GM: Chevy Volt Battery Contract Not Decided Yet

June 9th, 2008 | Posted in: Battery

Last week GM vice chairman Bob Lutz told us only one lithium-ion prototype is running in the several functioning Volt mules, becasue in GMs opinion, one of the 2 pack making teams, either LG Chem/CPI or A123/Conti (he wouldn’t say which) appeared to be a lower risk.

Soon thereafter a report surfaced in which CPIs CEO told reporters in an interview that it was the CPI packs running in the mule that Lutz drove.

As such, it was a logical deduction that CPI/LG Chem might be close to winning the Chevy Volt contract.

GM spokesman Rob Peterson, who has intimate knowledge of the E-Flex program, has issued the following statement:

“The development of the battery for the Chevrolet Volt is a significant technical undertaking, we are not in a position to limit our options at this point. Both Conti/A123 and CPI/LG Chem bring tremendous intellectual strengths to the development of batteries and we continue to work and test solutions from both supplier groups. Speculation aside, a final supplier has not been chosen. We’ll let everyone know when it has.”

And thats the official word for now.

Popularity: 8% [?]

(6 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

79 Responses to “GM: Chevy Volt Battery Contract Not Decided Yet”

NZDavid Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:12 am

Interesting, But Lutz still said what he said.

Edit: How come we only get five minutes to edit?

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:14 am

My sincere hope is that GM will place contracts with BOTH suppliers (assuming both prove fully acceptable), even if there is a cost difference. The supply problems both they & Toyota are having with a “proven technology” NiMh battery for hybrid applications should be incentive enough to also negotiate high-volume purchase agreements with both Li-Ion suppliers —this is what both companies will need to justify the huge investment they MUST do to build fully-automated cell AND pack assembly lines! Using a single supplier would border on insanity!!!

[Reply]
Joe Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:18 am

Now, we really have the competition confused. I think it is good to keep the competition confused. Toyota don’t tell us a thing so why should GM divulged so much info. When it comes, we will all know. By knowing ahead of time, it won’t make the product any better and it sort of lose some of the glamor. Keep going GM. I can not wait for the final product.

[Reply]
Murray Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:24 am

I like the silver one… hehehe

I agree w/ you Joe #3… and of course I just want one that works!

I think I’m ready to see the final design, I say I ‘think I’m ready’ because I’ve been talking myself down ever since the concept failed in the tunnel…..

yeah, I’m ready….lets see it!

[Reply]
NZDavid Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:29 am

Nasaman did you read the article referred in my post 56 on the previous thread? Has a great deal of info on NiMH batteries.
Regards

[Reply]
kent beuchert Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:32 am

I found a PDF file online, written by CPI (can’t relocate the link) which announced that they had won and congradulated all involved. They must have written this in anticipation, apparently.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:53 am

#6 kent

It’s old…I made the same mistake.

[Reply]
Jason M. Hendler Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:54 am

#3, Joe,

Transparency is the best path to success. It is only when information is hidden that people are able to subvert an effort. Of course, I am talking about individuals within an effort, not external forces. It’s best to attempt something with all those external forces at work, to determine if your team is truly on board, and with the spotlight on everyone, dissenters can’t hide.

In this, and other cases I’ve seen, it is the open sharing of radical ideas that are safest to pursue transparently. External and internal doubters are happy to give you all the rope to hang yourself, and when it works, it’s too late for anyone to stop it.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:09 am

“…a significant technical undertaking, we are not in a position to limit our options…”

Once they officially choose a supplier, the other will stop helping.

The BEST way for us ALL to win in this race to electrify transportation is for us to quit poisoning the intellectual well with childish guessing games and let them continue to compete to the end. Free, fair and level competition always brings the best result at the lowest cost.

I will NOT shake this Christmas present, ruin the surprise and possibly break it.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am

I think if you read the old thread, a couple days ago, 90 percent of us were amazed that GM had chosen LG, myself included. I thought A123 was the choice ‘du jour’

Even though I think A123 was/is a better choice…and 2 choices, I guess, would be better than 1. I am dismayed that GM has not chosen either one. Not because it is a bad decision, but because it continues ‘the trend’

Here is my quote from the old thread when we thought GM had pulled the trigger and decided a supplier,

“Count me in the numbers of the surprised many it is not A123…And by my estimation, this is the very first thing that GM has delivered on it’s promise when it comes to the Volt. They said, “Here are the two guys that will be competing for the contract. Go make it, bring it to us, we will test it…and in a year, we will give out the contract.”

“I can give credit where it is due. It doesn’t hurt me at all to say this, “Good job GM”

I take it back. Same old, same old GM.

If your trying to rationalize this news as ‘good news’ somehow because they can still have 2 suppliers. They have never indicated this would be end in a 2 supplier contract…so it is pointless to spin it as such. “Speculation aside, a final supplier has not been chosen. We’ll let everyone know when it has” The only news here is a missed deadline.

[Reply]
Eco Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:19 am

If LG wins, they have a more “known” brand in manufacturing, I think. It may help GM to go with a conglomerate of such reach.

A123 has not even had an IPO yet. So…if A123 loses, then I hope they preserved enough of their rights to the intellectual property they developed to put their product in another company’s vehicle.

To use a sports analogy, teams try not to trade good players to teams they have to play often. Sometimes they keep them on the payroll, just to prevent it.

[Reply]
Thrifty McFly Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:27 am

Assuming both packs have similar performance, I believe GM will be very price sensative when choosing a pack provider.

Whom do you believe will be the lowest bidder; a pack made in America or one made in Korea ?

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:36 am

#9 Tim

“Once they officially choose a supplier, the other will stop helping”

Ain’t that the truth! That could be GM’s motto.

So let’s string everyone along as long as possible. That could be GM’s motto. Let’s let people believe in something until the last possible moment so we get the greatest advantage.

Whether it be suppliers laboring under false pretenses of a contract from GM? Whether it be 20,000 people on GM-volt.com believing in our press releases until it is apparent they are not valid? Whether it be 3,000 workers in a truck plant we guaranteed had jobs just two weeks ago, until we got them to sign off on a deal to shut down another plant….now we tell them they are out on their behinds.

On a personal note, I myself am a ‘GM supplier’ for clothing goods, I have felt this first hand. (Ironically, mostly for the closing truck plant) They used to make me jump through hoops, get me this sample, get me that, oh this other supplier can get it for $.50 cheaper, we will pay you later, etc.

I wised up, I told them they are cash/upfront only…and they pay for ’spec work’ They went away for a year or so, “thats not the way you do business with GM” But they came back, true they order alot less…but I make more money. ( I find this not this not uncommon with large corporations…I would say a third of them try to get away with this sort of thing)

[Reply]
omegaman66 Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:38 am

I find it hard to believe that both of these companies combined could keep up with the demand if GM will move forward and start converting their autos to e-flex.

Apparently these two are among the best. Snatch them up now.

[Reply]
CDAVIS Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:48 am

Keep it competitive:

Make it a GM policy to keep a minimum of two battery vendors as suppliers. Each year award the lowest cost vendor a volume benefit derived by indexing the cost delta. Example: If Vendor 1 is 10% lower in cost than Vendor 2, then Vendor 1 gets 60% the contract and Vendor 2 gets 40% the contract. Also index the contract award on a prior year quality metric (i.e. repair incidents). This will put the contract award opportunity in the vendor’s hands and self regulate an optimum cost/quality ratio. The battery vendors would of course be required to meet minimum quality and technical specifications.

It will be important for both consumers and dealers to be able to easily identify the battery vendor and version number. Publish the name, serial number, and version of the battery on an easily viewable battery placard (similar to the VIN placard).

Battery technology is entering into a new age of rapid innovation. The cost/benefit proposition of battery vendor selection will become very fluid.

[Reply]
Firefy Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am

#2 Nasaman is absolutely on point. One would think that in order to reach production goals that if both battery makers have pack that are meeting or exceeding target goals, then why not use both? A while back GM had the 4.3 V6 engine that was built in two different plants (Tonawanda and Romulus). Yet no one really bickered about which plant their S-10 engine came from. I say use both packs and develop software that makes the most of each, then worry about the lesser issues as they come. Perhaps offer online or dealer site downloaded updates.

[Reply]
Dr. Science Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am

Who supplied the NiMH batteries for the GM hybrids ?
9,000 were just recalled.

[Reply]
Firefy Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:51 am

#15 CDAVIS
That’s an excellent idea. Especially if GM decided to lease the batteries out (which I’m not sure they will or won’t do).

[Reply]
Firefy Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:51 am

Dr. Science? I think it was Cobasys (I hope I’m spelling the name right.

[Reply]
Firefy Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am

Oops, forgot the “L” in my own name…I’m batting a thousand THIS morning

[Reply]
Firefly Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am

…there…that’s better

[Reply]
dagwood55 Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:06 am

“I find it hard to believe that both of these companies combined could keep up with the demand if GM will move forward and start converting their autos to e-flex.” - Omegaman66

Henderson described a rollout/ramp up process that’s so gradual that battery suppliers won’t have much trouble keeping up.

[Reply]
Glen M Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:09 am

I still think that it is going to be A123. Their Partner Continental AG has stated work on a battery / ultracap unit. Combined with the recent hints of GM looking at using ultracaps it makes me think that the Volt will have them….

“Maxwell announced last month that Continental AG, one of the world’s leading automotive electronics and mechatronics suppliers, has designed BOOSTCAP ultracapacitors into a major automaker’s electrical system stabilization system that is expected to go into full-scale production in the second half of 2009 for a 2010 model. Last year, the company announced
ultracapacitor supply relationships with Valeo, another leading global Tier 1 automotive supplier, and Mercedes Car Group, for their respective hybrid auto development programs.”

http://www.maxwell.com/news-events/release.asp?PRID=263

[Reply]
BillR Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:13 am

#2 nasaman

I agree that 2 or more suppliers are better, but it could be that GM has a lot more E-Flex yet to be announced. Perhaps a small Cadillac crossover like the Provoq concept, only with an ICE instead of a fuel cell.

With this type of business, and the market for E-Flex in Europe, there will probably be a need for 2 suppliers. However, GM could award the Volt contract to one vendor, and let’s say the Cadillac (or other model/models) to the other.

As stated, there is a great deal of intellectual input from both vendors, and GM will need all of this input as they modify a good portion of their product line to E-Flex technology.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am

I don’t think it is possible to have both suppliers.

Then you need two seperate OEMs for aftermarket repairs also. Your techs trained on two different platforms? Secondary systems and parts based on seperate power sources? They can’t be the producing the exact same product, they both have different propriatary technology…so two sets of problems.

You’d have VoltA and VoltB, one would quickly get the stigma of being the ‘lesser producing/problematic’ Volt and everyone would want that one…and the resale of the other would be shot.

[Reply]
Steve Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:27 am

Very neat picture.

On the one hand, that’s alotta battery!

On the other, it’s hard to fathom that so little battery will take you so far …

[Reply]
Jason M. Hendler Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am

#15 CDAVIS,

That’s a very common approach, though, were I a vendor knowing I could get 40% of a contract, I wouldn’t be working too hard on costs and just focus on quality and profit. GM’s number 1 goal is cost, and your approach defeats that.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am

Assume two Volts, you and your neighbour. After 5 years, you have taken yours into the shop 3 times and are getting 35 miles to a charge…your neighbour has yet to have any issues and is actually getting 45 miles to a charge.

Once the word is out and which supplier is more reliable (and one will quickly be recognized as the prefered) you have a serious problem.

#2 Nasaman

I think the scenario of multiple suppliers for redunancy’s sake is something that is of unquestioned value for things like space shuttles, I just don’t think it will work out in this situation.

I also don’t think GM is under any ability to give ‘two high-volume purchase agreements’ I agree that both companies do need it to justify their expenses, and that is another big problem.

A) They came into these contracts with the expectation of 100K volumes to start.

B) A GM contracts is not worth the paper it’s printed on.

On the note about Toyota and Honda’s supply problems with a “proven technology” NiMH batteries. While true, it is a side-effect of a dramatic market shift in the price (not supply) of oil that has never been seen in the United States…and that same capacity situation will be rectified in under 6 months.

Even if GM awarded two contracts and each supplier was pumping out 20K batteries a year…if the market shifted and suddenly they needed 40K from each source, it is unreasonable to expect two companies could both double their production any more efficiently than one primarly supplier could go from 40K to 80K.

It’s a relative problem, a company is not going to just have double capacity lying around because of a arbitrarilty lower volume amount…a company is going to have a production line that meets the request of the consumer.

If anything, if a company knows that another company is building/supplying the exact same product and GM is pitting one against the other, they are less likely to give priority to GM on any issue if it conflicts with other capacities/orders of other business which is guaranteed.

IE) A123 is producting 50,000 batteries a year and GM is taking 25K of them (and taking 25K from LG), and say Mitsu is taking the other 25K of capacity (and A123 is Mitsu’s only supplier). Now the market demand triples. Both GM and Mitsu want 75K. Who is getting their order filled? Easy answer.

Neither A123 or LG Chem will be content to only supply GM under this two horse system. They will seek out guaranteed business immediately. This is all moot anyway, GM SAID in this article (and all along) there ‘can only be one’

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am

#27 Jason

Bang on. Under that system, the wants of the two companies are in conflict. I’d rather make 30% and produce 40 percent of the order than make 10% and produce 60 percent. Ironically, the latter has been GM’s ‘modus operandi’ to keep the cash/life blood flowing the past decade.

This is EXACTLY the scenario I am in with GM right now! And I am doing EXACTLY what you described (as I said at the end of my post #13) with my own business. I am consciously taking LESS business from GM to make more money.

[Reply]
Mike-o-Matic Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am

@ #12 Thrifty McFly,

>> Whom do you believe will be the lowest bidder; a pack made in
>> America or one made in Korea?

That’s a good question. I might think the USA battery more costly, but then there’s the minor issue of overseas shipping on a very heavy item… and look at the cost of diesel nowadays.

[Reply]
David L G Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am

Statik at #25 and #28, this happens pretty frequently. I’m a bit of a Jeep enthusiast, and they sourced - and continue to source - from different suppliers for the same component. And yes, there are trade offs. On the used market people look for the combinations that time has proven are reliable and avoid others.

The vehicles cost the same amount to start with, but end up being worth more or less as time proves reliability. Interestingly, usually the poor components are phased out after a few years, making me think that it may be a natural kind of survival of the fittest.

I don’t think the differences in the Volt would be that extreme from swapping a battery though. Sure there is different technology involved inside the batteries, but at the end of the day it is just a power source. I bet a simple software upgrade or setting would be all that would be needed to change from one battery type to the other.

[Reply]
mien green Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am

I’d guess that the decision has been made, and that both contenders have probably even been apprised. They just don’t want to make it public yet until the details have been worked out among all the parties.

It smells more like a damage control statement to countermand Bob Lutz’s latest shooting from the lip.

[Reply]
Jason H Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am

Maybe (hopefully) GM’s plans to choose one supplier have changed since the Cobasys mess. I think it would make much more sense to have two suppliers to prevent shutting down production if you only have one supplier and there is a problem. This is even more critical given the high profile of the Volt. Although it sounds like the two suppliers have been working under the assumption that one of them would be awarded all the business, and they may not be receptive to supply only half the parts and continually competing against the other. GM isn’t the only one that plays these games. Suppliers love to give you one price when they are competing for a contract, and then bump up the cost dramatically after they get the business. They tend to ‘hide’ these cost in design/engineering changes.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am

#31 David

I’m not sure what parts you are refering to, I’m not up on ‘Jeep’ assembly. If it is a major component in the Jeep, specifically the engine, it could be a handy reference to see just how exactly it plays out.

The battery isn’t a random part in the Volt. It is the main component by far. The only thing of real consequence at the moment in any primary electric drive vehicle is the battery. It’s not like a gas cap, or alternator, or clutch assembly.

[Reply]
doggydogworld Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am

They have never indicated this would be end in a 2 supplier contract…

Wired quotes GM spokesman Rob Peterson as saying “There’s a chance it could be both.” I personally think it will be both. GM used Cobasys as a sole source NIMH supplier and it’s been a complete disaster. They just had to recall 9000 batteries due to leaks, they’ve been loaning Cobasys money to keep them afloat and they may now have to buy the whole crappy company just to keep the production line running. It seems extremely unlikely they’ll intentionally put themselves in the EXACT SAME POSITION with lithium batteries.

What about Statik’s scenario — neighbors comparing Volt battery performance after 5 years? First, 5 years after launch GM will be onto Gen3 and may use lithium+ultracap or Firefly lead-acid or something we haven’t even heard of yet. Second, software will control the batteries to perform the same throughout the warranty period (10 years/150k miles?). If a battery fails during warranty it will be replaced, possibly with one from the other supplier. Thirdly, which situation is better? Half the Volt customers having battery trouble or ALL Volt customers having battery trouble? Especially if EVs and PHEVs from other companies do not have similar problems? Batteries are risky, using two suppliers lets GM hedge their bets.

If A123/Conti and LG Chem/CPI both meet the spec and are close on cost GM will use both. It’s a no brainer.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:45 am

Statik (#28)

I have to agree with you. GM needs to choose ONE supplier and ONE technology/methodology per model per model year or buyer confusion could kill the project.

R&D should be a VERY aggressive ongoing project and GM should ask for new bids with the improved specifications every year or two.

Now, I don’t see any problem keeping the suppliers honest by cross model competition such as using battery supplier “A” in the Volt and “B” in the Opal Flextreme or batteries only in the Volt and battery + capacitor AFS Trinity syle in heavier crossover vehicles.

GM needs to do whatever it takes to keep the competition alive and the playing field level between ALL their potential suppliers so the BEST technologies can be free to float to the surface.

[Reply]
doggydogworld Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am

#30 I might think the USA battery more costly, but then there’s the minor issue of overseas shipping on a very heavy item… and look at the cost of diesel nowadays

First, A123 cells are typically made in China. Second, overseas shipping is a few hundred bucks per ton. A ton of lithium batteries is worth about $100,000. Shipping cost is inconsequential.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am

http://www.youtube.com/user/afstrinity

[Reply]
Terry K Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Perhaps when the winning battery design is chosen, the other company will be given the chance to adopt the winning design, and get the option for production as a second supplier. This would solve the problem of different battery design, and provide GM with a valuable second source, in case of disaster (fire, flood, etc). It would also give GM twice the capability to ramp up production when the public embraces the Volt’s design and demands more Volts be produced.

Gotta go set up direct deposit for my Volt savings account.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:26 am

#35 doggydogworld

I’m going by what Rob Peterson is saying today, sourced directly, “Speculation aside, a final supplier has not been chosen. We’ll let everyone know when it has”

I don’t remember a quote from him saying, “There’s a chance it could be both.” Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…but I don’t think there is any chance today of it not being a one supplier deal.

“Which situation is better? Half the Volt customers having battery trouble or ALL Volt customers having battery trouble?”

The situation with having two suppliers is you GUARANTEE half of your production will be inferior to the other.

If you have one supplier and do your due-diligence on testing, it will perform as to spec…and the capacity/duration you get out of the battery will be uniform across the brand. If you have two suppliers with different proprietary technology, one of the two batterys will perform better than the other FOR SURE, rendering half your production deficient not by way of meeting performance requirements, but by comparision.

In the eyes of the consumer there will only be a ‘bad one’ and a ‘good one’, and everybody wants the ‘good one.’

After a couple of months you know there will be a Consumers Report or ‘AutoXYZ’ bench testing real world results between the two and declaring a winner. On that very day, half the fleet produced is declared a bad apple…and every car on the lot and in production with that battery is unsellable (without massive rebate).

If you were plunking down 45K and ordering a Volt today. Would you say you didn’t care if you got ‘the good battery’ or not? If there was two Volts on the lot, could the dealer possibly sell you the Volt with the less productive battery without giving it to you cheaper?

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am

I also hope they stay with 2 battery suppliers into production.

If both meet all specs, including longevity, hot & cold environments, power, energy storage, and safety, then there shouldn’t be a perceivable difference from the customers point of view.

For servicing, I’d be willing to bet local dealership’s repair shops just swap out the battery pack and send the old one back for repair or recycling, so the service technician wouldn’t have to know details about each vendor’s packs.

Having 2 battery suppliers for production would not only help with battery pricing, but also alleviate potential supply issues if demand goes beyond predictions.

I really think that once the masses understand the E-REV concept better, they will flock to it like crazy, and demand will go through the roof. Right now, It seems that the mainstream media still doesn’t know what the Volt really is. For example, Tim #38 has a link to a ABC news segment that calls the Volt a “fully electric car” - no mention of running on gas or E85. No wonder most people still don’t get it…

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am

#41 DaveG

“For servicing, I’d be willing to bet local dealership’s repair shops just swap out the battery pack and send the old one back for repair or recycling, so the service technician wouldn’t have to know details about each vendor’s packs.”

I’d be willing to bet your car would have to have catastrophic failure before GM would go through this unbelievable costly proceedure, even then it would be a fight to get them to do it.

This is akin to saying something is wrong with your engine after a couple years, GM will just pop it out and put a new one in.

[Reply]
Dave B Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am

Dave @ 41; I think you better qualify you “hope that they stay with 2 suppliers in to production.”

Does that mean the same formula for the pack? Does that mean the packs as they are now (which means different packs)?

I agree with the premise that there had better be more than one spot where supplies are coming from as to avoid any supply problems which would throw the entire line off. But we’d better be careful as to make sure apples = apples.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am

#43 Dave B

Thats a good/wise point!

The part about two suppliers makes no sense to me, but the idea of two plant locations (preferably in two different countries), seems like a no brainer…if possible.

[Reply]
Jeff M Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am

“As such, it was a logical deduction …”

Thanks for the giggle

[Reply]
Morgan Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am

It is quite common to have several suppliers for the same part especially for a global brand. Typically this is the case when the Customer owns the mold/patent/technology and gives it to their suppliers to use (Plastics is the easiest to identify) The foam packs in your seats probably come from 2-3 different foam mfgs (because that is pretty much all of them)

The devil in the details is the contract LG and A123 are developing the battery tech under. It is very possible for GM to be underwriting the research or have it in the development contract that they own the design. In that case GM can give the design to whoever they want to produce the batteries to a spec

Service with two different suppliers is not an issue….they just replace batteries they don’t open them up and try and figure them out.

[Reply]
Joe Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I think GM is planning to electrify many of it’s vehicles. For one, the two mode hybrid transmission could use a better battery. If GM can lower the cost of this transmission, they will use it in just about all of their vehicles. A while back, the CEO of GM, Mr Wagoner, stated that the two mode transmission would become the future standard transmission and the CEO of Toyota, Katsuaki Watanabe sarcastically responded with a laugh at Wagoner. Does anyone remember that?

My point is, if that becomes the case, then both Chem/CPI and A123/Conti would have plenty of GM’s business. So I think both companies will be used.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

#46 Joe

That would be a good idea to keep them both onboard in case one went bankrupt/awol. Have the other produce the battery for the ‘next’ Volt…Saturn/Opel whatever. If one goes down, they can have the other pick up the slack.

Could be same pack they are working on now…there could be no apples to apples comparison that way.

[Reply]
Estero Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

I’m not sure either Chem/CPI or A123/Conti will be willing to stay onboard as “backup” in case one went bankrupt/awol. Both companies are in search of a lucrative contract and if they don’t get it with GM they are likely to go elsewhere. That is what I would do if I were in their shoes.

The better solution is to choose one company for the Volt and use the other company for other E-FLEX vehicles (Saturn, Cadillac, SUV, small truck or whatever). GM could then use Chem/CPI and A123/Conti to back up the other.

I must have used a “bad” word without knowing it. This message went into moderation.

[Reply]
doggydogworld Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Statik #40 the Peterson quote is here:

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/bob-lutz-drives.html

Your argument is based on the idea that one battery will be clearly inferior. If so I agree GM will only use the “good” supplier. But if both batteries meet specs conrol software will ensure they deliver the same power, range, etc. Consumer Reports will not do battery teardowns. They’ll test the whole car which will perform the same with either pack.

Even if one battery is inferior it’s not clear GM will know this in advance. Some things such as calender life effects cannot really be tested, so a battery with 50% power margin off the shelf might actually underperform one with 25% margin after a decade. Other types of failures, such as the Cobasys battery leak, are generally not knowable in advance, either. Otherwise GM wouldn’t have bought from Cobasys. (Of course you could counter that GM battery selection is simply incompetent, but that’s all the more reason to go dual-source). Furthermore, A123/LG will design their packs to the specs; a cell which exceeds spec by 100% can be cheapened considerably and still exceed it by 25%.

Hotrod sites might discover control logic hacks can pull 200 kW from the A123 pack vs. only 140 from LG, if so they’ll surely people to get A123. But that’s a sub-cult which mostly represents a kind of advance R&D/marketing for GM. If those guys burn their packs out it doesn’t matter since they’re in clear violation of warranty. But if the packs hold up GM will soon announce the Volt GT.

[Reply]
DaveP Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Statik’s certainly right about (at least) one thing. GM needs to be upfront about it’s battery contract with it’s suppliers. There are not very many suppliers at this point and they can’t afford to jerk one (or both) of them around. I think both suppliers are fighting to be “the one” at this point. If GM is going to go with 2 then they need to let them know what the deal structure would be. If that diminishes their, er, enthusiasm, then that is critical to know. It will definitely affect the supply.
They can always award the next contract for a different variant of the vehicle to the other supplier if they want to. Like the Opel or something. GM is planning a lot of E-Flex vehicles if you listen to their press releases, so there should be plenty of opportunities.

In any case, while I like the idea of having 2 suppliers, in practice what GM needs for this project is suppliers that will go to the mat to make this a success. I have a hard time thinking they will get that kind of response from 2, but who knows.
Also, I wouldn’t consider Cobasys’ failure to make their NiMH batteries a very fair assessment of what happens when you have one supplier. It’s a fair assessment of what happens when you have one battery supplier that can’t decide if it wants to make batteries or just do everything possible to hinder their adoption! It clearly has mixed goals, as indicated by the fact that Texachevron made them shut down the EV battery plant and prohibited PEVEC from licensing and making them, either. I don’t think either LG or A123 is going to have the same kinds of problems Cobasys has.

Cool, with the edit button I can ramble on even more! Anyway, ultimately what I would like to see would be standardized interfaces for batteries so that in 5 or 10 years or whatever when the batteries are better you can ‘just’ plug in a new pack with a new technology and it will work. I say ‘just’ because these honkin batteries are integral to the car, so one would have to be targeted specifically for it. However, if volumes were high enough, the aftermarket would appear.

[Reply]
Tagamet Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

“So let’s string everyone along as long as possible. That could be GM’s motto. Let’s let people believe in something until the last possible moment so we get the greatest advantage.”
Statik

Do you believe that GM will make the Volt?
(did you have lemon soup for breakfast?)
T

[Reply]
David L G Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Statik @ #34 - pretty major parts like transmissions and axle assemblies have been used, seemingly at random sometimes. It can make for a real headache when you go to the parts store and they have no database that tells which part you’ll need - just that you need one of these two or three choices - for a transmission mount for example.

[Reply]
BillR Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

#49 Estero

Plain and simple, I agree with your assessment.

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I’m delighted to read the many reasoned opinions in this thread as to whether GM should award contracts to BOTH battery suppliers! Let’s hope highly-experienced people at GM (in procurement, engineering, manufacturing, dealer repairs/servicing, etc —as well as in management) bring their experience and expertise to bear on this decision and that GM will make a wise, low-risk decision about this critical major component.

I don’t pretend that the space industry has much in common with the automotive industry. But I have been exposed to a lot of very critical hardware & software decisions …..for U.S. man-rated programs like Apollo, Shuttle & the Space Station, anything that could possibly fail (or partially fail) in a way as to threaten human injury or death is considered extremely critical. In fact, the USSR “tossed in the towel” on their planned “moon shot” for several reasons…..

1) They knew it would be complicated, risky and expensive as hell

2) It had lost most of its propaganda value (after we got there first)

…but I believe the REAL reason was that……

3) If they tried and failed (like we almost did on Apollo 13), the negative propaganda would be catastrophic to the advancement of Communism

If GM trys and fails with the Volt, or is perceived as having only partially succeeded, the (world-wide) negative propaganda will be catastrophic!

My concluding remark in post #2 here was, “Using a single supplier would border on insanity!!!” When I wrote that I had in mind that Toyota has (as will be understood by most ordinary car buyers) “already gotten there first” …..i.e, had made over a million Prius’ over the past 10 years (12 yrs in 2010) that have had minimal battery problems (and early batteries lasted much longer than promised). GM has to be sensitive to this because they’ve recalled 9,000 NiMh batteries and MOST of these were recalled before the GM vehicles were even sold to a retail buyer (partly, at least, because of the huge negative propaganda storm that failed, leaky or marginally-performing batteries in those 9,000 mild & 2-mode GM hybrid cars would cause, and the resulting catastrophic damage to GM’S image if too many of these got into the field.

Therefore, having read & carefully considered the several strong arguments here on both sides of the Li-Ion procurement by GM, I still vehemently adhere to my original statement……. USING A SINGLE SUPPLIER WOULD BORDER ON INSANITY!!!

[Reply]
srschrier Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Could EnerDel become a new player in all of this? EnerDel just announced a new lithium-ion factory online by 2010 capable of making 300,000 hybrid-electric car packs per year.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9960585-54.html

[Reply]
Van Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

If the Volt is not a success, it will not be catastrophic for PHEV’s, but it will be another nail in GM’s coffin. The Korean car maker is planning on using CPI’s lithium cells in their hybrid, due out in 2010. Toyota is going to use lithium cells from Panasonic. Nissan from yet another source.

Why it is true the formal decision has not been announced, I believe the CPI cat is out of the bag.

[Reply]
Prophet Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Most automakers are just system integrators. All they do is put items made/engineered by suppliers together. The real expertise are the intellect of the suppliers. They are the real innovators. Unfortunately there are good and BAD suppliers. My guess is one (or more) of the component suppliers for the Volt will slip-up (i.e. poor resource planning, bankruptcy, strike, key employee defection, etc..) and cause delays in the delivery of the Volt. Just my opinion. Hopefully, GM officials plan on supplier screw-ups in their deployment schedules. Bottom line is that a fully functional Volt better be done by June 2009 or GM will be in trouble meeting deadlines.

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

#52 Tag

Statik–“So let’s string everyone along as long as possible. That could be GM’s motto. Let’s let people believe in something until the last possible moment so we get the greatest advantage.”

Tag–”Do you believe that GM will make the Volt? (did you have lemon soup for breakfast?)”

Yes, I have lemon soup for breakfast everymorning. Quite delicious and cleanses my system, hehe.

I have always believed GM was going to built the Volt. (as long as they don’t run out of cash…which is a external factor) The only thing I haven’t believed, is almost everything they have said other than that…I’ve called bs on them probably a dozen times…so far, everytime, I’ve been right. (09 production, early-mid 2010 production, 100K first year, 60K, fancy gadgets like the roof, under 30K, under 35K, under 40K, mules by Easter, etc.etc.)

I stand by my record here.
(=

[Reply]
Murray Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Nice analogy nasaman #55 …

I just want to thank all of you (well most of you) for all of the insight and differing views and opinions, simply amazing stuff…

I just want a battery that works and will keep my fingers and toes crossed that GM makes the right call this time and there are no major bumps in the road to production!

As far as which battery pack to go with….I’ll just add my dumbed-down, simple man comment again …

I like the silver one - its shiny!

[Reply]
Statik Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

#60 Murray

I like the shiny one too.

Can I get my Volt in all ’shiny metallic’ paint too? That would be sweet…and blinding to everyone else on a bright summer’s day.

[Reply]
Theoldguy Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Black for me… all the options…. cost…we will see.. BUT It has be be in my driveway by mid 2011 at the very latest…

That’s when I will be picking up my Volt? Pruis? or any other manufacturer that can have a similar car ready at a dealership for me to pick up…

Come GM hurry… hurrry …. hurry…

Ray.

[Reply]
Len Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

There is several kinds of superior:

Least expensive. - easy to tell

Longest lasting - hard to tell, A123 tech is more mature but no one has run one for 10 years and “accelerated” testing may not wind up proving anything about life of battery.

Highest charge density - easy to tell when new, but these batteries can deteriate for a number of reasons

Safest - inherently safe or only safe when monitored by a computer which can fail.

Best manufacturing process - even Sony which I think is associated with quality product, made a bunch of bad batteries, just because one step was misinterperted.

The batteries are what make it possible and it is new tech no matter how you slice it. The A123 tech was invented at MIT. I have some of their batteries and have had them for about a year now and compared to the other batteries I have had they are superior in accepting a fast charge and giving up a lot of current for their capacity. They have been the most reliable batteries I have owned, so I am biased. I have a couple LCD displays and a washer and dryer from LG. I like the company, but haven’t used any of their batteries.

[Reply]
TED in Fort Myers Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I just want my Volt. Don’t care about the color. Or the battery supplier. The first supplier to get me a volt battery pack is hired with a Volt around it of course. TED

[Reply]
N Riley Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

nasaman #55

I strongly agree on the single supplier issue. I have been saying for some time that we would be better served to have two suppliers because of the volumes needed to supply the number of electric cars the public would demand. I hope GM give both companies some of the business or offers the “loser” of the Volt battery business an opportunity to build batteries for their other “planned” electric vehicles.

[Reply]
Grizzlly Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

I believe there will be two suppliers to E-flex, but only one to the Volt.
This is because no one ever considers issues such as servicing that could come down to having to read VIN numbers from same year/same month vehicles to determine which batt is installed. The issue gets much more complex than that and I don’t want to even open that can of worms.

E-Flex will proliferate though many lines and I believe it will take off. I don’t believe that using CPI for the Provoq and A123 for the Volt etc. poses a problem. In fact it’s probably in GM’s best interest to use the two suppliers in this way, as it makes them competitors and allies at the same time.

[Reply]
CDAVIS Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Lyle sure has done a great job flushing out aspects of the battery vendor selection saga for us VOLT fans. Keep up the good work Lyle!

I’m sure the GM guys are also being entertained. I can imagine Lutz kicked back in his big leather chair with a smile on his face reading these blogs.

GM can always in the future tweak what they do battery vendor wise. The fact that GM has covered the distance that they have since announcing the VOLT program is a testament to GM’s good decision making thus far on this project. The important thing at this point is to get out a quality made VOLT on time, on budget, and at a capacity to satisfy the GM-VOLT.com pre-order list.

I’m ready for my VOLT!

America is ready for the VOLT!

[Reply]
Tagamet Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Statik,
As one of those logical lefties, it just doesn’t make sense that you believe nothing coming from GM, and yet believe that they WILL produce the Volt.

[Reply]
Joe Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Never put all your eggs in one basket and that is what GM will do. GM always likes to have more than one supplier and the same will apply with the batteries. GM can not chance having something go wrong and using only one supplier. Plus why let let your competitor use the technology that was co develop by GM and the losing battery builder. I have little doubts about this conclusion.

[Reply]
Jake Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

I think Statik’s comments regarding the emergence of a “preferred” battery among Volt buyers are dead-on. At the very least, they ring true with me. I am meticulous about rechargeable battery care and performance, and if I ever own a Volt (or a later E-Flex vehicle with a little more cargo space), I WILL want to have the best battery possible in my car. I think even the average consumer is very aware of potential range issues with electric cars, so they will also want the best battery possible. If the Volt is out for a year or five and a superior battery emerges, you better believe that people will spring for that one. Just my $.02.

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

65 N Riley, 66 Grizzlly, 69 Joe, et al……
I agree with all of you —as well as the several others that also say GM needs to place production contracts with BOTH battery suppliers. As some of you know, I have also been a very vocal advocate that GM should apply the Volt technology to other market segments ASAP, especially to rapidly-growing crossover CUV vehicles such as the Saturn VUE plug-in already in development/testing and the Cadillac Provoq plug-in concept (masquerading as a fuel cell vehicle) announced in January and employing the same platform as the VUE.

In particular, the Volt’s battery technology can easily be adapted to both the VUE & Provoq —both electrically and physically. This became clear when GM released detailed cutaway drawings of the Provoq in January. They placed a 9kWh Li-Ion battery pack under the Provoq’s front console between the firewall & rear of the front seats and explained this would give the vehicle a 20-mile EV-only range (without use of the fuel cell). I have shown conclusively in a dissertation I’ve provided to GM that, whether they keep the VUE’s 2 mode architecture or substitute the Volt’s E-REV approach, the Volt’s 16kWh battery can achieve an EV-only range of about 35-36mi at highway speeds for both the plug-in VUE & the plug-in Provoq.

And if the Volt battery were increased slightly in size to18kWh and repackaged into two “half-packs”* of 9kWh each, either CUV could achieve the Volt’s EV-only range at highway speeds of 40 miles. Since the Vue & Provoq are identical platforms, one 9kWh pack could be placed under the front console and the 2nd pack under the rear seat. This way, the basic Volt battery design from the Volt’s same two suppliers, repackaged into 2 half-packs for the VUE or Provoq, could meet the needs of three different highly-appealing vehicles in three different market segments.

*”Half-Packs” of either 8 or 9kWh, each shaped like an “I”, would be only half as heavy (& much less cumbersome to install/remove) than the Volt battery’s present “T” shape

[Reply]
The Daily Five: Tuesday, 10 June, 2008 | EcoTech Daily Says:
June 10th, 2008 at 3:51 am

[...] GM - Chevy Volt Battery Contract Not Decided Yet: General Motors scrambled the talking heads Monday. The Pr blitz followed reports this weekend — reported here on EcoTech daily — that Korea’s LG Chem had landed the battery contract for the upcoming Chevy Volt electric hybrid. No so, says GM spokesman Rob Peterson: both Conti/A123 and CPI/LG Chem are still under consideration. We’ll keep you posted. (GM-Volt blog) [...]
57silver Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 2:28 am

Why do most assume A123 and CPI battery packs will be comparable in cost? All lithium ion technologies are obviously not the same and the ’superior’ battery packs are normally much more expensive than than another brand that likely have slightly lower performance or shorter lifetimes. Look at cordless power tools from competing makers that use lithium ion technologies. For instance, Black & Decker uses A123 cells in their lithium ion battery packs for the DeWalt brand of premium power tools, but those battery packs are very expensive. How much extra are consumers willing to pay for a superior battery pack? It could possibly be thousands of dollars difference in the price of the two battery packs. I would hazard a guess that the Volt battery packs will be from $10,000 to $20,000 each. As doggydogworld mentioned in post #37, some lithium ion cells cost around $100,000 per ton. That is $50 per pound of cell. The target weight of the Volt battery pack is 400 lbs. If one assumes 200 pounds of the pack is due to the weight of the cells, that would be $10,000 for the cells alone, not including the cost of building the complete battery pack.

Perhaps one brand of battery pack could be leased from the battery manufacturer, while the other pack could be purchased outright by those with sufficient cash. A possible advantage to leasing the battery pack for a specific period is that an improved technology may be available, and at a lower cost, when the lease expires. The more adventurous may prefer leasing the battery pack hoping for better tech in the future, while some may not want to take the gamble. I think both options should be available.

[Reply]
mien green Says:
June 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

That’s the way I see it shake out, too, with the majority of gen-1 customers opting for the battery lease option, just to keep the Volt affordability within range. There will always be those who’ll insist on outright total package purchase, just for the possession control issue if not the better economics, if they can afford it.

[Reply]
Kevin Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

i would rather them wait and not rush to pick a supplier and verifiy that everything will be alright with the car rather than rush to pick one and 5 years into owning the vehicle there is a major malfunction and you only get a 5 mile range. i hope that eventually which manufacturer does not get the volt contract they get contracts for mild hybrids and can supply gm with cost effective yet safe batteries so that both companies can make profit and stay afloat

[Reply]
Kayla Says:
December 8th, 2008 at 10:58 am

How much does the battery cost in the Chevy Volt? I mean will it cost more than we save? Will the volt really be worth it.

[Reply]
credit repair firms Says:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:05 am

This is not bad advice, unlike a lot I have come across.

[Reply]
shooting clothing Says:
March 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pm

Great quality stuff.

[Reply]
Dillion Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

It seems like something is missing, no?

[Reply]

GM: Chevy Volt Battery Contract Not Decided Yet

79 Responses to “GM: Chevy Volt Battery Contract Not Decided Yet”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts