Bob Lutz: “The Road Ahead”
GM’s outspoken Vice-Chairman, and father of the Volt wrote an opinion piece for the Feb 25th edition of Newsweek entitled “The Road Ahead.”
His task was to predict the future automotive landscape and writes that it will be “markedly different than today”.
First he predicts some change in “proportion”, cars will be smaller, but feels that those in the U.S. won’t reach European sizes until gas climbs above $ 10 per gallon. He writes that Americans still have a need for trucks, and, memorably:
“Not everyone is suddenly going to switch to very small cars, or tiny little pickup trucks, unless they suddenly decide to haul tiny little horse trailers carrying tiny little horses. ”
His other prediction is a change in “propulsion”, and agrees with his own prior statement “the electrification of the automobile is inevitable”.
He tells us GM is “pouring resources” into developing the E-Flex platform which will power not only the Volt, but “a generation of vehicles,” and he re-iterates his point that the Volt “is not a hybrid” but an E-REV.
Finally he mentions the planned Volt mule test drives this summer and promises “then you’re going to see, gradually but emphatically, this vision of the future of the automobile turn into the present.”
Source (Newsweek)
Popularity: 4%
(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
63 Responses to “Bob Lutz: “The Road Ahead””
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)
February 21st, 2008 at 7:22 am
I like this guy.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:23 am
“we will bring this vehicle to market. We’ll be testing running prototypes this summer.” - Bob Lutz
I wonder the Volt will move from ‘concept’ to ‘pre production’?
February 21st, 2008 at 7:26 am
The “grand ol’ man/senior statesman/Yogi Berra” of the automobile industry prognosticates again …..and as always, it’s a little humorous & even provocative around the edges!
His themes for the article seem to center on “proportion and propulsion”. And relating to propulsion he clearly restates his belief in the Volt’s E-Flex platform by saying….
“The electrification of the automobile is inevitable. I stand by that, and believe it more every day. Regardless of global location, the ultimate goal is to have vehicles that do not use petroleum, for a number of reasons, including energy independence, energy security, energy efficiency and emissions concerns.”
This unequivocal statement, underscored by “…and believe it more every day”, reminds me of the young Bill Gates (before his upstart, Microsoft, had become the industry behemoth it now is) strongly promoting/predicting world-wide use of the internet for e-mail when millions of people had no idea what he was talking about, or even if they had some understanding of email, simply ignored his crystal-balling.
As an amateur futurist myself, I’m absolutely sure Bob Lutz is just as right about E-Flex as Bill Gates was about e-mail! And if GM gets it right in the Volt, it will help reinvent & revitalize the behemoth he works for –as well as the entire automotive industry– over the next few decades!
Regarding “proportion”, his argument that “The U.S. fleet won’t look like the European one until fuel prices climb well over $10 per gallon” is somewhat provocative to me because he doesn’t mention the REAL reason so many Americans tolerate enormous fuel expense ….SAFETY! Big vehicles are big fuel guzzlers, but they’re also much safer in a collision with a much smaller, more fuel-efficient car. [For techies, K = 1/2MV^2; i.e. the kinetic energy of a collision is proportional to the mass of the vehicle; but the larger the mass, the better it's distributed/absorbed.] And everybody knows if a Tahoe is T-boned by an Aveo, the Tahoe’s occupants have a better chance of surviving than if the Tahoe had T-boned the Aveo! It worth a lot of $$$ to a lot of people who don’t have horses or boats to haul around!
So what Lutz leaves unsaid is that the E-Flex platform needs to be scaled up for GM’s big vehicles (which, after all, can haul –and package– 25KWh batteries as easily as the Volt can carry its 16KWh battery). I plan to try cornering someone “in the know” at GM at the Auto Show in NYC next month to explore the idea of an upsized E-Flex platform for trucks, SUVs, etc.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:59 am
I mostly agree with you nasaman, but I think that while vehicle size does bring safety, it isn’t the main reason people here buy big.
There are a lot of factors, even including something a simple as the size of the roads. I spent a summer shooting a film in Ireland and a Toyota Camry seemed like a behemoth in traffic there.
Vehicle tax in Ireland was set by the size of the engine, and at the time fuel was about $5/gallon so there were strong incentives to keep the size of the vehicle and engine down.
I think everybody wants to be as safe as possible, when it is financially impossible to get a big vehicle, you don’t. Also, as the size of a fleet goes down there are fewer Tahoes out there to get T-boned by…
February 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
This all sounds wonderful, but I think I will feel a whole lot better when I read something like “The test mules have exceeded our expectations, and I formally announce that production of the Chevy Volt will begin in Spetember, 2010″.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:14 am
Oh man, he is sooo out of touch. People these days have far more pressing issues that pulling trailers with horses and boats, etc. Many cannot even afford their homes (subprime mess). In north east people are going back to wood due to high oil bills for heating. And so on. There will be a lot of drastic changes well before $10/gal.
Safety is also BS. Sure everyone wants “safety” when they have plenty of money to pay for SUV and trucks. Watch what happens in the recession. Safety has to do with the driver and safe driving, not vehicle.
It is amazing how Americans are hitting their credit limits on all fronts (mortgages, credit cars, auto loans, etc) yet GM exec here thinks their buy power is as high as ever. Nope. Things have changed. Just as Americans have to adjust to higher prices for gasoline and now food as well, corporate America has to adjust to lower buying power of their clients. They are clearly still looking in the rear view mirror.
Sigh
February 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am
Little off topic but T. Boone Pickens on CNBC Squawk Box just now with some interesting views on energy in general… solar, wind farms etc. He stated we are sending half a trillion dollars a year out of the country for oil.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:29 am
#3 Nasaman,
Bill Gates is notorious for totally missing the profound effect the internet would have:
“‘The Road Ahead’ remains a landmark of bad techno-punditry — and a time-capsule illustration of just how easily captains of industry can miss a tidal wave that’s about to engulf them. ”
Although there is one good parallel. Microsoft’s rabid attempt to get back into a market that they had previously all but ignored is similar to what GM is doing with hybrids now. Hope that GM doesn’t also put out a “Vista”.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:35 am
I disagree that cars will get smaller. Those with the money will by the hybrids and electric vehicles that are roomy and comfortable, and those without the money will buy Honda Civics, just as they do now. The mix my shift towards the Civics, until the price of the tech goes down, but then it will revert back to what people want.
I expect there to be an electric Hummer in the near future, and they will sell like hotcakes. Now I am hungry for hotcakes.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Remember back a few decades when many families who had “occasional” hauling needs would just temporarily hook up a small trailer to their car when needed? That way they had the stowage capacity when they needed it and weren’t always carrying all the extra weight and volume the rest of the time.
Now we have soccer moms driving Hummers just because once a year the family goes camping.
I eagerly look forward to the days of $10 gasoline.
The funny thing that many people don’t realize, is that our gasoline already costs allot more than what you pay at the pump… it’s too bad all those extra costs don’t come directly at the pump, because then maybe gov’t policy makers and consumers and taxpayers would make different decisions…
February 21st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Here’s the link for the CNBC - Pickens interview.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=658910248&play=1
February 21st, 2008 at 9:02 am
“As an amateur futurist myself, I’m absolutely sure Bob Lutz is just as right about E-Flex as Bill Gates was about e-mail!”
Nasaman,
The only problem with this analogy is that big auto is nowhere near the first to be coming to this revelation.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Main reason people by big:
> Safety
> Ease of comfort and access
> Children (one infant takes up as much space as an obese adult - car seat, base, diaper bag…and we’re not even talking additional play items)
***
I am actually going to go out on a limb and say that the future is not smaller cars. OMG…you heard me right! The near future is smaller cars. The more distant future 30+ yrs will in fact be much larger cars.
Why is that?
Right now, it’s all about fuel/gasoline/etc. In 30 yrs when we start to enter a state where our vehicles are all electric and powered by the roofs of our homes which will be covered in solar cells. That conservation issue becomes null. (ie: Solar energy = clean free energy, so a Tahoe is no different than a Prius.)
Combine that with the future of vehicles driving themselves. And what you’ll see is a lot more people traveling and visiting relatives for Christmas. They’ll hop in their cars and let their vehicles do the 5-8 hour trip from D.C. to New England. But think about it…if you don’t have to drive, it makes traveling long distances much more accessible. Here’s how…
We go from the necessity of the constant vigilance of a human driver to an automated pilot. Now we have 5-8 hours of free time. We can read, sleep, etc. And that’s the rub…our vehicles will all start to mimic mini-RVs/mobile homes. We’ll want comfortable seats to read our books. “The all new 2038 GM Convoy mini-home features La-Z-Boy recliners!” We’ll want TVs in our vehicles. Oh wait, we have them…but now they’re 9″ mini-screens. We’ll want 40″ flat panels. And a table…to play games on, etc. (Yes, Chrysler has already gone there.) And beds…yes, places to sleep. Because now you can visit someplace 8 hours away just for the weekend. You leave Friday night. Sleep in your car as it drives from D.C. to Boston. Then leave again Sunday night and sleep on the way home. Eventually, you’ll the roads taken up by two types of vehicles. Larger mini-homes and much smaller commuter vehicles. You’ll also see separate lanes. And people won’t mind if their large mini-home vehicles are in the slow lanes. They’re not driving…
This is the future….but rest assured, there will be a great many doubters. I do hope to live another 30-50 yrs to see the start of this change. Because I know it will happen…
***
“Oh man, he is sooo out of touch. People these days have far more pressing issues that pulling trailers with horses and boats, etc. Many cannot even afford their homes (subprime mess).”
Northeast is rather cold to own horses. (ie: it can be done, but less season for them). Here in Pennsylvania & Maryland you see the above ALL the time.
No he’s not out-of-touch. Just those people who bought houses far beyond their means…are not going to be buying new vehicles anytime - so he’s just not focusing his energy on a non-prospective market.
***
“Safety has to do with the driver and safe driving, not vehicle.”
Guess you’ve never driven with traction control, never been hit by another vehicle and saved by a seatbelt or airbag.
Safety = driver + vehicle
Canuck = pessimist
***
“I expect there to be an electric Hummer in the near future, and they will sell like hotcakes. ”
Guaranteed!!!
I think the Hummer 4X (or whatever it’s called, the one that looks like a rip-off of Halo’s Warthog) should be made into a REEVer.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:33 am
The thing about ‘tiny little horses’, Bob, is that, while a good number of Americans really DO need trucks with considerable power to haul stuff….
…the overwhelming majority that own those big trucks do NOT have stuff they need to haul, and practically NEVER use those vehicle’s full potential.
So while I agree big, strong trucks will still be needed, I think the ‘fad’ of having one when you don’t really need it, needs to die.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:36 am
canuck - #6, “out of Touch” How in the world do you think your food gets it’s seeds delivered and the farmer carried to the field? Cattle don’t drive themselves to market. Medium to heavy duty pickup trucks literally feed America! With out those nitch vehicles that millions of farmers and farm workers drive you and i go hungry. What i agree on is the pride and prestige driven market in urban areas for pickups and suvs.
but like nasaman #3- the bigger vehicles can use the technology too. After all, railroad locomotives have long been electric with a big generator on board!
February 21st, 2008 at 9:51 am
I also agree with the size/safety issue. Europe uses more rail to transport goods which removes trucks from the highways. They also have a MUCH older road system, much of which was designed for people, horses or carriages so only small cars can negotiate these roads. This tends to shrink the entire fleet. Also the population base is more dense and diversified so they are used to being closer together so smaller vehicles are more easily tolerated.
North America is NOT the EU… yet.
CFR / North American Union & 2008 Presidential Candidates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM&feature=related
February 21st, 2008 at 9:53 am
Sadly, I note with interest that Mr. Lutz says when the battery technology is ready GM will bring the Volt to market. No mention of “production” in 2010. Tiny little slips in tiny little trailers.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:02 am
cantjam,
I agree 110%
Of course farmers need pickups, etc. There is no need for them in urban areas, expect for trades people, of course.
Last night I was speaking with a neighbors kid. Just got his license and a nice pickup, hemi engine, etc. Due to his age he started with a $3K/year insurance. Now it is up to $6K/year (he had some accidents, not sure what is the story). He works in a store and helps his dad clear snow. He is a nice kid, but WTF does he need a pickup for?!?! He needs a couple of jobs just to pay insurance and gas. I am sure there are more examples everywhere of people who have no business having a pickup.
Jason,
How about calling me a realist. Subprime mess has far reaching effects on all of us, including people with stellar finances. I won’t go into that side story. You are right, I never was hit. I did ride a Ninja bike for about 4 years too, so I guess I was taking on too much risk. However, my bike had the power to get away from lousy drivers much faster than my Honda CRV, so in a way it was safer. My CRV is sluggish so I am a sitting duck. Frankly there is always a risk and driving bigger machines doesn’t really accomplish anything as there is always a bigger pickup or SUV. Should I start driving a dump truck to work now cause it is bigger and safer?!?! It is a lunacy. In fact, people buy bigger SUVs for safety, but still drive them like cars not understanding bigger size/weight more inerta, etc. and endup in a ditch.
Regarding size, sure there will always be big vehicles. The point was that an average car size will go down. A vehicle needs a lot of electricity and big batteries. Say battery tek advances so much that you can pack 5x more in a same volume/weight. So in 30 years EV will have a 500 mile range say. Great. Now you have to pump in something like 100 kWh into the car. Solar panels however at least in terms of efficiency are not advancing much, if at all. Most are working on reducing costs, while efficiency is pretty much flat. So to pumpin 100 kWh you need a bunch of panels and a lot of space. Of course most city people don’t have that kind of space. So you still have a hard time pumping in enough electricity for that long trip even when battery is big enough.
The grid won’t be of much help because we are close to limits. See S.Africe power outages. That will happen here as well at some point.
In general I agree that tehcnology will advance. My point is that lifestul adjustments we have to make won’t be just for 30 years. More like 100+ years. It will take a long time for electric vehicles to achieve most of the features we have in our gasoline cars.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:06 am
The emphasis should be made on city cars, those used for driving withing city limits, such as commute to work, school, shopping, etc. *WILL* become smaller. Today we just don’t bother making a distinction. We use the same vehicle for intra-city and extra-city driving. Gas was too cheap.
As gasoline becomes too expensive we’ll have to switch to smaller/more efficient vehciles for city driving and more conventional bigger vehciles for longer trips. We’ll probably just keep using gasoline for longer trips.
For within city limits driving there will certainly be downsizing.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/european-automo.html#more
Now gasoline prices vary but on average they are about 2x higher (could be wrong though). So these stats show you what is likely to happen when you get to $10/gal
In particular note the average engine size is 1,740 cc!!!! Now imagine your pickups and SUVs with a 1,740 cc engine LOL
February 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
#20 Canuk
For your information, I made computations based on today’s prices at my neighbouring gas station and yesterday’s exchange rates :
1 gallon of diesel in Belgium costs for the consumer more or less 6.36 US $ and a gallon of gas (very good quality) is around 8.29 US $.
Note that my current Opel Corsa - I like very much - has a 75 hp diesel engine with 1278 cc. With our speed limits in Western Europe I do not need a BMW (I just run at the same speed and can overtake them without problem if I need to) even to make more than 100 miles when I am alone or with my wife. And in our narrow city parking lots I may park practically everywhere whereas SUV owner do not dare to go. Well I never tried to be T-boned by one of those, …
February 21st, 2008 at 11:24 am
I bought big vehicles to haul around my 20 pound two year old soley for safety and the fact that I could afford that _insurance_. I simply widened that range of accident that we can walk away from. Now I’ve owned a Jeep CJ that taught me to respect the vehicles abilities and to not push things out of the range. But one can never predict anothers driving. With this said, one person whom has totaled three cars in five years smashed into my wife and (at the time) one year old and totaled our truck and theres. They walked away only crying. As long as I have the money to afford (even if credit/car loan) a bigger vehicle, I will own one. We also own a Pruis, but for longer trips or weekend driving, we only drive the truck and not because of the room, because of the safety. The Volt will be my daily commuter.
#13 Jason
I think you are right on track. I am already scoping out solar roof shingles for my garage to be grid tied and large enough to host the full demand of my daily Volt driving of 44 miles to and from work. And I’m getting this inline with my finances to have it done in 2010 b4 I get my Volt.
And when bigger E-Revs come out, I’ll then trade in my truck for it. So I agree that smaller vehicles is the start, but the trend and tech will slowly demand and allow bigger E-Rev vehicles.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:26 am
Tim, Tim, Tim, (sigh). Watched the youtube propaganda and it was (almost) believable until they lumped Newt Gingrich in there. I liked the music though. Remiuded me of the 60’s and the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society, a Communist front packaged to take advantage of our desire to get out of Viet Nam). Notably missing was any quotes from anyone who wasn’t a Liberitarian.
My biggest question is:
What the HECK does this have to do with the VOLT????
God Bless
February 21st, 2008 at 11:41 am
#3 Nasaman,
“…the REAL reason so many Americans tolerate enormous fuel expense ….SAFETY!”
Generally, I like your posts. You seem like a “facts” person. I do take issue with your above “safety” comment. Your “larger is safer” argument can lead to a vehicle arms race. Soon we’ll all be driving the largest vehicles legally permitted.
Do the facts support your contention that larger vehicles are safer vehicles? In two-car collisions, they might be safer for the driver of the large vehicle. That is unfortunate for the driver of the smaller vehicle. Larger vehicles kill more people than smaller vehicles. We all need to work together to minimize deaths.
What about single vehicle incidents? Avoiding collisions is an important safety consideration. It is easier to stop a smaller vehicle. Lighter vehicles can accelerate, maneuver, and brake better. Rollovers occur less frequently with smaller vehicles. There is more energy to dissipate in a large vehicle, single car-crash. Bigger vehicles are bigger targets - two giant SUVs passing on a narrow road are more likley to “touch” than two smaller cars.
I recommend looking at NHTSA data and reports on SUV safety versus passenger car safety.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
I’m not sure that I TOTALLY buy ionto the “larger is safer” theory. My older daughter was broadsided by an SUV AND a pickup simultaneously. They drove her across 2 lanes and down a 10 foot embankment. Since it was a side impact, Jenn’s airbags didn’t deploy. I helped load her onto the Life Flight helicopter and as I did, she said “Dad, can you get my SHOES?” The impact had knocked her out of them. When I went to recover the shoes, I threw up at the sight of what was left of her car, but when I got to looking inside, there on the driver’s seat sat…… her Bible. The truly amazing part of the story is that Jenn was released from the hospital THE NEXT DAY, with just bruises,
Oh, did I mention that she was driving a Prius?
To be fair, my other daughter ROLLED her vehicle the day after she got her license. It was SO totalled that we got to save ONE floor mat. She crawled out the broken moonroof and walked to a friends house to call home. That vehicle was a Jeep Grand Cherokee.
And yes, I admit it. **I** was the one that taught them both to drive.
So, safety issues aside for a moment, I think what Bob is saying is that GM and every other company, has to produce the kind of vehicles that are in demand. With the size of our country, the demands from our families, and yes, how spoiled we are, we demand comfortably large vehicles. “Even” Toyota puts out the Tundra. But to suggest that there are “soccer moms in Hummers” out there is just flat wrong.
God Bless
February 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Here’s proof that performance, image, etc. are still important in an EV future:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1408
Just as pornography drove the early adoption of VCR’s and the internet, adrenaline is going to drive the early adoption of high performance EV’s. People can now pursue their lust for speed with a clean conscience.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I drive a “tiny little pickup” every day, a SWB S-10. I do not tow “a tiny little trailer, with tiny little horses”. To compare Mr. Lutz to Yogi Berra is too kind.
It is perfect for my needs. If I need to tow something, I use my 3500 crewcab, but that’s another story.
I wonder why Toyota is just about to pass GM in US sales? And, why do they make money? Is it because they have a better vision of the product mix US consumers want? Naaaahhh, it must be the UAW’s fault.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
#27, noel park,
GM’s overseas divisions are making enormous profits, and it’s no coincidence that they don’t have to deal with the UAW. Now that the UAW has accepted 71 cents on the dollar towards outstanding UAW benefit liabilities, GM will be more profitable, and will re-enter the small car market.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’m not going to center anyone out. But if your reason to buy ‘large’ is safety, thinking a a war between a big vehicle and a smaller one is generally won by the largerer, you lose my respect.
That is kind of like saying I am going to endanger the lives of others by buying a larger vehicle than them, because I can afford it…so I hit them, they die…not me.
If safety is your concern, check out crash ratings, buy a Volvo or something.
Or better yet, if it is that important to you. I think a bus would totally own your Escalade in a head-on!
February 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
restate … “I simply widened that range of accident that we can walk away from.”
The word “soley” was incorrect. I also needed the truck to haul things and couldn’t afford two vehicles (space-wise) at the time I was looking to purchase something.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
In regards to the “electric Hummer”, check out the following
http://www.worldcarfans.com/2061201.001/hummer-02-wins-la-show-design-challenge
They designed a fuel cell Hummer complete with algae to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen to end up with a positive carbon footprint. Unfortunately they do not say what it would cost.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
“I like this guy.”
I don’t. He’s a vehement global warming denier. Luckily he has other reasons to make electric vehicles.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
In 50 years, we will look back on this as the first practical battery to drive a real car, and the start of something. At that time, superconducting, nano-element batteries will be driving tractor trailers across america.
The arabs are building islands in the ocean with our money…..they are floating in it. [Im talking about that island shaped like a palm tree....]
February 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Wow, my “mass = safety” comment in post #3 whacked a hornet’s nest of opinions! Maybe I should have said the physics involved (K = 1/2MV^2) is a fundamental factor, but that a NHTSA study about 10 yrs ago reported that accident victims in LARGE (not necessarily heavy) vehicles generally faired better (survived, and/or suffered fewer injuries) than those in small vehicles. My personal daily driver is a 4-door Saturn and it wasn’t my intent to either justify or criticize large vehicles –merely to say that millions who own them have a perception that bigger is safer —and that there’s some truth in that.
If those wanting to consider vehicle SIZE further will read two other current newsweek.com articles, I think you’ll see why I want GM to go beyond 2-mode hybrid Tahoes to an upsized E-Flex platform….
“Supersize The Automobile” http://www.newsweek.com/id/112733 and
“Big Like America” http://www.newsweek.com/id/111829
February 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
#29 Statik:
Yeah, some guy in Texas, if memory serves, staged a collision between a small Volkswagen type car and a big Detroit sedan a few years ago, with predictable results. Then he had an 18 wheeler hit and identical big sedan. Then he had a locomotive hit an identical 18 wheeler.
Maybe the DOD will surplus off some Stryker armored vehicles, since the Iraqi “insurgents” seem to have figured out how to blow them up. Some local wise guy newspaper columnist speculated the other day that the MRAP would be the next fashion statementm now that every Tom, Dick and Harry has a Hummer.
I dunno, I’ve been driving my puny little S-10 (a GM product Bob) for 8 years and 200,000 miles and I’m still alive. Just lucky, I guess.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
They should make a EV2.
A volt without the generator for the people who want EV.
Its an option that should be considered.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
So offer two versions of the CAR.
That would help define it more as a ZERO gass vehicle.
Better for sales too.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
you’ll have to put a lead weight in the front. Or some expensive battery ballast, to increase the mileage and the price….
February 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It is interesting that the tiny cars towing tiny horsefloats are the only group in GM that are profitable. (In other words, the international sales). As a rule of thumb I think most of GM’s international sales would be “tiny” or at least “small”
And yet Bob still wants too build big vehicles! I dont understand the economics.
Being able to survive a cruise missile attack may seem to be a desireable specification for a vehicle but in reality, is the European death toll on the roads much worse than the US?
February 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
#38, bruce g:
Don’t be too modest. I think that you understand the economics a lot better than Bob does.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Trucks and the rural American male driver- It’s a story of an unending persuit of more power, “bigger” and more aggressive looks and sound. My prediction is that when these guys find a way to mount a 50 h.p. (or larger) electric motor to each wheel and get true 4WD, awsome torque,quiet ride–all with an operating cost less than 20% of a truck with a traditional gas engine, the transition will be swift. I imagine an interesting accessory will be an “external engine noise simulator” used to impress others and warn wildlife of your approach (stealth mode while spotting deer prior to hunting season).
February 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Just wanted to throw in my 2¢ regarding size and safety … Over the years, I’ve owned all sizes of vehicles from 1 ton pickups through small hatchbacks. During the late 1990’s, I was driving a GMC Jimmy S-15 with a 4.3 litre engine. Gas was then costing over $200/month - in today’s gas prices - closer to $300. I replaced it with a 2005 Suzuki Aerio SX (yes, a small car) with a 2.3 litre engine. Not too surprisingly, I now spend about $130/month for gas. Ironically, the GMC was not well suited for child seats, etc. which was one of the reasons for getting the smaller, more fuel efficient Suzuki. I can now easily fit 2 infants (and all their “support” gear), my wife and myself in the Suzuki. The Suzuki Aerio got top marks for crash test rating from the IIHS , while the much bigger GMC got very poor marks:
2002-07 Suzuki Aerio: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=164
1995-2001 GMC Jimmy: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=54
My experience is that size does necessarily not equal safety!
I find in interesting that when I drive around Canada, smaller vehicles are more popular in BC and Quebec than elsewhere. Smaller vehicles don’t necessarily cost less to purchase - but do cost less to operate. When crossing into the US to visit relatives in Oregon, I’m always surprised to see how much bigger many of the vehicles are. Some automobile brands offer select models in the US that are significantly bigger than those in Canada. I’m sure that the higher cost of fuel in Canada (currently about $4.35/US gallon) keeps the vehicles smaller.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
There are some interesting details in the 2002 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):
* The Estimated Number of Persons Killed in Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes Increased to the Highest Level since 1990.
* Injuries in Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes Declined.
* The Fatality Rate (Fatalities per 100 Million VMT) was Unchanged.
* Injury Rates Declined
* Occupant Fatalities Accounted for All of the Increase in Total Fatalities.
* Non-Occupant Fatalities Declined.
* Most of the Increase in Occupant Fatalities was in Pickup Trucks, SUVs and Vans.
* Most Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities continue to be Unrestrained.
* Alcohol-Related Fatalities Increased.
* The Increase in Alcohol-Related Fatalities was concentrated in Occupants of Vans and SUVs and Riders of Motorcycles.
* SUVs, Vans, and Motorcycles had a larger increase in Alcohol-Involved Drivers than other vehicles.
* Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities in Rollover Crashes Increased.
* Fatality Increases in SUV and Pickup Rollovers Accounted for:
* Nearly half of the Increase in Total Occupant Fatalities
* Most of the Increase in Passenger Vehicle Rollover Fatalities.
* Passenger Car Occupant Fatalities in Two-Vehicle Crashes with a Pickup Truck, Van or SUV Increased.
* Motorcyclist Fatalities continued to increase.
* Fatalities of Older Motorcyclists increased while Fatalities of Younger Motorcyclists declined.
* Fatalities for Children Ages 0 – 3 and Ages 4 – 7 Declined.
* Fatalities for Occupants Ages 8 – 15 Increased.
* Fatalities of Young Drivers (Ages 16 – 20) Increased
Full report: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/2002EARelease.pdf
Most of the Increase in Occupant Fatalities
was in Pickup Trucks, SUVs and Vans.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I’ve read a number of articles about how trucks and SUVs are not empirically safer than passenger cars. I’m sorry that I can’t seem to find them now to post links. But a lot of it boils down to crash avoidance–passenger cars are more nimble–and also the design of the cars. Most of a vehicle’s safety has to do with its design, not its size. By this I mean placement and effectiveness of crumple zones, arrangement of reinforcement bars, etc.
Unfortunately I also seem to have lost a great article about how the rise of SUVs is due to marketing and consumer psychology, not any actual evidence of safety or need to tow anything etc. It’s really a shame that the American car industry has more or less tricked the population into buying cars with much higher profit margins.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Here we go:
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
February 21st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
“The Volt is not a hybrid. It’s an extended-range electric vehicle. Hybrids have an internal-combustion engine driving the wheels, aided by an electric motor. The Volt’s wheels are driven by electricity, solely.”
- - -
How is saying that constructive?
After all the negative things he said about hybrids years back, no one expects him to ever admit that Volt is a “series” hybrid. So why waste any effort drawing attention to terminology? Move on already!
And what’s the deal with the “aided” reference? That certainly isn’t appropriate for a plug-in Prius driving 60 MPH with the engine stopped. Perhaps we should say that Volt is “aided” by an engine too. So what if a majority won’t exceed the distance threshold. The same could be said for speed.
Stop spewing marketing spin. Let us decide for ourselves. Focus on building the car.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
#46, john1701a:
Amen!
February 21st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Thought this may be a good thread to post a link to:
“Time’s up for petrol cars, says GM chief” (Rick Wagoner)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/times-up-for-petrol-cars-says-gm/2008/01/14/1200159401944.html
February 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Jeff #48
Thanks for the link. I noticed that Wagoner doesn’t even mention Hydrogen. Sure seems he would have if he’d thought it was viable. I believe the only reason the big automakers research it is that they’re funded to do so. It’s clear that electric is the future and I do believe that Ethanol despite some concerns will serve well as an interim liquid fuel.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Large vehicles have few areas of inherent safety over smaller vehilcles. Which vehicles are safer is a very debatable question as illustrated by the comments on this post. Some facts that may help to understand the issues involved:
-Your vehicle’s kinetic energy (K.E.) is only a part of the equation. A big part in a train on car collision. An unimportant part of the T-Bone scenario. It is the other vehicles size (weight & height) that matters, along with your side impact characteristics. KE matters most for headon collisions and lessens from there.
-Most important are your vehicles ability to avoid accidents (collisions or otherwise) and ability to safely handle accidents that do occur.
-Smaller, nimble (breaking and manueverability much more so than speed), and lower CG cars are best for avoiding accidents. The lower the center of gravity (CG) the nimbler and less likely to rollover a car will be. This is one reason why today’s convertibles are some of the safest cars.
-To handle accidents better cars have designed crumple zones. The more energy these zones can absorb before transfering or impeding on the passenger zone, the safer the car is in an accident. Other auxiliary features like active seat belts, air bags, head support, etc obviously also increase the safety of the vehicle. Larger crumple zones do add safety in apples for apples comparisons.
-Vehicle height is a double-edged sword. It does add safety to have your bumber equal or above another vehicle’s in an accident. This added safety comes with the added risks of rollover, loss of control, limited manuveability alluded to earlier.
The safest driving situation is to have the smallest and nimblest “practical” fleet of cars on the road. Malibu v malibu would mean fewer accidents and safer accidents than Tahoe v Tahoe.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
My spider senses are telling me that GM has a secret…a wonderful secret. I think that they intend to introduce the Volt as a full line-up, the way they used to do it back in the day. I’m thinking that we might see a Volt (highly publicized) followed by a secret Buick Electra, a secret Cadillac ACDc, a secret GMC Charger (pick-up which might actually be a car based pick-up like the one they are showing publicly), and a Pontiac…I don’t know..Proton.
Why do I think this? Because they are getting cocky about the electric car and I think they know they have a couple of years head start on everyone. I love it when GM gets cocky – I saw it during their last recovery in the 80’s.
So, what will we call the Saturn version? I’m going to be Pis##d if they don’t make this thing in enough numbers and I have to get in line.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
#6 — I think he’s in touch. I don’t have any of the problems that you’re describing. I don’t know of anyone who does, or anyone who knows anyone who does. The bad news you’re listening to comes up every four years in this country — you’re not allowed to feel good heading into an election.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
#3 - Nasaman said, “As an amateur futurist myself, I’m absolutely sure Bob Lutz is just as right about E-Flex as Bill Gates was about e-mail! And if GM gets it right in the Volt, it will help reinvent & revitalize the behemoth he works for –as well as the entire automotive industry– over the next few decades!”
Wise reply: Amen brother!
February 21st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
#46
“The Volt is not a hybrid. It’s an extended-range electric vehicle. Hybrids have an internal-combustion engine driving the wheels, aided by an electric motor. The Volt’s wheels are driven by electricity, solely.”
- - -
How is saying that constructive?”
Constructive or not it happens to be true. Propulsion in a hybrid like the Prius comes from the ICE and electric motor. And the volts propulsion comes entirely from the electric motor. To me anyhow this is an important distinction, using a setup like the Prius does not move us forward enough, you have added mechanical complexity and less long term benefit.
I would much rather see vehicles like the volt being built rather than the Prius. The Prius is not a long term option, it is not flexible as the ICE cannot be removed and still have a functioning vehicle. If carmakers are going to have to invest billions to migrate our vehicle fleet to a sustainable point we need our designs to be more forward looking and the Prius just doesn’t accomplish that.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I just want to echo what some others have said about the size=safety issue. I wrote a paper on this last year for a college class and I was astounded at the amount of bad information dispensed by interest groups and media outlets. If you want to learn the facts you need to go to the source. From what I remember off the top of my head, safety was a somewhat strong function of weight up to a certain point, after which it was a much weaker function, however safety was a much more correlated with vehicle type and design. Also the overall fatality rates for trucks and SUV’s were higher than for cars. If a buyer’s priority is safety then they should look for that, but policy makers should be guided by the overall fatality rates.
Do your own research. If your loved ones are worth buying a safe car, then surely they are worth a week or so of research.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
#16 Tim — I knew that was going to end as a Ron Paul Ad…I just knew it. Really — believe anything you want, but as for me, I would be inclined to think that if all of those Republicans and Democrats supported the organization, it must be a pretty good thing. I’m not a big fan of finding evil where it does not exist.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“THE world’s biggest car maker, General Motors, believes global oil supply has peaked and a switch to electric cars is inevitable.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/times-up-for-petrol-cars-says-gm/2008/01/14/1200159401944.html
“Mr Wagoner cited US Department of Energy figures which show the world is consuming roughly 1000 barrels of oil every second of the day, and yet demand for oil is likely to increase by 70 per cent over the next 20 years. Some experts believe the supply of oil peaked in 2006.”
I think they are mostly on the money with this one. I think conventional supply peaked in 2005. I just hope GM, Toyota etc can produce enough vehicles to keep up with demand. I hope the grid can keep up as well!
February 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
My final word of the evening, and a subject that is hard to write about for me – vehicle safety. I lost my beautiful 17 year old niece to an auto accident 3 years ago. She was in a small car and was struck by an SUV.
It has literally changed my life, and I’ll just say that it has absolutely ruined the life of her Mother and Father.
The accident was caused by poor driving skills. My niece was a passenger. She and a friend (the driver) were returning home from a college tour on a two lane highway – I’m sure gabbing the way girls do. The car in front of them slowed and stopped to make a left hand turn, but had to wait for an SUV to pass in the on-coming lane. The driver didn’t have time to stop and being inexperienced, didn’t want to hit the car in front. She went into the opposite traffic lane and quickly realized that she was going to hit an on-coming SUV. As a reflex, she steered left to protect herself, but put the passenger (my niece) into the line of collision. The right side of the road had a shoulder – but the inexperienced driver just had no time to reason.
Everybody walked away but my niece, who died about five minutes following the accident.
It’s all driving skill because no amount of engineering and planning is going to totally eliminate the actual impact. I see that today, engineers are working on lane alarms and blind spot alarms and forward looking radar – that’s great stuff.
Just stay in your lane and pay attention. As for me, the people who I love and whom I can’t bare to loose, are in big vehicles. I’m not though.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
>> I would much rather see vehicles like the volt being built rather…
That sounds a lot like something I could have said 10 years ago.
Study the market. You’re in for a rude awaking. Sorry, but the challenges we face will require some flexibility well beyond the ideal.
Consider what the market needs. One solution does not fit all.
Then consider when change is needed and to what degree of penetration.
There’s a whole lot more to that picture than you first realize.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
#54 wrote:
I would much rather see vehicles like the volt being built rather than the Prius. The Prius is not a long term option, it is not flexible as the ICE cannot be removed and still have a functioning vehicle. If carmakers are going to have to invest billions to migrate our vehicle fleet to a sustainable point we need our designs to be more forward looking and the Prius just doesn’t accomplish that.
You might want to wait for the Toyota’s answer to the Volt. I heard that the new design can drive around 62-65 mph using only it’s electric motor. I’m betting it will be quite competitive. Actually, I’m hoping it is because competition is always a good thing for the consumer. They have to drive the price down to win market share. Maybe you prefer the iPod model where they can just about charge what they want and the masses still flock. Thus, “Go Volt! Go Prius! Hey Volt, I hear Prius says his father is better than your father.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
[...] vehicles, but will it beat the Tesla Roadster? My thought is probably not, but you just never know. Check out the site here to learn more about the Volt, global warming news, or even some predicitions by vice-chairman Bob [...]
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Lutz is correct. Here in Texas, almost every other vehicle on the road is a 3/4 ton truck or bigger. I personally know a half dozen or more folks who do haul horses around in big trailers. I personally haul my auto transport trailer behind my half-ton truck. That doesn’t mean the same technology can’t be used to make big trucks more efficient.
With regenerative braking you almost take mass out of the equation, and suddenly a big vehicle can be nearly as efficient as a much smaller one. And the energy savings more substantial. The main reason GM is making the Tahoe and Silverado Hybrids. When they go e-flex it will be even better.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
62jscott1000
You’re largely right when you say, “….With regenerative braking you almost take mass out of the equation, and suddenly a big vehicle can be nearly as efficient as a much smaller one. And the energy savings more substantial. The main reason GM is making the Tahoe and Silverado Hybrids. When they go e-flex it will be even better.”
However, I would add that GM will need to upsize the battery for the E-REV versions of the Tahoe (et al) from the Volt’s battery (16KWh) to something more like 24KWH to achieve ~40miles EV-only range. That’s why I’ve been lobbying GM heavily to put a much bigger battery in the ‘09 plug-in VUE ….to extend its EV range well beyond the wimpy 10 miles they’ve announced.