced big Li/Ion battery packs before. Today, Li/Ion is only mass produced for small expensive devices, like cell phones, laptops, and digital cameras. So there has been no hard pressure really to lower Li/Ion prices until now. Once manufacturing engineers go to work on this problem, I bet we’ll see Li/Ion prices decline rapidly. I think we’ll also see ways of recycling worn out Li/Ion batteries, so Lithium supply will not be a big issue.
Then it comes down to timing. Regular HEVs will be the first wave, no doubt on that. But if Li/Ion prices come down fast, then EREVs should surpass HEV sales fairly quickly, provided that car makers have the right products. If it happens as quickly as I’m thinking, I would guess that of the 14 million cars sold in 2019, perhaps 5 million would be EREVs, and 3 million would be HEVs. PHEVs and BEVs will sold in much smaller numbers. There will also be a trend towards more fuel efficient regular gas engine vehicles and away from SUVs. I think sport wagons and micro-vans will become popular.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
umm,talking microprocessors after 8085, 8086 came first ,was not a hit, then came 8088 and then 8088 became hit and 8086 also. because people understood and like the 16 bit computing power. Volt is like 8088, Its a Bridge for people from ICE to EV. I am sure some nano-technology capacitors will come up to replace the battery which will be like go plug-in for 2 minutes – full charged and can drive a 500 miles with it.
S ford is right, GM is also right. EVs are future – ford is correct. but the variables are miles per charge,charging time and cost.
GM is correct because they reduce cost on battery and designed an EV which take power from traditional technology where people are comfortable. This is a bridge car.Only thing i dont agree is the 1.4 L Ice engine, I think an 800 cc engine should do the work and it will be more efficient – ask suzuki – they have a lot 800cc engines.
The key player is Battery technology : GM should be prepared to take out the ICE and generator part when a 500 mile drive on single change in 2 minutes battery/capacitor is available. Then Volu -( i changed t with next u for ultra capacitor) will be less expensive – may be 10-15 k car and no maintenance. Its like your fan or mixer.
Bridge Loans can make only Bridge Cars
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
#96 The Grump Says:
#86 Daniel – When the US makes a 50 MPG car, I’ll buy one.
————————————————————————————–
I somewhat doubt the veracity of that statement; but hey, whatever floats your boat.
#96 The Grump Says:
Competition – that’s what America is about.
————————————————————————————–
Remember that when your job, or that of a family member or a friend gets outsourced to India because the labor is so much cheaper, or because cut-rate imports that aren’t equal in quality but are much cheaper in price force layoffs, or, if you run your own company, force you out of business.
I wouldn’t wish it on anyone; but hey, it’s competition, right?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Black Gold is trading at $39.46/barrel as of 12:25pm today.
Nothing can kill the EV faster than cheap oil.
Even if the Volt sold 5 MILLION copies on November 1, 2010 we would still be totally dependent of OIL ! (aka Black Gold, Texas Tea)
Oil is not going away. Deal with It.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
#95 carcus1 Says: “A “regular” and much cheaper hybrid from ford or Toyota is now upgradeable to a plug in hybrid. If the OEM’s start offering plug-in upgrade options for their hybrids, this will be a big selling point for a more affordable car.”
————————————————————————————–
Initially, people will think as you do, and just look at the fact that it has a plug as being the significant part. But soon after that, people will realize that it’s not the plug, but the electric range that makes the difference.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
#81 Rockyroad says,
How many pepole live or drive on a 8000 ft mountain? A heck of a lot less than live on the east and west coast and commute to work on almost level highway every day. If you live in Colorado on a mountain don’t buy the Volt.
—————
Agreed. I think it is a non issue.
Just like for me with my 101 mile commute. The Volt is not made for me either. But as time goes on, things will get better.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Tony is still smiling…
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/volt_in_red.jpg
=D~
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
#104 Texas Tea Says: “Oil is not going away. Deal with It.”
————————————————————————————–
It’s not about making oil go away, it’s about breaking oil’s monopoly.
Jim Woolsey, Former CIA Director and leader of http://www.setamericafree.org, makes a great analogy in his speeches. Here are his words:
“Salt was the only way to preserve meat until the very late 1800’s. It had a monopoly. Believe it or not, countries went to war over salt mines. If you had a salt mine, you could dominate your neighbor. It was a very big deal.
“Today – salt on the table out there. Do you know where it came from? Are we salt independent? Do you care? Does anybody care, unless they’re in the salt business? Of course not. It’s a useful commodity that does some things, and we buy and sell it in international commerce. Nobody dominates their neighbor anymore because they have a salt mine.
“We need to do that to oil. And we can do it with electricity the way electricity affected salt monopolies in the late 1800’s. We can, we should, and we must, as a major national priority, destroy oil’s monopoly. Absolutely, totally, completely, destroy oil’s monopoly.”
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
#52 Statik says “Ford (in this particular instance), unlike GM plans/builds future cars with reason, logic and accountability.”
I fear you’re letting your inner stock picker take control. Moreover, you’re speaking like an accountant not someone in new product development. GM has made a brilliant choice in focusing on the next technology rather than what is available at the moment. Additionally, GM has better PHEV technology than Ford. No question about that. GM has also deployed that technology in a logical way — putting it in larger vehicles like the Escalade and the Silverado where it makes sense, not in small vehicles like the Fusion where it doesn’t.
The fact that this logical deployment has been a flop is really a comment on how much sense PHEV technology makes. IOW not much. It costs too much for the limited return in gas savings. If you question that, just check out the failure of the of the hybrid Camry and Civic. Unless there is a greed badge consumers simply won’t pay that much extra for so little.
Ford is not now and will not over the next ten years be a player in the electrification of transportation. Hopefully it will make money and sell vehicles. But it is not going to play a significant role in electrifying transportation. And it’s PHEV offerings will be greenwashing losers.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Imagine a continuum, a scale: draw it in your mind (since we can’t post images here).
On the left, is probably the Hummer. On the right, a BEV. Somewhere in the middle, most of us have placed the Volt.
As we move from the left side to the right, we come from the tanks down through mid-size to the little cars like Fit and Yaris, to the assist hybrids, the full hybrids, the plug-in hybrids, the Volt and finally the BEV.
I think if we could look 5 – 10 years ahead, most of us would be shocked (yes, I meant to do that) by the amount of space there actually is on that scale for all sorts of vehicle types.
I happen to think there is room between the EREV and BEV for a car which uses a much smaller engine to stretch the battery-only range while powering accessories. We may see BEV types extended out in terms of range/cost/size/battery chemistry classes.
Many of you know that there is now such a thing as a hybrid locomotive: it would have been impossible to do using Lithium Ion; there’s just not enough power/energy for the cost: it uses ZEBRA (Sodium Nickel Chloride) batteries instead. In case you are wondering, these batteries have already made it into a few full-size city busses.
When it comes to battery chemistry for vehicles, there could well be a race in from the edges: Teeny tiny laptop batteries on the small end moving up in size to power some pretty small vehicles, batteries on the huge end moving down in size to power full-size vehicles.
It could well be a toss-up to predict who will win out in the mid-size vehicle range for variations of these chemistries (provided all the problems for both at this size can be solved). When that happens, or when something like EEStor turns out to be real, ICE-only cars will simply vanish off the scale: but the scale itself won’t be going anywhere.
Even when all road vehicles are electric drive, there will still be a spread of types based on AER, how and when electricity is loaded into them (it it is), how electricity is generated on-board (in those cases where it is), and in what quantity each source is provided.
Interesting times ahead.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
#52 Statik
Once again you have nailed it with your analysis. It is not what we really want to hear, but I must agree with you on most if not all points. GM certainly has their job cut out for them. The only way for the Volt to be highly successful is for fuel cost to soar tremendously (which is possible) and/or for battery cost to plummet. One other way is for the efficiency of the battery to be vastly improved which could give the Volt much increased all electric mileage (possible, but less likely anytime soon). Doom and gloom is not here yet for the Volt and many things will work in GM’s favor, but not as soon as GM needs it to. GM needs to be working on a full BEV program as well as vastly improving their two-mode hybrid system and introducing it to the Cruze, Malibu and Impala. That would give them a more viable line-up if, and this is a big if, they can cut the cost of the two-mode hybrid while increasing its mileage gain. Big ifs for any company to overcome. I don’t see GM concentrating on either the two-mode for the sedans or the BEV program. Maybe they are and they are not telling anyone. While Ford and Toyota suck up all the good hybrid news and show their green colors, GM is working on the Volt and telling very little to make people have great faith in their ability to pull this off. I’m just hoping they can do it and Ford can do their thing, too. The more choices the better. And choice is what it is about when it comes time to make a purchase. Or is it?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
As Dan Petit #35 says…
Using GPS you can supplement the Volt’s software prediction algorithms. Thus maximizing range and minimizing power fade. The GPS can know if there are hills nearby, it even knows the speed limit of nearby roads. If there is only flat terrain and 30 and 40 mph roads within 2 mile radius, you are unlikely to need to accelerate from 0 to 80 mph within the next 2 miles, and thus can bias towards range rather than power.
With the right software you can take it further, like, if you are on a route that the computer knows that you travel 4 out out of 7 days, and it knows that on that route there are no hills it can bias towards range. Indeed someone at GM has talked about it knowing the distance to “home” — easy to automatically identify as a any frequent charging location.
There is so much that you can do with computer algorithms to squeeze a little more range and/or reserve performance out of it, that until you have written and tested such a system it is ill informed to say that E-REV is not as good.
Also many of these computer algorithms can be bolt-on, they can be developed up to later stages of Volt development, until the final testing freeze.
If Dan and I have both thought about this, then I’m sure engineers at GM have. The only thing that would likely hold them back is a KISS principle and management’s ability to manage additional software modules.
The aim is to not have a Volt that performs (100% power) for 100% of the time (although it should be reliable 100% of the time). The aim is 80% of driving being gas free, possibly more since the demographic that buys the Volt may have driving habits with shorter than average daily drives. Similarly we can live with 80% of the power available 80% of the time!
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I can forsee a time in the next 5 to 10 years where a family in the suburbs (not metro areas) will have an HEV SUV like the Tahoe Hybrid and an E-REV like the Volt.
The Tahoe Hybrid gives you the ability to transport 8 passengers, has 4WD for snow, boat launch, etc., and can tow utility trailers or carry 4×8 sheets of plywood in the back. Very versatile vehicle with excellent ride qualilty. With Li-Ion batteries, improved aero, and an updated engine (HCCI, smaller displacement, etc.), this vehicle may well get a 25/28 EPA rating.
The second family vehicle is the Volt, Converj, or similar. This is your insurance policy. At $2 to $3 per gallon, the Tahoe is fine and used quite frequently. But if oil prices go whacky again, the E-REV becomes the high use vehicle, and the Tahoe is used only when necessary.
This gives people the comfort and utility they have come to expect from their vehicles, yet provides insurance against the big swings in oil prices. It may not be the absolute in gas mileage, but history has proven that consumers are not shopping based on gas mileage alone.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Why do people believe a new technology must behave exactly like the old one. If everybody thinks like Ford EREVs or BEVs will never make it.
Or do they think to come one day and say: “Hey we made it! We’ve engineered a electric vehicle that exactly behaves like a ICE vehicle. You can hear all the noise that the engine generates and feel all the vibrations. And by the way to have a easy conversion you can still go to the gas station and fill in a couple of gallons gas. Oh yes, that’s a vehicle people want to buy!”
People have to change their mind ito be able to change the technology!
By the way I want my VCR back, when I insert the videocassette it starts exactly where I ejected it. The DVD-Player doesn’t!
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
RE 112, my prior post, similarly
Ford can solve the 80% problem with their solution, and possibly with less risk and at lower cost. They need to get the electric only speed up. If they get the electric only speed up to maybe 55mph or 65 mph, then maybe we can still go electric only 80% of the time. However, at only 47 mph top electric only it is not quite there for me. I’d be happy with their 30 mile range, but not the 47 mph limit.
It’s all an engineering compromise.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
#109,
The DonC doth protest too much, methinks.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Rashiid
Turbo diesel generator crushes that non-issue permanently. Electric does fine in mountains, anyway. I live at 8,000 feet in the Rocky Mountains and have 2 EVs and go over 12,000 foot passes regularly (I’ve seen mules being tested on them, BTW). No problem. Just more FUD.
Here’s the note for the manual: If you drive like a total hoon (see Jeremy Clarkson), your performance will suffer, true for all vehicles.
G
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
#98 statik,
Again, you prove that you are an accountant and not an engineer.
“I think there is some confusion here. GM does not have any proprietary technology or knowledge that allows for their exclusive benefit of scale. The only thing stopping other car companies from doing the same thing as GM, is that they think it is is a bad idea.”
In actuality, GM has a great deal of proprietary technology. The Volt is an updated EV1, the car everyone in Chris Pain’s movie cried about (note, I haven’t seen it). We all know the secret to making the Volt work, it’s the battery. GM has spent millions of dollars analyzing over 100 battery chemistries, testing batteries 24/7, and developing software to make the battery pack last for 10 years, 150,000 miles. This is probably the big accomplishment for this program.
http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/23/gm-qa-with-bob-kruse-on-the-chevy-volts-batteries/
“Everybody and their dog can make a E-REV.” “If Toyota, Honda, Subaru, whoever wanted in this market they could be in it virtually overnight…even if a ‘non-car’ company wanted in this business (who knows why), they could be in ‘GM’s segment’ almost instantly, heck anyone could buy the entire Chrysler E-REV set-up for a $1.09 and be a player.”
It’s so simple, I’m surprised you haven’t bought Zenn with all your cash and gone into the business. So what kind of engineering and manufacturing business are you in? The automobile press knows that a new car takes 5 or 6 years to develop, and GM is doing a parallel development (car and battery simultaneously) in 4 years. Everyone but you and charlie tuna think the schedule isn’t agressive.
“Worse still, if a real company like GE, who can also make batteries, and has a billion engineers on staff ever decided to get involved and put REAL money behind it, they would have GM’s lunch.”
Having worked for GE as an engineer for over 20 years, you make me laugh. Jack Welch always prided himself on the fact that GE had 500,000 employees when he took over, and less than 200,000 when he left. Where are those billions of engineers on staff?
“Compounding GM’s ‘future problems’ to compete against its peers (even with the ‘benefits of scale’), will be the fact they will also have to make minimum payments on about 200 billion dollars. /that adds a few bucks per car.”
Now here’s a comment that probably fits within your realm of experience. It’s probably best, however, to leave the technical end of things to those with more knowledge and experience.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
By the way,
Lyle, this was quite a scoop.
Your interview draws some EREV vs. PHEV battle lines that weren’t visible before.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
You people are acting like intelligent adults today.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
#109 DonC said:
“I fear you’re letting your inner stock picker take control. Moreover, you’re speaking like an accountant not someone in new product development. GM has made a brilliant choice in focusing on the next technology rather than what is available at the moment.”
===================
It is true, I come at virtually everything from a ‘how fiscally viable is this product/company…what is the risk vs. reward’
As for GM being brilliant focusing on the next technology rather than the current technology, I think we disagree somewhat…I really don’t understand with them currently offering 70+ different vehicles, (including the re-introduction of the global RWD platform to NA this year) why they could not/have not have spit out a couple strong hybrids over the past decade. (and still resist them)
/it baffles me
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
#110 Jackson Says: “I happen to think there is room between the EREV and BEV for a car which uses a much smaller engine to stretch the battery-only range while powering accessories.”
————————————————————————————–
I agree. If you cut the engine output almost in half, and increase the battery energy storage by 20%, the car would still perform the same 95% of the time.
But I think GM was smart to start off a little more conservative. I’m sure there are optimizations yet to be made.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Statik…just blame Bob Lutz
…right?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
#118, BillR1 “The Volt is an updated EV1″
Not even close. The EV1 was an uncompromising effort to build a lightweight, low-drag car to maximize range and it went a pretty fair distance on antiquated lead-acid technology. NiMH EV1s did even better. The Volt is a converted ICE-driven Delta platform with a hole in the chassis for the battery. GM carries enough fuel and a big enough “range extender” that they don’t have to spend a lot of time engineering a wizardmobile. The big BTU content of a gallon of gas means that the Volt can be relatively crude but stilll effective.
#118, BillR1, “GM has spent millions of dollars analyzing over 100 battery chemistries, testing batteries 24/7,…”
That sound like something a battery company should do and a pointlesss waste of time for an auto company. Hand out the spec and the first manufacturer to deliver the battery to that spec, wins. Yes, some testing is necessary but it’s not GM’s job to take on the burden of battery development. Unless they plan to make money selling batteries to others (doesn’t look like that will happen).
#118, BillR1, Argues with “Everybody and their dog can make a E-REV.”
Ford and Toyota can build one by REMOVING parts from their hybrids and adding a little more capability to the electrical components. The software necessary to operate it would be simpler. That would leave Toyota with a lighter vehicle than GM is offering, with noticeably lower drag and Ford with a worthy PHEV that looks like a regular car. Both Toyota and Ford would be starting from platforms that are currently winners (a million Priuses no the road and a Fusion hybrid that beats the Camry hybrid on fuel economy).
Neither Ford nor Toyota is stupid (Ford’s run by people bright enough that they haven’t had to take bailout bucks, at least not yet and Toyota’s success in hybrids speaks for itself).
GM is outvoted by 2 to 1 and the 2 have a better track record in existing hybrids. I’d say that leaves open the door to the possibility that GM is wrong.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
…friggin Bob Lutz
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
#77 Mitch
Umm, duh. Obviously it wouldn’t be for cross country travel at first. Every car doesn’t have to do every purpose. Thats why we have hundreds of models of cars. For an in town car something with a 100 mile range would be perfect a large amount of people.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
#121 statik Says: “It is true, I come at virtually everything from a ‘how fiscally viable is this product/company…what is the risk vs. reward’ ”
————————————————————————————–
If you look back over recent history, most breakthrough products didn’t make financial sense when they were first developed.
Rewind the clock 11 years. 1998. People are taking their music CDs and transferring them onto their computer, processing it into some wacky format called MP3, and then downloading onto a portable playback device. What geeks! Niche market.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Its all excuses. Just don’t drive like a maniac and you wont have a problem with the Volt having limited power. The whole arguement about not having enough power is easy to fix… simply have a large ICE engine… Problem solved. Thing is though you don’t really need that bigger motor is you don’t demand absolute power every freaking instant you own the car. So big freaking deal I want to speed up a hill one a year and it doesn’t do 75. I can live with that. If not all you need is a bigger motor. Excuses.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Ok here is a question for all of you in the know about the Volt.
What happens when you go down from Pikes Peak? We know in a traditional car when you go down you are naturally slowed down as a result of the transmission being engaged. How does this work with the Volt. Would you simply be coasting down a steep grade? Would you need to brake more often that with a traditional ICE vehicle? Would that braking energy be restored in the battery?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Ford said GM’s Two-mode hybrid system is only a PR execise. Now, they came back again and this time against Chevy Volt. What is amazing in this is that Nancy Gioia is 100% that Ford is right and GM wrong! Wow!
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
#124 charlie h Says: “Ford and Toyota can build (an EREV) by REMOVING parts from their hybrids and adding a little more capability to the electrical components. The software necessary to operate it would be simpler.”
————————————————————————————–
You may be underestimating the complexity of “adding a little more capability to the electrical components”. For example, the control software for induction electric motors is far more complex than permanent magnet motors:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45
Also, the software to manage a large battery pack is far from trivial. Lots of intellectual property there.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“I agree. If you cut the engine output almost in half, and increase the battery energy storage by 20%, the car would still perform the same 95% of the time.”
Thank you, Dave G. (#122):
And, I expect you’d pay quite a bit more for that remaining 5%.
Unfortunately, I got lost on the way to my own conclusion (#110), and failed to make the comment completely topical by pointing out that there’s a lot of room at the electrified-car table for both GM’s and Ford’s approaches, as well as others most of us haven’t considered.
The serial hybrid is the right direction, but it could take awhile for that fact to become apparent. Ford and Toyota may become “winners” in the nearer term.
Neither is it written that the Volt will be THE great breakthrough serial hybrid (more because of the financial state of GM than the Voltec concept, itself).
The Volt may well be the right idea at the wrong time, though there is cause for hope.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Charlie h
Ford’s run by people bright enough that they haven’t had to take bailout bucks, at least not yet
agreed..but remember that Ford had to mortgage everything to be in this position including the blue oval..
Just pointing it out…
#128 Mark
EXACTLY..this is why EREV makes sense..remember YOU said we dont need range extender…right now we do…no need for 2 cars.. you would need a BEV for local and an ICE for longer drives..2 x $20,000 econo boxes, or 1 volt…
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
#132 Jethro Bodine Says: “What happens when you go down from Pikes Peak? We know in a traditional car when you go down you are naturally slowed down as a result of the transmission being engaged. How does this work with the Volt?”
————————————————————————————–
You’ll have to use the brake pedal a lot, but the Volt will have very strong regenerative braking, so you won’t heat up the brake pads.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
#68 Zero X Owner
Thanks for a very insightful comment. I really enjoyed reading it. Now, whether your view is correct only time will tell. I hold somewhat the same view as do many others here. The future should be bright for both Ford and GM if they can weather the next 3 years. Ford has a better plan for the immediate future with their hybrids, but GM is going for the “Hail Mary” pass. If successful, touchdowns will occur.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
#118 BillR said:
…lots of things
————————————–
Just figured I would acknowledge your post. It was long and you put a lot of thought into it, which I can appreciate, even if I don’t agree.
At the end of the day, we all have got opinions.
================================
BillR1 said:
“It’s so simple, I’m surprised you haven’t bought Zenn with all your cash and gone into the business. So what kind of engineering and manufacturing business are you in?…It’s probably best, however, to leave the technical end of things to those with more knowledge and experience”
Personally, my roots are in the clothing manufacturing business, although 90% of my time goes into investing now, which (unlike investing) gives me no insight into the auto business, lol. Other than I know I could get a hat made in NA by about 20 different sources 15 years ago…today, nobody. The same trend is happening for autos now, and with be further exasperated as the car is commoditized by the transfer of the ICE system to the battery.
If a Zenn was road legal in Ontario, I would probably own one, but I have no desire to get into this business, anymore than I would desire to be in the airline business or give out subprime loans…after all as you say, I like to invest, and the NA automobile industry is a dog.
While I love the Volt, and I would very much like for GM to just build the thing already, investing has taught me to disassociate my personal desire of a product from the reality that it (or GM) will ever be successful in any tangible/fiscal way…and that 99% of the ‘promises’ about the future, end of being nothing but air.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
#124 Charlie,
The Volt is an updated EV1. Just do some research. I posted a technical comparison in the forum, T-shaped battery, inverter with AC motor, low rolling resistance tires, lightweight aluminum wheels, etc. Even GM calls the Volt a natural extention of the EV1.
Regarding batteries and hybrids, not everyone could do it, or they would. Toymota is on record as stating Li-Ion batteries are not ready (the ones from Japan burst into flames). GM has done their homework. They know that that battery pack is expensive, and to replace one at mid-life in an auto may cost $20,000 retail (even with NiMH). So the key is to design a battery that can last the life of the vehicle, and that is exactly what GM is doing.
No other manufacturer is even close.
But keep on dreaming that your E-REV from the land of the rising sun is just around the corner and will have a 10 year, 150,000 mile battery warranty.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
You know, we all have been saying that reducing our dependence on foreign oil reduces money for terrorists. This is not absolutely true. It does not take much to support true terrorists and there will be many other countries purchasing crude oil that will continue funding terrorists.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Ford is merely asserting a thought that has occurred to many before. There is a maximum size range with present technology for the EREV series approach. I thought that it would max out at about the segment “D” level auto, like a Caddy DTS or big Buick.
For larger vehicle and trucks, those with a hauling and towing expectation, the parallel-series designs in PHEV format would predominate. Such has been the case, as big SUVs and Pickups have this design in a HEV implementation version, and maintain full hauling/towing capacity.
Certainly Ford is crowing about what it has and denigrating what it doesn’t have; but what is new about that? Reality is that there is probably both versions in our futures, as Dr. Frank at UC Davis has demonstrated before. EREV is the most efficient, but does not fit all needs. Series-Parallel designs have their place,even if less efficient. We will have both.
As for those comments that Ford has made a poor copy of the Toyota HSD they are wrong. Ford has developed a better but not perfect version. It is proved by the relative mileages achieved by the hybrid Camry and hybrid Ford Fusion. Ford won hands down, for these near identically sized cars.
But neither design is as good as the dual-mode design, that has been developed by the GM, Daimler Chrysler, and BMW. That design was meant to appear in four different models of which we have seen only one, and will soon see the second of the four. The first was engineered for the heaviest RWD vehicles and is overkill for sedans. The FWD version of that large size is or will soon appear in a Vue SUV, still a heavy vehicle. In a year or two, the smaller downsized version wil appear probably in the DTS and C-300 , S class and 7 Series sedans in both RWD and FWD versions.
With the efficiency improvements intrinsic in the dual-mode hybrid design, I could see a GM “Big Caddy” delivering 40+ mpg in both city and highway driving, Very similar to the Ford Fusion smaller platform, except the highway mileage would improve and the size would be one size up.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
#128 MarkJ Says: “Every car doesn’t have to do every purpose. Thats why we have hundreds of models of cars. For an in town car something with a 100 mile range would be perfect a large amount of people.”
————————————————————————————–
I live in New Jersey, and it costs a lot of money just to insure an extra car. It’s far less expensive to buy cars that are capable of everything we need.
Yes, I could rent a car for longer trips, provided I know about the trip ahead of time. For example, what if I find out that my brother, who lives 230 miles away, just went into the emergency room, and it’s 11pm, so all the rental places are closed. There are many other examples. There are way too many “what-ifs” for me to ever buy a pure BEV. I don’t think I’m alone here.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
#121 statik Says: “It is true, I come at virtually everything from a ‘how fiscally viable is this product/company…what is the risk vs. reward’ ”
————————————————————————————–
#129 Dave G Says:
“If you look back over recent history, most breakthrough products didn’t make financial sense when they were first developed.
Rewind the clock 11 years. 1998. People are taking their music CDs and transferring them onto their computer, processing it into some wacky format called MP3, and then downloading onto a portable playback device. What geeks! Niche market.
==============================
I hear what you are saying. Yes, there are examples of great success, and yes, I can allow for the fact that GM ‘could’ stumble across a winning formula, but I have to keep that possible success in a realistic context.
How many abject failures have there been for each example of great success? 1,000 to 1? 10,000 to 1? Obviously, a innovative, game changing and successful breakthrough is a very rare occurance, especially in relation to the amount of attempts to develop one.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Ford and GM are both right, depending on the situation. If you live in a remote area of the mountain West, then the Ford hybrid approach is superior. If you live in a remote area of flat flat Kansas, then Ford’s advantage quickly disappears. If you live in an apartment without a garage, then a standard hybrid approach is best. If you have a private garage and do overwhelmingy city driving, then the Volt is vastly superior. We live in a diverse country and we are best served by a diverse list of alternatives. I wish both Ford and GM well.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
#95 carcus1:
Actually, I didn’t say that. I think you got me confused with someone else’s comment. Guilt by association, LOL? Anyway, don’t give me credit for anything I didn’t say. I can get in quite enough trouble on my own!
#96 The Grump:
Can’t argue with that.
#120 ThombDbhomb:
Scary, ain’t it?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
#143 Dave G
What if I want need to drive down a 4×4 trail and I have a Corvette? What if I need to move a couch with a Geo Metro? There is a million what ifs of course. No vehicle can be capable of “everything we need” You buy a vehicle that will do the job most of the time for your needs. But don’t kid yourself thinking one vehicle can do it all.
For a metro driver commuter car, a non range extended EV is perfectly viable.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
#145 Jim in PA Says: “If you live in a remote area of the mountain West, then the Ford hybrid approach is superior. If you live in a remote area of flat flat Kansas, then Ford’s advantage quickly disappears.”
————————————————————————————–
You seem to imply that Ford has an advantage on steep grades. This is not the case. See post #12 for details.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
#147 MarkJ,
We disagree.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
@141 N Riley:
Plus the fact that the #1 country in 2008 that the US imported oil from was Canada.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
My goal is to reduce dependence on oil, foreign or domestic.
Also, I think there is no “one size fits all” EREV or BEV, parallel or series, etc. I think the competition will benefit us all.
Personally though, the electric drive EREV of GM and Chrysler will work best for me.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
#142 stas peterson Says: “Ford is merely asserting a thought that has occurred to many before. There is a maximum size range with present technology for the EREV series approach. I thought that it would max out at about the segment “D” level auto, like a Caddy DTS or big Buick.”
————————————————————————————–
This is a good point. GM has admitted that EREV doesn’t scale to SUVs with current battery technology.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Dave G (#143):
“I live in New Jersey”
I’m sorry.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Ford seems to have the right idear.
Lean more on the Gas power until the Battery gets cheaper.
In the long run Ford will have better profit margins with this approach.
GM are you listening ??
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
#141 N Riley Says: “You know, we all have been saying that reducing our dependence on foreign oil reduces money for terrorists. This is not absolutely true. It does not take much to support true terrorists and there will be many other countries purchasing crude oil that will continue funding terrorists.”
————————————————————————————–
Remember that the U.S. currently consumes 25% of world oil production. If the U.S. consumed a lot less oil, world oil prices would fall sharply, which means a lot less money for terrorists, and a lot less money for governments that are hostile towards the U.S..
As for how much it takes to support true terrorists, the idea is this: If you are a suicide bomber, they will support your family for life, probably much better than you ever could have provided. Not so cheap.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
150 fredevad,
“Personally though, the electric drive EREV of GM and Chrysler will work best for me.”
I agree completely, you can’t do any better than using zero gas and that’s the whole point! We have to get off of our oil addiction and GM and Chrysler are offering cars that will use zero gas. I drive less than 40 miles a day so the only time a might possibly use any gas is on the weekends.
I think Ford might be missing the boat on this one.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
#87 Jp
Where are getting this information? I have not heard it yet. Of course, that in itself does not mean anything. I don’t hear of very much sometimes. But, if true, this would be really great for GM. They need vehicles like this to be able to stay in the market, else they are going to edged out by Ford and Toyota. Enough said.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
#88 Schmeltz
Seems like the last time I actually priced a regular Ford Escape Hybrid it was around $35,000. That is without a plug and larger battery. If you look at Ford’s web-site, you can’t get a price on-line for a Escape Hybrid. They just send your information to a local dealer to give you a quote. Sounds like they are not all that proud of the price and don’t want to scare you away until the dealer gets his hands on you.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
For all those that live in New Jersey, we are deeply saddened by your predicament. At least you can still dream about living in New York one day.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
#152 Jackson Says: (regarding living in New Jersey) “I’m sorry.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, living in NJ is pretty nice. I’m 45 minutes from Manhattan, 1 hour from the Appalachian Trail, and 1.5 hours from the Atlantic shore. Our suburban neighborhood is nice. Schools are good. We also have a nice park with woods next door.
The main problem is all the people. New Jersey has the highest population density in the nation. Lots of people. Lots of traffic.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Just read some some of my own link from (#150), this sounds to me like by the time we buy our gas at the pumps, there is no distinction between foreign and domestic oil and seems to further confirm (#141) N Riley’s comment. In the end, it’s all just mixed together.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/contactexperts.htm
Wow. Seems we need these cars more than ever.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
#98 statik says “Everybody and their dog can make a E-REV. Little Fisker has one (in production), Tesla has a prototype ready to roll and just wants their gov’t check (like GMs) to put it in production.”
Yikes! You are missing things on the tech side. BillR is really right on point here. Serial hybrids are hard to make. BEVs are quite simple by comparison. FWIW Fisker is sourcing its engine from GM, and it can only meet its launch date, if, and only if, it skips the testing phase where all the components come together. (IOW don’t hold your breadth for the Karma to be launched on time.) Tesla was stunned and caught off guard by the Volt. Originally the story was that all their cars would be pure electric, but the change of mind on that issue along with their new found desire for Detroit based talent should suggest where their collective corporate heads are at the moment.
I will say this though. Anyone and their dog can make a BEV. This is no big deal. You could probably make one in your garage. However, to make a BEV that you can use in all types of weather and for years without significant battery problems is a completely different question. The Volt is truly a remarkable piece of technology.
BillR and Charlie h on the question of whether the Volt is the successor to the EV1:
Objectively you’d have to say “yes.” As Bill points out the basic design is quite similar. Moreover, GM did build a plug in serial hybrid with specs which mirror the Volt’s.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Take the Ford Fusion Hybrid. 41/36 Base price is 28k and expect to pay over 30 with any options. Great car, great reviews, excellent gas mileage, but consider price. If the Volt is anything under 40k with a 7500 tax rebate then the price is about the same with MUCH better mileage although it will only seat four. Right now I see that being the biggest hurdle for GM. The 7500 tax incentive will really help GM, but they desperately need a five seater.
Hawk
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Statik is Nutz for Lutz.
You guys should give Statik his due – It is difficult to imagine how GM is going to survive to build the Volt and how many copies they’re gonna sell with their little pricing problem.
If you had a big competitor that had lots of cash and lots of production advantages, do you think they might try to undermine your novel Volt product with a 30 mile plug in Camry at $10k less.
Speaking of Pike’s Peak – That’s eggzackly what GM is looking at.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Most of our oil comes from Canada. Not exactly a country out to harm us. You never hear that in the media.
Of course I still want to get rid of oil as fast as possible, but lets be clear where most of it comes from.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Shawn Marshall (#163):
My fear is that in a year or less, we’ll all be saying that statik was far too optimistic in early 2009.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
#146 Noel Park
Ooooh yeah. I was responding to 88 Schmeltz.
Oops.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
#8 says it all. But concerning performance…
Sorry Ford, but it appears that GM has solved a lot of the problems you have mentioned and in my opinion your judgment is flawed by an overly short-term perspective. Parallel hybrids are simply not the way to go- all-electric drive is *far* superior and less complex. Batteries will fall in price and rise in energy density, so your objections to a series design (if they even hold water currently) are not gonna hold in even the fairly near future.
Ford’s statement basically is – “we couldn’t get EREV to work (not really electro-mechanically, but finding good predictive algorithms, etc.), so how could GM have done so?” Sorry, but they have. Now I can see why GM is so proud of their proprietary battery management software. Good work programmers.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
#98 Statik,
A 6 paragraph dissertation that seems perfectly themed for, yet never mentions, BYD . . ?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Bang! Ccombs hits a home run. Truly superior and inspiring management that’s highly responsive to continual feedback from the working power that it oversees while maintaining a must do attitude makes ALL the difference with real world, long term, workable battery performance. Now, if GM could just apply that concept to their upper level people.
Once EVs no longer have to emulate the craptastic performance of pure gassers, we can really optimize them.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
170 posts on this topic???
It is going to be a very long wait intil Nov, 2010……
And Lyle better buy some more hard disks!!!!!
See you tomorrow!
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Chipping away vs. leap-frog:
Ford Ranked as Tops in Industry for Tech Patents
http://www.dynamicpatents.com/tag/the-patent-board/
For you gear-heads, a good summary list of improvements Ford made to their fusion ICE in order to achieve the best in class 23/34 mpg:
Tech Analysis: 2010 Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan powertrains
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/10/30/tech-analysis-2010-ford-fusion-mercury-milan-powertrains-38-mp/
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
#157 N Riley:
Thanks…I didn’t know a regular (no plug) Escape Hybrid cost that much. Ouch. And people here are complaining about the cost of a Volt???
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Again, it’s more meaningful to look at overall efficiency in KWh / 100 miles, than just the gas portion, as Dave does with gas used and MPG or just the electric portion, as Van does. Both of their analyses are incomplete.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
#163 Shawn Marshall:
#165 Jackson:
Alas too true, I deeply fear.
#170 Jim I:
Yeah, I was just going to say. Dr. Dennis can generate 100+ comments on almost every single topic here. Many (most?) blog hosts would die to be able to generate that much traffic.
It says a lot for him, and for the level of interest in the Volt. For Dr. Dennis, and all of you, to be able to sustain this level of interest and participation for going on 2 years is truly impressive. Well done to all. I hope that GM appreciates what is going on here.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
It’s not electric unless you can plug it in. E-REV is such a screwy misnomer, but GM needs a way to get out from under that portrayal of having killed the electric car. So they’re portraying their plugin hybrid as if it is an electric car. Bleah. Do these car companies really want to do the right thing? Or do they want to maintain the duopoly with the oil companies? They’ve got 100+ years of operation in the model they have and it may be difficult to let go of the relationship they have with the oil companies.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
@ carcus1
patents are more about barriers to entry than about relative levels of technology application
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
This thread is excellent as it clearly expresses a concern that we discussed months ago. The VOLT needs the ability to hold the battery charge high when touring across country. When the driver is not going to plug-in, there is no reason to drop battery charge to 30%. A city/country switch would indicate to the VOLT that the driver does not plan on plugging in. While in country mode the VOLT would keep the battery charged for hills and passing. Once the driver arrives at the destination city, a return to city mode would return the VOLT to normal operation. A simple solution to compete with Ford’s design.
The country mode could also be a life saver when running low on fuel. The battery would be charged to help get the VOLT to the next gas station.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
#161, Don C, “Objectively you’d have to say “yes”" to the idea that the Volt is an updated EV1.
No. Objectively, it isn’t. From Wikipedia:
General Motors used many advanced technologies in developing the EV1. These included:
Aluminum frame
Dent resistant side panels
Anti-lock brakes
Traction control
Heat pump (Heater/AC)
Keyless entry and keyless ignition
Special one-way thermal glass to allow for better heat rejection
Regenerative braking
Very low drag coefficient – Cd~0.19, CdA~0.36 m² (3.95 ft²)
Super light magnesium alloy wheels
Self-sealing & low rolling resistance tires (developed by Michelin)
Automated tire pressure loss warning system
Magnesium framed seats
Time programmable HVAC (cabin heating or cooling) settings
Most of these technologies were included to improve the overall efficiency of the EV1.
It was a two-seater. It had a drag coefficient of .195, significantly lower than the Volt. GM pulled out all the stops on this car. I once looked at a cutaway diagram, there were other features in that car that still aren’t in production vehicles. If the battery happens to be the same shape or other features match up, it’s because engineering around restrictions often leads to the same solutions.
There was a variant that had a range-extender. It was driven by a gas turbine. Is that anything like the Volt? Noooo…
—
The idea of significant “proprietary” value in battery charge algorithms is ridiculous. First, Toyota figured that out for the Prius and Ford did the same for the Escape; it’s part of what keeps it on the road for a couple hundred thousand miles. Second, the manufacturer should be able to guide the batter user as to how the cells perform. Third, then there’s the trial and error bit, where you do make some changes to see what happens. It’s part of the process.
Without the complication of engine power being drawn directly to the wheels, the Volt algorithms will be simpler. The Volt is simpler. This is something that Toyota and Ford can do, if they want.
I’m not going to let GM’s constant stream of press releases overwhelm me. Successs speaks for itself; Toyota and Ford have good hybrid programs and vehicles that excel today.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
#176 Zero X,
“patents are more about barriers to entry than about relative levels of technology application”
_____________________________________________________
OK,
1. Patents do more harm than good.
2. The zero X is the best choice for a ski vacation from Denver to Vail.
3. Ford Escape Hybrids cost $35,000.
Got it.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
#164 Sal Man Says: “Most of our oil comes from Canada.”
————————————————————————————–
19% of our oil is imported from Canada, but this really misses the point. It’s a world oil market. If we don’t buy from a particular country, someone else will. So world oil production is what really matters. Here’s a list of the top producers:
Country …………………… Millions of Barrels per Day
Saudi Arabia ……………… 8.65
Russia …………………….. 6.57
Norway ……………………. 2.54
Iran ………………………… 2.519
United Arab Emirates …… 2.515
Venezuela ……………….. 2.20
Kuwait …………………….. 2.150
Nigeria ……………………. 2.146
Algeria ……………………. 1.85
Mexico ……………………. 1.68
Libya ……………………… 1.53
Iraq ……………………….. 1.44
Angola ……………………. 1.36
Kazakhstan ……………… 1.11
Canada ………………….. 1.07
These are the countries that benefit most from our addiction to foreign oil.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
#164 Sal Man said:
Most of our oil comes from Canada. Not exactly a country out to harm us. You never hear that in the media.
———————–
Mission accomplished, we have lulled you into a false sense of security!
/we are a hugemongus sleeper cell
====================================
#68 carcus1 said:
#98 Statik, said, “A 6 paragraph dissertation that seems perfectly themed for, yet never mentions, BYD . . ?”
—————-
I actually intentionally left them out…but you could add them. I’ve just heard for soooo long the Chinese automakers are coming I have gone numb to it…let alone a Chinese electric car in America. (not even sure they could jump through all the regulatory hurdles that would be required…we will see)
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
#9 JEC (self)
I am still confident the Volt can be a success, but I believe it will be dependent upon the cost of the battery to be less.
The Volt concept is valid, and the Ford approach is valid. The more we move to the electrification of vehicles, the better the world will ultimately be.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
#173 Zero X Owner Says: “Again, it’s more meaningful to look at overall efficiency in KWh / 100 miles”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt has an all-electric range of about 40 miles, and it uses 8kwh of battery to get that. So with a simple calculation, we see the Volt’s electric efficiency rating is around 20 KWh / 100 miles.
But for me, gasoline usage is the key factor. We don’t fund Iranian nuclear scientists or Saudi Arabian born terrorists when we drive on electricity.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
177 Mark Z
“The country mode could also be a life saver when running low on fuel. The battery would be charged to help get the VOLT to the next gas station.”
==================================================
This topic has been discussed a lot in the past, but it is an interesting scenario.
Did Lyle ask about this already? If so, just skip the rest of my babble below.
What will happen if you find yourself stranded out of fuel. The battery is at 30%, but the software algorithms say “No Go”.
So, will GM provide some type of override that will allow you to use some percentage of the remaining 30% SOC in an emergency?
If they do, I see this as something people will abuse, and use all the time. If they do not, I can see you will have a lot of people saying why?
I also understand that if the car runs out of gas, tough luck. Today’s ICE cars have lived with this scenario forever.
I would guess GM will provide some type of method to allow over riding the 30% SOC limit, and perhaps they keep some type of counter that records this and GM says “hey if you use this over ride more than X times over the life of the battery, your battery warranty is void”.
Just a guess…
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I am still confident the Volt can be a success
_______________________
What does success mean?
How many on the road after 2 years… after 5 years?
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
#180 Dave G said:
19% of our oil is imported from Canada, but this really misses the point. It’s a world oil market. If we don’t buy from a particular country, someone else will. So world oil production is what really matters. Here’s a list of the top producers:
Country …………………… Millions of Barrels per Day
Saudi Arabia ……………… 8.65
Russia …………………….. 6.57
Norway ……………………. 2.54
Iran ………………………… 2.519
United Arab Emirates …… 2.515
Venezuela ……………….. 2.20
Kuwait …………………….. 2.150
Nigeria ……………………. 2.146
Algeria ……………………. 1.85
Mexico ……………………. 1.68
Libya ……………………… 1.53
Iraq ……………………….. 1.44
Angola ……………………. 1.36
Kazakhstan ……………… 1.11
Canada ………………….. 1.07
These are the countries that benefit most from our addiction to foreign oil.
========================
I think your list is of net exports, not production…and perhaps you are using the very outdated, seldom updated CIA factbook.
Canada actually exported just over 2.5 million barrels of both crude and refined oil per day to the US last year. We have been ramping like crazy the last few years…which of course has completely leveled off now, with the spot price trading at $40.17.
You are correct that it really doesn’t matter who the oil comes from, as it is a world market, that is unless for some reason OPEC (or other) countries started cutting direct deals, circumventing the system to cut off the US…which is highly (like unbelievably highly) unlikely. Or under even more extreme circumstances it would be beneficial to have a local drug dealer to your north if the international community severely broke down. (think war…bigtime). Both scenarios are almost apocalyptical (and therefore unlikely) in nature.
Side note: This is a great topic thread, and a great comments section…very intelligent and very civilized, a real pleasure today. (Except for everyone who disagreed with me…you guys are clearly mental patients of some kind, and should banned forever)
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
#182 JEC said:
I am still confident the Volt can be a success
_______________________
#185 john1701a said:
What does success mean?
How many on the road after 2 years… after 5 years?
=============================
I think many of our discussions/disagreements here are waged over very different interpretations of the word “success” in relation to the Volt and GM.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I think many of our discussions/disagreements here are waged over very different interpretations of the word “success” in relation to the Volt and GM.
__________________________
That’s why I’m asking.
Two-Mode enthusiast posts claiming technical superiority prior to rollout were virtually identical to those we are seeing now for Volt. They ended up proclaiming sales count as the measure of success.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Statik.. Negative but funny, again…
It will be a success when i am driving my Volt…
Probably not in 662 days time. But soon after is OK with me.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
john1701a
I agree. So, here is what I was defining as success as it applies to the Volt
1) They get it designed and meet the specifications that they promise (do not ask me what these are exactly, since no one knows the exact specs)
2) They are able to sell the vehicles they produce, and reach a true profit within say 2-3 years following introduction.
3) They reach a “significant” number of vehicles sold within 1-2 years following initial introduction. My definition of significant would be >25,000/year after the 3rd year and at least double that within the second year.
3) The Volt concept is applied to other vehicles in the GM lineup.
4) The price of the Volt drops to under $30,000 within 1-2 years following introduction. (before any rebates or credits. I do not want false value to be factored into buying a Volt)
These are my definitions, and your definitions and mileage may vary.
PS: Right now success for any auto maker is survival.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
#186 statik Says: “I think your list is of net exports, not production…and perhaps you are using the very outdated, seldom updated CIA factbook.”
————————————————————————————–
Right. I just did a quick google, and got this list from 2006.
http://middleeast.about.com/od/oilenergy/a/me070906a.htm
So it looks like its 2 to 3 years old, and it is in terms of exports and not production, which was my mistake. But I think it’s a good reference. The numbers may have changed a little over the last 2-3 years, but the major players are still the same. My point is that half of the countries on this list have citizens or governments that are hostile toward the U.S..
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Wonderful, Ford is going to invent the “plug in” Prius…
I’m going to file this thread under the same category as the EESU until Ford releases electric range estimates and battery costs…
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
#190 JEC,
This is a good list.
For the number of vehicles sold, I would like to see:
10,000 of model year 2011 (starting for sale in Nov 2010)
50,000 of model year 2012
100,000 of model year 2013
But I agree the Volt could be considered a success with 1/2 these numbers.
As for the price, the tax rebate is going to be part of the package for a while. They’re talking about doubling the number of vehicles for this credit. So I wouldn’t look for a sub-$30K Volt before tax credits until the 2014 model year. But I do think the Volt will be sub-$30K after tax credits way before then, perhaps even for the 2011 model year.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
#110 Jackson Says: “I happen to think there is room between the EREV and BEV for a car which uses a much smaller engine to stretch the battery-only range while powering accessories.”
————————————————————————————–
I agree. If you cut the engine output almost in half, and increase the battery energy storage by 20%, the car would still perform the same 95% of the time. (Dave G)
==============================
We all love acronyms here, and I’ve just thought of one to use for an EV with a small engine to stretch battery range: AREV.
Augmented Range Electric Vehicle.
The key difference is mainly one of philosophy: there would be no attempt to “sustain charge” when the battery runs down. Rather, you’d run the engine pretty much constantly at it’s one, most efficient speed, if you have to extend a 40 mile AER range out to 100 miles. or more. If you get stuck out somewhere with a depleted battery, you might have to pull over to the side for a few minutes (after tackling that pesky passing big rigs on Pike’s Peak problem, for example).
Significantly, you could still drive all-electric on a < 40 mile daily commute. For most purposes, this would satisfy range anxiety. If you want to drive like a maniac, pony up for a real EREV.
And, there might be a market for an even less expensive version that performs the same as a Volt only 70 – 80% of the time (though with less volume, weight and actual cost for a smaller engine, an AREV might well have a larger battery for less cost.
I agree that the Volt is the wise place to start. An AREV will charge and discharge more in a typical day due to catching up at red lights and when coasting downhill, etc; so it might not work well with Volt gen I batteries. In 5 years post-Volt introduction, I think manufacturers might start looking into AREV as a poor man’s EREV.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
#178 charlie h says “There was a variant that had a range-extender. It was driven by a gas turbine. Is that anything like the Volt? Noooo…”
You seem overly excited about modest details. The fact the Volt won’t have an expensive turbine engine doesn’t change the basic similarity to the EV1 serial hybrid. The Volt will have a navigation system that the EV1 did not, but does that make the Volt fundamentally different from the EV1?
The EV1 serial hybrid, which could accelerate from 0-60 mph in 9 seconds, ran on batteries until the SOC reached 40%, at which time a gen set kicked in, delivered 40 kW, ran the car, and recharged the batteries to a 50% SOC (is this sounding very familiar?). The engine could run on gas or alternatives fuels, and with a fuel tank capacity of 6.5 gallons could deliver, along with the batteries, a highway range of 400 miles.
Make a few modest changes and you could be talking about the Volt.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
#178 charlie h
Here is a cutaway view of the EV1:
http://www.eanet.com/ev1-club/evpics.htm
From your post…..
General Motors used many advanced technologies in developing the EV1. These included:
Aluminum frame – Volt? maybe, maybe not
Dent resistant side panels – Volt? – GM will neither confirm nor deny
Anti-lock brakes – Volt? likely
Traction control – Volt? likely
Heat pump (Heater/AC) – Volt? likely
Keyless entry and keyless ignition – Volt? yes
Special one-way thermal glass to allow for better heat rejection – volt? maybe
Regenerative braking – Volt, yes
Very low drag coefficient – Cd~0.19, CdA~0.36 m² (3.95 ft²) Volt? GM will not publicly release this number, so no one knows what it is
Super light magnesium alloy wheels -False, squeeze cast alumimum; to be lightweight forged aluminum on Volt
Self-sealing & low rolling resistance tires (developed by Michelin) -Volt, yes
Automated tire pressure loss warning system – Volt, yes
Magnesium framed seats – Volt, info not given
Time programmable HVAC (cabin heating or cooling) settings – Volt, likely
——————–
Now look at the chassis. The front end, front wheel drive, differential, basic suspension, will all be similar in the Volt. The EV1 has electric rear brakes, and that was also the spec for the original Volt concept. We don’t have confirmation on the rear brake actuation for the production version. Rear suspension is compound crank twist axle (similar to EV1).
Here is what GM has officially released.
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=48589
Now you can check some dimensions by looking here:
http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf
So yes, the Volt is a 4-door, 4 passenger car versus the 2-door, 2 passenger EV1, but close inspection will reveal to anyone who is technically inclined that the Volt got its roots from the EV1.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
#172 Schmeltz
Locally the Ford Escape Hybrid’s MSRP is $29,645 before destination charges, dealer prep, etc. With dealer markup and a few good options added it can be pretty expensive. Maybe why Ford doesn’t list the price on their web-site (at least I didn’t see it today). It is a nice vehicle if you wanted an SUV that is pretty thrifty with fuel. No real competition for the Volt, except carrying capacity.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
#174 Noel Park
“Yeah, I was just going to say. Dr. Dennis can generate 100+ comments on almost every single topic here. Many (most?) blog hosts would die to be able to generate that much traffic.”
——————–
Either that or we just like to “talk”. I think it is the subject most of the times, don’t you?
Lyle, you do an excellent job. I wish I could do as much for the Volt “family” as you have done. GM should be eternally grateful for the job you do for them. Sometimes I think they don’t deserve the work you do and I suspect they don’t come close to appreciating your endeavors. Come on, GM. Let Dr. Lyle Dennis know how much you appreciate his efforts and do it PUBLICLY.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Lyle, you almost have 200 comments on this subject. It is a good subject. To insure you get that 200, I am going to make one more comment.
(Quote)
February 6th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Now, here is number 200. Keep up the good work Lyle. Get the Volt on the road GM or you will not be successful ever again because no one will ever believe anything you say or do. Prove all the naysayers wrong and get it out and do it by 7/4/2010. Independence Day, man. Yeah…..
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 12:01 am
“People are referring to Gioia as “him” or “he”. Is Nancy Gioia a guy?”
No, ever since the operation he has been female.
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Can anyone explain Ford’s concept, I find it a little confusing ??
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 3:24 am
I think the Ford system is like the Prius, where it can operate in all electric mode with the ICE off and claim series hybrid operation, and can operate with a combination of ICE mechanically transmitted power and electrical power driving the wheels, and also claim parallel hybrid operation, hence, the term blended hybrid or parallel – series hybrid.
This design facilitates the use of a small battery – in the 1 to 2 KWh range. Thus it is a less risky design approach pending the development of lithium batteries with a cost under $500 per KWh.
For example, if the Volt battery costs $750 per KWh, and therefore the pack adds about $12,000 to the price, a design using only 5 KWh would come in at a cost of under $4000. This would still provide an AER of about 15 miles and greatly cut gas consumption for those of us who drive less than 15 miles most days.
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Sounds like Ford doesn’t want to admit GM beat them to it, and doesn’t want to appear playing follow the leader now that Chrysler is directly copying GM now.
We’ll see how long it takes them to change their tune, they will eventually.
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 8:10 am
#194 Jackson Says: “We all love acronyms here, and I’ve just thought of one to use for an EV with a small engine to stretch battery range: AREV – Augmented Range Electric Vehicle.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. The basic series type design has lots of room for improvement in the future.
Here’s how it might happen. We know that the current 53kw gas engine supplies way more than enough power for average driving. For example, going 75 MPH on level ground only requires around 30kw. So let’s assume the AREV has an engine around that size.
But since the gas engine no longer handles any higher speed uphill driving or acceleration, the battery would have to be larger. Specifically, If you replaced the Volt’s 16kwh battery with a 20kwh battery, set the customer full point at 88%, and the customer depletion point (CDP) at 44%, then you would still have 8kwh of energy to power the first 40 miles all-electric, but you would have 8.8kwh of energy in the battery when the engine turns on instead of 4.8kwh as the Volt has now. The greater amount of energy in the battery at CDP would allow high speed uphill driving and passing with the smaller gas engine for many miles, surely enough till the next downhill grade.
From the driver’s point of view, the main problem is that you couldn’t go over 75 MPH on long trips. If you do, the car will slow you down to 75 MPH when the battery gets too low, maybe after an hour or so.
From a design point of view, there are 2 issues:
1) A 20kwh battery instead of the current 16khw battery. This will take a few years of battery chemistry improvements to fit the same size and weight of the current Volt’s battery.
2) If you have a 30kw (40 max horsepower) engine, how efficient would that engine be at max power? Most gas engines are most efficient toward the middle of their power output range. However, newer types of gas engines may have good efficiency near their max output.
So an AREV, as you call it, would be something I would expect in the future, perhaps around 2015 or so. The main point here is that the the basic series type design has lots of room for optimization in the future.
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 8:15 am
#64 N Riley said
Of course, another way to look at it is that they [Ford] may be saying all of this as a way of justifying their decision to go the way they are going and not develop a competing drive train to the Volt’s. You just never know for sure. They have and will spend much money on their platform and they do not want to be second guessed before the final results are in.
———————————————
Ford has set out a plan that is an evolution of their present product lines. They now are explaining to us why their plan is best. Ford would not be investing millions in doing their plan unless they judged it to be the best one (for Ford at least), and no doubt, having convinced themselves, they are trying to convince us too.
My understanding of their basic argument is that they can produce a car that is more satisfying to drive while also being cheaper. Even though Ford’s vehicles will use more gas than Voltec it is better on balance, they argue. Even though my heart is with Voltec (and with using no gas), I think that Ford will be tough competition. Lower price is a powerful attractant, and doubly powerful if coupled with better performance.
That is, in my more long-winded fashion, I completely agree with you. Ford people are hardly impartial analysts. Rather, they are justifying their decision. But they have some good arguments.
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 8:27 am
#198 N. Riley said:
“Lyle, you do an excellent job. I wish I could do as much for the Volt “family” as you have done. GM should be eternally grateful for the job you do for them. Sometimes I think they don’t deserve the work you do and I suspect they don’t come close to appreciating your endeavors. Come on, GM. Let Dr. Lyle Dennis know how much you appreciate his efforts and do it PUBLICLY.”
————————-
I couldn’t agree more with that sentiment. Hey GM, isn’t it soon about time for that test drive for Lyle?
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 8:52 am
PHEV (Ford & Toyota & GM 2-Mode) = path to less gas
EREV & BEV = path to no gas
Simple as that. Both are good and needed. We won’t have a full line of EREVs & BEVs readily available at the dealerships in enough volume to cover all new sales anytime soon, so both are welcome. Both are vulnerable to the same “turtling” concern. EREVs allow for different opportunities to mitigate this concern and GM has spoken to this.
It’s a shame Nancy Gioia didn’t stick to the real present day advantages of her technology rather than a Ford(eese) regurgitated version of Toyota’s propaganda paper. For example:
“what we’ve looked at because of the battery costs and the size of the battery, and the weight of the battery, and the fact that battery technology is going to continue to evolve, we believe that the blended hybrid is a better solution” And which tech is better positioned to take advantage of advancements in batterries, one that relies on the batterry more or one that relies on the ICE more?
“When you turn the engine on and you have a need for speed or rapid acceleration we now can run that engine at its peak efficiency. Right on that torque curve, peak efficiency and supplement it with the motor. ” So, since we are speaking about technologies to minimize or eliminate gasoline consumption; is it better to have the ICE on or off, will the tech that relies on the battery for the first and second half of available power better better or worse at keeping the ICE at peak efficiency versus the tech that limits the battery to only the first half of power?
Yes, both techs represent progess and they both can’t come too soon but please tone down the mularky. This is an era of conservation, let’s keep the BS to a minimum.
(Quote)
February 7th, 2009 at 8:56 am
#207 Schmeltz & #198 N. Riley
Agreed.
GM should throw a big introduction party, and Lyle should be personally presented a Volt by Bob Lutz and company.
This should be a big deal, not just a little, “Gee, thanks for the support Lyle”
This is win-win-win, for GM PR, Lyle, and all the Volt enthusiast. What better way to sway the following?
(Quote)