Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Will people pay $40,000 for a Volt?

1 2 3 4 5 6

June 7, 2009 8:55 a.m. Jensenman MegaDork

Assuming that the performance really degrades that badly when the onboard engine takes over: $40k for a car I have to leave at home when I take the kid to see Gramma? Um, not gonna happen. (Not that I would buy a $40k car in the first place. Sure, I could buy one but like Toyman said what's the point?)

Here's GM's description of what happens at the 'customer depletion point': http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/25/what-happens-in-the-chevy-volt-past-the-customer-dep... They note that the main battery pack will still be reqired for 'high draw' situations like hills etc but do not address the performance degradation issue. Performance degradation doen't necessarily have to happen; a good example is diesel locomotives which are actually diesel-electric. But with current technology it's pretty hard to adapt that useably to passenger car use when the main idea is to quit burning fuels altogether.

Toyota and Honda both have produced something truly useable by the vast populace with their hybrids, i.e. something you can drive to work all electric during the week (IIRC the Prius' full electric range is something like 35 miles) and then drive 100 miles to Grammas' house on Sunday without having to swap to a second car with all the associated purchase, maintenance, insurance, tax, storage etc costs. And because of this they are going to eat GM's lunch- again. We can argue over full electrics vs hybrids and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin all we want but them's the facts.

The way it's going and assuming the performance degradation is real, the Volt will wind up as an automotive curiosity much like the EV1. (ducks rocks and bricks etc.) And that's a shame.
June 7, 2009 9:10 a.m. Strizzo Dork

RE: Toyman

iirc, GM is also working on high efficiency gas/diesel engines as well. i think i read somewhere about them working on a part-time gas compression ignition engine. basically under light loads it would switch over to CI to boost efficiency. i think some mag drove a caddilac with one. merc is also working on one as well i think.
June 7, 2009 5:40 p.m. alfadriver HalfDork

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Our retarded emissions laws are a big reason we don't get better stuff. At some point, you can either get cleaner or more efficient. We picked cleaner.

One thing that bothers me is that emissions are measured in parts-per-million instead of parts-per-mile. If it was parts-per-mile, then a car that got better mileage could get worse emissions and still pass. As long as it's parts-per-million, there is no incentive to get better mileage.

I'll start with this one. The standard is measured in grams per mile for the US and Canada; and grams per kilimometer everywhere else. I'm quite sure that the new CO2 rules will also be grams per mile. Or at least the corporate average will be in g/mi.

Where we've really (really) traded off is more efficent vs. power. Realistically, we loose very little power and fuel economy for the emissions EXCEPT for two technologies- diesel and lean burn. Ok- some rather heavy hitters.

The US still continues to lead the world in terms of emission controls that are relative to human, animal, and plant health- HC (measured in Non Methane Organic Gasses), NOx, and CO. Looking at the Euro VI rules that fully get into cars in 2016, they will get pretty close to the US Tier II Bin 5/4/ ULEVII. The problem is by 2014, we will be Tier III and LEVIII. California is still cleaner (for the most part) than the federal standards- but they have a couple fewer tests.

(very side note- if we could agree to a single fuel standard in the US, it would be a lot better).

Canada is pretty much US standards. They tied with EPA a number of years ago, but I can't recall when that was- it's why you don't see the more exotic cars there anymore....

One editorial- being an avid traveller, and visting a handful of the large metro areas in Europe, I'm quite happy with the choice the US made.

BTW, Jensen- don't forget that Ford has some reasonable hybrids, and GM has a couple as well, too. It's not just Toyota and Honda. For that matter, we are pretty proud of our Fusion that gets 6 mpg better on the highway than the Camry hybrid.

Eric
June 8, 2009 6:17 a.m. Jensenman MegaDork

You are right, I skipped over the Ford and GM hybrids. Even so, it appears they will be more 'useful' (for lack of a better word, it's early!) than the Volt.
June 8, 2009 10:14 a.m. aircooled SuperDork

The description of the "depletion point" of the volt is interesting. It seems kind of crazy that after 30 miles you are using the engine to generate electricity to move the electric motors. This seems really inefficient, especially when you consider you could be driving the wheels directly. I wonder how this approach with stack up against hybrids in regards to fuel economy.

They state that the engine really isn't there to recharge the batteries. So would that mean that the batteries would never fully recharge unless you plugged it in?
June 8, 2009 10:46 a.m. DILYSI Dave UltimaDork

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Our retarded emissions laws are a big reason we don't get better stuff. At some point, you can either get cleaner or more efficient. We picked cleaner.

One thing that bothers me is that emissions are measured in parts-per-million instead of parts-per-mile. If it was parts-per-mile, then a car that got better mileage could get worse emissions and still pass. As long as it's parts-per-million, there is no incentive to get better mileage.

I'll start with this one. The standard is measured in grams per mile for the US and Canada; and grams per kilimometer everywhere else. I'm quite sure that the new CO2 rules will also be grams per mile. Or at least the corporate average will be in g/mi.

That makes me happy. Perhaps it is only the Georgia emissions test that is retarded. It definitely measures parts-per-million.
June 8, 2009 11:02 a.m. alfadriver HalfDork

DILYSI Dave wrote:

That makes me happy. Perhaps it is only the Georgia emissions test that is retarded. It definitely measures parts-per-million.

Most of the inspection sites measure ppm- you are not the first to confuse them.... It's been only within the last 5-10 years that the California states measure g/mi on an rolling inspection. So it's ok...

E-
June 8, 2009 11:07 a.m. alfadriver HalfDork

aircooled wrote:

The description of the "depletion point" of the volt is interesting. It seems kind of crazy that after 30 miles you are using the engine to generate electricity to move the electric motors. This seems really inefficient, especially when you consider you could be driving the wheels directly. I wonder how this approach with stack up against hybrids in regards to fuel economy.

They state that the engine really isn't there to recharge the batteries. So would that mean that the batteries would never fully recharge unless you plugged it in?

I'm not so sure about that- while there will be losses between the engine-generator-motor, the fact that the enigne has to be so flexible makes some of the direct drive not so efficient, too. OTOH, you might be able to more than make up for the driveline losses by operating at a fixed point or very limited range.

What's the rated power for the engine, BTW?

E-
June 8, 2009 11:26 a.m. alfadriver HalfDork

Looking at the specs on line, it appears that the generator engine will be between 60-70hp. Which will make it capable of running up a hill, fully loaded with a little degridation.

fox- I'm not sure where you get the assertion that the car will basically run out of power running on the gas generator just driving on a flat road- can you find a link to that?

Most of the data I've seen, it takes about 15 hp on a large car to move 50 mph, or about 25-30 at 70mph. So it's not crazy to think that one can maintain 30% charge and keep driving at highway speeds.

Of course, to be "ideal"- the market is pretty small. But in this day and age, there's little difference between a Volt and a Vette- both capture part of the public's attention, neither will tear up the market place- but both have a place to sell, and generate attention.

Any positive attention GM can get at this point isn't a bad thing.

Eric
June 8, 2009 11:29 a.m. DILYSI Dave UltimaDork

alfadriver wrote:

aircooled wrote:

The description of the "depletion point" of the volt is interesting. It seems kind of crazy that after 30 miles you are using the engine to generate electricity to move the electric motors. This seems really inefficient, especially when you consider you could be driving the wheels directly. I wonder how this approach with stack up against hybrids in regards to fuel economy.

They state that the engine really isn't there to recharge the batteries. So would that mean that the batteries would never fully recharge unless you plugged it in?

I'm not so sure about that- while there will be losses between the engine-generator-motor, the fact that the enigne has to be so flexible makes some of the direct drive not so efficient, too. OTOH, you might be able to more than make up for the driveline losses by operating at a fixed point or very limited range.

What's the rated power for the engine, BTW?

E-

That was my thought as well. The wide operating envelope of a conventional drivetrain has to lead to losses that could be eliminated in a fixed RPM engine. For instance, a fixed 3000 RPM engine doesn't need valve springs that can control valves at 7000 RPM, the way a conventional drivetrain does.
June 8, 2009 11:38 a.m. John Brown MegaDork

People that say fixed RPM engines can't generate enough power at speed have never seen a diesel locomotive operate.
June 8, 2009 12:05 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork

So most of the time you operate on a cheaper fuel source with a motor controller system that has double the efficiency of a typical ICE. When greater range is needed you then run on electricity (and charge your batteries with electricity) provided by a generator powered by an ICE running at its most efficient RPM. Cost is currently an issue, but the technology is sound.
June 8, 2009 1:20 p.m. Jensenman MegaDork

aircooled wrote:

The description of the "depletion point" of the volt is interesting. It seems kind of crazy that after 30 miles you are using the engine to generate electricity to move the electric motors. This seems really inefficient, especially when you consider you could be driving the wheels directly. I wonder how this approach with stack up against hybrids in regards to fuel economy.

That's what I was thinking. Losses through friction, resistance and heat would add up pretty quick.

aircooled wrote: They state that the engine really isn't there to recharge the batteries. So would that mean that the batteries would never fully recharge unless you plugged it in?

Which brings us back to impracticality. I'm going to use my family as an example, my grandmother lives ~130 miles from me. She lives in a hilly part of the state.

So let's look at the average trip to Grandma's. By the time I make 45 miles from my house to the I-26/I-95 interchange, the battery will be around the 30% charge level and the ICE will have kicked in. I'm still on flat ground, so that's not a big deal. About 35 miles further, I'm in the big hills and the battery has to kick in to assist with climbing those hills. The hills continue in one form or another for another 50 miles, meaning more and more gets sucked out of the battery. I'm not at all sure the ICE/gennie combo will generate enough juice to get us up and down those hills and also keep the battery at the aforementioned 30% state of charge. So I now have a $40,000 driveway ornament/curiosity.

The 'conventional' hybrids can be driven under the conditions I describe without worrying about the batteries dying. Maybe they aren't the best from the 'pure electric' standpoint, but from the 'utility for the average goober' POV I'll have to assume they will work better.
June 8, 2009 1:38 p.m. alfadriver HalfDork

Jensenman wrote:

So let's look at the average trip to Grandma's. By the time I make 45 miles from my house to the I-26/I-95 interchange, the battery will be around the 30% charge level and the ICE will have kicked in. I'm still on flat ground, so that's not a big deal. About 35 miles further, I'm in the big hills and the battery has to kick in to assist with climbing those hills. The hills continue in one form or another for another 50 miles, meaning more and more gets sucked out of the battery. I'm not at all sure the ICE/gennie combo will generate enough juice to get us up and down those hills and also keep the battery at the aforementioned 30% state of charge. So I now have a $40,000 driveway ornament/curiosity.

The 'conventional' hybrids can be driven under the conditions I describe without worrying about the batteries dying. Maybe they aren't the best from the 'pure electric' standpoint, but from the 'utility for the average goober' POV I'll have to assume they will work better.

I totally see your point, but I really have a tough time seeing GM make a car like this that isn't capable of driving anywhere, anytime, and marketing it in the US. At least the EV1 was restricted to a specific market in California. But it appears that the Volt isn't at all.

That, and I suspect that the engine will be powerful enough to maintain speed up the worst of grades. I've driven some of the real killer grades we are supposed to have no problems on- one of the worst being the drive up Mt. Evans in Colorado- start from 5000 ft in Denver, finish at 14,000 ft at the top- so both a grade and power sapping altitude (at least for the generator).

Anyway- I would be stunned if a headlining tech car wasn't capable of the normal requirements to make a car.

Eric
June 8, 2009 2:09 p.m. Jensenman MegaDork

So would I. It would be a shame to see GM fall flat on their faces with this one.
June 8, 2009 2:55 p.m. TJ Reader

Jensenman wrote:

So would I. It would be a shame to see GM fall flat on their faces with this one.

would = will?
June 8, 2009 6:10 p.m. RX Reven' Reader

Hello J-E-N-S-E-N-M-A-N…this is the automated OnStar system…our SmartSat GPS algorithm has determined that you’re heading to G-R-A-N-D-M-A’s house…we’ve informed her that you’re going to be really late...please press “5” to hear her recorded reply…"5"...Jensenman, is that you…hello…Jensenman!...you didn’t buy one of those &%#$@ Volts did you…you’d better not be late and spoil the nice meal I made for everybody…hello........................
June 8, 2009 7:31 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork

Jensenman wrote:

The 'conventional' hybrids can be driven under the conditions I describe without worrying about the batteries dying. Maybe they aren't the best from the 'pure electric' standpoint, but from the 'utility for the average goober' POV I'll have to assume they will work better.

The average goober drives waay less daily than you describe. The average goober in fact drives less than 40 miles per day making the Volt the most efficient car most of the time. They made them able to perform adequately on the long trips by having an excessively large generator. You have to come up with a lot of friction, etc... to turn 70hp into the 15hp required to maintain highway speeds. All excess horsepower is going to gain battery charge allowing you to perform just fine up the hills. At least that seems like the plan.
June 8, 2009 7:33 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork

You are all nuts if you think you can drive 35 miles electric on a prius charge. The prius pack has something like 4 miles range.
June 8, 2009 7:33 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork

Hmmm, double post.
June 8, 2009 10:21 p.m. Wally UberDork

From what I read the Volt is a hybrid like any other, the differences being the ability to plug it in, increasing it's mileage, and that the wheels are only driven by electric. This is not a new concept. It's been done on trains and ships for a century and seems to work well, even in the mountains.
June 9, 2009 1:13 p.m. Chris_V SuperDork

Jensenman is doing the exact thing I always rant about here: if a car isn't 100% perfect for 100% of the motoring public (so far 190 million strong) then it's 100% garbage that no one should consider producing.

Stop it.

You want to go to grandma's house all the time, you buy a different effin' car, just like if you want to tow a horse trailer all the time you don't buy a GD Miata.

I have a 14 mile round trip commute. For me, I could commute pretty much all week without ever firing up the Volt's gas engine. in fact, with the Volt, I could probably commute for a month on less than $5 gasoline, even at current rates. If i drove carefully (and if the estimated range is anything like the EV1s) I could probably commute all month without ever using the gas engine.

The only thing that would really be an improvement on the Volt is that the engine should probably be a small diesel, but it's probably too hard to instantly start one when needed like a spark engine can be.

BTW, I saw a Tesla roadster with MD plates on it this week on the Baltimore beltway in rush hour traffic. now there's a cool commuter.
June 9, 2009 1:17 p.m. John Brown MegaDork

Isn't there a clean burn Yan Mar (or similar) 1.0L diesel that runs a lot of those large garden tractors?

It seems like a great starting point.
June 9, 2009 1:32 p.m. Chris_V SuperDork

Like I said, a diesel might be great for constant running, but it might be an issue if it has to fire up instantly, occasionally, for short periods of time to charge the batteries.
June 9, 2009 1:51 p.m. poopshovel SuperDork

BTW, I saw a Tesla roadster with MD plates on it this week on the Baltimore beltway in rush hour traffic. now there's a cool commuter.

I agree. And this ain't half bad lookin' either...especially at (supposedly) half the price of the roadster (scroll left to the "model S")

http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php

1 2 3 4 5 6

You'll need to log in to post.