Sherry Boschert is an electric car advocate who is affiliated with the California-based Plug-in America group. She has also authored a leading book on EVs which was published in 2006.
She and her group participated in one of GM’s Volt drive events earlier this week in California. Needless to say she liked the car, though kept her experience a bit short. “It was a peppy, comfy ride,” she wrote. Boschert and her group were accompanied by several members of the Volt team including a communications staffer named Shad Balch.
She did focus in her piece on two news elements that others have found scintillating.
First she claims someone told here exactly when Volt pricing would be revealed, the aha’ moment we’ve been waiting years for. “GM plans to announce the car’s price in early October,” she casually writes.
This claim remains unsubstantiated though possibly true. Volt marketing manager John Hughes had told GM-Volt “we’ll have much more to say later this summer,” and communications manager Rob Peterson has said GM does have a plan to when pricing will be announced but that it is “much closer to launch.” Is it October? Hard to be sure, but do expect some people to get deliveries of Volts prior to November 1st. Lance Armstrong after all has been promised the first Nissan LEAF on September 1st.
The other claim Boschert makes which is frankly a bit out there, is that GM will begin selling an all-electric car a mere 6 months after the Volt is released, putting it in mid-2011.
I followed up with her on that claim and responded as follows:
It will be an EV version of the Volt. I think they’ve kept quiet because they didn’t want to steal the Volt’s thunder when it’s launched. When I asked GM’s Shad Balch at the test drive when they might have an EV to complement the Volt, he said that their CEO had inadvertently mentioned the Volt EV in a press interview recently, so the secret is out. That’s why he could answer my question with this news.
I have contacted several sources within GM and all categorically deny this statement. Furthermore, following this story as closely as I do, I have never read a comment from Ed Whitacre about a pure EV Volt.
It is well-known GM is studying and researching electric cars, and through a partnership with REVA will be launch an electric Chevy Spark in India this year. There has been no commitment to bring an all electric car to the US at this point, however.
After all, the effort and care GM is putting into the Volt’s launch and marketing message, and the fact that only 8000 Volts will be built through the end of next year, how in the world would or could they also put out a Volt EV within months?
Finally to clarify the situation, we have a statement from Mr. Balch directly for GM-Volt:
There was an obvious misunderstanding on Tuesday when I saw Sherry in San Francisco. GM has not officially announced plans to build an all-electric Volt.
This entry was posted on Friday, May 21st, 2010 at 11:08 am and is filed under BEV. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (11:26 am)The only way I would think GM would even consider an all electric car would be if there was a battery breakthrough that would give 300 to 500 miles one a charge. EVEN THEN the only way I would really be interested is if on a long trip that battery could be charged as fast as it takes to fill a gas tank. That charging technology will not be here for awhile.
The current VOLT is the BEST option for an electric car in this country.
GM’s main focus needs to be… BUILD as many as possible to meet the expected demand ASAP. The window of opportunity is now! Get those plants going 24/7.
Your competitors are watching and will be offering options sooner than later.
I am ready to by my VOLT now. :+}
+16
May 21st, 2010 (11:26 am)Has not officially announced plans to build an all-electric Chevy Volt. Wow! What a strong denial of a possible launch. I think Boschert may be right that GM is trying to avoid anything that might steal any of the Volt’s media attention in any way.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (11:30 am)It would make no sense at all For GM to go pure EV six months after the Volt hits the road !
+13
May 21st, 2010 (11:42 am)I would never consider Sherry Boschert to be a crack pot.
If she said she heard it, then she heard it.
I am perfectly okay with a BEV Volt or something by another name.
They don’t really compete in the same market. I would not buy a BEV Volt until charging is close to instant, charging is as ubiquitous as gas stations are today, and the all electric range is a few hundreds mile at least. So that means an EREV for years to come.
May 21st, 2010 (11:48 am)GM can easily own the EREV market. And I suggest GM take the fuel cell budget and redirect 1/2 straight into EREV technology right now. Let Nissan, Ford, and the smaller players share bits of the BEV market. We’re still waiting on the Go/NoGo from Chrysler on their 3 concept BEV models.
=D-Volt
+1
May 21st, 2010 (11:49 am)GM can easily own the EREV market. GM should take their fuel cell budget and redirect 1/2 of it straight into EREV technology right now. Let Nissan, Ford, and the smaller players share bits of the BEV market. We’re still waiting on the Go/NoGo from Chrysler on their 3 concept BEV models. Plenty of batteries, few EREV.
=D-Volt
+4
May 21st, 2010 (11:56 am)Nice job as always Lyle!
I was one of the people that jumped on this when I read Sherry’s comments yesterday. I’m still not sold on the denial though. “GM has not officially announced plans to build an all-electric Volt” sounds to me like they are building one but aren’t ready to announce it.
Now if Mr. Balach had said ” There was a misunderstanding. GM is not currently planning on building an all-electric Volt anytime in the near future. I apologize for the confusion and will contact Sherry to straighten this out” then I might really believe it was a misunderstanding.
I also find it very difficult to believe that they could sell a BEV Volt so soon, but where there’s smoke….
+1
May 21st, 2010 (12:03 pm)I agree. Especially given their limited capacity on the Volt assembly line. They need to use it all for EREVs, IMHO.
-1
May 21st, 2010 (12:04 pm)Free advice GM!
The next EREV should rotate the placement of the battery so that the T is in the front and the ICE is in the rear of the vehicle. Doing this will allow better air cooling of the battery and require a smaller exhaust system for the ICE.
NPNS!
-3
May 21st, 2010 (12:08 pm)If GM is floating a trial balloon, I hope it flies like lead. Why waste precious batteries on something that makes no sense right now.
+3
May 21st, 2010 (12:20 pm)Maybe GM’s capacity is a lot higher than we have been led to believe.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (12:28 pm)As things stand now, GM will be the go-to provider for EREV; a system with practical benefits not available in the many battery-only vehicles emerging. I would think that this is a perception well worth encouraging. If and when BEV-time comes to GM, I think they should call it something other than Volt.
+11
May 21st, 2010 (12:40 pm)You can buy an all-electric Volt in November 2010…. just buy a Volt and don’t gas it up. The range won’t be great, but hey…
+11
May 21st, 2010 (12:48 pm)But there is one thing that everyone seems to be missing:
If GM comes out with a 100 mile BEV, then it could be lower cost, to fight the pricing of the Leaf, and be DIRECT competition. By stripping out all the fancy features and very tricky changeover from battery to ICE mode, the BEV model would be much simpler to build, and therefore less expensive.
It would then put the Volt into a class all by itself.
Because right now, everyone seems to be comparing the Volt to the Leaf, which we know is incorrect, but to Joe and Jane Customer, who knows nothing about these types of vehicles, they would seem to be the same…..
I need the extended range of the Volt. If GM would build a snappy BEV, then my wife would have no problem with that.
Just another line of thought!
Have Outlet – Ready For EREV
NPNS
-1
May 21st, 2010 (12:55 pm)Plug In America is full of the people that protested and tried to stop the EV1 death. Their web site is barely searchable by Google indicating a poor search-engine-friendly design. Plus they are in your face about donating to their cause. I don’t particularly like their way of doing things.
I don’t know the reputation of Ms. Boschert, but, she is credible having published. That said, the PIA website screams of shoe-string budget and reminds me of those ‘run your car on water’ sites.
I think that a BEV Chevrolet for US market is more than 6-months down the road. I doubt that GM will dive into the pure EV space until LEAF settles down somewhat and the technology is more robust. There is no rush, like a mandate from CARB, to make it happen fast.
GM, having been the first major to bring a pure EV to market, is well positioned to quickly market an offering if BEVs take off like a rocket. I just don’t think that’s in the cards for the immediate future.
-5
May 21st, 2010 (1:01 pm)GM probably does not have a fuel cell budget anymore, but that does not stop them from fishing for government grants.
May 21st, 2010 (1:05 pm)Actually a supply/cost battery breakthrough allowing a large production increase in Volts and the launch of a new BEV line (even with their larger packs) might be enough. I would hope that the BEV’s range would exceed the LEAF’s, if only to allow a range equivalent to their competitors’ but with the heat or a/c going; however, the real deal is how many cells can be manufactured at a reasonable price. Based solely on what (little) we know about LG cell production, I wouldn’t look for a GM BEV for at least 3 years (following Volt-in-the-showroom).
+2
May 21st, 2010 (1:09 pm)Very interesting comment Jim I. This would make marketing the Volt as an upscale or up-sell way easier to swallow.
It’s all about how they position Volt in the lineup. With a ‘little brother’ so to speak, the Volt’s position becomes ‘big brother’.
We have speculated here before that the Volt could come with a ‘engine-delete’ option and also with different battery range options.
Maybe the newer battery designs are way better than we are thinking. Something was said a while back about ‘solid state’ batteries for GenIII.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (1:15 pm)They could call it the Chevrolet Sparrow in honor of our kahlua-swilling pirate friend.
May 21st, 2010 (1:23 pm)Take out $2k engine and put in $8k+ batteries makes it cheaper???
+2
May 21st, 2010 (1:34 pm)This does not clarify anything. Mr. Balch is just saying that they have not announced such plan, and Sherry did not say that GM had announced it officially, either. He did not say that the information is not correct.
QUOTE:
Finally to clarify the situation, we have a statement from Mr. Balch directly for GM-Volt:
There was an obvious misunderstanding on Tuesday when I saw Sherry in San Francisco. GM has not officially announced plans to build an all-electric Volt.
May 21st, 2010 (1:37 pm)EESTOR powered VOLT – who needs an ICE with 500 miles range!!!
+1
May 21st, 2010 (1:43 pm)LOL, where would they make it in a stealth facility? Somehow after all the talk of Volt transparency that seems a little out there. I can imagine the advertising. The Volt EV available in May 2011, haha, it was right under your nose all the time, gotcha!!!
The point of 40 mile AER and a range extender was to make the car affordable though.
+5
May 21st, 2010 (1:50 pm)One small problem, with the safety panels removed from an EESTOR powered VOLT, hey fella, I don’t think you should touch that -poof- hey where’d he go?
May 21st, 2010 (1:55 pm)HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!
+2
May 21st, 2010 (1:58 pm)So Lance Armstrong is going to go from a recently Chip-Foos-Overhauled GTO, to the catfish car.. what a leap.
+10
May 21st, 2010 (2:03 pm)Of course they’re building a BEV. They would be crazy not to and here’s why:
1. The “electric car” market is fractured and will continue to be. No one knows for sure what the public will buy and most bets are that it will be a complex mix. In other words there will be space for smaller, short range, urban BEVs like the Leaf and for bigger, faster, longer range vehicles like the Volt, and eventually for minivans/truck type vehicles. For GM to only sell in one of those markets, and by extension only amortize their considerable R&D costs across one of those markets, would be idiotic.
2. As they have said themselves, getting to a BEV from the Volt is “easy” The R&D is done, they have the parts, they have multiple platforms to insert it into. They can get from here to there with virtually zero cost or time.
3. They’re watching the unreal climb in pre-orders for the Leaf, and despite all the marketing hype from them, they’re not 100% sure everyone is going to want a Volt instead of a Leaf. So, they need to hedge their bets and crank out a BEV.
4. They understand BEVs give certain users in certain states, like me, a key advantage over the Volt model, in that i can drive a Leaf in the car pool lane with only one occupant. I can’t do that with a Volt. So, while i might prefer a Volt for all other reasons, the likelihood is that i’m going to buy a leaf, because saving 40 minutes of my life every day has a much higher value for me than pretty much anything else.
5. last, but not least, they have probably figured out that the Volt is over engineered and that the batteries are way more robust than they originally gave them credit for. So they can probably crank out a BEV with a smaller battery, less cooling, deeper draw-down on the total charge etc, and sell a BEV with “true” 100+ mile range for the same price as the Leaf.
Trust me, they will launch a BEV within 12 months of the first sale of the first Volt.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (2:05 pm)Right. Three years ago.
Maybe the batteries are much better than we are thinking. Maybe removing a $2k engine and installing $2k more batteries will now give you a BEV-100 Volt. Or, take out a $2k engine and $8k of old-tech pack and install $6k of new-tech pack! Voila!
How the heck is Nissan doing it? They can’t be that much smarter than GM.
-2
May 21st, 2010 (2:08 pm)I wish we knew more about the volt from a technical point. I hope GM built the volt to be very modular. It be nice to have the option of buying/swapping the genset for a fuel cell or more batteries or whatever. What would be great is if the user could leave the genset at home and use extra batteries, until a long trip is needed, then swap the extra batteries for the genset. Oh well ….
Someone mentioned that the genset may have a clutch which allows the genset to connect to the wheels for reg braking. Anyone know if the genset has ANY mechanical connection to the wheels? I don’t see why the genset would need to perform the reg braking. The motor should be able to do the reg braking.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (2:12 pm)we have the range extended Volt, RE-VOLT
or the electric vehicle with extended range, EVER-VOLT
with a pure battery car, it could be called BOLT, or BE-VOLT
I think i like E-VOLT for the range extended one.. looks like evoloution
and B-VOLT for the battery only version.
(Sorry, its a Friday afternoon and its been a long week)
+3
May 21st, 2010 (2:15 pm)They are losing $ on every one they build, that’s how.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (2:19 pm)=======================
Agreed.
Plus:
I think the ICE, generator, and all that control electronics has to cost quite a bit more than $2K. And don’t forget about removing all of the cool digital displays and touch pad center console, high tech radio, and higher end interior finishes. All those add cost.
I think GM could put out a 100 mile BEV “Plain Jane” vehicle in the low $20K price range. That would be the “Sparrow Limited Edition” version. I think my wife would want the “Captain Sparky” with the LTZ trim option priced at about $28K. Both would sell pretty well IMHO.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (2:22 pm)True technology marches on. Someone wrote that Nissan’s battery partnership with NEC gives them a big advantage?
May 21st, 2010 (2:26 pm)A ‘connection’ doesn’t necessarily have to be mechanical. It’s probably electrical (wires, not gears).
+2
May 21st, 2010 (2:41 pm)I will take any bet. I say GM will not come out with a all electric Volt in 2011.
Any bets.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (2:43 pm)Sigh, ya gotta love the internet. Someone says, “I wonder if [something]“, or “Wouldn’t it be neat if [something]“, and suddenly people are broadcasting [something] as fact. Oh well, it all sorts itself out in the end, doesn’t it.
My *theory* is that it was something like:
Sherry: “An all-electric Volt wouldn’t be too tough to build, would it?”
Shad: “Yeah, that would be fairly easy. Probably would just take a few months to do it.”
Sherry runs to her PC: “…cheery news from GM about an all-electric version that will follow 6 months after…”, etc…
The above is just a wild guess, I wasn’t there, but you get the point. Sometimes people hear what they want to hear, and/or put their own slant on things. I’m not so sure that our old-school (newspaper, TV) commercial news organizations are much better in this regard.
May 21st, 2010 (3:00 pm)Roger, it’s much more than just an random internet exaggeration. A couple months back Shad was quoted in a Car & Driver article saying GM will make an EV Volt because they know a lot of people would want one. The real question here is the validity of the “six months after” comment.
I’d be really surprised myself if we see a BEV Volt before 2012, but I do expect to see one within three years for sure. Why wouldn’t GM make one? All the difficult engineering is done and as many here have pointed out the battery pack is over engineered to last 150,000+ in the current EREV config. GM could add another 6 or 7KWH and allow the battery to operate from 20% to 100% of the packs potential instead of the 30% to 80% is is currently allowed to use. Maybe then you only get 120,000-140,000 miles before you fall below 80% efficiency, but for many urban environment drivers, that’s 10 years!
An EV like this wouldn’t be good for everyone like the EREV Volt is, but there are lot’s of folks that would jump at it, just ask the 18,000 people that put $99 down on the catfish.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (3:03 pm)I dont know how much the ICE with exhaust, gas tank and radiator cost.. perhaps $2k perhaps a bit less.. but the generator and inverter attached to the ICE is probably $2500 all by itself.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (3:06 pm)Note: the 10 year/150k miles warranty is a CARB emissions requirement for a hybrid, but it does not apply to a simple BEV.
May 21st, 2010 (3:08 pm)Here’s the Car & Driver article where Lutz & Shad both confirm they are working on a Volt BEV:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/pure-ev-chevrolet-volt-in-the-works-according-to-lutz/
+2
May 21st, 2010 (3:10 pm)Just remove the ICE genset and save it for a rainy day … saving weight. While you’re at it, remove the gas tank and exhaust system too … saving even more weight. Then when you’re ready for a long trip, sell the ICE genset et al, and with the extra money load up few high energy battery packs using the free space and weight capacity.
Voila !!! Volt BEV
Wouldn’t it be great if the Volt ICE genset was an option?
The cash saved could pay for the extra batteries if/when needed.
Seems like a piece of cake for GM, so why not make it an option in the near future (6 months) ?
May 21st, 2010 (3:13 pm)Gettelfinger and the UAW are already pressuing to get into NUMMI. I doubt Toyota will want anything to do w/them.
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/21/reuters-uaw-pressuring-tesla-toyota-to-hire-union-worker/
-9
May 21st, 2010 (3:15 pm)That this news attracts so much attention shows a pent-up demand and demonstrates that many many engineers within GM never wanted the ICE to begin with (including B. Lutz).
The ICE is so overrated and will be a huge Achilles heel for the Volt and will guarantee the Volt will never be produced in very large numbers.
The sooner GM begins crushing ice the better and it will mark the day when GM took EV production seriously.
Get Serious GM.
-7
May 21st, 2010 (3:21 pm)I am sure some enterprising young engineers are already planning on replacing the Volt’s ICE with an extended battery thus turning the lowly hybrid Volt into a high performance EV that everyone really wanted to begin with.
Youth in Revolt.
May 21st, 2010 (3:40 pm)Well, I would be offended if a significant portion of Volt production is diverted to BEV versions. I would NOT be offended if they displayed a handful of Volts configured as BEV’s as proof of concepts. It would ALSO explain why GM has been so doggedly talking about the need for “infrastructure”. If the Volt takes off the way we at this site believe, then total volume of production should be spoken for and a BEV version to drive the demand higher to get cheaper production just does not make sense. Maybe it is just plain hedging bets on EV’s and getting enough public acceptance.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (3:40 pm)Very carefully parsed. Note he didn’t say “has no plans to build an all-electric Chevy Volt”. The operative weasel word here is “officially”. GM may have plans. It may have told some people of those plans. But it hasn’t “officially” announced the plans.
Actually the hemming and hawing from Mark Reuss about the ultimate success of BEVs vs. EREVs and Lyle’s phone interview with Bob Lutz, where he says a pure EV would make sense but won’t talk about it, does suggest something is in the works.
No big deal for me. EREV is still the better solution IMHO. It’s also at least a level of magnitude more difficult to implement a EREV than it is to do an all electric, so obviously if GM can build an EREV version they can build a BEV version.
May 21st, 2010 (3:42 pm)Will never happen for the VOLT (too attached to gas) 2013 or further EV only model…maybe
GO EV !!!
May 21st, 2010 (3:44 pm)Sssssh POOP, don’t let any secrets out !!!
GO EV!!!!
-2
May 21st, 2010 (3:46 pm)As long as there’s a scarcity of Volts relative to demand, I know I’d like to see them make volts. But on the other hand, if the capacity for bev volts comes out of malibu production at Hamtramck, then the more’s the merrier! Better to make some bev volts than to have people taking perfectly good erev vehicles and pulling the range extenders out, which you know some are going to do.
They wouldn’t have nearly so much of that problem if the engine were able to be fueled by biodiesel or at least alcohol. Some people would probably feel less compelled to remove it, but I’m just speculating. I know it kind of bugs me that the engine won’t be flex fuel capable. They all should be at this point so people working on that kind of bio fuel tech can be assured of a market. Otherwise, we’re really limiting our realistic options for displacing oil.
+4
May 21st, 2010 (3:48 pm)Why not just build an electric Chevy Cruze? Ford is building a Focus Electric Vehicle.
-2
May 21st, 2010 (3:50 pm)“GM Denies All Electric Volt Coming Six Months After Launch”
Makes perfect sense. It would confuse joe/jane public whether to pick the VOLT or the JOLT. Best to play the “wait & see” hand and watch how Nissan, Mitsu, Ford, Tesla, Toyota, & others fare with a BEV first, then enter the market…
GO EV !!!
+2
May 21st, 2010 (4:04 pm)Diverting VOLT battery capacity from EREV to BEV doesn’t make sense. There’s a lot of competition on the horizon in the BEV field, Nissan, Mitsubishi, maybe Chrysler, Tesla, maybe even BYD. Other than the PHEV Prius — clearly inferior to the Volt — there’s no EREV competition on the horizon other than Fisker.
“Hit ‘em where they ain’t,” a wise man once said. Where they ain’t is EREV. BEV is where they is.
(I’ll park my Fisker right next to my wife’s Volt. In my dreams.)
May 21st, 2010 (4:07 pm)AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
Yup, that’d be the model i’d buy. No fancy schmancy stuff.
GM is in a binding contract with LG for a fixed amount of $$$ for a fixed amount of cells in the millions probably. Even if they plan to yank the genset out, it will cost more to put in LG cells than anything.
May 21st, 2010 (4:14 pm)Even if GM utilizes the 16KWh batt pack to 80% DOD, that would maybe get them ~70 mile range. That would be a big turn off for many. The Volts “T” pack makes it difficult to add more capacity.
I’m gonna take a swag at the fact that they might be able to cram in 96 “Pouch” 10Ah (3.3KWh) style cells that they use in the compartment the genset occupied. But still won’t add too much in range.
I think a BEV Spark would be the best candidate.
JMHO
May 21st, 2010 (4:18 pm)That’s crazy. Where I am going to charge it while I am on a trip?
May 21st, 2010 (4:19 pm)We have been told repeatedly that there is NO connection from the ICE generator to the wheels. This is a series hybrid. But this is a variant of the 2-mode hybrid transmission which has several automatic style clutches in it. It is a reasonable guess that the Volt version has 2 of these clutches to switch the “generator electric motor” from being connected to the ICE generator to connecting to the drive motor. I believe it is this arrangement that gives the “sport mode” and superior regen braking. Note that only one of these clutches would be engaged at any given time, if they were both engaged then the ICE would be connected to the wheels (no advantage here, would result in reduced mpg).
May 21st, 2010 (4:40 pm)It’s a shame that only the local parks will see the kids of EV drivers. Camping trips will be a hike!
What’s the range of any BEV with a loaded roof rack, bikes, camping gear…
Or maybe they’ll just stay home a lot. Watch a nice video or two.
May 21st, 2010 (4:43 pm)Here’s an interesting calculation on battery life. Battery life is figured two ways, calendar life which is just plain age and cycle life. If a Volt goes 150k miles entirely by battery (worst case) then the battery has to cycle 150k/40 = 3750 times. If the Nissan goes 150k miles it’s battery cycles 150k/100 = 1500 times. Now the question is if you cycle half as many times, how much closer can you get to 70% battery usage instead of 50%? Assuming you can get the 20% more this way then 40*7/5= 56 miles so if the BEV version of the Volt had twice the battery, 32kWh instead of 16kWh then it would have a range of 112 miles. I think I read somewhere that the Volt battery weighs 400 lbs, and I imagine the ICE weight is similar.
+4
May 21st, 2010 (4:44 pm)I don’t want an all electric car with 300 to 500 miles of range. Until there is a charging station at every gas station and I can charge 200 miles in 10 minutes. That’s a long way off. When that comes I can deal with it. Until then having a 300 mile battery is just a waste of expensive materials when I only drive 40 miles a day like the average American. GM has it exactly right with this car. The brains that developed it’s concept are far superior to the average person at this site. I don’t care if I’m upsetting most of you. Also, McGruber wasn’t as good as I hoped it’d be. I’d wait for video.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (4:53 pm)I like the name Bolt, ’cause that’s how quick GM should move away from even thinking about a BEV…. right now.
May 21st, 2010 (4:53 pm)True, with pure BEV the lighter the better. The Tesla Roadster is a great example of power to weight ratio. The less weight to move. The less battery needed. The less charge time needed.
I saw a recent article covering battery assist sail boats. These large “sail” boats have semi rigid solar panel sails. Solar power drives a prop to assist the sailboat. In bright sunlight the boat can travel at 5 knots (5.8 mph) on solar alone. Solar assist is also used on barges and tourist craft.
=D-Volt
May 21st, 2010 (4:55 pm)A BEV now would be like offering tylenol to a Heroin addict before giving him methadone or whatever it is.
May 21st, 2010 (4:57 pm)That looks like a simple factual statement too.
This is what you would call a non-denial denial. He didn’t say anything what was inconsistent with “Bev in six months”.
Infact, in politics, we would call that a confirmation,
May 21st, 2010 (4:58 pm)That all depends on the depth of discharge. The volt operates in a sweet spot in the batt packs DOD. The LEAF will be a flat out DOD to 70%, maybe 80%, just a SWAG cuz they never post it. If you want to get the MOST use out of a batt pack, then a deeper DOD is what you want to do. If you want the thing to last longer, then you “short cycle” the DOD, which is what the Volt does. Most DIY BEV’s will take the plunge to 80% DOD and that’s normal.
I think your right. If not, all the ICE crap put together may weigh more. You have to consider the onboard generator too. That with exhaust pipes, cat converter, muffler, sensors, cables and harnesses, bolts, fuel tank, fuel pump, filters, radiator & coolant etc….it might be more than 400lbs.
May 21st, 2010 (5:02 pm)lol…
Thanks for the review. I think i’ll do as you suggest.
May 21st, 2010 (5:03 pm)I don’t think GM wants to take the PR hit of having dead Volts stranded along every freeway next to the dead Leafs.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (5:05 pm)I’m not quite following you there. Inverter? As I understand it, the generator connects directly to the DC bus, like this:
For the last 10-15 years, the term “generator” in automotive context has meant something that converts mechanical spinning to DC electricity. I don’t understand how a generator can cost $2500, particularly when it shares the same housing as the electric motor.
My guess for the generator is more like $500.
May 21st, 2010 (5:06 pm)Roy H
Okay I guess I stated it wrong. I know there is no physical connect of the ICE to the drive shaft and the ICE does not drive the car, but the ICE is connected to the generator and I am wondering if the generator has a mechanical connection to anything other than the ICE. I guess my point was that I was wondering if the GenSet could be removed easily and not affect performance other than the range. It was my understanding that the genset is the ICE and Generator and it does not do anything except produce electricity. If the GenSet connected to the driveshaft or motor, then you must have the genset or get reduced performance. I though the motor was the ONLY thing that drive the car. Sorry, but I really want to understand how it all works.
-5
May 21st, 2010 (5:11 pm)Well of course GM won’t deliver a real EV in the US. It would make too much sense, but they are with Reva. They need to keep their sleeping buddy, Arab Sheiks, happy and continue to deliver an internal combustion engine to every car they sell in the US. GM is sleeping with the enemy. This gurantees that the US will always be dependent and tethered to the sand lands for their product. The least thing they could have done is make the internal combustion engine e85 or flex fuel, but alas, they have to keep our enemies happy to keep them well funded.
Range Anxiety = Dependent on foreign oil
+2
May 21st, 2010 (5:11 pm)Exactly! For the state of technology right now, the GM Volt is the ideal solution. It is an electric car that fits seamlessly into the existing infrastructure.
When batteries come way down in price and way up in energy and power density, then we can talk about practical BEVs.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (5:16 pm)Dave G
If the generator is known as an alternator, then you need an inverter to change AC to DC.
-1
May 21st, 2010 (5:17 pm)Dave G
If the generator is known as an alternator, then you need an inverter to change AC to DC. But I’m just a business major, so I could be wrong.
+8
May 21st, 2010 (5:20 pm)GM has not denied that they are going to deliver a BEV Volt, they denied that they had officially announced it. So they get their huge splash in November when everyone realizes that they can drive 95% of the time using cheap American electricity instead of dirty, expensive foreign oil. The Volt becomes a big hit. 3 months later GM announces, oh by the way, if you are willing to accept a short range version, our 24 kWh pack in the Volt-BEV will take you 95 miles before you need to plug it back in. The pack costs $4000 more ($12,000 vs. $8,000) but since we don’t need the ICE and EREV specific parts, the costs are about the same. You choose, unlimited range for a Volt, or all electric simplicity in the Volt-BEV.
I think there would be a market for both, albeit a much larger one for the EREV. By 2013, the packs will be 15% less in cost and size, so the EREV pack will be around $6800 and the BEV pack will be closer to $11,000 but the AER is now 110 miles. Repeat every two years. In ten years or so the EREV won’t make sense anymore because the pack prices will drop enough that even an econobox can afford 200+ mile range and there is a nationwide infrastructure of fastcharging stations. But the Volt-BEV won’t change the market fundamentals. Right now and for the next 8-10 years, EREV’s will be cheaper than BEV’s, unless you dump the batteries, which you can only do for a short period of time. Volt is the first EREV to come into production, it will see rapid price drops as the economies of scale kick in on EREV intent parts.
Regardless, the next 10 years are going to be interesting in the automotive sector, and downright uncomfortable in the OPEC sector, one can hope.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (5:22 pm)Keep thinking that, and tell the sheiks not to worry. Let them just wonder why there are less exports to the US after Volts become the “car” to have.
May 21st, 2010 (5:23 pm)I doubt that. Maybe if it was mfgr’d in the few hundred thousands but it’s not. The generator is most likely a smaller version of the traction motor.
I think the inverter he is talking about is the DC power inverter that converts the DC power to AC for the AC induction motor.
Also, your diagrams need to include a power full wave bridge rectifier to convert the AC out from the generator to DC. Otherwise when your AC cycle gets to the negative excursion of the sine wave, you’re imposing a short circuit or a “current sink” to the batt pack. Or should we assume it’s already rectified, filtered and regulated?
May 21st, 2010 (5:29 pm)Hey, any international finance peeps out there?
The iMiEV is now being sold in Japan and according to ABG the conversion to US $$$ brings the JelleyBean car to $50,000.00?
Great googley mooogley!!!
That be a sh|tload of $$$!
+1
May 21st, 2010 (5:32 pm)Not too far off topic. Another American success story. The first commercial airplane built by Boeing in 1928, flying next to their latest offering, which is doing well in testing.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (5:40 pm)Let’s say GM wanted to build a Volt based BEV-100. How much would that cost relative to a Volt EREV-40?
The CEO of the company that built the Volt’s prototype battery packs already quoted a price of $8000. This corresponds to $1000/available kWh, or $500/ total kWh.
But with a BEV, you don’t need the buffer for the range extender mode, so you can use 70% of total capacity for the BEV, vs. 50% of total capacity for an EREV.
The Volt gets 40 miles range on 8 available 8kW, or 5 miles/available kWh. That means a BEV-100 Volt would need 20 available kWh. With 70% of total capacity available for use, that would be 28.5 total kWh. At $500/total kWh, a Volt BEV-100 battery pack would cost $14,250.
That’s $6250 more than a Volt EREV-40 battery pack. Assuming the Volt’s ICE/genset costs around $2000, that means a Volt BEV-100 should cost around $4000 more than a Volt EREV-40, all things being equal.
Since it looks like the Leaf and Volt will be priced about the same, or perhaps the the Volt even costs more, that tells me that all things are not equal, which may include:
1) Nissan is using a cheaper design for the battery pack and other components
2) Nissan has lower company overhead and supplier costs
3) Nissan is losing money on each car while GM is not
4) GM is padding up the price of the Volt for early adopters
I suspect all 4 of these are correct to one degree or another.
But no matter which of these 4 is correct, one thing becomes exceedingly clear:
Nissan could build an EREV-40 version of the Leaf for $4000 less than the BEV-100 Leaf.
I hope Nissan understands this as well and lets the market decide by offering a Leaf EREV-40…
-1
May 21st, 2010 (5:41 pm)Yeah, 2 clutches I think. One to disengage it from the ICE and the other to engage it to the traction motor for more kick, as well as brake regen (so I’ve read).
The ICE might be easily removed but the “Generator” itself is, I think, in the same housing as the traction motor. So there are 2 motor/generators bolted in one housing. Is it easy to remove, I wouldn’t know.
Did I explain that OK?
May 21st, 2010 (5:45 pm)Great article! GA is also my biggest earning. However, it’s not a much.
-10
May 21st, 2010 (5:50 pm)(click to show comment)
May 21st, 2010 (5:57 pm)A regular generator costs around $30 wholesale, and that includes the rectifier diodes. My $500 cost estimate assumes specialized pricing. The Prius uses a 60kW permanent magnet motor/generator, so a 53kW generator wouldn’t have to be an AC induction type.
Yes, but if you removed the ICE/genset, you would still need the inverter (a.k.a. motor controller). So that’s why I don’t understand what he was getting at.
Over the last 10-15 years, the term “generator” has largely replaced the term “alternator” in automotive context. My point is that when you say “generator” it implies that the diodes are included, so the output is essentially DC.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (6:05 pm)The term inverter refers to something that converts DC to AC.
To convert AC to DC that connects to a battery, all you need are some power diodes, which are usually just built into the generator (a.k.a. alternator).
+3
May 21st, 2010 (6:05 pm)Off topic, but Nissan is planning on installing “Level Three” rapid chargers at many of its dealers. Thus if you are planning to travel more than say 35 miles from your household parking spot, your “EV-IT” nav system will tell you where to get charged up. Thus you could top off your Leaf in about 30 minutes after you traveled about 70 miles at a Nissan dealership.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (6:05 pm)Not a 53KW one.
OK, so I didn’t understand him either…..lol
Your right it will need to stay.
Ah….OK, I gotcha now.
May 21st, 2010 (6:17 pm)That’s only in Japan dude. But it’s a good idea for them to do the same here in the states. Sh|t, i’ll sit around the dealership for 30 mins to bullsh|t for a free charge.
Did you see the price for one?
$16,200.00 for one!!……………that starting price…………………………DAAAAAAAAMN!!!
May 21st, 2010 (6:53 pm)#29
So, are you back from South America? How was that?
May 21st, 2010 (7:00 pm)#34
Not me. On reflection, I have to believe that you are right. I think that Mr. Lutz, et al, said from the beginning that the whole point of EREV was to counter the strong range anxiety they learned about with the EV1.
Otherwise, why go through the laborious process of developing all of this new technology? If they had wanted to build a BEV, I would think that they could have had it on the road by now.
So I have come around to your way of thinking. I expect that they will stick with the EREV for the foreseeable future, and let Nissan take the “range anxiety” risk.
When the Spark comes along, maybe they could bring a few BEV ones over from “The Raj” to test the waters??
+4
May 21st, 2010 (7:00 pm)“There was an obvious misunderstanding on Tuesday when I saw Sherry in San Francisco. GM has not officially announced plans to build an all-electric Volt.”
Definitely NOT a denial.
“GM plans to announce the car’s price in early October,” she casually writes.
I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.
There will be a huge press junket for Obama and his coat tails just before the election trying to take FULL CREDIT for the VOLT. You just wait and see…!
May 21st, 2010 (7:06 pm)Since the power controls and firmware are already in place, wouldn’t it be far less expensive to do this electronically? I believe Bob Lutz said there would be no transmission at one point-which led some to guess a reduction gear was the plan back then. Time will tell.
May 21st, 2010 (7:06 pm)#54
It’s not crazy, it’s just Poop.
May 21st, 2010 (7:15 pm)#75
Yeah, but aren’t there some massive gov’t subsidies in Japan? My understanding was that they are going to price it in Japan so that the cost to the end user, net of the subsidies, would be about the same as it will be here. Mitsu sucks up the subsidy as pure profit. Or, it’s another way for the Japanese gov’t to incentivize BEVs to get off of imported oil.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (7:19 pm)$30,000-$50,000 installed v $300,000 to $500,000 for hydrogen. Conclusions anyone?
May 21st, 2010 (7:25 pm)#88
I really like 99% of your comments, and I give you “+1s” all the time. It clearly adds value to the blog to have folks on the front line contributing. That said, I could do without the Obama stuff. Don’t you have any customers who are Democrats? -1.
May 21st, 2010 (7:28 pm)CaptJackSparrow: Van: Nissan is planning on installing “Level Three” rapid chargers at many of its dealers.
That’s only in Japan dude. But it’s a good idea for them to do the same here in the states. Sh|t, i’ll sit around the dealership for 30 mins to bullsh|t for a free charge.
Did you see the price for one?
$16,200.00 for one!!……………that starting price…………………………DAAAAAAAAMN!!
It’ll take at least 10 mins. for them to find somebody to tell you they don’t have any Diesel Rabbit trade ins.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (7:32 pm)You may be right about this.
When Congress was debating the auto bailout, many Republicans didn’t seem to mind so much if GM closed their doors and went Chapter 7. This was particularly true for Republicans with foreign auto plants in their states.
So it’s quite possible Republicans made some enemies at GM over the last couple of years…
May 21st, 2010 (7:33 pm)The diagrams depict power flow and electrical connections, but some things don’t seem quite right:
* One scenario missing is starting of the ICE. DC from the battery will need to back-drive the generator as a starter motor to spin the ICE. Since the “generator” is probably actually an alternator (i.e., AC), there will need to be some power conversion circuitry involved.
* The generator provides average power to the battery during charge-sustaining mode, but does not provide power directly to the motor.
* My guess is that all of the various power conversions will be done in the one “Motor Controller” box, such that the plug, generator, drive motor, and battery will all have connections to the motor controller, which will then distribute power as needed.
Conversions:
1. Single phase AC plug –> DC battery (charging),
2. DC battery –> 3 phase AC drive motor (charge depletion – driving for the first 40 miles),
3. 3 phase AC drive motor –> DC battery (regenerative braking),
4. DC battery –> 3 phase AC generator (acting as a motor to start the engine), and
5. 3 phase AC generator –> DC battery (charge sustaining – driving after 40 miles),
+1
May 21st, 2010 (7:38 pm)I don’t know how much I can say, but I am involved with the 787, and the electronics technology is incredible! … part of the reason why I am also interested in electric cars.
May 21st, 2010 (7:48 pm)I hope they give away like a free case of beer with every volt you buy.
-3
May 21st, 2010 (7:49 pm)GM has the technology to easily build a pure EV but no one has the right power source.
The Hydrogen fuel cell is the most logical solution but our government just defunded Hydrogen research last year. We were in line to have Hydrogen as a fuel in less than 5 years… but now it seems that may not be the case. I think once enough people are educated about the electric driveline we will see more interest in Hydrogen fuel cells. GM has put 2 million miles on a test fleet of Hydrogen fuel cell Equinox’s … and since these vehicles have hit the road GM has lowered the price to build the fuel cells while also significantly cutting the size, weight and life of them.
Hydrogen fuel cell CUV.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (7:56 pm)CaptJackSparrow
Would you please point me to some articles? I have read some articles about series hybrids and did some other research and I don’t understand why they would want to connect the generator to the traction motor with a clutch when the traction motor is suppose to be the only thing that drives the volt. Does this mean if the ICE breaks, one can not use the sport mode? The traction motor should be able to act as a generator for reg braking. I can understand a clutch for the ICE and gen since the ICE may need to get to speed before the gen kicks in. Basically I though the volt would be like taking an pure EV and putting a ICE Generator in the trunk. I guess I will find out later.
Thanks
+3
May 21st, 2010 (7:59 pm)Thank God the government stopped throwing money away on fuel cell research! Sure it works, and works well but the fuel itself takes more energy to produce than it produces. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy not a supplier. Then take into account you need to compress it tremendously to get enough of it to move a vehicle far, and build an infrastructure akin to what we have now with gasoline and you realize it may have potential but there are currently too many hurdles for it to be a usable, affordable fuel. Hybrid/EREV/BEV & ultra efficient gasoline & diesel engines are what we need to be currently focusing on.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (8:09 pm)Thanks, I’d never read that they cut the life of them, that is news
On a serious note, I can’t imagine how an energy carrier that requires three times the energy input of an ICE can be practical. Not saying my ability to imagine is that great, but still. I could see work on methanol fuel cells but hydrogen just seems to carry a host of problems.
May 21st, 2010 (8:33 pm)Any good electric bicycle reccomendations? Cheaper the better. Anyone own one?
May 21st, 2010 (8:46 pm)I never liked that politicians constantly take credit for all the things that hard working people do with the money collected from hard working taxpayers. Something just doesn’t work with that picture. Seems like the middleman saying, yep see all this, I built it with my own hands and my own money.
Wouldn’t make much of a headline though if you asked a politician about a public project and he went on and on about how hard it was to build a coalition for it, and that it’s important to build consensus when there is no obvious mandate. Heck, I’m yawning just writing about it. But I’ve come to realize it’s just a part of their jobs. If they didn’t say how wonderful they were doing, we’d have nothing to go by but their reputations and the general comments that the public makes about them
Yep – that’s his job. Just another way to get paid 400k, get world famous and make millions from speaking once the term is up. I wouldn’t want the job though, give up your Blackberry due to privacy concerns, no chance!
+2
May 21st, 2010 (10:29 pm)#73 ZIV filled in information on my thinking very well.
Get those VOLTS built at full speed 24/7 .. to get the market share GM deserves and car most of us want.
When the charging technology, battery density, and battery cost drop enough a BEV VOLT will make a lot of sense… (probably in an increasing crowded world of BEVs.)
ER BEV VOLTS now BEV Volts later… “Works for Me”
+3
May 21st, 2010 (10:33 pm)I think the EV-1 experience gave GM a clear notion of what it would take to build a practical and widely accepted BEV. That’s why the volt is an EREV. Doesn’t mean BEV R+D is gone. If they believe the market is there, making one is simple after putting together the Volt. BEV volt might be Plan B if Leaf appears to actually sell better than expected.
+2
May 21st, 2010 (10:41 pm)I don’t think GM has answered how the ICE starts. IIRC, they have said there will be a 12 volt battery for running accessories and jump-starting other vehicles, so the ICE may have a standard starter motor. But again, we just don’t know. That’s why I didn’t include this on the chart.
From the information GM has provided so far, it appears your statement is not correct. Electrical energy can flow directly from the ICE/genset to the electric motor, bypassing the battery. This improves efficiency by eliminating electrical->chemical->electrical conversions, except for occasional heavy acceleration or high speed uphill driving. It probably also saves wear on the battery during charge-sustaining mode.
First, we already know that the battery charger is a separate box just in front of the driver wheel well. This box is connected to the plug and to the battery. GM has shown this very clearly in various diagrams.
The generator and electric motor are physically located in the same housing, but that doesn’t mean they share a single inverter/controller circuit. In fact, I don’t know how this would even work. GM has told us repeatedly that the ICE is not connected to the wheels, so the generator and electric motor spin at different rates. The rate of spin determines the AC frequency of the inverter/controller. How can one inverter/controller circuit operate at 2 different AC frequencies?
So if your assumption is correct and the ICE is does get started by the generator, this would definitely require 2 separate inverter circuits. These two circuits may share the same embedded processor, but all the power FETs would have to be separate.
May 21st, 2010 (10:44 pm)=============================
Are you kidding?
You will probably have to bribe the dealer by bringing in a few cases of beer, to get a chance at getting a Volt in 2011!!!!
+3
May 21st, 2010 (11:01 pm)Hydrogen is the biggest scam going. Big Oil is pushing hydrogen the most. They know it probably won’t ever work out, and if it does, most hydrogen will be made from natural gas, like it is now. They used the promise of fuel cells to kill the California zero emission vehicle mandate 9 years ago. Classic red herring. That’s why they call the Fool Sells. They are meant to deceive us.
Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense:
“In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.”
May 21st, 2010 (11:11 pm)LOL, +1
Note that a BEV-100 version of the Volt would cost $4000 more that the current EREV-40 Volt. See post #78 for details.
+1
May 21st, 2010 (11:22 pm)Eric and Jeffhree,
We have been told that the Volt motor shares the 2-mode transmission housing and some parts. Here is a picture of the 2-mode with some parts re-labeled as I think it would be for the Volt.
Under normal Electric drive clutch 1 would be disengaged from the engine and clutch 2 engaged to join the two motors. Only the drive motor would receive power.
In re-gen mode same clutch arrangement except the two motors (gen motor and drive motor) are wired in series generating higher voltages to charge the battery.
In Sport mode the clutch arrangement would remain the same but the two motors would be wired in parallel for more power.
In Charge Sustaining mode clutch 1 would be engaged and clutch 2 disengaged. Now the ICE drives the gen motor to produce electricity and the wheels are driven by the drive motor.
In CS mode the gen motor is used to start the ICE and then switched to generator operation.
This is all my best guess on how it works but the pieces of the puzzle all fit.
May 21st, 2010 (11:49 pm)I hope my previous post makes it clear that the Generator electric motor is required for optimal re-gen braking, but not the ICE. If you wanted to “swap out” the motor and replace with more batteries, ok but the transmission housing stays with both internal electric motors.
Most BEVs just have one motor, some have two sets of windings for the above reasons. Two sets of windings are basically the same as the two motors connected together by Clutch 2. It is more efficient at lower power to use just one motor as losses are partly a function of air gap and magnetic field strength. Using only one motor has half the air gap area of the two motors so the field strength would be double compared to one larger motor.
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (12:02 am)Yes, GM has told us they use the same housing, but that doesn’t mean they use the same guts.
In particular, we know the 2-mode drive motor is AC-induction for the Volt and DC brushless for the 2-mode. Also, IIRC GM said they are using a simple reduction gear, so a planetary gear arrangement is probably not required.
In addition, GM has said many times that the the generator doesn’t drive the wheels, but rather just provides electricity.
Lastly, GM has said that the car behaves similarly in EV mode and with the range extender. If the two motors were coupled to give more power in performance mode, then how would performance mode work with the range extender.
What is the basis of your assumption that the generator and motor are physically connected? Why would a series hybrid need any sort of clutch?
Note that some series hybrid designs use in-wheel motors:
http://www.proteanelectric.com/live/
which essentially rules out any physical connection between the generator and the motors.
May 22nd, 2010 (12:26 am)How do you physically connect two motors electronically instead of mechanically?
The word transmission has multiple meanings. Strictly speaking any mechanical system that has at least one gear ratio and connects power from one place (engine) to another (differential). Conventional definition is that a transmission has a variety of selectable gear ratios. So both you and Lutz are correct.
-2
May 22nd, 2010 (12:47 am)Did I say all the parts were the same?
A planetary gearset is a simple reduction gear. Most useful if the output drive is on the same axis. But having said that I do not know if it is planetary or not. Again my best guess.
If you read my description I do NOT say that the ICE drives the wheels directly. You must keep the definition of generator to mean the combination of ICE motor and electric generator for this statement. When the “Gen motor” is used as a driving motor in Sport mode, it is not a generator.
It doesn’t. Can you show me a quote where they say the Sport mode can be in operation at the same time as the ICE is generating electricity?
Conventional electric motor drives do not need a clutch. Or series hybrid like the Fisker, for that matter. I just deduced this particular system does from all the discussions and descriptions I have read on this site over the past year.
A statement from a Volt engineer may rule out my hypothesis but your statements do not.
May 22nd, 2010 (12:53 am)LOL. How do you physically connect an in-wheel motor to a generator?
May 22nd, 2010 (1:08 am)I don’t understand why you insist on comparing my hypothesis with in wheel motors. But I will follow through. If you mean generator as in re-gen braking then the same motor/windings/magnets in the wheel motor are used for delivering power to the wheel and for generating power from the wheel. If you mean how does an ICE powered generator physically connect to in wheel motors, my first observation is that no one has attempted to do that and I cannot think of any rational reason to do so. If you really wanted to do this bizarre arrangement then you would have to add a drive shaft, which of course would defeat the whole point of in wheel motors.
May 22nd, 2010 (1:33 am)If GM is developing a BEV Volt (Bvolt) and plan to start production in 2011, I sure hope they plan to announce it before Nissan starts converting their $99 deposits to purchase contracts. Those @10k US Leaf pre-orders could flip to Bvolt in an instant.
May 22nd, 2010 (1:37 am)LOL again. When I said:
“which essentially rules out any physical connection between the generator and the motors.”
this was in the context of in-wheel motors, and you reacted to that, which was humorous, LOL.
+3
May 22nd, 2010 (1:38 am)Obsession with the engineering has led to a dangerous imbalance… to the point where some simply dismiss business logic.
Take the topic at hand. Rather than adapting the platform to serve a wider demographic, some staunchly argue that the 40-mile capacity with engine is the only configuration necessary. One that reduces capacity to reduce price and serve those who don’t have a long commute anyway isn’t taken seriously. Eliminate the engine entirely and offer greater capacity instead, that’s blasphemy!
How will GM thrive without offering choice?
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (1:42 am)It’s true though, he will, and sadly a lot of people will believe it is because of him, but hey, maybe it is. I remember one poster saying Statik said GM would of cancelled the Volt program because of lack of funds and falling into bankruptcy. And the fact Obama wants 100 of these for the White House I think is a good thing. I don’t care who buys them, if it starts out being bleeding hearts I don’t care. And please, please, please, no more talk of there not being enough volts available.. If I read that again I just might shoot myself..
May 22nd, 2010 (1:43 am)Lyle,
Does the sport mode work while running on the range extender?
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (1:46 am)Oh and I think the only reason GM would make some all electric volts in the next few years would be to shut up environmentalists who say, yea well, the Volt still burns gas. Those people will never go away. So make an all electric volt with a 24 kw battery that dies in 5 years like the Leaf, make 1000 of em that’s all that will sell anyways.
+2
May 22nd, 2010 (2:57 am)I would imagine it does. From what I’ve read the engine won’t be running constantly it will be cycling on and off depending on the energy needed to get that battery up a few percent, so if you have it in sport mode I just imagine that it will cycle longer and more frequently. And of course if you’re on the interstate which is where I predict I will use the range extender 90 percent of the time during the life of the car, it doesn’t matter what mode your in. At least not here in Florida.
May 22nd, 2010 (4:49 am)I like the name BOLT for the all electric VOLT…
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (5:18 am)These chargers are going to be popping up along the I-5 stretch thru WA to CA for long distance commuting!!!
GO EV!!!
Range Anxiety = Dependency on Oil
+2
May 22nd, 2010 (6:28 am)The 100% BEV Volt story has been doing the rounds since the Detroit show, leaked by Lutz. It’s apparently “trivial” to do from a technical point of view.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/2010-detroit-auto-show-gm-chevy-volt-battery-electric-bob-lutz.php
http://blog.caranddriver.com/pure-ev-chevrolet-volt-in-the-works-according-to-lutz/
+3
May 22nd, 2010 (6:50 am)Doesn’t the Leaf have around 20,000 pre-orders now? Why do you feel a B-Volt would be so inferior?
-1
May 22nd, 2010 (6:51 am)sounds like Sherry Boschert is making stuff up to get her name out there.
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (7:09 am)One reason is that most Leaf owners will need to keep a separate ICE car, for all types of reasons. This ICE car, in a years time, will more than likely end up spewing much more emissions than Volt’s seldom used gen set. My $.02 worth.
May 22nd, 2010 (7:33 am)The answer is “yes”. A recent demo drive mentions that sport mode can be on all the time. I believe the Volt normally returns to economy settings on restart. There may be a driver preference setting for sport mode use all the time, I don’t know.
=D-Volt
May 22nd, 2010 (7:47 am)Dave I think you are grossly underestimating the cost adder for the ICE and generator. You must include all (and there are a lot) of the ancillary components necessary to support the ICE. You have things like, mufflers, catalytic converters, fuel pumps, water pumps, carburetors, gas tank, hoses, linkages, on and on….Then you have that generator. I see no way that this generator is going to cost less than $1,000. This is not your off-the-shelf generator, and your talking large power figures and form factor. You also need all the heavy power linkages between the ICE and generator, which again are not penny items.
Now, you also need to add in the other aspect of supporting the ICE/generator. This entails all the costs that I incur on my standard ICE based vehicle today. The fact that you will be putting few miles on the ICE/generator has both pluses and minuses. You will definitely get less wear, but you also need to deal with father time. Time is part of the equation for maintenance, not just mileage.
If I were to put my best guess on the cost adder to the Volt, related specifically to the ICE/gen set, I would place the range in the $4-5,000 range. And this may even be a little conservative. Now add in your additional yearly maintanence related to the ICE/gen-set and you start to see the real cost of supporting something that will be used only occasionally.
-Just my opinion of course…
May 22nd, 2010 (7:55 am)DaveK,
Yes, I also remember hearing this in one the test drive videos. But, I also wonder if sport mode in CS mode is really sporty? You need instantaneous power to provide a real sport mode, and if your batteries are reaching the end of the “electron life”, then your main source of power is purely the generator. I know they say the batteries will dip below the nominal CS mode when necessary, but there is a limit.
Maybe the likelyhood of reaching the bottom of the battery is slim, but theoretically it can and will happen. GM knows this can occur in a severe usage scenario, and I really do not have a problem with it, but you need to understand the limitations of the Volt.
May 22nd, 2010 (8:26 am)The answer is “yes”. One demo driver mentions that the Volt feels faster in CS. He goes on to say it may be because revving of the gas engine can be heard. When watching the demo videos one will notice a fairly slow looking launch off the line. But watch the speedometer and put a clock on the 0-50. It appears to be about 6 seconds. Described as “linear”. One test driver suggests adding a faux power band to mimic a gasoline engine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbbv-CCVqyg
=D-Volt
May 22nd, 2010 (8:57 am)Then we can agree to disagree.
Remember that we’re not talking retail prices here. I’m talking about what it costs GM.
My $2000 estimate includes the exhaust system and fuel system. The cooling system is still required for the battery. The water pump runs on electricity, it’s not connected to the ICE.
May 22nd, 2010 (9:05 am)I remember this as well, but I can’t find the link.
The Volt switches to CS mode when the battery gets down around 30% charge. With the Volt’s big battery, 30% charge still has plenty of instantaneous power.
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (9:36 am)You no follow so good. The question was posed toward John W’s comment that BVolt sales would be miniscule, only 1K/yr. If the Leaf already has 20k paid reservations at this point, why does he feel the Volt is so inferior to the Leaf that it will only garner 1k/yr?
BTW, nobody inherently “needs” a car (ICE, BEV or otherwise). Some may satisfy wants that require less limitations on range than the available BEVs will provide. No problem, those folks can choose an EREV or ICE. Plenty of others obviously feel a BEV will satisfy their desires. This is their call. Why anybody is so against these options in the marketplace, yet want off oil and want electrification of cars, is beyond my ability to reason. What makes you think a person choosing a BEV must require long distance drives and if they do, why would type be assumed to seek an efficient vehicle for those situations instead of a very efficient one? Does that make sense?
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (9:42 am)Hi WestCoastDrive @ 127,
Yes, I think you are correct. While the article was talking about Nissan’s specific roll-out strategy in the Japan market, I believe they will use a very similar roll-out strategy in the California market. The quick-chargers use the three phase 200 volt input available at dealerships in Japan, so as the article says, they are limited by their 49 Kw input. However the output, 480 Volt DC, 125 amp, could provide up to 60 Kw. Therefore I expect the quick chargers for the US market will have 480V 3 phase inputs and will be able to provide up to 60 Kw. Thus if the second generation Leaf had a usable capacity of 38 Kwh, and a rapid charge capacity of 80% of that, (30 kwh) the US dealers could top you off in 30 minutes of connection time.
May 22nd, 2010 (9:47 am)As always, it’s not the fuel cell, it’s all the stuff you need to use one that is the problem. Stuff like a way to safely carry adequate supplies of hydrogen on board without compressing the heck out of it (which wastes energy). Stuff like hydrogen stations (most people won’t be making hydrogen in their garages). Stuff like economical hydrogen sources. Remember, hydrogen isn’t an energy source it’s an energy carrier. You either make the hydrogen from hydrocarbons (releasing CO2), or from electricity (more electricity than it would take to charge an equivalent battery). Just because the fuel cell seems to work well does not make a nationwide hydrogen economy logical. For decades to come, in fact, it will all but define “illogical.”
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (10:08 am)RE: “Big batteries don’t make sense without fast-charge stations:”
An awful lot becomes possible without “fast charging,” defined as “as long as it takes to fill a gas tank.” Because liquid hydrocarbon fuel is all that we’ve ever known, we are naturally prejudiced to think in this way. “The filling station” is a deeply entrenched paradigm, an overwhelmingly heavy piece of “mental furniture.”
IF electrification takes off in a big way, I think we may see a large penetration of slow charge stations — defined at the least as a public place to plug in. Since, at minimum we are talking about an extra breaker, some wire, a steel stand pipe and a box with a receptacle, there is an economic case to be made for many many more plugs than specialty fast-charge stations (or even, gas stations). If you offer charging as an incentive for people to visit your place of business, you are probably talking 120V outlets (“For Customer Use Only”), or 220V with the added expense of a credit-card swipe device.
Now, imagine your road trip with a 300 mile EV. You start out fully charged. You stop to eat, to take a potty break, or visit a “point of interest” along the way, getting a partial charge every time you do so. At the motel, you fully recharge.
I’m under no illusions that this could happen overnight, but it can happen a smaller bite at a time; and is thus more likely than some system requiring a huge outlay for a single location. It is small business owners looking at their advertising budgets vs a cadre of lobbyists trying to get a huge new program through Congress.
The hardest part will be moving that huge White Elephant mental furniture out of the living room (to mix metaphors), but once gone, “The Filling Station” paradigm will leave oh so much more space in peoples’ minds!
May 22nd, 2010 (11:44 am)Roy
Thanks for the explaination. I am not engineer, but I want to really understand how the volt works before I consider purchasing one. Could you please clarify some points for me.
Why join the two motors? If the gen motor is not receiving any power, what is the gen motor doing?
Okay this sounds good, but does this mean that in the extended mode the ICE will be running, but disconnected from the gen motor during the re-gen mode?
This sounds good, but again if you are in extended range mode, the ICE will be disconnected from the ICE?
This design seems more complex than needed, but again, I am not an engineer. I would have thought the Volt design would be simpler.
Thanks again –
May 22nd, 2010 (2:16 pm)The only sense for GM making a BEVolt would be cost. It would be indicative that the main reason only 8,000 Volts are planned would be what GM considers the cost of the battery module prohibitive to their business plan, and the large losses to them per unit not justifiable at this time.
I’m glad people are starting to post pictures of the Volt Concept and the EV-1 together more often since I think that is the message we all need to start contemplating in our brains. That the Volt is an excercise by GM, not a full-blown production vehicle.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
May 22nd, 2010 (3:13 pm)You do understand that this is all my conjecture. Here is my reasoning. All other BEVs and hybids I have read about use one motor and the same motor produces enough back EMF to charge the battery and this is called regenerative braking. Regenerative braking is a function of speed at high speeds Tesla had to add protection circuitry (like ABS) to prevent too much re-gen that would cause the rear wheels to skid. But at 5 mph there is no re-gen at all and the mechanical brakes must be used. Wiring two motors in series is a way to increase re-gen at low speeds. I can’t remember the person’s name but they said the Volt’s regen was superior to others. Why connected all the time? Each time the clutch is operated there is a little wear and if the gen motor was dis-connected normally, when the brakes were applied this clutch would engage, the gen motor would have to be quickly brought up to speed, this would create more wear on the clutch, introduce a small delay and probably be felt by driver and passengers as a “bump”. There is very little friction loss to just keep the gen motor spinning with the drive motor and avoid these problems. With the scenario I have described, the only time these clutches have to operate is transitioning into and out of CS mode.
Yes, but I am not so sure about this one. To break it down further, at high speed >30mph, I would say that is high enough to just use the drive motor for re-gen braking, so above a certain speed in CS mode I think there would be no clutch operation from acceleration to braking. At lower speeds probably the ICE gets turned off during deceleration and the clutches could operate to gain better re-gen as the vehicle comes to a stop. This would all be part of the “tuning” process GM has had to go through, to determine optimal points when to switch modes and if it is worth while.
I believe that Sport mode will not be permitted in CS mode. If it was you would be rapidly depleting a battery already at minimum charge In fact getting confirmation of this would go a long way to validate my assumptions.
This is much more complex than any other EV system, but not as complex as the 2-mode hybrid and not much more than the Prius hybrid. Think about it, modern 6 speed automatics have 7 clutches and sets of gears (6 forward + reverse). GM is used to building complex transmissions. They know this can be cost-effective if done in large enough quantities. This is where I think the whole plan is brilliant, they can amortize the cost by sharing as much as possible with the 2-mode and there is the possibility that the 2-mode will become standard entirely replacing the automatic transmissions in GM’s lineup. This way really high volumes would be realized, driving costs down and GM wouldn’t have to support multiple technologies.
+1
May 22nd, 2010 (8:55 pm)RoyH,
Thanks for taking the time to explain in more detail. Hopefully GM will start release more details about the car. I am curious about what options are available and of course the price.
My current car is an 04 so I am almost ready to get a new one, but I am holding off until the volt is out for a period of time.
Eric
May 23rd, 2010 (12:51 am)A pure battery electric vehicle (BEV) is the logical next step, not to mention that Nissan is about to market one. A pure battery electric Volt is no internal combustion engine & a larger battery pack. GM should’nt be speculating about whether to build a pure BEV or not, they should be considering how soon they can get one in showrooms.
May 24th, 2010 (12:03 am)A suggestion to GM:
Build the EV1 (and call it EV2 maybe…) car with the same aero-dynamic design but with today’s electric drive and powered by a Lithium-ion battery large enough to offer a range similar to Testla’s (keep it as a 2 seater to have enough room for a more powerful battery for longer range).
Eugene (in Los Angeles)
May 27th, 2010 (2:16 pm)Since the ICE doesn’t need any cooling…