Bob Lutz Says Tesla Motors Spurred GM to Build the Volt
The next issue of Newsweek features a short article about GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz and the Chevy Volt, describing Lutz as “The Man Who Revived the Electric Car”.
We learn that Lutz was initially shunned by GM brass when he first proposed the electric car in 2003. At the time they were too focused on a future of hydrogen fuel cell cars.
In 2006 Tesla Motors announced it’s intentions to build a fast electric car. With respect to this, Bob Lutz is quoted as saying:
That tore it for me. If some Silicon Valley start-up can solve this equation, no one is going to tell me anymore that it’s unfeasible.
After the announcement of the Chevy Volt concept in January 2007, well the rest is history..and it’s all archived right here, minute by minute! Of course, we are still in the early chapters, but Mr. Lutz tells us:
This is like JFK’s call for the moon shot. I want to stick around to see the Volt come to market. Then I’ll pack it in around 80.
Source (Newsweek)
Popularity: 2%
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
39 Responses to “Bob Lutz Says Tesla Motors Spurred GM to Build the Volt”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- GM CEO’s Best Guess: Volt Will be Priced in “Mid to High 30’s”
- The Dawn of the Next Vintage of Chevy Volt Developmental Vehicles
- GM May Reveal the Production Chevy Volt on it Centennial Webcast, September 16th
- GM Has More Than Two New E-Flex Vehicles Already at Scale-Model Stage of Development
- The Volt’s #1 Fanboy and Our Wait List Story is the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”
- GM’s Future Volt and E-Flex Plans
- GM’s Advanced Battery Director Denise Gray is “Keeping Her Eyes on the Future”
- Interview with Chevy Volt Chief Designer About the Production Car: Plus Leaked Pictures and Video
- BREAKING: GM Releases New Production Volt Photos
- Chevy Volt Update from Chief Engineer: “There’s Nothing Standing in Our Way”
December 24th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Martin and Elon should be proud…
December 24th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I’m glad competition helped get GM out of its rut. I think that hydrogen research was just a dangling carrot that would pay lip service to the politics and public perception of fuel efficiency with a technology that won’t be viable for a long long time. Japan might be successful with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles more quickly than the United States. Japan has a lot less land area and also has the nuclear infrastructure to support hydrogen generation. Hence, the Honda FCX might make sense there.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Bob told Martin and I this last January in Detroit right after the unveiling of the Volt at the NAIAS. We were up in his office in the RenCen and spent about 2 hours with him. It was a fascinating discussion. It’s great that he talks about this openly because its the kind of thing no one would believe if only Martin or I said it!
December 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am
One thing is certain - the fuel cell architecture that GM had been working on for a long time is practically identical
to a serial hybrid and made it a small leap for GM to imagine a battery with a range extender vehicle. Their bad experience with the EV-1 all electric stopped them from copying Tesla. They’d already been down that short-ranged, very expensive, very inconvenient road before. They weren’t going to make that mistake again, regardless of the drivel Chris Paine was spreading via his crockumentary. Nor were they going to build an “image” vehicle like the $90,000 Tesla, which, even if it goes into production, will have zero effect on
carbon emissions.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:15 am
It’s more likely that Tesla was the final straw. Continually reading about prototype plug-in Prius getting pushed by aftermarket entrepreneurs would have contributed up to that “tearing” point.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:57 am
This just proves that performance is essential to the electric car equation.
Until the Tesla, hardly anybody was excited about electric cars and thought they were uselessly slow and boring, like golf carts and the Prius.
Tesla infused the whole thing with excitement by making a fast, good looking electric car.
Unfortunately GM doesn’t seem to think that carrying the ‘excitement’ factor over to the Volt is important, even though it started the whole project. We are hearing about 8-8.5 second 0-60 times, which is even slower than their EV1 from 10 years ago.
Sad.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Well, Tom, if GM went for ‘excitement’ with their first EV, it would be too expensive to make market penetration.
I think GM has it RIGHT. The Volt will be the most practical solution, given it’s operating features, AND it’s target price.
Sure, I could commute in a Tesla Roadster, and do so for almost two weeks before having to plug in… but I can’t afford a $100,000 car! The Volt might have to be plugged in every night in my situation, but it will be an EV I can AFFORD.
You have to balance performance with price to be successful.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Tesla will sell a lot of Roadsters. I REALLY hope they do! I also hope that Aptera vehicle, and the Venture One (http://www.flytheroad.com/) make it to the road. The MORE options, the better the market will be for the consumers.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
[quote comment="21587"]
Don’t get me wrong, I think Tesla will sell a lot of Roadsters. I REALLY hope they do! I also hope that Aptera vehicle, and the Venture One (http://www.flytheroad.com/) make it to the road. The MORE options, the better the market will be for the consumers.[/quote]
Good point. The more competitors, the more beneficial for the consumer. Darwin is going to weed out the inadquate performers and I expect GM to be very strong.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
My opinion of Bob improves with each bit of news like this one.
Kent, re Tesla: give it a rest! Clearly if Tesla helped to spur on the Volt then it will have a huge impact on carbon emissions.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Tom Says:
“This just proves that performance is essential to the electric car equation.”
Tesla chose to start with a high-end sports car because that is the easiest place for any new technology product to start, with low volume high priced products. This is actually the model for Silicon Valley companies, and it seems to work.
Tesla has always had the higher volume $30,000 sedan in their sites, but it’s impossible for such a small company to start there. Also note that the Tesla $30,000 sedan will have a gas motor (REEV).
For GM, there’s no need to start with expensive low volume cars and then work towards higher volume. GM already has the capacity for volume production.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Bob Lutz is 76, I believe. He says he will pack it in after the Volt comes to market, “around 80″. In November 2010, he should be 79. It sounds like he is giving himself some slack on the schedule.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I agree with John; the success of the Prius and Toyota’s plans for a plug-in probably had just as much influence, if not more than Tesla.
I just wish GM had gotten the picture a little earlier. Oh well, better late than never.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Matt986 Says:
“Don’t get me wrong, I think Tesla will sell a lot of Roadsters. I REALLY hope they do!”
Here’s a good interview with Elon Musk & Ze’ev Drori from Tesla:
http://earth2tech.com/2007/12/21/tesla-chairman-and-new-ceo-talk-transmission-snags-and-raising-more-money/
Two quites are noteworthy:
“The Roadster will be 2,000 a year when we reach mass production and the Sedan will be on the order of 10,000 to 20,000 units per year.”
“If our goal was to overthrow Detroit, we wouldn’t be talking to them about supplying them with electric drive trains. We really want to be helpful with Detroit. Anything we can do to accelerate the number of electric miles driven and make that revolution to happen faster.”
December 24th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
The Volt’s design was actually conceived by GM at least as far back as 2001 (when CA’s ZEV still had teeth), see
http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm
Ford also 2 years later (2003) was talking about a range extended EV, see http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/mstrs/ford.pdf (pages 6 & 7)
I don’t think GM needed Tesla to kick them in the pants… and while I think having the EV-1 be the star of “Who Killed the Electric Car?” had more to do with it, I think GM’s new found passion would have re-ignited itself.
In any case, we should all be thankful to all the EV makers, past and present, including GM, for getting us here.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
[quote comment="21600"]Jeff M said:
The Volt’s design was actually conceived by GM at least as far back as 2001…[/quote]
Actually they had conceived the idea of a serial plug-in hybrid with the EV1 in the 90’s.
http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/carpicts/gmshev-dia.gif
December 24th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Hey, thanks Guy! The gif image itself didn’t have much info but was interesting to see a “turbine” vs. an ICE… so I googled more and found the full article…
http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/gmshev.html
That turbine engine sounds interesting… talk about “flex fuel”… and when burning gasoline it the article says it’s twice as efficient as an ICE (thus generating 1/2 the CO2).
Also interesting is that this wasn’t just an idea… this appears to have been a prototype!?? They stretched the EV-1 into a 4 seater and stuck the turbine under the rear seats.
Wish I could get the video clip to work so I could see that prototype and hear what GM chairman Jack Smith had to say.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
[quote comment="21607"]Jeff M said:
Also interesting is that this wasn’t just an idea… this appears to have been a prototype[/quote]
I’m not trying to start a flame war, there are many here that don’t like Guy Incognito as it is.
But the fact of the matter is that GM could have had that car in production almost 10 years ago, with either an ICE or turbine range extender.
It is for this reason that I question both Bob Lutz and GM’s commitment to the Volt.
Thanks for taking note of it Jeff.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Thanks to Guy I did some more digging and learned some other things… that the 1st EV using LiIon batteries appears to be Nissan’s Altra back in 1998!!!
Not only that, the 62 kWh LiIon battery pack in it gave this rather large (Curb Weight 3,749 pounds!) crossover looking vehicle a max range of possibly 120 miles.
Give me one of those with newer improved LiIon’s and a range extender!
December 24th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
The turbine is definately interesting, and probably twice as efficient as a normal gas engine, but I doubt it’s twice as efficient as the Volt’s engine.
The Volt uses a turbocharged, 1-liter, 3-piston engine that runs on gasoline or E85. Although GM hasn’t specified any more details on the engine, some have speculated that it doesn’t use a regular Otto cycle, but rather a Miller cycle design which is about 20% more efficient. The main disadvantage of the Miller cycle is doesn’t have a lot of low speed torque, but since the Volt’s engine isn’t connected to the wheels, this isn’t an issue. Note that all other hybrids seem to use either Atkinson ot Miller cycles for similar reasons.
Also, I would guess that a smaller turbo-charged engine is around 20% more efficient for the same output power.
So while turbines are certainly interesting, the Volt’s engine is no slouch either.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
First, sure, there are a lot of reasons for Tesla to start out with an expensive high performance vehicle and work their way down. But a primary reason is to drum up excitement and interest in EVs. There are a lot of companies working on electric vehicles, but name one that’s gotten 1% of the attention of Tesla. And what’s the difference? Tesla is making a high performance sports car, which people like and get excited about, and everybody else isn’t. So don’t think that I’m too dense to understand that practical cars are, well, practical. Maybe it’s time for you guys to collectively reevaluate your understanding of the market and what makes a commercial success.
As for making the Volt a high performance car, you guys sure are talking a lot about how higher performance would increase the price unreasonably, but does anybody actually KNOW what would be involved in making a 5-6 second 0-60 car and how expensive it would be? I’m not convinced that any of you guys do.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I think making a performance version of the Volt is a bad idea.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Tom Says:
“…you guys sure are talking a lot about how higher performance would increase the price unreasonably, but does anybody actually KNOW what would be involved in making a 5-6 second 0-60 car and how expensive it would be?”
I’m not an expert, but a reasonable swag would be $4K for larger batteries; $1K for larger motor, controller and other electronics; and another few thousand for brakes, suspension, steering required to handle that kind of speed.
So my guess would be around $40,000.
Note that this assumes you’re still using the Chevy Cobalt chassis. You’ll also need to find a place for twice the batteries, so trunk space and rear seat room would suffer.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a “performance” version of the Volt a few years after the initial release, possibly a Cadillac to cover for the higher cost.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I find it hilarious when people talk about expensive and powerful exotic EV’s like the Tesla and the Fisker and compare them to the Volt. The fact is there isn’t a single one of these available on the commercial market yet and even when and if they do they will only be available to a tiny fraction of people. It seems like many are forgetting that the real breakthrough will be when an affordable, common sense EV like the Volt is available to the masses.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Dave G, why would you need “larger” batteries for a higher-performance version of the Volt?
As for the chassis, the current Cobalt is already sold with a 205 HP supercharged trim that does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. That level of performance is all I’m asking for. I realize that it’s unreasonable to expect Corvette acceleration and handling from a $25,000 car.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Tom,
Yeah, this puzzled me at first too. A larger battery pack will not only give you more range (energy storage), but more power as well. This is how the Killacycle guys keep decreasing their times, by adding batteries.
Note that you are only asking for faster 0-60 times. If you also want faster top speed, and you want to sustain that after the electric range is up, then you’ll need a bigger gas engine as well.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
The Volt is going to have a more powerful motor than the EV1 and the batteries seem like they should be able to charge and discharge at least as fast as the old lead-acid and NiMH batteries in the EV1, despite being smaller, so I don’t see why we’re not talking 0-60 times of at least 7 seconds like the EV1. It’s all a big mystery to me and nobody else seems to care.
I know the Volt isn’t going to be a sports (or endurance) car so I don’t really care about sustained top speed, but it does amuse me to floor my car on on-ramps and when passing people on the highway. Same reason people get Accords and Camrys with the V6 option, I suppose.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Everyone keeps talking about the Cobalt chassis… Size is not really going to make a difference… Put the Volt on a Malibu MAXX chassis. Make it airodynamic. You then have lots of room for a larger battery which can off set the bigger body. or change the output of the battery to compensate.
The technology is already there….just stop messing around with all the non essential gabbering about the car being an external power sourse and all that “stuff”.. I for one, just want to see the Volt on the road now…
GM could put the Volt out in Late 2009 with a battery capable of 100+ miles on one charge and still go 0 - 60 MPH in less than 8 - 9 sec. On almost any chassis.
IF IT WANTED TO…
We have seen it before on other cars…. they just whet your whistle with some BIG HYPE and then OVERCHARGE you for the “extras” that could have come with the car in the first place at the ORIGINAL Price….
Been there done that and like I stated before… 2010 I am buying a hybrid/electric of some type with the options I want at a price I want…and I don’t really care at this point who makes it…
GM ARE YOU LISTENING ???!!!
December 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
The Volt’s batteries are supposed to produce around 160hp. That’s not bad for a small car - not a race car, but not bad. Also, from what I hear, electric cars are really fast going from a dead-stop. Low-end torque on an electric motor is fantastic relative to any gas engine.
So I can see why most folks aren’t that concerned about performance, but for those who are, I would think GM would come out with someting faster a couple of years later. It’s a good topic for discussion.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Thank God for Tesla, and CalCars to a lesser extent, for providing the pressure needed to jump-start GM’s PHEV program again. Their initial program started in the 60s as a concept, but has sat dormant until now.
The technology is there. All they have to do it put it all together. Hydrogen is still 40 years (if ever) away from becoming a viable alternative. Hopefully GM will finish this project on time and do it right. Otherwise, there is no doubt in my mind that others will lead the way (Tesla, Toyota, etc.)
Also, from what is sounds like, we have Bob Lutz to thank for being an internal champion at GM for this technology. Thank you Bob.
P.S. Happy Holidays everyone!
December 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
rayo,
A larger, heavier car with the same batteries and motor will definately accelerate slower. If you make the batteries bigger to compensate, then it will cost significantly more.
Also, I’m pretty sure that even on level roads at constant speed, heavier cars will be less efficient due to the increased friction on the tires. Regenerative breaking only works when you’re breaking.
Now, if you somehow make a little larger car and keep the weight roughly the same, that would be great.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
The key that makes the Volt possible, is the higher power of the new generation batteries.
If you have a full BEV, then power isn’t a problem, but if you reduce the pack, for a plugin-hybrid, then you come in trouble with the power.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Who Killed the Electric Car, unfair as it, was, and Tesla Roadster, braindchild of Martin Eberhard, ultimately applied the pressure that resulted in the Volt program. GM should hire Martin, after ungrateful Tesla Motors threw him down the stairs.
Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, everything else, all.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Merry Christmas everyone!
December 25th, 2007 at 12:49 am
I don’t really care if the inspiration came from watching a Road Runner cartoon.
I am just glad that the Volt is on the way to be a real production vehicle by a real auto maker!!
Merry Christmas To All!!!
December 25th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Tom #27 Says:
“The Volt is going to have a more powerful motor than the EV1 and the batteries seem like they should be able to charge and discharge at least as fast…”
The EV1 had batteries that would go up to 150 miles per charge (MPC). That’s 3 times the batteries of Volt, so that’s why the EV1 could do 0-60 in 7 seconds.
lkruijsw #32 Says:
“If you have a full BEV, then power isn’t a problem…”
This assumes that a pure battery EV would have larger batteries for more range, which is usually true, but not always.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Count on Newsweek to distort history in the name of a catchy blurb : Lutz didn’t resurrect the electric car - he reinvented the electric car; as a serial hybrid.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:01 am
“Tesla has always had the higher volume $30,000 sedan in their sites, but it’s impossible for such a small company to start there.”
Depends on whether you start from scratch or not. Witness the pending Miles Javlon.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:58 am
# ug Says:
December 26th, 2007 at 12:01 am Quote
“Tesla has always had the higher volume $30,000 sedan in their sites, but it’s impossible for such a small company to start there.”
Depends on whether you start from scratch or not. Witness the pending Miles Javlon.
=====
I think Tesla has come to the sobering realization that the “short term” plans of survival take precedence over the “over confident” Musk’s seat cushion plans for successive models.
M.