Am I reading this right in that they are comparing a ground up designed series hybrid to a converted PHEV to an HEV? If so, that's disingenuous, obviously, but understandable given that this is a biased study. Perhaps they are trying to stem the tied of people moving to HEV's and convince them to wait for a Volt.

But I may very well be wrong. If they are arguing that the PHEV is fundamentally lesser to the series hybrid then we should take note.

Can anyone help me with the reading comprehension?

talli

In all the extreme urgency to put down GM, many of you are losing the message.

It's something that Dr. Andy Franks has said after his extensive experiments at UC Davis. Put in a BIG Electric motor, so you don't have to augment with ICE power, and then put in as as small an ICE, as will allow you to get home.

The formula is BIG Electric motor and small ICE.

For you that think a EV only button on an HEV is all that is needed, should recognize that all this study says is a blended power train with two small about co-equal under-powered components is not preferable.

End of Story. Period.

Unlike any other effort by your sainted foreign automakers who did squat, GM actually built a handful of EV1's, at prodigious costs, to make plain that paper studies and ridiculous demands by untrained lawyers and publicity hounds raising money for their pet environmental sinecures that said it was simple to build electric cars, were just hot air, and just were entire fictions.

Electric autos were not practical in the EV1 era of two decades ago. Lead-acid batteries didn't cut it. Eventually the CARBite idiots were forced to back down.

I get truly tired of 100 mpg carburetor myths. The auto industry has lots of money and influence. Were such a device possible, somebody would have produced one. It's an urban legend propounded by leftist lawyers who never have wrapped their hands around a screwdriver or a physics text.

Reality said that these EV1s were neither cost effective nor acceptable for mass manufacture despite hot air espoused by the usual cloacal cavities.

I was not implying that an EV mode button would be exactly the same as series hybrid. Primarily I was pointing out that the way GM chose to set up the comparison certainly favored series especially with regard to cold engine starts. In a PHEV hybrid the number of cold starts could certainly be reduced significantly if one were willing to live within a more constrained driving regime.

If full performance comparable to current full powered ICE cars is desired then series hybrid may indeed have more advantages, such as cold starts. Then it would become a tradeoff of costs and what one is looking for. I suspect the answer to which is best, parallel or series, will probably be... it depends. At least so far it seems it's close enough that driving regime, driving style and year by year component prices my leave the answer unclear.

"Unlike any other effort by your sainted foreign automakers who did squat"

UNTRUE!

Both Honda and Toyota produced pure electric vehicles. Some of Toyota's electric Rav4s are still on the road and Honda used their boxy electric hatchback as a basis for their first hyrogen fuel cell vehicles. Look at the Clarity to see where that has led.

Now Honda has to turn the Clarity into a mass produced PHEV or pure EV.

INTERESTING! YOU MUST SEE: http://www.spymac.com/details/?2343829

(The first poster already spotted this) They compared an E-REV with an 8 kWh battery to a PHEV with a 3.5 kWh battery. The conclusion: E-REV's can drive more in electric-only mode than PHEV's. Oh my, I could never have thought of that myself.

To get this right: I have nothing against E-REV's, the Volt or GM, just the set up of this 'research'. The only way this research has any value would be if the investigated vehicles were comparable in specs and price. Then they could rightfully claim that the E-REV gives you more bang for the buck. But I can not read that anywhere.

They need to change the name of this site to something along the lines of bashgm.com. Drop the stupid EV1 argument. I don't seem to remember everyone’s godsend "Toyota" mass-producing an EV either. Not to mention the other 8 major car companies.

On the comments about GM pointing out the obvious, maybe the people that visit this site know all about EV's but that doesn't mean the other 3 billion potential GM customers do.

On the comments about GM pointing out the obvious, maybe the people that visit this site know all about EV's but that doesn't mean the other 3 billion potential GM customers do.

My comment on that is that the obvious is only obvious to 'us'. The shortcomings of this research will escape the attention of the 3 billion you are referring to. They will only get the message 'E-REV is better than PHEV'.

By my knowledge the way of providing information as shown in by GM in this research is usually called 'marketing'. Not blaming or bashing here, Toyota et al. behave in a similar way. It's an integral part of capitalism.

Four words - "Bring it to market". It sounds great - but if you can't execute, it's just another press grab...

Wow...what a grumpy crowd. Geez, I suppose if most of the posters here were given a million dollars, they'd complain it wasn't in small bills! None of this study is bad news for our cause so why not lighten up?

You folks complaining about "GM-bashing": please explain to the rest of us what exactly GM has done for us that makes them deserving of the slavish loyalty and praise you heap on them. Those of us who don't own any stock feel just fine judging them on their results.

Andrew--

Spot on. All GM needs to do is ship a better car and they win me over. Everything that goes on between now and that time is just talk.

This article references a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) paper from a technical conference. It's not something that the general press will pick up; thus, there's no marketing here.

GCC does a good job of finding these things and making the info available to us readers. Thanks for that. But since I'm not an SAE member I can't get the paper, unless one of you has a link to a site where it's posted.

JamesEE:
Check out GM's Fastlane blog for a full run-down and a downloadable version of the presentation. I think it is all a good read, and a lot of information to digest. I would like to see a comparison between their estimates and the real world mule test results coming down the road.

This seems to be round two of an explanation of the claim that most people could get by with a 40 mile range. When they said that a year ago, people just let it slide. Now they hope to cement this statement in by comparing apples and oranges. If they want to maintain any credibility, they should avoid such efforts.

Another example of all talk and no action. Sounds like great news... if they actually make it. Otherwise you're right its just marketing. All this also demonstrates that its got to come down to us as consumers to make any real changes. If we as consumers grow up and start making responsible decisions we can change the world! Really! If we keep deciding to buy products that are not "earth friendly" companies will keep selling them to us and if they are making money they will lobby the powers that be to allow them to keep selling to us. If they can't make money selling their product they'll either go bankrupt or change their product. Sounds like GM is starting to get the message but it still comes down to us.

You know what would be even more environmentally friendly than a new volt? No new car at all. The best way to use less gas is still to drive less! Imagine that. Is there a car company out there that will sell be a car that allows me or encourages me to drive less? It comes down to me to make that decision.

Joh, BTW I'm tired of all the car companies but here are some facts I know.

Ford had electric ranger pickups. Some owners still have them, they had to fight tooth and nail but they got to keep them.

GM was the only major automaker that made a ground up electic car to meet the CARB requirement. Why did they recall and crush them? My own thought is so they wouldn't be on the hook to provide parts at high cost to them for 10 years. They probably would have been better off converting Saturn SC1's to electic. Light weight car, off the shelf parts for cars they build with ICE anyway. I haven't seen "Who Killed ..." so these are just my thoughts from what I read.

I drive a Honda and a Ford, and I dislike both Toyota and GM. GM could turn me with the Volt but how about building it. My .02:

Forget the 40 mile range in all conditions, if it got half that when you need heat/AC at night etc. you'd probably still get the equivalent of 60-100 MPG. 3-4 times what people get now out of many cars. Over time with research they will improve the range though better batteries and systems. Some upgrades might be retroactive to the early models such as replacing the battery pack with a better one etc. Getting the real car out there will be the best testing and research. I hope they do it, not 'cause I like GM but we need to get more high MPG vehicle choices out there.

For Toyota to turn me first they need to build a good looking car. Haven't seen one from them in years.

Jesse,

I agree...the consumer choices that we all make drive everything in our economy. The auto makers can try to push SUVs without much success for a decade, but it took people to actually buy them in large numbers for the car companies to make their huge profits.

Maybe some peer pressure can come into play. A lot of people in the 70s tried to convince consumers to buy American, that did not work. Maybe now we can convince people not to buy huge gas guzzling vehicles. It would not take a law nor a tax, just some good common sense behavior.

Look, all of you folks who are a little behind the curve on this one. I've had a chance to query the folks from GM who presented this study a couple times earlier as well.

A simple explanation of what GM is saying, about EREVs being more suitable for most customers to get the benefits of all the electric energy on-board (be it 4 kWh or 15 kWh - doesn't matter), is this-

'To deliver more energy to the wheels electrically, in a given driving scenario (home-work-grocery shop-home or some such combination), you need sufficient ELECTRIC POWER capability to do it'.

In other words, if every time you press the accelerator, the engine keeps coming on and powering the wheels, as will be the case as people drive more and more aggressively (GM says that US06 is more representative of day-to-day driving than UDDS being specified for quoting the range), then FOR A GIVEN DRIVING TRIP length, the benefits you derive from electric-only driving diminish.

Bottom line- you need more electric POWER (all popular parallel hybrids are roughly half electric, half engine, but will need the engine to power the wheels when you hit the accelerator) to deliver more electric ENERGY in a GIVEN DRIVING RANGE, or you're just going to come home having driven 30 miles with the PHEV20 with 20 miles of Electric range having its battery half full, because it only has 30 kW of electric power, that doesn't do anything for you for most of your driving.

I am no GM fan and never had a single GM vechicle. Should we give them a 2nd, or 3rd, more like 10th chance ;) Well why not? It costs nothing sitting on the sidelines and observing their Volt effort.

I will name one thing GM is doing for us right now that is deserving or some credit:

They are pushing Toyota to improve the Prius' electric range and offer the plugin option. Look at the current Prius battery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius#2004-2007_Prius_.28model_NHW20.29

The latest model actually reduced battery pack to only 1.3 kWh!?!?!? Clearly this is a tiny energy buffer that is not very useful (or at least very limited usefuleness). Also Toyota execs were claiming that plugin is nonsense and didn't even talk about a bigger battery. So they were perfectly happy to sit on their azzez and collect profits.

Volt is pushing Toyota to improve their design by adding battery capacity. Don't know if this study is fair or not, etc. Clearly the message is that a bigger battery is better. While to some/most this may seem obvious, there is a tremendous resistance from car companies to building designs with bigger batteries and more electric range. Until recently everyone was claiming that battery technology is not ready.

I think the GM *DOES* desrve the credit for demonstrating (soon) that battery technology *IS* ready and bigger battery packs are feasable even desirable.

Of course, we still need to wait a few years to actually see Volts on streets, etc. Still, even now Volt is having a huge impact on car industry.

The battery technology for a 40 mile range may be available at a $10k end user premium. Are people willing to pay that for extended EV range? Have the Prius PHEV upgrade companies made lots of sales? You could say that people do not want to void the warranty or that the upgrade companies can not buy the batteries at a competitive price.

Either way, I would not want to upgrade only to go 30 mph. You could probably reprogram the computer to go faster, but the motor and electronics may not have been engineered to run continuously in EV mode at 50 mph for a long time.

I think this is why Toyota balked at the upgrades for PHEV. The Japanese are into optimal engineering. They are not going to over nor under engineer for a particular requirement. Some garage hackers in California messing with their careful design was a nightmare.

Upgrades are a hassle that most people simply won't bother with. Also insurance companies may refuse insurance due to modifications.

Indeed, the big questions is if people will pay $10K premium. I would actually replace IF with WHEN: When will people pay $10K premium. It is only matter of time, not IF. While long term gasoline will be several times more expensive, short term US recession could stabilize gas prices enough to maintain the current status and low interest for Volt.

The other variable are unexpected shocks, like current threats from Venezuela, or a sudden war say with Iran, etc. that could suddenly reduce supplies to US enough to cause shortage. That will certainly cause EREV prices to look much more affordable compared to begging for gasoline at empty gas stations.

There was a statement made in the book "End of Oil" that consumers look more at the up front cost rather than operating costs. This is true for furnaces, air conditioners and other consumers of energy.

It is a "pay as you go" thinking, almost like installment payments. If a person has to pay $50 per month more for fuel, but the car goes zoom and costs less, they are there. If this is true, it does not say much for allowing consumer choices to do what is right for everyone.

The book was humorous. It was written in 2003 and the author talked about $40 oil. Little did he know only a few years later oil would be twice that astronomical figure. It is on the margins that people make decisions. If they pay $1000 per year for gasoline and now they have to pay $1200, oh well. But after 4 years they are paying $2000, well last year they paid $1800.

sjc,

While it is certainly conventional wisdom that people look at upfront costs, there are a couple of things to consider...

- Most cars are probably not bought with cash, so most people are really looking at monthly payments... the issue thus boiling down to total monthly cost to own and operate. Perhaps dealers should be required to show estimated monthly electricity costs on stickers. Most people already have a good feel for how much they spend each month in gas as a function of a cars MPG.

- Many people are becoming worried about volatility of gas prices. The general stability of electric rates will probably look very attractive to some paycheck to paycheck types.

g:

some couple years ago - about the time GM crushed the last EV1 - there were already grass-roots efforts underway to gently push toyota towards PHEV (PHV as toyota calls them). CalCars started off as a one-person asking an innocent question, and has sparked the interest of companies like CalEdison who see a large new market opportunity for their primary product - electricity, (while also increasing it's availiability & reliability).

In my book, GM has nothing to do with this move of Toyota to persue PHVs of late. And I trust Toyota much more, to come to market with a decently priced (affordable), high-quality, robust and sturdy product around the time they gave about a year ago (2011).
The only downside might be, that they won't over-engineer it to the same levels as the 1st Gen Prius, which, as I learned from a top exec of Toyota Europe, had about 3 times less defects (warranty repair costs) than the original design called for. And this despite the fact, that the car was offered with an extraordinary long warranty period (actually, toyota pushed many other makes to offer something more than a short 2-years warranty, when they went ahead with their 8-year warranty for the prius).

I'ven't seen a GM product (Opel) with the same initial quality my whole life...

RIG,

You may be on to something. If I buy a refrigerator it has an efficiency rating and the cost of electricity for a year is right on the label.

With a car, you have the EPA rating and the buyer looks at one as a greater or lesser number than another car.

Maybe it has just been so long since I bought I new car, but I do not recall in big numbers the estimated annual cost for fuel nor the cost for fuel over the life of the car.

When I look online I see these numbers. A car that sells for $25k can cost more than $50k for total cost of ownership over the years. That includes repairs, depreciation, fuel and other expenses but a good breakdown would show where the money is going. In our data driven society, inquiring minds want to know!

If someone looks at a big SUV and sees in nice big bold numbers that the fuel cost for that vehicle could be $20,000 over the first 5 years of ownership and another make and model might be $15,000 for the same period, then it drives the point home.