
How the 2016 Chevy Volt added 18 miles of EV range - jseliger
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/18/2016-chevy-volt-more-ev-range-exclusive/?icid=autoblog|trend|how-the-chevy-volt-got-better
======
avs733
I tend to look at the EV1 as an idea before its time in more ways than one.
Was it a failure...it looked like one from the outside, but it taught them a
lot. This is the type of behavior (moonshots/trying experiments/taking risks)
that we know value in leading edge companies who are willing to develop or try
things to learn. Tesla's roadster was largely in the same space in a lot of
ways. The difference is the result, GM found that their target demographic
wasn't there yet. In 97 and 99, GM had an enormous lead in vehicle sales and
the risk they took was actually small, although they were made to pay for it
in PR...

If you look at Tesla and GM, the pivot is the difference...GM focused on the
traditional consumer market and didn't see an opportunity to make it work.
Likely based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that people are unlikely
to pay for a luxury GM product at that point in time. Tesla learned from that
and went at the markets in the other direction.

I own a volt, I have talked about this before on here. It is my only car. I
wouldn't own a Tesla as an only car, not yet. The Volt was probably something
that the Tesla S made happen (I'm speaking metaphorically not temporally) but
I think the Volt and the leaf and the prius made the Tesla 3 happen

~~~
maxerickson
Batteries got substantially better.

~~~
avs733
substantially yes...but that was not the only thing that changed. The models
of transportation envisioned by the EV1, the Tesla, and the Volt are decidedly
different.

------
beamatronic
Why don't more folks respect this car? It's quite an engineering
accomplishment.

~~~
MengerSponge
It isn't pretty. Even worse: its concept car was _gorgeous_ , so the Volt
actually looking like a production car is even more disappointing.

~~~
bryanlarsen
I remember thinking the concept was gorgeous at the time; I just looked up
some images and found it ugly. Tastes change, I guess.

Regardless, the concept car was _distinctive_. The Prius has shown that
distinctiveness helps to sell hybrids.

------
devy
How did they achieve the impressive 40-percent improvement in EV range?

    
    
            "Like mass, which comes off by the tenth of a gram," say Tim Grewe, 
    	Chevy's general director of electrification, "range goes up with every detail. 
    	Our motors are more efficient, our battery discharge is more efficient, 
    	our inverter efficiency is higher and our drive-unit spin losses lower. 
    	Yet we also improved [the] fun-to-drive [aspect], with 30-percent better 
    	launch and low-end acceleration, because that's a very pleasing feel."
    

In a nutshell, EV range is all about energy efficiency because current battery
energy density is a few orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels and
efficiency matters a lot with all things considered when energy capacity is
given.

And Germans know this much better. It's why BMW custom developed an brand new
chassis and majority of the components being used in BMW i3 with super
lightweight but much sturdier carbon fiber reenforced plastic body[1] and
other designs to achieve that goal whereas GM uses steels and traditional
materials for Volt. Similarly by contrast, GM uses existing vehicle platform
to cut down cost[2] instead of custom design one for Chevy Volt.

The end results of BMW's effort are very self-explanatory: BMW i3 with 124
MPGe is THE MOST ENERGY EFFICIENT [3] vehicle of all vehicles rated by US EPA
in all classes in the United States for 3 years straight. On the other hand,
GM Chevy Volt's 98 MPGe is ranked far behind.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3#cite_note-
BMW0410-15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3#cite_note-BMW0410-15)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Second_generati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Second_generation_.282015.E2.80.93.29)

[3]: [https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best-
worst.shtml](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best-worst.shtml)

Full disclosure: I had owned BMW ActiveE (an engineering prototype comparable
to Volt in terms retro-fitting EV components into existing ICE car platform
(BMW 1-series) with traditional material being used.) and have driven BMW i3
since ActiveE's retirement in their field trial.

~~~
sgnelson
And one costs about $10,000 more (approximately 25% more than the price of the
Volt, a rather large difference to most people). And considering it's a BMW,
you pay extra for a steering wheel, brakes, etc. (that's sarcasm, but really,
BMW is one of the brands that's great at nickel and diming their customers,
and don't forget about long term cost of a vehicle, much more expensive to fix
a BMW than a Chevy. I know this because I have one of each, non-electrics)

So yes, it may be better because of the carbon fiber infused paneling, but
you're paying for that. To ignore the price of automobiles when comparing
them, is simply ridiculous (you're not the only who has done this devy, so
this criticism is not pointed specifically at you.)

~~~
sgnelson
Also, to emphasize, when a cheap aluminum, steel or fiberglass part breaks/is
wrecked, it's cheaper to replace than a carbon infused panel. Try to re-bend
the frame of a steel car (rather easy) and re-bend the frame of a car with a
monocoque body made of carbon fiber (You can't).

How a car is designed is not solely about the efficiency of it's drive train,
but rather there are a large number of constraints on the automobile. How
large is it? How many passengers and cargo can fit? How comfortable is it?
Does it have all the nice features that modern consumers want? Does it have
more than one cup holder (BMW is notorious for failing this test, an
interesting cultural difference between US and German automakers) How does it
do in safety tests? How does it look? Etc. etc. And again, one of the most
important: How much does it cost?

~~~
etendue
> Also, to emphasize, when a cheap aluminum, steel or fiberglass part
> breaks/is wrecked, it's cheaper to replace than a carbon infused panel. Try
> to re-bend the frame of a steel car (rather easy) and re-bend the frame of a
> car with a monocoque body made of carbon fiber (You can't).

Can you repair the more exotic steels that are now used on cars? I was in an
accident a year ago, and all of the affected ultra-high strength steel members
of the car had to be directly replaced: it was explained to me that they
cannot be straightened or welded.

As to the CFRP used in the BMWs, it is actually "repair friendly". The
insurance costs of a BMW i3 are no more than other comparable luxury cars: in
an accident, they cut out the affected portions of the CFRP and epoxy
replacement elements in place. The material costs might be slightly higher,
but the labor costs are lower.

------
sp332
In California, plug-in hybrids fall into different categories depending on the
relative range of the gas-powered part and the battery-powered part. That's
why they had to keep the range low, and why they could put a larger gas tank
in the version with a bigger battery. If they increased its range on gas, it
would fall under different regulations.

------
unchocked
TL;DR: by redesigning the whole car.

