Grab our RSS Feed

AND

EPA Playing a Role in Volt Generator Mode Behavior?

June 12th, 2009 | Posted in: Engineering, Generator, Prototypes

It is known that no one outside GM at this point has been allowed to witness the Chevy Volt prototypes running in generator mode.

Previously it was reported that the reason for this is that the car isn’t soundproofed and GM doesn’t want people to hear the engine. Jon Lauckner has also told me the reason is that the mules were designed to evaluate performance and not man-machine interface and therefore aren’t meant for public consumption. GM would rather wait for reporters to experience the real cars not a subpar mule.

John McElroy of Autoline, has either conjectured or discovered another intriguing reason.

He reports that the way the generator is configured it will snap on at 4500 RPM should the car be going uphill or at highway speed at the time. This would then cause the driver to be “suddenly assaulted by the sound of a roaring engine.”

He further writes that GM engineers figured an easy solution to this was to have the generator go on sooner at a lower RPM at a higher battery state of charge.

Those people claim, he reports, that the EPA “frowns on this idea” because they would like to see the car get the highest fuel efficiency estimate possible. If the car were to spend more time than necessary converting gas to electricity those estimates would be lower.

Thus GM engineers he says are still “playing around with calibration strategies” to maximize efficiency while minimizing engine noise and thus the generator mode is still not ready for primetime display.

GM sources have not confirmed this to GM-Volt.com, characterizing the report as “inaccurate”.

GM writes on the Volt media site “the battery will continue to generate some power and work together with the engine-generator to provide peak performance when it’s required, such as driving up a steep incline or for high acceleration maneuvers.”

McElroy has the idea the generator would have to power on independently (and at 4500 RPM) if the battery were “drained.” We know it never really is drained though. If the 30% SOC is hit at a point of peak power demand, the battery will continue to contribute energy along with the generator making lower RPMs possible.

What do you think?

Source (Autoline)

Posted by: Lyle

184 Responses to “EPA Playing a Role in Volt Generator Mode Behavior?”

Tibor Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:13 am

Fifth!
No, I’m just kidding… first of course.

You might be alarmed first time the engine goes on. Then you get used to it…
FME III Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:13 am

What do I think? I think the truth lies somewhere between what GM’s reporting and what McElroy says.

He is not clear in his blog if that 4500 rpm figure is his own guesstimate or something that the GM folks told him. But it makes sense that if the engine suddenly cut in at a high rpm, it would be disconcerting to say the least. That WOULD be a noise issue GM would want to fix before releasing the car.

He also implies that the engine in the mule isn’t even hooked up to recharge the battery, and I seriously doubt that is correct.
Dave G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:20 am

I think this is just a guess.

30% SOC is still plenty to move the car, so ramping up the engine slowly, perhaps over 30 seconds, shouldn’t be a big problem.
FME III Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:23 am

Another thought: All the more reason to look forward to the day that Lyle drives an IV and experiences the ICE transition, acceleration and hill-climbing ability when when the battery is depleted, etc.

Then we’ll have a better idea of what kind of a car GM has on its hands.
MDDave Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:25 am

I don’t get it… if the engine takes 20-30 seconds to ramp up to 4500 RPMs, that should be more than enough time to prevent the driver from being startled by the sudden enigne noise. And is that 20-30 seconds really going to significantly effect battery SOC or fuel economy? The battery should have a buffer to play with, and even at a lower RPM, the generator would be contributing a charge, so the fuel isn’t exactly wasted.
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:26 am

Title is “EPA Playing a Role in Volt Generator Mode Behavior?”
——————————————————————————

The EPA is without doubt playing a role, as the car contributes to GM’s meeting EPA standards. We all saw the President and the auto leaders meeting shoulder to shoulder in North Korean fashion proclaiming how great it was that there would be only a single standard for cars. We now know that the standard is no longer a CAFE standard but rather an EPA standard. So the EPA is undoubtedly playing a critical role.

The question is how heavy-handed the EPA role is. Are they really dictating the details of how the ICE comes on, as the text implies? Or is it more a matter of the Volt getting higher or lower ratings depending on whether things are done one way or another. Absent other information, it seems to me that the latter is more likely.

We have known for a long time that the ICE is to come on to maintain the battery at 30%, when state-of-charge SOC drops to that level, and further we have known that the engine is designed to operate at only a few rpm choices, chosen for their high efficiency So the 4500 rpm cited sounds like it is the right rpm for a car that is under load at high speed. After all, ICEs operate up to maybe 6000 rpm, so 4500 is in the high range, corresponding to a high load. To me the engine coming on in that way does not seem to be a flaw, just the nature of the design, that the ICE comes on at that rpm.

That is, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
FME III Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:29 am

The comment about the EPA raises the issue of how the car’s MPG will be calculated.

It’s been a topic we’ve discussed here before. I recall seeing some proposals but I frankly don’t remember if anything definitive has been decided.

McElroy’s comment would seem to imply that the EPA has settled on some methodology. Otherwise, how else would GM know how various calibrations would affect the EPA’s view of the car’s fuel efficiency?
MDDave Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:32 am

Maybe the real story here isn’t fuel economy and the interaction between the generator, battery and driver, but the fact that the government is getting involved in engineering decisions. That’s contrary to Obama’s claim that the government wouldn’t be involved in those aspects of GM’s business.
jason M. Hendler Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:34 am

As long as it meets the new CAFE standards, the EPA doesn’t have any say in the matter.

When the electricity and the alcohol / hydrogen fuel cell all have abundant, cheap, renewable and domestic sources, then the EPA should have NO say in the efficiency of the vehicle.
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:34 am

#5 MDDave says
… if the engine takes 20-30 seconds to ramp up to 4500 RPM..
—————————

Perhaps more like 2 to 3 seconds.
Remember, the engine is driving the generator, not the wheels.
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:37 am

#9 Jason M Hendler said
As long as it meets the new CAFE standards, the EPA doesn’t have any say in the matter…
—————————————

Federal regulation used to require cars meet both EPA and CAFE standards. Now they are to meet EPA standards only. So in the new regime, the EPA rules the roost.

Of course, the new EPA standards include a CO2 limit, and meeting that will require high mpg.
jdenn Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:38 am

I wasn’t ever too pleased with the idea of the generator matching the nomal rpms of car sa you depressed the accelerator. Always seemed to me that the generator should run at its most efficient electricity producing level as much as possible. It could adjust this slightly based on the soc. Thoughts?
FME III Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:40 am

#8 MDDave

but the fact that the government is getting involved in engineering decisions. That’s contrary to Obama’s claim that the government wouldn’t be involved in those aspects of GM’s business.
_______________________

Read the story more carefully. The EPA isn’t dictating anything. GM engineers are trying to figure the best way to meet an EPA standard. That’s to be expected. It’s no different than the insurance industry setting collision standards, and the car companies then figure out how to get the best safety ratings.
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:42 am

#7 FME III said
The comment about the EPA raises the issue of how the car’s MPG will be calculated….
————————————————————-

MPG can still be calculated as before, with city or highway or whatever. Presumably the same stickers will be used on the windows.

The difference is that the “must meet” standards for automakers are now the EPA standard, not the CAFE standard. The EPA standard creates a mpg standard by limiting CO2, but it is indirect.
Koz Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:43 am

RB #10

I think MDDave is correct. The engine doesn’t need to ramp to 4500 immediately, so if GM engineers think sudden starts are an issue for the driver or emissions they can afford to ramp slowly. Lyle’s last paragraph is accurate to the information GM has provided, McElroy is confused.
Dan Petit Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:43 am

The “snap-on” situation would be an

**********************
extremely bad
**********************
demand from EPA.

This would accelerate wear on the piston wrist pins and rod bearings in very cold weather as the oil would have settled out of those areas.

If indeed the EPA were to advise anything, this advice should be based on the total-carbon-accounting to include the likelihood of such accelerated wear patterns (that only GM engineering could provide them) after two winter seasonal studies globally, so that the electrification of the auto would proceed without delay.

Such a delay, but for the limited instances and infinitesimally-minute considerations of several grams of hydrocarbon output (which is just as likely to be the REVERSE consideration for a gentle-to-unoiled-components start up),

Bottom line, EPA ought to exempt the first 100,000 Voltec vehicles from considerations because you can not direct an action without any “load datum” on a conjectured baseline-dataset, extrapolated from the last one hundred years of ICE, which are not at all valid for EREV whatsoever.

Besides that, ongoing “real time” software updating completely eliminates 100% of ANY concerns whatsoever that there would be not the perfect methods already in place to handle any EPA (then) present, and (then) future adjustments quickly and with perfected results as to any pollution aspect whatsoever.

Dan Petit
ASE-Examined L-1
Advanced Systems
Educator.
Brad G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:48 am

#9 Jason – As long as it meets the new CAFE standards, the EPA doesn’t have any say in the matter.
===============================================
This is what happens when your Godfather is involved in your business. Fredo, it’s time to go fishing…
Jim I Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:48 am

This is just McElroy’s attempt to report on something he really does not know. Unless he has actually seen this happen, it is all conjecture.

Or, if you are into conspiracy theories, it could be a mis-information scheme by GM to thow off competitors into thinking that the Volt E-REV design does not work. This could give them a year or two of extra time alone in the market with a product they already have fully functional. And with the current financial situation at GM, they could use that time…..

Not!

How about the possibility that the software to control all of this is not quite finished at this point. There might be an unforeseen set of circumstances where the engine did kick on at 4500 RPM’s, and that needs modified in software. If they are still working out bugs, the last thing they would want to do is let reporters try it….

Having been in the software business for a long time, I can tell you that software gets tweaked until the very last minute, when it gets taken from the programmer’s, who are telling you they just need another day or two to make it “perfect”. But if that were the case, there would never be updates and new releases!!!

I guess we won’t know for sure until Lyle gets his test drive in the IV.
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:50 am

#8 MDDave says
Maybe the real story here isn’t fuel economy and the interaction between the generator, battery and driver, but the fact that the government is getting involved in engineering decisions
——————————————————-

I agree, but in the sense given by FME III at #13. The EPA is going to be more involved than before because it is now much harder for cars to meet the standard, or for many present cars probably impossible. Every car design judged “acceptable” by the EPA is going to be just over the line, not well over the line, so every call by the EPA on every detail becomes critical.

So yes, the government is going to be far more involved. But as in baseball, even if every play at first base is so close as to be on the edge of the umpire’s ability to judge it correctly, the umpire still is not playing shortstop. But the umpire’s judgments are more decisive as to the game’s outcome.
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:53 am

#15 koz says
I think MDDave is correct. The engine doesn’t need to ramp to 4500 immediately, so if GM engineers think sudden starts are an issue for the driver or emissions they can afford to ramp slowly. Lyle’s last paragraph is accurate to the information GM has provided, McElroy is confused.
————————————————————-

There’s no doubt the engine can do that. The downside is that the engine will create emissions that down-rate the car, from an EPA perspective, while doing so. So there is a steep price.
MDDave Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:54 am

FME III @ 13 says: Read the story more carefully. The EPA isn’t dictating anything.

——————————–

Lyle’s post says that the EPA “frowns on this idea” of having the generator come on at a lower RPM and higher battery SOC… that kind of sounds like a euphamism for dictating something to me. Why is the EPA even passing judgement on engineering decisions? They should just measure the results of those decisions and nothing more.
Brad G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:55 am

#16 Dan
I agree. Everyone knows that an engine first started should run at least 30 seconds to allow the oil in the pan to be pumped back to the top of the engine.

But I’m not clear on the engine/generator function. When the ICE mode kicks in because the battery hits 30% charge, is the ICE putting power directly to the electric motor, or is it charging the battery that is putting power to the electric motor, or both?
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:59 am

#18 Jim I said
How about the possibility that the software to control all of this is not quite finished at this point. There might be an unforeseen set of circumstances where the engine did kick on at 4500 RPM’s, and that needs modified in software. If they are still working out bugs, the last thing they would want to do is let reporters try it….
—————————————————-

There’s no flaw relative to the design as it has been explained to us. The ICE comes on at one of a few chosen high-efficiency settings at the rate needed to keep the SOC at 30%. That is what is being described.
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:03 am

#22 Brad G says
But I’m not clear on the engine/generator function. When the ICE mode kicks in because the battery hits 30% charge, is the ICE putting power directly to the electric motor, or is it charging the battery that is putting power to the electric motor, or both?
———————————–

As the design has been explained to us, when the ICE comes on it powers a generator. Generator energy flows to power the wheels as needed, with any energy surplus recharging the battery to 30% SOC.
Dave G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:06 am

#22 Brad G Says: But I’m not clear on the engine/generator function. When the ICE mode kicks in because the battery hits 30% charge, is the ICE putting power directly to the electric motor, or is it charging the battery that is putting power to the electric motor, or both?
————————————————————————————–
Mostly, the ICE/generator direclty drives the electric motor, but there are exceptions. These 6 diagrams help explain:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Volt_Electrical_Block_Diagram.jpg

One other thing: It’s not clear how the ICE is started. The battery pack may supply energy to the generator to start the ICE, but this has not been confirmed. If true, this could affect the driver experience.
FME III Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:08 am

#21 MDDave,

Sorry, Dave, you and I are just gonna have to disagree on this one. Just because the EPA “frowns on something” doesn’t mean it is telling GM what do to. It’s just telling them what gets high ratings and what lowers the ratings. And also, in the original post, it’s McElroy’s phrase: “But the EPA frowns on this idea, the GM people say.”
RB Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:08 am

#21 MDDave says
…Why is the EPA even passing judgement on engineering decisions? They should just measure the results of those decisions and nothing more.
———————————————

Maybe there is a more benign way of reading this. There is a new system, and the technical people are talking back and forth. Formally the EPA will do as you say. Informally, it may be good for everyone to have advance what-if discussions. After all, there are as of now no Volt cars for the EPA to test, there is no record of what EPA has done in earlier cases under the same rules, or anything. They all are just finding their way through a new forest of rules and plans and trying to do the best they can with it, whether government or GM
Dave K. Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:10 am

It’s 6AM and the temperature is 48 degrees. I step outside to go to work. I didn’t have a chance to plug the Volt in for a nighttime recharge. I hop in the car push the start button. The cold gasoline engine roars at 4500 RPM.

Sound foolish to you? It is.

The gasoline engine should always start and idle at under 2000 RPM for at least 30 seconds.

Why doesn’t the EPA demand that we floor our gasoline car at green traffic lights? Then throw the transmission in neutral to get full coasting value.

EPA, get out of the engineers way. You’re working too hard.

=D~
xed Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:14 am

#2 agree… the truth is in the middle of the two.

Here’s my guess.

If someone puts the pedal to the floor and the SOC is at 30% then it’s not like the remaining 30% is going to be depleted in the next minute or two. GM can have the engine kick on at lower than 4500 RPM and then over the course of ‘x’ number of seconds it can increase RPM up to 4500 where it is then maintained. GM can adjust the speed with which the gradual increase up to 4500 RPM occurs in order to find the sweet spot of fuel efficiency and noise.

Nothing says the engine has to magically kick on and be running at 4500 RPM out of the gate, there’s plenty of charge left in the battery to allow a gradual ramp up to 4500 RPM.
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:15 am

Thanks for the ditty on the regen-mode, I think we all assumed it was the noise of engine when the car was being ’stressed’

I don’t see any reason for Autoline to make stuff up…but I also don’t understand know why the EPA would be involved and/or have a say…so that does make me question the other claim to some degree.

4,500 RPM from nothing would be quite a shock…but I’d take it further than that, 4,500 for any reason is quite a shock for most drivers (many are just not that aggressive), at the very least they don’t experience it very long.

As a corollary to that, if at 70 MPH or going up grades means that the engine needs to be constantly running at 4,500RPM, which is what I infer from that piece, (discounting the ’sudden’ 4,500 ramp assumption) that is way too high/noisy for any period of continual operation. Most would consider 2,500 about the top end of the comfort level for ‘cruising’ RPMS when on the highway (nothing wrong with the engine jumping up high for short bursts when needed)

I don’t know anyone who drives on the highway (or anywhere) with their engine at 4,500 RPM (unless their transmission is shot, lol), and I don’t see anyway that a operational band over say 2,000 can be construed as being efficient operation when they are trying to hit 50MPG.

To be hitting expectations, which granted are very high to start with (50MPG/superior quietness because it has the ‘EV’ label on the side), I would think it needs to be down in the 2,000-2,500 range (at most)…maybe the engine that is available, just isn’t the right one for the job, and they should have gone with larger displacement and tone done the MPG expectations.

/anyway, this is why they have engineers right? Unless they hired the ‘train’ kind by accident. I’m sure they can find a solution, hopefully it will be a timely one to put in the production-alike models in July (I hate the term IVers for some reason..too ‘clicky’ maybe)
nuclearboy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:15 am

This touches on themes of my previous posts.

1. The Govt really is going to run GM (into the ditch further)

2. GM should do what is right and ignore the EPA. (But this is impossible when the Govt. is your sugar daddy).

3. 4500 rpms.. There is no way the engine should start up and run at 4500 rpms.
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:17 am

Thanks for the ditty on the regen-mode, I think we all assumed it was the noise of engine when the car was being ’stressed’

I don’t see any reason for John McElroy to make stuff up…but I also don’t understand know why the EPA would be involved and/or have a say…so that does make me question the other claim to some degree.

4,500 RPM from nothing would be quite a shock…but I’d take it further than that, 4,500 for any reason is quite a shock for most drivers (many are just not that aggressive), at the very least they don’t experience it very long.

As a corollary to that, if at 70 MPH or going up grades means that the engine needs to be constantly running at 4,500RPM, which is what I infer from that piece, (discounting the ’sudden’ 4,500 ramp assumption) that is way too high/noisy for any period of continual operation. Most would consider 2,500 about the top end of the comfort level for ‘cruising’ RPMS when on the highway (nothing wrong with the engine jumping up high for short bursts when needed)

I don’t know anyone who drives on the highway (or anywhere) with their engine at 4,500 RPM (unless their transmission is shot, lol), and I don’t see anyway that a operational band over say 2,000 can be construed as being efficient operation when they are trying to hit 50MPG.

To be hitting expectations, which granted are very high to start with (50MPG/superior quietness because it has the ‘EV’ label on the side), I would think it needs to be down in the 2,000-2,500 range (at most)…maybe the engine that is available, just isn’t the right one for the job, and they should have gone with larger displacement and tone done the MPG expectations.

/anyway, this is why they have engineers right? Unless they hired the ‘train’ kind by accident. I’m sure they can find a solution, hopefully it will be a timely one to put in the production-alike models in July (I hate the term IVers for some reason..too ‘clicky’ maybe)

EDIT: changed a key word (might be a repeat)
Jacksunny Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:18 am

Guys,
all of us are used to hearing the engine rev when WE press the gas pedal.
Are you sure the average driver won’t care having the engine rev INDEPENDENTLY from what his foot does?

My view is that in the Volt, at least in generator mode, fuel consumption and driving experience are at opposite sides; you improve one, you worsen the other.

I’m a very big fan of the Volt, but I’m afraid there’s no escaping from a compromise… let’s hope the final result will be enough to appeal the final customer (considering the price, too)
Schmeltz Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:20 am

I imagine that there is truth to the assertion that if the engine/generator kicks on and whirrrs at 4500 rpm, this is going to be a noise issue. This definitely needs to be worked out before it gets into consumers hands. Here are my thoughts on this…

Could GM add a bit more battery capacity to act as a buffer for these sorts of scenarios? When the driver is posed with needing to pass a tractor trailer truck going up a steep grade, have the motor kick in at the lower rpm early, and the Volt will use the energy in the “buffer zone” portion of the battery. GM can then govern the ICE to only run at an even keeled and steady low rpm. Actually I sort of thought this was how the Volt was going to work to begin with but apparently that notion may be wrong.

If GM is dead set against expanding the battery capacity, then they may have to just take their lump on the chin and suffer the EPA mileage penalty incurred, not to mention an embarassing “quirk” that will most certainly blow up in their face when these cars hit the market. And they won’t be able to just skoot this under the carpet and say “Well this is Gen 1 so go easy on us.” That is no way/no how going to cut it! Gee whiz, if it were my decision, and the above suggestion would actually solve the problem, I would add the extra battery capacity. Aggressive drivers would be accomadated by doing this as well. What would it hurt?
MDDave Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:21 am

FME III,

My personal feeling is that the EPA isn’t exactly dictating to GM. In the worst case, they are testing the waters of their new relationship with GM to see how much they are actaully able to dictate. In the best case, they are just being helpful and that is being mis-characterized by the words “frowns on.”

The thing that worries me is that the EPA would even try to dictate engineering decisions to GM… This RPM decision is just one of dozens of things that could effect the fuel economy and emissions of the Volt; other things would be the wieght of the vehicle, features like AC, air resistance, the type of tires used, etc… And I definitely don’t want the EPA involved in every one of those decisions.

Frankly, I think the EPA should just measure the final results and let GM engineers figure out how the car is going to perform. I’m sure GMs engineers understand the ramifications of their decisions on fuel economy and emissions better than the EPA does.
Dave G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:24 am

Here’s a basic question:

How does the ICE start? Where does the power come from to start the ICE? Is there:
1) a separate battery and starter motor, or
2) does the Volt use the main battery pack to turn the generator to start the ICE?

If #2, then there could be a sudden drain on the battery pack when the ICE starts, and this would affect power to the wheels. This could be the reason GM won’t let people drive the mules in range extended mode.

There’s another guess to add to the pile…
Gsned57 Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:27 am

I think it’s a good thing that the best they can come up with now is that the engineers can’t seem to figure out how to ramp the engine from stopped to 4500RPM in anything less than instantaneously. I don’t see the issue if you reach 30% SOC and the engine quietly turns on and then over 5 seconds accelerates to 4500 RPM’s. It’s simple programming and controls.

Honestly, he thinks that they are stuck because it instantly kicks in at 4500 RPM and that 5 seconds of ramping would kill the MPG? that’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. If this is the best doubt that can be thrown at the Volt’s engineering I think we must be getting very close to a final product!
Dave G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:28 am

#33 Schmeltz Says: Could GM add a bit more battery capacity to act as a buffer for these sorts of scenarios?
————————————————————————————–
30% SOC is already a lot of spare battery capacity, enough to drive the Volt 20 miles or more, so there is no issue here.
Lawrence Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:34 am

Problem solved:

http://www.power-tuning.fr/en/interior/car_audio/

Cheers
Dave G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:38 am

#32 Jacksunny Says: Guys, all of us are used to hearing the engine rev when WE press the gas pedal. Are you sure the average driver won’t care having the engine rev INDEPENDENTLY from what his foot does?
————————————————————————————–
People are expecting something a little different from the Volt, so I don’t think that will be an issue.

GM has said the Volt’s ICE will run at one of several fixed RPMs. My guess is that it will run at something like 1000 RPM, 2500 RPM, and 4500 RPM. So the engine is not going to rev at all. It will be more like a constant hum.

Note that constant RPM engines vary their power output by changing the fuel mixture, so don’t assume constant RPM = constant power.
Arch Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:44 am

There is NO reason to run that engine at 4500 RPM!

Take Care
Arch
Dave G Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:44 am

Lyle, could you ask GM how the ICE starts?

Does it use:
a) a separate battery and starter motor, or
b) does it use the main battery pack and generator to start the ICE?
BillR Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:50 am

I’m not an expert at EPA ratings and so forth, but I believe certain vehicles get LEV (low emission vehicle) or ULEV (ultra-low emission vehicle) ratings. I think something like the Tesla, a BEV, is a ZEV or zero emission vehicle.

I thought there was also another class called PZEV or partial zero emission vehicle. I believe the Volt will fall in this category. But there may be a PZEV1, PZEV2, etc. where different standards are set (the amount of zero or overall low emissions).

It is well known that most cars emit the majority of their pollution when the car is cold and before the catalytic converter (CC) warms up and becomes active. I could see GM starting a cold engine and going to high rpm almost immediately to warm the CC as fast a possible to reduce emissions. This could all be in an effort to meet some standard set by the EPA.

I believe BMW had looked at a CC system with an electric heater to warm the CC prior to engine start to reduce cold emissions. GM may be trying to avoid this cost and complication.

I think there will be many interesting stories on this car when GM is finally ready to release information to the public.
nuclearboy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:51 am

As statik stated, 4500 rpms is not typical for an engine. Go take your car and run it at 4500 rpms. It can be stressful.

A 1.5 liter engine running at this speed should easily produce around 100 HP or maybe more.

There is no way that a car needs, 100HP for very long. So, you should not have to run the engine this hard. Dip into the battery reserve if necessary.

4500 rpms is simply too high to run an engine of this size.
jdenn Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:54 am

I think Gen 2 could incorporate a user interface that asks the driver approx how close they are to their final destination. That way the generator would know if it should continue to charge the battery beyond just the next mile. Again, it could find the most efficient (energy created per gallon used) rpm, somewhat independant of your current driving needs. i.e sitting in traffic. If the car is properly insulated, having it run at 2500 rpm while sitting in traffic isn’t a big deal.
Mark A Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:57 am

Anonymous people from GM say the EPA “frowns on this” idea. This sounds like BS to me. Anyone on the board assuming this story is fact is taking a huge leap of faith. You would at least have to give equal weight to GM saying that the story is inaccurate.
Arch Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:00 am

http://www.examiner.com/x-3721-Detroit-Automotive-Technology-Examiner~y2009m6d11-Imagine-an-HCCI-engine-in-a-Chevy-Volt

Take Care
Arch
StevePA Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:05 am

Off topic for today’s thread, but to the point about one aspect of build quality on small cars and how the various manufacturers are faring (Chevy in the middle of the pack, rest of the results may suprise):
http://www.property-casualty.com/news/2009/6/Pages/Mini-Car-Repair-Costs-Found-To-Be-Maxi.aspx
old man Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:10 am

My GUESS

I would guess the engineers were talking to the writer and discussed the worst case possible and a statement was made by GM that the ICE would not be allowed to ever go over 4500 rpm. And on steep hill with the battery at 30% of charge or lower the ICE could hit 4500 rpm. Then the writer ASS U ME S [the worst]. Of course I am ass u me ing this is what happened.
Guy Incognito Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:12 am

The Volt media site, I thought that was us?
Anyways, 4,500 RPM seems kind of a high rev to me.
Van Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:16 am

Let me rehash what has been said. First the depiction by John’s is inaccurate. So whatever the real problem is, John’s idea at best mischaracterizes it.

Second, the ICE power (hp) goes up with RPM, so its maximum capacity (about 100 hp) would occur near maximum RPM, say 6000 RPM. The Volt Generator is rated at 53 kW or about 70 hp. So 4500 RPM is in the ballpark for the maximum output RPM level.

Remember that the three operating levels are (1) average urban power demand, say 8 kW, (2) slightly more than average highway demand, say 24 kW, and (3) maximum demand due to battery reaching the minimum SOC, say 48 kW which requires something like 4500 RPM. This third level might be higher than necessary, perhaps 40 kW would keep the ICE nearer its sweet spot of maximum efficiency, read lower C02 per mile.

Just a guess, perhaps we will know sometime in July 09.
k-dawg Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:20 am

#32 Jacksunny Says: Guys, all of us are used to hearing the engine rev when WE press the gas pedal. Are you sure the average driver won’t care having the engine rev INDEPENDENTLY from what his foot does?
————————–

I’m used to my car going faster when I push the gas pedal. If that happens, I’ll be happy.
Jim in PA Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:21 am

Blaming the EPA for this is a crock. There is no way the EPA cares about a 1-minute ramp-up period for the ICE. How much gas could possibly be burned during that period? About 0.03 gallons if the engine get 30 mpg. And that affects the mileage HOW? Yeah, it doesn’t. Sounds like GM is trying to pas the buck on this.

#38 Lawrence hit the nail on the head by (jokingly?) suggesting turning up your stereo. There is no such thing as a noise problem that can’t be overcome by a Gibson Les Paul through an overdriven tube amp.

On a related note, autobloggreen had a timely article yestderday about how GM is using noise cancelling technology in the new Equinox for engine noise because some of the operating conditions create some audible dissonance. Seems like they are well equipped for this particular challenge.
CDAVIS Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:24 am

______________________________________________________
Algorithm Conundrums:

The ICE-RE software algorithm will be difficult for the GM guys to dial in because it will require very subjective determinations of how to resolve competing interests such as acceleration performance vs. low emissions. Large engineering teams do not respond well to those kinds of subjective determinations.

GM’s engineers should draw straws and he how picks the shortest straw gets to make the subjective algorithm determinations.

I hope GM does not complicate it by ending up with multiple ICE-RE profiles of which the driver has to decide which profile to select…that would be bad.
______________________________________________________
k-dawg Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:25 am

John McElroy
(his bio tells me he’s more than qualified to talk about cars)

http://www.theautochannel.com/mania/industry/jmcelroy_bio.htm
nuclearboy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:27 am

Back in the early 90s I drove a Ford Escort with 88 HP total. Probably at 5000 rpms.

I know that I never revved that vehicle over 4000 rpms and I drove up hills and at over 80 mph.

Is that Volt drive train that poor inefficient that 4500 rpms will be needed. I bet the 1.5 liter engine is rated higher than 88 HP total.
wtmaish Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:30 am

Normally generators only accept 1800 rpm’s no more no less any other rpm would be inefficient. To carry an electrical load the engine would be governed to the peak load but not exceeding 1800 rpm. A engine running at 1800 rpm is not stressed but would be the same as steadily driving at say 50 miles per hour. No ups or downs. Lets say the same as cruise control, the engine will load up to get you over the hill, the engine unloads going down the hill while still remaining at 1800 rpm. To start an engine at 4500 rpm and run it will eventually destroy the engine in a short amount of time.
The Grump Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:35 am

I never thought I would be agreeing with Dave G #3, but the Volt would have plenty of electric left over at 30% SOC, to give the ICE plenty of time to spin up to speed slowly.
—————————————————————-
Here’s an idea Dave G can yell at me about – Most engine (ICE) wear occurs at startup. That’s a proven fact.

OK, since the Volt has plenty of juice left at 30% SOC, why not have a electrically-powered ICE pre-lube system to lubricate the engine BEFORE startup? Construction diesel equipment already has this pre-lube system – why not the Volt? The ICE would last much, much longer. Since its piston rings would wear out far more slowly than normal engines, its ICE pollution levels would be much lower over time.
Lee Lindquist Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:41 am

One thought as to why the EPA would be so interested in the ramp speed of the engine could be related to the emission control systems. Not for CO2 but for other environmental pollutants that the exhaust system would normally take care of.

Catalytic converters must be heated to a particular temperature before they become effective catalysts of NOx, CO and other pollutants, and modern electronic ignition and fuel injection have periods of warm-up time built in to properly condition these units. Typically an engine will run (richer or leaner, I can’t remember which) to heat the catalyst faster upon initial startup. That modification to increase heat results in a temporary loss of power and efficiency, something the GM engineers are probably wrestling with.

Since this engine will be designed, as previously reported, to operate at a select few fixed RPMs chosen for their efficiency, the EPA is probably more concerned about the following scenario: If a cold engine and exhaust system were to quickly adjust to near-full output, there would not be significant time to pre-heat the catalysts resulting in an unfavorable smog rating (ULEV, SULEV, ATPZEV), but not necessarily a lower MPG.
Dan Petit Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am

From a practical viewpoint, most posts here are correct.
But EPA will have to let GM put the Voltec vehicles “out there” for the first several years before datum can be amassed.

“Frowning” on anything means that the “frowner” is in suspense as to having incomplete knowledge. GM must be allowed to completely “have it their way in good faith” for the first few years at the very least.

However, the task of getting anyone anywhere has the Voltec vehicle emissions-light-years ahead of anything else for the task they will do.

Therefore, there is nor has there been any “frowning” by EPA upon anything Voltec. The EPA is to be delighted at this extraordinary departure from “pollution as usual” in having the ICE be the propulsion systems “secondary-only-if-you-need-it” operational characteristic.

Indeed, Voltec vehicles ought to be conditionally-exempted entirely for the first 2 years of production, if not the first 5 years of production, as compared to everything ICE-else, because of the first 40 miles of non-ICE operation.

The current EPA certifications of any GM engine in the world would more than be sufficient for compliance. Therefore, it would be true that EPA would not really be as involved as some might be concerned.

I sometimes assist dedicated officials within EPA with emissions data from Genisys-scanned vehicles where there is an unusual situation that is easily revealed by the Genisys.

Those who seriously ought to be very highly concerned regarding Voltec vehicles “raising the bar” for reductions in Carbon, are, as I have been warning, are all other OEM’s.

This is because of EREV emissions advantages per tasked-mile, not ICE-operational-mile. Therefore, not just for marketing reasons, but, for emissions reasons:

Other OEM’s ought to be very worried if they are not at least on the pathway to producing EREV vehicles precisely as GM is doing.

Dan Petit.
ASE-Examined L-1
Advanced Systems
Educator.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am

I could not imagine an engine cranking up and immediately be at 4500 rpm. I don’t know when the last time I ever had my vehicle at anywhere close to 4500 rpm. Even when passing or climbing steep hills. Why 4500? Doesn’t make any sense at all. To me, the engine should crank up and slowly gain rpm until it reaches the speed the engineers designed. I just don’t see the need for anything close to 4500 rpm.
CDAVIS Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:52 am

______________________________________________________
Mitsubishi Transforming Electric Cars into Mass Production Electronic Appliances:

Mitsubishi Announces Bold Plans to Release 5 More EVs by 2013…

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1021399_mitsubishi-announces-bold-plans-to-release-5-more-evs-by-2013

Mitsubishi is doing to Electric Car manufacturing what Sony did to camcorder manufacturing. That does not bode well for American car makers because American car makers do not have the ability to compete in the mass production electronic appliances.

What the guts of an Electric Car Appliance looks like:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/mitsubishi-imiev-production-model/2062455/

http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/mitsubishi-imiev-production-model/2062464/
_____________________________________________________
Grummbeere Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 8:57 am

Sometimes i think everyone thinks the GM and Opel engineers are stupid and are not drivers themself…. ramping up the engine at 4500rpm is something they will never do with a cold engine…. In summary this information strategy here is just a method of getting potential customers ‘used to’ to the generator mode isn’t equal to have the engine idle at 1000 rpm. On a highway at higher speed it must for sure use higher rpm to produce the needed power. Or do you think you can drive highway speed with your engine idleing around ? Of course NOT! this also won’T work with a 1.4 liter engine i a car like the volt. It won’t need 4500 rpm, but more then idle. especially if it goes uphill. And this informations is what GM wants us to get used to. by that shocking nonsens 4500rpm everyone will think 3500 is ok. were everyone was expecting even lower rpm before that article. nice tactic.Think about it!
Lwesson Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:01 am

EPA??? This GOVERNMENT bureaucracy should have NO say in the engineering of this unique car. 4,500 rpm is mad! In an earlier point, I suggested that the ICE come on before the magic 30%. Also suggested in previous threads was that appropriate sound generation should be used to give sensory feedback to the HUMAN driving the car. Robots could care less but us bio organisms crave feedback.

So this is why they do not want Lyle to see the transition to ICE! 4,500 rpms snapping on line! Like others have said, good bye engine!

The boys, Zeus and Apollo want to go chase the new owners of GM, some faceless government bureaucrat and some goofy engineers at GM. Go!

Regards——– Higgins
CorvetteGuy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:02 am

My wife’s current car, a 2008 Nissan Altima SL, has a warning chime that starts at about 30 miles range remaining and chimes about every 10 minutes of driving operation. I am sure the VOLT has a SOC indicator and a similar warning chime when the generator is about to ’snap on’. Being startled does not seem likely.

I do have one question: Do I get my 40 gas free miles before the generator comes on, or is that range based on draining battery to zero which we really can’t do?
Koz Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:04 am

RB #20

“#15 koz says
I think MDDave is correct. The engine doesn’t need to ramp to 4500 immediately, so if GM engineers think sudden starts are an issue for the driver or emissions they can afford to ramp slowly. Lyle’s last paragraph is accurate to the information GM has provided, McElroy is confused.
————————————————————-

There’s no doubt the engine can do that. The downside is that the engine will create emissions that down-rate the car, from an EPA perspective, while doing so. So there is a steep price.”

You lost me here. Are you referring to the extra emmissions from ramping up slowly through output points(30-60 seconds worth)? The net energy generated for use will be basically the same. I would think a “soft” ramp up could produce less emissions if the engine is cold.
NASA-Eng Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:05 am

You guys are missing the KEY WORDS in this statement….”He Reports that the generator….blah blah blah……. will snap on at 4500 RPM ….blah blah blah…” People report LOTS of stuff that turns out to be #%&(*@…. Maybe the first time they ran the car it did that and the 2 engineers inside said….”Thats not going to work”. So now their fixing it. We have to remember GM is developing this car more in the open then usual and thus we get to hear about every little issue that pops up.

Having worked on lots of cars, boats and mechanical items, I bet the engineers had a good laugh when it first happened. If I had been driving I would have looked to the guy next to me and starting laughing…. “Dude, that sucks.!!! We need to dampen that out……”

There are plenty of work arounds for this. These are the fun problems for the engineers to work out. If it was easy it would have been done by now….

Todd
MDDave Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:07 am

When comparing 4500 RPMs in the Volt to a typical 4-cyclinder gas-only vehicle, I think some of you are forgetting that the typical vehicle has a transmission. If you were cruising down the highway in a normal ICE car, you would have the transmission in at least 3rd gear and the engine running at perhaps 2200 RPMs. The Volt has no “gears.”
Koz Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:08 am

Nuclearboy #43

The Volt ICE is reported to only be capable of 83HP max so you are of course correct. The generator is only 53KW.
CorvetteGuy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:11 am

Also…

A normal delivery of a new Chevrolet includes a full tank of gas. I am wondering how many if you buyers will insist on 1/4 tank or less just so you can experience the generator mode as soon as possible.
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:12 am

Seriously folks, unless you are used to driving large displacement 6 or 8 cyl. engines at 55 mph all the time, 4500 RPM isn’t that big a deal.

I run my car (1.8L 4 cyl.) at 4,000 rpm on the highway all the time, and whip it up to 6500 RPM regularly. No big. It’s not screaming for it’s dear life, it doesn’t sound like it’s falling to bits, it’s just a bit louder. You get used to it. With some sound insulation, and proper tuning to feather on and off, I’m sure it will be fine.

Cold start at 4500 RPM isn’t as big a deal as years ago. Materials are much better, tolerances are much tighter, overall engines can tolerate a lot more than they used to. BMW has a system that restricts the redline during warm up to… I believe about 4500 RPM. Not 2000, 3000, but 4500. Cold engines can tolerate much more than they used to, without excessive wear and tear.

With modern engines able to spin to 7500 RPM or more, safely and reliably, for thier entire lifetime, I don’t think that 4500 RPM is at all a big deal, or remotely “stressful” for the engine.

The whole article smells of sensationalist crap. It’s a story that was written because there’s no story, or not enough info to right a real story. More of an editorial than news, the ignorant ramblings of someone who doesn’t fully inderstand the material he’s writing about.

I expect that he engineers, much like Chelsea Sexton reported (the only person to get even remotely close to the truth of the matter, and the engineers involved), are just trying to make it perfect. She is the only person outside GM to even hear the genset in operation, which makes the opening paragraph slightly innacurate, and she didn’t find it offputting.

Relax people.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:15 am

If the EPA thinks that the Volt generator should come on at 4500 rpm (assuming they do), then by the same logic when I crank my current vehicle, it should come on a 4500 rpm. Instead it comes on at a very low rpm and only increases rpm as I press on the accelerator. My car picks up speed more or less slowly until it reaches the desired speed I want to drive at. I don’t do many jack rabbit starts any more. So maybe the EPA should mandate that all new cars should crank up at 4500 rpm from an environmental stand point. Yeah, just how would that go over with the buying public?
fredevad Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:16 am

Not having read any comments above mine (busy morning at work this morning)…
I’m going to vote John’s article “Inaccurate”. The reason I say this is that John equates “going uphill or at highway speed” as needing the same amount of energy. Driving at highway speed requires much less energy to maintain momentum than driving uphill.
Jerry Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:20 am

Why would people be suprised when the engine kicks on? After all, Its a hybrid car with an ICE engine, not an BEV.
Mike D Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:23 am

#67 I agree.

If the 2010 Equinox that motor trend tested was noted for being almost completly silent when idling, (yes i know this is only 800 RPM), then i’m confident the final Volt will have plenty of soundproofing, and be calibrated correctly when it comes out. Not having a transmission helps. On the highway, if perhaps you were demanding 4500 RPM from the ICE (which if the car is rated at 50 MPG in ICE mode, i don’t see it needing to be in this 4500 range very often anyways…) the road noise from the tires and the wind and the electric hum would make the noise of the ICE a non-issue.
jeffhre Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:30 am

Summary

1) Speculation and claims of ICE performance based on zero evidence.

2) Interest in claims made based on speculation and no evidence by journalist John McElroy.

3) Investigation by John McElroy of claims and speculation with no evidence results in further claims that there is a problem of high rpm’s and noise dictated by EPA requirements only based on “evidence” that “Those people claim”. Those people being GM engineers that John McElroy said he “knows”.

4) Many comments on this site look at the speculation and comments based on no demonstration or evidence of ICE performance, with the additional layer of speculation based on no evidence by John McElroy derived from comments by “Those people” and side with Mr. McElroy adding another layer of their own speculation without any evidence for why they are correct or side against Mr. McElroy citing the appropriate conjecture with out evidence for why he is incorrect.

5) From here some have gone on to;

A) support as speculated the supposed EPA actions,
B) Vehemently denounce as speculated the supposed EPA actions,
C) Remain agnostic about the speculation of the supposed EPA actions,
D) Deny, despite the rampant speculation, that the supposed EPA actions ever occurred.
Herm Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:30 am

They should have used a V6 on this thing.. I knew it!.. either that or issue free ear plugs
Adrian Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:32 am

EPA… more unelected people making decisions we the people can’t vote out. Does anyone else see the trend of out of control Fed power with EPA style departments and czars/dictators making decisions.

I agree the EPA is now in control of aspects of the car just like the car czar and Obama shaped Chrysler and GM into what we see today. Two dying companies.
CorvetteGuy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:35 am

I know one of you can answer this:

Why 4500 rpm? Can’t they use ‘gears’ on the generator so that the engine turns slower but the gen is turning at 4500?
DonC Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:36 am

I’m with Todd in #66. Someone has speculated that the EPA is having some specific type of contact with GM. EPA hasn’t said anything. GM says the speculation is “inaccurate”. Shouldn’t that be the end of it?

As for noise, the Equinox does use the sound system to cancel noise. So the early suggestion of using the radio isn’t so far fetched. I’d hope GM would be able to port this technology to the Volt. That would be cool. Not a big deal but for a tech car it would be appropriate. [Mike - while it's only 800 rpm the rpms are so low that the noise is usually a problem so you're on the right track].

The engine does seem more than adequate for the task it needs to perform. Arch’s suggestion is interesting. Here is alternative that seems workable because it’s so simple. Doubtful it could be 60% or more efficient but if it could work:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/08/1c08engine18345-tour-de-force/?features&zIndex=112578
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:38 am

@ k-dawg #54

Just because Mr. McElroy read a bunch of car books as a child (how long ago was that?), doesn’t mean he has the slightest clue about the intricasies of an E-REV.

@ The Grump #57

If an engine lasts long enough without prelube, why add the cost and complexity? Cars have a practical operational life, and most car only last so long on avereage before getting in a collision, rusting out, or otherwise being disposed of. Modern cars are lasting well over 200k miles without any special pre-lube or warm up technology, so why would it be necessary? It just ends up costing more money to design and build something that is of no practical value.

@ NASA-Eng # 66

As someone who has also worked on mechanical protoype design, I totally understand where you are coming from. I bet there were lots of “Oops, I guess that idea didn’t work!” moments, and “Boy, that design sucked.” chuckles. Yes, these are the kinds of challenges that engineers live for.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:40 am

What happens when the SOC is at or slightly below 30% and the engine is running at the designed rpm to send power to the wheels and you pull up to a stop light. If that engine keeps running at 4500 rpm that is going to cause the driver of the Volt to look like an idiot sitting there with the engine noise. Other drivers sitting next to that Volt are going to be saying “Hey, what’s up with that car?”. I know that would be a big turn-off to me and other potential Volt buyers. GM has to understand these things and be planning for all these situations. If not, they are going to have a “lemon” on their hands from day one. The buying public will not purchase cars doing strange things and the auto magazines, TV and others will have a field day smearing GM from coast to coast. And Toyota will be saying “I told you so.”.
Joe Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am

I’ve heard his analysis. McElroy does not know any more than we do. He’s just fishing and is looking for clues. I think he is also anti-GM, Ford and Chrysler. He’s in love with Toyota and Honda.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:45 am

I agree as MMDave (#34) says:

“Frankly, I think the EPA should just measure the final results and let GM engineers figure out how the car is going to perform. I’m sure GMs engineers understand the ramifications of their decisions on fuel economy and emissions better than the EPA does.”
————————————-

This makes perfect sense to me. I think the EPA may be “in the loop” to the extent that GM has some discussions with them about their plans. I don’t think the EPA is mandating anything to the GM engineers just yet. Who knows what will happen in the future. With the current atmosphere in D.C., we can never say never.
Gsned57 Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:47 am

Ford has just shown a Volt prototype with a turbine as the range extender (more efficient range extender 67mpg). The more the better!

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/12/ford-s-max-based-micro-turbine-plug-in-series-hybrid-w-video/
carcus1 Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:53 am

If the EPA is going to play a significant role in the volt’s generator behavior, I would think it would be on the emissions side. There might be quite a bit of discussion/disagreement over how emission standards are going to be applied to the volt.

AC Propulsion had their difficulties with multiple cold starts during APU (auxiliary power unit or genset) operation.

This is the best piece of technical info I’ve been able to find on Series Hybrids.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/projects/acprop.pdf
Jeremy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:53 am

So long as the engine is heavily dampened and sound proofed I don’t see what it matters. It’s not like it has to directly move the wheels so it can have a lot more dampening and sound proofing than a normal engine without sacrificing anything, but a little extra weight.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:56 am

OK, I have finally found out why GM won’t let anyone drive in range extended mode. What happens is this: When the battery hits 30% or lower, the generator pulls power from the battery to crank the engine. While this is happening the power to the wheels is lost. The car loses speed extremely fast or maybe even comes to a halt (depending on original speed). Once the engine comes on (in a couple of seconds) it roars to life at 4500 rpm. The car takes off like a scalded dog while burning tremendous rubber. This causes additional carbon to be vented to the atmosphere by the rubber being burned at such a high rate. No real problem here at this point. The real problem is that behind the Volt there is a massive pile up of cars, trucks and buses because of the sudden stop or deceleration caused by the loss of power to the Volt’s wheels. GM is working around the clock trying to “fix” this. Maybe by flashing the tail lights to warn vehicle drivers following behind the Volt of the upcoming loss of power to the wheels. See, the engineers have the problem well in hand. No need to worry. The EPA was only concerned about the rubberized carbon being vented to the atmosphere when the Volt burns rubber taking off again. They are still working on a solution to that. Now, what else do we need to talk about?
maharguitar Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:01 am

I think the whole story is bunk. The EPA and GM are going to have to come up with some formula for measuring MPG when 80% of the miles driven are pure electric and the ICE doesn’t turn on for months at a time. But, I can’t imagine that the EPA would ever tell GM that they have to snap the power on a 4500 RPM when switching to ICE mode under load. They may say that that the MPG rating is X is you use this start up protocol and it is Y when you use that start up protocol but that will be based measured results. Albeit the measurements may be weird and not related to actual driving profiles but there will be a basis in physical data.
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:07 am

#43 nuclearboy Says:
As statik stated, 4500 rpms is not typical for an engine. Go take your car and run it at 4500 rpms. It can be stressful.

A 1.5 liter engine running at this speed should easily produce around 100 HP or maybe more.

There is no way that a car needs, 100HP for very long. So, you should not have to run the engine this hard. Dip into the battery reserve if necessary.

4500 rpms is simply too high to run an engine of this size.
————————————————————————
Err… most motorcycles can spin well over 10000 rpm… my Subaru can happliy pull 6000 rpm, my Malibu pulls strong at 5500 rpm. Engine durability (once warmed up) is not affected at that speed.

I bet that at some point a software glitch reved the engine higher than expected (4500rpm) and somebody just mentioned as an aside and it got blown way out of proportion. However saying this I really think this (even if it really is an issue) is really just a talking point, there is lots of time to ‘tune’ the software.

Nice thread Lyle! You hit a hot button!

Once the pre-production cars hit the road they can work this issue for real.
/that one is for Statick… I’m running out of mis-spelling’s sigh…
k-dawg Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:10 am

80 kgurnsey Says:
.@ k-dawg #54
Just because Mr. McElroy read a bunch of car books as a child (how long ago was that?), doesn’t mean he has the slightest clue about the intricasies of an E-REV.

And

82 Joe Says:
I’ve heard his analysis. McElroy does not know any more than we do. He’s just fishing and is looking for clues. I think he is also anti-GM, Ford and Chrysler. He’s in love with Toyota and Honda.

————————-

What I said was “i think he’s more than qualified to talk about cars”. I didnt say he was a battery technician or EREV expert. All of us are taking about cars. What does everyone in this blog do for a living? What are our credentials?

Also, I seriously doubt he’s anti-Big 3 based on:

A) “born into an automotive family”

B) “gained valuable insight to the industry working as an hourly UAW employee in various automotive manufacturing plants”

C) “has five daily radio reports on WWJ 950 AM in Detroit, the all-news CBS affiliate. He also hosts the television programs “Autoline Detroit” and “American Driver” which air on Detroit Public Television.”

D) “In 1997 he was named “Communicator of the Year” by the Sales and Marketing Executives of Detroit.”
Gary Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:12 am

I can’t imagine the engine turning on at 4500 RPMs right away. I don’t think that the GM employees who use statistics and probability to calculate warranty coverage/costs would allow the engineers to calibrate the on-board software to rev the engine up to 4500 RPMs when the engine is still cold.
ThombDBhomb Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:14 am

Reading Lyle’s post filled me with dread becasue I expected many anti-government rants. But, you guys are remarkably poised and fair-minded today. Not a lot of knees jerking around. It feels like “old school” gm-volt.com. What a treat.
Zach Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:19 am

they need to create a more powerful generator/engine combinatation that is powerful enough to efficantly charge the battery while having good gas consumption and low emmisions without running the engine at high Rpms

The world needs to either advance the technology we have in IC engines or find a new more efficant technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCCI

A low displacement turbocharged HCCI engine seems like a decent place to start
kent beuchert Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:19 am

Well, let’s see, now. Let’s play the game : “Who’s the bigger jerk?” The EPA, McElroy, or GM for not pointing out just how incompetent and brainless the EPA has been through this entire “EPA mileage estimate” fiasco? We all know, boys and girls, (but not media journalists) that there is no such thing as an estimated MPG fro a range extended electric vehicle. The concept is not applicable, since the gas mileage is determined largely by the driver’s trip habits, not the car itself. The EPA and journalists (and I suspect, even GM) doesn’t seem to understand this transparently simple fact. The mileage window of the Volt should read : gets 40 miles on a full battery charge and obtains 50 MPG while running in range extended mode. Period. End of sentence, end of discussion. Got that? Now if the EPA wants to assign a mileage estimate for CAFE purposes, then they must use trip distribution statistics and do the simple math (well, perhaps not so simple for the “scientist” buffoons over at that Federal agency). That number should be concealed from the brainless public, lest we have more gripes and confusion about mileages like we have now over those “100 MPG” Prius aftermarket plug-ins. See what happens when they pass these regulations that must be administered by clueless Federal employees? And this country also has too many brainless
media types floating around publishing nonsense, confusing an already easily confused bunch of people. What a country.
ThombDBhomb Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:21 am

Hey! Kent’s here!
carcus1 Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:21 am

CDAVIS @ 61,

“Mitsubishi Announces Bold Plans to Release 5 More EVs by 2013…”
_____________

I think Mitsubishi is the “game changer” at this point. A sub $20k imiev could very well be possible in the next few years. Lithium battery news (power/reliability/price) continues to flow into the positive category at a surprising rate.

When motorists realize they can drive gas/maintenance free at least 80% of the time for under $20,000 . . . watch for a huge shift in consumer auto demand.
k-dawg Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:23 am

@ 93 Zach

GM has been looking into HCCI for sometime.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0806_gm_hcci_fuel_efficient_system/index.html
k-dawg Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:26 am

FYI

GM PURCHASING CHEIF BO ANDERSSON LEAVES GM IMMEDIATELY
Bo Andersson, the global purchasing chief who reinvented the way General Motors did business with thousands of parts suppliers, has left the bankrupt automaker. GM said Andersson was leaving “to pursue other career interests,” and said a successor would be named soon.GM announced his departure soon after 9 a.m. EDT today, and said it was effective immediately. 9:15 am U.S. ET |

(IMO good riddence. That guy screwed so many suppliers, and cheapened GM’s products)
ThombDBhomb Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:27 am

Lyle (Topic for a post?),

carcus1’s #96 got me thinking – maybe it is time to look back at some of our predictions and conjectures to see how we did.
LauraM Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am

I really doubt that the EPA is that incompetant. They also have a vested interest in the success of this car. Politically, and environmentally. I could see them meddling, given the circumstances, but I really don’t think they’d dictate that the engine should snap on at 4500.
Mike-o-Matic Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am

Ugh. This is all so crazy. The engineers know what they’re doing. Let them finish the car and let’s judge when that’s done.

No wait – scratch that! The car’s design is DONE… save for tweaking… so we only need to wait until the IVers get some exposure.

No need for all this rampant speculation, the real deal is right around the corner! Have a bit of faith!

—–

*** Having said all that: Check THIS out: an E-REV (concept?) from Ford that uses a microturbine as the range extender. Knew that was comin’ down the pike, didn’t'cha?!

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/12/ford-s-max-based-micro-turbine-plug-in-series-hybrid-w-video/
Mike-o-Matic Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:32 am

No edit link today, so apologies for the immediate follow up here… But I loved this quote from the Ford/ABG link I gave. Too funny…

“The Whisper Eco-Logic has a range of 40 miles on its batteries before the range extender starts up.”

Now, why does THAT sound so familiar??!?
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:35 am

@ k-dawg # 90:

Well, I’m an engineer, and have had experience working on prototype development for mechanical, ICE driven, non-automotive systems.

There is a difference between chatting it up on a forum, throwing conjecture around for amusement, and writing an “expert” article for public consumption, when you are not, in fact, knowlegable about the material you are writing about. Especially when lay people are relying on those articles for accurate information about something that could profoundly affect thier lives.
Eco Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:36 am

http://epa.gov/otaq/oms-def.htm

Environmental Protection Agency
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(734) 214-4207

otaqpublicweb@epa.gov

They did not open this lab last week. There is a reason that the lab is located where vehicles are developed, tested, and built.

If Lyle is really motivated, he might contact them and see what they can say. Probably not much, because the information would be proprietary to GM, but you never know.
Herm Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am

#87 N Riley Says:
GM is working around the clock trying to “fix” this. Maybe by flashing the tail lights to warn vehicle drivers following behind the Volt of the upcoming loss of power to the wheels. See, the engineers have the problem well in hand. No need to worry.
…………………………………..

Solving these little problems that rear up to bite you in the *** is the IP that GM has developed.. and they will make a mint licensing it to other manufacturers in the years to come.
Mitch Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am

#69 Covetteguy

“Also…

A normal delivery of a new Chevrolet includes a full tank of gas. I am wondering how many if you buyers will insist on 1/4 tank or less just so you can experience the generator mode as soon as possible
”

Full 1/2, 1/4 or empty, the anmount of gas in the tank is irrelevant to the Volt.

But I think I will insist on the full tank and buy it at the dealership 45 miles away…
k-dawg Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:56 am

@102. kgurnsey
———————-

I thought his review was adequate. I did read a few things between the lines, but as a reporter its his job to be skeptical. I’ll agree with others on this post that he probably got his details wrong on the 4500rpm bit. And not to be redundant, but once again, all of this is conjecture till someone actually drives an IVer (that has been tweaked).
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:58 am

#55 nuclearboy said:

Is that Volt drive train that poor inefficient that 4500 rpms will be needed. I bet the 1.5 liter engine is rated higher than 88 HP total.

#68 koz said:

The Volt ICE is reported to only be capable of 83HP max so you are of course correct. The generator is only 53KW.

====================

We get the number/rating on the engine from its sister/rebadge car the Opel Ampera. It is the current family 0 engine, and is rated at 82HP.

It is refences it here at Opel’s site, under sub heading ‘Benefits’, then ‘How Far can you go’…I can’t link direct because of too much bloody 90s flash player: (Enough with the flash player GM!)

http://www.opel-ampera.com/english/

Fair disclaimer: It still says it will get over 500km range too…so, grain of salt I suppose (although I’d think engine choice/rating would be hard to mess up)
Joe Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:05 am

There is no way GM will have the Volt engine running at high RPMs. To turn a generator, a lot of torque is required, not RPMs. The Volt engine will have it’s sweet-spot in the low RPM’s, meaning it will develop it’s max HP in the low RPM’s. Also, by designing this engine to operate at a low RPM scale, it will lends itself to a new technology that GM is working on, maybe for the second generation Volt.

Believe me, I know what I’m talking about!!

http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/HCCI/
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:07 am

#43 nuclearboy Says:
As statik stated, 4500 rpms is not typical for an engine. Go take your car and run it at 4500 rpms. It can be stressful. A 1.5 liter engine running at this speed should easily produce around 100 HP or maybe more.

There is no way that a car needs, 100HP for very long. So, you should not have to run the engine this hard. Dip into the battery reserve if necessary.

4500 rpms is simply too high to run an engine of this size.
————————————————————————
#89 MuddyRoverRob said:

Err… most motorcycles can spin well over 10000 rpm… my Subaru can happliy pull 6000 rpm, my Malibu pulls strong at 5500 rpm. Engine durability (once warmed up) is not affected at that speed.

I bet that at some point a software glitch reved the engine higher than expected (4500rpm) and somebody just mentioned as an aside and it got blown way out of proportion. However saying this I really think this (even if it really is an issue) is really just a talking point, there is lots of time to ‘tune’ the software.

Nice thread Lyle! You hit a hot button!

Once the pre-production cars hit the road they can work this issue for real.
/that one is for Statick… I’m running out of mis-spelling’s sigh…
========================
========================

Sorry Muddy, I didn’t mean to infer that the car could not maintain and/or work properly at 4,500 RPMs, most four bangers go much higher without issue, I should have said that

I just meant most people would find it unpleasant, as compared to cruising at 2,000 RPMs like they are used to…especially in a EV, people’s expectations are for a low db operation (ICE extended range or not).

I have a feeling GM will ‘get in front’ of this one fairly quickly and either dismiss it, or downplay it as a issue mostly in the past, but has been solved for ‘future’ iterations. I just can’t see GM even considering letting the ICE operate at this speed for a continual duration, (like at highway speeds). However, going up inclines and for passing…sure no problem, that is a reasonable expectation.

Cheers,
Stachtick (=
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:12 am

#87 N Riley (me)

I don’t want some of you who may be more naive than most of us to believe anything I said in my comment #87. It was all for fun. So, don’t always take me serious. GM and the EPA don’t have a clue as to a solution to the problems encountered with the Volt. They are currently in discussion with our Statik at this moment. That is why he has been kinda silent these last few days. I think he is getting to test drive some of the mules and is formulating a plan of action. Come on, Statik. Admit you are really in league with GM and the EPA.
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:19 am

@ k-dawg # 107

Overall, the article isn’t bad. Most of it relates his experiece with the Volt during his test drive, which is fine. It’s just when, at the end, he starts talking about the technical aspects of the genset, that it gets a bit muddy. It is evident to me that he doesn’t understand the priciples or concept well enough to report about it accurately or clearly.

Reading between the lines a bit, I doubt that he is talking about a “ramp up” time, that is starting off at idle and ramping up to 4500 RPM over a matter of several seconds. He is likely talking about running the ICE at a lower RPM for an extended period of time, well before the battery pack reaches 30% SOC, in such a way as to slow down the rate of discharge. This is not a “simple solution”, or even remotely reasonable. Off the top of my head, one major problem is that you are in effect trying to guess the distance of travel left for the current trip, which is not simple to predict, as well as determine a proper rate of discharge during that time/distance remaining. If you guess wrong, you end up not using the full charge in the battery pack before you reach your destination, thus using gas that might not have been necessary. This is counter to the whole point of the Volt in the first place, since it’s a design that is supposed to allow as much grid power to be used as possible.

This would also end up using more gas than necessary overall, since you would be running the ICE for unecessary extended periods of time, and I can expect that the EPA would not be overly pleased with that idea, whether they have any control over development or not.

It sounds like he might have involved a conversation that started with him proposing his “simple solution”, only to be shot down by the engineers. Then, since he didn’t really understand what he was talking about enough to understand why it’s a dumb idea, he then goes ahead and prints it up as his own magical revelation anyway.

If it’s really that simple a solution, I can guarantee you that the engineers have thought of it, discussed it, possibly tried it, tested it, and at some point in the the process, regected it because it’s not a good solution after all.
LazP Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am

I do not know if the government will interfere with the Volt’s development but I hope EPA uses a reasonable way to determine MPG (or better yet GMPG gasoline MPG). There always seems to be some question how they should do it. I do not see why should be any controversy about how the Volt’s MPG is calculated. There is a very simple usage concept below:

The following driving/usage model should be the guide for determining the Volt’s MPG. For the near future the most obvious usage model is overnight charging in one’s own garage at least until a more widespread infrastructure is developed. Therefore the mileage is best determined by DAILY usage, i.e between overnight recharges. If one drives 100 miles/day, the mileage will be a lot lower then one drives 50 miles/day. Assuming 1.5 gallons of gasoline used in the first case and a third of a gallon in the second case, the mileage would be 66.6 mpg (or better yet gmpg) and 151 mpg respectively. (Obviously the 40 electric mile is included.,) The more generic method to determine this would be. MPG measured between recharges. In the present case this is represented by a one day cycle (overnight recharge). It seems to me that a reasonable average EPA mileage could be devised from above usage. I hope the government will see it this way. The above numbers would only be a starting base line standard until improved recharging infrastructure develops when the daily use concept would be replaced by use between recharge (multiple daily recharge.)
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:29 am

@ k-dawg #107

As an aside, since you are curious about my credentials, my current position involves a lot of helping non-technical report writers describe technical subjects for non-technical audiences. It’s challenging, with a lot of back and forth, but technical subjects can be written about ver clearly and accurately, in such a way as to be understood by a non-technical audience, but someone in the process has to know the technical end.

The key is the back and forth. Rarely does one “interview” by one of the report writers turn into an acurate description in writing. There is a process of review, discussion, and correction that needs to take place, which I expect does not happen in the case of most journalists.
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:37 am

#109 Stahtick
Absolutely! I shouldn’t write a comment about engine speed just after ‘doing’ rush hour! slow, slow, slow, GO LIKE HELL…

I didn’t say it well, but I meant that if there really is an issue with ‘runaway’ engine running speeds they will deal with it. These are details they are very well versed in. GM has afterall built a few ICE powered cars over the years.

As for the required running speed of the “Genset” (I’m tired of ICE as an acronym) a “High rate” charge for the “Pikes Peak” or “Rogers Pass” (British Columbia, Canada about 4 hours west of Calgary) long uphill runs is likely a darn good thing to have in the back pocket. Most “Genset” running will likely be at a more civilized speeds. (I have no idea what those rates would be and won’t guess at this point.)

Does the EPA have input? Likely! I can’t imagine they would demand particular “Genset” running speeds however I can absolutely see them dictating limits and controls on emissions coming from it.
Mark Bartosik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am

Electric oil pump?

If the ICE is fitted with an electric oil pump (rather than mechanical) then maybe it would be possible for the electric oil pump to run fast to start with to cover the top of the engine with oil as quickly as possible. Thus allowing maybe a 3 or 4 second ramp up time.

Anyway there well qualified engineers at GM working on this project, so I’m confident that they will have the ICE transition solution working real nicely.
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am

#111 N Riley said:

I don’t want some of you who may be more naive than most of us to believe anything I said in my comment #87. It was all for fun. So, don’t always take me serious. GM and the EPA don’t have a clue as to a solution to the problems encountered with the Volt. They are currently in discussion with our Statik at this moment. That is why he has been kinda silent these last few days. I think he is getting to test drive some of the mules and is formulating a plan of action. Come on, Statik. Admit you are really in league with GM and the EPA.

===================

I admit…I laughed at your post.

Kind of silent the last few days? Moi? As in less than a dozen posts? I actually have been busy test driving GM products (finally bought one, and took possession yesterday)…but sadly not a Volt.
noel park Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:44 am

I don’t care what the engine does. Just give me the maximum possible AER and then MPG. This is a whole new technology, so I hate to think of people wasting time and money trying to make it feel just like driving a conventional car. If it takes a prelube system to make it last 200K miles, do it. If not, so much the better.

This reminds me of stuff I heave read about current cars with Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVT). Much as is discussed here, a proper CVT runs the engine up to the most efficient speed, and then drags the car up to speed via the trans. After customers complained that this was unsettling, some manufacturers somehow spoofed the trans controls to make the engine somehow hesitate as it went up through the rpm range, to simulate a conventional transmission. A totally counterproductive waste of time and resources, IMHO.

The best idea I have read here is to use the sound system to simulate conventional car noises. Reminds me of the cartoon in “Hot Rod” in the ’60s of a guy at the drive in with a Chevy 6. He had a 45 rpm record player (remember them) behind the grille playing the sound of a loping, big cammed, big block, LOL. In the ’50s, us kids used to by 45s advertised in “Road & Track”. “Sounds of Sebring”, “Sports Cars in Hi Fi”, et al. My buddy had one of a BRM supercharged 1500cc Grand Prix car. Talk about sounding like ripping silk! Maybe the volt guys could dig up one of those. Or just turn up Steve Earle or Terry Allen and drown out the poor little 1.4 screaming at 4500 rpm, hehehe.
Bruce J Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:57 am

Wow, looking through some of the links in this thread about the new Ford E-REV and Mitsubishisi’s low priced BEV. I’d say GM is going to have some serious trouble selling a $40k Volt by the time 2011 rolls around. Just sayin.
Evil Conservative Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Static post #31 …. I also don’t understand know why the EPA would be involved and/or have a say.

————————————–

Remember this is Governmental Motors not General Motors now. They will have there hands in everything. Typical government …. Make the MPG unrealistically high so we can make some of our $100 billion back.
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

@ noel park # 118

I expect the opposite is true, they are spending time and money trying to get it to feel as much like a BEV during the range extended mode as possible.

Hence all the talk about a “quite genset”, and a “smooth transition”, etc. The Volt is supposed to be an EV first, gas burner second (and only when absolutely required), so the engineers probably want the transition to range extended mode to be as unnoticeable as possible. The driving experience should be that of a BEV as much as possible.

This also explains why they are so hesitant about letting the media drive the genset until it’s totally ready. They don’t even want you to notice it’s on.

This is a good thing.
carcus1 Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Statik @ 117,

“I actually have been busy test driving GM products (finally bought one, and took possession yesterday)…but sadly not a Volt.”
_______________

13 mpg city?
Condoleezza Corn Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

I worked with the EPA for several years. If you think that the Homeland Security, IRS or FEMA is messed up you ain’t seen nothing. Having worked at 6 different regional headquarters of the EPA I can attest that this government organization is easily the most dysfunctional part of the U.S. Government. They need to abolish this effed up group of incompetent clowns. Just roll it up and move it under the Department of the Interior where it belongs and get rid of the entire management structure and those massively overpaid contract lawyers that sponge off of them. Seriously, if they have their claws embedded in the Volt you are in big trouble my friend.
Sasparilla Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Does anyone else think that 4500 rpm is just a plain crazy high rpm for maintaining a highway speed with some small additional charging? This is a 2.x liter 4 cylinder engine, not some piddly 1.x 3 cylinder.

This just doesn’t smell right (from a common sense standpoint), I vote that this is all a bunch of nonsense hunches on McElroy’s part.
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

#124 Sasparilla (COOL handle!)
Almost every ‘fact’ we have at this point is conjecture in reality. (1.4l 4 cyl gas Genset Engine if we have it right.)

I bet that there ‘is’ a “High Rate” charge on the “Genset” and I have no reason to think that 4500rpm would be wrong. But I also bet that “High Charge” rate would only apply for serious hill climbing like long mountain passes where you are going up for a long time. (50-60km) There are not many places like that, but I happen to drive one on the way to the in-laws!

I would be very surprised if the engine zoomed up to 4500 rpm on a flat when you simply came to the end of the electric range.
noel park Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

#12 jdenn:

I agree. I think that you said it all right there.

#92 & #95 ThombDbhomb:

As my mother always says, “I guess I spoke too soon”, LOL.

#121 kgurnsey:

I hear you, and maybe you’re right that such psychology is best for gaining wide public acceptance. I’m just saying that they don’t need to strain themselves on my account. I’d be happy with a battery, a motor, and a “range extender” I could turn on and off myself. Just give me a SOC meter, and red idiot light to come on at 30%, and a green one to come on at 80%, and I’m down the road. If the ICE runs at some set rpm all the time it’s charging, fine.

That may be a bit of an oversimplification, but I don’t think that 10,000 “early adopters” are going to be all that fussy.

LJGT!@#$%^VWOTR!!
Eiughtjack Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

(A) “After all, ICEs operate up to maybe 6000 rpm, ”

(B) “Normally generators only accept 1800 rpm’s no more no less any other rpm would be inefficient. ”

These statements are absurd; different engines and generators can be engineered to reach optimum efficiency (within certain materials limits) at different RPMs. Optimal RPM on a Moto Guzzi twin-cyclinder ICE is typically around 6500 rpm (redline 8000) and most modern watercooled sportbikes (Honda, Ducati) work best at 8000 or 9000 with redline over 10,000 RPM.
On the other hand, it’s possible for an ICE to be engineered for maximum efficiency at 3000, if that is what’s desired.

It’s quite possible that 4500 may be the most efficient RPM for the VOLT ICE, but if so, it’s silly for various posters to insist that this speed is TOO HIGH, and MUST harm the engine.
And generators have an even broader band of possible “optimums” depending on winding, electronics, etc., etc.. Assuming that were wrong however, and 1800 IS in fact some kind of magical, universal optimum for electrical power generation, I imagine that an ICE operating at whatever RPM it wants to could be geared to 1800 at the output shaft.

More reasonable is the observation that an ICE engine coming online and instantaneously jumping to a relatively high RPM is hard on the engine. but the related observation that GM engineers are not idiots and have no incentive to operate the motor in that way seems hard to dispute.
noel park Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

#125 MuddyRoverRob:

I think that’s just about right.
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

#122 carcus1 said:

Statik @ 117 said, “I actually have been busy test driving GM products (finally bought one, and took possession yesterday)…but sadly not a Volt.”
—–
13 mpg city?
==========================
==========================

Yes, sadly…does that make me a hyprocite? It does kind of feel that way…I did however first look for a E-REV that could tow 4,000lbs…didn’t find one though. (…and no, they didn’t get the joke. Letterman and Lutz need to do a NADA tour)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=25600

Sidenote: Doesn’t only the highway number at GM count if you buy a V8? 20 MPG then…pretty awesome.
MuddyRoverRob Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

#126 Noel Park
The issue as I see it is that those first 10000 cars are required to be so good so they can sell the next 500000 cars.

Most of us here are either Engineers or are wanna be engineers! (I’m the latter but am married to the former) So you are absolutely right, most of us here WOULD be happy with a rough-ish prototype.

It would however be a glaringly poor move for the Volt to see production with major noise (or other) issues. They have to get this right, and that means the transition must be as close to inperceptable as possible.

The public will not be easy on this car (or GM in general) the design team really need to go for perfection and can’t be much short of it.
Keith Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

If these numbers are correct for the high speed snap on of the gen-set something is very wrong in the basic design .
The way I see it the generator side is undersized , that means that the generator doesn’t put out enough amperage to do its job and should be made bigger or stronger (use your own term here)
If i were involved in the design I would have the gen-set come on at 900 rpm , have it run at that speed for at least 5 min , If the measured output doesn’t meet the load demand then a timed delay relay would engage the second step circuit and the gen-set would go to 1800 rpm . The engine would be properly lubricated warmed up , and now it could handle the torque on the cylinder walls cam , valves and bearings . If after 5 more minutes the amperage demand still isn’t satisfied ( don’t forget this thing isn’t draining electrons like it is climbing Pikes Peak under normal use ) a further relay would energize the circuit to increase the gen-set speed to 2700 rpm and this rpm should be balanced for a cruising speed of 60 mph or 65 mph . If the load demand still is not because the car is being driven over 70 mph on a long open freeway at a sustained speed for over 5 min a final timed delay relay would energize the high speed signal to the gen-set motor and it would go to its maximum speed of 3600 rpm and be able to maintain a speed of 80 mph .
These timed delay relays are cheap and dependable for a million cycles typically , they are small and can be placed almost anywhere . They can be wired either in series or parallel , it doesn’t make any difference except if wired in series and one of the earlier relays fails the others wont be energized , but they are very dependable and since they are solid state they are not subject to the weather or the elements .
Another consideration I would incorporate would be a speed sensitive control for the gen-set engine as the vehicle speed is reduced , the engine is reduced and shut completely off when the vehicle comes to a complete stop . The process should start all over again in the same order . ( there is something else to be taken into consideration here as well ) that is that the regenerative breaking energy has been captured in the capacitors so acceleration away from the dead stop does not use any power from the battery but comes only from the capacitors . (Maxwell s are good)
Make it this way and the engines of the gen-set will last for the life of the car and nobody is going to freak out over an over speeding gen-set engine.
It is a pleasure to help out , I am a mechanical Engineer and I have been working with these things for most of my life and completely understand how they work . I built my own series hybrid car over 30 years ago and I would sooner see Series Hybrid (EREV) mass produced than Pure Electric .
What is the amperage draw at 80 mph from the motor and what is the amperage output from the gen-set at 3600 rpm ?
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

@ MuddyRoverBob # 130

I expect you have hit the nail on the head with that post.

I expect that engineers (and wannabe engineers too, LOL) are a bit more kind in terms of what we require from our vehicles, in part because we realize how difficult it is to make perfection. I get the impression repeatedly that the general public ignorantly assumes that the creation of a complete electro-mechanical system is easy, just because the overall concept is not complicated. Heck, it’s just a few batteries, a motor, and an engine, how hard could it be?!? Devil, meet details.

Add on top of that the fact that you are designing said system to be capable of being mass produced. The details start to pile up fast.

I think that the general public is much more demanding in part because they don’t realize how much work it takes, and how difficult it is to produce a product that performs to the requirements that they demand.

If you consider the fact that an everyday sub-20k dollar ICE econo-car is in reality a system of thousands of parts, all moving in harmony. Every one of those thousands of individual parts must perform its function flawlessly, at the precise moment it’s required, just for you to get out of your driveway. It’s simply amazing that engineers can make them all work in such a way that they will be reliable for hundreds of thousands of miles, under harsh climates and extreme neglect and abuse. Yet the public just sees a toaster on wheels, and demands that it perform flawlessly with minimal user input.

Not that I’m complaining, engineers thrive under these challenges, and it’s a testament to what can be accomplished. The bottom line is though, if GM is to make the Volt a high volume car for the masses, they need to make the end product seem effortless, simple, and intuitive. That is a very tough challenge.

I highly recommend the report written by AC Propulsion, linked above. Excellent read, and a good insight into the complexities GM is facing. After reading that, realize that AC Propulsion is still mostly just cobbling together systems that are fully engineered. GM is currently trying to do something similar, but an order of magnitude more complex, since they are designing all the systems from the ground up.
I M Awesome Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

This Hybrid Volt looks like a neato car. I might get one. Might have to rob a bank first (just kidding).
Hugh G Rection Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Why does the Volt have a gas engine, I thought it was an “electric” car. Somebody told me wrong. I am looking for something similar to a Tesla but cheaper cost. Currently rolling in a Hybrid Fusion which rocks my world right now. I want to go totally electric. The Volt seems like a compromise, it is trying to be 2 things at once, this usually means you will not be great at either. I will take a Chevy Cruze for highway driving and use something like a converted Mini Cooper for my fully electric commuter. Woot.
noel park Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

#130 MuddyRoverRob:

Yeah, I know. I’m just running out of patience. I

Also, I’ve been driving around a bit in a 1917 Chevy lately, so I guess I’m in a pretty tolerant mood.
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

@ Hugh G Reaction # 134

It is an EV. With a range extending generator on board.

Imagine your Mini E with a generator trailer attached, to extend the range for a long trip. Now, instead of having to hook up a trailer, imagine that back up generator installed on board the car.

Voila. You have a Volt.

AC Propulsion did almost exactly this, by taking a Jetta, converting it to an EV, and then stuffing a generator in the trunk. The Volt has it’s generator up front, but it’s the same idea, just more refined, and designed from the ground up as an integrated unit.

GM had a concept vehicle based on the EV1, with a turbine generator in the trunk. Same idea.

It is in fact the best of both worlds. It’s your Cruze, and your Mini E, all in one handy dandy package.
DonC Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

#11 N. Riley – I thought your post was funny too. Give us a little credit!

#96 Carcus1 says “A sub $20k imiev could very well be possible in the next few years.”

I’m not seeing how we get there. At the moment the price is $47K or $48K with a 16 kWh battery paack. For NA the pack would need to be considerably larger.

Mitsubishi says they will break even on the first gen. I’ve seen estimates that the Volt will cost about the same amount to produce. This makes sense since the cars, while quite different, have the identical sized packs and are about the same size and so forth.

From this we can surmise that we can expect to see an i-Miev at $19K about the same time as we see a Volt at that price. Some price reductions should be possible but way more than half seems like a very high bar in just a few years.
CorvetteGuy Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

#106 Mitch

Okay. I did not think that question through. But I still don’t get the ‘4500RPM’ requirement. Why not 6500RPM? Why not 2000? If battery recharging needs a given generator speed, can’t they put gearing on it to spin the generator at a higher RPM than the engine? The engine us not turning the wheels, so there is no great load on it.
ccombs Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Much ado about nothing, imho. I think the engineers have long ago solved the problems of engine RPM choices since this is fundamental to the car behavior. What they are really worrying about right now is noise. I am not all that concerned. As long as it takes a little time to rev up to high RPM I won’t really mind hearing a little noise. If it snapped on to 4,500 RPM that would be disconcerting, but it is crazy to think that will happen.

PS. If the EPA is anything like some of the gov’t agencies I’ve come in contact with in the past (DHS is one of the worst), they better not be meddling with the Volt (although this seems unlikely to be the case). I am still amazed that we think it is logical for our incredibly dysfunctional and fiscally irresponsible government to be telling GM how to manage its affairs. Even the most anti-corporate individual out there would have to blush if they said GM was managed even with the same order of magnitude of incompetence as the government.
The Red Baron Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Has anyone ever heard of a Vultee Vibrator ?

This ICE is gonna shake and bake fellas.

BTW, It was the nickname for the Vultee BT-13 Valiant used in WWII because of it tendency to vibrate like hell during flight.
Herm Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

#138 CorvetteGuy Says:
If battery recharging needs a given generator speed, can’t they put gearing on it to spin the generator at a higher RPM than the engine? The engine us not turning the wheels, so there is no great load on it.
…………………………………..

This is not a regular 60hz generator, it can run at any rpm.. it may be able to generate the same power running at different ICE rpms.. whatever the GM engineers decide is best. No need at all for gearing. The ICE will be loaded for the best economy at any rpm that it runs.
Red Baron Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Has anyone ever heard of a Vultee Vibrator ?

This ICE is gonna shake and bake fellas.

BTW, It was the nickname for the Vultee BT-13 Valiant used in WWII because of it tendency to vibrate like hell during flight.
Dan Petit Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

#102 Mike-O-Matic,

The article said that the EREV “turbine” was *installed* in a Ford, but later in the article it said that they “were looking for a major manufacturer” to sell their turbine setup.

I think it would be a great idea for Ford to actually say that they are going EREV, however, it just may be that Ford Motor would need to buy the technology outright to assure it’s accounting dept that suddenly the price would not go way up.

As well, when you say “turbine”, it tends to also say “very expensive”. This is what must also be closely examined by an OEM.

OEM’s must do their best to acquire complete ownership of technologies, so that there would be long term price stability.

Dan
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

#117 Statik

I actually have been busy test driving GM products (finally bought one, and took possession yesterday)…but sadly not a Volt.
————

But what did you buy? I KNEW you were test driving a GM vehicle, but I just figured GM would want one of their best customers to drive a Volt. Of course, from what he says, Noel Park has quite a slew of GM vehicles. Maybe both of you will get a test drive when the Volt reaches a dealership close to you. Like someone said yesterday, I am also wandering how the dealers will handle test drives.

Speaking of dealers, there is one dealership here that is offering a contest to win a 2010 Camaro. It is a beaut. Red with black racing strips. Just not a convertible. So, I haven’t even bothered to enter the contest. I just know I would win and have to give it away because it wasn’t a convertible. (Yeah, sure I would.)
kgurnsey Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

@ CorvetteGuy # 138

There are a multitude of parameters that could be varied. RPM, gearing, air/fuel mixture, timing, cam lift/duration, induction force, and compression, to name a few. Provided, of course, that they are using the 1.4L engine mostly off the shelf. Otherwise they could vary displacement, bore, stroke, materials, cylinder count, and more if they were designing a specific engine for this application (which they might be for Gen 2 or Gen 3). I’m confident that the GM engineers are trying many different combinations of parameters and graphing a whole lot of data to determine the ideal combination/compromise of parameter settings in order to deliver the required loads.

This is probably part of why tuning the genset is taking so long. You can’t determine the optimal configuration until you’ve tested them all, and crunched the data. Tweak and test, tweak and test, wash, rinse, repeat.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

#138 DonC

I give you guys all the credit you deserve. Which is a lot, I might add. Mighty good comments on this blog from some pretty knowledgeable people. Well, at least more knowledgeable than myself. Which might not be saying too much. But I have fun trying to keep up with what some of you guys (and gals) say. It does get lively from time to time.

#117 Statik

Was it the Cadillac SRX that you purchased? Fine vehicle, but the MPG kinda sucks. But that is not always the only consideration. I don’t look at MPG first, I know. Good luck with it.
BillR Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Looks like everyone wants to get in on the act!! (E-REV Jaguar)

http://www.motortrend.com/future/future_vehicles/112_0906_jaguar_hybrid_sports_car/index.html
carcus1 Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Statik @ 130,

Not to worry. I can absolve any guilt.

Two simple steps:

1. Plant a tree on your next camping trip.
2. Send me a check for $2,500 and I will manage it into a very effective carbon credit fund.

http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/bmw/2009-bmw-x5-xdrive35d-first-drive-1019.html
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

#145 N Riley said:

But what did you buy? I KNEW you were test driving a GM vehicle, but I just figured GM would want one of their best customers to drive a Volt. Of course, from what he says, Noel Park has quite a slew of GM vehicles. Maybe both of you will get a test drive when the Volt reaches a dealership close to you. Like someone said yesterday, I am also wandering how the dealers will handle test drives.

#147 N Riley said:
Was it the Cadillac SRX that you purchased? Fine vehicle, but the MPG kinda sucks. But that is not always the only consideration. I don’t look at MPG first, I know. Good luck with it.

===============
Yeah, as I mentioned (#129), I tried to get a EREV that could tow 4,000lbs, but GM said they were all out right now…I do feel like a quasi-hypocrite (now with correct spelling), but what can you do if you have to haul? (Not a lot of electric/8 cyclinder offerings out there atm)

#149 carcus1: I’d go check your mailbox right now…I just planted a tree in there.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

#150 Statik

You do what you have to do and don’t worry about what others may think. You live in the real world, not some hoped for world of the “crazies”. You have real world things to do. You have to have an automobile that will solve those needs. You just do it. Have a good weekend and don’t worry your little old head one bit.

————————
Edited: #149 carcus1: I’d go check your mailbox right now…I just planted a tree in there.
———————

I hope you punched a hole in the top of the mailbox to give it some light.
Bud Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

It is doesn’t matter what the EPA wants. Build what customers want or don’t build it.
noel park Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

#144 Dan Petit:

When I hear “turbine”, I think high emissions and high fuel consumption. I’m gonna believe it when I see it.

#145 N Riley:

We do own a few Chevys, but they are either OLD, or bought at close out prices at or after the end of the model year. Neither one will endear you to the dealer(s), so I assume that you will be driving a Volt just as soon as I will, LOL.
N Riley Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

#153 Noel Park

so I assume that you will be driving a Volt just as soon as I will, LOL.
————————-

The way things are going, I am not sure when or if I will be driving one. Looks like it will be 2012 or 2013 before they are widely available in any sort of numbers. By that time I might be too darn old to care.

Edited: Time to close up shop for the weekend. Have a good one everyone. Including the Toyota lovers.
terryk Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

If you can’t fix it; feature it!

I figure it will take some getting use to an engine that doesn’t follow your foot. I’m game.
carcus1 Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

N. Riley @ 151

“I hope you punched a hole in the top of the mailbox to give it some light.”
_______________

. . . but not too much light.
http://inlinethumb38.webshots.com/7845/2925688750094806507S425×425Q85.jpg
KentT Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Okay, so I’m jumping in around post 156 or so and I have not read every post so apologies if this has already been discussed and that is, Hey, Lyle! How about some specs on the GENERATOR? I take it the output in volts is the same as the battery pack (around 300 odd volts?) but all this talk about rpm from the ICE is all about AMPS right?

So everyone’s speculation about what is and is not an acceptable rpm is moot. We need facts about the generator.

Lyle, you’ve really been remiss about this part of the Volt! How about its own story?

P.S. My two cents about 4,500 rpm…. My Civic Si would turn around 3500 rpm at 70mph and was not at all objectionable. For all you Detroitheads I know you are used to your big V8s and V6s turning 1800rpm at 70mph. My old Bonneville did that which if you think about it is no more than fast idle back in the carburated days so 4500rpm sounds nuts to all of you (old!) people If Indy cars can run all day at 10,000 plus rpm I’m sure GM can turn their generator at 4,500rpm for a few minutes with no real difference in engine life. Remember, the Volt is turning a generator, not a transmission propelling the car so loads are lighter and I would think output can be much smoother.

So how about it Lyle? A story about the Volt generator?
Neil Chapman Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

I’d be suprised if this gas engine had to run at those high rpm’s very often. It depends a couple of factors, no?

1. At what rate is energy being depleated? If I recall it seemed that there was a max speed that the Volt would travel up a hill when Lyle drove (~50mph w/two guys). They have to have a max allowable depletion rate.
2. What generator is being used? What generation capability does it have at particular rpm? I would think that most generators like lower rpms but I may be wrong.

I would think that once you know the design max allowable depletion rate it would be simple calculation to estimate the RPMs required to generate that amount of power. You’ll probably have a much higher “reserve” battery power when the pack is newer as well. If they’re designing this thing to last 10 years then 30% probably means 30% at 8 to 10 years of “wear” on the pack.

Just a thought.
statik Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

#149 carcus 1 said:

Statik, Not to worry. I can absolve any guilt.Two simple steps:
1. Plant a tree on your next camping trip.
2. Send me a check for $2,500 and I will manage it into a very effective carbon credit fund.
—–
#150 Statik said: “I’d go check your mailbox right now…I just planted a tree in there.”
—–
#151 N Riley said: “I hope you punched a hole in the top of the mailbox to give it some light.”
—–
#156 carcus 1 said:
. . . but not too much light.
http://inlinethumb38.webshots.com/7845/2925688750094806507S425×425Q85.jpg
===========================
Lol, do you honestly hunt down that picture just to keep the joke going? Très drôle my friend, très drôle.

/thread must be getting long
Herm Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

This is my idea on how to setup the genset.. have the ICE throttle follow the foot throttle closely, but only when you hit the 30% discharge point of course.. you step on the gas and the engine revs up, you let up and it revs down, but dont do it like the Prius or other CVT equipped cars in which there is a disconnect between the ice rpm and your foot, this feels weird. The computer would still control the generator and how it loads the ICE, so even when you are causing the engine to rev up and down the computer still controls how it is loaded and how much fuel it uses, actually the computer still controls the engine throttle but if fools you into thinking you are doing it.

This would not affect the fuel economy much if at all, and it would take away the discomfort of thinking the engine is not under your control (its not really under your control).. The genset still should be very quiet and totally vibration free.

This would be a radical departure from the previous ideas that we have discussed.. instead of having a few discrete throttle point chosen by the computer you would control the throttle setting to some degree.. enough to make you feel in control with NO SURPRISES, the computer would fine tune it and also adjust the generator load.
Herm Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

#157 KentT Says:
So everyone’s speculation about what is and is not an acceptable rpm is moot. We need facts about the generator.
………………………………………..

90% of what we talk about is moot anyways.. even when GM starts selling the car I doubt they will tell all their secrets.. its better that way, less complaining and back seat driving.
noel park Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

#155 terryk:

That’s what I’m talkin’ about!

#156 carcus 1:

Yeah, they do get out of control if you don’t pay attention. It reminds me of the beauties in my neighborhood. Got planted out of 5 gal containers and grew up to block the views for miles around. Not LOL.

#158 Neil Chapman:

Right. Even our 3500 pickup with the 8.1 V-8 shows 4500 rpm pulling 2 cars over the southbound Grapevine. It only happens about 4-5 times a year, but when you need it, you need it. And, if you think 4500 in a 1.4 Volt is going to be irritating try it in an 8.1 3500!

#159 statik:

Speaking of keeping the joke going, after yesterdays frolics I finally had to dig out my little paperback Webster, which I keep handy since I’m too dumb to spell check these comments.

“static (stat’ik) adj. 1, fixed; stationary; stagnant. 2, pert. to a stationary charge of electricity. 3, (Radio) pert. to atmospheric electrical interference. -n. (Radio) static interference.”
Mark Z Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

GM should start the engine and let it idle just prior to the battery being depleted. GM can slowly “tune” the RPMs to the current speed of the VOLT. Raising and lowering RPMs should be done gradually, unless the driver is pressing the pedal down hard. With pedal to the metal, GM can accelerate the ICE faster than if the car was stopped.

The sound of the engine is a big deal. Put your car into first or second and safely drive around at 3000 to 4500 RPMs. It’s odd to hear a loud engine sound while driving slowly or stopped at a signal.

If VOLT ICE noise is an issue, it will encourage owners to plug-in often and plan short trips under 40 miles!
Anthony BC Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Boy, 0 to 4500 rpms is a good way to burn out the engine faster. Hey, that way we can have just an electric car with no gas!

Problem solved on VOLT Gen 2 for 2014…

GO EV!!!
Tom Harwick Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

Well, let’s see, now. Let’s play the game : “Who’s the bigger jerk?” The EPA, McElroy, or GM for not pointing out just how incompetent and brainless the EPA has been through this entire “EPA mileage estimate” fiasco? We all know, boys and girls, (but not media journalists) that there is no such thing as an estimated MPG fro a range extended electric vehicle. The concept is not applicable, since the gas mileage is determined largely by the driver’s trip habits, not the car itself. The EPA and journalists (and I suspect, even GM) doesn’t seem to understand this transparently simple fact. The mileage window of the Volt should read : gets 40 miles on a full battery charge and obtains 50 MPG while running in range extended mode. Period. End of sentence, end of discussion. Got that?

==============================
Kent, that is a pretty strong condemnation of people with whom you disagree.

From reading your comments, I would guess that your background is not in marketing.

If you want Voltec to transform America’s automotive future, sales have to rise quickly to millions of units per year. This will not happen if the most highly publicized figures, and those printed on the sticker are:

Prius $25,000 50 MPG
Volt $38,000 50 MPG 40 AER

The average American would buy the Prius in a heartbeat, and start thinking about how he was going to spend the $13,000 he saved without sacrificing MPG.

On the other hand, if the data is

Prius $25,000 50 MPG
Volt $38,000 100 MPG

The Volt has a fighting chance.

PS…please, no lectures about how MPG for EREVs is inapplicable, ridiculous, infantile or fattening. I understand that, and I still disagree with you.

If the hypothetical average American driver would get 100 MPG over the course of the year driving the average American trip profile, than the 100 MPG value is correct.

Results have to be expressed within the frame of reference of the American consumer,
john1701a Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

Prius $25,000 50 MPG
___________________

That’s not constructive.

By the time Volt becomes available, finding Prius for $21,000 will be extremely realistic.

Also, owners (like me) are seeing MPG much higher than 50.
kubel Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:10 pm

“the battery will continue to generate some power and work together with the engine-generator to provide peak performance when it’s required, such as driving up a steep incline or for high acceleration maneuvers.”

We’ve kind of know this for a while, but when the Volt was first promised, it was considered a “full performance” EREV, meaning it has the same performance with the engine off as it does with the engine running. Stepping on the accelerator and then having the engine kick on during the first 40-miles is quite disappointing. It shows me the battery just isn’t up to the task, that it needs supplemental power during high-demand maneuvers. I expect more out of a supposedly $10,000 battery pack.

It’s also revealing, because it shows GM admitting that the Volt needs battery plus genset power to deliver peak performance. So what happens when the battery is dead? With only genset power, it means that peak power will be unavailable. You’ll be left with a sluggish Volt- which is EXACTLY what Ford predicted about a year ago.
LauraM Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

#166 john1701a

That assumes that the dollar doesn’t collapse, and that Toyota doesn’t try to increase its margins on the Prius to offset its losses elsewhere.
jeffhre Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

#167
kubel Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 11:10 pm

…With only genset power, it means that peak power will be unavailable. You’ll be left with a sluggish Volt- which is EXACTLY what Ford predicted about a year ago.
_______________________

Your knowledge of what GM is planning for Volt characteristics and performance is far beyond the average American or even the typical car enthusiast.

Keep on researching it will pay off, because as the thousands of readers contributions here, GM engineers statements and the reports that Dr. Dennis puts up will fill in the information that shows you what is planned for the Volt is definitely not, ” You’ll be left with a sluggish Volt.”

Ford and Toyota, by the way are saying now exactly what GM said about the Prius before it became the best selling hybrid – wonder of wonders!
john1701a Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 12:07 am

Ford and Toyota, by the way are saying now exactly what GM said about the Prius before it became the best selling hybrid – wonder of wonders!
____________________________

That’s what some would like you to believe. In reality, the message was quite different. Some of us have blogs from back then to prove it.
Van Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 12:43 am

Hi Kubel @167

First the traction motor is rated at 110 kw, so any time it is drawing more than 53 kW, the performance will be depleting the battery. In charge depleting mode, with the battery state of charge (SOC) between about 85% and 35%, all performance is based on power from the battery with the ICE remaining off, even with the “gas” pedal floor boarded.

But lets say in charge sustaining mode, you drive up the grapevine here in California and use more power than the generator at maximum power can provide, i.e more than 53 kW. At some point the battery will be depleted to the point where it cannot supply the difference between your demand (gas pedal floor boarded) and the 53 kw or so the generator is providing. With less power going to the traction motor, you slow down until sustained by the generator’s power. No big deal, I was in the “floorboarded” condition in an early VW beetle going over the grapevine many a time. I usually could maintain a speed of about 40 MPH.
Herm Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 12:46 am

#167 kubel Says:
Stepping on the accelerator and then having the engine kick on during the first 40-miles is quite disappointing. It shows me the battery just isn’t up to the task, that it needs supplemental power during high-demand maneuvers. I expect more out of a supposedly $10,000 battery pack.
——————————————
You are confusing the way the Prius operates with the Volt system.. When the Volt’s battery is still usable it is fully capable of driving the motor.. but when it is discharged (at the 30% point) then the genset is responsible for driving the motor and the battery assists when heavy acceleration is needed. That quote is describing how it works when the battery is discharged..

“the battery will continue to generate some power and work together with the engine-generator to provide peak performance when it’s required, such as driving up a steep incline or for high acceleration maneuvers.”
jeffhre Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 1:30 am

#170
john1701a

That’s what some would like you to believe. In reality, the message was quite different. Some of us have blogs from back then to prove it.
_________________
Please enlighten us, stop teasing!
GeorgeB Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 5:53 am

I used to have a pretty big boat with a Kohler 3Kw genset. It was housed in a sound-proofed fiberglass case in the bilge. I don’t know what the RPM’s were but I do know I could barely hear it when it came on. This is no big deal, folks. Chevy (can’t bring myself to say GM anymore) will hush the genset on Volt 1.0 and get us where we need to be… a vehicle that gives the individual an opportunity to contribute to the effort to getting off fossil fuels.

That, of course, is what the Volt is all about. My hope is that, if I manage things right, I will seldom, if ever, have to buy gas for the car.
Dan Petit Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 8:59 am

The Onan Genset in my old 1992 Winnebago (Chevy chassis) (turned into a sometimes-office) had 2,000 clock run-time hours on it about 3 years ago. It was time to do the minor electronics overhaul. It is a 4,000 watt Emerald series, and is extremely-well built.

2,000 clock hours might be the equivalent time-frame range of 10 to 20 years (if you needed to run it) for what I would expect to be the tasking for a Volt (excepting for wattage of course). Parts are still readily available for it. (GM parts for whatever they ever built are also readily available still, for whatever you have. Another advantage of GM.)

This Genset uses a voltage regulator to control and vary the field strength of the armature. It has a governor that adjusts the throttle of a side-draft carburetor. It has an extremely-easily replaceable armature brush set that is accessed by releasing a flip-clip-band that goes all around the main casing of the generator.

When the roof AC is turned on, the demand load slows the armature about 5 percent. The governor opens the throttle in response to maintain the required-steady-state1800 rpm’s (at all times), so as to maintain 55 to 63 cycles per second (hertz).

At the same time, the voltage regulator increases voltage to the armature at the same time as the governor opens the throttle to compensate for the demand, and, to increase the magnetic field strength of the armature which is being held at 1800 rpms for 60 cycles per second. Increased field strength is what makes more watts (not the rpm’s).

There are always methods with which we can taper loads up and down with generators when you have excellent software management, and, of course, a very large reserve of energy in the pack even at a 30% state-of-charge. This software might be “real-driving-location” updated based on flat locations “for the next 10 miles”, or hilly locations “for the next 100 miles” to anticipate
*everything*, and, I do mean “everything” at all load-demands.

While certainly the Volt generator is a different design than that of an Onan, (which works with fixed-analog-logic electronics and mechanical governor), the near-infinite variabilities which software engineering bring to the table far, far exceed any need for the silly concerns that competing “marketers” (sometimes posting here) might wish or be tempted to throw out for “public consumption”.

*ALL* the open discussions here on this very valuable site are of *THE* strongest-possible value to help everyone alive that can read it to begin to understand the critical role GM is performing in accelerating the global transition to green electric motoring.

GM is *exactly* in the perfect situation to be doing this.
Hindsight in 2 years from now will be the 20/20 retrospective that many will need to feel that this statement is indeed the accurate history here, at this moment in time, and as well for the past ten years of ALL automotive history.

If it were not for every single aspect for where GM had been and is now, no other OEM would be getting off their duffs and out of their ruts, out of their “inside the box” collective mindsets to start this changeover set of processes.

This is why I relentlessly commend GM.

Just stop paying *as much* attention to those who want everyone to remain doing the same
*********
insane
*********
financially-unfeasible and unsustainable things. Although there is “educational-argument merit” even in that “marketer’s silliness”.

Other OEM execs and management ought *never* to feel embarrassed to begin to more broadly and openly discuss their plans for EREV, just because GM is doing it first. Everyone understands that you can not ever do an entire industry changeover as easily as changing a set of brushes in an Onan.

Dan.
Joe Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 9:10 am

Take this info for what’s it worth.

When the engine kicks-in in the Volt ( with only 30% charge left in the battery), the generator will generate it’s maximum power output until the battery reaches 80% of full charge. If at that time the driver is going up a steep hill, that power may be all directed to the electric motor (front wheels). If any excess power is produce, then the rest of the power will be directed to the battery.

The engine will have a long stroke with a sweet spot that’s in the low RPM’s which will not vary much.

In case your wondering, I can at least say I’m retired from GM.
Monroe Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am

who cares about noise
larrymcfall Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

EPA? I guess if they get their two cents worth in, and they will, the Volt will contribute to the air and noise evvironmental deteriation. Just kiddin! Hope they all get it together and we soon see the Volt on the streets meeting the expectations of us all.
CS Guy Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

I can’t understand why people here are so up in arms about 4500 rpms.

I don’t care if it’s 4500 rpms, 6000 rpms or 1.21 Gigawatts. I want to know when that stinky poison belching ICE engine comes on so I can modify my behavior and NEVER hear that hideous sound again.

I think GM should have a buzzer under all the seats in the Volt that comes on when the ICE kicks in and repeats itself every minute that the ICE is running – like those handshake buzzers, very annoying. And a flashing LED lightbar (like on top of a cop car except right on the driver side sun visor) to tell you that you’ve just become responsible for 1 more young American man or woman’s death over in the oil wars… I mean Iraq and Afghanistan.
voltman Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Do both.

Just have a switch to toggle quiet mode vs max efficiency mode. Its all software, piece of cake.
omegaman66 Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 12:54 am

I think it is pretty simple. The volt isn’t finished. GM doesn’t want people to experience any negativity associated with the volt even if that negativity is latter corrected.

examples:
Why allow a writer to write that the volt sure was noticably noisy when the ICE kicked on, when GM knows full and well that that issue won’t be an issue when the final volt hits the road.

There is enough misunderstanding about the volt without having to dispel additional misunderstanding that you didn’t need to be put out in the first place.
wwskinn3 Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

If this thing starts suddenly at 4500 rpms, then it isn’t going to last very long. and will wear out very quickly. I wouldn’t want it. No valid reason why it can’t start and run up slowly. This way, you might not even notice it.
Jake Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

I’m not even sure we should be having these discussions based on such a sketchy article. This is the problem with the internet…someone mentions 4500 RPM and suddenly half the people who see this site take it as the gospel truth and start freaking out.

I would also like to know more about the Volt’s generator. Unfortunately that might be a little bit out of this site’s depth.

Just a little rant: Did anyone else notice the stupid “boot up” commentary in the article? How comforting to know that McElroy “gets the sense” that the Volt will still require some boot up time even in the final production version. Look, he might be right, but I think it’s quite premature and totally baseless to guess about this right now. Does the Prius take any appreciable time to “boot up?” Heck no. And I fail to see how the Voltec system is going to be complex enough compared to a Prius to require a long boot-up. It’s different, but the components themselves (and the ways in which they interact) are not fundamentally any fancier than any other hybrid. Boot up time? I doubt it.
Dr Mark Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am

Who’s idea is it to turn on a cold engine and race it at 4500 RPM under max load. It needs a low-load warm-up period anyway. So, what’s the real problem? I don’t want a cold engine spewing it’s maximum CO output!

This is what we get for putting bureaucrats in charge of GM. Maybe the GM engineers and execs should march in the streets and see who clubs THEM to death. EPA, get off their backs!

Dr Mark

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]
WopOnTour
gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010
interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]
prowler
A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010
I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010
I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]
1nk
Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010
I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]
XGC75
electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010
My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]
Velko Velkov
Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010
Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]
1nk

EPA Playing a Role in Volt Generator Mode Behavior?

184 Responses to “EPA Playing a Role in Volt Generator Mode Behavior?”

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts