Another reason that a gasoline-electric-battery-motor-road path makes sense is that it is easy in the future to replace the gasoline engine with some other sort of power source, without having to do as much re-engineering of the electric powertrain side of things. For example, if GM wanted to package a diesel range extender for Europe, or drop the range extender completely, it would not be a radical re-engineering job. Perhaps in the future, the gasoline I4 will be replaced with a hydrogen fuel cell stack, or a flux capacitor.
Having no mechanical connection also allows for some packaging flexibility. Though GM decided to package the 1.4L I4 in the traditional underhood location, in another application it might make sense to package the motor in the rear of the vehicle--Voltec Fiero, anyone?
*Props to Sam, who is an actual engineer, not just a news writer, he tends to understand his topics.
2 comments:
The whole issue with electric propulsion is battery storage capacity. Going the choo-choo route and using the internal combustion engine to power the motor (indirectly in this case, through battery recharging) is a logical development path.
I suspect the other automakers were willing to sit back and let GM absorb the development costs, since this is clearly an interim solution.
I agree. Neither all electric or all Hydrogen will be ready for any sort of mass consumption for at least a decade. Interesting how the statist government is pushing electric while private investors are building hydrogen highways.
Also note, the world is going hydrogen. Electric seems to make since but unless EEStor isn't making vaporware, Hydrogen tech will win. Batteries are not a green tech to produce and dispose of. Better off drilling for oil.
Post a Comment