New Getrag Mild hybrid technology.

[transitman]

I filled up with 8 gallons today (14 gallon tank), last time I filled up 10 gallons was 7/11 (before a 260 mile trip) and the time before that was 3/16. If you don't like buying gasoline, regardless of the price, that's the reason to purchase a PHEV.

Edited November 7, 2015 by transitman

[sullynd]

I've always thought minivans were a logical application for hybrid/PHEV powertrains. I've never understood why they get a pass on being gas guzzlers from the anti-SUV crowd.

[jpd80]

Imagine the benefits of hybrid option in Dual Cab F150s that mostly get used like cars..

 

Trying to imagine the most popular Ford vehicles like F150, Explorer, Escape, Fusion, Focus

all having access to more aggressive hybriding and PHEV, maybe reaching out towards those

buyers in segments where real gains can be made....

 

Also look at GM's Mountain or charge sustain mode as an interesting feature, even when

the roads are flatter it forces the system to refresh the batteries and use electric side

in conjunction with ICE, improving economy.

Edited November 7, 2015 by jpd80

[Fgts]

That's what I'm saying. GM spent a fortune on Volt with high expectations that were not realized by platform sharing.

Ford needs to be careful about how far it goes with add ons like PHEV, the distinction GM makes with volt is interesing,

they call Volt an EV with range extension.... maybe going to that extent was too far in front of the available technology

and more importantly what buyers wanted to pay..($199/mth lease with no deposit???)

I think what GM did with introducing Volt was showcasing the technology in a car rather then just trying to get ROI as fast as possible and in case of system bugs it would effect one model rather then several.

 

Thr advantage is GM having their in-house hybrid and EV system from here rather then get a hybrid out then spend billions on a EV/ plugin system (like Toyota is doing).

[jpd80]

I think what GM did with introducing Volt was showcasing the technology in a car rather then just trying to get ROI as fast as possible and in case of system bugs it would effect one model rather then several.

 

Thr advantage is GM having their in-house hybrid and EV system from here rather then get a hybrid out then spend billions on a EV/ plugin system (like Toyota is doing).

When Volt was first released, the intention was to sell around 120,000 per year, GM said as much but was then

forced to revise those expectations down and down. What eventuated was that buyers refused to pay a premium

for the technology even though there were Federal and state incentives to assist purchase of the Volt.

 

Starching off in-house means high initial costs due to Star Trek, "To boldly go where no one has gone before.."

Combine that with actual sluggish sales and you have a less than enthusiastic ROI that takes longer.

 

Edit,

So we never got to see GM rolling out improvements in front of today's Voltec II, I think that was a shame

because had the plan worked, GM would have been away - the issue as I see it was selection of compact

and the T shape battery limiting space to four seater. We all know that something like Captiva/Equinox

Utilities and Voltec would have run away with the discussion....

 

In the case of Ford, sharing parts supplier with Toyota helped with cost but limited supply volume,

going in-house after that experience helped with supply volume, costs and development direction.

All to the point that Ford pulled out of the truck hybrid/EV JV with Toyota because it felt that it was

way ahead of Toyota.....

Edited November 7, 2015 by jpd80

[akirby]

Why would you showcase technology from a 50 yr old locomotive?

Edited November 8, 2015 by akirby

[Fgts]

Why would you showcase technology from a 50 yr old locomotive?

So how come no one else put in cars before Volt?.

[Fgts]

When Volt was first released, the intention was to sell around 120,000 per year, GM said as much but was then

forced to revise those expectations down and down. What eventuated was that buyers refused to pay a premium

for the technology even though there were Federal and state incentives to assist purchase of the Volt.

 

So they didn't meet the sales expectations, that don't make the technology itself bad. GM should had expected that type of hold-back because not too many N/A buyers are found of GM, the Leaf debut and the Prius is still the big dog of hybrids.

 

 

Starching off in-house means high initial costs due to Star Trek, "To boldly go where no one has gone before.."

Combine that with actual sluggish sales and you have a less than enthusiastic ROI that takes longer.

 

Edit,

So we never got to see GM rolling out improvements in front of today's Voltec II, I think that was a shame

because had the plan worked, GM would have been away - the issue as I see it was selection of compact

and the T shape battery limiting space to four seater. We all know that something like Captiva/Equinox

Utilities and Voltec would have run away with the discussion....

 

 

I would agree why isn't Voltec (or even an improved version of 2-Mode) is in pick-ups/utes?. IMO maybe GM is saving that trick for CAFE deadlines, I would expect a Voltec truck in the next 5-7 years.

 

In the case of Ford, sharing parts supplier with Toyota helped with cost but limited supply volume,

going in-house after that experience helped with supply volume, costs and development direction.

All to the point that Ford pulled out of the truck hybrid/EV JV with Toyota because it felt that it was

way ahead of Toyota.....

GM probably saw the drawbacks also too and went at it by themselves. It would be totally reckless for an automaker to not have a E/V program by now (see:FCA for details). Edited November 8, 2015 by Fgts

[jpd80]

Why would you showcase technology from a 50 yr old locomotive?

Because it works well, especially in heavier vehicles like Utilities and trucks (and trains)

 

GM is GM and like Toyota, it has chosen the market sector it wants to engage,

I simply question that perspective as being protective of other segments where

more could be done but, who's going to suggest large utility of half ton truck

production space be given over to electrification on a possible buyer group.

I get the feeling that the lower hanging fruit with more efficient engines and

transmissions is where all eyes are now focused, some on diesel (RAM).

 

If Voltec II is more of the same, the good luck to GM because I think it is

missing the point and simply building cars that make buyers feel good

withoutbeing effective for GM managing CAFE in larger vehicles...

Edited November 8, 2015 by jpd80

[akirby]

So how come no one else put in cars before Volt?.

 

Because driving the wheels directly is far more efficient than generating electricity to drive electric motors. That's why volt only got 37 mpg after the battery ran out (now improved to over 40).

 

To be a game changer the ICE needs to be super efficient to offset the loss of efficiency or make it run on alternative fuels. Until then its just a plug in hybrid with a bigger battery pack.

[Fgts]

 

Because driving the wheels directly is far more efficient than generating electricity to drive electric motors. That's why volt only got 37 mpg after the battery ran out (now improved to over 40).

And again why this wasn't put into cars before Volt?. Volt buyers go months without a gas station (the real benefit) rather then get 37 to the gallon because they plug before/after you go to work and unlike most E/Vs you can drive it on a vacation . If you buy a Volt for mpg you totally missed the mark.

To be a game changer the ICE needs to be super efficient to offset the loss of efficiency or make it run on alternative fuels. Until then its just a plug in hybrid with a bigger battery pack.

Really?, so what "super efficient" ICE needs to be made to "be a game changer" and no manufacturer came up with it?..

[fuzzymoomoo]

And again why this wasn't put into cars before Volt?. Volt buyers go months without a gas station (the real benefit) rather then get 37 to the gallon because they plug before/after you go to work and unlike most E/Vs you can drive it on a vacation . If you buy a Volt for mpg you totally missed the mark.

The general public doesn't see it that way. They only care about the number on the window sticker

[Fgts]

The general public doesn't see it that way. They only care about the number on the window sticker

Actually they be looking at an E-window sticker of 98 e-mpg or so and any salesmen half-worth his skin will explain the Volt is an E/V with federal rebates. A more conventional car would be the new Hybrid Malibu on the same lot.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Actually they be looking at an E-window sticker of 98 e-mpg or so and any salesmen half-worth his skin will explain the Volt is an E/V with federal rebates. A more conventional car would be the new Hybrid Malibu on the same lot.

The problem is, that salesman would rather sell that fully loaded Silverado sitting right next to it.

[transitman]

Volt buyers go months without a gas station...

So do Energi owners.

[akirby]

Way to completely miss the point. Volt is a PHEV with a 50 mile range and as such it's great. Ford could do the same thing with their PHEVs by adding a larger battery pack and they'd be more efficient in ICE mode to boot. But to do that would be expensive and require reengineering the platform to accommodate the batteries. And you'd be competing with 20 mile range PHEVs that are cheaper and work fine for most people and full electrics that give you double the EV range and are cheaper. It's a tweeter market that hasn't caught on.

 

As for the technology, I already pointed out that running an ICE as a generator for an electric motor isn't efficient enough. Otherwise you'd see Leafs with a Honda generator strapped to it.

 

The advantage of using an electric generator is you can use any power source that can generate electricity. Even an ICE can be run at optimal constant RPM for max efficiency but so far they haven't found one that's cost effective and efficient enough to outperform directly driving the wheels.

[Fgts]

Way to completely miss the point. Volt is a PHEV with a 50 mile range and as such it's great. Ford could do the same thing with their PHEVs by adding a larger battery pack and they'd be more efficient in ICE mode to boot.

And you know the ICE mileage would be better, how?. Didn't Ford get ripped for overstating Hybrid mpg?.

But to do that would be expensive and require reengineering the platform to accommodate the batteries. And you'd be competing with 20 mile range PHEVs that are cheaper and work fine for most people and full electrics that give you double the EV range and are cheaper. It's a tweeter market that hasn't caught on.

Yet that "dumb" GM took a platform from scratch and made the platform accept a gasoline car and an E/V, even later a dedicated E/V as Bolt. Please write the 100,000+ 1 gen Volt buyers they got the wrong car, or GM they should abandon thier E/V program because the didn't sell Mc-millons of electric cars .

 

As for the technology, I already pointed out that running an ICE as a generator for an electric motor isn't efficient enough. Otherwise you'd see Leafs with a Honda generator strapped to it.

 

You literally described the BMW i3. GM have a system better then "almighty" BMW. The i8 is the hybrid worth a damn but get ready to pay Tesla prices. Audi E-tron you can only get in an A3 wagon for now.

The advantage of using an electric generator is you can use any power source that can generate electricity. Even an ICE can be run at optimal constant RPM for max efficiency but so far they haven't found one that's cost effective and efficient enough to outperform directly driving the wheels.

You basically saying "have you cake and eat it too", well that's the only drawback to such a system but as said PHEV buyers know what they getting which is a car that use no fuel but can travel w/o range problems, even if the ICE isn't as efficient as a comparable compact. Leaf and Tesla buyers exist knowing when the "juice" is gone it takes a while to charge or a charge station isn't available. Edited November 9, 2015 by Fgts

[akirby]

Where did I say Volt was bad or PHEVs were bad? All I said was that the "technology" in the Volt isn't revolutionary.

 

Who says using a generator is less efficient than driving the wheels directly? The laws of physics. That's why the ICE has to be super efficient to make up for the energy you lose converting mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical.

 

The point about Volt being a "tweener" is strictly from a marketing position. You have regular vehicle PHEVs with 20 mile range which are relatively cheap because they use an existing high volume platform with a smaller battery pack and you have full electrics with 100 mile ranges that are also cheap because they don't have an ICE at all. Volt has a more expensive battery pack and a full ICE and it's on a heavily modified unique platform variant.

 

Volt is perfect for folks with 80+ mile commutes where you're on the borderline of being able to make it with a full EV. But I think that's a small demographic and that's one reason why sales haven't taken off as planned.

[mustang_sallad]

it's also sadly a bit of a challenge to market PHEVs, as they take more than 10 seconds to explain/understand. Just this week I got told by a Ford dealer that they didn't have any C-Max Energi's, but they did have a Hybrid, and I should try that as it drives exactly the same but has more trunk space. The salesman was also apparently completely unaware of government incentives in my area for plug-in vehicles. I think he was a pretty junior guy, but still, it's an indication of the challenges presented by this kind of a shift in technology. I believe that PHEVs are the way forward for the mass market, but EVs are just so much easier to explain!

[jpd80]

I think the general consensus with buyers is that they like fuel efficiency and electric range

preferably when the manufacturer supplies it for free, there's an underlying expectation

that the majority of that cost burden should be on manufacturers because they have to

meet CAFE, not buyers.....

 

I think that's the real battle electrification faces in getting deeper penetration into the market,

"everyone wants it" and will check the box provided that don't have to pay.

Edited November 10, 2015 by jpd80

[mustang_sallad]

I think the general consensus with buyers is that they like fuel efficiency and electric range

preferably when the manufacturer supplies it for free, there's an underlying expectation

that the majority of that cost burden should be on manufacturers because they have to

meet CAFE, not buyers.....

 

I think that's the real battle electrification faces in getting deeper penetration into the market,

"everyone wants it" and will check the box provided that don't have to pay.

 

I think a lot of people are willing to pay for the convenience of not having to go to the gas station.

[jpd80]

 

I think a lot of people are willing to pay for the convenience of not having to go to the gas station.

Depends on your definition of a lot, sales for October would tend to be at odds with that belief.

 

Total Vehicle Sales.... 1.44 Million

 

Total Hybrid sales 30,489 (2.11%)

 

Total PHEV sales. 4,081 (0.28%)

 

Total BEV sales. 5,740 (0.40%)

 

http://www.hybridcars.com/october-2015-dashboard/

Edited November 13, 2015 by jpd80

[akirby]

And don't forget a good portion of those sales are receiving tax credits or rebates making them cheaper than their non hybrid counterparts especially on a 3 year lease where the rebate subsidizes the lease.

 

There were dozens of new leafs that popped up around here the last 2 years because they could be leased for $200/month due to the rebates which made them almost free when you consider the gas savings.

 

Sales would not be so high without the subsidies.

[Biker16]

 

Sales would not be so high without the subsidies.

 

The same would be true with subsides Toward driving non electric cars.

[jpd80]

 

The same would be true with subsides Toward driving non electric cars.

Even with subsidies, electric vehicles are still a small amount of total sales,

the money to develop more of them comes from the good profits extracted from conventional ICE

 

See the dilemma if we cut off the source of funding?

Unlike Tesla the major motor companies have to find money and fund programs themselves.

If Ford and GM sold stock every time they wanted to make a new truck or sports car they's be no better than Tesla.

 

We have a disruptive technology that relies on funding raised form the profits of vehicles its making redundant

Edited November 14, 2015 by jpd80