Chevy Volt on CBS Sunday Morning: Lutz Says Priced “Nicely” Under $30,000

28 Responses to “Chevy Volt on CBS Sunday Morning: Lutz Says Priced “Nicely” Under $30,000”

1. 
   
   voltman Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

   He also mentioned that the battery makers were telling him to stop saying “if” they can do it, because they were already doing it (A123 and dewalt power tools for example).

   Another big part of the segment was he admitted the EV1 debacle was a BIG mistake. He said that he did what he needed to do from a legal standpoint but a horrible job on the PR side.

2. 
   
   Drake Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

   A _sub_ $30k Volt…all I can say is WOW.

   Let’s say the car turns out the be $28k- though in my opinion, that does not meet the definition of “nicely”. It will probably lower.

   $28k - $4k tax credit = $24k

   Factor in gasoline savings over the life the vehicle and the Volt may pay for itself. Has a car throughout history EVER paid for itself? I doubt it. While this would take a lot of driving on electricity power, I would not put it past the Volt as the price per gallon of gasoline continues to rise.

   GM is about to be catapulted into greatness. This is going to be a turnaround worthy of the history books.

3. 
   
   AES Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pm

   It’s good that the Volt made national news like that, but I felt that the segment portrayed the Volt as a bit of a pie-in-the-sky project, especially with regards to the batteries being still unavailable - which they obviously aren’t.

   Now granted, GM could have wanted to not show public favoritism towards A123 or LG Chem, despite the overwhelming online sentiment that A123 is going to win it.

4. 
   
   Mark Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pm

   “GM is about to be catapulted into greatness.”

   They could have been great ALREADY if they didn’t bow down to the wishes of Big Oil….

5. 
   
   Szyszek Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 8:31 pm

   Mark and others like him: Just stop with the conspiracy theories already. This is just silly. Since you are interested in Volt, you should know better. GM created EV1 because it was mandated by CA law. It made no economic sense (it was too expensive) and it had batteries that were not good enough to power a car (nothing else was available). When the law was struck down, they wisely canceled the project (in an unwisely way). Now Volt has a chance to be a car that will be cost effective and reliable due to advancements in battery technology. The time has finally come for the electric car and GM is in front leading the way. I can’t wait.

6. 
   
   JOhn Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

   Could somebody rip this thing to Youtube?

   CBS is idiotic.

   Not everyone can stream video. If one could load the video, one could have a viewable experience.

7. 
   
   Marty McFly Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 9:41 pm

   If Hymotion/A123 can do it for a Prius (a year ago), GM can certainly do it for a Volt three years from now. A lot of the engineering has been in motion for a while:

   1. The platform: NexGen Colbalt (nothing new)

   2. Electric drive/mgnt: compliments of the EV1 (nothing new)

   3. The battery: nanophosphate Li (new, but currently in the marketplace)

   All GM has to do is combine the technologies into a $25k package.

   __________________________________

   The Chevy Volt, it’s not just for treehuggers anymore ;>)

8. 
   
   Steven B Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

   Everything conspired against the EV1 when it was around. Those include CARB, GM management, consumers, big oil, hydrogen fuel cells, and the 90’s and early 00’s economy. If you know a lot about the EV1 project, saw “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and studied the conditions behind it, you see that it was not only GM who killed the project.

   GM failed due to lack of vision (not to get all ‘Return of the Jedi’ on you, but it’s true) and didn’t imagine the EV1 in a proper scale, and treated it more like Honda’s Insight, rather Toyota’s Prius. The technology was not fully ready, though it was right around the corner, and neither were the battery economics, which will come very soon. And of course, the battery economics are not expected to be here until a year or two after the Volt is expected to be introduced.

   The California Air Resources Board failed because of its zero-emission vehicle mandate. It forced a solution, instead of coaxing it, and repealed it when the solution was actually being generated, instead of more effectively augmenting policy.

   Big Oil did play a villain by protecting its own interests in regard to the project, but it’s wrong to blame them. They were not well diversified into anything beyond oil, and did their job to protect profits for their shareholders. That’s a failure of our system, not of the oil companies. Hate the game, not the player, as they say.

   Hydrogen fuel cells posed as an intermediate solution when people today think it’s a potential long-term solution, at best, and a pipe-dream at worst.

   Consumers didn’t know that they wanted it. And on top of that, the cheap gasoline which didn’t become expensive until 2005 coincided with high electricity prices in California where the EV1 was marketed, so it didn’t make much sense at the time for most potential buyers. It was a clean, high-tech, high-performance luxury item that was good for everybody that few people wanted.

   Don’t blame GM. They know they did wrong and they’re fixing it now. The future is coming.

9. 
   
   Dave G Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm

   This is a great video! CBS really covered all the angles and got the right players.

   But now that the Volt is getting more TV coverage, I have to wonder what the oil companies are going to do. If the Volt and similar cars takeover, oil companies will get the shaft. They’re not just going to lay down and die. With the kind of money they have, all sorts of things could happen…

   I think Steven B is right. Someone needs to figure out how the oil companies play in this new electric future. Their business hasn’t required much diversity or vision up to now, so they probably need to be shown the way.

10. 
    
    Szyszek Says:
    September 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    I doubt that Big Oil will be able to kill the Volt, so they have to diversify or die. Fortunately for them, they have time and money to do it, we’ll see if they have the brains. Fairy tale solution would be for them to invest in renewable energy like wind power or solar. Who knows? Maybe they will rename themselves as Energy Company and one day we will say: get your electricity from Exxon to power your Volt version 4.0, they have the cleanest power available

11. 
    
    omegaman66 Says:
    September 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Certainly gasoline is a huge part of all of the “oil companies” but gasoline isn’t there only product. Chemical plants make everything from plastic to basically most all chemical products. Natural gas is a give “oil company” product and it is used to power a lot of the energy that will go into charging the Volt when it is plugged in.

    ExxonMobil is involved in stuff such as mining for coal, copper etc.

12. 
    
    Don Says:
    September 16th, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    Big Oil is not afraid of a lack of demand, and no reasonable turn-over of the cars on the road will make most cars electric for any near term future. It will take a while even with a big hit. They are dealing more with keeping supply up to increasing demands and very cognizant that new oil will cost them more and more to produce. They are also aware that sooner or later there will be a carbon cap/trade or tax for them to deal with in merica as well. That’s why they have all been doing exactly as Szyszak suggests, and refashioning themselves as “energy” companies. They want a piece of whatever the pie turns out to be, whether it is solar (http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4260) or biofuel (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/09/17/100259542/) or wind (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7020896). Even cleaner coal. (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7033260) Those are all BP links but they are all doing it. These are not projects they do out of the goodness of their hearts. They know what the inventories are and they know that the days of easy oil profits are winding down. But they will be there to profit from whatever we use. And hey, I’m with them! I’m buying utilities (LNT, NRG), coal producers(ARLP), mining stocks (PCU, SQI), natural gas producers (CHK) and transporters (KMP), support services for deep water oil exploration (CAM), solar (AMAT - with a baseline semiconductor business), along with the battery players (CBAK, ABAT, ALTI), and of course GM.

    You don’t need tea leaves to see the future in this case.

13. 
    
    Dave G Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 12:45 am

    “Will it live up to its promise of 40-plus mile electric range?” Lutz said. “Will the battery last ten years? Can we bring it in at a price that most people could afford? If the answer is ‘yes’ to all that, then I think the future for electrics is absolutely unlimited.”

    So if the answer in no to any of these (range, battery life, or price), then…

    I really hope it happens. To the designers at GM - we’re rootin’ for ya!

14. 
    
    omegaman66 Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 6:44 am

    Battery range will vary with conditions, such as night, air conditioner, traffic etc but the range of 40 without ac should be pretty accurate when the car comes out. They could tweak the amount of discharge or maybe increase the size of the battery a hair to meet their targets if this is going to be an issue… or not if they choose.

    Battery life should also not be an issue as they batteries will likely last the life of the car. That is my opinion based on what has happened with all the battery life expectancies being either accurate or conservative. You must remember if they say 10 years that doesn’t mean the battery will become useless at 10 years just that the range will now have become 30 miles instead of 40!

    As far as cost goes. Most people here think that the cost will be “as advertised”. This is the only thing I am a little skeptical about. We will see. If I had to vote I would say the batteries will end up being cheap enough to not drive the price of the car up, but that is still an the biggest of the unknowns so far.

15. 
    
    ziv Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 8:36 am

    I really like what was said, my only question is, “Will the Volt be nicely under #30,000 including the battery?”
    And, I guess, is Wikipedia right about the limited shelf life of Lithium Ion batteries? Or is that alleviated by nearly constant cooling?
    Regardless of these questions, it is looking more and more like GM is going to have a hit on their hands, and I want one of the first ones!
    “No more money for oil!”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion

16. 
    
    Tim Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 10:16 am

    Mr. Lutz is doing an excellent job! I can’t wait to own a volt.

    I do wish that he would go one step further and stress renewable electricity including home rooftop PV electricity. Focusing on the electric only range is confusing. Nobody wants a car with a “40 mile range”. Well, that’s what they first hear when they learn of the volt. Perhaps he can memorize a little 5 second sound bite on the mpg between charges.

    Example “According to statistics, 82% of all commuters travel less than 40 miles each day. During these commutes, the Volt uses no gas at all. When driving 100 miles, the Volt will get around x mpg, 150 miles equals about x mpg, 250 miles = about x mpg and when going the full 650 mile range on those really long trips, the Volt will get over 54 mpg”

    There has to be a way for him to memorize and then repeat this statement at every opportunity. It should be in every advertisement and repeated every time the name Volt is mentioned.

    Then go on to talk about lower maintenance costs, longer vehicle life, greater drivability, lower emissions, simplistic design, lighter weight and a much lower cost of ownership during its X year expected lifetime.

    By the way, Legacy Costs Kill. If the socialist union workers are too stupid to save for their own retirement and too greedy to let GM compete with China, GM should start a brand new company without them or go offshore. These greedy union bastards deserve it!

17. 
    
    Estero Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 10:19 am

    omegaman66 said:

    “You must remember if they say 10 years that doesn’t mean the battery will become useless at 10 years just that the range will now have become 30 miles instead of 40!”

    That statemet suggests lithium ion either has a memory like NiMH, which I had understood was not the case, or lithium ion degrades over time. If it is the latter, at what point does the degration start; immediately or after a predictable period or time? Any know?

18. 
    
    Dave G Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 10:33 am

    omegaman66 - I agree. The cost of the battery would be my biggest concern.

    ziv - Li/Ion batteries have a much longer life if they are kept cool and never get very full or empty. The Wikipedia Li/Ion page has a table about 1/2 way down on the right that shows this.

    We know that the Volt will have liquid cooled batteries and that the charge won’t go below 30% or above 80%.

    Also, the A123 Li/Ion batteries have significantly improved specs, including life:
    http://www.a123systems.com/newsite/index.php#/technology/
    They also say their cost is low. I hope they’re right.

19. 
    
    Neil Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am

    Estero: Li-ion batteries degenerate both with time and use. I’ll quickly describe degradation due to usage. Battery lifetime is described in “cycles”. A “deep cycle” describes the complete usage of the battery from full charge to pretty much flat. Batteries are rated by the number of times they can be deep cycled (at high discharge rates) before they can only hold 80% of their original capacity. The A123 batteries probably have a cycle live in the order of 2000 cycles. Wear and tear on the battery is proportional to the depth of discharge. A battery like the A123 could handle hundreds of thousands of shallow discharges without much loss of capacity. Therefore the cycle life represents a worst case scenario. Even then you still have a workable battery.
    Hope that answers your question.

20. 
    
    Steven B Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 11:30 am

    For the nano-phosphate technology, just go to the A123 Systems web site to see for yourself. They are atypical, extremely advanced lithium-ion batteries. The web site is full of useful information, and the technology is extremely impressive.

21. 
    
    Estero Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Thanks Neil!

22. 
    
    Tim Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    My understanding is that the A123 batteries could not be used easily in a Tesla like vehicle. A123 have better power density, but not as good energy density as conventional commodity Li-Ion batteries. To make an all electric vehicle with a long range using A123 batteries would be too heavy.

    Tesla is banking on conventional Li-Ion prices falling with performance increasing. When a vehicle goes 500 miles on a charge, nobody may care about the recharge time. You can’t drive forever without sleep. I think GM might beat them to the punch with a more practical and affordable solution that stands up to real world use.

23. 
    
    AES Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    It’s important to note, however, that the lithium iron phosphate chemistries (of which A123 is only one variation) don’t need the same degree of “coddling” as conventional, Tesla-type cells. I mean just look at the Killacycle crash from last week - the cells were kept in just an aluminum box, and NOTHING HAPPENED. If those were laptop cells, there would have been a rather violent conflagration. So I think in the future, individual cell energy density isn’t going to be nearly as important as gross battery pack density. The gross pack density of Tesla’s pack is only 120 Wh/kg - that’s not too far above the Killacycle pack at somewhere between 100-108.

24. 
    
    voltman Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    “Will the Volt be nicely under #30,000 including the battery?”

    What the hell are you paying for if the batteries are not in there? A generator and a motor? My 06 honda was 18k and it gets 40mpg.

25. 
    
    kent beuchert Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Did they call Tesla “crappy” or “scrappy” ?
    Crappy is the better fit. I see they finally fired (kicked sideways,perhaps) their less than accurate CEO Eberhard. He was the goofball who swore that the Tesla’s would get 250 miles “regardless” regardless of AC usage, terrain, etc. which every EV person knows is pure BS). Then the EPA ran tests and set mileage as “200.” Then Tesla started claiming “over 200 miles.” The cost of batteries they claimed was “low” because they were using generic (and first generation) li ions, but refused to say how much the replacement costs would be, claiming that costs would fall 7% per year,
    and be much lower when replacements were needed, a time interval which they refused to estimate. Then came stories of $25,000
    battery packs that only lasted 5 years, then Tesla claimed the battery pack would last “150,000″ miles, an absurd notion unless one lived in the car and somehow managed to put 30,000 miles a year on the clock. At that point I wrote off Tesla as a goofball bunch of CA airheads who have way too much money and way too little sense or honesty.

26. 
    
    rx_tx Says:
    September 18th, 2007 at 7:56 am

    You can “download” and watch the cbs video here:

    http://tinyurl.com/ytjjk6

    For those that can’t stream (including me

27. 
    
    Neil Says:
    September 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am

    FYI: kent’s been badmouthing/trolling Tesla for some some time now. I hope he has the grace to eat his words publicly and often when the first production Tesla roadsters hit the road in the next few months (I recall him claiming that the whole company is nothing more than a scam and that they’ll just run off with the money, they’ll never get to production etc..).

    GM: You made my day when you introduced the Volt!

28. 
    
    Don Says:
    September 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    we dont need a $30,000 dollar mini cadilac,we need a $12,000 affordable car

Leave a Reply