Lotus EREV Engine
As the story goes, GM planned to leapfrog the Prius with what was called the ‘iCar’ in 2006. Starting with Bob Lutz’ idea of a pure electric car, GM VP Jon Lauckner recommended adding a gas generator to eliminate issues of range limits and the Chevy Volt concept was born. The resulting tremendous public interest caught GM by surprise and they had no choice but to produce the car.
Moving to production brought about many technical and engineering challenges, and few have followed in GM’s footsteps with most companies opting instead to go with simpler pure EVs.
Tony Posawatz is the Volt’s vehilce line engineer who has been involved in the Volt program since day one. Here’s how he answered the following question.
Does GM plan to offer a portfolio of electrical vehicles or just Voltec and its derivatives?
GM’s general position is going forward we will have a broad choice for customers. We see the option of a Voltec system continuing forward. How many alternatives off of that is interesting. Theoretically a pure battery electric vehicle would still be a Voltec. That’s one of the beauties of why we like the option we’ve taken, because it has that level of optionality.
This issue is now, for example, if you start with a pure EV there no place to put a range extender, or if you start with a hybrid that has at its roots an internal combustion engine, you take the engine out and it does nothing.
We will still do hybrid systems, further enhance them, get costs out because there are certain applications they work better in until we get further development on pure electric systems.
Many people ask us why there aren’t others following us in droves in developing EREVs. It’s a very hard configuration to make work. Once an engine is burning it changes the game, and we have non-intentionally thrown some agencies for a loop, like EPA and CARB, because their existing rules don’t apply. A lot of regulatory compliance stuff goes along with it not to mention the pleasability, the noise, the efficiency of the operation and the maintenance of it.
Therein lies the challenges associated with it and why maybe some companies never made the leap, because its hard.
In an absolute technical sense its hard because of its overall complexity, and the balance and interface and integration of all these things together add to the challenge.
It doesn’t mean the Volt can’t be a second or third car, but (if it is) you can never get to the volume we want, the building of interest to drive the cost down to get suppliers engaged and involved, and to get competitive bids for our components. This is the big picture. Everyone is so focused on the price of the car, but remember the price of the first cell phone.
We are in this for the long haul. There was a lot of deep thought in how to play the endgame here. Even there’s still debates such as shouldn’t it have been a Cadillac. Maybe in the near term it would have been great, because maybe we could have lost less money or even made money because we could have charged more.
/Special thanks to our Veterans today.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 9:27 am and is filed under E-REV, Engineering. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
+8
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:32 am)Well, sure it is. If it was simple Ford and others would do it. Some things are just hard. This just happens to be one of them.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:42 am)>>EREV is a Hard Configuration to Make Work
I wonder if this is why Tesla’s design team decided not to go with this option for the model S
(Quote)
+5
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:42 am)“If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.”
The sad thing is that, in order to compete in the future, one day everybody will be doing it … and they’ll be copying or building upon the good work GM is doing today.
While we always knew GM must have appreciated the potential flexibility of Voltec, it’s good to hear this from an executive. It may not be just a choice between BEV and EREV either; there is lots of room for new mixtures once battery tech advances and costs come down: An AREV (augmented range electric vehicle, where a much smaller engine helps the battery’s charge last longer), an EREV with a much higher AER, a “plug-free Volt” which runs all the time in what we now call “charge-sustaining mode,” etc.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:45 am)>>EREV is a hard configuration to make work.
You mean I shouldn’t hold my breath for a Kia EREV? LOL…
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:47 am)No doubt.
By the way, how is that developmental model S testing going? Do they have mules on the road yet? Integration test vehicles? Production intent models?
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:50 am)Interesting graphic.
Yeah, we know it’s more difficult to make an EREV than an hybrid since an hybrid is basically a standard car (in most cases) with electric assist.
EREV is an electric-drive car which is new technology for a car company. It’s got to be a tough sell to the board to keep voltec funded and moving.
Hopefully, we will see a lot of these cars hitting the road soon. A voltec BEV would work for my second car since it only goes about 10 miles per day.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:52 am)Funny you should mention Kia (the Koreans); Hyundai is reportedly working on an EREV Volt-beater. Of course, there is no telling what progress they may (or may not) be making.
(Quote)
+21
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:52 am)Thank you Veterans
Support our troops buy a VOLT – first step toward energy independance
The Voltec platform will prove to be the most wanted platform in the electrification of the automobile until there is a major breakthrough in battery technology
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:05 am)I second this thought
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:08 am)GM has experience with all of the crap that comes along with an ICE – Tesla does not. They can develop a new EV for much less than an EREV. The car will cost more to buy and suffer from range-limitations but will be cheaper to maintain and run.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:14 am)(deleted)
(Quote)
+3
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:20 am)Posawatz: “It’s a very hard configuration to make work.”
EREV/Voltec, as many here have commented, is GM’s “moon shot”. However, I really don’t think Bob Lutz et al expected it to be as hard to do as it turned out. Not everyone can have the vision Kennedy expressed when he said, “We choose to go to the moon, not because it’s easy but because it’s hard.” ….But then Werner von Braun must have convinced Kennedy how hard it would be based on his numerous rocket launch failures in Germany during WWII. EREV/Voltec was a rather simple concept, but one that had never been fully developed for series production.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:21 am)I don’t know of many things in life that are easy if you want it to be excellent.
Back when GM had a slogan “The Mark Of Excellence” they were building classics.
Ditto on thank you to our Veterans.
Good move on building the Converj.
Now Build the Buick Riviera concept and the Original Volt body with a Diesel and a 4 cylinder Turbo. The New Audi A3 Diesel gets 42 mph Highway. And I do not want to hear about the additional cost of a Diesel engine. They last for 300K miles and have better resale.
Stay Awake GM. So far so good. Keep doing whats hard.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:31 am)The next-gen battery (solid state was discussed a few days ago) will make BEV more viable for some people. A BEV with 100 miles (actual) range would work for me for my commuter car. It would have to go 100 miles with good acceleration, radio, heater-or-a/c, etc all running and be a little larger than a LEAF.
(Quote)
+5
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:34 am)Sometimes simple concepts are the most difficult to implement properly. The devil is forever in the details. There are a lot of intricate details in an EREV system, much more so than with an ICE, BEV or HEV/PHEV. Getting the two systems to work together smoothly under all foreseeable circumstances is a very large challenge. There is a plethora of reasons why it takes engineers years of hard work to implement some armchair inventor’s “simple idea”.
I commend GM for having the chutzpah to take a moon shot on a technology that, while much more difficult to develop in the short term, forges a solid and yet flexible foundation for long term progress and innovation.
(Quote)
+11
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:34 am)Remember these words:
“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
- – - John F. Kennedy
(Quote)
-26
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:47 am)(click to show comment)
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:48 am)In the end, it doesn’t really matter if it’s an EREV. If the engine is connected to the wheels, that could work also.
The real issue is the size of the battery and the power of the electric motor.
So for example, if you took a Prius, increased the electric motor output from 80hp to 130hp, increased the battery to 8kwh, and then changed the software to deal with all that, then you would most if not all of the advantages of the Volt.
Bottom line: For plug-ins, the main differentiator will be the amount of all-electric range. Most people could care less if the gas engine is connected to the wheels.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:59 am)Actually, GM could have made this much simpler, sort of like the EV1 with a trailered genset.
In this design, the genset comes on when needed and just runs at it’s rated power until the battery pack is replenished. Then it shuts down until needed again.
However, this car would be limited to use in warm climates, and would not maximize use of grid electrical energy (theoretically, you could arrive home with a fully charged battery pack). The battery pack could be air cooled, however, on cold days you would draw from the pack and compromise battery life.
I believe GM is taking all the steps to make this a global vehicle that can be used in all climates. In addition, they are designing for maximum efficiency and minimum environmental impact. All the while they must try to make the driving experience similar to a conventional car, and baby the battery pack so that it doesn’t fail before the warranty period.
These are the complications that make this design so difficult.
(Quote)
+8
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:01 am)A 3 cyl diesel may be more fuel efficient; however fact that the 1.4L gasser is a cheaper option is not a bad thing. The only reason cars are affordable to the common person is due to mass manufacturing. That means the components need to be spread over multiple models in order to be cost efficient, to the greatest extent possible. GM certainly does have diesel technology for the European market.
The other consideration is the availability and marketability of diesel in the US. On top of that, in order to meet current emissions standards, diesels need expensive and heavy post combustion treatment. All you are doing by insisting on a diesel is increasing the product cost and further decreasing your potential market in the US. GM made the right call for Gen 1; hopefully Gen 2 will see a more dedicated engine choice, when volume ramps up to make a bespoke engine design cost effective.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:03 am)Actually the Tesla Model @ mules were out like more than a year ago, they were Dodge Magnums with the battery pack in the cargo area. The model shown off earlier this year was an pre-production vehicle, fully functional. Electrics are a lot more simple than hybrids or gasoline to bring to market, especially with a platform already ready at your disposal. It’s how the Tesla Roadster went from an idea to a production vehicle for sale in just a couple of years.
(Quote)
+5
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:03 am)Eliminating range anxiety is extremely important for the long term success of electric vehicles and the EREV model is the best choice for now and for probably quite some time. Similarly priced, the Volt will be more attractive than a BEV with twice or even three times the electric range by eliminating range limitations. I talk to a lot of people about electric cars and range anxiety is the number one issue with everyone. Go Volt!
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:03 am)Actually the Tesla Model S mules were out like more than a year ago, they were Dodge Magnums with the battery pack in the cargo area. The model shown off earlier this year was an pre-production vehicle, fully functional. Electrics are a lot more simple than hybrids or gasoline to bring to market, especially with a platform already ready at your disposal. It’s how the Tesla Roadster went from an idea to a production vehicle for sale in just a couple of years.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:05 am)Clearing a path where there has been no path before is never easy and cheap to do. GM is totally reversing the public’s ‘Who Killed The Electric Car?’ mindset with the Volt.
I really hope they’ve locked down the rights to all their key innovations with patents.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:15 am)There is definitely a grey area where, as you make a PHEV more dependant on the electric motor and less so on the ICE for propulsion, the more it resembles an EREV. It’s more of a sliding scale, than two distinct points. I expect that in time, as the EREV gains acceptance, Toyota will shift its PHEV design closer and closer to being an EREV, to the point where the two designs are functionally identical.
One of the challenges with the Volt is that, with current technology the battery pack is rather large, creating a large design constraint. There’s only so many ways you can configure something that size. The advantage of Toyotas method would be advancing the PHEV’s electric-only operation along with battery technology, so that as batteries shrink and become more energy dense, they can simply produce more power and range from the same basic packaging layout. It’s an iterative design as opposed to a clean sheet, which given Toyota’s preexisting investment in HEV design makes sense.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:29 am)In twenty years maybe someone will film the documentary “Who Killed the Oil Wells?” LOL
I echo the salute to our troops!!!
And a special thought of thanks to all the families who lost loved ones at Fort Hood last week… truly tragic.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:30 am)We choose to use Voltec, not because it is easy, but rather, we choose it because it is hard.
No wait . . . . that was the moonshot address!
Seriously, Peak Oil will leave the landscape littered with corpses. I think GM is really well positioned to move quickly whatever happens.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:38 am)The unanswered question is : Is EREV working for GM
the reason for this question is none ever drove it in that mode and mpg is still kept secret.
What happend to the third hybrd system fo sedans GM was developing ?
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:43 am)I agree that it’s the complications that make the design so difficult, but that’s the entire point. Let’s not downplay the significance of that statement. The complications are inherent in making an automotive product for modern consumption. They cannot be separated from one another.
An EV1 with a genset trailer wouldn’t work for the mass public, as you’ve illustrated the limitations are too constraining for a global mass market application. Thus it is not even a possible solution to the actual problem. For GM to design and implement an EREV for global mass production and consumption inherently includes all of those complications. That’s exactly what makes it so difficult. Then, after the Volt specific complications, add in industry wide safety requirements, reliability requirements, price requirements, etc., not to mention all the additional complications that the unique Volt architecture adds into the normal safety, reliability, and price design considerations, and you start to see how massive and undertaking the Volt is. All of which is inescapably part of designing the Volt, otherwise it simply would not exist.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:04 pm)“Volt Exec: EREV is a Hard Configuration to Make Work”
______________________________________
“Quit now, you’ll never make it. If you disregard this advice, you’ll be halfway there.” ~David Zucker
“If you knew how much work went into it, you wouldn’t call it genius.” ~Michelangelo
=D~
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:23 pm)It’s also interesting to note that the design considerations for a typical modern automobile are much more demanding that the space shuttle. In automotive terms, we’re shooting for Jupiter at this point.
The space shuttle is essentially a one shot deal. It goes up, it comes down, it gets rebuilt. The conditions for operation are mostly consistent, it’s essentially hand built, the budget is relatively huge for a single vehicle, and it’s consistantly monitored. The modern automobile, on the other hand, is required to work in extreme conditions of heat, cold, and vibration for a minimum of 10 years and/or 150,000 miles with minimal repair and virtually no maintenance, all built to a price while cranking out thousands upon thousands at high speed. Space flight is one thing, but the modern mass manufactured automobile is a true wonder of engineering.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:25 pm)One comment made which caught my eye was the “the efficiency of the operation and the maintenance of it”. I wonder how many people will realize that the Volt will most likely need much less mainteneance than a standard ICE propelled car? Savings by driving mostly electric along with the savings on expensive maintenance help to offset that 32K (after rebate) price tag. When people look at the Volt in the showrooms the sales staff must emphasize the TCO. Over the life of the Volt, it’ll cost you $$.$$ per year where a similar ICE or other Hybrid will cost $$$.$$ per year.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:27 pm)I can see Tony’s feeling that the EREV is a more difficult (and lets not forget expensive) architecture to develop. I think if we knew for sure, Tesla may have privately speculated that they didn’t have the financial and/or engineering resources to develop an EREV. An EREV has a balancing act of sorts that has to be figured in to the design. Then the computer controls aspect is a whole other animal unto its own that requires gobs of research and developement to make the whole package work smoothly. An All Electric car removes a whole lot of these technical issues and complexities, but in the end, it is a lesser product IMO. With the technology that is available today, I don’t know of a more elegant solution for Electric propulsion than the EREV.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:28 pm)I’ve been looking at these articles for a while now, and I still have not seen most of the acronyms defined. What’s EREV for example? or PHEV?
Do good writing, and define the acronym the first time it’s used in the article.
(Quote)
+6
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:28 pm)By choosing to bring the Volt to production, GM has done something very un-American (with tongue in cheek): Namely, it is investing for the long run. How often have we read about our industires being focused on the next quarter’s financials without regard to the long-term good.
Here’s a case where a company is investing today — and tackling the hard engineering problems — to position itself for the future.
Of course, the irony is that had it not been for the public clamor for GM’s auto-show PR stunt (i.e. the initial Volt concept) the company may never have taken this path…
I salute my fellow vets, and to all you former Marines out there, happy birthday, a day late.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:33 pm)EREV – Extended Range Electric Vehicle.
PHEV – Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle.
When posting on an enthousiast website, with a narrow topic focus, do your recearch first. These terms are very common and well understood, they shouldn’t be hard to find. Google is your friend.
Oh, and don’t expect much in the way of technical writing convention. This is a forum, not a Technical Memorandum.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:45 pm)Sorry for the off topic, but is anyone else on here going to the Nissan Leaf intro in LA on Saturday? I’m looking forward to it!
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/tour.jsp
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (12:45 pm)Dale Says:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Thank you Veterans
Support our troops buy a VOLT – first step toward energy independence.
You are absolutely right Dale. This evolution is not just about technology or energy or the cost of fossil fuels. It is also about eliminating a primary reason for military conflict. A world less dependent on a finite resource is less likely to have to fight over that resource.
Let’s hope the men and women at GM remember that, as we all remember our veterans.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (1:04 pm)#4
Yeah, or a BYD, LMAO. +1
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (1:06 pm)#8
Amen brother, preach on!
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (1:16 pm)On top of all that is it not true that a diesel engine will not burn E85. The value of E85 for foreign oil independence should not be forgotten!
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (1:37 pm)kgurnsey “Space flight is one thing, but the modern mass manufactured automobile is a true wonder of engineering. ”
I agree to that. +1
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (1:44 pm)Thanks to our veterans.
ALso thanks for this web site and all of the inspiring and thoughtful commentary. Lately it has been very upbeat.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (1:48 pm)Shhhh…there working on it with EEEstor…
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (1:52 pm)There is too much chatter about the genset. (Diesel, or not. Turbo, or not. CNG, or not. Fuel Cell, or not.) The genset will be new when the rest of the car falls apart! It will never run for most Volt owners.
Spending more on the genset just doesn’t make sense.
When my first Volt is plum wore out it will make a very nice emergency generator for the cabin with full UPS capability! Throw in a solar array, and grid power won’t be needed at all.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:09 pm)“A while” can’t be that long… As acronyms in this business go, these are two of the most common. Anywho, I’ll help out:
EREV = Extended Range Electric Vehicle
PHEV = Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
EREV (REV) Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range-extended_vehicle
PHEV WIki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHEV
(Quote)
-1
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:15 pm)I don’t see what’s so hard about making an EREV. Even though GM says it’s hard, they seem to be accomplishing it in less time than they would spend on a new conventional vehicle. Making an internal combustion car is clearly no problem for them, and making an electric car is fairly straightforward. The only thing that seems somewhat new is getting the engine to charge the battery and drive the motor, except the Prius has power electronics that already do this, so it can’t be THAT new/novel.
A lot of people seem to think that computer control of all the components is tricky and while that may have been the case in the early 80s when portable computers barely existed, it isn’t now. The cheapest cell phone money can buy these days has a CPU that runs at hundreds of megahertz and it has megabytes of RAM. The Volt designers can implement any algorithm they want to control the car regardless of how complicated it is or how much memory it requires. And the system only has a few inputs/outputs–battery charge/temp, throttle position, engine state/RPMs/temps, etc.
Now something that would be REALLY tricky is the stability control software in a modern car, i.e., how to vary the torque/braking on 4 wheels to get the car going in the direction you want without having any information on the specifics of what kind of terrain you’re on. If GM said they were having problems with that, I’d understand. But I can’t cut them any slack for programming an engine to charge a battery.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:17 pm)They do. They have at least one (probably more) Model S prototype that has the full production intent drivetrain and I saw some videos of them giving people rides in it (the videos were taken by some teenage girl that blogs about green vehicles or something as they were driving her around in it). Looks to be pretty nice. 17″ touchscreen monitor on the center console, and who knows what capabilities it will have. Think a computer on wheels. Digital videos, music, etc. The car is VERY fast. They are going full tilt on making it quick charge capable (like 200 miles in 15 minutes). It should compete nicely with other $50,000 cars I think. I know lots of people that are going to try to get one and they haven’t even seen it. Exciting times to be in the car business if you’re open to moving forward.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:19 pm)I immediately thought of the same quote. I’d differ with the comment in the article that GM found themselves having to push forward. Without the likes of Lyle and this place, Gm could have (much more easily) chosen to shelve the concept.
Thanks as well to all the Vets!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+3
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:23 pm)The fact that no other mfg has even approached the level of development/implementation that GM has is evidence enough that it’s not actually easy. Several have spoken of it, but I don’t see any other wheels on the road.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:26 pm)But have you seen it run in charge sustaining mode? (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:29 pm)Very kind of you Mike.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:33 pm)Yeah, and the 100 mpg Hummer guys, LOL. +1
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:41 pm)Mike: I’ve been looking at these articles for a while now, and I still have not seen most of the acronyms defined. What’s EREV for example? or PHEV?
Do good writing, and define the acronym the first time it’s used in the article.
Mike (not Mike-o-Matic, I know you don’t need assistance):
You can also do what I do…
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/erev
It works 99% of the time!
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:50 pm)I’m reading “The Car that Could” about the EV1. http://www.amazon.com/Car-That-Could-Revolutionary-Electric/dp/067942105X
From what I’ve read so far the EV1 was not easy either. I just hope they stick with the Volt and don’t give up just short of the moon.
(Quote)
+6
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:51 pm)I think you are confusing the fact that the basic principles are known and have been applied before, with the actual task of getting down to business and doing it to create a specific end product. GM as been making cars for a very long time, but that in no way diminishes the fact that every time they sit down to design a new one, it’s a monumental effort of engineering. They aren’t the first company to create an EREV, but that doesn’t mean that the details of this specific application won’t keep a bunch of engineers up at night trying to make the dang thing work right.
The devil is in the details. Every specific application of a technology has its own set of challenges and complications. The design constraints for each application are different, and that will dictate a great deal of what needs to be compromised and refined in reality as compared to theory.
It’s not a hard thing to imagine getting an engine to charge battery, but actually creating the hardware, developing the software, putting it all together in the real world, testing it, refining it, testing it more, figuring out why the heck system ‘A’ isn’t responding the way it should, redesigning it, re testing it… It is no small matter. Multiply that process across the thousands of independent systems on board the typical modern vehicle, and design them all with the intent to mass produce, which also means going through the same process to design the line itself, not to mention organizing logistics for parts and component systems, and you’re looking at an even bigger task. The fact that the Volt is progressing as fast as it is is remarkable, and speaks to the effort that GM is putting towards this project.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (2:56 pm)Yes, you hit the nail on the head.
And that’s why I believe most successful plug-ins will be bottom up designs from scratch like the Volt, rather than “let’s see how much we can shove into this existing design”, which is what Toyota and Ford are currently talking about.
I believe batteries will get cheaper faster than they get smaller, so batteries will stay big for a while.
As for battery cost, the CEO of CPI has pretty much said the current Volt pack costs $8000, and there’s a $7500 tax credit tied to the size of the battery, so I really don’t see battery cost as a major issue. It seems the major issue is the cost of the other electric components (motor, HVAC, water pumps, steering, etc.), which is what Lutz says here:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/04/why-the-volt-will-cost-40000/
(Quote)
+5
Nov 11th, 2009 (3:22 pm)They’re not. That would be the equivalent of a stationary charger, ie an at home generator. GM must coordinate elements like traction control, ABS, engine function, charging, regenerative braking, friction brakes, power steering, battery charging and propulsion simultaneously while making it a safe, intuitive and enjoyable ride.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (3:48 pm)My only question is:
Are they saying it “was” hard to complete, meaning that it is done and they are looking back on how much work it involved,
Or
Are they saying it “is” hard to complete, meaning that it really isn’t working correctly yet……
We need to see some filmed test drives of the Volt going in and out of CS mode.
CS = Charge sustaining – just for the newbies here!
NPNS = No Plug, No Sale
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (3:52 pm)It is good to see an American company that is willing to invest for long-term results. I have driven five Camrys but I may just come bace to “made in America”.
(Quote)
-16
Nov 11th, 2009 (4:01 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (4:45 pm)Posawatz says, “It’s a very hard configuration to make work.”
I hope everybody understands that this is code for: Difficult to do in a cost-competitive manner.
If you’re in the business of building cars to make money, you avoid things like this. Toyota’s system is simple and has few moving parts, so, even after they pay for a battery and electronics, they can make and sell the car at a profit.
GM, on the other hand…
Posawatz says, “Once an engine is burning it changes the game, and we have non-intentionally thrown some agencies for a loop, like EPA and CARB, because their existing rules don’t apply.”
Sure, they do. If the car can beat the CARB and EPA rules in any mode, then there’s no problem. On the other hand, if the vehicle in range-extended mode actually gets mediocre fuel economy, then GM has to say, “the existing rules don’t apply” and lobby hard to get new, special rules that favor their vehicle. Which is what we’ve seen happening and how we hear nonsense like “230mpg!”
(Quote)
-9
Nov 11th, 2009 (4:50 pm)Well, that’s where you end up when you do your “engineering” top-down on a paper napkin and then jet off to Martinique to leave the dreary details to your subordinates.
Had management just given engineering a challenge, resources and time and told them to come up with alternatives, things like “intuitive and enjoyable ride” and cost to manufacture would have been explored before the drivetrain issues were decided.
Guess which way the profitable hybrid was done.
(Quote)
-13
Nov 11th, 2009 (4:54 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Nov 11th, 2009 (4:56 pm)“caught GM by surprise and they had no choice but to produce the car”
I don’t think this is entirely accurate. I think we can thank Bob Lutz and Jon Lauckner for pushing the to EREV. Although I think the engineers at GM should get kudos for their diligent development of the EREV concept.
If EREV technology becomes the in thing to drive, GM will be back on top very quickly. Right now other car makers are lagging with older technology (Prius) and they’re hoping that EREV does not catch on. But we all know Americans like their gadgetry and will buy the latest gizmo even if the stuff they’re using is doing the job.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (5:06 pm)The EV1 was not EREV technology,
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (5:08 pm)It was approved and is being done like this partly because cars like the Prius have shown that innovation can be profitable for OEM’s in this marketing environment. GM has said the Volt is thier moonshot and the goal was the complete package, including the enjoyable ride.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (5:10 pm)There isn’t a charge sustaining mode in the Model S. Are you thinking of the new Fisker coming out in a few years code named “Nina”? Only a handful of people have even seen the car. I’m curious about the Karma though, I’ve seen it on a race track, I don’t know about charge sustaining mode. I think they are keeping the CS mpg under wraps as well.
(Quote)
+11
Nov 11th, 2009 (5:14 pm)And to think that I was just about to comment on how amazed I am that Dr. Dennis manages to keep coming up with this stuff day in and day out. And how informative it is, and how much I enjoy it. Shows you what I know.
Anyhow, I had to give this one a -1, which I don’t do that often, especially since somebody said that there is a way to find out who posted the -s and +s, LOL. Better to pile on to comments you like than to denigrate ones you don’t is my usual policy. In this case, I was forced to make an exception.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (5:16 pm)Speaking of the difficulty of developing EREVs … here’s an good report by the consulting company Accenture about the future of automobile electrification, biofuels, new IC engine technologies, etc.
http://www.accenture.com/NR/rdonlyres/56E63FA4-2EDD-485D-9B44-72685A310CE7/0/Accenture_Betting_on_Science_Study_Overview.pdf
No doubt about it, it is going to be VERY interesting in the next 10-15 years of the auto industry. I’m sure the engineers and designers at GM are going to have a bunch of great projects and vehicles to work on in their careers. It’s going to be a renaissance period in the auto industry … a period of creativity and stunning breakthroughs.
The report says that PHEVs (and EREVs like the Volt) are going to be “game changers”. It’s just a matter of WHEN, not IF anymore. I think developments in PHEV/EREV could happen sooner than this report suggests. I bet there are several companies in the world who have engineers working like crazy on “skunk works” type projects and they already know their technology is revolutionary. They’re just keeping quiet about it … for now.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (5:19 pm)#62
CARB has been fighting the severe air pollution problems in CA for something like 50 years. Their staff is pretty knowledegeable, in my direct experience. And they are pretty high on PHEVs in general, and the Volt in particular. So I’m really not too worried about any of this stuff.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 11th, 2009 (5:31 pm)Actually, in my experience, the devil is in the software. The amount of effort (manhours) necessary to (1) write it to do what you want it to do, (2) test it and (3) debug it, are always underestimated. If anything’s going to blow my budget and wreak havoc on schedule…it’s software! A dollar say’s that’s what Posawatz is inferring.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:12 pm)Incrementally over a nine year period, after the moon shot part was completed?
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:20 pm)That has been asked and answered many times. NO, there is NO mechanical question between the ICE and the wheels. They have said this over and over again. Yesterday’s post did nothing to change this except for those with an overactive imagination.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:27 pm)I think they’ve got some tricky power electronics to but certainly control software is a biggie. With battery, ICE, Generator, regenerative braking, regular friction brakes, and traction motor all having to work seamlessly together has to be a monumental controls project. They have to do some interesting things to come out of their high efficiency motor “coupled” mode and into their standard RE mode.
(Quote)
-1
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:35 pm)The crafty shrink is just pulling your chain by taking a cheap shot at BEV’s.
The Model S drivers that have little or no need for more than 120 miles range will look fondly at the extra $23,000 sitting in their bank account.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:38 pm)Can you lobby them to relax the 10yr warranty requirement for EREV’s with greater than 10 miles range?
(Quote)
-1
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:39 pm)I have to side with Mohsen on this one. There is a definite ambiguity in their use of the term “coupling.” So there’s no harm in repeating this question, and if GM was willing to answer it in the past, they surely would be willing to give that answer again.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:45 pm)What about a 1.8l gas engine? That’s what they use in the Prius, and it gets 50MPG. The previous version of the Prius used a 1.5l gas engine and got 49MPG.
With hybrids, you have to stop assuming that bigger gas engines are less fuel efficient. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (6:52 pm)and don’t forget that the Volt uses an induction electric motor. The control software for that is way more complex than a magnet based motor like all hybrids use. But induction motors are much higher power and also more efficient in high power applications.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (7:33 pm)No doubt Alex’s answer was less than clearly worded but GM has been very clear for a the entire lenrth of the project that the car will ONLY be electrically driven.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (7:33 pm)GM says: “We are in this for the long haul. There was a lot of deep thought in how to play the endgame here.”
_________________________
When you’re on “financial life support” what sense does it make to put a billion+ into a project that won’t pay off in the forseeable future? Wouldn’t putting your life support resources into projects that WILL make money in the near future make more sense?
Of course it would, . . . . unless the endgame is continued life support.
/ 3 or 4 years from now, will we still be funneling tax dollars to GM? Will GM still be waiting for suppliers to “bid competitively”?
(Quote)
-1
Nov 11th, 2009 (7:35 pm)I am blocked?
(Quote)
-3
Nov 11th, 2009 (7:39 pm)Thanks for misquoting me Ed, and nowhere did I state that the EV1 was EREV Technology!
I was making the reference to Bob Lutz’s original intention to leap-frog the Prius with an ALL ELECTRIC vehicle. This was in the first paragraph. You did read the article did’nt you Ed?
Next time you quote someone at least try and make the effort to know what the hell you’re talking about.
=D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (7:45 pm)Fun times ahead. The signature Volt color will soon be voted on. And 3 finalists will be transported to L.A. for the Auto Show of early December.
Wonder how close together the Nissan and NGMCO displays will be?
Last year the Camaro section was mobbed. People were phoning home telling friends and family how hot they look. I personally asked the Nissan desk if they had electric cars there (in 2008). The answer was, “no”. Just 11 months ago.
Here’s a photo from the 2008 show.
It combines a lithium-ion battery pack with and a small-displacement BLUETEC diesel engine, which together help the Renegade achieve a fuel economy of more than 110 miles per gallon.
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (7:45 pm)The development of the profitable hybrid started in 1993, with the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles
In 1996, Toyota used this concept to make the first Prius prototype.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius
By around 2003, the Prius was profitable.
So the Prius has been around for a long time. If the Volt is profitable in 5 years, GM will be ahead of schedule compared to the Prius.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (7:52 pm)I liken the Volt technology leap that GM is making to the development of automatic transmissions back in the 1930’s (delayed for widespread public consumption by WWII, but GM used them in tanks it produced for the US Army).
The automatic transmission was a HUGE technological breakthrough for cars and it took the engineering genius and the deep pockets of GM to do it.
Chevrolet is carrying on this tradition of innovation by GM. They can be proud of this.
GO GM!
GO VOLT!
(Quote)
-6
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:02 pm)Nope. Toyota didn’t get any PNGV money. GM, having lost two previous rounds in gas-electric drivetrains, in spite of the PNGV boost, is still trying to get a profitable drivetrain on the road, 7 years after Toyota started turning a profit on their vehicle.
All GM sees of the Prius is tail lights as they go by.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:03 pm)We must always endeavor to misquote people as accurately as we can.
You know, if batteries do improve a lot, it’ll hurt the Volt. That’s what I think the Toyota strategy is; when batteries get cheaper and have more energy density, add a little AER at a time if the Volt is somewhat successful and eat up its market from the cheap side. They ain’t dumb, they are conservative.
(Quote)
-14
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:05 pm)(click to show comment)
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:10 pm)True, this will make the BEV models more attractive. It will also create the 100 mile battery range GEN 2 Volt (400+ mile total range). The Electric Voltec Cadillac and EREV truck/crossover models. The better the battery the better for everyone.
=D~
(Quote)
-11
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:11 pm)(click to show comment)
-11
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:13 pm)(click to show comment)
-11
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:18 pm)(click to show comment)
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:18 pm)Even more funny – GM is using Korean made batteries …
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:18 pm)NiMH: Okay for remote control hobby craft. Not so great for use in EV.
WARM BATTERIES? It is normal for NiMH & NiCD rechargeable batteries to become warm while being rapid charged?
Yes your rechargeable batteries can get very warm while charging. Temperatures may reach as high as 131 degrees F.
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:23 pm)+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (8:50 pm)REally, the biggest weaknes of the EREV configuration is that it requires slow charging batteries in order not become obsolete. Also it prospers over other electrics as the price of the batteries remain high. Slow charging batteries are doomed, if not by EEStor, then surely by the slippery surface technology recently licensed by MIT to A123 Systems. It would be not unheard of for GM to have spent all this time and effort and money on a technology that became obsolete almost before it went into production. it’s
happened before and will happen again, perhaps with the Volt.
I’m no longer interested in the Volt, as I believe that it will be eclipsed fairly soon by what we’ve all beeen waiting for – a simple,
battery only electric car with a long-ranged capability and fast recharging.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:03 pm)Toyota, if they keep with this concept, will always be far behind GM. Mechanical designs such as the Prius where electric traction is secondary, will always be more inefficient than the Voltec design where electromechanical is primary. The Prius will always be wed to Hybrid Synergy Drive while the Volt wont have that extra weight to lug around. You muddle around with the ICE and electric motor but the Prius will always need the Synergy Drive.
One can easily take your statement and plug in GM for Toyota and EREV for HEV to realize that GM’s investment in the Voltec drive will go a long way: They only need to use more advanced batteries to improve range, and eventually when the battery or cell is cheap enough in price and powerful enough, the range extender can be cut out of the Volt entirely. One might say that the Volts destiny is to become a BEV.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:06 pm)The Volt is not a hybrid, the Volt is a BEV with a range extender that will be used occasionally.
The hard part of the job is not the range extender and the minute bit of programming that it needs.. GM knows how to make engines and this one is even pulled from another production car. Voltec by its nature is designed to accept any other generator or even to forgo it and just act like a BEV. When the batteries or the fast charge infrastructure improve then is no big deal just to remove the ICE and associated components. There is even more room for batteries in the case.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:11 pm)I agree nimh and nicad are no good for BEV, but nicad batteries get COLD while recharging (except when they are overcharged).. its an endothermic reaction. They often dew up while being charged.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:19 pm)I think Tony misspoke
EREV is not hard
It is involved
Consider the simple example of the front/hood area balance.
In most cars, the Engine rides the line of symmetry. It doesn’t seem to me this will be possible in the Volt. What does that do to handling and system placement?
This is not a “hard” engineering issues. But it probably involves more variables, more teams, and more iterations than a standard sedan. Manhours, duration, etc would probably be significantly higher than normal.
I think from the blog posts about the test drive, most if not all the Volts on the 300 mile trip were a -different- configuration.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:19 pm)and don’t forget the CIA blew up the Trade Center, Yeah, sure. I think your in the wrong chat room
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:25 pm)or anything else that has a current flowing through it, light bulbs, electric ovens, water heaters, etc. did I miss any big ones ?
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:26 pm)Of course there are: because Toyota took a standard ICE RAV-4 and converted it into an EV.Electric drive takes far less space than an ICE does, leaving all that extra room you see.
One more thing, all you say doesn’t make Tony a liar at all. It just shows that you are misinformed or under a delusion.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:38 pm)This is incorrect. Alex of GM yesterday said specifically that “the Generator will become a motor and turn the wheels.”
Could you please explain how the generator which is permanently attached to the ICE can become a motor to turn the wheels?
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:43 pm)So how is the Generator driving the wheels upon reversal of the current?
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (9:57 pm)Not if you can charge 15 KWh per night. If the loss is 40%, which is pretty high, thatt is 10 KWh over a 10 h period or 1 KW. 2/3 of a small space heater. You cant even keep the car interior warm with that power.
Nothing to worry about. NiMH could work for BEVs. Fortunately Li-ion is even better.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:12 pm)The generator produces electric power of a set polarity. The traction motor is simply switched: the positive and negative feeds from the battery or in this case the generator are reversed at traction motor to drive the vehicle in reverse. The way the connections are set at the battery or generator are never changed. Only the power going into the traction motor is changed. Hope this helps.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:29 pm)Lyle,
Can you ask Posawatz if the Volt contains a modified 2MT70 transaxle?
– If so, is it sensible to conclude anything except that the Volt is indeed a Series/Parallel plug-in hybrid?
(Quote)
-1
Nov 11th, 2009 (10:40 pm)#109 add,
Will the words “EREV” and “Voltec” forever allow GM avoidance of the question?
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:12 pm)Can’t find where she says the generator directly drives the wheels.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:16 pm)Koz:
That has been asked and answered many times. NO, there is NOmechanical question between the ICE and the wheels. They have said thisover and over again. Yesterday’s post did nothing to change this exceptfor those with an overactive imagination.
I’m going to let my overactive imagination go to work.
After hearing how the Volt’s drive housing was similar to the 2-mode transmission, I started to do some research. It seem that the 2-mode uses a planetary gear set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hybrid_Cooperation
More info is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_gearset
In the 2nd link, look at the gearset diagram in the upper RH corner of the page. The central gear in yellow is the sun gear. It meshs with the 4 planet gears shown in blue. The planet gears are held by the carrier in green, and the outer gear shown in red is the annulus.
For pure EV mode, let’s assume the annulus is fixed, and the traction motor/generator (MG2) drives the sun gear. This is a reduction gear, and let’s assume a 2:1 ratio. So for every rev of the sun gear (direct connected to MG2), the output shaft (green carrier) turns 1/2 rev.
A standard differential for the Corvette is a 2.56 final drive. So this equates to another speed reduction, combined equals 5.12. From one of my downloaded photos of the Volt, I could zoom in and read the tire size as P225/45R18. On the Michelin website, this tire rotates 802 rev/mile. Thus, in EV mode, MG2 would need to operate at 4100 rpm to drive the Volt at 60 mph (1 mile per minute).
Now comes the interesting part. GM states that in some modes, the 2-mode is electronically variable. So now let’s image that the other motor/generator, the one driven by the ICE (MG1), is connected to the annulus. So as MG1 rotates the annulus, the gear ratio changes. If the annulus is rotated in the same direction and same speed as the sun gear, there is no rotation of the planet gears, and the speed reduction is 1:1. This means that MG2 now only needs to operate at 2050 rpm to drive the Volt at 60 mph.
So by varying the relative speeds of MG1 and MG2, the gear ratio can be changed to put MG2 in its ideal operating zone.
For charge sustaining mode, a clutch between the ICE and MG2 can be closed, and the ICE will now drive the gearset, and ultimately the wheels. Speeds of the MG’s can be adjusted so to provide the optimum speed from the ICE. At 45 mph steady level cruise, the ICE may be controlled to 1200 rpm, and the excess shaft power used to generate electricity for the battery pack. Go up a hill, and after a period of time, the ICE speed changes and power is taken from the battery to provide boost. I expect the ICE will operate at or near full throttle at all times, with its power output controlled by MG1 and MG2 by modulating its speed.
So there is a possibility that gives the Volt an electronically variable speed transmission.
For the Converj, you can see all kinds of possibilites, like using a more powerful ICE (260 hp 2.0L turbo) and using the power from the ICE and the battery pack simultaneously for added performance (ala Fisker).
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:27 pm)I can’t either. Not sure where he’s getting that quote (“the Generator will become a motor and turn the wheels.”) from.
(Quote)
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:28 pm)BillR & Moshen
I’m not saying that it can’t be done, just that a mechanical path from ICE to wheels is contradicted by every direct statement that I have seen made by GM on this subject.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:38 pm)….An extremely insightful comment, BillR!
(Quote)
+1
Nov 11th, 2009 (11:59 pm)BUT, there COULD be two clutches such that the generator is disconnected from the ICE and connected to the wheels (probably using the planetary gears) so that the two motors have their power added together.
Sorry, BillR did a MUCH better job. I had not gotten that far in reading.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 12th, 2009 (12:51 am)If it were so easy, why doesn’t Toyota do it? Why did Toyota kill the RAV4-EV?
We are talking about mass produced vehicles here. With current battery technology, electric SUVs are not cost effective. So we are talking about compact cars. In this context, what GM is saying makes sense.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (1:03 am)Nobody is making a mass produced pure electric vehicle right now either, but that doesn’t mean they’re hard to make, it’s just because no suitable battery is being mass produced.
I continue to maintain that the Volt is not THAT much more complex or difficult to develop than a conventional internal combustion vehicle. It has some “extra” components but nothing particularly new or novel except for the battery, which GM isn’t developing.
Seriously folks, in terms of engineering, “complex” is not a good thing. You want simple and elegant. Saying the Volt is comparable to the space shuttle is an insult, not a compliment.
I think a case can be made that the Volt is less complex than the Prius, which is a good thing.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 12th, 2009 (1:07 am)First, you don’t need the big ICE anymore. Remember that Tesla’s induction electric motor is 288 hp, weighs only 70 pounds, and is about the size of a watermelon. So an electric motor will give you all the peak hp you want. For the ICE, 100hp is plenty, since this only has to deliver average hp.
Second, don’t forget about the Mercedes BlueZero ECell-Plus. I believe this design has the ICE connected to the wheels.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (2:45 am)Essentially that is probably one of the reasons. Like others mentioned, they have no experience in ICE. All the engineering work they have done so far is on the BEV side. Since they are a small startup, if they want an ICE for a reasonable price, they would have to source it from another maker (like how Lotus sources from Toyota or Fisker is sourcing from GM). Then there are the additional regulatory troubles you run into when you have an ICE. Then you also have to service the ICE which is a lot more trouble. For many of their early adopters, an EREV would have meant diluting the brand, which was mainly the poster child for BEVs. And with their goal to advance BEVs as quickly as possible, having an ICE just didn’t match. In all, having an ICE just didn’t make sense for them for plenty of reasons.
Now it makes even less sense since there is too much competition already with the Volt easily undercutting them in price ($40k vs $50k+ by my best guess) and Fisker already coming out with the Karma.
But there are startups (like Fisker and Raser) which have done range extended vehicles.
(Quote)
-4
Nov 12th, 2009 (3:38 am)Sorry, you make no sense – you did not even understand the question.
Alex said the Generator can be reversed to act as a MOTOR and drive the wheels.
That implies there is a mechanical coupling between the geneartor (and hence the ICE) and the wheels. Hope you get it now,
(Quote)
-3
Nov 12th, 2009 (3:46 am)Koz, have you even read the Alex article before you opinionate? Here are some quotes:
“Some of the interesting pieces though of this are, for example, in EV operation I have two motors on board and I typically use the traction motor only to drive the vehicle. However, I do have some mechanisms to couple those motors and in some points of operation these two motors can be coupled and have a more efficient state.”
“… so in certain states its better to operate both to propel the vehicle and in some states its better to utilize more of the generator and less of the traction motor.”
And guess what, the Generator is permanently attached to the ICE. Can you draw a simple inference – or do you need that explained?
This means the generator acts as a motor and turns the wheels. Probably at highs RPMs, its the ICE and Generator, and at low RPMs its the traction motor.
Did you get a degree in science or engineering, or was it in International Relations? Just curious.
(Quote)
-6
Nov 12th, 2009 (3:56 am)Lyle, you are asking absolutely the wrong questions and naturally you get puff in return and what a waste. This article was devoid of any value.
Lyle – why dont you ask a germane question that has kept everyone guessing:
“Is there a mechanical or hydraulic power coupling between the Range Extender and the wheels drive train?”
I think Lyle does not want to ruffle any feathers over there and hence comes up with baby-glove questions. Please have more respect for your readers.
Thanks
(Quote)
-4
Nov 12th, 2009 (4:33 am)#112 – BillR – This is a good explanation and is the last nail in the coffin.
The Volt is indeed a Parallel machine (and part-time Serial). GM has lost its crown for being the first (in the US) with a pure SEV (serial EV).
The only correction that needs to be made is that the mech. clutch is between the Gen/Mot and the Annulus, as the Gen/Mot is permanently connected to the ICE. Otherwise, you can’t start the ICE without a major jerk of the vehicle. There is no other starter.
You want to bet that 95% of the time the ICE runs in parallel mode as opposed to serial mode?
As I had suspected this methodology solves one problem and that is the problem of overreving the Trac-Mot. So in itself it is a good thing. However, I would prefer to see a 2 speed gearbox on a true SEV rather than this mongrel of a machine.
Maybe the Volt should be called the MEV (Mongrel EV) !
So the crown is taken off GM and will be given to BYD, Nissan or Mitsubishi.
GM first disses the best battery A123 and goes with Koreans, and now perputuates a hoax with “EREV” – meaning parallel.
Sorry, but I dont need 2 cars in one – this is a PHEV, except that its not a Toyota, and will breakdown every other week given this over-complex GM gizmo.
(Quote)
-2
Nov 12th, 2009 (4:47 am)Heh – now you are in back-pedalling mode!
OK, then give us one example where GM says it is not using a planetary additive hybrid transmission in the Volt.
(Quote)
-1
Nov 12th, 2009 (6:42 am)I’m going to repost my initial comment becasue of so many negative votes it now no longer shows.
From the first paragraph:
“GM planned to leapfrog the Prius with what was called the ‘iCar’ in 2006″
GM had an electric car well before 2006, it was called the EV1.
From the 8th paragraph:
“It’s a very hard configuration to make work.”
No, its not.
And besides, if the engineers at GM can’t make it work, I’m sure the Japanese can.
That ought to put some fire under their a s s e s.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 12th, 2009 (6:58 am)The Prius was much harder to implement.. Toyota has managed to improve it for four generations, and now it is ready for larger and cheaper batteries.. and profitable.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 12th, 2009 (7:08 am)“remember the price of the first cell phone”
EXACTLY, and remember how short the NiCd batteries lasted compared to today’s Li-ion, something in the region of a 100 fold increase in standby time! Everyone needs to buy a 1st gen Volt, just so they can get to gen 2 & 3 ASAP.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (7:46 am)When I see comments about Toyota and quality it is something that makes me angry. I have only american cars. I have a Dodge and a hybrid Saturn Vue. These are no longer Cimarrons but extremely well built cars. They are made here for us. This Volt is cutting edge. It will be #1 and I am proud to see what is being done. I would like to be #1 on the Volt list and not 25,000. I do expect that there will initial kinks but this is true of any new technology (which can be corrected). Let’s us support America and not any foreign country. More work means less unemployment. Long live and god bless GM.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (8:26 am)In the 90’s when Toyota was designing the Prius, noise, vibration, and harshness were far more easily accepted by the motoring public than it is today. So much quiet, smoothness, and refinement has been brought about into an industry standard for the auto, that those early Prius’ models might not as easily be sold today, due to a huge array of concurrent advancements in all aspects of motoring by all OEM’s.
Therefore, there just is not the same tasking in the designing of everything nowadays for what the consumer demands for refinements as compared to even just ten years ago.
Lyle also does an extremely generous and gifted task here for the enormous benefit of electric motoring in so many different ways. For me, there was no greater measure of objectivity than his overpaying $850 a month for the privilege/critical mission to give us datum regarding the MINI-E, and, I also deeply thank BMW for their outrageous courage to build all of those so that the general public may learn concretely from the experiences of these tremendous pioneers such as Dr. Dennis.
(Inspiring as the MINI-E shared experience is, and, as relentlessly-volatile that many replies to whatever similarities and differences there might be ***in the future*** between the Volt and the Prius (being comparative as lacking a certain credibility between past and future), it seems that there may be other ways toward concretely assisting this thread (by me) regarding the respectable differences of the past designs (in deep respect for as best they were for whatever technology was then available to that particular manufacturer), and, attempting to compare with short, key questions for future live chats, for example.)
We are at a point in time where we can not afford to be technical purists and fly off the handle to insist that an “implication” is a concrete block that can be thrown around.
Professionalism tries to respect a design for exactly what it is for when it was produced in answer to the needs of the motoring public at the time.
Different technicians describe the same sets of conditions in ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ways, due to life experience, current comprehensions of/on paper, but, best of all, hands on working experience with problem resolution, and having contented customers.
Voltec **dictionaries** even, are still being written by GM engineering staff. Voltec advancements are so extremely far ahead of EPA, CAFE, and on and on, it is they who are at a loss to define the extreme superiority of Volt, these advancements are so extremely far ahead.
Electrification of the Auto is not only the only way to go, but may I suggest that differing designs of Prius-past to anything future is not at all a valid comparison whatsoever. Prius is Prius. Volt, in the near future, will be Voltec technologies of
it’s own set of definitions, because one single simple implication could never possibly “pigeonhole” any possible description of Voltec with any credibility whatsoever.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (8:28 am)The batteries will not be made in Korea. The cells will be made there, and the batteries made in a new battery plant GM is building in Michigan. That is where the lion’s share of the manufacturing will be done on these tremendously complicated batteries.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (8:55 am)As I’ve noted in other threads previously, a significant reason other major car makers haven’t yet announced EREV designs is that they know GM has the Voltec architecture protected by numerous patents. They also know GM’s Intellectual Property/Patent Lawyers will fiercely defend the Voltec patents. So I feel certain many major manufacturers are secretly doing R&D on EREV design approaches that could circumvent GM patents ….while publicly promoting their BEV and/or hybrid designs.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (10:04 am)I don’t think I read this before. Sorry if I restated anyones comment.
“We are in this for the long haul. There was a lot of deep thought in how to play the endgame here. ”
First get the Volt on the road, then when battery and infrastructure catch up, remove the ICE/genset and put the newer more efficient battery (EESTORE?) pack under the hood. Put in support structure to replace the original battery and a full three person back seat! This could be done with a new vehicle and/or one already on the road as an “upgrade”.
Elegant
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (10:26 am)Not backpedling at all, just restating. Poetic license was being taken with my position, so I added some clarification.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (10:28 am)Yes, there could. It is a physical possibility. That is not in dispute.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 12th, 2009 (10:34 am)Do you have unresolved anger issues?
Quotes indicate a direct quotation of what was said. She did not say what you quoted. Yes, I could pull out individual statements an paraphrase as you did. It could also pull out individual statements from the same article and paraphrase that only the traction motor drives the wheels. In the context of everything else GM has said on this subject, it doesn’t seem very open for debate. Perhaps they have intentionally misleading but it will take more than Alex’s convoluted statements to convince me of this. BillR does bring a little more to the table but not enough.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (3:18 pm)Having a bad day today ? The fact is that I was under the same impression as Ed about the EREV thing. And Ed was just stating a fact, not trying to be mean.
You, on the other hand…
… are certainly having a bad day today… It happens.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 12th, 2009 (3:24 pm)Right. Toyota didn’t get any PNGV money BUT they decided to develop a hybrid car because they feared to lose ground on that market to the americans because of the PNGV program.
The irony is that the american car companies, that did receive the money, didn’t go forward with hybrids while Toyota, that worked on its own, decided to pursue the effort.
(Quote)
-1
Nov 12th, 2009 (5:42 pm)Your question is irrelevant to the issue of whether it’s easy to do or not.
The reason Toyota stopped making the EV95 NiMH battery was the Chevron-GM lawsuit, not anything to do with the car itself; and as for EREV, as I stated, Alan Cocconi did this 15 years ago using a trailer.
The point is, GENERAL MOTORS AND CHEVRON DON’T WANT TO DO IT!
Sure, it’s easy to do, but not if they are sabotaging it.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (6:19 pm)#77
Not me. I think they’re right. It’s the only way you can sell a car with an $8000 battery, IMHO. Kind of like selling Hyundais.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (7:06 pm)I am all free for warranties too but they aren’t free. Actuaries value them and not for the consumer’s benefit. How about they require the manufacturers to offer 10 years warranties but allow them to offer less.
It is extremely frustrating that I will have to pay for a 10 year warranty that California wants but I don’t. I will have to pay for a 16KWh battery that those driving 30+ miles per day can make use of for 10 years but mine will be largely lost to the calendar. I will have to pay for ~10% capacity in reserve to preserve performance on mountains that my car will most likely never see. This is about $4k for nothing for me.
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (9:54 pm)Doug,
Take a deep breath and count to 10. The GM you are referring too no longer exists. They went bankrupt a few months ago, remember? The new one is now owned by the government, and George Bush is no longer President, it’s a Democrat!!! I would think that would give you some hope for a change. What’s the matter, not an Obama fan either?
(Quote)
Nov 12th, 2009 (11:15 pm)Without government largesse, Toyota was forced to do a realistic project that could and did make money.
(Quote)