Go to Windows 7 Insider GuideSuzuki builds a little Volt of its own
(Credit:
Suzuki)
Suzuki is an automaker that we don't hear too much from in the U.S. However, when we do hear from it--such as with the two SX4s we've tested--we generally like what it has to say. So when we got word that a plug-in hybrid version of one of the smallest Suzukis, the Swift, would be on display at the 2009 Tokyo Motor Show, our interest was piqued.
The Suzuki Swift plug-in hybrid can be classified as a series gas-electric hybrid or an extended-range electric vehicle, depending on who you ask. The front wheels are turned by a 54 kW (72.4 horsepower) electric motor, which gets its supply of electrons from an array of lithium ion batteries. The battery pack is mounted in the center tunnel with rather novel window cut into the center console, displaying one of the cells.
The Swift PHEV's center tunnel mounted battery, visible through a cutout.
(Credit: Suzuki)
Like any good concept, the Swift PHEV has cool looking seats made of odd materials.
(Credit: Suzuki)When the batteries run low, a small 600cc gasoline generator kicks in (a la Chevy Volt) to power the electric motor and keep the batteries topped off.
Range and fuel economy data has not yet been supplied, but stay tuned to our continuing coverage of the 2009 Tokyo Motor Show for more details as they emerge.
I hope I'm proven wrong though, that car would fit my needs perfectly since the majority of my driving is within a 10 mile radius.
A 600cc gasoline engine driving a generator, which directly powers the electric motors, can only supply as much power as that engine puts in. After efficiency losses in the generator and electric motors, you would have maximum equivalent to 500cc motor. Which of course is not enough to accelerate that car. Would probably maintain the car's speed on a flat section of freeway, going 75. It takes a lot more power to accelerate then to keep moving, remember conservation of momentum.
However, that same 600cc engine running constantly, charging batteries, would be able to store enough power along with regenerative braking, to create a reserve in those batteries, which is then used to accelerate the car back to speed. THAT is the reason for the batteries, only for acceleration and climbing hills.
If you make only short trips, running off battery only, then you don't use gasoline. If you are charging with solar or other renewable electricity, then that is excellent. But for longer trips, you are just gaining efficiency by that small engine being more efficient than a large engine with extra power available for acceleration.
The problem with EVs is that they actually TERRIBLE for the environment, especially when used in the US. Even if it doesn't use a nickel battery (see 2 mile dead zone around refinery), it's using electricity that, as of today, has an 80% chance in the US of being created by burning coal. Coal burning electric turbines are much more harmful to the environment than any vehicle on the road.
You have to look at the whole scope of your actions. Sure you're using 1/10th the amount of gas but you're actions created over 10 times the amount of carbon emissions. When it comes to energy, if it sounds too good to be true, it IS too good to be true.
The only option is to actually use less energy and not just change how it's created or being used unless you get into nuclear fusion and fission but that's a whole different story.
The facts:
Coal burning plants emit 1.3 lbs. of CO2 per kilowatt-hour generated
An electric car goes an average of 5 miles per kilowatt-hour
To generate enough electricity for an electric car to go 20 miles, that plant would emit 5.2 lbs of CO2
A typical car gets 20 miles per gallon
Burning a gallon of gas emits 19.2 lbs of CO2
The electric car wins, causing the emission of ~75 percent less CO2.
And that doesn't take into account non coal electricity generation, the potential for sequestering CO2 at coal plants, or other emissions that have been cleaned up effectively at power plants but are more difficult to regulate for the millions of cars on the road.
Of course your numbers assumes sensible driving habits. After reading the article on the Tesla Roadster in Automobile magazine where they lived for five days with the car, it's clear that...ahem...'spirited driving' tendencies really cut into the efficiency of that car's battery tech. In those five days, Automobile managed to get nowhere CLOSE to the quoted max range per charge that Tesla expounds...using the Roadster as the "sports car" it's purportedly designed to be. Heavy right feet does in optimal electrical efficiency just as easily as it does an infernal combustion counterpart, even if it's far more cleaner in being a ticket magnet.
Just asking, since it's never been all about CO2 when it comes to the detriments of burning coal (you know...arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead...even trace uranium...not to mention the usual suspects like NOX, CO, VOCs, sulfur dioxides and hydrocarbons and the like). Geothermal never sounded so good as it does when reading about the pitfalls of coal.
I hope this gives Chevy a reason to drop the price on the Volt. it is too expensive.
Lithium batteries are not only toxic, but burn with extreme heat in oxygen. It's going to be a lovely day when you get a lithium fire going from a hybrid wreck. It will be even more fun when the heat from the lithium fire ignites the aluminum in the vehicle body.
Environmentalism is stupidity applied.
"They boil water and contain the pressurized steam in a metal container? I'm not getting on that thing, it could esplode!"
Study some history. Boiler explosions were relatively common in those days.
It boils down to this: It is stupid to replace a relatively safe technology for a poorer performing more dangerous one, just because you've been propagandized to think that plant fertilizer is a world-destroying toxin.
In a car however, yes, batteries can burn if an accident punctures the side of the car and the protection plate around the battery and the side of the battery and through a couple layers of the battery.
Of course on the other hand, that gasoline stuff if liquid and just goes everywhere if the tank is ruptured, it ignites very easily, even from a spark 10 feet away. So your best bet safety wise is to just outlaw gasoline. Cars would be safer then.
You can't? Funny, neither can I. GM was run by bean-counting idiots...there's simply no point to "imagining" around that.
--GM Management
-
by AL-Graphic
October 7, 2009 7:52 AM PDT
- GM and AutoUAW killed themselves, plus their car quality and mantenance kill GM.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(22 Comments)When you bough GM car, did they give you survey at all? Even you report your GM car problems, did you see they make any change or correct the problem on next year production? NO, NO, NO! The GM attitude is the next new model car will "TRY" fix the problem, but now---"Take it or Leave it!"---This created another problem, GM not even constantly renewal their car models at all! What they need to do is to correct or modified the problem, or even change parts to make necessary fix, yes, it cost money and investments, is that the QUALITY cming from? And year by year, the problem will be less and less, the quality of car will be getting better and better, consumers will be coming back, even the younger generation will be followed the steps to buy GM cars, loking today's younger generation of next wave of consumers, they are not even considered GM car at all!!! QUALITY is really an issue for GM!!!