Holden Volt

[SavVYute]

Why does the Volt require a 1.4 litre engine? Why not a smaller one if it just runs a generator when the batteries run low?

I've read speculation the next generation Volt in the States will be a 2.0 litre. (possibly turbocharged)

 

[MikeCuzzy]

Why does the Volt require a 1.4 litre engine? Why not a smaller one if it just runs a generator when the batteries run low?

I've read speculation the next generation Volt in the States will be a 2.0 litre. (possibly turbocharged)

Cause they already have a 1.4L engine straight out of the Cruze, I guess it keeps costs down to limit redesign.

Only question, why would you turbo a generator? Not being a smart arse mate, genuine question. I would have thought the generator would run at a fairly constant RPM, eliminating the need for a turbo. I mean is it really gonna drive around at 5000rpm to recharge the batteries?

 

[HoldenOn]

Cause they already have a 1.4L engine straight out of the Cruze, I guess it keeps costs down to limit redesign.

Only question, why would you turbo a generator? Not being a smart arse mate, genuine question. I would have thought the generator would run at a fairly constant RPM, eliminating the need for a turbo. I mean is it really gonna drive around at 5000rpm to recharge the batteries?

I think if they used a tiny little diesel generator would be the go, they could get say a 1000cc diesel generator, maybe even a turbo one and it would run on the smell of an oily rag just to recharge the battery pack.

 

[Drawnnite]

i would say a little honda EU type gen would be enough to supply a constant charge to one of these things.
even if you needed something a bit bigger it wouldnt need to be a big 1.4L motor by any means.

and yes gens normally run at a constant RPM. depending on how many poles and fields you have.
and depending on how many amps you need to pump out of it will potentially determine the sizing etc
also through work, i have seen gens with turbos on them. however they are normally quad turbo v16 diesels that from memory use up 500L+ diesel per hour =P

the idea is there, but they have a long way to go before i would consider it.

like all technology (look at laptops and computers) give it 5 years and itll be half the cost and 10times the tech/specs.
if i remember right, a quote from Bill Gates (no he didnt really say it, but its involved in a joke): "If GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
and by the looks of it, it may not be too long until this could be a reality.

 

[DAKSTER]

The flaw in the thinking there is basic physics. It requires a certain number of hp to take a car a certain distance at a certain speed.

In an electric car, the hp is provided by electric motors, using stored energy from batteries. Once the batteries have depleted, there are no more horses left. The advantage is less emissions in built up areas, and the economy of scale getting your power from a coal fired power station instead of a less efficient I.C.E in your car.

In a hybrid car, the batteries are backed up by the I.C.E, which provides reserve power to reduce heavy loads on the batteries, and recharges them as well.

In a car with electric motors powered by battery, and a static engine to charge the batteries.. the engine still needs to provide the same amount of hp as the batteries or normal I.C.E car would. The energy has to come from somewhere!! It may even need to provide more, since you are simply adding an extra bottleneck with the batteries and electric motors it has to pass through as well.

To get a car that provides say 150hp, similar performance wise to your average 2L hatch, you need a power supply that generates 150hp. A very small engine may not be enough.

Another problem with a static engine is that a lot of the time its simply wasting fuel when the demands are low, such as in city traffic. Batteries no longer require feeding if you arent discharging them.

 

[HoldenOn]

The flaw in the thinking there is basic physics. It requires a certain number of hp to take a car a certain distance at a certain speed.

In an electric car, the hp is provided by electric motors, using stored energy from batteries. Once the batteries have depleted, there are no more horses left. The advantage is less emissions in built up areas, and the economy of scale getting your power from a coal fired power station instead of a less efficient I.C.E in your car.

In a hybrid car, the batteries are backed up by the I.C.E, which provides reserve power to reduce heavy loads on the batteries, and recharges them as well.

In a car with electric motors powered by battery, and a static engine to charge the batteries.. the engine still needs to provide the same amount of hp as the batteries or normal I.C.E car would. The energy has to come from somewhere!! It may even need to provide more, since you are simply adding an extra bottleneck with the batteries and electric motors it has to pass through as well.

To get a car that provides say 150hp, similar performance wise to your average 2L hatch, you need a power supply that generates 150hp. A very small engine may not be enough.

Another problem with a static engine is that a lot of the time its simply wasting fuel when the demands are low, such as in city traffic. Batteries no longer require feeding if you arent discharging them.

That's a good point you've brought up.

 

[SavVYute]

So a more powerful petrol engine driving the generator allows a more powerful electric motor to be used?
Just like a diesel locomotive.

Holden Volt May Get 2.0 Turbo Engine:
Report
by Tony O'Kane
Holden's extended-range hybrid, the Volt, has yet to arrive in Australian showrooms, however rumours are already circulating that its Chevy-badged twin may soon receive a turbocharged motor - which could then find its way to Australian-delivered Volts.

The Volt is currently powered by a 1.4 litre naturally aspirated petrol engine, which directs the bulk of its output into recharging the Volt's on-board batteries.

Unlike the Toyota Prius, the Volt relies on its electric motor for propulsion, so the size of the combustion engine (in effect, a glorified generator) isn't as big a limitation on power output.

However, GM's engineers reportedly want to extract more power from the Volt's petrol-electric powertrain.

A higher-output electric motor is expected to be fitted to the Chevy Volt later in its product cycle, and a 2.0 litre turbo petrol engine may also be squeezed under the bonnet to help keep its battery topped up.

The 2.0 turbo petrol/electric powertrain is also expected to propel the Cadillac ELR coupe, a luxury two-door based on the Converj concept and built around the Volt's Delta II architecture.

With GM's 2.0 turbo engine family currently able to put out a maximum of 200kW, it could provide a substantial performance boost over the Volt's 61kW 1.4 litre atmo four-pot.

Whether shoehorning in a high-output turbo motor into an eco car is a good idea is another matter.

 

[DAKSTER]

That there be the benefits of a 4th grade edyoukation yeehaaaaww

 

[DAKSTER]

So a more powerful petrol engine driving the generator allows a more powerful electric motor to be used?
Just like a diesel locomotive.

Of course. Thereby gaining the economies and efficiencies of scale, just like a diesel/electric loco. The difference being the loco can use the extra power for a benefit, but the car cant, apart from better acceleration from bigger motors.

No different to currrent ICE setups really, just a different drivetrain. Biggest difference would be torque, substantially more torque available from an electric motor. Thats the reason for diesel/electric locos in the first place, more torque is handy when you want to pull a train.

 

[MikeCuzzy]

Of course. Thereby gaining the economies and efficiencies of scale, just like a diesel/electric loco. The difference being the loco can use the extra power for a benefit, but the car cant, apart from better acceleration from bigger motors.

No different to currrent ICE setups really, just a different drivetrain. Biggest difference would be torque, substantially more torque available from an electric motor. Thats the reason for diesel/electric locos in the first place, more torque is handy when you want to pull a train.

So they'd be better to go to diesel not only for the fuel savings, but you're saying they'll have a lot more torque? You'll have to excuse me Dax, I really only paid attention to astrophysics, I'm still catching up on electricity...