Getting a Jolt From Volt
By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
The introduction of our Chevrolet Volt concept car and E-Flex electric propulsion system at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit last month created quite a stir, garnering twice the media coverage as the runner up for us, our Chevrolet Camaro convertible.
The Volt came on the heels of our announcement at the Los Angeles show that we've begun work on a Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid, and puts a face on our efforts to diversify the energy sources we use to power automobiles.
However, some cynics accused us of pulling a PR stunt, saying the Volt is simply an attempt by GM to "greenwash" the public and would never be a real vehicle. The truth is just the opposite – we are treating Volt just like any other vehicle we do, giving it a dedicated development team and designating resources for it. With that in mind, I thought I'd take a moment to update you on the program so far.
As you probably know, the development of advanced, lithium-ion battery technology is the key to getting vehicles like the Volt on the road. For the last few months, we've been mobilizing GM's global resources to address the challenges posed by this issue. We've invested in an upgrade to our battery testing and development facilities and we've formed a dedicated battery team whose staff levels will increase by 30 percent over the next two years.
We have also named GM veteran Denise Gray to the newly created position of director of energy storage systems – some of us like to call her "GM's battery czar." Denise has more than 20 years of experience in such areas as powertrain, vehicle integration, electronics and software controls.
We signed two development contracts in January for lithium-ion batteries with two groups of suppliers - Cobasys/A123Systems and Johnson Controls-Saft. We also plan to talk to additional battery suppliers as well.
By the end of this year, we will begin testing the lithium-ion batteries developed in prototypes of the Vue Green Line plug-in hybrid. In the same timeframe, we also expect to have our first demonstration vehicles that use E-Flex. Our previously announced test fleet of Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell vehicles also use the E-Flex system, with a fuel cell stack instead of batteries as a prime supplier of electricity, a further demonstration of our commitment to electric drive and energy diversity.
Make no mistake: These programs are a top priority for GM. We have established aggressive product development timelines - even forming a special executive leadership council for the E-Flex program to expedite product decisions and regularly update those of us in senior management.
We're making progress, and you should expect to hear more in the near future. At the Detroit show we emphasized E-Flex's adaptability, from accommodating different vehicle designs to using various fuels and types of engines. We will prove that capability this year. Stay tuned, we'll update the program periodically here on FastLane.
Take a look at FYI for an interview with PodTech.net's Matt Kelly and Rich Lannen, Advanced Program Engineering Manager for the Volt.
107 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Dear Mr. Lutz,
thank you very much for giving this information and for the announcement to provide further details, regarding those important developments, coming up next. I think, the FastLane-community really will appreciate it.
In my opinion also other channels (major media-companies) should be used to keep the public updated. Then those cynics soon will be quiet.
Mr Lutz;
Can these cars (Volt) run and be sold with NO batteries? If so, what kind of mileage can you expect from them? If it is better than 40 MPG then it might be worth putting on the market sooner than later. Thanks, John
Mr. Lutz,
Thanks for the update, and thanks for giving this program a chance. I would love to be a proud owner of a plug-in EV in the near future.
But speaking of the near future, I cannot understand why you need to wait for batteries. Why not create a Volt in the next year or so that is just a series hybrid without plug-in capabilities? You said yourself that the Volt would still get 50 mpg after the batteries had been drained.
I know that I would love to see a 50 mpg car from GM, and so would countless other Americans. So why not take this intermediate step?
Mr. Lutz:
Leaving aside the Volt, and hoping not to irritate my good friend Mr. Langlitz, would you hazard a guess as to when the plug-in Vue might be available?
Do you really intend to introduce it as a commercial product in the interim before the Volt?
We keep our Chevvies for a good long time, so it’s a real dilemma to think of buying a Vue when a Volt might be only a year or two behind. However, it is getting to be time to stand up, so any timing information would be valuable. Plus, the Volt is supposedly going to be a Chevy, which is really a big deal to us.
Again, did you see the article in this weekend’s Los Angeles Times about Pacific Gas and Electric’s experiments with charging plug-in hybrids off peak and putting their battery power back into the grid at peak? PG&E is a pretty big and serious outfit. They must see a lot of plug-in hybrids coming to be messing with this.
Please, oh please, don’t let Toyota beat us to the punch.
As to feeding power back into the grid, take a look at Matt Kelly’s brilliant comment on the 2/19 Ed Peper post on the Volt and Camaro. He commented 2/26 at 5:10 PM.
Clearly, he has forgotten more about this issue than I’m ever going to know (apologies to Bobby Knight).
He even included a link to the Times article I mentioned.
Pretty impressive.
Mr. Lutz: Thank you for the update, it seems GM is the “E-Flex” on an accelerated development curve.
Is there any chance of some prototypes available at upcoming auto shows?
Perhaps GM could start doing the “Auto Show in Motion” ride and drives again, GM certainly has more than enough interesting products to try. In fact there are enough that you don’t need to have competitor’s products there.
Maybe GM could do a cross-country drive “reality show style” series of commercials showing the Volt in real world situations, that would illustrate the systems “viablility” and generate a positive image for GM.
Nice work, Bob.
My wife and I inked the sales contract for a new Honda Fit this weekend past. Put the Volt in a GM showroom soon, and there’s a good chance some of the ink in my pen will end up on a GM sales contract.
Dear Mr. Lutz–
You say that “cynics” have their (our) doubts about the Volt’s long-term prospects, but that the proof of GM’s sincerity is that you “are treating Volt just like any other vehicle we do, giving it a dedicated development team and designating resources for it.” But those two assertions are not contradictory–after all, you gave the EV1 electric car “a dedicated development team and designat[ed] resources for it,” but its ultimate fate was the crusher. The problem is that GM has consistently misrepresented the reasons for sending the EV1 to that fate, blaming lack of demand when in fact you did very little advertising to create demand, and refused to build enough cars to meet the demand that sprang up anyway! A good summary of GM’s spin is in an FYI blog post that was advertised with sponsored search keywords on Google and full-page ads in many newspapers. People who loved and lost their EV1s, or who were never able to get hold of them in the first place, know better, as do folks like Chelsea Sexton who actually were on the front lines of leasing the EV1; I spoke with several such people, and assembled a rebuttal to that blog post, though of course I can’t afford to promote it with full-page newspaper ads.
So we aren’t cynics; we’re realists. We saw GM engineers and designers (and outside contractors like AeroVironment) build a marvelous vehicle, but then we saw GM management strangle it in its cradle and then “blame the victim”! And, in light of this, it looks like you are already setting the Volt up for such a fate, by insisting that (”as you probably know”) a breakthrough in lithium batteries is needed to make the vehicle practical; if, for whatever reason, you decide to abandon the Volt, you will have a ready-made excuse, claiming that the necessary breakthrough never came to pass. But you have asserted that the Volt could fulfill the driving needs of many people just on its 40 miles of all-electric range per overnight recharge, without making use of the gasoline engine; wouldn’t some subset of those people be amenable to giving up the security blanket of gasoline, along with the attendant maintenance and smog-check hassles, in exchange for, say, a doubling of the all-electric range, since they won’t need either for their daily driving? [I would be among them.] But you already had such a vehicle nearly a decade ago, in the EV1 with 80 miles of range on high-capacity lead-acid batteries! And among the Toyota RAV4-EVs that escaped the crusher, there are quite a few with 50,000 to 100,000 miles on their original NiMH battery packs, getting over 100 miles per charge in a far less aerodynamic platform. So those of us who have been paying attention since the EV1 days know that you could do a lot more than you are letting on with existing battery types; and as for lithium-chemistry batteries needing some future breakthrough, tomorrow I’m going to attend the rollout of an all-electric pickup truck from Phoenix Motorcars with, you guessed it, lithium batteries, and at half the price of the Tesla roadster.
The Volt, at present, is a concept vehicle; believing that it will come to fruition in a line of vehicles you can actually drive off a dealer’s lot requires trust in GM’s promises, which is in short supply these days. I will believe this when I see such vehicles available to buy: not concept vehicles, not limited-production “Project Driveway” (or “PrEView Drive”–remember that?) test models, and not lease-only and three years from the crusher, but for outright sale. If you want us to believe your promises before that time, GM needs to abandon and repudiate its ongoing spin about its handling of the EV1. This is not about the past–it’s about the future, and whether GM has credibility heading into it. If not, and if Phoenix can knock their price down another 30% or so, then I won’t wait for GM this time, and neither will a lot of others.
Excuse me for stating the obvious but after the EV1 your credibility is shot. PR and concept cars wont change many minds. Everyone wants to believe that GM can and will make the volt but wont until its on the show room floor.
Worse yet even and though this is not your fault a good A123 partnered with Cobasys (Chevron). Probably nothing, but doesnt look good from a PR perspective.
While all this goes on Toyota is looking soon at 100mpg Prius. Whats the Vue get? 30 mpg? Thats not better than an effcient ICE.
I hope your electric crew is working 7 days a week cause you have some serious catching up to do. The Vue should come out at 50mpg 30 is embarassing.
Bob
No worries, Mr. Lutz. Intelligent people who pay attention understand that GM is serious about the Volt.
I would venture that the chaps from Nagoya are “greenwashing” the public. The Prius is a niche car for green fundamentalists with no widespread potential in the market given an approx. $4,000 premium over comparable regular cars.
Meanwhile, Toyota produces as many trucks and SUVs as they can while portraying themselves as green. That, my friends, is greenwashing.
In contrast, GM appears to be developing real alernatives, i.e., E85 and the Volt.
BTW, Mr. Lutz: The La Flor Dominicana Coronado is excellent and recommended.
Great news on the Volt and E-Flex. It will be nice to have GM in the forefront of the electric vehicle market again. Maybe then the media will forget about that other company for a while!
My concern with the electrification of the vehicle is the lack of feedback that accessories such as electric power steering and brakes provide to the driver. Electric power steering has been called “vague” and “numb” while electric brakes would also lack the feedback of a hydraulic system.
As the vehicle becomes more electrified, will performance cars and performance drivers become a thing of the past or is there some compromise?
The Chevy Volt is a fabulous looking car. I think it should be put out with an internal combustion engine too.
Back in 1984 GM had a prototype Citation that had a staggeringly low drag coefficient of .14 Why not look back into the files and work on this. A modified version of this car would make a great platform for the lithium ion battery car.
While working on the technical side look to the styling side of the equation.
The Prius gets all the recognition in this segment because it looks different.
People like to say they are different or ‘green’ in their vehicle choice.
Yes, the Volt fits the bill as it wuld be a dedicated model.
However you do have some other present & future hybrids out there that should have some special branding recognition.
I don’t know what it is yet, but you need some cosmetic add-on that differentiates the hybrid models from a regular models. Hopefully it could be functional as well. No, not a badge :’)
Example…Early BMW M3s had the side fender vents and other minor add-ons. Not a lot, but the effect was awesome to the brand.
So give the designers an assignment to figure out some add-on to put on all the hybrid models to distinquish them from the standard models.
Bob, keep up the great work! You have proved that in Detroit it’s product and not smoke & mirrors that is the formula for success.
Mr. Lutz:
Thank you for the update on the Volt concept. It is very encouraging to hear that your Company is intensely pursuing an EV again. I have just a few questions:
1. Has the success of the “Vote for the Volt” internet campaign contributed to your Company’s drive to produce this car? I would imagine the answer is “Yes”.
2. If the Volt can be successfully accomplished, can we expect to see the E-Flex system employed in most or all of your vehicles, in particular, Large SUV’s and big Pick-Ups too?
Thanks again.
Regards,
John Schmeltz
As a Chevrolet dealer I am excited about this vehicle. I hope there is enough interest from consumers that it will be a real vehicle in the next few years.
John C,
I think you are missing the point of the Volt and it’s “E-Flex” system. The engine NEVER powers the car. It is an electric drive vehicle with a gasoline (or any other type) engine to recharge the system if you run down the charge too far before a recharge. This enables the engine to run (when needed to charge the batteries) at the most efficient speed, regardless of the vehicle’s speed. This gives you the ability to make longer or more frequent trips than any electric car could, and allows the electric motor and the gas engine to operate at peak efficiency at all times.
This is a huge step forward from the Prius, whose sales are starting to slack off, since it hasn’t been living up to it’s promises.
It’s also a huge step forward from the EV-1, which while it was a tremendous breakthrough, had too many shortcomings to keep it in production. (Even with the huge marketing campaign, the customers just didn’t want it)
I’d like to look forward to the Volt, but it takes GM too long to bring concept cars to market. We’re all still waiting, and waiting, and waiting, for the Camaro !
Ok EV1 guys… give it a rest. The fact of the matter is that in terms of modern automotive technology, EV1 might as well be a Tucker at this point. Again- a great idea, and only 50 Tuckers were ever built, complete with seat belts, pop-out windows and a swiveling headlight. But guess what? It didn’t work out and it won’t be coming back. Ever.
The same is true not only for EV1, but countless hundreds of other makes and models that have failed from a hundred different reasons: marketing, sales, technological issues, and lack of interest.Everyone blames GM for ‘making’ EV1 fail when in reality EV1 is no different than a product like the Studabaker Avanti: Fabulous idea… great design… ahead of it’s time. But it didn’t sell, so off to the chopping block it went ( Along with Studabaker)
Battery technology has come an incredibly long way and will continue to do so. If you had watched the podcast with Bob Lutz recently, you would have seen that GM was clearly not considering battery technology as very viable until the more recent advances in Lithium technology. The fact is that battery technology is now more feasible and hence easier to make into marketable products is reason enough to develop products that are targeted towards a general public.
This approach is in my opinion far more intelligent than doing the opposite as Toyota has and indulge themselves into marketing their products towards the liberal elite. Do you see any farmers driving Priuses? No, and mainly because Toyota launched a half-baked idea and only initially in “progressive” cities like San Francisco which branded the model early on as more or less of a “hippy car”.By doing so, they will ultimately lose market share due to their limited market segment appeal. That’s stupid marketing.
Marketing is just as important as technological development, so if you market a product, then you had better make sure that Johnny paycheck will buy one as willingly as Edward the college educated environmentalist. In my opinion, Toyota has already failed horribly with marketing the Prius.The car has limited appeal to a very limited segment of the population. Explain to me how this saves the environment.
It further irritates me that their hybrids don’t even come close to reaching their advertised economy… and get away with it. If you want to complain about something that is current- then go after the Prius. 60 MPG? more like 43.That is more than just a glitch.
So we can sit here all day long and complain about product failures, why GM or any other company didn’t do this or didn’t do that, or who thinks what, or how right the Prius is and how evil and F-150 is, but at the end of the day it is all about what a company at any given time is doing right this very moment.
If GM states that they are very serious about building cars that utilize modern technologies, then why bring up a car program that has been defunct for years now? What precisely are you accomplishing?
In my opinion, regardless of what GM or any other company might have done in the past, I applaud their efforts with encouragement and wish them the best success in developing this concept into reality.
To altfuels:
I know that GM killed the EV1, and that there are a bunch of people still honked off about it. However, the EV1 and the Volt are completely different programs and types of automobiles. The problem with the EV1 was that it was an all-electric vehicle with a dedicated recharging station. The station was very expensive as was a lot of the technology in the car itself. I know that most of the systems pioneered by the EV1 are now in use by other hybrids and in every day cars, but back then they were cutting edge.
The Volt is designed to plug into the wall, not a special recharging station, so that will eliminate a ton of expense and headache. It also has a gasoline engine as a backup so that people don’t have to worry about being stranded if the batteries die suddenly or there is a loss of electric power.
In short, as a commercial proposition the Volt is a much better package than the EV1 could ever have been, and much more cost effective too. It’s time to bury the resentment over a program that cost GM over $1 billion and a ton of bad PR. I don’t see you giving Toyota the same speeches when they quietly killed their own electric vehicle at about the same time.
We salute GM for promoting the electrification of transportation. Proponents of plug-in hybrid vehicles and all-electric vehicles think the urgency of the situation from the point of view of energy security, global warming and economic development point to the need to get “cleaner/cheaper/domestically-fueled” vehicles on the road ASAP. We think GM can do this now with “good enough” batteries, knowing that by the time it’s at version 3 of the car, ready to sell to tens and hundreds of thousands, better batteries will be available and fully validated.
That’s why we’re hoping GM will put the questions about its intentions to rest by being first to get substantial numbers of cars out in demonstration fleets (we believe exempted from 150,000 mile battery warranty requirements, and priced higher than they will end up when mass-marketed). See our 16 points about GM’s PHEVs — linked from CalCars.org’s home page. (Click on my name to get to that URL.))
Felix Kramer, Founder, The California Cars Initiative
I agree with John C, 2/27, 5:15 PM and Brian, 2/27/6:04 PM.
If the thing will get 50 mpg on the engine, and the batteries don’t suit you yet, why not sell it with a space to add the batteries later.
Or use the best batteries available now, and provide a way to upgrade later.
This has been suggested plenty of other times, by other bloggers, on other posts on this blog.
I prefer to believe, and devoutly hope, that this is not a “PR stunt” or a “greenwash”. On the other hand, the sort of open ended, vague, timetable based on whenever the magic batteries appear does make those among us who tend to be cynical a bit more cynical.
I take the point of those who discuss the EV1. Surely, battery technology must be marginally better now than it was at the time of the EV1. If you could get 20 miles range on today’s batteries, and then upgrade to 40 or whatever when the magic batteries appear, so much the better.
I’ll say it again – the future is now. If you develop this product for 3 or 4 more years, and Toyota comes out with a 100 mpg Prius in the meantime, they will blow you away once and for all.
This morning at work I mentioned the comment of Bob on this post, 2/28, 7:15 AM, about Toyota and the 100 mpg hybrid. One of the guys at the counter said “When that happens, Detroit might as well just close up shop.”
I think the sane members of this discussion will agree the EV1 was a joke. It’s a sour memory to environmentalists because their green machine vanished (along with the electric Ford Ranger and Toyota RAV4); the rest of us just look at the EV1 as a hideous mess that should have been aborted early on. I commend GM for the E-Flex power system, but will hold back full-faith until I see results on our roads.
Looks as though some of the greenie weenies need to get over the EV1 and look to the future. Good to hear about the Volt moving forward as it was a wonderful concept to see in person at the NAIAS.
The ladies and gentlemen who propose an earlier introduction of the Chevy Volt might consider, that this model is clearly different from the rest of Chevy’s lineup and other, “conventional” future vehicles, e.g. concerning the body-materials and other factors.
I think it’s better, if the market could expect a Chevy Volt, that’s already more mature, instead of a vehicle, which might be hit by several recalls. No need to mention that this would ruin the Volt’s reputation and serve cliches like “same old GM, always quality-issues”. Look at Toyota, what happened because of their shortened development-cycles. Now they are going to extend these again, after there had been more than 10 recalls in Germany alone in 2006. Who wants to play the role of the after-sales testing-lab? I think hardly anybody.
If GM’s crediblity is in question and they didn’t build enough EV1’s to satisfy demand, why did thousands of them sit in Lansing Michigan for years unsold waiting for buyers only to end up crushed?
I think someone has sat at the propaganda table for too long and had a little too much “Who Killed the Electric Car” tinfoil hat. Time to push back into reality.
Mr. Lutz,
Thank you for the update on the Volt and other GM initiatives. Please forgive my continued skepticism but if the battery technology will support 40-50 miles per gallon, and at least 150 per tank today why not produce a 2008 car that will begin turning car shoppers to GM when fuel economy becomes a discussion point?
Personally, my family is looking for a car to replace my 2001 Pontiac Sunfire that has treated us quite well but is feeling the 103K miles on it. We would LOVE the opportunity to shop cars that are fuel efficient, comfortable, and are made by GM. For this reason, deliver a time line to consumers, and stand by it. That way I can trade my Sunfire in for a new GM car in the future rather than buying a Prius now.
Disappointing. Tesla Motors, Pheonix Motorcars and others have vehicles completely weened from the gas-pump. Why can’t Big Auto?
Is it too early to know the price of a Volt? Like everyone that heard about it, will love to have one, but we are scared of overpriced technology. This is a ground breaking technology, will there be enough Volts for a person like myself to own in the year 2010?
Anyone who thinks the Prius is a commercial failure, or is only sold to “hippies”, or “greenie weenies” should come to my neighborhood and see the dozens of them running around, driven by good middle class Republicans.
I know a few Chevrolet sales people, and they would kill to have something credible to sell against the Prius.
Thank you Dominick, 3/1, 10:02 AM. Exactly the point I have been struggling to make.
I hear you Gereon, but the market is going to leave us for dead in a minute. That’s why I asked about the idea of the plug-in Vue in the meantime.
If you remember, I raised the issue of GM’s history of the “after-sales-testing-lab” some time ago. I said that, as irritating as it has been in the past, I would be willing to assume some of that risk in this case because the thing is, in my opinion, so time critical.
Also, having experienced Chevrolet’s attitude about warranty issues lately, it is so much better than it used to be that I am not so afraid now. It is acually hard to believe that it is the same company.
“Disappointing. Tesla Motors, Pheonix Motorcars and others have vehicles completely weened from the gas-pump. Why can’t Big Auto?”
That Tesla electric car is over $100,000. Why can’t big auto? Sure. They could.
But if they did, they’d not be selling to their intended consumer. If you are a company like GM, Ford, and Toyota, you have to develop a product that will sell to the largest possible target consumer. Sure- GM could start making $100,000 electric cars. While they were at it, they could also probably start selling hydrogen cars at a cool million.
Technology that is available versus technology that is affordable are two totally different things and MOST of the engineering of a new product goes into build efficiency and product affordability.
better vue,
Have you seen the price tags on those tesla cars? Obviously you have not because if you did you would know they are not affordable. GM is working on practical, affordable vehicles that will get great economy. It’s pointless to compare what they are doing to custom built electric sports cars that only rich people can afford.
If the Volt (or something similar) comes out within the next three years I want to know what you and the other EV-1 lovers are going to say. You may be sure that GM wont do this, but then again 20 years ago I’m confident the Big 3 were “sure” they would never control less than 50% of their own market. It’s not a good idea to bet against a focused underdog, maybe you should give that some thought.
“If the thing will get 50 mpg on the engine, and the batteries don’t suit you yet, why not sell it with a space to add the batteries later.”
Hi Noel,
basically this might be a good idea, but on the other hand I fear, that may prove as difficult because of the considerable weight of the batteries. The suspension probably would have to be modified (harder shocks) if you would like to insert the batteries afterwards. A harder suspension (from factory), which already would be adequate for the additional load, might lead to a less comfortable ride, before you install the batteries.
But, nevertheless, your proposal concerning possible upgrades of the batteries sounds interesting.
Pencil me onto the “I’ll Believe it when I see it” column. GM has a bad habit of building outstanding concept cars and then whittling them down to bland shadows of their former selves by the time they reach the public, if indeed they ever actually reach the public.
I once heard that the only reason Ferrari builds cars to sell for people to drive on the street is to fund its highly successful racing program. Sometimes I wonder if GM only builds cars to sell in order to fund its concept cars.
I have heard no mention of fuel cost. People make much of the fact that this Volt concept car is a plug-in, but what is the cost difference between having a similarly sized car running on gasoline and having one plug into a wall outlet? Last time I checked, electric utility rates aren’t decreasing.
And let’s make the leap through the cabinet into Narnia and assume that battery technology finally catches up to GM concept car levels. Will this car plug into a standard (in America) 120 Volt outlet? Or will those of us lucky enough to be “selected” to receive a Volt need to rewire our garage for 220 Volts?
Bob,
With all due respect I am one of those cynics who believe the Volt announcement was nothing less than attempting to greenwash the public. GM has done it before and I believe it will do it again. The battery technology you had developed with the EV1 is adequate right now. Why don’t you just bring that car back? It was good enough then, and you had many fans. Just bring it back.
If you were serious about producing this car you would rapidly accelerate the development of the Volt. And please don’t tell me that it’s because of the battery. Just take a look at the Tesla. The battery technology is fine right now.
Further it is apparant to me that the electric car will require very little maintenance when it is available. When that occurs you will no longer derive the billions in profits from downstream maintenance of the internal combustion engine. No more oil changes, filters, tuneups etc etc etc. I just don’t see GM walking away from all that profit. It will be economic suicide for you to do so. So it is very apparant to me that you are trying to postpone that day as far into the future as you can get away with.
I believe that all the rhetoric you are throwing at the public with the Volt announcement is nothing more than paying lip service. It is disingenuous at best.
Sincerely
Jim Andersen
Mr Lutz,
I’m puzzled. In the press release for the Volt you claimed the following:
You know how to build a car that gets 50 mpg in the series hybrid mode by having an internal combustion engine power a generator or alternator that sends electricty to electric drive motors in the wheels?
Whether you ever have the lithium-ion battery pack that is now in cloud-cuckoo land, sounds almost irrelevant. Perhaps your wonderment over the lithium-ion battery pack, is causing you to not see what in itself sounds like wonderful technology?
Why not build this 50 mpg series-hybrid wonder car without the “to-be-developed battery pack” and immediately trump Toyota, Honda and the others?
It seems to me that any company that knows how to build a 50 mpg car with a turbo-charged engine (diesel I hope) powering a generator to power the wheels would immediately jump on that technology and get it to their dealers.
That is, it seems they would if they really knew how to do it.
How confident are you of your claim that the Volt will have this tremendous sounding capability when the battery is depleted — a capability that by itself would make a “wonder car?”
Dan: If I understand it correctly, in a nutshell, the engine is hooked up to an alternator that provides power to extend the range past the battery range. Hydrogen could also be used to provide the power as well. My point is that even w/o a long battery life, I feel they could produce it and still get great MPG out of it. I have thought of it along the lines of the marine industry: Many of those engines (as well as generators) are rated in GPH, or gallons per hour at a rated rpm. Most generators run at 1800 or 3600 rpm. I just figure if you ran the Volt SOLELY on its generating system, and for arguments sake it burns 1 GPH while propelling the vehicle at 60 MPH, you would get 60 MPG. Any car battery could run most functions (except an A/C compressor). To extend the range, when the car is not in motion, have the engine idle. It may be an idea to get the car in production sooner, w/o worring about battrey life.
You know, if GM has no intention of building the Volt and are using it purely as a green washing strategy, then this would be suicide for them after all the fuss created by the EV1. They would be way better off just doing nothing. So I think they are serious about this.
If you do even a little bit of research you will discover that producing a viable battery for a plug-in is way harder than either a standard hybrid or pure EV. The big problems are weight/size, cycle life and calendar life. These are things that take a good deal of time to test/optimize even if the batteries exist now (which I think they do). So I say we need to be patient. I do however like the idea of getting something out early to fleet users to abuse and iron the bugs out.
Plus, wait until the price of gas goes back up to $3.50+, which it inevitably will. Toyota dealers will be back packing $1000s onto Prius and Yaris stickers before you can say OPEC.
If GM isn’t ready this time, oh dear!
Dear Mr. Lutz,
I am very excited about this concept car! However, I can’t possibly understand why you don’t just introduce this car now using NiMh batteries. We don’t need to wait for lithium technology to make this car. when the technology is there, THEN we will put it into the existing cars that use NiMh. A 300 pound NiMh pack would give the volt a range of 50 miles on electricity. better yet, NiMh batteries are much less expensive than lithium ion and last the life of the vehicle. I would really like to believe that the volt is not a PR stunt, but with the way that this technology is being overlooked and you are saying that you have to wait for something better, I am starting to believe that that may be the case. Chevron looses their patent on the large capacity batteries this year! Please take this opportunity GM!
- Clay
The Volt looks impressive.
Will there be models developed out of the Volt Program directed at Asia? I presently live in Indonesia, and it might be interesting to consider vehicles powered by locally produced alternative fuels to power them.
The Tesla roadster is $92,000. It performs well but costs as much as two Chevrolet Corvettes, and as much as 4 conventional cars that get 32mpg. Hardly a solution; more of a rich man’s toy.
Phoenix is selling only to fleets and has a total production scheduled for 2007 of 500 units. They have a range similar to the EV1 GENII or about the same energy density as a car that can carry 4 gallons of fuel and takes 6 hours to refuel.
I see no solution there. The best solution TODAY is to buy a Chevy Cobalt, Honda Civic, etc. and get 32-34mpg on the highway – economically that’s the best choice.
“Some cynics accused us of pulling a PR stunt, saying the Volt is simply an attempt by GM to ‘green wash’ the public.”
Well, one of those ‘cynics’ would be Matt, who has been working with the Freedom From Oil Campaign to make car makers honestly prioritize fuel economy and move beyond oil.
He commented on the 6 January post in Green Car congress about the E-Flex platform and, indeed, expressed concern that you are using the announcement of the Volt to clean up the GM image rather than the product line.
“There is a lot GM can do between now and when we may see these concept vehicles actually on the road,” observed Matt.
So, if the Volt is getting treated just like any other vehicle you do, i.e., “business as usual, and above all else”, then some cynics might see that as NAGT (Not A Good Thing).
On the bright side, that is a pretty green background chosen for this “Fastlane” blog.
“If you were serious about producing this car you would rapidly accelerate the development of the Volt. And please don’t tell me that it’s because of the battery. Just take a look at the Tesla. The battery technology is fine right now.”
Mr. Andersen,
in my opinion you are comparing cherries to apples. The Chevy Volt is a vehicle that has to be affordable. Like mentioned at the comment from David, the Tesla costs 92.000$. I recall to have heard something like that on German TV, either.
If corresponding batteries are available right now for mass-production, why isn’t Toyota or another manufacturer providing a vehicle, comparable to the Chevy Volt, right now? Many other car-companies don’t even offer a mild hybrid, yet! What’s up with their green attitude?
In my opinion it’s offending, when you indirectly present Mr. Lutz as a liar that way. The increase in February sales, against expectations, for sure is also a consequence from his influence on GM’s vehicle developments.
I assume everyone saw all of the news coverage yesterday of Consumer Reports’ new car ratings. Note their comments on the Prius – the most satisfied customers likely to purchase again of all the cars they tested.
Hi Gereon:
I think the answer to the weight issue may lie in the comments of Gary Dikkers, Clay, and others above. Maybe the thing to do is to start with an equivalent weight of whatever are the best batteries currently available. If they don’t have enough capacity to “plug-in”, at least they would make the systems functional.
We could upgrade to the plug-in capability later, if worst comes to worst.
Or, if worst really came to worst, do what the racers do and put in some (ouch) ballast. I assume you actually need the batteries though, to allow for peak power demands and to allow the engine to run at economical speed at other times. It would seem that the NiMh batteries Clay cites would do that, if we delayed, or lessened, the plug-in capability until the magic batteries appear.
I can feel the footsteps of Toyota with the plug-in though. The future is now.
“Anyone who thinks the Prius is a commercial failure, or is only sold to “hippies”, or “greenie weenies” should come to my neighborhood and see the dozens of them running around, driven by good middle class Republicans.”
I live in California and seldom if ever see anyone other than your typical stereotypical gentrified urbanite. A quick drive to the countryside shows people driving pretty much the same pedestrian cars that most of middle America drives: Camrys, Fords, Chevys, etc etc.
Even this is a sharp contrast compared to when I visit my parents in the Southeast where seeing a hybrid is a very rare event indeed. People do not like their somewhat obnoxious image. Driving a Bimmer in my opinion is about the same equivalent.
Image is EVERYTHING in the auto industry. Again- I think Toyota is playing a fiddle to an insignificant portion of the population and not marketing their product efficiently.
In my opinion, David probably has about the best short-term answer here: Buy a car that gets 30-40 MPG. MOST smaller and even mid-sized cars get this. If you look at what many people are still driving, there is an enormous amount of Ford Expeditions, Explorers and Suburbans getting probably 12-15 MPG. If fuel prices rise, people will buy more efficient cars. Sounds stupid, but sometimes the most simplistic solution is the best answer. If everyone drove a plain-jane car that got 35 MPG, our fuel consumption would be cut in half nationally, even without hybrids.
To reinforce what many have said here when comparing such exotic cars like the Tesla to something that will ultimately be produced for the general public is not comparing apples to apples. Cost is in my opinion overlooked by many ecocar enthusiasts. As much as I applaud future developments and progress in alternative fuels and technology, at the end of the day I drive home in my 12 year old small toyota with 210,000 miles on the odometer. As a consumer living in a free market economy, I expect nothing short of value and affordability when it comes to buying my next car.
Hopefully my next vehicle will be something that is beneficial the the environment. But I should not have to pay a premium for it either.
So in essence, while discussing these wonderful new technologies, the discussion should also be tilted towards how these kinds of technological advances can be produced in a way that makes them economically viable.
lastly, I also think that making the technology behind a car it’s prime marketable asset is unwise in the long term. If you can make a car that is affordable, desirable, reliable,efficient, and fun, then whatever technology propels it forward should be a given. Sell the car. Not the technology.
I think some corrections need to be made here.
Phoenix is selling to fleets this year. They are very small. They have to purchase the bodies made in Korea and assemble the car here.
As things are going they will be producing trucks at a swift pace and growing enormously to fill the gap left by everyone.
They figure 20,000 units in 2 years.
The recharge time from a 220V line is 10 minutes. I imagine the current draw is high but
its what is stated. So where does the 6 hours come from?
The Altairnano battery they
have picked has been tested. Its current lifespan is 40 years. NOT a bad investment since its the life source of the car. Even if its 20 years thats about 3 cars to me.
So your statments are either misinformed or not correct.
To top it off most people only drive about 40 miles a day. With over 100 mile capacity that will suit many.
Count me in the “do it now” crowd. If current technology batteries would give the Volt a ten mile range, I’d go for it. I could upgrade the batteries later, if I wanted. The 10 miles would cover well over half of my driving. I don’t need to wait until the batteries will take it for 40 miles.
Bob,
Real vision would require GM to stop the focus on lowest cost and start putting more content in your cars. I just spent the last several weekends test driving cars, and GM cars just have an inherent cheapness about them that you can’t miss. Granted, GM is getting better than say 5 years ago, but you still have a long, long way to go. I hope for your sake that the new CTS will stop the cost cutting madness that has an obvious chokehold on your company.
The sad truth is that I really wanted to buy American and Cadillac was a brand that I thought I wanted to own. But, after stepping inside an Audi A6 and BMW 5 series and comparing the quality of materials, fit and finish, it was obvious that GM didn’t stand a chance for my business. The only good thing going for Cadillac is the smell of the leather and electronics. Beyond that, you guys have a long way to go to catch up – the cost cutting is much more obvious than you think. You price at the same level as the competition, but deliver so much less for the money.
If you want to play in the big league, you need to deliver the goods. BTW, after all my evaluation and test drives, I bought an ‘07 Infinity G35. Granted the BMW and Audi have a nicer interior, but the performance and price of the G blew them away. There was nothing in the Cadillac line that could touch the bang-for-the-buck factor of this car.
Maybe I’ll look again in a few years at the CTS, but not unless the interior content, performance, fit and finish and reliability is better than my new G.
“Greenwashing” is what low-down, dirty polluters do when they run ads or put out other materials designed to make the public think they’re a bunch of tree-hugging, Bambi-loving, green-to-the-core corporations. In other words, greenwashing is the raw sewage of propaganda. That’s why “Don’t Be Fooled” is such a useful report. Issued annually by two environmental groups: Earthday Resources for Living Green and ecopledge.com (Uniting citizens to protect the environment from irresponsible corporate behavior). This report names the top ten misleading environmental claims of the year.
General Motors has been running ads for years featuring their gas-guzzling, toxic-spewing, environmentally-unfriendly vehicles as the very embodiment of mother nature. One ad hypes the Cadillac CTS as “what a breath of fresh air looks like.” Unless, of course, you’re looking at the Cadillac’s tail pipe! Another GM ad shows its Hummer truck out in the wide open spaces, urging us to venture out and “get fresh air.” Aside from the fact that the Hummer pollutes fresh air, you’d need lots of gas stations to reach those wide open spaces, for a Hummer only gets 13 miles to a gallon.
Energy Independence Now
Our dependence on oil is threatening our way of life
and endangering our freedoms. According to the EPA,
nearly half of Americans live in areas where the air is
considered too dirty to breathe. Drivers pay $186
billion every day for gasoline, while our national
average fuel efficiency has gotten worse since the
1970’s.
At the same time, GM has closed 12 of its U.S. plants, eliminating 30,000 hourly jobs, and whacking a billion dollars a year out of the health-care benefits it owes to its blue-collar workers and retirees. Two weeks later, GM announced that it was going to triple the number of cars it makes in low-wage India.
Our collective addiction to oil is at the root of at
least six fundamental issues that are adversely
affecting our nation and indeed, the entire planet:
process
The world’s supply of recoverable oil is fast running out. An energy policy (or the lack of one) that leaves us with no alternative but swilling more oil is suicidally stupid. But where’s the leadership?
Improving transportation efficiency is the best place to start efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a primary culprit in global warming. Of all CO2 emissions in the United States, about 33 percent comes from transportation.
If our leaders are too corrupted, too weak, and too unimaginative to cut America free of our tether to Big Oil, then we must do it ourselves. A good place to begin is for us to start buying cars, trucks, and other vehicles that get more than 100 miles per gallon.
It would really be good to find a way to turn these comments around more quickly. This is supposed to be the age of instant communications. A 24 hour lag time really discourages participation, in my opinion.
I am not exactly in the Myspace generation, but even I start to lose interest at this rate.
In the same articles in yesterday’s papers announcing GM’s 3.9% sales increase (hooray!), it was reported that Prius sales have increased 87% over last year.
Granted that they said that this is probably due in large part to the first ever discounting of the price (they also said that the GM 3.9% was related to aggressive interest rate incentives), still I find it difficult to understand how this constitutes a marketing failure!
Why not bring back the Geo Metro?
If you’d google that you’d see a lot of demand for a great car that did 50 60 mpg, I just went to buy one for my son and you don’t make them any more?
Even dumbed down American consumers know Peak Oil is coming. Thousands of Americans are going to be stranded in their big SUVs, while the Europeans and Japanese laugh at us, with their 100s of choices already of far more advanced vehicles with far higher mpg than us.
Why does Detroit insist on remaining unable to compete internationally?
Pathetic 12, 15 mpg bigboys. I wish I believed you would make the Volt. It looks perfect. I would rather help fellow Americans keep working. I wanted to get a Geo Metro. But I got an Accord.
@ David
The Roadster is just the first in a series of vehicles Tesla plans to produce. They are starting with a high priced car to make the money to produce a $50,000 sport sedan. Then, they will use the money from that car to make a $30,000 model. Tesla is using the same strategy that apple used with their iPod. After the first (high priced) iPod, they came out with the mini and eventually the shuffle. This worked well for apple look at how successful iPods are now!
on a side note, the phoenix truck charges in 10 minutes and the Tesla fully charges in 3-4hours. You can also get an 80% charge with the Tesla in 45 minutes (this is also assuming that you have fully drained the battery already. if you haven’t, then the charge is even faster)
Does anyone have estimated pricing on Volts? With proper pricing and R&D, I’m ready to put a deposit down, now!!
I, too, don’t see the point in waiting until technology produces a 10 year, 150,000 mile battery. Especially, if the rest of the car is ready to go, but waiting for that perfect battery??!
Since the Saturn Vue PHEV will precede the Chevy Volt, why not use the 10 mile Vue battery and release the Volt in 2008? The PHEV Vue will be in testing this year (See CalCars.org and click on “16 points about GM’s PHEVs, item #1)
This could be a controlled release such as to fleets or leases to individuals (I volunteer myself).
I wonder if we are in time for saving the planet. GM?
Phoenix is selling only to fleets and has a total production scheduled for 2007 of 500 units. They have a range similar to the EV1 GENII or about the same energy density as a car that can carry 4 gallons of fuel and takes 6 hours to refuel.
This is misinformed. The Phoenix takes about 10 to minutes to recharge on a 220 line, (I would imagine a high current 220) and the new
Altairnano batteries have been tested to last up to 40 years at 85% capacity.
Even you get 20 years from them you are still getting more than one car from that battery pack.
And Phoenix is very small and had to buy a body from Korea to accomplish this.
Phoenix is very small startup but sold out its first run and will ramp up its production.
If it gets to over 10,000 units then it will be able to reduce costs and get that quanity discount.
What does GM have offer by June as an alternative?
They may have cheaper things to offer but are they without ICE’s?
Bob
The truly best solution is to buy a used VW TDI, as long as your state allows it, and fill it with biodiesel. It keeps a perfectly useable car on the road and gets 40 mpg in the city.
If GM doesn’t produce a TDI Astra or a hybrid that gets over 40 in the city in the near future, my next car is going to be a late model VW.
Dear Sir,
As many others have commented, the NiMH batteries currently in service in Toyata RAV4 EV’s would permit introduction of the Volt as soon as it could be produced without the wait for research to produce an as yet nonexistent Lithium Ion battery. If anything makes GM customers (I have owned 5 GM products in the past 17 years) doubt GM’s sincerity about introducing the VOLT, it is GM’s unwillingness to use existing battery technology that they had already used in their late, lamented EV-1.
Cordially,
Paul Rybski
“Uniting citizens to protect the environment from irresponsible corporate behavior). This report names the top ten misleading environmental claims of the year.
General Motors has been running ads for years featuring their gas-guzzling, toxic-spewing, environmentally-unfriendly…..”
One thing to consider that most people beating the “humans are polluting mother earth!” drum fail to realize is that while we are making efforts to protect mother earth, mother earth actually beats us to the punch if you want to make a comparison in terms of pollution production. Did you know that a single volcanic eruption produces more carbon dioxide, pollution, greenhouse gases, and airborne particulate matter than 200 years worth of human industrial and consumer pollution? That’s right- a single volcano, of which there are many erupting at any given time. In fact, a major volcano can cause temperatures to either fall or rise globally, sometimes for years at a time. There is not a difference between “natural” and man made pollutive elements. All are detrimental in some form or fashion. This fact doesn’t make populations that produce pollution right, but it is something to think about.
That doesn’t make a company that is irresponsible with the products they produce correct either.
The point I’m trying to make is that any company that produces consumer goods will do so for economic reasons which likely override socially conscious ones.If the public calls for electric cars, then they will provide them. If the manufacturing of cars that run on alternative fuels is being demanded, then they will be built. I think GM has come to that place where real demand now necessitates development. This should be encouraged.
I have no doubt that some of these smaller car producers like Phoenix can and will make electric cars. But at the end of the day, I seriously doubt they will bring the electric car to the masses. Neither will Volta. It takes a big corporation with a level of consumer trust and brand recognition to bring a car such as the volt to the public quicker, cheaper, and more efficiently.If the true desire is to have efficient cars for the masses, then encouraging a company like GM to make them is probably your best salvo versus bashing them over the head about their trucks, ( which by the way get significantly better fuel economy than the new Tundra), or personifying them to some evil corporate image out to get us all.
Hi Paul,
did you read the latest ConsumerReport-Ratings concerning VW? Then you might reconsider your intention ;o)
I’d be careful with Bio-Diesel. I know a young lady who was running her Golf TDi with that fuel. The injection-pump got leaky. No warranty!
I am looking out the window at the gas station across the street:
Regular, $2.97.9
Mid Grade, $3.15.9
Premium, $3.33.9
As soon as these cars are available in large numbers OPEC will lower the price of crude to where every one will go back to the gasoline powered cars. OPEC is not going to loose market share without a fight.
I have several battery-powered electrical appliances, and have the choice of using several type of batteries in those appliances, depending on my pocketbook and the performance I want.
All the batteries are the same size, fit in the same slot, and I can use:
* One-time alkaline cells
* One time lithium cells
* Rechargeable NiCads
* Rechargeable Nickel metal hydride (NiMH)cells
* Rechargeable Lithium Ion cells
As many have repeatedly commented (with no response from Bob Lutz, Ed Peper, or Beth Lowery I might add), why is GM waiting for development of the lithium ion battery pack before moving ahead with the Volt?
An electric car would be nothing more than an electrical appliance with wheels. Why not sell the car now offering a choice of batteries, depending on the pocketbook of the buyer and the performance he or she wants?
Sell it now with an NiMH battery pack, and when the Li-Ion becomes available let consumers have the choice of upgrading.
It should be no different than buying different types of batteries to put into my flashlight, tape recorder, laptop, or whatever — pull out the old NiMH, and slide in the new Li-Ion battery pack when it becomes available.
If you need help with this concept, perhaps you ought to consider teaming up with a Silicon Valley company such as Apple.
(Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what an Apple/GM team could come up with in terms of an electric car?)
motorman, 3/5, 4:55 PM:
Good!
Then, if we go back to our 15 mpg vehicles during the downturn, we will get what we deserve on the next upturn. How many times has it happened already?
“He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it”
If what you predict happens, which seem quite possible to me, GM, et al had better use the respite to position themselvcs for the next upturn. That’s what you-know-who did, and they are reaping the benefits today. If not, the game will surely be over.
I’ll have to side with those who have expressed skepticism of GM’s reasons for wanting to wait for improved battery technology before building the Volt.
Why not build it today with nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries just as GM proposed with this concept car http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm nearly ten years ago? Take a few minutes to look over the specs and you will see that many are very similar to those for the Volt, except it uses NiMH batteries just like every other hybrid car now on the road.
How many of the GM apologists responding to this blog were even aware such a car was considered, way back when? Oh, and it was an EV1.
Try to get Mr. Lutz to explain THAT.
If GM produces the Volt it will out sell the Prius..
Hi Noel,
well, that’s off topic, but did you already see first pictures from the Geneva Auto Show? On TV there was the first information about the Opel GTC Concept. Absolutely breathtaking! This vehicle has to be produced and sold as a Saturn, either. Look at: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/auto_-_produkte/hxcms_article_502435_14973.hbs
Don’t miss the image-gallery. You might have to scroll down slightly.
Hi Gereon:
How amazing to be communicating in such an effective way with someone on the far side of the world. I am sincere in saying thank you for your friendship. Even if we don’t always agree!
It isn’t really off topic, because the underlying issue here is the engineering and design capabilities of GM, indeed worldwide.
Anyone who can put forward the Opel GTC, or the Volt, or, as I have said so many times, win the GT class at Le Mans (how many times now?), can deliver products as good or better than Toyota, Honda, or anyone else in the world.
What it takes is the management vision and leadership to take this talent pool in the right direction for the future.
When I go on about the Prius, it’s not because I am ever going to buy a Toyota, in this life or the next. I am just saying “Wake up and smell the coffee, GM management.” Whatever bloggers may think about the Prius, Toyota has created a halo car every bit as effective as the Corvette has been for Chevrolet. I believe that something like the Volt, which would preempt that halo, would have profoundly good effects on the worldwide perception of GM.
Here’s a little positive comment for today.
Sunday my wife and I went to probably the fanciest party we will ever attend. How we got there is another whole story, as it was absolutely NOT our usual social circle.
We drove up to the valet paking stand (!) in our almost 12 year old Impala SS, alas beginning to show its age a bit. We were in line with some of the highest dollar Benzes, BMWs and Porsches you will ever see in one place.
The valet guy took our keys and said, “That is the coolest car I have seen here today.” I told my wife, “Well, you may be stuck with this car for another 12 years!”
As I keep advocating for cutting edge fuel economy, part of me doesn’t want to let go of this car, which does make a statement in SoCal. It also says a lot about the priceless heritage of GM and Chevrolet, if someone could only figure out how to use it effectively. I guess we will just have to scrape up the cash for the Volt, and put the SS into weekend status.
So what if you could go out today and buy a brand new vehicle that gets 60 mpg for just over $6000? I did just that last summer when I bought a brand new Kawasaki Ninja 650R. Despite the “Ninja” name, it’s a comfortable motorcycle with a standard upright riding position that is economical to buy and economical to own. Combine that with the right gear (such as a high-vis yellow Aeroistich riding suit) and the proper training, and you have an excellent option to carry you and your lunch box back and forth to work.
GM and the other auto makers should and will continue to develop fuel efficient cars to haul the whole family around, but if a large concern is the cost of your daily commute, you have options today. (Plus, a two-wheeler is a lot more fun to play with on the weekends than a Prius.)
I know about recent reliability problems with VW. But my dad recently bought a Passat and other than a leaky windshield washer fluid tank hasn’t had any problems with the car. And he loves it.
Besides, I know what to look for to ensure that I’ll get one of the better German-built cars, as opposed to the Mexican cars.
I was practically raised in VWs. My family owned two microbuses, one of which I learned to drive in.
Please sir, get rid of my $140 a month gas bill!!!
Hey GM (Cadillac)how about bringing over to the USA the new 2.9l V6 that you will be putting in the new CTS. Don’t miss the oppurtunity. Mercedes and BMW diesels are here or on the way.
Tim, what do you think your electric bill will be as electricity is not free? if you have electric heat in your home or even whole house A/C you will know what i mean.
I hope GM really wants to build the Volt. It’s a shame so many European cars from Ford & GM are better built, with better milage.
I want to see GM succeed, but history tends to repeat itself.
And if GM really had spent it’s own money on the EV1, you would have seen it available in over 25 states, as opposed to California & Nevada. You had to jump through hoops just to get a lease. I guess it’s easy to spend taxpayer money.
It would also help if GM leaders would have real dialouge instead of 3rd party PR firms that spin.
Noel,we just came back from a 3000+ mile road trip in my 2004 3800 V-6 Impala and averaged 26 MPG on regular grade gasoline. this included highway and local driving. the gasoline price ranged from $2.22 to $2.49 a gallon. I would drive as much a 500 miles a day and i do not think any battery powered car would allow me to do this. When i was still working,i am retired now,I rode the bus 20 miles each way to work. Most people now days do not like the inconvenience of having to wait for the bus so they drive everywhere.
A little off subject (sorry) but… “I’m back!” Most of my vehicles have been Chevrolets (see list), most purchased new, many factory ordered, and I have to say it is GREAT to be driving a Genuine Chevrolet again. I love my HHR! Next time, a Chevy Volt (?)
My advice: PUT ON A BOWTIE, America!
1. 1974 Chevrolet Vega GT
2. 1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2
3. 1976 Chevrolet Nova Concours
4. 1977 Chevrolet Camaro Rally Sport
5. 1978 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
6. 1978 Chevrolet Chevette 4 dr.
7. 1980 Chevrolet Citation
8. 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier CS wagon
9. 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z-28
10. 1983 Chevrolet Cavalier CL sedan
11. 1984 Chevrolet Citation X-11
12. 1984 Pontiac Fiero SE
13. 1986 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 hatchback
14. 1986 S-10 Blazer
15. 1986 BMW 325
16. 1987 Nissan Sentra
17. 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 coupe
18. 1988 Chevrolet Beretta GT
19. 1989 Chevrolet Cavalier coupe
20. 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
21. 1989 Chevrolet S-10 pickup
22. 1990 Mazda Miata
23. 1988 Pontiac Fiero Formula
24. 1980 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
25. 1991 Geo Prizm GSI
26. 1993 Chevrolet Beretta
27. 1995 Geo Metro LSI
28. 1998 Chevrolet Tracker
29. 1969 Chevrolet Corvair Monza coupe
30. 2004 Pontiac Vibe
31. 2004 Mazdaspeed MX-5
32. 2007 Chevrolet HHR LT
By the way, I still think the Geo tree-planting program was a good one, and should be initiated throughout the GM product line.
I apologize for all the links to my website and blog comments below;
I use them to avoid making my long comments even longer by retyping
arguments I already made, but I’m aware that it makes me look like I
just enjoy quoting myself… I also apologize for dropping out of
the fray for a few days; I submitted a comment late Thursday night
(March 1st), but it got lost in the ether somewhere. Many thanks to
Alicia Dorset, Bill Betts, and the rest of the GM blogs team for
ensuring that this resubmitted comment didn’t meet the same fate!
J. Crew and edvard:
You might be surprised that a lot of “greenie weenies” agree with you that we should leave the EV1 in the past. I have been accused, by people I respect, of being more interested in personal vindication
(i.e., getting an apology from GM or something) than in progress (i.e., seeing GM produce a plug-in vehicle). However, the reason I keep harping on GM’s handling of the EV1 is that the Volt is a concept vehicle, and concept vehicles embody promises and
possibilities, and promises and possibilities have to do with credibility. I have argued that GM’s explanations for the fate of the EV1, prominently summarized in this blog post, consist of nothing but high-RPM spin; in light of this, and in light of GM’s steadfast assertions that a breakthrough in lithium batteries
is needed to make the Volt practical (despite, many have argued, evidence to the contrary), it looks to a lot of us like GM is setting the stage for another “we tried, but…” escape clause. Some of us burned by the EV1 experience are willing to credit GM with having
turned over a new leaf, but I see too many parallels with the EV1 to do this without proof. I’m not a GM-hater; between us my wife and I have owned three Saturns, two Chevies, and a Pontiac (and one Dodge),
and I’d love to have another Chevy plugged in in my garage. But if GM wants “EV1 people,” who should be its natural allies in promoting the excellent E-Flex concept, to join in its efforts instead of
watching cautiously or skeptically from the sidelines, it needs to give us reason to believe in it again. It can do this by selling (again, not merely leasing) a vehicle based on the Volt; but if it wants us to wait for the Volt instead of buying electric vehicles from startups like AC Propulsion, Tesla, Phoenix, or Miles as their
volumes go up and prices come down in the years before the Volt arrives in showrooms, and if it wants the help of many knowledgeable
(i.e., experienced!) and motivated people in spreading the word and building the buzz, it needs to (1) demonstrate that it hasn’t been spinning us about the EV1 for years, say by refuting the
arguments I collected here, or if it can’t do that then (2) repudiate its spin instead of continuing to spread it, for example http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/09/detroit-auto-show-autobloggreen-
qanda-with-dave-barthmuss/” rel=”nofollow”>here. GM doesn’t owe me an answer; but though I don’t speak for anybody else, my concerns are shared by many whom they could win over by such actions.
CaptainDan:
Regarding the “huge marketing campaign” for the EV1, see this; and as for “customers just didn’t want it,” please see my reply dated February 28th to your comment dated February 16th on this
blog post.
David:
Ditto. (GM didn’t even build “thousands of them”!)
HotCarNut:
I’m well aware of the difference between a plug-in hybrid and a battery-electric; I mentioned the 80-mile range of the lead-acid EV1 (and my preference for such a vehicle), and the 100-plus-mile range of the well-used NiMH RAV4-EVs still on the road, to indicate that there is plenty of capability out there in batteries that don’t require the breakthrough that GM is waiting for. And GM has been talking (e.g., here) about the possibility of never using gasoline in the Volt, suggesting that they see a possible market among commuters and daily-drivers in typical American two-car households like, say, mine who don’t need long range in one of their two cars. I suggested ditching the internal-combustion “security
blanket” in favor of more batteries because such a possibility is inherent in the E-Flex concept, and indeed I’ve heard of GM discussing it (sorry, can’t find a reference for that at the moment). A battery-electric vehicle, like any vehicle, isn’t for the
people whose needs it doesn’t meet–it’s for the people whose needs it does meet.
With regard to the “expense and headache” of the EV1’s dedicated charging station–whose fault was that? A lot of us were disappointed that automakers (not just GM) refused to move the recharging “smarts” onboard, as was apparently done with the Volt, so that their electric vehicles could recharge from “dumb” outlets. This was taken a step further by AC Propulsion, whose “reductive” recharging system reduced complexity and cost by sending recharging
energy through the same power-control circuitry used to drive the motor. None of this depended on a post-EV1 breakthrough, so you
can’t honestly count it as an inherent strike against the EV1.
And I’m surprised you’re familiar enough with my writings that you confidently assert that you “don’t see [me] giving Toyota the same speeches.” Please see my comment dated January 30th on this blog post for some counterexamples. Also, I got the California Air Resources Board to take some Toyota-inspired misrepresentation of the environmental benefits of the Prius (and other hybrids) down from http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/” rel=”nofollow”>their DriveClean website a couple of years ago.
Sam Houston:
A decent battery-electric vehicle might go four or five miles per kilowatt-hour of electricity from a wall-plug; a plug-in series hybrid like the Volt should be able to get something like that. If you have time-of-use metering from your electrical utility and charge
at an off-peak rate, you might be paying a penny per mile; the on- peak rate might be three or four cents per mile. By contrast, a 50 MPG gasoline car with $3 per gallon gas costs six cents per mile. Of course, you’ve got oil changes and valve jobs to worry about for the gasoline car, in addition to the fuel cost; the battery-electric vehicle (or battery-electric portion of a plug-in hybrid) is likely to need little or no maintenance if you have “life of the vehicle”
batteries, which is what some of the more advanced lithium-chemistry batteries promise but also looks like a pretty good bet with NiMH (the 50,000 and 100,000 mile RAV4-EVs I mentioned above). So you’d
have a very good fuel-cost savings (plus insurance against future gas- price hikes, and free fuel if you’ve got solar panels on your roof like I’ve heard about half of RAV4-EV owners do) with plug-
in capability; this gives owners of plug-in hybrids a very strong economic incentive to use electricity whenever possible. Whether the fuel and maintenance savings outweigh the initial price premium depends on your driving cycle and the size of that premium, same as for ordinary hybrids. Oh, and a battery pack of about 10 kWh could get a full recharge overnight on a 10-amp 110V circuit; if the Volt is anything like modern all-electric vehicles, it can probably charge off either that or a 220V appliance circuit, recharging more quickly from the latter, of course.
Paul:
I think that, on the side of this discussion favoring GM’s actually being committed to the Volt, you made the best point so far, namely that after the EV1 (and Who Killed the Electric Car?) more people are paying attention now. However, I fear that you underestimate the power of professional spin-doctoring. If GM ditches the Volt and blames a battery breakthrough that was needed
but never occurred, there are plenty of people who hate the idea of plug-in vehicles, or even of ordinary hybrids, and who will figure that the Volt was, as Drew said of the EV1, “a hideous mess that
should have been aborted early on”; and most others will say “well, they gave it their best shot, same as with the EV1.” Even among those of us who don’t think GM ultimately gave EV1 anything like their best effort, there hasn’t been much fallout; sure, I’ve heard
people say “I’ll never buy another GM car again,” but many more of us are more interested in pressuring GM to move forward than in punishing it. That includes me; as I pointed out above, I bring up
the EV1’s past to show why we have doubts about the Volt’s future, in hopes that GM will address those doubts. In 2005 my wife and I bought a minivan from the very same Saturn dealer who for all those years wouldn’t (i.e., wasn’t allowed to) sell me an EV1; this was after the crushing of the EV1s (and before the movie, but I already knew the story). So killing the Volt wouldn’t be “suicide” for GM; and if they are doing a greenwash, then buying time with promises gets them off the hook for doing something real for the duration of those promises, which is better for them than “doing
nothing.” Note that I haven’t accused GM of greenwashing with the Volt, in any of my comments; rather, I point out that whatever the state of their current commitment and effort, we have no reason to believe that it can’t be reversed, just as their very real initial commitment to the EV1 was reversed all the way back to scrap metal and museum hulks. Their history of spin on the EV1, coupled
with the insistence on waiting for a battery breakthrough, doesn’t prove that they are setting up to do this; however, it sure makes it look they are ready to do it.
Oh, and sj:
If GM does build and sell (not just lease) the Volt, “what [I] and the other EV1 lovers are going to say” is “What’s the trade-in value of my non-plug-in Prius?” The vast majority of “EV1 lovers” are not “GM haters”; we simply don’t trust GM. That doesn’t preclude GM’s earning back that trust.
Just to be fair, some folks on “my side”:
Bob Tasa:
The fast (10 minutes or so) chargers I’ve heard of run on 440 volt industrial service. Even with the high voltage, the current demands are obscene: I think the Phoenix vehicles have 35 kWh battery packs, which would take about five hundred amps to recharge in ten minutes! I don’t know what kind of copper hawsers are strung inside the vehicle to handle this much juice, but clearly a hookup to deliver this to a vehicle would constitute a major investment. I really
don’t see the point of fast-charging capability; some EV advocates seem to make a point of it to cater to those who can’t get out of the habit of thinking about filling up in ten minutes for a week’s driving at a public refueling station, when the standard (hours-long) overnight charging of an EV gives you a full “tank” for a day’s driving while you sleep. How long does it take you to charge your cell phone? Don’t know, right? That’s because it doesn’t matter, as long as it’s full when you unplug it and put it in your pocket in the morning. The question isn’t whether some drivers would need fast-charging capability to finish a day’s driving; rather, the question is whether there are enough people who wouldn’t need it to build a viable market. GM (and other automakers) say they proved in the late 1990s that there wasn’t; many of us who were there at the time beg to differ.
EV Rider:
Are you quite certain of that $186 billion per day figure for U.S. gasoline use? That’s about $500 per person! Oil use (for all purposes) is about 20 million barrels per day; at $60 per barrel,
that’s only $1.2 billion per day, and I find it hard to believe gasoline is marked up that much.
Gary Dikkers:
The batteries are charged “off-board” for small appliances and tools that can use many types of cells; most or all of the charging apparatus for vehicle batteries has to be built into the vehicle, unless one wants to develop a whole public battery-swap
infrastructure like, say, a warehouse might use for its electric forklifts. Charging profiles and voltages for different types of batteries could be changed via programming, but other considerations
like cooling requirements are very different for different kinds of batteries; and in general, enabling a vehicle to take a variety of battery types would make for a lot of very expensive and complex engineering. The question isn’t whether GM could make the Volt with NiMH now and let consumers upgrade in the future; the question is, why does GM think a NiMH Volt (that would stay NiMH for its lifetime) wouldn’t be good enough to jumpstart the market introduction of E- Flex without waiting for a breakthrough in lithium-chemistry batteries?
To conclude (finally!):
Mr Lutz (and Mr. Barthmuss):
The ball is in your court. Former EV1 lessees and enthusiasts can be your biggest cheerleaders for the E-Flex idea, putting Apple’s “Switchers” campaign to shame; or we can continue to be your harshest
critics. Your best, biggest opportunity to change our minds was that well-advertised June blog post in response to Who
Killed the Electric Car?, but instead you gave us more of the same spin, and you have continued to do so since the Volt came out. You need to either (1) convince us logically that we are mistaken in seeing spin here or (2) repudiate that spin. In the meantime, besides repeated spin, we are only hearing erroneous statements from people who took that spin and ran with it (CaptainDan and David), or unsupported “everyone knows” statements (Drew, J. Crew, edvard, Happy Saab 9-3 Owner), or accusations that we’re GM-haters or Toyota- worshippers (Happy Saab, edvard, HotCarNut). Last week I attended
the rollout of an electric Sport Utility Truck from Phoenix Motorcars, which would suit my needs admirably; they expect to sell to fleets for a couple of years, then start selling broadly to consumers a year or two before GM is talking about introducing (maybe) a vehicle based on the Volt. By that time, Tesla expects to be bringing down the price of their upcoming White Star sport sedan too, and there are a few others (AC Propulsion, Miles) whom we’re
also keeping our eyes on. Give us a reason to wait for the Volt, and to join you in promoting E-Flex while we wait!
Hi Paul,
no doubt, you may have made positive experiences by driving VW. Nevertheless, maybe it’s just coincidence, but most people we know, driving a Golf IV (built in Wolfsburg), already repeatedly complained about certain malfunctions, especially regarding the power-windows, door-locks, other electric stuff and air-condition. BTW, VW not only performed poorly at CR, but also at surveys from the ADAC, our counterpart to the AAA. Sorry, I didn’t want to “teach” you, I only wanted to recommend being careful.
How do you guys plan to keep Big Oil happy, considering that widespread electric car acceptance may reduce revenues by uo to 50% on reduced gasoline sales?
See post at:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/03/03/the-effect-of-the-chevrolet-volt-on-the-oil-industry/
Dear Noel,
there’s nothing to add, regarding your latest comment. I also appreciate so much sharing my thoughts with you and other people, who use this blog. I am looking forward to reading from you soon again. BTW, this helps to keep alive my English language skills ;o)
Matt, 3/6, 12:12 PM:
You are quite right. Plus, in California, you can ride your bike in the carpool lane by yourself and bypass a lot of the traffic. How California ever passed that smart of a law is a mystery, but that’s another story.
Alas, after my RN wife spent 10 years on an ortho unit, my motorcycle days came to an end. It just isn’t worth the fight. Plus, if you listen to the “motorcycle down” reports on L.A. traffic radio long enough, you begin to believe that there may be something to it, at least in megalopolis traffic.
Even so, I get a pang once in awhile, such as when reading your comment.
In over 30 years on bikes I rode one of the first (1959) Yamaha twins in the country, a Ducati Diana Mk II, a Triumph Bonneville, a Yamaha RD 400, a CZ, two Zundapps (!) and two KTMs. I almost want to weep as I look back at this list. She puts up with so much other BS from me though that I can’t fight this battle.
Shiny side up!
Motorman, 7/6, 6:21 PM:
Right. Our old Impala gets 20-22 mpg on road trips. As I have said so may times, we are not going to get rid of it unless we can make a real breakthrough in mileage. The Aveo, for example, just doesn’t do it. Our answer, for the time being, is to drive a lot less.
As to the bus, when my son lived in San Francisco, we just automatically took the bus and the light rail everywhere. The service is excellent, it’s cheap, and there is absolutely no place to park.
In the sprawl of SoCal, the bus system is hopeless for many people. I can do the math, and I would take it if I could. Alas, if I could even physically get to work on public transit, it would take me at least 4 hours each way.
Many here believe the GM was complicit in the tearing out of the massive interurban rail network which existed in SoCal after WWII, but maybe that’s just urban legend (?)
Mr. Lutz,
The Volt concept needs to see production ASAP! How about building about 1000 pre-production models equipped with sensors that would monitor areas of interest to your engineering team. The ON-STAR could send data real- time as drivers went about their daily routines. After 90 days you would have a wealth of data, and the public would have had a chance to see them in operation.
GAC
Cheyenne, Wyoming
altfuels:
I will admit that I didn’t google and review every post that you made. However, you spent 99% of your post slamming GM and your only mention of Toyota was that a few of them were still on the road. Never mind that Toyota’s SUVs get worse gas mileage than nearly every other vehicle in their respective classes in direct comparisons regardless of manufacturer. Never mind that Toyota’s higher corporate average fuel economy advantage is due predominately to its product sales mix (they sell way more cars than trucks and SUVs) and not to the efficiency of the individual models. As Toyota enters the truck market in force with the new Tundra, and as the large SUVs like the Sequoia and even the Highlander become a larger percentage of their sales, and thus the fuel economy calculations.
I also am severly irritated about your assumption that I think you are either a GM-hater or Toyota-worshipper. I’m not so naive as to believe that the world is that black and white.
Here is my major problem with all of your arguments about the batteries: it really has nothing to do with your overall complaint. Your complaint is about the timeline of when GM wants to unveil the Volt. You (and many other posters) seem to think that the vehicle should be available today. Guess what? They put the Volt on the same timeline as the Camaro (unveiled in concept form in 2005 – due for production 2009). There are a lot of manufacturing issues to resolve, including the availability of the high-tech plastic skin that the Volt was wearing to reduce weight. You have to reconfigure an assembly plant to be able to manufacture the vehicle. You have to ramp up the supply base to build in volume. This isn’t like Tesla motors or Phoenix (with all due respect to them). If GM builds a car and offers it to the public, they have to build enough to satisfy a much larger audience (minimum production of a mass market vehicle in the 50-100,000 unit range). This cannot be done overnight, from either an acceptable cost or quality perspective. I think it’s commendable that they are shooting for the same timeline as the Camaro given just how different this vehicle is from any other that GM produces.
Mr. lutz,
You guys are leaving the best part of the Astra out of your line up; it’s a great small sports car. I’ve driven the 1.8 16 valve w/5 speed all over Mexico and it just wants to go faster. I typically maintained 100mph on the toll road with ease. Handling is solid like on rails. Astra already offers a 2.2 lt w/16 valves; why not in the USA?. You need to/should have put together a hot sports model. The younger drivers would love it. Come on, don’t do the typical dull GM thing.
B. McKay
Mr Lutz;
Keep up the great work!Here is a great write up on the volt from this morning. I have a theory (not that it hasn’t already been tested by a real engineer) If e flex is combined with a constant cyclical charging hub generater used while the car is moving (instead of the breaking) and the batteries are smaller(in larger numbers) the recharge cycle would be quicker and can be rotated throughout the driving of the vehicle enabling a steady constant power cycle to opperate and charge simotainiusly essentially eliminating the need for an onboard (fueled) motor. Even the Aircar (running on compressed air) has an onboard compressor (ran on air) to fill the air tanks . Smaller batteries charge quicker, if grouped and recharged in cycles the power will be replenished by the time the cycle returns to the begining. circle of life/ perpetual motion.
“If GM builds a car and offers it to the public, they have to build enough to satisfy a much larger audience (minimum production of a mass market vehicle in the 50-100,000 unit range).”
LOL. thats only if they want to actually move the car. Anyone think they’ll build 1100 camero’s and sell them to 2 cities in the country?
Great to see that some of you big guys are at last really researching this kind of stuff!
Back in the 90’s there were a few cars that were introduced mainly by Honda I think but they never took off… or maybe they were just plain buried by oil companies.
I think with the state of the planet, these initiatives are what the public wants and expects.
Well done again.
Travis
HotCarNut:
I regret that you are “severely irritated” that I thought you saw me as either a “GM hater” or a “Toyota worshipper”–but how else was I to interpret your post? You indicated that I was unreasonably “honked off” and full of “resentment” with GM about the demise of the EV1 (”GM hater”), and that I was unreasonably lenient with Toyota about the demise of most of the RAV4-EVs, presumably because I’ve fallen for their “greenwash” as Happy Saab 9-3 Owner suggested (”Toyota worshipper”).
The reason my post was 99 percent about GM is because this is a GM blog, and I am talking about GM spin. Toyota was only relevant because, by leaving a few hundred RAV4-EVs on the road, they have unwillingly demonstrated that NiMH batteries are more capable than GM (or Toyota, for that matter) is willing to admit. If Toyota puts up a compendium of spin about the RAV4-EV program on the web and advertises it with full-page newspaper ads and “Google AdWords” buys, then I will put up a page dissecting it on my website; if they have the stones to put up a widely read blog where a small-bore hobbyist/advocate/critic like me might just have the chance to catch the ear of their counterparts to Mr. Lutz and Mr. Barthmuss (and again, I salute GM for doing so!), then I will post to it. In neither case will I make much mention of GM or the EV1, just as I haven’t said much about Toyota here.
However, you have done me the courtesy of explaining in detail where you think I am missing the point; I will return the favor. You say my “complaint is about the timeline of when GM wants to unveil the Volt,” and that I “(and many other posters) seem to think that the vehicle should be available today.” No, that is not my complaint, though it appears to be that of, say, Better VUE. My problem with GM is that, whatever the timeline they talk about, we have no reason to believe it in light of their history with the EV1 and their assertions about batteries. In the AutoBlog Green interview I linked in my first post (I’m trying to avoid links in this one, because the last one got badly mangled by the submission system), Mr. Barthmuss flatly states “we know that lead acid and nickel metal hydride aren’t going to work inside a vehicle”; by insisting on battery improvements that might be in place around 2010 to 2012 (but no earlier), and refusing to consider other batteries (including present lithium-chemistry varieties) that already have a track record that’s better than GM ever admitted, I can’t help but see an “escape hatch” being prepared. They may not at present plan to use it–after all, the EV1 did make it into dealerships, so maybe a Volt variant will as well–but in light of their continuing spin about their reasons for killing the EV1, I see no reason to place a bet that they will not use similar spin (”the batteries just weren’t good enough”) to kill the Volt either before it reaches the showroom or after just a few make it out onto the road. See, I tell you beforehand: if the Volt is only available for lease with no buyout option when it reaches showrooms, run for cover.
And believing GM’s promises about the Volt would constitute placing a bet, for me and others burned (crushed?) by their handling of the EV1. First, if we believe them, we’ll be out on the forefront talking up the E-Flex idea and the upcoming Volt-based vehicles; if they let us down again, we will again have wasted a tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm that could have been put to better use. Second, many of us would probably hold off on buying a Tesla White Star sedan or the more affordable third-generation vehicle they expect to offer around the time the Volt may become available, or a less expensive vehicle from Phoenix, Miles, AC Propulsion, or whoever, if we believed that by waiting we could get something with a bit more warranty and service muscle behind it from GM. That is the reason I bring up the current or promised near-future availability of electric vehicles from these smaller manufacturers: not that they have them now so GM should too, but that we will have choices that might tempt us in the years (however long that is planned to be, or actually turns out to be) before the Volt reaches showrooms, unless GM gives us reason to have faith that we won’t be disappointed if we wait for it. I speak from personal experience here: I could have been driving electric for over a decade now, but I bypassed a number of conversion EVs because I really wanted to buy an EV1 (or, as I thought in the early 90s, a Chevrolet Impact). I’d rather wait, as long as my present ride (a 1993 Dodge natural-gas-burning van) holds out, for an all-electric E-Flex variant (that is, a Volt with the gasoline engine replaced with more batteries), or if necessary a Volt as-is, instead of buying whatever else comes along in the interim; but fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. So, both as an advocate and as a potential customer, I am of much more use to GM if they repudiate their anti-EV1 spin and thereby give me reason to think that we aren’t being spun with regard to the Volt, and that we won’t be spun in the future; and there are plenty of others out there like me, the “early adopters,” “influencers,” or whatever you want to call us.
By the way, as a matter of honesty, I should pass on something that I learned that makes me significantly more wary of the ability of Phoenix to maintain a comparatively low price on their vehicles. A major part of their business case is that they will earn ZEV (Zero-Emission Vehicle) credits for building ZEVs that California regulations don’t require them to; they can then turn around and sell those credits to larger automakers that don’t build enough (any?) to meet their required quotas. I knew it was part of their planned income stream, but in a blog post yesterday their competitor, Tesla, said Phoenix expects revenue from this that will actually be several times the asking price of each vehicle! In effect, Phoenix expects to subsidize most of the cost of their highly specialized batteries (which, I gather, are far more expensive than the ones Tesla is using) by relying on other automakers’ inability to meet California requirements–and (this is the dicey part) on California’s willingness to stick with those requirements. The state has blinked before; I know of other companies from the 90s that had a similar business model, which evaporated (along with those companies) with the stroke of a pen when the major automakers persuaded the California Air Resources Board to let them get out of building battery-electric vehicles now in return for their promise to build fuel-cell vehicles eventually. We’ll have to see if Phoenix can bring costs down fast enough to wean their business off this income stream before something happens to it; I’m also not certain whether Miles is counting on something similar to enable them to project even lower prices (under $30000).
Mr. Lutz:
I just read the following in The Detroit News article “Honda Sneaks Up on Big Three”:
“The same ingenuity and engineering skill that produce Asimo (robot) have pushed Honda to the forefront in developing futuristic fuel-cell cars. As volatile gas prices are shifting U.S. consumers’ interest to more fuel efficient models, Honda is the only automaker with a fuel-cell car certified for U.S. retail buyers, and it has leased two hydrogen-powered FCX cars to customers to monitor their performance under real-life conditions.”
General Motors has to make sure it develops better fuel-cell technology than Honda, patent it, and bring it to market first. If General Motors is the leader (both perceived and actual) in fuel-cells, it could dramatically improve its competitive position in the global automotive industry.
Also, please make sure General Motors’ intellectual property is well protected. Your competitors have had ethical lapses over the years and I am sure many of them would like to have General Motors’ fuel-cell technology.
Respectfully,
Eric Matthew Vest
The Volt PR worked. People were talking about it.
GM needs more PR.
Some of the newpaper reviews can’t even get the mileage figures on GM vehicles right, eg. reporting the Aveo with 34 mpg when it list 37 mpg.
A few points about all electrics, hybrids etc after researching and watching from the sidelines.
1) To compare Tesla or others to GM and Toyota is unfair. Tesla is a start, from the ground up company with a miniscule amount of production capability compared to GM and Toyota.
2) Tesla have a production, all electric vehicle that goes 0-60 in 4 seconds or less, the volt or prius is not even close, the Tesla roadster will blow away most $100,000 + gas sports cars and do it 10 times more effecient.
The current batteries will allow it to go 250 miles on a charge, future battery improvements will enhance that.
3) If it wasn’t for companies like Tesla, I wonder if GM or Toyota would have ever come out with a plug in hybrid-still not all electric. They are finally being forced too. I also believe that the battery technology has allowed it. Not sure which is which, just wondering.
4) I can’t afford Tesla’s first offering and would love to buy a GM Volt(current GM owner), but not with a diesel generator and an additional 1 liter turbo motor. Might as well throw the kitchen sink in there. Better to set up a generator on a trailer that can be towed for long distances when needed.
5) Tesla and others with far less production capability have proven the concept and produced one. See Wrightspeed, Tzero and others . The technology is perfect for 0-100 miles per hour. Also see drag cars like the White Zombie. GM and Toyota could easily steal these ideas and mass produce a lower priced car that will blow away their gas or hybrid cousins. I would love to have a GM 4 door sedan that goes 0-60 in say 6 seconds, 300 miles to a charge with no gas or other back up to have to maintain. The beauty of all electric is not just performance or (green) it is simplicity in maintenence. There is none. Just replace tires. So put that into the cost of things as well. Yes you have to plug it in, but it all comes down to the energy source. If gas hits $4-6 a gallon, or worse we have disruption, your gas car is screwed. You could have a power outage locally, but it is a local and more controllable issue.
6) They (GM and Toyota) are probably waiting for Tesla and others to do it and then they will pull the rug out from under them. Then we will see if they are beholden to Oil money or it was just fear of treading into new technology that Lutz himself states is new territory for them.
7) OPEC will probably lower the price of oil once Americans go all electric. However, when Americans were running around asking everyone to buy American in the 70’s and 80’s, we really need to realize the trouble we are in due to our addicition to Oil. We can produce as much electricty we need, but not oil with current removal technology.
Hydrogen is a joke- 4 times the electricity is needed to produce equal power of hydrogen. Not to mention the mind blowing cost of converting our fill stations and create hydrogen hwys. Just use electricity via batteries in the first place as that is all the hydrogen is in the first place, a battery for the electric engine.
9) Electric systems via the grid are in place nationwide to create re-charging stations in place of gas stations. It is a no-brainer.
Actually, to really ensure the viability of electric power in the transportation industry the only choice we have is to patronize an all-electric vehicle manufacturer, like Tesla.
With changing market conditions the big 3 automakers will quickly revert to gasoline powered cars if gas prices fall to $1.00 per gallon.
The big 3 cater to consumer desires which gravitate towards the cheapest transportation option available – so electric powered vehicle might be popular until their use lowers the cost of gas to the point where consumers revert back to gasoline.
To guarantee an electric-powered future buy your electric vehicles from an all-electric manufacturer.
John A. said,
John,
OPEC doesn’t control the price of oil, we do — the consumers.
One thing most Americans don’t realize is that we have the power — right in our hands — to drive the price of oil as low as we would like it. All we have to do is drive less, buy more fuel-efficient cars, and reduce our demand for oil.
If every driver in the U.S. reduced their use of fuel by just 10%, the price of oil would go into a freefall.
If America were “all-electric” using nuclear (fission or fusion), wind, geothermal, or tide-generated electricity to drive our motor vehicles, OPEC could do nothing about the resulting drop in oil prices.
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
Gary:
Right again! Well said.
Gary and Noel,
OPEC does control the price. But your right, we are the addict that is willing to pay it. No argument here.
If we stop using oil at our current rate, which I agree we should do. They could/would lower the price which would then make it cost effective to drive a ICE gas powered car.
So we are in agreement that we should move away from the ICE and get control of how we power our cars.
My point was simply that when the price of oil/gas goes down, we can’t be tempted to go back to where we were. Which will be a big temptation considering the price of electric cars in comparison for the next decade or so.
Electric is the way to go, no doubt for all passenger cars and light trucks. I don’t like hybrids or the volt concept due to the use of the ICE not so much for the ICE itself but the complexity. You now have two power systems, one that will have the same basic maintenence expense as a standard gas car.
Think about the valid complaints of an all electric. Expensive battery pack that has to be replaced in 125k miles. Add to that the maintenence of an ICE and you compound the problem.
At least with an all electric you eliminate the maintenence. You drastically cut the cost of the fuel. You have better performance. You drastically cut the level of pollution well to wheel. It is a forward thinking tech that will get better with battery tech. All of the investments made into all electric now mean lower costs in the future.
I agree with both of you in that we need to go electric and leave OPEC like a bad date.
Best of luck to you both.
wrong,the price of oil is controlled by speculators bidding on futures that is why the price goes up and down.OPEC set the bottom price,the speculators set the top price. it has been proven that $10/$20 of the price of a barrel of oil is cause by the speculators
Is GM working on a 2 cylinder bio-diesel engine -
“I think the sane members of this discussion will agree the EV1 was a joke.”
Wow, the ignorance on these blogs is staggering. Do you really think that GM spent 1 billion dollars on a joke (according to their allegations)?
The EV1 series hybrid prototype was exactly what we want in the Volt.
Unfortunately, it is my belief that GM will never deliver. I may have better luck purchasing a PHEV from Toyota.
Mr Lutz,
I hope you are serious. I am sceptical though, as the parallel system has been proven for 50 years in railroads, and we still hear the battery not quite ready line.
I vote with my wallet. The last car I bought was a 04 Prius. My next car will be a plug in hybrid. I hope it is the volt. Good luck!
Better Vue wrote, “Disappointing. Tesla Motors, Pheonix Motorcars and others have vehicles completely weened from the gas-pump. Why can’t Big Auto?”
The answer is simple. Big Auto simply doesn’t want to. And for those that respond by saying that the Tesla car sells for $100,000, I say, remember the initial price of a plasma TV? If Big Auto sold a million cars like the Volt, the price would come down pretty quickly. It’s simple economics.
But the real problem is, Big Auto is stuck with the dilemma of what to do with the internal combustion engine. Electrification of cars is a disruptive technology that is so big, that Big Auto just can’t deal with it. So they play the stall game. And then they whine to Congress that improving gas mileage is too hard…and that it will result in lost jobs.
GM…stop whining. When you produce the Volt (if you ever do) I will be among the first to buy it. And by the way, I don’t plan on buying another car until it is a PHEV. I’m not going to wait forever though. So if a Chinese company or Tesla or another startup beats you to market, then this customer will never be a GM customer again. Think about that Bob.
This oil shortage and global warming scare is being put forth by the county’s very rich and famous. They are not worried about the country security or your ability to get fuel for your car.They want you to drive fuel effecent cars to make sure they have fuel for their private jets so they can fly around the world just to go skiing. These jets will not run on batteries.
I keep hearing GM talk about the battery. Maybe you picked the wrong partner?
http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
Seems like they have what you need. So how long to market?
And if its heat you worry about, IIT has solved that with a graphite sleeve.
john A, 3/17, 2:29 AM:
I totally agree with you that we can’t be tempted to go back to our old ways if and when the price of gas goes down again.
I have tried to say that here as well, but maybe not as clearly as you. “In time of peace, prepare for war” is what I quoted on the thread about GM’s improved sales in recent months.
Alas, we appear to be finishig up exactly such a cycle here right now. A few months ago, gas was flirting with $2.00/gallon and you could almost see the industry relax. Now it is back to $3.00, and where are the super efficient cars? Get ready for another cycle of Toyota ascendancy, unfortunately.
Motorman,
Sorry to put out your flame but have you ever tried solar power. No energy BILL!!!