« Malaysian Company To Build First Plant in Large Nipah Palm Ethanol Project; Envisions Eventual Output of 1.2 Billion Gallons per Year | Main | Ford Announces Hydrogen-Electric Plug-in Hybrid Drive and Airstream Concept »
GM Introduces E-Flex Electric Vehicle System; Chevrolet Volt the First Application
6 January 2007
 |
| Powertrain of the Chevy Volt E-Flex Concept. Click to enlarge. |
GM has introduced a new family of electric vehicle propulsion systems—the E-Flex Systems—and is showing the first concept application of E-Flex at the North American International Auto Show: the Chevrolet Volt, a 40-mile all-electric range (AER) plug-in hybrid.
E-Flex initially uses a plug-in capable, battery-dominant series hybrid architecture. The E-Flex vehicles are all electrically-driven, feature common drivetrain components, and will be able to create electricity on board (either through a genset or a fuel cell). Regenerative braking will also contribute to the on-board electricity generation. (“E” stands for electric drive and “Flex” for the different sources of electricity.)
We are focused on reducing our dependence on petroleum—today we are 98% dependent [and] we don’t think that is a good business strategy at all.
—Beth Lowery, GM VP Energy and Environment
There has been some speculation in the press that perhaps this is a publicity stunt on our part. This is not a publicity stunt, nor is it a science fair project. This is something that we have been working on for close to a year.
—Jon Lauckner, GM VP Global Program Management
GM is developing the E-Flex System in parallel to its mechanical hybrid efforts—including the development of the Saturn VUE Green Line two-mode plug-in hybrid (earlier post), for which GM just awarded lithium-ion battery contracts (earlier post)—as well as its ongoing fuel-cell vehicle development efforts.
In its evolving taxonomy of offerings, GM refers to its existing portfolio of hybrids as “mechanical hybrids”—i.e., the engine provides mechanical drive power in addition to the electric drive power.
There is tremendous synergy between the fuel cell vehicle program and the E-Flex program—Nick Zielinski is the chief engineer for the fuel cell program and the Volt Concept, as one example.
Furthermore, GM leveraged its experience with the EV1 in the design of both the E-Flex System and the Volt. The use of the range extender in the Volt design, for example, originated with feedback from EV1 customers about not wanting to have to plan their lives around the next charge, according to Tony Posawatz, GM Vehicle Line Director.
GM envisions a range of genset options for the E-Flex vehicles, including engines optimized to run on E85 or E100 and biodiesel.
 |
| The Chevrolet Volt. |
The Chevrolet Volt. GM chose its Global Compact vehicle architecture (Cobalt-sized) for its first E-Flex application, the Chevrolet Volt.
The Volt uses the same electric motor as used in the Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle in its electric powertrain: a 120 kW peak machine that develops 320 Nm (236 lb-ft) of torque.
The Volt will use a 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack that delivers 136 kW of peak power. Plug-in charging is designed for the home (110V, 15 amps) and will take between 6 to 6.5 hours.
The Volt can support all-electric mode from 0 to its top speed of 100 mph (with bursts to 120 mph). Acceleration from 0 to 60 mph takes 8 to 8.5 seconds. The basic operating strategy is to run the vehicle in all-electric mode until the state-of-charge (SOC) of the battery reaches 30%—that strategy delivers approximately a 40-mile range.
The 53 kW motor generator set (genset) allows the on-the-fly recharging of the battery. The genset in the current Volt concept uses a 1-liter, 3-cylinder, turbocharged engine.
You can drive at a continuous 70 mph, and the generator will not be on continuously. At 100 mph,the genset can maintain the charge in the battery and the speed of the vehicle. There are no compromises for the customers in the vehicle.
—Nick Zielinski, chief engineer
The Volt concept configuration features a 12-gallon fuel capacity, giving the vehicle a total driving range of around 640 miles—which works out to a nominal gasoline fuel efficiency of about 50 miles per gallon. (Presumably range would increase with a diesel variant.)
The less one drives before plugging in to recharge, however, the higher the experienced fuel efficiency. A daily drive of 60 miles, combined with a nightly recharge to support the first 40 all-electric miles, would yield an effective 150 mpg according to GM’s calculations, for example.
For comparable performance with a fuel-cell version of the Volt, GM anticipates needing 4 kg of hydrogen on-board.
The Volt also features a number of advanced materials from GE Automotive Plastics, including:
Roof, rear deck lid and fixed side glazing made with Lexan GLX resins and Exatec coating technology;
Doors and hood made with Xenoy iQ high performance thermoplastic composites (HPPC). Xenoy iQ resins are created with polybutylene terephthalate (PBT)-based polymers derived from 85% post-consumer plastic waste, consuming less energy and yielding less carbon dioxide (CO2) in their manufacturing than traditional resins.
Global energy absorber and hybrid rear energy absorbers with Xenoy iQ resins;
Steering wheel and instrument panel with integrated airbag chute made with Lexan EXL resins;
Front fenders made with Noryl GTX resins; and
Wire coating made with Flexible Noryl resins.
The use of the materials delivers part weight reductions of up to 50%.
Actual production of the vehicle is dependent on further battery development, and GM made no announcements about partners involved in the development of the battery pack for the Volt. The profile for the battery in the Volt is different than that of the pack being developed for the VUE plug-in.
GM would like to minimize the different battery packs within the E-Flex family of vehicles. One notable exception to this would in a fuel-cell configuration. In that case, the battery would be smaller, and more focused as power battery first and energy battery second (due to the ability of the fuel cell to produce the electricity on-board.)
However, GM is also clear that it wants to use common systems and controls wherever possible across applications. To that end, elements such as the charging systems will likely be common across mechanical-hybrid plug-ins and E-Flex plug-ins.
January 6, 2007 in Electric (Battery), Hybrids, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (184) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7403760
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Introduces E-Flex Electric Vehicle System; Chevrolet Volt the First Application:
Comments
This is fantastic news! My only question is when can I buy one? I hope it is within the foreseeable future.
Posted by: James White | Jan 6, 2007 9:21:34 PM
The Ace has come out, but will the cardholder botch it? Overall, this is nice, but how long will it take them to go from concept to showroom? If they fastrack it, it may be ready by 2010-2011. OTOH, 7-8 years may be more feasible.
Posted by: allen_Z | Jan 6, 2007 9:57:02 PM
It's about time. Notice the delay though, blaming production in three years on batteries. Didn't Solectria (bought by Azure Dynamics) build a similar vehicle with a 380 range EV back in the late 90's. It is possible to use Nickel batteries and get half the range, so sell the car we're waiting!
Posted by: bat | Jan 6, 2007 10:19:48 PM
they could do it now, but two drivetrains and a big set of batts will be expensive.
expect at least $10k over the cost of the normal version.
everyone ready to pay $25k for a chevy cobalt raise your hand.
in other words, anyone who wants to buy a small slow less safe car with unproven technology for the price of a full size truck w/ room for 5 and all your lumber and a V8.
this is why nobody sells a series hybrid.
many people will pay $300 towards carbon (guilt) offsets, but it is a rare person who will spend an extra $10k on the smaller, slower, less safe, vehicle that will probably have reliability issues.
Posted by: shaun mann | Jan 6, 2007 10:31:02 PM
Could I actually be getting excited about something from GM? (I learned to drive in my parents 73 Vega ... what a lemon) The specs look great! Would be nice if the genset was removable (I would only need it once a year at most). The only down side would be that if they actually get this to market I'll have to eat a ton of nasty words about GM.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 6, 2007 10:35:33 PM
I could see myself buying it if it had a slightly higher all-electric range (not much, maybe 60 miles).
However, I think GM is approaching this thing the wrong way, from a marketing and production standpoint. They're taking a bottom-up approach, that is, start with the small car that "everyone" would buy and working up to a more expensive, full-featured version. Here's the problem:
By starting with a car for "everyone" that's never actually been built before, GM is going to be relying on market forecasting that will probably be way off of what they'll experience in reality. This results in production planning being (probably) set conservatively, which means lower economies of scale and thus more expensive cars. More expensive cars mean less demand, which in turn increases cost. It's a cycle that you always want to avoid when it comes to production, so things will need to be planned properly on GM's part, with excess capacity built and paid for.
By taking a top-down approach (say, by doing what Tesla Motors is doing) and releasing much more expensive, "luxury" or "prestige" models, they'll be able to build up initial demand through word of mouth and experience marketing, rather than relying solely on the "need" of the consumer to market the product.
I'd say GM needs to sell a beefed up E-Flex car for around $50,000. It should be a luxury model with an all-electric range of around 150 miles (totally feasible). Limit production to something like 1000 units in the USA in the first year, and target major cities, especially in blue states (no disrespect to the reds).
Focus on selling out of those, get the car in auto magazines and show it at car expos, get the word out, get people talking about GM's new technology that saves hundreds of dollars on fuel. Then, in 4-6 years, you release a cheaper version with lower range (say 100 miles, battery technology should continue to improve over the next half-decade) and mass market it. Guaranteed they'll be sold out and have people on a waiting list like Toyota's Prius.
Mind you, that's just what I'd do if I was working at GM. Who knows, maybe they'll scrap this one too. Or maybe the Japanese will just do it better for less, as they always do.
Posted by: Adam | Jan 6, 2007 11:14:59 PM
One of the first cars I ever owned was a 56 chev nomand. It was actually a decent car for the money spent. The only problem was stopping at the gas station every 3 or 4 days and that ate most of my paycheck back then.
I would gladly pay a good price for a 40 mile EV range. Right now I think Pheonix motors will give me that car long befor GM ever will.
Go ahead Chevy prove me wrong, my check book is waiting.
Posted by: KJD | Jan 6, 2007 11:18:29 PM
Now the "Big Oil" and "Big Auto" tie-in is becoming clear: A123Systems and Johnson Controls provide the technology and the patents; Cobasys, a joint venture with Chevron/Texaco (and encouraged by all others in Big Oil) finance battery development and controls the battery patents. They do this using the courts to filing infringement suits. GM buys the prototype batteries from money gained through the Government sponsored Big Three battery consortium. "Big Oil" in effect is still controlling the US energy game and thus the prices by letting consumers move into electric cars and flex fuels on their own terms. A level playing field doesn't exist as long as Congress just stands by and watches. I think hearing on the subject are long overdue. The effect of Big Oil's control serves to slow down development of electric cars and to impede their progress into production, This extents the time we will continue to depend on foreign oil and continues to let other countries set our energy prices and policy. We should be moving at flank speed to get out from under their thumb but the greed of US Big Oil sabotages the entire effort.
Posted by: Lad | Jan 6, 2007 11:25:14 PM
This Flexible platform will cost this Chevy Volt some performance, fuel economy, and profitability by going solely the serial hybrid route.
By contrast, if the engine can mechanically be clutched to the drive train at cruise and after initial slow-speed acceleration, then the motor can be reduced to 80-90-kw size, since the 53-kw engine can supply about 30 kw of direct mechanical power on average during acceleration, and up to 53 kw at full speed at the equivalence of top gear. This will give 90 kw + 53 kw = 143 kw total power at top speed when power will be most needed.
The power inverter can be reduced in size, and the battery can also be reduced in size to about 10 Kwh. This will allow a saving of hundreds of pounds and thousands of dollars, and a few more cubic ft of interior space. Few people will complain when the plugged-in range is reduced from 40 mi to 25 mi, when you can save them thousands of dollars of purchasing cost, and ~20% improvement in fuel mileage.
Most importantly, the hwy mileage may increase to 60-65 mpg instead of 50 mpg, due to direct mechanical power transfer from engine to wheel (without going thru the friction of a 4-speed transmission unit), AND without going thru the electrical loss due to the resistance of the copper windings in the motor, generator, and possibly internal resistance of the battery if the engine is intended to be switched on and off for cruising at below 70 mph!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 7, 2007 12:19:14 AM
I don't give a damn who is making money off this or who makes them, just get these cars out now. I will buy at once.
Posted by: DRE | Jan 7, 2007 12:20:38 AM
we will never see this car on the road its a bullshit concept for tomorrow, they tell us about it today and say its on the way soon, but while you wait why not buy a hummer
file this car in the back of your minds with fool cells
Posted by: anti gravity | Jan 7, 2007 12:29:52 AM
Give the guys a cheer. This is definitely a step in teh right direction. The 40 miles range is suitable for many people for commuting. If you actually carry lumber, buy a SUV, otherwise this is interesting.
But as people say - when can I buy one and how much will it be ?
Posted by: mahonj | Jan 7, 2007 1:38:32 AM
That Chevy Volt almost gave me a heart attack when I first saw it, it's so beautiful. I hope I live long enough to be able to buy one.
Posted by: Bob | Jan 7, 2007 2:02:10 AM
Trivial project, routinely made by DIY mechanics, university graduates, and no less than by two dozen small companies. No real news to discuss.
By the way, Cobalt platform is a junk, and series hybrid is proved to be inferior in personal transportation applications.
The only real good news is that electric drive lobby inside GM is getting stronger.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 7, 2007 3:15:41 AM
As a concept, the Chevy Volt sounds great. If the Nano-safe batteries being installed by Pheonix Motors actually cost around $500 per KWH, then 16 KWH will contribute about $8,000 to the car. If the car otherwise would cost about 15,000, the Volt would sell in the range of $25,000, and would sell like hotcakes, being in the same price range as the existing Prius, but getting two thirds of its cumulative miles from domestic energy sources rather than foreign, making it much better for America than the current Prius.
Posted by: Van | Jan 7, 2007 4:21:33 AM
As I said a year ago when working on ev and fuelcell cars this was what gm was working tward.
They want to replace the engie first aproach with an eletric motor first syetembecause a genset can be alot more eff then a mechanicalylinked engine. This is becausew it can be atone set speed for its entire time on and it can be geared totaly for that most eff range gett9ing far beter fielecon.
Also its means they can use a MUCH smaller engine what would normalyrequire a 1.4-1.6 liter engine they manage with 1.
Also its alot easyer to create a multi fuel genset thats eff with each and every fuel. So they could make a single car that has a e85 e100 tank AND a biodeisel tank all for just a 100 or so more bucks then one fuel.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 7, 2007 4:46:59 AM
I've got to agree with the person who posted under the name "anti-gravity". Any encouragement we give to any auto maker will be interpreted as support for product concept, and the bottom line is that we've to to get greener vehicles into the marketplace and onto the road as soon as possible. I always say that when anyone makes them available and affordable, the consumers will respond in massive numbers.
Posted by: Doug Snodgrass | Jan 7, 2007 4:53:54 AM
There's no reward for hard work.
GM has been futzing around with concept cars and platforms for many years now -- and we've seen a Saturn VUE to show for it.
Let's see some better products, eh? This sounds like a great idea, but get a quality cost-efficient one out of the lab and into the showroom please.
Posted by: stomv | Jan 7, 2007 5:28:40 AM
I'm all for GM's plans for an electric car, the only drawback I see with any electric car is the heavy and expensive batteries that eventually go bad. Years ago someone developed a fiber flywheel that was supposablly competative with batteries. Why did this technology die out?
Posted by: JimI | Jan 7, 2007 5:40:17 AM
"This is something that we have been working on for close to a year.
—Jon Lauckner, GM VP Global Program Management "
GM has fast tracked this concept car, suggesting they may be serious about building this one. there is no new technology in this one except for the batteries, maybe they will prove a lot of guys wrong.
so many replies here suggest GM is the same old detroit
company with no new tricks. i think of them as a global company now that's beginning to show some life. they have to change and grow now. did't they lose their number 1 place to toyota this year?
my wifes car is an inline 6 suzuki verona, when we shopped for her new car, suzuki beat toyota and honda by $2500 and the GM owned korean plant that her car came from still had many more options than toyota or honda. it's been a super car for her.
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 7, 2007 6:16:32 AM
The posts about a123 and saft showed me that there was progress towards developing a supply chain[perhaps outside of union control}.This is right out of the plug in partnership play book.Big electric is looking to push this tech.There is gonna be a big somebody to hate.The e-chassis is taken from their hy-drive skateboard platform designed for fuel cell vehicles[get some return for all those hy-dollars spent}.I am the father of three soldiers and would buy and cheerlead this with a fervor equal to any eco warrior.Getting behind this would unite left and right toward a greener and more secure starting point.
Posted by: earl | Jan 7, 2007 6:18:04 AM
Andrey:
You said, "By the way, Cobalt platform is a (piece of) junk, and series hybrid is proved to be inferior in personal transportation applications."
Can you explain why you feel a series hybird is inferior?
Posted by: TheGiant | Jan 7, 2007 6:30:00 AM
If this concept car burned thirty feet of rubber off the line, these cars would be fawned over by the automotive press and in production in two years. But, back in 2002, GM gave the automotive press a preview of the hydrogen powered Haywire . . er . Hy-Wire concept vehicle and claimed they could start production on a less aggressively styled model in five years. Here it is 2007 and hydrogen powerplants are still getting little more than sidebar attention.
Due to the serious sales threat posed by Asian automakers, GM is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Until there's a Chevy Volt at my local dealership with a pricetag on it and an oportunity to test drive one, I'm not covinced this isn't just more of GM's green fluff. Even GM loyalists now want improved fuel economy and GM hybrid cars, like the Malibu Maxx hybrid, are still months from production. These announcements are intended to keep the previously loyal GM buyers from tasting the ripe fruit (Toyota's Prius & Camry, Honda's Civic & Accord and the Nissan Altima) from across the pond.
Posted by: storky | Jan 7, 2007 6:31:55 AM
This is by far the best attempt from GE to get back into the game. However, there are a couple of flaws in the components they chose in their electric drive: A123 Systems batteries (the ones GM chose) are great but at only 16 KW*hr, the battery pack will be required to be discharged at rates greater than 1 C, shortening the life of the battery (minor flaw). The specific energy of the A123 system batteries is about 110 W*hr/kg. However, if the SOC is not going to fall below 30% (only 70% of capacity is available) the effective energy density of the battery pack drops to 77 W*hr/kg. Atair Nano Batteries on the other hand have a lower energy density of 90 W*hr/kg but they can be discharged to 0% SCO for 15,000 cycles (not a typo!)which means the effective energy density is higher than those of A123 Systems. With 15,000 cycles and 40 miles/full charge, you can drive the car for over 600,000 miles. As an added bonus, the power density of the Altair batteries is 4 KW/kg versus 3 KW/kg for A123 systems.
The propulsion system that GM is most likely to use is with permanent magnets/DC motors. GM should have picked the most power dense drivetrain in the market: AC Propulsion. AC Propulsion drivetrain is used in the Wrightspeed X1 (0 to 60 in 3 seconds), TZero (0 to 60 in 3.6 secons) and the Tesla roadster (0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds). This drivetrain in very efficient and light (Tesla managed to put the 248 hp electric motor, the differential and a transmission in a 140 lb package!). As a general rule, AC motors are 3 times more power dense than their DC counterparts. GM has to come to terms that they neglected R&D in the hybrid arena for so long, they simply cannot catch up with Toyota. GM must license the best technologies available in corporate America if the really want to have a piece of the next generation hybrid pie.
Posted by: Freddy | Jan 7, 2007 6:52:39 AM
I have to agree with storky, talk is cheap and that is exactly what gm has been doing for a while. (gm is not in capital as TOYOTA has to be btw). Anyways, any automaker can start making plug-in hybrids right now, but once they let ordinary Joe to see advantages of plug-ins NOONE will be bying regular gasoline cars, as Dems will make u feel
as though u r the one who puts dollars into muslims pockets (which is true as a see it). If US goverment instead of spending billions on war could give people rebates if those vehicle bought then believe it or not gasoline cars would be thing of the past in short order. Dems have to push Reps pretty hard though for that to happen.
Also genset could be easily made in the small trailer
which would reduce the weight of the vehicle. If I travel 95% less then 40 miles a day I don't really need
to carry that ballast every day with me.
Again this Volt is just cheap talk from gm.
Posted by: Alex | Jan 7, 2007 7:13:23 AM
Here is an electric assisted Equinox done for the Challenge X program, where several University teams designed.
http://www.team-fate.net/design.htm
Combine that with the fuel cell Equinox, where GM is testing 100 units and you can see that GM is in the game.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 7:36:52 AM
It seems to me that this motor/battery combination will allow for efficient capturing almost all the braking energy without the need for any ultracaps. Any thoughts on this? One of the few drawbacks with the Prius is mountain driving. All the juice is gone in the first mile up the hill and it gets totally filled up on the first mile or two on the way down so the rest of the energy is wasted. This vehicle would be perfect for the thousands of commuters who live 10 or 20 miles up in the Colorado Rockies who commute down to the plains. They wouldn’t even need to plug it in at night as they would get a full charge every morning on the way down to work for their return trip in the evening.
Posted by: Brent | Jan 7, 2007 8:05:30 AM
So many curmudgeons here for GM! It's great news - get real, doomers. Freddy, GM's announce makes clear they have not decided on what batteries to use. There's a good chance they'll buy into Altair which has actually delivered product to Phoenix.
Look, this car can be built today and sell for $25k. With GM financing and some fed tax credits for near zero emissions - the out of pocket to buy one could be the same as a Corolla. I for one applaud GM for fast response to what is becoming a very competitive market in transport.
If all you gloomers who think this is vaporware would stop by your local GM dealer and ask if you can place an order on a Volt - watch how fast it'll show up in the show room! Good story.
Posted by: gr | Jan 7, 2007 8:09:29 AM
I agree with the marketing comments made by Adam above, but I disagree with the need to have more than a 40 mile all-electric range in a series hybrid. Anything more than 40 miles means paying a lot more for extra batteries that the vehicle has to lug around doing nothing 90% of the time.
I also take exception to Shaun Mann's comment that two drive trains are too expensive and unproven. Most locomotives in use today use an electric generator to drive an electric motor. Thomas Edison developed the first experimental electrical locomotive in 1880.
Posted by: James White | Jan 7, 2007 8:14:42 AM
If GM made this car for 2009 they would need to charge about $30k to $40k to make money. Now car companies do sell some cars at or even below cost such as the Honda Insight or the first generation Prius.
This car would be perfect for me. Perfect size, Perfect range for my 30 mile commute. I would be in line to buy at under $35000
See also :
http://news.windingroad.com/alternative-fuel/chevrolet-to-unveil-volt-concept-on-sunday/
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jan 7, 2007 8:31:17 AM
James White,
"Most locomotives in use today use an electric generator to drive an electric motor."
perhaps it should read:
Most locomotives in use today use a diesel generator to drive an electric motor.
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 7, 2007 8:33:09 AM
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/automobiles/07VOLT.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jan 7, 2007 8:48:30 AM
The uphill test is the big one. Imagine climbing from sea level to 5000 feet in an hour on an interstate highway. After a while the car starts performing like a 40hp VW Beetle. If people can handle that, then this car is for them.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 9:15:46 AM
SJC,
i've never climbed from sea level to 5000 feet in an hour.
do you do that often?
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 7, 2007 10:00:31 AM
I have climbed those hills, and seen VW vans with rolling up them too, at 55mph. So they are at full throttle and cannot go faster... I climb hills like that on average once a year. On those same hills some semi's are going 40mph or less.
On the way down your battery will be fully recharged!
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jan 7, 2007 10:13:33 AM
PERFECT!! This is exactly what we need. 40mi electric range. Here are some options that they should add.
A switch that lets the user disable the engine, say you are 10mi from home and the batts go to 30%, you could overide the system and go all the way home.
Let the user decide on the battery range. Buy it with a 20mi range and upgrade later. Why not!
So many posibilities. I love it.
Posted by: Abraham | Jan 7, 2007 10:24:35 AM
Just drive from Sacramento, CA to Reno on Interstate 80. You go from 400 ft at Roseville to 7800 ft at Donner Summit in about an hour (at 70 MPH). There are many 5000 ft climbs in the western states, many much faster than one hour.
Posted by: JamesEE | Jan 7, 2007 10:51:42 AM
I aaplaud GM for this concept. However, as many have mentioned it is only a concept.
The Plug in Prius is coming within 2 years and may also have a 40 mile range.
Perhaps that is why GM is has created this concept, but until they announce a production date they will remain behind the curve.
Posted by: Adam Galas | Jan 7, 2007 10:55:30 AM
I have a VW Jetta diesel, and it can scamper up hills without a problem. Perhaps you are thinking of the much older bugs from the 1960's with the small 40 hp engines.
Posted by: eric | Jan 7, 2007 11:00:09 AM
I used to be a GM loyalist. Now I own a Prius. If GM can get this to the market I'll buy one. If they can't then I'll take my business elsewhere, again. It's impressive that they've fast tracked this to a concept demonstration, but we've seen plenty of "concept cars" from GM. Production is what counts. EV1 leasers were willing to pay more. Tesla sold out the first 100 all-electric roadsters in three weeks and they're not cheap. There are some very busy companies selling $10k PHEV modifications to the Prius. The premium price market may not be huge, but there is one.
GM START LIMITED PRODUCTION NOW!!!
Andrey
I disagree. Series Hybrid will be the long-term winning design, unless we go to straight EVs (same thing without the generator). Simpler, cheaper mechanics and all-electric at freeway performance provides greater fuel savings. Series Hybrid technology is here now. See comments by Adam.
James White
I agree they should sell a lower cost option with 10 or 20 mile all-electric range. I like the 40 mile range for myself and would really like to see 60.
Earl
Please tell your sons: THANK YOU! I do not have sons in the armed services, but would also pay a premium for a car like this, more than a $10k premium. I'm not happy that our people are killing and dieing for oil when the technology is available to change this. 75% of the nation's driving is 40 miles per day or less. Close to 50% of USA oil use is for light trucks and cars. If every light truck and car had 40 mile all-electric range it would elliminate 3/8 of the nation's oil use. This is a step in the right direction, if they produce it. I would gladly pay more to get us going in this direction.
GM - NICE CONCEPT!!! PLEASE FAST-TRACK TO MARKET!!!
Posted by: mds | Jan 7, 2007 11:09:34 AM
James,
That is the route I was thinking of. You do not do it everyday, but when you do in a car like this, be prepared to slow down.
I have liked the concept of a series hybrid with a 1L turbo for quite some time. It has its limitations, but I could live with them. I am just wondering if the buying public at large could as well.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 11:09:59 AM
Adam Galas:
"The Plug in Prius is coming within 2 years and may also have a 40 mile range."
Where is this claim substantiated?
Posted by: TheGiant | Jan 7, 2007 11:21:39 AM
50 MPG from a series hybrid! Oh wow, I'm sure Toyota engineers are shaking in their lab-coats. This the classic Vaporware gambit: distract the public from the glaring fact that they have nothing to sell right NOW.
Posted by: DS | Jan 7, 2007 11:34:50 AM
I have never been a GM fan, in any way, shape, or form. But I think they've hit this one dead solid perfect. (And yes, I'm quite aware that this is "just" a concept car.)
Series hybrids are a perfect path forward, and the 40 mile/charge battery range is enough to make many people happy. A lot of people, especially in a household with more than one car, would be able to buy one of these and almost never fire up the ICE.
The also begins to reshape the competitive landscape. Ford, Chrysler, and even Honda and Toyota are being dragged out of their comfort zones. I've speculated on my own site many times about how desperate car companies would have to get before they take a leap and embrace highly disruptive technologies. It looks like GM read the handwriting on the wall, certainly before Ford did, resulting in the Volt (which REALLY needs a new name).
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jan 7, 2007 12:12:02 PM
This is great news. This design can actually reduce the number of parts (transmission, power brake, power steering accessories) as driving by wire is possible. If they use standards parts, they can build this cheaply except for the batteries.
I am commuting 36 miles each day. Given a car like this, I may never need a single drop of gas. I can't wait to buy the car. I hope it will hit production in the shortest possible time.
Posted by: jim | Jan 7, 2007 12:42:35 PM
thanks to everyone that has contributed to this thread.
one of my favorite comments suggests that we all go to our GM dealership and ask when or if we can place an order for a volt now.
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 7, 2007 12:50:15 PM
Couple points:
- GM, we knew you had it in you. But will you deliver?
- Tesla now has 250 orders in hand for the Roadster, 150 more than their original goal.
- Serial hybrids only suffer efficiency at highway cruise. Perhaps there should be a Volt delivery van variant?
- EV-1 Gen II NiMH had 21 kw/h battery storage & 120 mile range vs 16 kw/h and 40 miles for volt. Not a fair comparison, but it shows how the engineering balance is being played.
- Note GM dissing parallel/serial hybrids like Prius as "mechanical hybrids." Agitprop begins here...
The true advantages of real serial hybrid are cost and (as pointed out before on GCC) that engine can be efficiency optimized without any concern for throttle response, startup time, partial-load behavior, etc. Miller-cycle is only the start. This puts HCCI within reach.
Posted by: Ron Fischer | Jan 7, 2007 2:25:56 PM
If you want to see another picture of the car and some business writeup, NBC has some.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16503845/
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 2:29:35 PM
As many have suggested, I have placed "orders" for several EV's in the past with similar results. In 1998 I was placed on the "waiting list" for the Saturn EV1. Unfortunately, the EV1 was only leased to those who fulfilled the narrow criterion of living in California or Arizona and having the EV! serve ONLY as a secondary vehicle. Living in Chicago made me wholly unqualified for the initial program and the subsequent program of expanding availability nationwide never materilaized. Such was the case in also 1999 with regard to the Honda EV-Plus. Though I was permitted to apply for a place on the waiting list for Toyota's RAV4-EV, a year later they informed me the that the program was discontinued.
Demand for EV's has always been there. In the past decade, it has been the manufacturers who fail to meet consumer demand, NOT the consumer's lack of interest in available electric vehicles.
Posted by: storky | Jan 7, 2007 2:48:05 PM
http://greencar.us/2006/04/10/next-gen-94mpg-toyota-prius-by-2008/
here is the article about the next gen prius, with plug in option and kick ass mileage.
Good to see competition giving consumers great options.
Posted by: Adam Galas | Jan 7, 2007 2:48:25 PM
anyone else find the survey on gm.com, in their NAIAS section, asking for Volt opinions?
Posted by: O11OO1OO | Jan 7, 2007 2:51:22 PM
I can only hope this will hit the market within the decade, but given GM's track record, I doubt it will. Unless it's available only via a lease... ;)
But, if they made this available within a few years, maybe with a biodiesel certified genset, and it could travel 40 miles at 70mph all electric, I'd be all over it.
Posted by: yesplease | Jan 7, 2007 3:54:35 PM
To GM - great concept car, please make some ASAP. To all you doomsters, get a freaking life! If you got a better idea lets see you step up and make a product! That's right, you're all talk aren't you? I thought so! GM or one of the other car companies will come out with a PHEV, it's just going to take some time.
Posted by: JD | Jan 7, 2007 3:55:56 PM
Boy! that is really a double ugly car! Looks likes a caddy with a smashed roof. However, I will reserve any more comments since at this point it's all "PR Vapor." Make it, price it right and they will come.
Posted by: Ladson | Jan 7, 2007 3:56:14 PM
_Speaking of hills to climb, GM must turn around the overall low quality of their vehicles. It would mean very little for them to make HEV, PHEV, EV, etc, if they do not make them high quality and dependable. Who wants their electrical power system to break down at 50,000mi?
_Part of the solution will be turning around the mentality/culture of the factory floor and unions. Another aspect will be the parts suppliers. They have been hammered by automakers, who demand ever lower price per unit. Some have had their parts drop in reliabilty, as a result of corner cutting, and low morale amongst workers. The Big 3 must realise this, as well as the fact that cheap/shoddy/flimsy vehicle accessories/ and components turn buyers off.
_The Big 3 have good technology, which they have been sitting on for too long. Management, esp mid to high level, tend to not want to put their behinds (careers) on the line by taking bold and sometimes risky moves. Even when someone does take the calculated gamble, putting effort into it, bureaucracy, and others (higher ups) not wanting to put their stamp (and reputation/career) on the proposal(s) kill/stunt great ideas. That is until exterior forces changes with do or die situations on the horizon.
_We have seen it played out over the last 10 years. They got fat and happy during the late 90's, with light trucks. During that time, good ideas were killed/shelved. The environment needed for that market segment to thrive went away, catching Detroit flat on their backs. They must rectify this, or history will repeat itself.
_At this point, GM is 5-7 years behind Toyota (depending on what you use). With the intro of 2mode, and PHEV, they might catch up. However, the Big 3 can not afford to botch the transition to hybrids (and other next gen vehicle systems/tech) and fall farther behind.
Posted by: allen_Z | Jan 7, 2007 4:01:47 PM
...However, the Big 3 can not afford to botch the transition to hybrids (and other next gen vehicle systems/tech) and fall farther behind, or worse, go bankrupt Chapter 7 style.
Posted by: allen_Z | Jan 7, 2007 4:07:39 PM
Go to GM web site.They have a vote for volt.97 percent voted for production and said they would buy one.If you think electric is the way to go visit their website and vote.
Posted by: earl | Jan 7, 2007 4:59:29 PM
97% SAY they would buy one, 9.7% might actually think of buying one and .97% would actually buy one.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 6:21:25 PM
I applaud GM's initative to design and eventually produce a greener car. I hope GM can see the potential market for the SECOND car of the family, the one that does all the short trips and does not need more than 60 mile range... A pure EV that can sit a family, carry groceries, get the kids to the baseball match ... Maybe make the genset a option that can be added on later...
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: AB | Jan 7, 2007 6:36:24 PM
VOTE FOR VOLT
Here is the site link. Go to the bottom of the Flash presentation and it is the second link on the left.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 6:59:05 PM
Actauly they are dead serious about the volt. As they explain elsewhere the vilt is made for the people who mostly do short hops and without a trans and all it has alot more price room for the battery pack needed for a plug in hybrid to go 40 miles. Something that right now would cost 10k for the pack.
All this time and gm was simply waiting for the right parts are the right prices so they can make this kind of car. And its realy getting close to being profitable.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 7, 2007 6:59:16 PM
Opps..forgot the link :)
http://www.gm.com/company/gm_exp_live/events/naias_2007/index_flash.html
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 7:00:04 PM
Many are expressing concerns whether and when GM will actually deliver the Volt. Of course, GM has already developed the EV technology in the EV1, so, from a technical standpoint, the Volt is a piece o' cake for GM.
1) The more important issue is whether the Battery Industry will actually deliver the necessary battery in low enough price and sufficient volume and in acceptable quality in order to make the Volt a massed-produced vehicle? Or else, it will remain a concept car or a technical show-case waiting for maturation of battery technology.
2) Another important issue is whether the Oil industry will sit by quietly letting PHEV eating away their market, causing plummeting oil prices, and greatly eroding their profitability? Cobasys is already maneuvering to gain control of A123 nano-tech lithium technology.
3) If and when the two above hurdles have been surpassed, then there's still the uncertainty of whether the world's lithium, nickel, or lanthanum, or cobalt, etc... reserves or production capacity can support tens of millions of PHEV battery packs? Will the escalation in prices of these critical raw materials due to heating up of demands or speculation of impending rise in demands put a stop in the high-volume ingress of these PHEV's?
It would be most prudent to start out using the smallest battery pack possible for a PHEV, for example, a 8kwh pack, and going parallel-serial hybrid route, instead of jumping right to a hefty 16kwh-size pack. The smaller battery pack can be charged twice daily to make up for its smaller size by using charging socket at work. A much smaller battery pack used in a HEV would even be more prudent, or an ultracap like in the Korean VW beetle, would be a best bet against the uncertainty in future battery availability.
Meanwhile, bio-methane and bio-hydrogen or hydrogen from renewable energy, or hydrogen from coal gasification, etc...do not have these above concerns, while they are just as effective as electricity in replacing petroleum used in transportation.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 7, 2007 8:22:43 PM
It would really be nice if we had the option to run a large inverter off the battery, and the genset would automatically recharge it once it got low. With a 53kw generator under the hood it would be easy to power the house after a hurricane or blizzard cuts off the power. Such a feature would sell lots of cars in S Florida.. and when the gas gets low you drive off and find some more, perfect!.. no need to store dangerous amounts of gas in your house.
Posted by: Hermperez | Jan 7, 2007 9:01:19 PM
There are vehicle to grid programs in the works. With the Altairnano long life batteries it could make it possible. However there are "islanding" provisions that will not allow you to source power to the gird in times of grid failure. If you just want an outlet, GM puts one in their Silverado hybrid pickups.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 9:53:27 PM
It's a great idea but why are so many people so jaded about GM?
Because so many times over the past 40 years, GM promised consumers a good product only to deliver the same pig with even thicker lipstick. History is the best indicator of future performance and consumers blind to that fact are dying of old age.
Posted by: sw | Jan 7, 2007 10:44:18 PM
"GM promised consumers a good product only to deliver the same pig with even thicker lipstick. History is the best indicator of future performance and consumers blind to that fact are dying of old age." by sw
sw,
recently GM partnered with suzuki. these two companies produced a korean manufactured car called suzuki verona (in canada it was called a chevy something else), this car easily surpassed the best that toyota and honda had.
there examples of GM in other niche markets, beating the competition. GM may continue to manufacture cars made on foreign soils with other partners, thus solving their current (labor/union/healthcare cost) competitive problems. it may be too early to count GM out.
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 7, 2007 11:46:24 PM
TheGiant:
Series hybrid is more than century old concept. It was successfully used by Porsche in his road trains in WW1, on biggest battle ships, and currently in locomotives and ferry ships. Efficiency of series vis parallel hybrid configuration was extensively researched by auto industry. Series hybrid is more efficient and cheap in specific applications, like city delivery vans, and they are currently produced in numbers for customers like FedEx. For passenger cars, which are often driven at highway speed, parallel hybrid is more efficient.
In series hybrid you have first to generate electricity with about 90% efficiency, then convert it into suitable for electric motor electric current with about 80% efficiency, and then use it in electric motor with 90% efficiency. Wasted energy is too high. It is more efficient to deliver most of the engine power to wheels via more efficient mechanical (or electro-mechanical) transmission, which exactly what is done by Toyota synergy drive transmission in cars like Prius.
GM has even more effective drivetrain, currently successfully employed in buses and scheduled to production in late 2007 on full-size pick-ups: two-mode hybrid transmission.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 8, 2007 2:00:31 AM
Some posters have voiced concern at the series-hybrid layout. Remember that this layout has two key advantages over the parallel layout:
1) Series-hybrid tech is ancient, so there is no need to pay royalties to Honda or Toyota (or lose face) for infringing on parallel-hybrid patents.
2) By using a series configuration, the ICE is released from its painful design constrictions requiring it to be driveable at all rpms when connected to the wheels. Disconnecting the engine from the wheels means a dramatic increase in engine efficiency can be achieved (think from 30% to 50%), by moving to previously undriveable but greatly efficient engine cycles (think 6-stroke water injection, or 30:1 Atkinson, or 10 second boost lag etc all no problem at all if used as a genset). This option more than pays back the electrical losses of going from genset to battery to motor. Series hybrid can therefore be MORE efficient than parallel designs, regardless of the plug-in option.
Posted by: clett | Jan 8, 2007 4:12:24 AM
I think the discussion concerning the relative merits of series versus parallel design is great. I think Toyota went parallel because the available batteries limited power delivery. Thus to send say 150 KW of power to the wheels, you needed to get say 1100 KW from the ICE and only pull 40 or so from the battery. But with the high power density A123 and Nano-Safe designs, a small battery (20 or so KWH) can deliever all the power you need to go up a 6% grade at 75 MPH. But unless the battery was bigger (say 35 KWH available) you would deplete the battery before you reached the sumit. Typically these steep grades are less than 10 miles, then you have a lesser grade for awhile, then back to the climb to prevent older cars from overheating.
Posted by: Van | Jan 8, 2007 6:55:45 AM
Series hybrids are a better lead-in to lighter future EVs. Light weight high efficiency electric motors, controllers, batteries and genset could raise the overall efficiency close to the parallel units on highways and beat them in city traffic.
Once all electrical (motors + batteries) + electronic components efficencies have been maximized, it would just be a matter of switching the on-board genset for extra (+/-50 Kwh) high performance quick charge batteries for the EV option (when the price of batteries come down).
Posted by: Harvey D. | Jan 8, 2007 7:09:34 AM
I'd rather see a series hybrid SUV mommy-mobile. People do want large cars and doubling the mileage of a 15 mpg Suburban saves more fuel than doubling the mileage of a 30 mpg small car.
Posted by: tom deplume | Jan 8, 2007 7:39:59 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I want one of these things. This is what I would have designed. Using a 1 litre turbo engine is fantastic. If they can bring this car in at $30k or less, I think it will be a winner. They interview one of the founders of Tesla on TV last night. He said phase two was a $50k 5 passenger sedan. If GM gets there first with this, it could be interesting.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 8:07:25 AM
Clet beat me to the punch but I'll add my two cents as well. A series hybrid can be just as efficient as a parallel hybrid application. Yes, you will loose 20% of yor efficiency converting mechanical energy to stored energy by using that battery solely as the source for powering the wheels, but the engine can be optimized for one job and one job only, and that is supplying energy to the battery. Therefore, the engine can be run at it's most optimal RPM at all times, creating a fairly efficient platform for total systems design. I think the main reason that the parallel design is more effective right now was the lack of development of powerful and small electric motors to drive the wheels, the cost and weight of the batteries, and the total power available of the coplete parallel system. Now that NMH and especially LiIon batteries have reached a level of development that they can be used for consumer ready applications, the series hybrid should have a rebirth of significance.
For what it's worth, I think GM has a good idea here. I hope they bring it to market in a reasonable time period, and this helps GM wright it's ship.
Peace,
Cosmo
Posted by: Cosmo | Jan 8, 2007 8:21:02 AM
Go GM Go...just get 'er to the market sometime within the next two years.
Posted by: dave | Jan 8, 2007 10:00:42 AM
SJC, your comments on hill climbing are silly. 5000 feet in an hour would be no sweat for the Volt. The genset is rated at 53 kW, the car needs only 20 kW for 70 mph level cruise. That leaves 30 kW of climbing power, enough to climb 20,000 feet per hour (roughly a 7% grade). I can think of no US road that would present a hill climbing challenge for this car, even fully loaded with A/C.
Andrey, your comments on serial are misguided. Genset-to-wheels efficiency is around 80% vs. 90-95% for mechanical drivetrains, not a huge difference. But by looking at ICE-to-wheels efficiency you're missing the big picture. It's the old 80/20 rule. The ICE only runs 20% of the time; adding weight and cost to improve operation during that 20% is the wrong approach. What you want to optimize is efficiency during the 80% of the time the car operates on batteries. That means making the ICE as small and simple as possible (e.g. fixed RPM operation) and eliminating the complex and heavy mechanical transmission.
When I first started playing around with PHEV designs I also favored parallel. But the numbers convinced me the payoff simply was not there. It's a completely different story for ICE-dominant hybrids like the Prius, of course.
Final comment -- The big news here is E-Flex, not the Volt concept car. That said, I hope everyone goes to the GM site and Votes for the Volt.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jan 8, 2007 11:53:09 AM
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/avp/
and
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/automakers-spin-misleads-consumers.html
Need to say more?
FS
Posted by: Fred | Jan 8, 2007 11:53:32 AM
...and please read this:
http://jumpstartford.com/media_center/news_article/?uid=2230
FS
Posted by: Fred | Jan 8, 2007 12:06:50 PM
It's great to see a major automaker finally moving forward on what small companies have been proving possible for several years (see Energy CS, CalCars and HyMotion). But while the announcement is exciting, GM still isn't giving any solid timeline on WHEN we can see these cars on the road or HOW MANY cars are actually going to be produced - at best they say 3-4 years if the battery technology is available. There is a demand for plug-in hybrids NOW - there are hundreds of cities, counties, utility districts and fleets already placing "soft orders" for such vehicles. Such early-adopters of these vehicles would provide test markets for GM to refine the technology and build public confidence and interest in these cars.
I have to admit I'm a little concerned that they will use the announcement of these concept cars more to clean up their image than clean up their product line. There is a lot GM can do between now and when we may see these concept vehicles actually on the road.
We all know increasing fuel efficiency is the direction automakers need to head – so let’s get past the hype of a handful of concept vehicles and look at what they are doing with the rest of their fleet. Overall average fuel economy from the Big 6 is worse today that it was 10 years ago and GM is still heavily dependent on its gas guzzling truck lines. In addition to that they are still fighting tooth-and-nail against increasing fuel economy regulations, suing states that try to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and in December argued before the Supreme Court that carbon from tailpipe emissions was not even a pollutant. GM is still planning to expand their Hummer line to become 25% of their overall sales. Consumers still have limited options to find fuel-efficient cars that are affordable, well-built, and fun to drive. There are plenty of things automakers can do today to increase fuel economy – and I'm tired of being shown distracting concept cars that we won't see for 3-4 years if ever.
I've been working with the Freedom From Oil Campaign to make automakers honestly prioritize fuel economy and move beyond oil – check out what we do at http://www.FreedomFromOil.org
Posted by: Matt | Jan 8, 2007 12:42:24 PM
Will someone give the link and directions to GM's site to vote for the volt...I can't seem to find it... thanks.
Posted by: dave | Jan 8, 2007 12:58:17 PM
Clett & Cosmo,
Please look at the engine map of thermal efficiency and fuel consumption matrices for the Prius 1.5 liter engine:
(g/s), fuel use map indexed vertically by fc_map_spd and
% horizontally by fc_map_trq
% fuel use from Feng An's model calibrated with actual data for Prius_jpn (Atkinson cycle) engine
fc_fuel_map = [
0.1513 0.1984 0.2455 0.2925 0.3396 0.3867 0.4338 0.4808 0.5279 0.5279 0.5279 0.5279
0.1834 0.2423 0.3011 0.3599 0.4188 0.4776 0.5365 0.5953 0.6541 0.6689 0.6689 0.6689
0.2145 0.2851 0.3557 0.4263 0.4969 0.5675 0.6381 0.7087 0.7793 0.8146 0.8146 0.8146
0.2451 0.3274 0.4098 0.4922 0.5746 0.6570 0.7393 0.8217 0.9041 0.9659 0.9659 0.9659
0.2759 0.3700 0.4642 0.5583 0.6525 0.7466 0.8408 0.9349 1.0291 1.1232 1.1232 1.1232
0.3076 0.4135 0.5194 0.6253 0.7312 0.8371 0.9430 1.0490 1.1549 1.2608 1.2873 1.2873
0.3407 0.4584 0.5761 0.6937 0.8114 0.9291 1.0468 1.1645 1.2822 1.3998 1.4587 1.4587
0.3773 0.5068 0.6362 0.7657 0.8951 1.0246 1.1540 1.2835 1.4129 1.5424 1.6395 1.6395
0.4200 0.5612 0.7024 0.8436 0.9849 1.1261 1.2673 1.4085 1.5497 1.6910 1.8322 1.8322
0.4701 0.6231 0.7761 0.9290 1.0820 1.2350 1.3880 1.5410 1.6940 1.8470 1.9999 2.0382
0.5290 0.6938 0.8585 1.0233 1.1880 1.3528 1.5175 1.6823 1.8470 2.0118 2.1766 2.2589
0.6789 0.8672 1.0555 1.2438 1.4321 1.6204 1.8087 1.9970 2.1852 2.3735 2.5618 2.7501 ];
[T,w]=meshgrid(fc_map_trq, fc_map_spd);
fc_map_kW=T.*w/1000;
fc_fuel_map_gpkWh=fc_fuel_map./fc_map_kW*3600;
%Eff
%0.13 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
%0.14 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
%0.14 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
%0.14 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36
%0.15 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36
%0.15 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36
%0.15 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36
%0.15 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36
%0.14 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36
%0.14 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36
%0.13 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36
%0.12 0.19 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35
%Min bsfc = 224
%Max Eff = 0.36
Please refer to the link itself for the actual appearance of the matrices, because when I copied them over, the 12 x 12 rows and colums arrangement are lost:
http://www-personal.engin.umd.umich.edu/~chrismi/downloads/HEVModel/FC_PRIUS_JPN.m
Noted that maximum BTE of 36% is obtained quite early on at relatively low rpm and low fuel consumption of only .9 g/s but at high volumetric efficiency (near wide-open throttle). Note that the maximum fuel consumption of 2.7 g/s at maximum rpm is associated with a BTE of 35%, not bad, but note that this is three times the horsepower of the maximum BTE at lower rpm. Now, look at the 9th column second row for fuel consumption, and the value 0.6541 g/s is shown. Look in the BTE matrix at 9th column second row, and this corresponds with 35% BTE. Divide 0.6541 by 2.7 and you'll get 0.24. So, let's say that maximum power is 75hp (56kw) and 24% of max hp is 18hp, you'll still get a BTE of 35%, NOT BAD, ain't it. 18hp is the right hp level required for cruising at ~60mph or higher. At 50 mph cruise, the hp requirement is lower, let's say 14-16, and now, look at column 8 second row, a BTE of 34% is still available at 1/5 of maximum power (16hp).
This means that the 1 liter 53 kw engine can achieve its maximum efficiency at cruise if it's lugged down to around ~1500 rpm or even at 2000 rpm, at high volumetric efficiency. When acceleration is needed, the electric motor and battery will provide the extra torque needed for acceleratiion. High engine efficiency at 34-36% can be maintained at nearly all rpm setting as long as the engine is nearly wide-open throttle setting (high volumetric efficiency). Thus, the engine can run very efficiently coupled mechanically to the drive train, while lugged down as much as possible. A lugged down engine can't accelerate when the gas pedal is pressed down, so acceleration is provided by the motor. In downhill cruise, the engine still will be lugged down turning the generator to recharge the battery, thus will maintain its highest thermal efficiency. It's very simple to run the engine at nearly wide open throttle at all times, while mechanically coupled to the drive train, while the motor, the battery and the generator will manage the power transferred to the wheel. At below 20-30 mph, the engine can be decoupled from the drive train to use as purely serial hybrid mode, powering the generator only, or the vehicle will run purely from battery power at slow speed, like the Prius.
So, the formula for the Volt is 8 kwh battery only, parallel-serial hybrid with direct torque lock-up at cruise. 60-70 mpg at cruise, charge twice daily for all-electric range of 40 mi/day, 3-4000 dollars cheaper, 300 lbs lighter, to compete with the 2008 Prius. And, there, you have it! A potent competitor to the 2008 Prius!!!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 8, 2007 1:17:14 PM
http://www.gm.com/company/gm_exp_live/events/naias_2007/index_flash.html
at the bottom of the above link you will see a place to vote then click on that
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 8, 2007 1:20:23 PM
Anyone with a name like doggydogworld can be counted on for accurate information and sound opinion. Sure long 60 mile climbs would take their toll. When you are running on nothing but 50 kw the last 30 miles uphill, the car is not likely to go 70 miles per hour.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 1:35:27 PM
Correction on my previous posting: The co$t saving for the Volt 2 would be ~$10,000 USD, assuming nanolithium battery at ~$1000 USD/kwh, including cost of motor and inverter downsizing. At $500 USD/kwh of battery cost, the cost saving would be ~$5000-6000 USD!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 8, 2007 1:51:12 PM
Plug-in Hybrids,just what the Nuke Industry wants,to ram more Three mile islands down the Public's Throat.
Let's start by giving all GM CCs(corporate criminals)a 5 year mandatory jail sentence for giving us SUVs,Humvees,V8 Gas Hogs and other Goodies,like Pollution and Poisoning of our Environment,lobbying to get our street Car Systems scrapped,so they can sell their stinking Buses.Then give them a Bonus of another 24 Month Jail time for their treasonous Activety to export thousands of Jobs,Tax Incentives and general Mismanagement of a publicly owned Corporation.
After that is accomplished,we need to start working on Executive Retirement Packages,to stop the Thievery and Perks,they don't deserve.
Posted by: Van Hinten | Jan 8, 2007 2:32:09 PM
When you look into the emissions for all harmful gasses (CO2 included) from the time of production to the time of decomission current nuclear facilities produce far fewer harmful gaseous emissions than solar panels do. Of course solar panel use doesn't produce radioactive waste...
By the way, how many fatalities and injuries were involved in the 3 mile island incident?
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 8, 2007 3:13:07 PM
Hi Van Hinten, I do not think too many people are saying domestic energy sources such as coal and nuclear are less of a threat to our environment than foreign oil, but if we use PHEV's to end our addition to foreign oil, we will reduce the amount of CO2 being produced for transportation, and if we shifted the domestic production of electricity toward renewables, we would be on a wiser path, or so it seems to me. So PHEVs are a really good idea! Bring on the Volt.
Posted by: Van | Jan 8, 2007 3:21:52 PM
I have to say that Tesla's technology seems much better than GM. If Tesla is coming out with a sedan and plans to increase production numbers, the costs may come down. I really don't know where GM has been all these years since they have had billions to work with. Yet, their products have not been improving with respect to their income.
I recall that Volkswagen did not do much in the way of improvements for a while and the company went downhill. General Motors seems to be in the same category. They have taken our money and not made gas milage improvements to their vehicles. Ho matter how you look at it, they have become wealthy and we have been responsible for footing the bill.
Now it seems that the worm is turning and is tired of being treated this way. GM is bound to see the errors of its ways once its sales have declined and I hope that with new leadership, it will not become a hopeless case.
adrianakau@aol.com
Posted by: Adrian Akau | Jan 8, 2007 3:28:31 PM
"Yet, their products have not been improving with respect to their income."
I think GM lost something like $10B in 2005, so by that measure, their product quality has kept right up with their income.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 3:44:43 PM
Until Toyota's hybrids get really robust battery packs, the engine will need to operate at less than optimal speeds to provide what people consider to be an acceptable driving experience. On average I'd guess it's around 60-75% of peak efficiency. While the serial hybrid does need to run everything through a generator/battery/inverter, the efficiency hit is probably the same as the normal engine running at less than peak efficiency. The difference is the serial hybrid needs a bigger pack of not so robust batteries, but this also plays into the concept of a plug-in...
Given the likely licensing agreements signed wrt the NiMH packs between Toyota/Etc... and GM/Ovonics/Cobasys/Texaco, such as limited battery size, no plug-in versions, I'd guess that GM was perfectly fine letting Toyota risk/test/develop the hybrid market, and if they were successful, bring their own version to the market confident they could make a killing via plug-in/longer electric range, as well as lower battery prices via mass production. This behavior is very similar to Daewoo's introduction, and subsequent failure in the market through GM. The semi-legal maneuvering allowed GM to acquire an entire platform at minimal cost, and eventually hammer out an agreement with Daewoo to supply them.
Posted by: yesplease | Jan 8, 2007 3:46:19 PM
How much does a 1 litre engine cost and how much does it weigh? I'm thinking I want one of these without the genset. I'd rather just rent one in a trailer for the one time a year I need to go more than 40 miles. I'd actually have maintenance problems with the internal genset if I only used it once a year and the gas in the tank went sour for lack of use.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 8, 2007 3:54:49 PM
Dave seems to have gone through a fair amount of trouble to nearly describe the simple series/parallel hybrid recently designed and built by Zytec.
"To take the substantial step in efficiency needed to exceed the ULCCC emissions target, Zytek decided that its new hybrid should be built around a small, very high efficiency diesel engine. With common rail injection systems and sophisticated aftertreatment, the latest diesels provide quiet operation and exceptional fuel economy, combined with very low tailpipe emissions. They also work well in hybrid transmissions because the electric drive can be used to disguise turbo lag and give exceptional driveability.
The company already had a long heritage of electric and hybrid vehicle engineering programmes with DaimlerChrysler’s smart brand, so the 1.5 litre, three cylinder smart forfour CDi was the natural choice of base vehicle. DaimlerChrysler was extremely supportive and provided a vehicle and technical data for the project.
The dual mode architecture has two motors: a starter/generator permanently engaged with the engine and a traction motor. Both are specifically designed for their application and engaged with the drivetrain when required via a dog synchromesh system similar to that found in automotive manual transmissions. A highly sophisticated control system, a key Zytek strength, takes the place of the synchro cone by automatically matching the speed of the input shaft and the lay shaft to allow seamless shifts with zero torque interruption.
The starter/generator is a 43kW DC brushless permanent magnet device capable of operating at speeds up to 3,600rpm. It is integrated into the gearbox bellhousing and sized to allow engine cranking at temperatures down to -40oC. It also provides torque assist when required to boost acceleration. Supplementing drive torque in this way allows a single very high gear to be engaged at low revs (1,600rpm) to keep the engine operating in its most efficient range. Cooling is provided by means of a water jacket integrated within the diesel engine’s cooling system.
The traction motor is a 50kW AC brushless permanent magnet device mounted on the end of the gearbox and capable of operating at speeds up to 11,500rpm. Cooling is provided by a dedicated system shared with the inverter. Testing of the traction motor has shown a peak efficiency of more than 97 percent. Although it shares the same fundamental architecture as the starter/generator, Zytek has chosen a different internal construction to optimise the device for low speed, high torque operation.
Connecting these devices with the final drive is a new, highly innovative gearbox developed by Xtrac to Zytek’s specification. Power inputs are received from the engine and starter/generator on one shaft and from the traction motor on a second shaft. These are blended under electronic control and distributed to the front wheels via the existing driveshafts.
When the vehicle pulls away, torque is delivered only from the electric traction motor. As speed increases, electric and diesel drive blend seamlessly until torque from the electric drive is reduced to zero. A very high input drive ratio allows the diesel engine to operate within the most efficient part of its power curve, with a low engine speed allowing efficient combustion and keeping frictional losses to a minimum. The broad power range of the dual mode system, combined with the phasing of electric and diesel drive at the ends of the vehicle speed range, allows the gearbox to operate with just two ratios - one for diesel drive, one for electric drive - without compromising NVH or economy."
Go to http://www.zytekgroup.co.uk/news/zyteknew.php
the full article is in there if you hit the top item re Ultra Low Carbon Car Challenge and scroll down to the middle
Posted by: jzj | Jan 8, 2007 4:07:44 PM
SJC, you are wrong to dismiss a (correct) calculation because of a pseudonym. If the car weighs 3500 lbs, 53 kW could lift it against gravity at about 7.6 MPH; if the battery can maintain road speed at 70 MPH for even 10 miles, you could climb 10% grades to the top of Pike's Peak at freeway speed. Climbing will NOT be a problem in this car.
And what's with the sudden influx of trolls? Are we seeing Exxon-Mobil's anti-all-alternatives-to-petroleum astroturf campaign at GCC? I sure hope the management is logging IP addresses, they might be VERY interesting reading!
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 8, 2007 7:01:26 PM
I don't think we know what the car weighs or what the performance is. The point being, if it can not climb every mountain in America without slowing below the speed that the driver wants to go (assuming the speed limit), then the buying public may not be happy. If it can not, I doubt that they will take your word for it and buy one anyway.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 7:14:10 PM
In comparing the Volt to the 2008 Prius I am quite sure the Prius is not going to be a phev (unless Toyota suddenly change their plans after this GM announcement). The link posted above by Adam Galas does not as far as I can see support this idea either. Toyota has been quoted as saying a plug in version is still quite a few years away.
Posted by: marcus | Jan 8, 2007 7:55:37 PM
i wish someone could or would send this thread to GM.
the info in it has been an education for me.
this has been the best thread i ever remember reading on GCC.
also please bring this thread back to the top.
i hate seeing it buried.
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 8, 2007 8:10:49 PM
All we need is 4 more postings and we break 100. I think we can all agree the GM made a big announcement with this car. I personally hope this puppy sees the light of day and goes into production. To me, it is a new day in automotive technology and I don't care if I sound corny saying that :)
Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 8:48:58 PM
And what's with the sudden influx of trolls? Are we seeing Exxon-Mobil's anti-all-alternatives-to-petroleum astroturf campaign at GCC? I sure hope the management is logging IP addresses, they might be VERY interesting reading!
You'd think they'd at least use the Tor network, but given their supposed track record, maybe not. I don't think GM's happy with a big oil government causing big oil price spikes, especially when their platform development time is longer than Toyota. I'll go on record as saying this, or something very similar from GM, will go on the market before 2011.
Posted by: yesplease | Jan 8, 2007 9:03:14 PM
SJC, I took that weight from my own car (2004 Passat TDI, 3422 lb curb weight); the Volt might well be lighter. Further, a road to the top of a mountain like Pike's Peak will be posted well below 70 MPH, and no interstate highway has a grade greater than 5% (half the 10% I postulated).
If you're not a troll yourself, it's time to start doing numbers before posting objections.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 8, 2007 9:10:23 PM
As it was demonstrated in informative post of Roger Pham, Prius engine is working with near-top efficiency at almost any normal driving mode. The reason is quite simple: its drivetrain is both parallel and series hybrid. Incorporation of two electric motors/generators into power-split planetary gearset allows it to have best quialities of both parallel and series hybrid. Infinitely variable electromechanical transmission allows to work at low RPM open throttle Atkinson cycle engine operation at both city driving and freeway cruise. Engine actually revs-up only at sharp acceleration and on hill climbing.
And as I said, two-mode hybrid transmission from GM is even better (more efficient, smaller electric motors, full towing capability).
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 8, 2007 9:50:18 PM
I remember that VOLVO had a similar idea almost 15 years ago but useing a gas turbine to charge 350kg of NC batteries. They could undust the old ECC put Lipos in...Ops, Ford should do that;)
Who has contributed the 3 cylinder engine to the project? Toyota?
Posted by: Michel | Jan 9, 2007 12:44:18 AM
if GM wants some extra cool off the shelve technology.
this 3 cylinder diesel could run the gen set. it could run forever.
http://www.materialhandlingblog.com/2006/07/thermo_king_cor.html
July 06, 2006
Thermo King Corp. has introduced the MD-100 refrigeration unit for trucks. The MD-100's innovative design offers reliability and performance as well as reduces fuel and maintenance costs. It also uses the TK 370 three-cylinder liquid-cooled diesel engine to optimize both power and fuel-savings performance. Thermo King's
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 9, 2007 2:45:43 AM
Regarding the Prius thermal efficiency at different rpms, yes I have seen that data before.
My point is I think a series hybrid genset could easily beat the Prius engine's 36% efficiency by going with a more aggressive (ie thermal efficiency oriented) design. To be completely free to design the engine solely for thermal efficiency, you really need to get rid of the parallel connection to the wheels, which brings too many compromises into the design. So I don't think the Prius series/parallel setup is the best way forward at all.
Posted by: clett | Jan 9, 2007 4:10:49 AM
Looking at the Zytec info jzj posted, "Testing of the traction motor has shown a peak efficiency of more than 97 percent." Running HCCI or some other high efficiency engine design with generation, conversion, and drive efficiencies this high would be hard for parallel to beat.
Posted by: APosterFormerlyKnownAsAndy | Jan 9, 2007 6:56:53 AM
The thing to remember about a genset is its always more eff then a car engine.While the total f genset and battery and motor is not and yes gm says as much it STILL is good enough to get 50mpg AFYTER the battery swiches into charge mode!
And this for a 1 year old project that has likely 3-4 years before it comes out for sale...
By then they can optimize the genset some more or find a better one. They can can find a better mtoro is there is one. And they can tweak the systems some more.. all meaning it might wind up getting higher then 50 mpg even after the bat runs oiut.
That is good enughand having no transmission DOES save it some eff loss from a transmission AND alot of moola from the costly transmissions needed in hybrid designs.
And we ALLknow how expensive transmission maintenance can be after warrenty runs out.. having no trans to repair will be a big selling point to many of us specialy if the battery lasts.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 9, 2007 7:28:37 AM
The major cost comes from the lithium battery pack. As a short cut to bring this to market, GM could use lead acid batteries and reduce the battery only distance to 20 miles. The reduction is needed to reduce the battery weight as lead acid batteries do not have as good engergy density. 20 mile gas free distance would be very significant step towards achieving our energy independence. Lead acid batteries are reliable and cheap. Besides, the Firefly Energy will come out with the new type of lead acid batteries this year. That would be huge.
Posted by: jim | Jan 9, 2007 8:12:17 AM
Altairnano is restricted for 3 years on EVs, but not HEVs. GM could use Altairnano to get a long life on the batteries. I would think that the charge/discharge profile would be more stressful on a series hybrid. It does not have to be, but the statement was that at 70 mph, the genset comes on now and then. If you are using it in the plug 40 mile mode, then it would be.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 9, 2007 8:30:37 AM
Vapourware?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4848
“We don’t have a battery pack yet,” said Tony Posawatz, the vehicle line director. He confirmed that the vehicle shown in Detroit doesn’t yet run.
So it's just a shell.
There are serious concerns about Lithium availability. It would take 100 years at current Lithium Carbonate production rates to equip the world car fleet with a 5kWh LiIOn battery. It would take 8 months of Zn production to do the same with the ZnAir battery, which can do up to 400Wh/kg today. Plus far far cheaper - sub $100/kWh I believe is feasible from my projections.
Over 50% of the world's Li2Co3 is in Bolivia, most of th rest in Argentina and Chile. Nevada in decline.
Do you want to send your sons to die for Lithium in future in South America?
The price of Li2CO3 is going through the roof.
We shoudl be prioritising teh ZnAir technology for cost, resources availability and raw performance reasons, notwithstanding anode shape change issues which ReVolt Technology say they have solved. Even a mechanically rechargeable ZnAir would be better.
Posted by: Emphyrio | Jan 9, 2007 9:56:02 AM
Brine isn't the only source of Lithium, it's just the cheapest. You can find Li in many igneous rocks and sea water.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 9, 2007 10:24:34 AM
...and GM's Lutz is the usual moron thinking that no one will ever take Detroit down!
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070109/AUTO02/701090364
FS
Posted by: Fred | Jan 9, 2007 12:07:55 PM
I thought there were substantial Li mines in Australia. Perhaps 'Argentina' was a semantic typo?
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jan 9, 2007 1:48:39 PM
I have to say that after all the 'ration of S' I've given GM over the last few years for only producing the stop-start hybrids and putting so much effort into fuel cells, their recent plug-in hybrid offerings are encouraging. The arguments I regularly make advocating for Plug-in hybrids go way beyond where GM is at even now, but maybe they're planning to catch up. GM still designs the Volt for performance, for instance, which can't maximize economy. They haven't mentioned the technological match synergy possible with photovoltiac solar panels. And, there's still the most important overriding principle of how the plug-in hybrid affects land-use and development whereby driving distances are shortened on average. This advantage will be difficult for car makers to accept, so I expect GM will only come around kicking and screaming.
Posted by: Wells | Jan 9, 2007 5:23:18 PM
Andy, or CanICallYouAndy?,
Peak eff of the Zytec motor at 97% does not mean much if it is not specified at what motor load this efficiency is achieved? At cruise load, the motor eff may be down to 90%, and at acceleration load, the motor eff may be down to 70-80%. 90% is the typical-accepted efficiency figure for an advance BEV motor at cruise.
But more importantly, parallel-serial architecture allows smaller battery pack, smaller motor and power inverter, and significant cost and weight saving, beside the efficiency gain.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 9, 2007 8:56:38 PM
Series-parallel architecture requires the engine to be running for maximum power, which eliminates the "gas-optional" element. It also requires the engine to help with load following, which has a negative impact on both efficiency and emissions.
The main reason to go with a parallel architecture is because of power limitations on the electric side; these power limitations shrink as the battery capacity grows. With 137 kW on tap, those limitations aren't a factor for the Volt. Having eliminated the need for a mechanical coupling, the engine and systems designers can optimize their parts for other traits such as efficiency, cleanliness and quiet.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 9, 2007 9:57:31 PM
As PC = Microsoft Corp. EV/HEV/PHEV = Altair Nanotechnology.
Why GM did not figure this out in 2006 is beyond comprehension. Alcoa and Phoenix Motorcars did.
http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSafeBackgrounder060920.pdf
Posted by: LeDuc | Jan 10, 2007 2:54:08 AM
It's unbelievable what amount of talk another PR stunt on the part of GM can generate, ten years after the first production hybrid car was launched and almost 1 million hybrid cars have already been sold.
Volta is not a production car.
Volta is not even a concept car since it cannot run (it needs batteries for that which are not ready yet).
I have real difficulty understanding the enthusiasm of so many people regarding GM's "achievements".
With so many naive people arround it's no wonder GM is still WORLD NO. 1 automobile manufacturer.
Is it patriotism that puts so many people in overdrive, or this thread is mainly generated and sustained by GM employees?
Posted by: Homo Sapiens | Jan 10, 2007 3:33:50 AM
homo sapiens wrote:
"Is it patriotism that puts so many people in overdrive, or this thread is mainly generated and sustained by GM employees?"
i like the concept and i would the buy the car for my wife in a minute. i have 2 dodge diesel pick-ups for my business, my wife's car is a Suzuki/GM verona made in the old daewoo plant in korean. we are not GM employees.
my advice for GM is to copy wal-mart.
move all north american plants and canada manufacturing facilities to china. keep the suits, R&D, and design, here in the U.S. but only manufacture in environments with-out the $1500 penalty that labor and healthcare add to each car. use china, india, and korea for manufacturing.
also i wish GM would create a plug and play after market business for this car. making it, as easy as possible for the user to update the genset, the batteries, or the electric motor whenever they wish.
also allow the user to easily reflash (reprogram the cars computer) by adding a CD reader and providing a CD with each aftermarket update.
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 10, 2007 6:12:33 AM
_Why move all the way to PRC, you can do much of it in the Wastern Hemisphere. Mexico, and Brazil can do it now, notwithstandng the violence. If Haiti, Guyana, and Jamaica can get their act together, they can compete too. Jamaica and Guyana also have large bauxite deposits for aluminum.
_There is also the long term outlook (15+ years) for West Africa, specifically along the coast from Mauritania to Liberia. Get free trade/industrial zones, and ports set up, fix education and govt, and they may become a manufacturing hub for EU and NA.
Posted by: allen_Z->allen_xl_Z | Jan 10, 2007 8:31:45 AM
_If we want to spend less energy making/moving/using tools, equipment, etc., we are going to have to source our goods closer to where we live. Making something efficiently 1-3,000 miles away is better in the long run than 10-14,000mi away.
_If we can get the unions and politicians to go along with a much more heavily automated manufaturing industry, then we might be able to keep our factories humming. However, it is not going to happen anytime soon (except high tech/high margin sectors).
_Globalization has opened/is opening up markets. We can chose where/how to go in doing this while remaining competitive/profitable (though it will take more time/effort/coordination in some places than others).
Posted by: allen_Z->allen_xl_Z | Jan 10, 2007 8:53:45 AM
Homo sapiens,
U may be a homo-%&*..., but u ain't no sapiens! Patriotism is the only thing that can or will save America and American manufacturing sector. Patriotism is what distinguishes Homo sapiens from previous ape-like predecessors that has long been extinct. Homo sapiens overwhelmed them those primitive apes with strong social instinct, group loyalty, and patriotism is the ultimate reflectiion of this quality. America's technological base, manufacturing base must be preserved if America is to maintain its integrity, standard of living and world-wide standing in order to preserve its idealogy of tolerance and respect for human rights and the institution of democracy and tolerance for diversity.
Majeasy,
Sending jobs and know-how overseas will do more harm than good for the future of America. Some low-level menial jobs is Okay, but not the whole manufacturing sector that pays good wages and provides good benefits. Those well-paid jobs are what giving younger generation of American something to look forward to. The exodus of manufacturing jobs will be followed by design, engineering and scientific positions, for, the manufacturing sector is the foundation that support higher technical positions, without which, the table or the building will collapse.
Globalization is one thing, but not giving the house or the store away.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 10, 2007 12:19:04 PM
Majeasy wrote:
"my advice for GM is to copy wal-mart.
move all north american plants and canada manufacturing facilities to china. keep the suits, R&D, and design, here in the U.S. but only manufacture in environments with-out the $1500 penalty that labor and healthcare add to each car. use china, india, and korea for manufacturing."
GM's main and successful competitor seems to be Toyota which manufactures its hybrids in Japan, not in China or India and the Japanese labor is probably more expensive than the American one. Moreover, Toyota is opening factories in the U.S.A. where the labor is so expensive. Because of the same expensive labor GM cannot afford to compete with Toyota, according to your logic.
It's not the labor that is expensive in the USA it's the GM’s inept management which is exorbitantly expensive, the same management who claimed that the American public would never buy hybrid or electric cars.
The trouble is the American public is queuing for the high tech fuel efficient and reliable Japanese cars. This is what I call a real manifestation of patriotism, because this is what is going to force GM to change its attitude.
What America needs is not the aggressive type of patriotism that Roger Pham so rudely proposes, but a wake up call to reality and reason. A brainless push for a strong America by force will only hurt America.
Posted by: Homo Sapiens | Jan 10, 2007 1:53:29 PM
Do not forget that General motors was the one that killed electric cars. They will kill their series hybrid as well. The excuse that batteries are not available is false. Even golf cart batteries would make a car suitable for most of the population. This was shown in the first EV1. General Motors could have had a hundred prototype series hybrids on the road by throwing the generator from a HONDA 3000i power plant in the trunk of an EV1. Do not ever buy a car from GM, as their insensitivity to customer wants demonstrated by the crushing of EV1 cars still is in place. Nickle Metal hydride batteries are available that would power any series hybrid an aceptable number of miles, and GM is hiding this fact from car buyers and the public. Just adding four more identical battery packs by Toyota to their hybrid would make it into a plug in hybrid with a 20 mile range or more. LIES LIES LIES are all of the car makers statements that suitable batteries for electric cars do not exist yet. Four European car makers had 100 km electric cars under test by the public in the 1990s....
Posted by: henry gibson | Jan 10, 2007 4:35:43 PM
Roger, I was thinking of going by the name Victor but it seems so passe.
I understood what you are saying and I appreciate your taking the time to do the calculations. The 97 percent level I referenced was peak. It was not necessarily contrary to anything you had written and I did not mean to imply that it was. My apologies.
Posted by: APosterFormerlyKnownAsAndy | Jan 10, 2007 7:14:08 PM
I completely agree that gms ceos and other higher ups are completely and utterly greedy along with the rest of good ol america this concept sound like a good one on there part I applaud them for it has there been any mention what other technologies will be under the hood like direct injection,variable valve timing,e85 or that hybrid transmission I heard about and in regards to the who gave them the three cylinder engine im sure its a downsized geo metro engine though I dont really know the displacement on that engine I do know it was a three cylinder :}
Posted by: josh | Jan 10, 2007 7:48:02 PM
Sapiens wroye:
"Toyota is opening factories in the U.S.A. where the labor is so expensive."
toyota is trowing the US public a crumb and you fell for it. check out the balance of trade between the US and japan sometime. japan has to keep buying US tresury bonds bc they don't know what to do with all the money they are sucking out of this country. the US dollars value is being supported by japan.
toyota would build cars in china except for the fact that the chinese and the japanese are mortal enemies, they hate each other.
the GM plant in my town was closed last year.
a new toyota plant in alabama won't help my town.
Posted by: Majeasy | Jan 10, 2007 8:03:24 PM
Homo sapiens,
Sorry that my prevous posting was so brief that I did not explain the "patriotism" issue clearly. The lack of patriotism started with GM and most American corporations for abandoning the American workers and opening factories overseas. GM and the other two, by building and marking humongous SUV's while America is importing more and more foreign oil, thereby increasing the trade imbalance, is not a reflection of patriotic behavior, either. GM (and Dell computer, among others) even has the audacity to move research and design capacity to India and other countries in search of higher profitability, thereby weakening morale and corporate loyalty. The UAW, for putting the tight squeezes on American auto mfg's, thereby resulting in too expensive wages and benefit packages and making American mfg's less competitive, ain't too patriotic, either. The American health care and legal system are not helping, either, by jacking up health care cost due to greeds from the doctors, hospitals, lawyers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, with their large lobbying warchest...thus making American manufacturing sector less and less competitive world-wide. By contrast, Japanese corporations encourages loyalty in its work force by recruiting highly qualified employees and reward with job security and other psychological or spiritual benefits, in exchange for corporate loyalty.
The American public is therefore confused. They tried to buy American brands, but these are increasingly made in Mexico, Canada, China, etc...Whereas increasingly Toyota, Honda, Madza are assembled here in America and are contributing more and more to American jobs and the local economy and tax base...
Now, why the excitement about GM PHEV? Because this is the first PHEV announcement of any major auto mfg's. Toyota, the leader in hybrid technology, doesn't even announce any concrete commitment in PHEV offering. Furthermore, the shift in GM emphasis from gas hogs to environmentally-preserving vehicle is encouraging.
When someone in your family went astray or betray the family, wouldn't you get disappointed? But, when he and she returns to reason and back to the family, wouldn't you get excited and be tempted to forgive the mistakes of the past?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 11, 2007 12:08:12 AM
correction to above: ...marketing humongous SUV's...
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 11, 2007 12:11:41 AM
Not sure if this link has been posted, but GM's chief engineer says that batteries for the Volt are pretty much ready to go...
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18054/
So if the batteries are good to go this year, when do we get to see this car?
Posted by: ziv | Jan 11, 2007 7:24:09 AM
says that batteries for the Volt are pretty much ready to go...
The article didn't say that. It said they're ready at the cell level, but need to be packaged and tested in prototype vehicles. Don't blithely skip over the boring, but necessary, intermediate steps.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jan 11, 2007 8:26:47 AM
I am a little suprised that an announcement such as this one about GM intensely pursuing plug-ins is being met with so much skepticism and GM haters here. On a lot of levels, I feel that the financial woes of the Big 3 may be deserved for their sins of the past. When times were good, they didn't focus on building better quality cars, or building ever more fuel efficient models either. However, here is GM today, and Ford with a similar idea in "the Airstream Concept", with a groundbreaking idea in my opinion. Still, we read the usual "it'll never work" and GM is evil-incarnate crap in many of these posts. Can't we be positive and encourage them to keep moving ahead with this concept? I went on to the GM website today and "Voted for the Volt". If you are as concerned about the progress forward of these green technologies as I am, wouldn't you in the "Congress" agree that it's our civic duty to Vote for the Volt too, and have our voices heard? Who's with me???
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 11, 2007 9:49:21 AM
Yes, I have "voted for the Volt". If GM actually goes through with this it will go a long way towards restoring a measure of faith in GM. However, given their history, seeing will be believing. Until then I'll continue to hope that they're not just making noise (like Microsoft with their first windows OS) and upgrade my e-motorscooter with another 2K watt motor on the front wheel.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 11, 2007 10:11:29 AM
The reason I am not confident of concept cars making it to market is the track record. Past performance predicts future behavior. If that is true, then we can hope, but don't hold your breath. I think some form of the EFlex concept will be out in the next 5 years, it just remains to be seen what that is.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 11, 2007 10:54:59 AM
The EV range-extender is the only practicable way forward for road transport to transfer seamlessly from crude oil to electricity. This was my conclusion 25 years ago, when I studied the subject in the UK. EV performance simulation, based on generic battery data, suggested that battery technology had to advance to the stage where it is today (e.g. A123 Systems and Alternano Technologies Lithium Ion batteries) before the EV is ready for the mass market. I think that the the launch of EV1 in 1996 had been premature but not its development, which was a valuable experience. Its demise was inevitable. I am sure that the market will be ready for the Chevrolet Volt
Posted by: Laszlo Gyenes | Jan 11, 2007 11:09:04 AM
Here is a nice video of the Volt chassis. They even have a link script that you can put into a web page
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/09/video-tour-of-the-chevy-volts-e-flex-platform/
Posted by: SJC | Jan 11, 2007 11:15:36 AM
To those who question the 0-60 in 8seconds performance and other metrics because "A slow piece of junk would get me from point A to point B just fine". Sorry, you and about 100 others would willingly pay a large sum of money for a slow & tiny, unrefined vehicle simply because it can travel 62.5miles on electricity. The VAST majority of the US wants their fuel saving vehicle to have decent performance & quality.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 11, 2007 2:12:58 PM
Speaking of battery technology:
Advances like the Firefly Energy variant of lead-acid have been waiting to be discovered for decades. The real problem is that there was no market which really needed them badly; it took laptops and cell phones to bring us NiMH and now Li-ion and Li-polymer. Today's starting batteries are quite good enough for the job they do, and there's no big market for better ones. Without a market, there was no reason for anyone to pursue such a discovery and turn it into product.
A PHEV mandate from CARB (along with the ZEV mandate) would have created that market back in 1995. Lead-acid would have been good enough for a PHEV-20, but auto manufacturers would have been looking for something smaller, lighter and longer-lasting. Anyone who could deliver it would have made a killing, just like I hope all the new battery-tech outfits do. With all that attention focused on the problem, it would have been solved that much sooner.
Instead, we got a first-year gas-guzzler writeoff.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 11, 2007 4:39:07 PM
In my opinion, the Chevrolot Volt is a breakthrough for the following reasons:
1. It is the first time in many years that GM finally come up with some novel ideas. The idea of serial hybrid may be conceived long time ago, but the battery and other factors were not ready for it. Time has changed -- Lighter material and more efficient battery turn serial hybrid into a practical idea. GM should be credited for the realization of it.
2. Comparing with the EV that Mitsubishi will release to the market at around 2009, the Volt requires smaller battery. Thus it is less technically challenged than a typical EV in terms of the major barrier -- the battery.
3. Another advantage of Volt over typical EV is the power generator part. It can be designed to produce electricity from gasoline, ethanol, bio-diesel or hydrogen. Depending on the availability of resources, each region can order different types of generator. So the framework is very flexible.
I think it is not a typical concept car that takes 6-8 years to build. Without engine and trasnmission, a typical EV is simpler to build than ICV. The power generator of Volt does not need to be very powerful and precise, so it is still simpler to build than ICV. Depending on the level of refinement, I think GM can build it in 2-4 years. With the interest so high, even a bare bone Volt can sell like a hot cake. A better one will turn GM around similar to what RAZR did to Motorolla.
Posted by: Rick Leeland | Jan 11, 2007 5:18:30 PM
When you look at the photos of the Volt, you can see lots of design that would not make it into production.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/detroit-auto-show-chevy-volt-live/
I read an interview with GM's Lutz where he said that the engineers wanted to make it a 10/10 series hybrid, because that was more efficient. (10 minutes on battery then 10 minutes with genset) but he said no. He wanted something that could be plugged in and used around town. I thought that was interesting.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 11, 2007 7:38:15 PM
No question that this Concept has stirred up quite some buzz. We are pushing almost 140 comments on this article alone. Incidentally, does anyone know what the record is here at gcc for the most comments posted on an article?--just curious.
Upon reading this article and other articles circulating around about the Volt, is there any opinions from GM or Battery makers that the batteries for this car can indeed be made? I gather that they can probably be made to perform to the spec's. that they stated, however, the final cost may be out of reach for the average customers. Is this the perception of others as well?
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 12, 2007 5:34:24 AM
You guys are probably going to get really cranky when cellulosic ethanol takes off and nearly every rain forest in the world gets cut down to make more fuel.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jan 12, 2007 5:56:27 AM
Oops, wrong thread.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Jan 12, 2007 5:57:14 AM
The comment in some of the interviews was that at the cell level, no problem. They can make a few cells for B&D power tools. But putting large banks together with huge draws is another matter. Handling heat, multiple charge levels and such is what they are working on. One interview said that they should have the worked out by the end of this year.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 12, 2007 8:06:55 AM
Hi SJC. I was thinking that the battery architecture for the Volt was the same as, or at least similar to the Tesla. I assume/hope Tesla has there configuration made to work and be durable. At any rate, I would rather wait a while longer for a durable and reliable machine, than something rushed to market only to wind up as a failure.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 12, 2007 9:11:46 AM
I think the Escape hybrid took something like 5 years and that was licensing technology from Toyota. I don't see an E-Flex car any sooner than 5 years and it won't be a whole lot like the Volt. The Volt is a show car where they did almost every creative thing they could think of. Most of the creativity will not see its way into production. But if GM is like Ford with the Escape Hybrid, they will test the heck out of it before it sees a showroom. Especially now that they want to use large lithium ion battery banks right after the laptop meltdowns.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 12, 2007 10:51:18 AM
We all wanted to know when the A123-Cobasys bateries will be ready.
Follow this link to find out.
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1975
Posted by: Homo Sapiens | Jan 12, 2007 12:37:46 PM
I am puzzled as everyone -- why can't they build Volt with existing technology?
After 2 days of pondering, I finally realized the problem -- the weight of the battery.
The lithium ion battery available today is about three times the weight that Volt needs. Built Volt with the lithium ion battery available today, it will be too slow, too weak, and no AC.
One GM executive mentioned that the main reason they announced Volt so prematurally is to solicit more interests and proposals from other battery manufacturers to come up with the magic (lighter) battery.
This is why they can't build the Volt as yet. The the super lightweight lithium ion battery can be built in theory, and is very close to production.
Posted by: Rick Leeland | Jan 12, 2007 1:55:07 PM
For my 2nd, 3rd, & 4th vehicle in my family do I really need a 100 mph vehicle for the kids to play with? How about a 38,000$ Hybrid -- triple the parts -- SUV? Or would a small commuter vehicle that never needed an oil change, exhale repairs, radiator hose maintenance (where did all those environmental parts go)… to get to and from work, shopping for wife and mother in-law, school for kids! What I really want is a car that can still get me to work while everyone else is waiting in gas lines trying to get Hydrogen into there 2021 Toyota and I am (talk about job security) still going well in my lead acid (no transmission) electric 1978 S10 Chevy. Thank you wind energy.
Posted by: Ted | Jan 12, 2007 2:37:45 PM
Oil interests don’t want anyone to get use to the quick acceleration that only an electric vehicle can provide. They don’t want you to know that electric car work better or they