Slashdot Mirror
Chevrolet Volt In a Gasoline-Only Scenario
s122604 sends in a performance review of the Chevy Volt, paying particular attention to what happens after the initial plug-in capacity has been depleted. This reader adds, "The review indicates that the performance is adequate, and perhaps better than anticipated. If the Volt can deliver technically, especially with the possibility that it could retail for less than expected (WSJ subscription may be required), does GM have a potential hit on its hands?" "How well will General Motors' Chevrolet Volt drive once it gets past its 40 mile all-electric driving range and starts to rely on power generated by its gasoline engine? That's been a question for both critics and fans of the Volt, and with just 11 months to go before this car hits the market, I got the answer."
New technologies almost always target the high-end first, and later move down to the middle and low-end products. That's because initially there are no economies of scale from high-volume manufacturing. As the high-end ramps to reasonable volume, technolologies, like the batteries, will drop in price, allowing cost effective medium-end offerings. Take a look at the Tesla cars. Their first (the Roadster), is > $100K. Their second is expected to be around $57K. They plan a third in the $35K range, but first, their Model S has to succeed.
Anyway, the government is trying to help you get into a Chevey Volt, to the tune of about $7,000. Your price wont be $40K, you'll pay $33K. Given the performance and specs, it's not unreasonable, though if they could drop a few K, it'd sell a lot better. They'll also have a Cadillac version, but they plan cheaper versions in the future.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
The problem is that a Diesel engine is very heavy and expensive. Most hybrids are made for short trips so it would be a great waste of resources to carry around a heavy engine. Hybrid gasoline engines have a somewhat different cycle (Atkinson cycle) than normal gasoline engines (traditional Otto cycle) and thus are more economical. Add the weight savings compared to the heavier Diesel engines (especially with a particle filter) and you'll see why there are no Diesel hybrid cars - it just isn't worth it. Lorries, trains and ships are made for very long range and there a Diesel hybrid is much more practical, especially in the case of ships and trains where the Diesel engine is often only connected to the generator so it can be in its most efficient revolution speed the whole time and (because of the constant speed) have a very long life.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Diesel gives you better low end torque (but electric motors have much more of it anyway)
Diesel engines are more expensive, and getting power from them forces you to turbo them (which increases costs too)
On the other hand, gasoline engines are quieter (in both noise and rumbling), and can reach higher power without turbo (typical gasoline engines have higher power than similar displacement turbo diesel engines, and lower cost)
Gasoline engines don't have low end torque, but that doesn't matter at all.
Now, Mercedes is preparing some diesel-hybrid model (the class E with a 2.2 liter diesel).
You can read the full WSJ article without subscribing by using the "Email" link at the bottom of the preview. The link you'll get in your mailbox will lead to the full article (this works for all WSJ "subscriber only" articles.)
"What is its fuel-performance when batteries are depleted?"
About 50 mpg. YMMV.
The top 1% pays less than 42% of the taxes. They can afford to pay for tax experst to find tax havens and find ways to get through the loopholes that save them from paying some of the taxes.
It's why any talk of a flat tax is violently fought against. it would require the rich to actually pay their taxes, and that just wont do.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If you are referring to the Clinton years. The deficits were high until the Republican takeover of Congress.
This is simply wrong. Under Clinton the deficit got consistently smaller and smaller, starting in 1992. The Republican takeover occurred in 1994. See the CBO data. Or take a look at the following graph.
And I would agree with those that think the gigantic spike in 2009 is really, really scary.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
The biggest budget deficits ever were under Bush and Regan. Republicans claim a platform of low spending and low taxes, then turn around and invoke the biggest spending and tax hikes to cover it. The Republican media spin army is LYING to you.
Responsible government seem to only lie with the Democrats (unfortunately for the overall democracy). And I believe this is a recent phenomenon, probably since Regan.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Wrong, that is not the reason why pure diesels are being replaced by Diesel Electrics, or pure electrics.
A plain diesel engine needs a transmission gearbox, clutch, and various other drive train features to deliver the power of the diesel engine to the wheels.
With locomotives being a lot more complex than cars already there are more losses due to the conventional drivetrain. Here are some issues:
- Diesels have a narrow band of high torque/power, hence a loco would need multiple gear ratios to keep in band, requiring complex transmissions.
- greater number of driving wheels, require more complex drive shafts, couplers, and differentials to ensure all wheels get equal power, and consistent speeds. In the case of a DMU (diesel multiple unit) its harder to synchronize the engines on each unit to run at the same speed/rpm, and each engine on each unit would need a transmission/torqueconverter/drive train, etc.
- Bogies, Large locomotives have bogies (trucks in American usage) instead of fixed wheels. Bogies revolve freely on their axis, making the drivetrain even more complex.
- complex controls to cater for all this.
Diesel Electric Locos/DMUs avoid these problems.
- The engine is replaced by a prime mover built to run at a certain optimum bands, which are simpler/powerful than ones that have to work across different bands around different.
- The prime mover generates electricity, which can be piped around via much more flexible wires (even across units)
- Electric drive direct motors mounted within each bogie.
- Electric motors can provide very high torque at zero mph, needing no transmittions, or complex drivetrains.
- Trains can "cruise" efficiently, once at a speed, little power is needed to maintain that speed, and the prime mover can be appropriately throttled down, so no need to run at high RPMs for long periods at high speed (notice how a DE locos engine throttles down as it reaches speed, but runs "hard" at the start and when accelerating).
- Electric motors can provider reostatic braking, which is more efficient, and cost effective than friction brakes (and can possibly be used to GENERATE power when braking, returning power to the line when braking on pure electric trains)
- Easy to do DMUs, by putting a sequence of smaller diesel generators across the units, than one large heavy loco at front.
- Simpler controls (just a notched throttle and reverser)
- Trains can run off plain electricity where available.
- High Speed Operation (The UK have diesels operating at 125mph in regular use, some DMUs and some loco based)
Have a nice day!
No. 2009 was the FIRST year a VW diesel won
Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
So there is ONE 2009 model out there with descent emissions.
If you bothered to actually look you'd find the diesels from Mercedes and BMW as well as Audi and VW all are quite clean these days. Seriously. Go look before you spout of unresearched nonsense.
What does that have to say about all the other soot and sulfur belching monstrosities?
Nothing whatsoever. There are lots of smog producing gasoline engines too. Has nothing to do with the ability to produce clean diesels. The technology exists and is in production.