GM has released the details and images of its upcoming new Voltec concept car which will be premiered at the Geneva Auto Show in March.
The vehicle is called the Opel Flextreme GT/E. Readers may remember the initial Opel Flextreme small crossover concept from 2007. The new vehicle is a large sleek muscular sedan that has a 0.22 coefficient of drag. Clearly GM learned its lessons on revealing electric show cars with very high drag coefficients (wink).
Like the Volt, it is a 4 seater.
“The Flextreme GT/E concept shows the shape of things to come from Opel,” says Frank Weber, Vice President, Corporate and Product Planning. “Bold, expressive and highly efficient, it represents the product strategy we will apply to all our future vehicles, large and small, across all market segments.”
Yes thats the same Frank Weber who led the Volt’s development before being promoted to VP of Opel.
The Flextreme’s grille is sleek and trapezoidal, and although allowing some air flow, it is partially covered with a translucent divider. The Opel emblem extends doubling as the car’s charging port.
The rear doors are hinged, and there is a glass roof that automatically darkens in sunlight to keep the cabin cool.
At high speed, a retractable rear wheel wind spoiler extends to improve aerodynamics pushing air to the rear of the car.
The Flextreme’s Voltec propulsion system is the same as in the Volt/Ampera aside from a slightly more powerful electric motor.
It uses the same T-shaped rechargeable lithium-ion battery pack and 1.4 L gas engine/generator. It delivers 37 miles of EV range and a total range of 300 miles. It has a top speed of 125 MPH and will do 0 to 60 in under 9 seconds.
Average fuel economy is reported as 1.6 L/100 km (147 mpg US), with CO2 emissions of less than 40 g/km.
The vehicle is not being considered as a fanciful concept, but rather expected to become a flagship vehicle for Opel, whose future in Frank Weber’s hands is decidedly electric.
We’ll learn more when the car is revealed at the Geneva Auto Show on March 4th.
Source (Opel)
This entry was posted on Friday, February 19th, 2010 at 12:12 am and is filed under New Car, Opel, Voltec. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:18 am)“The Opel emblem extends doubling as the car’s charging port”
That sounds awesome. Especially with the picture posted the other day.
“It uses the same T-shaped rechargeable lithium-ion battery pack and 1.4 L gas engine/generator.”
So its still a four seater?
I think I like the crossover design better than the Volt’s small sedan design.
+5
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:27 am)Bravissimo, Opel! Build this gorgeous car with minimal styling changes and I’ll buy it instead of either a Volt or an Ampera, tour Europe in it, and ship it back to the USA!!! Why should I buy a “plain vanilla” design when I can have a car this incredibly beautiful?!?!?!?
+11
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:27 am)I see Europe will once again get the cool looking car…
Not that the Volt isn’t cool looking, it’s just so,..
predictably GM..
+5
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:37 am)Simply beautiful. Wow. More, after I catch my breath.
Be well,
Tagamet
+15
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:41 am)I hope this beautiful car will cross over the pond and be sold in US as a Buick or even as a Cadillac…
Eugene
+6
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:45 am)That body style has Cadillac written all over it…
Frank Weber will be remembered when the history of electric cars is written
+5
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:01 am)So, what is the reason Opels are not sold in the USA? I remember the Opel GT back when I was in high school, but that’s about all.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:02 am)No one (no GM critic) can say now that this Voltec powered vehicle looks like a Prius or like the Honda Insight… Good styling job, Frank Webber…
Eugene
p.s. What is the function of that carbon fiber panel that goes in and out at the rear of the car (it is shown in picture #4 and #5). Does any one have an explanation?
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:06 am)It’s also the downside of having the volt on such a tight time schedule, that and they obviously were taking aerodynamics into consideration from the beginning.
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:10 am)CorvetteGuy said: So, what is the reason Opels are not sold in the USA? I remember the Opel GT back when I was in high school, but that’s about all.
… how about the small Opel Rekord sold in US I believe as a Buick Kadette (or Rekord)…?!
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:40 am)Volt “recharge” TV ad – 2010 Oympics in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/vehicles/chevrolet/olympics/videos#/recharge
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:50 am)A car that would turn heads!
With the 0.22 coefficient of drag improvement I expected a better AER than 37 miles. The battery must have been downsized, perhaps to target a more typical European commute.
Beautiful styling!
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:55 am)“…and there is a glass roof that automatically darkens in sunlight to keep the cabin cool.”
The photo gray roof is a great way to save energy. Eagerly awaiting news on the Voltec Electrosaurus truck.
Once Voltec takes off. The EREV family of Camino, Silverado, and Blazer possibilities is unlimited.
=D-Volt
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:22 am)Wait until they “smooth out” the design. It will look exactly like the VOLT!
GO GM !!
GO EV!!!!
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:32 am)Ooo.. I just knew this would be the next post’s subject
Sweet lookin’ ride!
And thank goodness… no space wasted on a pair of Segways, this time around.
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:49 am)The clean line design of the 08′ concept was a clear winner. Good to see it taking shape in this new offering.
http://garfwod.250free.com/Volt_Deftones_Drive_clip.mp3
=D-Volt
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:53 am)“The Flextreme GT/E concept shows the shape of things to come from Opel,” says Frank Weber, Vice President, Corporate and Product Planning. “Bold, expressive and highly efficient, it represents the product strategy we will apply to all our future vehicles, large and small, across all market segments.”
Hmmm…wonder what Frank would do if he were running Chevy or Cadillac.
Or the performance oriented windings are mated to a controller / IGBT combination that is expected to be called on for more kw / mile. A _U _T _O _B _A _H _N.
“The average speed traveled on the autobahn in unregulated areas by automobiles not regulated by other laws is about 150 km/h. On average, about half of the total length of the German autobahn network has no speed limit, about one third has a permanent limit, and the remaining parts have a temporary limit for a number of reasons.” Go Frank Go!!!!
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:00 am)Wow! I gotta have one!
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:19 am)O.K. now click on the picture at the top bring it up in a new window full size. Great photoshop work for a concept, now back to reality. I’m thinking why is that hood (bonnet) so long relative to the size of the car. Once the production model is cab forwarded to fit on one of the existing platforms and the long overhangs beyond the wheels are eliminated in the eventual production form, how similar will a production version be to this? A very high end version may stay true to a lot of this, especially toward the rear quarters however…
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:52 am)“It uses the same T-shaped rechargeable lithium-ion battery pack”
If that is true, then no, the battery hasn’t been downsized.
But it is interesting to note the the fuel economy is rated at 147 MPG rather than the 230 MPG reported for the Volt. I’m assuming the Volt would also be in the 150MPG range if rated under the same system.
As for the styling, it looks ok, but I think it is “trying too hard to look futuristic”. I think it will be ok in the end as the production car will no doubt be tamed down. This is a concept after all.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:55 am)Bigger electric motor. Higher top speed.
=D-Volt
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (4:11 am)I think it’s because they just discontinued Saturn.
(Which the last few models I think were basically Opels).
Seriously, though, I have no idea.
I will say that the one Opel I drove while visiting France was a 3 cylinder Opel City. On the plus side, it got amazing mileage, but on the negative side, I got stuck in a small, steep valley road and had the make the girl riding with me get out so I could get the car up the hill without the engine dying. Fortunately, I didn’t have to make her push the car!
That kind of thing really would put a damper on sales in the US.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (4:17 am)That’s a cool looking car. I would kind of think a GT badging would imply a little more ooph, though. Looks like it would be cool in a twin electric motor AWD version.
(Of course, I think everything would be cool that way)
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (4:56 am)Wow, that looks really sharp.
Too bad they won’t sell it here.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (5:11 am)Wow very nice, I like the rear fender treatment…
I wonder what it is worth in CD reduction?
Nice Job
Feb 19th, 2010 (6:50 am)Wow, that sure is a nice looking car.
It looks like it will be out of my price range, regrettably.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (6:53 am)This is one great looking car, and it’s good to see the Voltec system move beyond something built on the Cruze platform.
However, functionally, it offers little more than the Volt. I await the day when battery tech/costs evolve to the point that it is practical to put Voltec in CUVs and other aerodynamically challenged designs.
One other thought: I would not be surprised if GM adapts its Converj concept to use the larger Flextreme platform instead of the Volt’s. Alternatively, it could offer two Caddy Voltec vehicles. The speculation that it could come over as a Buick also sounds reasonable.
+5
Feb 19th, 2010 (7:05 am)I believe that would be: “At high speed, a retractable rear wheel wind spoiler extends to improve aerodynamics pushing air to the rear of the car.” About in the middle of the post.
Feb 19th, 2010 (7:21 am)Glad to see more electric VOLT style concept electric cars.
Two small things though… 1. They’ve forgotten the bloody wing mirrors!
2. How can it have the same 1.4 litre engine when the VOLT has a 1.6 engine!!
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (7:28 am)I don’t know if I’m getting directed improperly, but the Opel link above is in French, and after Bonjour I get confused.
Here is an English version:
http://media.opel.com/content/media/intl/en/news/news_detail.brand_opel.html/content/Pages/news/intl/en/2010/geneva/opel/02_18_flextreme_opel_geneva
Make no mistake, this is NOT a redone Volt!!
Although it has the same basic Voltec system (only with 120 kW motor(s)), it is 187 inches in overall length versus the Volt’s ~170. Its height is only 51.5″ versus about 56″ for the Volt. The wheelbase is 114.2″, while the Volt’s is only 105.7″. This car is much bigger that the Volt!
I don’t see a curb weight listed, but consider the following:
“Mass reduction measures for the body include the use of lightweight, carbon composite outer panels, polycarbonate window glazing and aluminum alloy structural components. Compared to conventional materials, these offer a 40 percent weight saving which further contributes to reduced energy consumption and an increased driving range.”
Also, with the reduced drag and active aero components that modulate with speed, this car is designed to travel at faster speeds.
Essentially, I see the Flextreme being to the Ampera what the Converj is to the Volt, a high end, performance orientated Voltec.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (7:31 am)and 37 miles electric… so I assume the petrol engine comes on earlier – and maybe helps it out a bit more.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (7:40 am)The article said in was larger, I hope that means it has more rear seat leg and head room. Thus, from my list of refinements for the Volt 2.0, the Opel seems to address two of them, larger motor and more passenger room. Way to go Frank!
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (7:47 am)========================
Sorry nasaman, but I have to ask it:
You love this design, but what if it only has a 6 gallon gas tank?????
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (7:51 am)This is really a cool car, but in reality it would have to cost $80K or $90K. Unfortunately, that is just not in a price range I am willing to pay for a car. If it was, I think I would still buy the Fisker Karma….
JMHO
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:16 am)This Opel is hot—I like the look. Plus, it’s cool irony that the lightning bolt Opel logo looks right at home on an EREV too. Opel will need some serious cash to make this car reality though. Judging by Whitacre’s pressing to keep Opel, it looks like GM is indeed comitted to making them a major player in Europe.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:18 am)I have to agree. This is a much better looking car than the Volt. What’s wrong with the Volt is the front looks too much like the Malibu.
+4
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:18 am)So it looks great, but it doesn’t strike me as being very practical or even what most people want in an automobile. How about a bigger sedan, a CUV or even an SUV? Personally, I need a vehicle that can take me to work during the week, and then haul the kids around and pick up stuff at the Home Depot on the weekends. There is a reason why almost every house in the suburbs has some kind of SUV, CUV, mini-van, small pick-up or station wagon parked in the driveway.
Does this car extend Voltec technology to a larger market? Does it advance the technology?
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:32 am)It looks cool, like its right out of Star Trek or something.
I like it.
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:38 am)Thanks BillR for good detective work. I love the fact that they will do something about bringing down the weight on this vehicle w/ carbon composite and structural aluminum. This car will be pricey.
At the same time one would expect some increase in AER and overall MPG compared to the Volt. 230 MPG overall down to what did they say 140?? is a big reduction. Wouldn’t you say they are using a much different driving cycle. Probably w/ some higher speeds, but thats a huge reduction. Doesn’t seem to make sense.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:38 am)This car seems to take a lot of design cues from the original Volt concept.
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:43 am)Now thats a car!!
+7
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:53 am)Whoopie,
Another concept car…. Just like the fashion models that run down the walkway in the far out goofy outfits, it means little to nothing.
+4
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:54 am)I’m feeling cycnical this morning after seeing this car and the rabid excitement for the way it looks (vote me down if you want). What’s the point of the Voltec technology anyway? Is it to get us off oil so that we can improve our environment and stick it to the crazy dictators that control the world oil market? Or is it to produce a nicer looking Volt that’s a little more powerful and a little less efficient? The later is not a step in the right direction if you ask me.
And Don’t forget that this is just a concept car. GM will almost certainly tone it down as it progresses through the various stages of development. And then we can have endless threads about how lousy the final design is when compared to the concept.
So, what am I missing? How does this concept car advance the Voltec technology in any meaningful way?
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:54 am)Ok GM, where is our version? This is a spectacularly beautiful car. Powerful, sleek and different looking. This needs to be sold in the states.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:56 am)Why have those little side spoilers extend vs. leaving them extended at all times? Will they be strong enough to push the snow/ice out of that pocket at 0 degrees? Just seems like over-complex German engineering. Are we sure this isn’t a BMW?
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:58 am)Beautiful! When can I buy one?
(Reminds me of the original Nissan Z car that was such a big hit.)
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:02 am)I think that simply by setting their eyes on this car, trolls were turned to stone! 40 Posts and not a single appearance (g). Then again, it’s early. edit: OK, 41 to 45 turned a little toward the negative, but not trolls.
I think the curb-weight will explain a lot of the stats that differ from the Volt.
Granted there will be changes from this to production, but it’s a stunning concept.
Be well,
Tagamet
That’s Levi in the Gravatar. Change of pace.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:03 am)The 230 mpg rating is based upon a newly proposed EPA methodology for PHEV’s. It takes into account the fact that you may not use gasoline at all for many daily drives.
I’m not sure how the European drive cycle numbers are determined, but they may not have a PHEV type rating system yet. So the 147 mpg may be based on driving 100 km (62) miles, in which the Flexstreme goes 60 km on electricity and then 40 km @ 25 km/l (~59 mpg). This equates to 100 km on 1.6 liters as discussed in the link.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:13 am)This car looks beautiful. It also looks like the will be going after a higher retail point. Looks like More sportscar than sedan.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:23 am)Levi looks just like the other cat, put your glasses on
To get a similar acceleration as the Volt it must weigh about the same, yet it is a much larger car.. the attempts to reduce the weight account for that. Is about time they started using polycarbonate plastic for the glasswork in a car, it must save a lot of weight.. probably not cheap. The overall shape is pleasing, but the rear could be simplified a bit.
Lengthening the car does not increase your Cd but it does increase passenger volume.
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:40 am)The 230 mpg rating is based upon a newly proposed EPA methodology for PHEV’s.It takes into account the fact that you may not use gasoline at all for many daily drives.I’m not sure how the European drive cycle numbers are determined, but they may not have a PHEV type rating system yet.So the 147 mpg may be based on driving 100 km (62) miles, in which the Flexstreme goes 60 km on electricity and then 40 km @ 25 km/l (~59 mpg). This equates to 100 km on 1.6 liters as discussed in the link.
At least the Europeans used a utility factor close to the U..S one. The latest procedure you referenced shows a UF of .62 for 40 miles AER (Volt). Which is close to what you used on your calc above. However, I just don’t think that GM is using .62 UF when they advertise 230 MPG overall. If they had used a UF of .62, then using 230 MPG overall for the Volt would require a CS Mode mpg of 87 which is not possible.
For the Volt GM should be quoting 156 MPG overall, assuming UF=.62, CS Mode MPG=59 and AER=40 miles
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:47 am)Here we go …. GM and their concept cars…to this my gut reaction is “fool me once…blah blah blah”
For someone who is still not 100% over the “vanilla-iz-ation” of the Volt, this topic stirs up old feelings of betrayal….yes i am a shallow, shallow man…. I still scoff at the whole reality of aerodynamics and coefficient of drag ratios to that I still like to say “I reject your reality and substitute my own” (thank you Mr. Savage)
Having said that, this thing looks awesome…and makes me want to move to Europe!
-1
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:48 am)Levi may only start showing up for other people after their cache’s clear. Levi is gray.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:52 am)Would I be wrong in saying that it almost looks a bit like a Corvette?
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:53 am)Wow, maybe my next car after my Volt!
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:59 am)It seems the Volt is very punny! (under meet the cast)
Cool!
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:00 am)Would you consider adopting me? (g)
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:04 am)An up sized motor equals a shorter AER…
There ain’t no free lunch Prof.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:16 am)Nope. The Volt has a CD of .20 and that was a big reason that caused such a different look than the concept version, but they needed it to get 40 Miles AER.
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:19 am)Yes it’s a show car and yes if it see’s production it’ll be a different animal but the electrical connector is just so COOL and impractical! I love it!
A good concept hits you hard, WELL DONE Frank and team!
-4
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:22 am)I think the Volt Cd is more like .28–maybe the concept version was .20.
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:22 am)What, you don’t think it will be $25,000?
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:25 am)Great looking car. The logo really gives it a “Buck Rogers” style and the retracting panels at higher speed “makes it so”. Very cool all around.
It also shows the trade-offs and the issue facing EV vehicles. The car is larger than a Volt which is an advantage since you can seat more people and carry more cargo. The downside is that more mass equals less range and perhaps a higher 0-60 time. Mass is a big issue.
The use of the same powertrain as that used in the Volt suggests that, at a minimum, the car is designed for production. Otherwise they would have speced out some wildly powerful but unobtainable motor and battery pack. Hopefully this wonderfully cool car will make it to North America. I’d love to have one but, unlike nasaman, I need a car I can get fixed where I live!
+5
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:27 am)George… the Volt concept was a very slightly rounded brick, a cool looking brick to be sure but a brick none the less.
+7
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:27 am)The Volt concept had a terrible CD. I remember someone at GM was quoted as saying that the concept was so bad that it performed better going backward in the wind tunnel than it did going forward.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:34 am)When I look at this car the song “I’m too sexy for my…” plays in my head.
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:38 am)OT, and maybe someone has already cited to it, but here is a funny little story about the relative efficiency of the honeybee. The question is: How many miles could a bee travel on one gallon of honey? Look here for the answer and a suggestion that engineering still has some room for improvement:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123289433
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:43 am)Not sure about the concept Cd (I did say maybe .20) But I’m pretty sure the production volt is around .28
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:47 am)We’ve read before that GM is already working on the next generation Volt, even as they are just bringing the first generation to market. I suspect we are looking at what will be that next generation. It looks really good! We’ll know I guess in 3 or 4 years which is how long it took GM to develop the first one. The original Volt was only a concept in 2007. The good part is that the technology is now proven and they can devote more effort to extraordinaly design while constantly making improvements to electric range and performance.
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:59 am)#15
Roger that. +1
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:05 am)Yes, at 37 miles vs 40.
Fortunately a bigger motor does not mean more kw have to be used as it would in an ICE. Though they could be used if the driver is so inclined.
Seats four and makes use of carbon fiber to offset weight?
Motor efficiencies don’t equate with engine efficiencies. Bigger doesn’t mean more power is needed like with an ICE’ s fuel consumption. A bigger motor with power output from the Flextreme GT/E’s controllers that equals the output used in the Volt would not give you an efficiency penalty for most driving. Until the point when you went faster than the Volt software would allow. Or you adjusted the accelleration for the Flextreme GT/E’s higher mass, or for A _U _T _O _B _A _H _N favorable performance peramaters.
…and less AER.
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:07 am)#42
That was my first reaction as well. +1
I have to admit though that when they start talking about Cd of 0.22 and advanced weight reduction measures, it really gets my attention. Although I have to agree with those who say that it would probably be very expensive at this point in time. Still it is exciting and encouraging to see that this kind of thinking is front and center at GM. It is the future, IMHO.
+5
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:12 am)#43
If they are experimenting with lightweight materials/composites and advanced aerodynamics, how can that be bad? Maybe it will trickle down the the Gen 2 Volt and make it more efficient.
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:12 am)OK, GM. Good job!
Now show us a Voltec powered SUV, truck and a convertable concept.
The rest of us want Voltec in our cars, too.
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:14 am)IVer (Production):
http://gm-volt.com/2009/12/04/chevy-volts-coefficient-of-drag-is-0-28-beats-prius-and-insight/
Concept:
The belly pan – which contributes significantly to the Volt’s 0.30 coefficient of drag – contributes to the sedan’s overall impression of refinement and demonstrates the design of the underbody was just as important as the upper body. http://www.autointell.com/Events/naias-2007/chevrolet-volt-naias-07/chevrolet-volt-naias-07.htm
This link to the concept is kind of funny to look back on–dual charging ports (brilliant!…wait that won’t work)
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:25 am)MuddyRoverRob: An up sized motor equals a shorter AER
Motor efficiencies don’t equate with engine efficiencies. Bigger doesn’t mean more power is needed like with an ICE’ s fuel consumption. A bigger motor with power output from the Flextreme GT/E’s controllers that equals the output used in the Volt would not give you an efficiency penalty for most driving. Until the point when you went faster than the Volt software would allow. Or you adjusted the accelleration for the Flextreme GT/E’s higher mass, or for A _U _T _O _B _A _H _N favorable performance peramaters.
Jeffhre
Truth.
BUT, if you have the ‘go’ you are MUCH more likely to use it and THAT will use more power.
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:26 am)Way Off Topic, But:
Here is some local news info about the Cruze.
http://business-journal.com/clients/business-journal/chevy-cruze-sales-top-p15763.htm?twindow=Default&smenu=1&mad=No
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:31 am)HeHeHe…Might work with interlocks to energize one and lock out the other; or phase adjusted charging. Expensive and complicated?
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:35 am)Point taken…
Reply:
A _U _T _O _B _A _H _N
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:37 am)Grouchy this morning aren’t we?
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:38 am)It’s an absolutely gorgeous car. I like it even better than the converj. I’m sure it will sell if they build it.
That said, it’s too flashy for me personally. I don’t want a car that people will notice. Even if I wanted to spend the $80,000 I’m sure they’ll charge for it. Which I don’t.
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:45 am)In regards to AER, and not 0-60 acceleration:
Mass is a small issue in the Volt, it used to be a medium issue until they revealed the optimized regen dual-mode traction motor… I suspect the Volt will recover 85% of the braking energy. Good, modern, high mpg tires also help a lot.
Mass is still a huge penalty in ICE powered cars, but that is being moderated somewhat by the use of 6-7-8 step transmissions. Very expensive to repair/replace.
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:46 am)Not really. I am just remembering how some seem to confuse concept cars with production cars at this site over the years. I just wanted to remind people that concept cars are simply a concept (ie: an imaginary car).
It is fun to dream about possibilities but what I really care about is what I can buy and drive. These are about as serious as the goofy outfits models wear at fashion shows.
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:47 am)This is really great. A thrill inducing electric joy ride. Like BillR says Opel is playing their Converj card. And I will stay open minded and recognize the point where it is in development. A photoshop of a concept. A concept that will not be released until the next Geneva Auto show. A lot could change on the the way to production, or even before a driveable concept car takes shape.
-2
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:47 am)I love the side view monitor screens instead of mirrors and the optical sensor door lock/handle. I’m assuming the doors would pop open a couple inches when activated or do they still have some kind of grip to pull open? The transition type glass is nice, however if the polycarbonate window glaze is like the same as eye glasses although lighter and shatter resistant, those type eyeglasses will scratch muchh easier than glass. I hope the retractable spoiler works better then the Volkswagon version did. I recall an owner complaining that the constant opening and closing of that spoiler got to be annoying and maintenance prone. According to the article, the Opel spoiler would activate at about 31 mph which would happen alot. Otherwise I love the use of better materials.
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:53 am)That was a quote from Maximum Bob, and the marked change in appearance between the Concept and the final production Volt was due to the need to almost totally reshape the car. If this Concept already HAS a good coef., it seems that it has a much better chance to retain its “looks” while it heads for production (if it does).
Separate issue, maybe this is a shift from the initial approach (Volt) of a more widely affordable vehicle, to the approach by Tesla of bringing in the big bucks with a top tier vehicle.
Just a thought.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:58 am)We are all here chatting and looking to the future because of a concept car.
I think the Volt is relevant, and I think that this car concept or not is a beautiful and interesting looking forward design.
No it will not make production as is, but who says one that also got a great reaction here like the Converj will?
For example, that power plug in the nose will not make production.
One wet sloppy ice rain test day in winter will finish it off, but it’s cool anyway.
Feb 19th, 2010 (11:58 am)Wish the volt looked like that.
wounder when they’ll start selling Opel’s in the US?
Whats the point in limiting the brand to one market?
I tend to prefer the look of European designed cars better then US ones anyway.
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:04 pm)I *THINK* that I read somewhere that the scratching issue is addressed by having a very thin coat of glass on the exterior surface. It’s just a faint memory trace though, so….
Be well,
Tagamet
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:10 pm)How about : the more cars using the Voltec technology, the faster GM will ramp up the production, reducing cost and MSRP ?
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:11 pm)You got it right Pete.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:13 pm)Re: all the comments about 40 vs 37 mi AER: Remember that Opel is presenting this concept car primarily to people of continental Europe, which uses the metric system —thus they are saying its AER is 60 kilometers (a nice round number) and that 60 kilometer = 37.282271534 miles. The 37 mi figure simply comes from converting kilometers to miles, not from a loss in AER between this Concept car and the Volt.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:19 pm)I agree, this stuff can be exciting to think about.
Weight reduction usually means expensive materials and construction techniques. I would love to see some breakthroughs in this area to make affordable cars lighter.
Aerodynamics is really not as complicated. Unfortunately, the easiest way to reduce drag usually involves lowering the roof line and rounding corners off which results in a reduction in space within the vehicle. I love to save gas but my knees, neck and back like to get into larger vehicles.
My last two car purchases started out looking for mileage as a top priority but ended up (after multiple test drives and entrance/exit attempts) going for space. It turns out that headroom and seating comfort trump all other factors (except buying American) when I actually make a purchase.
The space issue is my only real concern with the Volt design.
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:21 pm)Source please ? I don’t recall GM ever stating that number officially.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:25 pm)agreed. Sorry for being the Debbie Downer on this one. I have drooled over concept cars for several decades now and admit it is fun to dream.
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:27 pm)I agree with most here today that this is one of the best looking cars that these eyes have seen. But, if, Europe has a roll over test, well I for one would not want to be the driver during said test. And the plugin port looks great but is totally impractical due to weather and anything over a 2 mph bump up. The doors look great but I wouldn’t want to be opening such a large door with the wind blowing at say 50 mph.
However I do hope they can keep the spirit of this concept when it reaches its final design.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:31 pm)“The Prius came in at .30,” said Boniface. “That was a number that was verified in our tunnel, in Chrysler’s tunnel, and in Ford’s tunnel.”
“The Insight was 0.32, and the Volt was .28,” he said.
The wind tunnel test number, weight, top speed, and 0-60 time, battery management system, and brake regen settings of the Volt have been known for some time now. The biggest question mark is CS mode mpg, pricing, and means of delivery.
=D-Volt
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:32 pm)No worries, usually I agree with your comments!
We all need to be “TAGGED” once in a while…
Except for Tag himself of course, he self medicates…
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:33 pm)I think you’re greatly underestimating the impact of mass on both acceleration and AER. Basically a car loses its energy to heating the air (drag), heating the road (rolling resistance), heating its parts (drive train losses), and heating the brakes (braking losses). Additionally it needs energy to move vertically. All but the losses to air are directly proportional to mass. Some part of braking and vertical movement losses can be can be recovered through regen, though I don’t think it would be 85% — the wheels won’t always be moving — but it wouldn’t recover 100% under any scenario and we still have two areas where the losses will never be recovered.
There is a reason why Tesla uses the Elise body and why the Volt is not a full sized car, and that reason has to do with mass.
That said, I applaud Opel’s decision to look at lighter weight materials. Lighter weight materials are available and should not prove to be that expensive. Kudos to what appears to be German engineers — Opel, VW, Audi — for moving in this direction.
-6
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:35 pm)Very nice looking concept car. So WAS the Volt concept until GM turned it into a 4-seater econo-box with a $30K-$40K price tag.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:43 pm)That seems optimistic. More likely they arrived at the EV range using the European drive cycle, which would mean that the EV range is considerably less than 37 miles on a US drive cycle. Given the sophistication of the Opel engineers I wouldn’t think they would simply convert miles to kilometers for a different car — the Volt — which has a different mass and a different drag coefficient. I’d think they would model the car they were presenting based on the European drive cycle and the known drag coefficient and mass of the Opel Flextreme and the known efficiency and drive train losses of the Voltec powertrain.
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:47 pm)Sorry, it is .28, see http://gm-volt.com/2009/12/04/chevy-volts-coefficient-of-drag-is-0-28-beats-prius-and-insight/ .
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:50 pm)The car may not be as flashy as you’re thinking. We’re looking at mock up illustrations, not photos, and the illustrations always have that “Vroom Vroom” look. You can do that with illustrations!
On the price, I’m not sure the Delta would be all that great. Yes you have a larger platform but an Accord doesn’t cost twice what a Civic does. The drive train is pretty much the same — it probably uses the upgraded motors which GM has said will be smaller and cost less — so all we’re talking about is a slightly larger platform and the use of some lighter weight but hardly exotic materials. Hard to say of course but I wouldn’t think you were talking about $80K before VAT.
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:54 pm)A few years ago the steel industry built a concept car using light weight steel which carried only a modest premium. I don’t have the citation handy but I’m sure you could find it with a search. In this area I just think that the auto industry hasn’t moved because its simpler to just do what you’ve been doing because it carries less risk, not really because of cost.
+3
Feb 19th, 2010 (12:56 pm)Hmmmm, how to respond….
A) I actually *DO* get my share of minus “votes” and I have a grand total of ONE “greenie” to my credit. I think yesterday’s thread had the most Greenies ever though!
B) I can’t self-medicate, because of the physician prescribed meds (darn it – can’t even have a beer).
C) I know that you were teasing (well done, BTW (g))
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:05 pm)Follow up to #104:
I found a press release on the ultra light steel concept. It wasn’t a few years ago it was fifteen years ago. Anyway, here is the press release:
in September 1995, the Consortium announced the results of the concept phase: a design of a typical mid-size sedan showing a weight savings of up to 36 percent in a steel vehicle structure, and substantially improved performance when compared to benchmarked averages in the same class – at a cost less than that required to produce a typical vehicle structure of that time.
In 1998, the Consortium presented to the world automotive industry, a complete ULSAB body-in-white, which dramatically validated the design concepts. That BIW remains as a focal point of a traveling exhibit that shows how to use high-strength steels to reduce mass in a vehicle structure that is Safe, Affordable, Fuel Efficient and Environmentally responsible (SAFE).
The ULSAB concept confirms steel's main attributes, and it explains why high-strength steel is the fastest growing light weighting material in automotive structures. Steel is inexpensive and strong. It is easy to form into complex shapes and structures, and it is highly suited for mass production of vehicles. Its proven ability to absorb energy in a crash is well known.
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:07 pm)I think they are using the new high strenght steels extensively in the cars, but instead of making them lighter they are making them much stronger and rigid.. witness the crash ratings that the new Cruze has.
This may be the study you are thinking off: They claim 9% savings in weight compared to a conventional steel car.
http://www.worldsteel.org/climatechange/files/7/Automotive%20case%20study.pdf
Here are some articles from the American Iron and Steel Institute:
http://www.autosteel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Auto_Articles1&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=14&ContentID=25776
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:09 pm)If it ever makes it to production, bring a few across the pond and sell them as Buicks.
Too bad GM doesn’t have a division with a built-in “sportiness” branding (Pontiac); or one with an established practice of Americanizing Opels (Saturn).
As things stand now, GM has two luxury brands vying for the same customers (Buick and Cadillac), one for work trucks (GMC) and one for all the rest of us (Chevrolet).
GM will have to diversify more between Buick and Cadillac, or suffer sales losses for both; IMO. How about putting some “elegant sportiness” into Buick and see what develops next?
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:22 pm)They do scratch much easier than glass, but that can be ameliorated by using hard optical coatings on the inside surface and laminating it to real glass on the outside.. Probably wont be cheap. An issue is that polycarbonate goes bad under the sun.
-1
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:25 pm)If it ever makes it to production, bring a few across the pond and sell them as Buicks.
Too bad GM doesn’t have a division with a built-in “sportiness” branding (Pontiac); or one with an established practice of Americanizing Opels (Saturn).
As things stand now, GM has two luxury brands vying for the same customers (Buick and Cadillac), one for work trucks (GMC) and one for all the rest of us (Chevrolet).
GM will have to diversify more between Buick and Cadillac, or suffer sales losses for both; IMO. How about putting some “elegant sportiness” into Buick and see what develops next?
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:26 pm)Looks like something to compete with the Tesla Model S doesn’t it?
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:28 pm)I hear its going to get even more MPG because its using one of these!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:44 pm)I don’t know where the figure of .20 for the Volt came from but George is right:
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/20/lutz-production-volt-has-a-cd-between-28-and-29-and-battery-extreme-cold-performance-is-good/
George was responding to the commentor who stated the incorrect figure for the Volt Cd.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Feb 19th, 2010 (1:57 pm)From what I understand, just upping the power potential of an electric motor (unlike an ICE) in itself does not make it less efficient, in fact, according to the Tesla site, it is more efficient. I’m not a motor expert though. Of course there may be other factors that do, obviously like using that potential power
or more vehicle weight or perhaps even motor design could explain it.
My question is, assuming the weight is not greater than the Volt, we already know the CD is better, so if the 2 vehicles were driven side by side under the same conditions, why wouldn’t the Opel get better AER?
Edit: It appears my understanding was wrong, the Volt CD is apparently .20.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:00 pm)Most of the energy lost to altitude changes will be recovered, when you come down the hill.
We can see an energy breakdown at the Tesla Blog, its the third graph down:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=70
At 48mph average speed at which the Volt achieves 40 miles AER, total energy required is 200wh/mile.. out of that aerodynamic drag and drivetrain losses are each 75wh/mile, tires are about 50wh/mile and ancillary losses are almost nil. If we doubled the weight of the Tesla Roadster (increase from 2700lbs all the way to 5400lbs) then tire losses would double and become 100wh/mile. Total energy required would increase from 200wh/mile to 250wh/mile, a measly 25% increase in energy consumption for a weight increase of 2700lbs. By the same token if we added 400lbs to a Volt it would decrease the range by 3.7%. A total reduction of 1.5 miles range.. no big deal. But it would increase the 0-60 time noticeably.
So in conclusion, weight does not affect AER much.. but it does affect acceleration.
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:01 pm)According to http://gm-volt.com/2009/12/04/chevy-volts-coefficient-of-drag-is-0-28-beats-prius-and-insight/ the CD is .28.
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:03 pm)Oil rises to near $80 a barrel; crude has surged 11 percent in 2 weeks
Friday February 19, 2010, 11:26 am EST
NEW YORK (AP) — Oil prices continued to rise Friday as a refinery strike in France and worries over Iran’s nuclear program suggested petroleum supplies may tighten in the future.
Benchmark crude added 32 cents to $79.38 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil prices have increased more than 11 percent in the past two weeks.
____________________________
With the price of gasoline in Europe being much higher than in United States. And with the army of electric vehicles set to be available in 2012. In what ways will entrepreneurs support the need for low price public battery charging? Where will people park for 3 to 6 hours during the day?
Most schools and universities have fairly large green areas about the campus. Rooftops on government buildings can support solar panels for employees and visitors. Golf course parking is a perfect use for EV recharge. Boatyards and yacht clubs.
Will it really cost that much to install the panels? It won’t when sponsors are involved.
“Your free recharge is provided by ‘___________’ Corporation. Caring for you and your environment.”
=D-Volt
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:28 pm)For a little bit of good humor, go to youtube, and in the search bar type “Toyota Lawnmower Recall”. Hysterical.
Oh, and nice looking Opel….
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:34 pm)It appears that the Flextreme uses most of the Volt’s components without change, with the possible exception of the traction motor. That item may have been upgraded, or simply uprated. But speaking of ‘peak power’ as opposed to ‘design’ or ‘continuous operating’ or, ‘nameplate power’, can confuse the issue.
The vehicle is larger, but the interior volume does not have to be expanded much, as the Delta II platform is on the fringe of compact and mid-size and straddles it. A few more cubic feet of storage would be enough to tip it into ‘D-segment’ or mid size designation.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:40 pm)64 kilometer=39.76768 miles and is a nice round number which is closer to 40, so why didn’t they use that number?
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:42 pm)I think I’ve figured out this Opel’s niche.
This concept is aimed straight at the heart of what made the prius a hit “HollyWood Baby” all the stars adopted the prius to appear to be enviromentally consciense but none of them liked the blah looks and performance. With this new design the can get the greenwashing effect and still like the car their driving. Which will have an effect on all the teeniebopers who see their fav superstars driving around in one and run home to daddy and beg for one too, just like what happened with the toy. This time though daddy will say no the caddy is too expensive here have the chevy version and go buy little Johnny or Sally a new volt
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (2:54 pm)#63
I agree. Thank you +1
If the laws of physics have been repealed, the news has not yet reached us here on the left coast.
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:01 pm)#97
Did you see my comment the other day about the 1921 Rumpler with the Cd of 0.28? This is supposedly a real number, as VW took the thing out of somebody’s museum and tested it in their then brand new wind tunnel. Lotsa progress in 89 years, huh?
-6
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:19 pm)What good are 100+ mpg claims when the vehicle goes only 40 miles BEV between charge or 300 miles between fill-ups. If there must be 100 mpg claims floated there needs to be an asterisk. The real MPG is against full ER range only. On the Opel front. its who’s building what when. Opel is Euro GM, just take a look at its vehicle lineup engineered by Opel like the Chevy Cruze and Buick. First Opel VOLT, then Opel Cruze, Opel Ampera and now Flextreme 2. Opel encompasses top-of-the-line world class engineering facilities. So now here’s a gorgeous Flextreme. Its really VOLT ed. 1.5. Is the reason VOLT is limited to 300 miles because Euro GM is making a brand statement?
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:23 pm)hi NP #123 …
One look at this photo will tell you why the canoe inspired Rumpler tests well.
=D-Volt
________________________________
BTW: Was able to speak with a local automotive manager this morning. He has decades of experience and currently has a hand in 5 or 6 local dealerships. These range from the very inexpensive import market vehicles to catering to the local high end celebrity community.
D>Hi
M>Hi, how are you doing today?
D>Still in the business?
M>Yes (mentions several local dealerships)
D>Many inquiries into the new electric cars that are coming out?
M>Oh yes!
D>They will be taking off in two years or so.
M>No, it will be about one year. (mentions Nissan ~ no models named)
D>These should do well. Hope people are not scared away by sticker shock.
M>(shakes his head to express: “No, they won’t be”.)
D>We then talked generically about EV accessories.
Feb 19th, 2010 (3:25 pm)#112 vegasguy I hear its going to get even more MPG because its using one of these!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4
(Quote)
What did he say? That one went way over my head, especially when you don’t get a picture of what he was talking about. Anyone want to give a short translation? Thx.
Feb 19th, 2010 (4:01 pm)Opel released a detailed description of the subject Flextreme Concept from their head offices in Russelsheim. Thanks to BillR in post #30, here’s the link to it: http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.globalnews.html/content/Pages/news/global/en/2010/02_18_flextreme_opel_geneva
In more than one place in this article, Opel refers to the AER as 60 Km (which is 37.28 mi) —draw your own conclusions.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (4:25 pm)You’re neglecting that drive train losses are related to mass, that you have to move vehicles up hills, and that you have to stop at stop lights. IOW you’re assuming away all the losses attributable to mass.
Comparing the Volt range to the Flextreme’s range is more than a bit suggestive here. The Flextreme has the same powertrain, a MUCH lower coefficient of drag (.22 compared to .28), and a very small frontal area. If AER is all about aerodynamic drag, then why does the Flextreme have a shorter AER? Given the European drive cycle is less energy demanding than the US drive cycle, if AER is all about aerodynamics, the Flextreme should have an AER somewhere around 50 miles. But it doesn’t. It has an AER more like 37 miles.
Feb 19th, 2010 (4:46 pm)It may well be that a larger motor is more electrically efficient but the increased size just has to increase ‘internal’ mechanical drag no matter how good the bearings.
Yesterday I ws in traffic and a large dump truck veered into my lane, I used every bit of power the Malibu has to avoid an accident. I cleared the area unscathed thank goodness!
The car used more energy in that section of road than it otherwise would have to be able to accelerate like that. An EV (BEV/EREV) would be in the same position, it would have had to move it’s mass in a hurry, to do so has to loose some efficency and it’s AER would suffer.
This is real world VS lab type tests. (EPA, Transport Canada, etc…)
The greater mass of the Opel must use slightly more power than the smaller Volt to achieve the same result, this has to be expected.
The Opel would look darn good in my garage! I’ll paint the garage, install a chandelier and coat the concrete with that cool shop floor stuff! 4 Star all the way!
http://ucoatit.com
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (5:16 pm)Big Picture:
GM decides to build an EREV Plug-In Hybrid.
They bring us the original VOLT Concept Car. Very cool design.
It gets a great response from a small number of people.
Then they get a little nervous, and “vanilla-tize” the design.
(I like that term… You should get a copyright to it.)
They bring us the new, not-so-flashy VOLT.
It gets the green light because GM thinks we will not accept an ‘exciting design’ so soon?
After 24 months, EVERY other carmaker gets on the Electric/Hybrid bandwagon.
They bring us designs like the Opel GT/E above.
That gets a great response from a BIGGER number of people.
Nissan and GM will be the first out of the gate with the newer Plug-In Electric/Hybrids this year.
(don’t get your panties in a bunch, Prius lovers… we know you had the original)
But GM will be stuck with the the plain vanilla design for the next 24 months,
while the competition brings us Cherry Garcia, Chunky Monkey, and Mocha Almond Fudge…
Dang! I’m making myself hungry…..
Anyways, GM needs to fast-track the Cadillac Converj and the EREV Orlando!
The Vanilla VOLT will bring ‘electric acceptance’ to the world.
The newer designs from the competition will bring higher-volume sales.
Is that about it? Did I get it right?
Feb 19th, 2010 (5:17 pm)BLASPHEMY! Converj rules!
(j/k) TGIF
+2
Feb 19th, 2010 (5:43 pm)Good thoughts, I would see it differently in some areas. Here’s my 2 cents to amplify and modify your ideas.
“GM decides to build an EREV Plug-In Hybrid.
They bring us the original VOLT Concept Car. Very cool design.
It gets a great response from a small number of people.
Then they get a little nervous, and “vanilla-tize” the design.”
Actually, they just threw together a concept car on a shoestring budget involving only a few designer’s concepts. Thats typically what concept cars are.
With the interest in generated, they decided that they would try to actually build a car based on this and designed a real car which turned out to be a pretty typical looking car (vanilla). Under the skin, however, it is still the concept.
They were not focusing on the look of the car. They were focused where they should be and that is on the propulsion system. The Volt’s propulsion system is still very much like the concept (the details of the concept were just concepts anyway). The concept of the propulsion system, and Extended range electric with 40 mile EV range, is totally carried over into the 2011 Volt. And now it actually works!!
The second area where I would take issue with your concerns is the area of
“The newer designs from the competition will bring higher-volume sales.”
Who is building a cool looking EREV or electric for the masses?
Tesla is not.
Fisker is not.
This Opel is just a dream at this point.
The Ford electric plans are in a vanilla skin.
The Nissan electric looks like a fish.
Who else is planning on rolling out a cool looking car that will make the Volt look like an entry level econo-box?
By the time the others bring out their version 1.0, We may be seeing other E-Revs from GM and the Volt may be launching V 2.0 with improved performance and lower cost.
Feb 19th, 2010 (5:46 pm)Well that presents a real dilemma for me. My favorite is Cherry Garcia, but being highly disciplined
I didn’t buy it again until the frozen yogurt version came out. What does that mean in Volt terms?
Feb 19th, 2010 (5:53 pm)This is a really good point. Competition is good for everybody. The Volt desperately needs some competition, and by that I mean a car that:
a) runs on electricity or gasoline
b) has at least 30 miles all-electric range
c) is built by a major car-maker
d) is real, with an announced production date
Feb 19th, 2010 (5:53 pm)Wait a minute this looks rally familiar. What’s the gentlemans name that is always bashing EV’s and saying in a few weeks Hydrogen will save the world?
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (6:18 pm)Porsche has some example and the Daimler/Chrysler Crossfire has similar one. Looks like an only cars made in Germany type of feature.
…and dailing up the power to the motor to regain acceleration lost from increasing the weight would also.
-1
Feb 19th, 2010 (6:22 pm)I think it’s more about governments either making gasoline more expensive and/or having more stringent mileage standards. For many years the automakers hired lobbyists and lawyers to try and prevent regulations. Now they’ve more or less lost the battle and are hiring engineers to meet the requirements.
The Flextreme is a good example of why this is a good thing. With less mass due to light weight materials and a great and appealing aerodynamic design, the Flextreme would be an appealing car with great MPG even without a Voltec powertrain.
Feb 19th, 2010 (6:54 pm)Very nice design .. will be interesting to see specs. Aerodynamic design means little to the MPG… unless you will be driving above 80 mph most of the time. Good to see more applications for the electric driveline.
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:02 pm)Probably that you should buy a LEAF? (lol). Better yet, just buy a Volt and try very hard to limit the day’s drive to <40 miles. Yeah, that'd be analogous to being "diet conscious" IMHO.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:11 pm)I agree on all counts, and would just add that whoever *does* come out with a competitive vehicle, will likely need to minimize the growing pains by having a similarly conservative rollout – or risk having to deal en masse with the expected “issues” that will need to be addressed promptly (by newly trained technicians). JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:16 pm)Classy design. I think the Europeans will go for it right away.
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:21 pm)Wait for it. It happened an hour ago Eastern Time. (g)
Be well,
Tagamet
-5
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:22 pm)Because Opel Sux !
Did u really have to ask such an ignoramus question ?
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:24 pm)Hey Tag,
I really don’t think that there will be any issue at all with the techs whatsoever, because the onboard diagnostics will be so incredible and precise and so very well seen in real time via OnStar. I think there might be some issues with the customer needing to understand a whole set of new sorts of things for Voltec.
Also, I get the impression from finally being able to view the last chat, that Andrew was suggesting that the high heat conditions (here in the Southwest), might be a really strong issue regarding the Volt battery. (Maybe inferring a delayed rollout down here perhaps, which we would need to understand and accept, I would think).
BTW, What does the green vote count color mean?
Feb 19th, 2010 (8:53 pm)When someone gets to a “+10″ (pretty sure it refers back to Bo Derrick and the movie of the same name) the background box turns green. In the last version it turned yellow at the same +vote count.
I understand your point about the techs having great data, but I was referring to the unforeseen ghosts in the machine that any bleeding edge technology will probably have – and need to have addressed.
Where did you get the chat transcript? I still haven’t seen it.
TIA.
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 19th, 2010 (9:20 pm)
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:03 pm)I only have to wonder what all you Texans did to earn that penance? (lol). Thank GOODNESS our virginal Volts surely haven’t done anything (yet) to earn such treatment! BTW, to a Pennsylvanian, if we had 68 days above 100 degrees, something must have erupted (or Three Mile Island is melting down again).
Weren’t there quite a few comments recently about EV’s like the LEAF being *favored* by warm climes? I don’t think I have it backwards because of the Tennessee release of the LEAF. Or are you thinking more about hideously high heat? I’m not sure that outdoor thermometers around here even HAVE 3 digit numerals.
The more I think about it, Pennsylvania is sounding more and more like a GREAT place for a Volt release!
In any case, I agree with you about that anticipatory tickled feeling regarding the Volts’ wheels hitting the road wherever it is!
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:05 pm)I’ll take mine with a waterfall grille and the Tri-Shield Buick logo.
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:37 pm)Regen is tres cool but it has its limits. Sometimes people forget that first you have to go chemical–>electrical–>mechanical with about 80% efficiency and then, with regen, you have the return trip which has to go mechanical–>electrical–>chemical at about the same efficiency. Multiply those efficiencies together and you get a recovery of about 60%.
If your vehicle has 2x the mass of the vehicle next to you, every acceleration/stop and uphill/downhill means that you’re using, and ultimately losing, 2x the battery capacity.
-2
Feb 19th, 2010 (10:42 pm)This is like being in the beach and seeing a fine looking girl walking by and all you can say is wow in your mind…because the wife is next to me…Nice wow car. There you go GM…This is how car ought to be.
Feb 20th, 2010 (2:00 am)For me major issue – WHEN? Ampera or Flextreme it doesn’t matter. European market can be profitable since gas prices are high, electricity cheap, commuting distances are shorter, climate in general mild, everybody concerned about environment and therefore EREV can easy become mainstream especially in Germany, Holland, France and Scandinavia. Others will follow. Scandinavia very interesting market since EREV can be considered 100% “green” since there is no gas or coal power plants down there. Norway – 100% hydro, Sweden hydro/nuclear, Finland – Nuclear. Only Denmark burns some coal but still 50% is wind and biofuel. France 100% nuclear power generation. Germany has lot of wind. Nuclear has strong opponents in Germany, but EREV could be strong argument to make turn back to the basics.
Feb 20th, 2010 (8:20 am)I agree. The E-Revs should sell well in Europe.
Feb 20th, 2010 (8:53 am)DonC,
I seem to recall you used to post that weight would not be a huge issue with electrics, with the capability to regen and recapture some percent of your kinetic energy.
It appears you have researched this and have had a change in position, which I find admirable. Most people are to stubborn to change a position, even if facts prove it wrong.
I agree that mass will have some affect upon AER. But your statement “.If your vehicle has 2x the mass of the vehicle next to you, every acceleration/stop and uphill/downhill means that you’re using, and ultimately losing, 2x the battery capacity”, is not correct.
Yes physics says F=ma, and therefore the energy to propel a vehicle, will be directly proportional to its mass. But, for several reasons, your statement is false. First all the energy used to propel the car is based upon other things, that do not have a linear relationship to mass, such as friction losses of bearings, wheels, other moving parts of the car. Also, you will recover a certain percent of the losses in regen, and while there will be varying degrees of efficiencies, you will recover basically the same amount of energy, percentage-wise, as a vehicle with a smaller mass. So, you are not losing 2X the battery capacity, your only losing a percent efficiency difference between the less massive car.
All that said, your always better off efficiency wise to have less mass to drag around.
Feb 20th, 2010 (9:00 am)Here we sit, wondering what the new thread of the day will be…(smile).
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 20th, 2010 (9:46 am)What Texans did to “earn that pennance” (lol) was to be the highest generator of carbon dioxide of all States. Not that it remains more concentrated here, but, Austin, in particular, has a major “heat island” effect each Summer. From a combination of lots of things, being inland 250 miles from the Gulf breezes, high concentrations auto’s/concrete/buildings in the metropolitan area, etc.
While there is critically-needed attention about heat affecting the Volt battery, it might be also kept in mind that the discharging times of day would be in the cool mornings (down to 82 degrees maximums from overnight). For instance, even though we had a real “Purgatory Point” here in Austin, the reason why all places that do achieve lots of high heat readings is because they all have, on those days, very low humidity (which greatly allows for quicker heat buildups and losses). (This might be why my purchase of a Volt might have a valid and useful engineering baseline applications data for the GM battery division.)
Therefore, even though the peak temperatures are peaked in the afternoons, just about all Volt drivers here will be utiilizing that battery AER when it is no higher than 82 degrees in the morning. This is an important thing to realize in looking at the overnight “starting out” “lows” as well.
I had discussed this scenario with one of my EE friends three years ago, when I tested the overnight ambient temperature of my garage (thinking in terms of overnight charging thermal loads). (This was after I had examined a Toyota dataset from it’s PCM/Hybrid Battery Data Group, which had a datastream item named [Hybrid Vehicle Battery] “Inhale Air Temperature”). (This could be important to know for the recharge scheduling of the Volt to some extent (for the liquid cooling heat exchanger thermal load in the ambient garage temperature overnight.), as my garage faces West, the hottest direction for radiant heat).
(A 240 volt rate between 2:30 and 6:00 am might be better). But that garage temperature might need further examination.
Latent heat in the garage overnight tended to remain 4 degrees to 6 degrees hotter than the declining outside ambient temperatures for four hours (the “follow-down” was not concurrent). So, I had made some minor adjustments to the top gap on my garage door so that the entire length of it was gapped an additional 3/4ths of an inch, which yeilded about one and a half square feet of gap along the length of the “two-car-wide” overhead type door. I then installed an attic ventilating fan to extract the hottest air (drawing in not-so-hot air), which ventilator is self-controlled by it’s own thermostat. The result was a matched ambient temperature to the outside, and, a cooler attic. The power used to run the ventilator on 120 volts was close to the power saved by the cooler attic, but having the gables properly vented and the house properly weatherized was also extremely important (to prevent a slight positive pressure of hotter attic heat migrating into the house.)
I’m looking at the solar powered ventilators instead (lots quieter too), but I think I want something that will get me around 500 cfm, not just the current 200 cfm models that are currently available. I’m also going to insulate the attic with blown-in insulation, an easy thing to do. That will have me reworking the outside/inside garage ambient temps study once again. But it’s all really fascinating to do, and, to share the results with everyone.
/8:32 local, running late for work. (gotta work 6 days a week to “make room” for a Volt in the budget).
/have a great day everyone!
Feb 20th, 2010 (11:08 am)No rest for the weary! Have a great day too!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 20th, 2010 (4:09 pm)#125
Very cool! Thanks. +1 I hope you get to see this a day late.
Feb 20th, 2010 (7:17 pm)Hi All,
This car looks sleek. GM should bring it to the USA and badge it as a Firebird. The lines of the car reminds me of my 1982 Firebird.
Feb 20th, 2010 (9:54 pm)Anyone figured out how to get on a waiting list, or buy list for one of the Volts yet?
Nothing here in Colorado yet.
Feb 21st, 2010 (4:11 am)I find it strange that I would say that mass wouldn’t matter because it obviously does. Now it may not matter that much relative to aerodynamic drag at higher speeds, and it may not matter that much if you’re considering adding mass in the form of additional cells in the battery pack given the increased range. My guess is that the discussion you’re remembering was in one of those contexts. But if you prefer that I’ve changed my mind that works OK for me. I’m always open to doing that.
However, in this case you are taking what I’m saying out of context. I’m not saying that if mass doubles the range will halve. What I’m saying is that for those losses which are linear with mass — rolling resistance, hill climbing, acceleration– IOW those losses which depend on your F=ma — that doubling the mass will double the losses. Additionally I’m also saying that the chemical–>mechanical conversion losses attributable to producing these forces will likewise be in a 2:1 ratio. But that’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying that other losses, like drive train losses due to motor inefficiencies or losses attributable to aerodynamic drag, would occur in such a fixed ratio.
You actually make the point that these losses will be 2x when you point out that some losses can be recovered by regen. True that. You also say that the percentage of the recovery will be the same. True that. But that’s why battery losses attributable to hill climbing will always be 2x if the masses of the vehicles are 2x — the recovery will always be a percentage so the ratio of the losses will remain constant. For example, if your losses are 100 and 50, and you cut both losses by 10% to 90 and 45, the ratio of the losses — be it 100:50 or 90:45 — remains 2:1. I’ll also note that AFAIK the only losses that can be recaptured by regen are the different energy states attributable to acceleration and hill climbing, both of which involve F=ma. Can you think of one that isn’t?
Feb 22nd, 2010 (9:26 am)Two words come to mind: BOLD, BEAUTIFUL.
Feb 22nd, 2010 (5:04 pm)Now thats a cool f*$#&@! electric car! Go volt so I can get an opel.
Mar 6th, 2010 (8:26 am)[...] reported earlier at GM-Volt.com, the Flextreme GT/E is based on the same Voltec powertrain, featuring the same 16 kWh battery pack, [...]