Comments on: Obama Says GM Will be Strong, Leaner, and Meaner, and Rick Wagoner Sends Us His Regards

By: Bob G

Bob G — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:02:55 +0000

#16 Electriciti Says, “The best way that Obama could help, not only GM, but all car manufacturers, is to wire all of our highways with magnetic strips imbeded on them every certain distances. This way, all electric cars could be self charging, by merely passing over these strips. A magnetic pick up coil under the car chasis can pick up the energy from these strips, and the car can charge its batteries without stoping”

If you are talking about putting magnets in the highway that generate current in a coil as the car passes over it (i.e., a linear generator), the drag and the losses will exceed the energy gained.

If you are talking about putting powered coils in the road that transfer energy pulses to your car by transformer action as you pass over them, the coils would be enormously expensive, the system would be extremely inefficient (due to the large air gaps), and you’d still need a battery in the car to store the energy.

Plugging in at a charge station or at home is a far more cost-efficient idea.

By: noel park

noel park — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:45:11 +0000

#36 Rashiid Amul & #47 MarkH:

Yeah, plus Santa Claus, the Thanksgiving decorations, the Halloween plastic pumpkin and the Easter Bunny. Not to mention charming souveniers of Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and probably Civil War battlefields, LOL.

I shudder to think of the futures of our children and grandchildren.

#12 CorvetteGuy:

Well nurses wouldn’t be a bad idea. It takes high school graduation, an AA, and passing the state exam to become an RN. They make very good money. At my wife’s hospital a good 50% of the RNs are foreign nationals because there aren’t enough locals to fill the jobs.

By: N Riley

N Riley — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:15:33 +0000

I want to see the government and the UAW out of GM sooner rather than later. I wish neither had been allowed into ownership. Not what I wanted to see happen to GM. Certainly not in the best interest of GM or America for them to retain any ownership in the future. I suspect even if the government does sell its share of GM at some point, the UAW will be there from now own.

By: carcus1

carcus1 — Tue, 26 May 2009 02:18:07 +0000

1.6l/100km = 52 mpg (if you assume the first 40 miles are all electric and then range extender mode to get to a total of 100km)

?/ just a guess

By: Dan Petit

Dan Petit — Mon, 25 May 2009 13:54:54 +0000

Just about all vehicles nowadays have hundreds of program sub-routines that work together to run the engine at the most efficient mode possible. Adaptive fuel mixture, and all the other exactly-equivalent terms coined by the various OEM’s (patent & trade laws force different terms for the exact same thing), is set by these software programs.
They run differently for different temps, elevations, workloads, engine efficiency-conditions, anticipated changes, something going wrong (and adapting for that), things wearing out, (and adapting for that), safety issues, and self-preservation issues (turning a fuel injector off completely if there is no spark inside a cylinder, which preserves the catalytic converter).
GM has an entirely new set of programming conditions to work with. The exciting thing about an engine that can be run at a several-stage “steady-state” rpm and power/load configuration, is, that your equivalent miles per gallon can only go far, far, FAR upwards as compared to anything else, depending on workloads.
This means that the programming departments have some really exciting possibilities, and, these must be really interesting times for the programmers. Shattering all outmoded expectations as to fuel economy is going to be relatively easy. The numbers regarding fuel efficiency, therefore, can not prematurely be promised until there has been A LOT more programming work done. Don’t forget that all components must be protected from the various kinds of overloads;
Mechanical overload, electrical overload, thermal overload, to name a few.
While GM has the best historical database for the compilation of software in order to do all this, it must all still be brought together for the Voltec owner in a faultless set of results, so that the owner never needs to know that they are there, relentlessly saving fuel.
Expect that “fuel economy” to vary very very widely with the individuals’ exact driving characteristics and workload-assignments of each owners’ Voltec vehicle, based on terrain, climate, etc. These assignments will vary very widely. I would expect hyper-milers to enjoy the very best of times in a Voltec vehicle, (as I would also expect their workloads they assign to their Voltec vehicles to be the very lightest).
An entirely new set of Adaptive Fuel subroutines are in the “works” because of these fantastic new energy economies. We must be patient for GM to work all of these software programs out for us.

GM makes very broad changes in the structure of software at every decade change (internally and due to mandate).
What I would like to see for the 2010 model year for all vehicles, is an industry standard where GM (and all other OEM’s) make available to anyone via the vehicle’s VIN number, free replacement software downloads, since all OEM’s certainly wish to preserve their reputations regarding economic feasibility of repair as well as overall cost-of-ownership considerations.
I say this because when the 12 volt battery has a fault (say, a very bad individual cell, or, grease foolishly is placed between the post and the clamp), software can get lost and must be reflashed via special equipment.
I would gladly pay a GM parts department for a (latest release) software jump-drive which contained original backup and updated (both) software for my vehicle. This would be the most outstanding customer service item that I can think of (even right now for you), the owner of the vehicle, having the right to have a copy of the software that was originally-installed at time of delivery at the least. And, having the ability to buy an enhanced version of the software for fuel-economy and all the other operational benefits (described above), at a cost gladly paid by me.
Dan Petit Austin TX

By: NZDavid

NZDavid — Mon, 25 May 2009 13:25:50 +0000

I really liked Frank Weber saying it would only take 2½ hours to charge.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 25 May 2009 12:56:38 +0000

James E Says: @11

#3 – the range extender is not a new idea. Porsch came up with generator concept back in the early 1900’s.

NPNS!

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

The idea is a no brainer. Making the system work economically is where the brains are needed.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Mon, 25 May 2009 12:32:59 +0000

#50 Statik

Agree, 1.6l/100km is pretty unrealistic on charge sustaining mode. But getting a 3.5 to 4l/100km, aka 67 to 58MPG could be feasable, imo. A diesel engine will even be better in this terms.

I really hope they could communicate Lyle some real test MPG on charge sustaining mode ONLY. Even if it is around 50MPG.. it’s a winner.

By: Dave K.

Dave K. — Mon, 25 May 2009 12:27:49 +0000

An 82 hp engine running at a 2800 rpm is definitely a gas sipper. It’s common for a 110 HP engine to achieve 38 mpg at 3000 rpm. Looks like 50 mpg minimum. It will most likely hold 3 quarts of premium synthetic oil.

=D~

By: statik

statik — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:53:21 +0000

#49 statik

HOWEVER, on the Ampera site, it says, “In extended range mode the Ampera only consumes only 1.6/100km*….”

Being from Canada, I am pretty familar with converting this rating over to MPG…but that is like 150 MPG. Of course then we have to convert the ‘world’s’ gallons to US style, which brings it down to around 120MPG.

I know there is asterisk there, but c’mon…really?

…maybe the tank is only 2.5 gallons, lol

(*) Manufacturer’s figures, estimates during current test program

/confused