« Turnabout and Fair Play | Main | Traverse-ing Our Portfolio »
More on Fuel Efficiency/Economy, Part 3
Editor's note: Part 3 in a series of responses by Dave Lancaster. – Will Stewart, blog editor
Why won't GM bring back the battery powered electric car EV-1? It's fast, goes 120 miles between charges, can be charged at home, and meets the needs of 90% of the driving public. You better do it soon because the Japanese and others will in the next 2 years. I want to drive by a gas station and give them the bird.
Posted by: Harry
Dave: Harry, think of the Volt as a more capable successor to the EV-1. The battery power will get you around on short trips, but the engine is there to keep you from running out of juice on your way past that gas station.
I would like to applaud the responses I read in this part of the GM Blog. I am overjoyed to actually get to see real responses to my (and our) questions and comments. As a highly technical person, I often times am disapointed at the lack of discussion surrounding key issues like energy consumption. As a potential GM customer I am also disapointed with the lack of knowing what GM is going to release next. It is frustrating to say the least in wondering if GM will have vehicles out to compete with the wave of 2008 Diesels that are rumored to be showing up. As a customer I would love to see GM offer the G8, CTS and other cars with diesels. The new 4.5 Turbo Diesel has me wondering if GM will put that in the cars mentioned above. As a customer I love the idea of 260+ HP and 32+ MPG highway. I have driven a Duramax and am fairly impressed with it, I can only imagine the 4.5L Turbo Diesel will perform wonderfuly in the CTS and G8. I just hope GM offers them for those of us who are willing to pay the premium. I realize that on a cost basis it doesn't quite make sense, but in the case of Diesel cars, you can have your (performance cake) and eat it to (fuel economy). This fact alone is something that makes me take a serious look at the new BMW 3 series diesels rumored to be crossing the pond. Since their priceis similar to the CTS, I hope GM thinks about dropping in a diesel. Perhaps the more important question for current and potential customers of GM is much simpler. When will GM's next generation of fuel efficient engines be available (HCCI etc..). I myself am waiting to see if GM actually has something thats competitive to offer thats worth waiting on.
As a side note, why can't the HCCI or even current Diesels and Gas engines be setup to run gaseous fuels? This seems to be the best solution for the long run (5-15 years). My current GM is a 1990, I expect that my next one will be run equally as long. As to the cost factor in hybrids, I guess I'm not seeing why a small 60-100 HP diesel engine and hybrid system can't be manufactured cheaply. If such a system were to be made even at a slight premium cost, it surely could top 50 MPG on the highway (with proper drag reduction techniques). This being the case it would qualify for tax incentives and customers who were concerned about fuel usage would be willing to buy them. I have heard the Honda and Toyota Hybrids are selling out everywhere. Whether this is true or not I'm not sure. So, all this said why not introduce a small hybrid diesel to more directly compete with the upcomming wave of diesel cars?
As for flex fuel vehicles. From my understanding of ethanol fuels, the elastomers in engine components would need to be replaced with ethanol compatible parts (viton, teflon etc...), additionaly fuel and timing maps would have to be recalibrated as well as adding sensors to detect fuel composition. This being said, despite the cost, isn't the long term benefit of having all GM vehicles Flex Fuelable a worthwhile one? After all if the whole fleet runs Flex fuel, in 5 or 10 years if E85 becomes more popular the fleet can run it and any other mix; which socially and politically seems to be a very good thing.
Additionally it would be technically possible to convert older vehicles should E85 become a major fuel source. The concerns seem to come from the small car buyers, despite the fact that the larger cars would see a direct benefit with flex fuel since they seem to consume more fuel. In my previous post I mention methane (CH4) as a good long term fuel since it can in theory be generated from hydrogen. Methane appears like it would be easier (safer) to store since it does not diffuse composite storage structures like pure hydrogen would. In theory some form of hydrogen generated fuel is probably the only solution, as hydrogen is "easy" to generate from water (assuming an energy input method such as fully renewable or nuclear fuel). The question seems to be centered around cost, efficiency and sustainability. The latter would appear to have the largest impact on infastructure.As a closing remark, I would like to hear about how GM's stability mangement and AWD systems function in bad weather and for performance driving. I have read about the competition in several magazines, but never read a great review on GMs technology. They seem to be behind from the articles I have read in the past. I would love to hear other wise. That said can GM offer some more insight and information about what their stability systems can and can't do (compared to their competition).
As always keep up the good work. Its a great thing to be able to discuss and provide feedback to GM.
Posted by: Nate
Dave: Nate, let me try to address the issues you raised.
With respect to the diesel engine, I can’t reveal any future product plans, but you can be assured that the diesel will figure strongly in our plans as we work to attain the stringent new CAFÉ standards and meet our customers’ demand for improved fuel economy. We are ready and able to offer advanced diesel engines when the market warrants that diesels are a viable alternative to gasoline-powered engines.
As you recognize, the diesel engine itself is more expensive and will require an extensive aftertreatment system, in addition to the diesel particulate filter to meet the stringent Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions requirements for North America. Our goal is to maintain the fuel economy, performance and driveability that customers expect with our diesel engines, while meeting the stringent regulations and minimizing the complexity and cost to the diesel engine.
HCCI is still in the research stage. The concept is to use compression ignition like a diesel with a homogenous mixture. Under light load, the mixture could be so lean that combustion temperatures are too low for oxides of nitrogen to form. The fuel economy advantage would come from being able to operate the engine without throttling and from the improved thermodynamic properties of the lean mixture. At higher loads, the engine would transition to operate like a traditional spark-ignition engine. The realization of that somewhat simple concept is much more difficult because of the control systems involved.
Engines can be run on gaseous fuels. Natural gas and propane have both been used. Typically, these fuels are run in spark-ignition engines where their high octane ratings (130 for natural gas and 110 for propane) allow the engine to use a higher compression ratio. The disadvantage of gaseous fuel is that engine power is reduced because their combustion release less energy per unit mass of air meaning that engine power drops at a given air flow. Storage of gaseous fuels is also more difficult and requires more volume than gasoline or diesel fuel.
I suggest you visit a dealer for a test drive and discussion of the stability control and anti-lock brakes.
Posted by Editor on February 5, 2008 2:22 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1154
Comments
The Volt, the Volt, the Volt, thats all we hear, you know its never going to happen just give us the car or a car like the EV-1 now and stop that dam toy&%ta in thier tracks!
Posted by: bluebaby on February 5, 2008 3:12 PM
Is there any truth to the rumor of the 1.4 liter turbo engine in the Cobalt and possibly other GM cars in 2009?
If so, what sort of fuel economy are you predicting for that?
Also, what is going on with the Aveo 5 door? I read somewhere that it is going to be restyled for 2009. Will the fuel economy be improved?
Posted by: noel park on February 5, 2008 5:04 PM
Dave, speaking of the Volt, if you were to use a lesser battery (or no battery power for propulsion), what would the fuel economy be with just the eng./generator setup?? If it is still significant I would think this vehicle would still be a huge success. Another thing: with the battery pack and the 40 mile range how would the EPA figure the fuel economy? In theory, one could put 12,500 miles per year on that car and not use a drop of gasoline (25 mile one way trip, recharge at work, x 5 days per wk=250 miles x50 weeks = 12,500 miles). Thanks, John
Posted by: John C. on February 5, 2008 5:15 PM
Given the poor sales record of the EV-1 and the Honda Insight, both of which were two seat cars giving tremendous economy, I wonder whether the Volt is going to sell. Is it supposed to be positioned like the Corvette?
There's lots of post-mortem enthusiasm for the EV-1, but you can still get a 70 MPG Honda Insight (used) for $10,000. There's certainly no line of people waiting to buy them for $40,000, even though they have all-aluminum handmade construction, an extremely advanced aerodynamic design, and deliver the best economy of any car sold in the U.S.
Here's my suggestion: To actually sell the Volt (and to get good visibility for it), start up a Volt racing series.
Posted by: insightman on February 5, 2008 9:15 PM
I appreciate GM's relatively aggressive stance on efficiency after decades of apathy but E85 is utterly worthless. We now see biomass plants across the country going bankrupt because it is a scheme. Your engineers know it isn't viable yet you push it for marketing effect. GM has had some transformative change within the company but some things die hard. One being attempted media manipulation.
I do applaud you though on real efforts to right your decades of wrongs in not listening to customers. But, your pain will continue because you have waited too long. And because you have attempted to use labor arbitrage to weaken your best customer: your employee. China is headed for the economic toilet and the potential for GM's investment loss is significant. The law of unintended consequences still lives.
Posted by: Barry on February 5, 2008 9:28 PM
I agree the Volt is a great step past the EV-1. Its nice to go 120 miles on only electricity, but then what happens when you run out? The Volt takes that problem out of the equation. My only curiosity is why the Volt doesn't instead use a small 1.0 liter diesel instead of the turbo 1.0 gas? I know the 1.0 gas motor will get signifigant mpg, expecially since it will only be used in a certain rpm range (at least thats what I have heard), but at the lower rpms like it will be ran, a diesel makes alot more sense. It would (should) produce better torque for running the generator, and use less fuel. I have to mow a local dragstrip, and the mower is powered via a .9 liter kabota. The fuel tank can't be anymore than 5-7 gallons, and yet I can mow for 7-8 hours, and not run out of fuel. Don't know what kind of mpg's that converts to, but its a full or dang near full throttle for that entire time.
As for the 4.5 liter diesel, I thought it was to be rated at 310 hp and 510 ft pounds? That would make a signifigant leap in 1/2 ton towing capacity, and fuel milage. If a 6.6 in a 3/4 ton can get 20 mpg, the 4.5 in the 1/2 ton should get 25 plus you would think. At the same time, you put 4.5 in RWD impala/malibu/elcamino( hey, it would be cool), and have all the power on tap, I wouldn't think it would take much to post high to mid 12 second quarter mile times(expect alot of torque management to keep the tires from boiling, as much as I hate it). And then knock down 30 mpg on the drive home.
Posted by: Brady Turley on February 5, 2008 9:46 PM
Mr Lancaster,
The EV-1 had a fully-charged range of 75-120 miles with first lead-acid and later nickel metal hydride batteries. The Volt will have a fully-charged battery range of about 40 miles with more advanced and efficient Lithium-ion batteries.
Question: Why will the Volt have less range running as a pure electric than the EV-1 had, even though the Volt has the more advanced batteries?
The Volt as a series-hybrid
If you have problems with the Li-ion battery -- as some suspect will happen -- do you have plans to relese the Volt as a pure series hybrid vehicle?
With the range extender engine running, the Volt will have a range of about 640 miles from an 11.9 gallon tank. That's about 53 mpg even while hauling around 400-500 pounds of battery as deadweight.
If you just took out the large Li-ion battery and let the range extender engine run at an efficient constant RPM turning an alternator or generator that powers the wheel motors in series (as one of GM's diesel-electric locomotives), wouldn't you get a lot better mileage w/o the weight of the large Li-ion battery onboard? (You would still need a smaller battery to serve as a buffer or conditioner between the alternator and wheel motors.)
Without 400-500 pounds of battery, it seems that a Volt could probably expect 70-75 mpg operating in the pure series hybrid mode.
Wouldn't that do wonders for your CAFE?
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Posted by: Gary Dikkers on February 5, 2008 11:27 PM
Dave:
Once again I applaud your response. As an Aerodynamics person I can appreciate the complexities of control systems. How might I get in touch with someone from the power-terrain division regarding some suggestions for automatic transmissions?
I also want to comment on how excited I am to see if the CTC concept gets made, or maybe when. I really hope they offer some unique versions of it. I'm actually hoping for a 400 HP AWD version (with a revised auto shift). I would go for a V series with AWD, however my guess is GM won't be making one, which is a shame. I do however wonder why GM hasn't pursued any turbos in the CTS or CTC.
According to the numbers I have run on turbochargers the power recovery seems to make them well suited for high horse power and high fuel mileage. I envision a VVT turbo setup on the new 3.6L DI engine to make upward of 400 HP while possibly increasing the mileage. In fact my guess is that with the new DI technology, the smarter thing to do would be to run a smaller engine, say a 3.4L version of the current CTS and use the turbos to push the power, while gearing it in such a way that at cruise it is either completely out or on the low side of the boost curve. I would think the increase in MEP at cruise with the compressor operating in the 75-80% efficiency range. I would also think that a minimal compression drop would be required to do this. I've always been a fan of using turbos to augment engines with high compression ratios and small mass flow compressors. If the 3.6L makes 300 HP being naturally aspirated I'd imagine it could easily make 400 HP with a very mild turbo setup.
As a customer I think 29 to 30 MPG would be the range I'd look for in a car with 400-450 HP. Couple that with AWD and that sounds like a package with fun written all over it.
As I mentioned I'd love to be put in contact with an engineer or project manager for the CTC to discuss a (simple) new idea for automatic shifting.
Once again keep up the good work.
Posted by: Nate on February 6, 2008 4:37 AM
Good story about new eco-friendly diesel engines on National Public Radio today
Posted by: Gary Dikkers on February 6, 2008 5:47 PM
400-500 pounds doesnt equate to 20 mpg. I believe it is around 1-2 mpg for every 100-200 pounds, so I could see 5 or 6 mpg increase, but not 20.
Posted by: brady turley on February 6, 2008 7:58 PM
In yesterday's LA Times there was an advertising supplement section on small cars. It mentioned the restyled Aveo 5 door, apparently to appear in "mid-2008 as a 2009".
It mentioned a "1600cc Ecotec" engine with improved fuel economy. How will this be different from the present Aveo engine?
Also, there was a large "article" on turbo charging for better fuel economy, although the 1.4 Ecotec was not mentioned.
Brad Turley, 2/6, 7:58 PM:
I agree. It has to be part of a coordinated effort including, but not limited to, aero, better engine management, better transmission, and lowering rolling resistance. Every little bit helps, however.
Posted by: Noel Park on February 7, 2008 12:47 PM
The internal combustion engine has continued to advance. In small cars the power and efficiency of small displacement engines has made them rivals to hybrids based on cost. The advances in engine efficiency and power have been facilitated by greater precision in optimizing the combustion process through fuel and air delivery advances. None of this would be possible without the speed of real-time operational optimization available through the use of micro-processors. Variable Displacement, Variable Valve Timing, Direct Injection and Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition have all facilitated engine efficiency. The last aspect of combustion control is variable compression. While turbo charging and super charging can effectively change the compression ratio, this is done at a cost of mechanical efficiency. Saab before GM purchased it developed a variable compression engine. To me it seems a variable compression engine combined with the changes in fuel octane (E85) would be able to optimize combustion efficiency across a range of fuels.
Posted by: Rob N. on February 7, 2008 4:18 PM
There is one thing that seems to be over looked when people cry out wanting all these fuel efficent vehicles, and that my friends would be the monopolizing effect it create down the road. All the processes and technologies that are going into the car are going to make it so complicated the shade tree mechanic will be non existent. Common auto repair shops will not be able to fix them, and the ones that can will charge a demanding salary. More than likely it will be only the dealerships working on them, and we all know how much they cost now. It can see it easily reaching 60 plus dollars per hour in the next 5 years and the modern mechanic will be hauling in 40 plus thousand a year, if not more on the low end.
Also, I dont believe turbo and supercharging change compression ratio, that is a fix measure of BDC vs TDC, but turbo and supercharging effectively change combustion chamber psi and allow for over 100 percent volumetric efficency.
Posted by: Brady Turley on February 9, 2008 11:38 AM
Brad Turley said: "400-500 pounds doesnt equate to 20 mpg. I believe it is around 1-2 mpg for every 100-200 pounds, so I could see 5 or 6 mpg increase, but not 20."
You may be correct Brad, but even a Volt that got 60 mpg running as a series-hybrid would do wonders for GM's CAFE -- and image.
If GM has problems coming up with an affordable Li-ion battery that doesn't have a tendency for runaway thermal events -- as Mr Lutz euphemistically called them -- marketing the Volt as a series-hybrid with the range augmenter engine (diesel I hope) running at a fuel-efficient constant RPM to drive the generator, would be an attractive option, and make GM a player in the market that Prius now dominates.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Posted by: Gary Dikkers on February 9, 2008 9:27 PM
Gary-
your comment about the volt getting less electric range than the ev1 ignores the fact that the volt is a larger car that seats four-five people, has a big trunk, and carries around an ICE and gas tank in addition to the batteries. The EV1, on the other hand, was basically a battery pack on wheels.
Also, having a larger battery pack prevents deep cycling, makes for more efficient power spikes, and also helps to absorb lots more regen energy.
As far as competing with the prius, GM has to do more than just beat the prius by a few numbers, it has to come to the table with a whole new bag of abilities (e.g. meaningful all-electric range) in order to be the long sought after prius killer.
SAVE US
FROM
THE PRIUS
Posted by: AES on February 11, 2008 10:56 AM
AES said: ..."your comment about the volt getting less electric range than the ev1 ignores the fact that the volt is a larger car that seats four-five people, has a big trunk, and carries around an ICE and gas tank in addition to the batteries. The EV1, on the other hand, was basically a battery pack on wheels."
AES,
It was a question, not a comment. Thank you for supplying the answer. That's what I thought, but I wanted confirmation.
Why is the Volt a four-seater?
From what I understand, the primary market for the Volt will be commuters. A few months ago, I did a survey as I walked to work, and noticed very few commuters carry more than one person in their cars, and almost none carry more than two people. (I counted 167 cars. 161 had only the driver in them. Of the other six, five carried two, and one carried three.)
Since almost no one commutes with three or four people in their cars, why not take out the rear seats? Wouldn't it make sense to take out the rear seats in the Volt and use that space to increase battery capacity -- and range?
A two-seat Volt with a larger battery filling the space where the rear seats would have been, might have a range of 80 to 100 miles on a single charge.
Can you make a two-seater -- with a larger battery -- as an option for those who'd like longer range on a single charge?
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Posted by: Gary Dikkers on February 13, 2008 12:33 AM
Gary-
You're essentially describing the Honda Insight (and look how well that sold). Or a Tesla Roadster - enough room for two vegetarians and a set of golf clubs.
Either way, the lost practicality won't appeal to many people who don't want to buy an extra car as their weekend vehicle (myself included). Plus those extra batteries cost some serious $$$. Choosing a 40 mile range is a balance between cost, practicality, and the engineering constraints.
(It's also worth pointing out that the Volt's battery pack design actually has batteries under the rear seats.)
Posted by: AES on February 13, 2008 1:11 PM
Bob,
I applaud your direct talk. Keep it up. The global warming advocates have been a misrepresentation of the facts from the beginning.
Thanks
From New Jersey
Posted by: Gardenstate on February 24, 2008 9:58 AM
Gulp! I'm agreeing with notoroius GM basher Gary D.? Yes a two seater option would be nice altough as a communter myself I would probably would opt for the 4 seater so I wouldn't have to buy a seperate car for the kids, hence why there isn't a Saturn Sky in my driveway :(
Posted by: Phydeaux on March 10, 2008 1:20 AM
Two seater option is a non starter as a mass market vehicle. It's alot like the fact that lots of folks are driving SUVs with 4x4 transmissions even though the car will never see anything but asphalt. They buy options, not practicals.
It's the same with a 2 seater / 4 seater argument. Yes, absolutely in 98% of the trips these cars will have three empty seats. That's just the way it is. The public will not buy the two seater because they don't want to be limited.
Posted by: PetroZero on March 24, 2008 5:10 PM
PetroZero said: "Two seater option is a non starter as a mass market vehicle."
Petro,
"Non-starter" is too strong a word. A two-seater wouldn't be as popular, but it could be an attractive option -- especially if presented as an option in which a much larger auxiliary battery would replace the back seats.
The "bigger battery in place of the rear seat option" shouldn't be that hard to engineer -- just pop the back seat out, and insert a larger battery pack in its place -- and would provide a big boost in rechargeable range for those who wanted that option.
A trailer-mounted battery
I would also like to see the option of towing a much larger battery in a small two-wheeled trailer. If you wanted to take a Volt on a longish trip, you could go to your local Chevy dealer and rent the trailer-mounted battery for that trip, returning it once home.
A trailer-mounted battery Volt owners could rent from their Chevy dealers might offer the chance to triple or quadruple battery capacity.
The Volt as portable power pack
We've discussed it here before, but have never gotten an answer from GM or Chevy. (Adam Denison, where are you and your question-answering team of experts?)
The Volt will store a lot of electricity, effectively become a large, portable battery.
All are possibilities, that Chevy could easily build into the Volt by offering external sockets from which to tap into the power of the battery.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Posted by: Gary Dikkers on March 25, 2008 6:32 PM
