GM = Green Motors?
By Beth Lowery
GM Vice President, Environment, Energy & Safety Policy
Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of environmental professionals who were in Detroit to attend the Air and Waste Management Association’s annual conference and exhibition.
I gave a formal speech, but the best part of the morning for me was the question and answer session that followed. I’d like to share some of the questions that were posed, along with my answers, and invite you to ask questions of your own about GM’s efforts to reinvent ourselves as a greener company.
Electric vehicles have high up-front capital requirements. How are you going to make electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt profitably?
Introducing advanced technology is always expensive initially, especially in the early generations. It’s important to have the right incentives for customers, such as federal tax credits. Future generations of the technology will be less expensive, making it possible for us to turn a profit.
Does GM have plans to move beyond motor vehicles?
We actually entered the hybrid market with a two-mode hybrid system that was first developed for buses. From a macro level, we’re looking at transportation systems globally, but our main focus today is on getting personal transportation – cars and trucks – right.
How are you going to get people back into American cars – how do you convince them that American cars are reliable?
We know that people’s perceptions of the quality and reliability of our vehicles do not match reality. When people get behind the wheel of our cars and drive them, they have a totally different opinion. We are focused on quality, fuel economy and great design, and we are asking customers to judge us for what we are today, not what we were years ago. The award-winning Chevy Malibu – which continues to be very popular with consumers – is proof that we can win in today’s market. We think objective data – such as J.D. Power and Associates naming Buick the most dependable brand this year (tied with Jaguar) – will also help convince people.
It seems that the U.S. now depends more heavily on the financial sector for a greater percentage of our Gross National Product (GNP). As a manufacturer, how do you compete?
We see a real need for a comprehensive manufacturing policy in the U.S. Our philosophy has been to manufacture where we sell. GM strongly supports building products here in the U.S.
Not all of the components that go into GM’s cars are made in the U.S. How will you rectify that?
There are labeling requirements and we identify the percentage of U.S. content in our cars and trucks. That being said, we are a global company and we operate a global purchasing system. We buy the best available components that we believe will make our products the best.
What is GM doing to help educate the next generation of U.S. engineers?
This is a critically important issue, and we have a number of initiatives under way. We have programs that target students in kindergarten through grade 12 to educate them about what the vehicles of the future will be like through publications like the Weekly Reader. We also have programs for college students, like the EcoCAR Challenge, which is done in partnership with many, such as the U.S. Department of Energy and Natural Resources Canada. Teams of students from more than a dozen universities in the U.S. and Canada are competing to convert a Saturn Vue into a zero-emission vehicle that consumers can afford to buy. We provide the teams with production vehicles and parts, seed money, technical mentoring and operational support throughout the three-year program. And we have been fortunate to recruit some of our talented engineers from this program.
- Posted in Cars & Trucks, Volt
to this comment On June 23, 2009 at 2:58 pm Brandon said:
I would like to see a better light duty truck. The Colorado is not near the quality or styling of the newer GM models. What is being done to improve the small pickup segment?
to this comment On June 23, 2009 at 3:00 pm Lionel Mandrake said:
Ms Lowery,
GM has done admirable work on the Volt, but why aren’t you also developing an all-electric lower-cost neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) or city runabout? Something that might sell at the $10-12,000 price point that could be used for commuting and errands within a city.
As I’m sure you are aware, the high cost of the Volt will likely prove a significant stumbling block in the path to that car’s success. It will be priced too high for those who want a city runabout, and won’t be the best answer for people looking for a long-range turnpike cruiser. While the Volt will be capable of that role, it won’t be ideal.
To be truly green, the American people will need affordable all-electric, urban runabouts to supplement their long-range liquid fuel cars, but you seem to be leaving that marketing niche to entrepreneurs and innovators. Why?
to this comment On June 23, 2009 at 3:58 pm Ethan Edwards said:
When somebody really smart graduates from a top-tier engineering school such as MIT, Caltech, Stanford, UC-Berkely, Carnegie Mellon, Rensselaer Polytech, or even the top land grant engineering schools such as Purdue or the University of Illinois, how often do they head to Detroit and the auto industry?
Sadly, it seems America’s top engineers rarely head to the auto industry anymore. How is GM going to attract the top engineering talent to Detroit?
to this comment On June 23, 2009 at 4:17 pm JAMES N. said:
Lionel, you answered your own question there. The all electric urban vehicle is a niche market. They will only sell in the north east and the LA/San Francisco areas. For vehicles to become profitable you have to sell 100,000+ per year.
to this comment On June 23, 2009 at 5:15 pm Ryndee Carney, GM Executive Communications said:
Lionel,
Are you aware of the P.U.M.A. (Personal Urban Mobility & Accessibility) electrically powered 2-seat prototype vehicle that GM and Segway introduced at the New York Auto Show in April? Here’s a link to our press release:
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=28&docid=53538
to this comment On June 23, 2009 at 5:17 pm Lionel Mandrake said:
“The all electric urban vehicle is a niche market.”
James N.
The most successful comapnies are those who find a niche, and then build a product or offer a service to fill that niche.
They would sell where I live (a moderately-sized Midwest city) if a major company made and marketed them. The problem is no major company (such as GM) is building them and putting their marketing weight into the effort. There are other parts of the country where they would also sell such as the urban areas of Florida, the Gulf Coast, and Arizona.
It’s true GM would have to sell large numbers of them to be profitable, and the profit margin on each unit would be low, but some major company with vision needs to jump into that market. If GM really wants to be a greener company as Beth Lowery says and establish their “Green Cred,” there’s no reason it couldn’t be GM.
to this comment On June 23, 2009 at 7:45 pm VetteRacer said:
“Not all” should be changed to MOST all.
Not all of the components that go into GM’s cars are made in the U.S. How will you rectify that?
we are a global company and we operate a global purchasing system. We buy the best available components that we believe will make our products the best.
——————————————————————————————————
The answer again shows that GM does not get it.
Review all the failures of GM quality since the late 1970s and you find the parts failed were NON American made by NON American workers.
Review failures of costly items like transmissions and you find they were sourced from Mexico, Canada and Germany.
Source failures of electronic parts, Japan and China.
Who gets blamed by Americans and the rest of the world ?
GM and worse the American workers who did not even make the parts.
We really do not care about Global and reason GM got into the trouble they are in and then after billions of American tax dollars we are given this GM is global.
Try it our way for a change and bring the building of those car part products back to the USA and guess what with millions of Americans making those products also means they become loyal and proud of their work, so does their family and buy the cars that were made from their work.
In 40 plus years of working on GM cars it is clear to me that quality finger pointing to USA nameplates is due to where your getting the parts from not for quality but cheaper tier 1 and 2 suppliers.
I find it interesting that most under 30 year olds today believe Asian nameplates are American yet the failure rate of those competing with GM get their parts from the same offshore vendors are higher or level to GM’s quality ratings but the cars are marketed as being better in quality.
Answer is GM needs to listen to Americans buying your products and not your white collar personal who think global and ignore the fact if you are not pro American then why should they feel bad not buying American cars.
Something is really wrong with GM when this last Sunday was a IRL race.
The pace car was a non American, had red, white and blue paint scheme as ALL American, was a very small compact pacing the track no more then like 30 MPH to get as much live TV time while racecars with 4 times more HP behind it and not one of them even had a GM engine.
Also flooding the Internet is a story that for last weekends big American golf US open hosted by a non American nameplate who prevented one commercial that had a IRL driver sitting in a old American Mustang selling something not even car related being aired.
I was just at a GM dealership and sitting there was a brand new yellow SS Camaro which I closely looked at.
The engine bay looked lousy, paint for inner fenders had paint missing, looked like only one coat of paint and some areas paint missing totally.
We get blamed as a country yet car is not built in the USA, nor were the people who built it but if a 2010 model where claims of quality are to be better you need to rethink this global concept as it fails badly.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 9:03 am Nate said:
Lionel Mandrake,
I agree the Volt’s price is to high… if it were 20-28K it would be a different story.
Ethan Edwards,
I agree with you, but, why would someone with that level of education and talent want to work for a ‘Can’t’ company and be constrained and suppressed by corporate mentality?
Why wouldn’t they go work for other companies that pay better and offer other incentives….
Not to mention many people probably wouldn’t care for the Detroit area.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 9:54 am Uli said:
@ VetteRacer:
Don’t think your comment “Review failures of costly items like transmissions and you find they were sourced from Mexico, Canada and Germany” is really fact based. Probably in some cases yes, but certainly not in general.
More importantly, if you really “do not care about Global ” as you proudly claim, you probaly don’t need imported oil, platinum, rubber, copper…. Right ? All from the U.S ? Not sure your isolationist concept is really well thought out yet…
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 10:00 am Lionel Mandrake said:
Ryndee Carney,
Thank you for your feedback. No, I wasn’t aware of P.U.M.A. It certainly hasn’t got the publicity the Volt has received, has it? When do you expect to market it? At what price point?
Actually, when I think of an urban runabout I was thinking of something more like the Canadian-built ZENN: The ZENN ~ Zero Emission, No Noise Does GM have anything like this on the drawing board, or in development? Like the Volt, the ZENN has about a 40 mile range on a single charge. Unlike the Volt it has no extended-range capability, but also unlike the Volt, it has a much more attractive price point.
In the news release you pointed me to, the P.U.M.A. appears to be little more than a motorized wheel-chair. A GM-built electric runabout such as the ZENN would at least offer some utility ~ a place to carry a briefcase and laptop, dry cleaning, and a bag or two of groceries.
In my city, I’ve seen at least three of these on the road the last few weeks. It would look to be an attractive option for around town errands, and I must admit surprise that major car companies such as GM aren’t planning to market to that niche.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 12:39 pm Nate said:
VetteRacer,
“Review failures of costly items like transmissions and you find they were sourced from Mexico, Canada and Germany.
Source failures of electronic parts, Japan and China.”
Perhaps the reason is that these parts can not be made in the USA at a competitive cost quality aside. If imported parts are used for cost reasons and they fail why do you think higher costing American versions will be any better?
“Who gets blamed by Americans and the rest of the world ?
GM and worse the American workers who did not even make the parts.”
They still fail and that reflects on GM and its workers despite who the parts are made by.
“We really do not care about Global and reason GM got into the trouble they are in and then after billions of American tax dollars we are given this GM is global.”
Lionel Mandrake,
I think the Small EVs are to expensive… who would pay nearly 10K or more when for a few thousand more you could have a real car. I think for an EV to work it would have to be less then $3500.00 I don’t think golf carts are this cheap….
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm VetteRacer said:
Ui it seems you enjoy protecting your countries jobs but GM did it your way the last 30 years and look where it got them
Read the ABCnews website today and as every day writeup like this :
GM, Chrysler Top List of 10 Worst Selling Cars
It goes in in part to say :
It’s really a reflection of a misstep of the American automakers,”
or
General Motors and Chrysler dominated the list. Ford only had one vehicle on it: the venerable Mustang.
————–
If you look at those cars most are not made in the USA and all are mostly non American parts.
Enough of this Global excuse, if it means being loyal to American workers feeding their families or having American pride in products we build I’ll gladly be called a dirty name as a isolationist but the history proves your way has failed badly.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 1:14 pm Mike said:
Supporting Vetteracers comments –
Please post the information to the Public Facing Internet websites to show the content of our domestic vehicle content relative to foreign content. Better yet – list these parts by type or system and who and where they’re made so consumers and internal GM buyers are better educated. If either one buys them, then shame on them. If GM is hiding quality problems from themselves and the public – shame on them!
If the percentage of failed parts is related to foreign made, then why would GM continue to risk their reputation on continuing obtaining substandard parts from the foreign suppliers? The perception of poor quality is hard to shake, but if there is documented failure points and can be traced back to some of the suppliers then change the engineering specs to improve the quality and get rid of the supplier or make the GM buyers more accountable.
If the initial price of the car is reduced because a spec was lowered and a cooresponding part was manufactured , but the price to fix the flakey part or maintain the car is higher for the consumer (who remembers stuff like this) then change your thinking and make the parts the highest quality possible!
We used to make the best in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s but somehow drifted away from the things that made “MADE IN THE USA” a benchmark around the world. Fixing problems over and over again IS NOT BEING GREEN except for the cash flowing out of the consumers pocketbook.
Being Green means making the parts ONCE, assembling once and not wasting anything. By delivering a vehicle that EXCEEDS the customer expectations GM can reinvent itself. Otherwise, if things remain status quo, then close the doors now and don’t waste the car buyers time.
Just my opinion.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 1:33 pm bluebaby said:
You will never get the toyota lovers back in domestics, never unless you give them the same service at the delership[ level as toyot/ lexus. its time to wake up GM and realize this is were the war is WON! and lost.
bluebaby
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm Michael said:
For anyone else who was hoping for an actual discussion about “Green” or highly efficient engines…
I would put a moderate effort into Pneumatic Hybrid Engines (similar to HCCI effort, with much faster results). Before anyone laughs at the name, this is NOT a Pneumatic Hybrid Powertrain system, but a Pneumatic Hybrid Intake system. It’s really a “Hybrid Turbocharger” that allows you to downsize your engine and match a turbocharger for efficiency (thus, poor drivability). But, this mildly compressed air tank shoots fresh air into the cylinder during turbo lag, which provides instant torque, much higher fuel conversion efficiency during transients, and excellent drivability! Only one engine has been demonstrated in Switzerland.
Lino Guzzella is a well respected authority in vehicle design and energy conversion, but he is also a visionary regarding future of personal transportation and environmental strains. He offers a relatively cheap and effective system to reduce fuel economy. GM needs to take quite a few more concrete, well-engineered steps before anyone can un-sarcastically say GM is “Green Motors”.
To GM’s R&D and Design teams, what can we do to push the envelope of tank-to-wheel efficiency? All we need to do is show some more demonstrations/concepts that are optimized for fuel efficiency or specifically CO2 reduction. Can we go further than a Prius in aerodynamics? And design ultra-light interiors, integrate structural and interior components, remove non-functional components while maintaing comfort and style, and run TDI engines on ethanol? Or even design a vehicle for low life-cycle impact (manufacturing and recycling processes). Pick whatever you want, just try pushing the envelope in the non-production realm, please.
People feel good when they see “unsolvable” problems being broken down (going to the Moon, for example). Who cares if we ever go to the Moon again, we have a lot of respect for anyone who works for / worked for NASA.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 2:50 pm Lionel Mandrake said:
Nate said: “I think the Small EVs are to expensive… who would pay nearly 10K or more when for a few thousand more you could have a real car.”
That is the marketing question, isn’t it? But I for one would gladly pay $10k for an all-electric city car to use exclusively for my daily commute and around-the-city errands. That would allow me to save my heavier and larger fossil-fueled car for special occasions such as vacations and weekend trips to visit my daughter who lives 300 miles away.
If I could use the lightweight electric city car for the daily stop-and-go urban grind* at a cost of only a few cents worth of electricity per mile, I could extend the life of my far more expensive long-range fossil fuel car by many years. (Long-range driving at steady speeds actually puts very little stress on cars or engines.)
In the long run, I suspect most analytical and considered people would see that as a bargain ~ an all-electric runabout for city errands, and a long-range, liquid fuel car for longer trips and special occasions.
——————————-
* Not to mention the value to society of zero emissions and almost no added noise within the city environment.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 2:55 pm Sheth jones said:
Blue:
Your comments make sense except for the fact that Toyota does not have a great reputation in terms of dealership service or customer satisfaction when the initial transaction is done. I hear a lot about Toyota’s legendary service here at Fastlane but JDP surveys don’t reflect that sentiment. Saturn and Cadillac routinely placed above Toyota in customer satisfaction- they are midpack at best.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 3:50 pm Augie Churchill said:
“If the percentage of failed parts is related to foreign made, then why would GM continue to risk their reputation on continuing obtaining substandard parts from the foreign suppliers?”
Mike,
It’s all a calculated cost-benefit analysis on GM’s part. They have to know exactly how long a part made in Mexico is likely to last versus the same part made in Flint , and their analysts know exactly what those parts cost. If they don’t know, they’re not doing their jobs. Part of their calculus is to figure out when a lower-priced foreign part is likely to break and weigh that against the original cost of that part and what the warranty work or replacement is likely to cost.
They know exactly the Mean Time Between Failure for each of their parts suppliers, it’s just a matter of getting them to release that information to prospective consumers.
Here’s hoping that Obama’s “Auto Task Force” will look into that. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Auto Task Force could compel auto makers to reveal their MTBF numbers to consumers?
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 4:33 pm Colin Smythe-Faversham said:
“Saturn and Cadillac routinely placed above Toyota in customer satisfaction…”
Let us hope that the “new GM” can transfer some of that customer satisfaction with Saturn dealers over to Chevrolet and Buick. The Chevrolet dealers especially need to be motivated to a better attitude in how they interact with customers.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 6:22 pm Petra Butler said:
“We know that people’s perceptions of the quality and reliability of our vehicles do not match reality. When people get behind the wheel of our cars and drive them, they have a totally different opinion. We are focused on quality, fuel economy and great design, and we are asking customers to judge us for what we are today, not what we were years ago.”
Ms Lowry;
Please explain why, if GM knows that their quality and reliability of their vehicles of the past does not match reality, why would consumers (whom GM has already taken advantage of) risk spending their hard earned $$ to see if your ‘new’ vehicles are of better quality? Especially when we already KNOW the quality and reliability of other auto makers?
I keep hearing that we should ‘go visit one of GM’s dealerships’ and check out all these new vehicles. #1. the DEALERSHIPS are one of GM’s major PROBLEMS! Examples: One local dealership I went to wouldn’t even let me test drive a truck…cause I was a gal. (Drove a dually for my business), another dealership wouldn’t accept my CASH (not financing) payment cause their Financial Department was closed already. Shoulda been a signal. Why in the world would I VOLUNTARILY subject myself to that…even for free food or whatever? Gonna be kinda hard to get former customers to even check them out…may want to consider some other outlet other than dealers.
As far as the GREEN thing goes: incorporate solar into your vehicles. If we can recharge our laptops with umbrellas and our cell phones and ipods with clothing, why can’t you incorporate solar into your vehicles? On the roofs, spoilers etc. At least as backup electricity or to assist in running all the gadgets. Maybe GM can squeeze a little more moolah out of the gubmint for that endeavor.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 6:23 pm bluebaby said:
Seth thanks for your reply but here in so. cal., orange county has the biggest lexus dealer and the service they give is above and beyond and thats what Cadillac has to provide in order to compete, I recently purchased a CTS and in order to get the quality of service I have to take it to Long Beach because the dealers here are sometimes condesending or they just plain think they know better, and don’t even take a look a look at the totally run down facilities here in so cal. what my point is its time to get out of the glass tower and listen to Mr. Lutz and KEEP is desire and fortitude alive.
bluebaby
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 8:29 pm Petra Butler said:
Ms Lowry;
As an alternative to making people go to dealerships, you may want to consider marketing the greener vehicles with community events. That will eliminate the issue with dealerships. Maybe include a contest to win one…something like that…then track how that person is doing with it and make it known publicly to help with reliablity concerns etc.
to this comment On June 24, 2009 at 8:57 pm Mike said:
Excellent points Augie!
Isn’t it amazing a 5 year limited warranty battery lasts 5 years and one day?
Excellent engineering I will admit and smaller consumeables I expect to replace. Tires, windshield wipers and regular oil changes and weekly baths. I do take care of my cars with regular maintenance, but there is a point of no return where I have to draw the line and say enough is enough.
However, my more immediate concern is having the shocks and struts give out at 50,000 miles and costs me $600 and the heater stop working at 70,000 miles in my 2003 Sonoma and the repair bill is $4500 because the techs found radiator fluid in my oil, or the catalytic converter goes out on my 2002 Grand Prix at 27,000 miles. Brakes wear out at 23,000 miles on my 2004 Grand Am with repair bills of $300 because to rotors are too cheap to turn (same thing on my Grand Prix).
MTBF – mean time between failure
MTTR – mean time to repair
MTBW- mean time before walking (to another manufacturer)
If parts were made to last then all that energy used to create replacement parts isn’t needed. That’s what I mean by being green. But they’re engineered to go so far before failure and leave the consumer holding the bag.
Can you say – Extended Warranty Anybody – (only $1500)!!!
to this comment On June 25, 2009 at 9:01 am Sheth jones said:
Colin:
Where does Chevy rank vs Ford, Honda and Toyota in satisfaction? Have you looked into it at all?
to this comment On June 25, 2009 at 10:33 am Smokey Blackburn said:
“They know exactly the Mean Time Between Failure for each of their parts suppliers, it’s just a matter of getting them to release that information to prospective consumers.”
Augie,
Good luck with that one. Try walking into a GM auto dealer and ask, “May I please see the mean time between failures numbers for this Malibu? I’d like to compare it to the Fusion.”
First, I’m betting the average dealer has no idea what “mean time between failure” is, and second, if they do know, they aren’t about to tell you.
to this comment On June 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm stas peterson said:
To the Gentleman who complained that no large auto manufacturer was building NEVs, your cry is mere ignorance.
There is, and has been a large auto maker who is building NEVs. You may even have heard of the company. Its called Chrysler. and their GEM division builds and sells tens of thousands of NEVs, the most recent of which is the newly introduced Pea-Pod.
to this comment On June 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm JAMES N. said:
You have to watchout for what your buying. The Pea-Pod and another thats being imported from china that looks just like a smart car. Both are classified as low speed vehicles. Which means they don’t have to pass any safety testing or regulations.
to this comment On June 26, 2009 at 10:19 am Lionel Mandrake said:
stas peterson,
I know all about Chrysler and the GEM. My question was why GM isn’t developing something for the all-electric, city car market.
The GEM is not an urban electric runabout, it’s a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV). Unfortunately, NEVs such as the GEM are little more than enclosed golf carts. They have their uses, but most cities have set up ordinances that drastically restrict where NEVs such as the GEM can drive.
A true all-electric city runabout could go anywhere a regular car goes, except perhaps on a multi-lane freeway.
to this comment On June 27, 2009 at 9:38 am cyclone said:
What are you doing to recreate the minivan segment in North America?
to this comment On June 27, 2009 at 6:25 pm David said:
You may be a global company, but you are operating on money provided by the U. S. government.
I, for one, do not appreciate that you are manufacturing some of your products outside of the country!
to this comment On June 29, 2009 at 9:48 am Hawkshaw said:
>> What are you doing to recreate the minivan segment in North America? <<
Cyclone,
You must not have heard about the “Nomad” — the sport minivan version of the new Camaro.
to this comment On June 30, 2009 at 8:43 am Joe D, Cleveland OH said:
With all this talk about electric vehicles, I think it’s only a matter of time before someone develops something that takes the Tesla and improves it to the point it’s affordable, usefull, and the charge lasts for at least 300 miles of normal, city and highway mixed driving.
The green crowd is willing to accept funky, small, quirky odd ball cars – the general public is not.
You build a usefull sedan with all the standard and optional features of any modern sedan in the $25k price range, give it an all electric motor that has sub-8 second 0-60 times, can go up to 130 mph without a problem, get at least 300 miles on a single charge, and has attractive styling that isn’t polarizing or trendy, you will have a blockbuster of a car.
to this comment On June 30, 2009 at 9:22 am Jake Burnside said:
Joe D.
You certainly have described a blockbuster of a car, but why the need to go 130 mph? 85 mph should be adequate unless you are lucky enough to live on a private island with no speed limits. (But if you lived on a private island, there would be no need to use your car to show off.)
to this comment On June 30, 2009 at 1:51 pm JAMES N. said:
Jake, it’s more about acceleration than anything. A car with a top speed of 85 mph will take about 45 seconds to get to 60 mph. Which means when your getting on the freeway, you’ll only be doing around 30 mph at the end of the ramp. And about to get killed by the traffic thats moving at more then twice your speed.
to this comment On June 30, 2009 at 3:04 pm Jake Burnside said:
James N.
One of the beauties of an electric-powered car is that the traction motors provide tremendous torque and acceleration. (Among other things, you don’t have to use energy and time accelerating the mass of all those pistons, valves, etc.) You could have a Zero-60 time of five seconds or so, and still limit the top speed to no more than 85 mph with the proper software. An 85 mph max should provide plenty of overtake for passing, even on two-lane, curved highways.
I don’t think I’d want to see an electric car with near instantaneous acceleration and a top speed of 130 mph in the hands of teenagers, or even some of the young adults I know.
GM is actually going to have to “de-tune” the capabilities of the Volt through some software adjustments, and there will probably be hackers eager to get into that software and re-tune it.
to this comment On July 1, 2009 at 7:48 am Joe D, Cleveland OH said:
Jake,
You limit the top speed of anything short of a bicycle to 85 and people immediately think cheap, tiny, underpowered, and useless.
to this comment On July 1, 2009 at 9:27 am Jake Burnside said:
You limit the top speed of anything short of a bicycle to 85 and people immediately think cheap, tiny, underpowered, and useless.”
Joe D.
Have you ever driven an M1 Abrams main battle tank? Top speed on that is about 42 mph. No one would ever call an Abrams underpowered and useless. I think you should retract your use of the word “anything.”
Anyone who drives an electric car such as the Volt with its tremendous torque and near instantaneous acceleration would not think cheap, even if limited by its software to a top speed of 85 mph. In today’s society, there is no reason for a car to be capable of 130 mph when driving on public roadways — unless we’re talking about police interceptors and/or emergency response vehicles.
to this comment On July 1, 2009 at 10:53 am Laurance Chadwick said:
Clean Diesels
Good report this morning on NPR radio on the current crop of clean diesels. VW has waiting lists for their TDI Jetta and is rushing to increase production to meet demand, and the new BMW turbo-diesel sedan is getting rave reviews. Clean diesels Where was GM in this report? Noticeably absent since it has no clean diesel passenger cars to offer consumers.
“Some can get 40 or even 50 miles to the gallon; they aren’t the noisy, smoke belching and sluggish diesels of years ago.”
Beth Lowery,
When will GM finally jump onto the clean diesel band wagon, or will you let the Europeans and Japanese ace you again?
to this comment On July 1, 2009 at 2:47 pm Nate said:
I think I’ve been saying this for a while now (GM needs clean diesels). There are people on this forum who seem to be against diesel.
Additionally I don’t get how GM can make euro diesels in cars like the CTS and Opel but none of those engines find their way into cars like the Malibu, Buick LaCrosse, Equinox etc… especially not here in the US.
to this comment On July 2, 2009 at 1:13 pm Edwin said:
GM’s PUMA
http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/07/who-says-gm-wont-build-a-pure-electric-vehicle-introducing-the-puma/
Here’s what the supposed green advocates at Fortune magazine/CNN are saying about GM’s PUMA. They named it the number 1 dumbest moments in business for 2009:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0906/gallery.dumbest_moments_midyear2009.fortune/index.html
Yahoo posted it on their home page news.
Never mind that they might be right for saying what your American customers think of PUMA.
Now who are your real FRIENDS – We ARE. Stop catering to these GREEN media and far-out activist groups, they don’t appreciate you anyway.
Let this be a lesson. They will attack GM now matter what you do. GM has to tout its own horn and find media partners.
Stop giving them ad money. Stop subsidizing the Ali-Velshi CNN attack machine.
to this comment On July 2, 2009 at 8:45 pm Charlie H said:
Sheth jones: ‘Your comments make sense except for the fact that Toyota does not have a great reputation in terms of dealership service or customer satisfaction when the initial transaction is done. I hear a lot about Toyota’s legendary service here at Fastlane but JDP surveys don’t reflect that sentiment. Saturn and Cadillac routinely placed above Toyota in customer satisfaction- they are midpack at best.”
JDP should publish its survye results with vehicle owner experience history. What’s their current vehicle? Which vehicles have they owned in the fairly recent past? Did they take those vehicles in for service?
JDP might find that owners of some brands are more particular about dealer service; that their expectations have been adjusted upward. This may not relate directly to the vehicle cost.
to this comment On July 5, 2009 at 9:47 am Trae said:
I get so tired of this American car bashing! American cars and trucks are just as good and fuel efficient as any foreign counterpart! If you go to a sub-par dealership it has nothing to do with the cars in general. The domestic auto industry was sell on average 16-17 million cars and trucks a year, until the credit market crash! Those of you driving bmws and mercedes and other high-end cars aren’t going to buy American anyway because you all feel that somehow driving a foreign brand tells the world you’re somebody! And the toyota and honda drivers think they have the market on reliability, when reliability is based on the driver not the car. Their are just as many is not more high mileage American cars on the road as any foreign brands. On every continent in the world GM and Ford make money its only in this spoiled society of ours that being American is somehow inferior, Go to Germany,China,Brazil,Australia even the Middle-East American cars and trucks are valued commodities! If Japanese cars so great why won’t let our automakers build plants over there or at least let us sell sale as many cars in their country as we allow them sell over here! They don’t because they know they would lose market share because over there we are the foreign status symbol! So please stop being shallow-minded and give our car companies the credit they are due. Don’t try to criticize and you are not even willing to go to a dealership and test drive these wonderful automobiles!
to this comment On July 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm Gereon (from Germany) said:
“…American cars and trucks are just as good and fuel efficient as any foreign counterpart!…”
Trae, I really enjoyed reading your comment. A few days ago, Volkswagen announced the first electric vehicles for 2013. The Chevy Volt already is scheduled for late 2010.
Hello!? WHO is late in introducing vehicles with advanced propulsion systems?! Definitely it’s not GM! In contrast, in Europe most manufacturers still rely on a technology of the 19th century – the Diesel. That’s like declaring steam-engines as future-proof for modern railways. I am “impressed”.
“If Japanese cars so great why won’t let our automakers build plants over there or at least let us sell sale as many cars in their country as we allow them sell over here!”
A Cadillac CTS costs about twice as much in Japan in comparison to Germany. IMHO, that’s nothing but protectionism from Japan. I don’t get it why the US obviously silently accepts this policy.
to this comment On July 7, 2009 at 2:16 pm Sheth jones said:
Gereon:
The US doesn’t comment on Japan’s protectionist policies because Japan buys a lot of Treasury bonds and helps finance our deficit spending. JApan is almost a closed automotive market and that is by design. No foreign automakers have plants in Japan and no foreign automaker has a sizable presence there. Japan’s government has set up a system that allows its local carmakers to be sheilded from imports.
I hope everyone has noted that Toyota plans a plug in Prius with 18 miles of range for commercial sale by 2012 and its speculated that it could cost nearly $50k. That should silence some of the Volt critics.
to this comment On July 10, 2009 at 5:16 pm Connie Steffens said:
NO GREEN…NO WAY..I own, and they are paid for, two GM SUV’s…Mine is a 2002 Chevy Tahoe, and my husband’s is a 1999 GMC Yukon, and we’re not getting rid of them anytime soon. My GM dealer does a great job repairing whatever needs to be done, and I don’t like, LET ME REPEAT THAT, I don’t like ANYTHING that is coming out. IF I buy another Chevy Tahoe it will only be years between 2002 and 2006, after that you screwed it up.
As far as the Camaro is concerned…you brought the hard top our in the Spring and the convertible out in December, now that person needs to be fired.
to this comment On July 17, 2009 at 2:33 pm BrendaF said:
I think it is ironic that GM may be the greenest company in the world, because of it’s commitment to worker health and safety and compensation, supplier qualifications, investment in green technologies including E85, fuel cells, increased fuel economy, energy conservation in manufacturing, community social involvement, lack of significant pollution compared to other industries, zero landfill facilities, and so on, but doesn’t get credit for it. GM gets little or no recognition for being “green” because of the Hummer and other gas-guzzling SUVs. In other words, even though GM is “green”, because of some of its products that don’t help consumers feel good about themselves, GM gets a bad rap.
Compare the way we categorize grocery products as “green” with the way a car company is considered “green”. We have fair-trade coffee (GM is fair-trade), UFW grapes (UAW is bigger more powerful union), recyclable packaging (what packaging? and the product is recyclable) no-pesticides/herbicides (GM is responsible user of chemicals) the product is SAFE for consumers to use. If I buy a reusable shopping bag every time I go grocery shopping, instead of taking the plastic one, I can pat myself on the back for being “green” although the 99-cent bag itself is probably made by slave labor inside a factory in China that burns coal – how environmentally sensitive is that? Especially if the alternative, a plastic bag, is made locally. I noted that one of the previous posters repeatedly mentioned “local production” as a criteria for choosing a car – certainly that is a hot topic in “green groceries” as well. GM should continue to manufacture its products in the location where they are purchased.
I know virtually nothing about Subaru’s manufacturing process, corporate resonsibility, etc., but because their ads prominently feature environmental organization’s bumper stickers on the back of a Subaru, I have an image of a Subaru as a “green” car. Likewise, the driver of a Toyota Prius automatically gains points for being environmentally responsible just because they were early adopters of hybrid technology – yet I don’t really know how “green” Toyota is as a company.
So it is important to get the whole “green” story out. GM is doing all the right things but doesn’t get credit for it often enough. Give the customers our green supply chain information (if they want it) at the point of purchase. Put a face on the people that work to keep GM green – all the energy engineers, the environmental engineers, the designers, the workers who don’t use aerosol cans any more, the office workers who use the back sides of printouts for scratch paper, the data center planners that use “hot aisle, cool aisle” floor plans to reduce energy use, and on and on….
to this comment On July 20, 2009 at 9:14 am Bob Trotta said:
I just DON’T get it. WHY can’t GM build something like the Toyota Prius? They CERTAINLY have the ability/knowledge/know how etc. to do so. The Aveo would be a perfect competitor or the Chevy Cobalt. A Malibu can’t become a Toyota Camry hybrid???
The only reason I can see is that the car companies and the oil companies are in cahoots!
to this comment On July 26, 2009 at 4:30 am Carz said:
The niche of the GM company is secured and so long as they try their best to improve the faults they have experienced during the fallout, it would not be soon before they can successfully manage a model for green cars.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 9:31 am Gene Hargis said:
Beth Lowery,
I have been real excited by GM’s decision to go forward with the VOLT. Recent releases I have read are saying it will be the first vehical to obtain triple digit gas milage (240mpg-city). Also, I was worried about battery life. It seems GM is to and is pushing for a range of ten years. I can live with that. I am impressed.
To have a car that never needs gas would be great and the Volt is the closest thing to it, especially with the option of being able to charge it myself. Wish it had more than the 40 mile range on just the battery but I am pleased.
I do have a question: The onboard computer can control many things. Does the Volt have the option of charging the battery while it is parked. If I am at work there are 8 + hours that it can charge and the computer can control the one and off of the gas engine as it does in normal travel. My thoughts were maybe the load on the engine would be different than if it were charging while the vehicle was being operated.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 11:29 am youdate said:
Seems Like the GM company now Government Motors will need Bailout forever. Tell me if I am incorrect.