GM Exec: The Volt Will be Ready by 2010
We have heard before Bob Lutz’ intention to have the Chevy Volt in production by the end of 2010, presumably as a 2011 model-year car. The only possible stumbling block to reach that goal has been the lack of lithium-ion battery pack readiness.
We also recently found out that the LG Chem/CPI delivered the first Chevy Volt experimental battery packs last week.
In a discussion on Saturday about green cars at Jordan University, GM executive Richard Gunther, who works on alternative fuel accounts, put it all together with this statement:
“We’ve got our first battery packs delivered to us. (The Chevy Volt) will be ready by 2010.”
Granted, it’s not Bob Lutz saying this, but nonetheless it is the most hopefully definitive statement about Chevy Volt production we have heard from GM to date.
Bravo.
Thanks again to Kent Beuchert who found this story first.
Source: (The Courier News)
Popularity: 2%
Related posts:
- Breaking: Chevy Volt A123/Continental Prototype Lithium-ion Battery Pack Delivered!
- Yet More Talk about Volt in 2009
- My Chevy Volt Question to Bob Lutz
- BREAKING: Has LG Chem/Compact Power Been Chosen to Supply the Chevy Volt Battery Pack?
- Volt Battery Packs Ready By Year End
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
58 Responses to “GM Exec: The Volt Will be Ready by 2010”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- GM’s CEO Arrives to Capitol Hill in Chevy Volt Prototype, Senate Hearings Underway
- GM CEO Will Drive Volt Mule Inside Washington DC Today, UAW Agrees to Drop Job Bank
- GM: Out of Time, Out of Money, Out of Options
- GM Submits Long-Term Viability Plan to Congress: $18 Billion Needed
- Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu
- GM-Volt Exclusive: Bob Lutz Details Volt Mule Energy Use in Highway Driving
- GM’s Canceled LA Auto Show Conference: Was it Going to be the Volt Battery Contract Announcement?
- Flextreme Concept Wins Prestigious Design Award, Still Not Production Intent
- What Would Happen to the Chevy Volt if GM Failed?
- GM Viability Proposal Leak: CEO Likely to Work for $1 and Brands Likely to be Shed
November 5th, 2007 at 12:33 am
They better make it by 2010. Everybody’s jumping into the PHEV/BEV pool and the last one in gets lousy marketshare. Mitsubishi’s first BEV is scheduled for 2009 and Nissan, with three concepts on the table, has 2010 as it’s target.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:36 am
It looks like LG Chem/CPI are not going to lay down and let A123 beat them in this race. It’s nice to see that there is actually is competition.
Can anyone explain what is special about their batteries? A123 has nanophosphate material, that give it longer cycle life and inherent safety. Does LG Chem/CPI have something similar? Or just a better version of standard Li-Ion?
Also, will GM ultimately pick one of either LG Chem/CPI or A123 for all production Volts?
November 5th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Although I would love to see Chevy/GM build the first RxEV worth going out of my way to buy, I have to admit that I would sell them out in a heartbeat if Ford or Saturn built an EV with decent range, good finish quality and a really driveable car feel. I doubt that Toyota is in a position to beat them, Panasonic is just too far behind, but Honda just might be able to do so. Mitsubishi sounds like they are talking the talk but won’t be able to walk the walk.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:54 am
To OhmExcited:
GM will anounce the winner of the battery competition in June ‘08. You can browse thru the BATTERY link on this site to get more info.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:20 am
I watched the Dallas Cowboys & Eagles football game last night, and saw the Volt commercial publically broadcast for the first time…bravo, come on 2010!!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Ziv:
I think GM has a great chance to have the first serious EV out. I agree about Mitsubishi, but I wouldn’t count Toyota out. They can buy from another supplier if Panasonic doesn’t pan out. As for Honda, they have stated they will skip the plug-in market and go straight to pure EVs. Unless they can get a range about 200 miles in an affordable vehicle, I think they will fall behind. Neither Ford nor Nissan seem serious to me for now, but maybe they are just keeping quiet. And smaller companies like Tesla and Phoenix can certainly have a good product out soon, but they will be a tough sell to most people because they have no name recognition, and I don’t think they can produce cars fast enough to be a major player anyway.
So I think it’s either GM or Toyota, and I hope its GM because they really need it.
Also, I wonder why Volkswagen doesn’t seem to be in this race? They could certainly bankroll a serious entry in the plug-in race.
(P.S. Saturn is part of GM)
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Ohm-
CPI is using manganese oxide spinel cathodes, which are a different chemistry than A123’s iron phosphate cathodes. They’re similar in that they sacrifice some energy density in return for greater stability. CPI’s design also has high-temperature electrolytes and separators to increase stability.
Here’s a good link for more info on spinel chemistry in general:
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-5A.htm
The biggest visible difference you’ll notice in the pack is that A123’s batteries are cylinders, while CPI’s are flat.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Ohm-
“Nanophosphate” is a tradename btw, and it’s sort of a confusing term. Basically, it refers to an enhancement of normal lithium iron phosphate chemistry, which has been around since ~1997. Biggest fundamental problem with LiFePO4 is the low conductivity.
To the best of my knowledge, A123/MIT fixed this problem simply by nanostructuring of the electrode (basically, they made the iron phosphate crystals a lot smaller so as to accept lithium ions more easily), and added trace amounts of other chemicals to increase conductivity even more.
There is some similar-sounding work described here:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2007/Oct/batteries.html
Thus, the “nano” stuff enhances the power and energy storage by increasing conductivity. Long lifespan and safety have been inherent to the chemistry since ‘97.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Just to be sure, Does this mean “End of 2009″ as a 2010 model?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Unless the batteries are a complete failure in terms of range and reliability, I can’t imagine that the Volt would not be produced.
But I am curious about the same thing as gtalias.
When they say “ready in 2010″, do they mean the 2010 model year, or 2010 for the 2011 model year?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:29 am
The more the GM execs speak the more you realize that they are making their statements on hope rather than reality.
First Lutz and his 60K-100K comments, and now this claim based on receiving an experimental battery pack without cooling.
I guess A123 can quit now, it sounds like Gunther already has a production-ready pack selected and tested.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Bob Lutz has stated that both LG and A123 will be supplying batteries for the production Volt. Having 2 suppliers for a given part is very common in the auto industry. If one of these 2 suppliers was to give up, then GM would go out and find another supplier for a second source.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:18 am
“Bob Lutz has stated that both LG and A123 will be supplying batteries for the production Volt.”
These battery packs are different from each other. Will they have different results from charging, discharging? How about distance? Will the consumer be able to pick either A123 or the LG battery pack when buying the Volt? I would feel more comfortable with A123 but oddly enough, I don’t have a good reason for that. Just a feeling.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I don’t believe GM will use both LG and A123. Their original timeline called for them to pick one of the companies to supply the batteries in mid 2008.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I just found the following info:
“GM said both Compact Power and A123 could end up providing the batteries for the Volt, or only one of them might meet the automaker’s requirements.”
Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUKN0946978520070809?pageNumber=2
November 5th, 2007 at 11:42 am
The technology is here, but the problem is the price. Perhaps economy of scale and competition will make these systems more affordable. Future battery or ultracapacitor advances will help. Greed, jealousy and departmental infighting could also kill the project.
GM went with the E-Flex in the first place because of the public’s fear that their “golf cart” BEV with its expensive, heavy batteries could leaving them stranded.
GM realized that they could lower the cost with smaller batteries and ease the “stranded” fear with a simple range-extender. K.I.S.S. is also why they chose a BEV with a range-extender instead of some heavy, complex and expensive parallel power-sharing scheme like the Prius.
E-Flex is GM’s “moon shot.” The company’s future is riding on it! I just hope that they can make them fast enough.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Where do we send the deposit checks?
November 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Tim,
I am with you brother.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Sounds like good news from GM so far. I sure hope they can make it by 2010.
Now, I want to hear talk about a small Volt style truck. I want one now.
Does anyone else want a Volt style truck?
November 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Whomever they pick to buy from, I hope they have good over sight on QC as whenever production ramps up there is usually some loss of Quality. If you buy a LED display & it has two bad pixels side by side they will replace it or if it has a total of 5 bad anywhere on the display. What kind of quality guarantee is going to be provided on the individual cells at delivery? And yes I would like a choice as to who’s batteries I pay for if both are supplying.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Computer-codger - Give it time, and I am sure that there will be a PHEV option for every vehicle type. The Volt is version 1.0 for this technological leap.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I’m going to buy a volt, then watch its reliability ratings, and if it doesn’t seem high quality I’ll trade it for something else that is. Hopefully before the rest of the public figures out it’s a lemon.
My Jihad is against oil, not for the Volt.
The Volt is a means to an end.
Financial issues and appearance issues are not the priority for me. Doing my part to return Arabia and Persia to their natural state of existence, like that of Africa, is my priority.
death to oil - http://www.oiljihad.org
November 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Speaking of cheaper, more efficient electricity storage, this article is VERY interesting. Lyle, you may want to interview this guy.
The Charge of the Ultra - Capacitors By Joel Schindall
First Published November 2007
Nanotechnology takes energy storage beyond batteries
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5636
November 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
JOEL SCHINDALL spent 35 years working in the telecommunications and satellite industries before joining the faculty of MIT, where he is now associate director of the Laboratory for Electromagnetic and Electronic Systems.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Yo! Oil Jihadi, you realize that real people live in those countries and that you don’t hate all of them right? Even if you’ve lived in both places for all of your life and hate everyone you’ve met there, you still know there’s at a least a few good ones, right? Hate the evil people not all of the people. There’s plenty of people here in the US who deserve hardship, but our own oil addiction has made us weak and dragged the rest of us down with them. We’re not going to benefit in any way by witnessing the misery of foreigners.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The volt should be reliable, It is simple, like the Model T, I hope they sell millions of them.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I can’t imaging them using batteries from both companies unless one design is chosen and is made under license by the “other” company. This is because not only are the batteries different, but the cooling and Mgmt. systems are different and you’d have to design 2 separate Volt dashes/DIC’s/systems to accommodate. This would just add to the cost of the vehicle.
M.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I was afraid of this. GM may not be leading at all:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/eb4ed31208c755b8fdebe56cfd5a275a.htm
November 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
mykallb,
That is an interesting point, the same may be true of their engine option, diesel, fuelcell, petrol etc.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“I was afraid of this. GM may not be leading at all:”
Until Toyota announces that they are moving toward the electricification of the automobile such as a BEV or RxEV then I won’t consider that as leadership. Barring the discovery of a new abundant liquid fuel that can be produced cheaply, the future of transportation is electric and GM knows this.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Yes,
The future for transportation is electric and it is a credit to GM that they putting out the Volt.
The work on batteries and supercaps suggests that electric storage can be greatly improved over the next two decades
November 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
computer-codger, #19:
Oh yeah!
My S-10 just turned over 190,000 miles, so I’m getting a little nervous about it. I have to say that it has been really reliable, and gets a consistent 25 mpg in real world mixed city/highway driving. But nothing lasts forever.
My wife gets the first Volt for her 10 mile commute to work. I once joked that, if a commercial pickup/”van” did not appear soon, I would just buy another one and stick a wood pickup box out of the hatch a la The Beverly Hillbillies. Maybe that would embarrass Mr. Lutz, et al, into building a pickup.
As Drake says though, one thing at a time. If the car works, the other versions will appear in due course.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
re: the CNN link,
Using a small lithium battery in a “mild hybrid”/start-stop application hardly compares to a PHEV application. The lithium ion battery in the TOY Vitz probably NEVER gets discharged below a certain amount, nor is ever subjected to heavy charging or discharging. Thus, it’s not subjected to the problems that a larger pack would encounter (heat buildup, decreased cycle life, etc). So how toy’s engineers expect to translate the data they get from the Vitz into meaningful predictions for plug-ins is - for the moment- completely beyond me.
Until we hear specifics about whatever chemistry they are using, Toyota effectively has nothing to compare with the batteries of CPI/LGChem, A123, or Johnson Controls/Saft, all of which are GM contractors.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Ok, let me be a little more specific. Above:
“We also recently found out that the LG Chem/CPI delivered the first Chevy Volt experimental battery packs last week.”
From the article:
“‘We don’t tell everybody about it,’ Takimoto said. ‘But we already have our own lithium-ion battery.’”
We already know that the Prius redesign is scheduled for 2009. If that redesign includes a plug, and GM isn’t ready until 2010, they will be viewed as the follower. People might argue parallel vs. series, but to the vast majority, the Volt would be the SECOND plug in car, behind Toyota’s lead.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I hope that they mean ‘ready to purchase by 2010′
November 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“‘We don’t tell everybody about it,’ Takimoto said. ‘But we already have our own lithium-ion battery.’”
Pathetic.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“We already know that the Prius redesign is scheduled for 2009. If that redesign includes a plug, and GM isn’t ready until 2010, they will be viewed as the follower. People might argue parallel vs. series, but to the vast majority, the Volt would be the SECOND plug in car, behind Toyota’s lead.”
Don’t forget the Plug-in VUE is due out in 2009 as well.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
It seems the Japanese car companies are getting most of the major green headline news (CNN, Money, NY Times, etc.) and GM/volt is only mentioned in the articles. Is it just me, or am I imagining things? Toyota made the right decision sticking with hybrids …but the SUV’s and trucks they are pushing are not green. GM gets it now and is working hard to surpass the Japanese on the green issue. I wonder when one of the big news companies will issue a big story on GM / Volt with the japanese car companies only being mentioned?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
noel park #32
I have a Ranger truck with 170k miles; and it still doesn’t use oil. So as my name and 170K miles implies I want to be around and my truck to be around to participate in the vehicle revolution. I hope I can squeeze 3 more years out of my truck.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
“‘We don’t tell everybody about it,’ Takimoto said. ‘But we already have our own lithium-ion battery.’”
It doesn’t do anyone any good if it only goes less than half of the Volt’s 40 mile range.
We need higher ranges, not lower. The Volt is better and Toyota is talking out of desperation and out of their backsides.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Plug in or not, unfortunately, the Prius is like brussel sprouts — you buy it not because you want to, but because you think you ought to. There are a number of advantages of an electric drive vehicle aside from ultimate CO2 output: energy diversity (shift away from single strategic commodity), it’s quick and fun to drive, it’s quiet, it’s convenient, it’s less maintenance, etc.
Toyota does have a point that ultimate well-to-wheel CO2 output depends significantly where someone lives, but it’s still competitive with the Prius and not really their problem. Why not make both and let people decide? Also, with cap and trade legislation inevitable, it’s easier for electric utilities to make improvements, rather than relying on people to buy more and more efficient gasoline vehicles (diminishing returns).
November 5th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Jimmy, #38:
I think that GM will get huge publicity when and if they are first to the market with a viable plug in hybrid. Or even if they are not first, if they get there pretty soon with something clearly better than the competition.
It has to be pretty hard to sustain a buzz for something which is 3 years out.
computer-codger, #39:
Me too, on all counts.
Lyle:
It may seem like a small thing, but numbering the comments is brilliant. I am not much of a blogger, so this is the first one I have seen with the numbers. It makes it so much easier to keep track of people’s comments, and to refer back to them. Well done.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
The only real competition for the VOLT is the Chinese BYD - it will be VERY tough competition, especially for those Japanese automakers that are throwing out those
impractical, but cheap and easy-to-crank-out all-electrics with ridiculous 100 mile ranges, similar to the EV-1 fiasco. The BYD promises a 60 mile all-electric range, virtually the same as the first EV-1! And a battery pack that they claim will last 120,000 miles, amounting to probably 150,000 miles before a battery change, and a cheap one at that. That is far, far and away THE car to beat in this field. And it looks like a real car, better looking than anything Toyota or Honda has shown us. At $19,000 I expect only diehard Toyota and Honda fans to stick with their Japanese automakers, even if they actually do manage to produce what they both claim we don’t really need, namely a plug-in. Boy, are they going to be surprised.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Does anyone remember the Lada’s, a commie car if ever there was one.
Minimalist is too kind..unreliable..absolutely.
The BYD may look good on paper but can anyone point to a review I could read?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I share bruce g’s skepticism. Do you really think a Chinese car will hold up to the quality, safety, and reliability standards of American consumers?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
The Lada was actually a Fiat 125 I think, produced in Russia on the same assembly line as the T34 Tank
Just kidding…
November 5th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I’ve posted this before but obviously Kent hasn’t checked back to read it.
BYD wouldn’t be competition to a bicycle, much less a Volt. If it plans on using “iron” batteries, then they’re referring to one of two things - lithium IRON phosphate (same as A123) or nickel iron.
If they try to use lithium iron phosphate, they will get sued to pieces the minute they step on the beaches of America.
If they use nickel iron, they will get laughed to pieces by Thomas Edison’s ghost- because that’s exactly how long nickel iron has been considered unacceptable for EV use.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I have the greatest respect for the Chinese governments efforts to deal with their environmental problems, for example,by production of electic cars. And they will get better, but I dont think they will compete with the Chevy Volt in 2010 in the USA.
nuff said..
November 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Excuse me, but is this the same Toyota that recently said publicly that Li-ion wasn’t ready for prime time? The same Toyota that said we should “look beyond Li-ion”?
Now in an article dated Nov 5, they claim they currently have vehicles on the road using this technology??
There may be people/groups out there that don’t believe that GM will build this vehicle, but honestly, I don’t believe for one moment that Toyota is one of them ;).
M.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Hyundai is working with LG as well.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/31/2010-could-bring-hyundai-elantra-hybrid-with-lithium-ion-battery/
November 5th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Steven B #25:
I do not ‘hate’ people. I merely wish to assist in their liberation from evil western influences, such as modern medicine, televisions, computers, electricity, toilet paper, automobiles, logic, science, etc. I wish to do this by choosing to not purchase their product anymore. You do support a consumers right to choose, right?
Perhaps your logic is flawed, because I’m sure the Arab people did not mean any harm to all the wonderful Americans whom they refused to sell oil to in the 1970’s, in a successful effort to damage America’s economy. Of course, starting an unprovoked war with Israel (yet again), and being defeated even though they vastly outnumbered Israel, was their justification. I’m sure you see the flawed logic here. Tell me, should we support efforts to continue to purchase heroin, because by refusing to do so the livelihood of the wonderful Afghan people would be damaged?
Arabia and Persia MUST be liberated from the tyranny of oil, and return to a traditional Muslim lifestyle, free of evil western influences, inshallah.
Allah has also commanded me to respect the environment, because transferring carbon from the ground into the atmosphere is not wise.
Your insinuation that I ‘hate’ people is merely an example of your cultural bias. However, I forgive you, because it is an honest mistake.
We all worship the same god, and it speaks to me because I am blessed. You may refer to me as a ‘prophet’ if you wish.
Bruce G, #48:
“I have the greatest respect for the Chinese governments efforts to deal with their environmental problems”
Are you referring to looking the other way while the largest environmental catastrophe in human history is underway? Or perhaps you are referring to the endemic corruption that permeates Chinese culture, which makes the central Beijing government unable to implement their reasonable and wise environmental policies?
Allah is not pleased with the Chinese. And the Chinese are not pleased with Iran’s clandestine nuclear program. And neither am I. China, and the rest of the world, would be well served by making oil nearly obsolete, inshallah.
- Oil Jihadi
November 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
#43 (Kent)… “The only real competition for the VOLT is the Chinese BYD”.
Kent, how many times are you going spread this mis-information? There has been no news that the BYD would ever make it out of the Chinese market… there’s more than enough demand in China alone that there is no sense to export it… and to be able to export it to the USA they’d have to make significant changes to meet our standards that I doubt the price would be anywhere close to $19k (which is also probably high end compared to typical pricing in China for a new car, can’t compare prices between two extremely different markets).
If you’ve got more info than the rest of us about the BYD being exported from China, and at the price you keep quoting, please point us to it.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Oil Jihadi,
I am concerned about turning the world into toast
Im not interested in brawling over oil or religion in the Middle East.
Im optimistic that the Chinese Goverment and and President Bush ,in their own way ,will try to deal with the Politics of Global Warming.
Does that answer your question?
November 6th, 2007 at 10:58 am
If the BYD works, then that will push GM to be even better. I wouldn’t jump into buying a Chinese car. I keep thinking of them as a Yugo. I drove one of those once and swear I would never own one. My hope is simply that GM doesn’t screw up by making promises they can’t keep, or a making a pile of junk when the car hits the market.
Oil Jihadi at #22 and #51. After reading your comments, the only thing I can say is “Well put. I agree” Those people suffer because tyrants run the government and also because the people stand for it. Take away the oil revenue, what is left? Probably extreme poverty and then the people may revolt. Maybe then the uncivilized, barbaric savages will be destroyed and the peaceful people will take over.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Brian M., #45:
Remember the first Hyundai? Now people buy them like crazy.
bruce g., #46:
I dunno, the T-34 was a pretty good piece from what I’ve read. Many believe that it was the best tank of WWII. I am reading the late David Halberstam’s book about Korea, “The Coldest Winter.” He notes that it was as good as anything we had there too.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Noel Park #55,
Yes, I believe it was a very good tank too…
certainly better than the germans..
It was the mental picture of 1 T34, then 1 Lada..then another T34..
November 7th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
#5, #9 on 2010
No one has said just what 2010 means as relates to model year or calendar year. My opinion is that GM is going to sell the car as a 2011 model, starting production in late 2010 if all goes well. Probably they don’t know right now for sure and are speaking with optimism about a situation with many uncertainties. It is a long way between concept and production.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
A big correction on this posting…the event was at JUDSON University, not Jordan University. And that’s in Elgin, IL. Thank you!