Ford Fusion Forum: What do you think of the Chevy Volt? - Ford Fusion Forum

Jump to content

Custom Search


Advertise on the Ford Fusion Forum. Click here to contact us.


Welcome to the largest Ford Fusion community on the web. We're glad you're part of the Ford community!

Close Open
Close Open
  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What do you think of the Chevy Volt? Is the FFH's hybrid tech a better way to go?

#21 User is offline   VonoreTn 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 28-June 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vonore, Tn
  • Interests:Vehicle maintenance, mechanical things

Posted 31 July 2010 - 02:19 AM

Three points:

One, the Volt will not have a 90% efficiency of making electricity, or the second process of running a motor at 90% efficiency. It has to do both. I'm sticking with 70% efficiency for both unless someone can show me some data otherwise, which gives a 50% overall, not very good. Even at a constant speed for electricity generation, there are big losses in coils passing through magnetic fields. I am eager to see the road tests on what this Volt will actually do for FE. I will stick to my projection that it will not get 50 mpg steady state after the first 40 miles. There is simply not sufficient magic going on with the strategy.

Secondly the Volt has to use premium fuel. That is a serious competitive disadvantage over the FFH, which must be factored in.

Third, someone mentioned that diesel electric locomotives are efficient. Not really. Overall as a transportation mode they are very efficient because they haul a lot of cargo, and the steel wheel on a steel track has low mechanical losses. But for converting fuel energy into mechanical energy they are not more efficient than a 40 mpg mechanical drivetrain diesel car. For the reasons already stated, mechanical drivetrains are more efficient than converting to electricity to run electric motors. Holding locomotive diesel engines at a relatively constant low speeds is a good idea mainly for durability. If the diesel electric combo were more efficient than a diesel and mechanical drivetrain, you would see them in heavy trucks and you don't. Heavy trucks track every bit of efficiency because it impacts their profit margins.

View Postlolder, on 29 July 2010 - 01:10 PM, said:

I think the battery charge/discharge and motor/generator efficiencies of our hybrids are above 90% now but still less than direct drive.

0

#22 User is offline   sullied 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 05-February 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saratoga Springs, NY

Posted 31 July 2010 - 04:45 AM

View Postmirak, on 30 July 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

I hear this argument a lot. I really don't see the logic in justifying bad spending with other bad spending. In my opinion, this is just the latest "clean energy" government boondoggle. How many billions have we funneled into ethanol, and solar panels, and wind power, and how many more billions will we continue to spend? I'm sick and tired of my money being spent on subsidizing these efforts, just to they can compete with cheaper, more abundant energy sources. We're supposed to have a free market, where technology can succeed or fail on its own merits, not ont he backs of the taxpayers.



How, exactly, do EVs equal energy independence? How do they equal no oil? How do they equal no oil spills? And speaking of oil spills, remember the recent gulf spill, dubbed the greatest ecological disaster in history? They're having trouble finding the oil. Scientists are baffled by how quickly the planet is healing itself.

Look, I've obviously got no problem with hybrids. I own two. I think they're awesome. They're fun to drive and save me money. I'm just tired of the government, in their infinite wisdom, spending my money to subsidize a product that makes no sense. A $33k (after massive tax credit) compact car doesn't make any sense!

Finally, you know its bad when the New York Times agree with me. http://www.nytimes.c...r=1&ref=opinion

Not exactly the best place to debate this, but...
1. That article is an opinion article from a single person...not the entire New York Times...so that one person agrees with you
2. Where is the oil? On the beaches, on the wildlife...have you not been paying attention?
3. How does an EV equal energy independence? How do they equal no oil? Is this a serious question? First, EVs don't use oil and gas. Then, we use American energy from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear to power our electricity grid and then plug our EVs into that....that's total energy independence...no dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs.

I'd have to disagree with your first statement about this being a waste of money. Infrastructure spending is what the government should be spending money on. Subsidizing electric vehicles is related to infrastructure. If our country is going to move in the direction of energy independence (necessary from a defense standpoint), we need to electrify our vehicles and highways.
0

#23 User is offline   lolder 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 08-September 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 31 July 2010 - 07:33 AM

Extended range EV hybrids like the Volt are the future of transportation and will be the bridge to the non-petroleum world which will inevitably come. They're just not going to be cheaper. Energy is energy and it all tends to cost roughly the same. It takes the same amount of energy to run a 3500 lb. air conditioned car down the road at 70 mph whether it's electric or pedal powered; and it's a LOT of energy.
0

#24 User is offline   DaveM 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 396
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 31 July 2010 - 09:00 AM

View Postlolder, on 31 July 2010 - 08:33 AM, said:

Extended range EV hybrids like the Volt are the future of transportation and will be the bridge to the non-petroleum world which will inevitably come. They're just not going to be cheaper. Energy is energy and it all tends to cost roughly the same. It takes the same amount of energy to run a 3500 lb. air conditioned car down the road at 70 mph whether it's electric or pedal powered; and it's a LOT of energy.

We have to start somewhere. Do you think the engines of today were here 100 years ago? Of course not, but they did get better and better as time went on, and so will cars like the Volt. Look at VCR's. Where they started in the 70's and for the most part are gone due to new technology. So will the electric cars go that way but I see many years of them improving and being around to take some load off the importing of oil.
I have a 08 HHR with about 15K on it and I can only think of a couple times where it has went farther than 40 miles at one time. So just think of the many gal. of gas I could have saved. Heck I bet it would still be on its first tank of gas.

This post has been edited by DaveM: 31 July 2010 - 09:02 AM

0

#25 User is offline   mirak 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 28-August 09

Posted 31 July 2010 - 01:19 PM

View Postsullied, on 31 July 2010 - 04:45 AM, said:

2. Where is the oil? On the beaches, on the wildlife...have you not been paying attention?


Have a read: http://news.yahoo.co...ews_excl_sc3270 Here is an excerpt:

Quote

Where is all the oil? Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast. And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames.

So where did the oil go? "Some of the oil evaporates," explains Edward Bouwer, professor of environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. That’s especially true for the more toxic components of oil, which tend to be very volatile, he says. Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.

Although there were more than 4,000 boats involved in the skimming operations, those cleanup crews may have only picked up a small percentage of the oil so far. That’s not unusual; in previous oil spills, crews could only scoop up a small amount of oil. "It’s very unusual to get more than 1 or 2 percent," says Cornell University ecologist Richard Howarth, who worked on the Exxon Valdez spill. Skimming operations will continue in the Gulf for several weeks.

Some of the oil has sunk into the sediments on the ocean floor. Researchers say that’s where the spill could do the most damage. But according to a report in Wednesday’s New York Times, "federal scientists [have determined] the oil [is] primarily sitting in the water column and not on the sea floor."

Perhaps the most important cause of the oil’s disappearance, some researchers suspect, is that the oil has been devoured by microbes. The lesson from past spills is that the lion’s share of the cleanup work is done by nature in the form of oil-eating bacteria and fungi. The microbes break down the hydrocarbons in oil to use as fuel to grow and reproduce. A bit of oil in the water is like a feeding frenzy, causing microbial populations to grow exponentially.

Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.


Our planet really is an amazing thing. It provides us with abundant, powerful energy sources, and even cleans up after our messes.

Onto the next argument:

View Postsullied, on 31 July 2010 - 04:45 AM, said:

3. How does an EV equal energy independence? How do they equal no oil? Is this a serious question? First, EVs don't use oil and gas. Then, we use American energy from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear to power our electricity grid and then plug our EVs into that....that's total energy independence...no dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs.

I'd have to disagree with your first statement about this being a waste of money. Infrastructure spending is what the government should be spending money on. Subsidizing electric vehicles is related to infrastructure. If our country is going to move in the direction of energy independence (necessary from a defense standpoint), we need to electrify our vehicles and highways.


Ah! So, we've just got to power our entire electric grid with wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power! Is that all? Serious question: how much money do we need to spend, and how long will it take, for us to achieve this "energy independence"? Can't answer that? Don't feel bad. Nobody can answer that question. Instead, politicians and (ahem... liberals) just want to spend gobs of money so they can feel good about "moving in the right direction."

Pie. In. The. Sky. Do you really believe that now, now that we are currently running $1.5 trillion annual deficits, now is the time to be "investing" in clean energy? Again, if this energy is so great, why can't it compete without government subsidies?
0

#26 User is offline   cchaos 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 02-June 09

Posted 31 July 2010 - 01:30 PM

View PostFFHdriver, on 30 July 2010 - 11:08 PM, said:

300 miles is a short trip for lots of people. Therefore you'll need another car for vacation travel.


No, you can just fill it up at any gas station and keep going. However, you'll be burning gas to power the electric engine instead of using pure electricity from the batteries.

That's why I'm wondering what the mpg rating is when using the gas generator. I've heard some reports that it may only be around 30 mpg, which would mean the Volt is less efficient than the FFH once the initial battery charge is used up. If you use your car primarily for commuting and can plug it in every night, the Volt would be more fuel efficient; otherwise, the FFH may be more fuel efficient.

This post has been edited by cchaos: 31 July 2010 - 01:32 PM

0

#27 User is offline   rfruth 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • View gallery
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 390
  • Joined: 25-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Tx
  • Interests:linux - bicycle touring - FFH

Posted 31 July 2010 - 02:41 PM

I agree all subsidies should be done away with then people would flock to renew ables but gas/diesel fuel would cost lots more & we all know what our trucks / trains / tractors use - the upcoming EV Focus sounds good to me but like the Leaf the range is expected to be the same & a few times a month I go farther than 100 miles at a time so a plug in FFH might be just the ticket !
0

#28 User is offline   lolder 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 08-September 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:36 PM

A plug-in version of an existing hybrid like the FFH is not a good engineering design. The Volt is better. The FFH ICE is too big and MG2 too small for an extended EV range hybrid. Same goes for the Prius. Toyota's engineers are probably against the management decision to build the 13 mile range plug-in Prius. The FFH and Prius are unique designs and they got it right. They are NOT electric cars. The Volt is much more so.
0

#29 User is offline   sullied 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 05-February 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saratoga Springs, NY

Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:08 PM

View Postmirak, on 31 July 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

Ah! So, we've just got to power our entire electric grid with wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power! Is that all? Serious question: how much money do we need to spend, and how long will it take, for us to achieve this "energy independence"? Can't answer that? Don't feel bad. Nobody can answer that question. Instead, politicians and (ahem... liberals) just want to spend gobs of money so they can feel good about "moving in the right direction."

Pie. In. The. Sky. Do you really believe that now, now that we are currently running $1.5 trillion annual deficits, now is the time to be "investing" in clean energy? Again, if this energy is so great, why can't it compete without government subsidies?

So...let's just do nothing then? That's your argument. Flawed. Screw it...let's just ruin the planet...can't do it all right now...so why bother ever doing anything at all?

Instead of making things happen, politicians and (ahem... conservatives) just wanna bicker about how it's useless to protect the environment.

As I've said before...not the place for this debate, so I won't post anything further.
0

#30 User is offline   mirak 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 28-August 09

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:20 PM

View Postsullied, on 31 July 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

So...let's just do nothing then? That's your argument. Flawed. Screw it...let's just ruin the planet...can't do it all right now...so why bother ever doing anything at all?

Instead of making things happen, politicians and (ahem... conservatives) just wanna bicker about how it's useless to protect the environment.

As I've said before...not the place for this debate, so I won't post anything further.


Well, hopefully you'll keep reading at least, and thank you for the last word.

Liberals always like to trot out this strawman argument when they've got nothing left: "Oh yeah? So I guess your answer is to do nothing!" Our president is a master of using this false choice as a rhetorical device.

I simply believe the government should not be investing my tax dollars in an attempt to manipulate the free market. You have no confidence in the free market (even though you probably own a flat screen TV, tiny cell phone, and many other amazingly inexpensive technological marvels developed without billions in federal subsidies). Energy technology can also develop without federal subsidies. Want to become the next billionaire? Develop a better battery. Getting rich is a powerful incentive.

And finally, I fully acknowledge that I have hijacked my own thread. Baiting liberals is just too fun to pass up. However, to the rest of the posters, thank you for your technical contributions. I am definitely learning a thing or two about series hybrids that I didn't know before. Very interesting.
0

#31 User is offline   FFHdriver 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 24-August 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lower AL

Posted 31 July 2010 - 11:27 PM

View Postcchaos, on 31 July 2010 - 01:30 PM, said:

No, you can just fill it up at any gas station and keep going. However, you'll be burning gas to power the electric engine instead of using pure electricity from the batteries.

That's why I'm wondering what the mpg rating is when using the gas generator. I've heard some reports that it may only be around 30 mpg, which would mean the Volt is less efficient than the FFH once the initial battery charge is used up. If you use your car primarily for commuting and can plug it in every night, the Volt would be more fuel efficient; otherwise, the FFH may be more fuel efficient.

If I can only drive 40 miles on the battery and have to fill up every 300 miles I can think of a reason to have the battery. Just but a cheaper ICE car.
0

#32 User is offline   mirak 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 28-August 09

Posted 01 August 2010 - 08:38 AM

View Postcchaos, on 31 July 2010 - 01:30 PM, said:

That's why I'm wondering what the mpg rating is when using the gas generator. I've heard some reports that it may only be around 30 mpg, which would mean the Volt is less efficient than the FFH once the initial battery charge is used up. If you use your car primarily for commuting and can plug it in every night, the Volt would be more fuel efficient; otherwise, the FFH may be more fuel efficient.


It's an interesting idea. I wonder if the EPA has even figured out how to do the MPG rating? I would assume that you have to rate the ICE usage only, somehow, but that might be easier said than done.

View Postlolder, on 31 July 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

A plug-in version of an existing hybrid like the FFH is not a good engineering design. The Volt is better. The FFH ICE is too big and MG2 too small for an extended EV range hybrid. Same goes for the Prius. Toyota's engineers are probably against the management decision to build the 13 mile range plug-in Prius. The FFH and Prius are unique designs and they got it right. They are NOT electric cars. The Volt is much more so.


First, is your opinion based on the current battery technology? Would Li-Ion change your opinion, or is the FFH still too heavy to be an effective plug-in?

Second, I'm not suggesting that parallel hybrids should ever possess a 40-mile EV-only mode range like the Volt. Forget EV-only. I think a plug-in FFH or Prius with Li-Ion technology could dramatically increase overall mpg (though, again, you run into the problem of how, exactly, do you calculate mpg if you are drawing some of your power from watts instead of gallons?)
0

#33 User is offline   lolder 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 08-September 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 01 August 2010 - 10:33 AM

The cost and weight goes up with a plug-in. There's very little monetary savings in EV mode with a plug-in. The type of HVB (Lithium, etc.) in a full non-plug-in hybrid is unimportant and has little effect on mpg. The mpg of the present types of hybrids cannot be significantly improved except by lower weight or new engine technologies yet to be developed. The Prius weighs about 3100 lbs. empty and already is a light car for a 5 passenger accessory loaded hybrid. To carry a payload of 800 lbs. in a car weighing 2000 lbs. is difficult. Weight reductions can only be done with expensive technologies like carbon-fiber. ICE efficiencies are currently limited by the laws of thermodynamics and the maximum temperatures metal engines can be run at. Non-cooled Ceramic engines that run at 1500 degrees F. have not yet been successful. A radiator is lost efficiency and energy. Any commercial electrical power plant that uses fossil fuels has the same efficiency limitations plus the electrical transmission losses. I think 65% of the US electricity is generated by coal? Wind and solar power is intermittent and requires energy storage to match loads. Hydroelectric has limited availability. Nuclear has other problems. Non of this is going to be cheap! The Prius and FFH are affordable and being sold at a profit and double your economy. If the Volt is durable, it's subsidized $33 K is OK too. Enjoy them, buy them now, there is no magical next generation.

This post has been edited by lolder: 01 August 2010 - 10:37 AM

0

#34 User is offline   VonoreTn 

  • New Fusion Member
  • Pip
  • Group: Ford Fusion Member
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 28-June 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vonore, Tn
  • Interests:Vehicle maintenance, mechanical things

Posted 01 August 2010 - 12:37 PM

View Postsullied, on 31 July 2010 - 06:08 PM, said:

So...let's just do nothing then? That's your argument. Flawed. Screw it...let's just ruin the planet...can't do it all right now...so why bother ever doing anything at all?

Instead of making things happen, politicians and (ahem... conservatives) just wanna bicker about how it's useless to protect the environment.

As I've said before...not the place for this debate, so I won't post anything further.


No hard feelings pal, we want liberals buying FFH's too, I'm not fussy about the political party of those supporting my Ford pension.... ;)
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users