http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

Quote :

"The extended-range electric vehicle is no longer just a rumor. We have put tremendous design and engineering resources in place to make this vehicle a reality. The Concept Chevy Volt, with its revolutionary E-Flex Propulsion System will be different than any previous electric vehicle because it will use a lithium-ion battery with a variety of range-extending onboard power sources, including gas and, in some vehicles, E85 ethanol(1) to recharge the battery while driving. When it comes to plugging in, the Volt will be designed to use a common 110–volt household plug. For someone who drives less than 40 miles a day, Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions.(2) For longer trips, Chevy Volt's range-extending power source kicks in to recharge the lithium-ion battery pack as required. We expect a driving range of an estimated 640 miles.(3) "

I always wondered if this design would work. I mean if they set the speed the engine/generator runs at to a constant, the efficiency should go through the roof. Looks like 150mpg and you do not have to worry about running out of battery. That is retarded. I would not even charge the motherfucker just drive it on the generator all the time.

This is an electric car that is actually practical for highway use as well as short commutes. It can also be introduced without adding charging stations and stuff to peoples parking lots at work. It can still run off gas but with a retardedly low MPG.

Quote :

"The Volt's internal-combustion generator engine powers only the batteries, not the car's wheels, meaning that it needs to run at only one speed, maximizing efficiency. Modern diesel-electric rail locomotives have used the same principle for decades. Fully charged, the Volt should be able to drive about 40 miles before the generator kicks in. The generator's fuel tank should enable the car to go 400 miles before refueling, allowing it to get the equivalent of 150 miles per gallon."

6/5/2008 1:43:50 PM

[old]

6/5/2008 1:59:01 PM

I know the concept is old, they just announced that they are going to try to get it to production in the next two years. They better do something since Tahoes are not exactly selling like they were.

6/5/2008 2:05:22 PM

got nothing on this:

http://www.mrsharkey.com/pusher.htm

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : i home GMs execution of this idea is better than the ev1]

6/5/2008 3:37:11 PM

Pretty neat idea

6/5/2008 10:48:10 PM

saw it in person and i will certify that it is arguably the hottest hybrid in the production or immidiate plans for production. it would eventually run out of juice even with the generator running, but the estimated 640 mile range is more than you would really want to drive in one day anyhow
i'd rock one, i wonder what are they estimating for pricing?

6/6/2008 7:19:26 AM

I've got a better idea.

Why don't we build a new camaro. Instead of investing money in a hybrid vehicle lets make the tahoe run off of two fuels. Yeah neither are cheap, and neither are used efficiently, but fuel efficient vehicles are just a fad anyways.

6/6/2008 7:50:54 AM

really really want

really really doubt i'll have enough headroom

6/6/2008 8:05:10 AM

$30 grand.

6/6/2008 8:06:11 AM

Quote :

"the estimated 640 mile range is more than you would really want to drive in one day anyhow i'd rock one, i wonder what are they estimating for pricing?"

See that is gay though. I am sure on many days I have driven 900 or more. If you are doing interstate driving it is not that hard to do more than that in one day. I guess it is a step in the right direction though. Widespread use of cars like this would really soften the demand for gas and hopefully lower prices.

6/6/2008 9:03:27 AM

^how many people do that on regular basis though? i never drive for more than 400-500 miles at a time

^^ reasonable

^^^it's bigger than you think, the proportions of the tall hood and trunk along with some bigass wheels make it look low.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 9:08 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2008 9:06:20 AM

I wonder how power from the grid compares to power from the generator in terms of cost. I do not believe our electricity production is terribly efficient. Anybody have data on this?

6/6/2008 11:09:50 AM

the price of the volt is going to be too high to make it economical for most, even with 4 or 5 dollar gas.

If they could get the cost down it would be great. I want one.

Quote :

"it would eventually run out of juice even with the generator running, "

I believe that range is how long you have to go before putting more gas into it, right?

6/6/2008 11:10:31 AM

well that also, but..

not sure what the current engine thoughts are for a generator (i thought it will have a <1L turbodiesel, but the article above says flex-fuel?), but with the energy conversion loss factored in, i doubt it would generate energy as fast as it would be using it, so i assume at some point it will run out of juice and will need to either slow down/stop with the generator running, or be plugged in. It's like having a bucket with a hole in the bottom, if the hole in the bottom is wider than the faucet (no pressure), even if you start with a full bucket it will eventually run out of water

6/6/2008 11:19:05 AM

Quote :

"I believe that range is how long you have to go before putting more gas into it, right?"

See that is how I read it, but the articles are not exactly clear. I mean it would not make sense to put a gas generator in it that could not whip out enough power to keep the car moving without draining the battery further.

6/6/2008 11:24:53 AM

the only thing i can think of, it the generator would always run wide-open once it kicks in, it might be able to supply more power that the car uses ON AVERAGE. Without the buffering effect of the battery you defenitely couldnt get away with such a small engine, because the car would not accelerate. and even scooters do not get 150mpg when running wide open, let alone a slightly sub-1L turbodiesel or a small gasoiline powerplant

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : also i wonder if it will have regenerative braking?]

6/6/2008 11:34:52 AM

Quote :

"I wonder how power from the grid compares to power from the generator in terms of cost. I do not believe our electricity production is terribly efficient. Anybody have data on this? "

Power generators are much more efficient then automobile engines.

Automobile engines suffer from dozens of compromises (size, cost, input fuel, wildly varying rpms etc).

At least this automobile engine will be running at a set RPM which will be optimized for efficiency. Step in the right direction.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2008 1:04:34 PM

I wish they would just make a lightweight, low slung, modestly powered 2 seater with more trunk space than the Elise. Also I wish cars and a really low overdrive gear, one that has just enough power to keep up speed on the interstate. I like that smart car that looks like a roadster...

The problem is everybody is driving around cars that can carry 5 people, but 9 out of 10 times there is only a driver.

6/6/2008 1:32:29 PM

WILL BE PURCHASING.

6/6/2008 2:18:23 PM

^^

Mine is 70hp 2000lbs. It runs 2100 rpm at 65 and any lower would be unbearable.

I removed the hatchback seats so it has a very large trunk.

Granted its a 16 year old engine/technology but my last few tanks have only been 47 and 48 mpg. There are def. gains to be had with a hybrid. The prius I borrow on occasion is very similar in mileage but seats 4 and weighs more. Its also at least somewhat safe!

6/6/2008 2:26:26 PM

Quinn, you're not following my question, allow me to try again;

I wonder what the cost per mile will be, when charging from the grid...

6/6/2008 4:16:20 PM

Our electricity production is very efficient.

What was your point?

Quote :

"In some recent posts, we were able to find out and discuss some important details about how the Volt’s li-ion battery pack is intended to function. One of the most critical facts we obtained from GM is that the 40 mile all-electric driving range will occur within 50% of the batteries maximum charge, or 8 kWh out of 16 kWh total. This translates to 200Wh/mile of energy consumption."

via
http://www.gm-volt.com/index.php?s=recharging

I do not know the accuracy of that website but a kWh in NC is ~0.08 cents. Check your power bill.

6/6/2008 4:35:07 PM

I did not have a point, I had a question, which you answered.
Thanks.

6/6/2008 4:39:55 PM

It's still a chevrolet. They'll find a way to screw it up by giving it a cheap interior or adding unnecessary features. It's bound to happen. I'd rather wait for a foreign car maker to perfect the technology.

6/7/2008 1:24:10 AM

^ Well, hopefully since it's a radical-looking departure from what Chevy makes, it'll be a radical departure from the status-quo for the vehicles they make now. They'd be total fools if they didn't improve the quality of the assembly line for the Volt to be on par with Toyota (or as close to it as possible). They should've wised up by now and recognized that's part of what's killing their company (the low quality cars they used to produce are still a stigma associated with their current cars, for sure, so they need to beat the best in order to change public thinking about what they produce).

6/7/2008 1:37:23 AM

if the plans for another tower to go up at sharon harris i will be buying one.


until we announce that we are drilling our own oil gas isnt going to go down.


they have also said that it isnt going to look like the concept

6/7/2008 5:48:58 PM

I like it. The translucent thingy on the tops of the doors kind of throws me off, though. Ultimately, the battery will make or break this car.

It's not easy to push a 3000 lb+ car around 40 miles with decent acceleration and top speed.

And for you cunts worrying about the range, what the fuck? If 640 miles isn't enough for you, then just pull into a gas station and fill that bitch up. What a non-issue.

6/7/2008 7:52:42 PM

think about it, if its getting 640 miles per tank, and estimated 150 mpg. To go fill up after that 640 miles would take like 6 gallons.

wtf more do you want?

6/7/2008 8:01:21 PM

so will this have smaller motors at each drive wheel or one larger one?

6/7/2008 10:30:48 PM

motors in each wheel.

6/8/2008 12:29:04 AM

[NO]
one 120kW motor

^you are probably thinking about GM "skateboard" platform which is based on fuel-cell

6/9/2008 8:03:52 AM

Quote :

"if the plans for another tower to go up at sharon harris i will be buying one. "

sharron harris is going to get two westinghouse AP1000s

expect them to be operational around 2020

6/9/2008 8:40:02 AM

^^ that is a cool platform cause you can make it look like anything you want... too bad its heavy...

6/9/2008 8:43:00 AM

Quote :

"If 640 miles isn't enough for you, then just pull into a gas station and fill that bitch up. What a non-issue. "

shit, I have a 20gal tank and I barely make it to 500 miles if i'm nice to the pedals...

6/9/2008 2:15:55 PM

are you driving a box truck

6/9/2008 2:18:11 PM

No, i'm driving a ~300rwhp porsche 944. The 5.7L v8 drinks almost as much as you do.

6/9/2008 2:32:23 PM

oh yeah i forgot

6/9/2008 2:42:56 PM

that is hideous

6/9/2008 5:15:54 PM

Looks damn good to me:

6/10/2008 5:01:20 AM

But according to other sources in the thread, Chevy said it wouldn't look quite like the concept.

6/10/2008 7:23:03 AM

duh.

6/10/2008 7:55:44 AM

i think it looks badass. if they keep it looking badass they will sell a lot more.

6/10/2008 7:58:35 AM

I'm wondering if it'll look some horrid offspring of a Malibu and that concept vehicle.

It'd be rad if they had more updated pictures for it sometime soon.

6/10/2008 8:03:01 AM

i don't they should make any styling sacrifices and just go for as aerodynamic as possible while still seating a fat ass american.

0.02$

6/10/2008 8:10:35 AM

proof of concept at the '08 auto expo. those windows, as crazy as they look, actually roll down

6/10/2008 8:40:40 AM

Quote :

"I've got a better idea. Why don't we build a new camaro. Instead of investing money in a hybrid vehicle lets make the tahoe run off of two fuels. Yeah neither are cheap, and neither are used efficiently, but fuel efficient vehicles are just a fad anyways."

Good thing they can develop ALL three at the same time!

A lot of you people bashing GM in this thread are acting like its the GM of 10 years ago. Things have been improving A LOT with GM and they're on their way back. Get a clue.

6/10/2008 12:32:39 PM

OH RLLY?

6/10/2008 1:08:55 PM

Quote :

"GM’s third-quarter 2007 loss of $39 billion was the second-worst quarterly net loss in U.S. corporate history under generally accepted accounting principles, said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst for Standard & Poor’s. The loss was exceeded only by AOL Time Warner’s $44.9 billion, or $10.04 per share loss, in the fourth quarter of 2002, he said. "

Quote :

"GM posted a net loss of $722 million, or $1.28 per share, in the fourth quarter of 2007."

Quote :

"GM reported a net loss of $3.3 billion, or $5.74 per share in the first quarter of 2008."

6/10/2008 1:38:21 PM

*sigh* where's that thread that discussed about how compaines claim potential losses in their figures so on paper they can use that xxx million/billion dollar loss for tax purposes... Do you really think a company can really lose that much money and still stay "in business?" As far as I'm concerned, those reports don't mean much. Then again, I don't follow up on the economic status of companies and stuff so w/e. As long as the products work...

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 2:01:05 PM

It doesn't take a genius to realize GM isn't exactly "gang busters" .

6/10/2008 6:52:29 PM