In our last post we had a live chat with Jon Lauckner GM’s VP of global program management, who along with Bob Lutz is co-creator of the Chevy Volt.
He took some significant questions from readers here and some other sites. Key information is as follows:
Price
GM has never officially told us what the Volt will cost, although about $40,000 is most frequently cited in the press. Lauckner once before indicated we would get an official price about 6 months prior to launch, or May 2010. In this most recent discussion he now refined that to “3 to 6 months prior to start of production.”
Battery Thermal Management
Lauckner confirms the lithium-ion battery will be kept at “20 to 25 degrees C.” In the cold, grid power will be used to warm the battery when the car is plugged in. If that’s not the case the ICE would go on at start to generate heat.
Future Generators
For now the Volt will use a gasoline/E85 engine as a generator, though Lauckner confirmed for the future GM is considering HCCI engines which they have been developing. These are ultra-efficient combustion engines that use extreme pressure rather than spark to completely combust gasoline within the chamber. Other types of generators are not being pursued currently, and he says he “doesn’t see” using a compressed natural gas generator at least in the US.
Acceleration
He confirmed the Volt will do 0 to 60 in 8.5 to 9 seconds depending in the weight of the payload, and that it is even “capable of squawking the tires.” He reiterates is will feel like a 250 HP V6. This exceeds the 0 to 60 time of the Prius (10.5 seconds) or Insight (11.5 seconds), and the 0 to 30 time difference will be far more dramatic.
All Wheel Drive Volt
Lauckner says while developing this variant would be possible, it is “no planned at this time”
Pure EV
Lauckner denies GM has a plan for a pure electric city car.
Charging
He says in order to utilize 220V charging, user will have to have “hard wired 220 connection from a works box to the wall unit,” that will be avaiable at launch.
Battery Warranty
Lauckner confirmed it is GM’s intention to fully warranty the battery pack for 10 years/150,000 miles.
Launch
Lauckner says Volts will not be sold prior to November 2010, though GM employees and “maybe a few others” will be driving pre-production Volts by next summer. Wonder who those few others might be?
ICE Behavior
Several negative speculations were refuted. He says GM plans to make the car seem as familiar and as much like a normal car as possible. He notes when in generator mode, “most customers will be surprised at the refinement of the ICE.” He notes the car will operate at one of several RPM points, and that none of them are “roaring”. He confirmed Volt will get “much more than 30 MPG” in generator mode.
Electrification of the Automobile
“Electrification of the automobile is here and the trend grows stronger every day,” he said. “We remain extremely committed to the Volt and vehicle electrification.”
“We’re the leaders in it today and we expect to be the leaders in the future,” he added.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 at 7:08 am and is filed under GM Q and A. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:10 am)All Wheel Drive Volt
Lauckner says while developing this variant would be possible, it is “no planned at this time”
Bummer. That is one thing I can say about the Subaru that I love. I will take AWD over 4WD any day of the week, in the snow. Any other time, AWD is just a gas guzzler.
——————-
He confirmed Volt will get “much more than 30 MPG” in generator mode.
I would feel better if he said “much more than 50 MPG”
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:20 am)My question is still the same. When will we be told the rollout plan?
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:20 am)It is very scary that Mexico’s oil fields are depleting, Nigeria’s fields aren’t politically stable enough to attract necessary capital and Canada’s oil sands remain expensive to produce.
Electrification will greatly relieve demand, so the faster we tool up, the better.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:20 am)Lauckner denies GM has a plan for a pure electric city car.
Good idea. Zenn can have that niche market.
Did anyone mention a light pickup truck during the chat?
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:29 am)Thanks Lyle for the informative summary.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:29 am)ICE Behavior
” He notes the car will operate at one of several RPM points, and that none of them are “roaring”. He confirmed Volt will get “much more than 30 MPG” in generator mode.
To me this is the best part of what he had to say. I thought they would have been crazy to have an ice that only tracked the accelerator pedal so people didn’t find it strange. Even in RE mode the car will be using the ice more efficiently than a parallel hybrid can. I’m impressed GM
-1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:40 am)If need be, GM can easily convert the Voltec technology for a pure electric. Just a software change that is more likely already programed into it.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:47 am)I was worried about the ICE tracking the accelerator too. I just hope the MPG in RE mode is right up there with the insight and prius.
I would like to know how much acceleration and load will affect the battery range and MPG.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:51 am)Given the high cost of replacing a battery pack (either in the Volt or a BEV), it was good to hear that the battery pack would be warranteed for 10year/150,000 miles, and at the end of life, it should still provide 40 miles AER.
Apparently the battery pack can then be used in a stationary application to store power from a solar/wind source or as a “peak shaving” mechanism (store off peak power to use during peak hours).
Since the battery is key to making these cars affordable (no midlife $15k replacement cost), GM seems to be on track.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:04 am)“Expensive to produce oil” will only accelerate the creation/adoption of electric vehicles… so it’s a good thing.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:05 am)Absolutely. I really want to go electric but I also love my Subaru.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:08 am)I am really excited about the Volt, though I fear it will fail for 2 reasons, both of which could be easily
First, GM is not doing any mass education of this vehicle. Execs from Ford, Tesla, and others are slamming the Volt with incomplete information that if you took just what they say makes the Volt seem like the dumbest idea ever. GM needs to speak about the Volt and educate the public that it isn’t limited to 40 miles, and that it doesn’t rely on only the generator’s power output once it has gone 40 miles as that has a big difference in the performance you would see once you have the generator kick in.
Second, I’m sure that GM is going to launch the Volt in California like most car companies do and only move it to other markets if it does well there. I think the Volt would do much better in the mid-west. I know I’m already saving up money and plan to plunk down cash when the Volt is available, but I don’t think it will be in my area for the first model year – or more.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:10 am)Makes me wonder if the dealerships understand what the Volt means. Too many dealerships survived on repairwork. [insert] [rant about horrific personal experience with GM reliability and cost-of-ownership][end insert]. With the Voltec drivetrain, there SHOULD NOT BE anywhere near the level of repairwork to sustain too many dealerships.
In five or six years when you first adopters are lusting after a newer Volt, I’ll buy your 2010 or 2011 version, repower it, and drive it another 150K. And the expensive part will be warrantied for all my 150k.
I think that this is the underlying reason that the dealerships were doomed anyway. The model of spending ever-increasing portions of your income on car transportation is, hopefully, over.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:12 am)Agreed. Seems like every manufacturer is coming out with golf-cart-city-cars. These are not mass-market solutions, just desperate attempts to grab some halo-dust for the brand. Unfortunately these tiny, low speed, low range electric vehicles continue to do damage to the public perception of what an electric car can be: Volt, Tesla, etc.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:16 am)Alternate generators: I’ve thought that a turbine would be ideal, but assumed the cost is the problem. Anyone have any real data? Seems like a great opportunity for GE—a microturbine sold in the millions.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:21 am)I read somewhere that NEVs have a top speed of 25 MPH..
I wonder how far the Volt can travel in AER at 25 mph?
-11
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:22 am)(click to show comment)
+5
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:28 am)Missing from that list of “Key information” was the most important update:
…my getting Lutz’s pink tie
“Jon Lauckner: Hi Statik, still working on getting Bob’s pink tie…”
——
Actually it was a really good chat, he shot direct and gave out lots of good and useful information.
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:28 am)Will I be able to do a regenerative brake torqueing burnout? Just kidding, but squawking the tires will be cool. I doubt a Prius will do that.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:29 am)Micro turbines are noisy, never happen. But smart to hear they tooting the horn on diesel-pressure-style engines. There is a real revolution in ICE/CE design as the gas and diesel engines become more and more alike.
+9
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:01 am)Just an update for you all… Up here in central Alberta Canada… I don’t expect to see a Volt in my driveway until at lease 2012 – 13.. So till the Volt arrives…. I picked up my 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid two days ago… $34,000 (Canadian) with decent options, a truely exciting and configurable dash/display.. I noticed that the body details are different from the standard Fusions… nicer headlights, tail lights and exhaust tip …etc. I have only driven about 380 KMS (mostly city with various speed limits ) so far but, with the 28 C weather… I am giving the car a true milage test as in the climate control (and yes the is one for the passenger too) is set at 16 C. …. Headlights on… stereo… all the options that can be used with regular driving. I am driving this week with a reasonably heavy foot (while allowing for the break in period and not abusing the car). So far I am averaging 48 MPG (Canadian)… and this is with the car not broken in and using all the options.. I have had stretches where I have actually driven close to 2 KMS at a stretch strictly in EV mode ( at around 65 KPM). So far… I am very impressed with this car..
The Volt is going to have to better priced and have better milage when in generator mode. The Fusion Hybrid is a bigger car, lower priced and ( I expect ) better milage… (for someone who drives 150 – 250 KMS every day) So far… I give it 5 Stars..
-2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:01 am)It may be limited by the software to 40 miles.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:02 am)I’m guessing you missed the bit about the Volt being sold in Europe as well.
GM is doing a global rollout.
And if showing up on David Letterman with a prototype in tow to correct public misconceptions about the car isn’t sufficient, I’m just not sure what they’ll have to do to please you, but there’s a danger in over-hyping the car 16 months before it’s available.
+6
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:05 am)“But the latest profit comes because of a $3.4 billion gain due to debt reduction. In March Ford swapped stock and cash to reduce its loan and bond debt by $7.7 billion.
Without special items, Ford would have lost $424 million, or 21 cents per share.”
On the other hand, GM is now debt-free.
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:11 am)I think the “mass education” will takes place as they get closer to launch. Meanwhile sites like this are costing GM nothing and the grass-roots word is spreading. They won’t need mass knowledge until they can mass-produce which will take a few years.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:14 am)Efficiency is also an issue with turbines. HCCI is the best way to get extreme mileage in the range extending mode, if you dont mind the extra cost and heavier weight, similar savings as a diesel.. advantage is that you dont need fancy diesel emission treatments. GM has experience with HCCI.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/26/abg-tech-analysis-and-driving-impression-gms-hcci-engine/
I think this will take many years, there will not be a lot of urgency to spend the money to implement it. A cheaper solution would be a standard ICE running with ethanol E85 but at high compression.. but that has fuel availability problems.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:15 am)@BillR
“Apparently the battery pack can then be used in a stationary application to store power from a solar/wind source or as a “peak shaving” mechanism (store off peak power to use during peak hours).”
But who get’s the battery at this point? You? The “Muncipalitites”?
Personally I would like one at the trailer park for your mentioned purpose.
That would be cool.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:18 am)As Grat said, paper profit is meaningless, cash is king…cash tells the story in the auto business.
Inside those numbers is ‘special items,’ specifically a 3.4 billion dollar gain on a ‘debt reduction’…which basically was Ford spending equity to pay off a debt on Ford’s balance sheet that they couldn’t get re-financed (thats the real bad news). Technically, they ‘bought’ a profit, lol.
In reality, Ford itself lost around 400 million on car operations, and 1.1 billion in cash from continuing operations. However, because they can’t service/re-fi their debt, Ford/Ford Credit is hemorrhaging multiples of that number to pay their obligations which are rapidly coming due (I believe they have some more issuences, and notes coming due early in the new year for a few billion…too lazy to look up the actual number)
Here is Ford Credit’s balance sheet this quarter ended versus Dec 31st, 2008
Cash and equivalents 11,881 vs 15,473
Marketable Securities 7,760 vs 8,606
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2Qfinancials09FordCredit.pdf
The debt is coming down as well, as they are forced to pay things off with actual cash rather than re-financing, but their debt is in the hundreds of billions…cash not so much.
In the past 6 months, Ford has lost 5.6 (plus, plus) billion in cash, with 21 billion left in the kitty (and that 21 billion includes the 10 billion dollar credit facility they maxed out before it got pulled from them).
Page 1 of the PDF for cash refernce total, and loss of 5.6 billion for first 6 months of the year:
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2Qfinancial_release09.pdf
Normally, you could probably peg out the ‘end of days’ for Ford to come around next spring. However the DoE’s ‘loan’ of 5.9 (plus round 2) allow for more cash shuffling, and more ‘credit fancy dancing’ reports like this one, that blurr the true state of Ford and let them not own how bad the problem is, or the reality of their eventual bankruptcy. (same as GM did).
With the DoE money, Ford probably can probably stretch it out 18 months or so now to the end of 2010, but in no way did Ford come anywhere close to the reality you represented for last quarter, that being 2.8 billion profit.
GM had those exact same accounting anomolies on their way to oblivion themselves, here are some GM Volt threads about GM’s quarterly successes:
GM Posts Quarterly Profit
March 14th, 2007
“… it is encouraging to see that GM appears to be making a turnaround. If they play their cards right with the Volt (and it appears they are), it could catapult GM to a top tier international position”
http://gm-volt.com/2007/03/14/gm-posts-quarterly-profit-q4-2006/
GM Posts Nearly a Billion Dollar Quarter
July 31st, 2007
“GM has something to celebrate today, as everyone may know by now, they were able to post a profit of nearly 1 billion dollars for the second quarter of this year, 891 million to be exact.”
http://gm-volt.com/2007/07/31/gm-posts-nearly-a-billion-dollar-quarter/
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:18 am)You need to look at the burn efficiency and conversion. Turbine’s are less efficient that standard ICE. In the middle of the two is rotary with the more difficult SMOG specs.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:20 am)My Subaru Brat was one of the best car’s I’ve ever owned. I loved that little thing and it was still driving like new at 160K miles. I really liked popping it into 4WD when needed. I hope I enjoy the Volt as much. From everything I’ve been reading, I think I will.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:20 am)I can get my Prius to squeal – a little, when the roads are wet.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:24 am)That’s the future of this site. When Volt’s start rolling off the line, we’ll be the one’s pushing the electric mode as far as we can. I can see my driving habits changing from hyper driving on gasoline to hyper driving with in electric mode. Since the Volt is being designed for the average driver and 40 miles of range, I wonder just how far it can be pushed with hyper driving? Of course, as mentioned, hyper driving an electric car is going to be different than a gas powered car.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:25 am)“I just hope the MPG in RE mode is right up there with the insight and prius.”
I continue to believe that GM has a pleasant surprise for us, here. I’m hoping it will leave the nerd-shoes back in the pack.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:27 am)The irony of it is a bit striking isn’t it?
We want to go electric but love our AWD.
(My Subaru has 220000 km and counting, bought new.)
Here in the great white north AWD is a big deal for winter.
/Of course it’s 31c all this week here in Calgary and almost NOBODY has central air in their homes.
I’m almost looking forward to winter right now!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:30 am)FYI: Tesla test drive is a range anxiety nightmare. But hey, if you can afford one… who cares.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124629044888368573.html?mod=yahoo_free
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:31 am)And let me add my thanks for a good concise summary, Lyle! Unfortunately, I’m tied up on all-day conference calls nearly every day, including yesterday, so missed the event itself. However, if I’d had the chance I would have asked Lauckner to elaborate on the Volt’s “transmission unlike any other (paraphrasing Lutz from a blog months ago)”.
…..it’s my belief, as others here will recall, that “making driving the Volt as normal-feeling as possible (paraphrasing comments by Andrew Farah)” almost demands that it will (when a driver pulls over into the oncoming lane on a 2-lane road to pass, for example) literally LEAP FORWARD to reduce the passing time —as virtually ALL cars with automatic transmissions have done for over 50 years. I also believe this “passing gear” effect could be achieved by either electronically switching the traction motor windings or momentarily increasing the motor’s drive current(s), or both. [Of course, pedal position & vehicle speed sensing could control this "passing gear" effect ....as well as allow the Volt to reach 60 mph from a standstill in say 6 secs rather than 8.5-9 secs!] I really hope GM actually has this mysterious “transmission” up their sleeves as a surprise exclusive to the Volt for car mags and would-be purchasers to rave about!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:39 am)Somewhere around May next year if I were to guess.
Does that sound about right guys?
That’s 6 months prior to production start.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:41 am)Call me crazy, but the last thing Voltec needs is a heavier, more expensive engine unless they push into full sized trucksa and SUVs. Efficiency, cost, and weight are of equivalent importance IMO. This comment was a dissapointment and I hope he held back for strategic decisions. The next generation EREV sedans and small trucks will not be using diesel, HCCI, or Otto ICE. It may be still with Atkinson but I would bet the successful companies will move to a new low weight, low cost, and reasonably efficient power plant.
-19
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:45 am)(click to show comment)
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:46 am)Sure, adding weight and cost makes hella sense.
+5
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:47 am)I think that limiting the AER to 40 miles is pretty unlikely. It is most likely that the ICE will start up when the battery is at a certain discharge level. There is no reason to arbitrarily start the ICE at 40 miles.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:47 am)Funny… my AWD subaru (non-turbo) refuses to squeak the tires…
Way too much traction.
I think I just decided I want a Volt-back… please consider this a request…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:48 am)Statik:
Is there any way or senario you could foresee Ford not having to run through bankruptcy in the future? I ask this because they seem to have a planned rollout of some potentially strong vehicles in the coming 12-18 months, (looking at Fiesta, new Focus, un-named EV, new Taurus, etc.). Additionally, they have scored some market share at the expense of GM’s and Chrysler’s bankruptcies, consistently scoring high with J.D.Power & Consumer Reports, and the good favor of taxpayers for not taking a bailout–yet. In short, they are basically doing everything as well as possible. What else could they do to stave off bankruptcy?
-20
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:48 am)(click to show comment)
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:49 am)That sounds great!
Congratulations on your new toy!
I’m still planning on holding out for my Volt (AWD???) but the Fusion is high on the alternatives list.
-14
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:52 am)(click to show comment)
-11
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:53 am)(click to show comment)
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:55 am)I was very pleased to read Lauckner’s comment in yesterday’s chat, “We’ve already announced the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera, which is coming to Europe in 2011″!
I’ll be seriously considering a trip to Europe in 2011 to pick up an Ampera, tour the “Old Country” for a few weeks, then have my new car shipped back to the US. I LOVE the gorgeous, highly-distinctive Ampera styling —in fact, I feel the Volt will have very tough competition on its hands in Europe!
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:00 am)I’ll take a MUCH less expensive Volt thank you very much!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:03 am)Heh heh, Adrian my friend you ARE consistant!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:08 am)What do you have in mind?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:10 am)As noted in #1 – My major concern around his comments was:
He confirmed Volt will get “much more than 30 MPG” in generator mode
What’s up with that!! – 30 is a LONG way from 50! I half expected a comment around “greater than 40″, as I was guessing it would get 43-45, as some folks have done the math, and gotten numbers in that range…
But, “much more than 30″, come on! – That sounds like “high 30ish” numbers to me – 37-38? I’m mainly interested in highway numbers, and 50ish for a Prius was my bar – I’m willing to give some, to support the Volt and EREV/BEV concepts – and I had resigned myself to the mind-40ities – but in the 30ities?!! Seems like that design goal got SORELY missed..
Each update, the goals get “downsized”, we’re basically up to $40K, (with $7.5 back from Obama), the concept style is gone (OK, I realize the 22 wheels had to go), and now we get high 30′s for highway EREV mileage. Only thing that’s really remains from the original goals are the 40 AER, and 10/150K on the battery
Perhaps I just grumpy today, but high 30′s really struck me… As per #15, the Fusion is going back on to my alternative list.. And I’m getting more serious about an A123 conversion on a 3rd generation prius..
Time will tell at late 2010, and I’ll hold out with my 1994 Camry (which gets 31 highway with its 4 cylinder) until then…
That’s just the first time I’ve seen at 30′s number for highway EREV mileage, and that one really pains me…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:14 am)Absolutely.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:17 am)This is one of the few real questions left, isn’t it? I tried to ask about the transmission obliquely because when I’ve asked it directly it never gets answered. What I asked was how many wh/mile the Volt used during the US06 drive cycle. Since we have the wh/mile figures for the City and Highway drive cycles, and since we know that the transmission uses a single gear, if you have the wh/mile for US06 you can work backwards, estimate the drive train losses, and reach some conclusions as to whether the transmission is truly spiffy.
Note that the wh/mile for City and Highway are identical, which is a little unusual. Also note that this is one of the few things that Bob Lutz has ever clammed up about.
+5
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:17 am)SOMEBODY bought a $20000 plasma a few years back so that I could buy my 42″ screen for $1200.
Maybe it’s my turn to be an early adopter.
As Red Green says, “We’re all in this together”.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:20 am)I agree Gsned57 about the ICE “not roaring”. Granted, we will need to see/hear a final production vehicle to confirm for ourselves, but I was glad Laukner said it anyway. The PR flack would have been devastating to the project as a whole.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:20 am)“Lauckner says Volts will not be sold prior to November 2010, though GM employees and “maybe a few others” will be driving pre-production Volts by next summer. Wonder who those few others might be?”
—————————————
“Wonder who those few others might be?” —- Lyle said with a sheepish grin as he finished hard wiring the 220 line in his garage.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:22 am)The question if you check was asking…
—————————————————
Comment From Steven Schrier ]
Could you clarify a recent report from Detroit Autoline which said the Volt’s gas engine comes on loudly at very high rpm and the Volt may only get 30 MPG when the gas engine is powering the car after the initial 40 mile all electric range is used?
3:07 Jon Lauckner: I think most customers will be surprised at the refinement of the ICE. It will operate at several RPM points (not roaring) and the charge sustaining fuel economy (gas engine on) will be much more than 30 mpg.
—————————————————
He answered the question like it was asked.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:25 am)I can think of a few small farms that would love to get ahold of a few of them!
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:25 am)its possible they will allow the owner to use the full 8kwh of capacity.. it could be done by just measuring (easily done) how much wh has been used so far…and calculating what the current pack capacity is as it ages.
If the Tesla can get 400 miles of range driving at 17mph with a 53kwh pack then the Volt should be able to do about 86 miles. Assuming a lot of things of course.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:26 am)Don’t look into the “much more than 30 MPG” quote too closely. The phrase could mean anything between 40 and 100 MPG.
Remember, though, how much of your daily driving is going to go past 40 miles anyways? Or are you going to say that the Volt’s range goal is going to be “downsized” to 20 miles?
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:27 am)GM’s own promotional material disagrees. It clearly states that a direct mechanical link is more efficient than converting from motion to electricity then immediately converting the electricity back to motion.
53.9 MPG is my average as of 3,988 summer miles… which recently included 50 miles of kayak transport on the roof on my 2010 Prius.
How Volt will compete with a “much more than 30 MPG” in generator-mode estimate poses a huge challenge for supporters, especially now knowing that the lithium-ion battery-pack will be kept at “68 to 77 F degrees”. That means the engine will run more often than many cared to admit for those of us in the north with lower than expected efficiency.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:29 am)I’m with Biodieseljeep on this one.
The newer advanced combustion engine technology is an excellent was to make a genset even more efficent.
As for weight and cost, well we don’t know that yet, do we?
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:30 am)we know it does 66 miles with the US06 cycle, while using 8kwh of battery capacity.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:31 am)That WOULD work out rather well with the end of the mini lease wouldn’t it?
GO Lyle!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:34 am)To gfamanid:
First, no one at all said theICE milage IN the 30′s …
I still think we will see over 40Mpg w/ the ICE..
Much More Important, almost all average VOLT drivers will be seeing WWLL over 125-175MPG (or more) in $$ equivelents, when you factor the ICE in with the EV charges @ about 80 cents/each 40mile charge.
It seems really stupid to completely IGNORE that the car has EV batteries & then just compare the volt ICE-only milage to a Prius or Fusion, & complain…
Even if the Volt had a 25Mpg ICE, Most drivers would still get 100Mpg $$ equivelents…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:34 am)a cheap mass produced 4 cylinder engine.. dont forget EREV is transitional until batteries get lighter and come down in cost a bit.
Eventually you may see EREV in long distance trucks..
-1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:35 am)Adrian: “the new huge find in North Dakota”
Bakken is not going to save you. The oil is uneconomically difficult to extract. Anyway, I thought you libber-tarian Paultards insisted that oil was “renewable” and the earth was continually generating it faster than we consume it?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:39 am)make it an option.. some people worry about long distance highway mileage.
Maybe they could reduce the size down to 1 liter and thus save a bit of weight?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:39 am)Here’s something for those sugesting a Turbine genset…
Revealed: Velozzi SOLO, a crossover plug-in hybrid with multi-fuel micro turbine technology
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/07/22/revealed-velozzi-solo-a-crossover-plug-in-hybrid-with-multi-fu/
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:40 am)Seems like if you’re OK with 33 mile EPA AER at 150,000 miles, then just keep going till the wheels fall off as the saying goes!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:43 am)I have always been foggy on how the mpg will be calculated for the Volt. Does anyone know the formula the EPA intends to use? I don’t get anywhere near 100 mpg when I calculate the mileage. How will this be done?
sidenote to Lyle: Maybe this would be a good future thread topic?
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:43 am)Yep.
The same kind of failure as the Prius starting 10 years or so ago.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:43 am)Congratulations.. that is about the same cost as a Volt after the tax credit. For the miles you drive a classic hybrid makes more sense than a Volt.. a Volt specializes in under-40-miles-a-day driving.
Why did you choose the Fusion over the Prius?.. size?
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:45 am)slow down a bit on the higway until you get your 50mpg.. it may not be much, just a couple of MPH
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:45 am)Lyle
Thank you for bringing us Jon Lauckner’s question and answer session. We had a good number of our own ask some very good questions. While Jon had to skip around and answer like a politician it was interesting just the same. We did get to confirm a few things and he left us with some things to think about. Thanks to you and all who participated. Look forward to more later.
And here’s hoping one of those others riding around in a pre-production Volt will be you and myself. I know you deserve it and I would love to do it. I have the time, money and desire to do it.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:48 am)Absolutely!
EREV is almost a no-brainer for heavy trucks!
The Volt needs to hit the roads first but I can see heavy trucks coming in not too far behind that.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:49 am)I think around May 2010 sounds about right. Lyle may know a little more, but be unable to say.
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:54 am)Government properties rarely actually “fail”. They more typically get brutally ravaged by their more financially savvy and opportunistic, partners contractors and customers and tenants. After which government normally sells the assets for what seems to be a ridiculously low price (not called an actual loss though) and promises all around not to be in a situation like this ever again, and or a thorough investigation and blue ribbon commission.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:55 am)We have beaten this one to death!
Of course we’re up for another round though!
CJS and I have spoken on this one at length..
He thinks the battery should be disconnected to test the genset, I think the battery should simply be run to depletion and then the tests run.
As for the combined… well THAT one is tough.
There are those who could go months without exceeding AER.
I personally expect that a few days a week I will exceed the AER which is why I like the Volt in the first place. It can be an everyday car without compromise.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:57 am)That WSJ review is good, here is the money shot:
“But an electric car that steals your sleep, compelling you every sunrise to rip out its plug and run away for no reason, is proof that automotive passion is still strong.”
+8
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:59 am)Adrian,
While I don’t agree completely with all you said, I do agree the U.S. has enough available known oil reserves already to serve our needs for many, many decades. That does not count areas a little further off our coasts that could be explored. The problem is two-fold, to put it simply. 1) When the oil companies look at producing oil in these known fields they have the problem of purchasing very expensive leases from the U.S. government along with the high cost of actually bringing the crude to market versus the much lower cost of importing oil from foreign sources. Which do you think the oil companies and the other entities who purchase on the world market would do? 2) Most of the known reserves on land and offshore are technically off-limits by presidential order and by congressional action. As crude oil prices rise only the second of these two will be a detriment to bring to market our reserves. It is a known fact that the U.S. has more available crude oil available to us today than all the reserves in the Mid-East, Iran and other areas in close geographically. I work for an oil company and I have been in discussions on the availability of crude oil and the problems associated with drilling and marketing it.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:00 am)Technically GM can adjust the MPG by simply adjusting how much power to draw from the batt pack for additional “Power Assist”.
So lets say GM knows how the test is run. They know when it’s least efficient for the genset. All they would have to do is set the computer to deliver more electrical power from the batt pack to assis in power delivery to the motor. If they allow this for the duration of the test then I bet they can deliver even more than 60MPGe.
Now one has to ask in the very common scenario that if I drove to Disneyland, after the freeway 40AER after 200miles of driving, what is my MPG?
Need more Kahlua now…..
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:02 am)The unknown factor in the fuel use question is how much more efficent an engine running at idealized speeds is compared to an engine with has to cover a wider range.
I’m REALLY curious to find that out!
This is NOT to put down the new prius, even though it doesn’t appeal to me there is no disputing that they have done a good job with it.
Since the question specifically ASKED if the mileage was better than 30 mpg, the question was answered correctly.
Taking things out of context isn’t good for anyone.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:07 am)Here’s what I don’t get. How does Toy/Honda/Ford get away with their batt pack on a 10/100 warranty? Granted they are smaller but why does GM have to work so hard on their batt pack to meet this?
I have conceded to the “Just leave the batt pack attached” config.
Just leave it in there because it is “By design”.
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:12 am)I hope they have a number of things “up their sleeves” to wow all of us. They are going to have to do something that helps take the sting off the $40,000+ price and the lack of availability for several years. Here’s hoping.
-1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:12 am)You seem to have a number of “issues” which are beyond the purview of automotive engineers.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:16 am)Yep,
This is the classic it gets more complicated the more you look at it scenario!
Since I’m not Amul and don’t drive all the way across the country for my commute, day to day I’ll burn little to no gas at all.
For ‘special’ trips like Disney I KNOW I’ll burn some gas to get there, (It’s roughly 27 hours driving from my house…) but since I don’t do that every day I don’t have a problem with burning gas to make that trip. (I’m betting on a ~50 mpg average in extended mode… OK and I fly when I go to LA…)
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:20 am)Why do you say this? Seems impossible. US06 is a very aggressive cycle. That would be one phenomenal transmission! Maybe you’re confusing this with something else?
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:20 am)John,
You may very well be correct about the Volt successfully competing with a vehicle like your 2010 Prius on a miles per gallon basis when the ICE is running. But overall mileage per gallon with the Volt should (and I say this hopefully) far exceed the Prius when you factor in the miles driven in EV mode on a daily commute of less than 40 miles round trip. It does not take many days of commuting with no gasoline to far outstrip what any year model of the Prius can match. There is just no real comparison between a Volt and a Prius. Not taking anything away from the Prius because I think it is a great car (almost bought one myself). But all things considered, the Volt is a much better purchase – based on what we all know about it at this point in time. When it is released and we know the real truth, this may change some, but I suspect the Volt will still be superior. IMO…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:26 am)huh?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:26 am)I still wonder if GM is pricing in the cost of a replacement battery in the cost of the Volt. If so, I can see no reason why the Volt would not be profitable to GM from day one or in the very near future (maybe after selling a hundred thousand or so to help recover development cost). Has anyone at GM said one way or the other about this? I know we have had some discussion about a replacement battery cost being included in the cost of the Volt in previous discussions.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:26 am)It’s great that you’re getting over 50 mpg. FWIW the GM web site more or less says the Volt will get 50 mpg in Extended Range mode. That’s probably a pretty good benchmark.
I don’t think you need to lose any sleep the Volt competing with the Prius. Many Prius owners will suffer “Volt Envy”.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:29 am)GM makes a very small pickup truck that’s sold in Asia. I heard it costed more to ship the truck to the US for display at an exec meeting than to buy the truck… It probably has an exceedingly tiny possibly diesel engine, but it can haul stuff and probably gets great mileage.
GM should bring it over.
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:31 am)I doesn’t matter how many decades of oil are left in the ground in the US when you can only pump it out so quickly, most of the fields in the US are old fields and they don’t produce nearly as many barrels per day that would be necessary for use to consume only domestic oil.
This is the thing many people fail to understand, we can have 1000 years of oil left and it doesn’t matter if we are limited by the amount of oil we can extract over a given time period.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:31 am)grat,
I saw that Letterman show where Bob Lutz tried to correct what Letterman had said on an earlier show about the Volt. Letterman never really gave Bob time to really get to the meat of each attempt before he was launching into a joke or breaking into what Bob was saying. Bob Lutz probably only completed one or two compete sentences longer than five words before Letterman was interrupting. It was not a very good place to get correct information out about the Volt.
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:34 am)The fact that it’ll be a money loser for GM doesn’t mean it’ll be a failure.
In regards to the price point: It uses NO gas. This is the first mass-market vehicle capable of that. I’m sure the early batches of vehicles will be sold out to people who recognize that possibility.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:35 am)John, I have a 2005 prius I recently took a 350 mile each way trip. 1 kid and a few bags in the back, My 70 lb dog in the hatchback area and my wife and I up front. On top of the car I had the dog crate (3 inches thick folded down) and a large duffle bag wratchet strapped as compact as possible. I drive about 75 MPH on the highway and had the cruise on most of the time. I averaged 27 MPG on the way up and 23 MPG on the way back. I realize that aerodynamics play the biggest role in the prius getting good highway MPG and my speed in addition to the stuff on top of the car is my reason for the poor mpg.
As for my normal driving with my prius (which I am very happy with by the way) I commute 7 miles all highway (75mph) too and from work. In the winter my milage is about 33 mpg and in the summer I get just over 40. What pisses me off most about my prius is that when I drive the little amount it takes me before I get on and off the highway, the engine is almost always running because it needs to heat up the catalytic converter before it’ll do any AER. So at the point where it’s warmed up I’m now on the highway and don’t get any AER.
I think the prius is a very well thought out car and does pretty well but I’m expecting the Volt to get higher MPG in RE mode.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:36 am)You may be correct. With GM’s announced production volume schedule all the Volts they produce will be purchased as soon as they are available in a showroom. Assuming it is a successful vehicle by doing what GM said it would do. After several years as production volume increases marketing and word of mouth will help sustain sales. There is no marketing better than having someone you know and trust show you his Volt and expand on its virtues to the point that you can’t wait to get down to the closest dealership to purchase one yourself. When that happens nothing but bad follow through on GM’s part can stop the Volt and its siblings from taking over in the automotive world. IMO…..
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:37 am)“But who get’s the battery at this point? You? The “Muncipalitites”?”
At this point, since you are purchasing the entire Auto, I imagine you own the battery and can choose what use you put it too.
However, some power companies will be willing to purchase the batteries with ~10 kWh of capacity to help reduce the cost of replacement of battery or auto…
+5
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:40 am)Let me ask you, Adrian, did you say the same thing about the Prius when it was announced and in its initial production? Or is it just that you hate GM and what the Volt stands for? What cause are you “fighting” for with your negative comments. If you have a case to make for a competitive product come on out and say it in the clear. Stop these negative out-burst or just shut the heck up. Now that is certainly “IN MY OPINION”. Take it for what it is worth.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:44 am)bro…
Carriage Return and Lne Feed or better, the enter key after a sntence would be nice.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:48 am)I think you are correct in what you said about the dealerships. At this point many of them are clueless. Some of the dealership’s owners and top managers may know enough to only see the Volt as a new vehicle to sell while the salesmen, on the average, don’t even know that it is coming. Certainly most dealerships make a lot of money on service as they do selling new cars. I have no idea which is their best profit center. Probably depends on the dealership.
We don’t know yet what kind of service GM is going to require to maintain warranty status. It may be similar to a normal vehicle or more expensive. We just don’t know. We think we know it should be less, but I am not so sure of that – yet. Time will reveal the true figures. I can’t see GM doing something that would severely impact their dealers as more electric vehicles are produced versus normal ICE vehicles.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:48 am)I think that’s the way it will go too… basically viral marketing!
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:48 am)Ford has done a superb job marketing the Fusion, distinguishing it from the other hybrids like the Camry based on its ability to run at much higher speeds before switching out of EV mode. Kudos to the marketing guys (not saying it’s not a great car, but great cars don’t sell themselves).
The Volt will beat the Fusion hybrid on the mpg front but really, the Fusion isn’t competitive with the Prius in this regard. While many cars can serve as substitutes for one another, the Fusion is a larger car and competes most directly with the Camry or the Malibu, not the smaller Prius or the smaller Volt.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:52 am)More than 40 mpg would be great. ‘Much more than 50mpg’ is asking for too much.
But honestly, even if it only got 30 mpg, you would still rarely use gasoline if you plug it in every night and don’t go on long trips. For that rare long trip, 30 mpg is fine.
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:52 am)Herm,
Speaking of the HCCI engine, is there any knowledge of when GM is going to have that engine ready for production and placement in the Volt. Certainly seems they would move as fast as possible if it could help increase efficiency of the Volt while in ICE range extending mode.
+7
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:55 am)Is the “GM FAIL” comment because of Fords profit or because you think this may lead to GM’s failure or because you just hope for failure? Make yourself clearer next time. Otherwise, you deserve the negative numbers your comment will acquire. IMO…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:55 am)Whoa…
On the rest of it though, the average ‘gas’ mileage is going to skew from lows in the 50 mpg range to highs over 200 mpg depending on driving habits/weather/location.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:58 am)Remember, the key to the Volt is the 40 miles of pure electric. This will handle the vast majority of usage. If you regularly travel much more than 40 miles each day, then you may be better off with a Prius.
But on average, the Volt will get MUCH better mileage than the Prius as long as you plug it in since most people drive less than 40 miles a day and thus will rarely burn gas.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:59 am)Dealerships live on the service side.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:01 pm)Statik,
Based on your figures or comment, it would seem Ford is putting themselves into a position where they may be unable to continue paying off debts unless they expect sales to increase drastically to help bring in the necessary cash. If sales do not increase and they continue paying off debt like this and they get to a point where they have to ask for government help or controlled bankruptcy (like GM/Chrysler) having made a “profit” would not help their argument for help. Am I wrong in thinking along these lines? Maybe Ford sees a way through this mess without resorting to federal aid or bankruptcy. Surely they are not counting on a sales rebound of that magnitude?
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:04 pm)That’s an interesting point.
GM might surprise us with a lower than expected price announced next May. (I put on my TAG hat there!)
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:10 pm)I send the same congratulations. There is no one vehicle that can satisfy every consumer. Yours is a very good choice as are most of Ford’s vehicles today. Same for GM, generally speaking. keep us informed of your experience. We will all be hoping for a good report. Well, most of us, of course.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:12 pm)What Don said, lol. You got anything on that Herm?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:13 pm)Sorry you are right, Volts range on the battery is 66 miles on the city cycle, 61 miles on the hwy cycle.
“According to Jon Lauckner, vice president for global program management at GM, the Volt can complete six of the 11-mile-long city cycles or the same number of 10.3-mile highway cycles on one battery charge.”
from:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/24/the-chevy-volts-electric-range-is-40-miles-in-both-highway-and-city-driving/
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:16 pm)Yes but no, but yes but no ^^
You cannot advertise the volt with a “you get a 180MPG” with ifs and elses everywhere. Keep it simple and concise:
- Electric mode, full charge: 40 miles without gas (no MPG numbers)
- Extended range mode: 50+ MPG
Since Prius seems to have reached the 50mpg… Volt MUST reach that cap as well on ICE mode exclusively.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:17 pm)Nice catch!
I hadn’t done the maths on that.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:18 pm)CaptJack said:
But who get’s the battery at this point? You? The “Muncipalitites”?
Personally I would like one at the trailer park for your mentioned purpose.
That would be cool.
———–
Definitely you as owner of the car would retain the pack. I’m sure 10 years from now there will be some system to dispose of a replacement pack, or to sell it (if it still has value).
I’d be interested myself to use it as a backup/storage system for my next solar system. Today backup energy is a ugly/expensive proposition. Stacking/maintaining/replacing lead acid batteries is not my idea of ideal by any stretch of the imagination. Old Volt packs would likely be very inexpensive and still generally have 10+ kWh usable per pack, which is huge (relatively speaking).
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:22 pm)I think it should be tested EXACTLY like the Prius and every other car is tested.. dont disconect or mess around with anything.
True it will get infinite mileage in both tests but so what?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:29 pm)I thinks its pretty annoying when people term the Volt a “Luxury” Car. In reality, its 10 years costs are in line with the most popular cars in the United States. It will be a very expensive compact… but at the same time, less expensive than all midsize, fullsize, trucks, SUVs, Cross-Overs, etc on the market.
(Also, a “luxury” compact might be the A3 with purchase prices above 30,000 and ~25 mpg in the long run it will cost several 10,000s more than a Volt)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tYp3o120V7j17FVbJlmoSHA&output=html
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:30 pm)EDIT TO BUMP
(two replies to the same question sometimes lead to the second comment being 50 comments down the page)
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:31 pm)Re: N Riley and second pack question:
—–
Yes, Lutz himself has said that the full cost of a second pack is factored into the cost/price of a new Volt.
Here is the quote I am referencing:
“Longevity is the unanswered question,” Lutz allowed, but he added that simulations have left him optimistic that a lithium-ion battery’s life expectancy will be competitive with nickel-metal hydride, the current standard in hybrids. As a backup, he said, “We’re being conservative on battery life. For our cost calculations we’re assuming each car will need a replacement during the warranty period.” The Volt will have a 10-year powertrain warranty.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/09/gm-exec-volt-ba.html
Sidenote/fair disclaimer: That was from September 2, 2008, but it was repeated a couple times early this year (Jan/Feb)…so I assume that is still the plan. I certainly didn’t hear anyone say, ‘good news, we are only pricing in 1 pack into the cost now, and the MSRP is coming down by $7,000,’ lol.
It is no wonder priority number 1 at GM is clearly pack longevity/pack maintenance…if they can get even half the packs ‘over the hump,’ I think that would be a great success.
I assume any Volt sold whose battery lasts the 10/150 would be very profitable, and any Volt that doesn’t loses money. Where the split for overall profitability on the project is, I don’t know (probably GM doesn’t have a clue either at this point). But profitability itself has to be based on the success vs failure rate on the pack getting through the warranty period (assuming of course they can sell a respectable amount of copies going forward at 40K-ish a pop)
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:33 pm)Statik – you are always amazing.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:33 pm)There is just no real comparison between a Volt and a Prius.
________________
Why did you do it then?
For that matter, why is GM?
I could understand comparing the plug-in Prius, but everyone seems to be ignoring that reality.
+4
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:39 pm)So ….
Isn’t it a good idea to run the Mid-East dry (and on a quick path to political irrelevance) now and develop American (and South American, don’t forget that new find off Brazil) oil later?
/removing tongue from cheek
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:41 pm)Actually, that’s where it all started. At the beginning, they were going to use the existing 3 cyl, 1.0 L, turbo engine manufactured and sold in Europe. Then at some point the decision was made to upsize to the non-turbo 1.4. I assume that was because they could make on the same line as the Cruze engines at the Hamtramck (spelling?) plant. So there was a potential weight saving, but it was traded off for manufacturing commonality and, hopefully, cost.
Of course everybody knows that weight doesn’t matter any more anyway. Except maybe you and me, that is.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:42 pm)Congrats on the excellent choice, Ray! I was in a similar position 2 years ago, and I made the wrong choice. I tried to get my local Ford dealer to come off his price for the Ford Escape Hybrid, they not only didn’t come off their price, they didn’t act like they wanted to sell me the outfit at all! So I went off in a high moral dudgeon, stopped in to the local Toyota dealer and bought the RAV4 after checking out the Honda CR-V.
Now I am thinking about the FEH’s 33 mpg vs. the 20 or so I get with my RAV4. It dawned on me about a month after I got the RAV that the reason Ford wouldn’t bargain was that they only build 2,000 a month because Aisin refuses to sell them any more CVTs. Ford doesn’t have to bargain, they are selling all they build. And the FFH gets much better mileage than the FEH… I rented a regular Fusion last year and had a great time driving it over the Cooke City Pass into Montana.
Again, congrats on the purchase!
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:42 pm)I think they’re hoping for a major run-up in the stock price if they ever announce actual profitability, which could happen. (And I do mean major.) Then they can do another equity offering and use the proceeds to pay off a substantial portion of their debt. (At least the amount closest to needing refinancing.)
I think it might work. The markets can be irrational. But then again, I’m not nearly as familiar with the numbers as Statik. For all I know that wouldn’t be nearly enough.
Regardless, the longer they wait, the more market share they gain. And even if people are upset when they actually go through the bankruptcy–if they really like the cars, they might give Ford another chance afterwards.
And who knows? They might get actual private DIP financing for the bankruptcy if they wait long enough.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:42 pm)Huh?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:46 pm)What does that have to do with the 2010 model, which underwent several revisions to address those very complaints?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:52 pm)I would think that in the event of a warranty replacement, GM would retain the first battery.
If, 150K miles out, you wanted a new battery from GM, it seems likely that there would be a credit available for your old battery (not too different from the allowance you get for your old Lead-Acid starter battery today, but hopefully more. Any allowance would have to take info account the possible usefulness an owner might derive from the battery itself). GM could then pick examples for diagnostic post-mortems, contract at OEM levels for recycling, or make mass-deals with power companies, or whatever.
It is also possible that (also like lead-acid batteries) there will be many suppliers for these batteries in 10 years, and many more options (such as Gen III-type batteries in Gen I size “T” cells, with firmware update for more AER: As I said once here, “old Volts don’t die, they just go farther”).
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:53 pm)Nope.
I wish I could say something more, but I can’t. They are looking at four times EBITDA (once you get the 5.9 billion from the DoE on the books). On top of that you have plunging revenues, on bad margins (First 6 months of the year revenue dropped 25 billion to 50 billion total).
On top of that, they have all kinds of triggers that require cash, like 11 billion credit due to their VEBA, 10 billion line of credit maturing in 2011, the 6 billion the government just gave them, a couple billion in notes maturing early in 2010….and they have 21 billion left in the bank now (with a minimum level needed probalby around 8 billion), and no credit left.
Ford itself can do nothing to not go bankrupt, it is too late (imo), the only thing they could possibly hope to do is push the ball a little further down the field…they need to raise more equity and do some debt exchanges, and I don’t know who is going to do a debt for equity swap in this economy or with what went on with GM/Chrysler?
I figure if Ford wanted to be a ongoing concern with a ‘shot’ of avoiding C11, they would not only have to be profitable for the next 18 months, but cash flow positive in that time, AND they would also have to BANK another 10-12 billion.
I just don’t see it…and why not go through the GSB? What is the downside, it is a once in a corporate lifetime opportunity? Other than having your pride stepped on…but that is a issue for the ‘Fords’ to deal with.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (12:56 pm)Thank’s MuddyRover
I hadn’t seen the direct question and his answer – I feel a little better, about where the 30 number came from.. My “gut sense” is that if the real number is 43 (or 45), then I would have expected his response of “heck, 30, we’re above 40!” – Rather than the the “much more than 30″ – But again, he may have just been parroting back the question..
And per Gary below, I really, really don’t think it’s going to be a number 50<MPG<100, the physics and weight of the car preclude that.. I would be delighted with 50, but I’m resigned to mid 40s and I can live with that. Again, I realize this is ICE mileage after the 40 AER. It’s just for those 300 mile trips, I would like some reasonable mileage above my 15 year old Camry.
Regardless, I had just never seen a 30 number used for for mileage on ICE after battery and that really threw me. Again, I’m not asking for 70′s, but matching a Prius (50ish) or Fusion (45ish) seems to not be asking for too much (IMHO). As for slowing down, that’s not likely to happen either – I want my 45 at 70-75 MPH
At the risk of quoting Buffet (Jimmy), “Only time will tell if it was time well spent”, so we really should know, “the number” about this time next year. I’ll hold my “disappointment” or “delight” until then…
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:00 pm)If I had to hazard a guess: Ford knows it is coming, and they are using the advantage (and good vibes) of not being bankrupt now to gain market share, and more importantly (as Schmeltz says) get as much new/better product out to the market now, with GM/Chrysler fighting to get out of their self-inflicted R&D (and production) coma, before they have to do it themselves
I don’t know the numbers for sure, but I’d guess about 85% of Ford’s product lineup is getting turned over/remade from 2007 to 2012.
It makes sense to me to get everything in place now, max everything out, spend on the future like drunken sailors (if drunken sailors did that sort of thing, lol), and then walk from the debt/obligations in C11 and let the government hit the ’45 day’ reset button for you…with all your fancy new hotness in place on the other side.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:01 pm)I see a silver lining here, however,
Just because a battery pack “fails”, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s worthless. More than likely, several cells have failed.
With the onboard diagnostics, GM should be able to determine which cells have failed, and replace them. So if your pack is bad, you go to the dealer and get a replacement (refurbished) battery pack. Your old pack returns to the local GM repair center where it is refurbished.
This is not unlike starter motors, alternators, and other components that are bought refurbished for a good price, but the old part is returned otherwise you pay a “core” charge. For the battery pack, the core charge is probably $10,000!
So theoretically, it should be much less than the price of an entire new battery pack to warranty and maintain the battery.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:06 pm)My thinking exactly…
But don’t tell anybody, I want to get them cheap!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:06 pm)Don’t forget that turbines can be made to run quite well over an extraordinary range of liquid (even gaseous) fuels. If you think of E85-capable engines as “multi-fuel,” a turbine in a car could make your head spin.
Microturbines are currently being researched for use by the military (at much smaller sizes than what you would put in a car), so I would tend to think that efficiency conversion experience based on aircraft is probably insufficient.
Remember, the object in a turbofan is thrust, in a helicopter it is mechanical torque, and in current-day “topping” power plant generators, both of these things can be used to produce electricity (generator attached to a turbine stage via transmission, and another attached to a fan which is turned from bypass air on the same engine).
If you add thermal regeneration, and possible thermal conversion, the efficiency numbers could start to mount quickly.
Jets tend to be most efficient when run at a single speed, as in a powerplant; which could be the case in some Voltec-derived scenarios: such as over-the-road trucks.
I recall some of the Granatelli (sp?) brothers’ work in automotive turbines, one of their street-legal cars was almost soundless; for a television appearance, they had to place the microphone almost on the intake with the hood up to hear “jet noise.” They are also very smooth. There would be no need to make “rpms follow throttle” as has been discussed for the Volt’s internal combustion generator.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:08 pm)That’s a legitiamate point, in five – ten years maybe you can get a replacement T-battery from NAPA or the like.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:12 pm)Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading about the test drive. I don’t ever expect to be able to purchase a Tesla of any description in my lifetime.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:12 pm)Sounds like a plan to me. Go for it.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:18 pm)Of course, the real reason jet engines “took off” (that even made me groan) in air travel was the difference in servicing requirements. A reciprocating aircraft engine is measured in tens of thousands of hours before a rebuild (that’s optimistic), an airliner’s engine is measured in 100s of thousands, if not a million or more.
Those of you who hope for reduced service requirements moving forward ought to be really hoping that someone can make a turbine-genset a reality for a reasonable cost.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:22 pm)Thanks for the excellent explanation as usual. I guess I was naievely thinking Ford could squeak through this, but not in light of what all you brought to the surface. That’s too bad, especially since Ford has gotten a lot of good limelight for being the healthiest patient in the Intensive Care.
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:22 pm)Steve,
The most efficient gas turbine that GE currently makes is the LMS100. It is an aeroderivative (modified jet engine) and its thermal efficiency is about 45%. Its nominal rating is 100 MW (134,000 hp).
Being an aeroderivative, it fires at high temperatures and uses advanced cooling techniques like air cooled stationary and rotating blades. It employs many exotic materials in the hot gas path, and uses a highly efficient, multi-stage axial flow compressor. The inlet flow to this machine is about 1.75 million pounds per hour.
With much lower flow, an automotive gas turbine would have much lower volumetric flow, which lowers efficiency. Think smaller thicker turbine blades, relatively speaking, versus more efficient blades with high aspect ratios (long and slender), much like the wing on a glider.
Add the fact that the exotic alloys are expensive and the compressor section on this small scale is difficult with ~20 stages and variable compressor geometry (actuated compressor vanes) would be complex. Thus, constructing a small gas turbine that can compete with an ICE on efficiency is cost prohibitive.
Thus, at small power grids like an island, the utility may have a battery of diesel engines to meet the load. For larger grids, turbines (steam, gas, and combined cycle) become the main power providers.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:22 pm)This is where the education comes in.
This is one of those rare times where the customer (owner) of a car can DECIDE how much gas they will use by understanding how their new car works.
There is no good agreeable way to guess an average combined economy. Yes, they will publish the extended range rating but then critically they must challenge people to see how well they can do on average.
I think this is critical because it will highlight what is different about the Volt!
“Why only 40 miles electric?”
“Easy… why pay for expensive battery range you will hardly ever use? The law of averages will give the Volt exceptional average fuel mileage.”
I’m comfortable that the extended range number will be very close to 50 mpg.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:24 pm)Saying that most of the fields are old fields and they don’t produce nearly as many barrels per day is correct only to some extent. There are many areas where crude has been found but due to cost of drilling for it, but primarily due to government ban, it is not being produced. Plus many, many fields lie offshore that are banned by government. You make it sound as if the U.S. is running out of crude, but that is not the truth. The truth is that we have vast amounts available, but are not allowed to get to it. And there are expected fields a few more degrees offshore unexplored where most experts expect to find crude and natural gas. Usually if you find crude you find natural gas first. It is not as simple as looking at a glass as being half full versus being half empty. Those who don’t want petroleum products on the market always down plays our petroleum reserves as though we only have the old land-based fields available that were explored and developed 100 years ago. That is just not the case.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:25 pm)Hey, I saw in the news that Chrysler is matching the Gvt rebate. So if your trade quals for “Cash 4 Clunkers” you get an additional $4500 for a total of $9000.
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/090722-Chrysler-Offers-to-Double-Cash-for-Clunkers-Rebate/
Has anyone ever purchased on these rebate thnigies? I haven’t. Hell, I’ve sent in rebate crap from PC parts I bought from Fry’s and got jack sh|t back.
Also, I heard in the news the the Blue Oval is saying they will post a profitable month. Really?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:29 pm)By the time Volt battery packs are being retired in large numbers I wouldn’t be surprised if stationary power storage had improved so much that utilities wouldn’t want to bother with the used packs. I certainly wouldn’t count on the packs being worth much.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:32 pm)Thanks Bill, that’s a great explaination!
+4
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:33 pm)That idea has been discussed off and on in the oil industry for over 25 years. “Why not purchase foreign oil as long as it is economically feasible until we are forced to explore and develop the remaining reserves available to us at home”. I am very familiar with this concept because I have always championed it myself. Of course, I and everyone else who did so, was championing a cause that changed as soon as OPEC started jacking the prices up and we saw our national treasure being transferred in bulk to the oil producing nations.
Most of us who champion exploring and producing our own reserves do so now as a stop-gap measure for the next 25 to 50 years while we move our economy to more efficient means of transportation (electricity, for one) and improve our present petroleum burning vehicles to gain the last possible mileage from every gallon of fuel. We must do this in an effort to control our cost and protect our national defense and borders. We should have started a program of more nuclear plants 25 years ago and should have moved to higher mileage vehicle requirements at the same time. But, it is not too late to start now. Problem is I don’t really see any movement by anyone in Washington, DC that is going to help solve some of our more pressing power problems. A lot of talk that never answers any questions and a lot of money being sent down the pike to “friends” that only goes towards wasting another billion here and another billion there. It is enough to make you want to puke.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:41 pm)I can see where I can agree with you on that, Muddy. They may live on the service side, but they “vacation” on the selling side.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:45 pm)LauraM and Statik,
I think you both have valid points. Thank you.
And, Statik, I must agree with Shawn Marshall as comment below. You are truly amazing (at times, anyway). Thanks, again for all your input here. I really do enjoy reading yours and Laura’s comments.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:51 pm)Yes there is an article that claims Lauckner said this. But is 120wh/mile believable? If not then maybe he was quoted wrong or he was talking about using 70% of the battery.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:53 pm)It sounds like they may actually let you get a Volt after all,
lol
+5
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:55 pm)N. Riley,
You seem to be in disagreement with recent statements from some of the major oil company CEOs on the question of reserves.
Seriously, get out and take a look at some of the volumes of data available. US oil production peaked in 1970/71. US production is now down to about 1/2 of that peak. The continent now resembles a pin-cushion and all the easy oil is gone. New oil discoveries have fallen off a cliff for 3 decades. All of the oil reserves you claim are more expensive to produce than the market can support. In the best case scenario, the Bakken will take years to develop and will max out at 200,000 barrels/day, barely one-percent of current US oil demand — and Bakken requires horizontal drilling which is not at all cheap. The offshore oil takes a 5 to 10 years to develop, and depletes rapidly. The offshore reserves are so “thin” that it would take thousands of rigs to achieve a significant overall flow rate. That’s expensive, and we don’t even have the rigs. Oil can exist only so far down (it gets too hot so oil vaporizes as you go deeper) so deepwater oil is in thin deposits that rapidly deplete. Oil companies are not building new rigs or replacing rusting infrastructure because they know we’re in the end-game and production volumes are only going to go down.
Read some of the work by Matt Simmons, investment banker for the oil industry, or theoildrum.com, or simply google a bit. There are some ambitious megaproject tracking efforts going on today, teams of earnest researchers looking for solutions for this coming train-wreck, when the cost of energy finishes off what’s left of the global economy.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:56 pm)I’ve since heard that at Volt Gen II or III there will be a 1-liter engine specifically designed to be an EREV generator (and not a modification of another engine, like the 1.4).
Isn’t the Cruze version of the same 1.4 liter expected to deliver close to 50 mpg using HCCI (and no hybrid components)? I thought the point of HCCI was to have diesel-like benefits at gas-engine-like weights (and using gasoline).
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:58 pm)With will be perfect for a small off-grid farm/Volt charging station
Jul 23rd, 2009 (1:59 pm)You can do that?!!
What about US emissions / crash-worthiness yada-yada-yada that keeps more efficient European cars (including some made by Ford and GM) in Europe?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:03 pm)Size was one thing.. I like the looks of the Ford better and the instrumentation is in front of you…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:09 pm)A crushing blow to the last of the brave equity holders, major dilution of existing stock, but a step up from the near total wipe-out of a 39 day government clean-rinse.
Lets start a pool; as you can see above, 39 days is my best guess if Ford ever gets it’s chance to “drive” through the Governments too big to fail cycle!!
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:11 pm)Statik do you use those Bull & Bear noisemakers like Cramer uses on Mad Money, when you are blogging?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:12 pm)Aren’t you wearing a pink tie in your picture?
-5
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:12 pm)If GM doesn ‘t build a fuel cell version of the Volt, it is making a huge mistake.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:13 pm)LOL! no arguement there!
It has always struck me as crazy that the ‘service’ deptartments of most dealerships have such terrible customer service.
This happens at all brands dealers, it isn’t GM (or Subaru or whoever) dependant.
THIS is why people HATE car dealers, when you go in there it’s like playing 3 card Monte when you go to the service desk… You KNOW you are getting ripped off and they don’t care that you know.
It’s a crap feeling.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:18 pm)The traditional negative with turbines is that they are very thirsty.
I’ve been out of the airplane business for a while now so it is possible the new stuff is much more efficent though.
An 300hp or so steady state turbine that was fuel efficent could very well be an excellent genset engine for a heavy truck.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:24 pm)Always good to hear from a parrothead!
We are getting our very own Marguritaville right here in Calgary!
I’m thinking the optimized ‘sweetspots’ the Volts genset will run at will give the edge needed to make 50+ mpg in extended mode.
(I also have my overly positive TAG hat on today…)
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:28 pm)More details required, but that is a possibility!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:30 pm)Good question!
It sure would be great if the Volt really is that efficent!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:32 pm)I think the idea of a simple flex fuel microturbine would take auto development symbolically into the new milenium.
Just imagine driving a Volt, quiet and smooth for 40 miles, then suddenly the dashboard lights up and a string of organic LEDs begin their ignite countdown. The OLED’s silently turn off one by one, then the a distinct but muffled turbine whine begins.
With new sound baffling and noise cancellation tech combined with new the interest in turbine efficiency research, you may be on to something there. If not it’d still be a lot more fun than a 1.4 liter 4 banger. And bio-diesel would work well too.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:34 pm)Stream of consciousness…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:36 pm)Zipdrive & N Riley
Ditto!!!!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:38 pm)Huh?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:40 pm)hu?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:40 pm)If that is the case then it’s fair and good and should be a SWEET bit for the marketing folks.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:41 pm)He’s alive!
Hello Michael, we were wondering where you had gotten to.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:44 pm)….huh?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:45 pm)LOL, This was at #19 with no comments between when posted. Now it’s well beyond and below irrelevant. @ 23 and counting.
I still would like to see Lyle to use some kind color system or some symbols to show the age of comments. And maybe some kind of search-able notation that could help pull up comments previously not read.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:47 pm)Since they hocked the blue oval I think they should be “the corporation formerly known as…
See Statik and LauraM comments above for great details of the news!!!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:53 pm)Sparks,
Those major oil company CEOs are speaking about reserves where production is not off-limits. They do not even count or consider those reserves that have been black-listed as some of them have been for nearly 40 years. These same CEOs have a vested interest in keeping supplies coming from foreign sources since their companies are heavily involved in the exploration and production of foreign oil. I believe these guys about as much as I believe politicians. If you have followed much of my comments over the past two plus years you should know how much I trust and believe politicians.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (2:54 pm)Exactly, burn up theirs before you burn up yours for as long as you can stand it (obviously something will trigger your exist).
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:03 pm)Ford is gaining a lot of good will from not going through the GSB. And I really think that that is helping them gain market share. If they go through the GSP, they could lose that good will. And, then there’s the risk that Obama might fire Mullally. A bad move IMHO. But you never know.
If there is any chance at all of skating through–I think they’ll take it. They might get 10 billion from equity offerings. BAC got 17 billion. It’s unlikely. But it could happen.
Also, the Obama administration probably already has their hands full with GM and Chrysler. They might have asked Ford to wait, And if you really want to be cynical–this way the UAW gets some more cash into VEBA.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:05 pm)lol….. I GETIT NOW.
+3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:07 pm)You and I agree about politicians and CEOs. I shouldn’t have brought up the CEOs as that’s not the material point.
I do, however, put a lot of stock in the data out there, some of which I cited above. Those data have received a lot of scrutiny and careful analysis, and the verdict is in, basically as I laid it out above. Nobody can or has refuted these facts because they are irrefutable, and I haven’t seen them refuted here either.
Everybody buckle your seat belts. Whether you have studied the US energy picture or not, you will be caught in the undertow as our energy ride falls off a cliff in the next two years. If you don’t have an electric car, you will be waiting in gas lines.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:08 pm)MuddyRoverRob = DirtyDawgRob
I get it now!!!!!
Next beer…..
+4
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:18 pm)That doesn’t make any sense. The transfer of wealth from the US to the Middle East is enormous. And it has permament implications in terms of Middle Eastern investment in US (and other) assets.
Not only that, but the supply shocks due to volatile oil prices can derail our entire economy. Repeatedly. Getting it from home would be a lot smoother and more reliable. So, why wouldn’t we?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:18 pm)LOL,
You should see my truck… the name fits.
“Fancy” beer tonight!
Boddingtons! mmmmmm!
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:18 pm)If anyone deserves to get one early it is Lyle.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:26 pm)If the costs support it that would be cool.
Build’em inexpensive fuel efficent and reliable and they could be the next thing.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:27 pm)It’ll cost you, but it can be done.
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:44 pm)I agree Laura, to make it through (or push the ball down the field a few more years) they have to be able to do (another) equity swap, or have access to the credit markets again (very unlikely)… anything to get that extra 10 billion or so to make obligations.
It is also a real possibility that the government, just writes them a check to get them out of their hair for awhile, and push out any potential bankruptcies further.
(One could almost consider Ford’s 5.9 DoE loan that…it was certainly a stretch for them to have gotten by the ‘viability’ clause over the period of the loan in the legislation. That cash moved Ford’s likely C11 filing from the spring of 2010 to the end of 2010…and now they are likely going to double them up again with the ‘next 25 billion’ in the program. If they get that, they are into 2011).
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:50 pm)Laura said:
I think they’re hoping for a major run-up in the stock price if they ever announce actual profitability, which could happen. (And I do mean major.) Then they can do another equity offering and use the proceeds to pay off a substantial portion of their debt. (At least the amount closest to needing refinancing.)
I think it might work. The markets can be irrational. But then again, I’m not nearly as familiar with the numbers as Statik. For all I know that wouldn’t be nearly enough.
And who knows? They might get actual private DIP financing for the bankruptcy if they wait long enough.
==============
Your right, you never know what the market is thinking, and what they will swallow. If they caught a big enough wave of optimism, they might be able to do some kind of offering. Although it would have to be substantional, Ford has a cap around 20 billion, and they would need to raise at least 12-15 billion…the ‘reasonable expectation’ math is pretty hard to justify.
The other side of the coin is if Ford is looking good, and they do raise cash, the UAW is unlikely to give them a break on the 11 billion they owe the VEBA in 2011…that money raised is likely just sucked down that pit, whereas if they don’t have it, the UAW doesn’t put up much of a fight when Ford doesn’t pay it.
…one thing is for sure, it is all very convuluted at the moment, and with the government so involved in the auto industry, almost anything could happen.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:50 pm)The software wont let you use 70% of the battery.. and if you drove at 17mph you could get 80 miles of range, per the Tesla example.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:50 pm)“…now knowing that the lithium-ion battery-pack will be kept at “68 to 77 F degrees”. That means the engine will run more often than many cared to admit for those of us in the north with lower than expected efficiency.”
Keep it tucked in warm and snug each night and make sure to plug in it’s electric “blanky.” That way it starts warm and toasty each morning!!!
You do have a plug somewhere don’t you? Far northerners may need to use their 120 volt block heater cords at work though.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:51 pm)I don’t know anywhere near as much as Statik. My “opinion” is based purely on my general knowledge of how the markets work, and what I read in the paper. I have no specific knowledge about Ford or any company actually.
And, Statik, I agree with N Riley and Shawn Marshall. You are amazing. And thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. I enjoy reading about these things.
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:51 pm)I agree that in real life,, the battery could make the mileage almost a non-issue for most of us.
But GM kept running those commercials claiming “we have lots of cars that get more than 30mpg”, which sounded pretty silly to me. I’ve had a Prius and a VW Jetta TDI parked in my driveway. A car that gets 30mpg is “normal”, 40 is getting there, and 50+ is serious about efficiency. Anything in the 20s or below had better be able to tow. I keep wondering who is in the focus groups for these commercials…
(It seems to me that L/100km is a more useful measure of efficiency (or gallons/100miles), but I’m sure I’ll see the Moller Air Car and wide adoption of the metric system first.)
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:53 pm)I agree that I would like to see/hear a final production vehicle for myself. Then I would like to drive one home – myself!!!
+4
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:55 pm)Actually they belive there might be a huge oil field under the Bakken field. That is what I have read recently.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:56 pm)They would mostly be ‘Bear’ noisemakers…I says as the DOW goes through 9,000 for the first time since January, lol.
(although MSFT blew the quarter hard tonight, so we probably have a bad day tomorrow, especially for the DOW)
Sidenote: I do watch Cramer quite frequently, but for entertainment only…you can’t trade on the amount of noise that comes out of him, heeh. (imo)
Jul 23rd, 2009 (3:56 pm)Yes. It’s definitely a high value item, much more so than a starter battery whose parts are reused again and again – good point BillR
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:07 pm)You haven’t addressed cost — either of the physical cost of extraction, or the increased monetary cost because of increased demand.
There’s plenty of oil. Even the peak oilers think we’ve only used about half of the oil. The concern is that we might have used the half that’s easy to extract. And then add in that there are more people who want it. So, it’s quite possible that there is plenty of oil, but that in this scenario it might be too expensive to just burn.
But there are a lot of possible scenarios. I just thought that I’d throw this one in because this thread seemed to be devolving into the battle of the Election 2008 bumper stickers — and bumper stickers do not an energy policy make.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:11 pm)That opens up an interesting scenario where you have battery repair depots.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:14 pm)I would be quite interested in something like this, as a replacement for my aging Ford Ranger. A 2010 Subaru Outback (with roofracks and a utility trailer) and the Mahindra & Mahindra truck are the leading contenders for the “heavy hauler” slot in the household fleet, but only the Outback actually exists.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:15 pm)Wow, what a discussion.
I was just kidding, guys.
Yes, Laura, it would be smoother to develop our own reserves. Why we don’t speaks more to our core weaknesses as a culture than any economic or technological factor.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:19 pm)I agree with you when you say that stationary storage is a separate field being actively pursued by power companies, and that they may not be that interested in used electric car batteries in a decade or so.
I disagree strongly “on the packs won’t be worth much.” There are plenty of other, more distributed applications where an old Volt pack would be very useful; mainly in the home and small business sector.
I wonder if I could use one to power my Mother-In-Law’s old pontoon boat — ! (That way, I can hear all of her complaints).
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:25 pm)One way smaller turbines can compensate for lower flow is with higher speed. A compressor disc or turbine much smaller in diameter won’t be as affected by centrifugal force as a conventional disc at these higher speeds.
Think of a dentist’s drill ….
owww!
On second thought, never mind.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:25 pm)Speaking as a Prius owner, I sure hope so!!!!!
The Prius is a great little car, but anything that’s better will be better.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:27 pm)you think they would really need 300hp in a serial hybrid 18 wheeler?
Turbines can be made more efficient in a large truck, you have the room and ability to carry lots of weight.. and you do want reliability in a large truck and other commercial vehicles.
Here are some diesel hybrids:
http://www.dieselforum.org/multimedia/webinars/diesel-hybrids-the-best-of-both-worlds/?searchterm=hybrid
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:30 pm)If they really are looking into HCCI for the genset, it will have many of the benefits of a small diesel. I think we may find that 50 mpg is actually conservative.
I know, broken record, lol
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:33 pm)Heh heh…
Once you get used to l/100km it is a good measure, but it still takes some getting used to.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:38 pm)No… HCCI will have Diesel like efficieny without the emissions issues (and the wieght of the emission solvers).
I think the actual HCCI engines are quite heavy… as much as Diesel.
An EREV though would be a great application for HCCI. Current HCCI solution has issues with high rpm and speed. A battery would soften that issue.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:38 pm)I think SOFC fuel cells burning ethanol, methanol or gasoline to generate electricity are the way to go.. they are slow to react and run hot but that does not matter for a range extender.. lots more research is still needed on this field. ICE at this time are cheaper and more efficient than SOFC. They may remain that way always.
In the long run, only airplanes, large trucks and trains will need range extenders… and that may even go away also if batteries really improve.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:41 pm)Sorry… I should have been more clear, I live near the Rockies and recognize that heavy trucks need a LOT of power to travel the mountain passes.
They likely could get away with less power in other places if used only on the flats. The problem there is that long haul trucks usually need to do it all.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:42 pm)Read the review in the link above, one of the last lines is what I quoted. Very poetic.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:43 pm)Yep! Kramer is funny but don’t trade on his recommendations!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:45 pm)I’m with you on that!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:45 pm)and most important, it would be fair.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (4:45 pm)It would probably be recycled like other automotive components that have a “core charge”.
If you buy an alternator at an auto parts store, they advertise a price of, say, $179.99. You walk in and say “I’d like that alternator”, and they say “it has a core charge of $60″, so you pay “$239.99″. You go home, swap the alternator, and drive back to the auto parts store. Then you hand them the old alternator and they give you your $60 back.
They do the same thing with starter batteries, and dozens of other parts — batteries, brake rotors, etc. I imagine that the Volt battery pack would work the same way, except that the core charge would be a couple of thousand dollars.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:01 pm)MuddyRoverRob, are you kidding, cost. I intend to blow all future earnings on this, sell the house and live in the car!!!!
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:02 pm)Ford’s bankruptcy might actually be very complicated. GM was a more complicated company, but the legal situation was simpler since most of the debt was unsecured, and the secured creditors got par. Chrysler’s debt was also mainly secured, but most of the holders were Tarp recipients, and basically did what the government wanted them too. That streamlined the process tremendously.
Ford will have the advantage of Chrysler’s (and GM’s) precedent. But the bankruptcy courts are courts of equity, which means precedent isn’t binding.
So, it basically depends on who hold Ford’s secured debt (and I don’t even know how to look that up), and the government’s relationship with them at the time. My guess is that most of it is held by the same banks. In which case, it could go very quickly. A lot depends on their relationship with the government at the time of filing. A lot of them paid back the tarp, which would make them more independent. But they are still very involved with the government. And they are very concerned about future regulation. So it depends. But, at the very least, it’s relatively easy to negotiate with them as a group.
By the way, if the banks do hold Ford’s debt, and they subsequently avert real regulation, it would be a national disgrace, IMHO. But, I can’t seriously see that happening. There’s too much domestic and international pressure for real regulation. And, basically, I’m not going to worry about that until it happens. And it’s not like they don’t have lobbyists of their own aside from the UAW. Not that that would make it any better.
If a substantial portion is held by independent investors, on the other hand, it almost has to take longer. If for no other reason than their fragmentary nature makes it more difficult to negotiate with them.
The other issue is that this will probably happen after the 2010 elections, which adds yet another question mark…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:04 pm)Huh? ‘Sup!!!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:05 pm)Hey Michael how are you!!!!
+2
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:14 pm)I agree. Very convoluted. I thought that the UAW had agreed to be paid in stock? Although, I read that they were using the money from the equity offering for VEBA–which I thought was very strange. Why would they do that?
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS270120+12-May-2009+PRN20090512
Also, according to the Detriot news, they recently agreed to value it at current market value for the purposes of the exchange, which should be helpful?
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090723/AUTO01/907230466/1148/auto01/Ford+and+United+Auto+Workers+agree+on+stock+deal+for+union+trust
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:15 pm)“And who knows? They might get actual private DIP financing for the bankruptcy if they wait long enough.
==============
Your right, you never know what the market is thinking, and what they will swallow. If they caught a big enough wave of optimism, they might be able to do some kind of offering.”
_____________________________________
Yeah, DIP financing by privately owned banks with actual private capital supplemented at the Fed’s new institutional window, propped up by billions in Tarp funds. A great leap forward for the banking system. Only time will tell.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:19 pm)I could see that happening, too. If I were the government, I’d want to see what happens with GM before sending Ford down the same path….
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:19 pm)Oh, man, we totally should have asked him if there is going to be a Transformer’s special edition version of the Volt! They just announced one for the Camaro at ComicCon:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/22/2010-transformers-special-edition-chevy-camaro-unveiled/
Because the only thing better than a car that saves as much gas as the Volt is one that can also turn into a Autobot and blow stuff up!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:25 pm)This was encouraging to a degree but I wish he went further and said it will get 50mpg or better ER EPA city and highway. Since the question asked was if the mileage will be better than 30mpg, I’m not too concerned about the response.
As to concerns about keeping the battery in the temperature sweet spot, the battery generates heat while operating and will be well insulated. There may need to be some initial warming via the ICE if the car has been parked in extreme cold without being plugged in but once the battery temp is brought up to an acceptable level there won’t need to be any additional heating while the vehicle is being operated. The same won’t be true for extreme heat. There will need to be cooling of the battery to keep it at 77 degrees. This isn’t really news, but I don’t remember GM saying before that it will be kept in this particular temperature range.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:27 pm)DUDE!
I just looked at the pics in the link and that is SICK!!!!
They totally should come out with a package like that for the Volt!
Although I like the Camaro much more in that trim.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:28 pm)Yes, it is huge and by their “used” standard I think it is more like 12KWh. This will most certainly have value, but how much is the question. The only way it doesn’t have significant value is if replacement batteries are very inexpensive, so that will help ease the pain.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:30 pm)Ya, the throwaway line at the end was a real WTF, but brilliant.
1. It can refresh its on board energy while you sleep, ready for your daily play at sunrise. How many full gassers can do that at home or at a hotel? None.
2. It’s a vehicle with electric drive that’s fun to drive. That’s becoming the norm these days.
3. Subliminal metaphors for the win, though it’ll p.o. the s.o.
4. After all the fallacies and criticisms of electric drive have now been debunked and thoroughly answered thousands of times in the media, the media are running out of things to say about it. What’s left is how performance all electric drive feels when you drive with it. Thus, poetry.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:43 pm)Is there a Megan Fox kit?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:44 pm)It should take about a second to toss a BBQ propane tank in the rear. There’s your fuel cell version of the Volt. They can make it pretty for gen III.
Or have a GM Spark LPG shipped over from India and substitute its engine guts/tank for the generator in the Volt on your own
If you want a more polished fuel cell electric drive vehicle that’s already on the roads, the Hyundia Elantra LPG electric drive hybrid is probably your best bet in the interim.
It’s kind of funny to see people treat the recent past like it’s still in the future. That just happened. Yep, for reals.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (5:52 pm)HCCI HHhhnnnn . Diesel ok .
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:07 pm)It’s probably better to think of the software limiting the discharge to 8 kWh. As the battery ages it loses capacity, so you’d have to use a higher percentage to maintain the same range.
But my point was that the Volt isn’t going to use only 120 wh/mile so we should find some other explanation for the alleged statement. Keep in mind that there is essentially NO SPEED at which the Tesla Roadster is rated to use only 120 wh/mile. http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/ Since the Volt is 25% heavier, the physics of the situation indicates that the Volt would likewise never use only 120 wh/mile, much less use so few watts over a complete drive cycle. Hence my suggestion that Lauckner was speaking in theoretical terms about the range if more of the pack were used. Or he may have misspoken. Or maybe they just heard him wrong.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:10 pm)Statik:
I wanted to add as the others have —you are amazing and a great value to the blog and to the cause. I value your comments and look forward to reading the insights you share here on a daily basis. It probably doesn’t get said enough. Thank you!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:18 pm)Not sure where all these “number” come from but it is very unlikely that the Volt will average less than 200 Wh/mile. At that rate, you would burn through 8 Kwh in 40 miles. Now this is the best we have heard, slow speed (city cycle average of 21 MPH) with auxiliaries off, such as the AC. To suppose the Volt will be able to get to 120 Wh/mile seems far fetched to me. I expect the Volt to average about 250 wh/mile in real world driving. Time will tell.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:32 pm)I’m a strangely put offbase with the ‘love,’ (=
I enjoy/value your contributions as well (Neal, Laura, Schmeltz, Shawn…and the whole community here)…agree or disagree, it is always fun to shoot the breeze together. Having regular faces and friends to converse with daily is a real plus.
There is no other public forum (at least that I know of) with as many good, mature and intelligent people to bounce ideas around with. Thanks for your kind words.
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:34 pm)I took one out for a ‘test drive’ myself, I can’t say that you made a bad purchase at all…it is a very nice/tight car. I was impressed with it.
/kudos
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:37 pm)It would probably be easier/cheaper to just buy the Ampera skirt kit/panels and strip down a Volt here, lol.
-3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:42 pm)GM has raped this country for tens of billions of dollars. Shame on you GM.
-3
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:43 pm)Because there is a comparison and in many/most cases the Volt does not compare well.
“Moon shot”
“250 HP V6 performance”
“50 MPG”
“40 miles range”
“$40,000″
“The Volt doesn’t compete with the Prius”
“Mass market”
“1.6 KW / day”
None of these statements are really accurate when given some serious thought. They require foot notes like:
“Without AC/Heat”
“Not on the highway”
“Please don’t notice that Volt is ~40% slower to 60MPH than a decent 250HP V6″
“On the spec’d engine which we aren’t using, in theory, in city only”
“Not in cold climates”
They appear to be GM PR sound bites that many have come to accept without question.
It seems clear that the Prius WILL compete with the Volt, and for the majority of people the Prius will be the better choice, and the majority of people will end up with a Prius in their driveway, and overall the Prius will save more gas than the Volt, and the Prius will be the more sustainable option (both for consumers and the manufacturer).
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:44 pm)There is, but it won’t give you the time of day.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:45 pm)Thanks for a detailed explanation. I did assume that the cost of the materials (don’t they grow some of the blades as a single crystal?) would be a serious cost factor. I wasn’t aware that the turbines were less efficient. Doesn’t seem natural that a reciprocating engine (ugh) would beat it.
I’m also old enough (barely) to remember Parnelli Jones and the (Pratt & Whitney) turbine car at Indy in 1967. He lost when something broke a couple of laps from the finish, but it scared everyone and I think they banned turbine cars the next year.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (6:51 pm)Hi. I think I started the turbine discussion this time. I actually sent a note to Velozzi a year or so ago and tried to get him to include nuclear power on his list of ‘green’ technologies his car would run on.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:01 pm)BillR,
A while back I ran across Velozzi motors (someone else mentioned them below) They don’t have any real technical info. But, If you are still following this thread what do you think of:
http://autogreenmag.com/2009/07/14/etv-motors-demonstrates-extended-range-prius-with-microturbine/
and (Capstone microturbine in a Ford)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/12/ford-s-max-based-micro-turbine-plug-in-series-hybrid-w-video/
Is there something there? Or, is this BS? I assume there is not enough info to really tell, but I’d be interested in what you think.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:06 pm)“Since the Volt is 25% heavier, the physics of the situation indicates that the Volt would likewise never use only 120 wh/mile, much less use so few watts over a complete drive cycle.”
I agree. But if you look further into the information provided by Telsa a few things “jump” out at me. #1 ~50 Wh/Mile for rolling resistence (“Tires”) and #2 ~60 Wh/Mile+ in “Drivetrain losses”
The Volt is 25% higher which can lead to an increase in #1 from ~50 Wh/Mile to 63 Wh, BUT! GM may be able use a significantly more effective Low Rolling Resistance Tire. They might even be able to get the entire 25% Rolling Resistance hit at steady state travel back…
For #2. I could GM having less inverter losses due to the “ground-up” approach to the battery and cells… hopefully also the much lower top speed and acceleration profile will allow less drivetrain losses overall.
In conclusion I agree, expecting less than 140 wh/mile over an EPA cycle is very optomistic (for the Volt), but I think “on the drawing board” it would acchievable with peak efficienies from all the componets… which will never happen in the real world but is a good target
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:11 pm)Ok……GROUP HUG!!!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:12 pm)I love see greater than 50 MPG” in generator mode for Chevy Volt car Amen,! and God bless Chevy Volt car new life for planet too!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:23 pm)If the government were actually trying to run GM, I might agree with you. But in spite of the oh-so-clever “Government Motors” moniker, the Obama administration has no desire to run GM.
GM is making good designs, building cars people want, and still managing to work in fuel efficiency.
Doesn’t mean they can’t screw it up, but at least right now, they’re making the right noises, and the right cars.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (7:52 pm)“By the time Volt battery packs are being retired in large numbers I wouldn’t be surprised if stationary power storage had improved so much that utilities wouldn’t want to bother with the used packs. I certainly wouldn’t count on the packs being worth much.”
That’s kind of the whole point. If the cost benefit equation changes substantially then they may be used by power suppliers/utilities. Right now batteries are the too expensive option that is never used unless there are absolutely no other options.
If they go to energy producers in large numbers at all it will only be because being used (previously owned) would make them cost effective.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:02 pm)“They believe” … passive voice indicating deniability and a lack of conviction.
“Actually” there IS a huge oil field there. It’s called the Bakken formation, discovered in 1953. That much is not in dispute. Oil exploration has been underway and it’s not Librul North Dakotan Hippies standing in the way of drilling. It’s just uneconomic to get the oil out.
Believe me, or don’t. *shrug* It doesn’t make recovering the oil any easier.
Shorter this conversation: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:05 pm)I appreciate where you are going with this but the problems would be fourfold:
1. The Tesla never gets to 120 wh/mile, so the baseline is above this figure.
2. The Goodyear tires should be an improvement but maybe in the 2%-3% range. Not even 5%.
3. The drive train losses are more in the physical linkages rather than the motor. Again, you can’t expect huge efficiency gains.
4. You’re talking about the fewest possible watts used per mile but what we’re discussing are the watts used over a cycle. This would be some multiple of the numbers you’re using.
For example, the sticker on the shipping Teslas say that the Roadster uses 33 kWh or 32 kWh to go one hundred miles during the city and highway cycles. This translates into 330 wh/mile or 320 wh/mile (this calculation is from the wall so there are additional losses). When you compare that to the 140 wh/mile which the Roadster uses at very low speeds, you can see that you need to multiply the lowest watt usage by around 2.5. So even if the Volt could use 100 wh/mile at low speeds, it would still use 200-250 wh/mile at higher speeds. To get to 120 wh/mile over a cycle the Volt would need to be using 50 wh/mile when going 20 mph.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:06 pm)LOL!!!!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:09 pm)CaptJack wouldn’t be concerned with the time at that point!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:11 pm)The web page for the Nissan EV is in full teaser mode:
http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-car/
Should be some lively discussions on the 1st!
Also some changes in management and the Board at GM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24auto.html?_r=1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:11 pm)Won’t the weight of a heavier suspension to allow for the increased weight of the HCCI diesel drivetrain take away from the efficiency improvements.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:20 pm)If you’re at 12kWh EOL like Koz says and you need 8Kwh for EPA 40 mile AER then you would be able to go on for years until you drop down to some unacceptable range. Who would replace a battery in a 15 year old car for a few more miles AER?
kWh – Power to run a 1 watt bulb for 1000 hours
EOL – End of life
AER – All electric range
EPA – Bureaucracy
Jul 23rd, 2009 (8:51 pm)I’ll take the “Craigs list girls trim” then…..
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:07 pm)I hope that within 10yrs from now, Every new car in the US will run off electricity or a better more efficient means of propulsion, AND that all large truck will run on natural gas, or a better more efficient method.
Electric and Natural Gas will be so exciting!
Jul 23rd, 2009 (9:30 pm)Luke, How are you determining mileage when you say: ‘A car that gets 30mpg is “normal”, 40 is getting there, and 50+ is serious about efficiency.’
Our tiny little Pontiac Vibe gets about 25 mpg in day to day driving. The same car gets about 35 mpg hauling ass (75 mph) on the interstate. Is your 30,40,50 mpg yard stick the absolute best a car can get or what you normally get during day to day driving. I personally think the Vibe (AKA TOYOTA MATRIX for all you Toyota lovers), has outstanding in fuel economy. Comfort and driving dynamics are a little different (read disappointing), story.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:26 pm)Wow, that is definitely your shortest post, and the first that doesn’t mention h******* directly.
/your coming around…I can feel it
(=
Sidenote: I shutter to think of the cost, and implications of trying to service/refuel a EREV h*******/electric car.
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:34 pm)This is all very sickening.
/I feel ill…good night, see you tomorrow
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:39 pm)I agree the answer given was in context to the question, not meant to be represented as a reflection of the actual MPG.
(Personally, I don’t figure it will be close to 50MPG, but that is not really the issue here…I don’t think Lauckner was even thinking about the real expected number in his mind when he answered that, he was just shooting down the low ball 30MPG as strongly as he could and it was interpreted wrong)
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:54 pm)Hi Michael!
Fingers frozen, from playing with all that liquid Hydrogen?
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:56 pm)Oh, your a naughty one!
+1
Jul 23rd, 2009 (10:58 pm)I think your right Don, there will be some discussions. Anything Nissan puts up there/claims has to really be taken seriously now too.
I thought the 13K this year/65K next year battery plant showed a lot of committment by Nissan, but now with TWO more 60K+ plants in the UK and Portugal coming in 2011…along with the Japanese one, and them looking for two more spots, its borderline psychotic how much they have hitched their future to EVs.
I’m all for embracing EVs, and saying they are the future, but they are going to have enough capacity to build 200,000+ cars in 2011, who knows how much more going forward. I think their tab spent for just battery plants is well over 2 billion now.
They are taking a really big chance here, I really don’t know how it ends for them, could be great, could be really bad. Either way, it looks like they are going to make a ton of EVs, and be the first to get real ‘in showroom,’ you can drive-me-away cars for sale to the public who walks in off the street.
/I’m excited to see what they will offer…even if it is just a electric Cube, lol
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:10 pm)This statement kept me up last nite:
“Lauckner confirms the lithium-ion battery will be kept at “20 to 25 degrees C.” In the cold, grid power will be used to warm the battery when the car is plugged in. If that’s not the case the ICE would go on at start to generate heat.”
=======================================================
So, when I park my car outside, and it -20F, and battery is near SOC, will the ICE actually kick in?
Their are so many things that make me wonder, like:
1) Safety of an ICE starting by itself
2) What if my gas tank is empty? Does my poor battery just lose 1/2 its life?
3) How much energy would it actually take to keep the battery near its optimum temperature when the ambient temperature is either very cold (-20F) or very hot (+105)?
4)How efficient was the “very efficient insulation” that the green goblin mentioned?
5) Would the EPA add in some fudge factor for its mileage calculation, based on the fact that your car will either need to be plugged in (or use battery charge directly) or have the ICE run “occasionally” to keep your battery in its happy state?
6) In actuality, you could actual get horrendous gas mileage if you only drive your Volt a couple days a week on short trips (for example, say you only operate the car for a total of 4 hours per week), when the weather is extreme (hot or cold). The energy used to keep your battery happy for the idle hours (24*7 = 168 – 4 = 164 hours!) may actually exceed the energy you used to drive the Volt during a weeks time.
GM, you guys have this, right?
Coffee breaks over, back on your head…
Jul 23rd, 2009 (11:11 pm)How much would regenerative breaking also play in this? This will increase the overall power provided by the battery. You may only have 8kw, but the 40 miles will probably assume regenerative breaking power will also be playing a role.
Jul 24th, 2009 (12:24 am)Hu!
Jul 24th, 2009 (12:59 am)Statik “Old Volt packs would likely be very inexpensive and still generally have 10+ kWh usable per pack, which is huge (relatively speaking).”
I could gladly use a pack with 3 to 5 kWh remaining for backup/solar.
Jul 24th, 2009 (1:13 am)A Prius without a plug is in a different category than a Volt, and a Prius with a plug will be in a different category than todays Prius. The Prius should be a strong competitor for a long time. As for the Plug in Prius’ we’ll see once they are introduced.
Jul 24th, 2009 (1:55 am)“In the cold, grid power will be used to warm the battery when the car is plugged in. If that’s not the case the ICE would go on at start to generate heat.”
I assumed this meant that the ICE will turn on to power the car when you get in and drive, if it has not been kept warm by being plugged in while it was parked. I would be pretty surprised if the car will simply turn on unattended while parked. For one thing, it would need some user input to know when it can expect to be driven, so the engine is not just keeping it warm for no reason. There has been no talk of this.
What I am more interested in is expanding on the “familiarity feel” that I asked about during the webchat. I just see no reason to exclude a system that allows one to toggle between regular mode – having the engine revs meet speed, and eco mode – allowing the engine to run at set revs to meet maximum efficiency. This way, the average consumer will have the traditional feel GM speaks of, and techies and average consumers once they get comfortable with it, will be able utilize the technology to the fullest extent. In a car like the Volt, it should just be a matter of computer programing to create such a feature.
Jul 24th, 2009 (2:03 am)It will probably continue to be a modified Atkinson cycle until a reliable technology emerges the siginificantly reduces size & cost without a sacrificing efficiency. Keep in mind that every lb reduction is also adding to the AER (or allowing a reduction in battery capacity) and tha car’s performance if battery capacity and motor power capacity remains the same.
Basic physics points toward a rotating engine of some sort having an advantage in the more constant and slower power transition needs of an EREV. Perhaps a modified Atkinson with piston deactivation will prove to be too advantageous to overcome. There are also rotary Atkinson designs that seem very appropriate “in theory”.
The design paramters are so different for EREV ICE generator power that I would be surprised if a conventional design or close relative wins out in the mid term.
Jul 24th, 2009 (2:19 am)Yes, long haul trucks are a great possibility. Low hanging fruit in oil saving and cost optimizing sense since they burn so much per mile and travel tons of miles annually. HCCI might work here but a high efficiency turbine might fit better (ala Capstone, etc).
Jul 24th, 2009 (2:31 am)Yes, we do. Higher pressures and temperatures dictate higher weight (or more exotic material) and cost. HCCI holds excellent promise for traditional automotive (and marine) ICE application but modified Atkinson fits much better for EREV needs. They should be looking to halve the weight and cost from gen 1′s I4, without sacrificing efficiency.
Jul 24th, 2009 (2:49 am)Yes and I want max efficiency cruise control setting. If 25kw is a set point then let me set cruise control to 25kw steady state output instead of setting cruise control to a speed.
Jul 24th, 2009 (5:12 am)If the 2010 prius is really that much better for you congrats. I haven’t heard anything about hte new 2010 prius that’ll make me think it’s going to do much better for me and my driving habits than my 2005. I’m ready to move on to the next level in automotive development and I think the Volt is it!
Jul 24th, 2009 (6:49 am)Steve,
There seems to be good info here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine
Regarding the turbine from ETV Motors, 60% efficiency is unheard of. If they can do it, then they will revolutionize the business. Even GE’s best combined cycle plant at about 400 MW with a gas turbine, heat recovery steam generator, and a steam turbine is barely 60% efficient. The link puts microturbines (with a recuperator) at 25 to 35% efficient.
The Ford based hybrid seems believable. With a 35% efficient engine (similar to an ICE), this is possible, especially since diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline. Not sure how the cost, especially with a recuperator, will compare to an ICE.
When GM puts HCCI into production, ICE efficiency might reach ~42%. This efficiency, combined with the lower cost, will give the ICE the advantage IMO.
Jul 24th, 2009 (9:23 am)“MuddyRoverRob Reply:
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
That’s an interesting point.
GM might surprise us with a lower than expected price announced next May. (I put on my TAG hat there!)”
Amen! Now you’ve got the idea – Under-promise, over-perform= a winner.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!
Jul 24th, 2009 (9:28 am)Muddy that TAG hat looks good on you!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!
Jul 24th, 2009 (9:30 am)” see no reason to exclude a system that allows one to toggle between regular mode – having the engine revs meet speed, and … allowing the engine to run at set revs to meet maximum efficiency”
Ah yes, the horsey horseless feature:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657686,00.html
Hey, whatever it takes to transition from the horses that full gassers are.
Jul 24th, 2009 (11:00 am)Gee, my 09 Impala with roomy passenger compartment, big trunk, averaging 28mpg round trip to Tennessee, sounds like a good deal
Jul 24th, 2009 (3:12 pm)The HORROR!!!
“Mark LaNeve, a G.M. North American vice president whose future at G.M. seemed in doubt after his marketing duties were reassigned this month to Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz, will remain at G.M. as vice president of United States sales.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24auto.html?_r=2
Looking bad for US Sales.
Jul 24th, 2009 (10:56 pm)All along, GM has said that the car would get in the neighborhood of 50 MPG in the ICE mode and now they are saying siginificantly better than 30 MPG !!?? This indeed would be a game breaker for me! When did it go from 50 to 30+???!!!
Jul 28th, 2009 (9:34 am)Concerning the 30 MPG: Have a look at the Opel Ampera which to my knowledge is identical to the Volt.
http://www.opel-ampera.com/english/technology.php
##
‘In range-extended mode the Ampera consumes only 1.6 l/100 km and emits less than 40 g/km of CO2*.
*Manufacturer\’s figures, estimated during current test program. ‘
##
1 Mile = 1.609 Km
1 Gallon = 3.78 l
1.6 l / 100 Km –> 149 MPG