AND 
Gen II Volt Engine Less Than 1 L, Smaller and Simpler
Now that electrification has begun to take hold, the roles will be reversed from present day hybrids. Instead of a small electric motor assisting the main gas engine, the gas engine will take a backseat. This is well illustrated in the Volt where the gas engine simply waits until its services are needed only if the battery gets low, a time that in many cases will rarely if ever happen.
Because of this limited functional requirement, gas engines will become increasingly simpler and smaller. Eventually all of the advanced technology cooked into today’s combustion engines to make them adequately powerful and efficient will no longer be needed.
For the Chevy Volt according to John Bereisa, director of advanced engineering at GM, “All we need is 67 horsepower, enough to maintain the batteries’ charge when the car is cruising at highway speed.”
He explains how the choice for the Volt’s combustion engine was arrived to: “Since there wasn’t time to design an engine from scratch, we looked for the smallest existing engine capable of supplying 67 horsepower, which turned out to be G.M.’s Family Zero design used in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.”
He also tells us the Volt’s engine when in use will run in a target range of 2000 to 3000 RPM. He notes “When you map an engine’s power versus r.p.m. versus fuel consumption, the resulting chart looks like the Rocky Mountains. In conventional cars, you’re driving all over that map. But in the Volt, we’re able to keep the engine operating in what I call its happy valley, where it delivers the power that’s required while consuming minimal fuel.”
Bereisa hints at what GM is planning for the Generation II Volt engine. He says “We’d select a smaller displacement engine for the future, probably less than 1 liter,” and “We’d position the catalytic converter and route the coolant lines to minimize heat losses.” He adds not surprisingly “the engine for the next Volt will definitely be as simple and as light as possible.”
And so the gas-powered combustion engine shall ride off quietly into the sunset.
Source (New York Times)
120 Responses to “Gen II Volt Engine Less Than 1 L, Smaller and Simpler”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
March 15th, 2009 at 6:38 am
And one day we wont need gas at all…
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 6:59 am
If they had the funds and the time, would this have been the engine for the Gen-1 Volt?
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Cross your fingers and hope that they last that long. This is a long slow crawl back up the hill GM has been sliding down. I for one am optimistic and have been buying GM stock. Nothing ventured…
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:18 am
The speed range of 2000 to 3000 rpm is perfect for HCCI.
I expect a “purpose built” engine such as this will mean lower cost and higher mpg when in range extending mode. Probably the reconfiguration of the catalytic converter and such will mean faster warm-up time and reduced emissions.
Combine this with a lighter weight Volt and 2nd generation batteries, and we could see significant increases in performance between Gen I and Gen II.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:23 am
This is great. It has always seemed silly to me to have a full sized 4 cylinder car engine in the Volt. I would even suggest that one of these cars could have an even smaller engine. Perhaps making it a city car. Possibly only 30+ Hp. This would kill the ability to climb pikes peak at 60 mph but many could live with that.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Xiaowei1 Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 6:38 am
And one day we wont need gas at all…
That day will not happen in the next 50 years. Think about even if all new cars and trucks used no Gas in say 10 years (not going to happen). But even if it did it would be at least another 20 years before allmost all are of the road. Some Cars are still around after 50+ years. Now take things like Boats (many last 40+ years) Planes (many 30+ years)
We will be useing a lot of oil for a long time, this is why we need to drill here as well as work on cars like the volt.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Yes, I will gladly cheer for joy as OPEC chokes to death!!!!
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
This is good news. It’s all gonna happen…
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:49 am
““Since there wasn’t time to design an engine from scratch, we looked for the smallest existing engine capable of supplying 67 horsepower,”
——————————————–
Ok, so how does it take to design an engine from scratch? If GM really came to this conclusion years ago, then why would they not already have started that design? I am not saying this would be a simple task, but I also am not sure I am drinking the GM Kool-aid on this matter.
So, GM should have already started design on this new engine, right? Or, are they going to wait a couple years, start the design, and finish in 3 years. This would put GM 5 years out. Sorry, but the engine size of 1.4L has always struck me as overkill, and GM purposely bumped up the engine size way back (I do not remember Lyles posts, but it had to be nearly a year ago).
When I keep hearing the “excuses” and they contradict the excuses made long ago, my confidence in GM slides.
GM, you need to consistent in your statements and deliver on your promises. This is the main reason GM is in so much trouble today.
Coffee is ready….gotta run!
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:08 am
#6 Starcast Says: And one day we wont need gas at all… That day will not happen in the next 50 years.
————————————————————————————–
I think its going to happen much faster than people think, perhaps within 10-15 years.
The infrastructure is the key. If you charge an EREV overnight and fill up on ethanol, our existing infrastructure works fine. All we need is the cars. If the cars are good and reasonably priced, people will buy them by the millions.
GM VP John Lauckner expects the Volt to cost in the mid $30s:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/17/car-and-driver-on-the-volt-tens-of-thousands-in-first-year-generation-two-after-5-years/
which means it will be under $30,000 after the tax credit. And as this current article points out, the EREV gas engine will be simplified and cost reduced moving forward. The division of LG Chem that currently makes the Volt’s battery pack is predicting the cost of future Li/Ion packs will be 1/4 of what they are now within 10 years. So EREV costs are set to fall dramatically over the next 10 years.
Obama is on record for a federal mandate that all new cars are FlexFuel by the end of 2012. His energy secretary is a strong supported of bio-fuels, and has even got some of the oil companies to actually diversify into bio-fuels. New start-ups are building large scale plants to make ethanol for $1 per gallon, from non-food sources:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
Things are happening pretty fast. Think what the iPod market was like 10 years ago. If you already have the infrastructure, a lot can happen in 10 years.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:20 am
We should also remember that eliminating gasoline is not the end goal.
U.S. oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)
The United States imports around 2/3 of the oil we consume. So even if all gasoline were totally eliminated, we would still be importing a lot of oil, which means we’re still supporting OPEC, Chavez, Iran, etc..
EREVs and EVs don’t work well for heavy duty long distance travel, so we’ll need something more to solve the total problem. That’s why I advocate bio-fuels in addition to plug-ins.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:30 am
@#9
GM could have designed a new engine for Gen 1 Volt, but I imagine it took time to figure out what would work. And engines tend to take years to develop because most car companies keep them around for years. A lot longer than a new car model. And if I was designing a new car I would like to have a couple of constants in the vehicle. The 1.4L have around for awhile and are very reliable. For all we know a 1L engine alreay exists but just not far enough in development to stake your halo car on. Every recall the Volt has will be very public.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Dave G Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:08 am
#6 Starcast Says: And one day we wont need gas at all… That day will not happen in the next 50 years.
————————————————————————————–
I think its going to happen much faster than people think, perhaps within 10-15 years
Even if all NEW cars were not useing any gas. We would still be useing gas for more then another 20+ years. All cars are not replaced each year.
But when you add Boats, Planes, Tractors and trucks we will need a lot of oil for a lot more years then you think. The Ford N tractor is still in use and they were built I think in the 40s.
If we don’t start drilling here we will never get of Mid east oil in our life time.
People need to understand no matter what you do we will still be useing a lot of oil for a long long time.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:45 am
JEC@#9 said, “…the engine size of 1.4L has always struck me as overkill.” And yet I remember some on this site pining for a turbo 1.4L to go in the Volt. We’re all so used to thinking about ICEs as the source of power that we can be thrown by the concept that the ICE really doesn’t do much in this vehicle. No doubt GM would use a .8 L, or whatever, in Volt Gen I if they had it to do over again. What this really makes me wonder is, “What year does Gen II come out?” and, “How motivated should I be to cross state lines, and bring a Volt back to Wisconsin in 2010/2011, when there will probably be no mechanics here to support it, and when something better may be just around the corner?” Patience stinks, but it has its benefits.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I agree with #13. OPEC will be a part of our lives for many years to come. To reduce the influence you drill here and right now. Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, she had it right. We need oil independence and well as energy independence. Sure, go electric, go hydrogen, but remember we will need oil so start drilling for it.
It would interesting to hear GM’s thoughts on GenII and hydrogen fuel cells. WE should give the oil/energy companies a heads up about geeting fuel cell refill at their current pumps. I forget who, but a euro country (Finland?) has a road built for use with fuel cell vehicles. The station is fully independent by generating the Hydrogen right there. No shipment needed.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:55 am
yes opec bastards must be choked to death. borrow money from arabia and invest in volt and give them electric car in return saying that u dont have anything to give and thats what us govt is goanna do
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Only 67 hp? That would seem to bring the Pikes Peak debate back into play. But if memory serves, a car with the Volt’s Cd x Ft2 wouldn’t need anywhere near 67 hp to cruise at 65 mph, or even 75 mph.
All of this may be moot, if the UAW, the bondholders and the GM management don’t get together and figure out how to cut costs, GM won’t be around long enough to build the generation 1 Volt.
GM not needing the $2,000,000,000 yet does brighten the picture, slightly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_aerodynamics
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:00 am
#13 Starcast Says: If we don’t start drilling here we will never get of Mid east oil in our life time.
————————————————————————————–
I’m not against drilling here, but I don’t think it will make much difference. If you happened to listen to Picken’s Senate testimony, he essentially says the same thing.
U.S. oil peaked in the early 70’s. We can squeeze out a little more from off-shore, AWNR, oil shale, tar sands, stripper wells, etc., but all of these will be significantly more expensive than foreign oil, so that’s a tough sell for a free market economy.
The U.S. has only 3% of the world’s oil reserves, and we use 25% of the world’s oil. No amount of drilling will change that. If we want to free ourselves from foreign oil, we will need a combination of plug-ins and bio-fuels. That’s the only solution I can see that makes any sense.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:07 am
67 hp @ 3000 rpm = 145 hp @ 6500 rpm.
Volt engine needs to be comparable to current gas engines if it were to generate 67 hp at economy favorable 3000 rpm.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:08 am
GM got it backwards this time around…usually GM puts a much too small engine in new cars only to have to increase HP to make the car truely exciting. This time they overkill it just to be able to use an off the shelf engine. Why not just license an engine from someone else. BMW did it with the MINI (Chrysler engine). Surely, some manufacturer has the perfect engine…Fiat comes to mind as an example. Outsource the engine on the GEN1 Volt and then design your own for GENII.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:19 am
11. Dave G Says:
We should also remember that eliminating gasoline is not the end goal.
U.S. oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)
The United States imports around 2/3 of the oil we consume. So even if all gasoline were totally eliminated, we would still be importing a lot of oil, which means we’re still supporting OPEC, Chavez, Iran, etc..
EREVs and EVs don’t work well for heavy duty long distance travel, so we’ll need something more to solve the total problem. That’s why I advocate bio-fuels in addition to plug-ins.
______________________________________
Dave,
I agree with you lock-step that E-REVs have the potential to cut US oil consumption drastically. However, we are not going to get off oil unless we have the right policy in place. Anyone care to surmise a guess as to what will happen to the price of a barrel of Oil if US (and G20) consumption for gasoline is reduced by 80%? What is the $ break-even point for gasoline from petroleum? What is the $ break-even point for alternatives like E85, Biodiesel and hydrocarbons from sources other that oil? Which commodity has the advantage, is it a level playing field?
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I think we also need to remember that the engineers/managers would have selected the existing 1.4 to reduce the project’s risk while increasing the margin of error. With the 1.4, you have a proven platform. With a new engine, you introduce risk both to the technology and the schedule. With the 1.4, you’ll have power to spare should you underestimate the amount of horsepower you need from the range extender. With a new engine, you’d be up a creek if you needed more power as it would be designed to deliver only what you thought was needed.
1.4 is the right choice for Gen I. First build it, then refine it.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Bill G You are like a broken record for crying out loud. You and the bio fuel kick.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:36 am
The original Honda Insight has a very light ICE. Perhaps GM might
license that design? About 70 hp, and only 124 lbs. And since Honda put it in a mass produced vehicle in 1999, GM might have the know-how by now.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Practically anything can be done with a limitless budget. We would have had a lot better/efficient engine in Volt 1 had it not been for those pesky realities of the day.
Still, I enjoy hearing about possible future developments to pass the times as we wait.
Given the already lofty price point of the Volt, and its very ambitious (to say the least) goal of hitting 50MPG after the electric range burns out, I would have just ‘jobbed’ out the smaller engine to a 3rd party and put it in gen 1.
There are lots of players who already have engines in production that would be a great fit for the Volt…I mean, how much more could it cost per unit over doing it yourself? 200 bucks? We aren’t trying to sell a competitor to the $9,000 Accent here. I have serious doubts this current engine transplant can make the 50MPG benchmark.
/although personally, I really don’t care if it only does 40MPG, or 30MPG, or 20MPG, or 10MPG…just give me the 40 AER
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:39 am
#26 Guy Incognito Says:
Eventually, the ICE it will be a turbine.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:47 am
The 7500 is a tax credit if I’m not mistaken.. To many people on here seem to be thinking it is a check.. The tax credit is not going to pay you out cash 7500 it will be more like 1500….
What’s the deal?
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Beachliving, the way the tax credit is structured, if you have with held enough to pay your taxes and buy a Volt in December 2010, the government will cut you a check for $7500. Or if you get the Volt January 1st 2011, you can immediately reduce your withholding by about $145 a week. Another $600 a month stays in your pocket.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Where’s Statik with the ice water ?
Whoops, he’s been here already !
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Re: 250 volts # 23 says to Bill G “You and the bio fuel kick”.
—————————————————————————-
Kick? You have not thought deeply enough if you dismiss bio fuels as a kick.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:08 am
ziv,
That is very interesting. That was what I wast wondering. Thank you for the input. I admit I don’t know enough about it, I’m still just trying to catch up…
thanks
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:19 am
If any of are interested, here is the list of oil imported to the USA.
http://import-export.suite101.com/article.cfm/usa_oil_imports_by_country_2007
We import 2/3 of our oil. And of that, 1/3 of our oil imports come from not so friendly countries like Nigeria, Venezuela and Angola.
So the 1st goal is to get us off 1/3 of our oil imports… no
We are happy to trade with Canada arn’t we..
So how long will it take us to eliminate the 20% of our oil use from these countries??????
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:20 am
______________________________________________________
GM did it right:
GM did it right by using in VOLTEC-1 an engine that GM has already developed while at the same time begin developing a purpose built engine for future VOLTEC-2+ generations. I hope GM is considering micro-turbines (example: http://www.microturbine.com/prodsol/index.asp & http://www.microturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=460. These turbines have only one moving part! Let that sink in for a moment…only one moving part! Also, that single moving part rides on an air-foil bearing which eliminates the need for oil lubrication. Near maintenance free!
GM has previously done some research/development in the micro-turbine area but back then the technology was not yet available to make it feasible.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:24 am
GM is not new to hybrids. Thats why I am sick and tired of the lame stories they have been putting out.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/priustoric—-g.html
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Beachliving,
As Ziv explains, it is a tax credit and he gives some details about how to obtain the benefit. You used the correct term, credit, but described a tax deduction. As long as you owe $7500 in taxes then you will realize $7500. It may even roll over so that if you don’t owe $7500 that year you can carry over the difference to the next year. Perhaps someone already knows these details and can confirm.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Put me down as another supporter of GM engineers/beancounters who took the route they did. Designing and building a brand-new engine represents a large cost and large risk. The benefit is a small potential improvement in economy, and high cost of development (millions? I don’t know anything about manufacturing) for a single car model whose production isn’t guaranteed and of unknown quantity.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:32 am
______________________________________________________
A follow up to my above #33 CDAVIS:
Micro-Turbines + GM
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2545
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:34 am
CCDAVIS #33
I completely agree. GM chose the cheapest, lightest engine in their arsenal that met the power requirements. They have enough to develop to get first gen Voltec on the road in the timeframe they chose. Gen 2 can get a purpose designed ICE, but remember size, weight, cost, and efficiency are all important factors. If a microturbine can reduce the cost then great, if not then it is out.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Wow. I get it. The Gen 1 Volt is going to be the Rocky Mountain Pass with your power pack able to be as fully charged at the top as it was at the bottom edition thanks to the beefy 67 hp generator engine. Cool.
The below just echoes David 20.
Er, doesn’t the current Prius engine get about 67 hp at 3000 rpm? Why not just buy engines from Toyota or whoever already makes the engine you want the cheapest rather than do R&D, etc. on a whole new class of engine (ZERO), not ready for two more years? Or is consumer price and vehicle availability not a consideration?
It’s weird that the reason for the two year delay on Volt production is not anything to do with the electric technology or power pack, but that GM doesn’t have an appropriate small engine for its generator and has decided to develop one themselves rather than just buy existing ones from someone else.
http://www.motorauthority.com/gms-family-zero-engine-family-to-enter-production-in-2010.html
@ Dave G 11
“EREVs … don’t work well for heavy duty long distance travel”
Er, expect for diesel electric trains (EREVs), which have dominated heavy duty long distance travel for the nation’s goods shipping since 1939.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 11:02 am
GM already has engines in its part bin in China that would have been better
This is a link to GM engines that are made by the thousands in China that power vans that are used as shuttle buses to carry people to work every day .
http://yichy.en.alibaba.com/product/51469127-50230604/Engines/650cc_Gasoline_Engine.html
These are Delphi engines designed by Gm to their specs .
They run smooth and quiet and hardly use any gas and they seem to last forever .
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 11:04 am
CDavis Thanks for the link
Nukes + (X)EVs = the dawn of a new age in USA
Wonder if we could find an old Chrysler turbine?
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 11:22 am
#29 Redeye said:
Where’s Statik with the ice water ?
Whoops, he’s been here already !
==================================
I thought I was more lukewarm today actually.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am
#36 Lurtz
“Put me down as another supporter of GM engineers/beancounters who took the route they did. Designing and building a brand-new engine represents a large cost and large risk. The benefit is a small potential improvement in economy, and high cost of development (millions?”
Yes, according to Lyle’s July 26, ‘08 post, there were 4 main reasons why they switched from the 1.0 L turbo.
1. The 1.4L has better braking mpg at constant speeds than the turbo.
2. The 1.4L has a smoother transition to idle stop start of the engine (which would be felt in the cabin).
3. The 1.4L is lighter than the Turbo (with all its turbo stuff), and
4. The 1.4L is cheaper (but also slightly larger).
5. ( I’ll add) It’s a well known bird in the hand.
As Tagmet says:
LJGTVWOTR
=D~~~~
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
#39 Keith Says:
You do not want to put Chinese engine in your car for warranty and quality issues.
Furthermore, the engine must be able to generate 67 hp @ 3000 rpm, which is equivalent to 145 HP @ 6500 rpm. Thus a 3 cylinder engine is not feasible, unless it’s a turbo engine.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
People remember this.
It’s 67 HP @ 3000 rpm, not 67 HP @ 6500 rpm.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
GM should select the Freedom Motors rotary engine:
http://www.moller.com/files/Breakthrough.pdf
http://www.moller.com/downloads/FM_PR_Receiveorders.pdf
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I am no engineer, but I thought the engine that GM opted to use was overkill. Glad to see that GM will improve the Volt efficiency for Gen II. I still say that having the new clean technology diesel genset as an option would be nice. I think that you would have enough people go for it to justify the retooling cost. Just a thought.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
35 beachliving Says:
The 7500 is a tax credit if I’m not mistaken.. To many people on here seem to be thinking it is a check.. The tax credit is not going to pay you out cash 7500 it will be more like 1500….
What’s the deal?
_______________________________________________
Tax credits are great. Say you purchase your Volt in CY 2011, and for CY 2011, you pay $6000 in income taxes via montly deductions. When you file your taxes, the government will owe you $1500 + the $6000 you paid. You will get a CY 2011 tax return check from the government for $7500 in CY 2012. If you pay taxes and you purchase a Volt, the government is crediting you $7500 on the taxes you owe, even if you owe less than $7500 for the year.
This is how the recently enacted $8000 house tax credit works for first time home buyers. See the FAQ at the link below:
http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/faq.php
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
_____________________________________________________
Who Killed the Gas Turbine Car?
“…Legacy: A smaller, lighter seventh generation engine was produced in the early 1970s, when company received a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for further development, and a special bodied turbine Chrysler LeBaron was built in 1977 as a prelude to a production run. By then the company was in dire financial straits and needed U.S. government loan guarantees to avoid bankruptcy. A condition of that deal was that gas-turbine mass production be abandoned because it was “too risky” thus giving roots to many conspiracy theories…”
I like this part: “…The engine would run on virtually anything and the president of Mexico tested this theory by running one of the first cars–successfully–on tequila…”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
CDAVIS,
I worked in GM’s Advanced Engineering Staff for their Alternative Fuels group in the late ’80’s, and their turbine engine was very large due to instantaneous power requirements during acceleration. Had that turbine been coupled to a battery and electric motor, as with the Chevy Volt, it could have been a lot smaller, and perhaps a viable platform.
As mentioned above, I believe Freedom Motors has the best spinning power plant for automotive hybrids.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I agree with Jason Hendler that a Freedom Motors Compound rotary type engine is a more likely candidate than a turbine. This tech is more likely to meet the size, weight, efficiency, and price goals of an EREV ICE. I know rotory engines have had their issues when they are the main powerplant but for average power supply I believe these limitations can be overcome.
Rooster,
So, do you understand the credit could result in a refund check for taxes not paid AND not owed? Or will it be a rollover situation if the credit exceeds the total tax owed. Note, this question is not very relevant since not many people owing less than $7500 in income tax will be buying a $35,000-$40,000 Volt.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Who’s to say the Gen II Volt Engine will be internal combustion? Is it possible we’ll see a Sterling or other simple engine design?
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I (and many others in the US I’m sure) have got their fingers crossed that there will be a tiny diesel engine option. Since the only goal of the assisting combustion engine is to produce only enough power required for the battery then the smallest, lightest, simplest option should be the best option.
A small diesel engine (that hopefully could run “regular” diesel as well as any SVO blend (remember the battery could heat the SVO)) would be a perfect match. I’m guessing that a small diesel designed to run at a specific rpm and always under a specific load could be tweaked in such a way that issues or reliability simply are no longer a concern. The rest of the car would denigrate before that little diesel ever gave you problems.
Also, realistically I’ll never have a shot at a Gen1 Volt. I don’t live near any of the major US cities so there are no Volts coming my way. That’s fine because it sounds like the Gen2 Volt will be “what they should have really done for the Volt1 but didn’t for a variety of reasons”. Here’s to hoping that GM makes it. *cheers*
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
50. koz Says:
Rooster,
So, do you understand the credit could result in a refund check for taxes not paid AND not owed? Or will it be a rollover situation if the credit exceeds the total tax owed. Note, this question is not very relevant since not many people owing less than $7500 in income tax will be buying a $35,000-$40,000 Volt.
_____________________________
That is correct, the example below should clarify.
Example 1:
You owe $6000 in taxes for CY 2011
You had $5000 deducted from your pay for CY2011
When you file your CY 2011 taxes, you will get a refund check for $6500:
$5000 – $6000 + $7500 = $6500
Example 2:
You owe $6000 in taxes for CY 2011
You had $7000 deducted from your pay for CY2011
When you file your CY 2011 taxes, you will get a refund check for $8500:
$7000 – $6000 + $7500 = $8500
The only stipulation is your purchased vehicle must qualify for the full refund. The Volt does. I’m not sure if there is a household income cap for the tax credit, like there is for the First Time Home Buyer Tax credit — I’d need to looking the details of the bill.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
You put a new engine in an existing car, and existing engine in a new car..putting a new engine in a new car that has completely new technology is ASKING for trouble.
Gm did it right…
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
There are always terrific ways to save weight and costs, and, at the same time build far better and easier/cheaper ways for them to be extremely service-friendly to the owners after 150,000 miles. The exciting thing here also is that with a very well-established set of proven engines, and, the very low expected run-times for those engines, you might actually get a Volt to easily last 30 years.
Another idea that came to mind last night to save a lot more cost and weight is to get rid of the spare tire and jack altogether. In addition to those, get rid of those ridiculously-expensive tire pressure monitors which were required for all vehicles because of the Ford Explorer rollover problems (where Ford marketers forced engineering make it 2.5 inches higher than industry standards for center of gravity, etc.)
I remember a story about a year ago regarding a funny-sounding thing called a “tweel”, which is a one-piece wheel and tire that did not have air in it. It had a fixed rubber outer tread onto a spring-like wheel, and all you would have needed to do would be to order another set every 50,000 miles or so. They supposedly were very light and the rolling resistance was a constant.
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems are a pain in the butt. Once a week within the shops I visit there is a vehicle where the customer has just come in from having their tires rotated or the front brakes done from somewhere else and that previous shop got the tires put back on in the wrong placement without “relearning” the new (or wrong) positions. The customer drives off and notices later that the Tire Pressure Monitor Malfunction Indicator Light is on. What a pain in the butt Ford marketers have caused.
These systems are not designed to tell you that your tires are only slightly low, and that your resulting fuel economy is getting slashed.
They come on when the pressure is reeeeealy low, or when someone has messed up the tire locations on the vehicle.
It would be really impressive if the overall weight of the Volt could be gotten down to, say, 2,800 pounds, and, every possible electrical improvement to squeeze out 50 miles on a charge would be an incredible benefit.
67 horsepower at a “steady state” to drive the genset is FAR MORE than is needed, and must never be erroneously technically-compared to a vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a torque converter, which engine has to constantly start a vehicle off from zero miles per hour (hybrid or not) with all the gross inefficiencies.
67 horsepower at a “steady state” is already at it’s peak operating RPM’s at all running times and always has very long periods of time wherein the entire pack could be completely recharged within 20 minutes if the software detects that it ought to (with that latest MIT breakthrough regarding immediate charge-rate acceptance).
A vehicle which is aerodynamically-messy takes about 10 horsepower to maintain 60 miles per hour. The Voltec genset at 67 horsepower will never have a problem whatsoever blitzing up Pikes peak past as many Semi’s hauling everyone elses’ outmoded vehicles as you would like.
Those OEM’s that are still pessimistic regarding these lightning-paced breakthroughs are making the worst mistakes of their careers, and their stockholders will likely begin to soon call them and “hold their toes to the fire” if they all do not immediately stop “kicking and screaming” that “the Volt won’t work”. That is an outright misrepresentation of incompetence. The Laws of Physics are on GM’s side, and, GM is leaving the other OEM’s “in the dust” on the way up to the top of Pikes Peak.
Dan Petit Austin TX
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Tax credits – Other than the somewhat controversial earned income tax credits I don’t know of tax credits where you can claim credit for taxes you haven’t paid. IOW if you owe $6000 in taxes and you have a $7500 credit then at most you will get a check for $6000. (The reason they’re called credits is that they give you a credit against the tax).
I have no idea if there is any carry-over for the credits. There is no income limit and the credits can be taken against the AMT.
With respect to the engine size, you only need about 10-15 HP to propel a compact car along the road at a constant 60 mph. (Agreeing not arguing with Dan Petit here).
Dave G #10, #11, #18
The real goal here is inexpensive energy. Wealth and prosperity can be measured in energy consumption. The problem with oil, in addition to the health, environmental, and national security costs, is that it’s just too expensive as demand increases. In order to continue the prosperity we have to find alternative sources of much less expensive energy.
Bio-fuels, where we raise plants and then turn them into fuel, is essentially a solar process with a liquid storage system. This is an expensive process, so you’d like to see something more efficient. Batteries with much better energy density would do the trick. Until then, CNG looks more promising than bio-fuels for long hauls.
Also note that demand destruction for oil should be very effective at keeping prices low because of inelastic supply. You don’t have to strictly eliminate oil, you just have to take a chunk out of the demand.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I don’t want an ICE in my electric car. The extra weight and complexity of having 2 propulsion systems is counter productive when you are on electric power. Yes there is a market for people who want EREVs, but I think GM is missing the boat by not also making a pure EV. I’ll be very interested in the Tesla S when it is revealed.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
#56 DonC Says: Bio-fuels, where we raise plants and then turn them into fuel, is essentially a solar process with a liquid storage system. This is an expensive process…
————————————————————————————–
Dollar-a-gallon ethanol plant in U.S. operation next year
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
#32 Micheal J Says: We import 2/3 of our oil. And of that, 1/3 of our oil imports come from not so friendly countries like Nigeria, Venezuela and Angola.
————————————————————————————–
Where we import our oil from at any given time is irrelevant. Its a world oil market. If we refuse to import oil from Iran, then someone else will. If we happen to have a tiff with Canada, and refuse to import oil from them, then somebody else will buy their oil.
So if we import oil from anywhere, we are helping countries that export oil the most. These countries are:
• Saudi Arabia (8.73 million barrels per day)
• Russia (6.67)
• Norway (2.91)
• Iran (2.55)
• Venezuela (2.36)
• United Arab Emirates (2.33)
• Kuwait (2.20)
• Nigeria (2.19)
• Mexico (1.80)
• Algeria (1.68)
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I am so glad that the Volt gen 1 went with a 1.4L existing engine. That said, it will be *awesome* when the Gen II comes out with a sub 1L engine. I think people are going to be blown away by the performance of the next gen EREVs. I am really starting to think that if GM pulls through all of the current crap, it will be in a really good position. It will take a long time for other companies to catch up when they finally realize EREV is the way of the future. By then I hope GM will have a full lineup of EREvs, some of them multiple generations ahead.
I don’t care if GM makes a lot of money for their sake- I just want them to be successful so that everyone else will want to EREV their lineups. Jealousy is a great source of technological progress.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I agree with #54 Mike.
All these guys will blame is there is a recall . Let Gen1 come with a existing engine in a new car and them Volt 2 with new engine in old car ( volt 1 ). The volt gen 1 has to prove a lot.
Its was nice read on all the engines, The rotary engine was way less fuel efficient compared to the rest all engines, It was way powerful and there was some famous cars with those engines (mazda RX-7 and RX-8 etc), There are some gas turbine engines also but application on volt is very different from those. Volt needs a constant rpm very high efficient engine because it need to operate only in a small range rpm. I believe volt needs a ground up engine very specific for the purpose. They have to think as a efficient generator than a ice engine then they may get better solution.
If the volt 1 goes good, it gives a key for GMs future as this technology can be tested in most models and come with the Volt 2 – yes it may require retooling the plants again but if GM thinks again to push the same 1.4 fr more time then GM will be coming back to more funds because once volt is out and success, Hondas, Toytas , hyundais also will push this kind of hybrids in no time and improve efficiency over a time and GM will be again lost.
I am sure Hondas, Toyotas and hundais will be cooking similar volt ones in their secret kitchen and come out as a surprise to GM.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
#58 Dave G
This illustrates the problem actually.
First of all, the demonstration plant will not produce ethanol for $1/gallon. Even if it could, the problem is that you can’t scale up production without driving prices of the bio-mass up. For example, right now you can make bio-diesel cheaply from grease being thrown out by restaurants. That’s great, but if you tried to scale up that production you’d ruin the economics — there aren’t enough restaurants producing enough grease so the price of the grease would just increase (or there would be “shortages”).
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
#62 DonC,
We’re not talking about grease from restaurants. See here:
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
Ethanol from non-food sources (no grease from restaurants) can replace up to 35% of our current gasoline usage. EREVs can replace 80% or more of our gasoline usage. Together, that’s 115% – more than enough to completely replace gasoline – all without any food crops or restaurant grease.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Dave G: I agree with you and disagree with Starcast on the future of oil. I do think the end of the oil age is in sight. If we think beyond the US for a minute I think the electric car will substantially reduce the consumption of oil. We don’t need to eliminate the use of oil for this to have a major effect. Once supply exceeds demand we will see the market go strictly to the lowest cost producers, which is why I doubt we will be doing a lot of drilling here in the US.
I don’t agree that biofuels is a good path for the US or for the world. Frankly I would not like to see the total disappearance of wilderness in this country or any other. And, that land which we decide to turn over to agriculture should be reserved for the production of food.
I am a big fan of Nuclear Power and think that its potential is vastly underestimated. Nuclear would be far cheaper than even coal if we acted rationally. The energy density of uranium gives it such a huge advantage over wind, solar, or biofuels. An example: my own state of New Hampshire has one nuclear reactor. It is a fairly small couple of buildings, it is refueled from a single semi-trailer every 18 months or so, and it supplies 50% of the electricity for the state (with some for export to MA). Granted NH has only ~ 1 million people, but I think the point is clear. In addition advanced technologies for nuclear seem feasible to me that would make huge improvements even over what we have today.
This post is toooo long.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I like the idea of a micro turbine running the generator but the air bearing may be a problem in an automotive inviroment. [this problem may be a thing of the past] I believe air bearing are particularly fond of clean dry air. In machine tool applications they use a refrigerated air dryer.[or use to at least]
Can anyone who is up to date on the subject clear this up for me?
Thanks
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
@ #12 (theflew)
I completely agree with you there.
Someone posted a link ( http://www.uwsa.com/issues/trade/japanyes.html ) quite some time ago on one of the threads here. I finally read it the other day (after saving it in my favs) and it completely and thoroughly identifies everything that’s causing US companies to go bankrupt and meanwhile showing how the Japanese are taking over markets so easily.
Simply put, GM has to be much more careful about it’s reliability or new products/technology, as opposed to Japanese makers (Honda, Toyota, etc).
Read it and everything will make sense.
Buy US or nothing!
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Oh…. and how come the Ampera is always in the picture where the Volt is supposed to be. I’m very confused…….
If you know the answer, please click on my name to be re-directed to my youtube page and comment me there with your response (I’ll prob forget this post by tomorrow).
Thanks.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
GM choice of the 1.4 L engine was correct. These are the reasons why:
1. It will be the lowest cost engine because the production numbers from the Cruise Models. To build a specific built engine would cost much more. Once the numbers of Volts begin to reach a critical number, then the cost difference would disappear, but at ramp up, this is much more cost effective.
2. Certification of a gasoline engine for emissions in not an easy task. It takes millions of dollars, and thousands of hours of testing to pass CARB, EPA, and EU certification. Again, using the Cruise engine make this much easier for the Volt. Tesla avoided all of this by not putting an ICE on their platform.
3. The weight difference between a 1.4 L and 1.0 L is not as big as you think. It may be on the order of 25 – 40 lbs. I know that if that weight is critical, I could lose that around my waist, or my date could leave her purse at home.
4. As pointed out, 2000 – 3000 rpm is a good range for HCCI. This is the most eficent way an gasoline engine can run. It is also very difficult to control, so GM would be wise to work on HCCI, then to spend resources on a smaller engine. HCCI is not possible at high engine speeds. Also engine friction goes up with RPM, so running a 1.0 L engine at 6000 rpm would at least match, or possible exceed the engine friction of the 1.4 L engine at 3000 rpm.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Steve K,
<>
according to my sources, nuclear power not so cheap(see article below). Runs about 25-30cents/kwh, and costs are climbing. also. over the life-cycle of a nuclear plant about 60g of greenhouse gas co2 are released per kwh of nuclear energy production, bout twice that of much renewable energy production.( E.g., GHG emissions over a life-cycle of pv panels are 20-40g CO2/ kwh(see below).)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html
http://sustenergy.blogactiv.eu/2008/05/29/emissions-from-photovoltaic-manufacturing/
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Question:
I understand the Volt will drive on electricity for 40 miles. What about a person driving 50 miles per day, will he need to give the battery a full charge from the gasoline engine? Or, can the recharging be turned off after some time, and he recharges the rest at home?
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
#70 Stefan Says:
> What about a person driving 50 miles per day, will he need to give the battery a full charge from the gasoline engine?
gas engine runs to hold the battery charge at 30%. It doesn’t actually increase battery charge level. Only the plug-in charge would bring the charge level back up to 80%.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Software (and the ease with which it can be updated), will efficiently and automatically process and handle all the fine details of charging and running the powertrain. The driver/owner will not have to do anything but plug it in when getting home. The software will do all the configuring and reconfiguring, learning and relearning for you. There are terrific ways that software can conserve the batteries, genset, fuel, and other areas of wear and tear on the Volt, all without the owner ever being aware that an update had been received and applied. Even after the Volt is sold to you, it will be improved.
Dan Petit Austin TX
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
#45 Jason Hendler — Interesting cite. I’d wonder if Aptera would be interested for its 2h vehicle.
#63 Dave G says “Together, that’s 115% – more than enough to completely replace gasoline – all without any food crops or restaurant grease.”
This is very theoretical. For example, if Li-ion batteries had 10X the power density and fast charging then it would replace 100% of gasoline.
While the costs of such a large battery would ensure this wasn’t a cost effective solution, cost is likewise a big issue for bio-fuels. My example of grease was intended to point out that, as demand for a good increases, the price rises, unless costs are strictly flat, which is invariably not the case. IOW the number seem overly rosy.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
CDAVIS:
Speaking of gas turbines, yes Chrysler did experiment with them quite extensively in the 60’s. There is actually 1 of those mid 60s turbine cars that Chrysler lost control of and is in private hands.
I read an article about it a couple years ago. One of the biggest complaints from the test fleet drivers was the fuel consumption. Turbines, even small ones burn a lot of fuel even if they are not under load. When the airline industry started converting to jets, their enormous fuel consumption wasn’t much of an issue because the benefit was drastically reduced maintenance costs compared to the old monster radial engines. Also, they were paying $0.12 a gallon for jet fuel and they were fast as hell, allowing the airlines to make more ‘hops’ in a given amount of time. Now days the tide has turned but jets are still around. I’m not sure why because a lot of experimentation has been done with turbo props which are far more fuel efficient, but probably not as much as the old piston engines. I guess speed sells, even today.
Turbines have 1 more issue for automotive use. They are EXPENSIVE. Even today they push about $100.00 per horsepower. For a super high performance boat or a medium size aircraft, that’s an acceptable price point, but not for a car.
A small turbine might be just the thing for a car like the Volt however if the price issue can be addressed. They are glass smooth and won’t shake the car like ANY 4 cyl engine does when it starts or shuts off. The Volt engine needs to run at nearly full power when it is running so the design can be optimized to run at its best efficiency/load.
The only other issue I can think of is emissions. Getting all that air through a catalyst might be a design constraint.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I like that Gen II is looking closer – this engine is a good choice.
I think this entire movement to alterantive fuels is great for 2 reasons, National Security(energy independance) and a cleaner environment.
We can find a better way. The Pickens Plan is good for moving the Large Semi’s we need in America – At&t and Wal-Mart can save millions each year by installing their own infrastructure.
The west Coast govenors are trying to do something for the I-5 corridor:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008827158_greenfreeway08m.html
And here is the link for the existing Hydrogen Highway in Norway
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm
These ideas are all possbile – I would like one direction
Voltec drive systems with CNG or Hydrogen for the ice
A new power grid with Nuclear and Wind and solar and have wind and solar as part of any new construction commercial or residential
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
was going through the below : http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/volt-birth-watch-107-officially-official-volt-does-not-recharge-its-batteries-on-the-fly/
is it true ?
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
GM already makes a 796cc inline 3 cylinder SOHC 6-valve engine for the Chevy Matiz S in England. Of course it only makes 51 HP in current configuration. But just a few easy modifications to it and GM can up the power to the required 67 HP. Hell, just modifying the intake manifold would do the trick.
They also make the 1.2L 16V-DOHC engine for the UK version of the Chevy Avero. It makes 86 HP. More than enough.
GM has the engines now.
(Quote)
March 15th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Why can’t we just get rid of the ICE all togather and put in a compressed air engine in instead. When you plug it is at night you not only recharge the batteries but you have a small electric air compressor fill the compressed air tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8aZVLpf-c
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:56 am
78 Victor:
Because you can run out of air just like you can run out of battery charge, that’s why. Geez.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 1:13 am
76 Unni:
Robert Farago who runs the [so-called] truth about cars web site is all about venomous commentaries. It’s the automotive news equivalent of the daytime trash TV… junk food for the mind that millions tune in to watch. He thinks he’s always right about everything… he even had the audacity to start a blog post criticizing another journalist’s auto reviews because he didn’t agree with the other journalist’s opinion of a car. Is something like that worth blogging? To someone like Robert, yes it is.
P.S. If you post something on his web site that disagrees with his point of view, he deletes your comments. Even though he says that it’s “no holds barred”.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 1:22 am
#80 Gary : Thanks very much for the clarification, i was actually looking at comments through
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/gm_volt-prius-more-effective-reducing-emissions-fuel-economy.php fr a comparison of the models and technology and thatz how i reached that site.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 2:11 am
#30 PLJ
Re: 250 volts # 23 says to Bill G “You and the bio fuel kick”.
—————————————————————————-
Kick? You have not thought deeply enough if you dismiss bio fuels as a kick.
——————————————————————————-
I have read widely and thought deeply. I think biofuels are a kick.
Corn based biofuels have proven to be detrimental to our energy future. We mandated only 10% ethanol in our gas supply. The result has been:
1. the need for enormous subsidies to mask from the motoring public the fact that corn-based ethanol is much more expensive than even $5 per gallon gasoline.
2. A decrease in overall mpg, because ethanol has a low energy content.
3. A big run up in food costs, because of all the corn needed to supply just a small fraction of our automotive fuel needs.
Now the latest kick is cellulose based bio-fuel. This would be a good idea if it could ever be made to work on a commercial scale at a reasonable price, but to date that has not happened. Dave G is now citing this company that is building a cellulose to ethanol plant that can make 40,000 gallons per year. Sounds like a lot, right? That is two 55 gallon drums per day. Hardly a scale which will drive gasoline out of the marketplace. If this outfit already knows how to make ethanol at a cost of $1/gallon like Dave keeps quoting, venture capitalists would be falling all over themselves to provide funding to build a massive string of ethanol plants.
I am certainly not opposed to more research in the hopes that someday, somebody will develop a scalable, economical process for making ethanol from cellulose. But it is bad for our future to use the mere hope that ethanol may someday be practical as an excuse to continue to oppose to solutions which are known to be economical, and for which current technology already exists–nuclear power and domestic oil drilling. Obama and the environmental left are choking off practical energy solutions in favor solutions people hope might work someday.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 2:54 am
I like the rotary concept, ie http://www.moller.com and there powerpack. My other favorite is a linear engine.
Why afterall do we need to “rotate”.
I believe a diesel free piston would be the long term
idea. These guys in down-under made some good progress.
http://www.freepistonpower.com/Default.aspx
After all, this lets you run even more totally in software.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 4:36 am
The comments regarding the 1.4L internal combustion engine being too small to power the Volt uphill are missing the point. The Volt is always powered by a 150HP electric motor with twice the torque of most 4 cylinder gasoline engines. The Volt is able to drive long upgrades.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:00 am
#84 Inhaling in L. A.,
The problem arises when traveling cross country with the battery at minimum SOC. When you begin your long climb over the Rockies, the battery only has a small buffer zone available. Once that is used, all power must come from the ICE genset, and that is limited to 53 kW, even though your traction motor is good for 150 hp (112 kW).
At 4000 lb loaded, it will take about 5 kW to drive the Volt at 60 mph up a 1% slope (and another 12 kW for aero drag). So at 70 mph, the drive power to overcome drag goes up by (70/60)^3 and for a 6% slope you need (70/60)*6*5 = 35 kW. The total is 54 kW. So the Volt will max out at close to 70 mph on a 6% slope when in charge sustaining mode.
Note that this assumes no degradation in the ICE power due to altitude, so in actuality this speed may be lower when traversing the Rockies.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:07 am
#80, Gary,
That site only deletes comments from abusive jerks. And Farago pointed out GM’s impending bankruptcy long ago.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Tom Harwick #82
Not to rain on your very reasonable concerns but the idea that gas will be under $5 for any reasonable length of time is banking on hope or government intervention too. Not soon after this recession bottoms, oil will skyrocket again. Supply is contracting and when demand comes back, watch out. I agree we cannot “bank” on cellulosic ethanol saving the day, but we can’t count on under $5 gas either.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:54 am
What’s planned for gen 2 is nice to know, but one wonders what is happening with gen 1. One would think now would be a very busy time, getting new parts into new bodies, and putting prototypes into action.
Is there anything happening, or is everything on pause (or stop) ?
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Gary #79
Yes, air distribution is an unsolvable problem. Sheesh!
It’s energy density and efficiency that limit compressed air technology, not supply (at least I hope so).
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:58 am
charlie h #86
So did Statik and blind squirrels.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 8:42 am
#90 koz said:
charlie h #86
So did Statik and blind squirrels.
=======================
Hey!
I have it on good authority those squirrels had partial vision!
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I think in less than 3 weeks we will know if GM is going to reorganize under Chapter 11 protection. I think the answer is going to by yes, but I am often wrong.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Good report, Lyle. Keep up the good work.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
86 Charlie H:
Robert once deleted a comment of mine that questioned his professionalism as a reporter. After going out of his way dig up dirt on fellow automotive journalists and a posting blog entry bashing them… I found that pretty low. That’s not automotive news–that’s slander.
Of course, he can question others’ professionalism, but you can’t question his.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 10:38 am
This exactly what I was looking for! I just want a limp-home ICE. Heck, even air-cooled would be good enough. Now if they can use carbon-fiber for the next generation as well they can start to really cut the weight and thus the size of the ICE. Keep working on the aerodynamics and tires and smaller the ICE goes.
I think there should also be a few options for those who just need a 55 mph max (I only need 45 mph) after the battery is down to the minimum level (30% or so).
Light
Slick
Limp-home ICE
Soon, when the batteries get better and the charging infrastructure catches up in a decade or two we can all say goodbye to the faithful ICE. I might even shed a tear.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
They did the right thing going with the 1.4 liter for version 1. Use the limited available development time and money for the new, important things and use the most available off-the-shelf ICE you can find. Once you get version 1’s proverbial wheels on the road, then go back and start tweaking for version 2, 3, 4, etc.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
#85 BillR,
You just proved my point. My current 4 cylinder gasoline engine barely maintains 65 mph hill climb speed with 4 on board. This is at 4000+ RPM and possible oil leak issues. The engine whines and there’s a faint smell of oil smoke.
The Volt maxed out at 70 mph hill climb on pure electric sounds like the clear winner. And the braking reclaim regen on the downgrade is money in the bank.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
#42 George K:
Thanks for the good comment on GM’s decision to switch the Volt from the originally announced 1.0T 3 cylinder to the 1.4 naturally aspirated 4 cyl.
The 1.0 3cyl is an existing GM engine, manufactured and used in Europe. I was disappointed by the change, as I cannot see how the larger engine is going to get better fuel economy.
On reflection, maybe it relates to the plan to build the 1.4T 4cyl here for the Cruze. If the can build the Volt engine in the same plant, maybe there are some useful economies of scale. Part of me would rather have a 1.4 built here than a 1.0 built in Europe, with the consequent shipping costs, and the environmental impacts therefrom.
In any case, I am far beyond worrying about it. LJGTVWOTR, with whatever engine gets it done ASAP. As many have said, useful evolution will come in future generations and, God willing, other Voltec products.
#77 Victor:
It never fails to amaze me how many high efficiency engines, and indeed complete cars, GM offers in Europe that we never even hear about. I wonder what kind of gas mileage they get out of the Matiz S and the UK version of the Aveo?
Thanks for the informative comment.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I knew that the Volt was a bloated vehicle that weighs too much and is not very aerodynamic. Now GM finally acknowledges this indirectly. This 1st gen Volt will be long forgotten by much better well thought out competition. 40 Mile Range just won’t cut it and monstrous 1.4L gas guzzling heavy engine is just wrong on so many levels. It has been obvious (to anyone with half a brain) that the Volt is a rush job and quality will not be its strong point.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Compressed air seems to me viable option for range extention. It would be good business solution for existing petrol stations start sales of compressed air. No major investments required. Some tank and compressor. Air would be charged during night and sold during peack hour. Perfect! Other optio – natural gas or wind turbine driven compressor.Again perfect solution.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Using the existing proven 1.4 retuned for the application is absolutely the right choice for both cost and reliability reasons.
Maybe I’m getting old or something, but the speed limits tend to be between 55 and 70 mph (80 and 110 kph) so what is the problem? commute to work and back on electric and fall back on the ICE for the long drive to the in-laws place. It seems to me that you would set the cruise for long trips and stop for gas when you need it same as now.
Best of both worlds and only one car payment, seems simple enough to me.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
nuclearboy Says:
“..This would kill the ability to climb pikes peak at 60 mph but many could live with that.” Since we are talking about Volt Gen 2/3 in this thread lets go out on a limb & say we are incorporating the new 100 fold Power density battery that means you could climb Pikes Peak @ 200 + MPH as long as you started with enough charge to go the distance, & that with a weed eater engine as your generator. My biggest concern now may be Utilities locking in long term contracts for all future production so they can fill them at night & turn a profit selling the juice during peak day time rates leaving little supply for the car market. Looked what happened to NanoSolar can’t buy their sheets if you wanted to !
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
My largest concern with the second gen engine is that GM may purposely design it to be less durable than a standard ICE is today because they expect people will actually use it much less. Since the 1.4 also has conventional uses we know that is not the case with this engine. Please GM don’t cheap out. Build in the same type of durability into this engine as you would with any other. So a person who ends up running a lot on the engine won’t be left with problems once the miles creep on.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
statik,
I hope you remember, that everytime you claimed GM would go bankrupt, I stated that the government would give them loans, as they did with Chrysler. Your bankruptcy prediction has yet to come true, but my prediction for the loans already has.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
gen2… gen2!
Playoffs, playoffs, don’t talk to me about playoffs! Don’t talk to me about the engines in the second generation of something that the first generation does not exist.
Build it already!
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
1.4L gas guzzling heavy engine is just wrong on so many levels.
.
My largest concern with the second gen engine is that GM may purposely design it to be less durable than a standard ICE is today because they expect people will actually use it much less. Since the 1.4 also has conventional uses we know that is not the case with this engine.
________________________
Neither holds true in real-world implementation.
Even though Prius shared the same engine block as Echo, the components within weren’t the same. Those in Prius were lighter weight (for efficiency) and not as robust (since load was primarily handled by the electric motor and redline was much lower).
A bigger engine can run cleaner & smoother. And as demonstrated with the 2010 Prius, it’s more efficient via RPM reduction.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
A little ICE that only very rarely operates will be almost the same as no ICE at all. Just plug in every night and you’ll only fire up the engine on long trips.
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
JEC #) an d#12 the flew, et al.
GM has ALREADY designed a new Family of very small 1.0L 1,4 liter very modern All-Alloy, DOHC, VVT, engines.
I’ll bet over time they will replace the existing Family 0 engine family that were designed in the early ’90s. Family 0 which goes into the Volt 1.0 is not all-alloy and has a cast iron block, so it has to be heavier than the new Family. But I applaud putting a tried and true, reliable engine into as critical a project as the Volt. I speculate that the Family 0 does not have beefy water passages or lots of metal between the siamesed cylinders to very reliably support HCCI or turbocharging. But I wager the new all-alloy Family engines were designed with HCCI and turbocharging in mind.
If you read these pages for any amount of time you would have heard of the new engine Family debuting in the Chevy Spark appearing here in 2010 or 2011.
I speculated that the temporarily cancelled Flint factory that was to build Family 0 engines might be tooled to build the new all-alloy Family instead.
For more information about the new engines see the Geneva Auto show blogs where the Spark was announced,
(Quote)
March 16th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
#99,
I fail to see what a 326 mpg equivalent on fossil is from too big or too heavy a vehicle ? That is the estimated mpge for the current Gen 1.0 Volt.
That is the figure even without HCCI that would improve it by 30% fuel economy in on-engine operation.
For you greenies who have bought into the AGW hoax, the Volt is estimated to have a 40g/km of CO2. Compare that to the proposed required regulation in the next decade, of 120 g/km in the EU, and the hopeful eventual target of 90 g/km CO2, some day in the 2020s.
So Volt 1.0 its is 40/90, or 44% below the EU optimistic and crazy target for unnecessary CO2 emissions on its pregnant roller skates some twenty years from now.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 4:32 am
Darius Says:
March 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Compressed air seems to me viable option for range extension
———————————————————————————
In engineering, there is no such phrase as “it seems to me”: The energy density of compressed air is too low to power any practical vehicle.
The question is, how far can the car go on a tank of air? I have spent a lot of time on the net trying to find a successful test, and the best I can find is one where a car went 7 miles on a test track on a tank of air.
This would indicate that compressed air is not viable for range extension or primary drive.
There are posts on the web from entities promising an air powered car by the end of 2008. If you look harder, there are journalist stories still up there quoting promises of an air powered car by 2000.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 5:00 am
Tom Harwick,
You inspired me. For the moment I can not present calculation or examples. I will work on that. But several years ago I heard that there are some air powered cars capable traveling 200 km invented in France. The only problems are with reliability and dynamics.
Besids there are ongoing several grid power regulation projects based on undeground compressed air reservoir.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Tom Harwick,
“Less than two Liters per hundred Kilometers (at 90 Km/h for MiniFlowAIR)”‘
In that case it will require less space than gas tank for Volt.
http://www.mdi.lu/english/produits.php
The strongest development of compressed air cars we see in India – Tata.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Tom Harwick,
I shall take my words back. Compressed air has low energy density and will be not used for transportation alone. It can be used in combination with ICE in order to make ICE double efficient. It makes sense since can be utilized flue gas temperature for pressurising air. But again – there are lot of phisical constrains on the process itself.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 9:02 am
I was one of those on this site that used to fret about the choice of a huge 1.4L genset for the Volt.. but then I realized that it did not really make a difference.. the genset, either 600cc or 2.0L will start and just shut off as needed to maintain battery charge, it really will not affect the overall fuel economy of post-40 trips. Durability or oil changes will not be an issue either.
For most people the ICE will rarely turn on, so it does not make sense to spend a lot of money on this genset with a lot of fancy features, it will seldom turn on.
For Gen II it would be interesting if they used a direct injection ICE using a E85 and a turbo, this tech promises the efficiency of a diesel engine without any extra cost or weight… and the best part is that it is off-the-shelf tech.. the use of E85 and its charge cooling effect allows very high compression ratios, rivaling the efficiency of diesel without using fancy cleanup methods or low sulfur diesel. Read up on this interesting report:
http://www.ethanolboost.com/Technology%20and%20applications.htm
A custom built Volt genset could be a flat opposed 2 cylinder engine, zero vibrations on that one.
BTW, when refering to the Volt please use “genset” instead of gas engine, we want to get the idea across.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 9:30 am
confused…by this quote in the text:
“All we need is 67 horsepower, enough to maintain the batteries’ charge when the car is cruising at highway speed.”
I thought the engine powered the car, did NOT charge the battery, that the battery was left discharged until it was plugged in.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am
#85
So the Volt will max out at close to 70 mph on a 6% slope when in charge sustaining mode.
—————————————————————————–
If you are part of the 0.1% of the population who finds this a significant limitation, don’t buy a Volt.
Most Americans do not cross the Rockies by car as often as once a year, and most of those who do think 70mph is plenty fast on a mountain road.
(Quote)
March 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
#113 Darius
Tom Harwick,
I shall take my words back. Compressed air has low energy density and will be not used for transportation alone. It can be used in combination with ICE in order to make ICE double efficient. It makes sense since can be utilized flue gas temperature for pressurising air. But again – there are lot of phisical constrains on the process itself.
——————————————————————
Darius, thanks for responding to my post. The idea of recuperating waste heat from an automotive ICE is a reasonable sounding idea. Since no auto companies have ever marketed a product that does this, I am a bit skeptical about whether it is practical. Mechanical and Chemical engineers know all about recuperating waste heat from industrial processes. I suspect the relatvely low temperature and low flow of auto exhaust may be insufficient to justify the cost and weight penalties of the recuperator.
(Quote)
March 21st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Instead of having a generator on board, just power the car with wireless power from transmitters on most major roads. You can use the batteries to jaunt around in the suburbs or secondary roads. Intel has been pioneering wireless power and has made a lot of advancement. The government could just lay the wiring when they resurface a road. In 10 years or so, almost all major roads would have the wireless power and you wouldn’t need a generator on board.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1836
(Quote)
October 9th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Showing some love to this topic “new to this wordpress”. I defiantly agree with it also. If you really think about it than it all makes alot of sense
(Quote)