Thank You, Citizens of Volt Nation

Bravo! If in fact GM is willing to go out on the proverbial limb with technology. Making only what products have worked in the past has been GM's forte too much as of late. And finally you are recognizing that you need to be in the forefront of the technology fight. 50 years ago, a GM only half as old as it is now was not afraid to install fuel injection in a family car, even though it was a long way from perfected. Late to teh compact car party you came up with not one but four distinct engineering platforms for the masses. I sometimes wonder how far ahead of the curve GM of today would be if you had kept up with certain better ideas. Who would have thought during teh excesses of eth late 60s and 70s that aluminum block V8s, or small turbocharged 4's would be all the rage. And I'm sure somewhere a long-retired Pontiac engineer is chuckling when Corvette touts their rear-mounted transaxle as a modern miracle.

Mr Lutz,

Last November at the Los Angeles auto show, you laid down a marker when you said, "Next year, about the time the Easter Bunny brings us our eggs, we will find out who is right, and who is scamming whom." in response to alleged remarks from a Toyota VP about the Volt.

Just checked my calendar, and guess what? The Easter bunny has come and gone.

That means it's time for a progress report.

OK, who is scamming whom?

V/R,

Gary Dikkers

-----------------------------
This is how the NY Times reported the story at the time: California Dreaming, Tinted Green

“Mr. Lutz, who is known for speaking his mind, appeared to be fighting mad at what he characterized as a competitor’s predictions that the Volt was primarily a public relations vehicle that will never be built. “We are headed to a showdown at the O.K. Corral,” he told a small group of reporters after G.M.’s green-theme presentation. “One of our Asian competitors — and I won’t say who — took a bunch of journalists over to the Tokyo Motor Show and gave them a technical briefing in which they said the Volt is a scam. It’s a P.R. stunt. They said our lithium-ion batteries won’t work, and we’ll never bring the car to market.” He continued, “Next year, about the time the Easter Bunny brings us our eggs, we will find out who is right, and who is scamming whom.”

Hey Mr. Lutz loved your interview with GMI, it was very funny, we all can't wait for the toyota crushing machine (Volt) to come to so. cal. please hurry also keep up the GREAT work you are a hero!

thanks

Mr. Lutz

You yourself have said we must do bold things we learned from our mistakes, picture this, rising from the ashes, fire and thunder yes I'm talking Trans-Am! how about it? think about the sales alone forget CAFE people will pay an offset or whatever just think about the super computer generated tv commercial alone, gives me chills.

thank you

"I think the whole company has learned when you step out and do bold things, you win and when you're cautious and let other people do the bold things, you lose."

Bravo! That sounds like the old Marine Corps fighter pilot we all know.

Who dares - wins.

Fortune favors the bold.

That was no doubt a bit of culture shock for the GM bean counters.

V/R

Gary Dikkers

Kudos to GM for developing the Volt and the related technologies, but bigger kudos for taking the risk.

You say you made the mistake of not taking on a significant risk *once*...that may be true for you, but I wish it were true of the company and the GM culture.

For 30 years GM has shied away from risk time and time again, while the American consumer has watched in horror as the reputation of the company went down the tubes. The decline to sub-mediocrity started so long ago and persisted for such a long time that there are now two generations of consumers that won't even consider a GM product. THAT will take time and year after year of great products to change; one really innovative product won't do it.

If GM is to survive, the Volt *can't* be an isolated occurrence. GM has got to figure out a business method for taking risks and making them pay off, and make that GM's competitive advantage. There are signs (thanks in no small part to Mr. Lutz, IMHO) that this is happening.

The Volt is going to be the re-birth of the company as a market and technology leader, as long as the risk-averse culture can do a 180 and determinedly, doggedly make the leading-edge products GM has always had the resources to make. All it takes, as it did years ago and as it does today, is the will to do it.

Bob,

True innovation costs money. Perhaps you should speak with Bo and inform him and his beancounters of your plans to go for the brass ring with the Volt. If he and his cronies have their way, you'll end up with a cheap brass colored hard plastic ring.

"...it cost us our reputation for technology leadership and innovation."

Don't kid yourself Bob, GM hasn't had that reputation for a generation.

The Volt is vaporware, and won't be anything more than that until it arrives in the showroom.

You better hurry though. At the rate GM moves on building new cars, Toyota will have a car that runs on seawater before the Volt comes out.

(I mean seriously, moving faster on the Camaro would have helped. Gas has gone from about $2 to almost $4 and it's still not out. That's not a plus for a car that gets 15mpg city.)

I just hope that when the Volt is finally released it's not going to cost nearly $50,000 as has been reported recently. If GM can't get this thing priced closer to $35k I'm afraid you guys will catch a lot of flack for not having a better Prius competitor.

Everyone knows the NYT is a blue (very liberal) paper. I'm sorry there isn't more objective reporting.

Well said. Thank you.

Yessiree Bob!
Pull out all the plugs and full steam ahead. That's what GM is all about.

Got to speed up the development time on innovative new ideas though. The General has been scooped too many times in the recent past.

The local Honda dealer in Santa Ana has really upped the ante considerably. He has 50 new Honda Civic Hybrids on the lot. Each one is boldly marked:

"51 MPG
$189.00 PER MONTH"

Who can resist that?!!!

Can't wait to see the Volt marketing strategy,

So does an electric vehicle mean GM trucks will no longer have driving lights that fail consistently? A problem that seems to afflict 2000 models forward.

Not good advertising for "Like A Rock"

Mr. Lutz -

You're entitled to your opinion that "global warming is a crock of s**t." However, members of the Volt Nation see things differently. I wish GM success in fielding a vehicle whose affordability, fit and finish and reliability match that of my Toyota Prius.

The Volt will be a homerun. This car will be the most popular car to hit the market in years. I can forsee people lining up at midnight just to be able to get a sneak peak at a real Volt. I intend to be in one of those lines.

Daniel McNulty's comments are nearly spot on - it is what is so very wrong with GM. However, the issue is not so much about being risk averse, it is continuing to have a totally wrong focus. To win customers back and to build a lifelong relationship, GM must be true to the product and willing to spend real money. There is far too much time and resources spent on trying to take out cost and re-engineering to make the product cheaper. Instead, GM should be delivering on the promise of building great cars and trucks that people really want to buy.

Stoped in and read this piece.
Thanks Mr Lutz for delivering an honest assesment. I wish the revelation had come sooner.
My advice is to check out what the high school kids did in Pensylvania or email and I will send a link,
and stick that into a FireBird or something hotter. They got 0 to 60 in 6.0 flat and 50mpg with a hybrid they built themselves.

If you are not going to get beat by everyone on the planet I suggest you also implement the roller skate idea for battery storage under the car where you can have easy additions and removal of those batteries.

Just some thoughts.
To be quite honest I sat in the Prius at the Auto show and for the price and MPG you have a LOT of work to do.
If you are using American engineering I know you can do it.
But.. I never know with GM now that Saturn is created and made else where.

So if I buy a Volt I am sending more jobs overseas?

It was a genuine pleasure to meet you at Volt Nation, Bob! I'm the guy who handed you 2 file folders (one with Volt questions, the other with a proposal for the Vue plug-in) while I shook your hand ....and while I was saying, "I can relate to a guy my age who's been in the automobile business for 45 years because I've been in the space program for 45 years. I can always spot a guy who's got a lot of adrenaline in his veins!"

How about we both go for 60 years!?! (April Fool's was yesterday, and I'm not kidding --you've got way too much to offer the automotive world to retire!)

- Phil Toney (nasaman)

Heh Lew the lights your talking about could it be because perhaps the words made in MEXICO! have anything to do with it?
Also Jamie I saw the same car and I took a double take to see if it was true and it is, its called blandification, no style! go GM!

It was a genuine pleasure to meet you at Volt Nation, Bob! I'm the guy who handed you 2 file folders (one with Volt questions, the other with a proposal for the Vue plug-in) while I shook your hand ....and while I was saying, "I can relate to a guy my age who's been in the automobile business for 45 years because I've been in the space program for 45 years. I can always spot a guy who's got a lot of adrenaline in his veins!"

How about we both go for 60 years!?! (April Fool's was yesterday, and I'm not kidding --you've got way too much to offer the automotive world to retire!)

- Phil Toney (nasaman)

The Volt is an awesome car. I can't wait for it to go into production

thank you, not just to Mr. Lutz, and Lyle, but to all the GM execs that attended. The enthusiasm flowed in both directions, and so did the questions.

I want to thank you Mr. Lutz for your candor, spirit, and dedication to bringing the Volt to the American marketplace in 2010.

I have a 2000 Bonneville which I will be replacing when the Volt comes out. I figure it will last at least until late 2010. If the Volt is not available by then and it looks like it may not be I may have to look at other manufacturers. I do not want to, rest assured of that. But my Pontiac won't last forever either. Good luck! The citizens of the United States are counting on you.

Bob,

Bold words. Where are the bold deeds? Why did GM sell just 450 fullsize SUV hybrids last month? Why did the Aura/Malibu hybrid sell less than a hundred units?

Why aren't these things on the market at as competitive a price as you can managed to stem the market slide?

If you wait, you're really going to have your hands full dealing with Toyota. They are poised to build a half million hybrids per year. Toyota got the jump and is relentlessly driving down costs. Standing on the sidelines without using what you've got is going to get you exactly nowhere.

And I hate to tell you this but I am a satisfied Toyota owner. And I'm not crazy with my money. An improved 2010 Prius for the mid-$20's is going to look far better to me (and to a lot of other people) than a $40K Volt, no matter how good the Volt may be.

Put some product on the street, today, and get some credibility.

Rob Stone,
You are far too quick to lump the members of VoltNation under ANY single category (like treehuggers). We are very diverse and yet stand as one behind the Volt.

For what it's worth, I agree with the sentiment that anthropogenic global warming is a scam. There are nonetheless perfectly valid reasons for doing (and being seen to be doing) alternative-power vehicles.

When the automotive history of the 1990s is written, GM in North America will be remembered for having shipped a sum total of two truly interesting and compelling vehicles in that decade - the C5 'Vette and the EV1.

Alas, in so many respects the EV1 fits the traditional GM (Corvair, Vega, etc.) pattern. Spend massive sums developing an innovative new technology, then kill it just as it's getting good - often handing the technical fruits of your efforts to your competitors.

I hope there's a better future in store for the Volt.

Bob said:

"We made that mistake once. We won’t make it again. I think the whole company has learned when you step out and do bold things, you win and when you're cautious and let other people do the bold things, you lose.

Many great ideas die every day because we value the safety of the tried-and-true over the risk that true innovation requires. "

I beg to differ, Bob. The GM beancounters are ONLY focused on buying cheaper this year vs. last year. The engineers are rewarded by the cost reductions that they implement. The product managers are truly afraid to write change requests to add anything that adds cost, even if it makes good business sense. Exactly where is the proof of GM's whole company strategy of "bold things" and "true innovation"? Your company continues to make the same tried and true mistakes and they only have your executive team to blame.

I'm telling you Bob, GM's problem is that Bo has the entire organization on a cost cutting binge. They have largely eliminated the fat, and are working through the meat and are reaching bone, with no end in sight. Nobody at the working level is rewarded on GM's selling success, only about how much cost has been taken out. This mentality will never lead to true innovation, and there will be no brass ring unless this is changed. Saving money is a good thing within certain limits. When it negatively impacts GM's image and sales potential, you've gone much too far, and it takes years to repair the damage. Most successful businesses strike a balance between cost reductions, product investments, quality improvements, and technology advances. However, there is no balance at GM and "far enough" cost reductions are not in the mindset of the GM beancounters. And your sales continue to drop.

It would be great to see some of the spirit that you are looking to invoke here on your most loyal fans, directed within to your own organization. And you need to start at the top. Until you do, we will continue to get more of the same that hasn't worked in the past, and won't work in the future. GM sales improvements, not cost reductions, should be the measure of success.

"Alas, in so many respects the EV1 fits the traditional GM (Corvair, Vega, etc.) pattern. Spend massive sums developing an innovative new technology, then kill it just as it's getting good."

Vega?

I remember the Vega. You'll never convince me that GM spent "massive sums" developing the Vega, or that they killed it just as it was "getting good."

The Vega was never good.

Aluminum blocks with cast iron heads, carburetor problems, and a severe tendency for early rusting. May both the Vega and the Ford Pinto RIP as examples of Detroit's worst from the 1970s.

Hi Bob,

If the Volt is anything like the new products that GM has introduced in the past 2 years it will be wonderful.

I just leased a 2008 Silverado and it is the best vehicle I have ever had, and I traded an '06 Cadillac for it!

I recently rented a Toyota Corrola, and I have to say it was awful. Noisy engine, poor brakes and very cheap looking. I missed the little things that I am used to in a GM vehicle - like auto headlamps or a keyfob electric trunk release (the Corrola had a cable release on the floor, useless if you are outside the car and want to put something in the trunk). The corrola had no horn chirp when remote locking (I constantly had to check to see if the car was actually locked). The cruise light on the dash was on even if the cruise wasn't set. I would take a Cobalt any day over that POS!

The people that think that Toyotas are so much better than anything else haven't driven a new GM product.

Keep up the good work Bob!!

Mr Lutz said: "As I said in New York, we are going to get this done — we are not going to be beaten to the punch like we were on hybrids."

Mr Lutz,

As exciting as the Volt is, I'm wondering if the price is really now projected to be $48,000 or more as I read today? Bob Lutz Says a Realistic Price for the Chevy Volt is $48,000

I know you must be doing your best to hold the price down, but at $48,000 who is going to buy it?

Al Gore might buy one with his Nobel Prize winnings I suppose; or some of the Hollywood elite will grab them up so they can drive down Rodeo Drive showing how enlightened they are; but the average commuter to whom I thought you were marketing it will largely be left out.

How will it compete with the more affordable hybrids?

You must realize those commuters would be able to buy a Prius for about half that, and with the other $24,000 could buy years of motor fuel -- even at $5 per gallon.

I'm sure you realize this, but in order to have any significant impact on fossil fuel consumption, you will have to figure out how to drive the price much lower.

V/R

Gary Dikkers

First off, congratulations and thank you for being probably the first major car manufacturer to actually meet the target market before you release a vehicle! Actually listening to customers before building a car! Imagine that! That puts you in the company of companies like Boeing that design for the customers, rather than creating a product and then saying to the customers 'Look, you really want one of these!'

Second, fire the ad agency that's "selling" the Volt. The dog licking foot ad has to be one of the worst in history, people actually get ill watching it. Wouldn't it be easier to sell a car: "The car you fill up once a year" than "save water by dog licking you", I think so. If the ad agency has had a past history of selling cars, dump them. You need someone who isn't held back by preconceptions of how to sell something. As you said "Many great ideas die every day because we value the safety of the tried-and-true" I bet another ad agency would have some great ideas, and not stick to the tried and true. (The ads for the EV-1 were notoriously bad as well).

The Volt is a BIG step in a different direction for GM, stay committed. Please make the Volt something I actually want to buy.

Bob,

Please tell me someone misquoted you when you said that a realistic price for the Volt would be $48k.

I'm pretty sure the Volt's going to have a hard enought time competing with the Prius already, given Toyota's reputation for quality and GM's reputation for the lack thereof.

Making Volt have to compete with 2 Priuse (or one Prius and $20-25k in cash) isn't really going to get that car off to a good start.

GM is improving its ability to hit its targets.

Now you just need to stop aiming at your feet.

Rum Doodle - Reynolds Aluminum and GM developed the high-silicon (Reynolds 390) aluminum sleeveless cylinder block for the Vega. Yes, GM then screwed up by using an iron head and a cheap head gasket and a cheap car was probably the wrong place to start with that bit of technology, but the fact is that BMW, Audi, Porsche, Mercedes, and a bunch of others have used that same material widely since the '80s.

As for Volt pricing - you have to sell a product for something more than it costs to build, and $48K is not out of line for something sold in limited numbers to early adopters. I know most EV1 lessees would have paid $48K for theirs. I'll admit to not knowing a lot about the Volt, what frightens me about the show car is the tiny glass area and resulting outward visibility - for me an EV has to be a local-scooter, easy to park and see out of.

The people that think that Toyotas are so much better than anything else haven't driven a new GM product.

You have got to be kidding right? Which GM model currently compares to the Prius? Name it? Which one has near the same MPG and cost.

I looked at the saturn Hybrid at the auto show and the increase in gas milleage for the cost was a joke.
I looked for the VOLT in Chicago it wasnt even on the floor. Gee we are one of the 10 largest cities and we dont even get a peek at the volt?

Whats worse is I sat in the Prius and if I went out today I can buy one. I am trying to wait this out a bit but as gas creeps to $4 bucks a gallon soon I will have to change that plan.
I am going to wait till next year because Toyota will have even a better Prius and GM's response is (sound of crickets)
So Bob that small mistake in waiting for investment in Hybrid.. Err umm.. Who gets fired for those billion dollar loses? Seems like only the line workers pay for the mistakes.

Mr Dikkers,

Surely by now you must realize that this is simply posturing by Mr Lutz. He is the master at using these opportunities to whip up a public frenzy in an attempt to gain support in Washington to better serve the shareholders of GM.

Remember how the rear wheel drive cars were going to be cancelled because of CAFE? Huge public outcry, right? Then along comes the 400HP RWD Pontiac G8, and then the SportUte, etc. My guess is that unanticipated strong sales of the FWD Impala was the real reason that the RWD Impala change was cancelled, it had nothing to do with CAFE. There was no need to invest in changing it to RWD, they will simply milk the current car for all it is worth. But Bob masterfully used the opportunity to get people talking about GM in forums across the internet.

GM loses money every day on small cars in North America, and they always have - it's a cost of doing business to balance their average fuel economy numbers. As much as they would LIKE to charge $48K for the Volt, the article goes on to predict a more reasonable $35K pricepoint.

Gary, you really need to give these guys more credit. Although it might make you feel good airing your opinions, you're really not telling them anything that they don't already know. GM makes it their business to continue to do what they have always done. Build the cheapest car that they can get away with, and sell it for the most money that they think they can get. Then pile on the incentives if it's priced too high to try to move the cheap junk they have built. Then watch out as they start stripping away content on every subsequent model year, and try to sell for the same price, or higher. And wonder why sales continue to decline and complain that the media doesn't give them a fair shake.

This is GM, same 'ol same 'ol, year after year, tried and true. And with the beancounters firmly in charge, it's not about to change anytime soon.

For all the talk of electric vehicles and supposed 80-100MPG, no one seems to mention that while people will save on their gasoline bils, their home electric bills will go through the roof.

Just curious if the recently passed CAFE standards count only the gasoline fuel in the MPG equation. If they do, that is a massive loophole and in effect a huge subsidy for plug in electric vehicles. But how much fuel is really being saved, when you figure that electricity is produced from burning fuel?

First GM builds the best electric vehicle ever: EV1. It highlights the limits of battery technology with its limited range. It loses a billion dollars and ends EV1 leases.

GM sits on hybrid technology to avoid getting burned again. But automakers that don't sell hybrids look like earth haters. So GM develops the best hybrid system ever and puts it in the money-making Tahoe to reduce the losses. But it is too late to affect public opinion.

Now GM plans on being first to lose money on extended-range lithium battery EVs.

You sure learned your lesson.

waiting for the right time to create more fuel-efficient and eco-friendly cars? GM has had the technology for over a century to make these cars. Sounds more like greed and resistance to change to me. I would rather support a honest company who doesn't value money over their consumers and planet.
Thanks

After reviewing the evidence, I think I'll wait for the Volvo ReCharge.

The cost of electricity is lower on a per mile basis than gasoline currently is. My vehicle costs me about $0.13 per mile. An electric vehicle should only cost about $0.03-$0.05 depending on your electricity costs. I can't recall the specs. on the Volt, but if you charged it all night (8 hours) drawing 1500W, it would only be about $0.84 per day in electricity. So, the Volt would cost me about $30/month to drive (EV only, 40 miles/day), whereas my current vehicle would cost $185 (40 miles/day). I've done the math and I want a Volt!

Ted Williamson ~ "GM loses money every day on small cars in North America, and they always have - it's a cost of doing business to balance their average fuel economy numbers. As much as they would LIKE to charge $48K for the Volt, the article goes on to predict a more reasonable $35K price point."

Mr Williamson,

You are correct, GM will probably sell the car for less than they'd like, if for nothing else than to establish their "enviro-cred" and milk that for all its worth.

They may also be hoping that Uncle Sam will come through with some enviro tax credits or rebates for people who buy Volts.

But if they plan to sell it in the free market for a cost of $48,000, it makes one wonder how much of real impact the Volt will have.

I also continue to wonder what will happen to the price of lithium as several auto companies get closer to their plans to sell plug-in electrics with Li-ion batteries. Lithium is a commodity, and any significant demand for lithium can't help but cause a price spike in the Li-ion batteries those car makers will need.

If that price spike causes the cost of the Volt to continue escalating -- even beyond $48k -- the Volt won't have much of an impact.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Bill,
You say that GM has had the technology for "over a century". Last time I checked, GM was only 99 years old...

Gary,
Is anything GM does good in your mind? It seems like everything they do you think is a dumb idea or think there is some underlying reason they do it. I mean, the ZR1, that bad for the environment, it's stupid for GM to build it, even though it probably has less of an impact than Toyota selling one Tundra. Now you say that Volt is only to establish GM's green cred. Again, what do you think Toyota did? They've been riding the illusion of green cred for several years now while they spew out ever larger trucks and SUV's, but everyone seems to turn a blind eye to that.

You imply that using Lithium isn't a good idea because the cost will go up if large amounts are used for transportation. We use too much oil, the cost goes up, we use too much lithium, the cost goes up. Pretty much any commodity that is used in cars, gets used a lot. When you sell 16 million cars each year in the US alone, a lot of material is used. If you don't like using lithium, what do you suggest we use? I mean seriuosly, is there anything we can do beyond never selling another car that you agree with?

It makes me sick reading these blogs because everyone just comes in to bash GM saying nothing they have ever done, or ever will do is good, and that they deserve everything that's coming to them. I also love how obviously everyone else in the world knows how to fix every problem on the planent with the exception of the people who work at GM. I bet half of you are lawyers, accountants, cashiers, but you all know more than every person at GM. If you really want to do something about the evironment, then go get a job where you can actually make a different instead of just complaining about it.

"I want me car to get 100mpg, be able to tow 20,000lbs, save my life if I get a direct hit with an atomic bomb, and I want it all for less than $1000."

Bob

Just some random thoughts

I wish GM and the other two American carmakers well but I have a couple of gripes and suggestions. I really hate daytime running lights. They annoy me so much that they would prevent me from buying a car that had them. Furthermore I have found out that they slightly reduce gas mileage. Not much but when you multiply the national fleet over a year it probably adds up. I understand that GM disconnects daytime lights when a car is tested for its fuel economy. I am mad that GM tried to force through regulations that would have made these odious devices mandatory on all cars.
OK now for the positive suggestions. Its a shame GM didnt design the upcoming Impala to look simalir to the upcoming Camaro. I think if the rear qwheel Impala had Camaro styling it would have made a bigger splash than the Chrysler 300. In the 1990s I used to wish for Ford to build a Thunderbird that looked like a big Mustang.
Its the same principal here.
An Impala that would look like a stretched Camaro. It would have fed off the Camaros glamour and sexiness.
I very much want to see the traditional rear wheel Amnerican car survive and am concerned about upcoming CAFE regulations. I dont want a front drive econo car. My personal solution is a V_8 hyprid. If GM is doing this on SUVs I hope they do this on bigger cars. I want a rwd
car that is mid-sized or larger peferably with a v-8.
If the car is an elctric part of the time I can live with it as long as I have a traditional American car.

Need to support the team that is working on the Volt. It requires courage to take risks ..remember when GM went ahead & put money in China, people thought GM was crazy. Similarly , the Onstar Story .this is a successful business primarily people had the conviction to stand behind while we lost money initially .. I hope the facility where the volt is likely to be built is firstclass to ensure that the quality is first rate

Well said Tim.
I wish some of these bloggers would let us know what they do for a living. Obviously they missed their oppurtunity in life by not getting a job at GM so they could fix all the problems they perceive GM has today.
I've been a product engineer at GM for 20 years. Knowing what I know (because the media can't feed me the koolaid) where GM is headed with it's technology today and in the future there is no other company I would rather be working at presently. This is an exciting time for GM, it's employees, and coustomers. Can you imagine the flack the Wright brothers would have received if there had been blogging back in those days. If it was up to some people we would still be riding horse and buggies.

I AM GM

Steven

Tim said: "It makes me sick reading these blogs because everyone just comes in to bash GM saying nothing they have ever done, or ever will do is good..."

Tim,

Please explain exactly how suggesting the price of lithium may spike and that in turn may cause an increase in the price of the Volt is "GM bashing."

What's your prediction on the future commodity price of lithium when GM and a slew of other car makers start making plug-in electrics -- each needing 400 lbs or so of Li-ion batteries?

Do you think that large of an increase in demand for lithium to make Li-ion batteries will have no effect on the commodity price of lithium? And if the price of lithium spikes, do you think that will have no effect on the price of the Volt?

Mr Lutz already says the free market price of the Volt (lacking any Federal tax rebates or tax credits) will be in the range of $48k. What is your prediction for the price of the Volt as the demand for lithium increases?

If GM has to sell the Volt for $48k or more to make a profit, do you think it can still gain a significant toehold in the auto market and have an impact on how we burn fossil-based motor fuels?

Tell me again why you think it is "GM bashing" to point that out?

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

--------------------
I'm sure GM's research analysts and economists have already looked into the lithium availability issue and that GM already has a business plan for how that will likely affect the Volt. It's just surprising that no one is talking about it. If I were on GM's board of directors, I'd certainly want to know GM's plans for a likely surge in the commodity price of lithium as more and more car makers make plans to rely on it. I've said this before, but if I were GM and serious about the potential of the Volt, I would be quietly buying lithium extraction companies and processors.

Steven said:"I wish some of these bloggers would let us know what they do for a living."

Sure Steven. I was a career officer and fighter pilot in the US Air Force. Among other things, I flew several hundred combat missions in Vietnam. I am retired from the Air Force, but continue working in aviation.

My formal education is as a civil engineer with bachelor's and master's degrees.

Steven said: "Can you imagine the flack the Wright Brothers would have received if there had been blogging back in those days. If it was up to some people we would still be riding horse and buggies."

I can't believe GM would continue this blog if they didn't find some value in the feedback we provide. In effect this blog is huge electronic "focus group" which should be of tremendous value to GM's marketing people. I also believe that critical comments are of more value than fawning, sycophantic comments.

You can't be serious when you compare what GM is doing to the Wright Brothers. GM is a business working for the benefit of its stockholders. The objective is profit, not innovation or social change. The Wright Brothers had a dream, plus the ingenuity and tenacity to make it happen.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

You can't be serious when you compare what GM is doing to the Wright Brothers. GM is a business working for the benefit of its stockholders. The objective is profit, not innovation or social change. The Wright Brothers had a dream, plus the ingenuity and tenacity to make it happen.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

Isn't this what GM is trying to do with the Volt, Gary? Instead of critizing before knowing all the details, maybe take a step back and applaud them for actually making a decent attempt at doing something new & different than everyone else. Yes this is pioneering, and aof course there will be bugs to work out... but now accusing them of not seeing the rise of Lithium? What should they do then, abandon the project?

Gary, If you were a student of American history, you would know that the profit motive was very high on the Wright Brothers list of motives. The analogy is quite appropriate.

Prediction: you won't be seeing a Volt at the end of 2010. (Does anyone else remember we were supposed to it as a 2009 model to be introduced in September 2008?) I am one of those people who firmly believe this is vaporware. We won't see it any time soon. And if we do, it won't sell well around here in NYC. Why? Well, where are we supposed to plug it in (some of us live in apartment buildings you know, and we can't just plug it in on the street to charge for 8 hours; ain't gonna happen). I find this anti-urban concept a bit, well, offensive.

I'm glad to hear Mr. Lutz finally admit GM made huge mistakes in not bringing out a hybrid when it could have. It just cements my view the company is in serious trouble now. It had the worst quarterly loss in history. It has two good cars (we're told), the Malibu and the CTS. WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE LINEUP. If one of those two cars is not suitable, then we should just forget about every other GM car, right? This kind of logic (look at how well we did these 2 cars, but don't look at anything else we are STILL doing) is incredible (not in the good sense, either).

The beancounter mentality still prevails. The quality in engineering mentality? Well, it's still stuck in the "planned obsolesence" phase GM perfected in the 1950s when we were asked to swallow the Kool-Aid that "What's good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A." (That's what has been attributed to a GM CEO, but that's not quite accurate.)

I too am stuck with a specific mentality. GM has to prove to me it can be trusted. For many years, as its sales were slipping, GM said, "Trust us to build good cars." I did and got burnt. So why should I trust GM now? Because Bob Lutz says the cars are better? Really? Is he down there on the assembly lines where union workers show up hung over on Mondays and ready to party on Fridays? (The UAW is a whole other issue--and one of the main causes of GM's downfall, but that is a whole different story.)

So I'm not making plans to buy a Volt. After all, one doesn't need to put a down payment on a castle in the clouds...

McLovin said: "What should they do then, abandon the project?"

McLovin,

Of course not.

And I don't believe I've ever been critical of the attempt to make a plug-in hybrid such as the Volt. It's fairly obvious the trajectory of personal vehicle transportation must be away from fossil-fueled cars as gasoline and diesel fuel become more and more dear.

The day is not far away when the majority of cars for short-range use will be electric -- hopefully using electricity supplied by wind turbines and clean nuclear fusion reactors.

What I was doing was pointing out that as more and more car makers plan to use Li-ion batteries in their own plug-in hybrids, the commodity price of lithium and the price of Li-ion batteries will spike upwards, and that the Volt is going to be a lot more expensive than Mr Lutz first thought -- and more expensive than most average people will be able to afford. (No matter how sweet Volt technology might be, it won't mean much if it's so expensive few can afford it.)

Mr Lutz's first guess a year ago of how much the Volt would cost was $30k. His latest guess is $48k. Who knows what it will be when they actually begin selling them.

If the Volt ends up selling for $48k -- or even more -- the primary buyers will be celebrities and the rich elite, and GM won't sell enough of them to make a significant impact on their bottom line, or a significant impact on our use of fossil fuels.

My biggest criticism of the Volt itself has been the 2+2 roadster configuration. I would much prefer seeing a hatchback, small van, or even a compact pickup truck version. I'd like to see a configuration that is actually useful for something other than just commuting. Something good for running Saturday morning errands to Home Depot or taking the kids to soccer or Little League, or something a small business could use.

I've even suggested that the battery storage capacity of the car would make it good in emergencies such as blizzards or hurricanes when the power grid goes out. It would be nice to be able to run a heavy duty extension cord into the garage and plug it into the Volt's battery to power a few lights and the refrigerator until the grid power is back.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

Dan Bokros said: "...the profit motive was very high on the Wright Brothers list of motives."

Mr Bokros,

The Wrights were certainly aware of the potential for profit, but I've read enough about the Wrights to know their primary motive was the challenge of solving an engineering problem, making a breakthrough, and most importantly -- flying.

Their main motive was to fly -- any profit that might come along with that was serendipity.

In fact, once the Wrights had solved the secret of the three-axis flight control system that made powered flight possible, it still took a number of years until they and others figured out the best business model with which to profit from it.

Dan Bokros said: "The analogy is quite appropriate."

I can't concur. GM is a company with the primary mission of making a profit for its stockholders. With a few exceptions such as Mr Lutz, GM doesn't make cars because of their love of driving. They make cars hoping that people will want to buy them for more than it cost GM to make them.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

"I want me car to get 100mpg, be able to tow 20,000lbs, save my life if I get a direct hit with an atomic bomb, and I want it all for less than $1000."

Actually,I'd probably be willing to pay as much as $20,000 for that. Make mine beige, please.

Gary Dikkers said: "I can't believe GM would continue this blog if they didn't find some value in the feedback we provide. In effect this blog is huge electronic "focus group" which should be of tremendous value to GM's marketing people. I also believe that critical comments are of more value than fawning, sycophantic comments."

That would be true. But on the other side of the token, it is nice to hear when you do something right, instead of silence, as I don't doubt you would propose. Remarks do not ALWAYS need to be negative. That's where the so-called "fawning, and sycophantic" comments come in.

(By the way, don't you think describing comments by those who happen to be happy with something that GM is doing is rude and uncalled for? I do.)

But certain people who constantly seem to make the same negative remarks over and over again...can become oppressive, and old. Especially if these certain people are the SAME people over and over again. That's where constructive criticism turns into 6-year-old whining and complaining that undoubtedly gets tuned out by those looking for real feedback.

Oh, and in regards to your first entry on this blog topic...I don't know if someone covered this already...but I have to say, that for someone so up-to-date and focused on finding something to criticize GM for, you completely overlooked Mr. Lutz saying that Easter would be coming a little to early this year. In other words, there were unforeseen complications preventing the showing of the car by Easter; look for a July target date instead. This is one article from the New York Times:

Lutz Leaves the Bunny Ears at Home

No scam Gary, just some good 'ole fashion bad luck. You can't honestly blame anybody for encountering an issue on this project. Unless you expected it to run smoothly all the way to production.

Gary wrote: "I am retired from the Air Force, but continue working in aviation"

According to the Internet you're very involved in aviation Gary. I'm not, but do know enough there are thousands of commercial and private props and jets that fill the sky everyday. We know the multiple innovative technological ways GM is spending billions to solve the high price in gas and co2 emissions. Please tell me what aviation is doing to be green. I would think aircraft would do more warm to the earth’s atmosphere and more directly related to global warming. Fill in the blank.... for every 1 commercial jet airliner (ex: 747) it takes how many 2008 Malibu to equal the same amount of carbon emissions.
My airplane ticket to fly is going up in price. Can we have our Government force the airlines to meet stricter regulations such as they did to the automotive companies?
Gary, maybe you can help the airlines fix their problems. We've all been a victim of the airlines in one way or another.

Best Regards

Steven

Joe said: "No scam Gary, just some good 'ole fashion bad luck. You can't honestly blame anybody for encountering an issue on this project. Unless you expected it to run smoothly all the way to production."

Joe,

You should note that Mr Lutz is the one who first used the word scam.

I certainly realize that many things can go wrong to delay a complicated project that's on the cutting edge of technology. There's no stigma to running into unknowns that cause a delay. After all, look what's happened to Boeing and the introduction of the carbon-fiber B-787 Dreamliner.

I normally wouldn't have said anything, except Mr Lutz made such a bold (almost arrogant) statement last November:

"One of our Asian competitors — and I won’t say who — took a bunch of journalists over to the Tokyo Motor Show and gave them a technical briefing in which they said the Volt is a scam. It’s a P.R. stunt. They said our lithium-ion batteries won’t work, and we’ll never bring the car to market.” He continued, “Next year, about the time the Easter Bunny brings us our eggs, we will find out who is right, and who is scamming whom.”

After such a bold statement don't you think it would be appropriate for Mr Lutz to fill us in -- after all it's his blog -- now that Easter has come and gone? (I fully realize that when Mr Lutz said this last November, he may not have realized that Easter this year would be the earliest since 1913.)

Joe said: "But certain people who constantly seem to make the same negative remarks over and over again...can become oppressive, and old."

You are correct, but you do have to differentiate between being negative solely to be negative, and being negative while trying to make a difference.

Out!

Steven said: "Please tell me what aviation is doing to be green."

Good question Steven.

The aviation industry consumes about 6% of the world's annual oil output, and contributes about 2% of the world's carbon emissions. Trying to reduce those numbers is of tremendous interest to the aviation industry since about a third of all the money an airline spends is on fuel.

Here's an article from just a few days ago in the NY Times showing some of the progress they are making: A cleaner jet age

"Jet fuel is now the largest expense for most airlines, and for American carriers each penny increase in price per gallon costs nearly $200 million a year. The industry is also becoming increasingly nervous about what happens when that fuel is burned. Aviation is responsible for about 2 percent of global emissions of greenhouse gases, and that share will rise as air travel continues to grow. So the industry is scrambling to build greener airplanes — to save weight and improve."

In particular, the airlines can't wait to get their hands on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner which will offer huge fuel savings.

The Air Force is also trying to find an alternative to jet fuel made from oil, and is in the midst of a crash program to develop jet fuel made from coal using the Fisher-Tropsch process. Here are some details from an article in the Seattle Times: Air Force leads push to liquefied coal fuel

Best,

Gary Dikkers

"Actually,I'd probably be willing to pay as much as $20,000 for that. Make mine beige, please."

That's the problem, it can't and won't happen, but then you put the blame solely on GM and complain about it.

Well said Joe. Consistant negative remarks from the same people about the same topics does get old, and is no longer constructive criticism. Plus, there are numerous comments on these blogs that are just downright stupid. For instance:

The post by Noel Park on Young Lords at NY Auto Show:
"Spare me"
That does a lot of good to the people at GM.

And then Gery there is yourthoughtful response to that comment:
"I second that Noel"
Again, very constructive

Then Tom Jenkins wrote this in a previous blog entry:
"So what GM is really admitting is that until now, Saturn's were really crappy and folks that bought them in the past came back with low expectations. Don't worry you loyal Saturnites - yes there might be a classier skin inside and out. But look closer and you'll see that it's still a really crappy GM car - just like you expect"

How is that constructive?

Gary,
I do understand your point of Lithium price going up, but just saying that vs. possibly suggesting a different option doesn't do anything for anybody. And saying that the $48k price will keep it's market share small, is probably right, but if people are as fiercly defendants of the environment as they say they are, they will buy one (rather than say a Prius, and spend the other $20,000 on gas- which is an environmental no-no). I think most people talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They want to save the environment, but not if it costs them money. And GM has never tried to hide the fact that getting more MPG will cost more money. They have said that the new 35MPG rules will add something like $4,000-$6,000 to each vehicle. And then people complain when they are too expensive.

Now, I'm not saying that everything GM does is perfect, but it seems that to most people on here, everything GM does is bad.

And I still stick by my first comment, about how it amazes me how fixing all the problems with GM and the evironment come only come easy to the 6.5 billion people on the earth that don't work for GM.

Also, I think the reason GM made the Volt a 2+2 and look like a sports car is because sports cars have good aerodynamics, which is obviously good for fuel economy. The purpose of the Volt is for maximum fuel economy.
Secondly, marketing it as a commuter car will save more gas and money because people go to work 5 days a week, whereas only run to the hardware store say once a week. If you need to haul some lumber home, GM will be more than happy to sell you a Silverado or better yet, a 2-mode Tahoe.

"I think most people talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They want to save the environment, but not if it costs them money." - Tim

I think you're right. The problem is, it looks like GM doesn't know this. Or maybe GM disagrees.

It appears the Volt will sell for a LOT of money and that takes it out of the market for those who want to save the planet but only for free.

The genius of the Prius is that it's a regular, if odd-looking, car, with practical room and performance for not much of a premium over anything and possibly less than some cars with similar interior room and luggage space.

On the road, there's little to no compromise. For $40K (or more), the Volt REALLY has to deliver to sell. Yet, its full range is unimpressive and it's looking like it won't be all that big. It 0-60s faster than the Prius but there's no indication that anyone who would buy a save-the-planet vehicle either cares about 0-60 or finds the Prius to be slow (in fact, the Prius is quicker than my first-generation Chevy Cavalier).

If you take a deep breath, step back and look the situation over in perspective, GM, which lost quite a lot of money in the last few years, is betting the farm on a technology innovation that's equivalent to a moonshot with a very unlikely payoff.

What could they do with their money in the short term to sell product, gain market share and make money?

1) Invest in what they have. Improve the fuel economy and reliability of their small cars. Innovate to drive down production costs so they can sell them at a profit. This is the real story of Toyota's success.

2) Invest in what they have. The mild hybrids reap a certain amount of scorn because they are a timid imitation of what people think of as a hybrid system. So what? They work. Drive down the per-unit cost and get them into most of the 4-cylinder cars for cheap or included in the base unit at or near current price. Getting the A/C to continue to run at stoplights would be a real plus, by the way.

3) Invest in what they have. Add an extra gear to the 4-speed autos still out there and improve performance and fuel economy in a big chunk of the product line.

4) Invest in what they have. Take every model in the line a back to the wind tunnel and see what can be done, at reasonable cost, to improve the aerodynamics of each.

5) Invest in what they have. Examine every part in every vehicle in the lineup and "add lightness." This is one of the things holding GM vehicle fuel economy back.

Once that's done, GM pays lobbyists all the time. Some smart investment there might pay off, too.

Work to get the EPA rules changed to reflect he real benefit of the BAS system (there IS a real benefit - in my town, a BAS might save a lot of fuel because we have an absolute passel of long redlights). This would also show off the benefit of the Prius but it would make an Aura or Malibu hybrid look better against the base Camry.

If GM successfully tweaks the aero of all their vehicles this might show up as improvement in high-speed performance. Lobby for EPA rules that showcase this (add "interstate travel" at60 and 70mph to "city cycle" and "highway cycle" - the latter still includes stops).

I'm not suggesting the EPA figures be "cooked," to favor GM but changed to more accurately reflect real world driving and provide better infromation to customers.

If GM had embarked on ambitious programs to improve the fuel economy across the line back in 2007 and put Volt-like resources into those programs, where would they be today? Certainly, the benefits would appear long before the Volt can hit the street.

I am convinced that the VOLT can put GM in a position to be seen as a real automotive leader once again. People how have not noticed all the other great things GM has done with notice this.

Tim said: "The post by Noel Park on Young Lords at NY Auto Show: "Spare me" That does a lot of good to the people at GM. And then Gary there is your thoughtful response to that comment: "I second that Noel" Again, very constructive."

Tim,

On the contrary, those comments should be rather useful to GM's marketeers. One of the biggest questions marketing always asks is, "How are people receiving our message?"

The comments Noel and I gave them are direct feedback that says the Young Lords promotion strikes a negative chord -- at least with us.

When you look at all the comments under the Young Lords thread, some are positive and some are negative. From those comments, it looks as though GM risks reaching their target audience at the risk of alienating others.

That should be useful knowledge to the GM marketeers in tweaking their campaign and spending their ad money wisely to reach their target audience.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

The documentary Who Killed The Electric Car doesn't inspire any confidence in GM. I would buy an EV in a heart beat. My mercedes lease is coming up and it is no longer a luxury to pollute. Nothing's perfect. We need leaders who are willing to do something and not just talk and sabotage. I wish I had more options for driving green...bonus points if America would lead the way.

When the Volt comes out, I certainly hope it creates jobs in America!

"The documentary Who Killed The Electric Car doesn't inspire any confidence in GM."

I see a lot of people reference this film, and I must say that is not a good example of objective reporting. Many of their "facts" were incorrect. I think GM screwed up by not being more up-front with people about the potential cost of buying the vehicle vs. leasing it. I don't believe it was ever GM's intention to offer these vehicles "for sale" to the general public. The vehicles were a response to laws being passed in CA at the time.

On another subject...fuel prices began their upward climb back in 2003. Many experts have predicted the "begining of the end" of low gasoline prices for years, and 2003 was just about on schedule. "Someone" should have identified this as the beginning of a trend and made a course correction. I saw this coming years ago, and I was barely out of college. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict these things. Just look at Europe. They're about 10 years ahead of us. Don't believe me...wait and see.

Tim said: "...but just saying that vs. possibly suggesting a different option doesn't do anything for anybody."