« Hyundai Introduces New 1.6-Liter Diesel | Main | GM Working on New Li-Ion Anode and Cathode Materials with 3X Present Capacity »
GM Formally Unveils the Production Version of the Volt
16 September 2008
|
| The production version of the Volt. Click to enlarge. |
General Motors marked its centenary today by unveiling the much-anticipated production version of the Chevrolet Volt extended range electric vehicle. The design of the Chevrolet Volt production car has changed from the original concept that was unveiled at the 2007 North American International Auto Show in Detroit. (Earlier post.)
Because aerodynamics plays a key role in maximizing driving range, GM designers created a more aerodynamically efficient design for the production vehicle than was represented by the concept. While design cues from the concept vehicle remain in the production Volt, the Volt’s rounded and flush front fascia, tapered corners and grille are functional, enabling air to move easily around the car. In the rear, sharp edges and a carefully designed spoiler allow the air to flow off and away quickly. An aggressive rake on the windshield and back glass help reduce turbulence and drag.
 |
| The 2007 Volt concept. Click to enlarge. |
The Chevrolet Volt can be plugged either into a standard household 120v outlet or use 240v for charging. The vehicle’s intelligent charging technology enables the Volt’s battery to be charged in less than three hours on a 240v outlet or about eight hours on a 120v outlet. Charge times are reduced if the battery has not been fully depleted. GM estimates the cost of a daily 8 kWh recharge to be about $0.80 (10 cents per kWh).
 |
| Layout of the Volt powertrain. Click to enlarge. |
The Volt’s electric drive unit delivers the equivalent of 150 hp (111 kW), with 370 Nm (273 lb-ft) of instant torque, and a top speed of 100 miles per hour.
GM estimates that the Volt will cost about two cents per mile to drive while under battery power compared to 12 cents per mile using gasoline priced at $3.60 per gallon. For an average driver who drives 40 miles per day (or 15,000 miles per year), this amounts to a cost savings of $1,500 annually. Using peak electric rates, GM estimates that an electrically driven mile in a Chevy Volt will be about one-sixth of the cost of a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle. The cost savings are even greater when charging during off-peak hours, when electric rates are cheaper.
The Chevrolet Volt is expected to be built at GM’s Detroit-Hamtramck manufacturing facility, subject to GM successfully negotiating satisfactory government incentives. Production is scheduled to begin late 2010 for models in the United States. Pricing has not been announced.
September 16, 2008 in Electric (Battery), Hybrids, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (97) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/33517660
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Formally Unveils the Production Version of the Volt:
Comments
like the concept better
the prodution model looks like a honda civic
Posted by: kevin | Sep 16, 2008 8:50:09 AM
What? $0.12 per mile on gasoline is ~ 30mpg. I hope this is a comparison to an average vehicle of similar size and not what the Volt does under gas power. It should be closer to $0.072 per mile on gasoline if they meet the 50mpg claim.
I wonder how many watt-hrs it consumes per mile. $0.02/mile on electric is only "ok" if done on electricity in the northwest ($0.08/kW) but is great if done on electricity elsewhere in the country ($0.16/kW).
Posted by: | Sep 16, 2008 9:03:02 AM
Please, please, please, please, please.....do not let it be too expensive. I want one sooo bad, it would be perfect for my family. My electric is Hydro with a little solar, I can charge at night in my garage and my total commute is 38 miles a day. My carbon footprint from daily transport would be microscopic. Please can I have one.
Posted by: Joseph | Sep 16, 2008 9:04:44 AM
@anon,
It's 5 miles per kWh (40 miles divided by 8 kWh available charge).
Agreed 30 mpg isn't very good, presumably a problem from choosing a normally aspirated 1.4 gasoline ICE.
Posted by: clett | Sep 16, 2008 9:15:37 AM
I can drive my tdi for .10 per mile at $5 per gallon
300 miles per week, 6 gallons * $5.
.08 at $4 per gallon.
.12 @ 3.60? What happened? I thought they designed a new gas engine capable of 40 mpg on gas.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 16, 2008 9:23:06 AM
Hmmm.... pack made up from 220 lithium-ion cells. So did they go with the A123 or the LG-Chem cells in the end?
Posted by: clett | Sep 16, 2008 9:28:25 AM
I think the concept car looked stupid. This car actually looks pretty slick. More of a euro-design than the 'americanized futuristic' version that would ultimately become dated quickly. I like it.
Posted by: Bryan | Sep 16, 2008 9:31:41 AM
Joseph, you have stated the best reason for offering an income tax rebate for those who desire to trade in an old "gas guzzler" for a newer, more fuel-economical car.
I wouldn't be surprized if the Volt will be sold at a price such as to result in a very marginal, or even negative, profit just to meet draconian CAFE requirements. But even with such a price, you have raised an important issue of whether you or I will be able to afford one.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | Sep 16, 2008 9:38:43 AM
I figured the production version would change. Lutz joked that the concept car had less air resistance in reverse. This could be a "halo" car, in that they need one to be in the game and it will be priced so they can make some money, but not a lot.
Standard marketing techniques when you are getting beat by the competition is to talk down the concept and then do a game changer promised in the future. Both of these were done by GM and we will see if is works. Talking down the hybrid concept years ago did nothing but make them look foolish.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 16, 2008 9:47:10 AM
This is the best green car news since the announcement that Tesla’s roadster finally was being delivered to customers. I guess GM is playing it very safe with the battery only using 50% of its full capacity. Later on when they get more complete information about the wear down of that battery in actual use they may discover that they can increase the percentage to 65% without jeopardizing battery life. That could be a positive surprise just before launch or perhaps a few years after launch where people can get it fixed with a simple software upgrade. I think it will sell for $34,000 to $38,000 and it will only be sold in places where the state offers a $5000 rebate like California. So $29,000 to $33,000 after rebate.
Posted by: Henrik | Sep 16, 2008 9:54:05 AM
Its not 12 cents per mile to drive the car in gas mode... They goofed and here is where the goof was.
Using peak electric rates, GM estimates that an electrically driven mile in a Chevy Volt will be about one-sixth of the cost of a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle.
They took the 10 cent per kwh 2 cent per mile figure and multiplied by 6 to get that 30 mpg conventional car milage.. BUT the volt doesnt have 30 mpg its 50 mpg.
Also complicating things is the fact that in alot of places peak power costs alot more then 10 cents per kw. Here it costs 35. That means the car costs 7 cents per mile on electric and 8 cents per mile on gas;/ Also a complication here is we get charged more the more we use so.... ouchie!
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 16, 2008 10:03:49 AM
The price has creeped up over the last year or so. First target was $30k. Then they realized what they were getting themselves into and the price became $40k. Now, Lutz is thinking it would need to be $48k.
Not much market penetration at that price. With the PHEV Prius in a similar pricing scheme as it currently is, GM made need to rethink their 40-mile insistence, with perhaps different configurations (i.e., 10 mile, 20 mile, 40 mile battery pack options).
Posted by: Will S | Sep 16, 2008 10:21:59 AM
Well timed with falling fuel prices and ten years too late. GM would be the hottest car company in the world today if they hadn't conspired with Chevron to crush the EV1.
Posted by: creativforce | Sep 16, 2008 10:25:44 AM
Does anyone have a BFSC chart on the 1.4 liter engine? It might not hurt for GM to have multiple engine options as well.
Posted by: Will S | Sep 16, 2008 10:27:08 AM
Since just about every hardware device americans now buy is from China, They will provide the cost point needed for Americans to buy "electric".
Posted by: Tonychilling | Sep 16, 2008 10:36:37 AM
Chevy Volt is not coming this year. First Chevy Volt will be sold two years from now. That is sad side of the story.
Posted by: Darius | Sep 16, 2008 10:51:48 AM
Will
I think Lutz's talk about $48,000 for the Volt was political. He mentioned that development costs far exceeded expectations in April 2008 where they had only been working for a few months on the project. I don’t believe it but he need to say so in order to lay the ground for some government backing and some R&D subsidies. They are quite successful in attracting such money and you need to give the politicians some good arguments for supporting these subsidies. They are going to produce some 60.000 per year of this car from 2012 or so and the battery is $8000. The car is not a big luxury SUV so it should be possible to make the car without any profit for $34k to $38k including the battery pack.
Posted by: Henrik | Sep 16, 2008 11:09:52 AM
"The car is not a big luxury SUV so it should be possible to make the car without any profit for $34k to $38k including the battery pack."
The SOLE purpose of a corperation is to make profit why on earth would one assume a company would do something for zero profit? no these will be in the 40K range, and at that price a LOT will sell no every one is scraping the bottom of the salary barrel. I would rather have one of these for 45k than a midsize BMW. electric motors last for millions of miles too these could be lifetime cars. using nanolithium packs with 15000+ deep cycle lifespans is 20+ years of driving at 40 miles a day. 1500 a year payback times 20+ year lifetime = these will sell like hotcakes.
Posted by: | Sep 16, 2008 11:25:16 AM
I believe that the 1.4 is a derivative of the world engine that is going into the cruze. This should help cut costs. It should also be noted that certain technologies developed for the Volt will trickle down. E.g. The electrically driven air compressor will be used on mild hybrids throughout GM's fleet at no additional development cost.
IMO they would have been better off with a 8.5kw/h lithium titanate battery pack and using a 90% discharge. The battery pack would have been cheaper, lighter, and more powerful.
Posted by: GreenPlease | Sep 16, 2008 11:26:46 AM
GM estimates that the Volt will cost about two cents per mile to drive while under battery power compared to 12 cents per mile using gasoline priced at $3.60 per gallon. For an average driver who drives 40 miles per day (or 15,000 miles per year), this amounts to a cost savings of $1,500 annually
I would like to see the above estimate with cost of batteries included.
Posted by: floccina | Sep 16, 2008 11:40:15 AM
Sales of the vehicle depends on these factors
1. Cost of the Vehicle
2. Cost of Ethanol (major alternative fuel now)
3. Cost of other Hybrids like Prius/Insight and their mileage.
If a regular hybrid is more economical than Plug-in, then people will go for it.
Ofcourse, there are some fans of plug-ins who will still buy it, but may not be many.
It would have been better, if GM has designed this a hatchback, since the design will allow for more cargo space.
If people cannot afford the Volt with 40 mile range, I guess GM should reduce the range to 20 miles and the cost as well.
Posted by: Max Reid | Sep 16, 2008 11:57:22 AM
No name
Absolutely, the sole purpose is to be profitable for a corporation like GM. However, the strategy to be most profitable in the longer run is often to introduce new products at lower than normal prices simply to get the sales going to reach the volume that is necessary to produce at low costs. Also with completely new products like this Volt it has a lot of first mover advantages. Specifically, you can be sure GM is filing a truckload of patents for all sorts of things that will give them an advantage over competitors. These patents will make it difficult for competitors to follow without paying royalties or spend their own large development costs. This amounts to hidden future profits to be made by GM and therefore it can be the most profitable strategy to sell the first innovative product at production cost without a profit. The next generation Volt will sell 300,000 per year or so and be profitable but not this version.
I think you are being to optimistic about payback times. Most people and businesses will not invest unless it pays back in 5 years. Governments and large corporations may have longer payback horizons though.
Posted by: Henrik | Sep 16, 2008 11:58:50 AM
I like the way it looks.
The actual cost on for EV mode is 0.12$/Mile. The
cost of the battery is estimated at $15K, and it has
an expected life of 150K miles. Yielding 0.10$ per
mile for battery life. Fortunately, batteries are
getting better at ~5 to 7% per year. So after 10 to
15 years a much better or cheaper battery will be
available.
Posted by: Nick(Colorado) | Sep 16, 2008 12:44:05 PM
floccina,
Easy divide $8000 (estimated price of battery) by $1500, you get 5.3 years before it pays off the cost of the battery.
Posted by: Ben | Sep 16, 2008 1:05:18 PM
Henrik wrote;
> They are quite successful in attracting such money and you need to give the politicians some good arguments for supporting these subsidies.
If the Volt gains subsidies for being a hybrid, even a plug-in one, then won't the plug-in Prius also qualify? A Volt at $35k won't appreciably dent the sales of a $25k plug-in Prius.
Posted by: Will S | Sep 16, 2008 1:10:47 PM
Maybe the subside price should be based off the battery price.
Posted by: Ben | Sep 16, 2008 1:18:43 PM
Will
If Toyota chooses to produce in the US as it appears they will they will most likely also get some benefits from picking a particular state or city. It is such a common business practice that car producers and other industries simply expect to be benefitted whenever they make a large investment and create jobs and future tax incomes etc.
Posted by: Henrik | Sep 16, 2008 1:26:49 PM
People on this board hate GM no matter what...from outright misreading the press release to complaining about the cost of the batteries.
I love this car.
If you want to know total cost of ownership, you will have to wait for pricing details and do the math yourself. I am going to guess, since GM said so previously, that the car will cost less than $30k. So take $30k and do the math. If you never use gas and keep your trips under 30 miles per day....02 per mile. Do the math. Add in some gas too if you want.
I did, and I came with the same answer every time... = one more step to eliminating foreign oil.
Posted by: jd | Sep 16, 2008 1:34:50 PM
When/where can you get a 25K plug-in Prius. Around here you can get a Prius for about 30K if your willing to wait several weeks and then calcars will make it plug-in for 10K. I have not heard of Toyo introducing a plug-in, unless you are referring to the vaporware that was supposed to be out this month.
Posted by: Joseph | Sep 16, 2008 1:35:20 PM
pay back in 5 years? No way, most companies expect a ROI of 18 months and everything past 18 months to be profit otherwise it is not considered worthy of effort; with the exception of product that is expected to have extremely long sales periods (like airplanes for example).
Posted by: | Sep 16, 2008 1:39:24 PM
Floccina/Ben,
Comments like that are precisely what makes consumers unnecessarily wary of adopting EV technology. When buying a new car, does anyone realistically factor in the costs of replacing the engine and transmission 150k miles down the road? These batteries are conservatively estimated to last 150k miles, and will probably last much longer under the conditions GM is running (limiting to 50% discharge). I'll tell you this - over that first 150k miles, I can almost guarantee you'll spend far more money maintaining an ICE/mechanical transmission than a battery/motor. I see too many people being scared off by replacement battery costs, ignoring the maintenance costs of what they are comparing EVs to in the first place.
Posted by: Angelo | Sep 16, 2008 1:42:34 PM
Given the high price for the PHEV version, why not make a full HEV version (serial hybrid) using a 2kWh battery pack to save money? A 2kWh pack can deliver 40-50 kw of burst power to augment the 53-kw engine for good acceleration. The owner should be allowed to "up-grade" to the PHEV version later by adding more battery, just like adding RAM to your current PC?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 16, 2008 1:53:21 PM
Obama's tax incentive is a $7,000. credit which would bring the probable price down to $27-31K. Henrik is right, they produce a first revision of the car as loss-leader and tool up for mass production in next rev.
This car begins road tests in December. 2011 model year cars begin accepting orders Spring for delivery in November 2010. According to the GM-Volt web site suppliers are preparing to ship 100k parts to the Michigan plant.
This has got to be great news for those of us who believe in the electrification of transport. I say congratulations GM for leading the way to petroleum free transportation.
Posted by: gr | Sep 16, 2008 2:12:52 PM
The car looks fine. I hope they sell a bunch, blah, blah, blah.
In 14 years of progress (1996-2010)they go from the EV-1 to the volt. The EV-1 got more than 3 times the range in all electric with a 60% greater capacity (26kWh) NiMH battery pack. If they had spent the time and money producing more rather than crushing them they would not be in a position of having to ask congress for $25B in federally guaranteed loans to 'retool' for more efficient vehicles (http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/09/general-motors-seeks-25-billion-federal-loan-guarantee-funding.html).
Honestly I think they need to go out of business and step aside to make room for the real innovators and visionaries that are already emerging.
Posted by: sac | Sep 16, 2008 2:25:13 PM
Don't forget to consider source of the electricity. Our state, MD, is already threatened with brownouts. And a big local issue is building more towering transmission lines across the countryside. Not to mention the nuclear power requests for expansion along the Chesapeake Bay. Or the increase in electric rates that is coming with deregulation.
And, I understand that we can anticipate the batteries to be coming from China. So, we exchange Arab oil for Chinese batteries. Doesn't seem to diminish our reliance on foreign powers or to erase resulting limitations on military strategic decision-making.
I see more hope in home-grown bio gasolines and bio jet fuels.
Posted by: Joanne | Sep 16, 2008 2:28:02 PM
"..give the politicians some good arguments for supporting these subsidies."
The automakers talked with Bush more than a year ago and he basically said "good luck". Obama said before he was a candidate for President that he favored helping them with retiree health care in exchange for building the right cars.
They got $25b in loan guarantees last year and now are looking for and extra $25b in direct loans for next year to tool up for hybrids. After Bear Sterns, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, the federal government is tapped out. Maybe if we had not accumulated $4 trillion in debt the last 8 years we could, but not now.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 16, 2008 2:42:51 PM
Brownouts are happen most during periods of peak usage (mid day) which is precisely when a PHEV is LEAST LIKELY to be charged. The majority of PHEV charging will take place at night when utilities have massive overcapacity. IMO PHEVs will be a big boon to utilities.
Posted by: GreenPlease | Sep 16, 2008 2:51:43 PM
So the engine is only 18% efficient in converting gasoline into electricity? That seems a bit low to me, but I am no expert on the matter.
Can someone check my math here?
This is completely electric driven, so gasoline is converted into electricity.
$3.60 a gallon and $.12 a mile = 30 mpg
40 miles on 8 kWh = 5 miles/kWh or .2kWh a mile (same as a Tesla)
30 mpg, 5 miles/kWh = 6 kWh of electricity generated per gallon of gasoline.
Gasoline has 33 kWh of energy.
6 kWh /33 kWh = 18% efficient conversion efficiency.
Posted by: Fat Knowledge | Sep 16, 2008 2:56:21 PM
30% efficiency by their 50mpg claims...perhaps a 37% efficient gas engine, 85% efficient generator and 95% efficient power electronics (convertors, etc). Though I initially pointed out the math resulting in 30mpg I am willing to bet they intended to mean "against the average vehicle in its segment which gets 30mpg" rather than implying that the Volt itself only attains 30mpg. At 200W-hr per mile I'd be looking at a cost of $0.016 per mile with no oil changes required if I never run the ICE. I bet the performance to 60mph would be quite nice if you remove the whole 1.4L generator and fuel tank (maybe 300lbs).
Posted by: | Sep 16, 2008 3:31:50 PM
It looks great , it's just the price that decides if it's good. Hopefully it'll chock people positively.
Posted by: Observer | Sep 16, 2008 3:40:49 PM
The Volt looks fairly good, 4 doors are useful, liftback is cool, and it has a plug, which is incredible! I can use Domestically produced electricity instead of foreign oil! And it is cheaper by far to operate, I drive 12,000 miles a year, the vast majority of the time I drive about 30-35 miles a day. I will use about 4 or 5 gallons of gasoline a month with the Volt, only because I am able to get away on a roadtrip once a month, something that would be a major pain in the EV1. Plus I can bring 3 friends, something I couldn't do at all in the EV1. Anyway, I use 50 gallons of gas a month, about $200 at $4, or $2400 per year. With the Volt I will use about 5 g. per month or $20mth/$240 per year, plus $20 worth of electricity per month/ $240 per year. So my fuel expense goes from $2400 a year to $480 with the Volt, so I not only save $1900 a year but my money goes to domestic energy sources rather than OPEC and Putin. This is game changing. This will change the way the international economy works.
Bob Lutz is not my favorite GM source, he mentioned $48,000 once and had to admit later that he had mis spoke. Most of the estimates have been in the range of high $30's to low $40's, so with the $5,000 - $7,000 tax incentive the two candidates are talking about plus what ever else states add, the Volt looks pretty good at a net price from $32,000 to $37,000, and in CA and other places it could be less. The Prius is selling in the high $20's and you have to wait to get it. When the plug in Prius arrives, it will be shorter legged and much more reliant on gasoline. Its tax incentive will be smaller due to the incentives being larger for larger batteries/longer AER. As the Volt moves into its second year the price could very well come down due to the batteries getting more economies of scale. Also, with the cooling system GM is looking at and the limited depth of cycling, the battery pack will probably last 200,000 miles or until 2026. I think we might have a better, less expensive replacement by then.
If GM can deliver this car for less than $40,000 by the end of 2010 with an AER of at least 40 miles they will have a huge hit on their hands. And then they can build an EREV CUV, an EREV sports car, (look at those torque numbers, now think of a 24kWH battery pack!) and all the other cars in their line begin to offer EREV as an option. Remember that batteries aren't like gas tanks, with gas a smaller tank means that your range is shorter but power is the same. With batteries, if you cut the size of the battery, you also cut the performance, so cutting the Volts battery to save money also costs you acceleration.
My next car will have a plug. End of story.
Posted by: Ziv | Sep 16, 2008 3:51:14 PM
I was not complaining about the battery, she wanted to know how look it would take for it the pay back for having a serial hybrid transmission over a conventional one. I'll admit that a serious unfair comparison, as the price of the motor and generator is not added, as well as the price of a transmission is not subtracted, nor is the price drop in gasoline and energy in general provided by a massive PHEV economy using smartgrid technology even considered.
Posted by: Ben | Sep 16, 2008 3:52:57 PM
Want some mind-blowing numbers? Figure your petroleum usage if the Volt is (cellulosic) E85-capable. Running the numbers assuming 50mpg in charge-sustaining mode yields a 96% reduction in petroleum usage for my daily commute. 98.5% reduction if I can eventually charge at work.
How fast can we get 10 million of these on the road, please?
Posted by: rob | Sep 16, 2008 4:51:44 PM
The car looks fine. I hope they sell a bunch. I hope they are priced for minimum profit. I know GM has to make money but if they sell TWICE as many Volts as Prius have been selling recently, that’s still only about 4% of the market. That’s nothing. So sell me one for 20% more than a Prius, - Whoo Hoo. - This just shows what you can do if you don’t get diverted with dead end technology like the EV1.
If this were somehow able to propel GM back into a leader of automotive technology, people would say “Brilliant, they used the huge market demand for Tahoes, with their huge profits, to bridge the bad years (when people wanted simple Japanese small cars but Prius could only capture 2.5% of the market) to the era when the technology and market could support the Volt.” (Umm, No. I’m not holding my breath).
Posted by: ToppaTom | Sep 16, 2008 5:01:55 PM
I love the idea of these cars. Sure would like to see the roof, hood and trunk populated with high efficiency solar cells.
Posted by: Franklin E. Fraitus | Sep 16, 2008 5:41:13 PM
Where in the calcs are the taxes on the juice???
These taxes will have to come if we are to have roads and
other infrastructure. We tax gasoline now for that purpose.
I like the concept of EV's but I don't see anything here
that is particulary exciting...car looks like any other
econo-box and the performance seems just so-so.
Just my opinion
Posted by: Bob Downs | Sep 16, 2008 6:02:16 PM
Rob, FYI, the EV1 was NOT dead-end technology. Replace those lead acid batts. with lithium-ion and advances in electrical technology and you'd sell a million of them over night. GM made a 'too good' car for the times and the oil industry freaked and came down hard on everyone, so the cars were all but destroyed. The EV1 would be a god-send now. It was a great car. Even by today's standards, the styling is cool. Only way GM will be #1 (as if!) is if they come out with an all electric vehicle with a range of 150 miles + with a top speed of 85 mph. This can be done now.
Posted by: Alex S. | Sep 16, 2008 6:09:02 PM
This is all rather sad. In May, 2000, I bought a Honda Insight for $20,000. It now has 186,000 miles on it. For that entire time I have gotten in excess of 50 mpg! (Note that the insight is basically a small, gasoline engined car. The battery only provides assist during acceleration, and is recharged when the car is up to speed. If the battery trips off-line, as it has a couple of times due to overheating, the car stills runs fine, but the acceleration suffers noticieably. Since most of my driving is long distance at turnpike speeds, there is very little decline in gas mileage.) Now, ten years later, Chevy offers the Volt, price not disclosed, which gets 40 mpg. Truly a sad testimonial to American engineering. I'me gonna keep the Insight forever, or until I can get a car that gets 80 mpg, whichever comes first. And I don't really care which comes first!
Posted by: John Saggese | Sep 16, 2008 6:48:55 PM
Looks fantastic. These guys are ahead of the curve.
Posted by: elwood | Sep 16, 2008 7:26:08 PM
John, where did you ever get 40mpg from? Obviously, you aren't getting the point of this car. How many gallons of fuel does your Insight use in your daily commute? Additionally, divide your Insight number by two, since you'll need to drive two of them to move the same 4 people that can fit in the Volt.
Posted by: Angelo | Sep 16, 2008 7:32:49 PM
Hey, I'm new around here and can't help but read a lot of negativity about this announcement. Do people here not like the idea of PHEVs?
Posted by: 4real | Sep 16, 2008 7:40:50 PM
John, my BMW motorcycle get's 80 mpg, holds as many people as your Insight, is faster, and costs less.
You get the point. Apples to apples. It's nice to see that GM is building a mass-market car instead of a tiny 2 seater that the US market doesn't want.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 16, 2008 8:03:41 PM
I have read some of the posts here, and I am shaking my head, a lot of these people just don't get it. This isn't about saluting the proper green positions, it is about building a car that people will buy that can make a huge difference. I read:
'Only way GM will be #1 (as if!) is if they come out with an all electric vehicle with a range of 150 miles + with a top speed of 85 mph.'
If people drive 30-40 miles a day 90% of the time, why make them pay for a battery they will only use once a month? 150 mile range will be used rarely, but an EREV will work perfectly when you need that sort of range, as opposed to EV1, which forced you to pull to the side of the road or to plug in to a slow charging outlet, rather than use a built in ICE to keep you going.
'Now, ten years later, Chevy offers the Volt, price not disclosed, which gets 40 mpg.'
The Volt is a four seat sedan, not a two seater, and it will actually be sold, as opposed to the EV1 which was too expensive to actually find a reasonable amount of buyers, and was leased for that reason, and then the poster above actually expects us to believe that the Volt will get 40 mpg! ARGHHH! A 16 kWH battery, a 40 mile AER and they are talking about 40 mpg? The Volt won't use any gasoline at all for many drivers most of the time, so I can just as accurately say that the Volt will get 1000 mpg because it will take me where I want to go for a month, 1000 miles, and if I don't take a road trip, the ICE will only kick in on a very busy day.
The old Honda Insight was a failure, noone wanted to buy it. How many Insights were sold in the last few years? Exactly!
But I do believe that the new one will be more popular. There is plenty of room for EREV's, and Prius plug ins, and Insights in the next few years. Bring it on, show us cars that let us use domestic electricity instead of foreign oil. Let me plug my car in, and I will be happy to buy it.
Posted by: ziv | Sep 16, 2008 8:22:06 PM
The car looks fine. I knew it would not look like the concept car. I posted about that somewhere when it first came out...
The target market would not buy a car that ugly and I know no focus group of adults ever saw it. That car was in a back room somewhere when they dusted it off and pulled it out in a hurry. In the SAE magazine a few months ago they told how they had to tweak the design due to wind tunnel tests, right.
GM could not afford the license payments to the 15 year old boy who
designed
the concept Volt during his detention. He was a Chrysler fan...
Posted by: joseph padula | Sep 16, 2008 8:31:47 PM
Even if this is a good car and even if it fulfills on all of its promises, it should not be either produced by GM or bought by any customers. GM could have had a thousand Plug-In-Hybrid cars running on the road for ten years now if it had not destroyed nearly all of them in crushers. An optimised Honda portable generator or more could have been installed in the boot (trunk) or elsewhere of an EV1.
Lead-acid battery technology is perfectly usable in a Plug-In-Hybrid as demonstrated by TZERO and CALCARS. No new battery chemistry is needed; It can be used but it is not needed.
It is likely that hydraulic hybrids are both less costly to build and more efficient. A simple cheap method of converting them to plug-in operation is left as an exercise to the reader.
There should be no government incentives or rebates given to either GM or the purchasers of this car because GM fraudulently destroyed both the EV1 and its technology that had been partially supported by taxpayers. You can better believe that GM used its real and self-induced losses of the EV1 development program to reduce its taxes. And it benefited directly and indirectly from various Federal research programs.
They could have accepted the bid of over a million dollars for the remaining cars and reduced their losses, but they did not want the public to know what crap their other products were in comparison. They could have sold all of the original remaining cars for $100,000 each with no waranty.
They could have had some Chinese manufacturer make a stripped down version of a Honda 5-horsepower portable inverter generator and made a car that went an average of 30 mph on city streets and brief 70 mph stretches on freeways for hundreds of miles or thousands with 10 gallon gas fillups every 400 miles or so.
It is not surprising that a car and truck maker and the oil companies do not want you to know that a single piston 10 HP engine connected with a battery can get you anywhere you need to go at legal speeds if tied to a large battery. An experimental larger EV1 was tested with a 40 KW turbine that could have been made to burn any fuel to charge the batteries when they got below 30% charge. It is not likely that they would want you to know that even only 40KW can power a hybrid vehicle at its fastest speeds most of the time.
The actual horse power needed on the average can be calculated almost directly from the advertised MPG if the assumed efficiency of the engine is about 20-25 percent. Engine efficiency is often much lower than that. But 50 miles per gallon in a Prius at an average speed of 70 miles per hour means that 1.4 gallons of gasoline are used in an hour. This is nearly 50 kilowatt-hours of gasoline energy every hour or 10 kilowatts at the wheels at 20% efficiency or about 13 average horsepower; most of which is lost in wind resistance. Large engines in SUVs are less efficient at low horsepower, and the higher wind resistance demands more horse power. Manufacturers should be required by law to post the energy consumption figures of their vehicles at various speeds.
The ZEBRA battery, now used in the TH!NK, was available when the EV1 was produced and had already been well tested in automobiles by then. If the same volume of ZEBRA batteries had been used, the EV1 could have gone over 300 miles on a single charge. That figure could frighten a lot of oil companies.
Batteries will always be too heavy or too expensive for long range electric cars. Most cars are not used for long range and not used often. Plug-In-Hybrids are a very good solution, but HIDDEN-HUMMERS (Tesla, Volt, TZERO) are not the answer to high fuel costs; the cars cost too much. How about a TATA nano VOLT. There is no chance that 150 horsepower will ever be delivered in the course of an average days driving. There will be high torque at start up but that is not horse power. The 150 horse power would drain the full 16 kwh of the battery in about ten minutes.
When it comes to horsepower, car manufacturers, large laser builders and manufacturers of ultra capacitors do not know the facts, do not want to know the facts and intend to mislead with high numbers. A locomotive builder would be sued for claiming similar horse power ratings. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | Sep 16, 2008 8:50:10 PM
Henry, if the lead-acid batteries were capable of supporting a decent car, why haven't the Chinese or anyone else built one? They haven't built them because the cars that rely on them have short range, long recharge times and cost more than ICE cars.
'Fraudulently destroyed the EV!', that just sums it up. If you believe that a car that had a range that only worked 98% of the time, leaving the owner hoping for a charging point and plenty of time to use it, well maybe the two seater EV1 makes sense. It has the two seater capability of the Tesla, but was slower and had a shorter range. Plus, it was ugly and over priced.
Posted by: ziv | Sep 16, 2008 9:01:50 PM
The development of Hybrids after the demise of the EV-1 was an effort to discourage the development of Battery Electric Vehicles. Hybrids with their 40 mile range continue to lag BEV with their 140 mpg equivalent. The EV-1 was a fine automobile. I drove it home from Torrance over thirty times when I was with GM with no problems whatsoever over 50 miles without recharging.
General Motors used many advanced technologies in developing the EV-1. These included:
• Aluminium frame
• Dent resistant side panels
• Anti-lock brakes & Traction control
• Heat pump (Heater/AC)
• Keyless entry and keyless ignition
• Special one-way thermal glass to allow for
better heat rejection
• Regenerative braking
• Very low drag coefficient
• Super light magnesium alloy wheels and
• Self-sealing & low rolling resistance tires
(developed by Michelin)
• Automated tire pressure loss warning system
• Time programmable HVAC (cabin heating or cooling) settings
Most of these technologies were included to improve the overall efficiency of the EV-1.
The first generation EV-1s used lead-acid batteries in 1996 (as model year 1997) and a second generation batch was with Delco improved lead acid batteries. A third improvement was with nickel metal hydride batteries in 1999. Some of the Gen 1 EV-Is were refurbished and upgraded to Panasonic lead-acid batteries.
The Gen 1 cars got 55 to 75 miles per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75 to 100 miles with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75 to 150 miles per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours). The battery pack consisted of 26 12-volt lead-acid batteries holding 67.4 MJ (18.7 kWh) of energy or 26 13.2-volt nickel-metal hydride batteries which held 95.1 MJ (26.4 kWh) of energy.
That was a beautifully and practically styled auto - badly marketed!
Posted by: David Isaacs | Sep 16, 2008 10:28:09 PM
They should change the name to Re-Volting.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 16, 2008 10:30:59 PM
I am underwhelmed, but then I did expect GM to screw it up. The concept car looked great but not practical, so I expected some changes, but not copying a Civic.The $40k price will hold true, and dont count on $7k discount,any discount will be killed by dealer markup until sales slow down ( just like Prius, typical $5k dealer ripoff). They really backed off on the battery use excessively ( someone will make a bundle reprogramming it). The limp home engine is much larger than needed and should be multifuel, but it remains to be seen how they screwed up when it goes on. The idea is good, but typical GM bad execution. they should be able to sell 10,000 the first year but need wholesale changes if they expect it to sell the second year. Otherwise its just overpriced and low tech( I didnt see a weight, did they make it over 3400 lbs to cause the low range and mileage? it should have been 2600 lbs and go a minimum of 100 miles electric based on the components).
Posted by: fred | Sep 16, 2008 10:36:56 PM
I think that the EV1 was a great first step, but I can remember seeing one at a charging station in the early 1990s and thinking how small it was. It needed to be small and light to get the range. The first Honda Insight was small and light and got great mileage. It showed what could be done and now they are trying to build something that millions of people want and are willing to buy.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 16, 2008 10:52:21 PM
@ HG,
Your repeated claims that Tesla roadster and Volt are HIDDEN-HUMMERS are baseless.
They are neither energy inefficient nor heavy/big vehicles.
Some of them may be expensive (Tesla), but it is a fact of life that many rich people want to spend money on expensive luxury cars (and other luxury goods).
It's much better that the rich finance the development of electric car technologies, than that they spend that money on gas guzzlers like Ferraris etc. It will just speed up car electrification, and bring battery (and e-motor) prices down sooner. At the same time Tesla and Volt have been getting a lot of media attention, which increases public awareness, and makes oil loby's sabotaging more difficult.
One thing that you may not be aware of is that high power electric motors (like in Tesla or in some other new models) are very energy efficient at low energy output (cruising or slow acceleration).
On the contrary almost all current high power ICEs in high performance cars are gas guzzlers in almost any driving mode.
Posted by: MG | Sep 16, 2008 10:57:36 PM
@ 4real and ziv and others.
I wish you would not write such stuff critical of the EV1 and Insight. I had just about managed to block out the EV1 weirdoes.
We are not dealing with rational people. They are completely immune to logic when you question their belief that the EV1 and Insight were resounding successes; cars that everyone wanted and wants. They assume that big oil conspired with GM to kill the EV1 and I guess they also conspired with Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Suzuki, Kia, Fiat, VW, Saab, Volvo, etc, etc. I don't know how they rationalize the demise of the Insight. But they are not rational.
Posted by: ToppaTom | Sep 16, 2008 11:32:04 PM
The point is people, it's not solely about the cost of gas, it's about the ability to drive WITHOUT using gas.
Right now, as some of you are no doubt aware, there have been sporadic spot shortages here and there in the US (Dakota, Texas etc) due to supplies being tight and refineries being shut in.
In the event of any major disruptions lasting more than a couple of days, a volt will be perfect.
Posted by: Dan Browne | Sep 17, 2008 1:01:09 AM
Oh yeah, the old "Imported Arab Oil exchanged for imported Chinese Batteries".
So what?
Batteries can be MANUFACTURED. Oil can't.
Once it's gone it's gone.
Posted by: Dan Browne | Sep 17, 2008 1:03:44 AM
How many car companies reveal production versions of the their vehicles more than 2 years before their launch?? Whilst the car looks promising at the present time it's still essentially a spoiler trying to draw attention away from other manufactures with hybrids and plug ins already on the market.
Posted by: The Empty Vessel | Sep 17, 2008 2:27:16 AM
"So, we exchange Arab oil for Chinese batteries"
A123 and Compact Power are both American companies.
The choice between these two suppliers will be made by GM later this year.
Posted by: clett | Sep 17, 2008 4:44:26 AM
Fred, regarding your "copying a Civic" comment, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have not seen other pictures of the Volt, such as the following collection:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/2011-chevrolet-volt-1/1039675/
Other than the fact that both models have 4 wheels, there is actually very little that is similar.
Posted by: Angelo | Sep 17, 2008 5:04:01 AM
@Henry Gibson:
Batteries will always be too heavy or too expensive for long range electric cars.
That reminds me of the 'vision' of a certain IT billionaire, when he proclaimed: "640k ought to be enough for anybody"
Posted by: Anne | Sep 17, 2008 5:58:46 AM
ToppaTom, you are probably right, it is better to let a sleeping dog lie.
Posted by: ziv | Sep 17, 2008 6:21:37 AM
These GM notices get consistent huge comment numbers...
Anne refers to 640k units of random access memory of course. All in all, old axe grinding aside, there is not much criticism here.
They've done a credible job of building the world's first mass market EREV, a plug-in electric car designed to appeal to 80% of the consumer base. This entry has forced nearly every other major manufacturer (Honda?)to set EV/PHEV plans in motion. Government is ready to help subsidize its adoption and battery/powertrain components are a new green jobs sector. Seems to us, after discounting GM haters, they have accomplished some of what green car congress set out to do - build an environmentally responsible vehicle. Good job.
Posted by: Sulleny | Sep 17, 2008 8:05:27 AM
Inquiring minds want to know. All the "EV1 weirdos" would shut up today. Hell, we would have shut up 10 years ago. If GM and Chevron had handled the EV1 like a normal failed experiment. Has there ever been another product in history that was vacuumed up so completely and hidden from public view? It's as weird as Roswell. I have no experience with the EV1. However, I have read the accounts of hundreds of owners who thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. There has been nothing but silence from the manufacturers. Corporate cover ups are weird. Cover ups usually point to embarassing or illegal activities. If the EV1 was so bad that it was embarassing to the manufacturer, why would hundreds of users be begging to have their cars back? Why did they crush the car instead of selling on the used car market? Surely it couldn't have been as bad for their reputation as the Vega!
Posted by: creativforce | Sep 17, 2008 8:09:26 AM
Most of the conspiracy talk has been put to bed by the claim that GM owned the EV1 and leased it to customers. If they sold the vehicles regardless of waivers and disclaims - they were still exposed to liability. The first guy to get fried recharging his EV1 would have a thousand legal barracudas suing the pants off GM. So, they killed the sucker and made a better one - Volt.
Posted by: NRG Nut | Sep 17, 2008 9:35:11 AM
Several hundred RAV4 EVs (sold in CA at the same time as the EV1) used the same NIMH battery technology, and they are still on the road. No one has fried to crisp yet or sued Toyota. Owners rave about them (from the posts I have read-I don't know.). Toyota had to stop production because Cobasys (Chevron owns controlling interest) wouldn't let them have any more batteries. So Toyota found a work around--the Prius. The success of the Prius is changing the world. But it would be a less expensive car with a Cobasys NIMH battery. Follow the money! The Japanese understand that electric cars can ruin their margins and kill their dealership service departments, but they are oil consumers, not exporters. Although the US is not an oil exporter the companies that import it control our government (Remember that little disturbance known as the War in Iraq.)
Posted by: creativforce | Sep 17, 2008 10:35:49 AM
RAV4 EVs are loved by their owners and so are the are the EV Ranger pickups that Ford made. The ZEV program got them to give it a try and people are saying that these have uses. However, paying more for a vehicle with less utility is an uphill climb. A range of 40-140 miles and 8-10 hour charging a few places still provides less utility than 300-400 mile range and 5 minute fill ups almost everywhere for lower initial cost.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 17, 2008 11:34:46 AM
The problem with long range EVs can be solved once rapid charging can be implementing, this means a charging station that can put out 50-150kW and batteries that can handle be charged up in 10 minutes or less (A123 already has such batteries).
Posted by: Ben | Sep 17, 2008 1:36:26 PM
Ben, I think you mean Altair has the big batts.
Posted by: gr | Sep 17, 2008 2:06:34 PM
The Volt is such a cool car. I'm never gonna buy a new car, but when i see these cars on the streets I'm gonna be jealous of the owners.
Posted by: Eirik | Sep 17, 2008 2:07:26 PM
Interesting excerpt I found on Seattle Times' website:
"The Volt, he said, will know a person's normal route home.
If the driver veers from it, the car will calculate whether it needs to start the gasoline engine and how long the engine needs to run."
GPS, logging, and some type of internal maps to calculate distances? I wonder if this is intelligent enough to get a sum of your routes and determine if you are on route: Grocery store vs route: Commute vs route: Pick up the kids from school [where the computer would only know route 1, 2, or 3]. If it has communications capability it could be the start of GM's "V2V" comm system for vehicular networking to communicate traffic conditions through vehicle nodes making a mass communication system possible. Good way to check on the last portion is investigate any GM applications on the FCC website in the upcoming year or two.
Posted by: | Sep 17, 2008 3:58:40 PM
I noticed that there was little mention of the various powerplants the volt can use. Obviously, the small engine for the first generation version has limitations. But replace it with a single speed diesel and the fuel efficiency numbers change radically. Replace that with a fuel cell and the car now becomes ultra efficient.
Posted by: Franklin E. Fraitus | Sep 17, 2008 5:33:14 PM
E-Flex is designed to accept a number of fueling options. The FC was announced earlier this year. I would think that second gen Volts will offer diesel and flex fuel options. Perhaps even a CNG version. Early adopters will be happy with gasoline only - especially if they stay under the 40 mi AER. Later models should accept E85 as GM has been investing in cellulosic technology.
Again for many people who have fixed routes - under 40m AER means ZERO fossil fuel use.
On the computer calc - I suspect that it looks at SOC and distance to "destination." Whether it does this in advance or simply when the SOC approaches charge threshold makes little difference. What would be nice is a navigation guide to the nearest public charge point and current charge rates. This would give the driver an option to use less liquid fuel and extend the AER.
Posted by: gr | Sep 17, 2008 6:07:41 PM
"...the car will calculate whether it needs to start the gasoline engine and how long the engine needs to run."
It makes sense to tell the on board computer your intentions. Is it a short trip or a long trip? Does the route include lots of stops or highway driving? Are their hills involved, how many passengers and how much luggage? These all help to contour the usage profile.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 17, 2008 9:40:10 PM
Anyone who thinks lithium batteries are going to save us from dependance on oil should read: ^ "The Trouble With Lithium 2". Meridian International Research (May 28, 2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-07. Available online in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article on Lithium. There is a global shortage of lithium that is growing and clearly not enough of the metal available in the world to supply even 10% of the auto industry. If computer manufactures can't get enough lithium to supply the lap top industry how are they going to find enough for the Volt? This car may be dead before it starts. Don't you think GM knows this?
Posted by: creativforce | Sep 18, 2008 8:15:06 AM
Henry - long post, many errors. A few:
1. Honda generator and 10 hp single piston engines do not make practical range extenders. You need 50 kW for long freeway grades. That's why Prius and Volt ICEs are 50-60 kW. Anything less is a cripple car - you can only sell a few to lunatic fringies.
2. Hydraulic plug-in hybrid is a silly idea. Energy density is woefully inadequate. High power density and cheap cost offer hope for non-plug hybrids. If bugs can be worked out hydraulic hybrids will first appear on large vehicles such as garbage trucks, not cars.
3. Lead-acid has low upfront cost but need replacement every 18-24 months under PHEV duty cycle. Lifetime cost is actually higher than lithium or NiMH. Hopefully Firefly and others can change this.
4. Zebra battery must stay at 300 deg C 24/7. OK for vehicles in constant use such as city buses but not for normal cars which sit parked 23 hours/day (note: Th!nk's Zebra option is for high usage fleets, they offer two lithium options for individuals). Also, energy density is no better than NIMH so Zebra EV1 range would be 100 miles, not 300. And power density is too low for a PHEV.
5. The Volt will use 150 hp, e.g. during freeway merges. Cutting the electric drivetrain down to 75 hp saves a few hundred bucks but creates a cripple car. EV range would also suffer due to less effective regenerative braking, so it's a false economy.
6. EV1 and oil company conspiracy ravings: Yes, GM screwed up by crushing EV1s. People make mistakes. Let it go.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Sep 18, 2008 9:08:42 AM
Creativforce, Meridian's second "Trouble with Lithium" report covers more ground than the first but still misses the point. 100 years ago no one thought oil could ever support a billion cars. The high quality resource was limited and low quality resource could never be cost-effective. Of course as demand grew we found ways to tap the lower quality resource. The same will happen with lithium. Of course it'll take many years for EV/PHEV batteries to even make a dent in the lithium market, by then we may have moved on to better battery chemistries.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Sep 18, 2008 9:59:38 AM
Let's keep in mind that unlike hydrocarbons, lithium is fully recyclable - old spend batteries make new ones. Granted the following is from 2000 - but the fundamentals are sound.
"…U.S. government does not stockpile lithium, although the U.S. Department of Energy did have a stock of lithium hydroxide monohydrate. U.S. consumption in 1999 was estimated to be about 2,800 T of contained lithium (USGS 2000). This quantity is equivalent to that required for about 290,000 EVs with Li-ion batteries annually, or about 6 million HEVs. Therefore, significant market penetration by EVs with Li-ion batteries would perturb the market and require expansion of imports or U.S. production. Total world production in 1999 was about 15,000 T of contained lithium (63% in carbonates), and world reserves exceed 12 million T (USGS 2000). Therefore, long-term supply should not be a major concern.”
Using the numbers provided in this report one finds that an average sized EV with a 35kWh battery would require approximately 0.423 kg of lithium total. That would translate to 0.01208 kg/kWh or about 12.1g of lithium per kWh. There should be enough lithium to build about 1.25 Billion EVs or about 25.7 Billion HEVs. "
Argonne National Lab Transportation Technology R&D Center
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/149.pdf
Posted by: NRG Nut | Sep 18, 2008 10:09:38 AM
NRG, I don't follow your lithium calculation. They say 2,800 T is enough for 290,000 EVs, or about 10 kg of metallic lithium per EV.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Sep 18, 2008 10:25:33 AM
Right. The report calls it "contained lithium." At a volume of 0.423kg/EV we should see 6,004,444.0 EVs @35kWh, and probably 12-15M HEVs with 16kWh batteries like the Volt.
Posted by: NRG Nut | Sep 18, 2008 11:50:49 AM
I still don't follow. The 6 million HEVs aren't like the Volt but 1 kWh batteries like a next-gen Prius. Your 0.423 kg is thus for 1 kWh which comes to 6+ kg for 16 kWh Volt EREV battery and 10-15 kg for a 25-35 kWh EV battery.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Sep 18, 2008 12:11:10 PM
Um, is the statement from Argonne not clear?
"Using the numbers provided in this report one finds that an average sized EV with a 35kWh battery would require approximately 0.423 kg of lithium total."
Posted by: NRG Nut | Sep 18, 2008 7:03:10 PM
I had an EV-1 for a short time since I could not buy one. Lutz is Still saying they could not sell them! They never sold them, not one.
It had the Panasonic batteries. I rented it after they started crushing them, so I knew it was not long for this world. It was great!
I drove a RAV-4 EV with NiMH batteries at work. It was a better car being designed much later even though it was steel and just a conversion of a normal Rav. It was designed a long time after the Impact and they had the better NiMH batteries. They are still on the road not killing people.
Also GM sold the S-10 pickup truck EV with the Same propulsion system as the EV-1. They are come up on ebay every once in a while.
Why not crush them all too if they are so dangerous? So please stop repeating all the GM talking points on this site and save it for the civilians who do not know power from energy.
So despite my Conservative/ right credentials, I too am one of those EV Nuts. This is also the green car Congress not the defend the Three Stooges' mistakes site.
Perhaps it is my Italian heritage, we are loathe to send money ( to buy oil) to people trying to kill us (despite a initial lower capital cost).
Remember a BEV gets cleaner every day as the grid gets cleaner with no upgrade of the car. A BEV can be true ZEV when powered by a dam, windmill or solar PV/Thermal. No other car can. So please do not give me the elsewhere emission BS, I would rather have the engineers at PG&E watching the stack each second with CEM that your every two years Smog test.
I do not understand why so many of you are here. A few retired engineers trying to justify a career with few true advances in car design I can understand. Most of your real advances were forced on you. Seatbelts, airbags, cat converters.
I told Stemple in a meeting once I was ashamed of being an engineer because of the car companies.
SAE Member, ASME Member. Phoenix Motorcars stockholder.
Posted by: joe padula | Sep 18, 2008 10:40:27 PM
NRG, the Argonne report you linked says 9+ kg of lithium for a 35 kWh EV battery. I can't find any Argonne statement saying 0.423 kg. I did find an erroneous comment to that effect (later corrected) by Wayne Brown in an EV World article comment section.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Sep 20, 2008 7:48:46 AM
Our anal friends at Elsevier Education, French National Center for Scientific Research offer this paper in the absence of data on pure Li/cell/mod/pack:
"It is shown that economically recoverable Li world reserves are sufficient to meet the demands of current new passenger car world production and its anticipated growth in the next 50 years. Currently identified world reserves can power 2 billion cars with Li-ion batteries, that is four times the number of cars presently registered in the world."
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2530187
World reserves estimated at 12M tons.
Posted by: NRG Nut | Sep 20, 2008 12:12:24 PM
the volt needs 150 hp for freeway merges? how overweight is this pig? driving a 40 hp VW bug was always a thrill when getting on the freeway, but the 60 hp version had no trouble.
Posted by: fred | Sep 21, 2008 11:09:25 PM
Whether the Volt "needs" 150 hp for freeway merges is a philosophical question, but the simple reality is mainstream buyers will not pay $35k+ for VW Bug-type acceleration.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Sep 22, 2008 8:12:31 PM
I like how those who demand that the Volt fail and claim everything about it is configured absolutely wrong come up with the most outlandish specifications that would utterly guarantee failure. I see why none of you are CEO's of any auto manufacturer (or of any major manufacturer in any industry period).
Posted by: | Sep 23, 2008 1:27:38 PM
So Joe, as an admittedly astute engineer why did GM refuse to sell the EV1?
Why did they crush them?
Why does Toyota not make more RAV-4 EVs?
Why does Toyota and Honda sell fewer hybrids then GM sells SUVs - today.
Why does toyota sell more Titans than Prius'?
What mistakes are the big three making? (please keep in mind that trucks sales are still 50% of the market – hybrids are 3% and dropping- today, and Toyota and Nissan are newly INTO big trucks).
Some stooges do not realize that Toyota and Honda have been making hybrids for ten years – 10 years- at a pace you can almost match in a 3 car garage. Why? Does GM secretly own the big 2? Did the EV1 smashing send them a message? Paranoia anyone?
Does it matter if the BEV gets cleaner every day until there are some being sold (much less than 3% is none).
Electric power for the automobile is agonizingly slow in coming and we all desperately wish it were not so, but believing it is being stopped by GM is akin to thinking kW and kWHr are the same thing, only worse.
So please don’t bore us with the evil GM BS.
I understand your shame.
Posted by: ToppaTom | Sep 24, 2008 11:06:40 PM
And just think how many MORE Titans are sold by Nissan.
Posted by: ToppaTom | Sep 24, 2008 11:09:50 PM
