Article Comments - 2011 Chevrolet Volt First Look

46 messages, Last post on Oct 22, 2008 at 4:38 AM

You are in the Chevrolet Volt Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Volt, Electric Cars, Future Vehicle, Sedan

2011 Chevrolet Volt First Look - The 2011 Chevrolet Volt is both more conventional than you might have been lead to believe and quite a bit more advanced than most potential buyers will know. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 4 of 6: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; Prev; Next; Last

#23 of 46 Re: not sure it makes sense [kurtamaxxxguy] by tpe Sep 25, 2008 (12:30 pm)
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Sep 25, 2008 12:09 pm) The Volt being able to charge itself makes zero sense. Would you ever consider plugging the Volt into a portable gas generator to recharge? Hopefully not. So why would anyone want the onboard generator to do this? I just can't understand all this dissapointment I'm hearing over the Volt not being able to recharge itself. Exactly what benefit would that provide? Replies to this message: larsb (Sep 25, 2008 12:34 pm) tpe (Sep 25, 2008 2:32 pm) coldcranker (Sep 25, 2008 5:58 pm) eaton53 (Sep 26, 2008 1:53 pm)
#24 of 46 Re: not sure it makes sense [tpe] by larsb Sep 25, 2008 (12:34 pm)
Replying to: tpe (Sep 25, 2008 12:30 pm) Am I missing something? I thought EVERYONE (at least at Edmunds who is following the Volt) knows that the on-board engine in the Volt is ONLY THERE TO CHARGE THE BATTERY. It serves no other purpose. It does not drive the wheels. It will be powering no accessories. It's just an on-board electricity generator for the batteries which power the electric motor. Replies to this message: tpe (Sep 25, 2008 2:32 pm) coldcranker (Sep 25, 2008 5:58 pm) eaton53 (Sep 26, 2008 1:53 pm)
#25 of 46 Re: not sure it makes sense [larsb] by tpe Sep 25, 2008 (2:32 pm)
Replying to: larsb (Sep 25, 2008 12:34 pm) I was under the same misconception. It turns out the ICE generator will directly power the electric motor with some power being used to maintain the battery pack at a 30% state of charge. I was glad to hear this but apparently some people are upset because they feel like they've been misled. I wonder if these people would be upset if GM came out and said that contrary to their initial statements claiming a 40 mile all electric range it now looks like this range will be 50 miles? Basically this new information represents a significant improvement over what people like myself originally believed.
#26 of 46 Re: not sure it makes sense [larsb] by coldcranker Sep 25, 2008 (5:58 pm)
Replying to: larsb (Sep 25, 2008 12:34 pm) larsb, As other posters on this and the other Volt forum have mentioned, this GM strategy to prevent the engine from doing much charging of the batteries may be a good thing once you think about it. It was pointed out that charging and discharging the battery is only about 50% efficient (a lot of waste heat). Therefore, let the utility companies charge the battery up each night, and then let the engine just feed amps to the electric motor directly, with only a small amount of charge going to keep the batteries least 30% charge, with some help from regenerative braking. The other discussion I've had is interesting from a fuel economy point of view: Will the engine get to run most of the time at/near optimum load/RPM? If the batteries, once depleted, can muster enough juice to give the electric motor an occasional boost, then the engine would be free to just provide a more steady flow of amps to the motor (similar to hydraulic hybrids), and can stay near optimal load/RPM. That may not be the case, so the engine may be throttled up and down as the electric motor demands more or less power. Thats why I was saying that we can view the generator/motor combo has an inefficient (80%) "transmission", since it performs the same function as a conventional transmission, to get the power from the engine to the wheels. If you run a 1.4L engine through an 80% efficient transmission, then you'll get about 30 MPG on the highway with this 3300 lb Volt. Replies to this message: eaton53 (Sep 26, 2008 1:53 pm)
#27 of 46 Re: not sure it makes sense [coldcranker] by eaton53 Sep 26, 2008 (1:53 pm)
Replying to: coldcranker (Sep 25, 2008 5:58 pm) "If you run a 1.4L engine through an 80% efficient transmission, then you'll get about 30 MPG on the highway with this 3300 lb Volt." GM is saying 50 mpg. We'll find out when the EPA numbers come out, because their test requires a depleted battery, although the final test methodology is still being discussed.
#28 of 46 it's own library by larsb Sep 26, 2008 (2:26 pm)
Concerning the EPA test I wonder how this will play out. Very interesting. Ever since the Chevrolet Volt appeared as a concept last year, debate has been hot and heavy over exactly what it is. Although many call it a hybrid because it has a battery and an engine, GM prefers to call it an extended range-electric vehicle (ER-EV). That poses a problem for GM when it comes to emissions and fuel economy testing. With its 40 mile electric only range the Volt could complete the US06 test cycle that is part of the current EPA test regimen without ever running its engine. 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.
#29 of 46 Re: Still wondering [larsb] by kdhspyder Sep 26, 2008 (3:18 pm)
Replying to: larsb (Sep 24, 2008 10:25 am) There are several good discussions over at GMI by a lot of people, several of which I'm sure are currently working on the Volt and/or were consulted on it. There's very very detailed explanations. What is known as of today: The EPA apparently agreed to give the Volt a 100 mpg rating !!! ( larsb's post avbove ). The Volt will charge on a 120 outlet in about 8 hrs, or in about 4 hrs on a 240. The Volt will be able to go about 40 miles gas-free on a full charge. After 40 miles of gas-free driving, in perfect conditions, with only the driver, on dead flat terrain the battey will stop charging the e-motor. At that point the battery will reach its lowest allowed SOC at about 30% ( like the Prius ) At which time the ICE ( gas or E85 ) will kick in and charge the battery to keep it near the minimum charge +some 'buffer' SOC. The battery can be charged somewhat by regen braking. There is NO point in fully recharging the battery using expensive gasoline when inexpensive electricity will do the same function. The ICE will drive the vehicle and charge the battery after the 40 mi gas-free period is finished. Depending on the size of the fuel tank the vehicle might be able to go 200-400 miles before running out of gas like any other car. Before that happens it might be wise to fill up and continue on. The vehicle can drive from NY to LA to NY to LA to etc indefinitely just by filling up with gas or E85 when the 'E' light comes on. Oh...the vehicle is likely to be offered at about $40000 !!! less a $7500 Tax Credit ( Senate bill yesterday ). Of course as many have found the ugly head of AMT may rise up and gulp the entire credit.
#30 of 46 Re: Still wondering [larsb] by kdhspyder Sep 26, 2008 (3:35 pm)
Replying to: larsb (Sep 24, 2008 12:06 pm) In addition to the obvious total economic cost you correctly noted the other is that it's a 4-door 4-seater - MAX. The huge Li-Ion pack takes up the space between the two back seats. In outside dimensions if's about the size of a Corolla/Civic. For my mega-miling commutes neither the Volt nor the Prius PHEV makes much sense without an charging infrastructure in place such as tpe suggests. 40 miles gas-free would save me about 25% of my annual gas bill plus then the cost of electricity. If the cost is anywhere north of $30000 net, after Tax Credit, it's not a good buy for me at this time. Replies to this message: coldcranker (Sep 26, 2008 5:02 pm) kdhspyder (Sep 26, 2008 6:59 pm) coldcranker (Sep 27, 2008 5:40 am) and 1 more... tpe (Sep 29, 2008 10:26 am)
#31 of 46 Re: Still wondering [kdhspyder] by coldcranker Sep 26, 2008 (5:02 pm)
Replying to: kdhspyder (Sep 26, 2008 3:35 pm) "In outside dimensions if's about the size of a Corolla/Civic." The Volt is going to be much wider than those cars. Gives it more stability and a better look. Two inches wider than the Prius, and also 2 inches longer. Replies to this message: kdhspyder (Sep 26, 2008 6:59 pm) coldcranker (Sep 27, 2008 5:40 am) kdhspyder (Sep 27, 2008 7:58 am)
#32 of 46 Re: Still wondering [coldcranker] by kdhspyder Sep 26, 2008 (6:59 pm)
Replying to: coldcranker (Sep 26, 2008 5:02 pm) I will repeat my former statement... "In outside dimensions if's about the size of a Corolla/Civic." Volt outside dimensions as per GM's press release 177.0" OAL 70.8" OAW 56.3" OAH From Edmunds herein on the Corolla outside dimensions 178.7" OAL 69.3" OAW 57.7" OAH Thus.............. The Volt is about an inch and a half shorter an inch and a half wider an inch and a half lower In other words "In outside dimensions if's about the size of a Corolla/Civic." Replies to this message: coldcranker (Sep 27, 2008 5:40 am) kdhspyder (Sep 27, 2008 7:58 am)