At $1,000 per Vehicle, Fix to Chevy Volt Battery Pack Is Cheap

By · December 08, 2011

Chevy Volt battery

General Motors is finalizing a package of battery modifications to prevent after-crash fires in Chevy Volts.

According to Reuters, engineers at GM believe that relatively simple modifications will greatly reduce or eliminate the possibility of the Chevy Volt producing a fire after a severe crash. Engineers at the company are expected to update senior management by the end of this week on what could be a fix to the more than 6,000 Volts now on US roads.

The proposed modifications include laminating some of the circuitry within the Volt's 16-kWh battery, reinforcing the case that protects the 400-pound lithium-ion unit and adding protection to the coolant system to prevent leaks after a severe crash. (The Nissan LEAF does not use a liquid coolant in its battery system and the steel encasement apparently is more integral to the vehicle's core structure.)

Chevy Volt battery

Chevy Volt's T-shaped lithium-ion 16-kWh battery pack.

According to reports, the repair would be quick and could be completed at GM dealerships, thus sparing General Motors the cost further damage to its reputation, especially if questions linger or if a formal safety recall is made. It's an open question whether or not the public will understand the distinctions between a voluntary fix and a formal recall. But the quicker the incident is resolved, and the industry establishes standards for preventing similar problems in the future—such as proper design for protecting the battery pack and protocols for draining power from a battery after a crash—the sooner such problems can be dismissed by potential buyers of electric cars.

It's believed the cost to fix each Volt will be approximately $1,000 per vehicle, or around $9 million to fix all of the estimated 9,000-plus Volts produced to date. That's a relatively low cost for GM, and the emerging EV industry, to put the incident in the rear view mirror.

Comments

· pkio3 (not verified) · 2 years ago

No fires in the real world, one fire 3 weeks after a test that totaled the car and it took 3 attempts to get the battery by itself to catch fire. I'd hardly call that " a tendency to catch fire". $1,000 to fix a problem that doesn't exist. And we wonder why everything cost so much. This whole issue is just hype. You total a regular car - you drain the gas tank. You total an electric or hybrid you drain the battery ( and gas tank). Problem solved $0 solution.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

I gotta laugh at your comment, pkio3.

There is a problem. Not an immediate one, not a big one, and not an omg one, but there is one. It does take $1000 to fix the problem.

Moreover, don't try to simply the "draining" solution and apply it generally on all hybrids (Prius, Volt, etc.) or EVs (i, LEAF, Coda, etc.). They have different designs, different components, and thus different tolerances. More importantly, has anyone said anything about how long it will take to drain the battery to the required level? Or how the equipments can be used in an accident environment, hence they won't be hindering the rescue mission or a potential source for ignition, esp when multiple vehicles are involved and there is fire potential? Or if a damaged battery will allow such equipment to be connected and drained to the required level?

Not a simple solution anymore as GM wants you to believe...

· · 2 years ago

I am so happy they have come up with a resolution to this problem. And that they have done so quickly. That is so better then if they had tried to drag it out to either save a few dollars or to be overly defensive. It is like peeling off a band-aid. Best to get it done quickly.

We should give GM credit for doing the right thing for their own reputation and for the plug-in world at large.

Now the plug-in revolution can proceed as previously scheduled.

· · 2 years ago

I'm not sure "draining the battery" is really possible. How would we go about doing it? How "drained" should it be before it could start a fire? Plus releasing the energy causes the cells to heat up, and if we drained it quickly, they would heat up a lot and probably cause a fire if they were damaged. Even the smallest amount of electricity can start a fire if the conditions were right. To completely drain the battery would probably destroy it, no?

Even a drained gas tank will erupt in flames if a spark is present, the fumes alone are enough. No matter what is done I think that a badly damaged EV, much like a badly damaged gas car will pose a fire or explosion risk until the time that it is disassembled and the damaged parts storing energy are removed.

· · 2 years ago

@Tom - All of your points are valid, but that is not the solution that GM just came up with. See article above.

· · 2 years ago

I still have a nagging question about whether or not GM deserves credit for a quick response. Didn't this problem first come up in June? If GM knew about it then, why didn't they rush like crazy to find the same solution they have now? Couldn't that have prevented the subsequent fires--and any fallout from the negative press?

· Brett Owen (not verified) · 2 years ago

I guess the other question is why the million+ other hybrids aren't having the same issue. But, it's a question not worth answering as it'll be ancient history in a week. ;)

· · 2 years ago

I also wonder if this spells the end of GM's liquid-cooled T-shape design? I mean, if the LEAF can package 24 kWh under the floor, and keep its temperature managed by air-cooling, then why would GM keeping using the apparently more vulnerable T-shaped design that also cuts the seating in back in half to allow only four passengers? Time for a major battery design for GM?

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

Oh no Brad, Don't you dare to slightly hint or suggest that liquid-cooling is not good! Volt's fans have been arguing the "SUPERIORITY" of a liquid-thermo managed battery pack, and how it is SUPERIOR in the winter. We all know that the range of Volt doesn't get affected because of such design...

OK, j/k there. I "think" that the T-shape is due to...drum roll please...YES, THE GAS TANK!

Battery is cinderblock shape design, and it probably needs to be "longer" in order to function the way GM wants it to, for the Volt. But with the gas tank in the way, the other option is to lengthen the platform.

Or, make it T-shaped.

This is just my guess. Someone actually knows should chime in.

Now the next question is, why a cinderblock design, instead of the flatbed/mattress style of, say, Nissan's? Is it due to the E Flex platform (not enough space for flat battery)?

· theflew (not verified) · 2 years ago

@Londo - The EV1's battery was T shaped and it had no gas tank

@Brad - Telsa and Ford think that liquid cooling is also important. We'll see how the Leaf does in the cold of the midwest states where the temperature can be well below freezing for months.

· · 2 years ago

Whether liquid cooling is needed depends on a number of things. To air cool steers toward certain design choices and away from others. A partial list: the cell geometry, the cell chemistry, the battery design, the max current draw allowed. These choices are not necessarly good or bad but have consequenses to different aspects of the car.

Air cooling can make it difficult to use certain chemistries or to use a coil cell like Tesla does. Limiting battery chemistries in the short run not only limits the properties of the battery but, in the short run, may make it difficult to source cells since there are only so many cell manufacturers out there and they each only have limited selections at the moment.

Most electric cars made in the world to date have been air cooled. They have been used in every country in the world in all whether conditions. If a car company is determined to be air cooled they should be able to do so. They just may have to be more selective on their design choices.

In many ways air cooling requires a design with more finese. It requires a thermal design that works well passively instead of overpowering the problem with a liquid hammer.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

Ah, see...Volt's fans coming to the rescue.

@the flew,
You do know that the EV1 is MUCH shorter as a 2 seater, right?
You also know that, with EV1, it's not Li battery, but Ni-CD or Lead Acid, but required much higher energy output, right?
In fact, did't I say that 1 option for the Volt was to stretch the platform...kind of like EV1?

P.S. Winter months have come already, and you haven't seen Volt owner's complaining about range? Really? It's even on GM's website...cars.com also have an article last Apr when it was one of the coldest winter Chicago ever had, and the liquid thermal managed system behaved pretty much how the LEAF has been in cold weather - significant drop of range. Oh, the LEAF also gone through the same cold winter too.

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2011/04/a-winter-in-the-chevy-volt.html

The point? Not that big of a significance on air or liquid cooled battery, IN REALITY.

· · 2 years ago

@Brad Berman · "I also wonder if this spells the end of GM's liquid-cooled T-shape design?"

I don't think LG battery will work at the discharge rate Volt uses without active thermal management. I wrote about this some months back. Volt needs 8C vs 3C for Leaf.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2803

"Leaf has a 80KW motor that is supplied by the 24 kwh battery (likely more).

That equates to slightly above 3C at max power.

Volt has a 111KW traction motor + a 55KW moto/generator. It has a battery of 16 kwh capacity.

Just for the traction motor, at max power, the battery needs to pump out 8C. No wonder they need active thermal cooling. Ofcourse the chemistry is a little different too ..."

· · 2 years ago

I've long though that the only good cars from GM were the some of the Corvettes, the EV1, and to a lesser extent, the Volt. But the wording "Chevy Volt's tendency to catch fire after a destructive crash" seems quite unfair -- there has not been a single crash in which a Chevy volt caught fire. One caught fire a long while after a crash test into a pole. That crash test simulates an unusual crash in which the entire kinetic energy of the car is absorbed over a very small area.

Would we say the "Mercedes C180 tendency to catch fire after a crash" based upon this: http://news.stv.tv/scotland/tayside/285327-man-injured-and-pregnant-woma...

· · 2 years ago

@alt-e - Yes, I know, I was just responding to Londo's comment above

· · 2 years ago

Terminology Police Alert: Active and passive have been used incorrectly in this thread.
Air cooling/heating can be active or passive; water cooling/heating can be active or passive. The old VW beetle had active air cooling: fan blown, thermostatically controlled. Many air-cooled motorcycles are passively cooled. The Prius battery pack, because it uses conditioned cabin air, is considered actively cooled.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

And I was responding to pkio3's comment above, on "You total an electric or hybrid you drain the battery ( and gas tank). Problem solved $0 solution."

BTW, I meant to say, simplify, not simply

· · 2 years ago

@Tom and Londo Bell - Sorry, my confusion.

· · 2 years ago

I must say that I am a little disapointed that people are not more happy about GM coming out with this announcement that they found 3 things to fix for $1,000 per Volt, which they will pay to do, that they claim will solve this problem.

It doesn't matter whether or not someone likes the Volt. It doesn't matter that there may be all kinds of ways they could improve the Volt in the future, like eliminating the coolant for instance.

What is important about this announcement, in my opinion, is that there was a dark cloud over the whole perception of EVs in the mainstream media because of this. And it would have been very hard and very time consuming to clear that cloud if we didn't have an official position from GM on why the Volts caught fire. Now we do. And now GM and the rest of the plug-in community has a concrete explaination to tell people to clear the cloud.

As GM starts to install these solutions in each Volt the media at large may do a lot of this damage control for us by reporting on the upgrade.

If we had gone 6 months more before GM made this announcement, which easily could have happened, then there could have been a much more negative tone to every mainstream media story on EVs.

Whatever you think of GM or the Volt otherwise, or even how they handled this incident before this announcement (like covering things up), I at least give them credit for what they did today.

· · 2 years ago

@Ken - Fair enough. Modified opening sentence to say: "Engineers at GM believe that relatively simple modifications will greatly reduce or eliminate the possibility of the Chevy Volt producing a fire after a severe crash."

· · 2 years ago

@ Brad -- I like it!

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

I have 3 questions -

Is the GM solution a FIX to the problem?

Or is the GM solution a pre-emptive effort to prevent, in its best effort, the possible occurrence of the problem, by stopping/protection/whatevering CAUSE the will lead to the problem?

And finally, what is the root cause of the problem? (Everything I've read so far "hint" that crystallized coolant is the root cause, but I can't find any official result at this point.)

The thing is - as an engineer myself, I have gone though YEARS of my colleagues proposing solutions that are essentially wide goose chase :)

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

Just to elaborate on my 2nd question.

The fix itself doesn't actually fix the problem. It prevents the cause to do things that will lead to the problem. Here's an example.

If the problem is due to coolant crystallization, and the fix is to laminate circuitry. That means, coolant may still leak. However, since circuitry is laminated, there's no contact between coolant and circuitry, hence whether coolant crystallizes or not is no longer a concern. Thus, a fix not to "prevent" the coolant from crystallization, or a fix to prevent leakage, but a "secondary" fix to prevent contact between the relevant substances.

Smart, but I do see potential issues down the road...

· · 2 years ago

@ Londo - In their 3 part fix they have addressed redunant ways of preventing the problem. It is an attempt on their part for a "comprehensive" solution. They fix the structure so that breakage does not happen. They improve the coolant system so that a leak is less likely. They laminate the circuit boards so the the impact of a leak is a great deal less.

I must admit that I wish GM had taken my suggestion of a non-conducitve coolant.

But GM's "comprehensive" solution appears to have some thought behind it and is certainly so much better than a single point fix that they could have come up with.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

Thanks alt-e.

As engineers probably know, a solution is comprehensive until the next "break" happens :)

My concern is that the engineers's solutions aren't just targeting for the 20 mph (around that speed) pole test. I've said it before, most pole accidents I've seen on the news are at speed of (guesstimate) above 35 mph.

And because of that, I actually think that your solution is a much more effective one.

· · 2 years ago

Non conductive coolant seems like a good idea, but we don't know what other problems such a coolant might introduce. Are they flammable, corrosive, less capable of heat transfer, etc. Nothing can be perfectly safe, GM's response to something that has not yet happened in the real world seems reasonable.

· JeffU (not verified) · 2 years ago

Hmmm. Not sure I want to waste my time bringing my car in for this media hysteria problem.
Not sure I want the dealer guys taking apart my battery.
I'd rather keep my car stock. Might have more value 20 tears from now.

12,000 miles on household current.

Love this car!

· WVhybrid (not verified) · 2 years ago

What if that same amount of money was spent preventing real fires? Maybe then we could close some burn units around the country.

· WVhybrid (not verified) · 2 years ago

What if that same amount of money was spent preventing real fires? Maybe then we could close some burn units around the country.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

I don't know why it's a big fuss about the fire...

But I don't even know why the last 2 commenters are fighting against a fix! What good will that do? Money has been spent to develop a fix. It's (almost) there available to you, at no cost. What you'll have is a even SAFER vehicle - piece of mind to your family, yourself, and those that may need to rescue you / work on your vehicle in the case of a crash! That's the same type of stubbornness for those who keep their SUV/PUTs or ICE and vow that never will they get an EV, even though an EV fits their needs perfectly.

Having the fix is still a stock vehicle. Value of it will make no difference - it will only go down, not up, especially when you've already put 12K miles on the vehicle.

· · 2 years ago

Yeah, you want the fix, think about resale if nothing else.

· jim1961 (not verified) · 2 years ago

As an engineer I suspect that GM has been working on this fix for a much longer time period than the time at which the news of the fire became public. Does it make anyone feel better about GM if you know they started working on a fix soon after they learned about the risk of fire? Or is it a bad thing that they worked on this fix in secret while selling Volts to customers? In my opinion, the answer to the second question depends on the estimated level of risk to current Volt owners.

· · 2 years ago

I think that they simply waited for more testing than the first test vehicle that caught fire three weeks later. At that time it was the first incident that suggested an issue and it makes sense to do more testing before doing a redesign. Since the packs never caught fire during or soon after a test the risk was and still is minimal. How many ICE vehicles burst into flames from a crash before any action is taken? Quite a few usually, never just a single incident.

· Michael Jennings (not verified) · 2 years ago

First a sense of perspective on the issue.

From the Detroit News two days ago:

"Fires in gas powered vehicles are fairly common.

According to the national fire protection association there were 184,500 passenger vehicle fires in 2010 in the united states, causing 285 deaths and 1,440 injuries.

David Cole chairman emeritus of the center for automotive research said the public is nervous about technologies it doesn't understand.

"It would almost be impossible to introduce gasoline-powered vehicles as a new technology today," he said. "The Volt post-crash test fires were really no big deal.""

And this

"An interesting point on the subject been raised by Clarence Ditlow, executive director for the Center of Auto Safety in Washington D.C. He said that he is “surprised that NHTSA didn’t drain the battery after crash testing as it is standard procedure to empty the fuel tank on conventional gasoline powered vehicles.” He also says that the NHTSA incident underlines the need for “greater transparency when conducting crash tests,” as well as setting proper industry standards when it comes to new technologies."

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/12/chevrolet-volt-battery-issues...

There may be many reasons behind the lack of symmetry in reporting of events, chalk some up to luddites, others who see the Volt through the lens of, "Government Motors", and some who are reporting without a sense of perspective. For designers and for society as a whole it is a cautionary tail about the rapid dissemination of a factoid without the reference of a broader context. This is how a vehicle crash test fire occurring three weeks after a severe crash test and after ignoring prescribed safety procedures can cause such an uproar.

· Michael Jennings (not verified) · 2 years ago

First a sense of perspective on the issue.

From the Detroit News two days ago:

"Fires in gas powered vehicles are fairly common.

According to the national fire protection association there were 184,500 passenger vehicle fires in 2010 in the united states, causing 285 deaths and 1,440 injuries.

David Cole chairman emeritus of the center for automotive research said the public is nervous about technologies it doesn't understand.

"It would almost be impossible to introduce gasoline-powered vehicles as a new technology today," he said. "The Volt post-crash test fires were really no big deal.""

And this

"An interesting point on the subject been raised by Clarence Ditlow, executive director for the Center of Auto Safety in Washington D.C. He said that he is “surprised that NHTSA didn’t drain the battery after crash testing as it is standard procedure to empty the fuel tank on conventional gasoline powered vehicles.” He also says that the NHTSA incident underlines the need for “greater transparency when conducting crash tests,” as well as setting proper industry standards when it comes to new technologies."

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/12/chevrolet-volt-battery-issues...

There may be many reasons behind the lack of symmetry in reporting of events, chalk some up to luddites, others who see the Volt through the lens of, "Government Motors", and some who are reporting without a sense of perspective. For designers and for society as a whole it is a cautionary tail about the rapid dissemination of a factoid without the reference of a broader context. This is how a vehicle crash test fire occurring three weeks after a severe crash test and after ignoring prescribed safety procedures can cause such an uproar.

· Michael Jennings (not verified) · 2 years ago

First a sense of perspective on the issue.

From the Detroit News two days ago:

"Fires in gas powered vehicles are fairly common.

According to the national fire protection association there were 184,500 passenger vehicle fires in 2010 in the united states, causing 285 deaths and 1,440 injuries.

David Cole chairman emeritus of the center for automotive research said the public is nervous about technologies it doesn't understand.

"It would almost be impossible to introduce gasoline-powered vehicles as a new technology today," he said. "The Volt post-crash test fires were really no big deal.""

And this

"An interesting point on the subject been raised by Clarence Ditlow, executive director for the Center of Auto Safety in Washington D.C. He said that he is “surprised that NHTSA didn’t drain the battery after crash testing as it is standard procedure to empty the fuel tank on conventional gasoline powered vehicles.” He also says that the NHTSA incident underlines the need for “greater transparency when conducting crash tests,” as well as setting proper industry standards when it comes to new technologies."

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/12/chevrolet-volt-battery-issues...

There may be many reasons behind the lack of symmetry in reporting of events, chalk some up to luddites, others who see the Volt through the lens of, "Government Motors", and some who are reporting without a sense of perspective. For designers and for society as a whole it is a cautionary tail about the rapid dissemination of a factoid without the reference of a broader context. This is how a vehicle crash test fire occurring three weeks after a severe crash test and after ignoring prescribed safety procedures can cause such an uproar.

· Rocky Peak (not verified) · 2 years ago

The following FACTS seem to be largely ignored in this discussion.
1) THREE weeks after the VOLT was subject to a side impact test by the NHTSA they arrived back to work and noticed that the Volt had caught fire.

2) In an effort to replicate the fire the NHTSA side crashed three more Volts with no negative results. They then (and I quote here) "Deliberately damaged the batteries and cooling system and inverted all three cars." The result was one of the three smoked and sparked" That's all, no fires.

Has anyone's laptop spontaneously ignited while in shipping? While in a warehouse? While being trucked? While in a store? While sitting unused? Answer - NO. Only while charging.

What does the Volt do automatically? Answer, charge itself. So what happened (and I'll offer conjecture here) after three weeks the batteries went down to the point where the generator/engine started during the night. Whether the coolant was drained out or the system was compromised I'll guess, yes. So the batteries overheated. In other words THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE BATTERIES.

I have some knowledge on how these test are done and can tell you that they will not allow/accept "outside" advise on how to do these test. So when GM asked "did you disable the engine? NHTSA's answer was DUH.? So they then set out to make it the manufacturer's fault. So how does one get the Government off ones back? Make a deal. Hence the "minor" $1000 change being made to the Volts as we speak.

· · 2 years ago

I'm not so sure of all your "facts". NHSTA may drain gas tanks before crash testing, certainly seems as if it would save a lot of mess and potential fires, explosions, and destruction of their test facility. I don't think the Volt tank had any gas in it.
Regardless, the Volt motor does not spontaneously start itself up when the battery is low. Simple reason, a car parked in a closed garage. Think about it.
Also the reports I read say they damaged bare battery packs after the first crash test, separate from the vehicle. Quote from the NHSTA report:
"In an effort to recreate the May test, NHTSA conducted three tests last week on the Volt's lithium-ion battery packs that intentionally damaged the battery compartment and ruptured the vehicle's coolant line. Following a test on November 16 that did not result in a fire, a temporary increase in temperature was recorded in a test on November 17. During the test conducted on November 18 using similar protocols, the battery pack was rotated within hours after it was impacted and began to smoke and emit sparks shortly after rotation to 180 degrees. NHTSA's forensic analysis of the November 18 fire incident is continuing this week. Yesterday, the battery pack that was tested on November 17 and that had been continually monitored since the test caught fire at the testing facility."
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/Statement+of+the+Na...

Notice they are talking about bare packs, not vehicles.

· Rocky Peak (not verified) · 2 years ago

Thank you for your reply. and I thank you for posting the relevant paragraph made by the NHTSA. The facts are the same. An unmonitored car caught fire three weeks later and after they deliberately damaged the batteries and coolant systems then subjected to inversion to three more cars, one battery pack caught fire.

In an episode of TopGear, the presenters have a Volt on stage and react when the car starts itself. So yes, the car does start on it's own, though not when plugged in. I am told the car engine will also start occasionally to clear out stale gasoline if it is not driven far enough to cause the generator to be needed. Being an ultra low emission engine I doubt it produces much carbon monoxide and I suspect the electric car charging stations are more hazardous.

As far as fluids are concerned, I am told that they replace gas with a colored fluid as leaking is obviously one of the test criteria. So you now have a car that starts itself and has an non-combustible fluid in the gas tank. I will try to find out if the starter has a time limit for cranking and if there is a limit on the number of times it tries. It does illustrate how the test procedures can put the car out of it's design parameters.

Regarding the NHTSA statement, I cannot see where it says the battery packs were removed however I do know that one of the crash test is inversion so my assumption is that it is the car that was inverted.

Sincerely

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

"In an episode of TopGear, the presenters have a Volt on stage and react when the car starts itself. So yes, the car does start on it's own...electric car charging stations are more hazardous."

OMG, you call that FACTS? From a TV episode?

You know, I can also beam myself up from anywhere to the Starship Enterprise. It's on TV too! That is a fact.

Unless you are a Volt owner, or an engineer / mechanics, or someone who has direct / indirect connection to Volt's development/production/sales/marketing/etc., please don't comment again, unless you can show some solid support, and not by quoting from TV TG. Otherwise you will be showing support on a hypothesis, or turn a myth into reality - that TV really kills brain cells.

Yes, electric car charging stations are more hazardous, because it will zap your remaining brain cells away, if you haven't been killed by the Carbon Monoxide produced by the tailpipe (as well as CO2, SO2, NOx, O3, PM10, and HC).

· · 2 years ago

Yeah, Top Gear also showed a Roadster "running out of charge" when in fact it never actually happened.
You need better sources, and provide links to back up your theories. NHTSA specifically said "battery pack was rotated", not vehicle.
How would a charging station be hazardous? The cable is not "live" until it is plugged in. Even a low emissions engine will emit dangerous levels of CO in an enclosed space, especially if it were running long enough to put significant charge into the Volt battery pack, or to run long enough to use up a significant amount of stale fuel. Running for a minute or two would do nothing to remove stale fuel.

· ex-S10EV driver (not verified) · 2 years ago

I was a Chevy S10EV owner from 2007 til 2010. There were less than 30 of these trucks on the road during this time and 2 of them caught fire. A bad percentage. We appealed to GM for help, "Hey, you are getting back into EVs, this will be a good exercise in fire prevention." We were, sadly, ignored. One of smarter S10EV drivers dug into the BMS firmware and discovered that the problem was that over-voltage conditions were not monitored during a battery balancing charges. He gave this information to GM, knowing where the problem is, it should be a simple fix. Again, we were ignored. Based on this neglect alone, many of the S10EV drivers predicted that the Volt would have "thermal runaway issues."

· Rocky Peak (not verified) · 2 years ago

@Bell, you should not comment unless you get a brain transfusion.

Regarding battery pack removal, then what cooling system was there to rupture? The one in the car?

· · 2 years ago

The battery cooling system is part of the battery pack, there is a cooling panel in between each cell. Penetrating the side of the pack can rupture these cooling plates.

· Londo Bell (not verified) · 2 years ago

@ Peak,

Direct insult with no reason what-so-ever won't make you any brighter, intellect, or right...

Let me be blunt with you - you posting reflects that you don't even own a Volt, or know much about it, or have much research on battery technology, or issues with tailpipe emission, and you act like you are an expert of this matter. That's why you really shouldn't comment - to embarrass yourself, without you actually knowing it. This isn't a GM fan site or Volt fan site, just so you know.

JRP3 has already pointed out some of the errors you made, from an obvious lack of knowledge of the matter, or the science/engineering behind it.

Here's another one: Has anyone's laptop spontaneously ignited while in shipping? Yes, if you're actually implying the Li battery of a laptop. You see, an UPS plane that was loaded with Li batteries for laptops crashed a couple of years ago.

So for goodness sake, go back and watch your Top Gear, rather than spend time and speak nonsense from your TG education.

· · 2 years ago

ex-s10evdriver,
Are you talking about the old NiMH S10's? If so the BMS system would be completely different from a lithium system. Not to mention the current problems don't seem to be BMS related.

· · 2 years ago

@ex-s10evdriver
If there are only 10 of these vehicles on the road, I can understand how GM doesn't want to be concerned about them. If they do anything, it will probably be to recall them in order to dispose of them.
It really isn't worth their effort to deal with those orphans.
Had I been able to keep my EV1, I certainly wouldn't expect GM to continue supporting it.

New to EVs? Start here

  1. What Is An Electric Car?
    Before we get going, let's establish basic definitions.
  2. A Quick Guide to Plug-in Hybrids
    Some plug-in cars have back-up engines to extend driving range.
  3. Electric Cars Pros and Cons
    EVs are a great solution for most people. But not everybody.
  4. Eight Rules of Electric Vehicle Charging Etiquette
    Thou shalt charge only when necessary. And other rules to live by.
  5. Seven Things To Know About Buying a Plug-In Car
    A few simple tips before you visit the dealership.
  6. Eight Factors Determining Total Cost of Ownership of an Electric Car
    EVs get bad rap as expensive. Until you look at TCO.
  7. Federal and Local Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars
    Take advantage of credits and rebates to reduce EV costs.
  8. Guide to Buying First Home EV Charger
    You'll want a home charger. Here's how to buy the right one.
  9. Electric Car Utility Rate Plans: Top Five Rules
    With the right utility plan, electric fuel can be dirt cheap.
  10. The Ultimate Guide to Electric Car Charging Networks
    If you plan to charge in public, you'll want to sign up for charging network membership (or two).