AND 
Is Tesla Planning to Build an E-REV Too?
As you may be aware, Tesla Motors is a Silicon Valley start-up company that has produced an electric car called the Tesla Roadster. It is not available for sale yet, but that is imminent, and the sporty two-seater will set you back about 100K. In time, they hope to build a sub-50K sedan called the White Star.
GM’s E-Flex design has certainly evoked awe in many people, including other carmakers. The brilliance of a lower-range and therefore lower-cost lithium-ion battery, with an emergency generator, and a range that suits most is hard to ignore.
Since GM announced the Volt concept, other automakers have followed suit with similar concepts of their own. Examples include the Volvo Re-Charge concept and the Chinese automaker BYD’s concept.
Now as per Michael Kanellos of CNET, possibly Tesla is considering this design.
He reports Tesla VP of Finance Mike Taylor said that the Volt is ” ‘a really good way’, of extending the range on electric sedans in a cost-effective way.”
Taylor also told Kanellos that the Volt had a “really elegant design.” , but wouldn’t actually confirm whether Tesla is considering building a gas range-extender model.
I asked Darryl Siry who is Tesla Motors VP of marketing what his position on this was.
His response:
“Our expertise in electric drive is applicable to pure electrics as well as range extended applications. We have looked at both and could engineer both. Based on what we have modeled and engineered, I personally believe they are solutions for distinct market segments, with the RE-EV having certain advantages for certain customers and the pure BEV having advantages for others.”
49 Responses to “Is Tesla Planning to Build an E-REV Too?”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
December 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Volt is making the start-ups nervous, and rightfully so. The right car at the right price.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
GM execs must be smiling from ear to ear about now. The irony is pretty thick. I predicted that the British Lightning Volt-type design would force Tesla to build a practical car, since anyone in that market space would now view Tesla ownership as not so much environmentally proper as just plain dumb. The fact that the Lightning looks better, runs faster and carries 2+2 leaves the Tesla with it 250 mile umbilical cord looking very impotent and, frankly, a pain in the ass to own. The Tesla, world’s most expensive paperweight.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I sincerely hope Tesla does not go this route…there is no chance Tesla is going to be able to compete with GM. What are they to do, outsource the range extender? License the technology? What’s the point of Tesla? STAY IN THE BEV BUSINESS FOR THE COMMUTERS PLEASE.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
50K is STILL too expensive for the average car person…..try lowering it to 30k
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Mark: That’s Tesla’s plan for the car after the Whitestar. Since Tesla doesn’t have GM’s checkbook, they’re starting at the high-end of the price range and moving down. A $30k Tesla vehicle will probably be out around 2012, IIRC.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Tesla founder Martin Eberhard was pretty harsh and critical of the Volt when the concept first came out – but then again he’s a caustic guy period.
Darryl and the rest of the company seem a bit more open-minded.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Anyone who believes in capitalism and the free market must also believe in competition.
I hope Tesla does make their own version of the Volt.
For all we know, the battery on the Tesla version might have a 100 mile range.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
As pointed out, Tesla’s battle plan was high end down, First the roadster, then “WhiteStar” a $55 to 68K vehicle, then a car for the masses at @$30K. From July they’ve been open to the option of an extender http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_31/b4044419.htm
“If necessary, the company would be willing to use a small gas engine to boost Blue Star’s range and broaden its appeal.”
They may need to reconsider their battery approach too. “Coddling” is fine for an expensive car, but those safety controls will be too expensive for the car for the masses. In short, they may need to build themselves a Volt.
I doubt they can compete in that segment, but the more the better from my POV!
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I’m still wondering what GM’s “E-flex surprise” will be at the…was it Dallas?… auto show.
If it’s a super fast E-flex Saturn Sky then they may have a Tesla beater.
One of the big questions about the Tesla are those off the shelf Li-ion laptop batteries, and their warranty, because $100K is a lot for a car.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Ever since that creepy owner of Tesla threw Martin down the stairs I´ve lost a lot of faith in that company. There is no way they will compete with the Volt with a similar type of design for a very long time.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Well, at least the “extended range” or “range-extended” nomenclature is catching on across the industry. This aspect is important for marketing, in particular to Americans, who tend to have a subconscious relationship with their car that demands that it be able to take them wherever they want to go at any time. It’s a freedom thing.
I do think there’s a market for pure BEVs, but it’s probably segmented to a low-end commuter and a high-end green luxury sedan or sports car. The commuter side is currently limited (pun not really intended) by battery technology, since it costs too much to put 50-100 (or more) miles of highway-worthy range on a subcompact car.
It makes sense that Tesla is targeting the high-end for its initial BEVs. I don’t think that they will offer an E-REV design in the near future, simply because once they design a chassis around that huge battery pack, it’s difficult to retrofit a fuel tank. They’d need to design a chassis especially for the E-REV model.
Tesla’s technology is interesting because, in general, I’m a fan of using off-the-shelf parts wherever possible. However, their “6800 commodity lithium-cobalt 18650 cells in a very smart pack” approach might get less competitive as made-to-size pouch cells with advanced high-current chemistries become more economical. Furthermore, many laptop and power tool applications are switching to lithium-manganese cells to meet higher power demands.
It comes down to which approach yields the pack with the highest energy per mass per dollar and which has the highest current per energy (C-rate). Tesla’s approach probably doesn’t stand a chance in terms of C-rate, requiring larger batteries to achieve power requirements, unless they switch to manganese cylinders, which would really hurt energy density. It has disadvantages in density at the pack level, but the cobalt system can reach 150-200% the energy density of manganese or phosphate systems at the cell level.
I think it’s impossible to take away from Tesla their important contribution to electric vehicles by actually shipping a production vehicle with a 245-mile battery range. That’s a game-changing achievement, even if it comes at a price point that most people can’t touch. The 3.9s 0-60mph time is quite impressive, too. The Roadster is a great marketing ambassador, demonstrating that EVs can deliver tremendous capability to the mid-market within the next 5-10 years as high-power, high-energy lithium battery technology comes down in price.
I’m a little disappointed that they didn’t go for hub motors. I really believe that this is a key to the elegance and capability of the EV concept. Oh, well. At least it finally seems like EVs are on the right track to achieving broad penetration of the mainstream automobile market by 2020. Things weren’t nearly this promising just 12-18 months ago.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Tesla may well have to rethink their original strategy. The world has certainly changed since they announced the roadster. Back then there was virtually no sizable competition in the electric car business. At this point it looks like they will have to make it as a high end niche player or merge with a company that already has mass production capabilities and could use Tesla’s IP and staff.
kent: you’ve been trolling Tesla for well over a year now. Did they pee in your wheaties or something? If Tesla hadn’t popped up, I doubt we’d be talking about the Volt for another decade.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Neil, darn good point about Tesla. I think that was a huge catalyst to the Volt.
Good call about Kent, too (Sorry, but true).
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Neil, #12, “kent: you’ve been trolling Tesla for well over a year now. Did they pee in your wheaties or something? ”
Neil, I laughed so hard I spit my drink out onto my keyboard.
On a serious note, I have to agree with Butters, #11 when Butters said, “I think it’s impossible to take away from Tesla their important contribution to electric vehicles by actually shipping a production vehicle with a 245-mile battery range. That’s a game-changing achievement…….Things weren’t nearly this promising just 12-18 months ago.”
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Well…speaking of Mr. “Creepshow”, by his own admission he’s already invested 37 million in Tesla. That’s a lot of cars just to break even. Small as they are, and figuring Lotus’ take on each one for all the design,engineering and manufacturing of the body and vehicle they can’t make much off each one.
Realistically, Tesla has got to be worried about survival. Who knows, maybe Mr. Musk can borrow a little more from Pay-pal.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Let’s just hope that if Tesla fails, their engineers will be hired by GM on the E-Flex program!
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
If the E-Flex Sky is released, Tesla will need something to fall back on.
Hey, I never noticed the Volt’s tire tread design until now… Schweet !
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
# Brian M Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm Quote
Let’s just hope that if Tesla fails, their engineers will be hired by GM on the E-Flex program!
*******
This is part of the problem for Tesla. Their best engineers are actually not theirs. They’re Lotus Inc. employees.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
this is all good! after all we’re typical Americans and we get what we want, whether its from GM, Tesla, Miles or Volvo…the electric car is coming and now there’s no stopping it!!
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
6342 say so!…and counting.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I am eager for the Volt to come out, but this thread about the Saturn Vue Green Line http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0fb4f9 scares the hell out of me.
Multiple reports of customers losing power on the highways, multiple trips back to dealer for unexplained circumstances. One customer told not to drive around with stuff in the back of her SUV because it was causing the battery to overheat, etc.
If GM is unable to product a reliable simple BAS hybrid system, how can we expect them to build a Volt? Does this worry anyone else?
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
O.Jeff #21
I read your link and this is what scares me the most. GM really needs to get out of this rut of making crappy vehicles. The problem is perception. If people hear that one vehicle is bad, they will assume they all are bad. This could really damage GM more than they are already damaged. This Volt really has to be done right!
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
O.Jeff at 21,
Yep, a little worrisome with a new product. BUT, an EV is a simpler concept that an ICE (let alone the ultra complex hybrid). The engines are simpler with less moving parts and more reliable…more efficient and a lot less that can go wrong.
Although the Volt is new and being designed, I think in the long run it will be a simpler and better vehicle, and more reliable. The range extender will be an ICE, but I hope to not have to rely on that. Let’s hope GM gets it right the first time, but I do believe this thing should operate in theory like a BEV.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Not to mention, that on forums like that just about any car has negatives. I’ve even seen a host of them on Edmunds for certain Toyota and Honda models.
There are always going to be problems, just don’t let a few comments lead you to believe that they’re more widespread than they might actually be.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Tesla’s market plan is simple. They have 3 models in the pipeline:
1) Redstar (aka Roadster) – $100K sports car
2) Whitestar – $50K luxury performance car
3) Bluestar – $30 car for the masses
They started with the $100k sports car because this was easiest to do first. In other words, it’s easier to start making money by selling high priced cars at low volume. Then, once the technology becomes opptimized, prices can come down and volume can go up. This is actually a very common strategy for products based on new technology .
For the Roadster, they bought the chassis and many of the parts from Lotus. For the more affordable cars, they have purchased an assembly plant in New Mexico and are beginning to ramp up there.
Now, will the Whitestar or Bluestar be an E-REV? My bet is that one or both of them will. Here’s a clue from the “Entrepreneur of the Year” article on Elon Musk in Inc. magazine:
“At Tesla, Musk has issued directives on seat cushions, the shape of the headlights, even the style of trunk on the company’s forthcoming midrange sedan–an odd request given that his engineers have yet to figure out how exactly the thing is going to be powered.”
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20071201/entrepreneur-of-the-year-elon-musk_pagen_5.html
But hey, for a $100K sports car, a pure BEV works OK. People who can afford that can also afford another car for longer trips.
(Quote)
December 7th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I agree with # 24 Grizzly. All cars can have problems. I must say though, when I had my Civic HX tranny go at 55K miles (out of warranty) American Honda did come through with all expenses paid and I have had 5 Honda Civics’. GM better do the same or I’m afraid they will lose customers with the “Volt”.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 12:43 am
[quote comment="18282"]Anyone who believes in capitalism and the free market must also believe in competition.
I hope Tesla does make their own version of the Volt.
For all we know, the battery on the Tesla version might have a 100 mile range.[/quote]
A 100 mile range does to a degree defeat the purpose. The 40 mile range is a ‘balancing’ point – most people don’t drive more than that in a day, so the 40 mile range is good.
This lower range also keeps the battery smaller, and thusly lighter and cheaper.
When and if that balancing point consisting of needed range, battery cost and weight, maybe, we might see a shift.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Oh, and I’m not sure if I’ve ever mentioned… the idea that GM is using in the E-Flex system… is not new.
My father told me about plans you could buy to build an electric car that had an onboard generator… back in the 70’s! Sure, the batteries then wouldn’t get you much range, and I’m pretty sure the generator wouldn’t power the car, it was used to charge the battery while the vehicle was not being driven.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 5:46 am
I hope if Tesla goes the E-REV route they do motors better than they do transmissions. Personally, I hope they keep it BEV and get better batteries.
And anyone who thinks the Lightning is an E-REV is trolling more than they can keep up with. It’s a BEV with PML Flightlink Hi-Pa Drive™ in-wheel motors.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 7:43 am
i am fairly certain that tesla will not fail, kool car for a decent price (for upscalers). when i first found their site a little over a year ago, i was excited.
then finding the volt, almost peed my kilt, as angus would say, lol…
kent 12. and rashid 14. funny stuff guys, lol.
wirenut 19. yeah, i’m witcha, this thing is snowballing, soon there will be electric vehicles all over the place from a ton of different companies. that will kick ass…
it’s exponential!
matt 27. good points.
and matt 28, yep, and i heard that harley was making golf carts with this same concept since the 70s.
btw, someone tried to point out on another link a day or two ago that we import more oil from canada than from any other country.
he/she was correct, but, opec is made up of 13 (?) countries, all acting as one. and we import nearly triple the amount of oil from this (one) country (opec) than from anywhere else.
death to oil!
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 8:39 am
#24,
One the honda and toyota hybrid models there were threads about as active as these describing the same kinds of things, power going out, car won’t start, electrical system problems.
GM needs to iron out these hybrid problems before they build the volt.
Saturn VUE plug in hybrid is what I’m waiting for to be V1 of the entire plug in hybrid industry. There will be problems. Honda and Toyota had lots of problems but in the end the problems will be solved.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 8:44 am
#30 james
I still don’t like importing oil from canada. We need to support our economy and do everything that we can do to help America, and in the end when we import oil from canada we increase the price of oil that goes to benefit OPEC. Canada needs to become oil independent as well. All of these OPEC nations would be less important politically to us if they didn’t export oil and we wouldn’t have any reason to fight wars with them.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 8:59 am
law 32. i agree that it would be better if we do not import oil from any country(ies), including canada.
however, my point wasn’t that we should import oil from canada. but that someone else had tried to make it sound like our imported oil was coming from mostly canada, and i was clarifying that most of our oil comes from opec.
still, i agree, let’s go all electric, and screw oil altogether. i’m still up for nano solar and others like them. i truly believe that within 5 years (probably less)we will all be making our own electricity, very cheaply.
death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, god bless a123 and l.g., god bless g.e., bell labs innovations, and a little company called google and God Bless the United States of America!
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 9:17 am
The USA today for this weekend 12/7-9 has a review of the new Chev Malibu. It may be available at the USA today web site. The review says that the hybrid had some extreme failures that the dealer said “could not be duplicated”. Based on that one review, I would not buy that car. I hope the Volt does not turn out to be “nice concept but….”
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 10:08 am
the review was of 3 different malibus, v-6, 4 cyl, and hybrid, each had problems, not all had all problems. it also had a lot of good things to say about the new malibu.
however, i would have to agree with rb and say that i would not buy one until the bugs are worked out.
the volt is a different breed of animal. sh*t if harley can make a golf cart with the volt type of system, then i’m certain gm can make the volt (please, i do realize a car is more to build than a golf cart, but it shows that the system works).
death to oil!
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I think that we’ll have less to worry about with the Volt’s early production, since GM is putting so many engineers and so much of their resources into getting it right. The test mules will be running long enough that they can work out bugs in the E-Flex system before full swing production.
I would however want to wait a couple months, at least, before the first few are sold, and hopefully get some good reviews on them by the car magazines.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Just as #35 James correctly says, the review of the Mailbu says “nice car but…” and then reviews the troubles of each of the 3. It seemed to me that each one was a kink of some kind, mostly involving shifting and transmission issues, that probably could be worked out. One would like to buy a card that actually works, though.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Maybe I’m missing something. How much of the Volt technology is new state-of-the-art?
I’m thinking the batteries and that’s it.
We already have the regen brakes, the ICE, electric motors. What is really new? I’m thinking all the other technology has been around long enough to have been perfected.
GM should not have any trouble perfecting the Volt, except for possibly the batteries.
How wrong am I?
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Rashiid,
When you really think about it, very little in automobile technology is really “new”. We had carburetors into the 90’s but even the controversial “Tucker” automobile in the 50’s had fuel injection, not to mention WWII fighter aircraft.
Even though that technology had been around, until recently FI still had fouling issues that caused problems. So there are still a lot of potential problem areas.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
The only way Tesla could succeed was for the automakers to continue to ignore their market. Now that they are starting to jump in, Tesla is in a race against time to establish a foothold. I see them making the Roadster for a couple years and then getting bought out or folding.
There is no way WhiteStar will compete in the marketplace with a Volt at 20K cheaper.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
#38 Rashid,
It seems to me that you are right, there are a lot of proven systems that seem likely to be carried over into the Volt. Still that is true of the Mailbu, too, and somehow USA Today got 3 for review that had significant problems, all different but, it seemed, all drivetrain related in some fashion.
One feels that somehow what was new in the Mailbu did not get perfected by its engineers before production, i.e., nothing fundamentally wrong but in too much of a hurry to get it out the door, perhaps.
I hope that does not happen with the Volt, but I once had a Chevrolet Citation — highly praised, hurriedly constructed — so it is easy for me to imagine.
(Quote)
December 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Grizzly #39 and RB #41.
Thank you for your response.
You both bring up good points.
(Quote)
December 9th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Grizzly (#15 & #18) – Incorrect; Tesla has engineered the battery, motor, power elecetronics, chassis and body with almost no input from Lotus and has those engineering teams on staff. Lotus’ role was to provide some engineering analysis, ride & handling development, styling studio work and are assembling the vehicle as a contract manufacturer.
Butters (#11) – Hub motors? think about unsprung mass, individual motor control, efficiency (one large motor is much more efficient than 2 (or 4) smaller ones).
Dave G (#25) – The Roadster is codenamed Darkstar, not Redstar…
(Quote)
December 9th, 2007 at 5:05 am
An individual motor then has to go through a transmission and axles and differentials and lose efficiency. I’m not doing the math but I’m pretty sure in-wheel motors hold there own on efficiency. Plus they are individually controllable so a more sophisticated traction control system can be realized. The PMLs even brake better than the disc brake friction set up. Not to mention their unsprung weight isn’t really an issue.
(Quote)
December 9th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Matt986: yes, the Volt concept is not new, check out the Lohner Porsche, from 1899.
Yes, that’s 1899! They have some very photos of it at Autobloggreen.
(Quote)
December 9th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
The electric vehicle business is getting pretty crazy haha. The chevy volt is a good concept and in my opinion superior to something like the Toyota Prius. Pure BEV’s have advantages that shouldn’t be ignored either. One advantage is the life of the battery. The lower energy density cells in the Chevy Volt means the battery must be recharged more often than say Tesla’s high energy pack. Batteries are only good for an X number of recharges before they degrade. Assuming the volt and tesla use the same battery type, their overall lifetime cost will be at least equal considering the Volt will need more frequent replacement though the Tesla pack costs more upfront. You see, its kind of a double edged sword.
(Quote)
December 9th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
So now you have battery costs that are at least equal long term wise and one vehicle (tesla) that has much lower maintenance. The other (Volt) has the same electric components that make it an electric vehicle in the first place with the added expense and problems that comes standard with an internal combustion engine.
(Quote)
June 20th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
See the VOLT in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h5AOWL0fRE
Maybe GM should make a car that actually drives.
Such as Tesla Motors has been doing for years!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXxOtgn8iGU
Also, Tesla Roadsters have been for sale for a while now, despite the article denying the fact.
(Quote)
August 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Not sure where you got that one since he had said before he took delivery of his Tesla Roadster that he was trying to convince his wife that the Volt should be their second car.
(Quote)