Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
8452 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 11:27 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Sep 25, 2008 7:33 am) I know that if I shut off the engine while decelerating in gear, I won't get the smooth decel I get now leaving the engine running. It will lurch and jump as it rapidly comes to a stop. Or at least, I THINK I know that! 
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 25, 2008 8:24 am) ) they shut off the ICE at stop lights. Don't they shut down the ICE in town if you slow down to 30 mph or whatever and let the electric take over? I guess your method would work if you can juggle the ignition switch and the gearshift - and if you never need to accelerate away from a hazard quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Sep 25, 2008 8:51 am) I think I'd like 5 minutes of chat time with those Cobalt engineers too...
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 25, 2008 10:08 am) Maybe they'll show up at the Chat tonight (9 ET, 6PT). 
|
|
|
I think that my 2002 Seville would shut down fuel flow when going downhill with my foot off the gas. Proof that the fuel flow was at least near zero is that I had climbed up to an observation point near Mt. St. Helens, and then started back down after a period of time. The engine coolant temperature gauge showed the engine at near operating temperature before starting a long downhill grade. I put the car into second gear and coasted for some distance. The engine cooled off to the point that the temperature gauge showed the engine was getting cold. So one has to assume that there was no fire keeping it warm. I think that the primary fuel savings is from a different axle ratio for th Cobalt. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Sep 25, 2008 11:04 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
General Motors Corp. has reached agreement with U.S. regulators at a staff level that could result in the Chevrolet Volt range-extended electric vehicle receiving a 100-mile-per-gallon fuel economy rating, the company said. GM spokesman Dee Allen said the rating is far from set, stressing that what has been agreed to on a preliminary basis is that the Volt would be classified as an electric vehicle for the purpose of fuel-economy ratings. If that is made certain, he said, then the Volt, due out in November 2010, would likely receive a rating of 100 miles per gallon or better. So far this doesn't sit well with the EPA which considers the Volt a hybrid and expects it to complete the test cycle with a charged battery. GM and the feds have been going back and forth on this for months. Reports out this morning on Bloomberg and the Detroit Free Press indicated that GM and the EPA had reached an agreement that would potentially see the Volt as the first car classified with a 100 mpg rating are erroneous. We called spokesman Rob Peterson to get the scoop, and it turns out that GM has reached an agreement with the California Air Resources Board, (CARB) on a unique classification for the Volt. Peterson told ABG that this classification would reflect the Volt's true capability, essentially treating it as an EV. According to Peterson, "the classification helps us to optimize the Volt for what it does do, instead of being put into the category with a normal hybrid." This will potentially allow GM to run the Volt with the planned charge sustaining mode rather than having to run the engine to fully recharge the battery at the end of the test. The agreement with CARB gives GM a bargaining chip in its talks with the EPA, but Peterson cautions that the automaker and the federal agency "still have a long way to go" to finalize any agreement. The Volt may yet get that magic 100 mpg rating, but it's not there yet.
|
|
|
|
|
By Tom Murphy Sept. 26, 2008 From Detroit’s perspective, the 2008 presidential election is a referendum on the efficacy of government support for the auto industry, financed by the American taxpayer. Except for the historic rescue of Chrysler Corp. almost 30 years ago and its famous repayment of its government-guaranteed loans seven years early, U.S. auto makers have not sought handouts. But in times of crisis, the U.S. government has shown a willingness to shore up companies vital to the economy, as evidenced by the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street investment firms. For the auto industry, this too is a time of crisis, caused by a confluence of factors: having a truck-heavy mix when more fuel-efficient cars are becoming popular; funding health-care and pension benefits for several generations of employees; and plunging vehicle sales due to recession-like conditions making credit less available and hurting consumer confidence. Against the backdrop of an election year, Washington is aiming to help in the form of low-interest loans worth $25 billion to auto makers and suppliers to finance the development of more-advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles, as well as the retooling of plants to produce them. Detroit auto makers contend the money is necessary to help them achieve the corporate average fuel economy of 35 mpg (6.7 L/100 km) by 2020, as mandated by the federal energy act signed into law last December. The low-cost loans were promised – but not allocated – as part of the legislation. In other parts of the world, governments routinely help their domestic auto industries with tax breaks, reimbursement for research and development, worker training funds and – perhaps most significantly – state-sponsored health care. “It would be hard to find a country that has less of a broad infrastructure to support the auto industry than the U.S.,” says labor and manufacturing expert Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley. “I think many of the countries we compete with in automotive have a more significant investment in worker training, in broader forms of technical training. “Certainly Germany and Japan do,” Shaiken tells Ward’s. “Beyond that, I think there is a broader understanding of the importance of a manufacturing base to the health of an economy.” In the U.S., the broadest indirect taxpayer support for the auto industry came with the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s, a massive federal program that boosted commerce, lengthened commutes, spawned modern suburbs and fueled a spirit of freedom and mobility enabled by affordable American cars. Since then, industry observers point to the successful Chrysler bailout 28 years ago as the last time Washington really helped Detroit. Today, many in Washington treat the domestic auto industry with the same kind of disdain they reserve for the Tobacco industry, and many U.S. industry executives view the federal government not as an ally but as a generator of politically motivated regulations that are expensive and unrealistic. Most other industrialized countries are far more supportive of their automotive sector. In France, automotive represents the second-largest industry, behind agriculture, and both sectors enjoy the same level of state support, the maximum allowed under European rules. As a rule, the European Union limits government investment to regions with high unemployment, which makes entire countries in Eastern and Central Europe eligible. But France, as with Germany and the U.K., has areas of high unemployment where up to 15% of a major investment can come from a mix of federal, regional and local governments and can include exoneration from certain taxes. For small companies, government support can represent up to 35% of revenues. The French government solidly supports research and development within the auto industry, particularly through a new tax-credit system that reimburses 50% of R&D costs in the first year. Philippe Favre, president of the Invest in France agency, calls it “the best R&D tax-credit system in Europe.” In specific industries such as automotive, France organized three years ago what it calls “competitiveness clusters” to group companies, universities and research centers in a geographical area, encouraging them to collaborate on research projects that then get funding from the minister of the interior. Since then, the Mov’eo transportation cluster has created 45 funded projects representing E160 million ($234 million) of research investment that involve 109 large companies, 31 small firms and 147 research centers. Although the Japanese government’s role in funding R&D remains small, several government agencies support research in such fields as safety, sensors, clean diesels and recycling. Their efforts receive support from affiliated organizations such as the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organizations or the Japan Petroleum Energy Center, both of which focus on alternative fuels. Although Japanese auto makers collaborate with these organizations in various research projects, the companies themselves conduct most automotive R&D. Michael Flynn studied the Japanese automotive market in the 1980s during his 18 years at the University of Michigan’s Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation. He retired in 2005. Flynn says the Japanese auto industry now outshines the rest of the world on the R&D front, which he attributes to the cultural view that, when it comes to research, many heads are better than one. “Cooperative research is much more characteristic of the Japanese economy, in general,” he says. “The government is more tolerant of things that, for us, would verge on antitrust issues. In Japan, they are seen as reasonable, rational cooperative efforts.” Earlier this year, Jim Press, a former senior executive with Toyota in North America and now vice chairman at Chrysler LLC, told BusinessWeek the Japanese government funded development of the enormously successful Prius hybrid-electric drivetrain. Toyota called Press’ comments “inaccurate,” insisting it had developed the Prius entirely on its own. Perhaps in response to joint-research efforts in other parts of the world, the U.S. auto industry appears to be following suit with organizations such as the U.S. Council for Automotive Research. USCAR is an umbrella organization for collaborative research by General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler. Its U.S. Advanced Battery Conso |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Sep 26, 2008 1:26 pm) Clearly the EPA does not know how to deal with this.
|
|
|
link As what makes sense to me, when the Volt's engine is running, what power is not used by the electric drive will recharge the battery. However, this will be slow. read the link for more info.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
