Chevy Volt: suggested features ("vaporware")

I will believe GM when the Volt actually rolls off the production line at under $100,000.

Dragon

What I don't understand is in 25 years gas mileage has not kept up with materials and controls science. You would think with all the whistles and bells the MPG would be better but I just don't see it. My 1971 429 cobra jet in a Ford 3/4 ton got 15MPG city and highway (on the primaries only) About 425HP on secondaries and a 410 rear end non-locking automatic tranny (C6)

I don't see a 6,000 lb plus pickup that makes 25 or 30MPG or even a full size pickup with an ability to pull a fifthwheel trailer(recreational) get that unloaded. Something doesn't add up. My F250 Ford was Steel the only plastic was the vinyl on the steel springed seats. The cars now are aluminum, plastic, FRP on a steel frame or uni-body. The aerodynamics are better. In 1980 I made a 25MPG tire smoking Diesel, my Dad's 2003 only gets over 20mpg going down hill.

Where is the fuel savings? Why did they not keep pace with the tech? Inquiring minds want to know.

Brad

UV, You are assuming that the intent of the designers and manufacturers was to increase fuel efficiency. Their intent now is to increase fuel consumption.

Dragon

Then New Cars should come including the smell of Vaseline. I'm going back to building my own.

At least they are easy to fix, get great mileage and better than average performance. The only loss is the time to make them when I could be working on new tech not doing what should have been done long before.

Brad

I saw some interesting stuff on the stock of GM, which funds it's in and who also has a big stake in those funds (big oil companies). I wouldn't encourage the development of the Volt since GM has already shown their true environmental roots back when they scrapped the EV1...just go watch "Who Killed the Electric Car". Like Ovonics and their NiMh battery, I'm afraid anyone developing new tech with GM will get the short end of the stick when the controlling power is taken from them and sold to the highest bidder whos interests are only to make things dissapear.

The volt has been delayed because of battery technology not being available. It would be available had they not sold off the NiMh patents to Chevron who then sued everyone else who was producing them...essentially pringing pass producable ev development to a halt. I don't really blame Chevron...they're just being an oil company. What I have a problem is a company that makes a product that puts on a friendly face and gets everyone involved with something just to turn around and stab everyone in the back when it really matters!

To believe GM is really trying to do something for the environment is rediculous... They'll drag this out as long as they can.

Quite frankly I'm sick of those spam emails that say "don't buy gas from esso...we'll make them start a price war!" but I HAVE decided I'm never going to give GM another penny of my money. They is so close to bankrupcy I kind of hope that fast-tracking some REAL efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles will be their last only hope of long term survival. and the Volt is no good example.

All significant improvements to automotive drive systems have been about getting more power and safety features (to keep you alive when 300hp runs you into something). I wait dreamily for the day when cars like the VW 1 liter car tops the typical commuter's wish lists.

[/rant]

Hi UV - There was no incentive in the 1990's to increase fuel economy, with low US gasoline prices. The focus was to keep the economy booming, and not mess with success. But within the past 3 years, the price of gas has doubled, and so now US car OEM's are being forced to respond to market forces. GM shut down a number of production lines during the past month or so, and so it looks like they are scaling down on their scope of products and will need to take the Volt's product introduction more seriously.

- April05

True why make a good car when you make the money off of the parts and planned failure. I have no sympathy for American car companies. Because of the unions and the stockholders skimming the big three are now making changes that should have been done when they were easy. The American car companies actions show a relationship with oil above and beyond what is good for john q public. The car companies short term profits now turned losses are extending the oils companies windfalls.

If you want to find the cause of the rise in oil prices find out who got oil put on the commodities market. Speculators are driving up the prices and the oil companies are laughing all the way to the bank. That is not supply and demand. That is a type of market monopoly just moved from the producers to the resellers.

I live on an acre of paid for land. The garden is doing great and I now travel daily much less. My fuel bill is down by over half. I'm also debt free. Vacation are still the same I just go with family for the most part. I'll build my car and rebuild my pickup because the new vehicle don't have any better bases. Sure the whistles and bells but not anything else. Look how long they last on the road. Not many cars from 10-30 years ago.

I've ranted enough now back to work

Brad

Guest:

Good question. I can think of one possible problem and a possible solution:

Problem: If a driver really drove less than 40 miles per day, the engine may never start. That brings visions of varnish filled fuel systems. Having experienced that with a chain saw, I wouldn't want to go through it with an automobile.

Possible solution: Run the (diesel?) engine continuously near its most efficient operating point and use it to power the high duty-cycle loads such as a hydraulic pump, A/C compressor and alternator and heat the car with the waste heat.

That approach would eliminate the need to run a lot of energy through a wasteful--- Electrical>Mechanical>Electrical>Mechanical---path and could possibly even increase overall efficiency and battery life.

Best regards.

DickL

What problem? we normally use our diesel (Citroen Xsara) less than 40 miles a week without problems. Of course we fuel consumption falls to just below 35mpg (imperial) in that regime!

Chankley:

The potential problem with the Volt is that, if you drive less than 40 miles per day, it can run entirely on batteries that are charged overnight. It is possible that the engine would NEVER be used and the fuel could stay in the tank for months? years?

The Volt engine is gasoline fueled and my mention of diesel was in the nature of a suggestion, but either fuel can break down over time in storage. There are stabilizers that can be used to delay that change, but I wouldn't feel very comfortable depending on them for really extended periods of dead storage. Not in the fuel system of my car.

Best regards.

DickL

DickL,

Thanks for the clarification, I see the problem. Perhaps the engine will need to be deliberately run from time to time as you say. I have a similar issue with my air-con where I may not need it for months on end but run it occasionally to keep it in good order.

Perhaps the engine management unit could make these decisions and ensure the engine is run often enough even if it is not strictly needed.

Chankley:

The scheduled running idea could prevent fuel breakdown, but is it the best way? As the control philosophy is now defined, the engine/alternator must be sized to fully power the Volt in any operating condition after the batteries have discharged. In other words, a very large engine and alternator. True, it MAY have a low duty-cycle but there are a lot of penalties for controlling that way.

That big engine and alternator have to be carried as dead weight for 40 miles in battery mode. Heat, air conditioning and hydraulic pressure must be generated electrically. All of that adds up to a large electrical load and the batteries must be sized accordingly.

Alternatively, a small diesel engine, running continuously at a point of high efficiency, could power the foregoing mechanical loads, provide waste heat for cabin heating and provide continuous charging to delay the discharged condition for some acceptable time. A second "get home" mode, with slightly reduced performance, could be made available if the batteries become discharged on the road. Depending upon the "mission profile" it could be more economical than the present design. It would also avoid the fuel stagnation problem.

Engine size would have to reflect the tradeoffs I've mentioned.

Best regards.

DickL

A suggestion that you go to www.batterylifesaver.com and check out the information on that site.

Responding to your #2 suggestion of using the same battery design to hold power for the home. Better yet, use your car (Chevy Volt) as the back up power supply. The batteries and charging system could continuously supply limited power to your house until power is restored. Make sure the car charging station can also be utilized to accept power from the car to power circuits within the home.