Our Real-World Learnings Differ From CMU Study
By Jon Lauckner
Vice President Global Program Management
This past weekend, I read some media reports about a study by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) questioning the wisdom of vehicles like the Chevy Volt that offer more than a “token” level of gasoline-free driving. I’ve been deeply involved in the development of the Volt from the beginning, so I took some time to download and read the report to see what new insight the CMU study offered.
First of all, we appreciate CMU’s interest and efforts in furthering the research and knowledge about the future of electric vehicle transportation. Only by truly understanding the capabilities and benefits of plug-in electric vehicles will we be able to transition from vehicles primarily dependent on petroleum.
However, what we’ve learned during the development of the Chevy Volt differs from the study’s stated conclusion:
“The best choice of PHEV battery capacity depends critically on the distance that the vehicle will be driven between charges. Our results suggest that for urban driving conditions and frequent charges every 10 miles or less, a low-capacity PHEV sized with an AER (range) of about 7 miles would be a robust choice for minimizing gasoline consumption, cost and greenhouse gas emissions.” (pg. 22)
I’ll cut to the chase; for starters, the study’s endorsement of plug-in vehicles with only a “token” electric-only range (seven miles) overlooks the inconvenience of recharging for the vast majority of drivers (approx. 90 percent) with a daily commute that exceeds seven miles. I mean, honestly, how many customers are going to stop every seven miles and wait at least 30 minutes (if a car has a high-capacity charger like the Volt with the same level of electrical energy to match it) for their battery to be recharged? Without having done any market research, I’m guessing the answer is “very few”. And, if customers don’t recharge during the day, these “token” plug-ins will run primarily on gasoline. How is that consistent with reducing green house gas emissions and our dependence on petroleum?
At its core, the study’s conclusion is based on an incorrect assumption of the cost of battery packs. In the CMU study, the so-called “base case” used a Lithium-Ion battery cost of $1,000 per kWh ($16,000 for a 40 mile Volt pack) that was cited in earlier academic articles. The problem is this cost is many hundreds of dollars per kWh higher than the actual cost of the Volt pack today. Moreover, our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack. Unfortunately, the impact of dramatically lower battery costs (to $250 per kWh) was treated only as a “sensitivity” in the CMU study when it probably should have been highlighted as THE critical element that would dramatically change the cost-effectiveness of plug-ins with greater electric-only range.
The study also failed to include incentives for customers and producers of plug-in vehicles that have already been legislated. In fact, the recently passed “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (HR1) reconfirmed customer incentives that were included in an earlier bill passed last year for vehicles with a grid rechargeable battery pack. The legislation provides a Federal Tax credit ranging from $2,500 for 4four kWh battery packs to a maximum of $7,500 for customers of full-scale commercial plug-in electric vehicles. So, the PHEV-7 (3kWh battery) advocated in the CMU study would receive “zero” tax credit, while a Chevy Volt (16 kWh battery) with 40 miles of electric range will receive the maximum Federal Tax credit of $7,500. The State of Michigan, where we plan to produce the Volt battery pack, has also legislated incentives for manufacturers of battery packs and cells. So, when more realistic battery costs and customer and producer incentives are included, the calculations (and conclusions?) in the CMU study should change very significantly.
The bottom line is there isn’t anything in this study that would change the decisions we made for the Chevy Volt. We think a plug-in offering 40 miles of gas- and emissions-free driving like the Volt is the sweet spot for the majority of customers because nearly 80 percent of drivers can drive their daily commute and return home for an overnight recharge that avoids inconvenience for them and additional daytime load on the electric grid.
Actually, as I read the conclusions of the study I had a feeling of déjà vu. Some years ago, GM didn’t introduce hybrid technology as quickly as we should have because it wasn’t considered “cost effective” at the time – and we aren’t going to make that mistake again. In fact, the more vehicles powered by the Voltec system we can put on the road, the faster we’ll see the costs for batteries, power electronics and electric drive motors come down due to economies of scale and innovation. This will lead to even greater adoption of plug-ins and a new way forward for our industry.
50 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
If the business case for this car is so rosy and the CMU study is so wrong, why do you need a $7500 tax credit?
Perhaps because vehicle and battery volumes are not yet at high enough levels. With the boost of a tax credit, GM can get these vehicles into the hands of consumers. As production levels increase and GM gains valuable experience with these vehicles, the cost of batteries will decrease and the tax credit will no longer be needed.
Well put response. Time to defend and bring it! Please put the proof on the road.
Dunno John, but how much kWh does the Volt use every 7 miles that a 30 min supercharging is needed? I guess the Volt will use approximately 1,1 kWh. For the rest the CMY study indeed uses higher $/kWh en kWh/kg numbers than we already now. Why is that?
May I offer a suggestion?
Offer the Voltec system with 2 different battery packs – one good for 20 miles and one good for 40 miles on electric only. After all, you offer engine options in other vehicles, you ought to offer range options in the Voltec vehicles. I am going out on a limb and assuming that the battery packs are modular in design (I know the ones for Chrysler’s ENVI vehicles are). It would also allow you to offer a less expensive Voltec vehicle as well and may lead to greater and quicker market penetration and acceptance of the technology.
I like HotCarNut’s idea — an optional 20-mile range battery– which would also help bring the price tag down, making the Volt affordable to more people.
Jon Lauckner, is this feasible?
GM, where is your NEV?
There is a place for the Volt, with its “up to 40 miles” on a single-charge. But carrying that heavy battery around all the time will exact a price ~ both in lifetime efficiency and reduced sales because of the high initial retail cost to the consumer.
That beggars the question of, “Why isn’t GM working on a lightweight, neighborhood electric vehicle?” (NEV) A car for those short-range jaunts around the neighborhood? A true electric with a range of 15-20 miles on a charge that many people can use for commuting, and that almost everyone who lives in or near a city can use for trips to the grocery store, home supply store, mall, taking the kids to soccer practice, going to movies or library, etc.
A lightweight, all-electric NEV priced at around $10-12K, could handle many of the short-range trips for which people now use heavy SUVs, pickups, and fossil-fueled autos, and which will not be so far above the pay grade of average people as will the Volt.
My interpretation of the Carnegie Mellon study is that if GM isn’t working on a lower-priced, all-electric NEV, and is instead betting the ranch on the Volt, you’re making a mistake..
GM, what are your plans for an NEV? By making the Volt so it will have a range of “up to 40 miles” your over-engineering it and pricing it far above the many average people who require only a shorter range, all-electric, and lower-priced, NEV.
“The study also failed to include incentives for customers and producers of plug-in vehicles that have already been legislated.”
If the business plan for success of the Volt requires a sweetheart legislation package of incentives, then it’s not a good business plan.
Government can’t “give” anything to someone it hasn’t taken from someone else.
I think GM has been erring on the side of lifting its skirt way too early with its new products. Not only have you tipped your hand to competitors years in advance with great products like the Camaro and Volt, but it’s been for NO good effect. Clearly, the public and press are generally poised to find any flaw it can in GM’s plans and products, and now they’ve been loading up on ammunition to convince the world that the Volt doesn’t matter. Which just goes to show the extent of agenda on the part of the anti-GMers, given how great the Volt is likely to be.
If you had conducted this project in as much secrecy as possible, like say TOYOTA does(!), you could have hit the market with the Volt and had a huge TSUNAMI throughout the world. Now when the Volt finally gets here in let’s say 18 more months, it’s not even going to cause the ripple of a pebble on the water. Which is an incredible shame, because it’s a brilliant product in every respect. You know already what people will say, “well the Prius is cheaper and gets as good gas mileage, so I’ll buy the Toyota”, given that they don’t understand what makes the Volt different, and probably never will. Then if Chrysler and others can deliver on their all-electric vehicles within a year or so following, all the greenies will laud all-electric as being preferable over anything that can ever burn any gasoline.
I would personally love to get a Volt or Converj, and I give you kudos for developing it. The fact that it can also run on gasoline is a major plus to me, as there would never be any “range anxiety.” Given how poorly this has been understood or acknowledged by GM’s critics makes me cautious to think this is going to be the game changer you were hoping for, and it should have NEVER been previewed 4+ years ahead of production.
But hey, it’s academic! Lets talk about tenure …
@Merlin – Perhaps because NEVs have been around for years and the market has yet to take off?
@HotCarNut – BINGO. Extended range battery packs are the New Option Package.
@Bob L – The target for secrecy isn’t Toyota. It’s Apple.
“Perhaps because NEVs have been around for years and the market has yet to take off?”
mpgomatic,
But we are now at a convergence point of the economy and energy resources where a major auto maker with the clout and reputation of GM could make NEVs a major player. (NEV makers have been mostly nerdish-type people working in their basements and garages with little more than an idea and hope.)
I suspect GM has never designed and engineered an NEV because until just a couple of years ago all the profit was in building and selling heavy fossil-field trucks and SUVs.
The pendulum has shifted, and there is no reason GM can’t and shouldn’t take advantage of that shift instead of sitting back and watching.
GM has done admirably with the Volt, but one thing they have also made the Volt a clone of regular cars with the energy and weight penalty that comes along with that. GM has completely overlooked the soon-to-expand market for light-weight, short-range, low-cost electric cars for moving short distances in urban and suburban environments.
@Merlin – “NEV makers have been mostly nerdish-type people working in their basements and garages with little more than an idea and hope.”
So where would Chrysler’s GEM fit into that description?
Without any math to back up the comment and the sake of argument -
What’s the comparison of electricity consumption for say 150,000 commuters using a Volt-like product vs 150,000 of the same commuters using light rail? This is in line with HotcarNut’s comment on battery pack sizes, but just heads in the opposite direction.
Bigger batteries for larger transit vehicles or perhaps powering the mass transit solution off the grid directly using off peak electrical power that charges up some really large flow-cell batteries.
The CMU study failed to include mass transit.
“So where would Chrysler’s GEM fit into that description?”
I said “mostly.” I am well aware of the GEM.
“GM, where is your NEV?”
Okay, so we have one vehicle for commuting 40 miles, which a customer will use 5 days a week. Now you want one for the shorter trips on the weekends. Then you’ll want one for the longer trips.. so 3?
When you don’t need the pickup (like commuting) drive the Volt..
Exactly how many cars can you afford to own at one time? I’m a car NUT and it’s hard to own, register, insure and maintain the 3-car fleet (plus 3 in storage) I have now. If you want a cheap vehicle to go to the mall and home center, buy an older pickup. They are cheap, uses very little gas (it’s parked most of the time), and is VERY useful. Lumber, appliances, mulch, and car parts are moved with aplomb!.. Door ding at the mall, who cares? Adds character
My wife and I have our commuter cars (company car for me, HHR for her) and the pickup for weekend “hunting and gathering” excursions.. Both her commute and mine are within the 40 mile range, 26 for me, 21 for her. I may not need the pickup for all the weekend trips, but I rack up more than 15-20 miles with grocery shopping and other errands, heck the trip to Costco is 11 on it’s own..
“The CMU study failed to include mass transit.”
Because its a well kept secret that the population density in the majority of the US, mass transit is unsustainable without massive government subsidies. Heck, even the mass transit systems in Europe are heavily subsidized. It’s all a great idea until you have to break out the checkbook.
Can’t we make an inexpensive basic NEV with a high efficiency/low fuel consumption electric generator to maintain the charge as I drive, kind of like what the volt will have to do on my way home from work everyday anyway? Fuel consumption on a steady speed smaller engine driving a generator has got to be better than the current mode of idling and sized for accelerating method we current follow.
The first time I forget to plug my Volt in when I get home and am able to drive to work the next day anyway on the generator, I’ll be doing that all the time. The extra range of the large battery means nothing. What ever is easiest for me, is what I will do in the end. Gas when it’s cheep and plug in when it’s not. The success/failure of the electric car will be determined by this.
Also, If I run on the generator instead of plugging in, I don’t have to worry about driving off and not unplugging, I don’t have to figure out how I’m going to run a cord out of my apartment window or hope my neighbor doesn’t unplug it again, for his car!
Merlin Caine
Campare NEV and EV in the 90’s. More people talk about the EV-1 over the NEV. I know that the NEV were a little more then idea and hope and that why it have fail cause not that many people wanted. When GM taking EV-1 out of the EV-1 driver’s hand. Many people were trying to save the EV-1. Why EV-1 driver just get the NEV. It not the cost of the EV-1 cause there were people willing to spend $80,000 on EV-1. I beleve the reason was EV-1 was the closest to a gas car at that time. NEV is still around and still have not taken off. NEV can’t drive a highway speed and the range is too small. If you add an extended-range on NEV. It be like a poor old man version of toyota prius. A study by Carnegie Mellon University sound like the idea of a old man version of NEV.
“Can’t we make an inexpensive basic NEV with a high efficiency/low fuel consumption electric generator to maintain the charge as I drive, kind of like what the volt will have to do on my way home from work everyday anyway?”
Joe Consumer,
You make a strong case for pure series-hybrid in which a small, efficient, constant-speed, internal combustion engine (diesel, gasoline, or natural gas) turns a generator to power electric motors at the wheels. When you get in the car, you’d start the ICE to power the generator and drive away.
It would be like the Volt running in it’s “range extender” mode all the time. The advantage would be superb fuel economy since there would be no need to burden the car with several hundred pounds of heavy batteries all the time as is the case with the Volt.
You’d think GM would have figured that out long ago ~ after all, there was a time when GM’s Electro-Motive Division was a world leader in diesel-powered, series-hybrid locomotives. (Alas, GM sold off EMD in 2004. Another great move, along with scrapping the EV-1.)
I’m guessing when EMD was still part of GM, the diesel locomotive guys rarely talked to the car guys, and vice-versa.
Merlin Caine,
There’s already scads of companies making neighborhood electric vehicles. In fact, I live in a small town in Northern California that sells imported Chinese built three wheeled electric cars that have a 30-40 mile range. The top speed is 25-30MPH and they aren’t permitted in the freeway. They cost $9-$10k new. There’s another dealer in nearby Berkeley CA that also sells them.
The problem is A: Who actually lives AND works in their neighborhood? Hardly anyone I know. Perhaps retired people could use them, but as far as a daily commuter, these would not be options for the vast bulk of the public. Secondly, it can’t be driven on the freeway, thus it has a severely limited use. In other words- you’d be just as well to simply ride a bicycle around if you were one of the lucky few who lives and works near home. You’d probably get there quicker given how slow these NEV’s are.
Lastly, even at 10k, such cars-with their limited capacity- would be extremely costly given that you would need an additional conventional car to actually get to places besides getting groceries down the block.
Sure- there’s a few in my town who drive em’, but most of them are rich folks who like their expensive toys. The neighborhood electric car is a novel approach, but has already proven to be totally impractical. Hence the Volt and its ability to solve these issues and shortcomings.
I think GM should offer smaller capacity packs for drivers who don’t often drive 40 miles in a day. The cars can then be badged based on how large of a battery pack is installed (Chevy Volt e40 vs. Chevy Volt e20 for instance). I believe that can help the whole EV market from a consumers demand standpoint. Choice and revealed preference are two important factors affecting consumer demand.
It is irrational to factor in tax credits when evaluating this vehicle. First, the consumer may or may not quality for the credits for other reasons. Second, SOMEONE is paying for that. Perhaps it’s not the particular consumer that buys a PHEV or RE-EV but someone pays.
My earlier comment seems to have fallen into permanent moderation status but I’d still like to know why, if the business case for this vehicle is so rosy, that GM needs a $7500 tax credit to make it fly?
And let me add something else… given a level playing field (we know how important that is), in other words, absent tax credits that skew the calculation, why would someone with a commute of, say, 20 miles opt for a 40-mile RE-EV if a shorter-AER vehicle is available? A key problem with the Volt calculus is that 40-miles is the optimium DAILY operating range. Go over that, or, especially, go under that, and the value of the vehicle isn’t maximized. It’s hard enough to come up with a scenario that involves a payback within the typical consumer’s time horizon but a driving profile that doesn’t fit the Volt exactly, really hurts the business case.
The CMU study may have warts. But certain of their objections have been painfully obvious from the outset.
This is just in good humor. I have to question CMU’s expertise in anything related to automobiles! In fact in the last DARPA urban challenge in 2007, CMU team did not even get to the finish line. This event required teams to build an autonomous vehicle capable of driving in traffic, performing complex maneuvers such as merging, passing, parking and negotiating intersections. The winning team was sponsored by GM! I know; the event was not related to electric cars. But the cars were equipped with lots of cutting edge electronic gears. I assume GM knows a little more about cars than CMU
I believe that the Volt will eventually be a huge cost saver, but initially it will be more of an innovation and direction for the automobile industry. I don’t believe in Carnegy Melon’s research either, but I do believe that non-plug in hybrids such as the Tahoe hybrid or Prius offers convenience for the consumer who does not have access to overnight electrical services.
Anyone that recomends a seven mile range for an EV must live in Midtown Manhattan or something. Tell Carnegie Mellon to do some of their research in Indiana or Iowa. Seven miles? Gotta be kidding me.
“I suspect GM has never designed and engineered an NEV because until just a couple of years ago all the profit was in building and selling heavy fossil-field trucks and SUVs.”
Not a NEV, but the XP 883 was a viable hybrid concept- back in 1969.
GM has shown it has the know-how to design and engineer innovative, fuel-efficient vehicles (GM Runabout, GM XP 511, GM XP 898, GM Ultralite), they just lack the foresight to make them.
The CMU study fails to acknowledge that every technology that we enjoy today goes through a costly developement period. That is the economic reality of pushing the tech envelope. It is only through the process of bringing these technologies to the viability of mass production that they then become economical. So too will be the way of all hybrids, conventional and plug-in and whatever follows.
“GM has shown it has the know-how to design and engineer innovative, fuel-efficient vehicles.”
Beaugrand,
I don’t think anyone has ever questioned the ability and know-how of GM’s engineers. The problem has always been the corporate leadership and beancounters who tell the engineers what to work on and decide what brands to market.
Per Carl’s comment :
“Anyone that recomends a seven mile range for an EV must live in Midtown Manhattan or something. Tell Carnegie Mellon to do some of their research in Indiana or Iowa. Seven miles? Gotta be kidding me”
For a fraction of the price of a NEV, Prius or Volt – get a bike and pedal to work. Or get a genuine Lee Iococca E-Bike for about $1200 and “coast” there. Get a bigger battery pack for it and coast much further!
I used to be excited about the Volt, but when the projected $40,000 price point was announced, that’s way beyond what I can afford and my enthusiasm was stomped out. All the economical benefits of higher mileage are wiped out by the monthly payments.
The Carnegie-Mellon study also does not include the economic potential for the Volt becoming a “Vehicle-to-Grid” or “Cash-back” hybrid. The new head of the FERC is very big on this technology and hopefully GM will have that as an option with the Volt.
FERC Boss Dubs the Plug-in a ‘Cashback’ Hybrid – IEEE Spectrum
http://tinyurl.com/alq9rf
If my commute was 7-8 miles a day I think I’d be on a bicycle.
I’ve been a huge critic of GM and I’m really excited to see the Volt in action for a number of reasons. First of all, it’s very respectful of me, my family and the environment; secondly, it ups the ante and if it’s super safe I’d like to see the automakers competing with one another in an attempt to combine safety both on the road and to the environment.
Yeah, I’ll be test driving this one when it comes out.
This is more of a question than a comment. In reading all the comments i have not seen anything addressing the lifespan of the GM 40mile battery pack in the Volt. For someone buying a Volt, how long would a battery last with almost daily charging before it would need to be replaced ?
With that in mind, how much would it cost to replace the battery pack and would that possible expense keep some people away from buying it ?
If GM offered the Volt on a lease plan, how would the potential replacement cost of the battery affect the residual value and the lease payments because they are largely based on residual value?
These might be questions that potential buyers would ask. I am very interested in getting a Volt but these are questions i would ask.
“For someone buying a Volt, how long would a battery last with almost daily charging before it would need to be replaced ?”
A very good and relevant question Ed. Unfortunately, the answer is, “GM doesn’t yet know.” Some of the Volt’s first buyers will be the guinea pigs that answer that question.
I really do love this paragraph: ‘Actually, as I read the conclusions of the study I had a feeling of déjà vu. Some years ago, GM didn’t introduce hybrid technology as quickly as we should have because it wasn’t considered “cost effective” at the time – and we aren’t going to make that mistake again’.
I have this question for GM and I really hope someone will answer me: Why the auto medias in the US are always against GM?
Jim.
“for the consumer who does not have access to overnight electrical services.”
Who would that be? I can’t imagine a lot of apartment dwellers (who may not have current in their carport) are going to be able to afford the Volt. Most of the rest of us have electricity available.
I do like the sugestion about offering the Volt in 20 and 40 mile range versions. Maybe even a 60 mile version for people who have long commutes? Yes, it increases weight and cost substantially to have a 60 mile version–but for some people, it would mean an all electric commute who otherwise would have to gas up.
I agree with those who argue that the NEV market just isn’t big enough to justify production. But instead of NEV, think back to when Pontiac sneaked the Fiero through GM’s approval process as an “economy car.” I’m not suggesting that you aim at the Tesla, but the vast majority of commuters are driving alone. A two seater (something like the old Opel GT) could be knocked down to 1800-2000 pounds plus batteries. Sell a base model for those who just want to get back and forth to work, and a performance model for those of us who miss the Fiero!
I have been following the development of the Volt since it’s announcement and can’t wait to get my hands on one.
Another way of extending the 40 mile range is to incorporate a small wind driven generator within the design at the front of the vehicle. Given that the vehicle will create it’s own wind velocity to drive the generator it should not change the Drag co-efficiency of the vehicle. This system could be offered as an option for people who want that extra range.
“Given that the vehicle will create it’s own wind velocity to drive the generator it should not change the Drag co-efficiency of the vehicle. This system could be offered as an option for people who want that extra range.”
Laddie, do you know what you’ve done? You’ve solved the problem of perpetual motion.
Ed and Clyde,
GM has stated that they are working toward a 10-yr 150k mile battery life. (http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/05/gm-says-chevy-volt-battery-will-have-a-10-year-150000-mile-warranty/). I believe I heard or read somewhere that they have developed an algorithm for testing the batteries that can replicate this usage over a 2-year timeframe. I’m not sure when that 2 years is up, but I’m sure we’ll hear results when it is.
“GM has stated that they are working toward a 10-yr 150k mile battery life.”
“Working toward” perhaps, but right now, it’s unknown. As good as testing algorithms may be, there is no substitute for actual road miles in real world conditions.
Something unanticipated or unknown always pops up that drastically changes the assumptions used in designing the algorithm. The first owners will be the “real world algorithm.”
@Alex – I’m assuming you’re intentionally kidding, since CMU’s team won the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge, using a Chevy Tahoe — with significant work on the control algorithms and engineering done by and with GM. Good car, good engineering, good robotics research.
Clayton E. Cramer suggests a two-seater commuter car and mentions the Fiero as an example.
Clayton,
Ford also tried that with the EXP. The Sky, Solstice and Miata sell something like 1K/month, each. I think the conclusion one can safely draw from these experiments is, “two-seaters don’t sell.” Some years ago, I tried very hard to persuade my wife to let me buy a Miata. No dice.
She said, “Well, it is nice-looking, it’s reasonably priced and it’s good on gas but it only has two seats.”
“Right but most of the time, it’s just you or me alone. The rest of the time, it’s mostly just you and me. We also have a minivan that holds seven and a five-seat car besides.”
“Yes, but it only has TWO seats.”
“Right, right but there’s only six of us in the family. With the Miata, we’d still have a total of fourteen seats, eight seats more than we can possibly use at any one time.”
“Yes, but it only has TWO seats.”
MAINTENANCE.
I drive a prius, and it doesn’t require as much maintenance because it turns the gas engine off. I’d love to buy a volt because it will need even *less* maintenance. That cost savings alone makes the gas savings pale in comparison. Study that CMU.
Something I’ve long been wondering about long-term adoption of EVs in general and PHEVs in particular is the cost of the battery pack when you include the possibility (certainty) of it being recycled, and whether it’s a foregone conclusion that eventually battery packs will be swappable for different ranges given the increased weight of higher-range packs.
Can we have any numbers of the cost per kWh of a Li-Ion or Li-Poly battery pack assuming it’s recycled a certain number of times? I have no idea how much recycling costs, nor how many recycling cycles are feasible.
Also, can we have a comment on the pie-in-the-sky long-term feasibility of rapid battery-pack swapping at service stations to increase/decrease range? For instance, for my regular commute, a battery-pack with a 20mi capacity is very generous. I’ll almost never run on the internal combustion engine in with a battery-pack like that. It wouldn’t make much sense for me to be carrying around a 75mi or 100mi battery pack (which I fully expect to be available in time). But if I’m going on a long trip, or expect to be going on a series of long trips, it seems sensible for me to stow the 20mi pack and replace it (temporarily) with a 75mi or 100mi pack.
Thanks
“Yes, but it only has TWO seats.”
That’s funny. My vintage 1978 Vespa P200E (which still gets around 60 mpg at 60 mph) “only has two seats.” It’s outlasted a marriage and 3 girlfriends…
My 1982 HMV Freeway averages around 65 mpg (city/highway) and has only one seat. If they still made them I could probably sell a half-dozen a week. I’d drive it more if gas station stops didn’t take 45 minutes every time.
I’ve also got two Buicks and a minivan, but I still prefer the Vespa in nice weather. I seldom use the back seat.
devo,
The “cashback”:program does offer some benefit, 90% of which can be attained by charging after midnight.
However, Vehicle2Grid – that’s a different kettle of fish. The current (pun) thinking is that the batteries have only a certain useful life. If the power company is cycling your battery, they’ll be reducing its useful life for automotive use.
I can see a legitimate argument for that kind of treatment voiding the battery warranty.
Whatever happened to the 1st gen of hybrid concepts that used a small, efficient engine to simply maintain the battery pack that supplies power to the drive motors and runs the accessories? With current battery technology improving in leaps and bounds, it would appear that this would be a cheaper and user friendly alternative to all current hybrids (no complex engine/trans assemblies and no need to plug it in). Chrysler did a few of these concepts back in the late nineties. Their simplicity would bring pricing in line and more within reach of the masses that would be glad to buy them…if they were economically able to do so!
Could someone tell me where to find the list of gasolines that are best for injectors . This list is the result of a study by GM, Chrysler, Honda and maybe Ford?
Yes, of course the battery is over-engineered. This is Gen I people. We don’t have hard data on calendar life yet and are still accumulating real world charge/discharge cycle life data.
I’ve read a ton of posts regarding this study and one thing is often forgotten. The “40 mile” is best-case. Trudging through the snow with the heater, headlights, wipers, and radio on and I bet that range goes down to 20-25.
Now, put that car with a 7-10 mile range in the same scenario and your effective battery-only range is reduced to 3-4 miles. GM seemed to know what they were doing.