Updates on Chevrolet Volt

[cmcpokey]

Sure it is...
General Motors EV1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean yes they say it is coming but I won't believe it till I see it when GM has this kind of track record.

i used to see the EV1s though. when I was a kid and living in SoCal, it used to see them occasionally. not real often, but they did exist in the wild.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Not any more they don't. They were only available on lease plans, and have all been bought back & crushed.

but a pure electric car has so many drawbacks it's not even funny. The Volt is a decent future, but it's only, like the Prius, is a stopgap.

[roosterjuicer]

Yeah the EV-1 was completely impractical and meant mostly for govt workers and stuff like that. not for normal people.

[nota]

Test mule [of 2010 GM Volt] gives 40 miles on electricity alone

Production version of 1999 GM EV1 gave 160 miles on electricity alone



Can't stop progress! Way to go GM

[culver]

Production version of 1999 GM EV1 gave 160 miles on electricity alone



Can't stop progress! Way to go GM

The 160 mile range was under ideal conditions. It also involved using a very large and costly battery pack. However, the Volt also doesn't need the long range. The EV1 was slow to charge thus needed to have enough range so that an owner could do just about any day's driving without needing to charge. The Volt is intended to have enough range to allow the average owner to make a daily commute. For longer ranges the gasoline (or other fuel) motor will be used to increase range. This means unlike the EV1 which was effectively limited to no more than 160 miles/day the Volt, like a conventional car could be driven all day. It doesn't need the long battery only range because it has the flexibility of using gasoline as well.

What the Volt delivers is a useful electric only range yet the ability to drive long distances by combining battery and gasoline. So yes, it is progress. Quite a bit of progress.

[nota]

The 160 mile range was under ideal conditions. It also involved using a very large and costly battery pack. However, the Volt also doesn't need the long range.

One could argue that Volt's 40 mile battery range is 'under ideal conditions' and also involves using a costly battery pack

The EV1 was slow to charge thus needed to have enough range so that an owner could do just about any day's driving without needing to charge. The Volt is intended to have enough range to allow the average owner to make a daily commute.

"Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours)."

IIRC the average daily US commute is under 40 miles, so EV1 also provided enough range so that average owners could also accomplish typical daily usage (with a handy reserve quotient) without needing to recharge, or another full-charge range if recharged when laying idle during the day

For longer ranges the gasoline (or other fuel) motor will be used to increase range. This means unlike the EV1 which was effectively limited to no more than 160 miles/day the Volt, like a conventional car could be driven all day. It doesn't need the long battery only range because it has the flexibility of using gasoline as well.

What the Volt delivers is a useful electric only range yet the ability to drive long distances by combining battery and gasoline. So yes, it is progress. Quite a bit of progress.

For sure a complex hybrid powertrain avails long distance type operation - which was not within the typical commuter-style zero pollution intent of EV1 - so personally I'd call it a draw, at best

I reaally liked the EV1 (they also looked great imo) and overall they epitomised GM at its finest, and worst

[culver]

Nothing against the EV1 here. I saw one years back at an electric car rally in California. However, I think it's very unfair to claim the Volt is a step back. The Volt's battery pack is much smaller than that in the EV1. It is also much cheaper.

Yes, recharging both batteries will take a few hours. However, the Volt will not require a recharge. Even without a recharge you still get the efficiency benefits of a hybrid system.

The EV1 had plenty of range for a commute or even a longer than average commute plus some running around. However, there have been a number of days when I did need to drive more than 160 miles (or less under less than ideal conditions). The EV1 was fine so long as you never needed more than 160 miles in good conditions (MUCH less when it was cold out). Unfortunately given the very high cost of the car the EV1 just didn't deliver much. The Volt really does promise to deliver the every day low pollution and range with out the limitations.

I do with that GM (and the market) would have considered removing half the batteries from the EV1 and adding a generator. But even then it likely would have sold poorly. Look at the Honda Insite. Configuration wise it was very similar to the EV1. It also delivered much better mileage than the Prius. What Toyota got right was the practicality. Unfortunately the EV1, unlike the Prius was so focused on efficiency for moving two that it wasn't any good for moving more than two. I suspect GM will not make the same mistake with the Volt.

The EV1 was one of those great displays of technology that regrettably didn't really answer the needs of enough buyers to be successful.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The biggest problem for the EV-1 was that it was a huge loss making exercise that, once the governmental need for it was removed, they simply cut there losses & moved on.

Electric cars are not really the answer because unless you source the power from a green or renewable source it's simply shifting the problem. I give the Volt every chance of suceeding so long as they get a product that doesn't require it's user to sacrifice any form of comfort in the name of efficiency. that is where the Prius is brilliant - it's essentially a small usable hatchback that looks a little odd, but not off puttingly so. It's The acceptable face of environmentalism. stuff like the Insight and EV-1 ended up looking a little buck-rogers for the average consumer.

couple this to the fact the Prius is a viable family car option and it's little wonder it's a success. I hope the Volt can tap that market also.

[nota]

The biggest problem for the EV-1 was that it was a huge loss making exercise that, once the governmental need for it was removed, they simply cut there losses & moved on.

Pruis was initially a huge loss making exercise - who knows what might have since transpired with EV1 if GM had persisted with, refined & evolved it

Electric cars are not really the answer because unless you source the power from a green or renewable source it's simply shifting the problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong but en masse isn't even brown-coal derived industrial-dimension electrical power a cleaner energy source than individual petrol powered ICEs running around hither and fro?

And of course the "unless" in your premise is rapidly becoming a big 'why not'

For a personal example, my total domestic electrical supply (which could have been availed to super-cheaply 'fuel' an EV1) has been derived 100% from alternative 'green' energy sources since 1997...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Pruis was initially a huge loss making exercise - who knows what might have since transpired with EV1 if GM had persisted with, refined & evolved it

The EV-1 evolved from a requirement for a Zero-emission car. When that requirement was, perhaps without the benefit of foresight, removed, the vehicle's purpose as a test bed was seen as not beneficial.

My, how things have changed

Correct me if I'm wrong but en masse isn't even brown-coal derived industrial-dimension electrical power a cleaner energy source than individual petrol powered ICEs running around hither and fro?

When you shift the emissions from petrol vehicles - which are becoming more efficient and emitting fewer toxins into the atmosphere in there best iterations - to coal powered stations & other infrastructure that have been in place and not updated since the 60's in there worst iterations, I don't see that being the best solution.

Of course, If the power comes from a wind farm or similar, There is no problem. but I don't know how prevalent that type of power generation is - and by the same token the efficient engines aren't as prevalent as they need to be.

And of course the "unless" in your premise is rapidly becoming a big 'why not'

It's certainly becoming a larger source. and thats for the better. until it's completely viable (and you'd have to factor in increased usage from these electric vehicles) the alternatives aren't very promising.

For a personal example, my total domestic electrical supply (which could have been availed to super-cheaply 'fuel' an EV1) has been derived 100% from alternative 'green' energy sources since 1997...

Thats pretty good - I presume you've had to select such a thing though. it's not been a default.

and thats just it - consumers need to become more aware of where they get there energy - not just in their vehicle.

But thats beside the point. If power is generated from a non-renewable source any advance this car makes will be offset by the pollutants used in it's batteries & manufacture, not to mention it's use.

[togos452]

34,000 unofficial handraisers

August 13, 2008

Unofficial Chevrolet Volt waitlist registers over 34,000 handraisers

More teaser Volt images

August 14, 2008

GM releases more Chevrolet Volt images

[f6fhellcat13]

When you shift the emissions from petrol vehicles - which are becoming more efficient and emitting fewer toxins into the atmosphere in there best iterations - to coal powered stations & other infrastructure that have been in place and not updated since the 60's in there worst iterations, I don't see that being the best solution.

Of course, If the power comes from a wind farm or similar, There is no problem. but I don't know how prevalent that type of power generation is - and by the same token the efficient engines aren't as prevalent as they need to be.

I'm not quite sure of this, but I think the sheer scale of a powerplant's operation lead to extracting more energy out of a fuel than a car ICE. THat being said they do release all kinds of toxins (that arent greenhouse gases) whereas most CO from car exhaust is converted to CO2 by the cats and therefore cars might create more greenhouse gases but less toxins than a powerplant. and everybody in their selfish little way would think "ooh greenhouse gsases affect us, all toxins will only hurt the ppl around the powerplant."

[Matra et Alpine]

... and..... the further the distance from a powerplant the more the losses are in the transmission network to the home

[f6fhellcat13]

I dont have any numbers on electrical resistance but i know that a car loses about 10-15% of its power to drivetrain ineffeciencies, and IMHO that sound like less than the percentage a copper wire tens of miles long would lose. unfortunatley, I don't have numbers so I cant argue my point very well. Sorry, Matra.

[nota]

unfortunatley, I don't have numbers so I cant argue my point very well.

FYI

The purpose of this paper is to prove that EVs recharging from today’s power plants are substantially cleaner than even the most efficient ULEVs. The myth that EVs are “elsewhere emission vehicles” will be put to the test with facts that clearly show EVs and power plants are cleaner, more efficient and more reliable then the infrastructure that supports ICE vehicles.
...

EVs recharging from fossil-fueled power plants such as coal and oil have unique efficiency advantages over ICE vehicles. As a system, EVs and power plants are twice as efficient as ICE vehicles and the system that refines gasoline. See Table 4. Although there are losses associated with generating electricity from fossil-based fuels, EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf