Grab our RSS Feed
Volt To be in Production in 2010
February 14th, 2007 | Posted in: Production, Release Date
Today a report of an interview with Bob Lutz at the close of the Chicago auto show was published. He is quoted as saying many interesting things, such as the fact that GM is expected to lose money on the introduction of the Volt. He also reported to say that GM hopes to have the Volt in production by 2010.
He alludes to a roadmap in which the Volt E-flex paradigm is the first step towards future models (?hydrogen powered) and that the initial vehicle will be based on the Cobalt platform.
Popularity: 3%
(3 votes, average: 3.33 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Posted by: Lyle
24 Responses to “Volt To be in Production in 2010”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- EPA Closer to Giving the Chevy Volt at Least a 100 mpg Rating
- GM, Natural Gas, and the Volt
- GM and Chrysler in Merger Talks
- More Details About Chrylser’s Electric Car Plans
- As GM Goes So Goes the Nation
- Lutz Provides More Volt Details: Photovoltaic Roof to be Unveiled in January, and Volt Development Ahead of Schedule
- GM’s Electric History
- Project Better Place CEO Calls the Volt a Niche Product
- The Production Chevy Volt Has One Charging Port, and Unnamed Object Identified
- Video: 60 Minutes - Race For the Electric Car
Designed and Developed by Twenty Six Media
February 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I hope this is true, but did he actually say that GM would build the car by 2010 or did he say that he ‘hoped’ to have it in production by then? I really want it to happen sooner rather than later, but I doubt GM has the ability, or the courage, to move that quickly.
Here is hoping that I am wrong!
February 15th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I don’t believe Bob was actually quoted saying the Volt’s SOP was in 2010. That is a date journalists seem to be coming up with lately. If you listen to “Industry Experts” (whoever they are) that have been ‘quoted’ or ‘referenced’ by journalists as well, they are saying 2012. If GM is going to win this race, the Volt will go into production sooner rather than later.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I have a new quote from Automotive Engineering (SAE):
“GM is planning to offer E-flex power systms in all major world markets, according to Jon Lauckner, GM’s Vice President of Global Vehcle Programs. He said the company’s next-generation compact car platform, due in 2009, called Global Delta, has been package-protected for an E-flex battery pack, generator, and related hardware.”
…
“…lithium ion will begin.. hybrid use around 2010.”
This is consistent with what I have heard. The Volt (or other 2-mode hybrid) was tentatively slated for ~2012, but was pulled in to 2010 some time around NAIAS.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Yeah, it’s all about the batteries. They probably compressed their timeline right after discussions with A123 where they probably got some optomistic news. They could pull off quite a coup if they released the Volt in 2009 as Flex ICE direct to electric motor at 50 mpg with a free upgrade to the battery pack when available sometime in 2010.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
From the voice of a GM salesperson , this will be an awesome vehicle to show . Lets all thank GM for saving our environment and leading the way in electric vehicles.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Wiegman: You should post the link to the artical so we can all read it.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:35 am
GM could produce the Volt right now with existing Nickel Metal Hydride (”NiMH”) batteries or even lead-acid batteries.
Lithium is more expensive, contains toxic Cobalt, is volatile, and has a shelf life of at most 3-5 years.
NiMH is the most researched and successful EV battery, still running strong in six-year old packs on the Toyota RAV4-EV.
GM used NiMH on the 1999 EV1, but now, is ignoring it. Even cobasys admits that NiMH is here, now, and has no explanation for why they might be on a snipe-hunt for “Lithium research”.
Even if Li were to prove superior, which is very, very doubtful, GM could release the plug-in serial hybrid now, with lead acid or NiMH, and later upgrade.
It means to me that GM is not currently serious about producing the VOLT, it’s just a Public Relations ploy at this point; but the public clamor for plug-in cars may yet force perfidious GM to actually produce it. And stop ignoring NiMH. It’s almost as if the Toyota RAV4-EV, hundreds of them, were just invisible to GM, its flacks and paid newspeople.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Doug: you really need to do some more research before posting comments about batteries. Your statements about LiIon are simply not accurate. And, NiMH is a non starter as far as the Volt is concerned. GM learned a lot from the EV1 program and that’s why they have developed and put out a spec for LiIon to their potential vendors. NiMH was a good option for it’s time, but things move on. It simply doesn’t have the power to weight ration needed for the Cobalt platform that the Volt will be built on.
GM is dead serious about producing this car as soon as possible. They began working on it right after the 2006 Detroit Auto Show. They also have electric car experience that goes back to the late 60s. This is probably the most important vehicle they have ever developed because they know it is a game changing concept and that the time is right to bring it to consumers.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Doug, I have to agree with Sky King. The NiMH battery is simply too heavy, hold less charge, and dissipates faster than Li-ion. For the mass-produced vehicular application NiMH just wont work out.
Theres been a lot of talk about coming out early with NiMh and then swapping to Li later, but lets face it the engineering is too different and the costs of that approach too high. Theres a lot of venture cap and tax dollars going into Li-ion research and it will arrive. The stage is clearly set and the roadmap is laid out.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Those of us currently driving electric vehicles know that lead-acid and NiMH batteries work NOW. Think of all the environmental damage the other GM products will cause while waiting 5 years for an unproven battery. License the Volt to Toyota,
they will make it work.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I read a wonderful book on the predecessor to the EV1 (Impact). The author covers the wonderful NiMH batteries that were used in later versions of the car, so why not use these batteries TODAY? Toyota RAV4Es have demonstrated these batteries have a long life and keep on going after 100,000 miles.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
ChevyVolt,
This site says that the Volt’s battery is 400lbs and has 16KwH of energy. The RAV4E battery weighs 900lbs and has 29KwH. So, if you used a NiMH battery half the size of the RAV4E, you would be right at the same amount of weight and energy as the one that GM wants to wait years to use. Maybe the price point of NiMH it too high? Nope. CARB also shared that the price points for battery packs for the RAV4E would be about $350/KwH in volume production of only 10,000 per year. So, this is a whopping $600 dollars more than the $5,000 cost that GM hopes to one day achieve with the lion batteries.
What am I missing?
Source California Air Resources Board: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/2000review/btapreport.pdf
February 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
400 pounds is the weight to the battery in the concept car GM built, not the desired weight in the production car as I understand it.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
GM flacks, you continue the party line:
“…NiMH is a non starter as far as the Volt is concerned…”
But the 770 lb. NiMH battery pack in the Toyota RAV4-EV has more than twice the power needed for the VOLT (our pack, which exists, and which perhaps you should study before you deny it exists, contains up to 30 kWh of electric: enough to take the RAV4-EV more than 100 mils on a charge. And if these were in the EV1, it would go almost 200 miles on a charge.).
The EV1 out performed the VOLT, and could beat any Corvette off the line (losing only to some big Mercedes and some exotic sports cars).
You just have to OPEN YOUR EYES and look at the EXISTING NIMH BATTERIES which GM is ignoring.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
GM NOT SERIOUS ABOUT THE VOLT?
“What’s wrong with waiting patiently?”
GM and Chevron used that back in 2003, when they crushed the EV, claiming “hybrids now and wait for fuel cells”. But there is no evidence that this time it’s any different from the last time they deceived the EV-optimistic public.
There’s no reason to wait for Chevron’s cobasys, or Johnson Controls (which derated the standard lead-acid Optima YT from 55 to 39
amp/hours), to do “research” on Lithium. No reason, that is, except to make an excuse for why GM is not actually doing anything to make oil-free cars.
Regulators and the media stood back and let auto makers like GM get away with lies in 1994, 1996, 2000, when Western States Petroleum, GM, Honda, Chrysler and Ford claimed they “COULDN’T DO AN ELECTRIC CAR”. They hinted that fuel cells were “RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER”.
They lied; California FORCED GM to make an EV, and it worked great.
The problem was, GM never agreed to make an honest attempt at a market; the 1996 MOA, which had been kept secret from the public for phony, non-responsive reasons, oil guys sneered in the 2000 ZEV workshop, only agreed to put cars on the road for a certain period.
So GM tricked regulators, formally allowing GM to remove the EV1 from use. No one dreamed that GM could be so evil as to actually CRUSH the EV1 it had been allowed to take away from lessees.
But GM, using the argument that they could do what they wanted with the EV1, thanks to tricking CARB, went the extra mile of evility and crushed them, refusing cash and actually spending money to dismantle them and shred each and every part. Even though rebuilders would
have LOVED to have the motor/controller, space-age direct drive gearing and differntial fluid. GM, showing it didn’t have a helpful bone in its evil body, pointedly made sure that ALL the batteries were shredded, according to one report, and ALL the space-age technology was DESTROYED, SHREDDED and THROWN INTO THE SMELTER for POT METAL.
GM was allowed to get away with claiming, in 2003, “hybrids now, and wait for fuel cells”, by supine media and baffled regulators.
Instead of an honest, good-faith effort at making a market in clean cars, GM did everything they could to sabotage EVs. Instead of an honest effort to improve hybrids and move to clean air, GM just used the fuel cells for a PR gimmick, and, without need or provocation,
crushed “all” private leased EV1. Basically, for no reason other than that they “could do it”. So GM was not being honest, not seriously moving toward a market in cleaner cars.
Why would anyone believe GM now, when they are admitting they can in fact do a plug-in EV, but “NOT JUST YET”.
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TRUST THEM? What’s the track record??
What they are really saying is, “WE WANT YOU TO THINK WE ARE DOING SOMETHING UNTIL YOU FORGET ABOUT ELECTRIC CARS”.
Oil companies are the drug lords selling the addictive drug, GM is just the low-level pusher selling the hardware needed to use that drug.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Well Doug, now that you’re done with your rant, maybe we can get back to a civil discussion:
NMHx is cost-effective only for delivering peak power, NOT energy. EVs require both power and energy. GM knows this because they use NMHx batteries in their hybrids today and used them in the EV-1. And, even as a peak-power provider, NMHx is quite expensive. To add more active material to the battery for energy means more expensive battery-grade nickel plus more even more expensive vanadium, cobalt etc. for the hydride. Even if you cut the EV range from 40 miles to 10 or 20 miles, NMHx simply has a material cost floor that will always be too high. Further, it will never have the energy density (mass or volume) needed for a good vehicle solution. To get both cost and a vehicle solution, Li-Ion is required since it has a much lower materials floor (cost) and has acceptable energy and power density for a good vehicle solution. In fact, Li-Ion has a 2X-3X better density that NMHx. Any more than a cursory study of the current battery technology will show that Li-Ion is the only viable solution for long range EV or PHEV applications.
And as for the EV1 in particular:
Folks remember the EV-1 with more fondness than it deserves. It would go 60 miles and then it was time for a 220V inductive recharge via a special charging paddle for its lead-acid batteries. Roughly 8 hours later you would be on your way again for another 60 miles. Later, GM had Nickel Metal Hydride batteries which were better but still not practical. It is only in the last 3 years that Li-Ion batteries have emerged. Li-Ion has three-times the charge density of Lead-Acid (or said another way 1/3 of the space). So, if you were sitting in 2002 making a decision on the EV-1 you would say “forget it”. With 20/20 hindsight (2006) you would say this was a mistake. Folks forget that the EV-1 was a total failure in terms of volume. Something like 500 cars. Yo don’t keep something around, regardless of how cool it is to sell 500 cars. However, GM did glean an enormous amount of data from the program and it’s in part a lot of that data that is driving the Volt development.
Let’s all chill a bit and try to put a positive spin on these discussions. GM reads all of these blogs and forums to get a feel for consumer attitudes. If we provide a positive and receptive atmosphere, they will respond in kind. However if we all just spend our time trashing GM for whatever reasons in past efforts, then they may just decide to tell us all to go piss off and buy a Toyota. I for one would never buy a Prius unless I had a mental retrograde back to my geek days, then it would suit me just fine. Hopefully I’ve moved on to a better place…
February 19th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
GM may not be ready to move forward with this technology, but if they don’t then others will. Check this news of the day:
http://www.teslamotors.com/media/press_room.php?id=257
February 20th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Sky, I don’t know where you get your mis-information, but it’s just plain contrary to fact.
You claim,
“…NMHx is cost-effective only for delivering peak power, NOT energy…”.
This is false. The EV-95 batteries in the RAV4-EV deliver both, and every single day.
“…EVs require both power and energy…”
Yes, and also must deep-cycle, which NiMH is great at, and must have long cycle-life and shelf-life, which NiMH exceeds at.
“…GM knows this because they use NMHx batteries in their hybrids today and used them in the EV-1…”
Sorry, Sky, but the batteries used in the parallel hybrids and in the EV1 (and Toyota RAV4-EV) are radically different. The requirements are completely different: the existikng “parallel” hybrids use the batteries only for “fast-twitch” power boosting to achieve better MPG, and for starting off. They just cannot be used for an EV! Famously, there are loads of almost free 1.3 kWh Prius batteries, but they are USELESS for powering an EV, which needs “slow-twitch” deep-cycle batteries. The internals are completely different; for example, the EV-95 delivers at least 95 A/H, or about 1.2 kWh, going from 100% down to 0%, which we do quite often, extracting up to 30 kWh on a charge.
But the Prius battery only goes from 40% to 80%, so only delivers .4 kWh for its one module.
“…And, even as a peak-power provider, NMHx is quite expensive. To add more active material to the battery for energy means more expensive battery-grade nickel plus more even more expensive vanadium, cobalt etc. for the hydride…”
On the contrary; take a look at the discussion on the yahoo group Electric_vehicles_for_sale. NiMH has been found economical by CARB, and, because of its high scrap value, 57% of all Ni used each year comes from recycling. The high cost translates into high reuse and great salvage value.
“… Even if you cut the EV range from 40 miles to 10 or 20 miles, NMHx simply has a material cost floor that will always be too high…”
This is an interesting claim: got any documentation for it? We can prove the opposite.
“…Further, it will never have the energy density (mass or volume) needed for a good vehicle solution. To get both cost and a vehicle solution, Li-Ion is required since it has a much lower materials floor (cost) and has acceptable energy and power density for a good vehicle solution…”
Also questionable. Lithium, while it has a certain seductive appeal, has significant disadvantages which no one has yet been able to resolve: chief among these are SHELF-LIFE, CYCLE-LIFE, LIFE-CYCLE COST, and, to some extent, volatility (requires a sophisticated BMS which GM has no idea how to make), supply constraints (Li is only 65 ppm in the earth, while Ni is a byproduct of many other mining operations; also, Ni can be recycled, is only a small part of the cost of the batteries, etc.
Most importantly, NiMH is the ONLY PROVEN EV BATTERY, SHOWN SUPERIOR AND LASTING LONGER THAN THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE in millions of test and production-car miles.
Sky, you are also mistaken in your ideas about the EV1:
“…EV-1…would go 60 miles and then it was time for a 220V inductive recharge…”
I have an EPA certified slip, provided by GM, that proves the 1999 EV1 with Ovonics NiMH had a 144 mile range on a charge.
Even the 1997, with Panasonic lead-acid, had a 110 mile range.
Your impressions are just false, sorry.
“…via a special charging paddle for its lead-acid batteries….”
We bypassed the “magnecharger” and hooked up a conductive charger; also, the 1997 could be charged with a 110v circuit, not just a 220v circuit. That’s what my wife loved best about the EV1, it could plug in on a normal extension cord, and she could plug it in anywhere. No charger needed!
“…Roughly 8 hours later you would be on your way again for another 60 miles…”
Also false. See above.
“…Later, GM had Nickel Metal Hydride batteries which were better but still not practical…”
Yes, it was practical; we never had a problem with range, and loved the EV1. When GM crushed it, it ran just as well as when it was new; we were willing to pay $25,000 CASH, under a salvage title, to be able to buy the EV1. Why thwart willing buyers? Why try to tell us what was best for us??
“…It is only in the last 3 years that Li-Ion batteries have emerged…”
Actually, Lithium has been a recurring chimera for the last 40 years, and is not practical yet.
“…Folks forget that the EV-1 was a total failure in terms of volume. Something like 500 cars…”
LOL! That’s all GM made, and only doled them out, a few a month. There were thousands who would have bought, or even leased. GM only made 465 1999 EV1 in 1998, and only released 200 of them, when forced, in Dec., 1999, after it had already dismantled the production facilities.
The EV1 was a GREAT SUCCESS, and attracted a loyal following — even years later, people held a 24/7 vigil in the worst L.A. rainstorm just for the small chance of getting one of the last 78 EV1, which GM refused to sell and then crushed.
The fact is, GM is going to have to be FORCED to make the VOLT, and that’s what we hope California will do. Without being forced, GM will continue on its snipe hunt for “lithium research”, but EV engineers know it’s not economical now, and probably won’t ever be.
ONLY NiMH ia proven economical for EV construction, and not an unreasonable burden on EV buyers.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Sky King said,
“Folks forget that the EV-1 was a total failure in terms of volume”
I wonder if the first manufacturer of many other consumer items thought they were a total flop when they produced a limited number their first few years, but yet sold each one at a nice marketup?
GM leased each of the vehicles they made available for lease — I would have been tickled if I were GM and turned up the assembly line (which I know from the book about the Impact was not a real line per say). If they had released others, they would have leased them. If they would have sold them, more would have purchased (a lot of use know that leasing is just “fleecing” — most financial planners call it that). If they would have expanded the areas of the country where a person could get one, they would have leased even more.
GM needs to take the lead in the US automotive market by bringing the VOLT to market in the NEAR future rather than waiting for batteries that might not materialize at price points (to say nothing of reliability). I drive an older Pontiac Sunfire (1996) that I really like (even though it is getting a bit long in tooth). I would really love to move to a VOLT!
February 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
We must get over the NiMh battery idea..if it was ideal it would be in use. The problem is limited cycling life, and the prohibitive costs of replacing thme in vehicles.
See toyota’s official press release:
http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/ravev/rav4ev_0_home/index.html
Its Lithium-ion all the way.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Careful, you will incur Doug’s wrath at your blasphamy against the One True Battery. He has also decided to entertain us with his usual agenda of trashing GM at any opportunity. A quick bit of research by anyone interested will turn up who Doug is and what his agenda is. Once you know the background, his comments get put into a more realistic perspective.
I will not try to correct his corrections point by point on my original comments, not worth the effort. It’s a free country and Doug is entitled to his opinions, but the negativism simply is not conducive to creating positive attitudes or hope for a better future. Let’s spend our time bringing positive ideas to the table - this entire Alternative Energy concept needs all the help it can get from people like us (since the Feds aren’t up to it). If we took all of the energy wasted on complaining about the problem and used it constructively, we would all be driving around in 300 mile per charge vehicles already.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Hmm. The NiMH battery is here, now, and works: visibly, faultlessly, and more than enough for the VOLT, or any other plug-in hybrid. That’s not an agenda, that’s a fact. Personalities don’t matter, what matters is getting your facts straight.
No one has any way to prove that Lithium is practical, because no Lithium pack has, so far, lasted longer than 50,000 miles; while MANY NiMH have lasted up to, and past, 100,000 miles, and been documented, and still going strong.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Well Doug, we are all quite happy for you that your two RAV4-EVs have served you so well and for so long. I personally think that is great and a tribute to the technology as it was back then. But trolling through all of the discussion forums and blogs on the internet regarding PHEV/BEV/EVs giving long winded dissertations crusading for NiMH batteries is, well, a waste of time. GM has set the specifications for the Volt and it is Li-Ion - full stop. End of discussion. NiMH will never happen as a long term solution, so give it a rest, change the subject, and lets discuss features and benefits of the upcoming Volt (that is what we’re here for, isn’t it?).
April 4th, 2008 at 11:39 am
hello i am cool