Update on the Chevy Volt
By Jon Lauckner
Vice President Global Program Management
I’ve been reading some of the comments in the news and the blogosphere today about the Chevy Volt program and felt compelled to squash some of the rumors. The development of the Volt remains on-schedule despite the ongoing talks in Washington, D.C. It is one of the highest, if not the highest, priority programs in the company and that hasn’t changed, nor has the commitment of resources to fund it. In fact, with the successful completion of each development activity, we have more confidence than ever the Volt will start production as planned in late 2010.
As an example, shown below is a picture of Rick Wagoner with one of our latest Volt development vehicles in Washington, D.C. These Generation II prototypes have a production-intent propulsion system and battery pack in a Chevrolet Cruze body. In fact, we finished building the last of the 33 vehicles in this hardware stage last week. And, we’re already finalizing the engineering for our final prototypes, which will begin testing in July 2009. So those of us involved in the development of the Volt are focused well beyond the current discussions in Washington, D.C.
It is true that, due to our current liquidity situation among other things, we have temporarily suspended some construction activities at the new engine plant in Flint. This has no impact on our production timing for the Volt or the Chevy Cruze. Moreover, our global manufacturing process is flexible enough to construct this plant within a year, and the planning activities that require less cash upfront are continuing in Flint.
I realize some of you will remain skeptical of the Volt program and its timing, that’s just human nature; but I ask you to reserve judgment until 2010. Until then, know that work on the Volt remains on schedule.
39 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.)
Jon Lauckner,
It is great to hear an update on the Volt program. Hearing directly from project managers and technical people is a real treat in my opinion. It also goes a long way to quiet rumors and boost confidence.
I would be interested to know a bit more about the impressions Rick and Bob had on their trip to DC. Additionally it would go a long way in my opinion to tell the readers of this blog about any improvements or changes that were realized after their trip. Things like ” The arm rest height wasn’t right so we requested it to be changed”… The turn signal sound was to loud or too annoying etc… As a reader I find it reassuring to hear that past issues are being addressed through GM’s testing. And, this being a more high profile case for the Rick and Bob’s thoughts on driving the Volt would be extremely good press.
Additionally a few of us on here have wondered why GM chose to use steel wheels on what is essentially the first public running of the prototype.
Here are a few questions from a technical person:
What efforts has GM put into making sure the volt is viable in the every day house hold? Translated: Has GM been in discussions with the government about beefing up the power grid to support the electrical demands of mass production of your car?
Or have efforts been banking on the onboard engine generator to recharge the battery rather then pawn the electrical load to the grid?
Also is GM considering battery upgrades for early model Volts sold as battery technology improves? In other words will owners of Volts be able to increase their range with new battery technology or will they be forced to buy a new Volt as the technology develops?
Once again thank you for writing the update.
As GM’s #1 fan, still am and always will be I want you to know that GM’s management has my 100% support in this time of change and opportunity.
I support whatever decisions you make because I always knew that this time would come and years ago when I started blogging GM on this site I always tried my hardest to tell GM to do everything it possibly could to strengthen its brands, diversify its offerings, embrace technology despite up front cost and most of all be the undisputed design leader.
In the end if all of those goals were not achieved at least I know the people with the most experience and best qualifications facing these challenges in the history of the industry, Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz just to name two are guiding the ship of GM.
As a blogger I think I have done everything I could to encourage design, brand strength, and “a vehicle for every purse and purpose” and re-establishing GM’s design leadership in which Buick was hsitorically always at the forefront with people like Harley Earl and the Y job concept.
All those communications were written and communicated to warn and prepare GM for a time such as this, a trying time but not one at all surprising or unforseen. If we strengthened Hummer then it’s sale price may be our salvation, if we improved Saturn’s brand with its greatest product in history then its sale may be our salvation. If we put in showrooms designs like a four door Solstice or created a Buick sedan in the spirit of the Efigy perhaps we would no longer be taking heat on lackluster design from congress and maybe that would have been our salvation.
Yet even the fact that GM’s customers are the most satisfied with all its brands beating Honda and Toyota, and even Hummer coming in at # 2, those things were not enough to change and shape the debate to swing in GM’s favor.
But the time for debate is over, design for the first time will take a back seat at GM, until it is decided what seats GM has left.
So if the debate is not about design or brands or product but other, deeper things, then I would defer all opinion and suggestion to Wagoner and Lutz and say, on all these decisions you have my 100% support and I stand behind you.
On a lighter note, did you see that oil price? GM’s efforts at energy savings just like with ethanol are once again overly successful to the point that the oversuccess creates its own challenges.
Good that you’re continuing development of the Volt.
Even better that we have your attention. I hope this means you understand you have to get this right the first time, because there probably won’t be a second chance.
The Volt is what the next Cobalt should have looked like, not the Korean designed mess that you chose.
I refuse to call a car ‘Cruze’. The worst name for a car in decades. GM will lose thousands of sales just with that name alone.
A company dumb enough to change the name of their compact 3 times and end up with ‘Cruze’ doesn’t deserve a bailout. You need a new CEO and a new marketing dept.
I’m pleased to read the two key Chevy projects are still on schedule. The Cruze and Volt will be instrumental to resurrecting Chevrolet’s image in the eyes of American consumers. The Malibu has done a lot to change old prejudices, but bad timing has dented its effect. The Cruze, if as good as promised, could be my next purchase.
Nothing will stop the Volt project from moving forward. Engines can be imported from overseas.
Too bad GM didn’t roll out E-flex several years ago, when gasoline prices started getting out of hand.
Interesting
A Plug-In Hybrid Goes on Sale, in China
“It has a range of about 60 miles on a full battery charge. Its lithium-ion batteries can be fully recharged in as little as seven hours, said BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams. And the batteries can be 50 percent recharged at a special station in 10 minutes. For those of you keeping score, BYD Auto has beaten General Motors and Toyota in bringing a plug-in hybrid to market.“
[...] GM’s Vice President Global Program Management reiterated that yesterday on GM’s FastLaneBlog. “The development of the Volt remains on-schedule despite the ongoing talks in Washington, [...]
SteveG is as pleasant as always…
You should dump the Hummers and big cars…Keep your pick up trucks (useful and you make the best) and smaller stuff to bridge the gap and push the Volt forward in its release by spending more R&D cash and putting more resources into it. Dumping the older models and bigger stuff would free up resources for the future. You may think gas prices will change the dynamics…but in the days after 9/11 more and more Americans want to drop gasa and get off foreign oil. The recent prices drop is nice…but seriously do you think we are all going to buy Hummers based on todays prices?
9/11 was a game changer fellas…get with it.
Lets kick some tail
[...] at the GM Fastlane Blog, Jon Laukner, VP of Global Program management has piped up with another Volt update. In spite of [...]
I don’t see a lot of practical value in keeping on track the development of a car you say will lose money.
I’m really looking forward to this car. One thing that you folks might consider is electric heat, and electric A/C. That’s one of the pitfalls of other hybrids and hybrid type vehicles. You can’t warm up the interior when it’s cold because the heater is tied to the engine being warm, and the engine won’t run if the batteries are charged. Likewise, running the A/C in summer to cool the interior prior to getting in doesn’t work either. This may also provide the opportunity for an actual fully sealed A/C system as the compressor wouldn’t be attached to the engine. No more slow leaks!
Charlie H. is absolutely right – with the Volt being the number one priority in GM’s portfolio of future models – the car will be a money loser for several years until GM can produce sufficient numbers to offset the costs of development.
It’s common knowledge that only 10,000 will be produced in the first year (which will be calendar year 2011) and therefore GM will not reach sufficient production until probably 2015 (only 36 short months after the introduction) – AND THAT IS 6 YEARS FROM NOW!!!
How is GM going to make it that far into the future as it needs 75 MILLION PER DAY (YES PER DAY!) just to stay in business now.
GM needs to make several models have CNG fueling capacity and that would make them true Flex-Fuel vehicles – not just a shallow gimmick that exists now for CAFE requirements.
Make it an option so it will be available when people special order the car as the CNG capacity is not difficult to adapt to any engine.
It is not always about price of the fuel so don’t rely on the bean counters for your statistical analysis to tell us the market numbers aren’t there – many people in the US don’t want to export their fuel Dollars to countries that don’t like us – and the NGV are the cleanest burning vehicles with current engine technology – so it would satisfy two huge groups of customers that aren’t being catered to now – potentially millions of people!
On that note – GM needs to have a patriotic ad campaign to get people to support them by buying a US-built vehicle – what happened to the ‘Heartbeat of America’ slogan – you need to resurrect that now to pull people by their emotions and patriotism.
Think about – buying a car is based on several factors – with emotion being a strong factor – use this crisis to your advantage!!!
The new Fiat 500 – which by the way is Europe’s Car of the Year – was designed on an existing chassis (Panda) – offers three engine choices (with a diesel option that gets 53 MPG) and three transmissions choices. The car sells for nearly $20,000 and Fiat cannot keep up with production.
It is built in Poland with ISO manufacturing standards and low-cost labor so the car is very profitable for Fiat – so my question is – why cannot GM design a car like this – one that is fun to drive, is cute as a button and gets exceptional gas mileage.
Actually, you have such a car – it’s called the Opel Agila – so why not badge engineer it as a Chevrolet CItyCar or a Pontiac G1 – or bring the entire Opel brand over to the States again.
It would cost GM peanuts to bring the Opel Agila to the Detroit and LA Car Shows to gauge public reaction.
And GM has a factory in Poland as well that is recognized as one of the most modern in the world – you ask what it builds there – Opels of course!
In any case, here is a link to the Fiat’s road test as it was humorously written by Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-fiat9-2008jul09,0,6165176.story
BTW, Alfa Romeo, Fiat and Peugeot are on track to return to the States within the next 36 months with an excellent line-up of cars – which will cost billions of dollars in itself – so do they know something that GM is missing?
While I am a little disappointed in the watered down styling of the production Volt, I am very excited that it is now in final, serious development mode, and I applaud GM for being so bold – yes bold. An American-made electric car that will actually work like, well, a car! Yes, gas is under $2, and the people have cooled a little on alternative energy once again (happens every time gas is cheap), but this is temporary. Demand or terrorism will cause a price rise again, and I don’t want to reward the bad behavior of people like Hugo Chavez with my gas dollars. GM’s quality is up to par with any global manufacturer, and I am tired of Americans who won’t give GM, Ford, and Chrysler a second look based on their perceptions of cars built in the 70’s and 80’s. The Volt will bring attention back to GM at a time when it is needed and maybe these automatic-mode Toyota/Honda buyers will notice too. I hate going to the Post Office and seeing seniors who should be in a Buick pull in the parking lot in a Scion!
can you update the styling back to the concept design please?
Ted Lewandoski: “On that note – GM needs to have a patriotic ad campaign to get people to support them by buying a US-built vehicle – what happened to the ‘Heartbeat of America’ slogan – you need to resurrect that now to pull people by their emotions and patriotism.”
It’s too late for that. GM is already limited to a market that’s either extremely price-oriented or has an insanely strong domestic preference.
Too many people have spent a day of their vacation waiting by the side of the road for a tow truck to haul their GM away.
GM’s best bet right now is compelling products and 100% customer satisfaction to stem any further losses. The latter means that quality, reliability and durability are extremely important. And dealer service… that must be 100% satisfaction, too.
“And dealer service… that must be 100% satisfaction, too.”
Charlie,
Dealer service is an even more important part of the calculus of turning GM around than the quality of their cars.
It’s too bad there is no way of knowing if GM’s leadership even realizes that, and whether they are prepared to make the changes in corporate culture necessary to straighten out their dealers.
I’ve asked these before, but have never received any answers:
1. Will the Li-ion battery case be robust enough that it can survive a high speed crash? (Either a head-on, or a T-bone.)
2. If the battery case bursts in a high-speed crash, will that scatter lithium around, and will first responders have to take any special precautions when they arrive at the crash scene? If the battery contents scatter in a crash, how will that effect bystanders?
3. When semi-trailers haul Li-ion batteries as cargo, they must display a HAZMAT placard to warn first responders so they can react properly in event of a crash or fire. Will the Volt need to display the same Class 9 Miscellaneous HAZMAT placard per USODT rules?
USDOT Class 9 Miscellaneous HAZMAT Placard — Li-ion batteries
While we are on the styling issue of the Volt…it got me thinking that it wasn’t necessarily quality but bland, imagination-free styling that first turned Americans away from domestic cars in the late 70s. It costs just as much to turn out a good-looking car as it does to build a dud. We sure got a lot of duds in the 80’s. Look how people are flocking to the “new” Mustang and the buzz created by the Challenger and the upcoming Camaro. So, why can’t we have the concept Volt as the production car? Did the focus groups, where everyone has an opinion because they think it’s their job to have one, play too large a role in watering down styling once again? The new Volt is nice, it’s family, it resembles a Honda Accord – but it’s not the revolutionary look that will bring a dramatic improvement to GM’s bottom line. Let’s have both versions. Younger people will buy the concept version, Grandpa and Grandma the other one. That’s OK, Grandpa has more disposable income, it all spends. PS Toyota ruined the Scion XB’s styling, sales fell off hard, before the banking crisis. Good cars can look cool too. Why not the Concept version?
“As an example, shown below is a picture of Rick Wagoner with one of our latest Volt development vehicles in Washington, D.C.”
Are those really the best looking wheels you could find for the Volt prototype you took to Washington for everybody to look at? …and take pictures of?
There has to be a reason why you selected those wheels? Please, let us in on the secret.
Gary Dikkers, While those are interesting questions, they are probably somewhat irrelevant. Volt or no, there WILL be electric cars on the road and we will adjust to the inherent hazards.
Gasoline, pound for pound, can pack more of a wallop than TNT. Yet, we use it.
“While those are interesting questions, they are probably somewhat irrelevant. Volt or no, there WILL be electric cars on the road and we will adjust to the inherent hazards.”
Charlie H,
They are not irrelevant, they are critical to the success of the Volt.
I’m not opposed to electric cars and agree we need to make them happen. I’m just asking if GM has thought through the consequences of a Volt being in a high-speed crash and the Li-ion battery case bursting and scattering its contents around the countryside. Is that an issue to be concerned about? Will there be any adverse effects on bystanders and the environment?
Or, what happens when a Volt is in a crash and catches fire? Will the firemen that respond to the accident have to do anything special to fight the fire?
I agree, electric cars will happen, but I also know those electric cars will be involved in crashes.
They are fair (and relevant) questions: Has GM addressed the issue of a Li-ion battery case breaking open and scattering its contents in a crash, and how should first responders fight a fire resulting from a Volt crash?
The time to start thinking about it is now, not after the first Volt crashes and a fire-fighting crew arrives to fight the fire with no clue of how to handle it. That would create bad press that GM really doesn’t want or need.
Prius generates power in Massachusetts snowstorm
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/25/prius-generates-power-in-massachusetts-snowstorm/
“John Sweeney, a resident of Harvard, Massachusetts, lost power to his home for three whole days. That all sounds horrible, especially in such awful weather. Fortunately, Sweeney came up with a novel way to use his hybrid car by connecting a power inverter to his Prius’ battery and using the hybrid as a generator. According to reports, Mr. Sweeney was able to run “his refrigerator, freezer, TV, woodstove fan and several lights through his Prius, for three days, on roughly five gallons of gas.””
GM has said that gen-1 Volt will have no “Out” plug so it can’t be used as an emergency backup generator for the home.
Hello… GM? Anybody home?
An emergency backup generator for a home is over $5K and it just sits there!
How much would it cost to include a 120v/240v 1-phase “OUT” plug for MULTI-TASKING?
Do you hear opportunity knocking?
Tim said: “GM has said that gen-1 Volt will have no “Out” plug so it can’t be used as an emergency backup generator for the home.”
Tim,
You raise an excellent point, and one that several of us have raised over the past few months, but with no response from GM.
It would seem to be a “no brainer” for GM to include an outlet on the side of the Volt so a homeowner can use that big battery in the Volt and it’s engine-generator as an emergency power supply for when the electrical grid goes down.
That capability would cost little to buld into the car, and would be a strong selling point for those subject to hurricanes, blizzards, and ice storms, or even those who might want to take the car camping (especially when you get around to building the hatchback and light pickup versions).
Come on GM. Think outside the box for once. And if there is a solid reason why you can’t do it, please be kind enough to explain it to us so we can understand. From our view on the sidelines, it looks like a low-cost, no-brainer that should be part of the package.
What ever happened to the 90 mpg V-8 engine and pattents, that were developed in the 1920,s? It was an atomizing carb., simmilar to “Granny’s” atomizer, and jetted in from the top with something that looked like a hair dryer. Oh yea! fuel injection! That fangled contraption that only specialized techs could work on and only performed a little better than “carburation” with lots of extra complicated delicate systems. What we really need is a safe motorized wagon not an ipod enhanced super cumfy bubble of environmental ecconomic and pollitical doom. GM, you have the tools, rethink what you are doing, and stop sleeping with the enemy (big oil). With the infrastructure and opportunities you have, You could do so much more. Big oil has you and their goal is to destroy you and take over everything. Keep working on the fuel cell but spend some more $ on photovoltaic technology since it is the only “green” source of energy. This would free us from the dependancy of high profit corporations and guarantee a live-able world for our children. Remove your sunglasses and what do you see? Please look a little farther into the future.
First I want to say congratulations to CEO Rick Wagoner for leading the CEOs to Washington D.C., to Bob Lutz VP for Worldwide Product development for helping to churn out such good product for GM, and to our state representatives in Michigan as well as our Governor for helping to get the bridge loan. The Chevy Volt is such a game changer in terms of enegy policy that I believe one of the reasons some people want GM to go belly up is because of the impact it will have on oil prices. The Volt will be an important weapon in GM’s and America’s energy portofolio and will make it hard for anyone to inflict the kind of damage that was done in 2008 to the U.S. economy. I believe that V.P. Lutz’s experience as the CEO of Exide battery will help the Volt come on line much faster and then world will see the importance of GM to the country and in terms of the U.S.’s leadership when it comes to green technology and R&D in general that I am writing about in my book Training Today’s Youth for Tomorrow’s Technology. Keep up the good work GM!
Winston Shines
Principal Consultant
Maximillian Bryan & Marcell Technologies Internationale LLC
mbmwinstonshines@hotmail.com
http://mbmconsulting.blogspot.com/
Sincerely,
I am 100% sure I have talked my boss into letting me buy a Hybrid as my next company vehile and the one car I’ve had my eye on since it’s inception is the volt. I am the General Manager of a small septic company which means I am also the Sales Manager and having the Volt as my vehicle makes great sense not only for environmental and carbon footprint reasons but financial as well.
As time has gone by I am actually leaning away from the Volt. When it first appeared I was wholly excited. Over the last year or so I have seen updates to the styling and I think it’s a horrible mistake to shy away from the original design. The latest picture makes me think GM is going back to the vanilla styling that caused most of their problems in the first place.
I won’t buy a Volt that looks like some easy-out carbon-copy version of a Japanese vehicle.
1. Americans want cars that do not use ANY petroleum products.
2. Ameriacns want cars that do not pollute our atmosphere even minimally.
3. Americans want cars that are self charging or with thier own solar /wind /alternative energy charging stations.
4. Americans want cars made from biodegradable or recycleable parts
5. Americans want cars that do not leave a toxic footprint on the planet.
As an American automobile maker, please use American ingenuity and aggressiveness to be a world leader in developing environmentally responsible vehicles. We can change the world if companies like GM are inspired to do much, much better.
wow take out a large gas engine,a transmission ad an expensive unproven battery not a proven deep cycle battery through in an electic motor and ad an extra $25,000 to the price tag take 5 years to get up to full production ask for billions from government to build a golden parachute for your self these people should go to jail the zenn was put into production by a few people from toronto for a sale price of $14,000 without a billion dollar corporation behind them by the way by overcharging on the colt by $25,000 the savings on a small car gas for 10 years would be less than $25,000 and the savings was the hole point of the deal how stupid is the public do the math 700 trillion dollars to all of these crooks
that would pay for 200 years of universal health care for every citizen no charge of the country and that is with the health care pigs also feeding on it this would take the shackles off people that fear has killed their spirit my word the the auto shove the volt where the sun does not shine couple of years you guys are going to be gone that may free up some worker with good ideas
David asks, “What ever happened to the 90 mpg V-8 engine and pattents, that were developed in the 1920,s? It was an atomizing carb., simmilar to “Granny’s” atomizer, and jetted in from the top with something that looked like a hair dryer.”
Patents from the ’20’s expired long ago. If there was anything to them, someone would have dredged up the technology and used it. Foreign automakers neither have to kowtow to Big Oil nor, if they like, pay any attention to US patents (I’m looking at YOU, China). No one has such a car on the market because almost all such claims are entirely vaporware. Toyota (and, maybe, GM, I’m not sure) is willing to do the trickery necessary to run an Atkinson cycle engine. They’d certainly use an atomizing carb if it met some combination of better, cheaper and simpler. Look how expensive and complex (and expensive) a hybrid is and it achieves 50mpg (and sells!). Who wouldn’t offer a 90mpg vehicle, if they could? Answer: If they could, they would.
Readers here might wish to keep in mind that the use of a heavy auto with a large V-8 does not, by itself, necessarily translate into excessive fuel consumption. I was in Maine on vacation when Katrina hit. Getting back to Essex CT with reports of fuel shortages inspired me to undertake a conservation run, more so than usual. The auto: 4.4 litre V-8, tare weight 4,400 lb, three persons, two dogs, a week’s load of gear: at least 5,200 lbs. Distance: 285 miles. Maximum lock-up speed in overdrive at 1900 rpm: 67 mph. Total fuel consumed: 7.3 gal. Mileage (actual): 39.4 mpg.
I usually get about 33 mpg out of the same auto.
If I can do it, anybody can do it. There are no real secrets in sparing fuel use: just drive with substantial restraint.
Note also that all the effort being put into corn ethanol, with some 160 distilleries going full blast, produce only about 3.5% of the total liquid transport fuels consumed. Now here is the kicker: the total amount of fuel that would be “saved” if all motorists actually inflated, and kept inflated, their tires to the upper end of the manufacturer’s range as specifried in the Owner’s manuals: yes, 3.5%. Put it another way: all the vast effort to produce ethanol is lost simply because we collectively fail to pump up our tires. Or put it another way: requiring tire inflation with nitrogen is the same as obtaining a 3.5% mileage increase on the total vehicle fleet. And you do it “overnight.” 3.5% reduction would keep the price of foreign oil remarkably collapsed.
We are not going to get “off oil” any time soon: our ongoing challenge is to oblige ourselves to use less of the stuff. That comes from altering our driving habits. The electric auto is an interesting, and serious, technical challenge. How will it play out? Only time will tell. Give GM engineers credit for at least tackling the concept. By their nature, all new technologies have a high-cost, and complex, start. As the product moves down the “learning curve,” it will achieve both cost reductions and performance improvements.
My personal view is that as a society we are best advised to put some funds into synthetic-gasoline and synthetic diesel plants using coal as the feedstock. I appreciate that that view is not warmly received, but the alternative is to keep buying foreign oil from folks who do not even like us (indeed, actively loathe us). That is not an appealing prospect to me. Keep in mind that the Germans produced substantial fuels from coal during WWII, so this is a mature technology – no surprises here.
Jan van Eck
Flying Dutchman Motorcoaches
Essex, Connecticut
The future of GM is inextricably tied up with the success of the Chevy Volt. Why do I say this?
Because economies of scale dictate that producing energy on a large scale, either directly via green technologies that harness wind, solar or hydropower or indirectly at large power stations burning coal or natural gas, is infinitely more efficient than harnessing the energy of a combustible fuel within the tiny confines of an internal combustion engine mounted on four wheels.
Distributing that energy via an existing power grid is similarly a “no brainer” compared with creating a new distribution infrastructure that would be required for the much talked up fuel of the future; liquid hydrogen. Even natural gas and ethanol require, at the minimum, a significant retrofitting of existing infrastructure, as well as significant investments in new infrastructure. Distribution of electricity via the grid is both relatively very inexpensive and it is not tied to a single source of energy, since it can be produced from all power stations utilizing a complement of energy sources.
Where am I going with this? The greatest ideas in the world do not take off unless there is a highly effective marketing campaign to entice interest and cause demand for the execution of those ideas.
Excuse the pun, but Mr. Wagoner must jump on the band wagon of “change” that bore the fruit of a Presidential victory. This is the change that in a sense piggy backed on apple computer’s “think different” campaign.
GM must be perceived as different to the GM of the past, whose inertia continues today in the mindset of the American consumer. In quality control and product line GM has made strides to weaken that inertia, now, via the vehicle named “Volt” it must halt that inertia and change the perception of GM in the minds of consumers.
The new GM must become the automobile manufacturer of “change” best embodied by the “Volt” and best expressed as the “engine of change”.
Hubcaps? where are the Hubcaps… this may sound silly to some but c’mon this is supposed to be the car of GM’s future… many say the entire future of the company rest’s with this vehicle ( I disagree but that’s another story) letting the CEO drive this vehicle to Washington DC with those exposed steel wheels exemplifies the problem… No attention to Detail… lose the graphics, stop trying to make the vehicle a billboard and show product that at least looks finished!
“Note also that all the effort being put into corn ethanol, with some 160 distilleries going full blast, produce only about 3.5% of the total liquid transport fuels consumed.”
Jan,
Just read recently that 16 of the country’s 182 ethanol plants have now filed for bankruptcy, with more expected. The corn-to-alcohol plants won’t be going full blast for long.
The Des Moines Register reported that 16 of the country’s 182 ethanol plants have filed for bankruptcy
> 1. Americans want cars that do not use ANY petroleum products.
> 2. Americans want cars that do not pollute our atmosphere even minimally.
> 3. Americans want cars that are self charging or with their own solar /wind /alternative energy charging stations.
> 4. Americans want cars made from biodegradable or recyclable parts
> 5. Americans want cars that do not leave a toxic footprint on the planet.
Whitney Anna Walker,
I believe you have described the bicycle.
Mr Lauckner,
Is this something you are considering for the Volt? Michelin to Commercialize Active Wheel; Technology to Appear in 2010 Cars
“Michelin officials at the Paris Auto Show said the plug-in battery-electric version would likely have a drive range approaching 250 miles between charges.”
250 miles between charges sounds pretty good compared to the 40 miles (or less) range for the Volt on a single charge. It appears Michelin is doing this with one of your Opels. Can’t you also apply their technology to the Volt?
I do not understand the mindset of GM. What makes GM think anyone “Needs” a car / suv that produces 300 + horsepower. I can understand a Worktruck with a lot of “Torque” to pull and move heavy loads, but a passenger car or SVU is mostly lugging around its own weight. We have speed limits all across this country that in 99% of the cases do not exceed 75mph, yet you tout bigger more powerful engines to move around bigger heavier vehicles. A perfect example is the 2009 envoy it has 285 hp and 270+ fp torque ( that get 14mpg city? and 20mpg highway? ) to move around a vehicle that weighs over 4400 lbs and and yet only has a payload cap of a little over 1100lbs ( 1/4 its own weight ). Why not drop the weight and size of the vehicle to what is the NORMAL avg vehicle occupancy of 1.3 persons per vehichle should be about 2500lbs and an engine that get 30+mpg and still carries 1100lbs of payload ( like my toyota which is now 14 years old ). Do you really think a 4000lbs vehicle is need to go back and forth to the store and take the kids to school or drive back and forth to work.
To then say that the VOLT, a $40,000 commuter vehicle is going to make a difference is ludicris. The target price of such a vehicle should be less than $20k and its range should be double and its weight should be 1/3 less. You guys have your head so far in the sand it is not even funny. Down size your upper manageemnt and your vehicle to realistic levels and maybe just maybe Normal people will once again buy a GM instead of a Toyota or Honda.