Troy Clarke is GM’s President of North America. I participated in a blogger interview with him.
When asked about why and whether GM has positioned itself as an alternative energy powertrain leader. He noted the top three reasons are; concern over climate change, price of gas, and energy indepoendence . He feels GM has positioned itself ahead of the other automakers in fuel diversification and feels the move has been spearheaded by Rick Wagoner.
Asked about lithium-ion battery development, he called the lithium-ion battery the “moon shot”. He said GM doesn’t want to own the battery technology. He is willing to go on record saying that GM is willing to work with the other major carmakers in advancing battery technology despite its competitive aspects.
I asked him about the Volt’s rollout plan.
He told us GM has started market research last month. He thinks there will be ‘early adopters’, environmentally conscious-minded people, and the largest group will think its about cost of ownership. He noted early adopters will pay a premium for the fist high technology vehicle. How big are each of these groups is still unkown. He said “we want it to be a high volume car. He expects to sell them through every Chevy dealership.
He feels the Volt will become the “halo car” for the Chevrolet brand and mentioned that it may be come the icon of this generation much like the 57′ Chevy was of it’s era. How’s that for a great line?
This entry was posted on Monday, January 14th, 2008 at 11:40 am and is filed under Original GM-Volt Interviews, Production, Public Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Jan 14th, 2008 (11:54 am)Lyle, you get some good “dirt.” At least GM’s employees are enthusiastic.
Jan 14th, 2008 (11:59 am)Halo car for sure, actually an understatement.
Look what the Prius has done for Toyota. It given Toyota priceless “green” and technological credibility. It has also, as many here have pointed out, provided cover for monster Tundras and Sequoias, which are as big of gas guzzlers as anything GM sells.
Bob Lutz was dead right when he said that it is a matter of corporate viability for GM to recapture the engineering and technology high ground. I believe that Mr. Lutz said something to the effect that the public perceives that “There is a little bit of the Prius in every Toyota, and a little bit of the Hummer in every GM vehicle.”
I hate to feel like such a sap that I would pay extra, or take reliability risks, to be an “early adopter”. In this case however, I am ready to do it.
As Captain Aubrey was so fond of saying, “There is not a moment to lose”.
Jan 14th, 2008 (12:02 pm)I like the idea of the Volt, and would purchase one. However, the initial design is not useful to me. So I guess I’d have to wait for a more useful body style to be offered. I’ll be watching and waiting.
Jan 14th, 2008 (12:02 pm)Let’s see, Troy:
- willing to be an early adopter, check
- environmentally conscious, check
- think cost of ownership, CHECK
- want it to be a high volume car, CHECK!
- will pay a premium, Oh, So sorry Troy, thanks for playing. I guess I’ll be looking into a Prius.
Jan 14th, 2008 (12:35 pm)This computer is in my office. The last time I checked in here was Saturday afternoon. The amount of information and news which has been added since then is totally amazing. Awesome.
Jan 14th, 2008 (12:44 pm)The Chevrolet dealer near me is the ugliest on the strip. It has an old, rectangular, spartan building with a big blue (not gold) logo sign that is fading and rusted around the edges. I don’t see any Malibu’s prominently displayed. The front is lined up with huge trucks and SUV’s weirdly contrasted with tiny re-badged Korean compacts in back. The image it projects is antiquated technology, financial struggle, and lack of imagination and taste.
The Honda and VW lots nearby have new, eye catching architectural design with bright, polished logos.
GM has a serious image problem. It’s not going to be easy to turn this rusty barge around and get it on the right path. They are only beginning to repair the damage they’ve suffered in recent times.
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:06 pm)[quote]Troy Clarke noted early adopters will pay a premium for the fist high technology vehicle [/quote]
Really?! Does this mean price gouging?
If so, GM can kiss the back side of my two humped camel. I’m not buying it.
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:08 pm)What I’m wondering is, does he mean that the MSRP of the Volt is going to be high in the first year compared to where it will be by, say year three because of low volume and paying for R&D, tooling etc., or does he mean that he fully expects there to be dealer mark-up, and has excepted that, so plans to do nothing to about keeping the car at MSRP?
I’m OK with a $29,000 MSRP Volt in year one vs. a $21,000 MSRP Volt in year three if that’s what he means. However, if he means there will be a $29,000 MSRP Volt in year one and then a $5-10,000 dealer mark up that we we’ll just have to eat, then GM’s going to be sadly disappointed in Volt sales. They really need to apply every bit of pressure they have to keep dealers at MSRP. If they can’t, then they need to switch gears and make this a Saturn so they can control the actual sale price.
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:12 pm)Why should we pay a premium when we are the ones taking a chance on new technology and we are doing this not only for ourselves but for GM as well? In 2011 when the Volt finally comes out, I have a feeling it won’t be the only game in town. Pay a premium. Bah.
That is so unfair to all of us who have been promoting this car just by being here and commenting on it. Not to mention those of us who talk about this car to others and promoting it through word of mouth.
Wow! That comment really ticks me off.
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:31 pm)[quote comment="27057"]I like the idea of the Volt, and would purchase one. However, the initial design is not useful to me. So I guess I’d have to wait for a more useful body style to be offered. I’ll be watching and waiting.[/quote]
John P. #3: I agree! As I’ve said before, I’m EXTREMELY excited by the Chevy VOLT technology, but have always preferred the customer service at Saturn dealers. I’m hoping GM realizes a significant number of Saturn’s customers like myself would want a CUV rather than a sedan as their next car ….and would be extremely receptive to still another version of the newest, beautifully-styled 2009 VUE: A VUE plug-in E-REV with electric-only range comparable to the VOLT (NOT the 10 miles for the 2-mode-based plug-in just announced!
With only a modest increase in electric motor size & Lithium-Ion battery size (to maybe 200HP & 20KWh, respectively), and given the added space the VUE should also allow for the ICE/generator, etc, an E-REV plug-in VUE should meet the demands/desires of MILLIONS of Americans like myself who’ve never owned (but always wanted) an SUV or CUV!!!
IMAGINE: A safe, near-zero-pollution, comfortable, family-sized vehicle with an extended range (of 800 mi?) as well as a cost per mile for most commuting/local travel of 2-3 cents/mile instead of 20-30 cents/mile! WOW! — I’LL BUY ONE IN A HEARTBEAT, AND I THINK LOTS OF OTHERS WOULD TOO!!!!!!!
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:46 pm)I suspect that the price premium mentioned would be in relationship to other vehicles in it’s class. The volt is most certainly going to cost more than an traditional ICE based vehicle in the same class.
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:47 pm)I think he meant that like new electronic equipment, the price is higher for the first year or so, and then the price is reduced as the technology takes hold and the economies of scale allow for reduced prices.
It would be absolute madness to tell the customer base that “we are going to rape the initial purchasers or our new vehicle!”
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:47 pm)MOON SHOT?
Big corporations are like politicians: Watch what they have done and NEVER pay attention to what they SAY they will do.
GM produces concepts, science projects and prototypes as PR to keep us buying their REAL products which are larger vehicles with more powerful engines which run on E-85 in which they have heavily invested.
Don’t be naive! GM knew years ago that they could use capacitors to buffer the existing batteries. They could have mass produced E-REVs like the new AFS Trinity’s XH-150 15 years ago! They did not use capacitors in the EV-1 because they WANTED it to fail so they could convince CA to change policy.
GM decided NOT to seriously pursue E-REVs because reducing vehicle maintenance and extending their lifespan was not a good business model because the real money is in the consumables and replacement due to planned obsolescence. This is why GM sold their NiMH battery tech to their Big Oil partners!
GM’s pattern of stall, bait & switch has existed within the company since 1931 and they are continuing this tradition while they try to change our addiction first to cellosic ethanol and then hydrogen.
GM’s current strategy of stalling by saying the packs are not ready yet, or they are too expensive is going to backfire on them BIG TIME!
Trinity has proven that we don’t NEED new battery technology as long as they couple EXISTING batteries with ultracapacitors.
Tell GM exactly what you really want…
NO PLUG? NO SALE!!!!
Jan 14th, 2008 (1:56 pm)The Trinity project is going to be interesting to follow. In their video they said that they’ll try and license the technology to an existing automaker but if that doesn’t work they’ll build it themselves.
If that happens? All bets are off!
At this point I take GM at their word but if Tim #10 and other like minded conspiracy folks are right? We just may have another option!
Go Volt! Go Trinity!
Chris
Jan 14th, 2008 (2:12 pm)#10 Tim
Thank goodness for competition in the marketplace, however late.
I think the only reason GM is doing any of this, notwithstanding all the “save the planet” talk is that they don’t want to be bested.
Don’t forget:
1. The Prius is the 13th best selling car in America
2. GM has nothing it its lineup to compete with it
3. Toyota will soon be #1 in sales volume
The writing has been on the wall for some time. I just can’t fathom why it has taken GM the better part of a decade to come around.
Jan 14th, 2008 (2:14 pm)DaV8or, #7:
Exactly.
The idea of charging a higher price to the “early adopters” of new products is a time honored marketing strategy dating back into ancient history.
How about people camping out all night to get the latest whiz bang electronic gadget? The Corvette ZR-1 was so hot it sold for $20K over sticker and more for a while, until they got enough built to cool off the market. It’s a fact of life.
It’s just a balancing act for the marketers to “skim” the maximum profit from the “early adopters” without alienating them to the point that they wait it out.
I want so badly to make a statement about technology, oil independence and, call me a sap if you want, saving US jobs, that I will buy one early on, knowing full well that the price will fall and reliability will improve over time. Just don’t push me too hard, or I will quickly find the will power to wait.
Jan 14th, 2008 (2:38 pm)I think the best way GM could avoid gouging and the appearance of it–and let’s face it, it’s the dealers that pocket that money, is to go ahead and start taking reservations, even though we do not yet know what the actual price is going to be.
Of course these would be refundable, but duh, GM could profit the interest… Plus, GM needs to know just how many of these puppies they are going to sell. Sure worked well for the Tesla Roadster. No question exactly how much production is needed.
Jan 14th, 2008 (3:14 pm)A possible bigger price for early adopters will be charged by the the dealers. For hot cars in short supply (once PT Cruiser and Mini Cooper, etc) they can charge thousands extra in order to get it now, or take a pre-paid deposit to be put on a waiting list.
Jan 14th, 2008 (4:08 pm)[quote comment="27056"]Halo car for sure, actually an understatement.
Look what the Prius has done for Toyota. It given Toyota priceless “green” and technological credibility. It has also, as many here have pointed out, provided cover for monster Tundras and Sequoias, which are as big of gas guzzlers as anything GM sells.[/quote]
Equating the two in that way is just a monstrous misrepresentation. Toyota actually sells what people want – some people want big SUVs, and some people want small cars. GM, on the other hand, actively hates people who want small cars; and pushes for (and gets) tax breaks to make big SUVs even more artificially cheap than they were before through CAFE loopholes, depreciation rules, etc.
Not remotely the same thing, and you know it.
And we still have zero evidence that GM is really interested in the Volt as anything more than FUD. You know when we’ll really know? When they start to sell the thing. At which point Toyota will have been selling hybrids for about fifteen years.
Jan 14th, 2008 (4:08 pm)Dave B, #17:
I’m ready. Where do we send the checks?
I tried to send one to Lyle, figuring it might increase his leverage with GM if he was holding a few million $ in deposit checks, but he doesn’t want to be their banker. I can’t think why.
I tried to give one to my local dealer(s), but they looked at me like I was from the moon (no comments, please).
Jan 14th, 2008 (4:13 pm)M1EK, #19:
Oh oh, touched a nerve. So sorry.
Actually, I have been accused here of being a Toyota fan for some of the positive things I have said about their business model. Not so, however.
Monstrous misrepresentation? You do me too much credit!
Jan 14th, 2008 (11:55 pm)Nothing about the Chevy Volt is a moon shot. This is just another example of how the extreme leverage of global capitalism makes it easy for large corporations to avoid risk and hard for small businesses to capitalize on risk. The result is an unproductive allocation of capital toward the same old vendors selling the same old stuff into the same old markets until they can no longer manufacture enough demand. Then the government steps in and bails them out.
The underlying premise of capitalism is that private enterprise is entitled to profit in exchange for taking risks that would be inappropriate to take with public money. But the supply-side camp insists on subsidizing flawed business models and letting corporate lobbyists write legislation. Why take risks when you can design your own loopholes and collect corporate welfare checks? GM could ride the E85 CAFE loophole all the way to the bank.
The Volt is not a moon shot, it’s just that GM so rarely takes significant risks that this one seems more extraordinary than it should be. Finally this lumbering behemoth decides to allocate some capital toward something that should have been done many years ago. Many small ventures have already proven the concept, but without billions of dollars, they’re exercises in futility. It’s amazing what can belatedly happen when money is belatedly invested toward the right pursuits.
The Apollo program solved numerous major technological challenges that had never been addressed before. The Volt is about commercializing existing technologies. It’s just as much of a moon shot as it would be if we were to go back to the moon today. If we do that, we should send Bush. He’d look hilarious hopping around in his codpiece-enhanced spacesuit. Houston, mission accomplished!
Jan 15th, 2008 (8:08 am)As a young man, I bought (in 1962) a 1957 Chevy Belair Sport coupe, with 4 barrel carb and dual exhaust. Best car I ever owned.
Now wouldn’t it be nice, if as an old man, I could buy an equally iconic vehicle? You bet! Go Volt.
Jan 15th, 2008 (11:51 am)Van, #23:
Damn right! I’m right there with you.
Apr 27th, 2008 (8:55 pm)The whole “two-mode hybrid is good enough for bigger vehicles” idea is a bunch of crap! There is absolutely no reason they can’t extend the E-Flex concept to larger family vehicles. Actually, that age group is likely a big part of the coming PHEV and E-REV market.
AFS Trinity didn’t seem to have any problem getting 40 all electric rnage (AER) out of a Saturn VUE Plug-in Hybrid conversion with ultracaps and a lithium battery.
For those of you who haven’t seen it here’s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jIaDv5qMaE
I’m betting they just want to see how the Volt sells before they start thinking about other body styles.
As far as premium price for early adoption of a new technology? Duh, thats how it works folks. I’m the proud owner of a $700.00 HDDVD player thas currently worth $20.00, but me and my family have been enjoying true High-Definition movies for two years while our friends keep waiting for the price to drop.
If you want to be one of the first to drive 40 miles every day without a drop of gas in a well designed car by a major auto maker, if you want to help create demand that will ensure this technology stays and grows, if you want to be part of the solution…then you spend your money on a battery instead of oil/gas.
For me…$35,000.00 is a big stretch, BUT I don’t want my 6 year old boy to ever have to drive a gas car.