I told my business partners we had to buy a Veyron because when they first came out, VW was losing almost a million dollars on each one. The deal of a century!
I told my business partners we had to buy a Veyron because when they first came out, VW was losing almost a million dollars on each one. The deal of a century!
I really like the concept of the Volt a lot. It's the first electric/hybrid design I thought was worth a E36 M3. If all things were equal and money wasn't a deciding factor, I would buy one of these over a Leaf or Prius any day.
If GM is losing there ass on these, I hope they can figure it out finically. Tax payers better not end up on the hook unless it is infrastructure related.
This might not be right....
I thought the only real difference between the VOLT drivetrain and the Prius drivetrain was where the engines power was hooked in. They still have similar engines. They have similar motors. They have similar transmissions as far as I can tell. The only difference is the way the planetary gears work in the transmission and how the engine is hooked up to them.
I might be WAY wrong on this.
Also, this is something I always wondered about hybrids....
If a gasoline engine is 80% efficient (it isnt) and it is used to power the wheels of the car, negating drivetrain losses, you have a 80% efficient system.
If you take a 90% efficient engine and use it to charge batteries that have a charging efficiency of 90%, you have 81% efficient system. Then you discharge that battery (90% discharge efficiency) to a electic motor that is 95% efficient. At this point, you have the power applied at the same point, but now have a 69.25% efficient system.
Does regen braking REALLY make up the difference?
I just dont understand how you can take the exact same starting energy, convert it to mechanical motion, convert it to chemical energy, convert it to mechanical motion (Hybrid) and be more efficient than taking energy and turning it into mechanical motion (Standard type vehicle).
Can somebody explain this to me?
Thanks,
Rob R.
Eh... wasn't the Volt developed by "Old GM"... thus the division that went bankrupt?
Thereby which all developement sunk costs essentially went "poof" and they're now allowed to still write off the loss carryforwards.
I can't imagine physically constructing the car in a bubble outside of all R&D costs is that upside down.
They're likely making money when viewed from the post bankruptcy "free development" perspective vs. the editorialized viewpoint of accounting.
Simply put, GM can't seem to market the Volt properly Seen the ads for it vs the ads for their trucks vs the ads for say, the ATS?
If you can't get buts in seats, you can't sell cars. Chevy dealerships don't know how to sell them, either.
let me put it this way, I had a car that I was spending $300 a month on, and got 15 mpg on the commute. I replaced it with a Volt, and spend a bit more per month ($350) but my insurance dropped by $30 a month, my gas biull droppd by $200 a month, and my electricity bill has yet to go up (I calculated $20 a month for the Volt's charging, but so far, in a couple months, we've seen no increase from it). My net operating costs over another fairly new car are saving me money vs what I was spending before. AND I get a more luxurious car that feels as quick (all 280 lb ft of torque is available right from "idle") handles good, is high tech, and allows me the good feeling of commuting and errand running using no gasoline whatsoever (save the gas for the toy cars). Compared to a car like a GTI or Accord or Camry equally optioned out, and there is a net savings running a Volt.
Yes, you can save MORE money by buying a $1500 used car and runing it into the ground. So effin' what? Lets at least compare fairly similar purchases.
the Volt was Lutz baby back in 2006. he was it's "creator" and it's champion inside GM (they didnt' want to build it originally) and to the public. Withouthim there, it's not surpriing that it's being left to shrivel up. But it's really a well built car that points the way to the future.
BTW, no the gas generator is only used sparingly, and in most cases is not used at all. Diesel would have cost more AND polluted more (or if it didn't pollute more, woudl ahve cost even more). Diesel hates to be cold started and shut down like the gasser is in the Volt.
Even if the money doesn't add up I'm still glad they built it, at least we know what it can do. Not many people complaining about the car itself... just the money side.
I have a friend who is an engineer for GM at the Corvette plant and he got one for his commute, he likes it, but in the end, it is just a car.
Toyota understood that with the Prius. They were financially stable enough to take the hit,
after hit,
after hit until the car is now able to turn a profit on it's own. It took years of losses to cover it and a volume that puts it as the #3 best selling car in the world to get there.
I openly admit to never being a GM fan, but they do make some very good products, but it appears to me that for everyone they hit out of the park, they do something so devastatingly boneheaded it makes you wonder how they had a success at all. (This is not a debate, I will not defend this point as I am not trying to thread jack.) People are still pissed at GM for taking the bailout, feel sorry for Chrysler because they got given away to Fiat, and are buying Fords because they didn't.
The Volt is a $32K hybrid car (engine is connected to the wheels, like a Prius, the engine is not a generator as originally promised, like a Fisker) being built for $90K in a $23K (Prius MSRP) market. I would put this one in the bonehead category and unless they have a long term plan like Toyota, the Volt will die very soon.
Well, any car doesn't bring back it's R&D costs until well into it's production cycle, from the Volt to the Silverado. Right now, GM is still "losing money" on every ATS sold, and will until the tooling and R&D is amortized. But no one is bitching about that because it's not politicized like the Volt.
Ford is still losing money on the new Fusion and the new F150. And will until the tooling and R&D is amortized. It'll take less time because they sell more of them (and market the crap out of them) but they still lose money on the first tens of thousands built. But no one bitches about that because they don't have the political stigma that GM has.
wvumtnbkr wrote: This might not be right.... I thought the only real difference between the VOLT drivetrain and the Prius drivetrain was where the engines power was hooked in. They still have similar engines. They have similar motors. They have similar transmissions as far as I can tell. The only difference is the way the planetary gears work in the transmission and how the engine is hooked up to them. I might be WAY wrong on this. Also, this is something I always wondered about hybrids.... If a gasoline engine is 80% efficient (it isnt) and it is used to power the wheels of the car, negating drivetrain losses, you have a 80% efficient system. If you take a 90% efficient engine and use it to charge batteries that have a charging efficiency of 90%, you have 81% efficient system. Then you discharge that battery (90% discharge efficiency) to a electic motor that is 95% efficient. At this point, you have the power applied at the same point, but now have a 69.25% efficient system. Does regen braking REALLY make up the difference? I just dont understand how you can take the exact same starting energy, convert it to mechanical motion, convert it to chemical energy, convert it to mechanical motion (Hybrid) and be more efficient than taking energy and turning it into mechanical motion (Standard type vehicle). Can somebody explain this to me? Thanks, Rob R.
Gas engines are much, much less efficient than the electric batteries and motors, so some of your difference is right there.
But the main bump comes from how the gas engine operates. A gas engine's efficiency is constantly changing based on load and speed, and by essentially "disconnecting" it from the constantly changing rest of the car (think stop and go traffic), it can always operate at peak efficiency to charge batteries. This same principle is what has pushed automakers towards ludicrous numbers of transmission gear ratios. Here's a random chart I googled; I know nothing of its credibility or source.
Yeah, but doesn't this Volt thing still have the gas motor mechanically connected to the transmission?
IIRC yes, but only at a certain set speed where it happened to be more efficient to directly drive the wheels. At all other times it isn't mechanically connected at all.
http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/11/motor-trend-explains-the-volts-powertrain/
In reply to Dr. Hess:
If I understand correctly, the gas engine can drive the generator and trans simultaneously or individually, or just shut down and decouple completely when not needed.
wvumtnbkr wrote: This might not be right.... I thought the only real difference between the VOLT drivetrain and the Prius drivetrain was where the engines power was hooked in.
The Volt is like this:
You plug it in at night, and/or at work.
If the battery runs low while you're out, the engine will start in order to generate electricity. It is not required for day to day operation. The car is a range extended electric, not what is traditionally called a hybrid.
IIRC, there's an algorithm in the computer to start the engine at least once per month to get the fluids moving and such. You literally could drive over a year without having to add fuel.
At the rate I drive, I could buy a Volt just in the fuel savings, assuming that I could get free juice from work, like so many plug-in people do. That's not really "free" so much as "fringe benefit", though.
Knurled wrote: If the battery runs low while you're out, the engine will start in order to generate electricity. It is not required for day to day operation. The car is a range extended electric, not what is traditionally called a hybrid.
or for required acceleration, or above a set speed.
So how is that different than a prius with a battery charger?
What GM did was build what Toyota has had in Europe for years. The power route is different through the transmission and the controls in the ECU is very smooth, but I do not see any revelations there in the form of configuration.
I've driven at over 80 mph without the gas generator kicking in. The "set speed" is closer to 100 mph, or over 70 IF the battery range is already depleted to zero.
But for real world applications, the gas engine IS just a generator and never actually drives the wheels. For example, I have run mine in "hold mode" on the highway (a new feature for the '13 cars) which allows me to run the car on pure electric at low speeds on surface streets, then run the gas generator to maintain charge at whatever level that is on the highway (for example leaving 30+ miles showing on the range meter), then go back to normal mode when coming off the highway back onto surface streets. Doing this runs the gas generator at it's most efficient (I'm getting around 60 mpg highway doing this and well into the hundreds of MPG total) AND it still never drives the wheels directly! It'll charge up the batteries a bit, then when it has enough charge, it'll actually shut down and use up that extra charge for a while, then kick back in to charge back up. I'm fully convinced that on a long road trip, and algorithm COULD be written to charge the batteries back to full while driving.
Seriously, I live with one of these on a daily basis. Any questions on how it operates, just ask. Too much speculation by non-owners in this thread.
This is not just an algorithm away from being a Prius. It simply is not. the tech is much more advanced. It's a lithium ion battery EV with about 45-55 miles of range with a gas generator backup, that the gas generator ONLY helps drive the wheels in a couple EXTREME situations, that the normal owner will never EVER experience.
Chris_V wrote: AND it still never drives the wheels directly! It'll charge up the batteries a bit, then when it has enough charge, it'll actually shut down and use up that extra charge for a while, then kick back in to charge back up. I'm fully convinced that on a long road trip, and algorithm COULD be written to charge the batteries back to full while driving.
I think I finally get it. It's like the thermostat on a HVAC system. When requirements are right, the machine switches on, when they're not, the machine switches off (other than the 'emergency' mode you mentioned, of course).
Now I see what the fuss is about, it sounds absolutely brilliant.
In reply to Chris_V:
Your information contradicts what the current GM Engineer is experiencing. I am telling you what the GM Engineer is telling me about his experience with the car. Feel free to take it anyway you want and argue it all you like, I will trust him.
Chris_V wrote: Seriously, I live with one of these on a daily basis. Any questions on how it operates, just ask. Too much speculation by non-owners in this thread.
I want to know what Chevy dealer sold you this car, I want to recommend he go to corporate and teach them how to sell it.
Flight Service wrote: or for required acceleration,
No it doesn't, and that's what makes it unique.
I still say it would have been much btter to either offer a 1l diesel or 1l petrol engine in the thing instead of that massive generator that's in there. Would have saved weight as well. They tarteed training me on the silly things before tey came out before I quit chevy. I liked the sonics much better. Then again, if you live within 10miles of work, I say ride a bike if you can.
Oh boy another Volt thread! I get to post this:
My favorite is the cost per unit calculations. Of course it costs a lot if you divide the R&D and manufacturing costs by a low number of units. Yes that is how math works.
I still stand by the fact that the locomotive style generator would have been better and "game changing", but I guess Fisker failed when they did it so it's not that revolutionary. I have warmed to the Volt significantly after reading about JG's time with it though.
Ugh. This again.
The Volt has a gas engine and two electric motors. One of the electric motors is used primarily for regen, but all three of those can be used in various combinations to drive the wheels.
The gas motor is absolutely "hooked" to the drive wheels, as much as something can be hooked through a complex series of planetary gears. Those are the root of a lot of the disagreement about the drive system. Most people (myself included) don't fully—or even basically—understand planetary gears. Watching an exposed planetary gearset is the closest thing I'll ever see to actual witchcraft. But, yes, under certain conditions, the gas motor does indeed directly contribute power to the wheels.
2b. Because of the nature and complexity of the planetary gear set, the gas engine only operates in a very narrow rev range where it is most efficient. From about 2900-3400rpm if memory serves.
The whole point of contributing power to the wheels is because the engineers discovered through calculations and actual testing that the car was overall more efficient than if they simply used the gas engine as a generator. It's much more efficient to generate your electricity by splitting atoms, burning coal or natural gas, or harnessing the power of water and gravity on a massive scale than it is to run a gas motor just to make a few kWh.
GM's marketing for the Volt has been either piss-poor or nonexistent. It's embarrassing how poorly they've marketed the thing.
I've personally seen 101mph, all-electric. Then HAL came on and told me I was going too fast.
I wish my '12 had hold mode. I can't imagine it being anything more than an ECU reflash away. I wish they' update us earlier adopters.
At the end of the day, the Volt is a tool. Used properly, it produces stunning results. There are plenty of reasons to criticize it, but 99% of the opposition to it is purely political, or simply the fear of something different.
jg
I think JG's got it right.
My $.02 is that people want to hate on the Volt because it's GM. Plain and Simple.
I don't hate on teh volt. And I like amps too. Ohms are my friend and made a living for me for many years. I would just like to see a realistic long term plan to sell these things at a profit. Seeing as how we all kinda own GM, GM should be trying to be profitable. Now, if it costs 80 large to make, sells for 40, and you and I then pay an additional 7 or whatever to whoever buys it, I don't really see that as a wise way to use my money.
Then add in the fact that our electrical grid simply can not handle the load of people plugging in their cars. SoCal has roving blackouts because of this. Sure, we could have used that Trillion Dollars to re-do our grid and build some more power plants, but our government thought it was more important to bail out foreign banks and their cronies at GS instead, so that was that. What you wind up with is a few cars that are interesting, get good (but not great, remember that 25 year old Honduh got >50 MPG) gas mileage without any infrastructure to expand it out to the masses.
You'll need to log in to post.
