Chevy Volt's powertrain and recharging clarified

Chevy's taking a moment to clear up some misconceptions about its eagerly anticipated plug-in hybrid, the Volt, which had long been assumed (by most) to use its gasoline-powered engine like a WWII submarine -- kicking on and charging the batts to full before switching off again. Alas, that's close but not completely accurate. The engine does serve only to feed the batteries (it's not connected to the wheels in any way) and will fire up when they are getting low. However, it will not fully recharge them, serving only to maintain a 30-percent charge as you keep on motoring. In other words, you'll need to plug that puppy in overnight if you want to get back to silent running and successfully avoid detection by destroyer battlegroups on your morning commute -- or spy cameras.

[disciple83 @ Sep 26th 2008 11:53AM]

like it matters, the way I see it, as long as it keeps the batteries from dying, I'm still sold. The purpose of the gas generator was to extend the life of the battery out to X miles, (used to be 640, now it's what, 300?) I understand it's a plugin and, holy crap, you gotta plug it in to charge the batteries without using gas.

[Anthony @ Sep 26th 2008 11:59AM]

No kidding. I wouldn't care how they did it. This is the most interesting thing to come out of the US car world in a long time. Engadget seems to have issues w/ the design too, but I think it looks just fine. Like a current Civic crossed w/ a last gen Jetta.

[Flashpoint @ Sep 26th 2008 12:16PM]

THE VOLT IS NOT AN ELECTRIC CAR.

It runs on GM's liquified assets.

Can anyone say "bailout"?

[Scott Neary @ Sep 26th 2008 12:25PM]

I agree - its a beautiful design. What I don't understand is how a small company like Telsa can make an exotic electric only car go 200+ miles on a charge, yet a giant like GM can't get a nice, slower, everyday commuter car to go more than 40 miles without using gas. I would think they would at least have a solar roof so that it could trickle charge while parked outside at work for 8-9 hours. Also, why not integrate some small, wind turbine generators inside the motor bay to collect the wind while underway? Still gotta have that gas...:-(

[pball_inuyaha @ Sep 26th 2008 12:32PM]

There is one thing your leaving out, how much will the volt cost and how much does the tesla cost

[Thrillhouse @ Sep 26th 2008 12:41PM]

and the fact is that the more you use the gas engine to recharge the batteries, the more emissions are produced, which kind of defeats the purpose of the electric car. the 30% mark is a nice compromise between full plug-in and no plug-in.

it's not like this reduces the range of your vehicle. it just means your gas engine is going to turn off and on more frequently, thus giving you more opportunities to utilize outlets and use less gas.

[xuansu @ Sep 26th 2008 12:40PM]

Scott Neary

The reasons why GM can't get the commuter car to go more than 40 miles without gas while Telsa can are about $50,000, one row of seat and a real trunk. That's the price difference, and space difference between Volt and Telsa's electric roadster.

[david @ Sep 26th 2008 12:45PM]

Scott Neary,

To the Tesla vs GM Volt:

Cost. Notice how much the Tesla costs vs what the Volt costs. Also, you can still drive the Volt where the Tesla has to stop and charge. Makes a 10 hr road trip a lot easier with the Volt.

As for solar panels, once again cost. You could put solar panels everywhere, but the problem is cost. Not to mention you'd have to protect them from road debris, figure out a charging system, and then it would sure suck if you parked under a tree or it was snowing.

Finally, the turbine generators. Well, that doesn't quite work. You can't stick a bit wind generator on the top of your roof and expect to get BETTER mileage. Increased drag = more work = lower mileage.

[tif @ Sep 26th 2008 12:42PM]

Cuz the battery holds 16000 Watt-Hours and you'd be lucky to get 100 Watt-hours from a solar panel parked in bright sun all day. That's roughly enough to extend your range by a 1/4 mile. Why bother?

[beckerist @ Sep 26th 2008 12:47PM]

While solar panels aren't a bad idea, any turbine you add to the vehicle is going to cause SOME resistance (otherwise, how would you get anything out of it?) The resistance will be a bigger loss than the energy you gain from it (transfer always loses some.)

It'd make sense to have some sort of turbine that was allowed to spin ONLY during braking, but still the weight of it would probably make it not worth the trouble.

[Tech^Cellfish @ Sep 26th 2008 1:01PM]

David: The cost would be the same in some countries where the fees are only added to gasoline/gas powered vehicles. The Tesla is 100% electric. Fees on some cars are 50% here in Norway.

[Evan @ Sep 26th 2008 1:40PM]

Regarding Tesla vs GM Volt:

Tesla announced plans to introduce a $60,000 sports sedan in 2010:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/30/tesla-announces-the-model-s-a-60k-all-electric-five-passenge/

$60,000 for a sports sedan capable of 225 miles on a charge, or $40,000 for a dressed up Chevy Cobalt capable of 40 miles on a charge? The extra $20,000 seems worth it, doesn't it?

[Grammar freak @ Sep 26th 2008 3:36PM]

This matters deeply to those of us without driveways who have to park on the street.

[T-Bone @ Sep 26th 2008 6:16PM]

@Evan:
What if the battery dies and/or you have to go, say, 400 miles? Do you really want to sit around for a few hours waiting for the battery to charge? The advantage of the Volt is that it can "recharge" in however long it takes to fill up the gas tank.

[Jon Doe. @ Sep 26th 2008 6:22PM]

Evan,

Well why don't we make it a cool 80,000 then. yah sure. 20,000 difference between cars is nothing. Let me go check, I think I have that in my pants pockets from Tuesday's clothing. I swear. Some people don't think this shit out. Even if you take into consideration federal tax breaks that are being thrown around, which are probably about to be shit canned because of the 700 _Billion_ bailout, these a base price of 40,000 for a car is stupidly insane. yes there is that much tech in there and they are probably eating R&D like Toyota did initially on the Prius. But still. In this economy. You'll be lucky to get people to pony up 25,000 for a car.

[LarryLarryLarry @ Sep 26th 2008 8:16PM]

What John Doe said. Even if this car came with three naked supermodels in the back seat, it would not sell for $40,000 dollars. Even with gas at $5 a gallon, it's not remotely economically competitive with a similar $25,000 gasoline car that gets 32 mpg.

The idea of driving a long trip with my battery permanently loaded at 30% charge is a terrible one. Even Li-ion batteries imprint. You want to drain them way down and then charge them all the way up. Many many times. Otherwise your battery is going to wear out faster and hold less charge.

It looks like there's no way to get your battery at less than 30% capacity, which is really stupid. Why don't they kick in the gas generator at 5% or 10% at the most? Why am I never allowed to use 1/3 of the battery I'm packing around? What is the point of having a 16kWh battery when I can only use 11.2kWh of electricity?

[happy_penguin @ Sep 26th 2008 9:11PM]

I am sure the 30 percent number was not just arrived upon arbitrarily. It probably has to do with optimizing gasoline MPG and power needs. Like a "sweet spot" of efficiency.

This is the right way to do this. The electric drivetrain becomes trivial and the power source can be swapped for whatever technology is currently efficient and affordable.

[LarryLarryLarry @ Sep 27th 2008 6:14AM]

No, even a retard can see that the "sweet spot" is letting the battery get down to 2% and then running a generator big enough to recharge the battery while it's being used. If the battery-only range is 40 mi on 70% of the battery, it would be almost 60 mi on 98% of the battery. The idea of an electric car is to NOT BURN GAS, remember?

So you get down to 2% battery, the double-HP gasoline generator kicks in, and you get back to 30%. If the double-HP generator is only 20% efficient instead of the 24% efficiency of the too-weak-retard generator they have now, who cares? Your battery works almost 50% longer in this system, who gives a rat's ass if the generator is 4% less efficient?

It's a retarded idea. They have two years to fix it. They won't and nobody's buying an electric car that pays itself off after 25 years of driving, anyway.

[Othello @ Sep 27th 2008 2:34AM]

@Larryx3

Because that's not actually true.

"Contrary to some recommendations, these batteries actually last longest if the battery is not fully charged; fully charging and discharging them will degrade their capacity relatively quickly. Degradation occurs faster at higher temperatures. Lithium batteries degrade more while fully charged than if it is only 40% charged. [...] Degradation in lithium-ion batteries is caused by an increased internal battery resistance due to cell oxidation. This decreases the efficiency of the battery, resulting in less net current available to be drawn from the battery."

I stole that from Wikipedia because it words it better than I can.

[happy_penguin @ Sep 27th 2008 1:32PM]

You can't "fix" the laws of physics. Battery technology isn't there at a reasonable cost.

Just a guess, but I was thinking that the 30 percent would allow for hilly terrain or whatever. When you're under heavy load you would use the battery more. Having 30 percent available gives the generator time to catch up when it can. To be able to charge the battery more would mean a larger generator and more fuel used. But I do like Othello's post. I think it explains a lot.

Whether you like it or not, electric cars are not totally viable because of cost, battery efficiency and the needs or wants of the consumer. I believe that General Motors is trying to do is give the electric drivetrain while giving the range and passenger capacity people want and need. This is a real world car they're trying to produce not some sports car for wealthy people with no kids.

I still want to know what the gasoline MPG will be. I bet it will beat the hell out of anything in it's class.

[macserv @ Sep 28th 2008 1:46AM]

Re: Solar Panels on the roof of the Volt... they've already stated that they're planning to offer this as an option. It would trickle-charge the battery, or run the car's air conditioner to keep it cool in the sun.

[petrov @ Sep 28th 2008 3:50PM]

no no no, the tesla cost so much because the chairman, elon musk, wanted to make it the most badass car ever. he took a LOTUS frame (not cheap), built a custom CARBON FIBER body around it, CUSTOM seats, lowered the body and frame an extra 2-3 inches (cost a shitload), a ton of li-ion batteries, and then outfitted it with every hightech car gadget you could imagine. AND the car isn't on a production line. THATS why it cost 100,000 dollars.

the volt is just a crap economy-car that has more batteries and less engine-power than a prius. GM still makes a ton of money off of each car with the amount of hype and "green" support they generate, and continue to help out the oil companies.

as for solar technology, its too heavy and would cancel out the amount of power it took to move that much material around all day.

as for wind turbines, which btw all you dumbass posters clearly misread (he never said put it on top of the car!!), it would take away from the cooling properties that normally help to cool the engine and the steaming hot batteries

[happy_penguin @ Sep 28th 2008 5:58PM]

"no no no, the tesla cost so much because the chairman, elon musk, wanted to make it the most badass car ever. he took a LOTUS frame (not cheap), built a custom CARBON FIBER body around it, CUSTOM seats, lowered the body and frame an extra 2-3 inches (cost a shitload), a ton of li-ion batteries, and then outfitted it with every hightech car gadget you could imagine. AND the car isn't on a production line. THATS why it cost 100,000 dollars."

The most badass car ever? If that was their intent they failed miserably. Sure, it's a badass car but not even close to "the most badass car ever." And thanks for making my point. Building a good true full electric car is expensive.

"the volt is just a crap economy-car that has more batteries and less engine-power than a prius. GM still makes a ton of money off of each car with the amount of hype and "green" support they generate, and continue to help out the oil companies."

Good god not the oil companies in bed with the car companies conspiracy bullshit again...

The point of series hybrid is that it takes the engine out of the drivetrain equation. You don't need a powerful engine to run the generator and the engine can be tuned to provide what is needed for the generator with optimum efficiency at all times for greatly improved economy and emissions. How is this helping the oil companies?

"as for solar technology, its too heavy and would cancel out the amount of power it took to move that much material around all day."

Modern photovoltaic cells are not that heavy. The problem is not weight, it's cost and efficiency.

"as for wind turbines, which btw all you dumbass posters clearly misread (he never said put it on top of the car!!), it would take away from the cooling properties that normally help to cool the engine and the steaming hot batteries"

It wouldn't matter where you put it. The wind provided would have come from the power of the vehicle itself and would be expressed as increased drag which in turn would decrease mileage. The idea reeks of perpetual motion and it doesn't work.



It's clear that you can't express a coherent thought without insulting people. How about you lay off the name calling and stick to the discussion with some civility?

[LarryLarryLarry @ Sep 30th 2008 2:45AM]

Othello, do you really stake your claim on the basis of a Wikipedia article? Which starts with "Contrary to some recommendations"? Come on, man. You can do better than that. Show me a study or something with a shred of scientific credibility.

Anyway, let's assume that the Secret Wisdom of Wikipedia is right and I'm not, just for the sake of argument. You just reduced the practical energy density of the best available batteries. By 33 percent. According to Wikipedia, I really do need to haul an extra 50 percent of dead battery weight around.

This is disastrous news for the electric car.

[Justin @ Sep 26th 2008 11:54AM]

I guess this is actually better because it means you do not pay for gas to charge the batteries, you only pay for the gas that you drive with. My only wish would be that you can set that parameter. Oh Well.

[sdwells @ Sep 26th 2008 2:33PM]

its much better, i actually assumed that's how it worked, that the gas engin only was there to keep it charged enough to continue driving untill you got to where you plug it in.

When the battery tech advances a little bit more i assume rechargable cars will include removable batteries. So each night you switch drained batteries with the new set of charged ones. As long as they could keep the weight down.

infact really we should be charging through contact... a garrage with charging plates.. your car that drops a contact to the charging plate when you put it in park...

what i'm saying is plug in is fine for now but people are in love with wireless. I sure most people would prefer some kind of aotomatic charging solution or switching of batteries as opposed using an actual wired plug

I can't imagin using parking metters that you plug in undattended would be approved unless it was regulated or watched over like as in a parking garrage... seems to easely tampered with.

[Blackstar @ Sep 26th 2008 11:55AM]

Be careful what you shoot at. Some things in here, don't react too well to bullets.

[wesg @ Sep 26th 2008 6:19PM]

@thatrotierkid
and if you don't leave when the meter's up it removes power from the batteries.

[Russell @ Sep 26th 2008 11:58AM]

Well, the city folks are pretty much screwed. Where are you going to find a plug on a parking lot?

[HunterXI @ Sep 26th 2008 12:08PM]

Did you miss the part about the gas tank? That's like, only half the article.

[thatrotierkid @ Sep 26th 2008 12:11PM]

where are you going to find a plug on a farm?

no place has plugs on the roads yet, but they will come. i am guessing it will be like a parking meter type of thing. pull up, swipe your credit card and plug in. when you come back from shopping or dinner, your car is charged

[Russell @ Sep 26th 2008 12:17PM]

I am well aware of the gas tank, but if the gas engine only maintains 30% of charge you would need to find a plug somewhere.

[Duke @ Sep 26th 2008 12:17PM]

I can see where he is coming when thinking of people in Chicago using parking garages. How would they get power until the infrastructure is built up? However, they still get the 30% charge up whenever the power is depleted, so it may not be that big of a deal.

[Russell @ Sep 26th 2008 12:18PM]

@ thatrotierkid

That makes sense.

[Brian @ Sep 26th 2008 12:20PM]

This is one of those chicken and egg problems. People don't want to buy a plug in hybrid because there's no infrastructure. The cities and private companies won't build the infrastructure until there's a wide enough customer base to make use of it. Car maker gets screwed.

[Michael Chastain @ Sep 26th 2008 12:23PM]

If you don't have a convenient place to recharge then an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid isn't the best vehicle choice for you. You're not screwed, you still have all the same options you didn't before.

Plus, as others have mentioned, as the technology becomes more popular charging options will increase as well. It's relatively simple to add charging stations to our existing infrastructure. I just hope the car manufacturers can work together and provide some kind of standard.

[Derbeste @ Sep 26th 2008 12:24PM]

What about using another battery that is portable -- sort of like a bucket?

Plug it into an outlet inside your home at night.....

Take it it out to your car to charge the battery at work (assuming an inside charging inlet).

That way, you could also buy as many spare batteries as you need. It would be the electric equivalent of gas cans.

[Duke @ Sep 26th 2008 12:30PM]

Brian, people in the cities who don't have private garages are the ones who would be real worried about the infrastructure. Average Joe Suburb and the like will have plugs they can use at their homes/garages. I don't think this idea lives and dies just because there are many in the cities that will have problems powering them. I think the ones who can power them will provide a large enough base or the idea to fly and the infrastructure to be justified.

[Steve @ Sep 26th 2008 1:05PM]

@Russell Easy, you just look for a Coulomb-equipped recharging parking spot! If EVs take off, you'll see these things replacing parking meters all over. These posts provide not only a recharging outlet, but also serve as a parking meter and are web-connected. Thus you can have the computer in the dashboard display a map showing the nearest available recharging spots! http://www.coulombtech.com/

[DT @ Sep 26th 2008 2:14PM]

Desterbe,
Because the portable battery as you describe it would be heavy and inconvenient, plus it would contain only a minuscule amount of energy. Try lugging around a car battery and see how convenient that is.

[Derbeste @ Sep 26th 2008 2:49PM]

It's more convenient than a half mile extension cord.

[Will H. @ Sep 26th 2008 8:34PM]

In places in China they've got plugs in parking lots.

[David Z @ Sep 26th 2008 11:59AM]

This is a good thing. If the batteries charged all the way from the gasoline, it would just be acting as an extra inefficient ICE vehicle. As long as it doesn't stall in the middle of the highway, this will allow you to make the most of the limited battery technology currently available, using as little gasoline as possible.

[Othello @ Sep 27th 2008 2:39AM]

Not only that, but it's a common misconception that you should dump then fully recharge a Li-ion battery. That actually cause it to degrade faster.

[Scythe @ Sep 26th 2008 12:00PM]

You sunk my battleship! :(

[happy_penguin @ Sep 26th 2008 9:34PM]

Audi, BMW and Volvo are leaps and bounds more expensive than the average American car.

I'm tired of this "GM might be getting better lately" bullshit. They got better a long time ago. From my 93 Lumina to my 92 Olds 88 to my 98 Century I have never been stranded, never had a serious mechanical problem and I got 30+ MPG. Also, They all managed between 200,000 and 300,000 miles of service. In fact, two of the cars are still being driven by family members.

[happy_penguin @ Sep 26th 2008 9:41PM]

God dammit! That was intended for Evan below.

[iEye @ Sep 26th 2008 12:02PM]

What about AA batteries?

Seriously I have little faith in GM, this car is probably no better than taking one of those toy RC battery cars and making everything 1:32 scale bigger...

I would like to see a long term 1 year review...

Day 1: Brilliant, the only con is having people stopping me and asking questions every minute...

Day 30: WTF something is rattleing in the dash

Day 180: I miss my Big 4 Barrel 305

Day 364: GM you piece of....

Day 365: GM Volt should have been named GM e-Cavalier... now $40,000 with $30,000 rebate...

[cesium @ Sep 26th 2008 12:09PM]

Commie

[Russell @ Sep 26th 2008 12:27PM]

Your hate for GM is noted, the fact that you mention 305 carb tells me you're still thinking 1980's GM.
Good luck with whatever you're driving.