GM Takes Delivery of Second LG Chem/Compact Power Chevy Volt Battery Pack, and it’s Better Than the First
Jon Lauckner
“A second battery pack, incorporating improvements from the first one, is being delivered to our battery lab today for similar testing. Now, it’s far too early to declare victory, but the results of cell and pack testing to date are very encouraging.”
He also mentioned that the first pack, which GM received on October 31st, has already undergone extensive testing.
He said:
“This prototype battery pack, shown here in a test stand in our battery lab in Warren, has already run a number of test schedules, (including some pretty severe ones) that showed both the individual cells, and the pack, performed according to our math-based expectations. These tests are an important first step to assess the performance of the battery pack under a range of speeds and loads.”
Popularity: 1%
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
45 Responses to “GM Takes Delivery of Second LG Chem/Compact Power Chevy Volt Battery Pack, and it’s Better Than the First”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Volt Battery Supplier Chosen and GM Comments on Production Photo Leaks (POLL)
- BREAKING: Production VOLT Spied!! The REAL DEAL!!
- Chevy Volt Interior Picture Leak
- Bob Lutz Responds to Toyota’s Announcement: Large Volt Test Fleet in 2009
- Volt Competition: Mazda’s Secret E-REV Program, Toyota Forwards Plug-in Fleet to 2009
- Bob Lutz on Chevy Volt Battery Tests, Cold Starts, and Use of OnStar
- The Chevy Volt Generator Will Run at One of Several Fixed RPMs
- E-Flex Cadillac Next?
- How the Chevy Volt Operates Past the Customer Depletion Point
- The Chevy Volt Will Have iPod Connectivity (Plus More Design Issues)
December 4th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Good news indeed; it appears late 2010 production is now guaranteed, with the rate of advancement going exactly as planned.
The only question now is; how many will they build in year 1?
I would assume that 60,000 is the going number, with potential to reach 100,000 based on demand.
Demand will be driven by gas prices and buzz. Sites like this one do a great job of build exitement for the Volt begining 4 years in advance.
Kudos to GM as well for the beginning of an ad campaign years in advance.
Hopefully, by the 2010 Detroit Auto Show, public clamoring for the Volt, in the face of $5/gallon gas, will force them to increase production to 100,000 year one.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Good news naturally. I will say, though: don’t count A123 out! I am a bit of a fanboy of theirs and they have some potent technology. I can’t wait for some mules to hit the road.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:37 am
This is great news.
It’s important to remember that GM requires 2 sources for the battery pack. It’s not like a competition and one battery company will win. GM will buy batteries from both companies during Volt production. Maintaining 2 sources for all parts is standard operating procedure.
So it’s doubly good news that GM has working packs from both vendors.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I am beginning to suspect that the first year’s supply will mainly be using LGChem/Compact packs with plans to use more of A123’s as they build manufacturing capacity. The impression I’m getting is that A123 has the better technology that will be more custom made for the Volt’s needs, but that LGChem has the greater current manufacturing capacity and batteries ready to roll out.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Adam @ 1, guarantee is a big word, but seeing improvements in the packs is certainly encouraging. And GM’s schedule as I recall, calls for a delivery of A123’s pack sometime in December. They have quite some time to deliver.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Where is the picture of the prototype battery pack ?
December 4th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I can only imagine the buzz of activity at not only the battery manufacturing plants, but also in the battery R&D labs at LG Chem and A123. This is how technology leaps ahead- demand from manufacturers, demand from the public and demand from government.
I believe there is very little that can stop the Volt now. This is a very good day.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Don,
You’re absolutely right. Having only one ODM for part is never a good thing. Companies almost always have two and for good reason. It keeps either manufacturer from taking you for granted and it guarantees that there is a backup if, say, a natural disaster were to take out one company’s production.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
What do they mean by “better”. Does that translate into greater electric only mode?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
How does this work with two suppliers? Will the two batteries be different, or will GM share information between the two groups to get a homogenous product? If so, it must be written into the contracts. If not, then will we have a choice of batteries?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:43 am
[quote comment="17708"]How does this work with two suppliers? Will the two batteries be different, or will GM share information between the two groups to get a homogenous product? If so, it must be written into the contracts. If not, then will we have a choice of batteries?[/quote]
No, GM will never share company information. They will have specs for the batteries; size, weight, output interface, etc. So both company’s batteries will look very similar, but the insides will be different.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Duh, talk about not paying attention, I just noticed the list of wait list members in the upper right hand corner of the page. I’m not even going to ask how long that has been there!
Very cool.
Not to put any more on you Lyle, but maybe you could open a trust account of some kind and start holding the deposits, since the General doesn’t seem too interested. You could put up another counter for the $$$. I bet they would really pay attention to you then.
I’m in.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
[quote comment="17660"]The only question now is; how many will they build in year 1? I would assume that 60,000 is the going number, with potential to reach 100,000 based on demand.[/quote]
How come so many of you still ignore the issue of battery cost?
Choosing to sell a vehicle at projected market value by accepting a loss initially is a really big deal. It could take years of production before modest profit is achieved. How much money is GM willing to sacrifice for the sake of establishing a reputation for the new technology? That “nicely below $30,000″ target price is currently quite unrealistic, based upon the battery supplied by A123 for aftermarket augmentation of Prius.
Do the math. Losing $3,500 per vehicle for 3 years at an annual production of 100,000 would be a loss of over 1 billion dollars! Meanwhile, you have to also consider the infrastructure cost. Training and equipping mechanics costs money.
Sorry, but taking comments about status seriously is difficult when fundamental questions still remain unanswered.
JOHN
December 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I am curious about how GM will ensure, with two battery pack manufacturers, that battery pack performance is the same in all vehicles. I don’t understand how two manufacturers could have battery technology similar enough that their packs can truly be used interchangeably with not noticeable performance differences. I don’t know anything about LG Chem’s batteries but I know A123’s chemistry seems quite unique, so I’m not sure how it could be “replaced” with something else so easily.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
With regards to production of battery packs, I think it would be foolish not to take advantage of LG Chem’s MASSIVE manufacturing capabilities - even if the A123 pack is far superior to the LG Chem one. They could play a critical role in availability and cost reduction.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
#14
Jake,
I would think that if the specs were met by both packs that any small variation could be controlled by making small changes to the charging profile in software for the different packs.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
John - I agree that it is very likely that GM will sell version 1.0 of the Volt at a loss, but the real question is how much of a loss will it really be in the long run? When taking into consideration the fact that the Volt will be highly subsidized by the U.S. government (and other governments as well) through tax credits, and other incentives, the loss may not be that large. Here are a few points:
1) GM knows that they are atleast one generation ahead of Toyota in PHEV/EREV technology. Just as Toyota is now profiting from their initial investment (and initial losses) into present-day hybrid technology (the Prius), GM will be able to profit from their lead in PHEV/EREV tech as well.
2) By 2010 it is very likely that we will see $5.00/gallon gasoline because of terrorism, massive increases demand, and other global instability. Once we get to this point, the public will be demanding relief from high transportation costs. There is no doubt that government will step in and offer even larger incentives (tax credits) to purchase these vehicles, thus lowering GM’s inital losses.
3) Ditto for point #2 in regards to new public awareness of global warming (and thus demand for change) and a neo-conservative desire to be rid us of our oil situation (did you ever think that a Republican president would say “America is addicted to oil”? I didn’t.)
4) The U.S. Government may decide to “bail out” the U.S. automobile industry through truly epic tax incentives for PHEV/EREVs. The beautiful thing about this is that there would be little danger to our existing trade agreements/pacts because the government can just give these tax breaks to _all_ PHEV/EREVs on the markets, knowing full well that GM will have the most and best on the market at that time (2010).
PHEV/EREV technology is happening now, and any way you look at it GM is setup for a massive payday.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Noel-
Taking money from people would be against my ethical standards, not to mention illegal.
I expect the waitlist will be a way to tell GM how many cars to build for day one and to be able to contact those individuals just prior to production. We will connect them to the dealers and prevent price-gouging and unscrupulous exploitation of people who want this car.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I see a lot mentioning gas at $5 per gallon in 2010. While we have seen a trend of higher gas prices lately there are reasons to believe gas will stabilize and even drop in price within the next several years.
1) A president who is not an “oil boy” will be in office. And if it is a democratic president history shows lower gas prices.
2) With many economic signs pointing to a possible recession (at least in many industries) we could end up seeing lower energy needs globally.
3) There are several big oil fields coming online starting in 2008.
4) $3 gas is slowing the economy significantly already, $4 gas and up would tax economies around the world into total recession or proxy recessions. Thus price would fall.
I think these three reasons could, at least within the next 3 years, reverse the trend of out of control increases in energy.
Now bringing this back to the Volt, I believe there will be government tax incentive for GM. But I don’t think the government is going to give them a blank check due to the existence of $5 gas.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Noel #12. You are not alone. I missed it too. My wife tells me I can’t find a thing if it were right in front of my face. Well, there you go. Guess she is right.
Drake #17. It sounds kind of lavish, but I truly hope you are right.
Lyle #18. Price-gouging in my opinion is capitalism at its worst. I hope it will be possible for you to stop it, but I honestly don’t know how you will. Good luck with it though and I certainly will appreciate it.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
#18, I don’t see how the waitlist helps, I’m 100% determined to buy a volt but I didn’t sign up for the waitlist, and GM will never know how many people really would buy the volt later on, remember 99.9% of the population probably don’t know http://www.gm-volt.com exists.
I’m not on the waitlist because I plan to buy either in 2011 or 2012 after I’ve had enough use from my current vehicle. Should I still sign up for the waitlist?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Jeff,
I can believe a concentrated global effort to reduce dependence on transport fuels would stabilize the price of oil at maybe $3 per gallon.
So would a global recession but that is a sad way to do it.
I’m encouraged by the massive effort going into energy storage in various forms of transport.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
To Don #2 and Jack #3, about battery performance, if you have the time read this : “Advanced lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles,” by Paul Nelson, Khalil Amine, Aymeric Rousseau and EnerDel Corp.’s Hiroyuki Yomoto. I found it on the Argonne labs site, here : http://www.transportation.anl.gov/media_center/evs23_papers.html
By the way on page 10, they mention the Volt and, on note 17, they refer only to … guees what … http;//wwww.gm-volt.com.
Thank you, Lyle, your site is becoming famous
December 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Jean-Charles,
Thank you for that link..great bed time reading.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
i’m excited…i look for volt’s in 2009.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Jean-Charles,
I had read that, but I must say I read those articles knowing that I am getting in over my head. Can you figure out how many kWh each of those batteries were? I can’t. I know that to those who understand this stuff it should be apparent, but it isn’t to me.
Meanwhile, I like this quote: “This battery can provide high power at such high battery
efficiency that battery cooling is virtually unnecessary. This type of vehicle shows promise of having a moderate cost if it is mass produced because there is no transmission, the engine and generator may be less expensive since they are designed to operate at only one speed and power”
Similarly the Volt without the battery cost should be a fairly inexpensive car to build. I suspect the talk of how expensive these things are going to be, and the potential initial loss, is way overplayed.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Don #26,
Massed produced is the key and that is why I’m hoping GM will extend the volt technology to the Epsilon II platform quickly.
(GM, sit up and pay attention..I want a e-Vectra!)
The facility in China mentioned by by Denise in the videos is a puzzle, maybe it is about GM manufacturing batteries or cars or both for the Chinese market in China.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
1) Toyota had it’s “Prius Pioneers,” we need to be the “Volt Vanguard.” The lovely lady from “Who Killed the Eletric Car” said in an interview that in order to send a message to the automakers we need to not settle by buying hybrids. She’s right, and the logical corollary is that we need to send a message by buying eletric cars. So whether you are anti-oil or pro-environment, or whatever your take is, if you believe in it, and you can afford it, please, just do it.
2) Losing money while selling cars would not be a first for Detroit, and I think that was true for the first-generation Prius as well. Heck, if you believe GM they lost tons of money on the EV1s, and could not sell them to the public outright because the battery costs were too high. Since we’re all pretty much speculating anyway, I’ll trust GM not to make the same mistake twice.
3) Lyle should not be asked to hold our money. I’m not ready as an attorney to say that it would be illegal for Lyle to hold our money in trust. If you’re willing to send your money to someone you’ve never met as a means of saving money to buy a car that is not for sale, hey, it’s a free country. But I am ready to say it would not be good for Lyle: all down-side, no up-side. Anyway, if 10,000 of us sent Lyle $5,000 each it would still be a drop in the bucket to GM.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Signing up for the wait list at the least shows GM there are people interested period and gives them incentive to push forward. Just sign up and show support.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
The Defense dept was never allowed to single source anything unless there was a very good reason not to (a monopoly, etc.),
nd tht requred a waiver. I assume that the production figures bandied about always refer just to the VOLT, and do not include the Flextreme. I also assume that Saturn will have its own E-Flex as well.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I wouldn’t be suprised if GM’s full on sprint to the Volt won’t cause them to single source the battery.
Of course this all assumes that even one of them is actually capable.
On the other hand if two are capable then they may have to shut one out. Easy pickings for another auto manufacturer.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Mark #28
[quote comment="17748"]1) Toyota had it’s “Prius Pioneers,” we need to be the “Volt Vanguard.” The lovely lady from “Who Killed the Eletric Car” said in an interview that in order to send a message to the automakers we need to not settle by buying hybrids. She’s right, and the logical corollary is that we need to send a message by buying eletric cars. So whether you are anti-oil or pro-environment, or whatever your take is, if you believe in it, and you can afford it, please, just do it.
2) Losing money while selling cars would not be a first for Detroit, and I think that was true for the first-generation Prius as well. Heck, if you believe GM they lost tons of money on the EV1s, and could not sell them to the public outright because the battery costs were too high. Since we’re all pretty much speculating anyway, I’ll trust GM not to make the same mistake twice.
I wonder if your various Federal, State and Local Governments will have much interest in the Volt or if the dual mode hybrid is better suited to their needs for now. You can’t over estimate their buying power though.
Personally if the price of gasoline is only one dollar gallon I still want to go the “Volt way”. I truly believe GM has come to a logical mode of transportation. I just hope the Oil companies don’t throw a monkey wrench in the transition in energy usage that needs to occur.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Lyle, #18, Mark in WI, #28:
Sorry, I was at least 51% joking. You are doing way more than your share already. I guess that I was just venting my impatience.
I agree with Rashiid, #20, that anything which you, we, or anyone else, can do to control the “dealer markup” stickers will be a huge public service.
My fantasy has been that GM might be wise enough to offer a car at MSRP to anyone who would put down a cash deposit X months or years in advance. It would seem like a great bragging point for them to be able to say that they have a large number of cars pre-sold. They do it for Ferraris, so why not the Volt? Since they don’t seem to respond to this brilliant suggestion, I thought I’d just dump it on Lyle (just kidding).
My sense of the early Prius sales was that the “dealer markup” to the early adopters was just about equal to the available tax credit. After the tax credit and the “early adopters” ratcheted back, the prices suddenly fell back to MSRP, and occasionally a bit less.
I will be there with my checkbook on the first day but, if I see a “dealer markup” sticker on the windshield my enthusiasm will take a huge and very possibly fatal hit.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Noel Park at 33– I agree, dealer mark-up is going to get ugly with this car. I think this has already been rejected by GM, but why not truly REV-olutionize the industry and offer this thing over the internet like Tesla. Cash deposits already to reserve your car. They could use the interest on the cash and I imagine it could be a LOT of money.
LISTENING GM?
December 4th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
[quote comment="17773"]My sense of the early Prius sales was that the “dealer markup” to the early adopters was just about equal to the available tax credit. After the tax credit and the “early adopters” ratcheted back, the prices suddenly fell back to MSRP, and occasionally a bit less.[/quote]
There were no dealer markups allowed. Toyota forced sales of Prius at MSRP.
There was no credit available, only a very small deduction existed back then.
I suggest you read blogs documenting that history. You’ll be surprised by what actually happened.
JOHN
December 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Thank for pointing that out Jean-Charles; very cool.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Dave B Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 8:03 pm Quote
Noel Park at 33– I agree, dealer mark-up is going to get ugly with this car. I think this has already been rejected by GM, but why not truly REV-olutionize the industry and offer this thing over the internet like Tesla.
==========
VERY good point. Does anyone remember in the mid 90’s when the internet really took off, GM (and others) had serious plans to sell directly to the consumer via the internet and cut off the middleman?
I don’t know what happened, probably law suits etc. but it does raise a very good issue.
M.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:34 am
To Don #26,
Don, I think that this paper - among the other ones on the site of Argonne labs - was the most interesting because the authors modelize a car similar (if not better) in performance to the Volt.
They present a lot of data on the batteries, look at TABLE 10 (page 13) to have a idea of the electricity consumption under different driving conditions.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Not to defend the dealerships in any way, but the technical term is called supply and demand, not price gouging.
If there is only a limited amount of a product, and there is a large demand, some people will be willing to pay more, and that is their right. IMHO, they are stupid, but there are lots of stupid people out there………..
You always have a choice. If you think the price is too high, walk away. When enough people do that, the price will drop. So what if you do not get it on day one?
When I went to buy my Crossfire, it had a $5K Dealer Markup tag on it. I laughed and told the manager at the dealership that when they were serious about selling the car to call me, and I got up to leave. He took the tag off the car, and asked me if that would help to keep me interested. It did.
Emotionally, I really want the Volt. But before I sign the sales agreement, it will have to make sense to my logical side as well!
And if GM does the marketing and manufacturing correctly, there will be a balance of supply and demand, so this becomes a moot point.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Dave B, #34 and mykallb, # 37:
Roger Penske is doing soething very similar with the SMART. A recent article ,in the LA Times business section I believe, outlined their sales strategy.
They are trying to change the model by selling most of the cars as you suggested - taking deposits and building them to order. They believe that this will reduce inventory costs and get away from dealers having to order equipment packages on spec, which leads to cars nobody wants sitting around eating up floorplan costs, and having to be discounted to get rid of them.
My son recently bought a Mini Cooper this way. Their website allowed him to track the production and shipping of the car day by day. It took 6 weeks or so, but it wasn’t really that much of a problem. The fun of tracking it every day helped take some of the curse off the wait.
Of course this could ruin our car buying strategy. We usually wait until the end of the year and bottom fish for the leftovers.
john1701a, #35:
Well I don’t know how they did it but, according to friends of mine who bought Priuses early on, and articles in our local press, the dealers got their money somehow.
I don’t know about anywhere else, but the tax CREDIT in California was over $3500 until a certain number had been sold.
Another big selling point which I failed to credit was the stickers allowing the first few thousand Prius and Civic hybrids to be driven in the carpool lanes with a single occupant. According to the Bluebook, one of those stickers adds about $4000 to the price of a used Prius. I think it’s supposed to sunset in 2011, however.
Anyway, if Toyota can successfully control the dreaded dealer markups, more power to them. Maybe GM can find the backbone to do the same.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Jean-Charles,
Yes, I see them now. I must just have missed them in the sheer comprensiveness of the data! So power density of 1.14 to 2.66 kW/kg; energy density range of 56 to 76 Wh/kg. That’s really not so hot, is it? Altair, for example, has power density of 4kW/kg and an energy density of 90Wh/kg and can stand pretty complete discharge cycles. I think that A123 is expected to be around 100Wk/kg and I think about the same as Altair for power.
That leaves EnerDel pretty back of the pack (if I’ve gotten that right), so to speak. The Voltishness performance goes so far as acceleration but much less mpg equivalent given the small ability to go all electric (the most was a 20 mile range). It could be a much more inexpensive however. A well powered sporty small car with good mpg for not much money.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
The most important part of the comments says “the individual cells, and the pack, performed according to our math-based expectations.” That is, they verified their mathematical equations (probably a combination of lots of them inside some computer code) against actual cell performance. That is extremely important and very good news, because it means that many design and performance variations can be tested quickly through computer runs, rather than having to test each one on the mules, a slow and cumbersome process. The practical effect is that the first real car is going to be pretty close to expectations.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I just finished reading the book version of “The War” by Ken Burns.
If the US could ramp up from basically zero to the huge, massive, military equipment output achieved in WWII in 5 years, getting the Volt going by 2010 should be absolutely doable.
Think about it. The B-29, the P-51, and so many other then advanced weapons systems went from a clean sheet of paper to production of thousands, or tens of thousands, within that short time. Atomic bomb? GM played a huge role in that effort.
I have said it a hundred times, the engineering and design talent is clearly there if the mangement provides the political will and the resources.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
The people must get behind this Volt or it will go the way of the Nuclear Car (a Ford) & Plane.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The middle class needs this car to survive! Get it out ASAP! At $4.00 gallon gas the economy could be heading for a depression.