AND 
GM’s Unnamed 2-Mode Plug-in Hybrid to Enter Test Fleets in 2011
Tom Stephens has taken over Bob Lutz’ role as GM vice-chairman and VP of product development. He recently made a statement about GM’s plug-in future beyond the Volt.
As we know, the Saturn brand will be brought to a close by the end of this year, and reports indicate a few parties are interested in buying it.
However, Saturn has been key to GM’s hybrid rollout plans, particularly the plug-in Saturn VUE.
Stephens says, not to worry, “the plug-in hybrid technology will be applied to one of GM’s four core brands.” He remains coy in not letting us know yet which brand will get it writing “I’ll enjoy reading the speculation” written by folks like us about which one will get it.
My guess is the Cadillac SRX, though the new non-hybrid 2010 Equinox already can get 32 mpg on the highway.
Stephens also noted that GM will be rolling out the unnamed 2-mode plugin hybrid in 2011 to demonstration test fleets in concert with the DOE and EPRI. After that it might be offered to customers, though this does not appear certain.
Per Stephens, “We’ll go to fleets first and see where it goes after that.”
Although it looks as though the 2-mode plugin drivetrain is a bit further away from customers than it was planned to be previously, the Volt is not.
In fact “the Volt and plug-in hybrid vehicle are two of 14 hybrid and electric vehicles GM plans to offer by 2012,” says Stephens.
Source (GM)
141 Responses to “GM’s Unnamed 2-Mode Plug-in Hybrid to Enter Test Fleets in 2011”
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
May 6th, 2009 at 6:20 am
what is the cost of the 2-mode system to the customer?.. about $10k?.. then add the plug in battery…
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:20 am
First?
Good news all the way around. It will be great to have a drive train choice….I just hope it will be affordable. That’s the key.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Rats….2nd
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:22 am
I’m with you, Lyle, I believe it will be the SRX.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:31 am
I hope they cancel this. A PHEV-10 isn’t worth the hassle of plugging in.
With the Volt, you have to plug in every night, but you only have to go to the gas station every 3 months. With a PHEV-10, you have to plug in every night and go to the gas station every week.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:42 am
A curious hedging of their bets: fleet sales initially, and a noncommittal “we’ll see where it goes” after that.
I still think that Voltec improvements will reduce demand for a PHEV-10.
Regardless: Lyle, you do a great job coming up with something to post every day so we can all get our Volt fix for the day. Blogs, like newspaper columns, are a ravenous, instatiable beast that have to be fed every day, and it ain’t easy….
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:48 am
I would like to see this in the Buick Enclave (or maybe Chevy Traverse). You could be right Lyle w/the SRX. Ppl are already expecting to pay a premium for a Caddy.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:48 am
The PHEV 10 is a great idea. The original sales pitch for this thing was the following.
1. Ability to pull a trailer.
2. Plug in and the vehicle will use the electric power to double the mileage of the vehicle for the first 40-50 miles of driving.
3. Not a 4 seater.
#2 above is the real key. They can take a gas vehicle and potentially double its fuel economy for normal driving with judicous use of the power stored in the battery.
Once the battery drains, you are back to just driving a hybrid vehicle.
This technolgy will be great while we wait for full electrics in the future. Lets face facts, the ICE and gasoline use are not going anywhere fast. This technology helps use less gas and is a step in the right direction.
Now, Can GM make it affordable.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:50 am
@ Dave G
Unless you dive less than 10 miles/day or can charge at work. Not sure what percentage of drivers this works out to.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:54 am
The natural first thought for a plug-in would be the Chevrolet Equinox I would imagine, however, maybe GM needs to consider making their first PHEV a Cadillac instead. A Cadillac would have a faster re-coup of investment, although adoption by consumers would be less than with a Chevy. Either way, I hope they come out with one soon. Sooner the better!
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Didn’t we just have this discussion a few days ago?
Dave G, maybe for you, a PHEV-10 would not make sense, but for many of us it would.
My wife drives an average of eight miles per day. This vehicle would still reduce her gasoline consumption to almost zero, and we would still have a small SUV for weekend projects, etc.
I think the best solution is a wide range of AER models, with different price points, so you can buy what is best for your needs.
Pretty simple really.
Now lets all get ready for statik to slice and dice every word spoken by Mr. Stephens and tell us how it is all impossible….
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:06 am
#5 Dave G is right. Go through the hassle of plugging in every night, and STILL have to drive on gas regularly? That seems to have the marketability of a 512KB MP3 player. Why bother? Unless… the hybrid design is what it is, and they are simply adding a plug feature as a bonus; in which case the hybrid has merits in its own right even without taking advantage of the plug-in feature.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:18 am
New Camaro’s still on the train –> Our local Chevy dealer here in central NC reports that a large number of Camaros have been ordered by the dealership. Not a single one has yet arrived. None have not arrived at the time scheduled. Reportedly a number of the Camaros have been built but are on a train somewhere and not yet even to the distribution center. The cars come by truck from there to this dealership.
What will happen in November 2010 ?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Why even invest in 2-mode technology?? Voltec is the ony pratical solution to the problem!! Seems like alot of wasted research dollars.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:29 am
These comments read like a broken record. Did everyone just copy/paste theirs from the previous two-mode plugin thread?
Can they do it for <$12k?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:46 am
The point of the 2-mode system is not to achieve long distances on just the battery. If you want that, buy a Volt.
The goal of the 2-mode (and any hybrid vehicle) is to use the alternative power source to supplement the internal combustion engine. Doing this allows the engine to operate in its most efficient state regardless of vehicle load or speed. The addition of a plug-in system allows the engine to operate in this most efficient mode for a longer period of time. This could potentially give the vehicle fuel mileage upwards of 50 mpg. It won’t be a frugal as a Volt, but we’re not talking 10 mpg here either.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:48 am
#3 George b
“Rats….2nd ”
and third too…
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:48 am
2-mode is a drop-in transmission, they already spent the money developing it.. so why not use it?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:51 am
#13 RB
Camero demand is up..GM is adding a shift to meet demand..
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090506/AUTO01/905060396/1148/rss25/Report++GM+adds+shifts+at+Oshawa+for+Camaro+demand
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:53 am
This felt like the the Volt’s long lost sibling before the Saturn debacle, toiling in relative obscurity…not sure what analogy I can use to describe it now.
As Lyle mentioned, it would be no biggie to roll it under another brand. It is only a badge that seperates them…same ‘updated’ (they call it premium) Theta platform underneath.
Sidenote on the SRX:
Personally, I’m not too crazy about stuffing the ‘new’ SRX on this line. It had a uniquely ‘Cadillac’ (Sigma) platform. The name should have just been retired. (the old SRX never quite hit the numbers they wanted…although, not bad considering the price point and segment).
Technically, this is a all new vehicle, there is no connection to the old SRX, it was called the BRX in development…I guess some marketing guy thought there was some value in contrinuing the name, rather than just letting it die off.
The ‘new’ SRX is FWD and is pushed by a turbo 6 cyclinder at the high end, compared to the RWD/AWD, bulletproof 320 V8…they are apples and oranges. I know efficiency and all that, but as nice as the new SRX is (and it looks to be a winner…although hard to judge success when you have 4 platforms of virtually the same vehicle), old SRX owners are going to bemoan the loss of power, RWD/AWD and height.
/should have went with BRX
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:54 am
“2 of 14 hybrid or electric vehicles” excited me for a minute, but I would guess they’re including non-plug-in hybrids in that number as well.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Dave G
I do agree that a PHEV-10 would have been nice 5 years ago… It is a waste now and not worth the cost.
As a military member who lives on base (2-3 miles from work), I plan on driving the Volt all week on one charge. Making a daily charge “Not Required.”
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I’m inclined to agree, Lyle, that Cadillac should get this drive train, perhaps with rear wheel drive motors added. The Provoq concept was exactly this same body and (except for the fuel cell) was a design & styling sensation!
From Lyle’s article above, “Stephens noted that GM will be rolling out the unnamed 2-mode plugin hybrid in 2011 to demonstration test fleets in concert with the DOE and EPRI. After that it might be offered to customers, though this does not appear certain.” Stephens also says, “We’ll go to fleets first and see where it goes after that.”
…..I’m tempted to wonder if the Chevy division might offer a version with this drive train using an Equinox-like body that the Feds might buy in large numbers to replace their gas-guzzing SUVs???
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I don’t care what you others think who don’t think the idea is sound. I think anything that will reduce gasoline usage and not cost an arm and a leg is good. Because of the cost I can see it coming out as a Cadillac and/or a Buick. Both would allow for a little markup in price. Plus, Buick has been left out so far. GM really needs to make this technology available for every two-mode hybrid in their line-up by 2012. That would spread the cost out and reduce battery cost through more batteries being built. It would be great if GM could get 20 miles on battery for this vehicle.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Matt #16
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
Matt is exactly right. Just as it won’t be about the AER for a plug-in Prius it shouldn’t be about the AER for a plug-in 2-mode. How does 50mpg for first 50 miles two-mode plug-in hybrid small SUV sound? Include a 15 gallon tank and you have effectively 750 miles per tank for most driving (<50miles). For the average driver going 20 miles/day this is a gas station visit every 37 days. Does that not have value? (ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?)
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:21 am
We all need to remember/realize this plug-in 2-mode drive train uses the CTS’ acclaimed 3.6 V6 + a compact but very powerful transmission (2 separate electric motors @74Hp ea = 148Hp). And this drive train uses an A123 battery that can easily be upsized to give this CUV an AER of 20 to 40 miles. Chevy could offer a 10 mi AER version, Buick a 25 mi AER version and Caddy a 40 mi AER version.
The result? Vehicles that can do everything a CUV can do (haul lots of stuff, tow at least 3,500lbs, etc) but use LITTLE or NO GAS in normal commuting or errand running — a genuine miracle of American automotive engineering!
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Nasaman #23
Wouldn’t the higher power Converj Voltec be more suitable for that app?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:23 am
The only companies I hope will be successful in the high MPG game are Toyota, Honda and Ford.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:25 am
#14 Brian
Why even invest in 2-mode technology?? Voltec is the ony pratical solution to the problem!! Seems like alot of wasted research dollars.
————————-
Because everyone will not be able to afford or purchase a Voltec vehicle. Some people will not trust it and some people want to pull a trailer. Lots of reasons. If GM can do it and not have a large price differential, they should do it. If the cost for the technology is much greater than a vehicle without it, GM should concentrate on Voltec. It all depends on cost. But even at several thousands of dollars more for the technology in the vehicle, the price of gasoline and the nearly doubling (hopefully) of mileage with the technology may make it a worthwhile effort. Again, it all depends.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:25 am
BTW, Toyota is the non-disputable domestic giant! Toyota proud of its American heritage! TOYOTA=USA
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:31 am
#5 Dave G says “I hope they cancel this.”
#9 k-dawg days “Not sure what percentage of drivers this works out to.”
#12 Jim in PA says “Go through the hassle of plugging in every night, and STILL have to drive on gas regularly?”
First to answer k-dawg’s question: A surprising number of people. Maybe 20%. You can see this from the studies about how far people drive.
Overall N. Riley (#29) and nasaman (#26) have the better of the argument on this issue. The fact is that you’ll probably find more PHEV10s than PHEV40s on the road in ten years. It’s all about using the battery and, while never using gas is appealing, it’s makes more financial sense to always use all of the battery. Battery utilization is the key since the more of the battery you use every day the more the battery makes financial sense. This is why the DOE studies show the market in 2020 being dominated by PHEV10s and PHEV20s, with very few PHEV40s and virtually no BEVs. (The guy from Seekingalpha that has bee cited here from time to time makes this point all the time).
The “hassle” of plugging in seems minimal.
This does not mean, BTW, that I want one. I’m all in for E-REV40. But most people will go with cheaper rather than better. So alternatives like this and the Prius and the Insight and even the Silverado Hybrid all deserve our support.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Why not take the vue and re badge as a Buick.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:41 am
This just in: Ford making an electric Focus in 2011…or so it says….in the new focus plant which is a converted truck plant.
Believe it when I can sit my butt in it.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Nobody here has used the words “BLENDED MODE”.
You really can’t debate the plug in volt vs the plug in vue without including that term. Please (Dave G.) read something besides your own notes. Maybe start here:
Ron Gremban’s Technical Review of Series/Parallel PHEV Debate
“http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/925.html”
(there’s some pro-series hybrid stuff in here, so you can cherry pick it out and post at your liesure)
On the plug in vue, it’s usually not going to make sense to drain the whole battery in the first 10 miles or so operating in electric only mode. You’re going to want to “blend in” the battery at optimum times to get the most mpg throughout the whole day’s driving (or until you can plug in again).
/One thing I will disagree with on RG’s review. He talks about gasoline prices going sky high. That’s not going to happen. We’ve got a built in safety valve in the U.S. against really high (say north of $6/gallon) — it’s called natural gas. If gasoline prices stay high for long, we’ll convert to natural gas
//Ford’s claiming 80mpg to 120 mpg on the plug in escape with a 10kwh battery.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
34 add,
http://www.thefordstory.com/?searchid=426441%7C28125566%7C205373347
Ford plugs-in to the future video
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:02 am
The Volt and the 2-mode Plug-in Hybrid should be launched at the same time. That would give buyers a better choice of new technology. Releasing one sometime after the other looks like the second technology is being offered because the first had issues or a bad reception with the public. (Poor Sales)
That’s not the impression GM should be creating with these Plug-in vehicles.
Launch them both the same week 4/26/2010. Modestly ahead of schedule.
NPNS!
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:03 am
#23 nasaman
I agree with the idea of a Chevy brand to replace the government’s gas-guzzlers. I cringe every time I see a big SUV with government plates and one person in the vehicle. I just don’t understand government thinking. Well, yes, I do sort of. Get as much budget as you can and spend every penny every year and always ask for more and spend it too. To hell with the taxpayer. Maybe thinking like this is what got our country in the mess it is in. Government and industry.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:05 am
“Camaros stuck on a train?”
“Great Ceasar’s Ghost”!
“This looks like a job for Superman”!
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
#25 Koz
Exactly! And, yes, the idea of it does entertain me. Let’s get it done, GM.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
for a laugh..can you identify with any of these?
http://tech.msn.com/products/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=19445651
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
N Riley (#24) beat me to the punch; when I saw that headline I was thinking that by 2011, 2012 they’ll be planning Gen II Volt; with 40 miles AER and seating for 5 (due to increases in battery power density taking away that hump in the rear floor pan). Apply that to the VUE and you could conceivably get 20 miles AER (or 100 miles of ‘blended mode?’) Maybe the plug-in SUV program would be a way to edge into that improved chemistry with fewer cells = more capacity/power.
That would be a winning combination for a lot of folks.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:07 am
#26 nasaman
The result? Vehicles that can do everything a CUV can do (haul lots of stuff, tow at least 3,500lbs, etc) but use LITTLE or NO GAS in normal commuting or errand running — a genuine miracle of American automotive engineering!
————————–
Sounds kind of like the Chevy Orlando. Doesn’t it?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
#30 GM Sucks
It is not GM that sucks, but people like you.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:12 am
ding ding ding. We have another winner.
#30 GM-Sucks is the trollertard of the day.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Usually, I’d say “The more options the better”, but GM’s fiscal situation is so fragile that choices like which one comes next are magnified in importance (IMHO). I think nasaman’s rational and mine would pretty much run on the same track (more room and power= larger audience)
Separate question: If you’re pulling a trailer, does regenerative braking gather more “juice”?
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!!******** NPNS
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:12 am
#31 DonC
Well said. Thanks.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
As far as exteriors go with GM’s SUV/Crossover models, I think I like the Chevy Traverse and the GMC Acadia the best. The Saturn Vue looks pretty good though. I’d like the Vue better if they made it look a bit more like the Traverse though.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/chicago/2008/2009chevrolettraverse.09chevrolettraversefront.img.jpg
http://www.houstoncars.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/WindowsLiveWriter/2007GMCAcadiaReview_8F67/2007-GMC-Acadia%5B2%5D.jpg
If I were in the market for a small SUV or crossover, I would like to have the option of getting a 2 mode hybrid in one of these models. Maybe someday they’ll be able to offer a Voltec powertrain for these models too.
I think the standardized Chevy grill looks pretty good on the Traverse. This “standardized grill” doesn’t necessarily look good on other vehicles though. GM needs to make changes to the front end design of each vehicle so it looks good. A front end design that looks good on one vehicle doesn’t always look good on other ones. The exterior designers need to let top management know this.
Either that, or come up with a super cool looking “universal front end design” with headlights, grill and so forth that DOES look good on just about any vehicle … one for each GM division. That seems like a very hard thing to do. Better to start with a very basic template for each division and then customize it from there for each vehicle.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:15 am
#33 Biodieseljeep
This was Ford’s stated objective from earlier this year. It makes sense for them to do this. I think it will be a good vehicle. Everything that reduces petroleum usage is good. As long as the cost is reasonable, that is. At some point in the future when, not if, fuel prices get to that magic point that they will reach, all things become feasible and reasonable.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:16 am
#12 Jim in PA Says: … Go through the hassle of plugging in every night, and STILL have to drive on gas regularly? That seems to have the marketability of a 512KB MP3 player. Why bother? Unless… the hybrid design is what it is, and they are simply adding a plug feature as a bonus; in which case the hybrid has merits in its own right even without taking advantage of the plug-in feature.
————————————————————————————–
Yes.
The 2-mode hybrid is great. We need more of those. The PHEV version is just an option to the regular 2-mode hybird, and an expensive option at that – probably around $4K. Spending that much more for an anemic 10 miles of electric boost – this doesn’t make sense to me.
What’s more, it could lower the average person’s expectation about the benefits of plug-ins in general, so I believe there’s a real market risk here. It could end up hurting Volt sales.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:20 am
#30, 43, 44
Boys, boys. . . .
Watch this instructional video on how 3 mature people can discuss their differences rationally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmq9XD4k9p0
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am
#5 Dave G.: With a PHEV-10, you have to plug in every night and go to the gas station every week.
=====
I only buy gas once a week now getting close to 23 MPG. Again, it all depends on the customers needs what is best for them… having lots of choice is a better option, though I’m afraid the new GM will not be able to pull this off.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am
#34 & 35 carcus1
Great links. Thanks. I think Ford is really setting themselves up to become the premier auto company of the 21st century. They have some very innovative technology and some of it is starting to reach the highways of America. Great! I just love it! We need more like it! GM?????
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:34 am
#40 Mitch
Interesting link. I saw myself too many times to feel comfortable with it. But, after thinking about it, I could see a number of other people also and that made me feel a little better about myself. You know the old saying about “loves company”?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:37 am
#26 nasaman Says: We all need to remember/realize this plug-in 2-mode drive train uses the CTS’ acclaimed 3.6 V6 + a compact but very powerful transmission (2 separate electric motors @74Hp ea = 148Hp). And this drive train uses an A123 battery that can easily be upsized to give this CUV an AER of 20 to 40 miles.
————————————————————————————–
I don’t see how they can easily get 20-40 miles of AER with a CUV. This would be a huge battery. Where would you put that? How would this affect handling and crash tests?
I believe 20-40 miles of AER would change the whole chassis and interior design. It certainly did on the Volt.
All the 2-mode PHEVs that I know of are just an add-on option to the regular 2-mode hybrid model. For about $4K more, they replace the normal NiMH battery with a Li/Ion battery of the same physical size, shape, and weight. This essentially doubles the battery energy storage, yielding 8-10 miles of electric boost. The instantaneous power of the small battery is not enough to handle the full load, so the ICE still comes on to supply peak power.
Now if someone did make a full hybrid with 20-40 miles of AER, and designed the car properly around the large battery, that would be worth considering. But I don’t believe any major car maker is building such a vehicle.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
author said:
“though the new non-hybrid 2010 Equinox already can get 32 mpg on the highway.” The Equinox CUV is an obese supersized station wagon.
This future 2010 Equinox model is claimed that it will get 32 mpg highway, 22 mpg city for a combined 26 mpg. Compare that to the Jetta Sportwagen TDI station wagon which already gets 41 mpg highway, 30 mpg city for a combined 34 mpg with real world independent average results of 38.7 mpg. The Jetta Sportwagen TDI also gives you superior handling, serious low end torque, a turbo for high end punch and a LeMans race developed dual clutch automatic manual shifter (DSG) for about the same price as the Equinox. No contest.
Maybe some day GM will step up to the plate and hit at least a single.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am
#14 Brian: Why even invest in 2-mode technology?? Voltec is the ony pratical solution to the problem!! Seems like alot of wasted research dollars.
=====
What is the problem YOU are trying to solve?
There are many problems in the world and not only one solution. If you need power, like to tow a boat or camper or for major weekend handyman work, Voltec is NOT the solution.
The problem I would like to solve is reducing the amount of oil used in the world. I can easily see a Volt and a hybrid SUV in my driveway in the future.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:50 am
40 Mitch
LOL.. too true
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:50 am
#40 Mitch,
for a laugh..can you identify with any of these?
http://tech.msn.com/products/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=19445651
_____________________________
Good one. Thought they should have included “The Addict” though. Then I could identify with it even more.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The new 2-mode hybrid will be……
A GMC variant of the SRX/Equinox.
This is suppose to be a (see Matt’s post #16 “The goal of the 2-mode (and any hybrid vehicle) is to use the alternative power source to supplement the internal combustion engine”
Cadillac is not a work vehicle (towing capacity) – Chevrolet will go with the Voltec Technology in the Equinox or should by 2011 or get beat by the competition and Buick – not sure where it fits in their product lineup for America unless they marry the Buick /GMC brands
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Ut-oh. Here we go again. Crude just broke thru $55.
How are people here investing in the Volt movement (other than buying a Volt)? Some options are USO or OIL, BYDDY or BYDDF, perhaps GM stk post-bk, etc.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 9:59 am
45 Tagement
Separate question: If you’re pulling a trailer, does regenerative braking gather more “juice”?
———-
yes, but it would take more enery to accelerate too
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
#26 nasaman Says: We all need to remember/realize this plug-in 2-mode drive train uses the CTS’ acclaimed 3.6 V6 + a compact but very powerful transmission (2 separate electric motors @74Hp ea = 148Hp). And this drive train uses an A123 battery that can easily be upsized to give this CUV an AER of 20 to 40 miles.
————————————————————————————–
#54 Dave G Says: I don’t see how they can easily get 20-40 miles of AER with a CUV. This would be a huge battery. Where would you put that? How would this affect handling and crash tests?
I believe 20-40 miles of AER would change the whole chassis and interior design. It certainly did on the Volt.
————————————————————————————–
The Tesla S uses almost the entire under floor area for its huge battery, and I can see no reason this plug-in 2 mode design couldn’t do the same to achieve either a 20mi AER or a 40mi AER with perfect F-R balance and lower cg to improve handling.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
#5 Dave G.
I would estimate a Volt will use about 100 gallons of fuel a year based on 15000 miles a year of driving, long trips, and forgetting or not being to plug in.
A vehicle with 32MPG over the same mileage using 468 gallons. So that is 4.6 times the amount not 17. Considering the Milan hybrid and Cruize should get even more MPG, the cost saving on gas isn’t as high as one would hope. As stated by many, the CHEVY Volt is a money loser for all parties (GM, consumer). GM would be wise to take note of this and develop a marketing strategy that does not show how it will save you money since it won’t in gen 1 or 2.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
#51 StevenU
I only buy gas once a week now getting close to 23 MPG. Again, it all depends on the customers needs what is best for them… having lots of choice is a better option, though I’m afraid the new GM will not be able to pull this off.
————————–
I drive 20 miles round trip to work and home. I fill-up once a month. I get about 23 mpg city with my 2009 Honda Accord EX-L. If it had a plug-in two-mode hybrid system that cost less than $4,000 I would have jumped on it if I could get 20 miles per charge. I would think long about it if it got 10 miles per charge. I tend to keep my cars and trucks well over 10 years. Most of my driving is the commute to work. The car sits in the carport on most weekends and nights. On the weekend I drive my 2000 Nissan Frontier Crew-cab pickup. It only gets about 16 mpg around town and 19 on the highway (V6 engine). The Accord also has a V6 w/ automatic transmission. It gets over 30 on the highway. I have only taken it on very short highway trips so far.
To get more to the point. I want to see good, reasonably priced hybrid vehicles. Doesn’t matter to me the kind of hybrid as long as it gets good mileage (over 40 or even 50). I can see an advantage for GM’s two-mode hybrid for larger vehicles than the Volt especially carrying more people or pulling loads. It just needs a lager battery and a plug.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I would love a roomy 5 or 6 passanger vehicle that can get 50-70Mpg with performance, & PHEV can do that right now.
We can’t even buy the 4 passenger compact Volt for a couple of years yet, & While I would love Voltec across the line of models , lets face it, It might be 2020 or 2025 before that tech can match PHEV in number of style choices.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:36 am
It’s gonna be the Eqinox.
But if it’s going to be a plugin……SOMEONE STANDARDIZE THE BATTPACK!!!!
I think all PHEV/BEV should allow for space/plug in to add another bank of batt packs. Say your PHEV has a 2KW 220V pack. You should be able to have the option to add another pack later to increase you AER.
Of course that’s just IMHO.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Love the new dates, 2011 and 2012 that gives us oil men 2 plus years of making that much more money, maybe longer. “After that it might be offered to customers, though this does not appear certain.”
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:54 am
#66 CaptJackSparrow
I agree with you on that. I like the idea of being able to add more pack if you can afford it. Seems quite reasonable to me.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am
#67 RichGuy
I know a number of oil people. I work for an oil company that used to refine products, but now only buys and resells. I don’t see any of them quaking in their boots over the coming electrification of the automobile. They know that it will be 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years before that can completely happen. Plus, there will always be a need for petroleum based products for many, many years after that.
What the electrification of the automobile does do is it reduces the usage of petroleum thereby making more available for other uses as reserves dwindle and it helps clear up our environment.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I guess something on a set of 17″ Buick wheels.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
This may not be a good idea.. lithium cells usually like to be kept about 1/2 charged for long term storage.. and usually never stored discharged.
………………………….
#22 AFKlingon Says:
As a military member who lives on base (2-3 miles from work), I plan on driving the Volt all week on one charge. Making a daily charge “Not Required.”
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
#64 N Riley said:
I drive 20 miles round trip to work and home. I fill-up once a month. I get about 23 mpg city with my 2009 Honda Accord EX-L. If it had a plug-in two-mode hybrid system that cost less than $4,000 I would have jumped on it if I could get 20 miles per charge. I would think long about it if it got 10 miles per charge. I tend to keep my cars and trucks well over 10 years. Most of my driving is the commute to work. The car sits in the carport on most weekends and nights. On the weekend I drive my 2000 Nissan Frontier Crew-cab pickup. It only gets about 16 mpg around town and 19 on the highway (V6 engine). The Accord also has a V6 w/ automatic transmission. It gets over 30 on the highway. I have only taken it on very short highway trips so far.
To get more to the point. I want to see good, reasonably priced hybrid vehicles. Doesn’t matter to me the kind of hybrid as long as it gets good mileage (over 40 or even 50). I can see an advantage for GM’s two-mode hybrid for larger vehicles than the Volt especially carrying more people or pulling loads. It just needs a lager battery and a plug.
======================
There it is…the real world again. Very good point. We may be debating this platform or this model, or the potential range, and whether it is a 2 mode, electric, E-Rev or hybrid XXX whatever…but the bottom line is always how much.
GM has a problem pricing their hybrids competitively…I have a feeling that a 2 mode plug-in hybrid SRX might do a lot of great things, but the price is going to render it a marginal product (like all of GM’s current hybrid lineup is now). The only reason to buy it would be to ‘get off oil’ …and that is marketing to only a fraction of the fraction of buyers that can afford this type of vehicle to being with.
So sure, go ahead and built his…but how about also making it as a straight option that you can pop onto a base Equinox as well? I think we have had enough of the “you must have package ‘1SB’ with nav system in the LX model only to select this option” nonsense.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
GM trying to sell Opel, but will keep Ampera (the Opel Volt)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/06/gm-trying-to-sell-open-but-will-keep-ampera-the-opel-volt/
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:45 am
CEO of Ford just introduced ‘all-electric’ Ford Focus on Fox News. They didn’t give a lot of specs, but I’m sure you guys will find it quick.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
#74 CorvetteGuy – I just watched a video on the MSNBC website. Ford is retooling the Wayne, MI truck plant to build the next generation Focus there, as well as an electric Focus to be introduced in 2011. No technical info though…
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am
nasaman The Tesla S uses almost the entire under floor area for its huge battery, and I can see no reason this plug-in 2 mode design couldn’t do the same to achieve either a 20mi AER or a 40mi AER with perfect F-R balance and lower cg to improve handling.
________________________
What you’re envisioning from a consumer perspective is unfortunately the equivalent of starting over with an entirely new platform from a mass production perspective. A product that will be required to survive every imaginable form of customer and terrestrial abuse, accidental and intentional by the 10’s of thousands or even millions, can’t simply be “modified the way you appear to be suggesting, and be expected to be mass produced and sold at a profit.
And this is in a competitive environment where every bit of over-engineering, inefficiency and redundancy is agressivey omitted to drive cost savings.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Ford to build electric Focus in Wayne, retool plant
http://www.freep.com/article/20090506/BUSINESS01/90506024/Ford+to+build+electric+Focus+in+Wayne++retool+plant
Ford plant dumps SUVs, goes small
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/06/autos/ford_focus_plant/index.htm
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
#68N Riley
#66 CaptJackSparrow
_____________________
I’m really smitten with the idea of standard battery packs. If I could pull a few empties out and pop some full ones back in would eliminate trips to gas stations.
But help me out here, how would you secure them – padlocks, locking bars?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am
@ 5. Dave G
if I am going to pay a premium for a two-mode hybrid like this anyway, I’ll only be paying for the larger battery and charging mechanism. a little more money for a larger battery and the opportunity for more electric drive time/fuel consumption reduction would be worth it to me.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
and as Lyle guessed, I would put my money on Cadillac receiving this technology as it is a smaller volume brand. on this train of thought, headaches might be avoided by ramping up with a smaller volume brand that commands a premium (and leads to fewer overall losses on 1st gen tech), then rolling it out to Chevy a bit later.
of course, Chevy was my initial reaction when I heard Saturn was being cut, mostly because it is on a similar price level to Saturn. if it is going to fleet sales, unless they are for limo companies, I would guess it is a Chevy…
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I understand the idea of recovering costs by putting expensive new technology in a luxury vehicle. But seriously, I do NOT want even a remotely luxurious vehicle! Put it in the new Equinox or something. No Buicks, NO Caddy’s. I guess it’s irrelevant since I can’t afford a new PHEV anyways, even a Chevy.
10 miles AER sounds OK to me.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@effhre 78
I dunno, I only came up with the idea of being able to augment the current pack with more capacity……lol
OK, here’s a thought, assuming the electrical is just a plug for each sub-pack in the batt pack as a whole, within the cavity the sub-pack is to be inserted, use the same method of mounting/clamping that’s used in high end snowboard bindings that allow a solid mount but easy release. Or something like ski bindings on a smaller scale. That way all mounting mechanics are at the bottom of each sub-pack and leaves the top for spaghetti wiring or whatever.
OK, back to more Kahlua than Coffee…..
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
#34 carcus1 says “Nobody here has used the words “BLENDED MODE”. ”
Yours is a very important post with a great an interesting link. Yes the magic words are “blended mode”. We’ve seen so many people suggest putting a larger battery in a Prius gives you a Volt, but the technologies are so different this isn’t what happens. A Prius is just not going to ever deliver the EV range of a Volt because it’s not designed to run on the battery only for the scope of the drive cycle.
This quote from your link sums it up: “This means that different battery sizes have different optimum PHEV architectures, and each company’s claims are basically accurate, but only for its vehicle’s battery size.” The only thing I’d add to this is that the Volt architecture scales better. It certainly scales upward, and it could in fact scale downward if CA would relax it’s 10-150K warranty requirement on the battery (since you would not have to maintain a 50% DOD).
#62 nasaman says “I can see no reason this plug-in 2 mode design couldn’t do the same to achieve either a 20mi AER or a 40mi AER with perfect F-R balance and lower cg to improve handling.”
Yes and no. You are without question right that technologically this is not a big deal. But the price might be prohibitive. Unless of course you don’t have to conform to the 10-150 warranty requirement.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
78, 82,
While as the Cap’n says you ‘could’ have some sort of mechanisim to attach a spare battery, the real question is how many people would actually have any intrest in doing so?
I think that regardless of how much battery is in a dual mode machine that capacity will not be changed by the vast majority of owners. If an ‘extended range’ battery were offered and purchased it would be installed by the dealer and left in place permanently making the ability to swap them pointless.
On this site there are a number of enthusiasts. (I’m guilty of this) but really the features have to appeal to the largest group of people.
The 2 mode gives the option for someone like myself who have a camper trailer that the ‘truck’ (currently a 1997 Land Rover Discovery) can pull on the weekends. As much as I think the Volt will be a great ‘everyday’ car there are times when a lot of us need more power.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Nassaman,
I have an Idea for the Volt. Why not go to NG for the the ICE which would eliminate the question of stale fuel. With the new home refueling systems you would never have to go to the gas station. Plus, I believe the emissions woud be close to zero
God Bless America,
Tom M
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Hey, check this out. Interesting concept from VW, ICE drives front wheels, Electric drives the back wheels…..
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/06/audi-working-on-a3-hybrid-with-twindrive/
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
@CaptJackSparrow 86 (Me)
Ooops… not VW, it’s Audi.
My bad.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
#86 CaptJackSparrow wrote:
“Hey, check this out. Interesting concept from VW, ICE drives front wheels, Electric drives the back wheels…..
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/06/audi-working-on-a3-hybrid-with-twindrive/”
—–
This isn’t new. Lexus has had this for a while. It’s a novel way to get AWD, but it is still a parallel hybrid.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I have to say, I think Ford is on the right track. With their Focus Hybrid and now the electric Focus they could end up dominating the American “green” market. Especially with all the stimulus backlash again GM. Not taking that money is looking like a very smart move. I’m mean if you wanted to buy American and had a choice between a company that took billions in bailouts and one that didn’t, it seems to be a no brainer who you’d pick.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
#73 CaptJackSparrow
Thank you for the link. I was wondering about that. So, does that mean GM is going to keep Vauxhall? They need someone to manufacture the Ampera. And somehow I don’t see them exporting them from the US…
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I’ve been going through some ideas on what a person can do with the expected (hopefully when the Volt arrives) tax rebate thingamajig. Here are some ideas since I keep dissin it…..
1)—Use the $7500.00 tax rebate you get back the following year to cover part of a Solar system for your house, even just a small one. This will ensure you will be driving a truely “Green” car.
2)—Use the $7500.00 tax rebate you get back the following year as a “down” when you refi the car the following year you bought it. This should lower your monthly payments and/or reduce the length of the loan.
3)—Use the $7500.00 tax rebate you get back the following year and put it all towards the principle of the loan. This should reduce the ammount of months of the loan tenure.
4)—IF you still have your big SUV/Truck, Use the $7500.00 tax rebate you get back the following year to augment your SUV/Truck with the NetGain EAS with EMIS system. http://www.netgaintechnologiesllc.com/EAS/tabid/574/Default.aspx
This will give you something similar to Honda’s IMA (Integrated Motor Assist)
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I am guessing it will *not* be the Cadillac. Cadillac drivers are the type that don’t want muss or fuss like plugging it in every night. Maybe a Converj with a 40 mile AER, but I don’t know many Cadillac SUV drivers are not worried about gas mileage.
On the other hand, most Cadillac drivers have a garage and aren’t just parking in the driveway, so plugging it wouldn’t be that much extra effort. I still think the Converj is a better way to go for Cadillac buyers. It’s sleak and stylish, and the ultimate green symbol, yet classy and powerful. I think they need to figure out how to make a 4 door version though.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@LauraM 90
“Thank you for the link. I was wondering about that. So, does that mean GM is going to keep Vauxhall? They need someone to manufacture the Ampera. And somehow I don’t see them exporting them from the US…”
The article doesn’t really reveal much but it points to the direction that GM will keep all rights to the Voltec design and manufacturing. Kind of like “here’s the division but we’re keeping a part of the rights.” I think it’s still up in the air for Ampera.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
#23 nasaman
I like those numbers you mentioned for the motor power and the optional capabilities for adding battery power if you need it. This sounds to me like GM is setting up a powertrain to blow the doors off of anything else out there that is stock. (Hemi’s beware!) (Once or twice a year or so.)
Those are some really exciting possibilities for the aftermarket EV techs down here in Austin TX. ( I am very sure they will like that at Austin EV)..
#85.
There really are some outstanding “top tier” gasolines that, if the gas cap is ok, it can go about a year in the gas tank without going stale.
The one that does that is Shell 87 octane, and, just remember to *never* add any additives (even “stabil”) because most of these just settle to the bottom of the tank and are totally unnecessary.
The thing about compressing natural gas, is that you have to use a lot of electricity to do that. I worked out the details and it takes 15% as much electricity to compress that natural gas as it would to just propel the vehicle. And, the repair costs of the extra equipment to compress it (after the 3 year warranty is out), would not be desirable. Also, the 3,600 pounds per square inch pressure in the tank would be dangerous in an accident if the fitting on the tank broke off during impact.
I think that the very best electricity to use is green energy. I am told by Austin Energy that I can order only Wind and other renewable kinds of Energy for my Voltec vehicle, and, it would cost me about a penny a mile more.
They said that they are working to get that cost down to a fraction of a penny by the time the Voltec vehicles come out. You might bring that subject up to your electricity provider, just in case they might really be interested in seeing how Austin Energy does this.
Dan Petit Austin TX.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Standardized Li-Ion batteries? We don’t even have standardized lead-acid batteries 80+ years after Kettering, for probably the same reason: one size does NOT fit all.
Aside from this, any plans for extending EV range which involves swapping ‘empty’ batteries for charged ones is doomed. At hundreds of pounds and thousands of dollars, this won’t be an uncomplicated ‘push-pull click-click’ affair. You’ll show up at the battery swap center, leave your ‘empty’ 1 yr old battery for a 2+ yr old charged one? Not me.
I’d be in favor of a system of physical/voltage standards within a brand which would allow someone to easily replace an aging OEM stock battery with a larger capacity, aftermarket alternative.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Addition:
… which is the exact situation we have currently with lead-acid batteries (assuming a voltage standard, which does seem like a reasonable expectation at this early stage).
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I forgot that for trucks and SUVs, they have to be 2000 or older vintage to qualify as a clunker, as the bill is proposed now.
So just looking at cars, which have no age restriction:
The end result looks like a one time perk for laid off Wall Street speculators (with our retirement money) to get a voucher when they trade in their luxury car for something a lot less expensive (and accidentally with slightly better mileage). Robber barons at our soup line.
New cars (and station wagons) that qualify as clunkers with the proposed bill:
2009 Chrysler 300 STR-8
2009 Dodge Charger
2009 Mercury Grand Marquis (Flex fuel using E85)
2009 Ford Crown Victoria (Flex fuel using E85)
2009 Mercedes Benz E63 AMG Wagon
2009 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG and
2009 Mercedes Benz CLS63 AMG
2009 Mercedes Benz S550 and
2009 Mercedes Benz CLS550
2009 Mercedes Benz CL550 4matic Coupe
2009 Mercedes Benz CLK550 Coupe
2009 Mercedes Benz SLK550 AMG
2009 Mercedes Benz SL63 AMG
2009 Mercedes Benz SL65 AMG
2009 Mercedes Benz SL550
2009 Mercedes Benz SL600
2009 Mercedes Benz E550
2009 Mercedes Benz CL63 AMG
2009 Mercedes Benz CL65 AMG
2009 Mercedes Benz CL600
2009 Mercedes Benz SLR
2009 Saleen Performance S281 Family
2009 Audi S4 Cabriolet
2009 Audi S6
2009 Audi S8
2009 Audi A8
2009 Audi R8
2009 Infiniti M45x
2009 Cadillac STS V8 and AWD
2009 Cadillac Limousine
2009 Cadillac XLR
2009 BMW M3 and M3 Coupe
2009 BMW M5
2009 BMW M6
2009 Aston Martin DBS Coupe
2009 Aston Martin DB9
2009 Aston Martin V8 Vantage
2009 Lamborghini Gallardo Coupe and Spyder
2009 Lamborghini Murcielago and Roadster
2009 Dodge Challenger Coupe
2009 Dosge Viper Coupe and Convertible
2009 Roush PS3 Mustang
2009 Spyker C8
Pretty much every 2009 Bentley, Ferarri, Maybach, Rolls Royce and Maserati.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
its called thru-the-road parallel, renault is also working on it and is getting ready to sell it soon.. factories are setting up now, with a diesel in the front.
The right way to do it would be electric on the front wheels and ICE in the rear wheels.
……………………………………………………
#86 CaptJackSparrow Says:
Hey, check this out. Interesting concept from VW, ICE drives front wheels, Electric drives the back wheels…..
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Right, ’cause if there’s anything that full price retail consumer owners want in vehicles, it’s what the underpaid, uncaring meter readers and groundskeepers who use fleet vehicles part time as and when assigned to them, tell us, through automaker fleet test feedback, that we do.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I agree battery swapping is not likely..
I would think that battery packs would have internal electronics to monitor its performance and keep an internal record of it.
How about this: a battery lease program with a no-question-asked warranty on the batteries, and also offers a free (and optional) battery swap if you drive up to the stations.. you can terminate the contract at any time with no penalty and just buy a battery if so desired.
I dont think battery swapping will ever be popular.. too much work and infrastructure needed.
……………………………….
Jackson Says:
Aside from this, any plans for extending EV range which involves swapping ‘empty’ batteries for charged ones is doomed. At hundreds of pounds and thousands of dollars, this won’t be an uncomplicated ‘push-pull click-click’ affair. You’ll show up at the battery swap center, leave your ‘empty’ 1 yr old battery for a 2+ yr old charged one? Not me.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Lots of comment here by non-Engineers opining on problems that they don’t understand.
EREV architectures Will eventually dominate, but not for 8-12 years. the cost of batteries is just prohibitive. If suddenly a battery breakthrough made them economical, unlike the anticiaated steady progress and cost reductions will, it would still take a considerable amount of time to design EREV drive train with 300 HP electric motors.
These Will continue to be needed for the towing and hauling that is still a requirement for boat-owning, camping trailer owners. Parallel series architecture is still needed. Despite the opprobrium, because the dual mode was applied to three ton vehicles first, it is the most advanced parallel series architecture available, and makes the Toyota HSD, and Ford Escape/Fusion architectures seem somewhat primitive and antiquated in use,
So for applications that need towing hauling, or large vehicles, the dual mode architecture should see the marketplace; and it will.
As for where the FWD version will appear, the easiest is the new SRX, a Theta platform twin to the Vue. Other logical places for it are in other CUVs, like the Equiniox/Terrain, but there an I-4 or 2.8-30 liter V6 makes more sense, as its drive-train mate. It could also appear in the one-size up Enclave/Traverse/Acadia.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I mentioned handling “subpacks” of a batt pack. Let’s see, a 60AH Prismatic cells in series of 4 for a sub-pack of 12.6VDC weighs (5.5 * 4) = 22lbs. For 4 cells of 40AH it’s (3.3 * 4) = 13.2lbs.. This doesn’t sound too difficult to lift if the batt pack chassis is already in place. You’ll just hace to load approx 34 of them to reach your ~400VDC pack voltage….lol
OK, maybe it’s just me because I like to do my own sh|t. But I don’t see a prob. What i’m saying is if this was allowed/option to add storage capacity, it wouldn’t be too hard. Swapping on a regular bassis is another issue.
Now for those that say “what about the battery monitoring….”
A batt pack can be a standalone in which it monitors itself and shuts off at it’s designed thresholds and balances as it charges. There’s not a whole lot to it. The OEM BMS will manage the cells in the Volt but the add on wll only act as parallel power to the car which basically means that the OEM batt pack will only work half (depending on the batt capacity) as hard to propel the vehicle.
OK,maybe i’m just a nerd……lol
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@ stat peterson 101
“it would still take a considerable amount of time to design EREV drive train with 300 HP electric motors”
Or not.
Here’s a 1,350-horsepower EREV with electric motors from 1939, the EMD FT. It was made by this company called General Motors in a division that specialized in electric motive transportation. Both the division and the vehicle revolutionized the transportation industry, making electric drive the dominant form of efficient long haul tranport in the US.
History repeats itself, using rubber wheels this time. Learn some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_FT
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Carcus @34
“One thing I will disagree with on RG’s review. He talks about gasoline prices going sky high. That’s not going to happen. We’ve got a built in safety valve in the U.S. against really high (say north of $6/gallon) — it’s called natural gas. If gasoline prices stay high for long, we’ll convert to natural gas”
Your right that gas will not go to $6 a gallon any time soon. But the reason is if it gets to $4 a gallon everything will go in the tank again and demand will go down so the price will go back down.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@Starcast 104
Carcus @34
“One thing I will disagree with on RG’s review. He talks about gasoline prices going sky high. That’s not going to happen. We’ve got a built in safety valve in the U.S. against really high (say north of $6/gallon) — it’s called natural gas. If gasoline prices stay high for long, we’ll convert to natural gas”
Your right that gas will not go to $6 a gallon any time soon. But the reason is if it gets to $4 a gallon everything will go in the tank again and demand will go down so the price will go back down.
All that sh|t is the reason we need to go Electric. I’m tired of making a deposit to the OPEC fund.
Jus build my Volt DANGIT!!!
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Of course, the power version (what the T stood for) had 2,700 hp of electric drive.
And you folks thought I was being silly for wanting to crush the Viper with more electric drive power.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
@RB 13
“New Camaro’s still on the train –> Our local Chevy dealer here in central NC reports that a large number of Camaros have been ordered by the dealership. Not a single one has yet arrived. None have not arrived at the time scheduled. Reportedly a number of the Camaros have been built but are on a train somewhere and not yet even to the distribution center. The cars come by truck from there to this dealership.
What will happen in November 2010 ?”
——————————————————
I will fly to the Plant to pick mine up. delivery is not necessary…
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
#72 Statik
So sure, go ahead and built his…but how about also making it as a straight option that you can pop onto a base Equinox as well? I think we have had enough of the “you must have package ‘1SB’ with nav system in the LX model only to select this option” nonsense.
—————————————
Boy, how I can agree with you on this on. I am tired of seeing the hybrids only offered as a top of the line model with all the bells and whistles on it. It prices the vehicles completely out of the range of most people. Not me, but most people. But, just because I can afford to purchase top of the line, I don’t. I would like the two-mode available as a bottom of the line or very close to the bottom. Are you listening GM? The way you get market penetration is by giving people something they can afford and that will do the job they are looking for. And make it dependable while you are at it. Or else, plan to pack your kit and go home because you won’t be around much longer.
Edited: Now, GM, this is from a customer who has driven GM products for most of my adult life (I am now 65). I want to drive more GM products in the future. But, it all depends on you, GM. Not me. I have done my part. It is time for you to step to the plate and finally hit another home run. Go get them, GM. I know you can do it. We are all (or most of us) pulling for you every single day on this site.
Edited: I want to do some more on my part when you come out with a Camaro convertible. Speaking of the Camaro, I want an SS option, but again, I have to purchase the top of the model to get it. That is stupid. It doesn’t take that much added options to make an SS. And, it should be offered as a V6 SS model, also.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
From the EV Focus article “Ford said its zero-emission Focus battery-powered electric vehicle, which is being developed in partnership with ******Magna International******** features a high-voltage electric motor powered by a high-capacity lithium ion battery pack.”_________________________________
If a large portion of the auto industry were to disappear tonight Magna seems well positioned, with many of the NA makes and models now planned and in production, to restart the industry and pick up the slack in a short amount of time.
Not literally of course but doesn’t it seem like Magna appears to be in a position to do it? If the bailout funds and what’s left of Chrysler were in Magna’s hands they surely would have been better managed than with the Nardelli/Cerberus crew. Although I’m sure Cerberus’ money runners must have shorted Wall Street and are sitting on gobs of ligthly regulated capital, which they don’t want to donate to a sinking ship.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
@N Riley 108
” The way you get market penetration is by giving people something they can afford and that will do the job they are looking for. And make it dependable while you are at it. Or else, plan to pack your kit and go home because you won’t be around much longer.”
I totally agree. When the fleet here was refreshed, it was 13 large trucks and 8 small pickup maintenance trucks. The large trucks purchased had the medium end package (don’t remember what was included). There was no option to go stripped. There’s NO reason foar all the extra’s for the crew, NONE whatsoever! But they had to be bought because the Engine package was the desired, yes they were GM vehicles. The smaller trucks were in the same scenario. GM, if you’re listening hear us out. Your products quotes got trash canned because the Ford Ranger came in the base they were looking for. Yup, yours came in with CD player Power windows etc…..
For small fleets like this (and some GP customers) you have lost out. Not everyone wants all those creature comforts, especially if they might get paint, grease, oil, sap, Tar etc… on it.
The Second choice was the Toyota pickup.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
#78 Jeffhre
I’m really smitten with the idea of standard battery packs. If I could pull a few empties out and pop some full ones back in would eliminate trips to gas stations.
But help me out here, how would you secure them – padlocks, locking bars?
———————————-
I don’t have a clue. But, really, it should not be a difficult process. Probably you would have a locking mechanism of some kind that would allow the pack to be slid out when you unlock it. After replacing the pack, you just lock the latch again. This is assuming you wanted to do that process of pulling out the battery and replacing it with one that is charged.
My thoughts as stated, maybe not very clear, was for the manufacturer (GM, Ford) to offer a vehicle with a basic battery pack. If the customer wanted to add miles per charge, the dealer would “snap-in” an additional pack assembly. If they wanted even further miles per charge, the “snap-in” pack would be bigger or you would piggy-back another pack giving the customer 3 battery packs in the vehicle. Each pack could account for, say, 10 miles per charge. Two packs would give you 20 miles and three packs, 30 miles. In my original thinking I was not considering the ability of the customer to “replace” a pack when it was empty with one off his shelf that he had been charging. I know we all do that with laptops and cell phones by purchasing additional batteries that we charge as we are off using our devices. But I was not going down that road. That is more like what “Better Place” is offering, except you would swap out the batteries at battery stations (like service stations).
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
#108
N Riley
I don’t remember where but GM has said that they are calling too many models SS’s and it dilutes the moniker too much. SS has always been synonymous with the bigger V8’s offered w/ each model hasn’t it?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Now for those that say “what about the battery monitoring….”
—————————–
Software can be aware of one, two or multiple packs in a vehicle and take the proper steps to monitor the packs. Not a big deal. I write software that has to be “aware” of options all the time.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
#111
N Riley
Yes I remember. I like the idea of having it modular though. Drive an EREV with a 10 mile AER (sorry Dave G) and if I don’t get bored with it in six months, give myself a birthday present snap in a 75 mile AER combo. Then I might as well go the whole nine yards and use it for an all electric road trip.
Using a PBP contract for a long road-trip instead of gas. Just rambling on but if companies put money into it then it could work. Or I could buy batteries after I buy the car for instance and get the $7500 tax credit at that time. Or I could get a $30,000 450 mile range pack from PBP for nothing out of pocket and instead of a tax credit the Govt could subsudize my battery payments for the first three or four years.
Hell, any of these options makes a lot more sense than credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, and what’s possible only gonna be limited by the imaginations of some leasing company’s product guys.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
#112 jeffhre
SS has always been synonymous with the bigger V8’s offered w/ each model hasn’t it?
—————————–
Yes, but I can still bitch to them and hope for an SS package without all the other things I don’t need. You should look at the new Camaro and try to build one to get the SS package. I adds an arm, a leg and part of the body torsoin cost. That’s what I’m saying!!
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@N Riley 113
“Software can be aware of one, two or multiple packs in a vehicle and take the proper steps to monitor the packs. Not a big deal. I write software that has to be “aware” of options all the time.”
My point was the xtra pack would be seamless because it would be designed as a “Standalone” pack. Your software may be aware that another pack was attached electrically by enumerating power usage vs. drain from the OEM batt pack but it will do nothing if the control nodes are not connected. This is an area I know GM will never allow much less another pack….lol. That’s why I suggested a “Standalone” batt pack.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
#1114 jeffhre
Hell, any of these options makes a lot more sense than credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, and what’s possible only gonna be limited by the imaginations of some leasing company product guys.
——————————–
You right there! Give some smart guy time and he will come up with a solution like you want one day.
Got to go for the day. Enjoyed it, “guys”.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
#115
N Riley
That I totally 100% agree with, pick what you want and drive away! Sounds like a great scheme for some smart car company to make a lot of money in the internet age! Why do we have to bitch and moan just to get someone to take thousands of our hard earned dollars for a new car?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
N. Riley, CaptJackSparrow, Statik, et al
Absolutely. Just because customers will sometimes swallow extras they don’t want to get what they do want does make it smart marketing. The customer feels taken advantage of and will seek alternatives if they are available. Offer hybrids in base models too. Use them to take market share instead of trying to squeeze more frosting on your cake. Realistically, what does GM have to lose at this point?
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Feature packages in cars is like voting on propositions. You have to suck up the crap you don’t agree with/want to get the stuff you want.
It souldn’t be that way.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Adding battery modules can cause a problem with cell balancing and may cause a subsequent loss in pack capacity.
( I’ve tried to add a source but it gets spammed out.) It was long, technical, and boring anyway.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Tom # 85 “Nassaman,
I have an Idea for the Volt. Why not go to NG for the the ICE which would eliminate the question of stale fuel. With the new home refueling systems you would never have to go to the gas station. Plus, I believe the emissions woud be close to zero”
____________________________
And why not try a high efficiency turbine w/ natural gas. This is a brand new day in auto propulsion development and I hope a reasonable amount of development money can go into all of these options that would have seemed crazy or pointless even a couple of years ago. Electric drive opens up a myriad of possibilities for more efficient/better range extenders.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Cell balancing good point. It would have to be engineered in, like adding memory addresses in a pc or engineered on, like adding PHEV capability to a PRIUS.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I have limited interest in these proposed “dual-mode hybrid” vehicles. Less still in Cadillacs of any description. I am waiting for the Volt to buy a new car. End of story.
Even so, GM needs to have a wide variety of fuel efficient vehicles if it hopes to survive in the market place. The sooner the better. So I guess this is good, although the timeline looks like too little too late to me.
#120 CaptJackSparrow:
As a fellow CA resident, I have to tell you that I have a new policy on propositions. “Vote No on Yes” If our Governator and Legislature can’t grow up and run the state without constantly punting issues they can’t agree on to the voters, I am not going to enable their dysfunctional personalities by voting for their propositions. Maybe enough chaos will force some real change. I just vote no on all of them. It’s really liberating.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I mentioned this back a few threads, about GMAC going to have to tap the markets for more cash probably…which they won’t be able to do…which means they will have to go to you know where.
Well…the bank ’stress test’ results are leaking out now on America’s 20-odd largest banks, and guess who is clocking in defective?
Our good friend GMAC is apparently top 5 on the ‘bad’ side and need to access 11.5 billion…yupe, thats a good choice to take over Chrysler’s financing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ax42ejKB7gAs
Sidenote:
No ruling on Chrysler Financial petition stating that they defacto own all of Chrysler’s cars because they have liens on them (and the fact they have exclusivity deals with the dealers), and GMAC doesn’t get to takeover their rold.
CF wants to keep providing the financing to Chrysler, and wants to unseal GMAC’s deal with the gov’t to finance ‘new’ Chrysler. The question du jour is…why not let CF do it still? Oh yeah…we need a excuse to give GMAC another, oh…11.5 billion+
/sigh
Also interesting, with no Chrysler Financial backing loans on cars, and Chase’s decision today to not longer finance dealers (that was a biggie), nobody is delivering cars to dealers for fear they won’t get paid…Chrysler is logging zeros on sales because automakers record sales the moment they drop them at dealers…can’t wait to see those ‘may car-pocalypse’ sales numbers.
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
@carcus1 121
“Adding battery modules can cause a problem with cell balancing and may cause a subsequent loss in pack capacity.”
Within the Volt’s batt pack is the BMS that monitors all balancing in an “Active” fashion. Active meanning it most likely balances on the fly as well as charge/discharge. This we all understand. Now adding another pack in prallel is just like firing up the genset, where the add on batt pack will augment your OEM batt pack. If a simple addition of juice is going to knock the OEM pack out of balance then there’s a design flaw somewhere. Adding DC power in parallel is the beauty of DC itself. You can’t do this with AC by just connecting the +- leads. Now for the add on pack, it should be designed standalon as I described before.
Charging is the same because both packs will have their protection. The OEM pack via BMS and the add on pack via onboard circuitry to detect cell thresholds as well as balance after charge. The key there is that both packs will balance individually/isolated from each other.
OK, going home for a beer now….
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
#125
statik
I mentioned this back a few threads, about GMAC going to have to tap the markets for more cash probably…which they won’t be able to do…which means they will have to go to you know where._________________________
I thought that also, but judging by preliminary, unofficial, rumored/leaked? bank results, perhaps the greater fool theory applies, some investors may say GM equities are cheap enough now that if it’s good enough for US treasury money perhaps it’s good enough for ours. If some form of preferred today can be exchanged for gobs of common in a better future, who knows greed may win out over common sense? No, sorry that never happens!
(Quote)
May 6th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Interesting segment on ABC News tonight regarding Ford. It highlighted plans for them to convert an existing SUV factory to make the next gen. Focus, and including an “electric version of the car”. You can watch the segment here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7520313&page=1
I believe this is the all-electric Focus that Lyle drove at the Detroit Auto Show.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Lets get real!
If Gm Wants to be in the game and survive it has to build a 5 passenger car, plug in that retails for $25,000. to reach the mass market, before it can even begin to climb out of debt and challenge Toyota, and Honda, never mind the many start up electric car Companies around the world. After the development costs, these cars should be able to be produced at this price point. No more oil changes, transmission services, no more air filters, brakes should last much longer, lithium batteries will come way down in price, as the Korean, Chinese Companies compete, and mileage will continue to climb until we see 200 plus miles between charges. And don’t forget that roll over standards are about to be implemented, which is long ove due, and save many lives.
The past has gone, there is a new paradigm out there and If GM chooses to prosper it had better get lean enough to more than compete. The days of the American Car Companies telling us what we want to drive is OVER.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Thought I would share this with you . Vancouver is in British Columbia , it is something like California only farther North .
http://www.vancouversun.com/Technology/Downtown+Vancouver+condo+tower+Canada+first+plug+electric+vehicle+building/1569985/story.html
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:42 am
The modules would internally self balance, and report status to the cpu.. the modules can be stacked in parallel, even when they are of different capacities easily.. the capacity just adds.. make sure the modules do not have grossly different ages and voltages.
The issue is that a 40 mile pack weighs 370lbs, where are you going to stick that?.. and I’m not lifting it.
I can see it as a factory option.. at the time of car purchase.
………………….
#121 carcus1 Says:
Adding battery modules can cause a problem with cell balancing and may cause a subsequent loss in pack capacity.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Herm #131
A 40 mile pack likes the Volts weighs 170lbs. If you aren’t designing for 10 years of life, the 8kwh useable could be as low as 150lbs.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Aeroflex claims their cell balancing circuitry can open up the %SOC window on Lithium Ion substantially:
“…the SOC range might be from 5% to 95%, increasing the use to 90%.”
Achieving cell balancing for lithium-ion batteries
http://ams.aeroflex.com/ProductFiles/Articles/BEUElectronicProductsArticle.pdf
Aeroflex company profile:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:eckXBuONqN0J:www.humbugpr.com/aeroflex/ATSCP.doc+aeroflex+company+profile&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“September 16, 2007
2009 Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid is a go
General Motors is planning to start selling an electric plug-in version of its 2008 Saturn Vue compact SUV sometime “in 2009,” Detroit Free Press is reporting citing Saturn’s general manager Jill Lajdziak”
Ok, it’s 2009, where’s my plug-in hybrid?
What, GM lied to us? Again? Ya, it’s always “in just two years”, regardless of the current date. Meanwhile, GM keeps shoveling mostly inefficient, old technology cr@p onto failing dealerships instead of showing consumers what they really want at dealerships.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:39 am
The modular packs will also have to meet the 10 year warranty.. its the law in several states.
I think its ridiculous.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Herm,
How ’bout the Aeroflex 5% to 95% SOC window claim? (my post @ 133). Do you buy that?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
#135
Hey, does gasoline have to meet the 10 year, 100,000 mile useability warranty? If not, cause for a lawsuit, methinks. If so, show me that gas in your gas tank that’s 10 years old and traveled 100,000 miles. Since a power pack doesn’t use it’s full charge, it always retains some of its original energy atoms in 100% usable form, which should validate the warrenty. Someone set me straight?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I’m not sure I do.. perhaps for a battery that is in a thermally stable environment such as a building or space satellite. That is a very tight window for safety.
The Volt already balances its cells.
Did you know that if you fully charge a lithium cell in a cold environment, and then the cell warms up it becomes overcharged all by itself?.. that probably is the reason GM does not fully charge the cells, only up to 80% I think. They claim is to prevent overcharge from regen braking but that does not make sense.
One advantage of the LiFe cells is that they are very tolerant of abuses such as overcharging, imbalances and deep discharges.. disadvantage is they have a lower voltage and thus lower energy.
…………………………………………..
#136 carcus1 Says:
Herm,
How ’bout the Aeroflex 5% to 95% SOC window claim? (my post @ 133). Do you buy that?
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Herm #135
“The modular packs will also have to meet the 10 year warranty.. its the law in several states.
I hink its ridiculous.”
This is a widespread misunderstanding. The 10 year’s comes from California and the other states (?) are only duplicating their policy. It’s not a law altogether. It is a rule to allow a hybrid like the Prius to quilify as a PZEV. It is acutally a well intentioned rule to insure that a car requiring a battery to qualify for a PZEV actually has that battery functioning. It does not apply to BEV’s and I don’t believe it should (will?) apply to an EREV like the Volt. There is another common misconception that people will not but a EV that the battery won’t last at least 10 years. This is what GM is cowtowing to and it IS rediculous. The only mass produced EV doesn’t have a 10+ year battery and they are performing quite well in their segment. Ultimately, it is $/(lifetime KWH) that matters.
I don’t want to spend extra $ for battery capacity to cover the calendar any more than necessary. Why would anybody. Especially in a deflationary battery market.
(Quote)
May 10th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
June 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Is there a good purpose of messaging the 2-Mode Plug-in “Hybrid”? When GM has and appears doing great things with VOLTEC, why spend the effort on another item on the electrical technology spectrum!.
GM does not want to get involved into a lot of broad issues for the sake of having “Something for Everybody”. I believe GM is on a roll with VOLTEC and should assure that it is appropriately funded with their limited resources before, the government starts inappropriate input.
I know that we tax payers hold a large stake in the business but, I believe in GM and that they can modernize and come out on top. Just with the concept of the VOLT being so dynamic and getting broad attention is testimony in itself of their capabilities.
(Quote)