- #457 of 544
-
IT WON"T SUCCEED AT $40k
by 9394
-
Mar 09, 2009 (12:14 pm)
-
|
Who would pay $40k for a small car that looks like a Civic.
I don't have a degree in marketing, but it makes much more sense to me that GM should aim for lower profit / higher volume so that more cars can be produced to keep the workers employed.
|
- #458 of 544
-
Re: IT WON"T SUCCEED AT $40k [9394]
by stephen987
-
Mar 09, 2009 (1:04 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: 9394 (Mar 09, 2009 12:14 pm)
I don't have a degree in marketing, but it makes much more sense to me that GM should aim for lower profit / higher volume so that more cars can be produced to keep the workers employed.
GM isn't in business to keep the workers employed, though. Right now the only thing keeping GM in business is the hope of a multi-year federal bailout. Politically speaking, they have to be able to demonstrate the capability for innovation. The Volt shows that capability much more effectively than, say, the Malibu or Cobalt, no matter how excellent (or how profitable) those cars may be.
|
- #459 of 544
-
Volt battery testing
by larsb
-
Jun 10, 2009 (8:46 am)
-
|
This one is for those who doubt (ahem, Gary) that GM or Toyota can put a safe, well-tested Li Ion battery on the road, read this:
link title
As the company completes work on the battery for the first-generation Volt, it's also developing batteries for the second and third generation of the vehicle, which involves evaluating different battery materials and cells to find ones that store more energy, making it possible to use fewer of them.
The lab has two main sections: one for evaluating battery cells from various suppliers, and one for evaluating the performance of battery packs--cells packaged with electronics and systems for cooling and heating the cells to keep them at an optimal temperature range. The battery packs contain a type of lithium-ion cell that can be degraded by extreme temperatures.
Inside the lab, the packs are charged and discharged while being subjected to high and low temperatures as well as extremes of humidity. Engineers can also simulate different altitudes by placing the packs in barometric chambers. So the engineers can simulate conditions along a humid, hot coastline at sea level, or atop an arid and cold mountain. They can also mimic road conditions with a machine that shakes the battery packs. Elevated temperatures, which speed up the aging process of battery materials, are being used to confirm a ten-year lifetime for the batteries with about two years' worth of tests. In addition to being tested in the battery lab, the packs are being subjected to tests in actual vehicles both on the road and in a climate-controlled wind tunnel. So far, more than 100 battery packs have been built for testing.
|
- #460 of 544
-
Re: Volt battery testing [larsb]
by corvette
-
Jun 13, 2009 (8:00 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jun 10, 2009 8:46 am)
I will say this: It used to be that lithium ion laptop and cell phone batteries would degrade significantly within about 18 months after they were manufactured. Newer models seem to have a longer lifespan. My father has a 30 month old notebook that still holds 90% of its rated charge. Apple introduced a new notebook last week and claimed a five-year lifespan on the battery.
|
- #461 of 544
-
Should GM take note?
by pf_flyer HOST
-
Jul 14, 2009 (4:21 pm)
-
|
While it's not surprising that the lights in the Volt group have basically been switched off while GM reinvents itself (could resist the pun ), I think it illustrates that the Volt, or any other EV with limited range and a high price tag for that matter, is NOT the answer for what ails the North American auto market.
The Volt seems to be an answer to a question that nobody is asking.
|
- #462 of 544
-
Re: Should GM take note? [pf_flyer]
by dmathews3
-
Jul 15, 2009 (4:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Jul 14, 2009 4:21 pm)
The more info I get the more I feel the Volt is not what I want. I want a car that not only gets great mpg around town but can also most importantly get it on a drive across the U.S. What I'm getting from the bits and pieces is that once the electric runs out and it switches to the gas engine that in order to make enough electric to run the car at freeway speeds it would have to run at max RPM's. If this turns out to be true than that engine isn't going to last very long. Is everyone else seeing this too?
|
- #463 of 544
-
Re: Should GM take note? [dmathews3]
by michael2003
-
Jul 15, 2009 (6:00 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dmathews3 (Jul 15, 2009 4:29 am)
The only thing that would seem to make sense is for the generator to make sufficient electricity to power the car at highway speeds and still allow some energy to be put back into the battery at I would guess 1/2 speed.
|
- #464 of 544
-
Re: Should GM take note? [michael2003]
by dmathews3
-
Jul 15, 2009 (10:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: michael2003 (Jul 15, 2009 6:00 am)
In order to run at highway speeds this article said the gas engine would have to run at max in order to make enough electricity to power the car and none to recharge the battery. Now if that means running at max on most generators they are governed and always run at a certain RPM no matter what where as a couple I know of idle low and ramp up depending on how much juice is required and then they don't go over what the governed one do which is around 3600rpm's which wouldn't be bad. Whether it was a poorly written explanation or if it is the way I took it to be than that car won't last long and there will be a lot of people very unhappy with it. I'm hoping it is governed at a certain rpm no where near max engine speed so it will last a few hundred thousand miles.
|
- #465 of 544
-
Re: Should GM take note? [michael2003]
by gfr1
-
Jul 15, 2009 (7:41 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: michael2003 (Jul 15, 2009 6:00 am)
It sounds like you may have not read where GM has changed their philosophy while designing the Volt. It was to let the battery deplete and then crank the ICE for power to recharge the batteries. But, some time ago, they decided to let the battery run down to min voltage and then crank up the engine for motive power only!. This, I guess, will give the driver the incentive/requirement to minimize the ICE use and maximize the EV batt. only mode. I suppose that would maximize the EPA values, for advertisement and corporate mileage. But, I guess if you then have to go up a grade (think about taking an interstate out of LA, northbound!), it will likely be a 25 mph ride, sounding like a gas powered lawnmower, for an hour, or so! Also, it was originally thought to be a 500 total mile vehicle (per tank). Then it was to be a 400 mile vehicle. Now, I guess it probably won't be a 300 mile vehicle. I think the only in-motion battery regen. will be braking regen, and maybe for cost reduction, that might not happen either. -- GFR
|
- #466 of 544
-
Re: Should GM take note? [gfr1]
by dmathews3
-
Jul 16, 2009 (4:12 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: gfr1 (Jul 15, 2009 7:41 pm)
In other words it is going to be like everyone is saying a joke just like their first electric car.
|