More Fighting Words From Bob Lutz

25 Responses to “More Fighting Words From Bob Lutz”

1. 
   
   

   Matt986 Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

   Them’s fightin words! Bring it Lutz! We want the American company to win!  
   
   (Quote)

2. 
   
   

   Dave B Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

   I hope this posting doesn’t backfire…  
   
   (Quote)

3. 
   
   

   Steven B Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

   The sooner the better, if you ask me. No rush, no embarrassment is good rule to follow, though. I’m wondering, though, what Toyota is going to do when they’re proved wrong. Pull a rabbit out of their sleeve and show something amazing that manages to outdo GM, or do what GM did well up until recently, bury their heads in the sand, ignore reality and the promises of the future, and lose out on hard-earned reputation and market share until they change their minds?  
   
   (Quote)

4. 
   
   

   noel park Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm

   Right. We’re waiting.  
   
   (Quote)

5. 
   
   

   Dave G Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pm

   I hope GM does everything possible to differentiate the Volt. Toyota can just give the Prius a bigger NiMH battery and call this a PHEV.  
   
   (Quote)

6. 
   
   

   GXT Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

   Toyota is releasing a new Prius soon. Therefore they would have had to have had the batteries ready some time ago. They weren’t. They stated they weren’t safe. They have delayed the introduction of the plug-in Li-ion prius from 2008 to 2011 to address these issues.

   GM’s also doesn’t have a safe and ready Li-ion battery. GM is planning on introducing such a vehicle in 2010 or 2011. Even at that, they are depending on some sort of battery technology breakthrough to make it feasible.

   In my opinion it is a sign of flawed logic to assume that Toyota’s stance on existing Li-ion batteries is different than GM’s (e.g. GM’s shipping hybrids don’t use Li-ion either), or to assume that GM’s 2010 theoretical battery is reflective of existing Li-ion batteries.

   In the end, the real difference here is that Toyota has an actual product to deliver in the very near future. GM doesn’t. They have time to wait for the technology to mature.  
   
   (Quote)

7. 
   
   

   AES Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm

   “In my opinion it is a sign of flawed logic to assume that Toyota’s stance on existing Li-ion batteries is different than GM’s (e.g. GM’s shipping hybrids don’t use Li-ion either), or to assume that GM’s 2010 theoretical battery is reflective of existing Li-ion batteries.”

   GXT – I’ve seen you post stuff like this before, and it continually puzzles me. GM’s battery suppliers aren’t “theoretical”, and neither are their batteries. If critics of GM’s bullishness towards lithium want to be taken seriously, I think they should instead be taking the approach of explicitly saying that nanophosphate cells aren’t safe or adequate for automobile use, and that stuff like CPI’s advanced separator technology isn’t safe or adequate either. That would be a more on-target criticism than simply saying the batteries don’t exist. Based on the evidence out there, I think such an argument would still be flawed, but it would be nice to see detractors actually put together a scientific argument, rather than one based on FUD and hearsay.  
   
   (Quote)

8. 
   
   

   AES Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pm

   GXT-

   I’ll anticipate two possible criticisms that detractors to current automobile lithium could possibly come up with, given their reluctance to do so so far. And here are the counterarguments:

   1) Safety, especially when exposed to physical damage in an accident->

   First off, nail penetration tests on several of the new chemistries have had minimal violent reactions. This is a pretty extreme test, way worse than the cells would be exposed to in a simple fender bender. Perhaps a barrage of 50 caliber bullets hitting the pack might have the same effect, but even if the cells got hot and vented some hot gas, that would be the least of the passengers’ problems! Valence actually did shoot bullets at their lithium ion cells, with very positive results. They aren’t a battery supplier for the Volt, but it’s still a powerful example of how far the technology has come.

   Another consideration is that GM is mounting the pack along the chassis centerline (just like with the EV1), as opposed to the rear wheelwells/trunk like in the Prius and its plug-in conversions. This is an immense improvement in protecting the pack, and it makes for better space management as well.

   2) Heat generation ->

   High power lithium ion cells DO produce heat during heavy charge and discharge. However, oversizing the pack according to GM’s plan (something Toyota has been opposed to, as evidenced by its diagrams) helps to minimize the degree to which each individual cell is charged/discharged. This not only helps reduce heat, but also helps increase pack lifespan, since DOD and discharge rate are both crucial factors for cell life.

   Additionally, cooling the pack using liquid cooling shouldn’t be much more complicated than current car radiator technology.  
   
   (Quote)

9. 
   
   

   Dave G Says:
   September 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

   I’m starting to come to the realization that many Americans are controlled by fear. Toyota’s answer to the Volt is to call it unsafe. The less specific they are, the better this approach works.

   I just hope that 3 years from now people will be able to see through all the BS, and realize that the Volt is the best thing going.  
   
   (Quote)

10. 
    
    

    Dave B Says:
    September 27th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    I dunno Dave G about the best thing going…I fall into the camp that will be the first to buy whatever vehicle has an all electric range of 40 miles or more and is somewhere around the $30,000 mark. By most accounts, it looks like the Miles Javelon, Chinese albeit Chinese manufactured. No more oil.  
    
    (Quote)

11. 
    
    

    OhmExcited Says:
    September 27th, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    Toyota’s battery supplier is Panasonic, whose batteries have been thermally challenged in the past and are not up to the level of those in A123 Systems. They have invested a lot in parallel hybrid technology, which is great for the here and now.  
    
    (Quote)

12. 
    
    

    Buy American Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 12:45 am

    Hi Dave B:

    Good luck in a Chinese built vehicle, hopefully it won’t double as a coffin!  
    
    (Quote)

13. 
    
    

    MarioM Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 3:16 am

    I watched a Chinese vehicle in a crash test and it wasn’t a pretty sight… not that crash tests usually are but the thing practically imploded.  
    
    (Quote)

14. 
    
    

    Dave G Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am

    Dave B – Thanks for the Miles Javelon reference. I didn’t know about this before. I found a good article here:
    http://www.news.com/In-electric-car-stakes,-its-Miles-to-go/2100-11389_3-6201822.html

    But this is a battery electric vehicle (BEV). I’m waiting for a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) with a good all-electric range.

    With a BEV, I worry what will happen if I forget to plug in at night. Also, my parents live 550 miles away and our whole family (dog included) visits them 2-3 times a year.

    So for me, the Volt is the best thing going. Actually, I would prefer something more like an Opel Flextreme station wagon, but I’ll take what I can get. I look forward to the day when there are many PHEVs competing in the market.  
    
    (Quote)

15. 
    
    

    OhmExcited Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am

    The Volt’s A123 batteries are made in China. GE Plastics, which will provide lightweight materials for the Volt, was sold to the Saudis. But at leas the final screws will be turned by Americans.  
    
    (Quote)

16. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 9:48 am

    The Enerdel design looks VERY impressive. It has the advantages over Altairnano’s and A123s designs. It can be more easily and cheaply mass-produced and it has superior thermal properties during charging and discharging. They are GM’s “new player” at the table. Ante-up!

    http://enerdel.com/content/view/104/87/

    Here is a VERY interesting 9/26 podcast with Bob Lutz:

    http://www.podtech.net/home/4247/conversations-with-bob-lutz-gms-vice-chairman  
    
    (Quote)

17. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 10:00 am

    EnerDel Lithium-ion Battery for Plug-ins will cost $1,500

    http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/09/enerdel-lithium.html#more  
    
    (Quote)

18. 
    
    

    OhmExcited Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Do those EnerDel batteries exist in production, or are they just a nice idea right now?  
    
    (Quote)

19. 
    
    

    Rashiid Amul Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 11:00 am

    Tim, thanks for that link. If what EnerDel says is true, seems to me this solves the “battery cost” problem. And at $1500, if a battery replacement is needed, it would be easily justifiable to me.

    To my knowledge, GM nor A123 has said how much the battery pack will cost, but I am expecting it to be very expensive especially since GM is talking about leasing it.

    But if EnerDel can do it $1500, why can’t A123 do the same? Or am I missing something?  
    
    (Quote)

20. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    September 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Apparently, fully automated manufacturing is the key to reducing costs. EnerDel uses a stacked cell design and everyone else including A123’s wound design which is much harder to automate. Since the lines are fully automated, labor is not important so US based manufacturing is attractive.

    Check out their website and they have some impressive US based R&D, and manufacturing capabilities.

    http://www.enerdel.com/content/view/32/75/

    I’ve also noticed that the battery setup on the Volt is depicted as blue rectangular flat “wafers” stacked side by side in the central tunnel and not cylinders. This looks like EnerDel’s design.

    Look at EnerDel’s corporate profile. 19% owned by Delphi!

    http://www.enerdel.com/content/view/26/40/

    Their parent company Ener1 has extensive experience and DEEP pockets.  
    
    (Quote)

21. 
    
    

    Ames Tiedeman Says:
    October 6th, 2007 at 10:44 am

    GM will be pressuring Toyota hard in the next 5 years.

    I believe it will take some tim, but GM share in North America is headed over 30%. Gvie it until 2015 and watch it happen.

    The products GM has coming are too good to be anything less than huge winners.

    Watch and enjoy the re-birth of an American icon.  
    
    (Quote)

22. 
    
    

    Bosco Barnes Says:
    October 8th, 2007 at 11:18 am

    Nano powders give you lung disease in use and to factory workings in mfg.

    Nano powders can go off easier via smaller failures.

    Nano powders fall into the pores of your skin and give you cancer in some formulations

    Very hard to mfg. in volume

    Unproven in volume use under the millionms of variables the auto market can generate.

    EV and PHEV market has too close margins and too early adopter requirement to risk failures and unknowns so “old school battries” are the only commercial option for launch.

    All require massive uptake to reduce costs and there are so many “new super batteries” that massive uptake of a single one is impossible.  
    
    (Quote)

23. 
    
    

    Ames Tiedeman Says:
    December 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    I hear that Honda is going electric big time in 2015. GM has them beat. Let’s go GM!  
    
    (Quote)

24. 
    
    

    Doug Korthof Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 12:34 am

    I’d say it’s LUTZ who’s got egg on his face!!

    After all, who ran his car company into bankruptcy?? NOT Toyota.

    Which car company has a market value over $100 Billion? NOT GM!

    It’s idiotic decisions such as those made by Lutz that has led to the most amazing example of corporate folly and failure, that took GM from a dominating position in 1959, to beggar status in 2009.

    Lutz, really, should keep his trap shut; we really should re-introduce the concept of “SHAME” into business, when you really, really screw up, as Lutz and Wagoner did, you need to hang your head and keep shut up.  
    
    (Quote)

25. 
    
    

    Doug Korthof Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 12:42 am

    Toyota has delayed plug-in hybrids and EVs not because they don’t have the battery, but because they can’t USE the battery. GM sold control of the worldwide patent licensing rights to Texaco on oct. 10, 2000; six days later, their merger into Chevron was announced. Next year, Chevron funded a lawsuit against Toyota; a settlement was reached in Dec., 2002, which resulted in Toyota retroactively cancelling the Toyota RAV4-EV, which was last sold in Nov, 2002, and Toyota stopped making the EV-95 NiMH battery, which is now not available at ANY price.

    So the reason they are fooling with Lithium isn’t because it’s better, it’s because Chevron-Ovonics-BAttery-SYStems (”COBASYS”) will not allow use of NiMH batteries big enough to plug in.

    Now if GM helped Chevron kill the RAV4-EV, and stop the Electric car then, what makes you think it’s changed its policies against the EV now? If it were serious, it would force Chevron to disgorge (they really can’t patent-squat, legally) and use the proven NiMH.

    Wakeup.

    GM don’t wanna. GM aint a gonna do it.  
    
    (Quote)

Leave a Reply