Volt For The Masses

[TheSarge]

GM is doing a very brave -- and arguably, exceptionally stupid -- thing.

Desperate to recover lost status and market share, the world's formerly largest automaker is devoting massive resources toward what it hopes will be the most revolutionary new car since the Model T.

The car -- which will be sold through Chevy dealers as the Volt -- is a "next generation" hybrid that differs from the current crop of hybrids in that while it has a small gasoline-burning engine in addition to an electric motor and batteries, the gas engine plays no role in propelling the vehicle. It merely kicks in every now and then to generate electricity for the car's battery packs, in between plug-ins.

The Volt would thus be, for all practical purposes, a pure electric car -- with just the vestigial tail of an internal combustion engine connecting it with its distant ancestors of the 20th century.

<snip>

If it all sounds to good to be true, maybe that's because it probably is.

For openers -- and by GM's own candid admission -- it doesn't yet have a battery pack that can deliver the goods. Battery technology has long been the Achilles' heel of electric cars. They are heavy, expensive -- or some combination of the two. No one has yet figured out a way to build a reasonably compact, high-performing battery that can do the things expected of the Volt...for a reasonable price.

That includes GM.

This is why current hybrid cars like the Prius remain dependent on internal combustion -- and gasoline.

Yes, GM has "new design" batteries in development. But will these pan out? And within 18 months? That is a seriously Tall Order.


AND ON MORE than one level, too. GM won't have time to do much, if any, meaningful real-world testing given its 2010 timetable. That means (computer "sims" notwithstanding) it really won't have any idea how these new design batteries -- if they can be designed in the first place -- will perform in the real world, especially over the long haul. Any new technology typically goes through a teething stage during which it is, to be charitable, less than reliable. If GM sells several thousand electric lemons (remember the Impact electric car of the '90s?) that break down six months out of the gate, it will be a lot worse for the company's rep and fortunes than the infamous Oldsmobile diesel of the late '70s.

That assumes GM can sell the Volt in the first place.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13468

[Randy]

GM has never been known for their foresight and deep thinking....

[JohnnyReb]

"...... the infamous Oldsmobile diesel of the late '70s. ...."

Hey I had two of them and no problems. A '78 Olds Cutlass and a '82 model 98 150 thou on the first and 140 thou on the second one. Then I moved up to a '85 diesel GMC 4 door dually as my personal mode of transportation.

The biggest thing wrong with the Olds diesels were the stupid general public. The public didn't know squat about diesels. I heard people cuss'em and then admit putting a couple of gallons of gas in the tank to make it crank better because some one told them that would help. I heard of folks putting automatic transmission fluid in the fuel tank to clean the injectors so it wouldn't knock so loud because some flunky truck driver told them too. ....and on and on with the stupid stories.

I kept the oil changed, kept clean fuel in them and drove hell out of'em, no problems what-so-ever. .......but then, I was raised on diesel engines and owned about a dozen pieces of diesel powered equipment at that time. In 50 years of running, operating and owning diesel powered equipment, I never used a can of fuel conditioner/injector cleaner, nothing, no additives at all were ever added to my equipment. As one old mechanic told me once, "That shits put in a can to sell, not to be used." 

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's a gamble, but it is a very sound mechanical strategy IF battery technology can leapfrog soon enough to make it work.  The power process is exactly the right path to take once batteries an order of magnitude better than current ones are posited.

I actually liked McCain's suggestion of a prize for a quantum leap in battery tech, it adds that certain spur to the process like the X Prize did for space vehicle interest.  It's not necessarily big industry and massive venture capital investment that will produce the breakthrough, after all the ubiquitous NiCd batteries we still use in many applications were invented over a century ago by a Swede who would be considered a tinkerer by today's standards.

[Thor]

"...... the infamous Oldsmobile diesel of the late '70s. ...."

Hey I had two of them and no problems. A '78 Olds Cutlass and a '82 model 98 150 thou on the first and 140 thou on the second one. Then I moved up to a '85 diesel GMC 4 door dually as my personal mode of transportation.

The biggest thing wrong with the Olds diesels were the stupid general public. The public didn't know squat about diesels. I heard people cuss'em and then admit putting a couple of gallons of gas in the tank to make it crank better because some one told them that would help. I heard of folks putting automatic transmission fluid in the fuel tank to clean the injectors so it wouldn't knock so loud because some flunky truck driver told them too. ....and on and on with the stupid stories.

I kept the oil changed, kept clean fuel in them and drove hell out of'em, no problems what-so-ever. .......but then, I was raised on diesel engines and owned about a dozen pieces of diesel powered equipment at that time. In 50 years of running, operating and owning diesel powered equipment, I never used a can of fuel conditioner/injector cleaner, nothing, no additives at all were ever added to my equipment. As one old mechanic told me once, "That shits put in a can to sell, not to be used." 

As I've come to understand the problem with early GM diesels was the fact that they used a standard gas engine block, main bearings and cranks. The problem was that the cranks had two bolt main bearings and the power of the diesel would break the main bearing caps. I test drove a 79 Old Cutlass wagon back in 83. The diesel engine was knocking pretty loudly, a lot more that the normal diesel. The dealer did a gas engine swap and had a rebuilt 350 Olds Rocket engine put in. I was really happy with that car because it got 22 MPG and was pretty quick.


I think that once the battery tech gets good enough, electric vehicles may come into favor. However, the canard is that batteries take a LOT of energy and metals to produce. That amount of greenhouse gasses emitted during the manufacture of batteries are far more that what the average gas vehicle emits over it's lifetime. So, vehicle for vehicle, electric cars pollute more than gas vehicles.


Finally, I recall reading an article a couple of years ago about how some oil fields were replenishing themselves. Add into that the recent article about some bacteria that "eats" rocks and excretes a petroleum based by-product, Oil MAY become a renewable resource.

[Rick]

On other thing no one seems to mention, is that you have now moved your fuel consumption from the immediate ( the gas engine) to twenty's miles down the road. To a 40 year old gas powered generator, with the inefficiencies of the power grid. How is this better?

[JohnnyReb]

"...... the infamous Oldsmobile diesel of the late '70s. ...."

As I've come to understand the problem with early GM diesels was the fact that they used a standard gas engine block, main bearings and cranks. The problem was that the cranks had two bolt main bearings and the power of the diesel would break the main bearing caps. I test drove a 79 Old Cutlass wagon back in 83. The diesel engine was knocking pretty loudly, a lot more that the normal diesel. The dealer did a gas engine swap and had a rebuilt 350 Olds Rocket engine put in. I was really happy with that car because it got 22 MPG and was pretty quick.


I think that once the battery tech gets good enough, electric vehicles may come into favor. However, the canard is that batteries take a LOT of energy and metals to produce. That amount of greenhouse gasses emitted during the manufacture of batteries are far more that what the average gas vehicle emits over it's lifetime. So, vehicle for vehicle, electric cars pollute more than gas vehicles.


Finally, I recall reading an article a couple of years ago about how some oil fields were replenishing themselves. Add into that the recent article about some bacteria that "eats" rocks and excretes a petroleum based by-product, Oil MAY become a renewable resource.

On my Cutlass I got 28 MPG and on the bigger, fully loaded '98 I got 34 MPG, go figure.

I heard of stretched head bolts, threads pulled out of the block, broken rods but never a bottom end failure but I guess if you can accomplish the former, you can accomplish the latter. Whenever I pinned some of those with engine failures down, they usually admitted to using starting fluid or a gas rag to start their cars. Starting fluid or gas vapors directly in to the intake of a glow plug diesel engine is a definite no-no.

Like I said, I've got over 50 years experience with all types of diesel engines and I love'em all......well, I did until the gummint got to f***ing with them. CAT* has anounced that they are getting out of the truck engine business as of the end of 2009. Three years ago Perkins built a prototype mid range engine for CAT* that was extraordinary. It was totally mechanically controlled(governed & regulated). It met and surpassed the pollution standards set by the state of California for 2012. The state of California (as I understand it) refused to allow it because it was not computer (electronically) controlled. They junked what was probably a very good engine design. The electronics (bald head inducers) on the new diesel engines are what I hate.

[JohnnyReb]

On other thing no one seems to mention, is that you have now moved your fuel consumption from the immediate ( the gas engine) to twenty's miles down the road. To a 40 year old gas powered generator, with the inefficiencies of the power grid. How is this better?

The pollution is in someone elses backyard.