Gen 1 GM Volt Plug-In Hybrid (2011-2015)

[blackmamba]

IMO, the ~50-60 mile Volt EV range predicted by the ~2017-8 MY, reflects the inherent BEV range limitations for any PHEV based on an ICEV drivetrain.

And the fact GM flacks are still using the term "range anxiety", even after the Spark EV rollout, is an indicator of GM's lack of commitment to BEVs.

I'd agree with regard to the Energis and the Accord PHEV, but I wouldn't include the Volt as being 'based on an ICEV drivetrain'. It was designed to allow drivers to operate via battery only for what GM calculated would be roughly 2/3rds of a typical person's driving - the onboard ICE's main task was to run a generator to sustain the charge level. The Volt is an EV with extended range capability while the Fords and the Honda have a subtantially greater dependence upon their ICEs for propulsion.

And why not consider burying your anti-GM bias due to the fact that it's a old and tired refrain that has lost its relevance. If GM had a lack of commitment to BEVs, they would have farmed out the development of the SparkEV to somebody else, as did Fiat and Ford. THe fact is, unlike Nissan who is standing pat with the flawed Leaf and who cancelled plans for an EV Infiniti, GM is marching ahead with the Volt, the Spark EV, and soon the ELR. GM is actively involved in the EV world with their efforts, and like any company, will go in whatever direction the market moves - BEVs or EREVs. Or.....both.

 

[derkraut]

IMO, the ~50-60 mile Volt EV range predicted by the ~2017-8 MY, reflects the inherent BEV range limitations for any PHEV based on an ICEV drivetrain.

And the fact GM flacks are still using the term "range anxiety", even after the Spark EV rollout, is an indicator of GM's lack of commitment to BEVs.

I'd agree with regard to the Energis and the Accord PHEV, but I wouldn't include the Volt as being 'based on an ICEV drivetrain'. It was designed to allow drivers to operate via battery only for what GM calculated would be roughly 2/3rds of a typical person's driving - the onboard ICE's main task was to run a generator to sustain the charge level. The Volt is an EV with extended range capability while the Fords and the Honda have a subtantially greater dependence upon their ICEs for propulsion.

And why not consider burying your anti-GM bias due to the fact that it's a old and tired refrain that has lost its relevance. If GM had a lack of commitment to BEVs, they would have farmed out the development of the SparkEV to somebody else, as did Fiat and Ford. THe fact is, unlike Nissan who is standing pat with the flawed Leaf and who cancelled plans for an EV Infiniti, GM is marching ahead with the Volt, the Spark EV, and soon the ELR. GM is actively involved in the EV world with their efforts, and like any company, will go in whatever direction the market moves - BEVs or EREVs. Or.....both.

Isn't the SparkEV manufactured/assembled in S. Korea??

 

[evnow]

And why not consider burying your anti-GM bias due to the fact that it's a old and tired refrain that has lost its relevance .... THe fact is, unlike Nissan who is standing pat with the flawed Leaf and who cancelled plans for an EV Infiniti, GM is marching ahead with the Volt, the Spark EV, and soon the ELR. GM is actively involved in the EV world with their efforts, and like any company, will go in whatever direction the market moves - BEVs or EREVs. Or.....both.

The fact is YOU have anti-Nissan bias and YOU are in a Nissan forum.

Second Nissan hasn't "cancelled" Infiniti LE.

Third, GM still spews anti-BEV rhetoric.

 

[scottf200]

And why not consider burying your anti-GM bias due to the fact that it's a old and tired refrain that has lost its relevance .... THe fact is, unlike Nissan who is standing pat with the flawed Leaf and who cancelled plans for an EV Infiniti, GM is marching ahead with the Volt, the Spark EV, and soon the ELR. GM is actively involved in the EV world with their efforts, and like any company, will go in whatever direction the market moves - BEVs or EREVs. Or.....both.

The fact is YOU have anti-Nissan bias and YOU are in a Nissan forum.
Second Nissan hasn't "cancelled" Infiniti-LE.
Third, GM still spews anti-BEV rhetoric.
Fourth, GM crushed EV1

EVNow (aka LEAFNow because you certainly don't seem to care about EVs in general only the LEAF based on your post in several places on the web),
Seriously no matter how much success the GM has had and proven with their TMS in the Volt, ELR for "high end buyers for advanced features" (Infiniti-LE and Tesla's are for highend too), and powertrain and TMS in the Spark-EV (useable in future EVs), you still resort to that 4th point? Nissan has had various issues with the LEAF yet you still give them every pass.

 

[evnow]

EVNow (aka LEAFNow because you certainly don't seem to care about EVs in general only the LEAF based on your post in several places on the web)...

Really ? Prove it.

 

[LeftieBiker]

The Volt is a really remarkable accomplishment. It started as "vaporware", a Camaro concept car with - literally - a golf cart drivetrain that would barely move it. I wrote a lot of nasty stuff about that, and rightly so. But GM, faced with demand for a product they hadn't seriously planned to produce, did the unthinkable: they not only produced it, from scratch, but got it more or less right. Nothing will make up for the EV-1 debacle, but the Volt does the next best thing - it makes GM once again a credible BEV(-hybrid) manufacturer.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The Volt is a really remarkable accomplishment. It started as "vaporware", a Camaro concept car with - literally - a golf cart drivetrain that would barely move it. I wrote a lot of nasty stuff about that, and rightly so. But GM, faced with demand for a product they hadn't seriously planned to produce, did the unthinkable: they not only produced it, from scratch, but got it more or less right. Nothing will make up for the EV-1 debacle, but the Volt does the next best thing - it makes GM once again a credible BEV(-hybrid) manufacturer.

Nearly everyone wrote nasty stuff about the Volt and that was directly due to GM actions.

We should review what the Volt was "supposed" to be based on GM's statements before the car was built. the derision was well deserved.

The Volt is a great option for many as is the LEAF. I still feel that the LEAF is a better fit for much more people but the weakness of the Human Spirit for the unknown hold many back. They buy a Volt and are loyal as most are to what they drive. Its how they justify their purchase decision on a daily basis.

But it is nothing more than an EV with a crutch or an extended range hybrid. put it in whatever category you want and neither is not a bad thing, only the correct thing. Its still a great option for many

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Now that we have a volt and a leaf I get asked which one I like better. It's like asking me which do I like better, my cordless drill or my circular saw. Rather than competitors I see them as comple-titors. Whatever criticism I have for either gm or nissan's efforts on these entries is so completely overshadowed by all the other manufacturers non existent or pathetic commitment to innovation I reserve all my disdain for them.

I do feel sorry for the people who are still grinding the axe over the ev1. You're livin' in the past man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esJl7MZoVww&feature=youtube_gdata_player" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Its still a great option for many

I have to drive to Miami tonight, 100 miles round trip on the interstate. The Leaf simply won't do it, I can't afford a model S, so indeed the Volt with 2 gallons of gas looks like a great option. Probably the only gas I'll use this month.

 

[Deleted member 9549]

I'd agree with regard to the Energis and the Accord PHEV, but I wouldn't include the Volt as being 'based on an ICEV drivetrain'. It was designed to allow drivers to operate via battery only for what GM calculated would be roughly 2/3rds of a typical person's driving - the onboard ICE's main task was to run a generator to sustain the charge level. The Volt is an EV with extended range capability while the Fords and the Honda have a subtantially greater dependence upon their ICEs for propulsion.

And why not consider burying your anti-GM bias due to the fact that it's a old and tired refrain that has lost its relevance. If GM had a lack of commitment to BEVs, they would have farmed out the development of the SparkEV to somebody else, as did Fiat and Ford. THe fact is, unlike Nissan who is standing pat with the flawed Leaf and who cancelled plans for an EV Infiniti, GM is marching ahead with the Volt, the Spark EV, and soon the ELR. GM is actively involved in the EV world with their efforts, and like any company, will go in whatever direction the market moves - BEVs or EREVs. Or.....both.

I'd say that both GM and Nissan have made, and continue to make marketing missteps. GM apparent astroturfing being one.
GM has always made a big deal to describe the Volt as a BEV with range extender. Only very reluctantly admitting that the engine can mechanically power the wheels. This makes it not much different from any other hybrid out there. The electric motor can drive the vehicle or the gas engine. Not sure why it's so hard to admit and needs to be so nuanced.
GM shows a lack of commitment to BEVs by not having one, until the recent Spark which is only available in California and Oregon. What they do have is a hybrid, like Toyota does and a compliance vehicle like all the major manufacturers are forced to do. I don't consider that a compelling commitment to BEVs. GM has done nothing to encourage charge stations, the dealerships they have with EVSEs do not allow public charging. Now they're trying to stop deployment of CHAdeMO.

All that said just to counter your pro-GM bias. I do count GM as more active in the EV space than pretty much anyone other than Tesla and Nissan and maybe now BMW.

 

[edatoakrun]

I recall that the rate of Battery capacity loss and whether the Volt BMS would maintain Range by accessing a greater percentage of total capacity has been of interest to many.

There is a great deal of DOE test data on the Volt Available here:

http://avt.inel.gov/phev.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You may want to look at the recent report below:

2011 Chevrolet Volt VIN 0815 Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery Test Results
Tyler Gray
Jeffrey Wishart
Matthew Shirk
July 2013
The Idaho National Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
Operated by Battelle Energy Alliance....

1.6 Conclusion
The testing of Chevrolet Volt 0815 included BOT and EOT battery tests and 14,836 miles of fleet testing in between. For vehicle battery packs, end-of-life (EOL) criteria is determined to be when the discharge capacity or discharge energy degradation exceeds 23% of the rated value, as specified in the USABC Electric Vehicle Battery Test Procedures Manual Rev 3 (publication pending). The Chevrolet Volt with VIN 0815 experienced a degradation of 2.2% in battery capacity. The battery of Chevrolet Volt 0815 is therefore well below the EOL threshold. The battery of Volt 0815 also had a degradation of 12.9% and 6.3% in discharge and charge power capability at 80% and 20% DOD, respectively, over the duration of 14,836 miles of fleet testing

http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/EREV/battery2011volt0815.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure myself whether the relatively short time and low miles between the two tests allows definitive conclusions about the longer-term rate of Volt battery capacity degradation, but have any with much higher miles on their Volts seen any loss of range from new yet, as would seem likely by now if the percentage of available battery capacity percentage was being held constant by the Volt's BMS?

Maybe some of the volt drivers or battery/power experts here here can explain the implications of the much larger percentages in the "degradation of...discharge and charge power capability" reported, and why the authors seem to find it significant enough to put it in the conclusion.

Is that (entirely, largely, or partially?) due to the increased battery resistance (charts on p. 4) in Charge and discharge mode?

What does that suggest about Volt battery/vehicle performance?

Is there a thread or threads on a volt forum where these DOE reports are being discussed?

 

[DaveEV]

GM has always made a big deal to describe the Volt as a BEV with range extender. Only very reluctantly admitting that the engine can mechanically power the wheels. This makes it not much different from any other hybrid out there. The electric motor can drive the vehicle or the gas engine. Not sure why it's so hard to admit and needs to be so nuanced.

I fail to see why this keeps on coming up as an "issue". It's completely irrelevant!

1. The range extender never comes on unless battery SOC gets too low or if the battery gets too cold.
2. Having the range extender directly power the wheels when it's already running improves efficiency!

So who really cares that when the range extender comes on it will direct some power directly to the wheels when it's beneficial to do so. Would you rather the range extender only generate electricity and suffer from lower efficiency?

 

[surfingslovak]

Would you rather the range extender only generate electricity and suffer from lower efficiency?

I think we may see the real-world results of this type of approach when the EPA mpg rating for the REx engine the i3 is going to be using will be published. It's a substantially smaller engine that the Volt uses, and I always expected about 40 mpg. It's beginning to look like it could be less, and I wonder if the overall efficiency of the engine -> generator -> battery -> motor combo was responsible for that.

 

[scottf200]

Would you rather the range extender only generate electricity and suffer from lower efficiency?

I think we may see the real-world results of this type of approach when the EPA mpg rating for the REx engine the i3 is going to be using will be published. It's a substantially smaller engine that the Volt uses, and I always expected about 40 mpg. It's beginning to look like it could be less, and I wonder if the overall efficiency of the engine -> generator -> battery -> motor combo was responsible for that.

Fisker Karma worked that way too. Eng->gen->bat->motor. Fuel economy for it: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[surfingslovak]

Fisker Karma worked that way too. Eng->gen->bat->motor. Fuel economy for it: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good point, I forgot about the Karma. The 54 mpge rating would seem to indicate that it wasn't a particularly efficient vehicle. I'm pretty sure that the overall weight, size and inefficient tires played into the dreadful REx mpg rating too. That said, I'm curious how the i3 experiment is going to play out, what the mpg rating will be, and how it will measure up against the Volt.

 

[GRA]

Fisker Karma worked that way too. Eng->gen->bat->motor. Fuel economy for it: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good point, I forgot about the Karma. The 54 mpge rating would seem to indicate that it wasn't a particularly efficient vehicle. I'm pretty sure that the overall weight, size and inefficient tires played into the dreadful REx mpg rating too. That said, I'm curious how the i3 experiment is going to play out, what the mpg rating will be, and how it will measure up against the Volt.

$45k i3 w/REx vs. $35k Volt with much greater ICE range. IMO the i3 would have to be the automotive second coming to overcome that deficit. For the same money as the i3, you could buy a Spark or a Smart, and a (high teens to low twenties $) ICE. You'd have to really want the propeller and the kidneys.

 

[evnow]

I fail to see why this keeps on coming up as an "issue". It's completely irrelevant!

1. The range extender never comes on unless battery SOC gets too low or if the battery gets too cold.
2. Having the range extender directly power the wheels when it's already running improves efficiency!

So who really cares that when the range extender comes on it will direct some power directly to the wheels when it's beneficial to do so. Would you rather the range extender only generate electricity and suffer from lower efficiency?

The "issue" is basically because a lot of people felt misled and lied to by GM about it.

BTW, if BMW i3 REx is largely successful, one would have to say GM put in too large an ICE there. Even if not more efficient REx, I guess, is much cheaper than the EREV with all the complexity in the Volt.

 

[TomT]

One big difference is that Volt was designed to be driven almost forever on the ICE if need be. The i3 was not.

BTW, if BMW i3 REx is largely successful, one would have to say GM put in too large an ICE there. Even if not more efficient REx, I guess, is much cheaper than the EREV with all the complexity in the Volt.

 

[evnow]

One big difference is that Volt was designed to be driven almost forever on the ICE if need be. The i3 was not.

If they put a decent sized tank in i3 - we could potentially drive it almost like Volt (except going up a mountain pass fast - even there starting ICE early might work). Ofcourse, there are no valid scenarios when someone wants to drive a car forever - esp. when valid scenarios of needing a 5th seat are discarded.

 

[Perdita]

GM has always made a big deal to describe the Volt as a BEV with range extender. Only very reluctantly admitting that the engine can mechanically power the wheels. This makes it not much different from any other hybrid out there. The electric motor can drive the vehicle or the gas engine. Not sure why it's so hard to admit and needs to be so nuanced.

I fail to see why this keeps on coming up as an "issue". It's completely irrelevant!

1. The range extender never comes on unless battery SOC gets too low or if the battery gets too cold.
2. Having the range extender directly power the wheels when it's already running improves efficiency!

So who really cares that when the range extender comes on it will direct some power directly to the wheels when it's beneficial to do so. Would you rather the range extender only generate electricity and suffer from lower efficiency?

I think the issue is with the use of semantics. Used cars are now "pre-owned". And a series/parallel gasoline-electric hybrid is now an "Electric car with a gasoline-powered range-extender". Its a story of an apple by any other name (or a duck). PR/PC speak is just another way of lying to yourself and others, when you paper over (or "Astroturf") specifics. That's the issue that some people don't like, and I have to say I'm one of them.

I agree GM should let the car speak for itself, but not at the expense of the truth.