Could future Volts get 80-mile batteries?
Might a second-generation Chevy Volt feature 80 miles of gas-free driving? A high-tech company in Ohio certainly believes so and they hope to have a hand in making it happen. Applied Sciences Inc., located in sunny Cedarville, in a collaborative effort with Pyrograf Products Inc. are using carbon nano-fibers to enhance the electrodes that may one day wind up in the Chevy Volt's battery. The companies have already been working on their tech for two years and according to Applied Science's spokesperson John Mackay, "GM researchers say they have not seen any carbon materials that have performed as well as ours." The company has so far received $500,000 from the Detroit auto-maker for their efforts in addition to $1 million from the Ohio Third Frontier program. Specific details on how the nano-fibers help aid energy storage weren't given but we've seen work done with similarly-sized silicone before and suspect nano materials are indeed a tree worth barking up. It was also interesting to note that the companies in the contest to be the Volt's battery supplier go unmentioned as well. Could it be that GM wants to build their own batteries? Feel free to speculate away in the comments section after the break.
[Source: Dayton Daily News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dave 9:09PM (10/12/2008)
With an 80 mile range, the engine will almost never run.
That means stale gas and engine issues.
I'd rather have a 40 mile range with batteries that cost half as much and weigh half as much. Let the engine run a few times a month at least.
An OPTIONAL 80 mile battery pack for those with very long daily commutes would make sense. Or a dedicated 80 mile range EV version.
Reply
my nads, check em 1:25AM (10/13/2008)
There's fuel additives you can use that will preserve gas and engine if they aren't frequently used, so this is a non-issue. Ever been to an auto store? Sheesh.
BTW, these new batteries advances involve modifying carbon nano-particles to increase the battery storage capacity so it would not increase weight, and hopefully not even cost.
Of course, you can simply NOT CHARGE your car every few days and viola, stale-gas-problem-that-was-never-a-problem-because-you've-never-stepped -inside-an-auto-store-or-car-supplies-section-in-a-store solves.
GROM 2:32AM (10/13/2008)
Personal prediction : Chevy will be out of business before Volt comes out.
oh my nads, yea aah ooh baby 3:06PM (10/13/2008)
GROM, I agree! I only hope that Tesla buys them out at the 12cents-a-share firesale!
aal 5:02PM (10/13/2008)
Ever hear of a computer? If the engine hasn't run for some period of time the computer can run it to us up some gas. I am sure this is the least of the problems.
stevefazek 10:25PM (10/12/2008)
well Dave thats one thing the engineers at GM have been working on.
What to do to prevent gas from going bad.
Reply
tankd0g 11:16AM (10/13/2008)
I think they'vel solved that by not making a car that goes 40 miles without engaging the ICE.
Scott 10:40PM (10/12/2008)
I respect your remark about the not using gas perhaps "ruining" the gas and therfore the engine, or whatever, but I don't think that would be a problem to not run the gas engine often.
Aren't there fuel-stabilizers for long-term storing of engines with gas in them on the market?
Plus, even the 40 M range Volt is designed to "never" have to run its gas engine for alot of drivers who will use it, therefore, the engine will still have to perform, for instance, if they didn't ever drive over 40 M for half of a year, and then one day, went on a long drive, it wouldn't mean that the onboard 1.4L gas engine would have problems with it, it will still work just fine, even if seldom started up. I think they're made for that type of usage.
Now, if you are not going to go over 40 M for an entire year or not more than once every six months, it probably is a good idea to add a gasoline stabilizer, to avoid the problem of the gasoline going bad.
Good point.
However, I think a longer range battery or twice the size battery incorporated into the design would ONLY be a positive thing- but what they could add into the features of the car is the electronically-controlled OPTION to "run" your gasoline engine if you ever do want to BYPASS the electrical drivetrain software, just so a mechanic or the owner could test their gasoline engine and its components for repairs or whatever, or for if, like you, they are concerned about the engine not running often enough to keep the small amount of gas onboard good. I think just driving the car a far distance once a year would remedy that concern, though, easily. I could be wrong, but I don't think seals or anything will go bad very quickly from non-use on these new, modern engines.
I just don't see longer range batts as a bad thing EVER- because as production and technology increase and get better, price will slash in half too, or more, perhaps, and then, like I already said, it would only be a good thing to have long-range standard for most people, and some people could bypass with a switch or manually run or check their gas engine, or in the long-term future, solely have the vehicles rely on long-range/quick-recharge batteries; which will become affordable to do so; well over the M range a gas tank provides, but for now progress in this extended-range electric technology utilizing a gas generator will only be a good thing for many years to come.
Reply
MikeW 11:57PM (10/12/2008)
No, you just go two days without recharging ;)
and the engine takes up the difference.
Reply
Lad 12:00AM (10/13/2008)
Ideally, the gen set would be an self contained option that the owner could easily install if he/she intends to run further than 80 miles without plugging in a charger. The advantage would be the weight savings of the ICE, fuel and generator which would mean even more mileage on the same charge. I favor the idea of a small bumper mounted one-wheel gen set trailer when one wants to run on an alternate fuel, like ethanol.
Reply
Gary 1:39PM (10/13/2008)
I would predict that the idea of removing a 200+ pound engine and generator by the average home user would not fly. The cost of an engine winch would instantly negate the 2 mpg increase in fuel economy. Then the automotive media would start harping about things like: "Waaahh! The driving dynamics aren't balanced!"
Lad 7:15PM (10/13/2008)
I agree with your assessment if the design requires extensive engineering knowledge and muscle. However, I envision a light-weight air cooled engine and generator trailer, engineered to attach to the back of the car at two places with a negative caster single wheel and a plug in connector that is controlled by the car's cpu. Of course this unit wouldn't even be needed when batteries finally have the energy density to go 300 miles at freeway speeds and can be quick charges in five minutes.
Anth 1:54AM (10/13/2008)
Its easy - GM offers a 40 or 50 mile Volt. Then, they sell through the dealership an upgrade to the 80-mile version. You trade in the original battery (which goes back to GM for use in another car as reconditioined), and you get the bigger battery. GM just needs to make sure that there is enough room for the bigger battery (which should be fine - if its the same size as the current 16kWh battery).
It can work in reverse too. If you have a really long commute and get a job closer to home, you can trade down (and possibly even get money back) to switch to the lower capacity battery.
IMO I think the next 10 years we'll see huge leaps in battery performance, mostly from nanotech. 20kWh batteries the size of three regular car batteries should be no problem by 2020. Those would be good enough to get 60-70 miles even on big SUVs.
Reply
Dave 3:28AM (10/13/2008)
For most people, I still think that a 40 mile EV range Volt for $30,000 makes more sense than an 80 mile EV range Volt for $35,000. (not quoting actual MSRPs obviously, just illustrating the point)
Why pay for more batteries than you need??? The world won't come to an end if the engine needs to run once or twice a month.
And why carry around extra weight??? Extra weight is bad for handling and bad for payload capacity and puts extra strain on brakes, tires, and suspension components. (I may be biased - I drive a Miata - I like cars that are light on their feet)
As for the generator-
Every place I've worked that has emergency generators runs them at least once a month. There are good reasons for this. ICEs were never meant to sit idle for months at a time. But I'm sure GM can handle that issue in one way or another. Just an observation - Relax, folks.
Reply
Dave 3:32AM (10/13/2008)
Anth makes good sense.
There is no point in paying for more battery than you need. Options would make sense.
Perhaps someday batteries will be cheap enough to be a nonissue, but they arent yet.
Reply
Petz 8:15AM (10/13/2008)
Or a Volt with 40mile EV range at half the cost and weight of the battery!
Reply
Luke 8:08AM (10/13/2008)
All I can say is that if an 80-mile Volt is possible after one year, a 160-mile Volts is possible in another year. In a couple of years we won't need the dino-juice.
Reply
smartone 8:48AM (10/13/2008)
I am sure the Volt could easily have a maintenance setting in their computers which would run the engine every 1 or 2 weeks for 5 minutes..
but what about lawn mowers that can sit idle for months before being turned on again?
Reply
jfrye 9:21AM (10/13/2008)
The Volt looks way too much like a boring Malibu so I therefore would never buy one to begin with.
Reply
Zach 6:24PM (10/13/2008)
Won't the combustion engine still require oil for lubrication on the cylinders? What about anti-freeze and other lubricants?
With those reasons, I think they should just scrap the stupid combustion engine and put another 20-40 miles worth of batteries in the vehicle.
Losing the combustion engine will drop the weight of the vehicle and additional costs, then adding the additional batteries will increase the weight and cost and will likely result in a wash.
Since the idea is to not use any fuel at all, make the possibility easier. Maintenance sure just got a lot cheaper and easier too.
Reply