Motor Trend COTY thoughts.

Think of the first GM V-8. Not exactly fuel efficient or powerful compared to the lump sitting in the Corvette right now. If the Volt technology progresses in the same way, think what we will be driving in 50 years! My hat is off to GM for making a bold step forward and making a car that satisfies real-world driving demands. I think that it can only get better, and was an obvious choice for COTY.

As for the Sienna, I had one as a rental car and I have to admit that I am smitten. Its a little large, but with kids and dogs and stuff to haul, I could use the space.

I was happy to see the Hyundais and Kias in contention. Korea is making great cars and they deserve some notice. While they are still undercutting Honda on price, it is the best time to buy.

The CR-Z is fine, but when they offer the non-hybrid version with a 6-speed and 225HP I will be all over it.

Teh E36 M3 wrote: In "gas only" mode (generator charging batteries to power motor) it makes 37 MPG with a 75hp engine? I'm an old non-practicing ME who has trouble abiding combining the inefficiencies of the electric motor (~.70), gasoline engine (~.20), and generator (~.75) for a total efficiency, (not counting battery storage or other "transfer costs"), of 10.5%. So during gas assist operation, you've managed to make a 20% efficient gas engine half as efficient.

Just to support what Vigo is saying, your efficiency numbers are way off. Furthermore, it sure feels like you're ignoring the fact that the car is designed to use the gas engine to provide acceptable range and power on rare occassions, not all the time. That's why they call it a "range extender"...

Bryce

alfadriver wrote:

FlightService wrote: Yeah I do not see the Volt being anything more than a U.S. government Prius.

I didn't want to get involved, but when I read this kind of crap, I think "why the hell do people say this?" The Volt was started WELL before bankrupcy, and the 2011 target was defined WELL before bankrupcy. Besides the fact that this car was not killed- there's probably little involvement that the government had with this or any other GM product. For some reason people precieve that there was this massive govenment take over of GM, and while there was some major purging at the top ranks- so that they would tell reality to each other, there's no F'ing way that the government had anything to do with any of the cars GM makes. It's too bad that people feel that they need to disparage GM and our govermnet. You'll note two things- GM is a US company, and the goverment IS us (or US).

Just to clarify the point, my take on GM being government owned is more of a comment on the hype surrounding a car that was originally planned to be ground breaking, but ended up being a remake and refinement of current technology. Nothing really special. So I am just humbly stating my disagreement with our post originator and their opinion and stating why I feel that way.

As far as my take on our government, I vote, every election since I was 18, and I have ran for office, I have the right to be critical of our government and their behaviors. That is why the system is set up the way it is. It is our duty as citizens to monitor and criticize their officials. That is what makes us U.S.

FlightService wrote: Just to clarify the point, my take on GM being government owned is more of a comment on the hype surrounding a car that was originally planned to be ground breaking, but ended up being a remake and refinement of current technology. Nothing really special. So I am just humbly stating my disagreement with our post originator and their opinion and stating why I feel that way.

What were you expecting, a hover car? A car that saves babies while you're not using it? The Volt uses a powertrain that is significantly different from anything else on the road, yet still offers a 100,000 mile warranty and manages to be sold at a price below stratospheric at its introduction. GM even has a handful of patents for new stuff that were created to pull it off. I consider that pretty special, but it sounds like you set the bar pretty damn high. Isn't that special?

Bryce

The only of Car of the year I pay attention to is EVO's but then I can't get most of the cars in that over here because Washington is full of Bob Costas and berkeleying lawyers. And I cry myself to sleep.

FlightService wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

FlightService wrote: Yeah I do not see the Volt being anything more than a U.S. government Prius.

I didn't want to get involved, but when I read this kind of crap, I think "why the hell do people say this?" The Volt was started WELL before bankrupcy, and the 2011 target was defined WELL before bankrupcy. Besides the fact that this car was not killed- there's probably little involvement that the government had with this or any other GM product. For some reason people precieve that there was this massive govenment take over of GM, and while there was some major purging at the top ranks- so that they would tell reality to each other, there's no F'ing way that the government had anything to do with any of the cars GM makes. It's too bad that people feel that they need to disparage GM and our govermnet. You'll note two things- GM is a US company, and the goverment IS us (or US).

Just to clarify the point, my take on GM being government owned is more of a comment on the hype surrounding a car that was originally planned to be ground breaking, but ended up being a remake and refinement of current technology. Nothing really special. So I am just humbly stating my disagreement with our post originator and their opinion and stating why I feel that way. As far as my take on our government, I vote, every election since I was 18, and I have ran for office, I have the right to be critical of our government and their behaviors. That is why the system is set up the way it is. It is our duty as citizens to monitor and criticize their officials. That is what makes us U.S.

If that's what you MEAN, you may want to SAY it that way.

If you say that the Volt is a government Prius, that SAYS that you think that the car was thought of, developed by, and was sourced by the government. It is, never was, any of those.

If you way the Volt HYPE is like government Prius, that's what you say you really mean. And only implies recent ads, hype, and may (or may not) have real basis.

You do have the right to criticze the govenement. But I would stop you from undermining and reducing it's effectiveness. Again, saying what you really MEAN goes a long way.

Nashco wrote:

FlightService wrote: Just to clarify the point, my take on GM being government owned is more of a comment on the hype surrounding a car that was originally planned to be ground breaking, but ended up being a remake and refinement of current technology. Nothing really special. So I am just humbly stating my disagreement with our post originator and their opinion and stating why I feel that way.

What were you expecting, a hover car? A car that saves babies while you're not using it? The Volt uses a powertrain that is significantly different from anything else on the road, yet still offers a 100,000 mile warranty and manages to be sold at a price below stratospheric at its introduction. GM even has a handful of patents for new stuff that were created to pull it off. I consider that pretty special, but it sounds like you set the bar pretty damn high. Isn't that special? Bryce

No what I was expecting was what was originally promised. A car with no direct gasoline engine attachment to the wheels. A true electric car with a generator for range extending. They just built another hybrid.

Although your suggestion of what I was thinking would have been uber cool.

alfadriver wrote: If that's what you MEAN, you may want to SAY it that way. If you say that the Volt is a government Prius, that SAYS that you think that the car was thought of, developed by, and was sourced by the government. It is, never was, any of those. If you way the Volt *HYPE* is like government Prius, that's what you say you really mean. And only implies recent ads, hype, and may (or may not) have real basis. You do have the right to criticze the govenement. But I would stop you from undermining and reducing it's effectiveness. Again, saying what you really MEAN goes a long way.

Your right I should have been more clear. My bad.

Its not like it is the government cheese of automobiles or anything, but this just doesn't interest me that much. I just keep seeing all these articles about "The Volt changes EVERYTHING!!!!" and all I can think is... so? Not to mention it looks like a giant Civic Si crossed with the Ford Taurus and costs $40,000+ (!!!).

As someone who is currently looking for a new car, this isn't even on my radar. I was interested in the CR-Z, but they put that stupid hybrid motor in it instead of the K20Z3 that is deserves... blech.

Nashco wrote:

Teh E36 M3 wrote: In "gas only" mode (generator charging batteries to power motor) it makes 37 MPG with a 75hp engine? I'm an old non-practicing ME who has trouble abiding combining the inefficiencies of the electric motor (~.70), gasoline engine (~.20), and generator (~.75) for a total efficiency, (not counting battery storage or other "transfer costs"), of 10.5%. So during gas assist operation, you've managed to make a 20% efficient gas engine half as efficient.

Just to support what Vigo is saying, your efficiency numbers are way off. Furthermore, it sure feels like you're ignoring the fact that the car is designed to use the gas engine to provide acceptable range and power on rare occassions, not all the time. That's why they call it a "range extender"... Bryce

Which ones, and what are the correct numbers? You can't just say I'm wrong without proof or math showing contrary dude.

And, I'm pretty sure they're darn close. I did simplify the math, but if anything the efficiency numbers are inflated because I didn't account for driveline losses or electrical transmission losses. I may have understated the electric motor's efficiency, but even if it were 90% the total number is still 13.5%, hardly something to write home about.

Finally- and we're going to have to just disagree with the point of the "range extender".... I see it as a band-aid solution, not some raging "great idea!1!1" technology, but perhaps one that is needed until we find a quick way to charge batteries.

Volt Hype- you all know it's going to get worse before it gets better, right? The volt was even part of a derivative commercial of Home Buyers- it was called Car Buyers. Wait- that's House Hunters, and Car Hunters- on HGTV.

it's not my show- mrs Alfa.

(oh, as for combustion efficiency- most of you are getting the wrong number- it's generally higher for real- I was pretty stunned when I saw real data....)

Gasoline engines are closer to 35% efficient with modern technology, particularly when they can operate in a very narrow operating range such as the Volt can. Don't take my word for it, here's your government saying so:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

For reference, a modern diesel engine is close to 45% efficient. Modern electric motors are between 80-95% efficient depending on the operating conditions, when you factor in the total efficiency from battery, inverter, motor, cables, etc. it works out to be about 85% efficient on average. Of course, there are transmission/bearing losses, those exist on any car whether it's powered by air or pickled pigs feet, so I'm ignoring that for sake of comparison. Here are some supporting facts:

http://www.remyinc.com/docs/HVH250_r3_Sept_2010.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Energy_efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency

Again, it totally depends on the operating range and specific components. I would argue that the numbers are something like this:

Gas burner with 75 hp: 35% efficient at best (giving benefit), slow as balls
Volt: 80% efficient for 81% of the time, 28% efficient (35%*80%) for 19% of the time = about 70% overall efficient and not slow as balls.

Obviously, the more you rely on the gas engine, the less efficient it will get...but if you're driving mostly on gas (long highway drives) then you shouldn't be using the Volt as that isn't its intended operating cycle. Note that these numbers roughly jive with the EPA window sticker numbers; the Volt is rated at 37 mpg gas only and 93 mpg electric only.

Bryce

Yeah I do not see the Volt being anything more than a U.S. government Prius. As long as there is a direct link between the engine and the wheels it is just a Prius or a Civis Hybrid. (Depending on if the engine is connected to the motor or the transmission first.)

You sound as though you think the Prius is unimpressive? Certainly its not impressive compared to the Volt, but still.

As for it JUST being a prius or civic hybrid equivalent.. sure, its a hybrid in a sense, but taken to a new level compared to those two. IMO the civic hybrid isnt even in the same game as far as the engineering.

The promise of a an electric car with a generator back up is not yet realized by a major manufacturer.

Actually, thats pretty much exactly what a Volt is. It uses the gas engine in a very different way than a Prius.

Alfadriver, bravo on that first post, all true!

Pinchvalve, also all agreed there.

Just to clarify the point, my take on GM being government owned is more of a comment on the hype surrounding a car that was originally planned to be ground breaking, but ended up being a remake and refinement of current technology.

It could be said that all new cars represent 3 or 4 year old technology, but really how is this NOT ground breaking? Its got a HUGE battery capacity compared to any existing hybrid, which is what moves it from the realm of the gas/electric hybrids currently on the market and makes it more of an electric car with an onboard generator.

And as far as the motor being directly connected to the wheels, i really dont get this problem people have with it, like they wanted GM to go out of its way to make sure the gas engine could only transmit power to the wheels by FIRST converting it to electric power and then converting it BACK to mechanical power? That adds complexity for no good reason. Its simple enough to disconnect the engine from the wheels in ANY kind of transmission with ANY kind of clutch elements that i just dont get the whole thought of people thinking they're going to get some grand satisfaction from knowing that their gas engine NEVER turns a wheel without going through some kind of loss-adding medium.

Found the answer to my own question Fiat 500 Twin Air review 0-62: 11 seconds Top Speed: 108 mph MPG combined cycle - 68.9 What is so impressive about the Volt?

Did you just completely skip my point about the weight? Noone gives a E36 M3 if a twin-air 500 can get 70 mpg. a 2000 Honda Insight can get 70 mpg, and while it's a hybrid, the electric components dont do E36 M3 to help it get 70mpg, because to get 70 mpg in it you have to drive in such a way that electric assist (load-based) hardly ever occurs! So, sorry, but making a tiny car with a tiny motor get 70mpg doesnt impress me at all. Would i trade my old Insight for a new Twin-air 500 to get the same mpg? Unless i could turn around and sell the fiat for full price and profit.. probably not. I like the fact that some of my power comes from an electric motor because it means i have silent low-rpm torque.

In reply to Vigo:

I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Just because you increase the battery capacity, which by the weight is just adding batteries, you can not say it is a quantum leap forward. The car still has a mechanical linkage between the wheel and the ICE. I don't care how little it uses it, it still does. The Volt upon working prototype release was supposed to have NO MECHANICAL LINKAGE BETWEEN THE ICE AND THE WHEELS. I didn't make them say that, they did.

Now does GM have some/contracted some excellent control engineers. Yes.

Did they make a car that can compete with the Prius once the price is right, yes.

Did they make a ground breaking vehicle with world changing technology, no. Just an evolution of what is already there.

The original Prius was ground breaking, the Honda FCX Clarityis a ground breaking vehicle.

You mention weight, I would have been more impressed if they could do all this with a weight of 3000lbs. The curb weight is portly because of the electronics. Given the torque profiles of electric motors I wouldn't brag about those numbers.

Where does the Leaf, Ranger and S10 electric, and EV1 sit with you? What about the new Plug In Prius. Did you know you can power your house from the fuel cell in the FCX Clarity? The GM AUTOnomy concept and the Trexa electric vehicle would have been ground breaking.

GM had a huge opportunity to do something here. I believe, and more importantly my wallet believes they missed the mark.

Nashco wrote: Gasoline engines are closer to 35% efficient with modern technology, particularly when they can operate in a very narrow operating range such as the Volt can. Don't take my word for it, here's your government saying so: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml For reference, a modern diesel engine is close to 45% efficient. Modern electric motors are between 80-95% efficient depending on the operating conditions, when you factor in the total efficiency from battery, inverter, motor, cables, etc. it works out to be about 85% efficient on average. Of course, there are transmission/bearing losses, those exist on any car whether it's powered by air or pickled pigs feet, so I'm ignoring that for sake of comparison. Here are some supporting facts: http://www.remyinc.com/docs/HVH250_r3_Sept_2010.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Energy_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency Again, it totally depends on the operating range and specific components. I would argue that the numbers are something like this: Gas burner with 75 hp: 35% efficient at best (giving benefit), slow as balls Volt: 80% efficient for 81% of the time, 28% efficient (35%*80%) for 19% of the time = about 70% overall efficient and not slow as balls. Obviously, the more you rely on the gas engine, the less efficient it will get...but if you're driving mostly on gas (long highway drives) then you shouldn't be using the Volt as that isn't its intended operating cycle. Note that these numbers roughly jive with the EPA window sticker numbers; the Volt is rated at 37 mpg gas only and 93 mpg electric only. Bryce

Hey Bryce- Interesting- I did vastly underestimate the efficiency of a gas engine- if I'm reading that fueleconomy.gov website correctly, gas engines can be about 38% efficient, right? I'm curious as to whether that is an average efficiency or a peak efficiency number. Since the Volt engine is part of the drivetrain, it's not going to be able to take advantage of that peak efficiency all the time like it would if it were merely a constant-speed generator.

In the end, I think the point I'm making is like Flightservice here- I don't see the volt as a game changer. I appreciate the engineering that went into it, but I don't think they created a revolutionary product. This is merely the evolution of the hybrid-electric vehicle.

Brust

Wonder how they will be to restore in 30 years?

Teh E36 M3 wrote: Interesting- I did vastly underestimate the efficiency of a gas engine- if I'm reading that fueleconomy.gov website correctly, gas engines can be about 38% efficient, right? I'm curious as to whether that is an average efficiency or a peak efficiency number. Since the Volt engine *is* part of the drivetrain, it's not going to be able to take advantage of that peak efficiency all the time like it would if it were merely a constant-speed generator. In the end, I think the point I'm making is like Flightservice here- I don't see the volt as a game changer. I appreciate the engineering that went into it, but I don't think they created a revolutionary product. This is merely the evolution of the hybrid-electric vehicle. Brust

38% would be peak efficiency; staying at the efficiency requires a powertrain that can keep it at that value...something like a CVT or a dual-motor hybrid (ala Prius, Volt, Two-Mode, etc.). Staying at that peak efficiency is why even regular automatic transmissions now have 6+ speeds these days. The Volt manages power so that the absolute best efficiency can be used based on what the driver needs at that exact moment in time; if there is battery power available, then obviously that is the most efficient use of power. If the battery is low, then the powertrain can use the engine as a generator through motor one to power motor two...thus keeping the engine at 35+% efficiency instead of the 20something% efficiency it would be without the fancy gears+motors+clutches arrangement. The Toyota hybrid synergy drive and two-mode hybrids operate in a similar manner (similar, not the same) allowing them to keep the overall system efficiency as high as possible.

In rare circumstances, it is possible for the engine to drive the wheels directly by closing certain clutches and that results in optimum efficiency...only when the battery is low AND high loads/speeds are required that allow the engine to operate at its peak efficiency point with a direct drive (instead of through the motors). It is craziness to think this is a bad thing compared to operating as a generator only; sure, be pissed that the wrong message was originally advertised, but not pissed that the system can operate in a more efficient manner than originally advertised. If it would make you feel better, GM could (literally) control the powertrain to not use the clutches that way and ONLY use the engine as a generator, thus decreasing fuel economy in gas only mode. Would that be a good thing?

I feel that evolutionary is better than revolutionary...quicker to come to reality, usually a better value, and easier to convince people to try it out. IMO, if GM offered something like the Volt back in the CARB EV days instead of the EV1, it would have been an absolute game-changer. I really wish that extended range EVs existed as a "bridge" to get people to start opening their mind and slowly transition to full EVs...such that after 10 years of life with a Volt, an EV1 would be the next natural transition. The Volt is a game changer, IMO, because it allows people to have an electric vehicle (plugs in when you park, uses battery only, etc.) but still gives them the peace of mind that they can drive forever and ever with gas if required. Eventually, they'll get used to plugging in and rarely needing gas...maybe using their second car or a rental vehicle for those trips. It's also a game changer because there are no other hybrids (that push the EV technology acceptance) that plug in...shifting the energy away from fossil fuels and to more flexible power sources is a great thing, IMO. For a country full of people who are afraid of EV-type range limitations but also needing to ween off fossil fuels, I think it's a great step in the right direction. Anyway, enough history....I'm rambling.

Bryce

I don't care how little it uses it, it still does. The Volt upon working prototype release was supposed to have NO MECHANICAL LINKAGE BETWEEN THE ICE AND THE WHEELS. I didn't make them say that, they did.

Sure, but you're bitching at a good product instead of bitching at bad marketing. Lies that were told about the Volt do not make the actual Volt sitting on the ground any less of a car.

Did they make a ground breaking vehicle with world changing technology, no. Just an evolution of what is already there.

It's not the technology that is world changing, its the vehicle, as you said in the first half of the sentence. If you choose to think that something has to have world-changing technology to be a ground breaking vehicle, so be it, but i just dont think that's so, and further i think its almost impossible. New cars have to be scienced out to the n'th degree before they will sell them to joe q. dumbass with a 10 year warranty. As a practical consideration, i just dont think anyone sells ground breaking tech to joe q. dumbass with a 10 year warranty. Sure, the FCX Clarity has more exotic (and arguably more flawed) technology than the Volt, and its had it for many years, and it still isnt for sale, and even when its for sale, good luck finding a place to fuel it. Seriously, by the time it hits the market, the tech wont be world changing.. but the presentation might still be ground breaking. The Clarity is more of a show-off car than a practical car for the manufacturer, and the Volt is not. The Volt is eminently useable by normal people right now, which makes its relevance in the market about 543609475368905472% higher than the Clarity.

The original Prius was ground breaking.

I dont see how you can on one hand accept the signifigance of the Prius, and on the other hand deny the signifigance of the Volt. Just because they both have electric motors and a gas engine and batteries does NOT mean they work the same! The Volt is a significant step away from and ahead of the Prius, and as i said before, it even outperforms the plug-in prius which isnt on the market yet (but which is more comparable than the normal prius). Seriously now. Can you drive 40 miles in a prius without using any gas. NO. Therefore, you also cannot drive for the rest of your life 40 miles at a time without using any gas. With a Volt you CAN, and that is why it is ground breaking. The thought that people can drive their normal commutes without using a drop of gas, and yet can also go wherever they want to go for a trip (unlike the leaf) is what is ground breaking. There are NO other vehicles for sale currently that come close to that.

In rare circumstances, it is possible for the engine to drive the wheels directly by closing certain clutches and that results in optimum efficiency...only when the battery is low AND high loads/speeds are required that allow the engine to operate at its peak efficiency point with a direct drive (instead of through the motors). It is craziness to think this is a bad thing compared to operating as a generator only; sure, be pissed that the wrong message was originally advertised, but not pissed that the system can operate in a more efficient manner than originally advertised. If it would make you feel better, GM could (literally) control the powertrain to not use the clutches that way and ONLY use the engine as a generator, thus decreasing fuel economy in gas only mode. Would that be a good thing?

Thank you.

As for the Leaf.. Sure, it is an electric car. It has limited range and utility. GM did that 15 years ago and if they thought it would help sales to drop the extra utility of the gas motor of the Volt just for the moral superiority they'd feel by making another pure electric, they'd do it. But bottom line is a full electric that doesnt yet get equivalent range to a gas-powered vehicle is a half-measure that cant justify its own limitations when simply adding a range-extended moves the same kind of vehicle firmly into the realm of 'take it anywhere/REAL' cars.

Vigo wrote: In rare circumstances, it is possible for the engine to drive the wheels directly by closing certain clutches and that results in optimum efficiency...only when the battery is low AND high loads/speeds are required that allow the engine to operate at its peak efficiency point with a direct drive (instead of through the motors). It is craziness to think this is a bad thing compared to operating as a generator only; sure, be pissed that the wrong message was originally advertised, but not pissed that the system can operate in a more efficient manner than originally advertised. If it would make you feel better, GM could (literally) control the powertrain to not use the clutches that way and ONLY use the engine as a generator, thus decreasing fuel economy in gas only mode. Would that be a good thing?

Thank you.

I think that building the car so this is possible makes a lot more sense then building one where you will have to sit and idle a while after running down the batteries, like you would if there was no direct link. GM has taken a pretty big step, can you imagine the bad press as soon as one of them had to stop and recharge. That might be acceptable for a Honda or Toyota but seeing as so many of you are looking for reasons to rip GM apart it would be a mistake for them to take that chance.

triumph5 wrote: Wonder how they will be to restore in 30 years?

I needed that laugh

In reply to Vigo:

A few corrections there, the FCX just like the Leaf, is available in limited areas. Honda has solved the fuel issue by a "station in a box". If you want a home power station, you have that option, the fuel station owner can have a fuel center delivered and if the natural gas lines are there can be up and running very quickly. Honda addressed the infrastruture problem.

The Prius was ground breaking because it came to market first, and competitively priced. The Volt is neither. There have been mods on the net for years on how to get a Prius to be a plug in hybrid, similar to the Volt. If memory serves (take that as it sounds,) the current Euro spec Prius can be straight electric or hybrid. So it can't drive 40 miles on a charge, Toyota will just buy bigger batteries. That really is all it takes.

We Auto nuts really are a resourceful bunch.

The lies about the Volt came from the company that produced it. Not some third party so yes I believe that can place a mark on their car. How is it "543609475368905472%" more relevant than the FCX? I gave credence to the EV1, Leaf, Ranger EV and S10 Electric.

Of all the arguments for the Volt I have yet to see one that makes it a significantly relevant car. Sure it looks better than the Prius, made by an American company, and has some decent size. I actually did a case study on the concept with some buddies and the only advantage any of us found was what GM lied about.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. I do have one final question.

Are you going to throw down your $40K for one?

FlightService...I think you're mixed up. This is the (hydrogen fuel cell) FCX:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX

This is the (natural gas powered) Civic GX:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_GX

These are two EXTREMELY different vehicles. Also, if you are suggesting that a Volt is something like a plug-in Prius, and the only difference is bigger batteries, I don't think you are fully understanding the powertrain designs. The Prius was never made to drive with high power for extended periods of time, which is why the motors, electronics, and batteries are all a paperweight above about 40 mph. Even when the batteries are increased in capacity, that only allows it to drive further at low speeds, you still can't do 65 mph because the motors and electronics don't have the power or heat rejection requirements. Perhaps you think this is a trivial change, but it's not...that's why it takes (huge) companies years of development to make these "ideas" a reality. A plug in Prius mod is half assed at best...you still can't drive very fast at all, very far at all, or with a 100k mile warranty. Add up the cost of a new Prius and a new plug-in modification kit and it's also nothing to sneeze at!

Finally, nobody is going to pay $40k for a Volt...tax credits (federal, state, local, etc.) bring the actual price much lower, at least for now. We're still all paying for it indirectly, but that's another subject.

Bryce

Nashco wrote: FlightService...I think you're mixed up. This is the (hydrogen fuel cell) FCX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX This is the (natural gas powered) Civic GX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_GX These are two EXTREMELY different vehicles. Also, if you are suggesting that a Volt is something like a plug-in Prius, and the only difference is bigger batteries, I don't think you are fully understanding the powertrain designs. The Prius was never made to drive with high power for extended periods of time, which is why the motors, electronics, and batteries are all a paperweight above about 40 mph. Even when the batteries are increased in capacity, that only allows it to drive further at low speeds, you still can't do 65 mph because the motors and electronics don't have the power or heat rejection requirements. Perhaps you think this is a trivial change, but it's not...that's why it takes (huge) companies years of development to make these "ideas" a reality. A plug in Prius mod is half assed at best...you still can't drive very fast at all, very far at all, or with a 100k mile warranty. Add up the cost of a new Prius and a new plug-in modification kit and it's also nothing to sneeze at! Finally, nobody is going to pay $40k for a Volt...tax credits (federal, state, local, etc.) bring the actual price much lower, at least for now. We're still all paying for it indirectly, but that's another subject. Bryce

Nope not mixed up at all. Look at how they create the Hydrogen for the FCX. "The Home Energy Station Honda has operated an experimental Home Energy Station in Torrance, California, since 2003. The Home Energy Station, which generates hydrogen from natural gas, is designed to provide heat and electricity for the home through fuel cell cogeneration and to supply fuel for a hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicle."

Also, I have been quite about all the efficiency talk because those numbers are no where near accurate. The vehicles efficiency is one thing but total efficiency of what you are moving is another. Therefore how efficient is the power your are getting from your house? Do you recieved your power from Nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, or wind only (not just during peak times but ONLY those sources)? Then yes those numbers might be close, if it is from some sort of combustion process. You are not much better than a running a gas car. You are just moving the pollution/inefficiency elsewhere.

Someone will pay $40K if they do not qualify for the tax credit. Rules apply, check the GM website out. They do go over that info. People will pay between $40K to $33K for it.

Like I said, let's just agree to disagree on this one.

The inefficiency/pollution of powerplants argument always amuses me. How exactly does all that beautiful gasoline we put in our tanks get to the stations? By trucks that burn fuel of course. Gee, there might be some sort of waste in the method the fuel is generated or transported with whatever energy source you choose. Powerplants are generally pretty efficient when it comes to producing energy. Much more so than the Gasoline ICE in a car.

"Typical thermal efficiency for electrical generators in the industry is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants, and up to 50% for combined-cycle gas-fired plants." (Electrical Generation Efficiency—Working Document of the NPC Global Oil & Gas Study, 18 July 2007)

As you were saying about the "pretty efficient" power plants?

For the record 45% of all electricity in the states is produced by coal. They don't set the power plants on a coal mine and they have to be moved by some method.

Like I said you are just moving the pollution/inefficiency elsewhere.

I know at Clemson this is a standard case study for ME students. The end was the electric/hybrid car has to become much more efficient than what it is today AND there has to be a different storage method than the current battery technology before they ever become a net gain in a "green" aspect.