[ad#post_ad]Back on its feet after its IPO, and GM is now beginning to put its money where it’s most needed. One place in particular the company thinks it needs to expand is in the production of small engines.
Earlier this week GM announced it would be investing an additional $162 million in three of its facilities; Flint engines, Bay City components, and Defiance castings. The lion’s share of $138.3 million will go to the Flint, Michigan engine operations plant where 135 jobs will be retained.
GM is investing all this money in the Flint facility because it is where the engine critical to three vehicles that are the core of GM’s future will be built. This engine is the 4-cylinder 1.4 L ecotec model that serves both as the generator for the Chevy Volt and in a turbo-charged form for the Chevrolet Cruze compact car.
With the announcement GM also disclosed this engine will serve in a future Chevrolet small car the company apparently hasn’t yet unveiled.
“This is the replacement for the Aveo,” GM spokesperson Pat Morrissey told GM-Volt. “It will be built at the Orion plant.”
Unnamed and unseen, we still don’t know when we will find out more about this car. It is not the Spark that one time GM had planned for US launch. ”We have not discussed reveal timing for this product,” said Morrissey.
GM’s investment in the engine is good news for fans of the Volt and other fuel efficient cars.
“This investment is essential in ensuring we can meet the expected high demand for the Chevrolet Volt, Chevrolet Cruze and a small car that will be produced at our Orion Township facility,” said Kathleen Dilworth, Flint Engine Operations plant manager. “These three facilities will continue to play a key role in GM’s resurgence and efforts to bring to market vehicles with segment-leading fuel economy.”
Engines for the Volts currently being built are being imported from Austria. By early 2011 GM expects to build 400 engines per day in Flint and that will increase to 800 engines per day by then end of that year. This new investment allows for the possibility of building 1200 engines per day in 2012.
Source (GM)
[ad#postbottom]
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 28th, 2010 at 7:10 am and is filed under Cruze, Financial, Generator, Production. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:24 am)I wonder if these engines have balance shafts. If they don’t, they’re messing up big time.
+5
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:55 am)I haven’t read much about this small engine. I know that GM had very good four-cylinder engines in the past. The Vega had a 2.3 liter aluminum-block engine that had plenty of torque, but was horsepower-limited by the small carburetor. I know because I had a 1975 Vega for ten years and it had few limitations. I actually out accelerated a few Japanese cars that were supposed to be better than the Vega. But fate killed the Vega when GM could had improved it in the late 1970′s. I sold my Vega in 1985, and its L4 engine was replaced with a V8 by its new owner, and it had a new life as a racer.
Pontiac also had a small engine know as the Iron Duke that was used in the Fiero, and was supercharged in one design. I haven’t followed GM’s other four-cylinder designs in the 1980′s because I was following the Buick 3.8 liter V6 from then, which I had in two of my GM cars, and I am still using one now.
If the newer four-cylinder engines can displace the V6 with similar torque and horsepower, I am in favor to the replacement, as in the 2011 Buick Regal, since it will save gasoline which is what the Volt will do now, and what GM must continue to do.
I wish that GM will be successful with future engine deigns.
Raymond
+14
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:08 am)Building the engines “locally” should save a bit of bread. Seems like the battery production will be the bottleneck on the Volts though. It’s all good (especially the retention of jobs).
OT and on a personal note: I’ll be a bit scarce on the site from now until Christmas. I picked up a daily job as a UPS “truck helper”, so I won’t be posting much (I hope to read everything at bedtime, to “wind down”). I just didn’t want people to think I’d assumed room temperature or anything.
Be well and have a Blessed Holiday season!
Tagamet
+7
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:09 am)If it means a higher production of Volts, then I am all for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+17
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:21 am)Please pardon me for being slightly off topic, I’ve been away over the holiday and wanted to post a comment re: the We All Fall Down GM ad I saw watching football on Thanksgiving Day.
As touching and poignant as the ad came across – it was an ad, and the general public could have taken it as just more hyperbole expensively dished up from Madison Avenue marketers. Words. Talk is cheap, you know?
I thought the spot was incredibly good – the message very heartfelt – if, in fact, a large multinational corporation can express gratitude with some remorse. I was very moved by it. Very impactful and this honesty is the way forward to gain back the public’s trust.
If this Thank You Letter from GM is genuine or not – the Volt speaks much louder. Where words fail, the Volt truly says “GM IS BACK – PAY ATTENTION! ” Where professional marketing ends – Volt begins.
It says volumes that people like myself will buy their first GM product in decades – when previously I wouldn’t have even considered a Chevy. I’m not buying a Cruze – NO WAY – NO HOW. I will buy a Volt when and if they sell them here. It’s quite an amazing and nearly miraculous achievement that shows GM can still walk the walk if they truly want to. Volts in 50 states and Canada will truly show America they once again, can have confidence in a great company that once took a detour in the wrong direction.
It’s the Volt and efforts like it, not slick campaigns that will grow consumer confidence and loyalty.
PUMP OUT THE VOLTS! ( Seattle needs Volts! )
James
+7
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:24 am)It’s tempting to wonder if the comment Bob Lutz once made that a “an SS version of Volt is possible” might make use of the turbo version of this engine already produced for the Cruze. Of course, a higher power Volt SS would also need more traction motor output. Others here have suggested the clutching and control logic could perhaps be modified to engage the 74Hp generator as a motor along with the 149Hp main traction motor, a total of ~225Hp for improved 0-60 and 45-85 accelerations, not higher top speed. Cooling for brief periods of high motor output shouldn’t be a problem, and the turbo-boosted gas engine should be easily able to replace any battery depletion under the heavier loads when accelerating. In fact, I’d think GM could also optimize the turbo version of this engine for max output power using E85 when it’s adapted for burning E85. These changes should be achievable at a modest added cost for a Volt SS. Then, simplistically scaling the Volt’s 0-8.5 sec 0-60 time down by the 50% Hp increase would reduce it to ~ 5.7 secs. (The M3′s 414Hp V8 takes it 0-60 in 4.5 sec, but remember that the Volt’s instant high torque gives it a big initial jump off the line, so I’d bet an M3 contender would be drop-jawed before you got to 40mph!) Oh well, I can dream can’t I?
.
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:26 am)So, isn’t that almost like “posting” as a “day job?”
-23
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:44 am)(click to show comment)
+14
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:59 am)I agree somewhat and hope that the Volt version II will have a smaller 3 cyl engine for 50 MPG cs mode and a more capable battery pack. I am thinking 20 KWH could be done in version 2 without increasing the cost or weight since battery components are dropping so rapidly in price and increasing in power available per pound. 55 miles all electric under most circumstances would be great and make the Volt even more versitile in a larger number of scenerios for a greater number of people.
In the mean time I will make do with the most technologically advanced car to hit the market in the last 10 or so years since the EV-1, and or course I mean my Chevy Volt version 1 in white diamond pearl tricoat and polished aluminum wheels.
Take Care,
TED
+11
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:05 am)I was a bit disappointed when GM announced Volt would have an Ecotec 4 in it instead of the turbo 3 cylinder announced in their press releases back in the show car period. Again I wondered why they didn’t go Atkinson cycle, direct injection and/or aluminum block to increase CS mode mileage (let alone an HCCI genset).
I’m going to give today’s news the rose-colored glasses approach though, as it’s only good to bring production back to these shores and place Americans in very slammed areas like Flint back to work. I’m going to say those Ecotecs are earmarked for soon increased Volt production – and I’m stickin’ to it.
HCCI, aluminum blocks, more composite components and direct injection should be on the near horizon ( I hope! ). It would be nice to have an “Extra Eco” model of Volt – 55-65mpg in CS mode. At the SAE convention GM engineers were asked, “Why no direct injection in the Cruze engine?” Their answer was it won’t be on the introductory models, but is soon to come. That has to find it’s way into the Volt, don’t ya think?
VOLT ME! ,
James
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:13 am)They can’t put all the marbles into version 1 of any car. What’s to promote the surge in sales for version 2. The new and improved version 2 Volt/Cruze with a smaller just as powerful 3 cyl turbocharged engine for better fuel economy and for the Volt 55 miles of all electric drive. Drive the all new Version 2 Chevy Volt/Cruze today at your local Chevy dealer.
Almost sounds like an advertisement already.
Take Care, TED
+11
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:27 am)I hope GM is targeting for gen II:
-fifth seat
-reduced cost by $5000
-reduced weight by 500lbs
-reduce kwh/mile by .05kw
-increase CS combined by 5mpg
How they get there isn’t as important as getting there. I see a smaller, rather than larger batter as a big part of it however.
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:32 am)Read but not post I do that a lot. It is not easy but it saves a lot of time. Your post will be missed but I am glad to hear it is because you found a job.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:36 am)I am sure a improved engine will go into Volt Gen II, I believe they put the basic 4 cycle engine in Volt Gen I because of cost. When they get other cost down, then they can add a improved engine with better MPG.
+4
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:56 am)I would LOVE to see GM build a Volt SS that does 0-60 mph in 5.7 seconds. I think people will want the “best of both worlds” … excellent efficiency in EV mode, excellent efficiency in generator mode when you want it and excellent acceleration in Sport mode when you want it. I’m sure a Volt that is a combination of an ultra economy car and a sports car like an M3 would be very popular … if it’s not TOO expensive.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:14 am)I still think the bottle neck in volt production will be (is) the generator/ transmission/ electric drive motor assembly. I believe they are made in Mexico and are an all new component. They don’t have multiple factories making the things yet and evaluating the production versions before you make a million of them seems to make sense. I’d hate to see a major issue pop up and then have to correct it on a large scale right out of the gate. I work for a GM dealership as a tech and have seen some pretty good screw ups by GM’s desire to rush stuff to the market. A good example is the powertrain in the newer Acadia/ Enclave models which have had MAJOR issues with stretched timing chains and flawed transmission components which have left customers without their cars for up to a month(!!!) while still making payments on a vehicle that’s sitting in the shop. Avoiding that scenario is a big key to success for the Volt. I for one want the Volt to be a success and usher in a new era for GM and get us off OIL!!! Go VOLT!
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:23 am)when they start to sale the volt ?
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:32 am)The Volt has been for sale since August 2010. Just some of them have delivery dates.
Imagine the volt with 4 wheel motors, no clutches and no transmission. 4 wheel drive and no friction losses.
This is fun today.
Take Care,
TED
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:34 am)Its great to see GM concentrating on small instead of big. When it comes to internal combustion engines, the smaller the better!
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:48 am)A replacement for the Aveo would be great. A replacement for the HHR would be greater! A replacement for the Corvette would make my head explode! All 3 of these need fresher styling, and I know that the ‘realignment of GM through BK’ is probably the reason for the delay on all of these. Those days are behind us and there are some great things coming. I feel it!!!!
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:48 am)I’d be willing to bet money that this announcement is more about the Cruze than the Volt. A good chunk of what gets posted in this thread is speculation about Gen II engines.
http://gm-volt.com/2010/08/23/gm-actively-studying-several-engine-options-for-next-generation-chevy-volt-generator/
We already have had the obligatory post at #8 about the crummy mpg in CS mode out of the 1.4. I’m sure on the threads in the Bell P-59 website in 1944, he was posting things like “jets, feh. Get a Mustang.”
It looks like having the overpowered, well understood 1.4 paid off in that it was easy enough to rig up the links to get the extra boost for top-end and highway passing. Otherwise they’d be hating on that, too.
Still, though, the 1.4 is low hanging fruit for a Gen II car. A lighter engine and significantly lighter batteries combined with a somewhat stronger electric motor should be able to meet or exceed the current performance profile.
I was kind of thrown by this article about a Wankel range extender http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/20/chery-reportedly-researching-wankel-engines-for-extended-range-e/ until I figured out it was about CheRy, not CheVy.
+4
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:50 am)I would love to see a more efficient engine but I doubt we will see it in version 2. Hell I heard some GM spokesmen talk about using a rotax in version 2 last year which is a mistake. I believe GM is just going to focus on cost by making the battery cheaper and maybe throw in some Vehicle to grid enhancements.
I don’t see GM making the investment for a new engine for the volt in the near future. Maybe in 5-7 years, but not before
+6
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:50 am)I can’t help but comment on my personal situation. I cannot afford a Volt, nor will it be in my market anytime soon (I’m in Colorado). A lease won’t work because of the number of miles I drive. Looking for my next car I am seriously considering the Cruze. It’s interesting because I probably would have never heard of it if it weren’t for following the production of the Volt. So kudos to GM. A 40MPG Ecotec in a nice package will suit me fine until the kids are a little older and we’re back to 2 incomes. If part of their plan was to produce the Volt to make people sit up and look at GM again, then it seems to have worked on me.
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:52 am)koz,
“I hope GM is targeting for gen II:
-fifth seat
-reduced cost by $5000
-reduced weight by 500lbs
-reduce kwh/mile by .05kw
-increase CS combined by 5mpg
How they get there isn’t as important as getting there. I see a smaller, rather than larger batter as a big part of it however. ”
I couldn’t agree more with this.
+4
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:28 am)“I would LOVE to see GM build a Volt SS that does 0-60 mph in 5.7 seconds.”
Seems to me that if GM did make a sports car version with Voltec, it would do more to create general market acceptance of the technology than any marketing campaign I can think of.
Ultimately, we are an automobile nation for better and for worse, and while the technology is revolutionary, it is, right now anyway, a niche product.
Get the Gearheads on board, and it could be all downhill from there.
+6
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:33 am)Concentration on the EV part of the Volt is much more important than the range extender. The future is only going to be more “electric”, and pumping money into a “old” technology does not really get me excited.
I would prefer they spend money to decrease the cost, increase the range, and add back that 5th seat. In that order.
As many of us have said, we are going to use the range extender so infrequently, why worry about optimizing something with so little true impact to the package, as a whole. Lyle’s log record shows he rarely uses the ICE and I think his driving pattern is fairly typical.
If your really wanting to increase the CS mileage, and you believe you will be using it for a substantial amount of your driving, then I would suggest the Volt is really not the right car for you anyway.
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:33 am)From the article: By early 2011 GM expects to build 400 engines per day in Flint and that will increase to 800 engines per day by then end of that year. This new investment allows for the possibility of building 1200 engines per day in 2012.
Now THAT is phenomenal news, y’all…..;^) 1200 PER DAY!!! I think most of us knew this was coming, but the timing of it is kind of suprising to me for a few reasons:
a) So SOON after the IPO
b) Before the end of the year
c) Before Tuesday
Which, to me bodes ABSOLUTELY well for Tuesday!!! Folks, I believe we are in for some SHOCKINGLY good news on Tuesday………;^) WOW, talk about a ramp up!!!
+4
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:40 am)JEC,
I could certainly be wrong, but I completely feel this investment is about an increase in production. IE: a LARGE RAMP UP.
FAR ahead of schedule, as far as I am concerned……;^)
PLUS, it saves jobs, which HAPPEN to be in Flint, which is a bonus IMHO!!!
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:48 am)scott,
What part of CO? I am lucky enough to FINALLY be going back to Denver, CO Springs, Greely, and the ski resorts over the next 10 days.
//CAN’T WAIT–AM OVERLY EXCITED ABOUT IT….;^)
-1
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:50 am)I totally agree with this sentiment. Broaden the Volt’s appeal beyond the techies and greenies.
As for the range extender I’d like to see GM check out the OPOC engine. It is compact, light weight, affordable, and has high power density giving it excellent fuel economy which is what I believe to be a weakness of Wankel engines.
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:57 am)Wow. Interesting comments. Everything from Volt SS to more economy version. This speaks to the versatility of the Voltec platform.
I have to put in my 2c about small engines. Small engines are good for what they do. They are for small cars and small output requirements.
Cubic Inches still count when building Silverados, Corvettes and Camaros. Although I see the potential of turbo L4 engines (and L3s) they’re just not going to replace 400hp anytime soon. There have been many tries over the years, but the V-8 still rules for shear horsepower.
I’m firmly in the SS camp rather than the econo camp when it comes to Volt. Electric motors are the way to go for high performance in the future. But, as always, we are coming up against the reality of battery technology to get the energy density and energy instant output even close to what a V-8 can do.
A Volt SS can be the best of both worlds if done right. If you put a turbo L3 combined with a larger traction motor, the motor and engine can complement each other. The electric drive can do the torque for launch and the L3 can take over for high speed HP needs. In other words, combining their torque and HP curves will massively flatten those curves out yielding an awesome powerful design.
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:02 pm)FLASH,
The reason I believe that this is more about the Cruze than any near-term ramp-up for the Volt is the Volt’s battery pack. As I said before, speculating about the Gen II genset engine is a favorite passtime for a lot of us here. It’s almost an article of faith that the Gen II battery is going to be a RADICAL improvement in nearly every aspect of its composition.
I can’t think GM is going to spend a lot of money to build new capacity for the Gen I battery packs. In the years since they were designed for manufacture, li-ion energy density has nearly tripled. We now know a lot more about thermal runaway (i.e. blowing up), obviating a lot of the armor-plating and active cooling that is in the Volt Gen I pack.
Likewise, LG or the rest of the supply chain may be willing to maximize production on their existing facilities, but I do not believe they will build new capacity for the next two years of the Volt Gen I.
Hope I’m wrong, though.
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:06 pm)After my faux pax yesterday, I feel there is a need for a “please ignore” button that allows the original poster to express regret for a post that ends up being wrong. While the misunderstanding was explained during the thread, the original post is like a blemish before the cure. My heartfelt apologies to anyone who was upset at the time.
Now, back to topic:
1200 x 365 = 438,000 with no days off
1200 x 248 = 297,600 assuming 5 days a week with holidays.
Will someone familiar with the possible maximum number of days in the production of engines on a yearly basis please provide the correct number of days for normal and full production.
Here is an interesting web site on the total production of cars:
http://www.worldometers.info/cars/
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:07 pm)Seriously? Replace the Corvette with what?
Corvette is the definition of a low-production highly specialized market. If there is a replacement, it probably won’t keep the Corvette name. Any ‘Corvette’ sans V-8 will cause a huge backlash with the followers of the marque.
There are things that work for GM and shouldn’t be touched. Corvette, Silverado, and large SUVs aren’t going away any time soon. They are just too profitable.
Corvette in particular is the definition of Chevrolet’s high technology prowess. Replacing or deleting Corvette from the lineup would be a big mistake imho.
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:10 pm)Nothing wrong with both camps. What I see for improvement goals for gen 2 is not exclusive of a higher power Voltec variant. I believe a 130-150kw version makes Voltec viable for a lot more vehicle types (Volt SS, Converj, Buick CUV/minivan, small pickup, full sized sedan, etc). I think the V8 replacement might need to wait for the next iteration from this.
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:11 pm)Those are my hopes as well. I think if they reduce weight by 500lbs they’d achieve the .05kwh/mile efficiency increase and probably most if not all of the 5mpg CS combined. The tricky one is the $5,000 price reduction but hopefully increasing economies of scale of the generator, battery, etc., it will be possible. Unfortunately that will still put the car at $36,000. I think the next gen Voltech will get an HCCI engine and probably return fuel efficiency of 50-60 mpg.
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:12 pm)I’m in complete agreement, bt! (Folks, bt is a professional automotive journalist —I’ve read him in the NY Times!) I hope GM sees this & gives it serious thought. I offered my ideas above in post #6.
.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:13 pm)I believe he means the next major design overhaul for the Corvette nameplate, not to abandon the Corvette or it’s heritage.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:14 pm)You’ll be missed. Playing Santa should be fun though. I suspect we have an entire generation of kids who think Santa dresses in brown and drives a truck!
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:19 pm)shortale,
I agree!! However, I think it will be a domino effect, if you will–with this being the first domino that HAD to fall. LG, GM in-house, and the rest of the supply chain really HAVE to follow suit now.
It’s almost like this announcement said between the lines: “Alright, you see all the awards & accolades we are receiving, we NEED supplies & parts to satisfy a growing need. Let’s invest, add shifts, etc. to show our customers that we are READY to satisfy demand with an INCREASED ramp up.”
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:19 pm)In CA, which will be the largest market, you get an automatic $5000 price reduction if the engine is E85 compatible and the battery warranty is 10 years. That seems easily doable.
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:21 pm)ROFLMAO!! Good one!
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:28 pm)Mark Z,
Great guess with the 248 day bogey. In my experience with Ford Mo Co, you can probably subtract an additional 15-30+ days though, IMO. Typically, that would include re-tooling/model year change over, as well as production idle shut down, which usually occurs every year in late winter/early spring. As well, we would have to be SURE of the number of shifts, be it 2 OR 3. I am assuming 3 shifts with your calculation….;^)
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:32 pm)I agree with your analysis of the weight reduction benefits but for this and cost I disagree that HCCI will be used. If it doesn’t lower the overall cost and weight, I don’t see a compelling argument to change the ICE. In this, I agree with JEC although I don’t agree that a 40AER EREV rated at 40mpg CS hwy is a bad choose for substantial hwy drivers. Driving patterns are not so b/w. There are plenty of drivers that will have significant CS AND CD miles. No reason that GM can’t target all driving patterns but there have to be priorities and lowering the price should take precedence. I do think they can do both and, as you pointed out, lowering the weight increases CS mpg even without changing the ICE.
My guess is that gen 2 will have @1.2L 3cyl, if GM makes one in volume, and the next iteration will be rotary if Voltecs are targeted to 250+k annual production by then.
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:37 pm)Sorry–just missed the timer on the Edit…;^(
It’s interesting, as well in the industry, around CERTAIN holidays. For instance, even though Ford as a whole was “shut down” for 4 days over Thanksgiving, there were MOST of the parts depots open on Saturday, NATIONALLY. Fed-Ex even ran on Friday–go figure!!!
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:45 pm)“Replace” was the wrong word for Corvette. It needs an “Update”. Time to roll out the C7.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:49 pm)Who needs an SS Volt? What GM needs is a line of Voltec / traction motors of different sizes. Since Locomotives to RC cars use electric motors, I’m sure GM can put together an “electric plan” to design truck, car, racing, SS and other sizes of motors. The designs all need to have suitable battery designs and cannot all work off the same Volt-based T-shape battery pack. Some larger trucks would need a 40 kWh pack, sports cars, 20-30kWh and so on.
If you want an SS Volt, just wait for some redesigns. The Volt is a 4-door “initial design” and shouldn’t just be souped up – it’s like wanting a SS Model-T or some other unique, initial design. I’d rather muscle up an electric Camero. Maybe a 200 kW motor or bigger with a 30 kWh battery and a 2.0L recharger ICE motor.
It’s a bit ironic to hear that people want to up the power output of a car designed to save power
I wonder if there are also people who would want to reduce weight and power of the Volt so they use less power? Power is really only needed to support quicker acceleration. Horsepower requirements drop as the car levels off at a steady mph.
Nov 28th, 2010 (12:53 pm)CorvetteGuy,
Just a question, out of sheer curiosity. I had heard a couple of years back, that GM was beginning to lose BIG bucks on the Vette, for various reasons, but mainly because a fair percentage of that car is actually HAND-BUILT. If memory serves, I wanna say COST had finally eclipsed $55-58K.
Aside from, as you point out, it being past “Time to roll out the C7,” do you feel upper management has the Vette under a microscope at this point? Maybe you could enlighten us all, even if it is a little bit OT. THANX!!!
Nov 28th, 2010 (1:14 pm)Going back to the original topic, the 1.4L ICE ramp up. 1200 per day is not such a huge number when you consider the Cruze. It is supposed to sell 350,000 per year. That is pretty much the full 1200 per day. Now, as I recall it there are two engines available for the Cruze, so a lot depends on the demand for this particular engine (which should be pretty high).
Also, I am surprized that currently all engines are still coming from overseas. I just guessed that Flint had started up already. Maybe that is why I don’t get a Volt until March – because wave 2 will use ICE’s from Flint. Sure do hope the Flint engines have the bugs worked out. Maybe somebody can report with inside knowledge? Actually, I would not be surprised if the Flint product is very very good.
Nov 28th, 2010 (1:33 pm)We will miss you.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (1:36 pm)As does West Virginia! Seattle will see Volts a lot sooner than WV.
Unless GM picks up production a lot faster, I have a two year wait before I can place an order, and then a probable long wait even after placing an order. I recall that T*y*t* took six years from first sale to elimination of their waiting list. Is that the path GM will follow?
Seems like I have the following options:
1) Wait and wait, place and order late 2012, then wait some more for delivery. Cross my fingers that oil prices don’t go through the roof before, say, mid 2013.
2) Order and buy from a Detroit or DC dealer and drive it back 7-8 hours. Good luck on warranty work, eh?
3) Convert my Prius to a PHEV. Again probably requires driving to a DC suburb.
4) Forget about the Volt, buy another Prius.
Am I missing any options? Suggestions are appreciated.
PUMP OUT THE VOLTS!
WVhybrid
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (1:42 pm)To me the only long term important upgrade is the EV range of the volt because we all know cheap oil and gas is history and will only creep up through the years. So if we double the EV range in 5 years to take advantage of surely possible 5 dollar a gallon gas that will all bite us in the wallet then the better off we will be at that time. Surely even GM knows their bread and butter suv’s and pickups and corvette/camaro’s will have to go extinct with the ice versions and go the way of the volt to truly survive as nobody will buy them when it cost a hundred bucks or more to fill up the tank, a fact proven 2 years ago. People have got to put ego and old tech heritage aside for these GM Models to advance to stay alive in our furure economies.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (1:54 pm)When a customers walk onto a dealer lot in 2011 they will see Camaros and Corvettes first. Then trucks and crossovers. Then Cruze, Malibu, Impala, and Aveo.
The customer walks to the sales rep and asks about the “new electric Volt car”. Looks it over and takes a demo drive. Will the customers next question be, “Got one with 100 more HP?”. Or, “This is great technology. I would like to demo your truck model”. The dealer will reply, “There has been talk about this. Here, have a look at the Equinox. About $30k with options and 28mpg”.
Voltec trucks first…Voltec SS later
=D-Volt
The future is here and America is back in the game.
It’s just one of the many good things Motor Trend magazine had to say about the all-new Chevrolet Volt as it named the car the “2011 Motor Trend Car of the Year®.” The annual award is one of the most prestigious honors bestowed in the auto industry and further proof that it’s a new day for Chevrolet, not to mention the entire auto industry.
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (2:06 pm)During my Volt test drive in Chicago on Nov. 20 I was privileged to be accompanied by two of the Volt’s power train design engineers. They’ve each been working with the project three years and told me research and development of Volt technologies continues. This includes reducing the car’s weight, increasing all-electric range, and integrating new types of CS generators. The 1.4 ICE will be used for awhile until more advanced CS mode generator designs becomes viable.
There’s some discussion about finding a way to add the “Hold Mode” engine-battery recharge feature to the U.S. version of the Volt. Presently the U.S. Volt’s “mountain mode” feature can provide a partial recharge of the battery but has a preset limit to the amount of recharge. On the Opel Ampera (the European Volt) the more advanced “Hold Mode” is available. It allows the onboard gas engine to fully recharge the battery pack at any time. On a cross country highway trip the driver can select “hold mode” and have the battery fully recharged by the time they arrive at their destination. While it reduces overall average MPGs there are times when it might be a convenient feature to utilize. Unfortunately “Hold Mode” isn’t presently available yet on the U.S. Volt because of a bureaucratic regulatory requirement.
Good to know R&D efforts with the Voltec platform continues to move forward!
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (2:44 pm)Yes, a long stretch of highway followed by a bunch of in-town driving is a good example where a Hold mode would be useful, specifically, by activating the Hold mode for the highway segment of the trip, then going all-electric for the in-town, lower speed stop-and-go stuff. I don’t have any way to prove this, but I get the feeling that it’s more efficient to charge the battery at steady highway speeds rather than during in-town driving. My rationale is that highway driving combined with battery charging could really use the full output of the ICE, whereas stop-and-go driving causes intermittent operation of the ICE, and often at lower RPM and load (in an effort to keep the “in-town” experience familiar for the driver, i.e, no disconnected revving of the ICE). It would be a lot harder to optimize the latter than the former for fuel efficiency.
In the above scenarios, and for the above reasons, I plan to use Mountain Mode until I get into town. That is, IF THEY EVER GET MY VOLT ORDER PLACED so I can move forward with these plans (!) — oops, my apologies for the outburst!
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (2:51 pm)Those problems sound like old GM, and that behaviour is totally unacceptable. If they have those problems again, BKv2.0 will happen, but this time it’ll be liquidation. Last thing I want to see, though, so I hope GM’s truly learned its lesson.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (2:56 pm)I am waning away from the need for speed but I realize it won’t go away for a lot of us. If the Cruz has different engine packages I say why not for the Volt? What is ironic to me is thinking the Cruz is a car for speed.
Nov 28th, 2010 (3:00 pm)More options for you:
Wait a little more to see if and how Volt production will be increased. Maybe they’ll soon be adding an area to the list that’s closer to you.
Move. lol
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (3:30 pm)Coincidentally I was in Flint last night. This is good news, as they need all the new investments they can get. I also went to college in Flint, and it truely is an auto town. There’s a lot of talent there.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (3:42 pm)I’m not important enough to answer that kind of question. I work at a Southern California Chevy Dealer. Not GM. Corvette sales have been down, but Camaro sales are still strong out here. I think GM needs to bring back the “Stingray” with an agressive new look to get sales up again.
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (3:48 pm)Actually, I would suggest buying it at the closest dealer and driving back. Here’s the deal. Take Lyle as an example. He buys his in Englewood, decides to relocate his practice to say, West Virginia, and takes all his toys–oops, his car–with him. GM has no control over that, and yet still would have the warranty obligation.
The company can control where it sells the car, but can’t control your mobility in this country.
NASAMAN,
Thanks for the shoutout, but while I am a professional journalist, for WNBC TV in New York, I am not an automotive specialist, alas. Nonetheless, I have been following the Volt story for years(and did a story with the good Doctor about 3 years ago, and another a year ago when he had the Mini E), and you might infer from some of my writings that I have been very fortunate in the past year to drive several EVs(the Volt twice) for stories on what I see is the REVOLUTION in our mobility.
Nov 28th, 2010 (3:59 pm)CorvetteGuy,
So what if GM brings back the Stingray with Voltec, charges 50k and change for it(plus it qualifies for the $7500 tax deduction), and uses that to convince all the GearHeads out there that EV is real?
Make it a Tesla on steroids, maybe a 20 mile EV range so you could presumably juice up its 0-60 performance.
Could that work with your customers?
Voila, GM now has 2 niche cars at both ends of the spectrum, enviro and performance.
Kind of like putting the Tea Party together with the ACLU(sorry guys, I know politics should be taboo from this site, but you get the idea).
Nov 28th, 2010 (4:10 pm)Yes, retain and increase jobs at home. GM has direct injection in their 2.4L engine which will soon have the BAS II system as well. I sure hope GM will include DI in the new 1.4L and all others as well since the competition is quickly using DI, even Hyundai and Kia. IMO GM should have included DI on the 2011 Cruise to compete better with Ford’s new Focus. Small light-weight turbo direct injection engines will give the thrill of some V8′s and still get very good mileage.
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (4:25 pm)I’m miffed at Popular Science for placing the 918 Spyder hybrid supercar ( not in production for the foreseeable future – 2014? and will cost $400,000 – $650,000 + + + ) and not Volt as top auto innovation for 2010. Yes, it virtually lapped Nurburgring faster than the exotic, now extinct Carrera GT and got 78mpg while doing it! At this point, it’s vaporware and can only be the subject of auto wet dreams for all but a rare few Arab sheiks and billionaires.
Great video of Porsche’s GT3 hybrid that finished 6th overall in it’s very first race –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvFgADe-zG8&feature=channel
Engineering Tour de Force – Porsche 918 Plug In Hybrid Spyder 0 – 62mph in 3.2 sec –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_49nCgb2oQ
Tesla proved high performance breaks down barriers for EVs, Porsche and others will follow keeping in line with Europe’s C02 requirements and we all win. “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday”, as the saying goes. Trickle down tech happens but it takes years.
Ironically, the PopSci Best Innovations of 2010 noted times in the recent past when amazing inventions didn’t make the top prize cut because they were impractical to implement due to cost or scope – and then they list Volt as nearly an afterthought with a tiny blurb matching the one for the new Ford Fiesta!!!!!! In December’s issue they list Ferrari’s $228,000 458 ICE as more significant than Volt with a huge photo for the 458. Perhaps PopSci has a chip on their shoulders re: “Government Motors”?…But I think they dropped the ball on this one. Sure the Porsche is amazing – but it’s unnattainable to 99.98% of the population and may see production of 1,500 or so units. Tesla’s roadster too – a halo, but they will inspire the perfomance plug ins of the future. THE VOLT IS HERE NOW, at a price many can swing – and deserves the front page, top auto innovation award, clear as beer. Wake up, PopSci!
PUMP OUT THE VOLTS! ( in all 50 states ),
James
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (4:38 pm)——————————————————————————————————————————————————————->>>>>
BTW, this is a “shout out” for all us Volt fans to write PopSci and let them know our disdain for their – TOP AUTO INNOVATION AWARD for 2010 – choice. Here is the link to send a quick comment/opinion to the editor:
letters@popsci.com
I’ll list this again during the week – I hope to get lots of email to PopSci so they can see the error of their ways.
Thanks,
James
* I’d love to see Nasaman’s email to PopSci – something like, “…as a NASA hero, involved in our nation’s moonshot….” hahahaha – SCORE!
+3
Nov 28th, 2010 (5:03 pm)I thought the Vette at the autoshow in Austin, May15, 2010 was kinda’ aggressive
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (5:14 pm)Aluminum block, turbo, balance shafts miss one major issue this car already costs a fortune to build. It’s not sustainable if the $40,000 price per car not counting development costs is true. So those parts won’t make it to a Volt until costs on other parts like the battery come down significantly.
As far as Covette, Camaro and mid-size trucks/SUVs Voltec is likely to be what saves these things from being regulated into oblivion by fuel economy and CO2 emissions rules. Unless there’s an about face on burning hydrogen in internal combustion engines. I don’t see that happening.
Nov 28th, 2010 (6:20 pm)I dont know how many I would sell, but I would certainly take out a new mortgage to get one for myself!
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (6:22 pm)That’s exactly what I’m talking about! Go Stingray!
Nov 28th, 2010 (6:38 pm)#67 MarkF Aluminum block, turbo, balance shafts miss one major issue this car already costs a fortune to build. It’s not sustainable if the $40,000 price per car
not counting development costs is true. So those parts won’t make it to a Volt until costs on other parts like the battery come down significantly.
As far as Covette, Camaro and mid-size trucks/SUVs Voltec is likely to be what saves these things from being regulated into oblivion by fuel economy and
CO2 emissions rules. Unless there’s an about face on burning hydrogen in internal combustion engines. I don’t see that happening.
(Quote)
The engine in the Volt was chosen for lower cost since it was basically off the shelf. Improvements to engines and other components are made to meet requirements and can be cost affective when done in high volume. Who knows what changes will be made for Gen. II Volt, but an improved 1.4L would be a possibility since Gm would like to continue to use a mass produced engine for several vehicles. IMO the BAS II system, [e-assist] will help GM meet federal requirements more than Voltec because of much lower cost to implement across with many vehicles using the 2.4L DI as standard equipment with a approximate 25% mileage increase in many more vehicles sold then Voltec. It will take much more time before Voltec is inexpensive enough to make a significant difference in GM’s greenness by itself.
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:15 pm)If the 2.4 doesn’t have balance shafts, I predict dismal sales for those poor cars. My post at #1 was directed at Cruzes.
-1
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:39 pm)That’ll never happen. You can’t call it a Corvette (except maybe a ’54) unless it has a V-8 in it. The customer base that buys one every other year would revolt!
It’s a heritage thing.
Now you could put a battery and a motor in it for an extra boost during launch, but, even that would probably mar the purity of the Corvette marque in some enthusiast eyes.
+2
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:42 pm)OT but vitally important: Yesterday’s thread discussed the fact that GM had concluded its Volt “Unplugged Tour” of 6,348 test drives. The Tour ran from Oct 9 to Nov 20, IOW, a total of less than 6 weeks in 12 cities across the US. I participated in one of these events on Oct 30 in Orlando at the Walt Disney World Speedway —even at this famous venue within reach of at least 5 million Florida residents, the turnout was very skimpy compared to what it could have and should have been with proper promotion!
In post #81 of yesterday's topic on Volt test drives, Statik (J. Cole), who closely monitors Leaf activities at his website http://www.nissan-leaf.net, says…
“…to answer your question, there is no ‘official’ number of (Leaf) test drives, but mathing out various attendences, they are probably right around 25,000ish at the moment all told. They set up a pretty nice little show, walk-through of the history, battery, etc. Q & A …and of course the drive itself.”
“Hard to say where that number will end up because the Leaf Drive Electric Tour doesn’t really ever stop (It runs every weekend, other than the Christmas holidays). It got going at the end of Sept to the public, and right now the last date I have seen thrown around for North America is in Aug 2011. With the car out nationally in Sept 2011, it seems like they will show it until you can get it.”
/Again GM, it’s apparent your Volt marketing efforts fall far short of Nissan’s for Leaf!!! GM, I honestly believe your Volt design, analysis & testing is EXTRAORDINARY —but that your Marketing SUCKS so far —it’s simply not in the same league as the (Nissan Leaf) effort up ’til now!!! Please, please, please, bring your marketing efforts up to something at least comparable to Nissan’s for their Leaf!
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:44 pm)OT:
Raser Technologies is splitting off the transportation division. It will be converting Silverados and other truck to their EREV technology utilizing Symetron Motors, Generators, and Controllers:
http://www.rasertech.com/news/press-releases/raser-closes-transaction-with-major-investor-launching-a-new-electric-vehicle-company-using-raser%E2%80%99s-technology
They state that “The new company plans to begin delivering the first extended range electric trucks to fleet customers beginning the end of this year.”
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:55 pm)Good to see GM opening and expanding plants… good to hear people getting back to work.
I would be nice to see GM build it’s own battery plant… or fuel cell plant.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (7:59 pm)#71 Eco_Turbo If the 2.4 doesn’t have balance shafts, I predict dismal sales for those poor cars. My post at #1 was directed at Cruzes.
We test drove the Terrain and Regal, both have a 2.4DI engine and we felt no abnormal vibrations. The vehicles did not have a turbo and my wife did not drive aggressively either so I don’t know if adding a turbo would make any difference in vibration. Other than racing engines, I didn’t think balancing was necesary with factory design and specs?
-1
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:15 pm)Of all of the concept ‘vettes, this is my favorite.
Since GM won’t let a mid-engine version make it to production as a Corvette, I would love to see what the Voltec guys would do with this.
20 years ago, this car was carbon fiber, 655 ft/lbs torque, AWD and 4 wheel steering, with a 225 mph top speed.
Make the Converj a Buick and let Cadillac loose on a no holds barred, mid engined EREV. (after all the CERV III stands for Corporate Engineering Research Vehicle, not Corvette…)
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:25 pm)Not to be skeptical but there isn’t such a thing as a GM dealership.
It’s hard to have great marketing when you have a different head of marketing every few months. The chaos is really Ed Whitacres’s fault. He was a complete screw-up. So far the commercials for the Volt have sucked but the recent “Getting Up” commercial was extraordinary, truly extraordinary. Let’s see how they do going forward when there has been some stability.
Nissan has done a very good job marketing but it hasn’t been perfect either. The test drives were extremely well executed. But constantly claiming that the Leaf has a 100 mile range when the range is more like 75 miles was a good example of overselling and under delivering, using Lance Armstrong was not inspired given the ongoing criminal investigation about his doping, and the polar bear ad was positively horrible, even worse than the Volt commercial, and that wasn’t easy to do.
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:35 pm)The 2.4 may have balance shafts. It should. If manufacturers are planning on replacing V6s and V8s with 4 cyl engines, Balance shafts will help them be accepted. JMHO And they would help differentiate the Cruze from the Asian competition. From my experience turbo or not makes no difference. 4 cyl engines just aren’t very smooth without them, especially larger ones.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:46 pm)I agree with all you’ve said, Don. Both Nissan (“100 mile range”) & GM (“more car than electric”) have screwed up the message. Hopefully, they’ll both get better at it if they insist their marketing firms pay attention to some of what you and I and others are saying here. But that’s not my point. What I’m concerned about is that Nissan’s Leaf has MUCH MORE “social medium” marketing than GM’s Volt. And the number of Leaf test drives has already exceeded Volt test drives by about 4:1!!! And GM’s “Volt Unplugged Tour” has wrapped up, while Nissan’s Leaf test drive promotion goes on until next August (according to Statik)!!! “Holy BatMobile, let’s buy a LEAF, Batman”!
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:47 pm)Maybe that group could bring home another overall Le Mans prototype (LMP) win for USA.
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:50 pm)Thanks for all the kind thoughts guys. I’ll definitely be reading the articles and comments, but it’s unlikely that I’ll post much until after the job is done (and I’ve recovered)
Be kind to each other!
Ship UPS! Help a dolt, buy a Volt!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:52 pm)Wait ’til they see how little fun they can have in two or three hours. Actually I can’t wait. And it seems California is where a person has to drive forever to go anywhere.
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:54 pm)Well, I hope they get it done, but, it’s an uphill battle.
Looking at the cost of GM’s mild hybrid trucks, it won’t be easy.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (8:56 pm)Why don’t you start a Tag Voltmas fund? You may be surprised what you find in the stocking.
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:07 pm)Very nice thought, but I’m sure that my heart couldn’t handle the shock. This job pays a whole dollar per hour over minimum wage, so I’ll be rolling in the moolah! I’ll be more than happy to find my wife in my stocking on Voltmas (at this point I can *handle* that)(lol).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:13 pm)“Voltmas Fund” is a great idea & congrats on becoming a Santa’s Helper via UPS! But Tag, when I miss reaching someone by phone I sometimes joke on their answering machine, “TAG, YOU’RE IT!”
So c’mon now, at least spare us a word or two, ’cause otherwise if I miss you on gm-volt.com it’s still gonna be, “TAG, YOU’RE IT!”
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:25 pm)Getting back to the original topic: The bottom line for this little engine is that it’s the heart of a whole new era for General Motors. It may never enjoy the universal appeal that the venerable 350 cubic inch V-8 did, but it’s certainly a wise move to make this extra high quality little engine perform duty in multiple vehicles and in multiple configurations (turbo or not) in order to maximize the investment return.
This post reminded me that even though I’m a die-hard “car guy”, I have yet to open the hood and look at the engine. My new Cruze (bought it last week) isn’t going to win any drag races, but the power delivery is very smooth. Almost electric-motor smooth. It revs quickly and has just a tiny hint of “buzziness” around 4000 RPMs, but nowhere NEAR as bad as the Toyota or Honda engines. The power is nicely transmitted through the 6-speed automatic with no flat spots and even with only 100 miles on the car it’s already getting upper 20′s for MPG. I expect that to rise as the engine breaks in. The engine isn’t the only thing that convinced me to trade in my old Corolla though; the total package of the Cruze is significantly nicer than the Japanese competition. Oh, one other thing: OnStar is so much cooler than I ever imagined!
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:28 pm)Sorry couldn’t resist…
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:33 pm)Now Phil, you know how much we both enjoy those phone chats! During the last one I thought the we’d solved all the world’s problems through 2012 (except those darn low production numbers!)(g).
Please, no more talk of Voltmas funds though. The harder we work to earn something, the more we appreciate it – and *BOY* am I going to appreciate my Volt! (lol).
I’m sure that I’ll be chiming in from time to time. Old habits are tough to break. The time-stamps may well be “a.m.” though.
From what I’ve seen so far, UPS is a very impressive organization – almost a military model. *Super* security, strict dress code (I had to shave my beard of 30+ years!), etc. Being a child of the ’60′s I love structure to the extent that I can squeeze through the cracks (e.g. I inquired, and hair on the pate is not required, so I can shave my head when I shave my face. And yes, I *did* ask that at my interview)(g). It’ll be a pretty neat adventure.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:40 pm)Ron,
We’re going to try and test drive a Cruze next week, my wife needs a new car.
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:42 pm)I’m at the last evening of the LA Auto show. The Cadillac Concept that was featured here a couple of days ago looks like the perfect size for a Voltec powertrain, or All-Electric. Forget the 3-cylinder diesel idea. I think it would make a great electric Caddy!
Nov 28th, 2010 (9:55 pm)CorvetteGuy,
CV, how far did you have to drive to get to the show, could you have taken a BEV?
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:25 pm)I think you meant to leave off the comma. LOL
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:33 pm)It kinda works either way, Donut?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!
+1
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:45 pm)One area I would like to see GM invest in (and I expect their doing this) is a more powerful li-ion battery that would be capable of powering SUVs, minivans and small pickups the size of the Dodge Dakota. I’ve had a quad cab Dakota for quite sometime and that would be the ideal size for a more powerful li-ion battery modeled after the Volt experience.
Nov 28th, 2010 (10:55 pm)Thanks for closing the loop on this Nasaman… If I had to give GM the benefit of the doubt, I’d say they’re intentionally slacking off on marketing diligence due to supply not being able to meet demand at this point in time. Still a bummer though.
join thE REVolution
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:41 pm)I just checked the user comments section of the “EV Charger Finder” iPhone app. The are now 2 J1772 charging stations at the LA Convention Center and some of CAB members used them while attending the show. So CorvetteGuy could use the charging station using a 100 mile BEV to complete the trip IF the Volt wasn’t parked there! (Don’t forget to pay the DMV a $17 one time charge for the sticker that allows you to legally park in those California EV charging parking spaces.)
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:42 pm)I literally said Hold $hit when I saw those pictures. Very cool !
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:48 pm)Can see this in a Dark Blue with yellow/orange ghost flames on the nose. Are the thin side view mirrors functional?
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:58 pm)The Vette was behind the “rope,” just like the Volt, so I couldn’t get that close. I assume there were actual mirrors there. I only asked the GM rep questions about the Volt.
-1
Nov 28th, 2010 (11:59 pm)I’d take a blended electric drive 4 cylinder turbo diesel drivetrain over a base V8 any day. Just imagine the turbo diesel Cadillac BLS with a quarter powerpack Tesla electric drivetrain tossed in the rear for low speed (0-100 mph Loboc style) assist. Dang. Beef. Low end electric torque and diesel grunt. Four cylinder quickness and variability. High end turbo. Regen braking. Low center of gravity. Independent front AND rear wheel drive. Efficient and FUN.
Too bad GM only stands behind one new thing every 100 years and the Volt drivetrain was this century’s pick. Not that I wouldn’t pick a Volt over a ‘vette any day. I would. Pick a Volt over a ‘vette any day, that is.
Nov 29th, 2010 (12:11 am)@ Loboc,
Ever drive a TVR Sagaris in heavy traffic? Straight six-shooter.
-3
Nov 29th, 2010 (3:27 am)I was named by some participant as being “purist”. Since ICE within Voltec architecture is not only range extender and will always be so whatever generation Voltec will be. IMHO the ICE will be the same or very little different from what we have, i.e. 1,4 L (or 2 L) for cylinder engine or conventional auto ICE since it directly drives wheels. It will never be genset engine as such. It is set for many years to come. Batteries could become smaller, motor more powerful, PEU more efficient but ICE and gearbox will be the same. Otherwise it would be no Voltec anymore. I think GM shall and they naturally will perfect Voltec. Changing ICE would be paradigm change and GM is not ready, not willing, may be not bold enough and basically can not afford shifting direction. This investment decision is one more evidence support my “pure” opinion.
May be other companies, possibly Ford, introducing EREV will start with pure architecture and take Wankel from shelf and make it as pure genset without accurate follow-up of horsepower and torque demand, concentrating on sweet spot efficiency. It that case it could be double what we have now for auto applications. Texas was promoting idea that it always good to have direct link to the wheels in order to have better efficiency. I say – it is illusory gain.
Nov 29th, 2010 (7:11 am)Einstein, it’s not required to drive the wheels, EVER. ICE can be whatever is cheapest and can generate the max power requirement which is dictated by hill climbing loads and not wheel torque.
+1
Nov 29th, 2010 (7:14 am)OT – Important Breaking News: Leaf just won 2011 Car of the Year in Europe among about 7 automotive publications and 59 journalists. It’s called the “Cosmo Smallpiece” award and is voted for by a jury of 59 people from 23 countries, 6 of which were British. (Several Jury members voted the LEAF in last place, but overall the LEAF still won ahead of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta in 2nd place.) A fully-electric car winning this COTY award is a big step forward for EVs & EREVs world-wide.*
*The Opel/Vauxall 2011 Ampera is not yet on sale; otherwise I believe it would have taken the honors in a cake walk — wait ’til next year!
Nov 29th, 2010 (7:31 am)Closest thing I’ve driven is a Fiat Spyder (’70 ish) owned by one of my friends. I owned a ’70 Vette 454 w/close-ratio 4-speed. That car was a bear to drive in traffic. The double-plate clutch was very heavy.
I have driven a Camaro SS396 that was hot-rodded. 4-speed Hurst. I think it was a ’69 or ’68. It was set up as a bracket (drag) racer.
I rode in a Ford Pantera (also ’70 ish). Very fast car. I couldn’t drive it because it was a show car.
I owned a ’68 Mustang 3-speed straight 6. Gobs of low-end torque. Project car. Or, POS whichever way you chose to view it. Very fun car though.
All of these cars needed a backup plan for when they were down for repairs. All were very fun to drive and the first two were roadsters.
The Vette was way faster than anything else I’ve ever driven. It was actually scary to drive.
Nov 29th, 2010 (10:46 am)koz,
Unfortunately it is not the case. Like Prius is CS mode engine actually drives wheels with el. motor assist. Toyota never considered replacing 4 cylinder engine with something else.
Nov 29th, 2010 (4:24 pm)I hope that the parts numbers will be the same for the American production 4 cylinder engines.
This would help assure that there will not be as likely a “Euro-premium” when it comes to part costs twelve years from now.
Nov 29th, 2010 (7:25 pm)You are incorrect, sir. It can aid in but is not needed for driving the wheels, EVER. Look at the drivetrain and operational modes. If you then cannot understand this, then you should lean on others for understanding because your capacity is insufficient.
Nov 29th, 2010 (8:21 pm)I think most of our differences are just personal preferences, as gobs of low-end torque and fun is exactly what I like and what blended electric drive has baked right in, while I find high speed straight line cruising boring, inefficient and dangerous.
Show me something that’s quick off the line, smooth and fast accelerating in bursts, kind on the brakes and compatible with one foot driving, low center of weight for good handling, easy and fun to drive in daily around town driving with stop signs, red lights, traffic, plenty of turns and curves, seats more than 2 and has reasonable storage and ok range and recharge time for a decent price and I’ll be impressed.
base Volt: check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check and check. Hotness.
base Vette: meh. Not so much. Does ok for a heavy 1950s styled 2 seater 1912 tech full gasser sports tractor.
Nov 29th, 2010 (10:25 pm)The Ecotec line has not enjoyed a good reputation in the past – mainly it was always viewed as a rough running and noisy little guy. Whether that’s still true, I don’t know, but GM has had a devil f a time trying to compete with Toyota , Honda and others in this engine class. I always wondered why they didn’t just buy a Honda engine and copy it, ala the old Communistic technique. I also remember years ago when GM tried hard to produce a working Wankel engine and gave up, saying the specs were too tight for their manufacturing technologies. Then Mazda built one and used it for years in their sports car. Obviously it wasn’t the future (especially after the first gas crunch made its poor mileage stand out). But it did work, sort of. I rememeber helping a co-worker one night when his rotary died and found, to my amazement, that Mazda was aware of the weakness of their distributors and thoughtfully provided two for each engine. When one died, you switched the wires to the other. Crazy technology, I always thought.
Nov 30th, 2010 (2:33 am)koz,
It is good to have self confidence but you never know who is aware of what until you try of understand. Yes, ICE mechanical power dives wheels directly in CS mode. It means that in CS mode ICE is not engaged in charging battery or generating electricity and then electric motor does not driving wheels in 90% of time. I am too lazy finding quote of GM guy, but he said that in that case fuel savings are 15%. This is “pure” fact and full stop here. If you do not believe me, please consult with Texas or someone else.