Breaking news! Chevy volt technically driven by gas engine!

[rgathright]

Originally Posted by bennelson

...
(As to one of the advertising images from GM posted above. I think they do have to change that now, as it's not technically correct any more. I don't think that it was false advertising - it's just that the tech specs on the Volt changed, so any current advertising and how-it-works info needs to be updated to reflect that.)

Any company worth its salt should stand by its marketing claims.

Someone needs to Photoshop that 230 MPG photo with the words EPIC FAIL!

[texanidiot25]

Originally Posted by Russ

Sorry if this is a dupe.

Nice article at Jalopnik about how the Volt's a Hybrid even though they swore up and down that it wasn't.[/url]

-Russ

Lets take a look at this, shall we?

Jalopnik didn't break this story, Edmunds did. In this article Edmunds starts their agument based on this quote here:
"And when rumors swirled that a last-minute change had forced the Volt (and its sister the Opel Ampera) to using the gasoline motor for direct drive, GM said that was a lie. "

Smoking gun right? No, lets look at what the rumor that Edmuds is quoting actually said:
"A number of reports have surfaced in the wake of an Opel Ampera program in London claiming that GM is changing the powertrain setup in the Chevy Volt (right) and its European cousin (below) to permit the on-board internal combustion engine to directly drive the rear wheels under certain conditions."

That's the rumor referenced, Edmunds goes onto say that the spokesman claimed that the assertion that the gas engine would power the wheels was also a "lie", in Edmund's words. Edmunds goes onto assert that, "The Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera, Peterson said, are and will remain cars that are driven solely by their electric motors, with the engine serving only as a power generator to supply electricity when the rechargeable lithium-ion battery pack is depleted."


But what was actually said? Other blogs have much different stores about this same rumour. Going back further, everything started with a quote from the Telegraph:
"General Motors is working on the problem and this autumn plans to unveil a mechanical direct-drive from the engine to the front wheels through the existing twin-clutch planetary gearbox. This would reduce the energy losses of turning petrol power into electricity to drive the car at high speeds, and would also give the Ampera more spritely overtaking performance."

This is the rumor that Edmunds misquoted. And this is the full response from Patterson about the Telegraph's statement:
"This report is inaccurate. First off, the Volt cannot be driven without electric power. It always makes use of electric power within the drive unit.
Secondly, we have no plans to make any mechanical or control strategy changes prior to launch.
The team is in the final stages of validation and durability and have not identified any reason to make any changes. We have a very innovative drive unit that includes a number of clutches and a planetary gear-set which is highly efficient and exists in our pre-production vehicles today. For competitive reasons we won’t provide more details on the operation at this point, but will soon."


Patterson did not deny the use of the engine, only stating that the Telegraph was inacurate, and that there were no changes to the design. A play of words, but no denial about the engine's link in the drivetrain. This alone puts Edmund's *****ing aside (and misquoting), with their sources GM did not lie about the setup, they did not deny the setup. They did a play on words however, but as stated in Patterson's response, the full details would not be released until later.

Autoblog Green also ran the rumor, but with much less anger. Though, they stretched Pattersons words to say that, "the Volt's drive architecture remains the same as always with the engine only driving a generator." Reasonable assertion at the time, I suppose.

They later followed up on that rumor here. While the details of the engine-to-wheels connection were still muddy, ABG asserted that it was still a rumor, citing that a change this drastic was impossible this late in the game. And they'd be right, if the change really was made this late in the game (June of 2010). I'll touch on that later, but ABG finishes the post with a quote from an engineer of the Volt's Opel twin, the Ampera, by saying:
"In any case, the report cites Andreas Voight, an Opel project engineer, who is quoted directly – "We are considering driving the wheels directly from the petrol engine" – and that we can expect an announcement on the matter this autumn. We'll see, and we'll be pestering GM for a comment in the meantime."

Gee, GM just about confirmed the notion of the engine powering the wheels at high speeds, just under 6 months ago. In fact, this is later backed up by Hybridcars.com's chat with patterson which goes onto state that,
"“Efficiency is the Volt’s mantra,” Peterson said. “We will take whatever method we have to get there.” Asked if Volt engineers would use the gas engine to power the wheels—a signature of a parallel hybrid system—if it meant greater efficiency, Peterson replied, “You could do it. Absolutely. It’s a matter of software.” He added, “You have some motors, a planetary gear box, there’s a variety of things we can do in there.”

While not revealing details about the Volt’s technical design, Peterson made it clear that the Chevy Volt employs some degree of hybrid efficiency strategies while the car is in so-called "charge-sustaining" mode.

According to Peterson, Volt engineers borrowed technology not only from its previous electric car, the EV1, but also from the company’s two-mode hybrid system—a clutched gas-electric system designed to give hybrids as much efficiency on the highway as in city driving."

ABG quoted hybridcars.com's article, and also spoke directly to Patterson to clarify. While they settled on the assertion that there would not be any engine power to the wheels, they did ask,
"The question was essentially this: if driving the wheels directly the way current hybrids do could improve efficiency, would that be possible in the Volt. Peterson told ABG that in general, the engineers would do whatever they felt was necessary to maximize efficiency including direct-drive if they thought that was the answer"


Again, with out a direct quote from Patterson, there's still no denial of the engine providing some power.







So I ask, 5 months later, why the hell is this big news? If you connect the dots, and read the links (and the link inside) that the detractors quote, you'd easily find that GM has been hinting at this for a long time, since the preproduction models started making their rounds. The articles that stated that this change was impossible (essentially, ignoring Patterson and the quoted engineers) didn't put forth any effort to think that this was built into the design long ago, as Patterson only denied that these changes were made [i[this late[/i] in the game, and it's a very reasonable assertion that he's been hinting that this decision was made long ago.

As promised, this fall GM finally (officially) explained the Volt's drivetrain, and reasoning for it. I can't understand the *****ing that's been involved by the media, or some members here when the change to mechanically couple the engine and generator to the drivetrain was made in the sake of EFFICIENCY. Boohoo if a team of engineers realize that 100% electric power is not the most viable solution in every condition, and see there's a way to make the package as a whole more efficient. Unfortunately, they had to compromise the full electric drivetrain idea, but would you prefer it to be less efficient with pure electricity?

What's important here, and what Patterson said 5 months ago is this,
"What I want people to know is that it’s a full performance battery electric vehicle for the first 40 miles. And after that, it has an extended range capability. It gives you the freedom to do your 340 miles. I don’t care what you call it. What I want them to know is that it’s capable of being any person’s only vehicle, regardless of what category it is."

As far as I'm concerned, outside of some unrealistic expectations, there has been no lying. GM has, for as long as I can remember, called it an Extended Range Electric Vehicle, and it is simply that. When the battery is charged, it's a pure electric car, even on the freeway. Only once the battery is depleted enough, does it turn on the engine, much less couple it to the drivetrain (more fuel efficient than just providing electrical power). This is the part where your Nissan Leaf would be tethered to a wall.

As far as real world fuel effiency, Motor Trend has this to say:
Never mind the yellow journalistic brouhaha taking place on these here fine internets in regards to the 2011 Chevy Volt. Here's why I'm so geeked on the Chevy Volt and why you should be, too. In normal, everyday driving we got 127 miles per gallon (fine, 126.7 mpg). Which is pretty amazing. Broken down, over the course of 299 miles on Los Angeles highways, byways and freeways, the Volt burned 2.36 gallons of gasoline (fine, 2.359 gallons -- we rounded up). Most other cars use up a tank of gas going 299 miles. The Volt, to reiterate, used 2.36 gallons over 299 miles. That's freaking amazing!

[After their 2nd trip, with aggressive driving]

At the end of the journey, we'd covered more than 120 miles. City, hard-core mountain roads and freeway -- we even took the Volt up to its limited top speed of 101 mph. Well, the speedo indicated 102 mph, but we were pointed downhill. Let me also mention that we had the A/C on because it was 100 degrees out. Factoring in the mountainous part of our romp, where Frank and I acted like utter hooligans and neglected (on purpose) to put the Volt in Mountain Mode, we still averaged 74.6 miles per gallon over 122 miles.

This post took me about an hour and a half to research through the links. Had any of these "news" blogs taken that amount of time to even look at their sources, and the links with-in them, they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Yes GM could not build a pure EV car, but GM never promised a pure EV car when it went into building the production car.

I'll repeat this quote from MT:
In normal, everyday driving we got 127 miles per gallon

[tjts1]

So why is GM still calling it an EV?

[Frank Lee]

Heard of marketing fluff?

[texanidiot25]

Originally Posted by tjts1

So why is GM still calling it an EV?

I dont see them classifying it as a pure ev. It's been an extended range ev for quite some time. GM may dumb the terms down and call it an electric car for the public, and with the electric motors being the primary drive, they're not mistaken in generalizing it as such.

I ask once more, would you rather them stick to pure electric drive and loose effiency?

[ShadeTreeMech]

Originally Posted by dcb

Please lets not call trains hybrids, even in quotes, they only have one power source, it will only further confuse people.

How is a train not a series hybrid? There is a low RPM diesel engine turning a generator which powers electric motors going to the wheels. The newer locomotives even have batteries to capture the charge generated when going downhill.

How is this different from a series hybrid with rubber tires instead of steel wheels?

[Ryland]

I was just looking at Toyota's price listing for the 2011 Prius, $23,000 to $28,000 depending on the options you want, Enginer.us plug in kit for the Prius is $5,500 for their 8kwh battery pack, that should be good for 30+ miles of pure EV mode... so if you want a plug in hybrid why would anyone spend an extra $7,000 to $12,000 for the Chevy volt? right, it's "made in the USA" if that is what you want wait two years till Nissan is building the Leaf in the USA.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by UFO

No, it doesn't. A "diesel electric train locomotive" has ONE power source. Diesel. It cannot generate electricity without it, there is no storage mechanism. The electric motor is a robust torque converter, that is all it does.

A locomotive CANNOT.

I see this statement used often, in any event I cannot believe that a hydred is required to store energy to be one; the locamotive is using 2 different types of energy in series and is therefore a series hydred, this term was used long before hydred meant anything in the automotive world. Also just because the power is generated and used onboard without being stored has nothing to do with the hybrid monkier.

Also on that same regard some of the very old diesel locomotives DID INDEED use large edison batteries as a buffer to handle the initial surge during take off and to provide braking action as they did not overheat. Which means by your own definition many trains would quality as a battery serial hybred

Cheers
Ryan

[Rokeby]

What does the word Volt, as in Chebby Volt mean anyway?
Most folks would say that it is -

The volt, a unit of potential difference that drives current.
It was named in honor of Italian physicist
Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta *(1745-1827).

But hang on a minute, there are other meanings:

volt   
–noun
1. Manège .
a. a circular or turning movement of a horse.
b. a gait in which a horse going sideways turns around a center,
with the head turned outward.
2. Fencing . a sudden movement or leap to avoid a thrust.
Source

So, in light of the circularity, confusion, jumping from one possible
electro/mechanical drive mechanism, etc, etc, Chebby has followed in
development of the Volt, it seems that way back in the beginning they
gave us fair notice.

When they named the car the Volt, what they were saying, even
warning us about was, "Don't expect us to be straight forward about this,
we're going to give you the runaround, and dodge any questions."

And, they were right!

Shame on us for not doing our homework.

[user removed]

If you use EOC P&G, technically speaking your car is a hybrid. You have stored energy in your cars inertia and use it to move the vehicle without consuming any fuel during the coast phase of operation.

You do use fuel to increase your speed, but when done properly the energy conversion is much more efficient due to operation at best BSFC.

I think much is lost in focusing on the method of hybridization, while the results should be the principle objective.

Increased complexity and cost to accomplish the same thing a good hypermiler can do with a conventional vehicle is a way the manufacturers make the transition to more efficient vehicles difficult.

It's a shame that more focus is not directed towards accomplishing the benefits of a "hybrid' vehicle without increasing the cost and complexity. How about doing it with lower cost and less complexity. I believe it is definitely possible, although is seems few share that belief.

Also people tend to think there is one and only one best method of "hybridization" of vehicles.

While we may at some point in the future develop a battery that solves all the problems that exist today, no one knows what configuration will eventually succeed, or how long it will be before that point is reached. The answer is we do not know when an electric car will have the range to replace our current vehicles.

Power conversion total energy density still favors the use of some form of IC engine.

That may change, but the application and recovery of power to the wheels is something that could change virtually overnight.

We know how to do it. The question is really how do we get everyone to do it, by changing the way cars operate so it is done automatically.

That brings on a whole new set of problems. What happens to the existing fleet of vehicles when the new super mileage vehicle becomes a reality? Do you think the manufacturers would want to make their existing inventory as well as the used car market as a whole obsolete overnight. Consider all of the jobs that would be lost in industries that presently depend on the status quo for survival.

Imagine the day when we find out that every vehicle on the planet has become obsolete overnight, the economic cost of that transition would be devastating, not only to car owners but to those who depend on their consumption of numerous commodities related to car operation.

GM used the Volt to sell the govt a bill of goods GM knew it did not have. The lack of critical information reminds me of the person who short changes you and tells you it is an innocent error.

If it was, why is it you are always short changed. If it was an innocent mistake, would it not randomly benefit you at a rate of close to 50% of the time.

The disingenuity that has become the norm in this society makes me glad to know that as I reach the age of 60, I will not have to deal with it for to many more decades. The cynicism is especially cruel when someone who honestly wants to help can not wade through the fear of the cynical that they are just playing them for a fool one more time.

regards
Mech