When the Chevrolet Volt concept was first unveiled in January 2007 it illustrated the use of a 1-L 3-cylinder combustion engine. Other variants of the Voltec propulsion system, then known as E-Flex, were also demonstrated at various times. These included hydrogen fuel cell and diesel concepts.
In the end GM decided to go with a 1.4 L normally aspirated 4 cylinder engine that will also be used in other GM cars including the high volume Chevy Cruze expected to launch in the fall.
GM has apparently been continuing to study other possible range extenders, according to a report from Edmund’s, with the hope that one of these could make its way into the second generation of the car expected in the 2013-2014 timeframe.
One of the barriers to the Volt making it to high sales volumes is the considerable expense not only of the battery but of the complex extended range drivetrain, something pure EVs like the LEAF do not have to contend with.
“Right now, the propulsion system is too expensive, even with using an existing engine,” said GM’s new vice president of global vehicle engineering, Karl Stracke.
Stracke explained that GM is looking carefully at several different range extenders for future generations. These systems include two cylinder gas engines, diesel engines, and even rotary or Wankel engines.
“We have a strategy to go rotary engines or a two-cylinder [gas] engine making 15-18 kW,” said Stracke. ”Rotary has a higher fuel consumption but here’s the advantage [holds up his hands to form round, frisbee-sized shape] — packaging.”
Stracke has even piloted a rotary engine-powered Volt prototype. ”I have driven the car already,” he said.
“One rotor could be enough,” he added. “Of course with the higher rpm of a rotary, you need to have an NVH solution.”
Stracke also believes a diesel powerplant could find its way into the Volt. ”The cost of the engine would be higher for the manufacturer,” said Stracke of the diesel engine, “but the fuel costs would be cheaper for customers.”
To reach high volume sales, not only does GM have to lower the cost of the powertrain but also the cost of the battery pack. And, for the first time in the history of GM-Volt.com a GM executive finally admitted the total cost of the Volt’s 16 kwh lithium-ion pack.
The pack costs “roughly $10,000,” said Stracke. He also said that GM is “working aggressively to get that cost down 50 percent” for the next generation Volt.
“The future of the automobile has never been as interesting as it is right now,” said Stracke. “Big question is, what new propulsion system will come next?”
Source (Edmunds)
+2
May 27th, 2010 (12:22 am)wow big news.. Problem with a small genset is the Pikes Peak Run.. there are places in the US with extended runs up a grade 6 hwy.. and you want to maintain at least 65 with occasional extra oomph for passing.
I’m sure they know best but I dont see how developing a new engine is going to be cheaper than using something they already have.. a wankel would be neat due to the low nhv and weight but cheap is not going to be, and they use a lot of fuel. Perhaps a simplified low parts count 2 cylinder like Lotus recently developed..
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/09/lotus-range-extender.html
I had to check the date carefully, make sure it was not aprils fool day
May 27th, 2010 (12:24 am)Is that just for the cells or is that the whole pack? How does that compare to Nissan’s? The number seems high if it’s just the cells, but a bit low for the whole pack. We all really just want to know the full cost for the car. The pack price let’s us speculate better (if it’s even accurate), but there’s no forcing this information out of GM. They’ll release it when they’re ready. Do keep pestering though. Maybe someone will let it slip
+10
May 27th, 2010 (12:44 am)Sounds about what we figured for pack, about $8,000 for the cells, and $2,000 for the rest of pack hardware. This is another reason to get the Gen 1 Volt, you’ll likely never run out of power, you’ll have a very long lasting battery with the thermal management system (and who knows what all corners they’re cutting in the Gen 2 battery pack to get costs down), and who wants to maintain a diesel or rotary engine when they only run it for a few hours a year? I think they should stick with a common run of the mill engine that can be made cheaply and mechanics won’t hate working on, and won’t be a pain in the behind to find parts for, maybe offer the option of rotary or diesel for people that still use gas a lot (won’t be me that’s for sure). Then let the market decide.
That all being said, if they can get the price down so that it’s below $30k without subsidies and the range extender mode has crazy gas high mileage with a 2 cylinder engine or something, wow! That’ll be huge. 2013-2014 isn’t that far away.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:51 am)Lyle wrote it is the whole pack, and how do we know what Nissan is paying?.. more guessing.
Since we know the cells are 70% of the total cost of the pack then we know they cost about $7000, or $437 per kwh. Apparently GM renegotiated their deal with LG.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (1:04 am)Michigan State U just got a grant from ARPA-E to develop a novel new type of wave disc genset engine, just for cars.. very low parts count:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/10/michigan-state-university-receives-25m-arpae-award-to-build-wave-disc-enginegenerator-for-series-hyb.html
Then you have Capstone Turbines, very expensive:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/02/velozzi-20100204.html
Audi range extender wankel:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/03/a1etron-20100303.html
Fiat 500 range extender wankel:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/05/fev-20100512.html
Normally wankels are not economical, and a small high rpm one is going to be worse.. so I was thinking GM must have WILDLY exceeded their CS Mode MPG goals (50mpg) with the 1.4L ICE to even consider a wankel. Why is 50MPG important?.. is what a Prius gets and GM must match or exceed it for marketting.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (1:08 am)WOW Lyle! You got a GREAT piece of information. Nice reporting. People have been after this number for a long time, and you got it. Nice. The only number left that you haven’t pried out is the MSRP, and I think we’ll have that soon enough. (And of course actual prices will be set by supply and demand so costs are not all that relevant to price).
The estimate of the pack cost here was $11,200. Not too far off “roughly $10,000″ which is likely closer to $10,500 than $9,500. So basically it would take about ten years to break even if you were just looking at gas prices. Which of course we definitely are not doing.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (1:25 am)The size of the genset was always driven by one of the original Volt requirements, to cruise at 100mph on a level hwy once the battery was depleted. In a Volt sized vehicle this requires about 50kw out of the generator.. that and total weight also determines maximum cruising speed going up a 6% grade hwy, and that wont be 100mph.
On flat ground a 20kw genset will give you about 70mph, 30kw will do about 80mph.. I doubt GM will ever use a 20kw genset.
A diesel or HCCI genset is not likely due to cost, weight and vibrations.. both require high pressure DI and that is not cheap.
-1
May 27th, 2010 (2:07 am)I believe the Mazda had developed a wankel way back when, but gave up because of very high gas consumption and emissions. It’s unlikely these engines have gotten much better, because no body has been working on them
+1
May 27th, 2010 (2:22 am)All good news for 2nd GEN VOLT in 2013!!!
Lower cost means getting it back down to MAX Bob’s original $30K price, nice!
Good work, GM!
GO EV!!! – Range Anxiety = Oil Dependency
http://www.theevproject.com/
May 27th, 2010 (2:39 am)http://www.fev.com/data/documents/brochures/Electric_Vehicle_Technology_Web.pdf
This may be the design engineering company that provided the wankel range extender to GM. They made the Fiat 500 EREV as a demo project of their skills:
“Range extender hybrids are pure serial hybrids.
Therefore, range extender modules based on simple
internal combustion engines, which are operated at
their most efficient point, combined with an electric
generator, are a very attractive option. The picture
shows range extenders of about 20 kW based on
different internal combustion engines. Depending
on customer needs, two cylinder engines or a single
cylinder engine or even more exotic engines like the
Wankel engine basically can be taken as ICE for the
range extender.
Alternatively a fuel cell system operated as an auxiliary
power unit (APU) could be one option in future.
Range extenders as power source in the automotive
environment have to fulfill different requirements
compared to automotive combustion engines and
also compared to industrial Gensets. An optimal
design can take advantages of these modified requirements.”
-7
May 27th, 2010 (3:07 am)Wow. Like you guys are saying, and I’ll repeat it and say it backwards, “WOW!”
Today, I think I can see Lyle so excited he rushed through typing and forgot to spellcheck since rushing this great story to press just couldn’t wait. It’s a wow story!
All-in-all, I’d have to say the varieties and possibilities boggle the mind, but as the resident realist at gm-volt.com ( yeah, yeah…self appointed – lol ) , I can say all these solutions sound expensive and require retooling and rethinking. We all remember the original three cylinder and the talk of the interchangeable range extender of the future possibly being diesel or fuel cell…etc.
The Wankel is problematic on too many levels ( although the low end grunt rotarys lack can be subsidized by the electric drive ) and the other solutions have drawbacks like expense, when the whole idea is to reduce the cost of the 1.4 Ecotec.
Being that the Ecotec is shared among models and platforms, mass produced and yet, along with the battery pack, deemed “too expensive” it is going to require thinking outside the current outside the box thinking….( are following….? There’ll be a test later…..lol.
So here’s a big idea. Put a Chinese engine in Volt. Nothing spectacular, nothing ground-breaking, but an ICE 3 cylinder with balance shaft, or 4 cylinder mass produced using good ol’ cheap Chinese manufacturing. The shipping costs can be countered with mass production levels and sharing among models as well. Also, since Shanghai is involved in developing MPV5 and battery think-tanking ( as per prior gm-volt articles ) – I think China could take on a rather pivotal role in seeing Volt burst out into the high production , lower cost arena.
So I know I just lost the “buy 100% American” folks – the UAW and probably the government support, but for us realists it really makes sense to cut manufacturing costs this way, and yet put the Volt and Voltecs together here in the our beloved USA. If shipping costs are spread amongst MPV5 parts also – cost cutting can make the Volt dream be realized. Remember, all we seem to hear between the lines, along with that dreaded foot-dragging GM seems to have been practicing, is “Volt is too expensive to build”, “Volt is so expensive”, “Volt drivetrains , Volt batteries, Volt everything —- TOO EXPENSIVE… …. …… ………. ……… ” , and so on.
So what do you think? I’m just brainstorming here. The above article is like GM engineers thinking out loud. Notice the article says how the 1.4 Cruze/Volt Ecotec is too expensive , but gives more expensive, more research-heavy, problematic solutions to fill that dilemma….So as not to make any sense.
Would you be willing to buy a Volt with more Chinese content if it insures Volt comes to fruition?
RECHARGE! James <—— FOOD FOR THOUGHT DIVISION
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
May 27th, 2010 (3:40 am)GM actually manufactures a couple of cheap 3 cylinder engines in China, for use there, perhaps they could import them.
They could also buy a wankel canned design from FEV, then the expense may not be so bad.. they may even be able to resell it to 3rd parties such as Fisker Karma. The nice thing about wankels is that they are modular.. use one rotor for the Volt, two rotors for the Voltec Corvetron and 3 rotors for a light duty Voltec PU. All pretty much based on the same parts.
In any case if they commit the resources to develop an optimized genset then you know they really believe in the Voltec architecture.
-4
May 27th, 2010 (3:59 am)Hi Herm! Nice to see someone else up at this unGodly hour! The only word that scares me about your comment is “cheap”….I’m sure you’re describing inexpensive manufacturing cost per unit and not quality – quality control of a Chinese powerplant would be penultimate to it’s successful application.
As an option I can even see more aluminum in the construction. An all aluminum 3 cylinder with balance shaft and maybe even a low boost turbo makes sense to me. Aluminum parts manufactured here seem price-prohibitive, but in China….? Weight savings only means less battery pack needed, less hp and less overall cost to own and drive. Lightness is next to godliness – must be an engineering motto down in Warren, Michigan.
Composites seem like batterys today. Costs may be coming down. The up front cost of composite manufacturing is intimidating. Aptera made strong gains in realizing a more cost effective composite technique, or so their PR dept. says. Perhaps overseas composite parts can also be a big part of weight reduction of the Volt.
Rotary engines, it seems to me, make no sense. Unless, of course, GM is onto some new wrinkle that irons out some of a Wankel’s fatal flaws – as mentioned, nasty gas mileage and vibration issues along with low rpm anemia.
It’s a whole new world. Anything designed by GM engineers, made in China would be produced in a flimsier, cheap cheaper copycat factory as a “Chinese knockoff” faster than Oprah starts a new diet. But to me, it would be worth that risk to get Volt to market – and end all the fidgeting from corporate over “Volt is just too too too expensive to mass produce now”.
Let’s focus our collective energy towards the Ren Center, downtown Detroit —- OHHHHMMMMM, OHMMMMMMM, OHMMMMMMMMM ( Ohm, get it? )
Maybe through collective will, deep mind melding, lots of prayer and some arm-twisting, we can convince GM Volt can make them money – achieve high profitability, or whatever other catch-phrase is popular in GM’s Accounting Offices.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
+1
May 27th, 2010 (4:35 am)Thursday May 27, 2010, 4:50 am
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Analysts don’t expect a temporary shutdown of the trans-Alaska pipeline system due to an oil spill this week to have much effect, if any, on crude prices and gas supplies.
While it could be back up by Thursday, energy economist Doug Reynolds says even a week idled, in the global scheme, shouldn’t affect those things much.
The 800-mile line was shut down Tuesday, after what its operator characterized as several thousand barrels of oil spilled into a tank and overflowed into a containment area.
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. says it expects to begin recovery of the spilled crude early Thursday.
=D-Volt
+6
May 27th, 2010 (4:39 am)I hope GM eventually offers a few range extender options.
As for me, I just want a limp-home genset that alleviates the range anxiety and allows me to go a few miles above the minimum legal limit on the highway. So perhaps 60 mph at 100 percent of continuous output. You can then go a few miles over that for reasonable periods without destroying the unit.
Additionally, they must continue to iterate though the light-weighting process to get the weight way down and aerodynamics up.
This might even be a different model to satisfy those that really want to get off of oil and do not care to match the performance of yesterday’s fossil boxes.
My Ideal EREV:
Lightweight (smaller drivetrain needed)
Aerodynamic (more fuel efficient)
low rolling resistance (more fuel efficient)
minimal genset that is flex-fueled (can transition to biofuels)
battery pack size matched to driver’s daily need (not lugging around unused weight)
I’ll take two.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (5:06 am)I noticed Stracke said the size of the Wankel, or lack of it, was the reason they are looking at it. Maybe what they want to do is move some of the battery pack under the hood in order to make the ever more requested 5 passenger Volt or MPV5. A smaller engine that runs more, might give a better overall CS mode mpg, to boot.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (5:17 am)I’m not so sure the limp home would be good enough. Not for traveling anyway. But I do like the idea of a 100 BEV Volt with a range extender trailer for long trips. So many options for Gen II. I still want my Gen I for the thermal management system. I love overkill. It sure will keep the battery happy for many years. Then a 100 mile BEV for my second car.
Fellow Bloggers we sure live in interesting times. So many manufacturers so many products all powed by electrons.
Sure hope GM makes enough Volt so I can get my hands on one.
Take Care,
TED
+1
May 27th, 2010 (5:23 am)The SMART car has a 0.6 litre or 0.8 llitre diesel and gets about 60mpg. I can’t see why they don’t just make their own or license this one. it also must be a tiny engine to fit into the standard Smart car and the Smart FourTwo. There’s also the Smart roadster – with a 74kW engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Roadster
The standard Smart engine apparantly is: 45 or 60 kW (61 or 82 PS) versions of the turbocharged 698CC 3-cylinder Suprex engine
+1
May 27th, 2010 (5:33 am)even better the Smart ForTwo (correct name) has a diesel fuel economy of an astounding 83mpg. Surely this is the best range extender!!!
I’d also suggest they should keep back 3% of the battery for over-taking – which would give you 2 minutes or so of extra power where you can get generator + battery power. Is anyone else a bit concerned that somebody might try and start overtaking then find the power ease back at a crucial time – wouldn’t this be a problem?
+3
May 27th, 2010 (5:56 am)NO,
Range Anxiety = I have a life and people that rely on me to be able to travel where I need to be when I need to be there.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (6:02 am)Wow, thanks for the links!
If GM *has* been wildly underestimating their CS mode, they simply haven’t been listening to me. (LOL).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
/AFK again today
LJGTVWOTR!!
+3
May 27th, 2010 (6:03 am)I had a 1980 Mazda RX-7, and the Wankel engine was very smooth at 5000 rpm. It had two rotors and produced about 105 hp. I was a small engine, but fuel economy was not great for such a small car.
I can see the packaging advantages of the Wankel, although there are efficiency and emissions penalties that go with it. I could see this, however, for a smaller E-REV like maybe an Aveo sized car.
For the Volt, I agree with Herm that most people will want the 53 kW of power to go up hills at 60 mph or have the power to cruise at 85 mph across Kansas (or keep up with traffic between LA and San Diego).
I see the 2 cyl. being a good fit. GM has announced their next generation V8.
http://wot.motortrend.com/6639187/industry-news/small-block-big-money-gm-spends-890-million-for-next-gen-v-8-production/index.html
“…GM says the new V-8 range will exclusively utilize aluminum blocks. The new engines will also feature direct fuel injection, an “all-new advanced combustion design,” and the ability to run E85 ethanol blends.”
These engines, with direct injection, variable valve timing and probably HCCI (all-new advanced combustion design), will be powerful and efficient. Since manufacturers like to stay with common and proven designs (the 3.8L V6 that GM used for years was essentially a 5.0L V8 with 2 cylinders shaved off), I could see the 2 cylinder range extender as being 2 cylinders from this next gen V8.
If a next gen 5.0L V8 produces 400 hp, then a 2 cyl. would be 1.25L and put out ~100 hp (75 kW). This would use common parts from the GM parts bin and have essentially similar combustion and emissions. So although they are not using a stock engine like the 1.4L 4 cyl, they are using pistons, valves, rods, etc. that already exist. Obviously, the block, head, exhaust manifold, and other parts would be unique to the 2 cyl.
So for a little more money and volume than the Wankel, you get a high efficiency range extender that can take you up hills and allow you to run in the left lane down I5.
+11
May 27th, 2010 (6:18 am)No! The quality would always be suspect in my mind.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (6:28 am)Very interesting! I’m for whatever will provide for more extended range without sacrificing fuel economy.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (6:37 am)I test drove one of the first Mazda rotary sedans in 1972 or ’73 and the salesman told me to hold the tachometer at 5000 RPMs in first gear and then floor it. It buried the tach, something like 9 or 10,000 RPMs and pulled like a big V8 muscle car. It wasn’t very fuel efficient, but I understand the new ones are better in that regard.
May 27th, 2010 (6:39 am)OK, now — to rephrase the question: What if it meant the difference between actually seeing Volts made in ICE-like numbers………….or not?
RECHARGE! James
May 27th, 2010 (6:44 am)I’ll bet you can do that with less than 53kW. GM has inferred several times that the Volt is over-designed. In the absence of real world data, that’s what engineers tend to do.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (6:47 am)If cost is driving the need to find a new genset engine, I find it curious that just about every alternative mentioned by the GM rep was noted as being more expensive.
The post also mentioned “the complex extended range drivetrain.” I also found the statement that curious. Voltec’s serial hybrid architecture is much more straightforward than Toyota’s parallel system — now THAT’s complex.
May 27th, 2010 (6:48 am)Very good info, Lyle. Does this fully explain the low volume and slow ramp up? I hope not. What it says to me is that the Gen 1 Volt has been very highly optimized and it is hard to take it in different directions. I just wish that GM would pick up the pace, just a BIT. Show a little confidence.
+8
May 27th, 2010 (6:52 am)We know the engineers are fantastic, hard-working, incredibly intelligent, well-paid, passionate, EV enthusiast go-getters.
We also know the final call whether a Volt is a showpiece or a great new sensation sweeping the dealers and garages of our nation by the hundreds of thousands rests with the corporate heads and bottom-line accountants. It’s a business, after all. It seems to me GM execs are literally pounding out the message by now —- that the Volt is just too darned expensive to be viable in more than very limited production numbers.
Am I insane, or blind, or living in a bubble – or what? Or are alot of Volt fans here kind of hearing what they want to hear? To me, you’d have to be all of the above not to hear a very loud, ” if there is a second generation Volt, past the first generation of about 8-10,000 that may or may not be lease-only or sold to celebs, politicians, and rich collectors”.
Because that is what I hear-loud and clear – again and again and again –
from today’s article:
“One of the barriers to the Volt making it to high sales volumes is the considerable expense not only of the battery but of the complex extended range drivetrain, something pure EVs like the LEAF do not have to contend with.
“Right now, the propulsion system is too expensive, even with using an existing engine,” said GM’s new vice president of global vehicle engineering, Karl Stracke. “
RECHARGE! James
Not being negative….just eyes wide open
+3
May 27th, 2010 (7:04 am)Gen 2 is sounding better and better. I’m really looking forward to hearing more about this. Just think for a moment…GM is shooting for a 50% reduction in cost for the battery…50%!!! That is an enormous cut. So you’ll have roughly a $5000 battery pack to run your Gen. 2 Volt with a likely more efficient range extender motor.
Like I said, it’s sounding better and better.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (7:05 am)I thought both Patil and Weber were adamant that the PACK price was around $8000, but this guy seems fairly confident that the pack price is roughly $10,000. Perhaps Patil was talking GM’s wholesale price and this guy is talking about our cost if we need to replace the pack? I am still curious to know about how much the genset package costs GM to build. Just how much of a price advantage does an EV version of the Volt have over the EREV version on price? If the extra kWh’s needed come out at $500 per, you could end up with a 100 mile AER by adding 9 kWh or $4500. $4500 is probably not that far from the price of the genset. (Figure 80% DoD of the battery and that the extra weight of the battery will be offset by the removal of the genset) I think GM should build both the EV and the EREV versions of the Volt asap, why let Nissan gobble up that portion of the market uncontested?
+3
May 27th, 2010 (7:07 am)I think GM is looking to develop a future engine for the Volt, also to be used by other small GM cars. Developing an engine just for the Volt would be too costly.
May 27th, 2010 (7:15 am)Truly great news to hear GM talking about the possibility of a Wankel Range Extender !
The Audi A1 e-tron and the Fiat 500 RE-EV concepts have shown the way.
A compact package is highly valuable but cost reductions should come with it to make sense.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (7:20 am)That’s what I’ve heard as well.
I suspect once people actually drive the Volt in the mountains, they’ll realize that 53kW (71 hp) is over-kill for any sort of normal driving. I know most poeple don’t consider themselves normal, so they’ll actually have to try it, but I suspect that after they do, the “mountain mode” will be rarely used. In other words, I suspect mountain mode was something that cost very little for GM to add, and appeals to early adopter techies, but is not really that useful.
If these suspicions play out, then we’ll probably see much smaller EREV ICEs in the future, but only after EREVs have established a perception as strong capable vehicles. Probably around 2015 or later.
May 27th, 2010 (7:23 am)I have to disagree with the general consences that the wankel would be a bad idea. Wankels do not have good mileage when used in a standard ICE car application but asa range extender I think they would excel. In a steady state application they can be made much more efficient and their power density can’t be beat except perhaps with a turbine. Give me a 100 mile AER with a 20 KW range extender to get me home when I forget and I could care less about the range extenders efficiency
May 27th, 2010 (7:24 am)I have to disagree with the general consences that the wankel would be a bad idea. Wankels do not have good mileage when used in a standard ICE car application but as a range extender I think they would excel. In a steady state application they can be made much more efficient and their power density can’t be beat except perhaps with a turbine. Give me a 100 mile AER with a 20 KW range extender to get me home when I forget and I could care less about the range extenders efficiency
+5
May 27th, 2010 (7:26 am)Very thoughtful post, +1.
I do hear this message from gm execs, over and over. They seem to be convinced that the only mainstream market that could possibly consider a Volt is the market for small and therefore cheap cars. I guess this outlook is the history of gm, so it is hard to break out of it in one’s thinking.
On the other hand, the Volt I drove was a smooth, fast sophisticated car, quick and fun to drive, eerily and delightfully quiet, and very comfortable. It was a premium car that could command a premium price. Many people prefer smaller nicer cars over fat noisy ones. I hope gm will remember these more sophisticated buyers.
+13
May 27th, 2010 (7:33 am)Nope. Cheap Chinese labor/parts is not the answer. A smarter design is.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (7:34 am)I’ve been wondering how GM will track and report the generator engine usage. For some, the engine will run very little. Others, with longer daily cycles, will hit generation mode more often putting more wear on the ICE. So the typical way of looking at a vehicles mileage won’t provide true indication of the engine itself. Maybe track in hours as with engines in boats?
+8
May 27th, 2010 (7:35 am)what about libralato engine ? they say its rotary and efficient ( this is not wangel engine , this is rotary Atkinson cycle. so less noise and vibration + efficient.
They claim : Libralato Engine Total efficiency gain = 10-15%
* 5.5% combustion efficiency gain
* 50% less NOx and PM
* 50% less noise
* 50% less vibration
* 30% less volume
* 30% less weight
http://libralato.co.uk/overview.html
Again i am still confused on the range extender maths ( as he says we are trying 18 kw ), So do we need only that much really ? if thatz the case its easy to have 100mpg+ range extenders (ideal is 325 mpg – 1 ltr /100km -like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car ) using voltec .
yes i know it wont do anything on replacing the oil still its a good target.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (7:41 am)(Long 17 hour workdays Monday through Wednesday, (/very thankful for this record business), so, no posts.)
When I drove the Volt on March 13th, I deliberately gave it only half throttle. That’s all I needed to do to see what power it had available. (And, of course, it has a lot!!)
I like the Wankel engine possibility for several reasons. The block is small and its cooling system can more easily be kept warm to reduce Hydrocarbons at start-up. Also, most of us don’t need a vehicle to go 100 miles per hour, just max at 80 mph to very very rarely pass on the freeway. Those extra kilowatts portion of the 53 KW of capacity may not be need to be designed into it for most of us.
In addition, knowing the sound of the engine also is our measure of how much more capacity to pass that we have instead of looking at the speedometer and doing the arithmetic.
So, some slight sound like a turbine engine winding up would be desirable at higher speeds, it seems to me.
A one rotor Wankel could be one option, and a dual rotor Wankel could be another option in a Gen 2 or 3 Volt Super Sport version. This could really go far for the accomplishment of a regular sedan and also a two door Super Sport model at the higher optioned-out cost for those who really want/need that extra power for mountains, etc.
Here in Texas, the highway system is exceptionally flat for the most part for most of the driving. I think that the OnStar option can, in real time, be made to fine-tune the blended power applications for whichever version Volt one has, over the first month of driving, for instance. You know that the first thing you are going to do with your Volt is to go up that hilly grade or mountain pass anyway, so, there might as well be that “learning curve” for your driving needs that first month you drive it. The center console could have an indication of something like:
OnStar is Initializing your new blended power requirements at this time.
The PCM (Program Control Module), can log the APP (Accelerator Pedal Position) for each user, and, the PCM then does all kinds of other great things for you to co-vary the best efficiencies possible. The SRS system always knows the front seat positions (who’s driving), (as well as how many other passengers are present in case of the need for airbag deployment), so, the PCM can select the most efficient (reviewable) blended power characteristics for each driver.
So, while the first Gen Volts will undoubtedly have lots of passengers for a lot of the time for all those who want a ride in it (with the 1.4L engine) (not just around parking lots), after many years, a single-Wankel-rotor Range Extender might just be the way to go. The double rotor Wankel might be the way to go for a Super Sport version.
GM entertained the idea of two Wankel engines for Corvette in 1972, but the smog standards could not be sufficiently met at that time with the limited cleaning technologies available at the time.
It sure would be nice for Bob to be able to comment directly here on what he thinks about a double-rotor Wankel Super Sport Volt (although we know he’s writing his autobiography), (a quick comment from time to time sure would be nice to maintain a continuity from here to when his book, undoubtedly to become a “best seller”, comes out).
+2
May 27th, 2010 (7:42 am)I would love a diesel version with good maintenance I could keep it for 25 years but it would never sell in the USA because of perception.
As long as were dreaming about power plants in 10 years or less stick a bloom box in it that runs on natural gas as we have all we use, We do not import any. and in a power outage we can run our houses!
Tom
+5
May 27th, 2010 (7:43 am)Sounds like GM needs to partner with or buy a motorcycle company.
What types of engines do motorcycles use?
NPNS!
+2
May 27th, 2010 (7:47 am)““We have a strategy to go rotary engines or a two-cylinder [gas] engine making 15-18 kW,” said Stracke.”
__________
15 to 18 kw = 20 to 24 hp.
This isn’t Gen II. This is starting over.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (7:47 am)I know I’m going to get hammered for saying this, but I have to wonder if GM is spreading some dis-information here, perhaps to throw off the competition.
In the past, we’ve heard the most promising ICE technologies for EREVs may be HCCI or a small gas turbine. By most accounts, the 1.4L engine is overkill, and it already fits in the Volt, a compact car, so why is the compactness of a rotary engine important? especially considering the problems with NVH and lack of efficiency.
Also, what about a spherical valve piston ICE range extender:
http://www.coatesengine.com/
These have excellent NVH characteristics, excellent efficiency, and lower engine height.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (8:02 am)good point.. worrysome.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (8:06 am)I just don’t have the patience to wait on a Gen II Volt. Hope I don’t have to wait anyway from lack of availabilty of the Gen I.
May 27th, 2010 (8:12 am)Spherical Rotary Valve Cylinderhead
Animation here:
http://www.coatesengine.com/rotary_motor.html
+2
May 27th, 2010 (8:16 am)GM already had done a tremendous amount of research and tests regarding the Wankel, so, they would not really be re-inventing the wheel. One of the good things about having 100 or so years of history preserved, is that all that testing history from the 1972 Corvette Wankel physics is preserved.
I think a rotary Volt would have a really impressive sound at higher speeds for only when it is needed to be run. High performance buffs *want* sound, and, the refined sound of, say, a jet turbofan engine winding up at take off would cause demand because it is a signature of unique, high-end power.
So very many advantages with being plugged in at night for preconditioning the cab, but also, preconditioning of the engine block with inexpensive grid-energy preheating for a few minutes each morning, can cause very easy compliance emissions-wise for the Wankel for Winter and everyday start-ups. Especially where there is a “learned-range blended-drive-tasking for destination-and-back-timings” within the PCM.
So, I think GM is not quite as interested in “throwing off the competition” because the competition isn’t even starting to compete, as truly they are all at least 5 years behind GM technical historical expertise as I know it so well.
This is going to be one very incredible vehicle.
May 27th, 2010 (8:17 am)I think a rotary internal combustion range extender for the Volt is sweet, although personally, I’d like a turbine range extender.
If I could get my Volt with a turbine range extender, I’d fuel mine with peanut oil lol.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (8:27 am)Would you rather have a Volt that can get higher gas mileage in the ICE mode, but at the cost of not having the 40miles of all electric range?
If the Volt can maintain a gas mileage of 50 MPG in the ICE mode, what’s to prevent GM from offering another car option. A car without the huge battery pack, having only the traditional battery, therefore cutting the weight of 400 lbs. The coolant system would be small, light weight and used only for heating the cabin. Being the power going to the wheels comes from an electric motor, this car would not need a transmission, thus saving money from having an expensive item. A car like this would probably not cost anymore than a traditional ICE and could increase the fleet gas mileage if used on other GM vehicles.
Just my thoughts running wild.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (8:28 am)I think the VOLT’s Current specs. are great.
Generally any changes that car companies make in the next generations of a design are to lower cost, up performance specs and add options.
I think the article posted to today reflects these ideals-
Making the gen. set more efficient, lighter and at lower cost fits this idea.
We will see cheaper batteries ( simple research is showing that now – cost per watt is dropping and energy density continues to rise)
What car company cannot resist to add options.
I would expect nothing less from GM when they have a game changing car.
These are all wins. GM needs to build this car until demand drops be it VOLT1, VOLT2 etc.( a long time from now)
Then we will all look forward to the next super generation…
+1
May 27th, 2010 (8:30 am)With the the EREV series design, a larger gas engine doesn’t give you any extra acceleration.
An EREV sport model would probably have a larger electric motor, and the same sized gas engine.
May 27th, 2010 (8:45 am)A 7.5 hp engine running all the time puts out the same as a 75 hp engine running 10% of the time, more or less. So the engine only has to cruise the car at some speed and maintain the battery’s state of charge. The battery has the job of taking mountains and the occasional 5 liter Mustang.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (8:46 am)But not necessarily for the long haul, for higher duration peak power needs.
As well, the famous GM longevity of products lasting 30 “daily driver”-”carefully-maintained”- years is also important to keep in mind.
GM had like, 12 engine and tranny combo’s in the 1960′s to be sold based on power needs.
I think if there were wide-ranging cost savings to be available for a wide array of product types like in the 1960′s, where the buyer could essentially tailor their Chevy (Volt) more precisely to their consistent power needs, then, I think that if the assembly line could be made to do that, you would certainly command far, far more market share right into the competition’s territory.
/must get to work. have a great day everyone!!)
+1
May 27th, 2010 (8:47 am)I bet this would have worse handling (higher and front-loaded center of gravity) than the current location of the battery. If it would, then I’d take the 4-person Volt with superior handling.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (8:49 am)No.
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………………… Gallons per year
Volt 40 AER, 50 MPG … 37
Volt 20 AER, 55 MPG … 220
Prius …………………………… 228
30 MPG car ………………… 380
20 MPG car ………………… 570
May 27th, 2010 (8:53 am)GM and Kawasaki = VOLT Ninja !
-14
May 27th, 2010 (8:57 am)(click to show comment)
+1
May 27th, 2010 (8:59 am)Scratch that.
No.
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………………… Gallons per year
Volt 40 AER, 50 MPG … 37
Volt 20 AER, 55 MPG … 89
Prius …………………………… 228
30 MPG car ………………… 380
20 MPG car ………………… 570
+3
May 27th, 2010 (9:02 am)Scratch my previous figures. For some reason, the site would let me edit.
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………………… Gallons per year
Volt 40 AER, 50 MPG … 37
Volt 20 AER, 55 MPG … 89
Prius …………………………… 228
30 MPG car ………………… 380
20 MPG car ………………… 570
May 27th, 2010 (9:12 am)The editing on this site is going haywire…
May 27th, 2010 (9:16 am)Why not call this a generator, instead of a ‘range-extender’?
I’m disappointed they are not talking about turbines. Guess they are too expensive.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (9:17 am)Personally the Rotary (wankel) engine is a bad choice for the E-Rev concept. Having owned many Rotary powered vehicles I have lived with the inherent design problems of the motor.
The Rotary makes sense as far as packaging goes, but due to the rotary having no valves, it has a tendency to seize up more readily than a normal IC. This is a big concern for an E-rev concept due to the engine not coming on very often. Rotary engines also require occasional HIGH RPM sprints to help keep constant duty cycle carbon from building up. In the Volt this is a problem, when ever will the engine be able to achieve high RPMs to do this? Rarely. The fuel consumption in a rotary is also a very big problem, MPG figures have not changed much and hover around 15-28 for 1.2L-1.3L engines. However the engines in almost all mazda powered cars have been geared toward performance, but the engine still does not make great fuel economy.
Rotary engines are however very smooth and have more power output per Kg than other ICE engines. So from experience, rotary engines are great when you need a good power to weight ratio, and not so much for efficiency to weight ratio.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (9:21 am)If you want to drive 130 miles per hour all day long, then you would need a larger ICE and larger electric motor. But if you just want to drive 130 miles per hour occasionally, for less than 10 minutes at a time, then a larger electric motor with a smaller ICE should do just fine. Remember that 30% of a 16kWh battery is still a lot of energy, enough to average peak load for many minutes.
So the Ampera sport model in Europe might have a larger ICE, but with American speed limits, I can’t see a reason for it.
In other words, most American sport cars are “muscle cars” that have huge engines, but often lack other high-end features required for continuous high-speed driving. The main desirable attribute is acceleration.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (9:29 am)Rotary engines have ALWAYS had a BIG problem… Apex seals fail, and not many people know how to work on them. So GM going to source engines from Mazda now?
+8
May 27th, 2010 (9:30 am)If the ICE is too small, the battery ends up charging and discharging all the time, which reduces efficiency and adds more wera on the battery.
In other words, the idea is to match the ICE/genset ouput as closely as possible with the power demands of the electric motor, which bypasses the battery most of the time:
+2
May 27th, 2010 (9:31 am)If the demand is there, the Volt will be built without the need for Chinese produced ICE! Expect to see new engine designs which solve all the problems you talk about; the wave engine mentioned in an earlier post looks like a great candidate for a range extender.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
May 27th, 2010 (9:34 am)THere are small effecient gas and diesel powered generators in every RV in the country .Is it that difficult to buy an already proven set-up from another company until battery costs come down?
+2
May 27th, 2010 (9:35 am)And of course, the Nissan LEAF will be use electricity generated by coal, er I mean “pixie dust.” Nothing to see here, people! Please keep moving along! Silly little troll. Work on your weak talking points.
May 27th, 2010 (9:43 am)Wiper seal life and oil usage has been fixed in the new generation of rotary engines.. the part I find hard to believe is lower cost..
+2
May 27th, 2010 (9:48 am)http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/05/volt-ii—a-5000-battery-pack-and-a-rotary-engine-range-extender.html
“GM is expected to launch the Volt in the territory of $35,000 (before federal and local tax incentives) in order to be competitive with the $33,000 Nissan Leaf battery-electric car that goes on sale in limited release in December.”
+2
May 27th, 2010 (10:17 am)And as customers, that’s what we want them to do. Better safe than sorry. Over-designed cannot be bad. Under-designed could lead to problems or catastrophe.
May 27th, 2010 (10:25 am)Hurray! Another realistic thinker! As much as it would be nice to have a pure electric car, the range limitations and charging availability/time don’t make it worthwhile to me and most other people. At least not for a few more years.
I can’t imagine rescheduling my life to make it fit an electric car. I want an electric car to fit me.
“Sorry, I’m late picking you up from the airport. My battery was a bit low from running some unexpected errands after work, and I had to charge my car for a couple hours first.”
+8
May 27th, 2010 (10:31 am)James, you have a point. What company keeps saying : my product won’t be affordable so don’t buy it. We will not build a lot anyway. Wait until you see the next one…
That’s a very strange way to make business. Another PR faux pas, to say the least.
Put your product in showrooms. Show how good it is. Don’t apologize for having created a ‘sort of expensive’ piece of art that will revolutionize the car industry. We are not talking 80,000$ here, price should be in the mid-30s. It’s not that expensive for a technological breakthrough. Keep working to lower cost but don’t tell people to wait and not buy now.
And mostly, learn from your mistakes. EV1 was a marketing disaster, don’t repeat it. At least, learn from your competition. I didn’t hear Ghosn say ‘people should wait for the second generation Leaf’ …
-3
May 27th, 2010 (10:33 am)Instead, they are looking into more efficient engine options.
Makes you wonder how far off the 50 MPG they really are.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (10:38 am)john1701a said:
Makes you wonder how far off the the 50 MPG they really are.
Yeah, you might be right, I’ve heard 60 mpg passed around here and there.
May 27th, 2010 (10:40 am)john1701a said:
Makes you wonder how far off the the 50 MPG they really are.
Yeah, you might be right, I’ve heard 60 mpg passed around here and there.
That could be embarrassing, after spending so much on the Cruze.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (10:42 am)Just as usual many tend to ONLY apply certain rules to just one of the products in comparison. Why is that? Is it to hide the true negative aspects of the Volt to make it look better for YOU? Apply your rule of “will be use electricity generated by coal, er I mean “pixie dust.” to both cars. Here’s why, they are both propelled by stored electrical charge at one point or another. The LEAF will be 100%. So in doing so, sure, both cars “will be use electricity generated by coal, er I mean “pixie dust.” so that’s a wash. No advantage for either in your eyes. But the Volt will be propelled by polluting gas the rest of its full capacity travel distance.
So here’s a “full capacity” (Drive from full to completely empty) of distance traveled comparison for you to chew on.
LEAF 100 mile range
The LEAF at “full capacity ” has 100 miles EV range 100% of the time. 0 miles and 0% liquid fuel range used from the sand lands.
Volt 340 mile range
The Volt at “full capacity ” has 40 miles EV range 11.7% of the time. 300 miles and 88.3% liquid fuel used from the sand lands.
So in view of the data and with the desire to get the bloody hell off of products from the boys in the sand lands which product will help the most ion attaing the “Inedependence from foreign oil”?
Or you can just put on your greenwash blinders on and say “Nothing to see here, people! Please keep moving along! Silly little troll. Work on your weak talking points. ”
Truth.
Range Anxiety = Dependent on foreign oil
May 27th, 2010 (10:42 am)Your reading comprehension is dodgy, they are looking for LOWER COST options
May 27th, 2010 (10:48 am)Keep in mind, not all rotary engines are Wankels:
http://www.regtech.com/
http://www.libralato.co.uk/
Kind of a short post, but I’m off to a meeting….
+4
May 27th, 2010 (10:53 am)How Much?
How Fast? (100mph)
How Far?
From “Who killed the elctric car”.
People want the same questions answered they did 10-15 years ago. Now i was at Volt Nation, and i have applauded GM for their transparency……
But the closer we get to launch it seems like we get less info from GM and more denials of rumors. How could not giving the MSRP (price) benefit GM? Nissan is making news everywhere they turn on a car most here believe only works for 2 car families anyway….. Their running TV ads all the time for the Leaf.
GM is 6 months from launch
They haven’t advertized it at all, other then 5 second flashes in larger GM commercials that you barely ever see. They haven’t released the price, or the purchasing options. What’s going on hear??? I mean i don’t have my MBA but it dosen’t seem like much of the world (except for guys like us) no much about the volt at all. We have all agreed and GM has said there will need to be some public education on the Volt & how it works, when is that gonna start? After the launch?
The closer we get to launch the more i’m starting to think GM has no intentions of making the Volt in any signifigant volume until they can get the cost down and make it profitable… Even at the expense of losing the EV/EREV lead to Nissan
May 27th, 2010 (11:01 am)What the heck do you need 75 HP for?
To sustain the charge on the highway, 20 HP – 15 kW should do.
I would use a “Metal-Air Fuel Cell Range Extender” instead of an ICE.
There are lots of “Fuel Cell/Primary Battery” options these days besides H2 … metals such as ALUMINUM (83.8 MJ/L) have more energy than gasoline (34.3 MJ/L) … and the efficiency of conversion in an Aluminum “PRIMARY” battery is 90% vs 20% for an ICE.
That works out to about TEN TIMES (1,000%) more useable energy per Liter/Gallon than gasoline.
ENERGY DENSITIES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
+6
May 27th, 2010 (11:03 am)If you would have to reschedule your life, then such a car is not a good choice for you.
Other people rarely or never travel more than 50 miles in a day. I am married to one of them. She makes important trips most every day, but never travels more than 20 miles in any single day, in her car. (If she wants to go on a longer trip, we go together, in a different car.) Also, to her an opportunity to plug in and thereby to avoid having to go to the gas station is, to her, hugely positive. I’m sure she is not alone.
I would still rather for her to have a Volt over a Leaf, since I am thinking Volt will be a nicer and more versatile vehicle, but really a Leaf will meet her needs just fine.
So what is a poor choice for one person can be very attractive to another one.
May 27th, 2010 (11:05 am)Check out Paul Moller’s rotary engine(The guy who created ‘Skycar’). Rotapower.net has some cool pics where you can see engine size/power comparisons. I think it’s kind of fascinating personally. Like others have said though, it’s not common and you don’t want to mass produce something that you have to train a bunch of people on if it’s not necessary. Even good ideas don’t always become widely used.
http://www.moller.com (Moller International main website)
http://www.rotapower.net (Dedicated site for the rotapower engine)
http://www.freedom-motors.com (Company who has license to sell the engine)
+1
May 27th, 2010 (11:05 am)This narrow view of Volt’s capabilities is starting to wear thin.
If you drive 40 miles per charge, you don’t use a single drop of ‘liquid fuel from the sand lands’. 80% of all drivers go less than 40 miles per day in the US. Outside the US the daily usage is much lower.
For me, both LEAF and Volt have way more capability than is needed for my daily commuting.
As far as the subject of this post, it shows that GM is exploring all possibilities for this platform. I don’t see any problem with making cost cuts as long as capability is also not cut.
I am thinking that we will end up with several voltec-based models with different specifications and price points.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (11:12 am)You are aware that the choice might be out of your hands one day….
If you had a choice of scheduling your driving habitts to fit your cars electric range or wait in line for 6 hours at a gas station, or not drive at all which would you choose.
You logic makes sense in our current enviroment, but what if gas goes to 9 bucks a gallon, or opec shuts us off and you can only get gas every other day at a 5 gallon limit? Problem is that if that’s what it takes for you to reschedule your life it will probably be to late by then or the deman for electric cars is so high it will take years to get one….
+1
May 27th, 2010 (11:14 am)Perhaps not.
What GM’s investigations into a new range-extender design tells us mainly is the state of the expected Gen II batteries. The 1.4L ICE in the present design has to be throttled to come as close as possible to the electrical current load, so as to minimize the need for the $10,000+ pack to buffer any difference. In other words, the present cells have to be coddled quite a bit in order to meet their expected lifetime goal.
With cells capable of a larger number of charge/discharge cycles, the pack can be counted on to do a lot more buffering. As a result, the engine can be allowed to come closer to the car’s average energy requirement, and be run at a constant speed.
What do you think the average power requirement for the Volt will be, even under aggressive driving? Suddenly, 20 – 25 HP starts to sound a lot more impressive.
This comes very close to the 20+ year-old notion I had for my ideal dream car — which brought me originally to this site. Implications for CS-mode MPG will be extraordinary. Performance shouldn’t be negatively effected except under conditions best described as “theoretical” (and with the lighter weight of the genset, it will likely improve!)
Sorry if this repeats anything, I just couldn’t wait to read the rest before posting. This could actually be very major.
May 27th, 2010 (11:16 am)I dont think it will need much repair work, its a range extender.. it will seldom be used. In any case you could just unbolt it (if designed properly with wingnuts) and fedexit back to Hamtrank for repairs at a central location.
-1
May 27th, 2010 (11:22 am)AnonymousProxy Says
Range Anxiety = Dependent on foreign oil
——————————————————————————–
How sad – another village has lost it’s Village Idiot. How do they always end up finding an internet connection?
Range anxiety = I have a life, and I cannot wait hours on a recharge. I can’t wait to see this guy hitching a ride after his Leaf runs out of juice. I won’t pick him up though – he obviously has plenty of spare time to watch a battery charger. (Must be a guy – women are smarter than that – they KNOW all about range anxiety)
May 27th, 2010 (11:23 am)Volt = 80% of people using 80% less gasoline. Sell-able
Leaf = 10% of people using 100% less gasoline. Also sell-able
Personally I think 80% using 80% less, is better than 10% using none, and running around saying everybody should be like them.
I hope that came out right.
May 27th, 2010 (11:24 am)I’ve always wondered why they used a pretty big (at least to me) ICE to get ~71HP from it.
I figure a 600cc motorcycle engine can get you the same thing. Here’s one (ok it’s old specs but they don’t give HP anymore) that can spitout 108bhp..
http://www.aperaceparts.com/tech/06gsxr600.html
Or a Rotary engine of similar power out…
http://www.revrotaryinc.com/product_list.html
Or another rotary power thingy…
http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/index.php?id=393
I’m not much of a gearhead so those may be kind off the wall to somayall but IMHO 1.4l is kinda big dontchathink?
+1
May 27th, 2010 (11:36 am)I was reading about the extended range engine possibilities and the search for compacter and cheaper alternatives and this made me think about Mercedes (Daimler).
Mercedes has three versions of the BlueZero, the F-Cell, the E-Cell and the E-Cell Plus versions. The Fuel-Cell version is already being produced in small quantities (400 vehicles) and the all battery version E-Cell is promised to be produced in 2012. But the only version of any interest is BlueZero E-Cell Plus, the hybrid version which would do real damage to the ICE market and there are no plans to introduce this model. This is partly to the fact that Mercedes has strong connects with the middle east. PJSC, Abu Dhabi 9.1% and KIA, Kuwait 6.9% are large investors in Mercedes.
They BlueZero E-Cell Plus, a hybrid with a 1.0l 50kW 3-cylinder turbo petrol engine taken from the Smart car range. This is a beautiful design with engine ( and generator) under the trunk compartment, petrol tank, complete exhaust and all ICE components neatly together at the rear of the car. The batteries are under the whole of the passenger compartment and the electric motor, inverter and controller at the front.
This is a good design because the noisy, vibrating engine is right at the rear of the car. The electricity thus ‘moves’ forwards from the back of the car to the front in a line, engine/generator->batteries->motor.
http://www.emercedesbenz.com/autos/mercedes-benz/concept-vehicles/mercedes-benz-at-the-2009-iaa-the-mercedes-bluezero-e-cell-plus/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOnjNXO_nCw
This arrangement would have advantages for Volt 2:
–noise and vibration at the rear
–efficiency of all ICE components being together
–exhaust pipe not under ther car – aerodynamic + space advantages
–ICE now lower (better roadholding) center of gravity
–As the front engine compartment would now be devoid of an engine (although electric motor + components) there could be possibilities for extra luggage space and better crash design.
–complete space between axles available = battery modulization:
Space for four modules – each module 16kWh
1 module (16kWh) = 60mile (100 km) range- basic version as now
4 modules (64kWh)=240miles (400 km) range- suffient range for a BEV
Battery modules should be backwards compatible so that a new module, even if future modules have more capacity or a smaller size, should still fit into the module position.
Modules could be added at will so that if after having say four modules giving a range of about 240 miles one could simply remove the ICE components and have a pure electric car.
So the Volt 2 (or 3) would be available an EREV or as a BEV and one could eventually convert the EREV into a BEV but not vice versa.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (11:41 am)It won’t mean that difference so it’s a moot point. There is absolutely no reason the engines cannot be manufactured domestically and still make a profit. We as Americans need to quit worshiping at the altar of price if we want to keep good paying jobs around and maintain our standard of living. Sure prices need to be competitive but it shouldn’t not be the number one factor in our purchasing decisions. We cannot maintain a stable economy without well paying jobs. Service jobs cannot provide all of the good paying jobs that we need, we need to you know actually make things.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (11:48 am)I know, we all have our favorite engine alternative; but this one would have similar weight savings/power output to a rotary, but use a wider range of fuels:
http://40yrs.blogspot.com/2009/09/neat-tech-nutating-engine.html
(Alas, it probably won’t ‘filter down’ from military applications for awhile).
May 27th, 2010 (12:00 pm)There was a BIG push to get a small (200 HP) gas turbine into mass production by the year 2000 for aviation (small planes). Williams International was the leading contender to succeed. Their result was not a huge commercial success. The final selling price was considerably above $100,000 per engine. Such engines are small, very power dense, not necessarily fuel efficient, very expensive, but low in maintenance cost.
May 27th, 2010 (12:01 pm)No load during accel and decel, no idling, and no load at low RPM.
May 27th, 2010 (12:11 pm)Correction: Power density is several times greater than any other piston or rotary design. At the site above, there is a link to a pdf of a NASA study of a prototype engine.
May 27th, 2010 (12:16 pm)Great report. A pilot VOLT rotary–everything’s on the table. In November 1974 I bought a Mazda Cosmo. (Making me an ‘early adopter’) In 100,000+ I went through two replacement engines (on warranty) and junked an otherwise perfect Cosmo (about 1984) when it needed a fourth. When running it purred. When the seal wore, it eat oil. I know that’s in the Stone Age but GM still must be absolutely certain of rotary durability and oil stability. One note to engineering. I saw heat problems across mountains and high speed. For size and weight rotary is hard to beat.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:19 pm)Any time the specifications warrant. It’s controlled by software, not your right foot.
I don’t get the better or worse part? IMO, just get the wheels on the road.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:22 pm)GM! PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS!
Incremental improvements in engine efficiency will reduce petroleum use by mabye 10-20% at the most. If you REALLY want to use the Volt Gen II to ween us off of oil, then waaayyyy more important than improving an already efficient engine would be to give us Flex Fuel capability. Yes, corn ethanol is a boondoggle, but when the cellulosic Coskata/GM ethanol becomes commercialized in a couple of years, buying E85 can reduce your gasoline use by a whopping 85%!!! So please, regardless of what engine you choose, make sure it is Flex Fuel capable!
May 27th, 2010 (12:23 pm)Wow, you really were an early adopter. Unfortunately long before ceramic seals were employed with a high level of efficacy. Purring in good!
-1
May 27th, 2010 (12:27 pm)Anything would be an improvement over that ridiculous 1.4L behemoth that was never designed for this purpose. This has to go down as one of the dumbest decisions ever in the history of Hybrid Engineering. What was GM thinking ? I have a feeling this was a management decision and not engineering as everybody knows almost all of GM problems come from their extremely large pool of incompetent managers spread across all level of the corporation. Unfortunately since their is no accountability within GM (due mainly to government bailout) most, if not all, of these stupid managers still have their jobs. It’s an outrage and the U.S. taxpayer deserves better.
May 27th, 2010 (12:28 pm)What if all three of you are wrong;
- What if the Volt takes most drivers down to 25 or 30 gallons of liquid fuel a year,
- What if most Leaf drivers make a purchase based on their driving needs and don’t have problems?
+5
May 27th, 2010 (12:30 pm)I TAKE IN SERIOUS OFFENSE! and I’m sure many that have a commute and family close within range does.
Just because someone’s lifestyle is different, and that it won’t fit a products range doesn’t make them any less or more. It just has to “Fit”. Just cuz it doesn’t fit you doesn’t make any other products not viable.
My commute is 9.5 miles one way, my wife is 6 miles from me at work and my family (parents, brothers sisters and cough….cough…..inlaws) are all within 12 miles from anywhere “I” am. And i’ll be damned if one is called names just because of their demographics or becuase a product “Fits” their needs.
May 27th, 2010 (12:31 pm)Lyle, as others have said already, WOW! Great piece of information. The Volt pack, the whole package including the cooling system costs about $10,000, or about $625 per kwh of initial capacity. Estimates for the Leaf pack vary but one source often cited indicates a cost of $432 per kwh, or “about $10,000″ for the whole pack. It is generally assumed the cooling and cell management system of the Volt costs considerably more that what is used on the Leaf.
Several articles indicated Nissan hopes to get the package price down to around $9000 ($370 per kwh) when averaged over the life of the first generation production schedule, and they say there goal is “way less” than $370 per kwh for the cost of the second generation NMC battery.
One piece of information I have not been able to find is what battery will be produced initially in the Tennessee battery facility. I am hoping it will be the 2d Gen NMC, but I have not seen that question addressed.
As to the question of the size of the on-board generator, several posters have suggested a large generator is required because of needing to maintain freeway speed on “sustained grades.” This is yet another question that needs to be answered with an independent evaluation of Volt performance. Lets say power consumption on a 6% grade at 60 MPH draws 70 kw. Now the generator of the Volt can provide about 50 KW. So the remainder would be supplied by the battery that is already somewhere around 30% capacity (about 4.8 kwh). Now how much of this is usable before the control computer managing the charge status of the battery stops the draw on the battery and thus speed decreases to what can be sustained with 50 kw. Lets guess 2.6 kwh which would preserve about 2.2 for the sake avoiding battery abuse. How long at 20 kw does it take to burn through 2.6 kwh? About 8 minutes. At 60 miles per hour, how far is that? Eight miles. So if a grade was longer than 8 miles, the Volt would suffer a loss of speed. But if the grade was less than that, you would still be doing 60 when you crest the summit and the generator will “refill” that 2.6 kwh on the downgrade to return the state of charge to around 30%. Now the numbers are just to illustrate a possible performance model, and I expect we will not be able to fill in the real numbers until we get that independent evaluation.
-7
May 27th, 2010 (12:39 pm)It’s called the Flux Capacitor you egg sucking dogs from the past !
Kindly remove your thinkless caps from your anal area and go Back to the Future.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (12:43 pm)Hey Zachary Taylor (Jackson)!!!
I read back on the post this weekend (I don’t have inet @ home) and read you got laid off.
All my prayers and sympathy for you bro!!!
Keep your head up man. I wish I could help but i’m just little old me.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:45 pm)I agree with this. RE should be as cheap as possible. Don’t worry about maximizing its efficiency for awhile. It’s rarely used. The benefits would be marginal.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:45 pm)Umm, you can relax Jim. If the “average” Volt driver is using 34 gallons of liquid fuel a year, by the time saving 45% or 85% of those 34 gallons reaches volumes large enough to make a big difference, the debate will likely have completely shifted.
Maybe we’ll be talking about whether it’s more economical for long distance drivers to use a methanol or nat gas fuel cell range extender or a battery with refillable electrolytes by then. An “average” Volt driver using 37* gallons of liquid fuel a year with a 1.4 L range extender is nothing to worry about, especially if Volt sales are only ramping slowly.
*See Dave G’s spreadsheet results
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:47 pm)Exactly!!!
Hey AnonymousProxy, have a beer dude, calm down. The Volt and LEAF are two products that gives us peeps an option to go full on 100% EV no OPEC juice (LEAF) or partially off OPEC juice as a “Bridge” till batt tech exponentiates on capacity.
/it’s all good bro…..it be all bout choices.
May 27th, 2010 (12:48 pm)The tone of your post suggests that you know nothing about GM-Volt.com decorum. If it was an attempt at humour, better luck next time.
May 27th, 2010 (12:49 pm)The tone of your post suggests that you know nothing about GM-Volt.com decorum. If it was an attempt at humor, better luck next time.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:55 pm)#5
Man,I sure hope so! +1
+1
May 27th, 2010 (12:57 pm)Dang big words.
Off to google it…
EDIT:
Noun
Singular
decorum
Plural
countable and uncountable; plural decorums
decorum (countable and uncountable; plural decorums)
1. (uncountable) Appropriate social behavior; propriety
2. (countable) A convention of social behavior
OK, I get it now….lol
May 27th, 2010 (12:59 pm)Or HCCI with an upgraded cooling system, windings and IGBT’s
+3
May 27th, 2010 (1:09 pm)Bad idea. I’m tired of companies hiring wing nuts and using them to help design critical products. I say never again
May 27th, 2010 (1:15 pm)Wow.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/05/bipartisan-electric-drive-vehicle-deployment-act-to-be-introduced-today.html
“Those subsidies would be in addition to the existing $7,500 federal income tax credit for purchase of highway-legal electric-drive vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf battery-electric car and Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in hybrid, both due to begin sales late this year.”
+1
May 27th, 2010 (1:20 pm)Mazda uses rotaries to this day. A brave group of engineers and managers IMO. Amazing what a small group can accomplish sometimes.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (1:21 pm)Excellent post. Thanks for your open thinking.
GM has to walk a fine line between too much and too little importation. Using the lowest-cost location as the center of their world-wide production is a no-brainer, in an apolitical world. Alas, such a world does not exist. Hence the continued production in high-cost locations like the US. Must drive the mgmt at GM nuts. They otherwise have the chance to leapfrog many of their competitors on cost, by continuing to expand their Chinese production and using it as their export base. Remember, not only are the auto laborers much cheaper, but BYD has said they pay their engineers 1/10th what US engineers are paid. Hmmm. Ok, design them in China, at least. Oops. Already been done. Think Buick.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (1:28 pm)#11
Nope.
-2
May 27th, 2010 (1:30 pm)Which is exactly what offering the choice would achieve. Why are you dodging that?
May 27th, 2010 (1:38 pm)Yeah, I read that too on ABG. I don’t know if it will help any mfgr get their products out sooner but plopping down more and more charge stations is a very good idea.
/jus don’t forget to put a charge stand at H( . y . )TERS!!!
May 27th, 2010 (1:49 pm)Thanks, man.
May 27th, 2010 (1:49 pm)RX-7, RX-8 and the up coming RX-9. Mazda has been using the rotary for a long time but only gets in the mid 20′s MPG on the highway. Diesel or traditional engine seems to be a better way to go unless GM can get the MPG up.
May 27th, 2010 (1:56 pm)Why don’t you go somewhere else on the Internet and find a life?
May 27th, 2010 (2:15 pm)Hey! GM is talking about using a Wankel in a Volt!
Where the heck is Jason M. Hendler?!!
May 27th, 2010 (2:22 pm)Lyle, would be nice to have you create a seperate thread on the Congressional proposed legislation, pointed out by Loboc on post 118:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/05/bipartisan-electric-drive-vehicle-deployment-act-to-be-introduced-today.html
Here’s a primo quote:
“The House plans aims to get up to 4 million EVs deployed in the selected regions between 2011 and 2017.”
I can hear the “increase the production” VoltHeads already!
T
+2
May 27th, 2010 (2:38 pm)#26
What part of “NO” don’t you understand?
+1
May 27th, 2010 (2:41 pm):“The House plans aims to get up to 4 million EVs deployed in the selected regions between 2011 and 2017.
”I can hear the “increase the production” VoltHeads already!T
——————-
Hey Timaaaayyy #128 ====
Yes sir!!! “You got that right!”
Assembly plant production … 24/7 makes a lot of sense.
Build – Build – Build !!! Get market share and name recognition for a quality product.
Go VOLT :+}
+1
May 27th, 2010 (2:42 pm)GM wanted a big quiet engine just loping along at low rpm.. as a result the genset cant be heard or felt once it turns on. I dont think it is expensive but probably weighs 400-600lbs once you include all the accessories. I doubt if GM is paying more that $1k for the whole thing once its in mass production. Does anyone know?
Can you get good economy out of a twin opposed air cooled 2-stroke?
May 27th, 2010 (2:45 pm)“Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in.” – Michael Corleone.
Any liquid fueled range extender would be able to operate in it’s sweet spot, since the electric motor handles torque for acceleration as well as the regenerative braking needs. The RE can be designed, tuned and run for maximum efficiency. What that MPG number will be, I could not even guess.
That reminds me, a great job yesterday on the references to the engineers that developed the diesel electric systems that eliminated the steam engine trains. The efficiencies of electrified trains were likely adopted first because even if lower cost diesel only trains were developed at that time, creating transmissions for them would have been very difficult. Electric motor torque at 0 RPM can be very helpful with extreme loads or with Volt loads.
May 27th, 2010 (2:48 pm)lol….
I think most if not all the mfgr’s will say not, need to test test, then get it out. I don’t think any amount of $$$ will get any of them to spit them out sooner. I do think though thtat getting a sh|tloda of charge ports in key areas will help ease those range fears.
How bout a bunch of charge ports in front of Mall entrances covered with Solar Panels?
Or at Theme parks??
Or at Gubbment buildings?
Tourist stops/areas?
Key locations on long strips of highways?
Someone posts this all the time, I think it’s James…
If you build it (EV’s) they will come…….charge ports that is.
Or something like that…..lol
May 27th, 2010 (2:48 pm)Lots of power, but an order of magnitude more emissions.
May 27th, 2010 (2:50 pm)Price of Crude Oil up over 4% in ONE DAY…
=D-Volt
May 27th, 2010 (2:53 pm)My SWAG is yes. But the emissions will rule it out, at least here in brokeazz CA. CARB will prolly regulate it to death.
/unless there’s a really clean way for a 2stroke to run…..
+1
May 27th, 2010 (3:09 pm)#130
“Build baby, build”
May 27th, 2010 (3:31 pm)Very interesting. Though it will cost the company much more money for the engine, I
+1
May 27th, 2010 (3:32 pm)#95
Amen. +1
May 27th, 2010 (3:33 pm)Very interesting. Though it will cost the company much more money for the engine it will definitely be easier on the customers wallet. We got to remember the customers always come first
-1
May 27th, 2010 (3:47 pm)You’re welcome Tim. Posts #11 and #13 are up to -13 ( so it gets hidden… ). I was wondering if they get to -20 they turn red or something….
Evidently, someone missed the “brainstorming” part, or the “thinking outside the current outside the box thinking” part? At any rate, I hold the opinion my open thoughts about composites and aluminum components were valid. Also, I suppose the minus clickers just want Volt to remain an interesting scientific experiment and not a real, “Volt Wheels On The Road” car we see every day on our streets? Point is, costs need to come down and/or government funding has to go up, or both – to see our Volt, gen 1,2,3 or whatever.
I haven’t decided in my mind that China is the manufacturing base for the West, this decision was made for me – in case you’ve been in cryogenic freeze for 10 years – the USA is not a manufacturing nation any longer – sadly we are a nation of consumers – our laws and corporate wills seem to all have followed Wal Mart, lemming-like off the abyss. It’s all about profit, man – wake up and smell the five dollar cup of coffee. Just like the prevailing winds of change today that decided for you and me that illegal immigrants should have all the rights and privileges tax paying citizens who actually give a crap about America’s legacy have and have access to the fruits of our income tax – that we should be the USM ( United States Of Mexico ), this stuff is larger than us. So my point is, get the Volt mass produced, and stop whining about it’s cost. If you have to build part of it in China – do it – it’s not like GM isn’t setting up a manufacturing base there anyway.
The Edmunds.com article posted here re: new proposed laws and new incentives for EVs and charging infrastructure needs to be Lyle’s subject of the day tomorrow, IMO. A very positive subject and just might be what gets EREVs and EVs over the hump and into the mainstream.
Of course I’d rather Volt be 100% domestically grown. Absolutely my preference would be China be set out to pasture. But to me, Volt is so significant – and since it appears it may never see 50 state large distribution – I’d be able to push myself behind a partial Chinese-sourced car just to make it so.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME
+1
May 27th, 2010 (3:51 pm)#113
Oh I dunno, I thought it was kinda cute. I gave him a +1 just for the chuckle, LOL. Decorum?? What about old AP? I take more offense at his stuff than I do to this.
May 27th, 2010 (3:58 pm)I’d like to see “right away” (Gen II), a lighter, lower cost, 3 cyl, 0.7-1L engine That can get 40 To 55Kw from the alternator. Using Aluminum, dual VVT ect it should get close to the 1.4L power with a noticable improvement in gas mileage & weight.
If the 1.4 get 50Mpg, then a 0.88L 3cyl might get 60-65, & the reduced weight might give the volt a few more AER miles as well …
… & I thought they were working on a turbo system where the exhaust blower would turn a small charger/gen directly, instead of a compressor for more efficient xfer of exhaust power into electrical power, without the downsides of a compressor/engine based turbo .. any news on this??
May 27th, 2010 (3:59 pm)Oh yeah! Great link. Bring it on. Thanks. +1
+2
May 27th, 2010 (4:11 pm)#143
GM has a very nice 3 cyl, 1.0L engine in production in Europe now. They have subcompacts with this engine getting over 50 mpg right now. It was originally going to be used in the Volt in turbocharged form. Somewhere along the line they switched to the naturally aspirated 1.4. I assume it was a cost isue, as they would have commonality with the new Cruze engine, and could use the same plant. I was really disappointed. What a shame. Maybe in Gen 2.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (4:21 pm)We still make a lot of things:
“The United States is the world’s largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion.
Main industries include petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition
-1
May 27th, 2010 (4:25 pm)Well said, +1 for you.
I guess some people have never heard of solar, wind, geothermal, etc electrical generation. Oh well, at least it’s known that coal burning plants are better than millions of polluting cars which aren’t as well regulated.
GO EV!!!
http://www.theevproject.com/
May 27th, 2010 (4:30 pm)Funny how that it is, isn’t it? Maybe there’s only enough money to advertise just before the release of the VOLT or they don’t what to advertise too much concerning the limited production run? I feel there will be alot more ads for VOLT 2nd GEN, once production ramps up!
GO EV!!!
http://www.theevproject.com/
May 27th, 2010 (4:39 pm)That’s becuase Gary never lived through the early 70′s when gas was very limted as in waiting in line at gas stations to MAYBE get gas if there was any left by the time you up at the pump.
Funny thing is during all the gas crisis, electricity was always available, go figure ????
GO EV!!!
http://www.theevproject.com/
May 27th, 2010 (4:46 pm)Going with a 100+ HP motorcycle engine as part of the EREV generator system is an interesting idea. Especially since the engine gets such light duty. I have seen several motorcycle engine tests where 100,000 miles miles are put on an engine in a period of a few months. One that stands out is the Honda CBR 1000CC engine. Rated at 150HP, it’s smooth and can rev to an unbelievable 12,000 RPM. Listen to the CBR 1000 with the link below. The test rider takes the RPM all the way up to the rev limiter. Then downshifts as the RPM drop off.
=D-Volt
http://garfwod.250free.com/Honda%20CBR%201000.wav
Honda/Fisker partnership?
May 27th, 2010 (4:49 pm)Well said Captain, +1 for you!!!
Some people just have small minds that can’t understand the needs of all, just themselves!
GO EV!!!
http://www.theevproject.com/
May 27th, 2010 (4:55 pm)Here ya go, for a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_engine#Electric
May 27th, 2010 (5:06 pm)So far, I have yet to see a electric mashup with a Kawasaki superbike frame in a sanctioned race. But electric mashups with Suzuki, Ducati, KTM, Honda, Yamaha, Honda, even Norton superbike frames, yep. Oh, wait, the electric Norton did use a reworked fork from a Kawi Ninja – who said suspension doesn’t matter (as well as Honda wheels and brakes)? See TTXGP and FIM e-Power for ongoing electric superbike racing series.
May 27th, 2010 (5:12 pm)Jeffhre said:
Engineer: Rotary engines also require occasional HIGH RPM sprints to help keep constant duty cycle carbon from building up. In the Volt this is a problem, when ever will the engine be able to achieve high RPMs to do this?
Any time the specifications warrant. It’s controlled by software, not your right foot.
Oh Man, that’s my best excuse for the highway patrol, “I was just blowing the carbon out”.
May 27th, 2010 (5:13 pm)CaptJackSparrow: Yeah, I read that too on ABG. I don’t know if it will help any mfgr get their products out sooner but plopping down more and more charge stations is a very good idea.
/jus don’t forget to put a charge stand at H( . y . )TERS!!!
I posted that link not thinking about the implications within the story.
They are talking about 1 BILLION dollars PER market. I think we already have enough incentives to buy electric cars and I think that the feds dumping more cash into the EV field will not get us there any faster. It’s not like we have an unlimited supply of funds.
This money will be wasted and/or unwisely spent imho.
It will probably get through congress because of the spill and Obama will probably sign it because of his statements about wanting x number of electric cars by 20xx. And we the taxpayer will be paying for it the rest of our lives.
May 27th, 2010 (5:25 pm)Jeffhre said:
nothing to worry about, especially if Volt sales are only ramping slowly.
That’s exactly why we need more Volts on the road ASAP. We need every bit of feedback to be significant.
-6
May 27th, 2010 (5:34 pm)Read the comments with lots of negative votes. Attempts to deal with issues head on have not been received well. Hope that changes.
The first major steps is to clearly list goals…
What milestones must be achieved and by when?
-2
May 27th, 2010 (5:37 pm)Herm Herm Herm….
Globalization, world manufacturing realities —-
Yes, quite plainly many things are still made right here in the USA. But that amount is declining at more than alarming rates.
2005 Ford Focus domestic content: 75%
2009 Ford Focus domestic content: 50%
source, Cars.com
2010 Ford Fusion – Made in Hermasillo, Mexico
source, Motor Trend
2010. Cannondale Bicycle Company closes doors, moves manufacturing to Taiwan. 300 jobs lost in Illinois. Maker of Schwinn, GT and Mongoose bicycles. Bye bye Schwinn.
source, StillMadeInAmerica.com
2008. 70% of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner and 60% of it’s other airliners sourced from outside USA.
source, Businessweek
Vise-Grip – Irwin Tools America shutters doors, moving to China. Deloitte, Nebraska’s largest employer of 650 leaves after starting business in 1930.
90% of grid solution commercial wind farm turbines from foreign manufacturers.
source, Energy Council
You know we could write this for pages and pages – just plucked a couple red, white and blue companies to make a point. Not trying to be a downer. These are only the realities we face today. Canada being the largest importer of goods to America by dollar amount – due to it’s 1st place position as America’s largest importer of crude oil. 2nd place importer of goods – well you guessed it, China.
So yes, buy American. Do your research. And yes try to support American jobs – and promote English as our national language to your Congresspersons and companies you deal with.
Anyone who has kept record of U.S. GDP today compared to 30 years go ( hello, LauraM? ) will tell you of the sharp MONTHLY declines in relation to foreign imports – let alone the downward slippery slope we’re on as the world’s number one consumer state.
Volt will need more than Korean batteries to be price competitive. Sorry to be the bearer of this news.
RECHARGE! James
+3
May 27th, 2010 (6:02 pm)You don’t seem to understand, a consumer dominated economy is not sustainable, if we don’t change our ways you are going to see the standard of living in this country drop precipitously. With modern manufacturing techniques we can certainly be competitive (much fewer people required per unit of production output is needed with modern techniques) with the rest of the world, look at Germany for example. What we need in this country is a coherent industrial policy that encourages new manufacturing to be started here, as part of that industrial policy we must look to leveling the playing field with the rest of the world. We cannot continue to drive wages down and expect to maintain our standards of living. It’s not just manufacturing either, when companies have the ability to offshore jobs willy nilly many classes of jobs are being forced to compete against global markets that do not share equal standards of living. This forces the standards of living down for everyone here. We need trade agreements that take into account worker safety and environmental standards as well as using our tariff power to ensure a level playing field. If we fail to do this the only people who will win are the corporations. The productivity gains over the past 30+ years have gone almost exclusively to the upper 1-5% this cannot go on if we expect to maintain a middle class. No middle class no thriving economy. Look to economic make up of Mexico, small very wealthy class and a vast underclass, that is our future if we do not change our ways.
May 27th, 2010 (6:04 pm)Well there aren’t that many flex fuel stations around so it won’t actually reduce gas usage that much. In this regard, if you assume the existence of infrastructure then CNG or LNG would work as well.
May 27th, 2010 (6:13 pm)As transportation costs go up it becomes uneconomical to ship parts all over the world. This is why the Japanese companies usually export the expensive cars with higher margins and build the more competitively priced cars here.
In any event, here is an article about the difficulties of manufacturing in the US:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-green-manufacturing-20100509,0,1016526.story
-2
May 27th, 2010 (6:21 pm)So, does this mean the Volt really was a desperate bankruptcy induced run through the parts bin to put together something that turned out too heavy and too expensive?
________
Maybe GM should have just commissioned a German engineering firm to figure the thing out BEFORE a billion dollars in development money ended up in the shltter.
FEV LiiON Vehicle With Wankel Range Extender at the Vienna Motor Symposium
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/05/fev-20100512.html
/note the 20 kw rotary engine
//Q. If gen ii is going to be this radically different, how many units do you think GM will put out in gen i form? … A. Just enough to keep the halo status going.
__________
This to me sounds like Gen I is DOA, and how ever they price a few (10,000 units?) is irrelevant. — i.e. under $30,000 after the tax credit may happen, but what difference does it make if nobody but select hollywoods and politicians can purchase the small numbers that are produced?
– guess we’ll all just have to ‘stay tuned’ for gen 2!!
May 27th, 2010 (6:30 pm)Mid twenties on a “fast” car is not bad. Probably the equivalent of mid twenties on a pick-up truck.
+2
May 27th, 2010 (6:35 pm)Thanks for the active motions animation of that Libralato Engine. After studying the motions for about five minutes or so, it looks a lot more efficient than a Wankel. It looks like it would perform well at a steady state. The really great thing about an electric storage medium is that you can now go all the way back and review all previous efficient steady-state engine designs that were efficient at fixed rpm’s, yet were not as suitable for the huge variations required by ICE motorists nowadays. Those older Wankels were gas guzzlers because you had to rev them all the way up to 3,000 to 4,000 rpms for each gear, but may actually have excellent efficiencies at a fixed speed. Also, the old Wankel designs had far fewer efficiency improvements compared to those produced today.
For all kinds of engineers, the Voltec drive systems’ numerous flexibilities give all of them some very exciting chances to get back into really incredible competitive design considerations for future applications of their original patents possibly.
Anyone have more detailed specs on the Libralato Engine design above? Any working models? Has GM looked at that design yet?
-1
May 27th, 2010 (6:35 pm)what are you talking about?
May 27th, 2010 (6:37 pm)Ask Saab! They built nothing but 2 strokes for many years.
-1
May 27th, 2010 (6:37 pm)No, John; it’s you and your meaningless demands of this board which have not been received well. You have asked for a list of goals and or milestones for years.
FOR.
YEARS.
You’ve never gotten either because:
1) Those of us who have suffered through your comments over the years know that all you want is a source of bullet points for a refutation
2) We know that your primary goal here is to cast the Volt in a bad light vs. the soon-to-be de-throned green queen (and love of your life), the Toyota Prius
3) It’s not our job to generate such a @#$% list. The only one — the only one — who has any interest in a list of goals and milestones is ***YOU***.
Put your lures back in the box, no one is ‘biting’ today.
May 27th, 2010 (6:41 pm)I can tell you there will be more Voltec 1 on the street then that.
-5
May 27th, 2010 (6:47 pm)Go on accepting the status quo (too little, too slowly) by watching the competition goggle up market opportunity, rather than actually stepping up and doing something.
It’s the consumers who drive the market, not the automakers.
Hasn’t the lesson of EV1 taught you anything?
May 27th, 2010 (6:49 pm)That’s what I can’t wait to hear, how many MPG Volt’s cruise control gets on the highway.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (6:53 pm)Technology in this area is changing rapidly. No one appreciates this more than the Volt team at GM, as we’re hearing.
I’ve read a lot of disparaging comments late in this thread about Gen I, such as “DOA.” That’s the worst possible way to look at it. Rather, and more accurately, today’s news is a sign of how much better and less expensive to build Gen II will be.
Could it be that there is, after all, a reason for limited production of Gen I? Not that it’s a flop of some kind, but because GM knows that a quantum leap forward is just around the bend?
Here’s a prediction: Even this supposedly flawed Gen I version will out-perform and prove more reliable than any other new EV offered during the same period (2010 – 2013).
May 27th, 2010 (6:54 pm)(/dry humor “on”.)
That’s really some silly logic. Rome was not built in a day. You don’t just perfect all other systems without having the initial set of configurations enginewise to be firstly in place, then get the vast majority of the non-ICE engine/torque research done and perfected. You start with what you know and already have ICE-wise first, and build upon it, around it, research what portion of power you have been able to reduce in needing in it, and on and on. Never have I heard such a silly post here, not even John1701a does that. (He has a problem with displacement of unsatisfied failure-frustrations not at all GM/Volt related on our site here and takes himself too seriously it seems to me, but correct me if I’m wrong that he’s not silly.)
May 27th, 2010 (6:59 pm)You mean even better than this 1910 Baker?
May 27th, 2010 (7:01 pm)What’s the matter, ECO? Not compliant?
May 27th, 2010 (7:05 pm)Sorry, meant this.
May 27th, 2010 (7:06 pm)Put it in a 40 AER EREV and it will run only 15-20% of the time on fleet average
May 27th, 2010 (7:06 pm)No, I don’t find John1701a at all silly. Pathetic, maybe; but not silly.
There have been times when I thought that carcus[x] and John were the same person, but the personality difference you point out proves that this is not the case.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (7:07 pm)Depends if the twins sister can suck a golf ball through a hose… Capn’ will like this one!
+1
May 27th, 2010 (7:27 pm)#159
True that. +1
May 27th, 2010 (7:27 pm)Actually, it would not make any difference because I don’t think it will ever come down to that choice.
At the present time, I view the quality of products coming out of China much like the products out of Japan just after WWII. “Made in Japan” was a code for “cheap quality”. Times have changed during the last 60 years. The quality of products made in Japan is among the best in the world. Perhaps China will get to that point at some future date, but they are not there right now.
Having said the previous, I purchased a “solar panel” a few days ago from a company in Utah for incorporation into a small business wireless network. I had understood the solar panel was made in Germany, but upon arrival I found it was made in China. A close inspection suggests it is high quality. But, time will be the best judge on that matter.
My point is the quality of products coming out of China at this time is a mixed bag and I’m not ready to purchase any car or ICE made in China until their quality is proven.
+1
May 27th, 2010 (7:29 pm)OT:
From the Nissan press release:
“Battery life: After 10 years, the battery is expected to have 70-80 percent of its original storage capacity”
If true, this is quickly shaping up to be a runaway hit for Nissan (IMHO of course). This would put the Leaf at a lower operating cost per mile than even a 50 mpg hybrid AND that’s with cheap (i.e less than $3) gas.
- source: ABG
May 27th, 2010 (7:29 pm)Well, I do in fact stand corrected.
Personality differences are better known in Developmental Psychology (Tag’s forte’).
Mine is Industrial psychology. (Small p because I only have the BA Degree without the Phd) as my dual major.)
In any case, as I really believe this very site is the ongoing benchmark for history in the making and changing. Most sadly and tragically of all, John1701a, who although is anonymous to us right now, will become known as the ultimate cynic in all of technical history for the maladaptive coping strategies he will become known for by his own words. The worst is yet to come for him, and he has as of yet been unable to see this.
Historical hindsight is 20/20, especially where the future generations will judge us here as caring for their future (their present) conditions, or callously not caring for their future dilemmas. Petroleum interests have strangled electrification for a hundred years, (and have personally threatened my life on in front of a witness at an electronics supply store, with “no electric cars” “those that oppose the oil companies get murdered” on a security camera even.) The public is increasingly aware and fed up with the petroleum industries technical callousness and their vested thugs who also have a history of threatening our public servants and officials. Of course a tax on each barrel of oil ought to fund the incentives for electrification in addition to the cleanup, and, at a far higher rate I might add.
+3
May 27th, 2010 (7:37 pm)I see this as very, very positive news. Not so much for high production numbers but for the longer term commitment to Voltec. This is what matters most. It rings so postively with me because:
-studying new engines means definite 2nd & 3rd generation development
-smaller, less powerful engine means they are thinking of improved aerodynamics lightweighting later generations even beyond the engine and battery pack
-I’m reading that packaging concerns may mean a new platform, hopefully an EREV optimized platform
I may be reading too much into these comments but I really, really like the idea of a new platform to go with ICE’s optimized for EREV. This, along with high volume commitments, is definitely where GM needs to go to bring EREV to the masses. Perhaps they are non-commital on large volumes for Volt I because they know Volt II is coming not to far afterward and they feel much more confident that they can get the costs in place for a more mainstream mass market. A dedicated platform could be lighter and optimized to package EREV and the batteries in particular. This means five seats and perhaps modular packs. It means, easier proliferation into an MPV5, Converj, and other models.
To me, this makes more sense out of the last 6 months of feet dragging on Voltec. If accurate, I”m good, REAL GOOD, with GM’s approach.
May 27th, 2010 (7:47 pm)You’re really right on that koz.
GM would not be already talking about new designs in the pipeline if it wasn’t going to be a really big portion of future market share. We have been too long listening to the “get it now” “you deserve a break yesterday” “FREE, FREE, FREE” “it’s all about you” an on and on.
The journey of time toward the fulfillment of orders on Volt is also part of the treasure.
I really wish more people could have had the honor of driving it as I’ve had. That drive really let me be completely patient and comfortable that it really is coming in huge numbers ultimately, with everything I know about all the hidden problems in diagnosing advanced systems, I can tell you with complete conviction, that this, and not any other make, is the winner.
May 27th, 2010 (8:14 pm)OT.
Over at Science Daily, a report has surfaced that indicates that a hurricane in the gulf can cause strong currents that can undermine supports for oil pipes, snap them open to gush oil, and cause unrepairable damage to the ecosystems (including a major source of our fish food sources) in the Gulf of Mexico.
May 27th, 2010 (8:33 pm)Depending on how you define operating costs. Assuming 10k miles driven a year, a 50 MPG hybrid like the Prius uses 200 gallons of gas. At $3/gallon that’s $600/year. You’d spend about $200/year on electricity. So I can see that you’d save $400/year on fuel. But given that the Leaf costs about $7500 more on the front end than the Prius, I’m not seeing the lower operating costs if you include depreciation.
May 27th, 2010 (9:17 pm)Purchase Price:
Level III Prius = $24,550
Nissan Leaf SV = $25,280 (after tax savings)
Depreciation:
10 year old prius value = approx $7,500
10 year old leaf with fresh battery pack value = $15,000+. With essentially no drivetrain worries, almost all the depreciation will be in the battery. New battery pack equals almost new car.
Mileage:
Prius = people drive these things a lot, over 15k miles per year
100 mile BEV = people will drive the crap out of these as well, check out the miles people are racking up on their mini-E’s. When you’re not buying gas its “hey, let’s take my car… no problem”
Maintenance:
Prius has shown itself to be reliable, but should be no match for a BEV in this department.
May 27th, 2010 (9:34 pm)Add,
Edmund’s true cost to own calculator shows a Prius to need $11,100 in maintenance and repairs over a 10 year period. I would estimate the Leaf to need less than 1/3 of that …. or a savings of over $7,000 vs the Prius.
At 15,000 miles per year the gas savings alone (less the electricity for the Leaf) will nearly pay for a new battery at the 10 year point. Depreciation savings (+$7,500) and maintenance/repair savings (+ $7,000) could put you up by $14,500 at the 10 year point Leaf over Prius.
May 27th, 2010 (9:49 pm)I wasn’t thinking of the rebate(s) but that’s fair enough.
I looked at the Edmunds repair and maintenance estimates and they seem quite high to me. Here is BMW’s estimate of what it costs to maintain cars from other manufacturers. Since BMW is touting its “maintenance included” program they’re trying to hype the costs: http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/owner/bmwultimateservice/default.aspx
Probably the biggest cost in the first five years is tires. And the tires for the Nissan may be more expensive. Just my guess.
Suggesting that an average drive could go 12,000 miles in the Leaf seems to be stretching it given the 100 mile range on LA4. Doesn’t seem likely given the limited number of miles you can do on a charge.
May 27th, 2010 (9:56 pm)“The future of the automobile has never been as interesting as it is right now,” said Stracke. “Big question is, what new propulsion system will come next?”
It may not be NEXT, but the HP2g *hybrid engine* is bound to take the transportation segment by storm. Mark my words.
May 27th, 2010 (10:14 pm)They may be a little high, but not out of the ballpark. If you tend to drive new cars (i.e. less than 5 years old) you won’t notice it so much. But over the life of any ICE car, $1,000 per year for repairs and maintenance is reasonable to slightly optimistic. (quicken has shown this to be true for me, and I do a fair amount of the work myself). I own a BMW but probably wouldn’t if I didn’t like working on it myself ($$).
P205/55R16′s, fairly common, . . . .probably what ever you want to spend.
http://www.pinnaclenissan.com/2011-nissan-leaf-electric-car.htm
http://www.nextag.com/p205-55-r16/products-html
60 miles/day x 6 days/week x 52 weeks = 18,720 miles/year, and that’s before we get in to opportunity charging.
footnote: the more I think/read about the Leaf(BEV’s), the more I think they could explode onto the market just like cellphones did.
May 27th, 2010 (10:49 pm)That was my thinking. I hope GM is running at least one Volt around that is missing one piston, rod and associated lifters. I bet in the two cylinder versions the difference in performance is pretty dang little but the fuel mileage is better.
May 27th, 2010 (10:57 pm)This may be, however, if youhad the new generation rotary from Mazda, and you experience some horsepower loss, take a guess what they do to fix it…
It’s really simple, they REPLACE the engine. No need to diagnose as to why, just get rid of the old, and put in the new.
May 27th, 2010 (11:32 pm)There are cheap air cooled generators that are noisy and have lousy fuel efficiency.
There are expensive (over $20K, I kid not) quiet generators in high end motor homes.
None of them come even close to the emissions requirements for vehicles.
May 27th, 2010 (11:52 pm)It doesn’t have to be.
With a carburetor and crankcase scavenging the requires oil in the gas it is.
If fuel injection is used, the fuel can be delivered into the transfer port. This keeps the fuel out of the crank case, eliminating the need to put oil in the fuel. Only a minuscule amount is applied to the cylinder wall to keep the rings oiled. Additionally, the injector can be timed towards the end of the transfer so that no unburned fuel makes it out the exhaust. Newer motor-cross cycles, snow mobiles and outboards all do this. When this is done, the emissions are very close to a four stroke.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:33 am)I would support turbine based genset development. Gas turbine based genset is most common solution for power generation and aviation. Why this concept should not fit for automobile? From marketing point would be sexy to have ‘turbo’ under hood.
Genset capacity=15 kw (base load). I would compromise for 20 kw. Mountain and towing powertrains shall be as an option. Most of population live in walleys and very seldom visit mountain area. Onstar should give us warning ‘you are entering mountain area, please swich on Mountain mode and genset should start generae max output until SOC 80%.
May 28th, 2010 (12:56 am)What i have seen was only their home page and seems it has a lot of documents there
ex:
http://libralato.co.uk/documents.html
http://libralato.co.uk/docs/Libralato_Patent_Pending.pdf
from their web site read some where they were close to acquisition by a GM-Fiat Engine technolgy partnership but didnt happened as that partnership brokedown, i think after that they newer were able to get any light.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj_75qhHbpE&feature=player_embedded
is a good demonstration.
May 28th, 2010 (1:48 am)“Would you be willing to buy a Volt with more Chinese content if it insures Volt comes to fruition?”
We know you guys love the What you resist, persists philosophy but…
NO. If GM starts building with Chinese parts – we will not buy it. Period. CCP human rights record is despicable. Resistance, or just plain common sense?
May 28th, 2010 (2:49 am)I used to think the same thing, but then some people here pointed out all the different ways you can tune an engine, so now it doesn’t seem so straightforward.
For example , the 2009 Prius used a 1.5L engine and got 48 MPG. The 2010 model uses a 1.8L engine and gets 50 MPG. I’m guessing the 1.8L uses a more extreme version of the Atkinson cycle to get better efficiency than the 1.5L.
Regardless of the ICE’s physical size, the point is that an ICE with less max horsepower will probably get better mileage.
May 28th, 2010 (5:36 am)The advantage of a 2 or 3 cylinder is the reduced friction losses, thus better MPG in the CS mode.. and $$ savings in not using two pistons, fuel injectors and so on.. just reducing the size wont do anything in a serial electric since the ICE is always run at its most efficient point anyways.. but a small genset will increase your mpg since you will be forced to slow down.
May 28th, 2010 (5:52 am)The Volt will have the same sales rate whether it’s 1/4 Chinese or 3/4 Chinese. Just a different group doing the buying. There is another very big question looming on the horizon. When BYD sets up shop in American cities. Will the lower sticker be enough to lure the buyer away from the stress tested and feature rich Volt? My guess is that BYD will start with a fairly cool reception. But will take 2% more market share per year thereafter. Two factors could prevent this shift. The Volt being of higher quality. Or the American EREV dropping in price. The wild card being the styling war. Scion and Kia have been coming on strong in the styling department. They are both seeing strong sales rates.
=D-Volt
May 28th, 2010 (6:05 am)There were several questions above regarding the old rotary technology where the rotor seals would wear out and consume lots of oil.
GM engineering solved that (and certainly patented that tech improvement), way back in 1972.
When researching for the possible dual rotary engine for the Vette, GM perfected the alloy for the seals to last 400,000 miles. If the same patented alloy were to be used today, and, if the duty cycle average on it needed only to be a 20% duty cycle (electric range going first 40 miles of course), then 5 times 400,000 miles would have a GM version of the rotary engine seals lasting…
Two Million Composite (ER & CS) Miles.
So, just one more way to know that GM technologies are and were, really far ahead of all the others, even way back in 1972.
(These many hundreds of tech facts like this go on and on, but the best way to re-introduce them is when the specific topic is brought up.)
May 28th, 2010 (6:07 am)A couple of points off Cd, 500lbs less (smaller, lower specific energy battery, smaller genset, lighter frame, lighter seats, less NVH components, etc), better genset control, and voila 30-35KW is just fine.
May 28th, 2010 (6:17 am)Perhaps, GM can probably simulate this exactly.. they want to reduce cost so you know no fancy composites will be used.. the opportunities for weight savings will be the genset and batteries mostly, smaller motors will also help. You go too far and you will have a marginal car going up a grade.
May 28th, 2010 (6:19 am)Basically it’s just a matter of operating at a lower RPM. The larger engine doesn’t have to work as hard to accomplish the same task. The difference is easy to see too.
May 28th, 2010 (7:09 am)Whether an ICE is rotary, diesel, 2-cylinder reciprocating (or ?) I just can’t get excited about it!*
I remain VERY interested, however, in a renewable-fuel, clean-burning engine such as a DEFC (Direct-to-Ethanol-Fuel-Cell) WITH NO MOVING PARTS!** And GM’s huge investments in both fuel cell research/development AND cellulosic ethanol, lead me to believe they already foresee
a Voltec drive train with NO MOVING PARTS except electric motor/generators. I’ll go for the present smooth-running, silky-silent, over-designed Gen 1 Volt, and gladly wait for perhaps 12-15 yrs for the exciting, renewable-fuel DEFC version!
*IMO it’s likely GM is using ICE/Gen development as a red herring to lead competitors astray
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell
May 28th, 2010 (7:11 am)LOL, I forgot about that one, does it work?
May 28th, 2010 (7:17 am)I like that direction. Seems simple and doable. Good calls on both of your parts.
May 28th, 2010 (7:23 am)Thanks. I was wondering if there would be progress in that direction.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (7:30 am)We ought to be really careful in assuming that the universe does not change with regard to the Chinese. In fact, we ought to increasingly become not just a little miffed and irritated at any source of brainwash that insists on flattering us marketing-wise and flattering us voter-wise, and flattering us in any other way to get us to accept any status-quo of laziness, inaction in self improvement, and any tendency for excusing ourselves, because if you have been paying attention to the rate of increase in quality from China, we are now buying CFL’s (compact florescent bulbs) of increasingly good quality from China, and, now there is no chance we will ever make them here.
We ought to be really careful in assuming that Chinese quality will not bite us severely in our butts for the circulation of cash throughout our own country.
As another measure of the formal spreading of ignorance across America:
Even now in Texas, the school books that have been approved are now denying the existence of the slave trade by renaming it the “Triangle Trade”. Even Jerry Falwell has been exhumed to be placed into Texas textbooks as some sort of religious saint. Texas textbooks with that sort of rotting-garbage content ought to be left on the lower right corner of the students desk when they are first passed out, and, the student should leave them there as a protest and proudly accept a failing grade for that course. They should also protest outside the school if allowed, as the school system is wasting their very valuable learning time and opportunities, and our very high school tax monies I might add, (and I don’t have kids, so I have a tiny bit more of a say here).
So how can we claim Chinese made products aren’t greatly improving while some dead religious heretic from Virginia who taught a self-sanctified-hatred (the most dangerous kind) is going to be taught in Texas schools (which trends the rest of the nation due to reduction in book costing due to economy-of-scale). Texas students ought to leave those books right where the person placing them down on the desk placed them, and not even touch those hatred-infested things. Accept a threatened fail-grade with righteous passive firmness against it, and practice your freedom to vote against being fed hateful garbage. Rejection of hatred is truly Christian anyway after all.
If there is anyone thinks the Chinese couldn’t be taught to do exceptionally good work, (under the directives of American management), then they are living in one very static underachieving fantasy world. We had all better find the very best sources of information, (such as Science Daily), and maintain at least an awareness of how far behind we as a nation have already become, greatly due to an increasingly larger part now from garbage textbooks that have now been approved here in Texas.
Decent paying jobs are available all over the place in auto repair shops. Shop owners are constantly asking me if I know any good techs (which of course I do know who can think in lengthy sequenced logic). The jobs are right here, but the school education to set these young people up for logical thinking isn’t going to happen when the school books are stupidly politicized like this.
It is not the jobs that need creating. It is the preconditioning of students to be logical in the brains activity procedure for the *practical* linking of lengthy logical storing of that information. (They may only get “C”‘s, but to learn everything practically takes a lot longer if the teacher recognizes this, there is a filtering of non-critical info to the deeper neuronal-connecting of previous complex practical knowledge. IE. They learn the most important content for their entire lives, and are not just simplistic test takers that immediately answer any simple question with simple comprehension.)
(This is why many are good writers and logicians, but are not initially good as speakers or test-takers, because they must first get to know the information in ways they can logically link to many different practical other things.)
You see, if you have a singular fact relating only to a singular conclusion (usually eventually going to be outdated and wrong soon enough anyway), such as are found in those textbooks, what you are doing is you are improperly wiring that students’ neurons to be short sighted and unable to construct more complex technical thought pathways required for that student to accept longer strings of diagnostic pathways, for instance. That means a mind that is wired for a decent paying job. Too much history is without context. It is contrived as selective propaganda for the purpose of brainwashing.
The exact same neuron pathway lengths are required for medical pros to learn their profession. So, if you want an impoverished populace that becomes increasingly indebted to the populace that is forced (by choice or not) to strive to survive (esp. overpopulated societies), then by all means, allow them to be infected with Jerry Falwell in a textbook and the denial of slavery if you do not care about your kids. If you are a parent and think that content is wrong, then, you must say it loud against the half dozen ignorant partisans who got this garbage approved, as well as the textbook commission.
The same mindset that denied the holocaust is exactly the same mindset that denies the slave trade by renaming it the “Triangle Trade” in these textbooks. Those *very few* people from Virginia are the descendants of slave holders. (Most all Virginians are really nice people who would not want this). These few people come here to Texas to say that that is without guiltiness. That is to take advantage of the system of textbook distribution to attempt to clean up their heritage.
We have already fallen behind with the previous outdated textbooks. This new form of garbage-hate is the straw that breaks the camels’ back if it is not stopped. Reject this hate or your kids will learn nothing because they will be wired only for simple mindedness that is wrong for them and the rest of the country.
May 28th, 2010 (7:45 am)Depends on how you define DOA. If it’s selling out every single one while people clamor for more, and then you move on to the next iteration of technology, then maybe he has a point. I think Toyota has shown to the industry, if nothing else, that innovation can be profitable. That if you can leapfrog while your competition pontificates, you don’t have to be a nimble start-up to benefit from bold action.
So it looks like that’s what GM is doing. And carcus will couch that in terms of his dislike for GM while John will phrase it in terms of his admiration for the Prius’ accomplishments.
May 28th, 2010 (7:57 am)Did you see this article, (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-green-manufacturing-20100509,0,1016526.story ) on A123.
May 28th, 2010 (8:03 am)A Two-Stroke Revival, Without the Blue Haze
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/automobiles/20STROKE.html
May 28th, 2010 (8:56 am)I think you missed my point. The post you listed was my response to Herm in which he stated “alot of things are manufactured in America”, and how we’re still #1.
Which, in turn was in response to 2 posts in which I asked a question. That question was would you think producing some components of Volt in China, and manufacturing it here would be justified IF THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY GM COULD JUSTIFY IT’S COST. In other words, it is a solution that requires considering vs. no Volt at all.
With the remarks and all the -1s, it seems nobody got the gist. I’m BY NO MEANS flag-waving for China, hahahahaha….
I agree America has to make changes, and if we do we can recover from our downhill spiral in manufacturing, and high unemployment – it’s definately not too late. China’s problem is that they’ve loaned us so much money, now their economy is much more dependent upon ours than they anticipated. If we cannot pay back those loans – China sinks also. Sadly we have become greatly dependent upon one another.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
+1
May 28th, 2010 (10:04 am)I installed a Mazda rotary in a airplane and flew it quite a bit a few years back. I and many other rotary fliers found we could run quite a bit lean of peak EGT and get what we calculated the specific fuel consumption down in the .48 lb/hp-hr range (not dyno verified) when running a high power settings. This is very close to the best piston engines get. Love to be a fly on the wall in the engineering labs but I expect someone is working on a .2l single rotor wankle that’s shooting for numbers somewhere down there.
May 28th, 2010 (10:46 am)The sad thing is, the powers that be don’t need or want a thriving economy. They can make more profit by making less, selling less, and paying their workforce much, much less.
That is indeed the direction our economic leaders want us to go in. The future looks like Mexico, or India — unless we as citizens do something to prevent that.
+1
May 28th, 2010 (12:39 pm)Cool! At least we know they’re working on this. Switching generators is going to be the biggest source of real improvement in the Volt that engineering has to offer, currently. Oh, sure the batteries will get better and cheaper but I see that as not taking a huge amount of (extra) engineering by GM. What GM needs to do is really nail the generator aspect. They didn’t do that for the first gen (which is fine, we all understand they wanted to get to market quickly, no problem) but they’ve really got to put the engineers into it now.
I hope they’re looking at a 2 stroke 2 cylinder diesel that runs at one speed under 900 rpm only. With no valves and no ignition system, you can hardly get any simpler than that. Might run afoul of emissions but the diesel locomotive people are always saying they have great emissions so maybe it wouldn’t.
I kind of have a hard time seeing a Wankel rotary as a good fit for this application, other than size. The other properties don’t seem to be a great fit. Unless they’re super duper cheap, but I don’t think that’s probably the case.
May 28th, 2010 (12:54 pm)That jogged my memory, before the EV1′s were destroyed, GM actually made a 4 passenger, 2 door EREV 1 concept (stretched enough to shoe horn 4 seats in there) that used a tiny turbine engine (for size), it was pretty, gold and 1999 when they did that. Fuel economy was 60mpg to 100mpg (in hybrid mode, depending on driving) and gasoline range was ~390 miles. GM execs concluded it wasn’t commercially viable.
Here is a picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GMEV1serieshybrid.jpg
Considering the efficiency they achieved there, maybe a small turbine could be in the running again (although I don’t know how they’d do isolating the noise of a 100,000+ rpm item under your hood/trunk) – sure would sound cool starting up though.
May 28th, 2010 (12:59 pm)On second thought, rotational power generation is SOOOO late 1800′s technology.
Perhaps the free piston designs are the way to go, where the pistons just shuttle back and forth in an opposed fashion with some magnets between them and some coils wrapped around them. Simple mechanics, simple generator (complicated electronic controls, I’ll grant, but nothing we shouldn’t be able to handle with today’s sensors and cpus.) 
May 28th, 2010 (1:28 pm)Capstone claims that their turbines are quite. I have not seen them myself.
May 29th, 2010 (9:09 pm)I don’t think much of the Wankel genset idea. I think a high performance two cylinder genset could do the job better. The engine can be flex fuel or even fuel multi fuel HCCI. As it’s a genset, it can be optimized to run in a narrow speed range and further reduce fuel consumption.