Chevrolet Volt In a Gasoline-Only Scenario

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chevrolet Volt In a Gasoline-Only Scenario

Posted by kdawson on Monday January 11, 2010 @10:25PM from the sing-the-auto-electric dept.

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."

34 of 594 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by Rogerborg · 2010-01-11 22:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

...that's still too expensive for Joe Shiftworker. Doesn't it just give you a warm fuzzy to see people driving past you in cars that you can't afford to buy because the Government gouged you so hard in order to give your tax money to the people who can afford to buy them?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
1. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by DrugCheese · 2010-01-11 22:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or gave the money to the car manufacturer
  
  --
  *DrugCheese rants*
2. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by hey! · 2010-01-11 22:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I dunno.
  When the Model T was introduced, it cost the equivalent of around 20K$, about half what this car is going to go for. But competing cars were more in the $50K to $70K range, so $40K is not too bad, and somewhat less than that (as the article says might happen) would be quite practical for many working people *given that there are operational savings*. It could well be a modest success at a price like $35K.
  The cost of the Model T drop from $20,000 in current dollars to $12000 and then to under $10000, making it practical for the workers who assembled it to buy one. That's economies of manufacturing scale. The Volt has potentials for such economies of scale as the purchase expensive new parts like large batteries attracts investment and initial development costs are recouped. A modest hit with new technology is hard to achieve, but it will drive down cost and drive up profits more quickly than throwing a new skin on the same old platform would, where economies of scale have already been accounted for.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
3. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by WaywardGeek · 2010-01-11 22:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
4. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by Dunbal · 2010-01-11 23:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  and Japanese parts where the profits go home to Japan
  And then they turn around and buy US debt with those profits. You really have no clue about how a global economy works, do you? If it wasn't for China and Japan, the US would be bankrupt and you would not be enjoying your current standard of living.
  If anyone is smoking anything, it's you.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by night_flyer · 2010-01-11 23:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  no, the government gives out money to buy the poor's vote...
  "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Ben Frankin
  
  --
  
  Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
  Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
6. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2010-01-12 00:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do you honestly think people are going to pay US$30-40k for a compact car that (feature-wise) compares to a US$16k Toyota Corolla?
  Other than the deep pocketed early adopters and people who want to flaunt their "greenness", I think the sales of the Volt are going to be bleak.
  And even if they sold every one of their stated 8000 unit capacity (in the first year), they're losing money on each one AND reliant on a government subsidy to close the sale.
  This has epic failure written all over it even though it seems to a casual observer to be a "nice product."
7. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by Rogerborg · 2010-01-12 00:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'll type this really slowly to make it easy for you to understand:
  The government is not trying to help me get into a Volt. They're taking money from me in order to help someone else get into a Volt.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
8. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by Lumpy · 2010-01-12 01:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
9. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by Beezlebub33 · 2010-01-12 02:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by codewarren · 2010-01-12 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Irrelevant. Working class doesn't pay cash for cars so $40k is barely relevant... To them the bottom line is how much it costs per month - and since this can be compared to fuel costs per month, the conversation with the salesman is going to be "yes it costs this much more per month for the car, but this much less for fuel"
  It's a question of whether one can offset the other. Can it?
11. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by pnewhook · 2010-01-12 03:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
12. Re:Oh great, another subdized vehicle... by KeithJM · 2010-01-12 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The top 1% pays less than 42% of the taxes.
  You know, you could reword that as "The top 1% pays over 40% of the taxes!" Do those top 1% use 40% of the roads, military, medicaid, social security and welfare? I'm not saying they aren't getting the full benefit of access to our society, but clearly they aren't exactly freeloading on the goodwill of the 99% of the people who are paying the other 59% of the taxes.
  
  They also only earn about 22% of the country's income, despite paying 40% of the taxes.
On Hybrid Vehicles by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-11 23:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

How come all hybrid vehicles comes in the form of Gasoline / Battery ?
How come there is no hybrid vehicle that is in the form of Diesel / Battery ?
Do you know that diesel engines is much more efficient than that of the gasoline engine ?
And if we are really into the "Green" thing, why must we stuck with the gasoline engine ?
Why can't we change to Diesel / Battery instead, for hybrids ?
Can someone who knows much more about this give some comments, please?
Thank you !
1. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by dunkelfalke · 2010-01-11 23:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
2. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by Calinous · 2010-01-11 23:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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).
3. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by Chrisq · 2010-01-11 23:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  I expect that as diesel engines become smaller and have lower emissions (like the 1.3 litre Fiat engine) and fuel prices increase the equation will change and we will see diesel hybrids.
4. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by geekmux · 2010-01-12 00:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  Let's also not forget that many smaller diesel engines(new VW Beetle comes to mind) are already VERY efficient, putting up damn near hybrid mileage numbers without the overhead and worry of battery maintenance 100,000 miles later.
5. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by DZign · 2010-01-12 01:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And Japan has learned to adapt. They have to or they can't sell.
  I'm in Belgium, and up to about 2 or 3 years ago you couldn't buy a Honda with a diesel engine.
  While Hondas were very popular cars here in the 80ies, their popularity dropped a lot.
  Car dealerships even switched brands as they couldn't sell enough Hondas, people looked for diesel engines.
  Honda finally adapted and introduced a diesel model.
  (launched with a rather large ad campaign to let everyone know they finally had a diesel)
  Btw it was last week in the news, here in Belgium about 75% of all cars have a diesel engine.
  
  --
  Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
6. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by afidel · 2010-01-12 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Dude, every car for sale in the first world should last for ~100k miles without any major issues. If a car has problems before then it's probably has some manufacturing fault specific to that vehicle, not a design fault. Most cars can make it to 200k miles without too many costly repairs. It's the *consumers* of new cars that are on a 3 year lease cycle, and I thank them for that because it means they have payed for the majority of the depreciation without using up a corresponding percentage of the vehicles useful life.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
7. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by natehoy · 2010-01-12 02:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In 2002, I was in the market for a new vehicle. I wanted good fuel mileage, so at the end of my search I was looking at two vehicles, a Toyota Prius (which were pretty new at the time) and a VW Jetta TDI. Test drives made it no contest. I chose the TDI. It was somewhat cheaper, handled better, got better fuel mileage for my purposes, and included some niceties like a sunroof and more room. I was also concerned since the Prius was so new, whereas the TDI's been around for a very long time.
  Most of my driving at the time was on the highway, and the TDI gets better highway mileage than the Prius. I don't know if that's true of today's models - I think VW added some horsepower to the TDI in '08 or '09 and may have cut the mileage, where the Prius probably gets better mileage since that's its major goal. The Prius also has a few more years under its belt and certainly has a decent track record - they aren't dropping like flies at least.
  Fast forward 85,000 miles and 7 years, and I'd be sweating a battery replacement pack right about now on the Prius. I did have to replace the timing belt and THAT wasn't cheap, but it's nothing compared to a new battery pack.
  When I first bought it, Diesel was a good bit cheaper than gasoline, too. That has since reversed, but I still get better miles-per-dollar than my wife's already pretty efficient Pontiac Vibe gasoline engine. Had a chosen a Prius, I'd probably be spending a little less on fuel now (maybe about $200/year), but I refer you again to the $3500+ battery pack, which is enough money for me to buy more than a THREE YEAR supply of Diesel fuel outright even if Diesel was at $4 a gallon.
  I won't say the TDI is completely trouble-free, it's a VW with its share of problems. I've replaced a few expensive parts that really shouldn't have broken, and there are a few things that are broken that aren't worth fixing (front door "open" sensors are both shot, but at $500 a pop, they can stay that way). But it's still a comfortable, responsive, enjoyable car that gets great fuel mileage. Carries a couple of large kayaks on top without complaint, too. :)
  I don't honestly know how much this car would benefit from any sort of hybrid tech. I suppose it might be useful to put a smaller battery in it and have a "booster motor" with regenerative braking, so when I come to a stop some of that energy could be stored to get moving again. But I'm not sure if there would be any significant savings.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
8. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by onepoint · 2010-01-12 03:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Weird, I lived in NJ. for 25 years had a few cars that lasted me more than 200K and did not rust out. it's all about keeping the car clean and waxed, 1 carwash per month in the winter keeps it in shape. I don't know about the rest, but car's have always survived looking new with me ( still have my 1997 ford and it still looks new 140K miles )
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
9. Re:On Hybrid Vehicles by SenseiLeNoir · 2010-01-12 04:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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!
Qualitative journalism by alexwcovington · 2010-01-11 23:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

The classic problem with selling new cars is that the people who can afford to buy them don't care about efficiency. They want a car that will dust whoever's next to them when they take off from a stoplight, and looks/drives sporty and/or like a Cadillac.
Car reporters take this a step farther and don't even care how much the car costs to buy or operate, just how it feels to be behind the wheel. So in the end, cheap cars never get positive press, and efficient cars only get it if they play to the luxury-class tastes of Car and Driver.

--
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
1. Re:Qualitative journalism by aclarke · 2010-01-11 23:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes and no. Most people place pure performance as a value, weighted along with many other criteria. Otherwise everybody would be driving the fastest car they could afford, which isn't the case. Witness the trend a few years ago of Hollywood stars buying Toyota Priuses (Prii?).
  
  I do agree with the average automotive journalist's disconnect on what is "adequate" power. For example, I bought a 2005 Volvo XC90 with the 2.5t 5-cylinder engine. This engine/vehicle combination was almost unanimously dismissed in the press for having inadequate power, to the point where Volvo replaced it in 2007 with a 3.2 litre V6 that gets slightly worse fuel economy. In my time owning this vehicle, I have never wished it had more power. It has always done what I've asked it to do. So what's up with those journalists? I guess they don't have to live with the car and put premium fuel into it like us actual owners do.
  
  --
  
  www.clarke.ca
The Volt is THE car for the times... by sirwired · 2010-01-11 23:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

The virtually inevitable future of ground transportation isn't petroleum, since we will indeed eventually run out. However the obstacles are too many for a pure EV to be used as anything but a commuter car. (Namely, EV's are entirely useless for long-haul driving, with the even the longest range vehicles only providing less than 1/4 of that needed for a long haul trip. And no, you can't quick charge without MAJOR upgrades to the infrastructure.)
Doing the lion's share of your driving on batt., charging slowly at home, and still having the gas capacity for a long-range trip is a good compromise, and one that I think will carry us through the next couple of decades of auto development.
SirWired
P.S. I'm surprised at the number of articles that are so impressed that the engine isn't connected to the drive wheels. This is how locomotives have worked for decades, albeit for different reasons.
Re:I'd rather have more batteries by iangoldby · 2010-01-11 23:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article explains this. Apparently their research shows that the 40 mile all-electric range hits the sweet-spot for most American commuters.
Make the batteries bigger and you still have to have the gas engine for when you visit your cousin 300 miles away. Make the batteries smaller and you need to run the gas engine even for your daily commute.
Sounds like the perfect compromise to me.
Read article without subscribing by amaiman · 2010-01-12 00:06 · Score: 4, Informative

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.)
Re:The shopping use case. by vlm · 2010-01-12 00:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

and you drive 150 miles running errands use case
Do people really do that? In a civilized area, like the semi-rural midwest, we can and do go 75 on the highways, so thats TWO FREAKING HOURS of your valuable weekend time spent behind the wheel. In less civilized coastie areas, I hear coasties and big city types proudly "brag" about how their highways are so congested they never get much above 15, implying TEN FREAKING HOURS behind the wheel. I mean, come on, Saturday is only 24 hours long, not counting eating, sleeping, getting called from work, etc. Learn to use amazon.com and spend some of that TEN FREAKING HOURS having fun instead of going "vroom vroom".
The other part I never figured out, is all the retail activity tends to be concentrated on certain areas/roads. I do everything on that list, except visit granny, in one little two mile long, six lane wide road thats packed with retail, thats about four miles from my house. Even if I intentionally drove back and forth for each trip, I still couldn't drive more than 30 miles or so.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Duh by Cyberax · 2010-01-12 00:52 · Score: 4, Informative

"What is its fuel-performance when batteries are depleted?"
About 50 mpg. YMMV.
Why should the government help YOU get a Volt? by Shivetya · 2010-01-12 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is what ticks me off the most about the car. I don't care about the grandiose claims. What I do care is that GM through its connections in the US Government taking money out of my pocket so someone else can buy this car.
They are transferring the efforts of my labor, my training, and such, to someone else because of what? Really? Where in the hell is the justification for this?
Can't wait for someone to declare its a right or for the public good. Whats next? Condemning older cars as urban blight and forcing people to buy what they don't need or want?
Government isn't doing anything but taking from others by force of law and distributing to those who would not have the courage to do so in person. There is nothing about this transfer that benefits the public good, unless your a rich corporation or a public official.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Re:Duh by BlueScreenOfTOM · 2010-01-12 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have to admit, that's got to be the best use of YMMV I've seen yet.
Because it's time I benefited from gov't spending. by FatSean · 2010-01-12 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

My pockets have been picked since I started working to fight useless wars and fund an enormous, expensive and increasingly ineffective military. Not to mention the soaring spending rates on police agencies from local to Federal which reduce my freedoms.
The money being spent on Volt subsidies is nothing compared to handouts to corn farmers. It's a pittance compared to money we just hand over to other nations.

--
Blar.
Green diesel by sjbe · 2010-01-12 05:21 · Score: 3, Informative

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.